The Learned Cluelessness of Women

October 25, 2012

Nathan Harden

I finally got around to reading Nathan Harden’s Sex and God at Yale: Porn, Political Correctness, and a Good Education Gone Bad. Harden was a home-schooled kid whose education sort of petered out. He applied to Yale with his GED and was rejected. After doing a variety of odd jobs, he got into Yale on this third try at the age of 22. (The Admissions Director later told him that he’d simply worn her down.) In love at the time, he married, and the newlyweds set off for New Haven.

Harden’s status as a married undergraduate afforded him the opportunity to observe Yale’s sexual culture objectively. His report of that experience does not approach the quality of William F. Buckley’s God and Man at Yale, his inspiration for the book. He does chronicle a whole new level of radicalism on campus, though, and it’s shocking. I first became aware of Harden when I he blogged for National Review during Yale Sex Week. That series landed him a book deal and here we are.

One of the moments in his story that jumped out at me had nothing to do with the faculty or administration, but with fellow students. Studying abroad, he visited London and crashed on a female classmate’s couch while there.

The next morning I awoke to find myself sprawled out on one of the couches in the living room. Several of the girls who lived in the flat were sitting around talking…they had been out the night before and their conversation, naturally, turned to talk about boys. They started talking about the hookup scene back at Yale. Their conversation went something like this:

- Oh my gosh. Have you ever been with a football player?

- Yeah, they can be pretty awesome. They work out a lot.

- Yeah, and you know what’s best about them. They’re not that smart. If you go up to them at a party and just get them drinking, and start dancing with them and kissing them, they will totally end up sleeping with you. They don’t even know they’re being played. They have no clue.

- Ha-ha! Totally.

These are Yale women – arguably the smartest women in the country, so clueless about sex differences it’s dangerous. I once heard a wise woman say, “No matter how many times women tell themselves they don’t care, they’re still getting fucked.” 

Harden agrees:

I was amazed. Could it be possible, I thought to myself, that these girls don’t understand a fundamental fact about the human male? You normally don’t have to trick a man into having sex…Don’t [these girls] realize that’s why most guys show up at college parties in the first place?

…College girls are the special target of today’s radical sexual culture. It is a culture that asks of them everything and offers them nothing. It is presided over by a legion of academics who have been enamored of the sexual revolution ever since the Summer of Love. These academics enjoy calling themselves feminists, but they fail to see that the sexual revolution left many young women feeling powerless.

True, but even more disturbing, the culture leaves many women feeling a false sense of power. Their empowerment only gives them the opportunity to objectify themselves, not males, who rarely mind in any case. 

Sexual liberation never really empowered women in the way it was suposed to. A woman is truly objectified when men don’t even have to get to know her in order to get her into bed. Without any commitment to modesty or sexual restraint, the worthy cause of debojectifying women loses much of its gusto. I know it sounds very 1950s, but playing hard to get might not have been a bad idea for feminists, if power is what they were after. 

Feminists at the Yale Women’s Center talk about birth control as a form of empowerment…But they never talk about keeping one’s zipper up as a potential form of empowerment…It’s hard to be a randy sexpot and a deobjectified feminist at the same time.

Indeed.

  • Ted D

    “Yeah, and you know what’s best about them. They’re not that smart. If you go up to them at a party and just get them drinking, and start dancing with them and kissing them, they will totally end up sleeping with you. They don’t even know they’re being played. They have no clue.”

    Really? REALLY?!

    *smacks head off desk repeatedly*

    What in the hell is going on with our youth? How can any woman let alone a supposedly educated women get to 18 years old and NOT know that most men are DTF with little more than a nod? And worse yet is these women actually feel “empowered” by “taking advantage” of the dumb jock?!

    For the love of God how did we get here?

  • deti

    “…these girls don’t understand a fundamental fact about the human male? You normally don’t have to trick a man into having sex…”

    Call me Captain Obvious, but this just sounds like simple projection to me. Just about every woman I’ve ever talked to has a story about getting tricked or manipulated into sex, or about a man trying to manipulate her into sex.

  • deti

    Ted:

    I’ve heard women talk about this: sex gives them a sense of power — over their own bodies, over another man’s body. She gets to use his body as a plaything. She gets to choose the man she will have sex with. She can walk out the door knowing if she wants sex, she can get it.

    Little does she seem to understand that the men are more than willing participants, simply lined up waiting to be selected.

  • Ted D

    Deti – I get that. My point was more about how we made an environment where young women didn’t know this by default. In the process of “empowering” our daughters, we kinda made them stupid. At least when it comes to men. Now I wouldn’t suggest we go back to telling them “all men are pigs” but somewhere between that and “dumb guys being used for sex” is a healthy view of male sexuality.

    I’m really tired of us as a society always going to extremes. I know that I’m guilty of it to an extent when I start my ranting, but I often do that because I think there is a need to offset all the BS coming from the other extreme. But truthfully I’ve always believed the truth is somewhere in the middle, and we just keep smacking the ball from one end of the court to the other.

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

      My point was more about how we made an environment where young women didn’t know this by default. In the process of “empowering” our daughters, we kinda made them stupid. At least when it comes to men.

      We have denied biological sex differences for at least two generations. The projection is actually going in both directions at a fast rate, because neither sex understands the most basic things about the other.

  • JP

    Well, a lot of problems are caused because no one actually tells you anything about life because the focus is entirely on academic achievement, not on actual life skills or anything that doesn’t involve going to college.

    You just kind of experience things and are generally confused as to what’s going on because you don’t know what’s going on and have no frame of reference for anything.

  • Escoffier

    When I saw the photo at the top of the page, I thought “Man that’s one ugly chick, Roissy would have a field day that manjaw.”

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

      When I saw the photo at the top of the page, I thought “Man that’s one ugly chick, Roissy would have a field day that manjaw.”

      Whereas my pulse started racing. This is the epitome of the brooding loner type – not bad, just deep. The long hair adds to the rebelliousness, and oh boy we have a hottie! (Though some women might call him sexy ugly.)

  • SI

    This reminds me of when my sister and I were young children. She would have something (toys, money) that I wanted so I told her “you better not throw that at me”. She then proceeded to throw whatever she was holding at me and run away, thinking that she had gained the upper-hand, while I walked away with the goods. I learned very early that you can make someone behave against their best interests by making them feel good or empowered about doing it.

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

      @SI

      That’s a hilarious story. Here we are talking about 20 year old Yale students! This is the power of feminism.

  • Jim

    So much for common sense. A common trait amongst the “brightest”.

  • asdf

    Far be it for me to not call young women stupid (oh they are), but isn’t there an incentive story here.

    Women want sex with hot men. The only reason they hold back is because they don’t want to raise a kid without support. Birth control nullifies this problem, so they can have lots of hedonistic sex without consequences.

    There are social consequences, and feminism is mostly about eliminating them. All the rationalizations are ways to have the fun (hedonistic sex) while trying to minimize the social consequences (guys seeing you as lower value because you’ve damaged your paid bonding ability).

    Some girls fuck up the musical chairs game called turning 30 and end up without a chair, but that has always been true.

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

      @asdf

      Women want sex with hot men.

      Interesting, Harden doesn’t see an apex fallacy. From his book:

      “At Yale, a guy…only has to show up at a random party and talk to some girl for a few minutes – and make sure she has a few drinks. It’s so easy. “

  • INTJ

    @ Escoffier

    When I saw the photo at the top of the page, I thought “Man that’s one ugly chick, Roissy would have a field day that manjaw.”

    That was exactly my reaction haha.

  • Ted D

    Susan – ” Whereas my pulse started racing. This is the epitome of the brooding loner type – not bad, just deep. The long hair adds to the rebelliousness, and oh boy we have a hottie! (Though some women might call him sexy ugly.)”

    Meh. I had hair down to my ass once upon a time. I didn’t see that it generated any additional interest from the ladies, but I used to chuckle when people would go out of their way to avoid passing too close to me on the sidewalk. I imagine its because as a bigger guy it looked more intimidating than “emo hawt”

  • JP

    I most definitely did not understand parties in college.

    But then I was looking for enlightenment.

  • Emily

    >> “Whereas my pulse started racing. This is the epitome of the brooding loner type – not bad, just deep. The long hair adds to the rebelliousness, and oh boy we have a hottie! (Though some women might call him sexy ugly.)”

    I have a huge soft spot for pretty boys with long hair!!!! Even “sexy ugly” was a thing for me (it’s not), I definitely wouldn’t put him in that category.

  • Emily

    Btw this is a bit off-topic, but here’s some useful Girl Game stuff from Haley’s Halo. I stand by my pro-makeup stance! ;) :
    http://haleyshalo.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/what-women-mean-by-makeup-vs-what-men-mean-by-makeup/

  • pennies for sale

    “not liking makeup” doesn’t mean “not liking visible makeup,” it means “I don’t want to make out with you if it’s going to leave me with a mouthfull of chemicals, waxes, and powders.”

    If it’s more than lipstick and eyeliner, it’s too much makeup for daily wear. Women wouldn’t need pounds of foundation if they hadn’t already destroyed their complexions with foundation in the first place.

  • Escoffier

    My general rule for makeup is, if I can tell you have on makeup, you have on too much makeup.

  • Ted D

    I don’t know if its just me, but to me too much makeup just smells bad. I think it is probably foundation, but whatever it is when you get close to kiss or something it just smells kinda gross.

    IMO more than a little lipstick, eyeliner, and maybe some shadow is overkill in all but the most formal settings. (even then I prefer the “natural look” which I know isn’t natural but you get the idea) I’ve never seen my wife in more than eye liner, lip gloss (she says lipstick feels gross. *shrug*) and some shadow. Maybe she is blessed with good skin tone or something (I honestly don’t know much about WHY base is necessary) and her Irish heritage always leaves her with just a little hint of blush naturally. (and a hella ton of it when she drinks LOL) All I know is I would NOT want to lean in and kiss her of she smelled like an Avon counter!

  • VD

    These are Yale women – arguably the smartest women in the country, so clueless about sex differences it’s dangerous.

    There is your solipsism, Susan. Those women literally cannot imagine that the men think differently than they do.

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

      @VD

      There is your solipsism, Susan. Those women literally cannot imagine that the men think differently than they do.

      I agree! I think that feminism has exacerbated this female tendency, which is at least a little ironic.

      It may amuse you to know that due to my heightened awareness of solipsism, I identify it in myself and in others (usually but not always women) at least a dozen times per day.

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    @ Susan
    “Whereas my pulse started racing. This is the epitome of the brooding loner type – not bad, just deep. The long hair adds to the rebelliousness, and oh boy we have a hottie! (Though some women might call him sexy ugly.)”

    This is what makes you hot? Good gawd. I’d show you my highschool yearbook photo.. but i tracked down every copy in existence and ran them through an industrial shredder. I burned down half the internet to keep that image from ever seeing the light of day again.

    The only racing pulse women got from me in high school was apparently caused by a fight or flight response…

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

      This is what makes you hot? Good gawd.

      I wouldn’t go that far. But I think he’s extraordinary looking. Very unusual and exotic. I also know he’s smart, conservative and HOH in love with his young wife. That makes him even sexier. ;)

      I think he was fighting the girls off at Yale. He includes a couple of stories about being propositioned by girls who had no idea he was married. Propositioned as in the middle of the day, not at some party. I can assure you this guy is sexy in Girl Land.

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    @ VD
    “There is your solipsism, Susan. Those women literally cannot imagine that the men think differently than they do.”

    I’ve always thought i’m somewhat of an empathic creature, capable of putting myself in someone elses shoes to see their side of things, even if i don’t agree. Then it’s simply a matter of a logical argument that takes shape, if the logic is sound, my position changes.

    Are these women simply incapable of ‘putting themselves in someone elses shoes’… hence solipsism?

  • J

    I once heard a wise woman say, “No matter how many times women tell themselves they don’t care, they’re still getting fucked.”

    LOL. That’s why so many expressions defining being taking advantage of–getting fcuked, getting screwed, etc–are sexual metaphors.

    These are Yale women – arguably the smartest women in the country, so clueless about sex differences it’s dangerous.

    No, deep down inside, they know. It’s post-coital rationalization. I’ve used the clumsy cat metaphor before, but these girls are really like clumsy cats. Ever see a cat make a get clumsy and then look at you as if to say, “Yeah, I meant to do that”? This is the same thing. These girls know they have nothing to show for these experiences, but they don’t want to lose face by admitting they’ve been taken advantage of. They pretend that “scored” like the guys do in order not to feel bad. I find it fairly transparent really.

  • Maggie

    They don’t even know they’re being played. They have no clue.”

    This is so funny.. and so sad at the same time and it fits with what Hannah Rosin wrote in “End of Men.” These women think they are so empowered with their casual sex. They have so much to learn.

    One of the schools my daughter is applying to was just named “Best School to Get Laid” by Playboy Magazine. Fun times ahead.

  • Ted D

    “Are these women simply incapable of ‘putting themselves in someone elses shoes’… hence solipsism?”

    I used to think it was a lack of instruction, that is, no one ever taught people how to see things from a different point of view.

    Not so much now. The more I look at things like IQ vs. EQ and MBTI personality stuff, the more I’m thinking that indeed some people are simply not capable of it. Not to say any of them are stupid, but I think that for many, if it isn’t a natural trait, it simply doesn’t happen. It amazes me how tightly some people live inside their own bubble of reality. I do it as well myself, but I’ve also learned somewhere along the way that if I don’t step outside every once in awhile, I’ll completely lose touch with reality. (or at least the reality that isn’t inside my little bubble.)

    What surprises me is that the E vs. I doens’t seem to play a big part. I know plenty of both, and they are both fully capable of missing the forest for the trees. I kinda thought that the E’s had an advantage here, but what I see is the E’s simply have a much easier time of being “social”, but that doesn’t help them much with seeing another side of an opinion much.

  • Ted D

    J – “These girls know they have nothing to show for these experiences, but they don’t want to lose face by admitting they’ve been taken advantage of. They pretend that “scored” like the guys do in order not to feel bad. I find it fairly transparent really.”

    So group self-delusion? If so, then part of the problem is that they all buy into this claptrap.

    You go Grrrrlllll indeed.

  • J

    When I saw the photo at the top of the page, I thought “Man that’s one ugly chick, Roissy would have a field day that manjaw.”

    LMAO. Yeah, Roissy sure would!

    Whereas my pulse started racing. This is the epitome of the brooding loner type – not bad, just deep. The long hair adds to the rebelliousness, and oh boy we have a hottie! (Though some women might call him sexy ugly.)

    If my older son grew his hair out, he’d sort of look like that. Big, dark eyes, raw-boned face. …

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

      If my older son grew his hair out, he’d sort of look like that. Big, dark eyes, raw-boned face. …

      There’s a very intense sexuality to that look. I think it’s the combination of large eyes, which implies emotional intensity, and the prominent bone structure, which is very masculine. He looks tough as nails in some ways, but like he would be very passionate.

      You’d better keep an eye on that son, and when he reaches a certain age, explain how men have no “choice.”

  • Poppy

    @M3

    I think empathy IS majorly lacking in the younger generation, so that probably adds to this problem.

    But beyond that, our parents never really taught us how men think. Like Ted D said, the spiel I got was pretty much “all men are pigs; do not trust them.” :-/

  • INTJ

    @ Maggie

    One of the schools my daughter is applying to was just named “Best School to Get Laid” by Playboy Magazine. Fun times ahead.

    UNC? I remember a female UNC student on INTJforum complaining about that.

  • Cooper

    “And worse yet is these women actually feel “empowered” by “taking advantage” of the dumb jock?!”

    I wish we could send them a video of how “victimized” their dumb jock was, with his buddies the next morning. And how “empowering” it would be to hear all the nasty things, of theirs, that gets shared.

  • Rico

    “What in the hell is going on with our youth? How can any woman let alone a supposedly educated women get to 18 years old and NOT know that most men are DTF with little more than a nod? And worse yet is these women actually feel “empowered” by “taking advantage” of the dumb jock?!”

    That’s what happens when you buy into the lie that there isn’t (or shouldn’t) be a sexual double standard.

  • pvw

    It’s hard to be a randy sexpot and a deobjectified feminist at the same time.

    Me: But here is the thing, the sex pozzies of the third wave want to be objectified. The old curmudgeon types of the Catharine McKinnon radical feminist mold were howling about objectification. These young things believe they are empowered by their choice to be sex objects.

    These sorts of debates seem parodoxical if they are unmoored from their context in competing schools of feminist theory.

  • J

    @Ted

    I imagine its because as a bigger guy it looked more intimidating than “emo hawt”

    I’m imagining Meatloaf.

    So group self-delusion? If so, then part of the problem is that they all buy into this claptrap.

    Yes, they feed into each other’s BS. If one of them would say, “I don’t know. I sometimes feel used,” they’d all collapse into tears. The framework that holds up the illusion is that fragile.

    I once casually mentioned to a bunch of bragging she-jocks that maybe guys just like sex, and they all started mumbling and cursing behind my back. They thought I couldn’t hear them, so I turned around and smirked knowingly. Tough as they though they were, all their faces fell. I hope I woke them up a little, but I’m sure the hamsters starated turning the wheels after I left. Who wants to admit being a fucktoy to themselves?

  • pvw

    J:

    “I once casually mentioned to a bunch of bragging she-jocks that maybe guys just like sex, and they all started mumbling and cursing behind my back.”

    Me: Because they think they are some special snowflakes just because some guy is willing to have sex with them, that having sex with you really means that he wants/likes/desires/loves you. They can’t imagine that maybe, just maybe, he is merely tolerating you for as long it takes for you to service him!

  • J

    It may amuse you to know that due to my heightened awareness of solipsism, I identify it in myself and in others (usually but not always women) at least a dozen times per day.

    Many of the most negative posters, here and in the ‘sphere, have entire complicated and detailed worldviews that extrapolate nearly entirely from their own bad personal experiences. They tend to state opinions as fact and not use the word “I” much, but it’s still solipsism.

  • Maggie

    @INTJ
    UNC? I remember a female UNC student on INTJforum complaining about that?

    Yes!

  • J

    Me: But here is the thing, the sex pozzies of the third wave want to be objectified. The old curmudgeon types of the Catharine McKinnon radical feminist mold were howling about objectification. These young things believe they are empowered by their choice to be sex objects.

    I’m very confused by this. Back in the day, feminism was synomous with prudishness and feminists were often suspected of being lesbians. Feminism fell of my radar after college until I stumbled into Jezebel. Imagine my surprise!

    Obviously, something happened in the intervening years, but I’m not sure what is was.

  • Ted D

    J – Just for you:
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27675532/.facebook_-631023203.jpg

    Don’t laugh! (OK laugh all you want LOL)

    Note that this pic was taken just before I cut my hair and went “legit”. also note that at this time I was on my way to a pique weight of over 385. (I honestly don’t know how heavy I got because I didn’t have access to a scale that went high enough. I should have pulled over on the Turnpike and used a truck scale. :P)

    Like I said, big and scary.

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

      @Ted

      OMG, that pic makes you look like one of the 10 Most Wanted. No wonder people cut you a wide berth on the sidewalk! How old is that pic?

  • pvw

    J: I’m very confused by this. Back in the day, feminism was synomous with prudishness and feminists were often suspected of being lesbians. Feminism fell of my radar after college until I stumbled into Jezebel. Imagine my surprise!

    Obviously, something happened in the intervening years, but I’m not sure what is was.

    Me: Younger women rejecting the feminism of some of their elders, which was seen as prudish, ie., anti-sex, setting forth women as victims of men and male sexuality (C. McKinnon). They felt this way in particular because the anti-sex attitude fit in with the mindset of the conservative right bent on curtailing women’s reproductive freedom. They wanted to see sex as empowering, but without addressing the differences and the inequalities in the sexual realm, they miss the lessons of their elders, ie., C. McK.

  • J

    Thanks, pvw! That makes loads of sense. This is the second time you’ve succeeded in explaining the world to me. ;-)

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    “- Yeah, and you know what’s best about them. They’re not that smart. If you go up to them at a party and just get them drinking, and start dancing with them and kissing them, they will totally end up sleeping with you. They don’t even know they’re being played. They have no clue.

    – Ha-ha! Totally.”

    Ha Ha indeed. What’s the moral of the story here?

    That this won’t work on Beta’s because they’re ‘smart’ hence they’ll be too smart to fall for such tricks and sleep with them, so these poor girls only have stupid jocks to choose from in order to trick them with parlor tricks like dancing and kissing in order to get them to sleep with them?

    Goddamn oversmart beta’s, it’s their brains that prevent them from getting laid.

    This hamster run on the power of the Tesseract.

  • pvw

    J: Thanks, pvw! That makes loads of sense. This is the second time you’ve succeeded in explaining the world to me.

    Me: You’re welcome.

  • Emily

    >> “This is what makes you hot? Good gawd.

    >I wouldn’t go that far. ”

    I would! I think it has a lot to do with the attraction spectrum of high-T “manlier”-looking men vs. lower-T “pretty boy” types. I definitely tend to be more attracted to the “pretty boy” side of the spectrum.

  • J

    There’s a very intense sexuality to that look. I think it’s the combination of large eyes, which implies emotional intensity, and the prominent bone structure, which is very masculine. He looks tough as nails in some ways, but like he would be very passionate.

    He looks Byronic. A few months ago, a middle aged woman said to me that it was tragic that he is too young for her and too old for her daughter. I was floored.

    You’d better keep an eye on that son, and when he reaches a certain age, explain how men have no “choice.”

    I’ve already had that discussion with both boys, especially regarding abortion. Although I can tell you that if some girl tried give up a grandchild of mine for adoption, there’d be a landmark legal case. I really question that an unrelated, 40-something UMC couple would be a better custody choice than young bio-dad and loving grandparents.

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

      More pics of Nathan Harden:

      bj

      nf

      His CD cover:

      cd

  • J

    @Ted

    This was your Hell’s Angels period, I take it. Wow!

    Love the piercing stare. Is this a mug shot? ;-)

  • J

    @pvw

    No, they were upset because on some level I got to them. They knew I was right.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “OMG, that pic makes you look like one of the 10 Most Wanted. No wonder people cut you a wide berth on the sidewalk! How old is that pic?”

    yep LOL. Remember I did the lead singer gig for an alternative metal band for awhile. I knew I didn’t have the face for the “glam rock” look, so instead I went full on scary monster. The pic is from the early 2000’s, and when I was gigging I didn’t have the full beard. Instead I had a goatie long enough to braid.

    I took that pic for my avatar on a guild board for a MMORPG I used to play. My ‘toon’ (character in game) was female, and I found it immensely amusing when people first saw it.

  • Ted D

    J – “This was your Hell’s Angels period, I take it. Wow!

    Love the piercing stare. Is this a mug shot? ”

    Oddly enough I was actually past my “rebellious” phase by this time in my life. The look was strictly for show. Many people in the metal scene simply did NOT take a band seriously unless they looked the part.

    I did intend it to look like a mug shot of sorts. And I had to retake it like 5 times to get that “piercing stare”. I’ll say it freaked people out a lot. It was even better when I was out with my band mates in a setting other than a club or bar. We were all scary looking.

  • J

    I remember a female UNC student on INTJforum complaining about that.

    An INTJ complained about that? Color me shocked.

  • Ted D

    Even more amusing, I was sporting that look WHILE working for a fortune 500 company as a shift supervisor on their help desk. Not too long after I cut my hair and cleaned up, I got a promotion.

    Imagine that!

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

    The older I get, the more surprised I am by women’s sexual preferences when I discover them. The lean and hungry look has a lot more appeal than men usually think. Men tend to believe that women prefer a lot of musculature, but that isn’t necessarily the case.

    I have no doubt Nate could quit himself well in a fight with another man, but even if he came off on the losing end, I can’t see his woman going off with the winner. That puzzles men no end, and throws sticks into the spokes of the bicycles Roissy, Roosh, FFY and a few of the other hardcore Ev-Psych types are pedaling about the androsphere

    Believe it or not, I know women who would have made a bee-line for Ted in his SOA-looking days. I have heard my daughters’ friends gush over Jax, Tig, and Bobby. Jax I can understand. He’s written to soak panties. But Tig? Bobby???

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

      Men tend to believe that women prefer a lot of musculature, but that isn’t necessarily the case.

      I have no doubt Nate could quit himself well in a fight with another man, but even if he came off on the losing end, I can’t see his woman going off with the winner.

      It is sooooo not the case with me. I think men get muscled for one another, kind of the way women dress up for one another when they go out. Women like a fit body, but I will take a runner over a bodybuilder anyday. And I am grossed out by male pecs that are like boobs – something Jason was talking about recently. Blech!

      I may be an extreme case – for example, I think Nathan Harden’s skinny arm on the CD cover is sexy. I think his jutting hipbones would be sexy. But I’ve always liked the hipster look. I’m not alone – my guess is that skinny, brooding types, who are often called “bad boys” even when they are not, as in Nathan’s case – outperform PUA types by a mile.

  • Ted D

    MCB – “Believe it or not, I know women who would have made a bee-line for Ted in his SOA-looking days. ”

    It got me attention, but from women I was not interested in for obvious reasons. :P

  • Ted D

    Susan – “but I will take a runner over a bodybuilder anyday”

    Did I mention I’m doing a Couch to 5K program? ;-)

    I’ll never have one of those “runners” bodies. even at my best around 212lbs, I was a stocky dude. I’ve got solid Polish/Austrian bone structure so I suspect even my skeleton would look bulky! In fact if you put me in a WWII German uniform I’d look perfectly normal. Hey, sounds like a good haloween idea…

  • asdf

    Susan,

    The girls here are talking about any football player, not any man. What you mean is “any man deemed attractive by women doesn’t have to try.” Since men who aren’t attractive become invisible this becomes “any man.”

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

    @Emily

    Thanks for linking to Haley’s Halo – I haven’t been there in a while. She has the greatest illustrations, she’s awesome at that! Very funny.

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

    @asdf

    I know, I was just quoting Harden. I was a bit surprised that he perceived it is generally easy for men to hook up at Yale.

  • Emily

    >> “’ll never have one of those “runners” bodies. even at my best around 212lbs, I was a stocky dude. I’ve got solid Polish/Austrian bone structure so I suspect even my skeleton would look bulky”

    I have a couple close friends who tend to prefer the “bulky” look. It was always funny when we’d talk about guys because they were very much NOT into the Nathan Harden type. One of my friends once joked that “Emily likes her men to look as much like women as possible.” >:(

    I didn’t deliberately pick my friends this way, but it was really convenient since we never wound up competing over guys. :)

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

    @Ted

    Well, different strokes, haha. I’m not a believer in anyone being universally attractive. I know several tall women that want a man to be not only tall, but also big. I think they like feeling dwarfed by a male.

    Also, I recall back in the day before I got together with my husband, a classmate told me that she thought he was really sexy, but that she would never have sex with someone whose hips were narrower than her own. Obviously, I had no such qualms…

  • Ted D

    Susan – it’s all good. No one can be attractive to everyone. But I have on more than one occasion said something similar to my boys that Emily’s friends told her: that I swear most young women want a girlfriend with a penis instead of a man. Both my boys are sporting that emo look, and it drives me nuts that when I talk to them I can barely see one eye. (how does covering half of your face make you attractive?)

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    “More pics of Nathan Harden:”

    I can see it now. If he cut his hair short, he’d be a total Chris Noth.

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

      I can see it now. If he cut his hair short, he’d be a total Chris Noth.

      No way, Chris Noth is the opposite of a skinny emo. I’ll grant you they both have dark, heavy eyebrows.

  • Escoffier

    I don’t think I could be attracted to a woman whose hips were narrower than mine.

    WFT? Women are supposed to have wide hips! Is the man supposed to be a truck to compensate?

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

      WFT? Women are supposed to have wide hips! Is the man supposed to be a truck to compensate?

      This cracked me up. She is a very tall woman – I think she is one of those who doesn’t want to worry that she’ll squash a guy like a bug in bed, lol.

  • Ted D

    “WFT? Women are supposed to have wide hips!”

    Of course! what else would you have to grab onto while you’re… uh… Maybe this comment belongs in the “sex” thread.

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    Ted D
    “Both my boys are sporting that emo look, and it drives me nuts that when I talk to them I can barely see one eye. (how does covering half of your face make you attractive?)”

    Because it’s like… sooooo mysterious… gawd.

    Perhaps it’s why both out pics contain us wearing sunglasses.. we’re taking mysterious to a level over 9000.

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

      @M3

      I’ve always assumed that is not you in the pic. I have a hard time squaring it with your commentary over the months.

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    Ted D
    “Of course! what else would you have to grab onto while you’re… uh… Maybe this comment belongs in the “sex” thread.”

    Why the sex thread?

    …what else would you have to grab onto while you’re picking her up and moving her out of your line of sight to the tv while she’s yelling at you to stop playing xbox and listen to her talk about how so and so pissed her off at work today and how her boss was a total dick and how the chick in the mailroom has something against her…

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

      Oh, M3, don’t start with the whining about women. Please.

  • Southamerican

    I’ve been reading this website and very much appreciate and agree with most of your viewpoints, Susan. The state of sexual relations in the US is deplorable – the normalization of sex acts once deemed deviant and unmentionable in polite society. The only thing that disappoints me is the wholesale condemnation of feminism as the fount for this crumbling morality. Feminism is actually the advocacy of human rights for half the world’s population that has been under institutional bondage for centuries.

    To be as concrete as possible, if a woman steadfastly does not identify herself as a feminist, she should then avoid the taint of hypocrisy by doing the following:

    1. Do not vote at all. — It would be hypocritical to enjoy the fruits of the Suffrage Movement (helmed by feminists) while bashing their contributions.

    2. Do not attend a co-ed university. — Universities were forced to desegregate by gender in the 1970s as a result of affirmative action. In fact, women are the one who have most benefited from affirmative action.

    Side note: As a last ditch effort to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from passing, Republicans insisted on including sex in addition to race, ethnicity and religion for protection from discrimination — because it seemed so ludicrous to include the protection of women’s rights that the act would surely fail. What a surprise when it did pass – and what a windfall for women!

    3. Do not attend any graduate school. — Again women for centuries were barred from institutions of higher learning. Only feminists argued that women were in fact biologically more than capable of becoming doctors, lawyers, scientists…

    4. Do not work outside the home after marrying and having children. — Historical opponents of feminism credit the decline of civilization to the outsourcing of childrearing and housekeeping by working women. Therefore, to do otherwise would be to become a feminist or hypocritically enjoy the fruits of the struggle of feminists.

    5. If you are single, must work and are sexually harassed by a boss or co-workers, do not think you can avail yourself of any protection against sexual harassment. — Again validation of this workplace danger was hard-won by feminists so it would be hypocritical for an anti-feminist woman to seek protection and redress.

    6. Do not use contraception. — Again feminists were the ones, often social workers who at much personal risk to themselves, advocated the use of contraception because of the high rate of maternal death in childbirth in the past, especially in the slums.

    7. Do not purchase any property or accept any inheritance. — Again women did not always have rights to property and inheritance. Think Jane Austen’s time? The reason why Jane Austen wrote so much about courtship and marriage was because that was the only viable alternative to poverty that single women had at the time.

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

      @Southamerican

      Eh, I take your point, though I think you’re missing the real issue – the feminist movement is so fractured and fragmented that it is simply impossible to make a broad statement that one agrees or disagrees with feminism. I am on record as being a gender equity feminist, which I believe gives me the right to avail myself of all those nice little bennies. (Re the Pill, feminists do not get credit for that. It was that + the Women’s Movement that brought us the Sexual Revolution.)

      I believe that the goals of gender equity were achieved long ago, and what is called feminism today is actually a female supremacy movement. Books like “The End of Men” which celebrate the diminishing achievements of males, are detrimental to a healthy society, in my view.

      Specifically, I reject any and all aspects of Sex-Positive feminism, so popular on college campuses today, and the branch of feminism Nathan Harden is arguing against.

  • Ramble

    Well, a lot of problems are caused because no one actually tells you anything about life because the focus is entirely on academic achievement, not on actual life skills or anything that doesn’t involve going to college.

    +1

    I am always reminded of that scene in Knocked Up where Seth Rogen is asking for advice from his father, and then almost demanding it with, “Tell me what to do. Tell Me What To Do!” and his father says, “I don’t know.”.

    Life in the UMC is all about getting these pieces of paper from certain specific, “qualifying” institutions so that they can get hired by the “right” companies or intern at “prestigious” firms.

  • Escoffier

    Leaving aside the myriad logical :facepalms: in the above, the little “factoid” about the Civil Rights act is false.

  • Ramble

    Btw this is a bit off-topic, but here’s some useful Girl Game stuff from Haley’s Halo. I stand by my pro-makeup stance! ;) :
    http://haleyshalo.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/what-women-mean-by-makeup-vs-what-men-mean-by-makeup/

    Did you notice the second comment there:

    I don’t wear any, that’s not to say I don’t need to, I just don’t see the point. Once you’re in a realationship, your man will see you makeup-free, blemishes and all. What I’m trying to say is, wear makeup if it makes you feel good

    Perfect.

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

      @Ramble

      Did you notice the second comment there:

      I don’t wear any, that’s not to say I don’t need to, I just don’t see the point. Once you’re in a realationship, your man will see you makeup-free, blemishes and all. What I’m trying to say is, wear makeup if it makes you feel good

      Perfect.

      I must admit, that does prove your point perfectly.

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    “Don’t laugh! (OK laugh all you want LOL)”

    Lol, you looked like you killed people in your spare time.

  • Emily

    >> “To be as concrete as possible, if a woman steadfastly does not identify herself as a feminist, she should then avoid the taint of hypocrisy by doing the following…”

    *brings out 10 foot pole*

    I’m grateful for the achievements of early feminists, but I think North American feminism has overstayed its welcome. At this point, they’re doing more harm than good to both men AND women.

    I’m still very supportive of the feminist initiatives in the parts of the world where women actually *are* oppressed (ie. in the Middle East) but if anything, reading about those causes makes me realize how petty/whiny the North American feminist issues are.

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

      I’m still very supportive of the feminist initiatives in the parts of the world where women actually *are* oppressed (ie. in the Middle East) but if anything, reading about those causes makes me realize how petty/whiny the North American feminist issues are.

      Oh, this is a pet peeve of mine. American feminists refuse to condemn female genital mutilation because “we should respect other cultures.” Stoning for adultery, anyone? What hypocrisy.

  • Lokland

    @Southamerican

    How Sith Lord of you.

    If your not with us you must be against us.

  • Escoffier

    Emily, don’t even bother. If you want, and if I can muster the interest, I can take that post apart point by point. There is almost nothing true in it. Just move on.

  • Ramble

    I think men get muscled for one another, kind of the way women dress up for one another when they go out.

    Yes, this is right.

    Guys wanted to look like Ah-nold for their own purposes. They “juice” for their own purposes.

    When girls go on and on about pixie haircuts, or bobs, or whatever, it is mostly for their own purposes, which is not a bad thing. But, the idea that, “Ugh, I do all of this FOR YOU” (complaining to her boyfriend about makeup, and hair, and clothes) is usually laughable.

  • Ramble

    I know several tall women that want a man to be not only tall, but also big. I think they like feeling dwarfed by a male.

    Most girls want to feel feminine at some point. Very tall girls don’t always have many options to feel that.

    I knew one girl in college who was 6’1 and she was always hanging around the basketball team. I don’t know if she ever got “passed around”, but, it was somewhat obvious that she was looking to plant in fertile ground.

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

      she was always hanging around the basketball team. I don’t know if she ever got “passed around”

      Now I’m picturing players passing the woman around the court.

  • Ramble

    I swear most young women want a girlfriend with a penis instead of a man.

    A hobby horse of mine is that many guys are looking to date guys with tits.

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

    I think Harden looks like some kind of necromancer.

    Re: women hooking up and having nothing to show for it afterward…the alpha females on campus would probably scold women for being so “transactional” about sex, and accuse them of being “whores.”

    From my limited understanding of changing campus social mores: having sex primarily for recreational or conquer-the-world purposes is essentially ok, and a woman who does so may be called “The Maneater” or “Samantha” or given some other sobriquet that similarly implies ferocity, power, liberation, strength, danger, cold-bloodedness, etc. If she has sex as part of a deal to secure a relationship with an eligible man, however, she is guilty of all manner of crimes. Someone who just abstains completely must be “repressed” or “neurotic” or “provincial.”

    The intention really does seem to be to establish that gender-related sexuality differences are just a social construct, and to “prove it” by linking N and self-esteem in a way that was usually associated with fraternities and male jocks. Stories abound that glorify turnabout female pump & dump scenarios in which a man wants a relationship and the woman wants to keep it strictly sexual.

    The idea that men (well, at least *some* men) may be the chief beneficiaries of this experiment is taboo.

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

      @BB

      I think Harden looks like some kind of necromancer.

      LOL, you are right! He looks like a young Snape!

      From my limited understanding of changing campus social mores: having sex primarily for recreational or conquer-the-world purposes is essentially ok, and a woman who does so may be called “The Maneater” or “Samantha” or given some other sobriquet that similarly implies ferocity, power, liberation, strength, danger, cold-bloodedness, etc. If she has sex as part of a deal to secure a relationship with an eligible man, however, she is guilty of all manner of crimes. Someone who just abstains completely must be “repressed” or “neurotic” or “provincial.”

      Brilliant summary of the script.

      The idea that men (well, at least *some* men) may be the chief beneficiaries of this experiment is taboo.

      Yes, well that would be quite embarrassing and a major Fail. With all the negative publicity about hookup culture, I’ve been seeing some articles by feminists who say, “The beauty of hookup culture is that it’s there if you want it!” As if it’s some emergency store rather than a living culture that shapes incentives and behavior.

  • Southamerican

    Emily,
    I would argue that the reason why there is so much sexual immorality (casual sex, threesomes, S&M, etc) that is now mainstream among North American/European youth is not because of the embrace of feminism per se but rather the disavowal of godliness.

    I know that Christianity is the much maligned religion du jour. I anticipate attacks from intellectual (and not so intellectual) atheists and agnostics. Just as they have a right to express themselves, so do I.

    The way I see it is this: Sexual promiscuity entered the scene when respect for God went out. I consider myself a feminist and am very grateful for the gift of freedom that I have as a woman in 2012.

    The reason why First World feminism’s concerns may sound trivial in comparison to the travails of Third World women is precisely because of the victories won by feminists in these countries and the current subjugation of women in the others where any ounce of feminism is swiftly and brutally suppressed.

    Does that mean that I subscribe to what may be now popularly identified as the feminist agenda? No, not at all, when it conflicts with my religious beliefs. In other words, abortion as a form of birth control – No! Sex outside of marriage – No! That’s what the Bible calls fornication. It does not mean that God does not want us to have fun. He loves us so much that He made sex a pleasurable act. But it’s also dangerous to engage in outside of the covenant of marriage. Sex is not a sin – sex outside of a heterosexual marriage is a sin. Why? Because God made us and loves us so much that He wants the best for us. The best is to keep sex within marriage.

    If you think orgies, threesomes, etc are a modern development of sexual liberation, NO WAY! Many ancient cultures embraced these sexual practices. It was the Jews and Christians who were the square ones because God forbid sex outside marriage. If you think “saving yourself” is old-fashioned, think again – it was counter-cultural in ancient times. Today many people say that people are born homosexuals — Not in Ancient Greece! Socrates, Plato and other ancient philosophers observed that the highest form of love was between two men because they were intellectual equals. All men in ancient Greece were expected to have wives but also engage in homosexual acts – that was their norm! So the Jews and Christians were seen as very counter-cultural and NOT normal.

    Bottom-line: I am saving myself for marriage because I trust God’s guidelines for life. By the way, He also tells men to save themselves for marriage as well– especially in the New Testament! The reason why male promiscuity is not equally as condemned by society is because of patriarchal bias, NOT because of what God says.

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

      @Southamerican

      FIRST REASON I HATE FEMINISM:

      I would argue that the reason why there is so much sexual immorality (casual sex, threesomes, S&M, etc) that is now mainstream among North American/European youth is not because of the embrace of feminism per se but rather the disavowal of godliness

      Sex-positive feminists proselytize casual sex and hookup culture. If you’re against casual sex, you have to be against sex pozzies, who are the face of contemporary, “4th wave” feminism.

      Hannah Rosin:

      “To put it crudely, feminist progress right now largely depends on the existence of the hookup culture.”

      SECOND REASON I HATE FEMINISM:

      The reason why First World feminism’s concerns may sound trivial in comparison to the travails of Third World women is precisely because of the victories won by feminists in these countries and the current subjugation of women in the others where any ounce of feminism is swiftly and brutally suppressed.

      And yet American feminists excuse and ignore those atrocities:

      “One might have asked whether he would also refrain from condemning honor killings and female genital mutilation, but I think we know the answer.

      If one had expected a radical feminist to offer a full throated condemnation of these barbaric practices, practices that are especially designed to terrorize women, one would have been disappointed.

      In reality, Joan Scott was wallowing in the slime of her own moral relativism, to say nothing of her guilt at being a citizen of the United States.

      Who was she, a citizen of a monstrous country like the United States, to criticize anyone else’s cultural practices? In Scott’s view, someone who lives in a country that still, in some places, restricts access to abortion, Americans have no right to condemn anyone else’s customs or mores.

      As a Western woman, she cannot grant herself the authority to pass judgment on anyone outside of the West. And besides, she believes that the whole controversy over stoning– and maybe also over honor killings and female genital mutilation– has been stirred up to silence public debate about the high levels of Muslim unemployment in Europe.

      Given the moral deficiencies of the West, she was persuaded that a ban on stoning adulteresses cannot and should not be imposed by the West. Different strokes for different folks… as the old saying goes.. and to Scott that means that we do not even have the right to speak out against these practices.”

      The Moral Depravity of Radical Feminists

      THIRD AND LARGEST REASON I HATE FEMINISM:

      The cavalier dismissal of male well-being, the promotion of female achievement at the expense of males, and the hypocrisy around equality when supremacy is clearly the goal.

      Since you have major beefs with me – my approval of premarital sex, and disapproval of contemporary feminism, I’m surprised you like the blog. In any case, I am sure we will not change one another’s minds.

  • Sai

    I wonder what they’d do if one of those guys was to sue for taking advantage of him while he was intoxicated.

    “This hamster run on the power of the Tesseract.”
    Best comment yet~

  • Southamerican

    Susan,
    Thank you for clarifying that distinction in terms of being a gender equity feminist. I did not get that from the posts that I read because it seems that you universally dismissed feminism. It’s bad enough when men bitterly spout off about feminist women, but when women do it, it’s like a divided house that will fall.

    I respectfully disagree with your assessment that gender equity has been achieved in the U.S. Cases in point: Viagra is covered by insurance companies while birth control is not; 6 weeks of maternity leave (if men had to endure childbirth, I bet they’d successfully lobby for 6 months — again, Viagra coverage as an illustrative example); gender parity in pay – from what I read, newspaper ads in the past used to advertise for men only and women only for the same job but very different pay; women who choose to become housewives not earning Social Security benefits because their collective responsibilities as childcare giver, cook, maid and chauffeur are not monetarily valued or compensated by current legislation; limited funding support for women who take care of their ailing parents (since oftentimes women overwhelmingly are tasked with this job among siblings).

    It’s one thing to be cognizant of the failings of feminism, but to decry the term so liberally is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Worse: It sets a poor example for young women to distance themselves from the word in order to curry favor with men. It’s kind of like a self-hatred.

    I am pleased to call myself a feminist and a Christian, citing the areas that I may disagree with but always honoring both.

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

      Worse: It sets a poor example for young women to distance themselves from the word in order to curry favor with men. It’s kind of like a self-hatred.

      Women distance themselves from the word because they do not identify with or relate to many of the goals of feminism, and generally find feminists to be unpleasant, strident people. In polls, only a quarter of women consider themselves feminists.

  • http://theprivateman.wordpress.com The Private Man

    Old expression based on an older expression: “You can lead a girl to Vassar but you can’t make her think.”

  • Ramble

    I must admit, that does prove your point perfectly.

    Don’t feed the trolls. You were doing better when you told me to shut up, already.

  • Southamerican

    Also, Susan, the reason why I chose to comment on your post is because I generally agree with your encouragement of young women to value themselves and devalue popular culture’s message about sex. I support your website’s mission because I keep agreeing with much of your advice (with exception of sex outside marriage).

    I know that not everyone is a Christian and not all Christians support abstinence. I respect everyone’s journey – what I like about your advice is that you engage young women in thinking for themselves about the consequences of all this “free love” nonsense that the media is peddling and inviting men to contribute their thoughts.

    It’s very powerful for me to read when men wholeheartedly agree that they respect modesty and sexual restraint in women. Somehow, on some primal level I guess, it makes it more real for me – it’s like a brother or father giving your advice their stamp of approval. So for that, great job!

    I just wanted to point out that it’s equally important to value the contribution of past and present feminists who are actively working to ensure the protection and promotion of women’s rights – because in effect when women do well, families and society do well. That’s why international microfinance loan programs focus on women because mothers are more likely to use their earnings to help pull their family ahead.

    The fact that I admire the strength and sacrifices of women does not in any way diminish my admiration of men. I do not equate feminism with man-hating at all – in fact, men who angrily put down feminism raise a red flag for me. Any man raised by a hardworking and loving single mother would know differently.

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

      because in effect when women do well, families and society do well.

      That is simply not true. College enrollment is 60% female. Women are no happier today than they were before the Women’s Movement. In cities, 20-something women earn 117% of what their male peers earn. In a recent survey by Forbes, 84% of mothers said they would like to stay home full time if they could afford it.

  • Cooper

    ” it seems that you universally dismissed feminism. It’s bad enough when men bitterly spout off about feminist women, but when women do it, it’s like a divided house that will fall.”

    Lol, cause men aren’t ‘in the house’?

  • Ion

    SouthAmerican

    “Again women did not always have rights to property and inheritance. ”

    Reads like “at one point, women weren’t entitled to diamonds, Kleinfield Bridal, and riding ponys” as far as I’m concerned. Many of us didn’t have grandparents who could afford inheritance, or property to pass on, many people still don’t.

    Susan

    “Oh, this is a pet peeve of mine. American feminists refuse to condemn female genital mutilation because “we should respect other cultures.” Stoning for adultery, anyone? What hypocrisy.”

    Totally agree. They also take a pro-crime stance, and refuse to convict men in high crime areas for any atrocities against poor women and children (children are usually props to incur sympathy about any issue they see fit to embrace, but “safety of children” is never thought of in this situation).

    I.e. they are often out there petitioning that criminals be released early, and they are anti-cop. So it’s really only middle class american males they want to emasculate/hold “accountable” for behavior of men past and present. Not really men in general.

  • Ion

    personally:

    Chris Noth = masculine, high testosterone, super attractive.

    Emo = “Twink”.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Wow, that guy is attractive? I really can’t avoid laughing whenever I see his face.

    “God…I’m just…so deep…the pain…the first world is so tough…ugh, see my scars!”

    I don’t mean to diss the guy too much. He’s smarter than me. But damn, I hate that picture.

  • Mike M.

    Susan, you make one error. These are Yale students. Majoring in Snobbery and Networking. Not the best, not the brightest. Merely well-connected.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    @Mike M.

    These girls also come from we’ll-to-do families.

    Radical Chic anyone?

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    Susan

    “I’ve always assumed that is not you in the pic. I have a hard time squaring it with your commentary over the months.”
    > How so?

    “Oh, M3, don’t start with the whining about women. Please.”
    > hehe… sorry. I wasn’t complaining about women *in general*. I was describing what actually happened between me and my ex on several occasions.

    She worked for an insurance company, in HR, with 2 other female HR staff, and reported to a female boss. I’m sure you can imagine just how awesome the little backstabbing intersexual competing climb over each others rotting corpse get to the top shenannagins made her the cheery person that would meet me at home after an hours commute :)

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

    Kids attending “elite” schools are probably more likely to be accepting of social memes being pushed by the “progressive” intelligentsia than kids attending not-so-elite schools.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    SA: “The reason why male promiscuity is not equally as condemned by society is because of patriarchal bias, NOT because of what God says.”

    Patriarchal bias? Try: biological demand for eggs vs sperm. It’s hard for men to get laid, compared to women. That’s why it’s not condemned equally outside of religious contexts.

    Your ideas of gender equity, meaning someone else better pay for your stuff, is bit naïve. Equity means you get not special dispensation for free stuff based on your sex any more than men do.

    Equity really means nobody’s going to give you a hand, just like men have to cut it on their own or die.

  • Lokland

    @Southamerican

    “U.S. Cases in point: Viagra is covered by insurance companies while birth control”

    Why would you compare Viagra and BC?
    Beyond involving sexual function they are taken for vastly different reasons.
    PS Not saying BC= slut.

    “6 weeks of maternity leave (if men had to endure childbirth, I bet they’d successfully lobby for 6 months”

    I think if women ruled the world we’d all be forced to ride ponies to work.

    You built a straw man from an argument no one has given and then proceeded to destroy your own straw man.

    Hypotheticals on what one group would do are actually illegal and discriminatory even with evidence backing them up.

    Ex. Black guy walks into a TV store with no one there. He’d probably steal the TV.

    ………………

    Waste of my time.

  • A definite beta guy

    Viagra is NOT covered for sexual reasons.

  • Mike C

    The next morning I awoke to find myself sprawled out on one of the couches in the living room. Several of the girls who lived in the flat were sitting around talking…they had been out the night before and their conversation, naturally, turned to talk about boys. They started talking about the hookup scene back at Yale. Their conversation went something like this:

    – Oh my gosh. Have you ever been with a football player?

    – Yeah, they can be pretty awesome. They work out a lot.

    – Yeah, and you know what’s best about them. They’re not that smart. If you go up to them at a party and just get them drinking, and start dancing with them and kissing them, they will totally end up sleeping with you. They don’t even know they’re being played. They have no clue.

    – Ha-ha! Totally.

    LOL…you couldn’t make this stuff up. This is both solipsism and projection on full display.

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

      This is both solipsism and projection on full display.

      Agreed – I knew the guys would enjoy this one. :)

  • Mike C

    I agree! I think that feminism has exacerbated this female tendency, which is at least a little ironic.

    It may amuse you to know that due to my heightened awareness of solipsism, I identify it in myself and in others (usually but not always women) at least a dozen times per day.

    Susan, I about fell off my chair reading this recalling how strongly you protested when I first brought this up in a comment. Looks like you were persuaded on this one. :)

    I’ll note it was my comment here that started that entire discussion across several blogs.

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

      Susan, I about fell off my chair reading this recalling how strongly you protested when I first brought this up in a comment. Looks like you were persuaded on this one.

      I’ll note it was my comment here that started that entire discussion across several blogs.

      Were you surprised? I wrote a post where I said outright that I cop to female solipsism. It was a very interesting discussion, thanks for starting it.

      I will make one observation, FWIW – there are times when I realize a person is engaging in solipsism while at the same time finding their communication highly effective. Perhaps because I am female, I find that I understand abstract concepts better when they’re put into the context of an example, and it’s natural for people to draw examples from their own experience.

  • Mike C

    Many of the most negative posters, here and in the ‘sphere, have entire complicated and detailed worldviews that extrapolate nearly entirely from their own bad personal experiences. They tend to state opinions as fact and not use the word “I” much, but it’s still solipsism.

    No, J, you continue to confuse what solipsism is and is not. What you are describing is overgeneralizing. That is an error as well but it isn’t solipsism. Read the excerpt again of the girls talking. They are literally projecting how they perceive things onto the men. They literally cannot conceive that men interpret differently

    “If you go up to them at a party and just get them drinking, and start dancing with them and kissing them, they will totally end up sleeping with you. They don’t even know they’re being played. They have no clue.”

    They literally cannot conceive that men don’t view the situation like (“being played”).

    I know you are smart so you should get the difference between solipsism and overgeneralizing.

  • Mike C

    I think men get muscled for one another, kind of the way women dress up for one another when they go out.

    This is part of it no doubt. There is the male competitive instinct, plus there is an immediate intimidation factor at work.

    Women like a fit body, but I will take a runner over a bodybuilder anyday. And I am grossed out by male pecs that are like boobs – something Jason was talking about recently. Blech!

    I may be an extreme case – for example, I think Nathan Harden’s skinny arm on the CD cover is sexy.

    I think you are. I think overall womens’ preferences in body types vary MUCH MORE than men. Men like different types with some preferring a bit thicker or some more waifish, but I don’t think you see the range of preferences women show. Any guy who has built up his musculature considerably knows that many women ***really*** like it.

    This is Arnold in in Mr. Olympia days:

    http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&sa=N&noj=1&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=B5JkctFMEBKjvM:&imgrefurl=http://www.popstarsplus.com/politicians_arnoldschwarzenegger.htm&docid=fl5GukAlt8vOCM&imgurl=http://www.popstarsplus.com/images/ArnoldSchwarzeneggerPicture.jpg&w=600&h=813&ei=dg6KUMu6F-fWyQG7noHgAQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=308&sig=106077039016368313723&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=101&start=0&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:15,s:0,i:183&tx=59&ty=79&biw=1400&bih=710

    He got more ass then a toilet seat in the late 70s.

    This guy is on the cover of a bunch of romance novels and money talks:

    http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTg0NDQ4Nzk0NF5BMl5BanBnXkFyZXN1bWU@._V1._SY314_CR7,0,214,314_.jpg

    Interestingly, Mike O Hearn I think might fit that bill of high T and developed musculature, and some aspects of a masculine face mixed with some more feminine features.

    What I haven’t been able to deduce is what separates the women how prefer more of the skinny look from a more developed build. I would have thought it was linked to certain traits but Sassy’s physical preferences have steered me away from that hypothesis. I think restricted versus unrestricted might play some role in it.

    In any case, the positive takeaway for guys is you really should know someone out there will appreciate “your look” unless maybe you are a 5’4″ fat guy with an acne face. But short versus tall, thin versus built, different facial structures, I think it can vary.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Emily:

    I have a couple close friends who tend to prefer the “bulky” look. It was always funny when we’d talk about guys because they were very much NOT into the Nathan Harden type. One of my friends once joked that “Emily likes her men to look as much like women as possible.” >:(

    HAHA, I’ve heard that same exact joke from my friends! Haters. :P

    At first I was startled by Harden’s pic. Then I stared at it longer. Then I blushed.

  • chris

    The next morning I awoke to find myself sprawled out on one of the couches in the living room. Several of the girls who lived in the flat were sitting around talking…they had been out the night before and their conversation, naturally, turned to talk about boys. They started talking about the hookup scene back at Yale. Their conversation went something like this:

    – Oh my gosh. Have you ever been with a football player?

    – Yeah, they can be pretty awesome. They work out a lot.

    – Yeah, and you know what’s best about them. They’re not that smart. If you go up to them at a party and just get them drinking, and start dancing with them and kissing them, they will totally end up sleeping with you. They don’t even know they’re being played. They have no clue.

    Wow, I’m sure loads of guys would love to work their assess off to become husband material for those women.

  • Mike C

    WFT? Women are supposed to have wide hips! Is the man supposed to be a truck to compensate?

    Escoffier,

    You are mixing up a ratio with absolute numbers. Women have “wide” hips in relation to their waist. What is the classic hourglass figure? 24″ waist with 36″ hips. Guys are blocky (no curves) so the waist and hips will basically be the same.

  • Mike C

    I respectfully disagree with your assessment that gender equity has been achieved in the U.S. Cases in point: Viagra is covered by insurance companies while birth control is not; 6 weeks of maternity leave (if men had to endure childbirth, I bet they’d successfully lobby for 6 months

    6 weeks is incorrect.

    http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/

    Eligible employees are entitled to:

    Twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for:
    the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth;

    I wouldn’t be shocked if there were other factual inaccuracies in that list as well.

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

      I wouldn’t be shocked if there were other factual inaccuracies in that list as well.

      I decided not to waste the time chasing the facts down, and chose to argue with her on a few key points instead. Her comments amount to trolling.

  • chris

    Wow, I’m sure loads of guys would love to work their assess off to become husband material for those women.

    I mean, why bust your ass studying at University for 3-6 years (depending on degree) and then spending the next 5-10 years building your career, so that you can mate with 30 years old plus women who have already been fucked by bunches of other dudes, when you can spend 1 year in the gym in your early twenties and get to mate with young, unused girls in their prime?

    The first strategy requires shitloads of effort and restraint for a shitty reward while the latter strategy requires fuck all effort for a fucking awesome reward.

    These women are creating an incentive structure that ensures there will be no good men around to marry when they’re older.

  • chris

    from above

    and this isn’t even taking into consideration that with the first strategy, the mating isn’t even long-term, it’s until the woman wants cash and prizes.

  • Emily

    Interestingly enough, I rarely (if ever) get approached by visibly high-T/”bigger” men, so I think that there’s some sort of mutual disinterest/LJBF happening there.

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

      Interestingly enough, I rarely (if ever) get approached by visibly high-T/”bigger” men, so I think that there’s some sort of mutual disinterest/LJBF happening there.

      I think Mike C had it right – no doubt it’s related to sociosexuality. Nathan Harden is as restricted as they come, so I probably read and like that in his face. (Remember, studies show women can read this from the face alone, probably by looking for testosterone markers.) I think Arnold S. was always absolutely gross.

      It makes sense that unrestricteds seek each other out, and it explains why it can be true that 80% of women on campus are not attracted to the douchey lax player.

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

    I’m really tired of us as a society always going to extremes.

    Yeah that is one of the key traits of this culture that baffles me you whether love or hate there is no moderation or middle ground. My guess is that is a left over from being a warrior nation. You don’t have an identity without an enemy, YMMV.

    But truthfully I’ve always believed the truth is somewhere in the middle, and we just keep smacking the ball from one end of the court to the other.

    This is one of the reasons that I mention often how a male dominated culture works. Many of the comments on the manosphere claim that men are more noble and that things would be better with men having the total control…not really no. We need to correct feminists mistakes without forgetting the good points and try to create a new society in which both genders can have rights and responsibilities according to their abilities. Patriarchy run amok is as bad as feminazism, YMMV.

    I didn’t deliberately pick my friends this way, but it was really convenient since we never wound up competing over guys.

    Likewise we were similar in college but we all found our partners/crushes completely unattractive no female sexual competition keeps the herd together.

    “This hamster run on the power of the Tesseract.”
    Best comment yet~

    Comment of the week for sure.

    Emily, don’t even bother. If you want, and if I can muster the interest, I can take that post apart point by point. There is almost nothing true in it. Just move on.

    I think there is a couple of blogs that had debunked all this lies maybe a link to it would work best. Let her be someone else’s problem.

  • VD

    It is sooooo not the case with me. I think men get muscled for one another, kind of the way women dress up for one another when they go out. Women like a fit body, but I will take a runner over a bodybuilder anyday. And I am grossed out by male pecs that are like boobs – something Jason was talking about recently. Blech!

    Solipsism alert! First, straight men most certainly do not get muscled for one another. That is pure female projection, Susan. We get muscled because it feels good to be powerful and it feels great to have women constantly feeling your pecs, your biceps and your triceps. There is simply no comparison. I have a naturally delicate build, but put on nearly 50 pounds through hitting the weights over the years. So I have observed that women, on the average, react much more strongly and much more positively to men with well-developed musculatures. Furthermore, it tends to be the hottest, fittest women who prefer the hardest men. Think about it. Who is going to pound you harder and throw you around the bed more easily, limp-wristed emo boy or Ripped Dude.

    Now, I had no problem attracting girls when I was rail-thin. I’m a writer and I could probably brood for England. But back then, I never had pretty women looking up and down and saying “yum” in the street either. Do some guys overdo the weight training? Sure. But there is a huge gap between a scrawny runner and a waddling musclehead who looks like a stuffed sausage in a suit. Think Daniel Craig as James Bond on the beach, not Arnold as Mr. Universe posing on stage. Craig has a fair amount of muscle on him.

    I may be an extreme case – for example, I think Nathan Harden’s skinny arm on the CD cover is sexy. I think his jutting hipbones would be sexy. But I’ve always liked the hipster look. I’m not alone – my guess is that skinny, brooding types, who are often called “bad boys” even when they are not, as in Nathan’s case – outperform PUA types by a mile.

    No chance. The PUAs clean up primarily because they are more focused on pursuit. By the time a skinny brooding hipster has emo’d his way into a girl’s bedroom, the PUA will have plowed his way through six or seven women already. It takes time to pose and simper and be noticed. It is fascinating that you mention how you find skinny arms to be sexy. I’ve heard women, including my wife, talk about how “spaghetti arms” and “sunken chests” make them want to vomit.

    Although speaking of PUAs, there was an episode of Castle that was right out of The Game. The best part was when the hot female detective, upon realizing to her horror how many moderately attractive women had been successfully seduced by a dead PUA, shook her head and said: “I weep for my gender.” Okay, zero points for proper use of the English language, but hilarious anyway.

    Interestingly enough, I rarely (if ever) get approached by visibly high-T/”bigger” men, so I think that there’s some sort of mutual disinterest/LJBF happening there.

    This is a cogent observation. I have noticed that adult women who prefer the hipster men are either still attracted to the same type of juvenile men that first attracted them in their early teens, or tend to fall in the 5-6 SMV category. My hypothesis is that the human mind has an unconscious means of limiting its attraction triggers to the members of the opposite sex within an attainable SMV range. It was always astounding to me when a relatively plain woman would confess that she found one of my average male friends to be hot while genuinely exhibiting no interest whatsoever in any of my much better-looking friends. It’s a very healthy and positive spin on the sour grapes fable.

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

      @VD

      By the time a skinny brooding hipster has emo’d his way into a girl’s bedroom, the PUA will have plowed his way through six or seven women already.

      Ah, we were using different metrics for “outperform.” The emo guy is usually, well, um, emo. He does the monogamy “all in” thing, even if he does it serially. He’s good in bed because his EQ is sky high.

      The guys like this I’ve known in real life elicit offers outright on a regular basis. No pursuit is generally required.

      To each his own, I don’t care who other women are attracted to!

  • Sai

    @VD
    “My hypothesis is that the human mind has an unconscious means of limiting its attraction triggers to the members of the opposite sex within an attainable SMV range. It was always astounding to me when a relatively plain woman would confess that she found one of my average male friends to be hot while genuinely exhibiting no interest whatsoever in any of my much better-looking friends.”
    I like this hypothesis. What could this mean for the brains of, say, 4s who chase 9s? Well, besides the promiscuity being hard-wired thing.

    (The more I look at Mr. H up there the more I think of Metalocalypse.)

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

      “My hypothesis is that the human mind has an unconscious means of limiting its attraction triggers to the members of the opposite sex within an attainable SMV range. It was always astounding to me when a relatively plain woman would confess that she found one of my average male friends to be hot while genuinely exhibiting no interest whatsoever in any of my much better-looking friends.”

      How does this square with hypergamy?

  • pvw

    @BB: From my limited understanding of changing campus social mores: having sex primarily for recreational or conquer-the-world purposes is essentially ok…If she has sex as part of a deal to secure a relationship with an eligible man, however, she is guilty of all manner of crimes. Someone who just abstains completely must be “repressed” or “neurotic” or “provincial.” The intention really does seem to be to establish that gender-related sexuality differences are just a social construct, and to “prove it” by linking N and self-esteem in a way that was usually associated with fraternities and male jocks.

    Me: That last sentence explains it exactly!

    They absolutely see sex from an alpha male point of view, and so they critique the more traditionalist minded women, those who abstain altogether from the hookup scene because they will only have relationship sex.

    It sounds so radical, I can’t help but be jarred by that type of critique coming from a woman.

    They rack up numbers like men, because they are so bent on being free from sexual restraint (like they perceive men to be), and so they can’t stand the traditionalist minded women who in their view might as well be members of some neo-Victorian religious conservative Taliban.

    I wonder, does their critique of relationship minded women sound today like the kind of thing a man might say, either good naturedly (he is not troubled by it) or with resentment, the expectation that many women have of sex leading to, or existing in the context of a relationship?

    I have this imagine in my mind of a man grumbling about some woman he has been sleeping with who now has expectations which he has no interest in and will not fulfill, ie., that they are dating or should be dating….

  • VD

    Like I said, big and scary.

    You look rather as if you’re still angry at the first billy goat Gruff.

    More pics of Nathan Harden

    I suspect he was more successful with women in his previous incarnation as Iggy Pop.

    We need to correct feminists mistakes without forgetting the good points and try to create a new society in which both genders can have rights and responsibilities according to their abilities.

    And to each according to their needs? Now, why does that sound so familiar….

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

      I suspect he was more successful with women in his previous incarnation as Iggy Pop.

      Looks like we’ve struck a nerve here. The male resentment towards Nathan Harden’s looks here is quite fascinating.

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

    I wonder if [some] women’s attraction to very slender men isn’t a desire to have slender daughters who don’t have to work at maintaining an optimum weight.

    Mesomorph’s daughters have to hit the gym a lot harder.

  • VD

    Given how much you like skinny arms, Susan, you should probably be sure to be alone when you watch this music video. Especially at the 2:28 mark. I daresay you’ll be overcome with raw desire.

    CARIBOU!

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

      @VD

      More like Tyson Ritter of All American Rejects:

      tr

      Or Jared Leto:

      jl

      As I recall, the first time you ever linked to HUS was when I talked about Russell Brand being hot.

      The skinny emo boy appeals to a very, very sizable number of women.

  • Escoffier

    My comment was not made out of resentment, I honestly thought when I first looked at the pic that it was of an ugly, masculinized feminist intellectual circa 1975. It took a second for me to realize “Wait, that’s a dude.”

    As a lanky skinny boy myself, I should be basking in all this female praise of my body type.

  • VD

    Looks like we’ve struck a nerve here. The male resentment towards Nathan Harden’s looks here is quite fascinating.

    Resentment? Not in the slightest. Susan. We simply think you’re crazy, that’s all… but hey, you like what you like. I don’t think the guy looks anything like Jared Leto, who has very good features. Harden looks more like a transvestite or a drag queen.

    The skinny emo boy appeals to a very, very sizable number of women.

    That could be. Perhaps we’re just talking about two different pools of women here. But I can’t think of a single time in the last 10 years that I saw an attractive women walking through Milan, Zurich, or London with a skinny emo boy. It occurs to me that even Russell Brand, for all his genuine wit, fame, and skinny emo appeal, is usually seen with the likes of Katy Perry and low-rent glamor models, not the more beautiful girls.

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

      @VD

      Resentment? Not in the slightest. Susan. We simply think you’re crazy, that’s all… but hey, you like what you like

      I assure you I am far from alone. In my experience, men don’t have a good handle at all on what women find attractive. They project too much, same as women.

      Russell Brand, for all his genuine wit, fame, and skinny emo appeal, is usually seen with the likes of Katy Perry and low-rent glamor models, not the more beautiful girls.

      Russell Brand has an exquisitely handsome face, his SMV is very, very high. I believe his number is over 2,000, so there are bound to be a few warpigs in there, but I believe he’s rarely if ever been turned down. He said that the moment he fell in love with Katy Perry was when she said no to sex. No one had ever done that to him before.

  • Ted D

    VD – “You look rather as if you’re still angry at the first billy goat Gruff.”

    ROFL. Nothing like almost showering my screen with coffee before 9:30am. ;-)

    Like I said, I knew I couldn’t pull off the “pretty boy” look, so instead I went with old school Metallica. The beard came after I quit gigging, although I think it added nicely to the “holy shit that dude looks like he eats babies” schtick.

    While I’m at it I might as well go for a little shameless self promotion. This is one of the songs we recorded for our promo package. The loud mouth is mine.

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27675532/MP3s/Age%20of%20Dissent%20-%20Lies.mp3

    Susan – “Looks like we’ve struck a nerve here. The male resentment towards Nathan Harden’s looks here is quite fascinating.”

    I don’t know if I’d call it hate, but perhaps it is. Personally I’ve known so many guys that look just like him in music circles that I barely even notice just how emo he appears to be. I’ll be honest though, I’ve never really respected guys that look like they would break in half if the wind blew too hard. At least not until I get to know them and see what they are made of. My initial reaction to such scrawny guys is: I could fall on him and kill him!

    Also in relation to the track I posted above, I’ve had the previledge of hearing one of Yohami’s songs and I’ll admit I’m a little jealous. Not only does he have a great look, a good voice, and writing skills. The dude has an accent like Antonio Banderas! If he can’t clean up with the ladies, there isn’t much hope for most of us…

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

      I’ll be honest though, I’ve never really respected guys that look like they would break in half if the wind blew too hard.

      Interesting that respect is a factor – perhaps you feel that it is unfair that such a guy would be successful with women, when he doesn’t fit your own idea of masculinity.

  • VD

    How does this square with hypergamy?

    Quite well, actually. Women want the best that they can get. I suspect that obese women find chunky little sausage men attractive and claim they don’t find tall, skinny emo boys to be attractive. And yet, if a skinny emo boy expressed credible interest, she’d trade up despite that supposed lack of attraction.

    Ever notice how the fat girls who lose weight don’t stick with the overweight nerds, but start dating the jocks they once affected not to like?

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

    If he can’t clean up with the ladies, there isn’t much hope for most of us…

    You’re kidding me right? Don’t tell me you’ve forgotten Yohami’s famous 200 already.

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

    Susan, I’m curious: would you have thought that Harden was a “restricted” type if you had seen his photos w/o any attached backstory? Or is his appeal that he looks the rockerboy arch-mage part but is in reality a husband and an outspoken and articulate critic of culture hook-up culture (perhaps the cultural equivalent of hybrid vigor)?

    I ask because I am curious about what a sociosexually-restricted male looks like like vs. an unrestricted one. Does the restricted type tend to have the somber, rather sad expression of an old soul (as if reflecting his moral disapproval with popular casual sex mores), while the unrestricted manhas the delighted Duchenne smile (or Phantom smirk…?) of a well-contented satyr?

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

      @BB

      I don’t think it happens at the conscious level, but my guess is it’s all about the T levels. Off the charts T = bad dude (unless moderated by high E, perhaps ;) ) Very low T = not even noticeable. Nathan Harden is rocking that jaw and beaky nose with big expressive eyes and lustrous hair. Also, not too musclebound.

      One study:Facial correlates of sociosexuality

      Observers have been previously found to distinguish sociosexuality from video footage of individuals, although the specific cues used have not been identified. Here we assessed the ability of observers to judge sexual strategy based specifically on cues in both facial composites and real faces. We also assessed how observers’ perceptions of the masculinity/femininity and attractiveness of faces relate to the sociosexual orientation of the pictured individuals. Observers were generally able to identify restricted vs. unrestricted individuals from cues in both composites and real faces. Unrestricted sociosexuality was generally associated with greater attractiveness in female composites and real female faces and greater masculinity in male composites. Although male observers did not generally associate sociosexuality with male attractiveness, female observers generally preferred more restricted males’ faces (i.e., those with relatively strong preferences for long-term relationships). Collectively, our results support previous findings that androgenisation in men is related to less restricted sexual behaviour and suggest that women are averse to unrestricted men.

      Another study: Sociosexuality moderates the association between testosterone and relationship status in men and women

      “In the current study, we assessed relations between three components of sociosexuality—desire, behavior, and attitudes—and endogenous testosterone levels in men and women. We found that partnered status was indeed associated with lower testosterone in both men and women, but only among those who reported more restricted sociosexuality. Partnered men who reported greater desire for uncommitted sexual activity had testosterone levels that were comparable to those of single men; partnered women who reported more frequent uncommitted sexual behavior had testosterone levels that were comparable to those of single women. These findings provide new evidence that people’s orientations toward sexual relationships, in combination with their relationship status, are associated with individual differences in testosterone. The current results are also among the first to demonstrate sociosexuality–testosterone associations in both men and women, and they reveal that the nature of these associations varies by gender.”

      I’ve written about these studies before. I only have PDFs rather than links but there are easily searchable.

  • Sassy6519

    I wouldn’t go that far. But I think he’s extraordinary looking. Very unusual and exotic. I also know he’s smart, conservative and HOH in love with his young wife. That makes him even sexier.

    I think he was fighting the girls off at Yale. He includes a couple of stories about being propositioned by girls who had no idea he was married. Propositioned as in the middle of the day, not at some party. I can assure you this guy is sexy in Girl Land.

    He reminds me of Stuart Townsend’s depiction of Lestat in the movie “Queen of the Damned”. He’s definitely exotic looking, and I find him attractive.

  • Ted D

    Olive – that was a poor attempt at sarcasm of sorts. I know he does well for himself. Actually he and I chat every so often about music. Not Mich lately because life has been screwing with my “free” time ( the same way it eats my “extra” money) and I haven’t been doing the music thing.

    I need to follow up with him on something I asked a few months back now that I think of it…

  • Escoffier

    The idea that we can tell people’s sexual habits and preferences based on facial features strikes me as dubious.

  • Ted D

    Much* I really hate using my phone to post.

  • pish posh

    Obese girls don’t date nerds. They’re too busy dying their Bettie Page hair pink, covering themselves with tattoos, seeing at least an eight in the mirror and considering themselves empowered real women as they’re being p&ded by skinny emo hipsters and street thugs. If they were to acquiesce to nerds or others on their SMV level they’d go into complete narcissistic collapse.

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

      I live next to Allston, MA, the land of hipsters. I have never once seen a skinny hipster dude with a fat chick. Not even the ugly ones.

  • Ted D

    What’s wrong with tattoos? I’m not crazy about walking billboards, but a woman with some tasteful tats can be hot.

  • pish posh

    Nothing is wrong with tattoos, it’s just that there are a huge number of dumpy dowdy fours who get full sleeves and chunky glasses the moment they turn 18 and spend the next decade slut walking and chasing manorexic unobtainable hipsters in college.

  • Ion

    Mike C

    ” I think overall womens’ preferences in body types vary MUCH MORE than men. Men like different types with some preferring a bit thicker or some more waifish, but I don’t think you see the range of preferences women show. ”

    Agree. Could be for some that the waifish male look or the grungy “I don’t give a damn look” definitely has a humbling effect, so maybe some women associate muscles with male narcissism more than they inherently find it unattractive. Perhaps the male equivalent would be men who say they like women who are fit to a few extra pounds because its more humbling than skinny and gorgeous, obviously associating extreme commitment to a perfect body/looks with female narcissism.

    I don’t prefer Arnold at all, but I’d take Arnold over any skinny guy, and certainly over any guy who gives the impression that he’ll one day cut his wrists. And happen to like men who are thick with a little natural muscle tone, and stocky and “beefy” types a lot. That could be height too. But the athletic build is definitely classically attractive to many women (like James Bond athletic or Thor muscular definitely).

  • pvw

    @BB: I ask because I am curious about what a sociosexually-restricted male looks like like vs. an unrestricted one. Does the restricted type tend to have the somber, rather sad expression of an old soul (as if reflecting his moral disapproval with popular casual sex mores), while the unrestricted manhas the delighted Duchenne smile (or Phantom smirk…?) of a well-contented satyr?

    Me: Although this is addressed to Susan, I think it is a great question. I wonder how some of the other women would respond.

    The restricted types in my view have a more relaxed and down-to-earth mien, and I don’t mean a somber emo type–that type never appealed to me, while the unrestricted types can seem to always be on the prowl even when they might not intend to be. They always seem to be looking for their next opportunity, especially in assessing the women in their vicinity, checking them out, attempting to talk to them. The restricted types notice women, of course, but they just seem more relaxed and matter-of-fact about it, which can make it easier in reaching unrestricted women, it seems to me. Put them in a bar, who is likely to clean up better? It would be interesting to observe. Put them both at a book reading, who is likely to clean up better? Once again, it would be interesting to observe.

  • Benton

    I still don’t understand how women perceive promiscuity as “empowering.” They are putting themselves at risk for disease, pregnancy, and emotion trauma, and often times do not even organism. For many of them, their behavior will make it harder for them to have emotional attachments and long term partners. So why do they do it?
    It’s almost like the women who engaged in that behavior want to other women to behavior the same way, just “misery loves company.”

    The other thing that amazes me is how the Yale women think it is cool that they are taking advantage of guys. It is like they have adopted the worst of male behavior and think it is good. Don’t they realize that they may actually be hurting some of the guys who actually care about them?
    I don’t understand how some women can complain and demend respect when they don’t show it to men in return. And it seems that the worst are the elite college students, who are already getting a lot compared to everyone else in society.

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

      @Benton

      The other thing that amazes me is how the Yale women think it is cool that they are taking advantage of guys. It is like they have adopted the worst of male behavior and think it is good. Don’t they realize that they may actually be hurting some of the guys who actually care about them?

      This is a great point, and you’re the first person to make it. When guys are overheard talking like that, I call them cads and selfish pricks and rightly so. These women are doing the exact same thing. Sure, lots of guys may be happy to be “used,” but not all. We know from male comments here that guys can wake up the morning after a hookup and hope the girl is open to a relationship.

  • VD

    What’s wrong with tattoos?

    Most are ugly and poorly done, they don’t tend to hold up well over time, and they signify low social class. It’s the modern mark of the proletariat. I always enjoy the elaborate attempts to explain their supposed significance that often accompanies them, however. My favorites are the Chinese ideograms that don’t mean what the person erroneously believes they mean.

    Just once I’d like to see a quote tattoo that says, in appropriately elaborate script: Please imagine a pretentious, pseudo-philosophical quote from an author I’ve never read here. Also, butterflies.

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

      A 2010 Pew Research study found that nearly four out of 10 Millennials have tattoos, and out of them, 70 percent say the tattoos are on parts of their bodies that are coverable.

  • Ion

    Benton

    “I still don’t understand how women perceive promiscuity as “empowering.””

    It’s not. But it is certainly more empowering than being a prude “oppressed” virgin waiting for Prince Charming while brushing your hair every night in grandma’s nightgown.

    It’s more accurate to say that it’s imagined empowerment in comparison to an imagined alternative.

  • Ted D

    “Most are ugly and poorly done, they don’t tend to hold up well over time, and they signify low social class. ”

    Sweet! I guess I have no chance of pretending I didn’t come from a family of coal miners and mill workers. Which is fine by me.
    I wont argue with the “hold up over time” comment because I know it is truth. But, I went ahead and got a few anyway. My wife had none when we met, and I bought her first one as a birthday present. She now has two and we are both interested in getting more.

    “I always enjoy the elaborate attempts to explain their supposed significance that often accompanies them, however.”

    My first tat was partial payment for a gig we did. It was a birthday party for a guy that owned a shop, and in addition to a nice chunk of change and free beer for the day, I got a tribal tattoo that incorporates my Zodiac sign. My latest is a rather large tat of a phoenix on my left calf. I got it because I very much feel like I’ve risen from the ashes of my former life since my divorce and finding the Red Pill.
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27675532/phoenix%20tat%20(1).jpg

    My wife got that for me a few months before we married. I remember when I got her first, I made a funny comment about how I had “marked” her, and when I got this one she made some remark back about how we are both marked. I told her it didn’t matter, because once we were married I owned her ass. And then followed up by saying she could keep onwership of her brain, because I only wanted the good parts. LOL. She still married me, and I still tell her I own her ass regularly.

    Hope you enjoyed the explanation.

  • Ted D

    That URL seems to have broken. Not sure why that happened, but the entire thing including the .jpg should be the URL.

    Edit would be SOOOoooo nice…. Susan?… :P

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

      @Ted D

      Tried to repair your link, but it didn’t work. I have no idea why.

  • Ion

    Holy hell Ted D, that tattoo is amazing. :-)

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    OMG!! Tyson Ritter and Jared Leto are probably my top 2 celebrity crushes. I think both of those men are to die for.

    It’s funny that you brought them up. Those are exactly the type of men I go after and date. Exactly that.

    @ Mike C

    What I haven’t been able to deduce is what separates the women how prefer more of the skinny look from a more developed build. I would have thought it was linked to certain traits but Sassy’s physical preferences have steered me away from that hypothesis. I think restricted versus unrestricted might play some role in it.

    It would be interesting to see what separates the two groups of women. I definitely prefer men on the leaner side. I don’t know why that is really.

  • Esau

    VD: I’m a writer and I could probably brood for England.

    Runner-up for comment of the week (but we expect no less from a writer).

  • JP

    Tatoos violate the moral order and are per se improper human actions?

    I just take it as an apriori fact of reality and move on.

  • Escoffier

    Personally I hate tatoos and they would be a deal breaker for me.

  • Ted D

    Ion – Thanks! I’ll be sure to pass that on to my tattoo artist. She is one of the nicest people I know. She drew that for me from scratch and even gave me a “smudge stick” (I think that’s what they are called) print of it to hang on my wall. She also fronts a local Christian metal band here in Pittsburgh that I hope will get some notice.

    It took a little over 6 hours and two session. That picture was taken right after the second session, so it looks all shiney and a little scaled. I need to stop back over at her shop soon so she can get a picture to hang on her wall. Like I said, life has been tossing me curve balls lately, and the kids are getting older an involved in lots of after school activities. As much as I’m not looking forward to insurance costs, it will be nice when they can drive themselves around.

  • pvw

    @BastiatBlogger, further thoughts.

    Now I wouldn’t presume that any guy who seemed “hungry” was unrestricted, he could easily be a restricted type who is on a dry spell, ie., verging on a weird omega type, and in the same way an unrestricted type could be satisfied and relaxed. But I’m more likely to see the obviously “hungry and eager” hunter type as being unrestricted, especially if he has a smoothness to him. The restricted type would seem to have more self-control, ie., he is not controlled by his urges…He operates at a whole other level, which can be very appealing, a different type of hunter.

  • Ted D

    Escoffier – “Personally I hate tatoos and they would be a deal breaker for me.”

    To each their own. You have to remember the circles I ran in, and the fact that despite my families Roman Catholic traditions, we had our fair share of “rebels” and such. I grew up around tats, and really didn’t see them as out of the ordinary in any way.

    The wife’s tats:
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27675532/.facebook_5811576.jpg
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/27675532/.facebook_311212151.jpg
    The tree of life is the one I got for her.

  • VD

    Tatoos violate the moral order and are per se improper human actions?

    I don’t think Ted was using “wrong” in that sense. I don’t have a problem with them, although I will confess to looking a little askance at one sported by a teammate. Men, at least straight men, really should not have tramp stamps. But I was just answering Ted’s question.

    I do think tattoos are a big mistake for middle class and upper middle class people who don’t understand the importance of class signifiers or understand that the people with whom they want to leave a positive impression may not always have the tastes of intoxicated college students.

  • Lokland

    Also of the tats are low class opinion and on women pretty much by definition mean slutty.
    Definitely a deal breaker.

  • JP

    I think I always considered tattoos as signs of moral depravity.

    As well as teenage rebellion (in the sense of sex, drugs, and rock and roll) or social rebellion of any kind.

    I would have made a wonderful puritan enforcer back in the day.

  • Mike C

    Agree. Could be for some that the waifish male look or the grungy “I don’t give a damn look” definitely has a humbling effect, so maybe some women associate muscles with male narcissism more than they inherently find it unattractive.

    This could be. I think most women find it distasteful if a guy seems overly focused on his appearance which is something I figured out along the way. I’ve got some personal experiences that come to mind.

    I don’t prefer Arnold at all, but I’d take Arnold over any skinny guy, and certainly over any guy who gives the impression that he’ll one day cut his wrists.

    I just find the extremes in reaction fascinating. On the one side, you’ve got “gross”, “blech” and “ewww” almost like a guy seeing a morbidly obese woman, and on the other side I can say with certainty there are women who get very, very, very turned on by say a pair of 16-18 inch arms (and assuming everything else is in proportion). One inside joke amongst bodybuilder type are guys with “no wheels”…they do all upper body work and have chicken legs. It is a weird look. I think height and limb length makes a difference. An extra 30-50 pounds of muscle looks different on a guy who is 6’3″-6’4″ with long arms and legs versus a guy who is 5’6-5’8″ with short arms and short legs.

    And happen to like men who are thick with a little natural muscle tone, and stocky and “beefy” types a lot.

    Sometimes it is hard for me to ascertain what is exactly meant by these qualitative descriptions. Ultimately, the body looks comes down to bone structure, muscle size, and bodyfat level. My sense is stocky is more of a larger bone structure (look at wrists) along with a not too low bodyfat or too high. It is possible but rare to have a smaller bone structure with very large muscular size. The emo look is kind of a combination of small bone structure with very low muscular development and low bodyfat.

  • Escoffier

    I am grateful that I was spared the age of the tat. Back when I was getting different girls naked every once in a while, no one had tats–at least no in my circles. Also, piercings were one per ear and that was it. I did actually date a girl who had several piercings in her left ear (three or more as I recall) but some time before I met her she had apparently given up on wearing more than one but the holes were still visible.

    I have occasionally had bad dreams about marrying a pretty girl and then finding out on the wedding night that she was tatted and pierced. They freak me out.

    My actual wife does not even have pierced ears.

  • JP

    Maybe I have Intermittent Explosive Disorder, Moral Anger sub-type.

    If anyone needs a single minded crusader or wants to restart prohibition and needs some help, I’m available.

    Intermittent Explosive Disorder:

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/intermittent-explosive-disorder/DS00730

    “Intermittent explosive disorder involves repeated episodes of impulsive, aggressive, violent behavior or angry verbal outbursts in which you react grossly out of proportion to the situation. Road rage, domestic abuse, throwing or breaking objects, or other temper tantrums may be signs of intermittent explosive disorder.”

    Moral Anger:

    “Moral Anger: Some people think they have a right to be angry when others have broken a rule. That makes the offenders bad, evil, wicked, sinful. They have to be scolded, maybe punished. People with this anger style feel outraged about what bad people are doing. They say they have a right to defend their “beliefs.” They claim moral superiority. They gain the sense that anger is for a good cause. They don’t feel guilty when they get angry because of this. They often feel superior to others even in their anger. These people suffer from black-and-white thinking, which means they see the world too simply. They fail to understand people who are different from themselves. They often have rigid ways of thinking and doing things. Another problem with this anger style is crusading – attacking every problem or difference of opinion with moral anger when compromise or understanding might be better.”

    http://www.asktheinternettherapist.com/articles/anger-management/

  • Ted D

    VD – every one of my tats are covered when I’m dressed for work. (Long sleeves required!) ;-)

    JP – you’ve seen my posts. Would you say I’m immoral or depraved? I’m a firm believer that you should NEVER judge a book by its cover. Some people simply express themselves with adornments. I have a #6 gauge in my left ear too. I simply wear a diamond “stud” at work. It looms no worse than your average pro-sports guy with a big rock in his ear, until I switch it out for a big loop.

  • Mike C

    It would be interesting to see what separates the two groups of women. I definitely prefer men on the leaner side. I don’t know why that is really.

    I know I’m covering old ground here but you are mixing up two different things. “Leanness” is function of bodyfat level. Muscular development/size is a separate physical dimension. To give an example, Arnold is “leaner” in the photo I provided than Michael Phelps is in Olympic swimming condition, but they have massively different levels of muscle mass. Top pro bodybuilders are super lean on stage, but I know you don’t like that look at all. So I’m not referring to your preference for lean, but your stated preference for not too much muscular development. Generally speaking, I think *all* women prefer a “lean” look in that they probably prefer bodyfat levels between 8-12/14%. At around 8, you’ll see abs and those striations that Susan appears to like, but much below 8 you’ll start to see a level of vascularity that I think women do NOT like. Once you get above 15%, a guy’s waistline is going to start looking a bit pudgy.

  • JP

    I’m not saying that my (apparently fixed) initial emotional reaction to tattoos is rational or sensible.

    I tend to be extremely perfectionistic, and I also tend to project such perfectionism outward.

    Such an approach is useful in some situations and extremely unhelpful in others, such as situations that involve winning friends and influencing people.

  • Royale W. Cheese

    Just to play devil’s advocate…There is a possibility that these young ladies from Yale have lower SMV than the athletes they lured into having sex.

    The argument that they should “know better” because they are Yale students doesn’t quite hold. Being intelligent or highly educated does not raise a wonan’s SMV. Maybe men are actually NOT lining up to sleep with them, based on these young ladies’ looks, lack of flirtatiousness, etc.

    I do not agree with their behavior. No one should use alcohol to manipulate another person. A lady shouldn’t go seeking out meaningless hook ups, even if it means being passed up because you are not a 7+ on the SMV.

  • Ted D

    Lokland – “Also of the tats are low class opinion and on women pretty much by definition mean slutty.”

    Some of the most devout Christians I know are covered in ink. My tattoo artist is a a very cute woman, 5’4″, Purple hair (last I saw her anyway), and multipole piercings. When she isn’t at the shop, she spends her time taking care of an autistic son and working her ass off for her Church. (the metal band she is in is actually sponsered in part by her parish.)

    Her sense of morality simply astounds me.

  • JP

    The entire tatooing craze is a produce of the 1960’s.

    It will last until at least the next Awakening Era circa 2040.

  • Ted D

    JP – “I’m not saying that my (apparently fixed) initial emotional reaction to tattoos is rational or sensible.”

    No worries man. My reaction to high N count isn’t exactly “rational” either I suppose.

    I’m used to people making judgments based on my tats and piercings. I dont take it personally. But I do enjoy seeing how surprised they are once they get to know me. It’s an image, or one of my images I suppose. (since I can also do the “corporate” look convincingly as well)

  • Escoffier

    “The entire tatooing craze is a produce of the 1960′s. ”

    I don’t see that at all. Seems like a very recent thing to me.

  • Cooper

    ““Most are ugly and poorly done, they don’t tend to hold up well over time, and they signify low social class. ”

    Personally, not a fan of tattoos. I don’t mind them on guys, and used to have plans of getting a few myself. But then, I slowly started dislike them on girls. Like VD, there often poorly done, and with women I find – poorly selected. Some guys I know have cool ones that involve family crests, or names, or have great symbolizism to their lives. With girls though its like “oh… And I for this butterfly on foot when I was travelling in ‘inset destination, and this wrapping bouquet of flowers that wraps from my neck, (to side boob), and down my back represents how much I like the colour purple.’

    And I do know a few girls with tattoos and a few of theirs’ came from “I was drunk, and we were bored.”

    For some reason, tattoos often come from vacations. And I hate that nasty statistic that says something like 50%, of women in thier twenties admit to having a ONS while on vacation. I know this might seem silly, but when they tell me the story of where they were when they got their tattoo, while on vacation, I think “hmm. I wonder what other, wild (or incongruent) behaviour did you endulge yourself in”

    Ted, don’t get me wrong – I have no issues with tats, I just tend to find them unappealing on women – especially visible ones. I know a young girl put, what looks like gensing off a Arizona green tea (identical actually), up her neck.
    Just the other day, I was going to ask for a cute baristas’ phone number, who I’ve been getting coffee from at the hospital in the last while, and one day I saw she had full sleeves. To me, it was a turn off.

  • JP

    The initiation of the current cultural development that are novel and widespread originate from the 1960’s, in this case freedom from tradition coupled with self-expression.

    When was the computer first developed and when did everyone get laptops?

    Social developments take time because people are people.

  • Royale W. Cheese

    To add, I wrote #177 from the perspective of a woman who is in the same boat, intelligent and passable, but light years outside of the universe of dainty magical exotic girls that athletes go after.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Mike C

    Okay. I understand.

    After your explanation, I would say that I prefer men who are both lean and who have less developed musculature.

    Here’s a pic of Jared leto.

    http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users16/panicatmars/default/jared-letoshirtless–large-msg-118556475725.jpg

    Here’s a pic of Ian Somerhalder.

    http://standrivel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Ian-Somerhalder-Shirtless-50-shades-of-grey-3.jpg

    That’s the level of leanness and muscle definition that I like. I don’t even want children, but both of those men could have my babies. Swoon!

    I need a cold drink.

  • Escoffier

    I’ve spent a lot of time studying and thinking about the 60s and I still don’t see any connection at all, beyond the most basic “The 60s were about personal freedom and tats are a manfestation of personal freedom.” Which is true but vague, and I see much else going on, especially a taste for tats among people who have nothing in common with the 60s.

    I’ve spent a lot of my life in hippie towns and by and large the hippies are not as tatted as other segments of the population.

  • Ted D

    Cooper – “Ted, don’t get me wrong – I have no issues with tats, I just tend to find them unappealing on women – especially visible ones. ”

    It’s all good brother. It really is a matter of taste, and I simply grew up exposed to them regularly. (My grandfather and great-uncles all served in the military, and got inked up as many other military men did.)

    My wife put hers in places she can easily cover as well. (middle of shoulders and top of foot) for the same reason I did: employers (at least employers that pay better than Wal-mart) don’t often look on ink as a sign of a hard working employee. Now I’ll tell you that I really love that Tree of Life she has. It looks great when I’m doing my thing from behind. ;-) She is NOT getting a “tramp stamp” though. Not only do I think they are overdone and played out, but she thinks they simply look slutty.

  • Iggles

    @ Mule Chewing Briars:

    The older I get, the more surprised I am by women’s sexual preferences when I discover them. The lean and hungry look has a lot more appeal than men usually think. Men tend to believe that women prefer a lot of musculature, but that isn’t necessarily the case.

    Men are impressed by heavily muscled dudes far more than women are. It’s an example of intrasexual competition. He’s more “manly” in their eyes, since he can lift more weights but that won’t make him the top choice universally for women.

    SW and Emily,

    We’ll have to agree to disagree about Nathan Harden and his brethren! I just don’t see it…

    I don’t find his face attractive, and don’t think that would change even if he had shorter hair. I do like long hair on some guys, but on thin, lithe, feminine featured men having long hair often makes them look too girlie for my tastes!

    With male body types, I find too skinny to be a turn off. On the other end of the spectrum, I also don’t find guys that are overly muscled or overweight attractive either.

    My boyfriend’s right in the sweet spot :) He has a lean build, and when he flexes his biceps he has visible muscle there. He’s just below average height for a guy (standing at around 5’8) and is well proportioned. (Short legs/long torso would be a major turn off!) He’s gained some weight since we started dating, in part because I cook and am always trying to feed him :lol: (He usually claims he’s not hungry but as soon as the food is ready he sings a different tune! Not that I can blame him. This week I made salmon with mushroom ravioli and veggies. The day before, I made mussels with pasta and clam sauce!). It doesn’t make much of a difference to me – his frame holds up well – but he’s heading back into the gym.

  • Mike C

    Some guys I know have cool ones that involve family crests, or names, or have great symbolizism to their lives.

    I’ve been going back and forth the last several months on getting the symbol next to my comments on my shoulder. My fiancee says to just do it (she has tattoos on her ankle and one on her stomach) but the permanence of it has held me back. The symbol is the logo of one of my favorite bands plus it has a lot of meaning to me personally because of what it represents.

  • Ion

    “Some of the most devout Christians I know are covered in ink.”

    If I see one more tattoo of a giant cross, random scriptures, or praying hands…

    I guess the logic is so long as it’s not on your forehead with the number 666…tattoos are OK.

  • Ted D

    Susan – ” Interesting that respect is a factor – perhaps you feel that it is unfair that such a guy would be successful with women, when he doesn’t fit your own idea of masculinity.”

    It doesn’t bother me so much as it intrigues me honestly. I used to wonder what women saw in such guys from a base attraction standpoint to be honest, but I was never jealous of the attention they got. If that is what a particular woman wants, then nothing I have to offer her will do. I understand that being over weight is unattractive, but if I’m fit and still don’t generate that “he’s hot” response from a woman, there is nothing to be done but move on.

    However I feel lime such men do NOT demonstrate an ability to protect at all. Don’t get me wrong, I know some scrawny looking guys that are strong as hell. But they also look like they’d die from only a week with no food. And you know I’m all about surviving those zombies…

  • VD

    “Leanness” is function of bodyfat level. Muscular development/size is a separate physical dimension.

    Good point. Harden is slim, but he isn’t actually lean, as you can’t see any veins in his arms, much less his hips.

    Here’s a pic of Jared leto.

    He likely lifts weights, though not free weights. His chest is noticeably well-developed compared to the rest of his upper body.

    Russell Brand has an exquisitely handsome face, his SMV is very, very high. I believe his number is over 2,000, so there are bound to be a few warpigs in there, but I believe he’s rarely if ever been turned down.

    I’m not talking about the warpigs, I’m talking about the women with whom he customarily involves himself. They’re all low-rent 7s. I actually think his skinny, dirty hipster style prevents him from doing as well as he could. Compare him to Leonardo di Caprio, who alternates between 8s in great shape (Laker girls) and 10s (Victoria’s Secret models) despite an almost husky build. Of course, di Caprio is much higher status.

    Interesting that respect is a factor – perhaps you feel that it is unfair that such a guy would be successful with women, when he doesn’t fit your own idea of masculinity.

    This is a fairly common feeling among Betas.

  • Ion

    RwC

    “The argument that they should “know better” because they are Yale students doesn’t quite hold. Being intelligent or highly educated does not raise a wonan’s SMV. ”

    Nothing says frigid ice queen like ivy league WASP.

    On the contrary, men love southern college girls (who range from lower class to upper class). Many are definitely attractive, but the overall warmth and sweetness of southern (and some midwestern) girls must factor into that preference.

    Intelligence does raise a woman’s SMV if she is already attractive and warm.

  • VD

    I live next to Allston, MA, the land of hipsters. I have never once seen a skinny hipster dude with a fat chick. Not even the ugly ones.

    Have you ever seen a skinny hipster dude with a hot gym bunny? Or with pretty, high-class woman clad torso-to-toe in designer wear? I don’t know that I’ve ever even seen a hipster dude with a woman with implants.

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

      Have you ever seen a skinny hipster dude with a hot gym bunny?

      No, but I assume that’s his choice as much as hers. They don’t run in the same circles, and that is a choice. Those guys don’t go to the gym.

      I have seen many hipsters dudes with extremely hot MFA students. I have also seen very hot preppy girls go out and get hipstered up to be more attractive to those guys, otherwise they get written off.

      Or with pretty, high-class woman clad torso-to-toe in designer wear?

      Those women are incompatible with the rebel hipster’s values.

      I don’t know that I’ve ever even seen a hipster dude with a woman with implants.

      Which is ironic, since there are lots of fake hipsters around.

  • Ted D

    Ion -“I guess the logic is so long as it’s not on your forehead with the number 666…tattoos are OK.”

    There are so many reasons I’m going to hell that ink isn’t even a factor. Lol

    I often say my best hope of seeing Heaven is that God has a great sense of humor.

    VD – it might be beta. But I’ll tell you respect plays a huge role for me in all of my male relationships. If I can’t respect a man, I can’t like him. Now that respect comes from many different indicators, “manly” look being only one of those.

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    “Some of the most devout Christians”

    Deal breaker.

    “I know are covered in ink.”

    Deal breaker.

    “My tattoo artist is a a very cute woman, 5’4″, Purple hair”

    Deal breaker.

    “(last I saw her anyway), and multipole piercings.”

    Deal breaker.

    I like woman that don’t look like they walked out of a Star Wars movie.
    The only hamsterization I had to do with my wife was acceptance of a piercing she had in her mid ear that she rarely ever wore. (I didn’t know for 3 months.)
    After finding out I seriously considered ending it. Same the time she went home to visit and forgot to take it out when she came back.

    “Her sense of morality simply astounds me.”

    I didn’t comment on the morality of tats.
    Being a great person doesn’t make them a suitable mate.

  • Mike C

    Intelligence does raise a woman’s SMV if she is already attractive and warm.

    It’s basically icing on the cake. And you can eat cake without icing, but icing all by itself isn’t really tasty or satisfying.

  • Escoffier

    My daughter knows that she will be disinherited if she gets a tattoo. She stands to inherit at least one really nice thing so I hope she gets the message.

  • Jonny

    “Some of the most devout Christians I know are covered in ink.”

    Which means absolutely nothing. Chrisitianity is for the sinful as you should know. No one is cured.

    Tatoos signifies many things. That one mistake is constantly there to remind you. It is worse than merely a memory.

    In some cultures, tatoos is about criminal history. I heard stories about celebrities touring in Asia getting kicked out of establishments for having visible tatoos.

    “My favorites are the Chinese ideograms that don’t mean what the person erroneously believes they mean.”

    People are completely thoughtless of why they should get the Chinese symbols when they don’t speak the language. If it means so much, couldn’t they at least figure the words out. Relying on the tatoo artist for their meaning is careless. Other Asians are laughing behind their backs. It’s sort of like wearing a T-Shirt with English slogans that was designed in China. We seen those before.

    The cluelessness of the tatooed.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “A 2010 Pew Research study found that nearly four out of 10 Millennials have tattoos, and out of them, 70 percent say the tattoos are on parts of their bodies that are coverable.”

    Holy shit! You mean for once I was ahead of the fashion curve?!

    “Tried to repair your link, but it didn’t work. I have no idea why.”

    No big. Nothing earth shattering to be seen anyway. I’m just feeling the desire to “show off” lately. I forgot how energizing it is to do some real exercise. I honestly believed that it had more to do with my age and virility back when I was a young guy and much less to do with how the body reacts to being put to work. I can see how some people get “addicted” to working out, as the rush that comes from it is very nice.

    I’m also not discounting the added boost I’m getting from my Red Pill knowledge. Back then I might have enjoyed working out, but I never used it as fuel to feel better about myself, so to speak. I’m actually a little amazed at how out of my shell I’ve been the last few weeks. Hell just this week I “opened” up a pair of women in line waiting to check out for lunch. It actually started because I noticed one of them had a tattoo on her foot and I commented that it was very nice, and looked rather hot with the shoes she was wearing. (I figured if she was showing it, she wanted people to see it and all…). We had a 10 minute chat that I left feeling pretty good about. Don’t worry, I’m not collecting numbers or scoping out an affair partner. I’m just trying on my new shoes to see how they fit.

  • Ion

    Mike C

    “An extra 30-50 pounds of muscle looks different on a guy who is 6’3″-6’4″ with long arms and legs versus a guy who is 5’6-5’8″ with short arms and short legs.”

    Definitely, and still, being a little bigger is definitely a plus for a guy 5’6-5’8. I wonder if the women here who don’t mind thinness feel this way primarily with guys over 5’8. I usually hear “he’s short, but he has a nice body” (meaning some mass) from women. Never really heard of women feeling emo-thinness on guys who are shorter.

    But I think you’re right that stocky really encompasses a lot, its basically any guy who can get away with extra weight without looking pregnant.

    In short: many women like a variety of body types, but very few women would kick Joe Manginello out of bed http://www.becauseiamfabulous.com/wp-content/uploads/14-Joe-Manganiello-picture.jpg. I know women say they don’t like men too “ripped” or “jacked” but they do love broad shoulders, defined forearms, and they get turned on seeing a man’s defined back through his clothes. All of which require at least SOME muscle, I think.

    “The emo look is kind of a combination of small bone structure with very low muscular development and low bodyfat.”

    Yeah, “skinny fat” men with no bodyfat accept for around their torsos. Personally, I’ll pass.

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

      few women would kick Joe Manginello out of bed

      The guy on the left has 10 times the female fans:

      as

  • Ted D

    “My daughter knows that she will be disinherited if she gets a tattoo. She stands to inherit at least one really nice thing so I hope she gets the message.”

    Mine has just finished figuring out what she wants for her first. Needless to say I’m not against it, although I adviced her strongly to put it somewhere she can cover it. And I don’t plan to leave my kids anything other than a bunch of crap to dig through. I’m not working my butt off to leave them an inheritance. I’m doing it so I can spend my final years blowing money like it grows on trees. Of course there is a high likelyhood that I won’t be able to do so, but a guy can dream!

    Johhny – “Which means absolutely nothing. Chrisitianity is for the sinful as you should know. No one is cured.”

    Surely. I was just stating that a person with tattoos CAN and often IS a moral/upstanding/honorable person. Its that judging a book by its cover thing again. I have no desire to justify my ink. I got them all because I wanted to, and if people won’t talk to me because of it I promise I won’t mind. My only concern was gainful employment, which is why all of mine are strategically placed.

    “Tatoos signifies many things. That one mistake is constantly there to remind you. It is worse than merely a memory.”

    Actually every single one of mine remind me of something pleasant in my past. I won’t say that each has some deeper significants or anything, but I don’t spend that kind of money when I’m feeling down or depressed. I tend to ink up when I’m at a high point in my life. I don’t really do pictures or home movies, but I do remember periods of my life when I got a new tattoo.

    “People are completely thoughtless of why they should get the Chinese symbols when they don’t speak the language.”

    I’ll go further and say that people are thoughless when they put ANY symbol on their body permenantly without any idea of what that symbol actually means. There isn’t a thing on my body I didn’t spend months thinking about, including my very first tat. It took me 8 months to collect my “payment” for that gig, because I didn’t want to rush into it and regret it later.

    Lokland – “The only hamsterization I had to do with my wife was acceptance of a piercing she had in her mid ear that she rarely ever wore.”

    My wife has a piercing on the outer rim of her ear, in the cartilage and she has a small gold hoop in it. I like to nibble on it when she lays on me while we watch TV. Everyone likes something different I guess.

  • Ion

    @ VD

    “Have you ever seen a skinny hipster dude with a hot gym bunny? Or with pretty, high-class woman clad torso-to-toe in designer wear? I don’t know that I’ve ever even seen a hipster dude with a woman with implants.”

    Now that you mention it, I haven’t. Nor have I seen a hipster with a cheerleader type girl, a girl who is a 8-10, a model, etc.,

    In NYC I mainly see them with pasty skinny arty types maybe 3-6 in attractiveness, much like themselves.

    They win in their own market only.

  • Stickwick

    He looks tough as nails in some ways, but like he would be very passionate.

    To me, he looks like someone I could probably beat up, or at least make cry. We’re looking at the same photo, but having two totally different reactions, Susan. Fascinating.

  • Sassy6519

    Have you ever seen a skinny hipster dude with a hot gym bunny? Or with pretty, high-class woman clad torso-to-toe in designer wear? I don’t know that I’ve ever even seen a hipster dude with a woman with implants.

    I’ve been surprised by pairings like this on more than a few occasions. Typically, the hipster guy has such a striking face that he could stop traffic. The blonde-bunny types that hang on their arms seem happy.

    One thing I’ve found to be true is that women will give a man a lot of leeway if he has a very distinct, attractive, and striking face.

  • Sassy6519

    This discussion brings to mind another one of my top celebrity crushes. Brandon Boyd, the lead singer of Incubus, really fits the bill of the type of man I like.

    http://www.eforu.com/gallery/brandonboyd/pic8.html

    http://jadynmarie.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/brandon-boyd.jpg

    http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/70487/Brandon+Boyd.jpg

  • Ion

    Iggles:

    “I do like long hair on some guys, but on thin, lithe, feminine featured men having long hair often makes them look too girlie for my tastes!”

    Interesting you say this, because I totally just remembered who Nathan Harden reminds me of

    Side by side

    Transwoman from famous Crying Game movie (VERY androgynous)
    http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users13/jaye4ever/default/jaye-davidson–large-msg-116219395475.jpg

    Nathan Harden
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Nathan-Harden-300×207.png

    No? Yes? Maybe?

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

      Ion,

      Haha, the dude from the Crying Game looks like Jessica Alba.

  • INTJ

    @ Sassy6519

    Okay. I understand.

    After your explanation, I would say that I prefer men who are both lean and who have less developed musculature.

    Here’s a pic of Jared leto.

    http://cdn.buzznet.com/assets/users16/panicatmars/default/jared-letoshirtless–large-msg-118556475725.jpg

    Here’s a pic of Ian Somerhalder.

    http://standrivel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Ian-Somerhalder-Shirtless-50-shades-of-grey-3.jpg

    That’s the level of leanness and muscle definition that I like. I don’t even want children, but both of those men could have my babies. Swoon!

    I need a cold drink.

    Both of those guys are decently muscular. Compared to them, there are a lot of guys who either have much less muscle or their muscle is covered by bodyfat.

  • BroHamlet

    @Ion & Sassy

    They win in their own market only

    One thing I’ve found to be true is that women will give a man a lot of leeway if he has a very distinct, attractive, and striking face.

    You’re both right to a degree. I run with people from both camps. Your average hipster dude doesn’t do that well outside of his element in part because “conventional” girls (non-hipsters) like more conventional guys most of the time unless said hipster has clout in their world, and partly because a lot of hipster guys have no desire to live the life of the average 9-to-5er or dip too far into the mainstream. Sassy is correct too- a pretty face is undeniable, and I’ve seen it work wonders for guys that were completely out of their element.

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

    Re: Jared Leto. I actually had a maybe 10-15 minute chat with that guy at a Bowery rock event in NYC earlier this year. He was totally chill and low-key; when I realized who was standing next to me, I couldn’t think of anything else to say except, “Let’s see Paul Allen’s card” (“American Psycho” fans may get the reference). He left without saying a word and when he came back he had a cocktail for me. What a cool dude; I can understand the appeal.

    pvw: very interesting comments about restricted and unrestricted males. It seems to me like you are picking up on tell-tale behavioral signs; would you feel that you could also accurately make such a determination by simply looking at a still photograph of the guy? Or do you need to see him operating in a social setting?

    Susan: I described your high-T/high-E chimera to a couple of similarly educated women in my circle and they completely agreed with you. They felt that high-T/high-E looks “aristocratic” and “beautifully masculine”, while high-T alone looks “Paleo” and “violent.” High-E alone looked like a good confidant type, or perhaps hair stylist, but apparently lacked the appropriate level of sexual dominance and hinted at a penis of less-than-satisfying dimensions.

    Re: physiques. Perhaps form follows function: if the heights of male athleticism are A) fighting and B) long-range persistence-type hunting, then the ideal build would combine a capacity for the short, sharp bursts of kinetic shock battle with the ability to stalk for hours. You’d want plenty of functional muscle, low body fat, and superior conditioning. Some of the elite MMA middleweights (185 pounders—probably cutting weight from around 200-205 pre-camp) might fit this description pretty well. The average operator in Delta Force is 5’11/185.

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

      They felt that high-T/high-E looks “aristocratic” and “beautifully masculine”, while high-T alone looks “Paleo” and “violent.” High-E alone looked like a good confidant type, or perhaps hair stylist, but apparently lacked the appropriate level of sexual dominance and hinted at a penis of less-than-satisfying dimensions.

      Interesting, I’m not all that surprised. When you say hair stylist, I assume you’re referring to gay men. Do they have smaller penises, on average?

  • pvw

    @BastiatBlogger:

    pvw: very interesting comments about restricted and unrestricted males. It seems to me like you are picking up on tell-tale behavioral signs; would you feel that you could also accurately make such a determination by simply looking at a still photograph of the guy? Or do you need to see him operating in a social setting?

    Me: I don’t believe I could ever possibly guess from a still photograph. I would have to see him in a social setting. Who does he talk to? How does he go about talking to women? If I were to make brief eye contact and nod hello, what would be his response?

    From a photograph, I could tell whether I believe he is very handsome or not. I must admit that upon seeing a still photograph of a very handsome man, ie., approaching the look of certain types of alpha men, muscular, but not overly so, nice face, I would tend to presume that he is unrestricted, only because a man who is that good looking will tend to attract lots of women. I’d want to see him in a social setting; how does he deal with his looks and women’s responses? The downside is that if he is restricted, it might be an uphill battle for him–if women presume he is unrestricted, but he really isn’t…..

    In the same vein, guys who are not overly handsome, ie., classically handsome faces, with an average to somewhat muscular build, I am more likely to presume they are restrictecd, again, because they are not likely to have women chasing after them all the time. I’d want to see them in a social setting as well.

    Susan: I described your high-T/high-E chimera to a couple of similarly educated women in my circle and they completely agreed with you. They felt that high-T/high-E looks “aristocratic” and “beautifully masculine”, while high-T alone looks “Paleo” and “violent.” High-E alone looked like a good confidant type, or perhaps hair stylist, but apparently lacked the appropriate level of sexual dominance and hinted at a penis of less-than-satisfying dimensions.

    Me: I agree, especially on the high t alone, those guys look scary to me. High t, high e, handsome; high e, too feminine looking…..That reminds me of Susan’s post on men’s faces: ltr, str, etc.

  • Mike C

    Given the discussion, I figured I’d post this which is the couple Eve Torres and MMA fighter Rener Gracie. I personally think Eve Torres is smoking hot although she probably has some aspects of a masculinized face (probably a daughter of a high T guy)

    https://www.google.com/search? hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&tok=uSP-h1qakNKf5ltThTwqZQ&pq=eve+ torres+and+grady+powell+ dating&cp=16&gs_id=33&xhr=t&q= eve+torres+and+rener+gracie& bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.& bpcl=35466521&biw=1107&bih= 426&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch& source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei= xtCKULLuFJKCyAHPoYDQCQ

    Bastiat, Rener probably has exactly the body type you are describing although I think he might be a bit taller.

    I’m interested to see anyone’s initial reaction to either one of them in terms of physical appearance, but particularly Rener (given that he is walking around with Eve on his arm).

  • Ted D

    Susan – “The guy on the left has 10 times the female fans:”

    I have no idea who those guys are, but just based on their looks I find this truly bizarre. I feel like I’m in upside-down world, where everything is exactly opposite of what it should be.

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

      I have no idea who those guys are, but just based on their looks I find this truly bizarre. I feel like I’m in upside-down world, where everything is exactly opposite of what it should be.

      They’re both stars of the HBO show True Blood. Alexander Skaarsgard on the left has made the transition to movie star. He plays a vampire. Joe Manganiello has become popular more recently, and he plays a werewolf. Team Edward all the way!

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

        More time tested skinny hotties:

        ad

        gh

        Orlando Bloom:

        ob

        jm

        Gotta run, will ask around!

        Let’s get some more women on here who like the beefy types.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    The guy on the left has 10 times the female fans.

    Oh Alexander Skarsgard. You will forever remind me of my recent ex-bf.

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

    Re: homosexual cock dimensions. I really don’t know (!); I’m just faithfully reporting what I was told. I would also wonder if high T/E is occasionally a recipe for an alpha gay.

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

      Re: homosexual cock dimensions. I really don’t know (!); I’m just faithfully reporting what I was told.

      LMAO, didn’t mean to put you on the spot. I have no info there either!

      I would also wonder if high T/E is occasionally a recipe for an alpha gay.

      When I was researching the effects of prenatal androgens for the post on finger length ratios, I came across a lot of research focusing on this as a determinant of male homosexuality. It seems like the evidence is pointing increasingly towards genetics, and I think this may be where the focus is.

  • Ion

    Susan

    “The guy on the left has 10 times the female fans:”

    Yep! I don’t doubt it. Skarsgard is definitely lean but muscular, and I prefer him a little more than the muscled Joe. But both are pretty hot to me.

    Ohhhh True Blood. The acting is so laughable and horrendous that I sometimes rewind and slow motion.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Ion

    Ohhhh True Blood. The acting is so laughable and horrendous that I sometimes rewind and slow motion.

    Hahahaha!!

  • Ion

    “Yep! I don’t doubt it. Skarsgard is definitely lean but muscular, and I prefer him a little more than the muscled Joe. But both are pretty hot to me.”

    Oops, I didn’t mean to be confusing here. Skaarsgard is slightly more attractive, and plays a more attractive character (Joe is always pining after Sookie and growling). Even if Skaarsgard had the body of Joe, I’d still prefer him slightly more than Joe, and 10x more than a Jared Leto type. Heck, I’d date Al from Home Improvement over Jared Leto.

  • Ted D

    “Let’s get some more women on here who like the beefy types.”

    Big guys need lovin’ too! :P

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Remember what Desi said about boomer androgyny? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLK5ZOjWaXE

  • Stickwick

    Let’s get some more women on here who like the beefy types.

    Susan, I wrote a post about the appeal of macho men a few years ago, complete with photos. Nothing has changed, except I’d add Jason “Dreamboat” Statham to the lineup.

    Siiiigggghhhhh ….

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

      @Stickwick

      I had no idea you had a blog! Love the tagline, by the way. I daresay you and I could have been BFFs – our taste does not overlap!

      I would point out that the movies you represent in your post are made primarily for a male audience, including James Bond. When you think about rom coms, made for women, the male leads are far less muscular looking, and generally are more feminine in appearance.

  • pvw

    @Susan (and to some extent, BastiatBlogger):

    Alexander v. Joe. Joe is very, very hot!!! Oh my. Alexander is cute. The husband is in between them in looks, ie., more facial hair than Alexander, similar face and facial hair like Joe, somewhat similar build, but not as built as Joe is. His hair color is lighter. I think this points to my concerns I mentioned earlier in response to BastiatBlogger, ie., that a Joe is the type to have too many women chasing him down, so I’d be worried about competition, even though Alexandar has more fans. If I were single, I’d be pretty nervous around a Joe type…Whew!

  • INTJ

    Just took a look at myself. Damn I’ve really developed some muscle over the past few years.

    http://i46.tinypic.com/t9cbx1.jpg

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

      @INTJ

      Hot body, dude. Love the chest hair —–> happy trail. Don’t ever wax it.

      Ah, just noticed this has already been said. Obviously a consensus :)

  • Darsh

    I like your music Ted. Reminds me a bit of Clawfinger. Where can I get more of it? 8)

  • Darsh

    8-)

  • Iggles

    pvw – I’m with you on the Joe debate! Due to his muscles and overall attractiveness, a guy like him ranks to high on my SMV list to feel comfortable dating. (As I mentioned on the previous thread, SMV 9 males to “too high” and SMV 10 males are rarely straight! :lol: )

    Ion – LMAO at the Crying Game comparison! Jaye Davidson and Nathan Harden do look very similar!

    As much as I crushed on Hanson when I was 13, as an adult I find that men with feminine looks and girlie hairstyles repel me in the romantic sense! (Yes, as in magnets!)

    In general, the idea of dating a man with too much feminine energy (even if he presents a stereotypically masculine appearance) is a dealbreaker for me. And this is one area where alpha & beta have no bearing. It’s hard to put it into words exactly, but there is a balance that needs to be kept in check. Yin & yang. (Me = mostly feminine with some masculine aspects; Him = mostly masculine with some feminine aspects) If that balance between us is off, then we’d work better as friends than a couple. Pure and simple.

    Susan – I don’t think Jason Mraz and Orlando Bloom are in the same camp as your “time tested hotties”. Jason is more everyday guy, with beta sweetness. Out of all of the guys on this thread, he’s the type of guy I could see myself dating in real life! Whereas, Orly is “pretty” + thin but… eh, maybe it’s my hamster defending Orlando… :neutral:

  • VD

    Those women are incompatible with the rebel hipster’s values.

    Do you know, that’s why I never went out with Kate Beckinsale. She was incompatible with my values!

    The hipsters remind me of the goths. There were occasionally attractive goths on the scene in San Francisco, but they were very, very few and very far between. (I was not a goth, but a friend of mine from a band with whom I stayed there once or twice was.) I don’t think the hipsters are quite as genetically handicapped as the goths on average, but if you clean them up, bathe them, give them reasonable haircuts and dress them in normal clothes, their relative physical defects will be readily apparent.

    That’s the whole point of definitive style. It’s basically makeup with clothes and hairstyles.

    This discussion brings to mind another one of my top celebrity crushes. Brandon Boyd

    That’s three celebrity crushes, one actor, and one boyfriend who looks like an actor. I’m sensing a pattern here, Sassy. You appear to be drawn to fame and public performance. Be careful with that. I’ve known a few women with that tendency and they went through difficult times as a direct result.

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

      Do you know, that’s why I never went out with Kate Beckinsale. She was incompatible with my values!

      Eh, all the groups you mention mate assortatively. In fact, they probably divide into subgroups in order to do so. Hipsters, gym rats, designer clothing wearing types, people who get implants.

      Here’s the highest status supermodel of a generation – (talk about wearing designer clothing!), with her beloved:

      km

  • Ion

    INTJ re pic:

    I know you didn’t ask, but first of all, niiice. :-)

    And second of all, I think you definitely have a really classically masculine face (and strong jawline) with really nice lips, and, muscle is definitely the right direction. I think the stubble look on you with those glasses, def a turn on. I don’t think you need anymore facial hair than stubble.

    Now about the happy trail……. :-D PLEASE never wax.

  • Iggles

    Wow it astounds me that INTJ and Cooper are having trouble finding girls. This SMP is truly out of wack, because not only are both of them great guys (and restricted guys to boot, which is a plus!), but they both have hawt bods :D

    INTJ – Your build is the lean type I was talking about upthread. I wouldn’t lump you in as skinny, though you would look good with more muscle mass if you’re so inclined. Also, I think you have just the right about of body hair. (The waxed look is overrated. Men look sexy when they aren’t overly groomed!)

  • Sassy6519

    @ VD

    That’s three celebrity crushes, one actor, and one boyfriend who looks like an actor. I’m sensing a pattern here, Sassy. You appear to be drawn to fame and public performance. Be careful with that. I’ve known a few women with that tendency and they went through difficult times as a direct result.

    Yeah, I know.

    It’s not the fame that catches my eye though. It’s the good looks and the artistic nature of actors/musicians that gets me every time. I like artistic men. They are like catnip to me, but I haven’t had the best track record with dating them so far.

    Perhaps I should shift my focus to men who are less artsy.

  • J

    at one point, women weren’t entitled to diamonds, Kleinfield Bridal, and riding ponys

    We can haz dat now? Where you I sign up?

    FWIW, in the Ah-nold v.Harden debate, I pick Harden. My ideal though is dark and mesomorphic, but nor muscle-bound. My tastes in movie stars runs toward the young Pacino or De Niro, but I also think the young Paul Newman was something. More currently, I think Joseph Gordon-Levitt is adorable and am rather bizarrely attracted to Sacha Barton Cohen when he is out of character.

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

      @J

      Love the young Al Pacino! Agree on JGL. Hugh Grant and Colin Firth apparently battled throughout the making of Bridget Jones to see who could get leaner. It suited Grant, though Firth was way too thin. He looked his best as Darcy in the 1996 BBC’s P&P (shivers).

  • J

    Looks like we’ve struck a nerve here. The male resentment towards Nathan Harden’s looks here is quite fascinating.

    Yeah, it is. There’s a lid for every pot, thank goodness.

  • Sassy6519
    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      What’s that noise, you ask? It’s the sound of my ovaries exploding.

      LMAO, you’re not going to need them anyway.

  • J

    @OTC

    To make a long story short, I don’t see the girls in Harden’s anecdote as solipsistic simply because, reading between the lines, I rather doubt that they believe their own bullshit. IME with adolescents, who are after all just a few years younger than these girls, the girls know full well that they are being used. There is some, God forgive me for using the term, hamsterization going here. They are consoling themselves with the idea that they are “equal opportunity users” because it saves face.

    I’m reminded of the Karen Owens power point. Karen and her buddies knew that the jocks made fun of them behind their backs. Karen wrote the PP as payback; that was the big joke between her and her friends. They were going to “rate” the guys because they knew that the guys rated them.

  • J

    Thanks for the JGL pix. You may have just made DH’s weekend. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)

    The pix of Matthew Gray Gubler and the guy from All American Rejects give me hope for my scrawny-ass son, although I recently had to explain to a salesgirl that the boy is still a minor.

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

    @SW
    It’s ironic, but the love-negative crowd has really only one bit of evidence that the hookup scene is any “good” at all. I recall this being lionized all over the left side of the WWW when the University of Minnesota published it back in 2009:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1363/4123109/full

    I’m not sure how a research expert who has a Doctorate of Science (but not human sexuality) and a Master’s in Public Health (but not mental health or psychology) can draw such a conclusion based on a 14-month nutrition Q&A survey distributed by mail. I wonder what the APA thought of this piece of work?

    It didn’t even conclude that “casual” was objectively equivalent in quality to monogamy. And what a limitation (NO long-term analysis of emotional health) to have to admit to. Yet it’s still held up as the “Holy Grail” for the other side, despite other pretty good research on the levels of dissatisfaction and depression associated with college social life…

  • J

    Alexander Skaarsgard ? Meh.

  • VD

    Perhaps I should shift my focus to men who are less artsy.

    I am a firm believer in the wisdom of trying something different if the usual habit is not working out well. It took a suicide for a friend of mine to finally stop dating crazy foreign strippers. He’s now married to a Fulbright Scholar.

    There is nothing intrinsically wrong with artsy. I may even qualify, technically, as I’ve been in a band that recorded two CDs and beat out Prince for a music award and have written eight books. But artsy doesn’t excuse poor behavior or immaturity.

  • INTJ

    @ Ion, Iggles

    Thanks. :)

    I don’t work out with weights, but I regularly do indoor climbing and bodyweight exercises to balance out the climbing. My body will probably add a bit more muscle before hitting equilibrium.

  • Mike C

    The pix of Matthew Gray Gubler

    Re Criminal Mind actors, my fiancee thinks Shemar Moore is hot. I don’t think Gubler does anything for her.

  • J

    The pix of Matthew Gray Gubler…..Re Criminal Mind actors, my fiancee thinks Shemar Moore is hot. I don’t think Gubler does anything for her.

    Tastes vary; Shemar Moore does nothing for me.

  • J

    @INTJ

    I second Iggles. You coiuld puton more muscle, but I’m sue there are women who would find you attractive without it. You have a really nice face. I’m going to stop here because I’m probably older than your mother and I’m beginning to creep myself out.

  • J

    Sweet! I guess I have no chance of pretending I didn’t come from a family of coal miners and mill workers. Which is fine by me.

    OMG, as the daughter of a hod carrier/boxer, I love you, Ted!

    It’s not where you start from, it’s where you wind up and the relative length of the journey.

  • J

    @SW

    Firth and Grant are a bit too WASPY for my taste–not that there’s anything wrong with that. Love the Mediterean guys….

  • Ted D

    Darsh – thanks much! I’m getting ready to head out for the weekend, but if Susan doesn’t mind I can upload the rest of our demo to dropbox and link it Monday.

    We had a lot of fun, and actually generated enough buzz to get a showcase for a label (not nearly as cool as it sounds…) But Pittsburgh’s local music scene isn’t very into original music (at least metal) and life got in the way. Other than a handful of reworked covers, we did nothing but original music. We had enough to do a three set night with leftovers.

  • Madelena

    Put me on the side of the beefy men. The dude in the picture does absolutely nothing for me.

    Like Escoffier, I actually thought he was a masculine woman at first glance.

    Ditto to the other skinny boys like Leto, Orlando Bloom and Alex Sarsgaard. Too pretty and skinny for me.

    My tastes run more to the Daniel Craig, Idris Elba, Mark Anthony in “Rome”, types, i.e. masculine men with not much hint of femininity.

    I also like beefier men like Tom Sizemore in “Heat” over their too skinny counterparts.

    In True Blood, my favourite male is Sam Trammell. Joe M is too good-looking and I am inherently distrustful of super good looking men.

    Re tattoos, I have none and don’t like seeing too many on a man. Tattoo sleeves disqualifies a man in my eyes.

    @VD
    Ever notice how the fat girls who lose weight don’t stick with the overweight nerds, but start dating the jocks they once affected not to like?

    My response:
    I still date overweight guys. Charm and confidence can do wonders for a man.

  • Madelena

    @INTJ

    You have very good facial and body structure. Good jawline, cheekbones and nice lips.
    However, your glasses are covering too much of your handsome face. Ever think of contacts or smaller frames? A more tousled haircut might also suit you better.
    Just my 2 cents.

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

      I’ll second the suggestion that INTJ consider contacts. I’d love to see those big brown eyes without glasses.

  • Stickwick

    @ Susan: It’s a nothing blog I share with my bro, just for kicks. I have a serious, professional blog, but that’s penned by my mild-mannered alter ego, which shall remain secret for the time being. :)

    Yes, we could’ve been BFFs — definitely no fighting over men!

    Interesting observation about action men vs. rom-com men. I’ll point out one exception to the typical rom-com guy — Gerard Butler (yowza) — but in general you’re right. I have a big thing for tough guys, which is at least 50% of the reason I watch action movies.

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

      @Stickwick

      You found an overlap! Sooooo handsome:

      gb

  • Ion

    @ Madalena

    “My favourite male is Sam Trammell. Joe M is too good-looking and I am inherently distrustful of super good looking men.”

    I think that’s the point I was also trying to/wanted to relay to Mike C. Only the most confident women want to take on the life-long commitment of fighting off other women because their man is a hunk, or putting in too much effort to look like a hunk. So a ripped bod is not inherently unattractive, women relate it to unattractive qualities occasionally (arrogance, lack of commitment, narcissism).

    Joe M is probably as close to a 10 as I’ll ever lay eyes on, but Skaarsgaard seems more human, and is thus more attractive, maybe that’s it.

  • Altimanix

    Suan,

    if we let you fancy men looking like ugly 70’s feminist lesbians…can you stop feminists from trying to shame us into fat-acceptance?

    we’d be soooooo grateful

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

      @Altimanix

      if we let you fancy men looking like ugly 70′s feminist lesbians…can you stop feminists from trying to shame us into fat-acceptance?

      we’d be soooooo grateful

      I would love to say yes, but it’s already been demonstrated that I can’t stop feminists from doing anything.

      However, I totally support everyone’s right to reject whomever they find unattractive, for whatever reason.

  • Ion

    Stickwick

    I agree with basically everything you wrote re beefy guys.

    Will Smith is a good example of someone who went from asexual goofball when he was skinny in fresh prince to looking pretty damn hot in iRobot (I think he put on weight for Ali and looks WAY better like that impo).

    I wonder how many women in general would find Christian Bale hotter in the Machinist vs. Batman? hmm lol

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

    The refusal of some men to believe that many, perhaps even a majority, of women prefer the cut ectomorph over the big mesomorph is amusing. Male solipsism in action. There’s a huge market for Brad Pitt a la Fight Club.

    Too often I see in the manosphere the assumption that the hypermale is the most attractive to women, but that evidently isn’t the case. If it was, that phenotype would be evolutionarily dominate, and it’s not even close. If 80 % of men are naturally beta, then obviously that’s what women prefer for mating. The occasional example of cuckoldry is just diversification strategy on the part of women (although a horrible thing for the provider male).

    Men are social animals. The belief that the loner alpha-male can out-compete a pack of betas is BS romaticism. Hierarchy exists for a reason.

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

      @Mr. Nervous Toes

      Too often I see in the manosphere the assumption that the hypermale is the most attractive to women, but that evidently isn’t the case. If it was, that phenotype would be evolutionarily dominate, and it’s not even close. If 80 % of men are naturally beta, then obviously that’s what women prefer for mating.

      Yes, it’s obviously what most women prefer for mating. Whenever anyone opines that women don’t find betas attractive, I simply point out the percentage of people who marry, and the percentage of those males who are beta.

      Then I point out the percentage of alphas available on the carousel, and the percentage of women who take a spin. Then I ask what percentage of those women turn around and shift their taste to beta for marriage.

      The math does not work. It’s obvious, and yet intelligent men cannot absorb this simple arithmetic. I’ve never been able to understand it.

  • Darsh

    Ted:

    Darsh – thanks much! I’m getting ready to head out for the weekend, but if Susan doesn’t mind I can upload the rest of our demo to dropbox and link it Monday.

    Awesome! I’ve already added the first song to my metal-playlist on Spotify. Strangely enough, Spotify didn’t provide any cover art for Age of Dissent. :P

    We had a lot of fun, and actually generated enough buzz to get a showcase for a label (not nearly as cool as it sounds…) But Pittsburgh’s local music scene isn’t very into original music (at least metal) and life got in the way. Other than a handful of reworked covers, we did nothing but original music. We had enough to do a three set night with leftovers.

    Originals are good. Covers are risky. They’re either absolutely awesome, or they’re absolutely– @Susan: Do you have any limits for what kind of bad words or creative insults we can write on your blog?
    Anyways, I loved the first song you posted Ted. :)

    For the rest of the thread, I don’t have much to contribute. It seems it’s only a long discussion of what type of guys look the best, and I have absolutely nothing to contribute… However, since someone mentioned INTJ’s glasses, I will say that I find glasses on girls absolutely terrible. A girl putting on glasses is the equivalent of a girl putting on a hundred extra pounds!

  • also intj

    Daniel Craig…. Sigh…..

  • Esau

    Darsh: However, since someone mentioned INTJ’s glasses, I will say that I find glasses on girls absolutely terrible.

    Our mileage does indeed vary. With well-chosen frames, I think wearing glasses rarely makes a girl look worse and can often make her look more attractive — at least to me. Escoff has mentioned favoring the sexy librarian look; for me I think it’s more that a girl with glasses looks like she’d be more fun and interesting to be around, which is definitely a component of attraction.

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

      @Esau

      Escoff has mentioned favoring the sexy librarian look; for me I think it’s more that a girl with glasses looks like she’d be more fun and interesting to be around, which is definitely a component of attraction.

      This is a great example of a man being visual while seeking more than superficial beauty. The visual cues you read may be about going beyond that. From what I’ve observed, at least online, this aspect of male attraction often gets short shrift. Another example might be a man’s feeling attracted to a woman because of a facial expression. Many men have expressed how attractive a smile can be – I recall Just1X gave Sai that exact advice.

  • Iggles

    Our mileage does indeed vary. With well-chosen frames, I think wearing glasses rarely makes a girl look worse and can often make her look more attractive — at least to me.

    Thanks Esau :)

    -signed,
    a glasses wearing chick :lol:

  • Stickwick

    @ Ion:

    I wonder how many women in general would find Christian Bale hotter in the Machinist vs. Batman? hmm lol

    He was alarmingly thin in The Machinist. It’d be seriously weird if anyone found that attractive. As Batman, though … ooh, baby. :)

  • INTJ

    @ Madelena

    Thanks. I’ll look into contacts. I’m reluctant to go with much smaller glasses because I don’t want to lose out on my good peripheral vision.

  • J

    Too often I see in the manosphere the assumption that the hypermale is the most attractive to women, but that evidently isn’t the case. If it was, that phenotype would be evolutionarily dominate, and it’s not even close. If 80 % of men are naturally beta, then obviously that’s what women prefer for mating. The occasional example of cuckoldry is just diversification strategy on the part of women (although a horrible thing for the provider male).

    Bravo!

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

    @Ted
    If you ad.jpg to the link to your tatoo you can see it. Its lovely, BTW

    It was always astounding to me when a relatively plain woman would confess that she found one of my average male friends to be hot while genuinely exhibiting no interest whatsoever in any of my much better-looking friends. It’s a very healthy and positive spin on the sour grapes fable.

    This is a good point and it makes sense mother nature want us to reproduce ASAP specially during our violent past were life was short and brutal. Having a natural threshold of reasonable attractiveness makes more sense. This is more evidence that the disconnect between Beta males and females is not a natural occurrence but a product of modern culture,YMMV.

    And to each according to their needs? Now, why does that sound so familiar….

    Just trying to acknowledge gender differences V nothing else and nothing more …

    A girl putting on glasses is the equivalent of a girl putting on a hundred extra pounds!

    So there is some truth to the Hollywood cliche of the nerdy girl that gets hotter just taking her glasses off, interesting….

    He was alarmingly thin in The Machinist. It’d be seriously weird if anyone found that attractive.

    I think that was the point his weight was a representation oh the mental state of his character…Thinking about that I do wonder how many men found Natalie Portman hot in Black Swan

  • szopen

    And here, in Poland, we’ve just had our first, shy snow. Falling upon Nathans and Arnolds, betas and alphas, males and females all alike, seemingly finding no difference between.

    But I must say, that I really looove discussions in hookingupsmart. To add something, my sister once was asked during family discussion, whether she likes Arnold. A lot, said she. It seemed I had lost an argument I was making during the discussion, but I asked her another question: would you date him or marry him? Never in my life – was the firm answer.

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

      @szopen

      And here, in Poland, we’ve just had our first, shy snow. Falling upon Nathans and Arnolds, betas and alphas, males and females all alike, seemingly finding no difference between.

      This is poetry!

      I asked her another question: would you date him or marry him? Never in my life – was the firm answer.

      For women who are risk averse, which is most women, it’s akin to thrusting one’s hand into a beautiful flame. The attraction can be present at the same time a flight response kicks in. In my LA days, I knew one woman who turned down a top movie star for a date. He approached her in public, obviously sure of himself, and she said “No thank you” when he asked for her number. He took it in stride, apparently. I bet it happens more than you’d think. Word got around fast among the girlfriends, as you can imagine. She just said that in that one moment she knew there was no possibility of a good outcome, because she had no desire to marry a celebrity and forfeit privacy forever.

      Come to think of it, this is the reverse of the movie Notting Hill.

  • Society’s Disposable Son

    This kinda stuff isn’t just limited to Yale..

    How about that Canadian girl that commited suicide after pix of her flashing online got spread around, then she slept with a guy that already had a girlfriend and got labled a slut and offed herself…

    There’s also the 15 yr old who had a gangbang with 4 HS footblall players and videotaped it, it got out and she threw herfself infront of a train..

    This shit is so fail it’s beyond belief… how can society be regressing this bad…?

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

    Interesting…
    Even though I always struggled to tell attractiveness using mere pics of men and most of my assessments are purely intellectual at this point in my life (no getting hot and bothered by anyone but hubby) even celebrities I find myself completely bored by everyone mentioned so far. Is like “some dude pics…boooring” for everyone including some I considered attractive not long ago like Orlando Bloom (Legolas girl FTW! or I was…) I wonder if is the post having a baby effect. I mentioned that my married friends that were mothers before me expressed a whole “falling in love” again feeling for their husbands after delivering. I would guess is a good evo-bio development since for the next 4 years or so I will certainly need to have the father around so having and extra bonding process in which all other men are “invisible” even in an intellectual level makes a ton of sense.
    I know that there are studies that correlate cheating/finding other men attractive with ovulation, but I wonder if there is studies that show the relationship of cheating with the age of a kid. So would mothers babies are less likely or more likely to cheat and would this change as their kids age? Fascinating idea to test, IMO, YMMV.

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

      @Anacaona

      Both you are hubby are flooded with oxytocin right now, which assures the best care for little William. It would be downright weird if you were even able to talk about hotties, right now, lol.

      Sorry, but I have to correct your statement about ovulation studies:

      1. If happily partnered, women direct their increased sex drive to their mates.
      2. If dominance in the mate is lacking, ovulating women observe it more readily elsewhere.
      3. Women of unrestricted sexuality go from preferring unrestricted male faces to hypermale faces during ovulation.
      4. Women of restricted sexuality prefer restricted male faces even when ovulating.

      And of course, women on the Pill do not ovulate. There’s a blogger who’s hung up on the idea that ovulating women in Cancun on Spring Break go in search of local drug lords for sex, but the truth is that most vacationing women in Cancun do not ever ovulate.

  • VD

    The refusal of some men to believe that many, perhaps even a majority, of women prefer the cut ectomorph over the big mesomorph is amusing. Male solipsism in action. There’s a huge market for Brad Pitt a la Fight Club.

    No one here is claiming that women prefer big mesomorphs to cut ectomorphs. The first claim is that most women prefer cut mesomorphs to scrawny ectomorphs and soft endomorphs. Nate Harding is not “cut” in any way. The second claim is that women who genuinely prefer scrawny ectomorphs or soft endomorphs tend to be lower SMV than those who prefer the cut mesomorphs.

    It is absurd to say “male solipsism in action”. If you believe that, then you don’t understand what “solipsism” means. The discussion does not concern male sexual attraction, but rather FEMALE sexual attraction. Men don’t have these opinions because they are sexually attracted to a certain type of men and can’t imagine that women are not as well, but rather, because they observe who women actually prefer on the basis of female behavior. This is precisely why one of the first maxims of Game is to pay attention to what women do and not what they say.

    It doesn’t matter how much a woman who doesn’t want children claims her ovaries are swooning over a man she will never meet. It doesn’t matter that a woman who loves her tall, skinny husband claims to have always preferred his type. What matters is that men remember being, or remember seeing, skinny guys going unnoticed and unattached for years while the fit, muscled guys received all the attention and sexual favors from the young women.

    The “most women prefer skinny guys” argument would be a lot more convincing if you could find even one male athlete who never had a girlfriend by the time he graduated from college and those sexy, skinny emo boys weren’t so prone to writing bad songs and poems about how lonely they are and how women don’t notice them.

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

      @VD

      The first claim is that most women prefer cut mesomorphs to scrawny ectomorphs and soft endomorphs. Nate Harding is not “cut” in any way.

      Has any woman mentioned an attractive endomorph? If so I missed it. Why the need to refute a nonexistent claim?

      Nathan Harden’s looks are being evaluated based on a pic of his face only. I believe I am the only woman who admired his skinny arm, haha, and that pic is 5 years old. Clearly, from the book jacket pic he has filled out considerably. In any case, I find his face beautiful like a Modigliani painting. I imagine he has that high testosterone/high estrogen combination:

      sharply cut jaw
      full, sensual mouth
      heavy brows
      large, soulful eyes
      high cheekbones
      thick, lustrous hair

      He is fairly androgynous, clearly by design. His looks are extremely arresting, and my guess is that when he enters a room, all eyes turn to him. Many might call him unattractive, I’m sure many women would think “Strange looking dude” but many will feel a frisson of attraction.

      As I mentioned in an earlier comment, guys who look like this convey sky high EQ and passion. Their emotions run deeeeeeeep. For most women that translates to mind-blowing sex.

      It’s the opposite of casual sex, with has a measly ROI orgasm rate of 18% for women.

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

        The “most women prefer skinny guys” argument would be a lot more convincing if you could find even one male athlete who never had a girlfriend by the time he graduated from college and those sexy, skinny emo boys weren’t so prone to writing bad songs and poems about how lonely they are and how women don’t notice them.

        Has anyone said most women prefer skinny guys? I believe what’s being discussed here is the claim that women prefer pronounced musculature as a general rule. I’m the one who said Harden is attractive, and I didn’t claim to represent all women. I even suggested that even many women who find him sexy might call him “sexy ugly.”

        This says nothing about whether athletes can attract women – that’s a red herring. No one is claiming that the Nathan Harden’s of the world get all the girls, with none left over for the Tom Bradys. What a ridiculous notion. It’s more that women’s tastes vary significantly.

        As for college athletes who have never had a gf, that’s more common than the opposite, by choice. They’re the most unrestricted males on campus, and while only 19% have ten or more partners in their four years at college, they’d still rather be free agents than incur the opportunity cost associated with monogamy.

        The skinny emo boys write songs that make money, and that means writing songs about love and heartache. (The same is true in country music.) I don’t know what percentage of industry profits these two groups represent, but it’s got to be huge. The most recent example is the biggest selling song in recent history, Somebody That I Used to Know, by Gotye.

        gt

        As far as I know, he’s no sex symbol, but he’s now very, very rich.

  • szopen

    @VD
    “because they observe who women actually prefer on the basis of female behavior.”

    Well, what I observe that most of guys I knew with most luck with girls where not athletes, and the one who was athletic, was avoided by most except the very specific kind of girls, so called “barbie-girls”.

    I have never had problems with attracting girls basing on my looks, and I was approached many times, despite being ugly and skinny. Without the game, the problem was that the moment I opened mouth, they were busy finding excuses to “let’s just be friends”.

    In other words, VD, are you refusing to admit that others may observe something different than you?

  • Darsh

    Anacaona:

    So there is some truth to the Hollywood cliche of the nerdy girl that gets hotter just taking her glasses off, interesting….

    At least for me there is. The ‘librarian look’ – there is no such thing as ‘sexy librarian look’! – is just a major boner killer.

    But for some reason guys like Esau and Escoffier seem to like it! So out of fear that even more girls will put on glasses because they think it makes them sexy, I have to point out that glasses are NOT sexy!

    szopen:

    And here, in Poland, we’ve just had our first, shy snow. Falling upon Nathans and Arnolds, betas and alphas, males and females all alike, seemingly finding no difference between.

    In Norway too. Now it’s time to go out and put on the winter tires…

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

      So out of fear that even more girls will put on glasses because they think it makes them sexy, I have to point out that glasses are NOT sexy!

      Guys, you flatter me, my reach is tiny.

  • INTJ

    Regarding girls with glasses, I love the sexy librarian look. But I would cosign Darsh’s advice and argue that the percentage of girls wearing glasses is higher than the percentage of guys who like glasses, so girls should not switch to glasses to look sexy.

  • INTJ

    @ Anacaona

    So would mothers babies are less likely or more likely to cheat and would this change as their kids age? Fascinating idea to test, IMO, YMMV.

    Just don’t test it yourself. ;)

  • Sassy6519

    I think what is not being understood in this conversation is that the cut ectomorphs that do have lots of women swooning over them are those with stellar faces. Would I date a slim/skinny man just for the sake of his skinniness? No.

    I have always focused much more heavily on a man’s face than his body. Some women will go after the men who have more built or “buff” bodies in combination with a mediocre or average face. The muscles tend to make up for the less than striking facial features. It’s a trade-off.

  • Altimanix

    “Their emotions run deeeeeeeep”

    Aaaahhhh

    A woman with a willy, that explains it

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

      @Altimanix

      A woman with a willy, that explains it

      Well, we know that women prefer emotional intimacy in sex. That’s got to be the primary sex difference in mating right? So how do we get that with a studly high T guy with minimal emotional range? We don’t. We need a partner who has emotional intelligence, a readily available emotional vocabulary. This is why women love the cuddling and the pillow talk.

      Of course, this exists on a spectrum. I know women who don’t like to spoon, and they gravitate towards guys who don’t like to spoon. And vice versa. It’s about the match. High EQ people tend to mate well, and less emotional people probably also do quite well together.

      This variance in taste is key to survival of the species. I’m not sure why it’s a touchy subject. Both sexes have personal preferences. We may say that women appreciate dominance in men, and IMO, that pic of Harden has dominance radiating right off the screen.

      Each of the four Beatles had legions of women who swooned and tore their clothes when they appeared onstage. I never could understand it, but I knew plenty of girls who fell asleep dreaming of Ringo.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “It’s the opposite of casual sex, with has a measly ROI orgasm rate of 18% for women.”

    You make this claim a lot, but it needs to be contrasted to make any sense. If female the “ROI” for non-casual sex is only 20%, it’s not a very good argument. If it is more like 80%, then it does.

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

      @OTC

      “Surveying 12,925 undergraduates from 17 universities, researchers examined four sexual contexts—a first hookup, one to two previous hookups, three or more previous hookups, and a relationship—and found that in all cases, men were twice as likely to orgasm. That gap is far wider in hookup situations than in relationships. In the context of relationships, women orgasm about 80% as often as men.

      Possible reasons:

      1. England’s study found that women give oral sex to their male partners in all contexts—from casual hookups to relationships—at higher rates than men do, sometimes dramatically higher.

      In casual hookups it’s much worse—during the first few times they hook up with a man, women are far more likely to give him oral sex than to receive it. Men receive oral sex about 80% of the time in first-time hookups, whereas women receive it less than half the time.

      2. While many men are happy to be passive recipients when it comes to oral sex, they want to be the proactive one when it’s time for intercourse…
      “A lot of these girls end up forgoing asserting themselves in order to avoid the awkwardness of doing clitoris 101,” says Ms. Martin. “One girl at a small-liberal arts school in the East told me that being with most guys felt like ‘they are masturbating into you.’”

      3. The research doesn’t bode well for the late-night booty text, one-night stand, or random fornication in the fraternity house as pathways to an orgasm. In the one-on-one interviews included in the study, one man explained that with his girlfriend, “definitely oral is really important [for her to orgasm],” but that with a casual hookup, “I don’t give a shit.”

      “Women and men are more ambivalent about the importance of women’s sexual pleasure [outside] of relationships,” says England. “Our findings suggest that both women and men have absorbed a notion that women are entitled to sexual pleasure in a relationship, but not necessarily in casual scenarios.”

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/02/09/the-orgasm-gap.html

  • Altimanix

    “that pic of Harden has dominance radiating right off the screen. ”

    not my screen he doesn’t…not in the slightest. I’m only going by the pic, are reading stuff into his image from other knowledge? he looks effeminate to me

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

      not my screen he doesn’t…not in the slightest.

      He looks to me like he wouldn’t put up with a shit test for ten seconds.

      Honestly, I’m not interested in defending Harden’s sex appeal. I daresay if he saw this he would be creeped out!

  • Altimanix

    are you reading

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I’m sure college athletes have heartbreak, too, but, you know, don’t know how to write music.

    Or write.

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

      I’m sure college athletes have heartbreak, too, but, you know, don’t know how to write music.

      Or write.

      LMAO

  • JP

    I’m very emotional, very high IQ, and low EQ.

    That’s a winning combination right there.

    I don’t think that I understood that there was such a thing as “hook-up culture” until I ended up here.

    I generally don’t take input from the surrounding culture.

    I prefer to structure my actions based on my internal view of reality that’s independently constructed.

    Is it any wonder that I don’t understand what’s going on?

  • VD

    In other words, VD, are you refusing to admit that others may observe something different than you?

    Of course not. I don’t know what happens in New York City or Podunksville, Nebraska, much less Bangladesh or Beijing. But I can tell you that I have never, ever, seen a beautiful woman with a hipster anywhere I’ve been. There was a high profile hipster I met in Barcelona recently and after the dinner he hooked up with a girl who was cute, but 20 pounds overweight. There were even other women who said they found him attractive, but they were mid-40s and average SMV.

    I think what is not being understood in this conversation is that the cut ectomorphs that do have lots of women swooning over them are those with stellar faces. Would I date a slim/skinny man just for the sake of his skinniness?

    Are we discussing faces or body types now? I don’t disagree with you about differing female preferences, as different men place differing values on pretty butterballs vs butterfaces too. I will point out, however, that you’re somewhat undermining the pro-ectomorph position there.

    Has any woman mentioned an attractive endomorph? If so I missed it. Why the need to refute a nonexistent claim?

    I’m simply defining the claim. It’s relevant because even more women mate with overweight men than with skinny men. Surely at least some of those women claim to prefer the roly-polies. I suspect they are of lower SMV than those who prefer the beanpoles, though.

    This is a great example of a man being visual while seeking more than superficial beauty. The visual cues you read may be about going beyond that.

    This is a very good point. Visual cues aren’t just about beauty and they do matter to men.

    The math does not work. It’s obvious, and yet intelligent men cannot absorb this simple arithmetic. I’ve never been able to understand it.

    Because the math is irrelevant as the metric is incorrect. Consider: if we were to utilize the logic you apply here, we’d have to conclude that because most women marry overweight men, most women prefer men who are overweight. See the problem there? The fact that most women marry betas does not mean that most women genuinely prefer men of lower socio-sexual rank to Joe Alpha.

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

      Consider: if we were to utilize the logic you apply here, we’d have to conclude that because most women marry overweight men, most women prefer men who are overweight.

      Do most women marry overweight men? If so, are most of those women overweight? If so, then yes, I think we can conclude that overweight women prefer overweight men.

      We know that people mate assortatively, and we also know that attraction is malleable – you gave an example of women getting the hots for men of their own SMV rather than the higher SMV guys. The idea that all of the women who marry men under an SMV of 9 are “settling” does not ring true. I think that female 6s fall head over heels for their 6 husbands. Any other paradigm would have never allowed the survival of the species, and at the very least we’d see much, much higher rates of cuckoldry.

      Of course, among the 20% who are promiscuous, a lower quality female will compete for a higher SMV male trading off that bump in SMV for a shot at commitment.

      I have never, ever, seen a beautiful woman with a hipster anywhere I’ve been.

      Of course, you bring your own values to the definition of both beautiful woman as well as hipster. Hipster is actually a culture, not an SMV ranking. Nathan Harden is not a hipster. The truth is, there is great precedent throughout history for women finding more androgynous men attractive.

      From Heartiste – one wonders whether he wrote this while staring at a pic of Nathan Harden:

      If manly men want to know why unmanly men can outscore them in the sexual market sweepstakes, they need look no further than Ludovici’s stunning insight into the character of woman. The unmanly man, no leader of men he, can reduce women to puddles of swoonage because he drinks from their bottomless well of vanity, he lies to them prettily, he trades in the currency of sensuality, and, most importantly, he appeals to women’s “love of petty power” by exploiting relative social status differentials in microcosm. He is, in short, a leader of women.

      This is how the manly men are outgunned. The manly man’s refusal, born of pride or disgust, to sink into the insufferable torments of the child-like, capricious, feckless world of women and frolic in it as if it were his own world leaves him exposed atop his hill, strong and dignified and self-righteous, to the cunning shamelessness of the unmanly man absconding with the women languishing under his paternal gaze.

      Our current time — the decadence and silliness preceding the painful fall — is perfectly suited to the strengths of the unmanly man. He rules in this nebulous miasma that was once a culture. The manly men will have their day again, when the fall has swept away the last illusion and the weak are revealed uncompromisingly for what they have always been, but until then the manly men yield to the awesome power of the metrosexual with a nasally voice and a penchant for spinning riveting stories which may or may not be true.

  • JP

    ” Consider: if we were to utilize the logic you apply here, we’d have to conclude that because most women marry overweight men, most women prefer men who are overweight. See the problem there? The fact that most women marry betas does not mean that most women genuinely prefer men of lower socio-sexual rank to Joe Alpha.”

    However, then you end up with the women being inherently dissatisfied with their marriage because they don’t actually have what they are interested in having.

  • VD

    He looks to me like he wouldn’t put up with a shit test for ten seconds.

    See, I think he looks like he would cry. And then write a song about how bad it makes him feel when you are mean to him.

    The skinny emo boys write songs that make money, and that means writing songs about love and heartache. (The same is true in country music.) I don’t know what percentage of industry profits these two groups represent, but it’s got to be huge. The most recent example is the biggest selling song in recent history, Somebody That I Used to Know, by Gotye.

    Based on this metric, we may both be wrong. PSY is a round little endomorph and he is clearly taking over the world. I don’t know about sales, but YouTube has it PSY 539,295,396 and Gotye 337,846,822, not even counting the additional 111 million for the Hyuna version.

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

      One thing I’m finding interesting about this thread is the role that men appear to wish to play in highlighting or even determining female attraction triggers. In the past, I have cited numerous evo psychologists who stipulate that social dominance is conferred intrasexually among males. I believe that is true, based on the ample evidence as well as my own observations. However, that claim was vociferously debated here, as some male commenters claimed that only women can confer social dominance by displaying attraction to a male.

      In this thread we have numerous women expressing a preference for a male that other men do not respect, because he looks like he might “blow away,” couldn’t win a fight, might cry if he were rejected, etc. In this case the males do want control over who determines socio-sexual rank.

      I think one thing that is going on is that women have long found the “brooding loner” archetype sexually alluring. Byron, Heathcliffe, James Dean, Nathan Harden are all of a type. This man is the outsider, as Harden was at Yale. He is a rebel, and he is completely indifferent to most outcomes, period. He neither seeks approval nor favor with women. They are drawn to him as they seek to uncover the smoldering passion they know lurks beneath the surface.

      In addition, women do find feminine male faces attractive. Hugh Grant, Jude Law, young Leo Di Caprio, Johnny Depp. Casanova is said to have been quite effete. He, Byron and James Dean are all presumed to have been bisexual. And of course, we have evidence in this thread of something women often utter: “All the best looking men are gay.”

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    I believe VD meant athletes who couldn’t acquire female company at all, not those choosing polygamy over monogamy out of sheer abundance.
    ….

    This all harkens back to what women mean when they say “skinny” – they don’t mean a scrawny kid with +25% BF and can’t do a single pull up. They mean a man who is lean, works out and expends physical effort regularly, but doesn’t get into hypertrophy as much as bodybuilders too. The want a man who really IS built, just not AS much. Women often can look hot just by watching their diet, but not men. We gotta work.

    It’s the same compared with male “nerdy” (fat acne Star Wars Kid) vs. female “nerdy” (attractive man in fashionable glasses and a slim-fit suit, in good shape, but not overly muscular).

    For the record, men do the same thing about makeup (Haley’s most recent post). We really mean they prefer a natural look over heavily made up. However, some women (read: young) do have this look with zero makeup.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I agree with VD, saying that our current world is 80% Beta doesn’t mean that women prefer Betas. That means that societies with 80% Betas were more reproductively successful than societies with a different percentage.

    That can occur for a wide variety of reasons. Societies that are 100% alpha would be prone to in-fighting and kill themselves, REGARDLESS of women’s sexual preferences.

    To use an extreme example: Women might very well want men with wings that can also breathe fire and summon the dead back to life. The reason that this hasn’t evolved isn’t because women do not find this sexually attractive: the reason it hasn’t evolved is because it isn’t possible.

    Personally, I think the “women like betas” meme is useful if given context. I’m always worried about some poor blue pill sap who thinks he can just pick up a baby and then girls will just flock to him. He’s better off hitting the gym, but he thinks “women like betas.”

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

      That can occur for a wide variety of reasons. Societies that are 100% alpha would be prone to in-fighting and kill themselves, REGARDLESS of women’s sexual preferences.

      No doubt, but it’s ludicrous to think that female sexual preferences have played no role in the evolution of homo sap.

  • Altimanix

    @Susan

    I never claimed that your tastes in womenmen were any more fupped than mine were in women. chaque a son gout.

  • Altimanix

    so much for strike

    -w-o-m-e-n- becomes men

  • Sassy6519

    Are we discussing faces or body types now? I don’t disagree with you about differing female preferences, as different men place differing values on pretty butterballs vs butterfaces too. I will point out, however, that you’re somewhat undermining the pro-ectomorph position there.

    I don’t think I did.

    Personally, if given the choice between an ectomorph, endomorph, and mesomorph that all have the exact same facial attractiveness, I would pick the ectomorph hands down.

    My advice to men would actually be for them to put on more muscle if they don’t have an above-average, pretty, exotic, or striking face. That extra body work may help increase their SMV enough to gain the attraction of some women. Some women do overlook a plain face for the sake of a hot body.

    Also, the following side-note isn’t directed to anyone in particular.

    Emos and hipsters are not the same thing. They are completely different scenes with completely different looks. I like hipster men, but not emos.

    Side-note over.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “and found that in all cases, men were twice as likely to orgasm”

    So? Sex isn’t a competition.

    You’re still dancing around the question here. Comparing against men is meaningless when you are asserting casual sex is far worse than relationship sex.

    I’ll ask again – how many women orgasm in a relationship sex vs. not? That’s the gap that supports your assertion that it is better. My suspicion is that it’s not big as you think. Something like 15% women never orgasm at all, so blaming that percentage on casual sex draws the wrong picture.

    How much more likely is woman to have good sex in a relationship vs casual? I agree it is more likely… But how much? 18% doesn’t tell us anything about the effect of the relationship type.

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

      Sue: “and found that in all cases, men were twice as likely to orgasm”

      So? Sex isn’t a competition.

      Hmmmph, easy for you to say. Casual sex is simply mutual masturbation so a woman who doesn’t orgasm gets nuthin.

      I’ll ask again – how many women orgasm in a relationship sex vs. not? That’s the gap that supports your assertion that it is better. My suspicion is that it’s not big as you think.

      That was in my previous comment. Women in relationships orgasm 80% at the rate of men. In hookups, the rate of orgasm is 18% for women, 50% for men. So the gap is cut in half in relationships.

  • Iggles

    @ SW:

    Do most women marry overweight men? If so, are most of those women overweight? If so, then yes, I think we can conclude that overweight women prefer overweight men.

    + 1

    We know that people mate assortatively, and we also know that attraction is malleable – you gave an example of women getting the hots for men of their own SMV rather than the higher SMV guys. The idea that all of the women who marry men under an SMV of 9 are “settling” does not ring true.

    Exactly!

    In my case, I wouldn’t date male 9 or 10s because I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing so. It has little to do with how I feel about myself or my own rank. It has everything to do with the downsides of dating someone that attractive — fighting off other women, concerns about cheating, and possible concerns about his sexuality (IME, most male 10s are gay/bi men).

    I don’t think I’m settling for avoiding guys like that!

  • JP

    @Iggles:

    “In my case, I wouldn’t date male 9 or 10s because I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing so. It has little to do with how I feel about myself or my own rank. It has everything to do with the downsides of dating someone that attractive — fighting off other women, concerns about cheating, and possible concerns about his sexuality (IME, most male 10s are gay/bi men).”

    Unless you get lovestruck. Then you don’t get a vote anyway, so your stated preferences are irrelevant.

    http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_18-editionID_115-ArticleID_809-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/0205tall.pdf

  • Iggles

    JP,

    I skimmed the article you posted:
    Although we now associate lovesickness with adolescent crushes and romantic fiction, it is in fact one of the most successful of all psychiatric diagnoses.

    ^^ This sounds like limerence.
    (source: http://bthaw.blogspot.com/2011/08/guide-to-limerence.html)

    In my case I’m non-limerent, so the chances of me getting swept away or “lovestruck” by someone and ignoring red flags and/or other signs of incompatibility are quite low…

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

    In any case, I find his face beautiful like a Modigliani painting.

    Interesting, I was always under the impression that Modigliani was known for bringing out people’s ugliness in his portraits.

    On an unrelated note, favorite painting in the whole world is A Portrait of Jacques Lipchitz and His Wife. I don’t even know why, but I’ve been obsessed with that piece since 10th grade.

  • Iggles

    Regarding hipsters…

    http://travelsofadam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/hipster2.jpg

    ^^ This is what I see most hipsters couples looking like. Equal levels of attractiveness. I think in Emo couples, the girls may tend to be chubby with rail thin boyfriends.

    Personally, I see a lot of androgyny in the way both types dress and behave, which isn’t my cup of tea..

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    My husband is my 10. :) All other guys including celebrities mentioned are like 5’s.

    Our son is 9.5 but in a non-sexual way. :P

  • Ion

    JP

    “Then you don’t get a vote anyway, so your stated preferences are irrelevant.”

    Everyone’s preference is relative, so I don’t see what your point is?

    Iggles

    ” It has everything to do with the downsides of dating someone that attractive — fighting off other women, concerns about cheating, and possible concerns about his sexuality (IME, most male 10s are gay/bi men).”

    I agree. It’s not that women don’t find Joe M types attractive, it’s that they’re automatically filtering them out because they look too good, the male 6-8’s are the ones cleaning up in terms of LTR AND STR because women find them more approachable AND trustworthy.

    But I doubt a 9-10 Joe M cries himself to sleep from lack of female attention — he’ll still clean up with high SMV women for STRs way more than an ecto-emo would.

  • JP

    @Ion:

    ““Then you don’t get a vote anyway, so your stated preferences are irrelevant.”

    Everyone’s preference is relative, so I don’t see what your point is?”

    Because it’s not a voluntary conscious experience, which means that if you are someone who gets limerant, you don’t get a choice as to whether you go crazy or not.

  • Joe P.

    @Susan, #313, regarding overweight peoples’ attractive tendencies:

    I don’t believe that overweight people prefer each other. They just know that that’s what they can realistically get, so they give up on having attractions which are extremely likely to hurt them. It’s far easier to put down layer after layer of self-subterfuge until you actually believe it’s real, certainly to the point where you’ll claim it in surveys and whatnot – but it is most definitely not real.

    This is a distinction with a definite difference: The fuel on that fire is pressure to pair off, and as the pressure disappears, those people who are less than perfect will no longer adjust to the reality of their situation, because fantasizing is too easy.

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

      @Joe P.

      It’s far easier to put down layer after layer of self-subterfuge until you actually believe it’s real, certainly to the point where you’ll claim it in surveys and whatnot – but it is most definitely not real.

      I disagree, if what you’re saying is that people can fool themselves into being attracted to one another. Dan Ariely did some research on this using speed dating. He concluded:

      By any stretch of assortative mating imaginable, she should have had nothing to do with me…I came to believe that, as unsentimental as it sounds, Stephen Still’s song has a lot of truth to it. Far from advocating infidelity, “Love the One You’re With” suggests that we have the ability to discover and love the characteristics of our partner. Instead of merely settling for someone…we end up changing our perspectives, and in the process increasing our love of the person.

      Attraction is a Choice

      I don’t think that ugly men believe their ugly wives are supermodels. They recognize their rank and their spouse’s rank within the SMP. Yet they do fall in love, feel strong sexual desire for their mates, and have sex as often as anyone else. People tend to mate assortatively, and there is no evidence that lower ranking people are any less happy. If anything, the opposite is true.

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

    @SW

    The idea that all of the women who marry men under an SMV of 9 are “settling” does not ring true.

    Susan, you know better than making an irresponsible statement like this. Given those “made up” rates of marital satisfaction, it’s completely obvious to me that women don’t really love, desire, or prefer the men they marry (and don’t divorce) as compared to other kinds of “manly” men… :wink:

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

      @Megaman

      I confess I can’t wrap my mind around this notion that only 20% of the men are capable of being desired or loved by a woman. If that were true, the 80% wouldn’t have enough sex to procreate. I have personally known some physically unattractive couples who were gaga for one another. The attractiveness of the women in my focus groups varies a bit, and so does their taste in men. They tend to find men “hot” who are of similar rank. I’ve seen it time and again.

  • pvw

    @Iggles and Ion;

    I agree. It’s not that women don’t find Joe M types attractive, it’s that they’re automatically filtering them out because they look too good, the male 6-8′s are the ones cleaning up in terms of LTR AND STR because women find them more approachable AND trustworthy.

    But I doubt a 9-10 Joe M cries himself to sleep from lack of female attention — he’ll still clean up with high SMV women for STRs

    Me: And the more extraverted Joe M is, the worse it is, because he thrives more on the external world of interacting with others and is thus more likely to be getting attention from lots of women (and enjoying it)!….

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

    @SW

    I confess I can’t wrap my mind around this notion that only 20% of the men are capable of being desired or loved by a woman. If that were true, the 80% wouldn’t have enough sex to procreate.

    One area where we disagree is to what extent does your (or whoever’s) 80% vs. 20% dichotomy hold water and actually describes social arrangements.

    Depending upon the particular group under the microscope, I’ll agree that the share of the population that could be considered promiscuous is somewhere in the 10-25% range. But even a good chunk of those folks eventually settle down and prefer monogamy long-term (what’s left of it), to varying degrees of success.

    However, other than perhaps a brief period of time during freshman year of college, is there really any age group where 20% of people are sleeping around randomly to their hearts’ content while the other 80% are totally single, alone, and miserable? I’d don’t think so… at least not without some tangible evidence.

  • JP

    After a certain point, you just run out of time, biologically speaking, so you have to take what you have when you are at the wall if you want to have children, regardless of whether you have found long-term compatibility.

    So, there’s always going to be settling because there is a limited amount of time.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Susan

    I agree, women’s sexual preferences have played a role in developing H. Sapiens, and the traits that helped us survive are traits that women found attractive.

    But the claim that women PREFER Betas is a very strong claim, and the fact that 80% of men are betas is not strong enough evidence to prove that.

    I’d think you might be right on that claim, but I’m skeptical :P

    For the record, I was quite the “Brooding Loner” back in college, and it definitely got me some attraction…but I had no idea what the fuck to do with it!

    Damn Beta-ization!

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

      @ADBG

      For the record, I was quite the “Brooding Loner” back in college, and it definitely got me some attraction…but I had no idea what the fuck to do with it!

      Damn Beta-ization!

      I suppose that is the learned cluelessness of men. We’ve essentially sent two generations of young people out into the mating wild without even the slightest understanding of what the other sex wants.

      BTW, I do get what you’re saying about not wanting to make beta guys complacent. This is where Roissy adds value, from what I hear. He calls betas hapless and sniveling and all the rest and it serves as a wake up call to beta guys. I don’t mean to interfere with that – I want more men to be successful in the SMP. OTOH, I want guys to know that women do value a lot of those traits – but some level of dominance is the price of admission.

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

    @Susan
    I stand corrected about the cheating and ovulation.

    @INTJ
    Hah me trying cheating you might as well would had asked me not to try to eat manure. Not the slightest chance of that ever happening. I might get in trouble asking around to other people though I’m too curious for my own good ;)

    The skinny emo boys write songs that make money, and that means writing songs about love and heartache. (The same is true in country music.)

    I think it was Yohami that mentioned in one of his posts or at Badger’s that the reason performers can get away with really Beta songs of heartbreak and supplication was because they were already high status just for the fact that they were on stage. Something to think about.

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

    I think a Harden is a niche-adapted type who could do well in a coffeehouse environment or art gallery opening, but would probably struggle a lot more in a very body-conscious place like South Beach.

    I sometimes do feel surprised at the range of female attractiveness triggers, as some of the men who do very well would not *appear* to be physically capable of defending their families from harm (of course, these men could still be heavily armed, psychotically aggressive, well-trained in a dangerous fighting system, etc.). Perhaps the physicality element can be so blended with other factors such as personality, status, wealth, intelligence, etc. that it can be hard to tease out a single variable, and women tend to take a holistic view that automatically combines all of these things, while men tend to want to be more reductionist and mechanical.

    I was babysitting for a friend the other day and we watched a new show called “Arrow”, based on the Green Arrow superhero character from DC comics. The protagonist looked like a meso who was a good, juggernaut mix of athletic power and endurance—he was definitely jacked, but could still wear suits well, etc.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “Women in relationships orgasm 80% at the rate of men. In hookups, the rate of orgasm is 18% for women, 50% for men. So the gap is cut in half in relationships.”

    Well, is a hookup sex, or not? If I just make out with a woman, then I don’t expect an orgasm. Does that count as 50, then? Just because there is no orgasm, doesn’t necessarily represent failure.

    Now, assuming ALL hookups are sex, and ALL want to orgaand it can’t, and assuming men orgasm 100% of the time in a relationship, or nearly so, then your point makes sense. Comparing against men is muddling your point.

    I have no doubt that women do *better* relationships, but so do men (50% vs an assumed 100%), but you seem want to insist that anything casual HAS to be unfulfilling as masturbation, and that’s simply not true.

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

      @OTC

      Many hookups are not P in V. A makeout counts as a hookup. That and whiskey dick explain the male orgasm rate of 50%. The point is that in casual encounters, the ratio of male to female orgasms is 5:2. In relationships, it’s 5:4. We don’t have the data for P in V orgasms during hookups. My guess is that the gap is the largest of all in that case.

      A small minority of women find casual sex physically rewarding. Tracy Clark-Flory’s recent confessional shows how “fake” that enjoyment can be, and she’s in that small minority!

      It’s also perfectly possible to have an orgasm with a guy, and feel like crap afterwards. Happens all the time.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Susan: Just a thought, but maybe you can do a post entitled “Betas are Sexy” and post pictures of attractive Beta Guys.

    I have no idea why that popped into my head. I promise I am not turning gay.

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

      Susan: Just a thought, but maybe you can do a post entitled “Betas are Sexy” and post pictures of attractive Beta Guys.

      The girls would love it, the guys here would crucify me.

  • Iggles

    @ OffTheCuff:

    Now, assuming ALL hookups are sex, and ALL want to orgaand it can’t, and assuming men orgasm 100% of the time in a relationship, or nearly so, then your point makes sense.

    Hmm, I find it hard to imagine a woman would have a PIV hook up and actively not want to orgasm…

  • Iggles

    @ JP:

    So, there’s always going to be settling because there is a limited amount of time.

    Eh.. “Settling” implies that because you couldn’t get your first choice, you’re accepting something (or someone) else.

    I think fairly early in life, those successful in obtaining dates & getting into relationships assess their SMV and calibrate according. Does this mean since the 5 girl realized at 17 years old that her future husband wouldn’t be a movie star that she has “settled” for her 5 spouse? I don’t think so. Maybe while she thought Mr Movie Star was cute, he was never her first choice for a husband. The idea of her teenage crush doesn’t hold a candle to the man she’s in love with in real life.

  • Mike C

    I’m always worried about some poor blue pill sap who thinks he can just pick up a baby and then girls will just flock to him. He’s better off hitting the gym, but he thinks “women like betas.”

    This is my concern as well. Whether conscious or unconscious, intended or unintended, this message comes through. For guys who are in fact struggling “to figure out women” and get some “success” however defined it is basically sending them on the road into the wilderness instead of the road to the destination.

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

      @Mike C

      For guys who are in fact struggling “to figure out women” and get some “success” however defined it is basically sending them on the road into the wilderness instead of the road to the destination.

      Yet you would send them to learn dominance and let “new ethics” be something to figure out later. There’s got to be a middle ground that doesn’t turn guys into scumbags while learning how to attract women.

  • Mike C

    If manly men want to know why unmanly men can outscore them in the sexual market sweepstakes, they need look no further than Ludovici’s stunning insight into the character of woman. The unmanly man, no leader of men he, can reduce women to puddles of swoonage because he drinks from their bottomless well of vanity, he lies to them prettily, he trades in the currency of sensuality, and, most importantly, he appeals to women’s “love of petty power” by exploiting relative social status differentials in microcosm. He is, in short, a leader of women.

    This is how the manly men are outgunned. The manly man’s refusal, born of pride or disgust, to sink into the insufferable torments of the child-like, capricious, feckless world of women and frolic in it as if it were his own world leaves him exposed atop his hill, strong and dignified and self-righteous, to the cunning shamelessness of the unmanly man absconding with the women languishing under his paternal gaze.

    Our current time — the decadence and silliness preceding the painful fall — is perfectly suited to the strengths of the unmanly man. He rules in this nebulous miasma that was once a culture. The manly men will have their day again, when the fall has swept away the last illusion and the weak are revealed uncompromisingly for what they have always been, but until then the manly men yield to the awesome power of the metrosexual with a nasally voice and a penchant for spinning riveting stories which may or may not be true.

    I don’t doubt the accuracy of this one bit. No doubt, this can be highly successful. I can’t recall the term, but this archetype has been successful with women for milennia. I know nothing of Nathan Harden beyond the picture above (and I’m amazed how much is being read about his personality by a few pictures) but I’m not sure he’d be eager to be lumped into this description (maybe he would..IDK).

    This archetype really draws the distinction between respect from men versus attraction from women because this archetype generally garners little to no respect from men. I think the archetype is seen as “weak”. I’d note this is one glaring example of the incorrectness that women are simply attracted to whoever is the “winner” of the male hierarchy as established my men. This type generally operates completely outside the male hierarchy.

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

      @Mike C

      I’d note this is one glaring example of the incorrectness that women are simply attracted to whoever is the “winner” of the male hierarchy as established my men. This type generally operates completely outside the male hierarchy.

      I just said that. I really, really wish you would read my comments before writing your own.

      FTR, I do not agree with Roissy. What he deplores here is nothing more than emotional intelligence, a trait women value highly. It’s not a reflection of contemporary culture.

  • Mike C

    My advice to men would actually be for them to put on more muscle if they don’t have an above-average, pretty, exotic, or striking face. That extra body work may help increase their SMV enough to gain the attraction of some women. Some women do overlook a plain face for the sake of a hot body.

    The other component to this is that body is FAR MORE malleable than face. There is only so much you can do with face, especially men. Women have makeup so you can do all sorts of tricks to accentuate positive facial features and downplay negative ones. Guys, really all you can do is try and find a hairstyle to complement your facial features and stay away from ones that weaken it (that guy in the nuclear post had a horrible hairstyle for his facial features). I’ve actually got a somewhat bigger nose (not really long, but just big, I’ve found some like it some don’t) and actually thought about a nosejob at one point in my life to make it smaller.

    But body is easy to really tweak to really get a sizable boost. Even women who don’t like the more bodybuilder look are going to find very attractive a guy who adds 10 pounds of muscle to his frame, and gets his bodyfat below 15, to ideally around 10-12. And that is very achievable if a guy makes it a priority.

  • Mike C

    I’ll ask again – how many women orgasm in a relationship sex vs. not? That’s the gap that supports your assertion that it is better. My suspicion is that it’s not big as you think. Something like 15% women never orgasm at all, so blaming that percentage on casual sex draws the wrong picture.

    How much more likely is woman to have good sex in a relationship vs casual? I agree it is more likely… But how much? 18% doesn’t tell us anything about the effect of the relationship type.

    The other question here…is how much do women prioritize the next 3 things in sexual encounters:

    1. Emotional connection
    2. Physical orgasm
    3. Validation from being sexually desirable (especially from high SMV male)

    I really have no idea not being a woman, but #3 is going to be at odds with #1 and #2. In fact, I suspect many of the stats on women “hooking up” and then either not orgasming or being disappointed with the lack of connection is because in the heat of the moment they were acting totally on #3

  • Sai

    @INTJ
    …I kind of liked that video. Not the guys, just the music.
    I hope you keep working out. :)

    Re: everybody’s husbands
    The only persons mentioned so far that I like are Orlando Bloom (Gerard Butler is awesome but I just don’t feel attracted) and the Fab Four… (also Green Arrow)
    Some ‘fun’ experiences with family members have put me off of large amounts of hair on men. It got to the point where a preacher would say “Jesus’ beauty…etc” and I’d think “no, the Lord needs a shave” so I guess I have to sit in the special corner with Anacaona and Ted D.

    “The manly man’s refusal, born of pride or disgust, to sink into the insufferable torments of the child-like, capricious, feckless world of women”
    Why do these people bother with women if we disgust them so? A RealDoll would be easier…

    “All the best looking men are gay.”
    I always thought it was gay, taken, fictional or dead. :(

    At the risk of looking like a total putz, what rank would you give Mr. #6 and Mr. #54?
    http://en.amerikanki.com/100-sexiest-russian-man/

  • Altimanix

    @Susan

    ‘we’ are not defining women’s attraction cues. ‘you’ are free to like what you want. ‘we’ just get to say that emo-waif-hipster-guy is not intimidating, and that ‘you’ are just hamsterbating why you find women with willies attractive.

    whatever floats your boat is fine by us, but if you’re going to share your reasoning with us, please try and keep it realistic… :)

  • Mike C

    After a certain point, you just run out of time, biologically speaking, so you have to take what you have when you are at the wall if you want to have children, regardless of whether you have found long-term compatibility.

    So, there’s always going to be settling because there is a limited amount of time.

    One could argue that if everyone gets *exactly* what they want, the divorce rate should be close to 0%. In a sense, divorce is one or both people saying “nope, I can’t live with the deal I made/what I accepted”

  • Iggles

    @ Sai:

    “The manly man’s refusal, born of pride or disgust, to sink into the insufferable torments of the child-like, capricious, feckless world of women”
    Why do these people bother with women if we disgust them so? A RealDoll would be easier…

    Boom!

    :lol: +1

    At the risk of looking like a total putz, what rank would you give Mr. #6 and Mr. #54?

    Awesome link Sai! I know you didn’t ask, but #2 is amazing! And #3.. :D

    Okay, #6 is a SMV 9 in my opinion. While #54… Yikes! He’s way too old for me to give a real assessment his SMV! Maybe SMV 5 for an old guy, but YMMV..

  • Iggles

    Oh no.. It’s before I discovered his mullet. I’m bumping him down to SMV 6!

    http://www.eurovision-turkey.com/userimages/dima_bilan.jpg

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

    <i.Susan: Just a thought, but maybe you can do a post entitled “Betas are Sexy” and post pictures of attractive Beta Guys.

    Did you saw the shitstorm of 2 reasons to date a Beta? From the men that were incensed that we dared to like anything about Betas? I don’t think Susan should go there, in whatever is left of the century at least.

    Some ‘fun’ experiences with family members have put me off of large amounts of hair on men. It got to the point where a preacher would say “Jesus’ beauty…etc” and I’d think “no, the Lord needs a shave” so I guess I have to sit in the special corner with Anacaona and Ted D.

    Woman’s hair is a turn off for me I would say that Ted’s long hair and beard is not a turn off, more like run the other direction kind of reaction he looked like a heavier Alan Moore and Moore is batshit insane.
    The “lord needs a shave” remind me of one movie in Holy Week (and in our countries every single religious movie ever made, and Clash of Titans, was aired 24/7 during Holy Week every single year) that we nicknamed it “Jesus needs a sandwich” movie because the leading man was just soo skinny you would think the Lord was a miracle away from passing out.

    The idea that all of the women who marry men under an SMV of 9 are “settling” does not ring true.

    A more accurate reading would be that most unrestricted women that don’t marry a man significantly higher than they are settling. But the restricted ones are most likely content on their choices, problem is that the most attractive mates are in the unrestricted spectrum, whether because they are not enough to get away with it or because the most attractive do find themselves more attractive within each other cohorts, and as mentioned before many men dream fantasy is the unrestricted hot woman that becomes restricted out of attraction to them. Unicorn hunting is a mixed gender endeavor seems to me, YMMV.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “The point is that in casual encounters, the ratio of male to female orgasms is 5:2. In relationships, it’s 5:4.”

    I can buy that relationship sex is usually better than casual, for both sexes. I don’t accept that men and women need parity, because we are built differently. Women orgasm a little less easily, but make up for in spades it in multiples.

    The whole idea of “orgasm parity”, promulgated by that article, is, frankly, stupid. I bet they are counting “ever orgasmed per session” rather than “number of orgasms per session”.

    My wife orgasms more than me, because she is female and… physically capable of more. So, our ratio is probably 1:5 to 1:10, or more. This is not sexism, negative, or something to be fixed.

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

      @OTC

      I don’t accept that men and women need parity, because we are built differently. Women orgasm a little less easily, but make up for in spades it in multiples.

      It’s not a question of parity. TBH, I find this competitive framework really bizarre. 99% of women would happily take one orgasm in a casual encounter, and 82% get zero. As the guy in the article said, “If it’s a hookup, I don’t give a shit.” For women, sex is better when it’s with someone who gives a shit. That’s true even if no orgasm is forthcoming.

  • INTJ

    @ Anacaona

    and as mentioned before many men dream fantasy is the unrestricted hot woman that becomes restricted out of attraction to them.

    You’ve got that backwards. The male dream fantasy is the sexual prude who will become a slut only for them.

  • Iggles

    @ OTC:

    The whole idea of “orgasm parity”, promulgated by that article, is, frankly, stupid. I bet they are counting “ever orgasmed per session” rather than “number of orgasms per session”.

    As they should. They’re measuring whether people get off or not. Measuring it by the # of orgasms is a moot point, and would only skew the numbers. (i.e., it would make the results misleading because a woman who had multiple orgasms in an ONS would cancel out several women who experienced none).

    My wife orgasms more than me, because she is female and… physically capable of more. So, our ratio is probably 1:5 to 1:10, or more. This is not sexism, negative, or something to be fixed.

    This is irrelevant, because again the study is comparing the percentage of women who get off during casual vs relationship sex to the percentage of men who get off during casual vs relationships. It’s not counting the # of orgasms each participant reports.

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

    Gotta say, I just did a Google image search of Harden, and even with his hair pulled back he does absolutely nothing for me. Having said that, neither does the muscle-y Arnold pic posted by Mike C above (too much!).

    Probably my favorite “hot guy” celebrity ever is Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire. Even with the black and white, it should be against the law to be that attractive.

  • Mike C

    There’s got to be a middle ground that doesn’t turn guys into scumbags while learning how to attract women.

    Just to be clear, I am absolutely against turning guys into scumbags.

  • Mike C

    I just said that. I really, really wish you would read my comments before writing your own.

    Many threads have hundreds and hundreds of comments. I don’t have time to read them all. Sometimes, I just skim.

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

      Many threads have hundreds and hundreds of comments. I don’t have time to read them all. Sometimes, I just skim.

      May I tactfully suggest that you at least read the comments of the post’s author? :)

      Honestly, this is the kind of thing that makes you seem a lot more interested in having your say than in hearing anyone else’s ideas.

  • Mike C

    Gotta say, I just did a Google image search of Harden, and even with his hair pulled back he does absolutely nothing for me. Having said that, neither does the muscle-y Arnold pic posted by Mike C above (too much!).

    Vox had a post on this, and it was fascinating to read some of the female comments vis a vis Harden. Like I said earlier, I have no doubt at all that there are a ***very wide*** variety of physical types both body and face that women can find attractive. On that thread you had some women going ga-ga for Jason Statham

    https://www.google.com/search?q=jason+statham&hl=en&prmd=imvnso&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=6cqMUN7TFaX5ygHt-4GwAw&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1400&bih=710

    I’d bet good money some commenters here would find him physically unattractive.

    I just find the range of what is physically desirable fascinating. Take Jessica Alba or Megan Fox. I think some guys would find them more attractive than others but I think you would be very, very hardpressed to find any guy that actually finds them physically unattractive. I suspect it would be a difficult endeavor to find any woman where you could have an extreme polarization between physically attractive and physically unattractive except for guys with specific fetishes like obese women.

    To me the more interesting question is if the preference for physical type is completely random or if there are specific personality characteristics and physical appearance of the woman that drives what they find physically attractive in a man.

  • Mike C

    And going back to part of the original post, you have this excerpt:

    Oh my gosh. Have you ever been with a football player?

    Yeah, they can be pretty awesome. They work out a lot.

    Now a wide receiver or cornerback might be more on the slender side, but a running back or linebacker is going to be built. What is interesting to me, is despite their solipsism, these are intelligent women. It is unlikely they would be at Yale if that was not the case. So you might think an initial filter for not being attracted to “muscle” men would be intelligence but this excerpt would refute that.

  • Mike C

    Madalena,

    Question for you if you happen to still be following the thread. Since you lost all the weight and became much more physically attractive, has your taste in men especially in terms of physical type changed at all. If so, how?

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

    To me the more interesting question is if the preference for physical type is completely random or if there are specific personality characteristics and physical appearance of the woman that drives what they find physically attractive in a man.

    It’s an interesting question. To be honest, I don’t even feel like I have a set “type,” as evidenced by my two boyfriends: my high school BF was a scrawny skinny kid, my current BF is tall and big-boned and rather hairy (my ex was hairless). When I look at pics of my ex now, I’m like “really? I was attracted to him?”

    Also, I’m guessing that as I get older, my tastes are changing to a preference for more “manly” men. As a youngster I was obsessed with Jake Gyllenhaal and Gael Garcia Bernal, both of whom have very delicate, pretty boy faces. These days I’m kinda diggin’ Jason Segel, who definitely isn’t muscle man, but he’s not nearly as much of a pretty boy as the other two. Interestingly if my BF dropped a few pounds he’d have the exact same build as Jason, who is not a scrawny guy.

    Also, Mike C, this is just out of curiosity. You’ve said before that you, yourself, are a pretty muscular guy. Do you think that’s played a role in some of your commentary here? You seem particularly interested in women’s interest in mesomorphs.

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

      You’ve said before that you, yourself, are a pretty muscular guy. Do you think that’s played a role in some of your commentary here? You seem particularly interested in women’s interest in mesomorphs.

      Biggest understatement ever on HUS.

  • Mike C

    Also, Mike C, this is just out of curiosity. You’ve said before that you, yourself, are a pretty muscular guy. Do you think that’s played a role in some of your commentary here?

    Yes, no doubt. Of course, we ALL bring our personal backgrounds and histories to our discussion here. I’d point out that I haven’t commented negatively on Harden’s appearance and really it is no skin off my back if some segment of women find him attractive.

    You seem particularly interested in women’s interest in mesomorphs.

    Some of my questions are often to better understand my own personal history. When I was living it in real-time, many things were often a mystery to me. Learning about Game helped to fill in a lot of the blanks, but I also like to get the female view to keep filling them in.

    FWIW, before I started working out at age 22, and building some muscle mass, I literally got ZERO female attention. Nada, zip, zilch except that I did get asked to prom instead of doing the asking myself. There was a pretty significant uptick in female attention from 22-25 when I had transformed my body, but to be honest I really didn’t know how to handle it. In running back football terminology I’d put my my fumble to TD ratio at something like 100 to 1.

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

    By the way, about built guys:

    There’s this…
    http://www.google.com/imgres?start=13&num=10&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=475&tbm=isch&tbnid=zAO5ljqWjSvDKM:&imgrefurl=http://my.opera.com/celebfan/albums/showpic.dml%3Falbum%3D823295%26picture%3D11215272&docid=hcjb9wPyrfrxNM&imgurl=http://files.myopera.com/celebfan/albums/823295/channing-tatum-gq-magazine-august-2009-04.jpg&w=710&h=963&ei=8NWMUNn_G8-w0AHQ6oDACQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=790&vpy=33&dur=8104&hovh=262&hovw=193&tx=155&ty=282&sig=107646710548495436889&page=2&tbnh=145&tbnw=107&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:20,i:40

    Channing Tatum. Abs. Need I say more?

    Then there’s this…

    http://www.google.com/imgres?start=32&num=10&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=475&tbm=isch&tbnid=gzCg0bVMtYQiKM:&imgrefurl=http://www.bodybuilder-photos.com/&docid=fdq-KF3py55UhM&imgurl=http://www.bodybuilder-photos.com/galleries/2003/2003-11_NAC_Int_Deutsche_Meisterschaft/images/bodybuilder_IMG_1410.jpg&w=600&h=900&ei=jdaMUJC5O-O_0AHUj4HIBQ&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=104&vpy=53&dur=254&hovh=275&hovw=183&tx=90&ty=182&sig=107646710548495436889&page=3&tbnh=142&tbnw=108&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:20,i:40

    Which is pretty gross.

    My point is, a chiseled body is sexy. But muscle mass just for the sake of muscle mass is, well, not attractive (at least not to me). It’s not even that I couldn’t get the bodybuilder because I’m a 6, so I’m subconsciously filtering out muscleman (as has been argued here). Let’s be honest, I couldn’t dream of snagging Channing Tatum, but that doesn’t stop me from being attracted. No, it really is that the bodybuilder look doesn’t appeal to me.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Iggles, there’s nothing wrong with observing or studying the gap, and everything wrong with saying because there is a gap, it is a problem that must be corrected until there is parity.

    A woman can easily spend 10-20 minutes in orgasm state – and men only one or two. We can make anything seem unfair, simply depending on what we choose to measure, and insisting on equal outcomes in that one measure, while ignoring everything else. What makes your measure (“got off at least once”) better than mine?

    After all, there’s another study that showed women got a 75% rate of “yes” to casual, anonymous sex, men got 0%. Should we say there is a casual sex gap that needs fixing, all in the name of equality?

    Of course men get off easier, that’s how the sperm is delivered to make babies. This is biological function, not sexism.

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

      @OTC

      A woman can easily spend 10-20 minutes in orgasm state – and men only one or two.

      We know how proud you are of Mrs. Cuff’s orgasming ability, but this statement is simply untrue for 99% of women. They cannot “easily” spend 10 minutes in an orgasm state, nor can they have 10 orgasms for every 1 of their partner’s.

      You’re guilty of exception fallacy here.

  • Mike C

    My point is, a chiseled body is sexy. But muscle mass just for the sake of muscle mass is, well, not attractive (at least not to me). It’s not even that I couldn’t get the bodybuilder because I’m a 6, so I’m subconsciously filtering out muscleman (as has been argued here). Let’s be honest, I couldn’t dream of snagging Channing Tatum, but that doesn’t stop me from being attracted. No, it really is that the bodybuilder look doesn’t appeal to me.

    I get that. There is a definitely a point where more muscle mass detracts from physical attractiveness. I absolutely believe that. You think the Arnold photo was gross….LOL…he was sort of the last of the Mr. Olympias where symmetry was valued. Check out this guy:

    http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&sa=X&biw=1400&bih=710&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=xzEdxjpsSUao3M:&imgrefurl=http://goldenmuscles.com/training/dorian-yates-workout-routines/&docid=uLyHv0EwqljVaM&imgurl=http://goldenmuscles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/dorian-yates-steroids.jpg&w=748&h=974&ei=9NmMUNucMOj8yAG90IC4Bw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=201&sig=106077039016368313723&page=1&tbnh=141&tbnw=107&start=0&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:138&tx=99&ty=83

    He is what is called a “mass monster”. I literally bet maybe .0001% of women find that physically attractive.

    Actually, I’ve noticed the same dynamic myself that once I got past a certain muscle mass level, it was counterproductive to physical attractiveness.

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

    I’d point out that I haven’t commented negatively on Harden’s appearance and really it is no skin off my back if some segment of women find him attractive.

    Ah got it. Sorry, I happened to catch Susan’s comment upthread about some of the guys basically trying to define what they think women should be attracted to, and I guess I just assumed you were one of them lol. It’s not that I think you are particularly stubborn when it comes to understanding the female viewpoint, it’s just that you and Susan seem to be at odds more often than not these days. :-P

  • Mike C

    Ah got it. Sorry, I happened to catch Susan’s comment upthread about some of the guys basically trying to define what they think women should be attracted to, and I guess I just assumed you were one of them lol.

    You know what they say about assume, right? :) Off the top of my head, I think it was Ted D and Vox who were more barking up that tree, but I’m too lazy to go back and check. Actually, I think it is JUST as ridiculous for a guy to try and tell woman A or B what she should be physically attracted to as it is for a woman to say that a short pixie hair cut is sexy. If some women find his look sexy who am I to say that shouldn’t be. That is crazy.

    it’s just that you and Susan seem to be at odds more often than not these days. :-P

    Lol, you think?

  • Mike C

    Also, Mike C, this is just out of curiosity. You’ve said before that you, yourself, are a pretty muscular guy. Do you think that’s played a role in some of your commentary here? You seem particularly interested in women’s interest in mesomorphs.

    What the hell…since Ted D posted a old school photo and INTJ threw one up there, here is one of me just a few months after turning 22 for a contest I did. FWIW, I graduated college at 21 and I was 270 pounds and just a complete fat ass.

    My sole purpose that following year was to drop the weight. This photo was for a body transformation contest I competed in for a fitness magazine (placed in the top 100 for before and after). This is the mid 90s so you’ll have to excuse the terrible 90s haircut (and I’m sure some won’t like the waxing and tanning). I was about 200 to 205 pounds here. For comparison, when I met my now fiancee 10 years later I was 250 at a lower bodyfat. Right now I about 280, and the extra 30 is all bodyfat.

    I’ll point this out because it is kind of funny, maybe surprising…maybe not…but back at this time I used to get some approaches from gay men, and at the time I couldn’t figure out why…LOL

    http://www.dropbox.com/s/ea098rle7c0a1i5/20121028_020010.jpg

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Actually, I think it is JUST as ridiculous for a guy to try and tell woman A or B what she should be physically attracted to as it is for a woman to say that a short pixie hair cut is sexy. If some women find his look sexy who am I to say that shouldn’t be. That is crazy.

    Amen. I wouldn’t be caught dead looking like that dude… but if the ladies love it, that’s their call.

  • Mike C

    Susan,

    I e-mailed you, but I figured you might see a comment here first. It isn’t clear to me if my name is up there if a random person clicks on the link. If so, can you delete it. If my name isn’t up there, I’m cool with leaving it.

  • Ion

    “I’ll point this out because it is kind of funny, maybe surprising…maybe not…but back at this time I used to get some approaches from gay men, and at the time I couldn’t figure out why…LOL”

    I can see that. One of my best friends is 6’5, an ex model and is gay. Guys hit on him all the time, but you wouldn’t know he was gay, he’s just fit and alpha looking, and strikingly handsome. Muscles +perfect grooming+chiseled face, gay men will notice. And contrary to popular belief, most gay men I know prefer guys that look “straight” and act straight (not say, your flamboyant hairdresser). It’s also been my personal experience that it is alphas, not betas, who are more likely to be gay on average, but that’s another point. I could go on and on about the over 50% of “alpha” type guys I’ve met who’ve asked me if my gay male friends are taken.

    Men are visual whether straight or gay I’ve seen how fat gay men, men with too much body hair, and older gay men actually have a lot of trouble finding men who are interested in them because they are not “hot” enough. If that’s any clue.

    A lot of gay men meet each other at the gym, because it’s a sausage fest, for one, but also because they are trying to get in shape for other men.If that’s where some of these hit-ons happened, that’s why.

  • Ion

    @ Sai,

    that list of 100 russian men is definitely extremely interesting!

    For me 21, 25 and 63 before I lost track. :-)

    Seeing 100 men lined up you really see some of the inherent diversity in men even in one country. As with any population, you see some who have a strong beta look, some strong alpha looks, some definitely gay and straight. I think many women can find at least 10 guys they are definitely attracted to on that list, and 10 they are repulsed by.

  • Ion

    Ana

    “remind me of one movie in Holy Week (and in our countries every single religious movie ever made, and Clash of Titans, was aired 24/7 during Holy Week every single year) that we nicknamed it “Jesus needs a sandwich” movie because the leading man was just soo skinny you would think the Lord was a miracle away from passing out.”

    LOL!! Some serious evolution happened with Jesus in art. You see earlier images like this where Jesus is super ripped http://img.aquinasandmore.com/The-Resurrection-By-Piero-della-Francesa-Detail.jpg. Or even with an 8 pack on a crucifix.

    Now, the common image paints Jesus as a vegan hippy.

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

      So funny Jesus should come up. Harden would make an awesome Jesus in a movie. Jesus is always portrayed as extremely thin in movies, I believe. When Jesus Christ Superstar came out in 1973 I was a junior in high school. My friends and I swooned for this Jesus:

      jc

      jcs

      We were all rooting for a MM/JC romance, lol.

      The other film I grew up watching was Jesus of Nazareth, a less attractive but very skinny dude:

      rp

      This comment isn’t about women finding Jesus sexy, haha, I just think it’s interesting to see how he is most commonly portrayed in the culture. I’m sure many dissertations have been written on this topic.

  • Iggles

    Men are visual whether straight or gay I’ve seen how fat gay men, men with too much body hair, and older gay men actually have a lot of trouble finding men who are interested in them because they are not “hot” enough. If that’s any clue.

    So true. The gay community is fixated on youth and male beauty. I’ve heard a lot of gay men complain that it’s easy to find hook ups but not LTRs since many gay men have “a kid in a candy store” outlook towards romantic/sexual partners.

    A lot of gay men meet each other at the gym, because it’s a sausage fest, for one, but also because they are trying to get in shape for other men.If that’s where some of these hit-ons happened, that’s why.

    +1

    I would say, especially in cities, guys who regularly work out at the gym have a higher chance of being gay/bi than men who don’t.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    I wasn’t talking about myself, just exaggerating for effect. The point was women have the physical capability to orgasm far more often than men, whether it is realized or not. I don’t think it takes an unusual woman to come a few times in one session, compared to a man’s once. Disagree with any of those statements?

    Gaps aren’t necessarily bad thing. Consider a married couple who has sex daily – he comes once, her three times. On Sunday, she is sore and ices down her girly bits, gives him a nice BJ, still cherishing their time together. OMG, orgasm gap of 7:6!!! Even Athol has an “orgasm gap” based on his writings.

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

      @OTC

      The point was women have the physical capability to orgasm far more often than men, whether it is realized or not.

      I agree with Iggles – that is irrelevant. It’s about expectations and whether they are realized. If a woman goes into a hookup with very low expectations – one orgasm in your example – having zero is very unfortunate.

      Anyway, the point I was making is that women have many more orgasms in relationships, due to the investment of their partner, their ability to relax and give more feedback in a trusting relationship, and the role that emotional intimacy plays during sex for most women. This is a statement of fact, not opinion.

  • Ion

    Iggles:

    Totally agree about youth and beauty (and sometimes athletic older men like Anderson Cooper). Wanting to finally get the jock, or “turning” the thug are huge fantasies for virtually every gay male I’ve met since I moved to nyc lol. In fact, those fantasies of the buff alpha are prevalent in most gay porn.

    This is gonna be mildly off-topic but I’ll use a few examples. Taye Diggs, George Clooney, Jude Law and Will Smith are good examples of who is considered masculine and fit. Millions of women would sleep with them, and they look better athletic. But they all ping my gadyar (maybe its the combo of muscles and very feminine faces and/or feminine facial expressions).

    Taye Diggs

    http://imstars.aufeminin.com/stars/fan/taye-diggs/taye-diggs-20060607-135194.jpg
    http://www.playbillvault.com/images/photo/T/a/Taye-Diggs_1324419666.jpg

    Will Smith (in will Smith’s case, I always believed his wife was also gay and they’re probably just best friends).

    http://www.planetfashiontv.com/images/resized/images/stories/celebrities/will-smith_500_350.jpg
    http://hollywooddame.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Will-and-Jada-Smith1.jpg

    George Clooney

    http://longevity.stanford.edu/mau/files/2011/05/clooney-george-photo-george-clooney-6233612.jpg
    http://images.askmen.com/fashion/style_icons/1_style_icon.jpg

    Jude Law (even before the famous gay kiss I assumed).

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nH10KBkuEFg/TQ9qJHr3xaI/AAAAAAAACQc/6bODAMm0Ogc/s1600/jude_law_plays_in_hamlet_main_10962.jpg
    http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7465icwra1rqvnmr.jpg

    I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if most men in Hollywood were gay (arts school/major US cities).

  • Iggles

    OffTheCuff,

    I think you’re mistaking the forest for the trees!

    No one is disputing there are “orgasm gaps” in heterosexual relationships. We also acknowledge women have the potential to be multi-orgasmic, whereas men are usually “one and done” due to need a refractory period.

    While, sex can be enjoyable without an O, most people would agree achieving orgasm is the desired end-game! Only 18% of women in hook ups reach it. That’s a very low statistic!

    If women hooking up are looking for a “good time” then 82% end up not getting their sexual needs met — which is the usually the stated desire for the hook up — compared to the 50% climax rate for men.
    (Though I actually agree with Mike C’s earlier comment that most of these women are actually seeking male validation when they agree to get naked with these dudes)

    In the light of morning, many of these women feel worse about themselves and the experience. Like Tracy Clark Flory many of them lie about enjoying their time as a substitute real doll…

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “May I tactfully suggest that you at least read the comments of the post’s author?

    Honestly, this is the kind of thing that makes you seem a lot more interested in having your say than in hearing anyone else’s ideas.”

    This was kind of my point about this blog being *too* commenty.

    Although since I speed read it’s not really that bothersome.

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

    Susan, the heartthrob, surfer/cannabis Jesus variation of your sacrilegious-erotic high school days reminds me of Spicoli in “Fast Times…”, and of one of my personal role models, the incomparable David Wooderson of “Dazed and Confused.”

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

      @BB

      I can totally see that! Sean Penn and Matthew McConaughey in their early days.

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

        Here’s an interesting study on facial attractiveness. While all previous studies have measures two factors, this one uses a computer model to assess attractiveness of 50 different dimensions of facial features, based on thousands of photos rated for attractiveness by opposite sex college students.

        “Said took 40 undergrads (20 male, 20 female) and set them down to rate 4,000 faces. Then he took those faces, measured them in 50 different dimensions, incorporating both shape and shading, then folded in the ratings from the undergrads and built himself a statistical tool. Compared to the two other models (which match up to human raters about 1-30 percent of the time), this one has a solid accuracy hovering around 70 percent. Not too shabby.

        If you’re curious, it also found that the average face is a pretty face, but rarely ever a knockout. Contrary to the dimorphism theory, not only can a femme-featured guy be above-average appealing, but (and this goes for women, too), the face becomes seriously attractive with a little extra darkening around the eyes — something the makeup artists of Pirates of the Caribbean probably realized a long time ago.”

        Here is Said’s software – pretty interesting stuff.

        http://www.facegen.com/

        “In general, although the average male face and the average female face were perceived to be attractive, they were not the maximally attractive faces. An analysis of the direction of maximal change in attractiveness for the average faces showed that attractiveness can be broken up into a sexual dimorphism component and a new, previously unreported component. For both males and females, this component involved a darkening of the skin, especially around the eyes, and thinner cheeks.

        We also found that the overall weak effect of masculinity on the attractiveness of male faces (Rennels et al., 2008; Rhodes, 2006; Swaddle & Reierson, 2002) can be explained by a disso- ciation between the effects of the shape and reflectance proper- ties of male faces. In general, we found that masculinity in male faces is attractive in the reflectance properties, but that femininity is attractive in the shape properties.”

        http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/08/18/0956797611419169

        So I guess that’s evidence that women dig pretty boys with eyeliner? ;)

  • JP

    @Iggles:

    “Eh.. “Settling” implies that because you couldn’t get your first choice, you’re accepting something (or someone) else.”

    Who gets their first choice? I didn’t get my first four choices. That makes my wife #5 on the list.

    That’s just how life works, isn’t it?

  • Sai

    @Mike C
    “In a sense, divorce is one or both people saying “nope, I can’t live with the deal I made/what I accepted”

    I read something like that before… and it makes sense, which is why I feel a strong need to be very sure of what I’m getting into.

    You have taken good care of yourself. :)

    Re: Jesus H. Christ
    I don’t remember who said or wrote it, but carpenters aren’t supposed to be rail-thin. Artists in centuries past seemed a lot more willing to acknowledge this.
    (I have a book with a copy of a “clobbering-time-Satan” looking picture. There are fewer of those now too.)

  • JP

    ““In a sense, divorce is one or both people saying “nope, I can’t live with the deal I made/what I accepted”

    I read something like that before… and it makes sense, which is why I feel a strong need to be very sure of what I’m getting into.”

    This is why divorce is generally annoying to me.

    Just make the decision and stick with it.

    I’d prefer to get rid of no-fault divorce entirely.

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

    @SW

    The girls would love it, the guys here would crucify me.

    Who are you writing for primarily, again? Maybe they could muzzle it just for once. After all, this isn’t a locker room. The post could be on “The Best Looking Relationship Men” instead. Using the B-word just encourages a lot of muddy foot traffic.

    Harden’s an interesting guy, the more I read about him. I don’t have a particularly “manly” look either, but he appears slightly more masculine on his website:

    http://nathanharden.com/

    Though he’ll always lose points with that coiffure IMO. Long-haired masculinity probably disappeared along with powdered wigs and ponytails circa 1825.

    His tack on the issues seems sexually conservative, for both men and women, which not only makes him an SMP “loser” around here, but just plain “wrong” in the opinion of most guys.

    He also appears to still be wearing his wedding ring, despite being a musician, getting published, and becoming semi-famous. Is that another cynical trope that’s been busted? :wink:

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    FWIW, I suggested the “Sexy Beta” idea for the girls reading the website, not the male commenters.

    Also FWIW, I don’t think it will necessarily attract as much flack as the “Why you should date a Beta” post. That Beta post came across as “betas are good providers, go date them” as opposed to “Betas are sexy.”

    Which is sort of like me saying that you should probably consider dating a Christian girl, because she will make you a sandwich. “Betas are sexy” might go over a little better here, I dunno. Wouldn’t go over well in Rollo-land.

    Also, how do I make my eyes darker?

  • INTJ

    Which is sort of like me saying that you should probably consider dating a Christian girl, because she will make you a sandwich.

    ROFL.

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

    And contrary to popular belief, most gay men I know prefer guys that look “straight” and act straight (not say, your flamboyant hairdresser). It’s also been my personal experience that it is alphas, not betas, who are more likely to be gay on average, but that’s another point. I could go on and on about the over 50% of “alpha” type guys I’ve met who’ve asked me if my gay male friends are taken.
    That is my experience too. No one hated the effeminate stereotype of the gay male more than my gay friends and they even bullied the choreographers,hairdressers…. It was an interesting phenomenon and yes going to the gym was a good gay tale most straight guys play sports and keep certain level of shape with some weights at home not enough dedication to go to the gym and of course they didn’t wanted any come ons by the gays, another tale was leaving along and having a large dog again in my country not sure how that works out here.

    My friends and I swooned for this Jesus:

    Well Ted Neely was hot, hard to blame them.

    This comment isn’t about women finding Jesus sexy, haha, I just think it’s interesting to see how he is most commonly portrayed in the culture.

    Every generation and art movement interprets the lord according to their own canons of beauty. There is also the fact that Jesus having transcended sexual needs (of course depending on if you believe Mary Magdalene and him were just disciple and master or if you think she was his wife, that theory had been around longer than Da Vinci’s Code) he is usually portrayed with male and female attributes to reflect this, by many painters and authors. Of course you have some modern rendition that take it to a different extreme like Boxing Jesus: http://www.art4god.com/html/?go=product&id=un

    I don’t remember who said or wrote it, but carpenters aren’t supposed to be rail-thin. Artists in centuries past seemed a lot more willing to acknowledge this.

    Even worse some modern translations had that Jesus was a stone worker so he should had been a lot buffer at least before he started his ministry. Maybe the fasting and praying make him lose weight though, still he should have had short hair and a more round face if we take in account the ethnicity he was born and where he lived. Here one controversial idea of how he might looked like: http://media-cache0.pinterest.com/upload/258394097340539344_EMS3yydd_b.jpg
    Of course this is a controversial subject and has been for ages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus

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

    That Beta post came across as “betas are good providers, go date them” as opposed to “Betas are sexy.”

    Went back and read through that post again. Only 3 of the 10 seemed to fit the “provider” motif (#5, 7, 8) and only one (nurturing & caring) stuck out as the boring, stereotypical reason to date so-called “betas”.

    I recall Susan commenting that most of the pushback came from “beta” regulars themselves. That probably wasn’t due to any kind of self-loathing. Rather, they may not necessarily have ALL 10 reasons synchronized themselves. I know I didn’t when I was single.

  • INTJ

    Frankly I was surprised that there was so much pushback against the notorious reasons to date a beta post. To some extent, I think guys were worried about women “settling” for guys they aren’t attracted to – which is a legitimate concern but neglects that people can choose attraction. But some of the guys seemed to misread the post as suggesting that guys act beta – a terrible misinterpretation of the post.

    @ Megaman

    I recall Susan commenting that most of the pushback came from “beta” regulars themselves. That probably wasn’t due to any kind of self-loathing. Rather, they may not necessarily have ALL 10 reasons synchronized themselves. I know I didn’t when I was single.

    It’s possible. I have all of those traits except perhaps 2, so that might be why I didn’t feel the need to pushback against that post.

  • Mike C

    Honestly, this is the kind of thing that makes you seem a lot more interested in having your say than in hearing anyone else’s ideas.

    For the record, I do hear your ideas and think about them, and you do persuade me of certain things. For example, I don’t really believe 80% of women are having sex with only 20% of the guys. You’ve successfully convinced me that is not the case.

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

      For example, I don’t really believe 80% of women are having sex with only 20% of the guys. You’ve successfully convinced me that is not the case.

      Glad those truckloads of data made an impact. :)

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

    @IntJ

    I have all of those traits except perhaps 2…

    I’m going to assume you’re not referring to #6 and 10. Any guy who’s struggling with those relationship-disqualifiers should probably disregard the whole premise of the post. :shock:

    Not sure why “acting beta” seems to be synonymous with “lack of common sense”. Should “acting alpha” be synonynmous with “lack of proportionality”? :mrgreen:

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    I meant that I have all of those beta traits except perhaps #2 (playing well with others).

    Are you being sarcastic about #6 and #10 being relationship disqualifiers?

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

    Are you being sarcastic about #6 and #10 being relationship disqualifiers?

    Garbled communications with Regula One. When you said “2”, I thought you meant “2 of 10″, not “#2″.

    What I meant: reasons #6 and 10 are relationship non-traits (i.e. things that you don’t want to have). Being prone to cheating or narcissism: bad for relationships. A lot of those “reasons to date” particular types of people could easily be applied to women…

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    Garbled communications with Regula One. When you said “2″, I thought you meant “2 of 10″, not “#2″.

    Oh yeah it does read like that.

    What I meant: reasons #6 and 10 are relationship non-traits (i.e. things that you don’t want to have). Being prone to cheating or narcissism: bad for relationships. A lot of those “reasons to date” particular types of people could easily be applied to women…

    Well, men don’t need reasons to date beta women. Most men naturally prefer beta women to alpha women.

  • Madelena

    @Mike C

    Question for you if you happen to still be following the thread. Since you lost all the weight and became much more physically attractive, has your taste in men especially in terms of physical type changed at all. If so, how?

    My answer:

    My taste in men has not really changed in terms of physical type. I actually don’t think I HAVE a physical type. I stated before that I don’t care for the tall, skinny types like Harden but if a man can meet my standards re charm, character and values, then he can overcome his lankiness and height. Looking on the types of men I’ve dated there really isn’t much connecting them physically.
    I have been approached by good-looking men and of course, it is nice. However, there has to be something else behind the looks – some sort of purpose, ambition, intelligence, something that tells me they don’t depend on their looks to carry them through life.

  • Ted D

    What tree was I barking up?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Rather, they may not necessarily have ALL 10 reasons synchronized themselves.

    What do you mean by this?

    I can’t speak for any other men. FWIW, my take on a girl who says she wants my brain and my nurturing and my no cheating and etc is…

    Does she want my dick, too?

    Rule number 1 to go after anyone is raw sexual attraction.

    A lot of this “choosing attraction” stuff, that 10 reasons for dating a post, even VD’s sour grapes defense mechanism honestly just sounds girls have to be bull-whipped into liking betas.

    That feels like shit.

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

      @ADBG

      A lot of this “choosing attraction” stuff, that 10 reasons for dating a post, even VD’s sour grapes defense mechanism honestly just sounds girls have to be bull-whipped into liking betas.

      This is one of those cases where I’m going to have to talk alpha/beta to get my point across. You’re missing a very important piece of the puzzle.

      I know that women are attracted to beta males.

      We think you’re attractive, we date you, and we marry you. We tingle for the Nathan Hardens of this world, no matter how distressing that is to hear for some men.

      If we think you’re cute or handsome or hot, it’s your move. And that move better bring the baseline dominance or you’ll be ruled out, as in “I was wrong about him.” That level of dominance will vary by female – all women like it, but not to the same degree. If you’re going for barsluts, you’d better have your A is for Asshole game tight and be ready to grab her boob as you chat. If you’re going for the preschool teacher you met through your married friends, a friendly self-confidence will suffice. It’s about calibration to match female attraction triggers. You have to figure that out, though in my view the best matches occur between people when minimal or no faking is required.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Also, I’d like to add that I am okay with being a Beta guy. My impression coming into this whole manosphere thing was that Beta=weak, but I guess that was what was needed to destroy the horrible character internalizations that were shoved down my throat.

    I still see it today in some of my friends, and I want to point to them to Roissy, so that damn Beta streak gets crushed and they alpha up.

    I like my Beta, though, it allows me to appreciate the finer things in life, work with a team, and not get too stressed in an endless quest for status. Some other guys want to fight and struggle and spend their whole lives to rise in a pissing competition? Whatever, let them, I’ll go write a book.

    And it also helps a lot to know that I got a lot of female attention back in the day, but was screwing up because I had a Learned Cluelessness of my own. That and ADBG had bad hair and didn’t dress well, because he didn’t think much of that. If ADBG went back to college now, ADBG would probably clean up.

    That last bit is essential. I wasn’t actively raised by my parents to think much of anything, but somehow I, and a lot of other Beta guys, were raised to think of themselves as meal tickets and not people. If all my Beta traits were valued on the basis of “meal ticket” or “nurturing” or “agreeable,” well, FUCK THAT SHIT.

    I want a girl to want my dick.

    So knowing those girls wanted me to pursue them, that was essential to accepting Beta traits. Knowing that Betas CAN be sexy, and especially how to be sexy, is a very “empowering” state of knowledge.

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

    FWIW, my take on a girl who says she wants my brain and my nurturing and my no cheating and etc. is…

    Who really says stuff like that IRL? I don’t think the original post said initial attraction, which goes without saying, wasn’t necessary. If nothing else, the main point I took away was: from the POV of women, if there is initial attraction, but some or all of these “green flag” qualities aren’t present, be very careful.

    Given that caveat, you seemed to be in agreement at the time:
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/05/16/hookinguprealities/10-reasons-to-date-a-beta-male/
    ADBG: On the actual topic: Agreed 110%

    P.S. Thank you, Giants!

  • INTJ

    P.S. Thank you, Giants!

    Now the Earthquakes need to win the MLS Cup.

  • Emily

    Re: Muscles

    Off the Cuff’s post at 312 sounds about right.

    I think when girls say “I don’t like guys who are too muscular”, it’s similar to when guys say “I don’t like girls who are too skinny”. In both cases, they have a really extreme example in mind (ie. when girls say that, they’re picturing Arnold Schwarzenegger/Mr. Olympia types, and when guys say that, they’re almost always imagining the really underweight runway models.) With both of these examples, VERY few people run the risk of entering “gross” territory IMO.

    For me at least, when I say that I’m not attracted to “big” guys, it’s more an ectomorph vs. endomorph thing rather than a muscles vs. no muscles thing. The ectomorph types that I tend to be attracted to aren’t going to become any less attractive by hitting the gym (quite the opposite in fact!) Whereas, I’m not likely to be super-attracted to a “big boned” endomorph, no matter how much he works out. But like I said, they don’t tend to be attracted to me either, so it’s all good. ;)

  • Mike C

    Re: Muscles

    Off the Cuff’s post at 312 sounds about right.

    I think when girls say “I don’t like guys who are too muscular”, it’s similar to when guys say “I don’t like girls who are too skinny”. In both cases, they have a really extreme example in mind (ie. when girls say that, they’re picturing Arnold Schwarzenegger/Mr. Olympia types,

    I think you are exactly right, and sometimes really extreme example means really, really, really extreme example. Here is an excerpt from somewhere else that was kind of amusing:

    Reminds me of reading elsewhere the question “Do girls like muscles?” and one female responded – “eeww, big muscles are icky. I only like guys who are toned, like John Cena.”

    John Cena is “toned” instead of having “big muscles”….LOL…the guy is huge. I’m not sure what planet it is where John Cena isn’t considered an extreme example of muscularity.

    More generally, and this carries to a lot of things such as where is the line between confidence and cockiness….it’s really hard to know what someone means by a single word adjective. Different people conjure up totally different images in their mind. Its one reason I often try to get to specificity and direct quantifying of something because a one word description is often worthless. So for example, instead of saying a guy is “confident” or “cocky” which could mean a million different things, let’s drill down to specific actions and behaviors.

  • balai_c

    Hi, ms walsh. Have been reading your blog for while. Very provacative and interesting to say the least After spending some here, it strikes to me, that all the intellectual labour spent, has been confined to countries, with non-western nations practically ignored (not to blame though, we non-westerners would have to man up and take a plunge). I am from India, trying to delineate an equivalent picture in Indian universities.

    Premarital sex, among male and female peers, do happen, but in very small numbers. I got my batchelars degree in electrcal engineering from from a fairly non descript college in the easteen part of the country. Our classof 62 students had a fairly decent female participation (about 16 students, about 25 %). I maintained a very cordial and friendly relations with most of them. Because of voluntary exclution of any sexual agency between us, I managed to stay very good friends with most of them.

    In my college and others, hookup culture is fairly common, though hookup in this case means a long courtship ritual, that can at most lead to passionate kissing, and in very rare cases, consensual sex. I cannot speak with authority, nor do I have statstical data to back my statement. I speak solely from personal experience. Arranged marriages are indeed the norm ( though vastly changed by the changes in gender peer bonding dynamics), though self selected marriages (ubiquitous in west), is rising in huge numbers, most of my relatives foung their mates through love.

    I do believe that some of what I have written , may not be germane to the topic under discussion, but I am a newbie and so plese cut me some slack!

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

      @balai_c

      Thanks so much for leaving a comment! It’s true that I focus on the American sexual marketplace because it’s what I know and understand. It’s also a market that is being studied with rigor by researchers. Everyone is welcome there though – it may be interesting for you to discuss these matters with people here. While the bulk of visitors here are American, at least 20% or so come from other countries – you’re far from alone!

  • szopen

    WRT muscular guys vs average or skin guys, all of the guys I knew who would fit the PUA stereotype, were not muscular. E.g. the guy who took the first girl I had crush on, was extremely thin, skinny guy, even more ugly than me, but he was a BAD BOY and until I swallowed red Pill I couldn’t understand how possibly such stupid arsehole could get intelligent, pretty girl.

    Second girl I lost to short, ugly guy with a lot of fat. He was banging girls regularly. I have not believed him until he joined me on a travel to other city, where he took on girl which was supposed to meet me and he banged a girl on the same night he met her. He couldn’t understand why I was angry. “You seemed not be interested in her”, he explained. He later went on to be highly succesful guy, who last time I’ve heard about him was still single and still making 10 ten times more than me.

    In addition I knew two brothers. The smaller one was player, and he had far more success than the taller, more muscular guy. When I was hosted by them I overheard a discussion between brothers, when the taller was accusing the smaller brother, that he is constantly getting all the girls and nothing is left for the taller one.

    In short, I see absolutely no connection between being muscular and having a success with girls. This is just my observation, but it seems to be somewhat confirmed by reactions of women here.

  • szopen

    @definite beta guy

    For the record, I was quite the “Brooding Loner” back in college, and it definitely got me some attraction…but I had no idea what the fuck to do with it!

    I hear you!

    how do I make my eyes darker?

    Get in a fight, you will easily get a black eye. Then watch a stream of hypnotized beatiful girls. I guess you should also diet for two months and patting a child at head, but that could cause riots, so you should be careful.

  • Madelena

    I don’t know if this was addressed before but isn’t there acceptance that as a person gets older their tastes evolve? That the young woman who swooned over s bad boy leather motorcyle type at 21 yrs old would not give him a 2nd glance at 31 yrs old? Is there no allowance for evolution in taste by beta types?

    I know there are formerly fat women who are greatly resentful that the same guys who wouldn’t give them the type of day when they were fat now come running after the weight has been lost. To me it’s common sense that a greater pool of men will be attracted to you once you reach the major criteria for attractiveness, but some of my former fat women have a sense of contempt towards these men for not being able to see their character and instead just focusing on looks.

    It was a source of private humour to me when I went to one alumni meeting and the men who knew me when overweight took second and third glances at me, then maneouvered their way to get close to chat me up, always starting with “You look great!”
    I do sometimes feel like kicking myself for spending my time in business school out of shape, since it was a prime opportunity to find a quality man but better late than never.

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

      @Madelena

      I don’t know if this was addressed before but isn’t there acceptance that as a person gets older their tastes evolve? That the young woman who swooned over s bad boy leather motorcyle type at 21 yrs old would not give him a 2nd glance at 31 yrs old? Is there no allowance for evolution in taste by beta types?

      The evolution of what one finds attractive as one matures is natural for both sexes. I recall one girl in my daughter’s high school who was extremely pretty, but also a bit slutty and anorexic – she weighed about 85 lbs. at her lowest and always smelled a bit like vomit. The line of guys trying to make her their girlfriend was two dozen deep, and these were the highest status guys in the class. I suspect most of them would take a pass today.

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

        I also think you have to allow for the fact that people change over time. SMV may stay the same, increase or decrease. It’s only natural that a person’s success in attracting the opposite sex will predictably shift accordingly.

        The attractive 30 year old who was awkward at 21 is going to see his market price increase. The beautiful teenage girl who does a lot of boozing and casual sex is going to look worse for wear, and her market price is going to decrease.

        It’s misguided, in my view, to hold people accountable for why they didn’t find you attractive before, i.e., “You didn’t want me when I was 18, so you can’t have me now!” All that does is serve to keep you alone, because if you use that as a filter, you’re narrowing the pool to people who would have found you attractive with a lower SMV, and that’s going to be people with a lower SMV.

        If you’re fortunate enough to see your capital rise over time, either through simple maturation or concerted effort as in Madelena’s case, good for you! You can have a hell of a lot more fun and success celebrating your newfound status if you don’t dwell on how no one liked you when you were less attractive. That’s just a terrible strategy.

  • szopen

    @Madelaine
    There is no better of indicator of character than losing weight. It requires self-discipline and self-criticism. In order to lose weight, you need to put goals, plan your diet, and defeat your urges.

    Therefore, a man going for once-fat girl is admiring her character, not her body :)

  • JP

    @Madelena:

    “I don’t know if this was addressed before but isn’t there acceptance that as a person gets older their tastes evolve? That the young woman who swooned over s bad boy leather motorcyle type at 21 yrs old would not give him a 2nd glance at 31 yrs old? Is there no allowance for evolution in taste by beta types?”

    Yes, but the problem is that the beta was ready to enter a relationship at 21.

    By 31, the beta is permanently bitter and disengaged and remembers what you did to him before.

    Therein lies the problem.

    (Note: I never actually had this problem, it’s just my theory.)

  • JP

    I’m going to deal with this entire alpha/beta problem through the use of literature.

    Ever read Vanity Fair?

    Read it and then think about the three characters, Dobbin (beta man), George (alpha man), and Amelia (girl).

    Has there already been a post about this? I’m too lazy to search.

  • Lokland

    @Madalena

    Theres a few problems with your post.

    In your example of the fat girl.
    Mens taste didn’t ‘evolve’ the girl just stopped being fat. The buyer didn’t change the product did.

    In the example of women going from hot, bad boy to normal beta. Its the buyer who altered what they wanted to buy not the product. The beta man is no more or less attractive than he was before.

    “”I don’t know if this was addressed before but isn’t there acceptance that as a person gets older their tastes evolve?”

    Yes, peoples tastes evolve. Typically the reasoning is not going to be good for the new taste.

    “That the young woman who swooned over s bad boy leather motorcyle type at 21 yrs old would not give him a 2nd glance at 31 yrs old? Is there no allowance for evolution in taste by beta types?”

    You do realize how insulting this is right?

    ‘Hey, your hot now that I have crows feet, a bit of a muffin top etc.
    The fact that I liked someone hotter than you back when I was hottest is only because you yourself were ugly. Now that I’m in the same camp as you we can be a couple.’

    A woman at 31 has 4 years of youthful beauty left. A woman at 21 has 14.
    Those extra 10 years are the hottest a women will ever be.

    Getting chosen by a women over 30 is essentially be told your ugly. Not that its not untrue merely that most people don’t choose to run into pain.

  • Madelena

    @Lokland

    I once said that a lot of what I read here by the men have no bearing on what I observe with mine two eyes in real life and your statements above are prime examples of that.

  • Lokland

    @Madalena

    “I once said that a lot of what I read here by the men have no bearing on what I observe with mine two eyes in real life and your statements above are prime examples of that.”

    Excellent use of rhetoric though void of any substance.

    “If you’re fortunate enough to see your capital rise over time, either through simple maturation or concerted effort as in Madelena’s case, good for you!”

    I think my point was mis-interpreted.

    Do you think the woman in an LTR with Tucker Max is getting a good, bad or neutral deal?
    His life altering view on how he needs monogamy and love and kittens is great for him but likely to be very bad for his mate.

    If we didn’t like people who weren’t into us beforehand game itself would be a rather pointless endeavour. “I’m gonna go make myself hot so I can have what I had before!!….wait WTF?”

    “for why they didn’t find you attractive before”

    This however is ridiculous.
    “My net worth climbed X amount from 20 to 30 but the girls really love me for me now.”

    My original argument was one in which a beta mans SMV remains static but suddenly at 30 women want him.

    The sharks have showed up to feed.

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

      @Lokland

      Do you think the woman in an LTR with Tucker Max is getting a good, bad or neutral deal?
      His life altering view on how he needs monogamy and love and kittens is great for him but likely to be very bad for his mate.

      I think his SMV, or perhaps MMV, is very low, and has been decreasing steadily for years. However, from a MV standpoint, to be selected by him for commitment now would still be flattering. Take the case of Warren Beatty and Annette Bening. She was lauded (and still is) for having tamed the notorious player. A woman who had Tucker Max jumping on Oprah’s couch and declaring his love would have reeled in a big one.

      If we didn’t like people who weren’t into us beforehand game itself would be a rather pointless endeavour. “I’m gonna go make myself hot so I can have what I had before!!….wait WTF?”

      Exactly! So what does the resentment and bitterness of the “improved beta” get you? Nothing! Post-Game you’re in a better position to get what you want, and that probably means a woman who wouldn’t have liked you before.

      “My net worth climbed X amount from 20 to 30 but the girls really love me for me now.”

      Well, “economic capacity” is the first and foremost female attraction trigger. Increasing your net worth increases your SMV. You can either use that or not, but it makes no sense to be angry with women who didn’t like you when you were poor. We’re wired that way, and for good reason.

  • Lokland

    After the first para is for Susan not Mada

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “We tingle for the Nathan Hardens of this world, no matter how distressing that is to hear for some men.”

    Not particularly distressed but he is not a prime example of beta.
    Easiest metric to find; height 6′ 2″
    puts him in the 94th percentile. (According to my admittedly quick google search which might be inaccurate.)

    If thats what it takes most men are out for the count.

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

      @Lokland

      Height alone does not alpha make. All things being equal, it helps, but I have known many a tall beta. What makes a guy beta is in his head. There are a lot of guys who reach adulthood alpha outside, beta inside. Mike C is a prime example.

  • Ted D

    Madelena – “That the young woman who swooned over s bad boy leather motorcyle type at 21 yrs old would not give him a 2nd glance at 31 yrs old? Is there no allowance for evolution in taste by beta types?”

    Well the problem here is those “beta” guys got to sit around and watch that 21 year old sexing up the bad boy, and then when she turns 30 all of a sudden HE is not in her sites. To me, the first thing I would think is: where the hell where you when I was 21 and lonely? Price discrimination then comes into play, and a whole other slew of crap. Yes, people grow up. But it’s a really tough sell for a woman to try and convince “beta” guys that they are so TOTALLY over screwing bad boys now that she is older (and not as hot) and wiser.

    Susan – “It’s misguided, in my view, to hold people accountable for why they didn’t find you attractive before, i.e., “You didn’t want me when I was 18, so you can’t have me now!” All that does is serve to keep you alone, because if you use that as a filter, you’re narrowing the pool to people who would have found you attractive with a lower SMV, and that’s going to be people with a lower SMV.”

    Yeah but now we are back to my old used car metaphor. Do you and other women not realize just how shitty it is for many men to realize that the women that “want” them in their 30’s totally “gave it away” through their 20’s to douchebags, asshats, and maybe even a few nice but totally hot guys? Only to show up later wanting to “settle down” and all that? So, why would I want to buy a used car that I’m pretty sure was used as a getaway vehicle for a bank robbery and was wrecked going 90mph running from the cops? Sure, they may have done a stellar job of putting that car back together, but if I can go down the street and buy another one that looks pretty close to this one, why would I want to take the chance that it is a lemon?

    For my part, it isn’t the issue that tastes evolve over time. I get it, I’ve lived it. BUT, (big but on purpose lol) that DOES NOT mean that a woman should spend her 20’s “test driving” a bunch of sports cars only to decide at 30 that she really wants a family sedan. That is not “evolving” tastes so much as just shitty behavior IMO.

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

      @Ted

      Do you and other women not realize just how shitty it is for many men to realize that the women that “want” them in their 30’s totally “gave it away” through their 20’s to douchebags, asshats, and maybe even a few nice but totally hot guys? Only to show up later wanting to “settle down” and all that?

      We have already firmly established that only 20% of women (if that) have sex with douchebags. Easy solution: go for the other 80%.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I know that women are attracted to beta males.

    We think you’re attractive, we date you, and we marry you. We tingle for the Nathan Hardens of this world, no matter how distressing that is to hear for some men.

    If we think you’re cute or handsome or hot, it’s your move. And that move better bring the baseline dominance or you’ll be ruled out, as in “I was wrong about him.”

    OK. Here is the thing. if he brings “the dominance” in any form, he is not really a “beta” in the classic sense. A beta is a guy that simply does NOT bring dominance, because he is either incapable or been brainwashed into not showing it.

    If I guy has any sign of dominance, he is not fully beta. And this is at least why *I* tend to disagree that women often “love” beta’s. You may love beta traits, but it is NOT THE BETA that causes attraction. It is not that he is a great cook or homemaker, but that you find him attractive AND he brings enough “manliness” to the table for you, in whatever form that takes. Sure, I can fully see that a guy could be very mild and quiet at home but rage at the office, and a woman may find that absolutely tingle inducing. BUT, it is NOT is home demeanor that makes the tingle. It perhaps makes her life very pleasant, but she isn’t sexually attracted to it necessarily. Now I will grant that I fully believe women “love” beta traits, and can love the men presenting them. But, are they really sexually attracted to them? Do they get hot and bothered for them? I’m willing ot bet that for the vast majority of women, it is NOT those beta traits causing the tingle. There is something there that at least SHE sees as alpha, although I suppose that there may be a woman out there that views a guy that can dust and mop with a smile on his face as alpha…

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

      @Ted D

      Here is the thing. if he brings “the dominance” in any form, he is not really a “beta” in the classic sense. A beta is a guy that simply does NOT bring dominance, because he is either incapable or been brainwashed into not showing it.

      I think that’s a Gamma. Dominance is on a spectrum. It’s not that beta guys have NO self-confidence. For clarification, we’ll use Vox Day’s sociosexual rank, as I believe the Roissy-style binary switch is far too restrictive, to the point where it makes debate impossible:

      Beta: Betas are the good-looking guys who aren’t as uniformly attractive or socially dominant as the Alpha, but are nevertheless confident, attractive to women, and do well with them.

      Delta: The normal guy. Deltas are the great majority of men. They can’t attract the most attractive women, so they usually aim for the second-tier women with very limited success, and stubbornly resist paying attention to all of the third-tier women who are comfortably in their league.

      Gamma: The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex.

      Omega: The truly unfortunate. Omegas are the social losers who were never in the game. Sometimes creepy, sometimes damaged, often clueless, and always undesirable.

  • JP

    “OK. Here is the thing. if he brings “the dominance” in any form, he is not really a “beta” in the classic sense. A beta is a guy that simply does NOT bring dominance, because he is either incapable or been brainwashed into not showing it.”

    I think this is kind of true.

    Here are some life rules that I absorbed when I was younger.

    (1) Always be nice and never be angry.
    (2) Never stand up for yourself.
    (3) The interests of other people always come before yours.

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

    @Ted

    If he brings “the dominance” in any form, he is not really a “beta” in the classic sense. A beta is a guy that simply does NOT bring dominance, because he is either incapable or been brainwashed into not showing it.

    “No True Scotsman” has been sighted!

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

    (1) Always be nice and never be angry.
    (2) Never stand up for yourself.
    (3) The interests of other people always come before yours.

    Honestly, this sounds like a bad cliché, or something out of the old Soviet Union. No wonder they lost the Cold War… :wink:

  • INTJ

    @ Madelena

    I don’t know if this was addressed before but isn’t there acceptance that as a person gets older their tastes evolve? That the young woman who swooned over s bad boy leather motorcyle type at 21 yrs old would not give him a 2nd glance at 31 yrs old? Is there no allowance for evolution in taste by beta types?

    A lot of us say that. But Susan keeps saying that alpha-chasers continue chasing alphas, even later in life.

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

      @INTJ

      A lot of us say that. But Susan keeps saying that alpha-chasers continue chasing alphas, even later in life.

      I do think that it’s rare for a woman to feel attracted to and have sex with badboys in her youth, and then feel attracted to good guys as she ages.

      Men are completely justified in refusing any deal that includes price discrimination. There are so many women that have never chased alphas, why risk commitment with a reformed slut?

  • JP

    “Honestly, this sounds like a bad cliché, or something out of the old Soviet Union. No wonder they lost the Cold War… ”

    There’s nothing quite like getting beaten up as a kid and never fighting back because you thought it was wrong to fight back.

    People really need to be more careful with what they teach kids.

  • Mike C

    Madalena,

    Thanks for the response, and let me say I think you have a really great attitude about everything.

    I have been approached by good-looking men and of course, it is nice. However, there has to be something else behind the looks – some sort of purpose, ambition, intelligence, something that tells me they don’t depend on their looks to carry them through life.

    Absolutely! I strongly agree that for a LTR/marriage a person has to bring a lot more than just looks. I’ll make an observation about “good looks” and I’ve got no statistical studies I’ve done on this…just my general feeling on the matter. I think often there is a big difference between people who develop their good looks later in life…say 20s or even 30s versus people who were good-looking since middle school or high school. To use an analogy, I think it is the difference between someone who grew up poor and is an entrepreneur and self-made millionaire versus someone who inherited their wealth. One has a sense of life on the “other side of the tracks” while the other does not. Often, this shows up in person’s attitude and character. Sometimes, this can even be a common bonding experience. I know my fiancee and I bonded over our common histories as former fatties. Even today, we share a “sense of mission” because of that.

    I don’t know if this was addressed before but isn’t there acceptance that as a person gets older their tastes evolve?

    In general, I would think so with the caveat being really assessing the why of the evolution in tastes. Is it real and internalized? We know most divorce is initiated by women. At least for some amount of those cases, it seems clear to me that at some point “buyers remorse” sets in. I think it is only prudent for a man to vet the “evolution in tastes” in great detail.

    I know there are formerly fat women who are greatly resentful that the same guys who wouldn’t give them the type of day when they were fat now come running after the weight has been lost. To me it’s common sense that a greater pool of men will be attracted to you once you reach the major criteria for attractiveness, but some of my former fat women have a sense of contempt towards these men for not being able to see their character and instead just focusing on looks.

    I can sort of understand this…at least the emotional feeling. I think some guys can feel the same sort of resentment with respect to Game. It’s funny. I can tell you I never felt one iota of resentment or any negative feelings whatsoever based on any attention or interest I got based on changing my looks. On the other hand, in the beginning there were some aspects of Game that kind of bothered me in terms of results. I wouldn’t say resentful is the right word. More like, “really, you’ve got to kidding me”. Like throwing out some cocky/funny banter and seeing the predictable reaction. Ultimately though, attraction works the way it does so it is kind of silly to get bothered by aspects of it whether male or female.

  • INTJ

    @ JP

    It’s not just the parents that tell kids not to fight back:
    http://intjforum.com/showpost.php?p=2973727&postcount=11

  • J

    People really need to be more careful with what they teach kids.

    Indeed they do. There’s a healthy balance that a parent should aim for–assertive, but not aggressive. My own sons have a reputation for being kind and helpful, but they are not doormats. They also are proactive in taking care of themselves.

  • JP

    @INTJ:

    “It’s not just the parents that tell kids not to fight back:
    http://intjforum.com/showpost.php?p=2973727&postcount=11

    Well, my father *was* a school principal/school superintendent who absolutely *loved* enforcing those rules.

    So, I suppose it makes sense.

  • Ted D

    JP – “(1) Always be nice and never be angry.
    (2) Never stand up for yourself.
    (3) The interests of other people always come before yours.”

    I’ll add:
    Never brag/gloat/mention how good you did or are at something.
    Always put your spouses needs and desires before your own.

    Megaman – Let me explain.
    I fully believe that every single man alive has an inner alpha. Unless a guy can’t make up his mind about anything and has no ambition to speak of, he has ‘some’ alpha in him. The thing is, that alpha shows in very different ways from man to man.

    While we were going through all this N stuff, my wife commented that she was surprised to find out I had so little “experience” (read lower N). She said she assumed it was because of my LTRs, but she actually realized what was going on after she saw me out in public a few times. She said that meeting me in public probably wouldn’t have generated much interest from her. When I asked why, she said that when I am comfortable (meaning with friends or a small group of people I know) I come off as an opinionated asshole because I’m so damn stubborn and loud. (I was the kid that got busted every single time for whispering in class. LOL) She said that she was drawn to that because it implied I was smart enough to form an opinion and “strong” enough to back it up. What surprised her was when I’m in mixed company (that is people I don’t know) I clam up. I don’t push my ideas on people I don’t know unless they engage me first, and even then she was surprised by the amount of “restraint” I use when talking to strangers. (that is, I’m not a loud asshole). In the end she found that very attractive because generally guys that are so stubborn tend to pick fights and cause scenes, and she realized that despite my very hardline views on everything I wouldn’t be the guy she had to pull out of a fight.

    Without getting too long winded (too late? :P) she got to see my inner alpha BEFORE she met me in a setting where it simply doesn’t show. She liked that inner alpha, but also liked that I had him under control.

    There are many, many men I see every day that have the capability of being more alpha. They all have their own reasons for not doing so, but that doens’t mean it isn’t in there. If a woman happens to catch a glimps of it though, she may very well find herself attracted TO that alpha. I’ve known some very introverted IT guys that intimidated me because of their abilities with logic and coding. In a group of other IT guys, these men would dominate the room simply by virtue of the fact that the rest of us KNEW we were outgunned on the subject. That very same man can walk out of the building and for all the world look like a fluffy bunny though. If a woman happens to see him “working the room” at the office though, it may be more than enough to set them tingling.

    So, just because a man looks for all the world to be a total beta, you can be pretty sure somewhere in there is an alpha that simply needs the right environment to come out. If that guy has a GF/Wife that is geniunely content with him, I’d bet money on the fact that there is something in his life that he KNOWS he is alpha at. It may be basket weaving, but if his SO thinks his basket weaving skills are hot, he’s got himself a winner.

    MMSL and much of the ‘sphere is really just trying to teach men how to let that alpha out. In the last year I’ve stopped “dumbing down” when I’m out in public. I no longer bother being humble about my accomplishments. I’m doing my best NOT to get embarrassed when someone compliments me on something. I’m looking more like an alpha. But ya know what? I had the capability of doing this my entire life. I didn’t need to create some asshole persona to find my alpha, I simply needed to stop choking him to death. And I’m pretty damn sure that every one of my LTR mates found that asshole attractive. My mistake was believing I should keep him under lock and key around them, because I wasn’t supposed to “treat women like that” or some such nonsense.

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

      I had the capability of doing this my entire life. I didn’t need to create some asshole persona to find my alpha, I simply needed to stop choking him to death.

      This is a very powerful statement, it gave me goosebumps.

  • J

    @INTJ

    Wow! That was quite a link. The treatment received by the guy who was bullied was extremey unfair. I’ve seen schools attempted to treat both parties in a fight the same rather than try to parse out who actually started the fight, but I’ve never seen a school punish the victim at 3x the severity as the perpetrator was punished. Where were the parents?

    IME, the kid who will be treated the most equitably is the kid whose parents are there to advocate for him. Bullies are often catered to because they have scary parents.

  • Ted D

    “There’s nothing quite like getting beaten up as a kid and never fighting back because you thought it was wrong to fight back.”

    Yep this. I was told growing up over and over that because I was a “big kid” I had to be careful because I could hurt someone. They kinda left out the part about defending yourself though, and all through gradeschool it left me being on the recieving end of a lot of physical abuse.

  • JP

    @Ted:

    “I’ll add:
    Never brag/gloat/mention how good you did or are at something.
    Always put your spouses needs and desires before your own.”

    Well, my wife never had to worry about me putting her needs ahead of my own because that’s one place I had the reverse model growing up, as in:

    “(1) Wives don’t work outside the home.
    (2) Wives execute administrative orders provided by the Husband (the head administrative unit).”

    I always told people that I wasn’t raised as a child as much as I was administered.

    My wife is not exactly a fan of my father.

    Her point is that “He’s always grumpy and he just expects you to do things for him!”

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    ” A woman who had Tucker Max jumping on Oprah’s couch and declaring his love would have reeled in a big one.”

    Yeah but if she was just another STM then she wouldn’t get any cred. Men work the same in reverse. Getting a women to commit to you isn’t cred worthy, STM is.

    Therefore having a woman who wouldn’t commit to you beforehand but now will is utterly valueless compared to the woman who wouldn’t sleep with you beforehand but now will. (Note: madonna-whore complex still applies.)

    Thats why getting the stripper to STM with you is cred worthy but marry you is not.

    “Exactly! So what does the resentment and bitterness of the “improved beta” get you? Nothing! ”

    The resentment is not that she wouldn’t have before. its that she is no old. why waste time with a 30 year old when a 27-28 year old beta hitting his stride can easily pull a 22-25 year old. Its insulting to be chosen by a women on the decline while your on the upward swing.

    If I rejected every woman who rejected me as a high school student I’d be choosing from a pool of 0.

    Resent those women the same age as you who changed strategies all you want. Theres lot of younger ones who haven’t changed their sights and are able to get what they want which is a beta which is now you. Who cares what a 30yo woman finds attractive.

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

      @Lokland

      why waste time with a 30 year old when a 27-28 year old beta hitting his stride can easily pull a 22-25 year old. Its insulting to be chosen by a women on the decline while your on the upward swing.

      Agree 100%. Your increased SMV means you can now pull girls with a higher SMV. No need to go for someone on the decline. I understand the feeling of being insulted, but I’m suggesting you’re better off with a “her loss” attitude. The smart women grab their mates on the way up – that’s the best ROI a woman can get. You need higher SMV to go for the 28 yo guy hitting his stride – he was a “bargain” at 23.

  • Ted D

    Susan – I’ve seen that before but really wasn’t familiar with it. That does make some sense though as the alpha/beta dichotomy just doens’t leave a whole lot of room for variability.

    So if I understand VD’s take correctly, he is saying most guys are delta and not beta? This doesn’t jive well at all with most of the ‘sphere. I’m sure VD doesn’t care about that, but it DOES change the conversation quite a bit. In fact to me this changes how the terms are used a great deal. To the point that for me it brings up the whole “what is alpha?” debate again.

    I may have been a gamma/beta mashup of some sort in my prior life. :P

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

      he is saying most guys are delta and not beta?

      Maybe VD will show up, but a lot of his posts are addressed to gammas and deltas. Personally, I find his paradigm very useful because it’s not very efficient or informative to talk about 80% of the population without differentiating any further.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Height alone does not alpha make.”

    not my point.
    Using an outlier in terms of physical appearance and then claiming ‘woman like betas’ is disingenuous. Its similar to the ‘woman like serial killers, therefore they like dominance’ meme but on the opposite end of the spectrum.

    Another would be Tom Brady is hot therefore women love betas.

    Not necessarily true.

    Woman appear to like hot guys who happen to be beta.

    Not saying thats wrong or immoral just that its not the beta that attracts woman.

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

      @Lokland

      Woman appear to like hot guys who happen to be beta.

      Not saying thats wrong or immoral just that its not the beta that attracts woman.

      I’ll leave aside the desirability of beta traits in LTRs for now as part of the formula of female attraction. You are correct – physical attraction comes first, the alpha/beta piece comes after. Cute betas will get a lot more cute girls attracted to them than ugly alphas will.

      And don’t forget, your cover is blown. You are cute.

  • Ted D

    Lokland – “Yeah but if she was just another STM then she wouldn’t get any cred. Men work the same in reverse. Getting a women to commit to you isn’t cred worthy, STM is.

    Therefore having a woman who wouldn’t commit to you beforehand but now will is utterly valueless compared to the woman who wouldn’t sleep with you beforehand but now will. (Note: madonna-whore complex still applies.)

    Thats why getting the stripper to STM with you is cred worthy but marry you is not.”

    You hit that nail on the head so hard it went through the 2×4!

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Well, “economic capacity” is the first and foremost female attraction trigger. Increasing your net worth increases your SMV. You can either use that or not”

    This comes back to the beautiful woman wanting to be loved for her heart not her tits. The same can be said of provisioning capability.

    Beyond that, looks cannot be stolen, money can.

    My provisioning capacity from 19 to now has literally gone up exponentially. I kept how much cash I had lying around hidden from my wife for about 1.5 yrs. She saw my grubby apartment and shitty car.

    You should’ve seen some of the women’s eyes light up after learning I actually had a loft downtown where I spent my weekends and ran some businesses on the side. (Start up from parents, I’ll admit it without guilt.)

    They didn’t want me before that moment, theres no reason to suspect they would have wanted me after learning that fact. They only wanted my things not me.

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

      @Lokland

      I kept how much cash I had lying around hidden from my wife for about 1.5 yrs. She saw my grubby apartment and shitty car.

      Brilliant strategy. I know this isn’t easy to pull off, but if I were wealthy I would do the exact same thing.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    My husband was a poor volunteer and then grad student for the first two years we were together. So yeah I fell in love with him, not his money. I didn’t keep anything from him either, although I did like that we got to know each other first online, so my looks were secondary to my personality.

    I can’t imagine keeping my looks hidden from him and still having him be interested though… I think keeping secrets is bad mojo for LTRs, but eh, to each his/her own.

  • J

    They didn’t want me before that moment, theres no reason to suspect they would have wanted me after learning that fact. They only wanted my things not me.

    This is the male version of he only wants me for my looks, not me.

    It’s a tough spot. Both men and women want to be wanted for more than the superficial and to be fully accepted, flaws and all, by a partner. It’s that more primitive wiring that keeps getting in the way.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “This is a very powerful statement, it gave me goosebumps.”

    It rocked my world too. ;-)

    My two primary problems when it came to women and relationship:
    1. the damn pedestal – I honetsly believed women were the “virtuous” ones.
    2. Very high introversion

    Introversion kept me invisible in most social situations. The Pedestal made me beta up when I committed to a woman. Simply removing that damn pedestal did wonders by itself. Pushing myself to be a little more extroverted is icing on the cake. And it applies to FAR more than my romantic life.

    It is no coincidence that I met every one of my LTR mates in smaller social gatherings. (such as a friends house or small house party) It is in those situations that I was more “myself” because I was comfortable showing my inner goodies around people I know and trust.

    And the pedestal was something I learned as a young boy, primarily because of my family. I was the son of a single mother that had been “duped” by a cad-type. So I got a whole lot of feminization as a small boy and young man. It was a harsh thing to discover I had been giving women FAR too much credit most of my life. But, it did explain an entire lifetime of dissonance between what I believed and what I saw with my own eyes.

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

      @Ted D

      My two primary problems when it came to women and relationship:
      1. the damn pedestal – I honetsly believed women were the “virtuous” ones.
      2. Very high introversion

      It seems that description fits many of the male commenters. Extraverts no doubt had an easier time of it because they had more social interaction as practice.

  • Ted D

    “And don’t forget, your cover is blown. You are cute.”

    Did I miss a picture of Lokland somewhere?

    I saw the pick Mike C posted, and I’m damn glad I’ve never pissed him off in real life anywhere. INTJ’s pic looked to me like he doesn’t have much to worry about either. And good grief whats up with the hate for glasses?! I thought they made us guys look smarter. :P

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

      Did I miss a picture of Lokland somewhere?

      No that’s confidential, you’ll have to take my word for it. After hearing Lokland describe himself as ugly on numerous occasions and then seeing his pic, I wanted my money back. Or something.

  • Mike C

    Well, “economic capacity” is the first and foremost female attraction trigger. Increasing your net worth increases your SMV. You can either use that or not, but it makes no sense to be angry with women who didn’t like you when you were poor. We’re wired that way, and for good reason.

    Agree. There is no getting around that capacity for provisioning is going to valuable. The parallel for this is the male preference for youth because it represents greater fertility. As you point out, we are wired that way, and for good reason.

    I will point out that I think a woman can win some major loyalty/devotion points if she sees a guy’s potential instead of only focusing on finished products. I’m not saying the latter is wrong or bad strategy (it can be good strategy), but the former I think will make a deep impact (assuming a guy of good character). There are a lot of guys who go through rough patches before becoming tremendous successes. Jim Cramer of CNBC was actually homeless living out of his car at one point before becoming a multi-millionaire hedge fund manager.

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

      I will point out that I think a woman can win some major loyalty/devotion points if she sees a guy’s potential instead of only focusing on finished products.

      Yes, this is the smartest move. It requires successfully identifying high potential guys, but that isn’t so hard either. Graduate schools are good hunting grounds… :)

  • JP

    “It seems that description fits many of the male commenters. Extraverts no doubt had an easier time of it because they had more social interaction as practice.”

    I’ve never been able to tell whether I’m an introvert or just really socially dysfunctional. Or both.

    That being said, I really didn’t have any real enduring problems with dating or getting married, even given my incoherent social skills.

    However, I’m just kind of here to be here. Or something.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “Yes, this is the smartest move. It requires successfully identifying high potential guys, but that isn’t so hard either. Graduate schools are good hunting grounds… ”

    You may want to do a post on how women may want to avoid law students.

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

      @JP

      You may want to do a post on how women may want to avoid law students.

      How come? I know a lot of lawyer-lawyer married couples.

  • Mike C

    I saw the pick Mike C posted, and I’m damn glad I’ve never pissed him off in real life anywhere.

    Haha…I thought the same thing about you. I said to myself “he looks like a badass that could kick some serious ass”. The irony is that both of us are probably closer to big teddy bears, especially back when both of those photos were taken. Believe it or not, I was still pretty shy and very introverted right around that time although at that point I had been dating my ex-wife for about 3-4 months after she had approached me in the gym. In less than a year, I had gone from loser virgin to dating the hot girl at the gym. It was intoxicating, but little did I know the road of emotional turmoil that I had embarked on that would eventually lead to a very bad place. When I read Madalena’s comments, she sounds a million times more sensible then I was at that time.

  • Ted D

    Teddy bear is a nickname given to me by more women than I can count for obvious reasons IF you know me.

    Didn’t do much for my sex life though… lol

  • Emily

    >> “Well, “economic capacity” is the first and foremost female attraction trigger. Increasing your net worth increases your SMV. You can either use that or not, but it makes no sense to be angry with women who didn’t like you when you were poor.”

    Mark Zuckerberg is a good example of this. He made the choice NOT to cash in on his massive SMV increase and married his girlfriend from his pre-Facebook days.

    Now that he’s a billionaire, he could have easily traded her in for a Victoria’s Secret model. But if he were to do this, would it really be valid for him to feel bitter because the Victoria’s Secret model wouldn’t have liked him back when he was a regular geek?

  • Emily

    >> ” And good grief whats up with the hate for glasses?! I thought they made us guys look smarter.”

    I like glasses! Notice how the “hot nerd” has glasses? ;) :
    http://www.geekscape.net/_wp_/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/nerdy-awkward-guys.png

    >> “Woman appear to like hot guys who happen to be beta.”

    This is very true. Although women also often like hot guys who happen to be alpha. :P

  • INTJ

    Do you girls really find Matt Smith attractive? My mom says he has a baby-face, and I’m inclined to agree.

    Not just lookswise, but in general, Matt Smith has always seemed to me to be overshadowed by David Tennant.

  • Emily

    INTJ,

    They’re both “types” that I’ve been known to develop crushes on. Although I have to admit that I’m basing this entirely on Google Images, since I don’t actually watch Doctor Who. I’ve seen a couple of episodes, but I don’t quite “get” the appeal of the show. Maybe it’s because I didn’t watch it when I was younger? I dunno…

  • Emily

    Btw, that link you posted earlier is crazy!!! It’s like the teachers actually want the bullies to win!

  • BroHamlet

    @Lokland, Susan

    Agree 100%. Your increased SMV means you can now pull girls with a higher SMV. No need to go for someone on the decline. I understand the feeling of being insulted, but I’m suggesting you’re better off with a “her loss” attitude. The smart women grab their mates on the way up – that’s the best ROI a woman can get. You need higher SMV to go for the 28 yo guy hitting his stride – he was a “bargain” at 23.

    Agree. Even if you are attractive, you will attract all kinds of attention. To feel insulted is kind of a waste of time. If you aren’t attracting what you want, you have work to do. My view is that women are attracted to value, plain and simple. This can mean many things, and can have different meanings in different situations. I believe that you can seek to choose how YOU want to be valued, though, and that you should work towards being valuable in the ways you want to be.

  • Cooper

    “There are so many women that have never chased alphas, why risk commitment with a reformed slut?”

    Well, I’ve mentioned this before, and I know it is quite poor reasoning, but that said, I think it exist. For some guys, the possibility of a girl having chased an alpha once, or have had a ONS, is almost certain.

    “there are so many women that have never chased alphas”
    Guys, would be quicker to assume a attractive woman has, or has not?

    I think, in regards to a attractive woman, most guy would assume she has. (There’s is that study that shows 50% of girls in their twenties admit to having a ONS, while on vacation. That and the “wedding-hookup” seem to be evidence that girls, in the absence of social-consequence (or shaming), will endulge in incongruent behavoir)
    And I think guys would be quicker to say “if she hasn’t, then she mustn’t be very attractive” (that, or she has the sex drive of a blue moon)

    Anyways, essentially guys end up choosing between unrestricted girls that admit to what she fear they’ve done, or restricted-seeming girls that we assume have also had incongruent behavoir.

    Which brings a guy to: what is worse?

    Look at Jesus Mahoney, (my apologies if I offend him) but that is a classic example of men’s scarcity-mentality at work. He knows what he did like, encountered it, and then essentially settled for the same.
    Talk about knowing your never going to get what you want.
    The scarcity-mentality essentially has guys navigating the SMV with a attitude of “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t”

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

      @Cooper

      I do think it’s safe to assume an attractive woman has had a STR, either by design or because she was P&D’d. However, that’s not the same as a “carousel rider,” someone who makes a habit of chasing and banging alphas.

      (There’s is that study that shows 50% of girls in their twenties admit to having a ONS, while on vacation. That and the “wedding-hookup” seem to be evidence that girls, in the absence of social-consequence (or shaming), will endulge in incongruent behavoir)

      First, re that study on vacations – IIRC it was a UK study done by a firm in the condom business or some such. The UK is the most promiscuous country in the world. I’d be more comfortable with research done in N. America with no profit motive.

      The “wedding hookup” was not an actual occurrence, it was a fictional event I made up! I have no idea of the prevalence of this practice! I was simply hypothesizing that a low N woman who was amenable to a fling would probably have it in the context of a social circle rather than a bar.

      He knows what he did like, encountered it, and then essentially settled for the same.

      That’s not true. His ex was actively promiscuous in college, and he learned that very late. Definitely not the case with his gf, who is the younger sister of an old friend. Don’t rewrite JM’s history – it was quite a story and we all remember it well, but it’s dramatic enough as is.

  • JP

    @Emily:

    “Btw, that link you posted earlier is crazy!!! It’s like the teachers actually want the bullies to win!”

    If you don’t fight back, the attacker gets a more severe punishment for aggravated assault.

    Yes, I remember this from experiencing aggravated assault.

    Granted, I did the aggravating, but it was non-violent.

  • BroHamlet

    @Emily

    Now that he’s a billionaire, he could have easily traded her in for a Victoria’s Secret model. But if he were to do this, would it really be valid for him to feel bitter because the Victoria’s Secret model wouldn’t have liked him back when he was a regular geek?

    Yup. And that’s case in point to the fact that value takes many different forms. Zuck could have waited and traded up, and still found a woman that liked him for him, BUT he’d have had to screen her harder to make sure she was legit. The girl who buys stock young is likely a better bet- hopefully it’s the case that she’d have stayed with him even if his idea didn’t result in a sea of cash (chances are he’d still have made it far in the STEM world even if he didn’t end up super rich).

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

    @JP

    People really need to be more careful with what they teach kids.

    Agreed. However, I guess I just don’t see how teaching kids not to fight back has impacted the SMP to any great degree. This in particular:

    Never stand up for yourself.

    If this was actually a widespread parenting phenomenon, it would impact conflict resolution skills and employment prospects. “Beta” divorces, or perpetual bachelorhood, should be through the roof, but they’re not. If anything, “alpha” related problems probably contribute the most to marital breakups.

    Jean Twenge has documented a spike in the prevalence of NPD, which suggests young people have taken on the opposite kinds of traits over the past 30 years. If enough parents were raising their kids in the opposite fashion, wouldn’t there also have been some corresponding rise in, say, the “altruistic personality disorder” (or something like that)?

  • Tasmin

    @Susan@Lokland

    “I kept how much cash I had lying around hidden from my wife for about 1.5 yrs. She saw my grubby apartment and shitty car.”

    “Brilliant strategy. I know this isn’t easy to pull off, but if I were wealthy I would do the exact same thing.”

    I don’t think one has to be wealthy to consider this approach. The status indicators (job title/function, car, house/apartment, clothing, toys, vacations) are already natural filters. The women consciously looking for the lifestyle, financial security, status, etc. either won’t go down your path at all or will be continually measuring your current and future capacity to meet her expectations. The practice of downplaying or hiding those things is a means to help filter out the women with the unconscious or otherwise hidden desire for the lifestyle/status, which is where the real trouble lurks.

    After shifting my status indicators greatly (downward) and taking home a fraction of my former income, I have seen first hand how the conscious and unconscious situations play out. In my case, I live within my current means, which is quite modest. Thus my social spending, including “dating” reflect this. When I briefly attempted online dating, I went on two different sites. Same profiles, but on one site I decided to enter in my income level (I checked something like $30-$40k – which was actually wishful thinking at the time) and my job/industry (Arts/Artist).

    While I found both sites to be largely disappointing, the site with the economic detail was all crickets. For all of the career-minded, empowered, educated, self-reliant women out there, almost none of them were willing to even take the first step to see beyond my current situation. I was 35/36 at the time and there is certainly the expectation that a 30-something man should have “it” all figured out, and/or the window of time for investing in potential had long passed (often directly expressed in the online forum, i.e. only fully-baked men need apply). This was no surprise. Disappointing but not a surprise.

    What was surprising was how often I encountered women who did not realize, admit or otherwise acknowledge their desire to be “comfortable” or in some ways provided for, despite being in their 30’s as well, having a career, graduate degrees, highly vocal about their “independence”, and a supposed mindset of non-material, simple living.

    So my tack is to be open about my current income and how I am following my passion which may take time and produce very little wealth, but that I am confident in my choices and my ability to adapt and I am dedicated to my craft and to my loved ones. Beyond that, I pay no mention to the fact that there is a difference between making money and having money.

    I have met a few really wonderful women who embrace this with their talk and their walk, but have yet to develop a LTR. In any case, all of that looking beyond the present and taking a chance on his future stuff seems to happen for some (get married at 25), but for many it seems to quickly burn off and by age 30-32, which is unfortunately right around the time when many women are deciding to “settle down”, slow the career down, have a family, etc. the “taking risk” has morphed into something closer to entitlement. For some, it begins to return as 40 approaches, but for the 28-35 range there is the notion that they are “ready”, so he should be as well – nothing new there, but there also seems to be the belief that she shouldn’t have to take those risks now – make those bets on the future; i.e. that is reserved for younger people, and I think that mindset is working to distance men and women from marriage within this very critical age group. And a big problem is that “ready” can be applied across a pretty wide set of conditions.

    This is one of the (many) things that really turned me off to online dating: the appetite to take any kind of risk is diminished by the immediately accessible – and worse, the potentially accessible inventory of men online coupled with the premise that a big reason for online dating is to mitigate/minimize risk in the first place. This is in addition to the overriding belief that moving away from those many metrics of choice (age, height, build, wealth, etc.) is merely the path to settling for less.

    So I suppose my advice to men is to not propagate the illusion of, or the importance of, wealth and status unless they are willing to spend the rest of their lives supporting those things. And for women, to not hide or downplay their needs or expectations of such, if they indeed desire such things. For those who truly do not need or desire those things, to hold onto the notion that having “it” all figured out can be a false anchor, that discovering “it” together can be highly rewarding, and that men and women of character, dedication, and passion will find the ways to produce a livelihood commensurate with their true needs – as evidenced by generations of people before us.

    I look forward to sharing the sacrifices and hard work of my youth with a woman who understands these things. And while I may make very little money now, this may change for the better – or it may not. But through those prior sacrifices I have saved enough to buy a house when the time is right, send a couple of kids to college, and retire without depending on SS, regardless of my currently meagre earnings. That information will be shared with the woman who sees in me the things that really matter to her, is honest to herself and then to me about what those things really are, and is willing to go find “it” with me.

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

      @Tasmin

      But through those prior sacrifices I have saved enough to buy a house when the time is right, send a couple of kids to college, and retire without depending on SS, regardless of my currently meagre earnings. That information will be shared with the woman who sees in me the things that really matter to her, is honest to herself and then to me about what those things really are, and is willing to go find “it” with me.

      It’s interesting, two of my closest friends from b-school made the same choice you did and downgraded significantly after a few years of high status/high pressure careers. They’d saved some money, and they chose to move out of the city, buy a modest home and in both cases pursue artistic careers. One is an antique dealer now who also makes and sells stained glass, and the other is a portrait artist who works on commission.

      My point is that there are people out there who share not only your values, but perhaps even some aspects of your experience. I don’t think they’re a dime a dozen, but they exist. I don’t know if online dating is the way to reach them, though. There are also lots of women who have eschewed having a career in favor of things like teaching yoga, writing, or any number of spiritual or artistic endeavors. Academics too. Many of them have already decided that material wealth is not a priority. I remember my brother saying he didn’t care about money and would have to find a woman who felt the same way. He married a fellow physics prof.

  • Cooper

    “That’s not true. His ex was actively promiscuous in college, and he learned that very late. Definitely not the case with his gf”

    IIRC, didn’t he say that his current gf has a similar history, which he said does not bother him?

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

    That’s not true. His ex was actively promiscuous in college, and he learned that very late. Definitely not the case with his gf, who is the younger sister of an old friend.

    Hrm, my impression (though I could have missed something in the last months that JM was commenting and I wasn’t around) was that he was taking a “don’t ask don’t tell” approach with regards to his current GF’s past and sort of playing up her “good girl” qualities. Even when he came back recently, he said he hadn’t asked, but that past count no longer mattered to him.

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

      Even when he came back recently, he said he hadn’t asked, but that past count no longer mattered to him.

      True, but I also recall him stating that she commuted to college while living with her parents for four years. And they didn’t have sex until they were official.

      Jesus, we are calling you!

      I think JM is confident of his gf’s character, but does not feel the need to ask for her number.

  • Cooper

    @Olive

    That’s what I got. That what once bothered him, he said “but no longer does.”

    To me, that sounds like “but, no longer can afford to do so”

    I still stand by my comment in saying that sounds like a prime example of a restricted guy choosing the devil he knows over the one he doesn’t.

    JM doesn’t even ask now!! That means he’s concluded his imagination, of said sexual past, to be far less harder to swallow than the potential, presumably likely (in his mind), truth.

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

      JM doesn’t even ask now!! That means he’s concluded his imagination, of said sexual past, to be far less harder to swallow than the potential, presumably likely (in his mind), truth.

      I’m uncomfortable with this conversation. Based on my knowledge of JM, I honestly do not believe he has his head in the sand. I believe he has tested his relationship over time – nearly a year now. It’s not for us to second guess his decision.

      FWIW, most of the young women I know in relationships have not been asked for their number, nor have they requested that information.

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

    True, but I also recall him stating that she commuted to college while living with her parents for four years. And they didn’t have sex until they were official.

    Susan, I didn’t have sex with my BF for a year (virgins, both of us), and I participated somewhat in hookup culture. You have a point re: community college, but still. You can’t just assume (and besides, I worked with a girl over the summer who commuted to community college and lived with her parents…. trust me, that means nothing).

    I think JM is confident of his gf’s character, but does not feel the need to ask for her number.

    Sigh. No comment. I’ll just refer to Cooper’s observation:

    That means he’s concluded his imagination, of said sexual past, to be far less harder to swallow than the potential, presumably likely (in his mind), truth.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Vox’s beta is a Roissy lesser alpha, read his lifetime partner count and then compare them to the median. By saying you like Vox betas, you are saying you love (what I think of) alphas. Well, of course!

    Vox delta (“great majority of men”) = Roissy greater beta, Gamma = lesser beta. They have more in common than not.

    I have to remember that your beta is really a lesser alpha, I keep forgetting.

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

      @OTC

      By saying you like Vox betas, you are saying you love (what I think of) alphas. Well, of course!

      I disdain cocky men. I do not care for an asshole vibe, nor have I ever gone for a man who rocked one. To me, the Vox beta is a good guy, with enough self-confidence to attract women and have options. He is not a leader of men. He is not a narcissist. He is a man who has high emotional intelligence and a strong nurturing instinct in the form of provisioning.

      There is a world of difference between these guys and Roissy or Vox’s alphas.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “You are correct – physical attraction comes first, the alpha/beta piece comes after. Cute betas will get a lot more cute girls attracted to them than ugly alphas will.”

    Also not my point.

    Using an example who is above average in attractiveness and then drawing the conclusion that beta is attractive.

    A better method would be to take men of low, middling and upper echelon attractiveness and compare alpha vs beta temperaments and mate attraction.

    Using an outlier, or even a single segment to draw a conclusion about the whole is a fallacy with some kind of special name.

    I don’t disagree with your conclusion, you actually have reliable data you’ve presented a dozens times over that is way more effective that showing beta is attractive at not just one outlying point but across the spectrum.

    As it stands your argument is weak because it does not control for other factors ie. attractiveness.

  • Lokland

    @OTC

    Good point,

    “I have to remember that your beta is really a lesser alpha, I keep forgetting.”

  • pvw

    @Cooper and the others re. JM; it seems to me there was another factor in there too. His current level of experience and confidence in his sexual abilities puts him in a different place now than where he was back then with the fiancee. He felt she had more experience, he couldn’t compete with the “cock phantom”–hats off to Bastiat Blogger.

  • Cooper

    “but does not feel the need to ask for her number.”

    Ah, see this is where we differ. I question whether relinquishing this question was truly based on it no longer actually mattering – maybe IDK.

  • Mike C

    I have to remember that your beta is really a lesser alpha, I keep forgetting.

    It never dawned on me, but maybe this 95% of our miscommunication/misunderstanding. This makes sense in that Susan refers to betas with Ns of 10-15 which puts them at the very highest levels of male partner count

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

      It never dawned on me, but maybe this 95% of our miscommunication/misunderstanding. This makes sense in that Susan refers to betas with Ns of 10-15 which puts them at the very highest levels of male partner count

      When I speak about the young men I know as betas, I am considering the following in making my assessment:

      Character – Strong sense of right and wrong. Capable of being knuckleheads but generally avoid acting in ways that benefit themselves at the expense of others. High emotional intelligence, strong empathy.

      Relationships – Strong family relationships and friendships. Caring, loyal and demonstrative.

      Physical – Generally not jocks, not high T. Looks generally fall into the AVM or LTM category rather than STM or DOM. Many are cute, a few are “hot.”

      Intelligence – Generally smart and high-achieving. May also be creative. Often funny, lots of inside jokes and nicknames within the group.

      Personality – Easy going, fun, very confident with people they know, perhaps a bit nervous when meeting new girls. Definitely not cocky, these are not guys who “own the room.”

      IOW, dads not cads.

      The young alpha bucks I know are generally cocky, tend to be disrespectful to adults (no Hi Mrs. Walsh!, more of a grunt), and have relationships that are based on convenience or some membership (team, frat) rather than any emotional bonding. They pride themselves on being douchey to women and often boast of their exploits.

      They are in the friend group peripherally, and are often described by the beta guys as “I wouldn’t want him dating my sister.”

  • INTJ

    @ OTC, Mike C

    Yes, this is probably where much of the miscommunication comes from. When Susan says betas are attractive, she’s probably referring to Vox’s betas, who’re really Roissy’s alphas.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    This is one of those cases where I’m going to have to talk alpha/beta to get my point across. You’re missing a very important piece of the puzzle.

    I know that women are attracted to beta males.

    The thing is:

    We, the Beta guys, DON’T know that women are attracted to us. We’re sitting in the most sexually liberalized society imaginable, and which also happens to be our own personal sexual and intimacy deserts.

    We don’t feel sexy in the slightest. That’s why those “cock phantoms” are so powerful.

    On the other hand, we have been told “you’ll make a great boyfriend for some other girl someday!” about 1000x times. Which….uhhhh…feels kind of painful to hear after the 10th iteration.

    Really helps to know beta guys are wanted. And not just movie star betas, but actual, real life betas. Takes a while to internalize that message, too.

  • Ted D

    Now I’m totally confused. Alpha beta game delta sigma…

    I can’t keep up!

  • JP

    @Ted:

    “Now I’m totally confused. Alpha beta game delta sigma…

    I can’t keep up!”

    You could be me.

    I’m pretty sure I’m an enigma.

  • Cooper

    @ADBG 501

    *And it’s out the park!*

  • Cooper

    “I have to remember that your beta is really a lesser alpha, I keep forgetting.”

    And… que the self-loathing. Rofl.

    It IS the truth, though.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “No need to go for someone on the decline. I understand the feeling of being insulted, but I’m suggesting you’re better off with a “her loss” attitude.”

    I disagree on the ‘her loss’ attitude. She hasn’t lost anything as you cannot lose what you never had.

    A woman in decline going for a man on the upswing is insulting for many reasons.

    1. Insult to your value.
    2. Insult to you intelligence, thinking she can pull the wool over your eyes.
    3. I consider someone trying to do me wrong a threat. She is no longer a neutral bystander who missed out but someone who tried to take a swing at me. She has made herself the enemy.

    Beyond this point, theres literally a ton of woman in the 18-25 range with low, to as seems more prevalent, no N. A man in his mid to late 20s with a decent job (hard to come by) and who is half intelligent can do well for himself.
    No hamstering her past into acceptance required.

    ” The smart women grab their mates on the way up – that’s the best ROI a woman can get.””

    Yes, most of the couples who I think will make it for the long haul were together before the end of undergrad, grad/early professional school at the latest.
    Women who make it past 25 without a man married, engaged or well on the way to the second option strike me as an abnormality.

    Perhaps my friends group were abnormal.

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

      @Lokland

      I disagree on the ‘her loss’ attitude. She hasn’t lost anything as you cannot lose what you never had.

      Right, it’s what she could have had and now never will.

      A man in his mid to late 20s with a decent job (hard to come by) and who is half intelligent can do well for himself.
      No hamstering her past into acceptance required.

      Agreed. I hope you don’t think I’m trying to push “worn merchandise” onto guys. I think your strategy is the sensible one. No guy in his right mind should ever date any woman who’s been on the carousel. I know it can be hard to figure out a person’s past, but you should try to get a sense of whether you are a change in the type she usually goes for. That’s definitely a sign that the odometer has been tampered with.

  • Cooper

    “FWIW, most of the young women I know in relationships have not been asked for their number, nor have they requested that information.”

    And for its worth, that backs what I was saying.

  • Cooper

    I should be more clear. What I was saying was that girls reporting that guys don’t, says nothing to how much the guys care.
    Guys do care (or majority) – I think we know that by now. So, what does a general consensus of guys “not asking” represent?

    That they fear what they’ll find out, and quite a few don’t want to risk having to find another (whom may very likely be very similar)
    Guys, sadly, are foregoing a (important to them) filtering process, because we have no tools to discern the honest from the non.
    Both the restricted and unrestricted girls know our preference, thus both are capable of knowing “what to says.”
    It’s at this very point where guys opted to take the ‘devil known’ cause it’s only scenario we’re certain honest is occurring, namely because what is being told is unfavourable.

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

    FWIW, most of the young women I know in relationships have not been asked for their number, nor have they requested that information.

    Weird. Even with the OKC dude I “dated” for a month, I knew (though he could’ve lied! …hmmmm), and he knew I was a virgin. I think it was Hope who said above that secrets are not typically part of a healthy relationship. I have not shared my whole history here but you can mark my words I’ve shared it with my BF.

    I know you said you’re uncomfortable discussing him, but I will simply note that JM spent a lot of time here agonizing over this notion of a girl having a douchebag asshat in her past… he once even told me that he would’ve advised my BF not to date me in the beginning, because of my past! It’s odd to me that someone with this track record would all of a sudden stop caring about his GF’s past, though perhaps hanging around in this environment is what made him agonize about it. After all, it was after I stopped coming here that I stopped caring whether my BF’s alpha/beta traits and started focusing on how good I had it. Maybe that’s how it worked out for him too.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “How come? I know a lot of lawyer-lawyer married couples.”

    Because as we speak, the entire legal education and Big Law associate complexes are undergoing massive structural change.

    Law never really recovered from the most recent recession, so what’s happening now is massive overproduction of lawyers with ever increasing debt with no accompanying increase in salary.

    I’m specifically talking about *new* law grads who have trouble finding jobs to pay off their debt.

    I came out with $120,000 in debt over a decade ago.

    Double that and then reduce the number of attorneys who get legal jobs to about 60% of the graduating class.

    It’s like graduating into a buzzsaw with an anvil tied to your ankle.

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

      @JP

      It’s like graduating into a buzzsaw with an anvil tied to your ankle.

      I know a young woman in this position. She graduated from law school in May and she is currently – I can hardly stand to type it – working as a babysitter. Massive debt, which her parents are currently paying.

      I also know a young man I like very much who just took the LSATs. I feel like telling him not to go if he can’t go top 10, but it’s none of my business…

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “To me, the Vox beta is a good guy, with enough self-confidence to attract women and have options. He is not a leader of men. He is not a narcissist. He is a man who has high emotional intelligence and a strong nurturing instinct in the form of provisioning.”

    You realize that by this definition we’re talking like 10-15% of men. Your not particularly interested in the 80% but the top 20% of those in between alpha and average.

    It won’t solve anyones problem if you successfully convince women to compete for 20% of men regardless of what you label them. It’ll simply shift the focus and change who’s left in and who’s left out.

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

      You realize that by this definition we’re talking like 10-15% of men. Your not particularly interested in the 80% but the top 20% of those in between alpha and average.

      I disagree. Going back to Vox’s definitions (which I don’t endorse word for word, but which I think are quite useful):

      Betas tend to genuinely like women and view them in a somewhat optimistic manner.

      Deltas tend to put the female sex on pedestals and have overly optimistic expectations of them; if a man rhapsodizes about his better half or is an inveterate White Knight, he is almost certainly a delta. Deltas like women, but find them mysterious, confusing, and are sometimes secretly a little afraid of them.

      The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex.

      The truly unfortunate. Omegas are the social losers who were never in the game. Sometimes creepy, sometimes damaged, often clueless, and always undesirable. They’re not at the party. It would never have crossed anyone’s mind to invite them in the first place. Omegas are either totally indifferent to women or hate them with a borderline homicidal fury.

      As for partner count, that’s a bit more complicated, and I don’t think Vox’s scheme works as well here.

      First, avg. or mean is not a great number to use, b/c it is skewed by a small number of manwhores extremely successful men.

      The median number of lifetime partners for a male is 8, while the average is 20.

      ABC News Great American Sex Survey

      Using Vox’s numbers:

      Alpha: 4x avg.+ = 80+ sexual partners

      Beta: 2-3x avg. = 40-60 ” ”

      Delta: 1-1.5 avg. = 20-30 ” ”

      Gamma: .5 avg. = 10 ” ”

      Omega: <2

      Here is how the actual male population is distributed:

      1 partner: 12%

      2-4: 16%

      5-10: 26%

      11-20: 18%

      21+: 20%

      Obviously, the top 20% of men have far fewer partners than VD’s alpha.

      I have described some young men I know as betas, with a partner count thus far of 5-10 at age 24. If they continue apace I’d estimate they will reach 10-15 by marriage, which would put them between the 62nd and 80th percentiles, which sounds about right.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue, a Roissy alpha isnt necessarily an alpha like Roissy himself, he might be a cocky asshole, but it isn’t required: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/defining-the-alpha-male/

    There’s nothing in the chart about dark vs. light tactics.

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

      @OTC

      There’s nothing in the chart about dark vs. light tactics.

      You can’t get above beta without infidelity.

  • ExNewYorker

    Roissy’s classification is a simple model: Alpha – Beta – Omega. Splits the males into 3 bins, which I’m guessing could be distributed as 20% – 60% – 20%.

    Vox’s classification is more refined. The question is how does it map to Roissy’s model? VD could answer more specifically, but from his category descriptions, one mapping might be:

    Vox category Roissy category
    —————– ——————–
    Alpha Alpha (who isn’t a lesser alpha)
    Beta Lesser alpha
    Sigma Alpha (who doesn’t care if he’s an alpha)

    Gamma Lesser Beta
    Delta Beta, Upper Beta

    Omega Omega

    Lambda ???

    The one weird one is the Vox’s Lambda…doesn’t seem to fit with Roissy’s model.

    The thing is, Vox’s beta is not the average guy. So for guys on HUS, the Vox Beta is a kinder, gentler alpha (lesser alpha by Roissy’s classification), but still an alpha.

  • INTJ

    @ Lokland

    “To me, the Vox beta is a good guy, with enough self-confidence to attract women and have options. He is not a leader of men. He is not a narcissist. He is a man who has high emotional intelligence and a strong nurturing instinct in the form of provisioning.”

    You realize that by this definition we’re talking like 10-15% of men. Your not particularly interested in the 80% but the top 20% of those in between alpha and average.

    Bingo. We’re looking at a very small subset of men according to this definition.

  • ExNewYorker

    Damn, that table didn’t come out right…

    Vox category —-> Roissy category

    Alpha —-> Alpha (who isn’t a lesser alpha)
    Beta —-> Lesser alpha
    Sigma —->Alpha (who doesn’t care if he’s an alpha)

    Gamma —->Lesser Beta
    Delta —-> Beta, Upper Beta

    Omega —->Omega

    Lambda —->???

  • INTJ

    Vox’s hierarchy is concerned primarily with social behavior. It’s much truer to the original ethological concept. The problem is that while it is very good at capturing the social ranking, it doesn’t get to the heart of the mating triggers of good genes vs. good provider/partner/parent. That’s what the Roissy alpha/beta dichotomy does. The Roissy terminology is a misnomer, but I prefer it to the evo-psych terminology of dad vs. cad because “alpha” is a value-neutral term unlike “cad”.

    I’m a classic beta in Roissy’s terminology, whereas I’m somewhere between gamma and sigma by Vox’s terminology.

  • INTJ

    See that x right there? That’s what I am.

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/hierarchyu.jpg/

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I disdain cocky men. I do not care for an asshole vibe, nor have I ever gone for a man who rocked one. ”

    Well perhaps you mean for relationships. But I’ll go out on a limb and say that Mike C is sometimes cocky. Lokland has his cocky moments. I would say BD is cocky, but truth is I just think that is just him. And I know I’ve been cocky a time or two myself.

    I won’t go so far as to tell you what you like of course, but I’d say you don’t lack for cocky men. :-p

    But like I said, maybe you are talking strictly romantic relationships here. Cocky may be annoying, but it IS generally exciting.

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

      @Ted D

      I won’t go so far as to tell you what you like of course, but I’d say you don’t lack for cocky men. :-p

      True, but don’t assume I consider that a plus. :)

      Cocky may be annoying, but it IS generally exciting.

      Not to me. I find it unattractive.

  • Ted D

    Ugh. BD = VD

    How are you holding up? It’s getting a little wild here in the Burgh. School cancellations are starting…

  • Emily

    >> “See that x right there? That’s what I am.

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/18/hierarchyu.jpg/

    I’ve actually wondered about this before!!! In the past, I often liked guy who fit the description of Vox’s “Sigma” except for the fact that they don’t get tons of women. …but at the same time, I didn’t really see them *trying* to get girls either. …is there such thing as a Beta-Sigma?

    With this type, I was never sure if they were uninterested or just oblivious. I’m a lot better than I was, but back in the day I couldn’t send an IOI to save my life! Although two non-socials can have a happy relationship, it’s a lot more difficult for them to get together.

    My bf is on the social side of your table (I’d describe him as a Roissy Greater Beta and a Vox Beta), and I don’t think our relationship would have been possible if he was also non-social. He’s also good for me because he forces me to come out of hiding from time to time. :P

  • szopen

    Roissy hierarchy, which uses number of partners is awful.

    If your worth is determined by the number of partners, well, you may be an alpha, but I am not sure whether you are man.

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

      @Szopen

      If your worth is determined by the number of partners, well, you may be an alpha, but I am not sure whether you are man.

      +1

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Vox’s chart has a partner count too – is that awful? I think it’s pretty clear that number of partners is not the sole deciding factor, just an example (and a bit exaggerated). There are low-count alphas and high-count betas, but they’re atypical. I don’t see where self-worth is defined by number of partners there.

  • Doc

    One of the reasons that I love younger women – so clueless… Yummy…

  • Ted D

    Susan – “True, but don’t assume I consider that a plus. ”

    Touche’ LOL

    I take it you made it through Sandy in one piece?

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

      @Ted D

      I take it you made it through Sandy in one piece?

      Yes, thanks. Our fence came down, but that’s nothing, I can’t complain.

  • JP

    ” I remember my brother saying he didn’t care about money and would have to find a woman who felt the same way. He married a fellow physics prof.”

    Physics professors have money.

    More than a lot of lawyers.

  • Ted D

    I’d say that description does not line up with what I inferred a “beta” to be based on the ‘sphere at large. Indeed many of those traits seem more “alpha” oriented, albeit the “kinder, gentler alpha” in comparison to the average “jock” stereotype.

    So yes, you and I at least have been talking past each other a bit on this. Your description of a beta above strikes me as FAR more “dominant” and “confident” than the definition I’ve been working with.

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

      @Ted

      I’d say that description does not line up with what I inferred a “beta” to be based on the ‘sphere at large.

      Aside from Vox, beta = sniveling, hapless loser.

      I’m more interested in where the 80/20 split occurs. I think I’ve got that about right.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “I also know a young man I like very much who just took the LSATs. I feel like telling him not to go if he can’t go top 10, but it’s none of my business…”

    I think it’s to the point where only Harvard and Yale are good ideas.

    And that’s if you actually want to be a lawyer.

    The young woman is learning that a law degree is a massive liability.

    And the young man can just be pointed to this blog if you are so inclined:

    http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Agreed. I hope you don’t think I’m trying to push “worn merchandise” onto guys.”

    No I think one of the other commenters, Madalena was pushing dating a woman in her 30s. Which unless your past your mid 30s an early to mid 20s women is a realistic possibility (depending on the individual man in questions age). Most of those will have low N.

    “I know it can be hard to figure out a person’s past, but you should try to get a sense of whether you are a change in the type she usually goes for.”

    Agreed.
    I disagree on the difficulty portion though. If its difficult to find out its not worth wasting the time to dig up.
    And no, that doesn’t mean you ride happily into the sunset, at least not with her.

  • Cooper

    @Ted

    I’m kinda in agreement with regards to the definition of beta. What I see in Susan’s beta description is a very kinda alpha. One that would probably be cleaning house, while not ‘owning the room.’ (If ya know what I mean)

    I know there are a long list of sigma, gamma, omega, ect. But in reality, guys have alpha, and not. I have a tendency to included everything in beta. Because in reality, they’re all of the same group – the ‘not.’

    The beta Susan describes sounds like a modest, non-jock, alpha.

  • Ted D

    “2-4: 16%”

    LOL at least I”m not in “last” place.

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

      @Ted D

      “2-4: 16%”

      LOL at least I”m not in “last” place.

      That is precisely why I think these partner count metrics are so toxic! I wouldn’t be surprised if Tom Brady was at 4. There are plenty of men who feel they hit the jackpot with an N of 1. And there are men with N of 200 (you know who I’m talking about) who are miserable, alone, and wary of all women.

  • Cooper

    @Susan

    You’re revoking my beta membership! (haha) Cause I definitely fit somewhere much below what your definition is.

    If it were by attitude, I’d have hope that is something I can change. But the numbers are rather irrefutable.

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

      @Cooper

      If it were by attitude, I’d have hope that is something I can change. But the numbers are rather irrefutable.

      It is by attitude. Read the attitudes towards women as described in Vox’s ranking. Where do you fit in? That’s your natural spot. As for the numbers, what is irrefutable? Vox’s scale?

      If you met a woman tomorrow who was everything you ever wanted, you would be a fool to avoid commitment so that you could “explore your options” and get your partner count up.

      Don’t fall into the trap of using the wrong metric. Look at the high N men and ask yourself if you want what they have.

  • Mike C

    I’d say that description does not line up with what I inferred a “beta” to be based on the ‘sphere at large. Indeed many of those traits seem more “alpha” oriented, albeit the “kinder, gentler alpha” in comparison to the average “jock” stereotype.

    So yes, you and I at least have been talking past each other a bit on this. Your description of a beta above strikes me as FAR more “dominant” and “confident” than the definition I’ve been working with.

    Yup. Reading through Susan’s descriptions, you could essentially distill that down to:

    Beta = All around “good guy” with average to above average social skills Alpha = “Douchebag asshole”

    Now in my opinion douchebag assholes can be alphas, but NOT all alphas are douchebag assholes. For example, I don’t see character as she lists it as either an alpha or beta trait. You could have a strongly dominant man with strong ethics and moral integrity and you could have a weak, not confident man who is devious and manipulative.

    It makes sense though. Susan’s starting point and main concern is what men should women avoid versus what men should women seek out for relationships. Her definitions are primarily oriented around differentiating those pools of men. Nothing wrong with that. It is what it is.

    But it doesn’t work from the perspective of male self-improvement which is how do I improve myself and get more success from my social interactions especially as it relates to women. In that case, even the douchebag assholes have some traits you may want to emulate *to some degree* without fully turning into a douchebag asshole.

    On a different note Ted, cocky is another one of those nebulous terms that really is going to depend on the woman. One woman’s “too cocky” is going to be another woman’s charming and confident. It is like the muscle thing. It is a matter of degrees. One woman’s too muscular is going to be another woman’s “lean and toned”. For example, in the picture I posted, am I “lean and toned” or “too muscular”? It is going to depend on the woman. It truly is a challenge for man to try and adapt and calibrate properly if he is trying to make changes. In your case, it sounds like you’ve experimented with various things with your wife and gotten a uniformly positive response. At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding so to speak so you have to go with empirical experience over some random person’s stated preferences which may represent some small segment of the overall population.

  • SayWhaat

    At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding so to speak so you have to go with empirical subjective personal experience over some random person’s stated preferences which may represent some small segment of the overall population.

    FTFY.

  • Sai

    @Ted D, INTJ
    Of the two, I like Mr. Tennant’s face much better.

    “And good grief whats up with the hate for glasses?! I thought they made us guys look smarter. :P”
    My brother and I made a deal while watching “GoldenEye” -he gets Xenia, I get him:
    http://caballe.cat/media/2006/12/movie12.gif
    (My brother mocks this decision. My mother tricked me into admitting it and then was very quiet.)
    Interestingly enough, there was a similar character in “Under Siege 2: Dark Territory” (a Steven Seagal movie with terrorists on a train), but there was neither accent nor glasses and I found the character irritating and wanted him to die in a fire. Which he did.

    (Talk about irony -somebody in Ukraine just tried to hack me.)

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “You realize that by this definition we’re talking like 10-15% of men. Your not particularly interested in the 80% but the top 20% of those in between alpha and average.

    I disagree. Going back to Vox’s definitions (which I don’t endorse word for word, but which I think are quite useful):”

    Your words say one thing but then they say another….

    “I have described some young men I know as betas, with a partner count thus far of 5-10 at age 24. If they continue apace I’d estimate they will reach 10-15 by marriage, which would put them between the 62nd and 80th percentiles, which sounds about right.”

    We’re in disagreement because of a 3% difference?
    Again, I’ll agree these men are the best LTR option. Its really good that women want to date them over alphas, both for the women and society.

    However merely transferring the favoured male status from one group to another is not going to fix the problem for the 80 (as in the numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 and 80.) %

    It might help out the 62-80% group but that still leaves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 SOL.

    Regardless of whether or not you like them society does need them.

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

      @Lokland

      It might help out the 62-80% group but that still leaves 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 SOL.

      Regardless of whether or not you like them society does need them.

      I know you must feel very strongly to go to the trouble of typing out that sequence…

      I agree there is much to be done for the guys under the 62nd percentile. I would look specifically to Vox’s descriptions of how these men feel about women. Hatred, bile and a desire for vengeance are not really conducive to romantic or sexual success.

      I think a lot of guys IRL do not feel this way – it’s a manosphere bias. Theoretically, if they have a positive outlook and are willing to date a woman of similar SMV I think it can happen. We’ve got a ways to go, but I think there are similar numbers of women in the same boat.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    The top 30% of males in terms of SMV are made up of a mixture of alpha cads and the betas that you describe (with a few sigmas thrown in for good measure). The overwhelming majority of males do not fall into this category, but instead are deltas, gammas, or omegas according to that definition.

    You describe betas as “Generally smart and high-achieving. May also be creative. Often funny, lots of inside jokes and nicknames within the group.” and “Easy going, fun, very confident with people they know, perhaps a bit nervous when meeting new girls. Definitely not cocky, these are not guys who “own the room.”” In other words, aside from a little bit of nervousness with strangers, these are highly social guys who are at the top of the social hierarchy due to coolness factor. If these guys didn’t have character, they would be considered players.

    These guys are definitely Roissy alphas. They have very high social status. The only difference is that they get their social status through extraversion rather than dominance.

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

      @INTJ

      In other words, aside from a little bit of nervousness with strangers, these are highly social guys who are at the top of the social hierarchy due to coolness factor. If these guys didn’t have character, they would be considered players.

      No, the guys I refer to are mostly introverted, though they are comfortable and outgoing in their own intimate circle.

      It doesn’t make sense to me to say that if men didn’t have character they would be cads.

      That is the difference between a cad and a dad! Character!

      Not all betas have good character, and not all alphas lack character, but the odds of either being true are well over 50%, IMO.

  • INTJ

    @ Sai

    Haha. FWIW, the girl in the admissions office I went to today was wearing glasses like those in SayWhaat’s avatar. I thought she was gorgeous. Way better looking than xenia. :P

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I don’t think that Roissy’s hiearchy necessarily REQUIRES a man to have sex with X number of women. More like, based on the typical guy, these are the life experiences he is going to have.

    Going by Roissy’s definition, I would be a “Greater Beta” in the 6,7 category. If I were to leave current SO, I dunno, maybe I could leap into Lesser Alpha.

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

      I don’t think that Roissy’s hiearchy necessarily REQUIRES a man to have sex with X number of women. More like, based on the typical guy, these are the life experiences he is going to have.

      Clearly, if you haven’t had affairs, you can’t be a lesser Alpha, and you can’t be an Alpha without having had a threesome! And you guys wonder why I say alphas have poor character…

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

    Susan,
    I actually consider my boyfriend’s best friend a very basic beta guy (I haven’t decided about my BF, but he’s not social so that strikes him from the alpha/beta/delta side of the list). I wanted to go through your list and point out why I don’t consider it descriptive of the average beta, and why I think you’re describing a type of guy who’s rarer than you realize.

    Character – Strong sense of right and wrong. Capable of being knuckleheads but generally avoid acting in ways that benefit themselves at the expense of others. High emotional intelligence, strong empathy.

    The guy in question is a very typical nice guy, but he’s clearly living in a scarcity mentality. As such, you’ll find that his sense of right and wrong is not as developed as what you describe. For example, he once slept with an internet stripper. He’s also slept with his ex-girlfriend while she was in a relationship with someone else, because he was still in love with her. To me, it’s not a question of morals, it’s a real issue of living in that scarcity mindset.

    Relationships – Strong family relationships and friendships. Caring, loyal and demonstrative.

    This one is true for him, though I believe his father is an alcoholic, and he has a strained relationship with him (I would also point out that my boyfriend has screwed up relationships with basically everyone in his family but I had no trouble getting close to him. Sometimes you’re dealt a shitty hand).

    Physical – Generally not jocks, not high T. Looks generally fall into the AVM or LTM category rather than STM or DOM. Many are cute, a few are “hot.”

    This guy is dorky-looking… shorter, kinda scrawny. Probably AVM facial features. Also a higher voice (not sure how true this is for other girls, but I realized yesterday that low voice really wins guys points in my book).

    Intelligence – Generally smart and high-achieving. May also be creative. Often funny, lots of inside jokes and nicknames within the group.

    Hum. This guy sort of struggled coming right out of high school. Took a few college classes here and there, but didn’t seem to have a direction. Finally went to tech school, just graduated, and has a job with a company that makes rollercoasters. Probably not what you would call “smart and high-achieving.”

    Personality – Easy going, fun, very confident with people they know, perhaps a bit nervous when meeting new girls. Definitely not cocky, these are not guys who “own the room.”

    Yes, this describes him. He also has a habit of ending up as a beta orbiter.

    So, beta or delta? I’d actually consider him greater beta–he’s friendly and fun to be around, a great storyteller. He’s an interesting match for my BF, who is definitely more of a “dark brooder” type (but they’ve been best friends since first grade!).

    And yet, he doesn’t make the cut on quite a few of those categories.

    The young alpha bucks I know are generally cocky, tend to be disrespectful to adults (no Hi Mrs. Walsh!, more of a grunt),

    LOL this could just be bad social skills. My BF gets along quite well with my parents, but in those first few moments when they first see each other, he is such an awkward grunter. My mom pointed it out once and I was like “Sorry, I can’t control him!”

    and have relationships that are based on convenience or some membership (team, frat) rather than any emotional bonding. They pride themselves on being douchey to women and often boast of their exploits.

    I will say there’s a certain guy I know who CONSTANTLY brags about his “success with women,” to the point that I’m suspicious of his actual success. I get the sense that real alphas don’t feel the need to constantly boast, because they don’t need the external affirmation. The guys at the top of the food chain, IMO, are more mysterious, not “Hey guys I totally banged three hos last night hoink hoink!”

    They are in the friend group peripherally, and are often described by the beta guys as “I wouldn’t want him dating my sister.”

    I don’t know a lot about male social hierarchies, really only what I’ve observed amongst my brother’s friends, but my guess is the alphas are never at the periphery. They’re at the center, they run the show.

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

      @Olive

      I am specifically referring to a group of a 15-20 young men I have known for 7-8 years. I know them well, as my house was often the central spot for meetups and hanging out during the high school years.

      They are not necessarily typical, though I have no reason to believe they are unusual. As always, YMMV.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Clearly, if you haven’t had affairs, you can’t be a lesser Alpha, and you can’t be an Alpha without having had a threesome! And you guys wonder why I say alphas have poor character…

    I think most guys who are less alpha, which are maybe top 10-15% of men, would indeed be able to get a woman relatively easily, even if in a relationship.

    And I am sure that not all men are angels all through their lives, and if they have had multiple LTRs, may have cheated in one, especially if it’s so damn easy.

    I am not so sure about the three-some thing, more or less because I don’t understand them very well :P

    To me the idea of a threesome with two women does not seem very appealing. Maybe sexual variety, but not multiple girls at the same time. Seems like a very non-intimate experience.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “No, the guys I refer to are mostly introverted, though they are comfortable and outgoing in their own intimate circle.”

    I’m increasingly becoming convinced that high introversion really throws the “ranking” off. I’m often the life of the party, provided the party consists of people I know and am comfortable with. My wife’s comment regarding how I “clam up” in public really struck home. In a public/mixed setting I’m sure I very much looked like a meak/timid creature in the body of a giant. Yet she met me in an intimate setting of friends combined with social drinking, and her initial impression of me was a guy that was confident (maybe a little TOO confident at times) and wasn’t afraid to stand his ground. Outspoken and bold. She would have NEVER seen that side of me had we met in some public venue.

    Since then I’ve been working on pushing myself to be a bit more social because I realized that people simply don’t make an effort to “get to know” someone unless they engage on some level. If I hide in a corner I will never even have a chance to “own the room”.

    But to my point: what did that make me? In my comfort zone I might have been an alpha of sorts, certainly a greater-beta. But in public? The only times I was ever noticed in public settings is when I looked like a serial killer, and then the attention I got certainly didn’t fit with who I was. Of course I knew the “look” was all for show, but it DID get attention and it confused me a bit.

    So how do you rank a guy that “owns the room” but only when that room is full of friends?

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

      So how do you rank a guy that “owns the room” but only when that room is full of friends?

      That’s the AMOG. There’s an alpha male of every male group, which is a function of male conferring status on one another. The nerdiest group of virgin guys will have an alpha male of the group. And within his world, he is king. That dominance will be perceived by females in the same world, btw. Dominance is always relative.

  • INTJ

    @ Olive

    You have a perfect understanding of alpha vs. beta. :)

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

    Susan,

    They are not necessarily typical, though I have no reason to believe they are unusual.

    I really do think a lot of this boils down to SES. My BF is working class, so it makes sense that his best friend is too. That should not mean he’s a delta instead of a beta. My brother and I are middle class, so “beta” also means something different for us (and actually, not all of his beta friends have made it to senior year of college). You’re UMC as far as I can tell, so a lot of those guys probably went to Ivys or high-ranking liberal arts colleges, their parents are still married, etc. They’re beta in you’re circles, but they’d be alpha in mine.

    They sound like great dudes, but if you’re sending girls off to look for them, many will come up empty-handed. Guys like my BF’s best friend are far more common, IMO, simply because there are fewer wealthy people than not-wealthy people in this country. And those are the perfectly good guys who are being ignored/passed up.

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

      @Olive

      They sound like great dudes, but if you’re sending girls off to look for them, many will come up empty-handed.

      I am not sending girls off to look for any particular degree of dominance or socioeconomic status, nor Ivy League degree. I just finished appearing on a public radio show, and I was asked what should be on everyone’s checklist. I suggested there are two important filters:

      Availability: Is the person available for a relationship, and inclined toward meaningful emotional bonds? Do they have a history of such relationships, including with family and friends?

      Character.

      If women filtered out all emotionally unavailable guys, and guys who advertise insincerity, lack of discernment, lack of loyalty, lack of kindness, lack of self-discipline and lack of intellectual curiosity, well that would be 75% of the battle.

      Class and even education are irrelevant. A woman won’t go wrong if she filters on these two dimensions alone.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    The nerdiest group of virgin guys will have an alpha male of the group. And within his world, he is king. That dominance will be perceived by females in the same world, btw.

    Too bad there aren’t any females in the same world…

  • Ted D

    AMOG, sure I can see that. But still my point is a guy may be rather alpha in a specific situation, but otherwise be beta or lower down the chain. As INTJ pointed out, there aren’t too many women hanging out with the king of the nerds, so his AMOG status is almost pointless because it doesn’t produce results.

    Such men are never alphas in general, and are often very much the ‘spheres version of a beta loser. We are straying pretty far from the actual terms here, where you say toMAYto and I say toMAHto. And we can’t really work with “one woman’s beta is another woman’s alpha” here. Sure on an individual level that works. But you can’t instruct a guy on how to be more successful with women and relationships on an individual level. They need to find attractors that work for a broad audience and hope to snag a woman that finds his “inner alpha” sexy. Otherwise many of these men will truly be looking for a unicorn.

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

    @TD

    “2-4: 16%”
    LOL at least I’m not in “last” place.

    What’s the old adage about slow and steady winning the race? You’re very close to the median for married men. Nothing wrong about that!

  • Madelena

    @Lokland

    No I think one of the other commenters, Madalena was pushing dating a woman in her 30s

    My response:

    I don’t push anything on anybody.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “I know you must feel very strongly to go to the trouble of typing out that sequence…”

    Not particularly the line was moving reeeaaaalllly slowly.

    “Vox’s descriptions of how these men feel about women. Hatred, bile and a desire for vengeance are not really conducive to romantic or sexual success.”

    Most of society is blue pill. Blue pill at least tolerate or think subjugating themselves is a good thing. The only place where ‘all the wimminz iz evilz’ is the sphere.

    “I think a lot of guys IRL do not feel this way – it’s a manosphere bias.”

    “Theoretically, if they have a positive outlook and are willing to date a woman of similar SMV I think it can happen.”

    Yeah, yeah happy butterflies and bunny turds.

    My point is that focusing on ‘beta’ even as it stands in Vox’s def. isn’t good enough for the 80%. You need to pair the gammas with the gammas, deltas and deltas and betas and betas.

    Focusing solely on the betas isn’t going to help a large segment of the population.

    Focusing on the deltas would probably be more effective as they constitute the majority (or largest minority).

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

      My point is that focusing on ‘beta’ even as it stands in Vox’s def. isn’t good enough for the 80%. You need to pair the gammas with the gammas, deltas and deltas and betas and betas.

      Focusing solely on the betas isn’t going to help a large segment of the population.

      Focusing on the deltas would probably be more effective as they constitute the majority (or largest minority).

      I am on team Not Alpha. Seriously, I’m all about the 80%. We’re in the weeds semantically here. I’m telling you how I think of the breakdown, but I’m all about Cooper and INTJ finding success regardless of where they fit in Vox’s hierarchy. What Vox has contributed here, though, and it’s important – is the idea that a man’s view of women is going to largely dictate how he relates to them. For the record, I personally feel that # of sexual partners is not a valid metric for assessing anything but sexual dominance and an unrestricted sociosexuality. That is why I am generally down on guys with high N.

  • Lokland

    @Madalena

    “I don’t push anything on anybody.”

    Fine your presented a theory that was weak.
    I proceeded to tear it to shreds because it is both offensive and wrong.

  • INTJ

    @ Madelena

    I don’t push anything on anybody.

    What did you mean when you said this?

    I don’t know if this was addressed before but isn’t there acceptance that as a person gets older their tastes evolve? That the young woman who swooned over s bad boy leather motorcyle type at 21 yrs old would not give him a 2nd glance at 31 yrs old? Is there no allowance for evolution in taste by beta types?

  • Madelena

    @INTJ

    I was wondering if men here don’t allow for the changing of tastes. It doesn’t mean I am pushing them to date whom they don’t want to date – I don’t know how this conclusion is reached.

    Think of it this way…young men in their teens or twenties thinking the sun rises and sets on Pamela Anderson/Kim Kardashian/video girl but entering relationships with classy women like Natalie Portman/Kerry Washington/college girl as the young men get a little older. Is it incongruent of the young men or have their tastes evolved as they gotten a little wiser?. I think it is a natural evolution.

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

      @Madelena

      Is it incongruent of the young men or have their tastes evolved as they gotten a little wiser?. I think it is a natural evolution.

      Of course it is, and it makes sense that as both sexes mature, their “checklists” reflect that maturity. Ideally, they focus more on relationship-worthy traits and less on superficial qualities. This should not be held against them as some sort of “bait and switch” routine.

      I’m not sure how the guys got from this to suggesting that you’re trying to saddle them with women who are past their prime. ???

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

    @Boys vs. Madelena

    I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with her perspective, but since when is asking rhetorical questions considered “pushing”? Has anyone heard of the Socratic Method around here?

  • INTJ

    @ Madelena

    I was wondering if men here don’t allow for the changing of tastes. It doesn’t mean I am pushing them to date whom they don’t want to date – I don’t know how this conclusion is reached.

    Ahh fair enough. I thought it was a rhetorical question.

    And it looks like the answer is “no”, the guys here don’t make much allowance for evolution of tastes.

    Think of it this way…young men in their teens or twenties thinking the sun rises and sets on Pamela Anderson/Kim Kardashian/video girl but entering relationships with classy women like Natalie Portman/Kerry Washington/college girl as the young men get a little older. Is it incongruent of the young men or have their tastes evolved as they gotten a little wiser?. I think it is a natural evolution.

    I’m in my early twenties and I’ve always felt Natalie Portman and Kerry Washington are really attractive, while Pamela Anderson and Kim Kardashian are disgusting. So when I enter my 30s and females of my generation start finding me attractive after spending their youth and beauty chasing after bad boys, I’m not exactly going to be grateful that they’ve finally matured.

    P.S. Natalie Portman gets extra points for having a low Erdös-N. :D

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    Has anyone heard of the Socratic Method around here?

    The contemporary term for the Socratic Method is “trolling”.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Think of it this way…young men in their teens or twenties thinking the sun rises and sets on Pamela Anderson/Kim Kardashian/video girl but entering relationships with classy women like Natalie Portman/Kerry Washington/college girl as the young men get a little older. Is it incongruent of the young men or have their tastes evolved as they gotten a little wiser?. I think it is a natural evolution.

    Dunno. I am not one of those guys. All of the girls I have ever liked fit the girl next door type and are regarded as extremely whole-some.

    My “tastes” haven’t really evolved. I like South Asian girls now because I fell in love with one in college. That’s about it.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “I’m not sure how the guys got from this to suggesting that you’re trying to saddle them with women who are past their prime. ???”

    Madelena @421

    “That the young woman who swooned over s bad boy leather motorcyle type at 21 yrs old would not give him a 2nd glance at 31 yrs old? Is there no allowance for evolution in taste by beta types?”

    Pretty much the epitome of what I deem evil in terms of alpha—->beta.

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

      @Lokland

      Pretty much the epitome of what I deem evil in terms of alpha—->beta.

      OK, that’s fair – you are free to reject any woman whose tastes have “evolved.” But the truth is that most women, even women of good character, are going to experience change in their attraction triggers as part of the maturation process. I certainly did – my one and only romance with a drug addict was in high school. I didn’t have sex with him, but I thought he was dreamy until I got to know just what a drug addict is like. We live and learn.

  • INTJ

    Pretty much the epitome of what I deem evil in terms of alpha—->beta.

    Precisely.

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

    @IntJ

    The contemporary term for the Socratic Method is “trolling”.

    Even if the questions are ON topic? I’ll take “trolling” over the ignorance of certain regulars any day…

  • Lokland

    @Madelna

    “…young men in their teens or twenties thinking the sun rises and sets on”

    No one cares what a teenager of man in his early 20s finds attractive. They have about as much importance to the what defines attraction as I do to someone in rural China. Similar to a 31 year old woman.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “my one and only romance with a drug addict was in high school. I didn’t have sex with him”

    Stopped reading after that line.
    It doesn’t count.

    PS I’m being intentionally obtuse and rude to get the point across.
    Nice story, ending teared me up a lil bit.

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

    @SW
    Didn’t Mr. HUS change which kinds of women he found attractive after spending some quality time with you? :wink:

    Using the same jaundiced logic, Mr. Desi should be completely written off by women because he’s over 40, “over the hill”. He’s NOT. I would gladly allow a sister of mine to accept such a situation.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “you are free to reject any woman whose tastes have “evolved.” But the truth is that most women, even women of good character, are going to experience change in their attraction triggers as part of the maturation process. ”

    Okay serious answer time.
    Everyones tastes mature. That seems like a duh statement though. Most of them all converge on the same point, marriage, two kids etc.

    What really matters is the path taken between point A and B. A woman who swooned over a drug dealer vs. a woman who dated a drug dealer vs. a woman who fucked a drug dealer vs. a woman who fucked many drug dealers can all learn which end result is the better choice and show up for the parting gift.

    To suggest that coming to this mind blowing realization that marrying a drug dealer is a bad idea is the only matter of importance is kinda chuckle worthy.

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

      @Lokland

      What really matters is the path taken between point A and B. A woman who swooned over a drug dealer vs. a woman who dated a drug dealer vs. a woman who fucked a drug dealer vs. a woman who fucked many drug dealers can all learn which end result is the better choice and show up for the parting gift.

      Agreed. All of us can and should be judged by our past actions – the greater the “maturation” the more unreliable the present behavior.

  • INTJ

    @ Lokland

    Not to mention the amount of time wasted in immaturity. It’s one thing to chase the drug dealer in high school and another thing to chase him through college and the rest of one’s 20s.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “You can’t get above beta without infidelity.”

    As I said before with the partner counts, I think that’s what’s most likely, not a hard edge case. Of course there are Roissyan alphas who stay true, and Roissy betas who cheat. Just like you can have low-N alphas.

    I went to a friend’s family Halloween party, and witnessed some “Vox Betas” in the 7th-8th grade range. They definitely were the popular kids, and on top of the social heap, if not the pinnacle.

    I can go into the detail a bit later, but these were NO Roissy betas. The kids even snuck off into the bedrooms/bathrooms or woods to make out a bit, the girls had the whole perfect image-self-awareness thing going on, with obvious small clusters of mini-cliques; the boys all knew how tease, laugh, touch, and mix with the girls, and were mildly athletic but not outright jocks, there were no sullen boys vs. girls sides of the room.

    The adults even knew. Some of the parents were standing around talking about the kids, and I mentioned how some of them were obviously sneaking off to kiss (in a fun, joking tone). A few of the women immediately responded, laughed, and said that 7th or 8th grade was “about the right time for your first kiss”, and they all nodded in agreement.

    I then got a bit more thoughtful and said something like “well, maybe it’s normal for girls and popular boys”… but everyone promptly ignored me, it was like I was abducted by an alien and the Men In Black erased their memory of me.

    Popular kids of popular kids.

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

      @OTC

      Popular kids of popular kids.

      So these weren’t alphas, but Vox betas, having their first kiss in middle school. That sounds about right – alphas have been getting regular BJs since 7th grade.

      So now we’ve accounted for about 40% of the male population, all thriving. That’s a huge shift from previous discussions.

  • Emily

    >> “I then got a bit more thoughtful and said something like “well, maybe it’s normal for girls and popular boys”

    Yeah, I didn’t make out with anybody until I was 18. :(

  • Iggles

    Emily – I had my first kid when I was 20 :lol:

  • Iggles

    Wow! That is the mother of all typos.. (Pun intended!)

    Meant to say:
    “I had my first kiss at 20!”

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    I was 18, myself.

  • A definite beta guy

    6.

    But I didn’t have sex till 24, so it all evens out.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    So now we’ve accounted for about 40% of the male population, all thriving. That’s a huge shift from previous discussions.

    When did it expand to 40%? Lokland made it 35%, of whom only 15% were good guys, and then you made it 38%, of whom 18% were good guys, and now its crept up to 40%?

    Personally, I’d have estimated the percentage of happy males in their teens and 20s as around 30%.

    Certainly, if one uses Vox’s definitive post as a metric, then the cutoff for betas, alphas, and sigmas is 2x average.

    Using your sexual statistics post, and using medians to represent the average male, I can estimate that 28% of 20-24 men fall into that category, while 36% of 25-29 men fall into that category 30% of 30-34 men fall into that category.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    I have no idea where the heck you get 40% from. I’m no math whiz, but 40% of people *cannot* double the lifetime median N by age 20, which by your own number is more like 4 or 5 times the age-adjusted median.

    I think it’s likely more like this:

    Vox Alpha = Roissy alpha/super-alpha = 1-5%, if that.
    Vox Beta = Roissy lesser alpha = 15%

    You need to hang out with people of lower social cachet more often. ;) Ted and I could make you some redneck mimosas.

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

      For the 40% number, see comment 538.

      I have described some young men I know as betas, with a partner count thus far of 5-10 at age 24. If they continue apace I’d estimate they will reach 10-15 by marriage, which would put them between the 62nd and 80th percentiles, which sounds about right.

      I took Vox’s beta description, then adjusted his partner counts to reflect the ABC News Sex Survey.

      So, Vox’s alphas plus betas = all males above the 62 percentile, conservatively speaking. Note: This is using the mean, in keeping with Vox’s approach.

      From the Definitive Sex Survey post, you may recall that 45% of males in one study had a P in V hookup during one semester, which approximates the same result.

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

      @OTC

      You just described a whole party full of kids who are socially successful, and still beta. Hardly the hapless losers we usually reduce betas to around here.

      We seem to disagree about the relative percentage of alphas. It’s a manosphere trope that “only” 20% of men are alpha. In my own writings, I’ve observed that only around 15% of college males have more than 3 sexual partners, and that the hard core promiscuous types probably is only about 10% of both sexes.

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/08/06/hookinguprealities/the-definitive-survey-of-college-students-sexual-behavior-by-gender/

      Of course, those stats are not lifetime, they’re a snapshot during college.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    I took Vox’s beta description, then adjusted his partner counts to reflect the ABC News Sex Survey.

    So, Vox’s alphas plus betas = all males above the 62 percentile, conservatively speaking. Note: This is using the mean, in keeping with Vox’s approach.

    And I think the betas in your anecdote are a particularly restricted sample, so they’re not reflective of the average Vox beta.

    If Vox was actually referring to means rather than medians when he mentioned averages, then looking at an average partner count of 20 in the ABC sex survey, at most 20% of males have partner counts that’s double the average, as required for Vox’s definition of beta.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/PollVault/story?id=156921&page=2#.UJE4gmnuVuk

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

      @INTJ

      And I think the betas in your anecdote are a particularly restricted sample, so they’re not reflective of the average Vox beta.

      Really, with a partner count of 5-10? How so?

      If Vox was actually referring to means rather than medians when he mentioned averages

      I assume he was – I’ve never heard the median being used as “the average.”

      I addressed the problems with Vox’s sexual partner estimates in comment #538. I think they’re way too high. But I do find his descriptions useful regardless.

  • Mike C

    I think it’s likely more like this:

    Vox Alpha = Roissy alpha/super-alpha = 1-5%, if that. Vox Beta = Roissy lesser alpha = 15%

    Question. Take the average plain Jane girl say a 5 in looks. For purposes of assortative mating, is her natural counterpart the Vox Beta in the 60 to 80 percentile or is it the Vox Delta or Gamma (I’m not sure which is which without checking the definitions). If so, do you think the plain Janes types are quickly filtering and ruling out say that 40-60 percentile and holding out for a 60-80% to pair off with?

    I don’t want to call anyone out, but the question has to be asked why would certain male commenters here have such a difficult time finding a GF to pair up with when that is what they explicitly want (they are not looking to “explore options”). By outward appearances, some of these guys should have zero problems finding a GF. There is a disconnect there

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

      Take the average plain Jane girl say a 5 in looks. For purposes of assortative mating, is her natural counterpart the Vox Beta in the 60 to 80 percentile or is it the Vox Delta or Gamma (I’m not sure which is which without checking the definitions). If so, do you think the plain Janes types are quickly filtering and ruling out say that 40-60 percentile and holding out for a 60-80% to pair off with?

      A girl who is a 5 in looks is not likely to do well with Beta, who Vox describes as good looking. Assuming a 5 is the third tier, Vox seems to be implying that she should do better with Deltas, though Deltas refuse women below the second tier:

      “Deltas are the great majority of men. They can’t attract the most attractive women, so they usually aim for the second-tier women with very limited success, and stubbornly resist paying attention to all of the third-tier women who are comfortably in their league.”

      Gammas are physically unattractive:

      “The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex.”

      I don’t know where that puts them on the scale, but undoubtedly the resentment they radiate is a lady bonerkiller for all women.

      I don’t want to call anyone out, but the question has to be asked why would certain male commenters here have such a difficult time finding a GF to pair up with when that is what they explicitly want (they are not looking to “explore options”). By outward appearances, some of these guys should have zero problems finding a GF. There is a disconnect there

      The possibilities:

      1. Plain women are loathe to consider men in their own SMV range. (Your hypothesis.)

      2. Plain men are loathe to consider women in their own SMV range. (Vox Delta hypothesis.)

      3. Rather than rejecting people of the same SMV range, one or both sexes may simply be invisible to the other in that range, or to assume they are. (Compatible with Pluralistic Ignorance Hypothesis.)

      4. The bottom 60% of the SMP has been largely locked out of the SMP due to incompatibility with unrestricted norms. (Sociosexuality hypothesis.)

      5. Any combination of the above.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    You just described a whole party full of kids who are socially successful, and still beta. Hardly the hapless losers we usually reduce betas to around here.

    Vox betas. They’re lesser alphas in Roissy terms. As I understand it, these kids that OTC observed made up the top 20% or so in terms of success with girls. You’re making an apex fallacy when you compare them to the average guys who’re referred to as “hapless losers”.

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

      Vox betas. They’re lesser alphas in Roissy terms. As I understand it, these kids that OTC observed made up the top 20% or so in terms of success with girls. You’re making an apex fallacy when you compare them to the average guys who’re referred to as “hapless losers”.

      No, they’re in the second tier of kids, comfortable with the opposite sex and hanging out in coed groups. But first kiss in 8th grade is very late by today’s standards for popular boys. When my kids were in school, middle school dances featured grinding, dance floor makeouts, and even BJs behind the cafeteria from the sluttiest girls. Some of the boys had lost their virginity by then.

      OTC is describing exactly the kind of crowd my kids grew up with, and these boys are beta in the Vox sense. I think we agree on the descriptions, but not on the percentages. *Shrugs* I wish we had a beta census.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    I think you’re a bit off here, because N at marriage is *not* lifetime N. Divorce happens, and cheating happens, even to betas. N has to be age-adjusted.

    As for the party, there were maybe 15 kids there, and kids tend to clique out. No stoners, no nerds, no goths, no fat kids, no pimples, no uglies, all popular-type kids. I think they were Vox/Susan betas, and plus an alpha or two, the popular extrovert kids.

    From my observation, there were zero Roissy betas (greater or lesser) there. As for all betas being losers, I don’t agree. Some betas (lesser) are hapless losers and others (greater) are just they grey, unwashed masses of normal boys that aren’t especially social or extroverted.

    The alphas share a common mindset of abundance with extroversion.

  • INTJ

    Incidently, this guy created a quiz based on Vox’s categories. I tested as a Sigma haha. I guess I’m a Sigma in attitude but Gamma in terms of success with girls.

  • INTJ
  • Ted D

    “And it looks like the answer is “no”, the guys here don’t make much allowance for evolution of tastes.”

    My tastes in women have not changed much at all from the time I was 15 to today. I still like the “girl next door” type in general (as someone else said) and personality on the extroverted side. And physical attraction hasn’t changed at all.

    OTC – “You need to hang out with people of lower social cachet more often. Ted and I could make you some redneck mimosas.”

    I know rednecks and ghettolicious folks. I can do either the redneck mimosas or jungle juice. Pick your poison. LOL

  • Ted D

    The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy: Where You Do and Do Not Belong
    Sigma

    LOL. I should retake it an answer the way I USED to think…

  • INTJ

    It’s funny how a lot of us Asians are MC or even UMC but we’re left out of the SWPL class just like all the LMC and working-class folks.

  • Cooper

    “I don’t want to call anyone out, but the question has to be asked why would certain male commenters here have such a difficult time finding a GF to pair up with when that is what they explicitly want (they are not looking to “explore options”). By outward appearances, some of these guys should have zero problems finding a GF. There is a disconnect there”

    Indeed!

  • Ted D

    INTJ – “It’s funny how a lot of us Asians are MC or even UMC but we’re left out of the SWPL class just like all the LMC and working-class folks.”

    we are all mostly in the same boat my friend. It really is a select few who get to take full advantage of their SES/SMV. A guy that has a low SMV but high SES may very well find himself in exactly the same situation as a LMC guy with a mediocre SMV if he is not a WASPy type.

    People in general are FAR too hung up on race/class issues IMO.

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    The Socio-Sexual Hierarchy: Where You Do and Do Not Belong
    Sigma

    LOL. I should retake it an answer the way I USED to think…

    I tried that and tested as Sigma. During high school and my first couple of years in college I had a truly “don’t care” attitude towards social and sexual relationships. I figured I would focus on studies and let the making friends and getting a girlfriend parts fall into place as they may, and only put significant effort into them later. Well, I did make friends, but noticed that none of my friends and most of my acquaintances were virgins – including those that were trying really hard to get a girlfriend (who were all stuck in the friend-zone). There were also a few candid females in my social groups (NTs are awesome that way), and hearing about all the alphas they were attracted to was also somewhat worrisome…

  • Mike C

    Well, I did make friends, but noticed that none of my friends and most of my acquaintances were virgins – including those that were trying really hard to get a girlfriend (who were all stuck in the friend-zone). There were also a few candid females in my social groups (NTs are awesome that way), ***and hearing about all the alphas they were attracted to was also somewhat worrisome***

    INTJ,

    Just curious, how would you categorize these girls? Were these unrestricted, “party-type” girls that were talking about their attraction to alpha types?

  • INTJ

    @ Mike C

    Just curious, how would you categorize these girls? Were these unrestricted, “party-type” girls that were talking about their attraction to alpha types?

    Actually, oddly enough, it’s the restricted ones who’re attracted to alpha types. The unrestricted ones tend to sleep with random nerds (think Ozy). There is one restricted girl though who’s dating (yes, as in going out to dinner and stuff) a nice beta (by Roissy’s definition) from our mutual friend group.

    Of course, I wouldn’t generalize from these girls to most girls. These girls are highly rational STEM girls (they’re the only ones who will be able to honestly talk about their own attraction triggers), and do not represent the average girl.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    I got beta on the Vox-based quiz and would be a lesser Alpha in the Roissy classification.

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    I got beta on the Vox-based quiz and would be a lesser Alpha in the Roissy classification.

    Yup. Vox’s beta is equivalent to Roissy’s lesser Alpha.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Really, with a partner count of 5-10? How so?

    I should rephrase what I said. What I meant is that the partner count is not high as it would be if they chose to pursue all their sexual opportunities. Quite simply, some of them (the guys who have partner counts of around 5) might be outdone in terms of partner count by lower SMV deltas who are DTF with casual. Thus, your betas might populate the 60-90 percentiles of the population in terms of sexual partners, but the converse isn’t true – not all guys in that 60-90 percentile range are successful betas.

    Thus, if we rearranged the chart by SMV rather than number of sexual partners, Vox betas would make up the top 70-90%.

    I assume he was – I’ve never heard the median being used as “the average.”

    I’ve seen it quite often. Especially with long tailed distributions such as number of sexual partners. In fact, I would venture to say that when talking about “average” partner count, Vox was referring to the partner count of the average male (i.e. the median partner count), not the average partner count of all males (i.e. the mean partner count).

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    No, they’re in the second tier of kids, comfortable with the opposite sex and hanging out in coed groups. But first kiss in 8th grade is very late by today’s standards for popular boys. When my kids were in school, middle school dances featured grinding, dance floor makeouts, and even BJs behind the cafeteria from the sluttiest girls. Some of the boys had lost their virginity by then.

    Apex fallacy. The vast majority of boys are not participating in that stuff.

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

      Apex fallacy. The vast majority of boys are not participating in that stuff.

      Agreed re losing virginity, but I think you underestimate what kids get up to. For example, my daughter was in plays in 7th grade, and by the end of the run, virtually every middle schooler in the play was paired off. Kissing and making out was the primary feature of the cast party, lol. And these boys were drama geeks and singers whose voices hadn’t changed, not athletic types.

      It seems to me that quite a few of the commenters here have stated they would have avoided or run away from such interactions because of the way they were raised. I suspect the percentage of men who would not run away is quite high.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    I would be a lesser alpha based on the Roissy table at http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/defining-the-alpha-male/

    No affairs though. I take those numbers and descriptions as not rigid categories, rather as reasonable averages or ranges.

  • Ted D

    First kiss at 14, first sex at 16 (a month after I turned 16 actually).

    At 13 years old, my boys tell me they know one or two male friends that have had sex, and many/several that have had “other”stuff past kissing. At 13 I was just giving away my Matchbox cars to a younger boy down the street, and was still actively playing with my Star Wars stuff and teaching myself BASIC programming language…

  • Ted D

    Susan – “It seems to me that quite a few of the commenters here have stated they would have avoided or run away from such interactions because of the way they were raised. I suspect the percentage of men who would not run away is quite high.”

    I’ll agree with this and state that I think it is a vast difference between boys raised in the 70’s through early 90’s, and the boys now in Middle school. I honestly see a VERY different attitude from my boys and their friends, but I can’t say for sure if it is for the better. It is definately more suited to the current SMP, but you know how I feel about that, hence my quandry about thier attitudes. I don’t want to change it and make life tougher for them, but my God they are so morally loose when it comes to sex.

  • JP

    First kiss at 18, first chewed out a female friend for daring to engage in pre-marital sex 19, first sex at 26, first kid at 28!

    Whoooo!

    Winning!

    Note: It is important to recognize that I am such an outlier on so many levels that this data point should not be taken as representative of anything with respect to normal human interactions.

  • Ion

    “INTJ – “It’s funny how a lot of us Asians are MC or even UMC but we’re left out of the SWPL class just like all the LMC and working-class folks.””

    I totally feel your pain brother, not sure which category i fit into regarding class.

    I wouldn’t say I fit in the SWPL “ubber white” sounding UMCofColor group, either. I made $36,000 before I handed in my 2-week notice, and am all over the place politically (if republicans were pro-gay marriage, and anti-ridiculous statements, I’d be republican probably, but I’m definitely not a democrat either). I vote independent.

    I guess I’m LMC/ “working class” from a mixed background.

    My dad is a huge nerd who had 2.0 MC betalings (my brother and I). He is embarrassingly corny (he cries during movies, and he even watches the lifetime channel, also embarrassing). He has been happily married to my beta stepmom (another engineer he met at work) for 20 years. They are the biggest goofballs you ever met. His first wife was my mother, who was a model and seamstress in her youth turned homemaker before they got divorced. She was dirt poor growing up, and that side of the family is still poor (whereas my dads side is a bunch of overachievers and UMC).

    He’s 6’3 and when he got to this country was quite athletic and attractive just totally beta on the inside. Which makes him sigma? High smv beta? To me, he’s just my corny dad (the math degree, practical jokes and bifocals he insists on wearing now certainly helps …..sigh lol).

  • Ted D

    HanSolo – according to the link you posted I’m somewhere around here:

    Greater Beta 6,7 Can do it with lights on; 5-15 lifetime partners
    once got a BJ in an alley;
    girlfriend cries after he
    proposes

    I actually like sex with some light on, it makes watching her move much easier. ;-)

    I got Bj’s in all kinds of odd places, but they were all from my LTR mates. (Jungle Gym at a local playground was one of my favorites. No it wasn’t during the day. LOL) My ex-wife and current wife both cried when I proposed. But I’m one sex partner shy. Well damn. :(

  • INTJ

    @ Ion

    He’s 6’3 and when he got to this country was quite athletic and attractive just totally beta on the inside. Which makes him sigma? High smv beta? To me, he’s just my corny dad (the math degree, practical jokes and bifocals he insists on wearing now certainly helps …..sigh lol).

    Either a good-looking beta or a good-looking delta (using Vox’s definitions).

  • Ion

    INTJ”Either a good-looking beta or a good-looking delta (using Vox’s definitions).”

    Which is funny because my mom was definitely a female alpha and never struggled for lack of male attention, then or now (she’s bragged about her 19 marriage proposals). She’s also got all the classic NPD symptoms. I am certainly much closer to my dad in terms of personality. meh.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Coop,

    Look at Jesus Mahoney, (my apologies if I offend him) but that is a classic example of men’s scarcity-mentality at work. He knows what he did like, encountered it, and then essentially settled for the same.
    Talk about knowing your never going to get what you want.
    The scarcity-mentality essentially has guys navigating the SMV with a attitude of “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t”

    You didn’t offend me, but that is a bit of a dig at my woman, so for that, f*ck you. I didn’t choose her because I knew I wasn’t going to get better; I chose her because there is no better. I chose her because she makes me happy, because I can’t help but smile when she’s around, because when she talks about the things that matter to her she’s so obviously good and sweet and caring and passionate that I want to throw her down and have my way with her, because… there is no better than her.

  • Cooper

    “so for that, f*ck you.”

    Fair enough.

  • J

    I took the test as though I were DH and came out (no surprise!) a sigma. The hardest question was the prom one. I needed a choice that said, “I refused to take my gf to the prom because, although I enjoy smirking at drunken jocks, it wasn’t work the cost to buy tickets, rent a tux, etc when I do it next weekend for free.”

    His gf broke up with him a year later because she couldn’t live with his aloofness and stubbornness.

    I’d have just gone to the prom with my friends.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Olive,

    Hrm, my impression (though I could have missed something in the last months that JM was commenting and I wasn’t around) was that he was taking a “don’t ask don’t tell” approach with regards to his current GF’s past and sort of playing up her “good girl” qualities. Even when he came back recently, he said he hadn’t asked, but that past count no longer mattered to him.

    I also said that I’ve learned a lot about her past through conversations we’ve had. I just don’t see the point of asking (or even thinking about) the exact number of sexual partners she’s had. Honestly, I’d get annoyed hearing about it. She’s mine now.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “It seems to me that quite a few of the commenters here have stated they would have avoided or run away from such interactions because of the way they were raised.”

    I got really, really embarrassed in middle-school, which *caused* my severe love-shyness going forward. I didn’t run away, and got made fun of, which humiliated me. And I wasn’t even kissing anybody.

    I didn’t have girl anxiety until *after* that.

    Teenagers are fun!

  • Ted D

    Jesus M – I’d like to ask a question, and I won’t be upset if you won’t/don’t answer. But…

    You said you won’t ask about N going forward because it doesn’t matter to you. Is that truly a shift in your perspective, or are you indeed using a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. To me there is a very large difference between the two.

    I ask because I’d honestly like to get into the mindset that it doesn’t matter, but I’m really finding that to be a remnant of the Red Pill that just won’t go down the hatch. To me no matter how great a person is today, their past marks them for life. I understand that their past makes them that great person today, and that people DO have real changes of “heart” as they mature. But to me it also isn’t something I can simply brush over. Should people be punished for choices they made in their youth? It depends on what those indescretions were IMO. In the case of N, it depends on how they got that N. Is it something I can look past? Sure, depending on just how crazy that past was.

    Don’t ask, don’t tell would be the only way *I* can see getting around this. Of course I won’t go that route because I know that all it would be is a work around. So actually changing my perspective would be the proper solution, but it isn’t one I can work out in my head. If you’ve managed this and don’t mind sharing, I’d love your perspective on it.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Olive,

    You don’t know my girlfriend and I don’t appreciate speculations about her. I don’t hold her up as an ideal for others, so there’s no need to cast doubts on her character.

    Cooper,

    You don’t get me. At all.

    Discuss partner counts, the importance of the past, and the experiences of college commuters in general if you’d like. But be honest, your speculations about me and my gf say everything about you and nothing about us.

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

      @Jesus

      I’m frankly glad to see you appear and respond to these comments.

      I think the decision about whether or not to request past sexual history is a personal one, and it’s not for any of us to judge that. You have clearly satisfied yourself, and that is what matters.

      We talk a lot about The Number here, but I don’t sense that most people are preoccupied with it. I mentioned recently that several women in their 20s have told me they have not been asked. One was peeved, as hers is low, haha.

      I think the strongest predictor of how much a man cares is his own Number. I’m not surprised that you would feel less concerned in light of your own experiences in the summer of ’11.

      My husband and I have literally never discussed it, and I believe it’s not an issue because we each assume our numbers to be roughly equal, and because it was very evident that our past experiences did not prevent us from bonding completely.

  • Iggles

    JM,

    I’m not trying to offend either, but I don’t see what Cooper wrote as an affront to your girl. He wasn’t judging her character. I understand where you’re coming from, because as a man in love it’s your right to push back at any perceived slights to your girl. She’s the best to you, which is lovely.

    However, I see Cooper’s point. And you yourself have admitted you don’t care to know her N and it would likely “annoy” you. You are adopting a don’t ask, don’t tell approach here IMO.

    To apply these principle to a larger group, I would say for girls being shy/not escalating is a much bigger handicap that having a high N.

  • Ted D

    Iggles – “To apply these principle to a larger group, I would say for girls being shy/not escalating is a much bigger handicap that having a high N.”

    Only at the point were she is trying to acquire a new man. Once that is accomplished, high N can come into play. Remember, most guys don’t care about N at the beginning. It is only when they decide to commit that N comes into play.

    Men generally will sex up a woman no matter what her N is provided she meets his minimum physical attractiveness. But to commit to her he will want a MUCH higher standard, or at least he should IMO.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    I once got a bj on the bank of a forested river near the Atlantic. The odd thing was that I wasn’t even really making any moves beyond just a bit of kissing and all of a sudden she just undid my pants and unsolicitedly started doing it.

    I’m equal opportunity, lights, some lights and no lights. But if she’s pretty I like to see what I’m getting into since I was on a “hunger strike” for so long and have sometimes had to pinch myself since then to realize it’s not just a wet dream….I miss wet dreams, they were so awesome, until I woke up and realized the hottest girl in junior high wasn’t giving me a foot job. lol

  • Ion

    Iggles

    “To apply these principle to a larger group, I would say for girls being shy/not escalating is a much bigger handicap that having a high N.”

    Agree. I think men get concerned with N, but that concern doesn’t change the fact that you’re more likely to get through the gate initially if you’re girl with a high N and have the charming personality and experience that high N requires.

    This is magnified by the time a guy asks for commitment, he’s already attached emotionally to the woman in question, and is less likely to heed red flag warnings anyway. Many high N women are smart not to even bring their numbers up– by the time the guy falls for her, he is more likely to implement DADT policy, or love her regardless of her N.

  • INTJ

    @ Iggles, Ion

    I agree that N really isn’t much of a problem, as long as you avoid giving off obvious “slut-tells”.

    Being shy/not escalating is a much bigger problem for women.

  • Cooper

    “But be honest, your speculations about me and my gf say everything about you and nothing about us.”

    Again, fair enough. The reason I took interest in your story was the correlation to my own life. I know my preference, and have very limited experience. Many guys I know say “just wait till you have some experience” (usually in response to me not having a desire to rack up my N)

    What your story means to me, is that one day – with experience – my preference may change somehow. When I try to imagine the process, through experience, that I’d have to under go to reach such change would require becoming jaded. (Which know would certain be the case if
    my future experiences taught me my preferences to low-N is like chaing unicorns)

    I’m sorry. When I read:
    ” I didn’t choose her because I knew I wasn’t going to get better; I chose her because there is no better.” (With knowing you once were willing to break an engagement over N) I see a change in standards, not your original definition of “best” being met.

    But, you’re right. This perhaps says more about me, than you.
    Regardless, I’ll leave it be.

  • JP

    I think this entire N problem depends on whether you are susceptible to moral anger or not, since there’s always the unconscious undercurrent than such people are inherently depraved (depending on where you put things like fornication on your internal moral scale…the closer it gets to where you put murder, the greater problem you are going to have).

    For me, there would always be the risk that I would express contempt in a relationship with a high N woman under certain circumstances.

    I would be able to control it under normal circumstance, but if my inhibitions were reduced due to lack of sleep or severe stress, it could become a problem.

    I’m not trying to be snarky, just throwing it out there.

  • Mike C

    This is magnified by the time a guy asks for commitment, he’s already attached emotionally to the woman in question, and is less likely to heed red flag warnings anyway. Many high N women are smart not to even bring their numbers up– by the time the guy falls for her, he is more likely to implement DADT policy, or love her regardless of her N.

    I think this is correct. The truth is men do have hamsters as well so once a man is bonded strongly, he is going to find ways to rationalize bothersome information. Abundance/scarcity mentality plays a role as well. The more a man leans towards a scarcity mentality, the more he is going to ignore and disregard.

    Being shy/not escalating is a much bigger problem for women.

    I think this is correct too. From the other post, men clearly overestimate a woman’s interest level generally speaking. How is a man…especially one less savvy and less aggressive supposed to distinguish between a woman who is genuinely not interested versus one who is but shows absolutely no signs of being interested? Mind reading?

    For me, there would always be the risk that I would express contempt in a relationship with a high N woman under certain circumstances.

    I can understand this. I think it is kind of like having a rock in your shoe. Maybe you could get used to it, but it is always there causing discomfort. I’ve tried to imagine how I would feel now if I were single and met a much higher N woman. I think I could tolerate it better than 5-10 years ago. N is a proxy/heuristic for other things. In the market, there are certain rules that exist which are heuristics. They are not technically valid, but they “work” most of the time. To me the core of N is two things. Is she going to be sexually loyal to me, and am I being “settled” for. If I could answer yes and no to those two questions respectively, I’d probably try much harder to get past whatever the N is, but ultimately it probably couldn’t be too much higher than mine.

  • Jason773

    Susan,

    It is sooooo not the case with me. I think men get muscled for one another, kind of the way women dress up for one another when they go out. Women like a fit body, but I will take a runner over a bodybuilder anyday. And I am grossed out by male pecs that are like boobs – something Jason was talking about recently. Blech!

    I may be an extreme case – for example, I think Nathan Harden’s skinny arm on the CD cover is sexy. I think his jutting hipbones would be sexy. But I’ve always liked the hipster look. I’m not alone – my guess is that skinny, brooding types, who are often called “bad boys” even when they are not, as in Nathan’s case – outperform PUA types by a mile.

    A little late to this with work and the hurricane, but I heard my name being called. Anyways, I agree, that in his own way, this guy’s look has a certain sexuality to it, and I could especially see it working in the hipster scene. Like I’ve stated, an important part of finding what works in the SMP is finding your niche.

    I’ve already stated that I don’t do typically well with hipster chicks, and I’m sure this guy would, but OTOH this guy wouldn’t get a second look from certain women that I would target.

    Pick your targets wisely guys.

  • Ted D

    Mike C – “Is she going to be sexually loyal to me, and am I being “settled” for. If I could answer yes and no to those two questions respectively, I’d probably try much harder to get past whatever the N is, but ultimately it probably couldn’t be too much higher than mine.”

    Yep. This is pretty much where my initial “emotional dilemma” was early on in my Red Pill journey. In the end I came to the conclusion you did, that YES and NO were the appropriate answers and the rest didn’t really matter. Thing is, at an N of 4, it doesn’t take much to overshadow my sexual experience in terms of variety of partners. I’d wager that I’ve had more sex than my wife, but that volume was accumulated with very few partners. And I still really can’t put my finger on why that is an issue for me. I never spent much time without sex as I’ve only been single* at most a total of 12 months since I turned 16. It isn’t that I went without like many other men. To this day it is a bit of a mystery to me WHY it matters so much in my mind. Logically I understand that in the end it doesn’t matter at all, but emotionally (and I’ve confessed many times that I have difficulty dealing with any strong emotions short of simply squashing them down, be they positive or negative ones) it is a bit like the stone in a shoe you described.

    *note: I’ve been what the ‘sphere calls a serial monogamist since my first LTR in high school. My longest stretch without a LTR was 9 months, with a few breaks between the others. Other than the last few years of my first marriage, those relationships included healthy doses of sex and intimacy. I can’t complain about lack of sex because I generally didn’t have that until well after I married. :P

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Cooper,

    I don’t think that low-N girls are like unicorns. I also don’t think that I’m jaded. I certainly *was* jaded when I first found HUS, as Sue and anyone else here at the time can tell you. And I was very jaded when I decided to experiment with game and look for no-strings sex.

    If you judged me based on my actions of the summer of 2011, you’d say that I was a cad. That’s not who I am though. I had some meaningless sex, but I know that those experiences don’t define me. Anonymous sex with promiscuous girls isn’t a big turn on for me. The biggest turn on for me, the fastest way for my girlfriend to arouse me, and she knows this, is for me to hear her tell me how much she loves me, how she trusts me, how I make her happy, how I make her feel safe. That drives me crazy.

    Actions reflect character, but you can’t come to easy conclusions based on experiences taken out of context. Once in the fifth grade, I bullied and humiliated a boy who considered me a close friend–his only friend, actually. That experience (along with bitter and jaded sex in 2011 and countless other experiences) helped to shape me, but it doesn’t define me. I’m happy that people don’t make decisions about my worth based solely on bad decisions I made in the past–they see those bad decisions in the context of the good decisions I made alongside them, and–more importantly–alongside their knowledge of who I am today.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ted,

    It’s not a don’t ask/don’t tell policy. I don’t think that type of thing would be healthy in a relationship.

    As I said, we’ve spoken about our respective pasts. It comes up in conversation over the course of a year–especially in a relationship between two people who talk as much as we do. I’ve just never asked about her number and she’s never asked about mine. I prefer to judge her on my experience of who she is as a woman and a human being than on something like “partner count.”

    The past matters because it shapes us not because it defines us.

  • Ted D

    JM – “Once in the fifth grade, I bullied and humiliated a boy who considered me a close friend–his only friend, actually. That experience (along with bitter and jaded sex in 2011 and countless other experiences) helped to shape me, but it doesn’t define me. ”

    I think that is a fine line right there. ALL experiences “shape” you, but they also define you as a person. Your actions speak for who you are and what you believe. If you act in accordance to those values, all is well. If you act in a manner that goes against them, it brings doubt to the surface regarding just how true you are to those values.

    yes, experiences should be viewed in context, as context can explain some of those incongruencies. However, it does not excuse the behavior nor does it wash them away as if they never occurred. There are situations where I would kill another human being. The thing is, those situations are times when I would be willing to accept that stain on my soul for eternity, because they don’t go against my core beliefs and values. Now if I killed someone out of rage or stupity (drunk fight for instance) I’d be going against those beliefs and IMO it would push me toward the “dark side” so to speak. And, in either case, I would fully understand why someone would see that action and judge accordingly, even if it meant they saw me as evil/bad/damaged. I may not feel the same way (if I feel the use of force was justified) but that doesn’t mean others will feel the same.

    For the most part this is a personal matter. That is, you only have to live with yourself and your actions. However, there are times when the relationship with another person brings those actions up because they also reflect on them. Choosing to be around someone that kills for fun says a great deal about you as a person. Of course sex isn’t murder, but the point is the same.

    Perhaps I spend far too much time thinking about such things honestly. It is a hazard of being me, I think too damn much.

  • Cooper

    “It’s not a don’t ask/don’t tell policy. I don’t think that type of thing would be healthy in a relationship.
    . . . .
    I’ve just never asked about her number and she’s never asked about mine.”

    Mmmhmm.

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    I feel the same way as you. Yes, I’m willing to make some allowance for past transgressions based on context and subsequent maturation. But I certainly wouldn’t consider the slate wiped clean because somebody has “reformed” or “just made a mistake”. I’ve held myself to very high standards, and I will do the same to others.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Cooper,

    I’ve also never asked her how many times she’s wet the bed in her lifetime or whether she’s ever been a fan of country music.

    As I said, we’ve discussed our respective pasts. I have an idea about what her number is. She’s actually read HUS, so she might know my number–I don’t know. We’ve discussed much touchier subjects than partner count. We’ve talked about the type of people we’ve been with. We’ve talked about bad decisions we’ve made with regard to sex and relationships. We’ve talked about fantasies. We’ve talked about things we’ve done that we are ashamed of.

  • Ted D

    INTJ – “I’ve held myself to very high standards, and I will do the same to others.”

    I think this is about 50% of my problem with N in general. I actually tend to give other people a little more room to move than myself when it comes to “standards”, and yet people still disappoint me often. And I don’t think I’m asking for much really. I suppose I just have very high standards across the board. As much as I’d like to think that is a good thing, it really doesn’t get you very far in the Modern Western World. And in many ways it is a detriment IMO. It’s like trying to play a game with others that use a totally different set of rules.

  • Ted D

    “I think the decision about whether or not to request past sexual history is a personal one, and it’s not for any of us to judge that.”

    I’m not trying to judge here, I’m just geniunely interested in knowing what caused this shift and how I might go about doing the same. (It is in my nature to be a judgmental ass, but I try to behave…) I’d love to just get rid of this stone in my shoe, and truthfully it doesn’t hurt so much as just annoy me at this point. But what drives me crazy is that I KNOW it is illogical. And I hate illogical behavior and thoughts, especially when they are my own.

  • Tasmin

    “This is magnified by the time a guy asks for commitment, he’s already attached emotionally to the woman in question, and is less likely to heed red flag warnings anyway. Many high N women are smart not to even bring their numbers up– by the time the guy falls for her, he is more likely to implement DADT policy, or love her regardless of her N.”

    Yes, bringing numbers up for a high N woman is generally a bad idea for women, but I still think the better idea is to keep the numbers down from the beginning. And as we have discussed here before, there is some ethical tightrope relative to disclosure or not when he has made it clear about his feelings on the matter. Sure it is on him to state those feelings – and to ask for a number if he needs it, but she should seriously consider whether or not it is fair or even a good risk to progress with the man because if he doesn’t ask directly and she isn’t waving red flags she would likely still be riding his (false) assumption that she fits his desires re: N. If this is important to a man, he may not ask if he has been given no reason to, but that doesn’t mean that it is not significant to him and I believe most men make this known in a variety of ways.

    I get the importance of escalating and IOI savvy in “shy” women, but I think it is a little apples and oranges to put aggressive/IOI in the same light as the importance of N to the man.

    “Only at the point were she is trying to acquire a new man. Once that is accomplished, high N can come into play. Remember, most guys don’t care about N at the beginning. It is only when they decide to commit that N comes into play.”

    Exactly. The initial attraction stage is critical, just as it is for men – which is why there is all of this game-ish stuff about dominance, “confidence”, even cad-like or dickish behaviors in the initial stage. The difference is that at the core of those men playing up those things there is usually consistency with their past beliefs and behaviors. Once the attraction strings are plucked and he dials back the dick (and what she gets in the long run) is what has always been there. The same cannot be as easily said with a high N women seeking a low N man. And that is part of the visceral tug than men feel when there is inconsistency, price discrimination, etc.

    “For me, there would always be the risk that I would express contempt in a relationship with a high N woman under certain circumstances.”

    I agree, which is why I think the first notion is a bit off. Contempt is a product of disgust and anger and is a cousin of resentment. There is no love where there is resentment. Those things are a cancer. Sure some people can encapsulate those things with high attraction, comfort of companionship, etc. but the contempt-resentment continuum is almost never resectable and more often than not will turn malignant over time.

    Im all about (shy) women working on their aggression and IOI’s, but I don’t think this positive in terms of fostering attraction does anything to alter his views on N. And it is disingenuous to believe that a man would be so attracted and enchanted by an appropriately aggressive woman with IOI mastery such that his views on N would melt away until it is “too late”.

    I just don’t see very many low N men who value that same thing in a woman getting to head-over-heels without treading damn close to numbers territory in the process – certainly not being blinded to red flags. Maybe some really young guys w/o any experience, but a man that has been around at all is going to have some kind of red flag antennae and while he may not ask for her number, he sure as hell will be triangulating for a spot on the grid that is a comfortable proxy. I think most women in that situation know full well he is relying on that proxy and that fact is worthy of deep consideration of her own.

    And if the H.O.H. does somehow circumvent a lot of discussions about the past and “it” comes up or a red flag appears ex post facto, I don’t doubt that it *may* make him dig deeper into his beliefs on the matter, unwind some of his (arguably false) extrapolations of higher N, and press on, but it won’t fully remove the pebble. So there is still this notion of him needing to “get over it”. Fine, but the ways in which this happens include: putting her on a pedestal, maintaining a scarcity mindset, and/or reorientation of his own views on casual or high-n generating choices – IOW, reducing the value of his choices to not participate and/or somehow propping up the value (price) of her intimacy.

    Not only is that is a lot to ask, but as a woman, she should ask herself if she wants to be with a man that puts her on a pedestal, believes he has highly limited options, and/or has to do some kind of mental gymnastics relative to intimacy. That doesn’t sound like a good foundation to me.

    Shy women, work on those IOI’s. High N women, stick with high N men.

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

      Shy women, work on those IOI’s. High N women, stick with high N men.

      Two key HUS principles!

      I know that guys would like women to escalate more, but from very low N/shy/restricted women, I don’t see it happening. I do think women can learn to express interest more clearly, and it would help if guys began assuming that any IOI is real. Worst case, he opens and she’s not interested, but that’s not so terrible. For one thing, women can give an IOI like a double take, even though they are not available and don’t want to actually meet. So those small rejections are often not personal.

      The way I see it, both sexes are going to have to risk more to make it happen.

  • Cooper

    @JM

    “You have clearly satisfied yourself, and that is what matters.”

    I hope for you the best.

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

    @JM
    You’re one extremely centered guy. I like the even keel, Cap’n!

  • Tasmin

    @Susan@JM
    “I think the strongest predictor of how much a man cares is his own Number. I’m not surprised that you would feel less concerned in light of your own experiences in the summer of ’11.”

    Agree. In part because our values are expressed through our choices and actions. And partly because assortive mating is in some ways about parity. Now that the assortive part is gone, there remains a desire to feel, to seek out that parity in all of the (now) bifurcated categories. N can represent so many other complex things, it is dangerously loaded, yet it is also can be reduced to “just” a #. That is where context comes in. Jesus’ spells this out here:

    “As I said, we’ve discussed our respective pasts. I have an idea about what her number is. She’s actually read HUS, so she might know my number–I don’t know. We’ve discussed much touchier subjects than partner count. We’ve talked about the type of people we’ve been with. We’ve talked about bad decisions we’ve made with regard to sex and relationships. We’ve talked about fantasies. We’ve talked about things we’ve done that we are ashamed of.”

    Which is highly contextual and also formative of the Proxy that I mention above. JM can tell us either way, but I would guess that if his SO were illusive, deflective, contradictory, inconsistent, defensive, withholding, etc. in those discussions that would not only undermine the value of the context but would probably prevent him from formulating the Proxy. Based on his past experiences he shared, I wager he may not be asking #’s but he’s got some strong antennae for red flags and the like and obviously cares about sharing pasts as a function of bonding.

    For me its not just a number, the number, but it is the depth, openness, and consistency of the contextual sharing, the alignment of current behavior and stated values, and reconciliation of those things with past decisions and behaviors.

    Of course there are numbers (or most often the implication of a #) that I just won’t consider, which is why I will never blankly state that “numbers don’t matter”. But I will say that if I feel that I have to ask for a #, there is already something nagging at me about those contextual conversations and I have to consider whether or not it is a good fit based on that before I go down the # path. It is one of those “if I have to ask” things. These days it seems that many women disclose very telling contextual information w/o prompting , so I’m often saved the trouble. Probably because they assume my N to be high. (That’s a whole other paradox.) But occasionally, there is a situation in which mixed or inconsistent messages are sent and it feels like perhaps a number will tie things out. Keeping in mind that this never even comes up unless I already see mutual LTR potential, which is a prerequisite for intimacy.

    As much as it pains me, I often think that increasing ones N as a man probably does improve the chances of parity (and thus higher “satisfaction” or “comfort”) with a future mate re: sexual pasts. In light of the fact that women don’t care until some ridiculously high N is surpassed, it is no surprise why men are heeding the call to sow their seeds, delaying commitment to achieve such, and turning their focus toward short term strategies even if they desire the long term. There is downside to this approach to the man – and probably the SMP as a whole, but I’m starting to think it is far less limiting/damaging than having to continually “get over” a high N, low N situation.

    “My husband and I have literally never discussed it, and I believe it’s not an issue because we each assume our numbers to be roughly equal, and because it was very evident that our past experiences did not prevent us from bonding completely.”

    Makes sense. Part of my earlier point is that sharing that contextual information about our pasts is part of the bonding process and that the bonding process can be w/o the # discussion, but requires a proxy – an assumption that there is parity based on the disclosure of those details of our pasts in light of how that jives with our current behaviors.

    This is not, however, the same as don’t ask don’t tell, which I believe is fine as long as both parties actually buy into to all that it implies: effectively agreeing that the past does not matter. To me this approach is similar to an “open” marriage; an oxymoron in my book. There is no greater red flag than when a woman desires to treat the past – or selective portions of such, as mutually off-limits.

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

      In light of the fact that women don’t care until some ridiculously high N is surpassed, it is no surprise why men are heeding the call to sow their seeds, delaying commitment to achieve such, and turning their focus toward short term strategies even if they desire the long term. There is downside to this approach to the man – and probably the SMP as a whole, but I’m starting to think it is far less limiting/damaging than having to continually “get over” a high N, low N situation.

      Great analysis as always, Tasmin. I can’t disagree with you here – if a guy’s happiness is more likely if he gets past a certain N – say 10 or 20 – then I’m not going to dissuade guys from doing that. This is particularly relevant to the guy who really hits his stride later – his sexual opportunities may have been limited when he was young, and now the women he is capable of pulling have higher N than he does. It’s probably not a bad idea for him to go out and have some sex with a variety of partners.

      For example, I fully understand Jesus’ feelings about his casual experiences, but I believe he is much better off for having had them, especially in light of his past experience. (FTR, I think he is being too hard on himself by describing his behavior as caddish. That is not my recollection.)

      Makes sense. Part of my earlier point is that sharing that contextual information about our pasts is part of the bonding process and that the bonding process can be w/o the # discussion, but requires a proxy – an assumption that there is parity based on the disclosure of those details of our pasts in light of how that jives with our current behaviors.

      Agreed. Bonding requires “knowing” the other person, and that has to happen in some real way.

      This is not, however, the same as don’t ask don’t tell, which I believe is fine as long as both parties actually buy into to all that it implies: effectively agreeing that the past does not matter. To me this approach is similar to an “open” marriage; an oxymoron in my book. There is no greater red flag than when a woman desires to treat the past – or selective portions of such, as mutually off-limits.

      I have never seen DADT put into practice unless there was an intent to deceive. Yesterday you referred to something like this – I think you called it something like the consenting adults override? These tactics suit those with flexible morality.

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

    JM,
    The speculations are based on stuff you’d brought to the table in the past. FWIW I don’t think your GF is a slut (or was a slut) by any means, my commentary was actually more about you, and the stuff that really seemed to bug you. Just trying to be frank.

    I’m not trying to be a bitch, but I don’t feel guilty being a bit hard on you. You were once very hard on me too.

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

    JM,
    Read a bit more of the comments. Sounds like everything is in the clear, and the only thing you DON’T know about your GF is actual partner count (and actually, IIRC it was more relevant to your own concerns to find out what types of guys she’d been with in the past anyway).

    Anyway, my number one lesson from last year was to follow my instinct and take the advice people gave me on a blog with a grain of salt. A good lesson, too, as I could’ve really messed up what I have. So, you know, you can choose not to care about a thing I say

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Regarding taste changing:

    I went through Facebook and compiled a big picture of every girl I had a crush on since high school started in 2001. They are all remarkably similar.

    Now, how the hell do I dropbox or whatever? I’d prefer people not to be able to find the picture unless they have a direct link.

  • INTJ

    @ ADBG

    I just upload stuff to tinypic: http://tinypic.com/

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    I think the decision about whether or not to request past sexual history is a personal one, and it’s not for any of us to judge that.

    Absolutely. I support men asking if it’s important to them.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Megaman,

    Thanks. That’s a great compliment coming from you, since I’d say you’re hands down the most even-keeled man commenting at HUS.

  • SayWhaat

    (FTR, I think he is being too hard on himself by describing his behavior as caddish. That is not my recollection.)

    He lied to us when he said that he wouldn’t lie to girls about wanting more than casual sex. And he went on and lied to those girls anyway.

    I like JM, but I haven’t forgotten that.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Tasmin,

    I agree with Sue. That was a terrific analysis.

    JM can tell us either way, but I would guess that if his SO were illusive, deflective, contradictory, inconsistent, defensive, withholding, etc. in those discussions that would not only undermine the value of the context but would probably prevent him from formulating the Proxy. Based on his past experiences he shared, I wager he may not be asking #’s but he’s got some strong antennae for red flags and the like and obviously cares about sharing pasts as a function of bonding.

    Yea, to me, a strong, firm bond is what it’s all about. And if she were anything but forthcoming about her past (as I am about my own), I would have reservations about the relationship.

    Of course there are numbers (or most often the implication of a #) that I just won’t consider, which is why I will never blankly state that “numbers don’t matter”. But I will say that if I feel that I have to ask for a #, there is already something nagging at me about those contextual conversations and I have to consider whether or not it is a good fit based on that before I go down the # path. It is one of those “if I have to ask” things.

    I particularly like this. There’s something behind the need to ask. The desire to find out someone’s partner count suggests something about the person wanting to ask. Maybe there’s insecurity about one’s own (in)experience, or a sense that one’s partner isn’t being up front about something, or even just a doubt about one’s own ability to evaluate a person based on one’s firsthand experience of her.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Saywhaat,

    Huh? I never told girls lied to girls by telling them I wanted more than sex.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    At least I don’t remember ever doing that. I know that I felt bad because I know some of them wanted more than just sex. I may have mentioned that. But I honestly don’t remember ever lying to girls about wanting a relationship with them.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Olive,

    I don’t want you to feel bad about being hard on me. I was just pointing out that you had no clue what you’re talking about.

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

    JM,
    I beg to differ. It’s not that I had no clue what I was talking about, it’s that my commentary was based on information you’d shared months ago. Clearly things have since changed.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ted,

    I’m not trying to judge here, I’m just geniunely interested in knowing what caused this shift and how I might go about doing the same. (It is in my nature to be a judgmental ass, but I try to behave…) I’d love to just get rid of this stone in my shoe, and truthfully it doesn’t hurt so much as just annoy me at this point. But what drives me crazy is that I KNOW it is illogical. And I hate illogical behavior and thoughts, especially when they are my own.

    I’m not sure you’ve pinpointed exactly what it is that’s giving you a pain in the foot. Or else you’re just not ready to let go of the pain in your foot. Or else both.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Olive,

    No, it was based on your interpretation of information I shared months ago.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I just upload stuff to tinypic: http://tinypic.com/

    Well, let’s go with that then.

    Here are my changing tastes over the past 11 years, at least.

    http://i46.tinypic.com/5ed5q1.jpg

    Relatively consistent, enough that if you turn the lights low off a lot of the girls start looking and sounding like each other. Now, unfortunately, I couldn’t find any pictures from elementary school, but you’d probably see I had the same basic taste since I was 6.

    So this idea that girls are going to go from bad boy biker to the guy in that picture, yeahhhhhhh. I don’t grok that.

    I also don’t find Megan Fox even remotely attractive.

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

      @ADBG

      Another good looking guy reveals himself! Is that you in the photos? Seriously, there is NO reason for a lack of success with women from any one of the guys whose pic I have seen from this site. Dudes, this is all in your heads. Do the Inner Game work, get your head straight red-pill wise (don’t overdo it please) and find yourselves securely in Vox’s Beta category, which is a pretty good place to be.

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

    @JM

    I’d say you’re hands down the most even-keeled man commenting at HUS.

    Heh, even if that were true, relatively speaking I’d still be a crazy extremist around here! :mrgreen:

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “OTC is describing exactly the kind of crowd my kids grew up with, and these boys are beta in the Vox sense. I think we agree on the descriptions, but not on the percentages.”

    This has been a great discussion here. A lot of miscommunication has been solved, and everything makes a lot more sense now. I’ll be more precise in the future to use “Vox/Susan beta” vs. “Roissy/sphere beta”.

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

      This has been a great discussion here. A lot of miscommunication has been solved, and everything makes a lot more sense now. I’ll be more precise in the future to use “Vox/Susan beta” vs. “Roissy/sphere beta”.

      I hope others feel similarly – I have been trying to communicate this for years, literally. I’ve linked to Vox’s hierarchy more times than I can count, and argued against Roissy’s classification constantly, as it throws out all beta traits as unattractive.

      Another thing I like about Vox’s ranking is that there are elements within each that are entirely under the control of the male. Not in a “stop being a loser” Roissy way, but Vox addresses specific areas where guys go wrong in their mindset.

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

    In light of the fact that women don’t care until some ridiculously high N is surpassed…

    Is this really a universal fact? Wouldn’t it depend upon a woman’s own N, sociosexual orientation, degree of religiosity, etc.? Context of the guy’s escapades? I’ve known at least one woman who employed a reverse double standard of sorts. I’ll agree that men probably care about this more than women, but that doesn’t mean women don’t care at all…

  • Madelena

    @Megaman

    I do think women have a higher tolerance for a greater N for men than the reverse but there are still standards.

    I do know of a man whose N is over 100. Simply very promiscuous and indiscriminate (my assumption).
    He was very upset when he asked if I would ever set him up with my sister (hypothetically speaking) and I answered him honestly that no, I wouldn’t.

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

      @Madelena

      He was very upset when he asked if I would ever set him up with my sister (hypothetically speaking) and I answered him honestly that no, I wouldn’t.

      Highly promiscuous men simply can’t conceive that their history is not a selling point. It’s because they have failed to distinguish between unrestricted and restricted women. They’ve had sex with 100 unrestricted women, and now that they’ve worked on the carousel, they want to wife up some beauty who’s never taken a spin.

      Hmmm, this is reminding me of an analogous experience for males….Perhaps we could call this meme Carousel Penis —–> Virtuous Venus.

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

    @Madelena

    I do think women have a higher tolerance for a greater N for men than the reverse but there are still standards.

    Interesting… tolerance in my lexicon translates to “I love him/her in spite of this”, not necessarily “because of this.”

    My guess would be that when a woman is sizing up a guy for relationship-fitness, something like this is in the back of her mind: “Do I honestly see him as the father of my children?” This question of pride would obviously include how good-looking he is, but also his personality, ability to provide, and perhaps what other kinds of women he’s slept with (or not slept with).

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

      This question of pride would obviously include how good-looking he is, but also his personality, ability to provide, and perhaps what other kinds of women he’s slept with (or not slept with).

      To be honest, the thing I hear most from women when this question comes up is the petri dish complaint. They shudder at the thought of the many potential strains of bacteria and virus that even now cloud the guy’s bloodstream, waiting to make some future appearance and compromise their status as STD-free. Women also really, really hate the thought of their guy’s penis having gotten “wet” with the vaginal juices of other women, especially if they’re women they find gross, as is often the case.

      The rampant spread of STDs is probably the biggest reason for the emergence of a single sexual standard that punishes promiscuity.

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

    @SW

    Perhaps we could call this meme Carousel Penis —–> Virtuous Venus.

    Well, Mr. Abbot has been going round and round on that one since last decade! He’s pretty consistent, in a one-track kind of way. :mrgreen:

  • pvw

    @ Susan: I hope others feel similarly – I have been trying to communicate this for years, literally. I’ve linked to Vox’s hierarchy more times than I can count, and argued against Roissy’s classification constantly, as it throws out all beta traits as unattractive.

    Me: I do find it interesting….http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/socio-sexual-hierarchy.html.

    Husband is definitely a beta in his orientation to how he sees relationships, but he has some leanings of sigma too–very introverted.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “I hope others feel similarly – I have been trying to communicate this for years, literally. I’ve linked to Vox’s hierarchy more times than I can count, and argued against Roissy’s classification constantly, as it throws out all beta traits as unattractive.”

    You should re-read his categorization then, as they are nearly identical to Vox’s, just with different labels. Now, his writings often castigate betas especially when the context is lesser betadom (gamma), and you can disagree with that, but come on, read his greater-beta description: “She cries when he proposes”. Does that really sound like all betas are unattractive?

    The problem with this is only Vox and you use it this way, but it’s your site, carry on. Every time you see anyone (besides Vox) use the word “beta” here, think “delta or gamma”. And, every time you use the word “beta”, I’m going to think “alpha”.

    Next up, let’s redefine black to mean white, and we’ll all get killed in the next zebra crossing. ;)

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

      You should re-read his categorization then, as they are nearly identical to Vox’s, just with different labels.

      No, Roissy promotes promiscuity as a key part of earning alpha status. To have restricted sociosexuality is to be a loser in Roissy terms. Note his attention to including infidelity and threesomes in his descriptions. Personally, (and this is not meant to offend you), my guess is that the 14% of Americans who have had threesomes are mostly butt ugly – SMV under 5. This is certainly the case with swinging clubs, polyamorous couples and nude beaches, at least in the U.S. I have yet to see an article on open marriage or polyamory that didn’t feature some people who are rough on the eyes.

      The problem with this is only Vox and you use it this way, but it’s your site, carry on. Every time you see anyone (besides Vox) use the word “beta” here, think “delta or gamma”. And, every time you use the word “beta”, I’m going to think “alpha”.

      I’m interested in accuracy, and I’m also interested in distancing myself from some in the ‘sphere. To the extent that HUS is not “compatible” with beta-hating sites, that is a good thing, as it helps to filter out their readers.

  • Ted D

    JM – “I’m not sure you’ve pinpointed exactly what it is that’s giving you a pain in the foot. Or else you’re just not ready to let go of the pain in your foot. Or else both.”

    I’m pretty sure it is a combo deal:
    1. insecurity on my part – that is, my low N does bother me in that I don’t know if I measure up to her past partners. Doesn’t matter how much postive feedback I get from her. This may stem from Male on Male competition anxiety. I’m working on it.
    2. The fact that her past behaviors (and to be totally fair they really were not many and outragious) are very incongruent with who she is today. That can be explained by her maturing and whatnot, but *I* never went through this myself. I’ve been pretty much exactly the same in regards to sex and relationships since my first LTR at 16. When I see people that went through a “wild phase” and then settled down, it appears to me as incongruency. And of course being as cautious as I am about the people I let into my life, this kind of incongruency bothers me a great deal. I’m generally NOT the type of person that has to learn things “the hard way”, so I have little understanding or patience for folks that seem to have a need to do stupid shit BEFORE they realize it’s stupid.
    3. It bothers me to NO END that there are a couple guys out there that think of my wife as nothing but a great piece of tale. She is so much more than her vagina that I almost think of it as an insult. I really don’t care what people think about me for the most part, but I care a GREAT DEAL about what other people think of the folks I love and care about. The fastest way to piss me off is to slander someone I love. (I’m not sure any guys actually feel that way to be honest, but in my mind they exist. Reading how the everyday PUA views women really doesn’t help, which is why I try to stay away from those sites for the most part.)

    Again, I logically understand how all of these are bogus and not worth my time or concern. But emotionally I’m just unable to get past them. To be sure things are MUCH better than they were a year ago, as I get into better shape and generally feel better about myself. I’m pretty much past #1 above at this point, because I know she is crazy about me in the sack. In regards to #2, I am absolutely confident that her state of mind today is legitimate, but I still can’t get past why she had to go the other route first to figure it out. #3 is my achillies heel at the moment. It is very easy for me to not give a damn about what people think of me, because it is within my control (to an extent) to change it if I want. (that is, if I was a little more outgoing and a bit less “cold and calculated” people would “like” me far more often.) But there is nothing I can do to change other people’s opinions of my wife/kids/mom/friends/etc. and frankly it drives me nuts. Other than 1 bar fight, any argument with fists I’ve been involved in has been because of smart ass remarks directed towards or about an SO or friends. I’ve dealt with teasing and that BS throughout gradeschool and I think it is why I’ve developed such a hard shell when it comes to that stuff. But if I see someone I love hurt by another, the desire to beat them about the head and shoulders until they pass out is almost overwhelming. I’m generally not a violent person, but I know beyond all doubt if I ever kill someone, it will be because they hurt my wife/kids/family.

    Fact is that is one of the scenarios that I fully accept. If someone where to seriously hurt or kill my family, I WOULD hunt them down and shoot them in cold blood. Actually, I’d be likely to wait outside the courthouse and do it right there in public. I’d shoot, drop my gun, and sit on the road waiting to be arrested. Worst part is, I don’t even see that as against my morality. I’m very much an Old Testement kinda guy, so it goes right in there with “eye for an eye” to me. I suppose the issue is I have very little faith in our justice system, and frankly I’d feel like it was completely within my rights to do so in order to avenge my loved ones and take what they took from me. Sick and twisted? Yeah it is. But it is just one of the things in my make-up that I fully accept.

    Have you ever seen the movie Law Abiding Citizen? I was rooting for the guy in jail (Gerard Butler) the entire time.

  • JP

    @pwv:

    “Me: I do find it interesting….http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2011/03/socio-sexual-hierarchy.html.”

    “Sigma: The outsider who doesn’t play the social game and manage to win at it anyhow. The sigma is hated by alphas because sigmas are the only men who don’t accept or at least acknowledge, however grudgingly, their social dominance.”

    Why would anyone ever want to acknowledge anyone else’s social dominance? Doesn’t everyone want to be on top?

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

    @SW

    Women also really, really hate the thought of their guy’s penis having gotten “wet” with the vaginal juices of other women, especially if they’re women they find gross, as is often the case.

    Interesting, again… My sense is more women these days are disqualifying guys at their SMV/MMV if they’ve gone *below* it to play around. From reading long enough @ HUS, it’s clear that guys have a sexual/relationship DQ list for women (in the abstact) a mile long. Perhaps women’s collective list overlaps with it a bit?

    For example, I’ve tossed this thought experiment around with my female friends (all “restricted”) over the years: You meet a good-looking guy, college-educated, gainfully employed, there’s chemistry, he’s had a few GFs in the past, is currently single, and *appears* to be relationship-material.

    One little catch: He had anal sex with an prostitute, just once, while drunk, without a condom. No STDs, though. Admittedly, this is all hypothetical, but the DQ rate has always been 100%!

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

      @Megaman

      He had anal sex with an prostitute, just once, while drunk, without a condom. No STDs, though.

      OMG, DQ for sure. One thing that freaks me out is that men are often silent carriers. It’s very common for a college girl to get genital herpes, then confront her bf, who swears up and down he doesn’t have it. He’s not lying – he’s never had a sore, and his general battery of STI tests is clean. However, he’s never had his blood tested for herpes antibodies, and in fact he does have it. He can infect someone else easily without even knowing he’s a carrier. The same is true for HPV, and of course HIV. As you can imagine, men without symptoms are generally very resistant (no pun intended) to submit to blood testing, because that would mean they should inform future sex partners, and they don’t want to.

      Even if you could take a guy to the clinic yourself and order up all the bloodwork, the fact that you even have to ask – as Tasmin suggested yesterday – is just really distasteful. It sounds like a someecard: “Let’s celebrate your status as a manwhore who escaped infection as we start our life together!”

      Because there is no practical way to know if a man is infected, it’s just not worth the risk to date a high N guy, even if you find him attractive. Of course, my guess is that the STD infections are highly concentrated in the unrestricted group. That’s easy to identify in college, much trickier afterwards.

      By the way, I have seen girls praying (literally – I took them to the doctor) for a diagnosis of chlamydia, syphilis or gonorrhea, and weeping with relief when they got their positive results for one of those STDs.

  • Tasmin

    @Megaman
    “Is this really a universal fact? Wouldn’t it depend upon a woman’s own N, sociosexual orientation, degree of religiosity, etc.? Context of the guy’s escapades? I’ve known at least one woman who employed a reverse double standard of sorts. I’ll agree that men probably care about this more than women, but that doesn’t mean women don’t care at all…”

    Point taken, absolutely not universal. It isn’t that most women don’t “care at all”, but the point at which they begin to consider the N as downside, the point at which that “caring” tips into action, e.g. a DQ or non-starter, and the effort and level of exploration in terms of seeking that contextual history are all orders of magnitude down the continuum of qualifiers. Thus I generalize by stating that most “don’t care”. Rubber hits the road, the likelihood of his N pressing into negative to the point of action are very small and usually reserved for men with the highest (50-100+) N. Which are so few in numbers themselves as to be approaching irrelevant.

    Additionally, before most women begin to generate negative feelings about his N they have to move past the positive feelings generated by the social proof of his sexual desirability. I don’t doubt that women have a tipping point where N flips into negative feelings, but the attributes that led to his “experience”, his N, are on the same continuum as positive attraction. Even with a high N, some undercurrent of this desirability remains. This is not usually the case re: a woman’s N. For *most* men, it is a different continuum altogether.

    Concerning context, there are indeed women with preferences, tolerance thresholds relative to a man’s N that may in fact DQ some high N men, but I’d argue that unless his extensive history is public knowledge and/or his history is all ONS and hookups and no relationships, the actual number or even the context of some x year(s) of being single, having fun, playing the field, are in effect a non-issue. Especially if she has some short period of playing around or an active freshman year.

    Of course there is relativity in their assessment of what constitutes “high”, but in general women are much more comfortable – in fact often more so, being on the low N side of the pairing. Even women who remain, or desire to remain, virgins until marriage seem more willing to accept men who are not virgins. The reverse is almost always a mind f*ck for the man.

    The whole N thing is predominantly referred to as a “male issue”; the madonna-whore thing, the insecurity thing, etc. Women rarely ask and rarely discuss it unless their own experience is the impetus for the conversation.

    I’ve never been asked. In fact, the women who I’ve had the sexual history discussion with in any form had already assumed that I have “been around” and still haven’t sought to clear the air with the truth or even hinted at the negative implications of this assumed past. Perhaps because they are afraid the truth is even higher than their imagination, but if that is so, then that N threshold is even further out. And none of these women would be considered high N by most standards and most had restricted orientation. IME, the “bar” in terms of N is quite high and the more his behavior and experience is congruent with relationship orientation in the present – or recent past, the further down the continuum they move their tipping point for what constitutes too high of N – even in light of the real or potential behaviors in his past that got him there.

  • Tasmin

    @Madelena
    “I do think women have a higher tolerance for a greater N for men than the reverse but there are still standards.

    I do know of a man whose N is over 100. Simply very promiscuous and indiscriminate (my assumption).
    He was very upset when he asked if I would ever set him up with my sister (hypothetically speaking) and I answered him honestly that no, I wouldn’t.”

    Yes, but in reality the examples of when those standards are actually enforced seem to involve men like the one here (N=100+). There are very few N=100+ men. If the rejection threshold resides in statistical outliers, from my perspective that threshold is a non-issue.

    Part of why I think women have a hard time understanding why N is important to most men is simply because a man’s N just isn’t that important to her. Of course, until it is. But I’d wager that most guys have a lot of headroom in the N department.

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

      Yes, but in reality the examples of when those standards are actually enforced seem to involve men like the one here (N=100+). There are very few N=100+ men. If the rejection threshold resides in statistical outliers, from my perspective that threshold is a non-issue.

      I agree with this. I think women use cad or player behavior as a proxy. Of course, this is not actually reliable – there are caddish guys who don’t actually do very well with women (some of them bloggers :P). But the best metric a woman has is a man’s sociosexual orientation. Either his N is very high or he wishes it was – in either case, run don’t walk.

      My sense from talking to women is that a guy has to get to about 50 before girls think he’s “dirty.” Of course, that makes no sense statistically in terms of odds, but that seems to be about where the boundary lies as far as I can tell.

      Of course, a woman’s own sociosexual orientation will have a great impact. We know that women are more likely to prefer dads for LTRs and cads for STRs. Research shows that women tolerate (or even seek) a high N for STRs, and prefer less sexual history for the male for LTRs.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I’m interested in accuracy, and I’m also interested in distancing myself from some in the ‘sphere. To the extent that HUS is not “compatible” with beta-hating sites, that is a good thing, as it helps to filter out their readers”

    Perhaps you might want to take Vox’s scale and rewrite it in HUS terms? I’m sure he wouldn’t mind since it would go a long way towards clarifying communications here. Not that Vox’s is bad, but for maximum efficiency (and I do love efficiency) it would be good to see it in your own words.

    Just a thought…

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

      @Ted D

      Perhaps you might want to take Vox’s scale and rewrite it in HUS terms?

      No I like using Vox’s scale because he understands men very well, and I don’t. I am absolutely not qualified to create such a scale. The most I can do is say what I like, and to some extent what women in general like. That’s how the 10 Reasons to Date a Beta posts get written.

      I actually do generally think in terms of alpha and beta, rather than include the delta and gammas. And my betas are not all as successful as Vox’s betas are. They probably include the deltas, at least. So it’s not a 1:1 match, but it’ll do.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    JP,

    Why would anyone ever want to acknowledge anyone else’s social dominance? Doesn’t everyone want to be on top?

    It depends on which ladder is being climbed. I certainly wouldn’t want to be the most famous man. I wouldn’t even want to be the richest man. And I have no desire to be the man who has bedded the most women.

    I don’t pretend to know what VD had in mind when writing about Sigmas, but it seems to me that there are people who play their own games by their own rules. Alphas might be successful at the social game, but they’re still beholden to the rules–they’re still slaves to society. In fact, as the “winners” of the social game, alphas are more shackled to those rules than anybody else.

    There are others who have achieved a level a freedom that goes beyond what any alpha could possibly achieve. And they’re above alphas because freedom is exactly what every man wants most of all.

  • Tasmin

    @Susan
    “The rampant spread of STDs is probably the biggest reason for the emergence of a single sexual standard that punishes promiscuity.”

    I won’t argue with the STD focus – though I see very little “punishment” for promiscuity in the SMP. From my perspective (growing up in the AIDS scare years) the STD concern never went away so there is nothing to emerge. But the STD threshold is not directly related to N. Its the trump card and it probably cuts both ways fairly equally, so I’m with you on the single standard. But I don’t see the single standard of STD’s translating to anything meaningful in terms of male N.

    I’ve never been asked N, but have always asked about STD’s – or been asked. That discussion happens regardless. Same for getting tested. It is interesting that you mentioned this because IME the N conversations are often steered directly to the STD talk. Which during the conversation feels like lowering the bar. Of course it is obviously important, but when a woman bypasses the whole context of sexual past discussion in favor of the proclamation that she is “sexually healthy and STD free” it makes me believe that N is almost irrelevant as long as there is no history or presence of STD’s.

    “To be honest, the thing I hear most from women when this question comes up is the petri dish complaint. ”

    The discussions I’ve had over the years (including mixed company in academic settings) seemed to be more focused on this issue relative to how the men see the woman. Its the internal vs external concept. The notion that men focus more on this (sexual history, past partners, quality/types of partners, protected vs unprotected sex) because the woman is receiving, her sexual organ is internal and thus much more intimate, lasting, mysterious, whatever. Women literally have the “petri dish” so there is the internalization of all kinds of things that elevate the significance of what has been “inside”. It is very interesting to hear this turning around toward men and in theory may help women understand how men hold a similar, arguably more intense view of their sexuality and the implications of that view relative to her past choices as well.

    “especially if they’re women they find gross, as is often the case.”

    Agree, it is interesting how women are so quick to label it “gross” based on less attractive or lower SMV past partners. Makes me wonder what else is actually driving that reaction. Because it works against (negative) social proof? Seems like men might be bothered more by a past that includes good-looking higher SMV men or those slick player types as opposed to a plain or ugly guy.

    To Megaman’s point: “My sense is more women these days are disqualifying guys at their SMV/MMV if they’ve gone *below* it to play around.” is probably true as well.”

    Hookers and low SMV gals are heavily weighted – even non-starters for some, in terms of his N, but to my point, the N is on that continuum of attraction, not repulsion. If N is high, but there is no reason to suspect hookers or barsluts, AND he is STD free, he is going to get a pass.

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

      @Tasmin

      Agree, it is interesting how women are so quick to label it “gross” based on less attractive or lower SMV past partners. Makes me wonder what else is actually driving that reaction. Because it works against (negative) social proof? Seems like men might be bothered more by a past that includes good-looking higher SMV men or those slick player types as opposed to a plain or ugly guy.

      That is interesting, you’re right – the sexes are reversed on this score.

      Re changing attitudes, I think you’re going to see this (if you see it anywhere) at the younger ages – college and early 20s. I know five young women who have already had to have cervix surgery due to HPV – they are now on a “watch carefully” list re recurrence and fertility. There is no test for that for males, so the only way a woman can avoid it, in addition to the vaccine, is to avoid men who are likely to have it (50% of men!).

      It’s not a question of logic, it’s a question of women freaking out and adopting whatever strategies they can to avoid getting it. Of course, once a woman has it, she has it. Obviously, women with herpes and HPV have little to fear from high N men, so high N women generally still consider it as positive preselection.

      YMMV, this is something emerging gradually but definitely being noted in the media and in studies.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Ted,

    I could be wrong, but it sounds as though a part of you still values what other men think too much–even though you’re only guessing at what those other men think.
    1. You probably don’t know how your SO’s former partners thought of her. No sense assuming the worst.

    2. Part of you probably fears that your SO still values those men in some way. Clearly she valued something about them in the past, which is why she was with them. You don’t understand it, and as a result, you’re not sure if she still values them.

    3. You’re giving everyone else more power than you’re giving yourself. You’re making what the other men value or what you’re afraid your SO values more important than what you value. Be firm and be honest with what matters to you. Talk to your SO about it. If you don’t trust her enough to be open with her about all this, then that’s a problem, I think. If you do, then lay it all out there. This is something that eats away at you.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sigh. I said many times that those are likely N’s and behaviors, not requirments. Sure, some Roissy lesser-alphas are 100% faithful and have low N. And sometimes betas cheat a little. It’s a likely correlation, not a deciding factor. I don’t see promiscuity as necessary to being alpha, it’s the OPTIONS that make promiscuity as possiblity, whether exercised or not.

    Anyway.

    If you are interested in reaching the “80%” (or “60%”), and men are actually included, then you’re going to have to mention “deltas” once in a while, that great unwashed mass of invisible men. Where do you mention them?

    Without, it comes off that you only really care about women’s access to the top.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    We know that women are more likely to prefer dads for LTRs and cads for STRs. Research shows that women tolerate (or even seek) a high N for STRs, and prefer less sexual history for the male for LTRs.

    See, I think that this is a recipe for disastrous LTRs for women who alternate strategies depending on what they want. It makes sense, of course, don’t get me wrong. But low N men with a healthy amount of self-respect will disqualify such women. And low N men with at least a modicum of self-respect… while they might stick things out, they’re likely to be resentful. The only men who will be happy with this are the ones with zero self-respect.

    Of course, many women don’t alternate in this way, which is a good thing.

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

      @Jesus

      See, I think that this is a recipe for disastrous LTRs for women who alternate strategies depending on what they want. It makes sense, of course, don’t get me wrong. But low N men with a healthy amount of self-respect will disqualify such women. And low N men with at least a modicum of self-respect… while they might stick things out, they’re likely to be resentful. The only men who will be happy with this are the ones with zero self-respect.

      Of course, many women don’t alternate in this way, which is a good thing.

      Shoot, I should have been clearer, thanks for pointing this out. I don’t know if you’ve seen all my recent posts about sociosexual orientation and that being pretty much hardwired and static – I don’t think most women do alternate. A better way to say it would be:

      STR-oriented women like high N men for STRs.

      LTR-oriented women prefer men with fewer partners for LTRs.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “And my betas are not all as successful as Vox’s betas are. They probably include the deltas, at least.”

    To me, grouping them together makes no sense whatsoever, confusing at worst. They have nearly diametrically opposite experiences with women – the deltas are “blue pill”.

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

      @OTC

      I see Vox’s betas as blue pill. The truth is, a lot of guys are doing OK and never go looking for the red pill. The betas I know understand they’re not killing it, they know they’re not players, nor do they seem to want to become players. They have had gf’s and a few one off hookups. They generally prefer strings attached sex. They seem well adjusted enough.

      Most guys who are looking to learn Game would obviously not describe themselves as “good with women” – by definition they are deltas and gammas. I’ll give some more thought to how to use this terminology. Honestly, I’ve been happiest when I could avoid these ranking terms altogether and deal rather in specific behaviors and strategies.

      As for Roissy, let’s just agree to disagree. Roissy’s body of work is very much anti-commitment, pro harem and pro cheating. That suffuses his ranking paradigm. I really don’t think he (if there is still a “he”) has any respect whatsoever for an Alpha who is monogamous. In fact, he has said very disparaging things about movie starts like Robert Pattinson who choose relationships, calling them loser betas.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    Yea, I figured you meant as much. It’s cool.

    I saw your most recent post on sociosexual orientation.

  • Ted D

    JM – thanks for the feedback. I’d say that on #1 you are correct. On #2? Not in the least. I’m 100% confident that this is not an issue at all. I’ve met her ex-husband, and at least one of her ex-Bf’s and I’ve got them both beat hands down. The rest is simple speculation, but it is biased by much of what I see from PUA’s in the sphere to be completely honest. I am probably projecting a lot here. I’ll work on that. On #3 it is indeed a work in progress for me. I have historically done this in more ways than just relationships: that is give away my power simply for validation and/or approval, or sometimes simply because I valued my own beliefs less than the beliefs of others. This is getting better though as I’m feeling more confident about myself in general.

    So yeah, it looks like most of this goes directly to lack of confidence and insecurity. Awesome!

    Still doesn’t mean I’d be at all interested in a ‘petri-dish’ myself. And in general I find promiscuous behavior to be distasteful in the least, and downright repugnant at its worst. It just appears to me to be a rather large lack of self respect, but that’s because I tie up sex, love, and respect rather tightly. That isn’t going to change however, so adjustments will be needed elsewhere.

    Good to see you back man. And thanks again. ;-)

  • Escoffier

    I don’t think you are necessarily interpreting Roissy correctly.

    I don’t want to go through all of it but his comments Re: Pattinson were not disparaging simply because the man got in a LTR. Rather, Roissy assumed that once in that LTR, Pattinson–despite his paper alpha-ness–must have gone beta which is what caused Bella to cheat on him.

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

      Rather, Roissy assumed that once in that LTR, Pattinson–despite his paper alpha-ness–must have gone beta which is what caused Bella to cheat on him.

      That was his most recent comment on the matter, yes. However, in the past I think he may have first called RPatz an uber alpha because chicks dig murderous bad men in the form of vampires, then a beta because he decided to go all in with a woman Roissy deemed not hot enough when he could be banging different babes all the time.

      Now he’s uber beta because his girl cheated. Meanwhile, there is considerable evidence all of it is for show anyway, which would means Roissy has been had by the tabloids.

      I could be wrong on the specifics there, and it’s not worth researching. I can easily prove that Roissy is pro-infidelity and anti-relationship. I’ve also got some choice tidbits saved from before he purged them – having to do with enjoying inflicting physical pain on women.

      Heartiste has definitely been shifting toward a more nuanced stance re beta traits and LTRs in the last few months – as evidence by my linking to it. I’m really not sure how Roissy fits into the picture, if at all. The terms Roissy and Heartiste are not interchangeable – that much is clear.

  • Mike C

    Hookers and low SMV gals are heavily weighted – even non-starters for some, in terms of his N, but to my point, the N is on that continuum of attraction, not repulsion. If N is high, but there is no reason to suspect hookers or barsluts, AND he is STD free, he is going to get a pass.

    Tasmin,

    Phenomenal stuff all around in several comments. I wanted to particularly piggyback on this just because I find some of the examples related to high(er) N men and/or very attractive men (in terms of looks and charisma) kind of humorous in how extreme they are to try and argue against your general point about male N. A somewhat absurd example I can think of would be a low N woman of maybe 5 where maybe she had 2 relationships, and one night had a 3 man gangbang. That is going to be an automatic DQ for the overwhelming majority of guys, but it is an absurd example to trot out in the context of discussing whether some general point is accurate.

    You made another really good point here:

    Additionally, before most women begin to generate negative feelings about his N they have to move past the positive feelings generated by the social proof of his sexual desirability. I don’t doubt that women have a tipping point where N flips into negative feelings, but the attributes that led to his “experience”, his N, are on the same continuum as positive attraction. Even with a high N, some undercurrent of this desirability remains. This is not usually the case re: a woman’s N. For *most* men, it is a different continuum altogether.

    The simple fact is that most men with a high N are highly desirable men at least to some relatively decent sized segment of men. The exceptions are guys who really are slumming it (and they do exist). I’ve thought about this and I think super high men basically score high in each of the three categories of Looks, Charisma (which encompasses all the Game type stuff), and Extraversion. Guys who have 2 out of 3, or even 1 out of 3 can be “successful” as well, but it is the guys who score highly in all 3 that really clean up. This makes them highly appealing to many women with the caveat (based on few recent threads) that I think some women immediately rule these men out for LTRs.

    Anyways, with men dealing with high N women, there is almost a universal feeling of it being something “to get over”, “to deal with”, “move past”. It is essentially a hurdle to jump over to be able to accept perhaps all the positive traits and attractive qualities that woman might have. The mental energy is expended to accept her because of her N.

    My sense is with *many* women (NAWALT- there you go, threw in the obligatory NAWALT) it works in reverse. In other words, most of the time high N is going to be correlated with a man who is highly attractive/sexually desirable across many metrics so I think many women are going to have to expend the mental effort to actually reject the guy because of his N because she is drawn to him because of his other attractive qualities. And this makes sense in that it is only the super high N men who really get DQed. I am going off memory, but even Susan I believe has mentioned in comments and perhaps even a post that a guy is good to go as “relationship material” up to around 20-40. I think 40 was the cutoff based on referencing a Vox post/study. Again, off the top of my head, and I’ll stand corrected if I am misremembering.

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

      @Mike C

      even Susan I believe has mentioned in comments and perhaps even a post that a guy is good to go as “relationship material” up to around 20-40. I think 40 was the cutoff based on referencing a Vox post/study. Again, off the top of my head, and I’ll stand corrected if I am misremembering.

      Today I threw out the number 50, so yeah, you’re correct. I think the ceiling is much higher for women. This is all guesswork on my part – based on chit chat with the young ladies. I can say that they have avoided and refused guys above their cutoff, which varies. But even the low N women I know don’t think 25 is a dealbreaker – not at all.

      I do think that many of those women would be put off, however, by even one threesome. I know I would. To me that says so much about a man’s attitude toward sex that our being compatible would be unimaginable. Same with having even one open relationship in his history. Or having had sex with a stripper or hooker. No go. I realize these things are high status among men, but they are definitely not among women. In fact, a woman’s friends learning something like that about her bf would be deeply shaming. Unless of course, the women are of the sort to participate in such high jinx :)

      And visions of spirochetes danced in her head…

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Honestly, I’ve been happiest when I could avoid these ranking terms altogether and deal rather in specific behaviors and strategies. ”

    That works well with one on one conversations, but there is no way to turn that into a system that can work for men in general, especially across different rankings/SMV/MMV/SES groups.

    I can say that when I approach this stuff, it is from two different viewpoints:
    1. How can this help me?
    2. How can this help most/all other men?

    I think you and the ladies here run into difficutly with the guys hanging out because many of us are looking at it the same. I can completely “get” a point you make, and maybe even find it useful for me, but I can’t see any way to turn that into generic information for other men. I’m a system builder, and when I’m going through these forums I’m looking for ways to make a better system of improving the average guys chances at success, however he defines that. It is MUCH easier to work on a case by case basis than to try and make a general approach, and this is where we often bump heads I think.

    Remember that in general men are good at following simple instructions, and many desire things to be laid out planly and clearly without the need for much personal interpretation. Maybe after they get some success under their belt they can start to customize ‘game’ knowledge to suit their style (my own personal project of sorts at the moment), but at the beginning a lot of that very individual information just doesn’t help, and often makes things more confusing.

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

      @Ted D

      I’m not sure what to tell you, as I don’t really purport to instruct men specifically re Game. I have a good handle on it, but my perspective differs considerably from the Rs. At one point Mike C asked me to commit to refrain from advising men at all, lol. I am happy to give my opinion when solicited, and I am also happy to warn guys about bad female behavior as I do in the Drama post, but I do not dispense the red pill. (Which is why I so frequently state this is not the place to digest it.)

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I’m not sure what to tell you, as I don’t really purport to instruct men specifically re Game.”

    and I’m not suggesting you should. What I am saying (badly it seems) is much of the pushback you get on your advice to women may very well stem from this dynamic. I can see the wisdom in something, but not have any clue how to apply it to a general task. Or, I can sometimes see a general tactic and why it works on average, but will fail miserably in a specific individual setting.

    And to be honest, I think the men vs. women “war” stems directly from this. On an individual level there is obviously a good bit of overlap between what men want/need and what women want/need. But if you step back into the more general, much of that overlap disappears and we are left with these two dyametric views on the SMV/MMV. When you focus down to the finite, it is often easy to see where male and female desires meet, and foster those traits which will make better relationships. But, that simply can’t be done at the high level where men and woman tend to have very different needs/desires and ways to achieve them.

    this is why you get things like:
    Women – show IOI’s but don’t “put out” too soon.
    Men – Push for sex early and often, and NEXT them when they don’t respond.

    In truth both men and women want a healthy sex life, but the way to that sex life is VASTLY different between men and women. An individual couple can surely work out the details IF they are both actually intersted in doing so, but there is no way to set a rule that works for both men and women in general.

    Put another way, when it comes to the general populace, much of what IS indeed good advice for women goes totally against what is the best advice for men. Hence the “war of the sexes” attitude so prevelant in the ‘sphere.

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

      @Ted D

      Put another way, when it comes to the general populace, much of what IS indeed good advice for women goes totally against what is the best advice for men. Hence the “war of the sexes” attitude so prevelant in the ‘sphere.

      I don’t buy it. I believe that what is best for women must also be best for men – or as close as we can reasonably get to “best” for both sexes without destroying civilization. There’s a middle ground, and I think I’m walking it wrt women. If I were strictly focused on what is “best” for women, I’d be giving very different advice, such as go for the best physical specimen while taking precautions against pregnancy and disease, then liberally lie about your sexual history when asked. Or: feel free to cheat in marriage if your husband loses his sex appeal – the worst case scenario is that he’ll leave, but then you’ll get a nice financial settlement. In fact, you can find this advice at Slate and Salon just about every day.

      Mating of the sort that promotes the survival of homo sap cannot happen without the sexes compromising their mating strategies. I sincerely believe that the “my way or the highway” strategy as preached in the ‘sphere is going to leave men totally empty handed.

  • Escoffier

    Susan I was not defending R. Actually, I think that was one of his weakest posts. Basically, he tried to draw a conclusion relevant to his blog from a publicly reported event, which is fair game, but in order to do so he had to speculate about private matters into which he had no insight. It came down to a tautology: Pattinson is beta because he got cheated on, full stop. But of course it’s possible to be alpha and get chetaed on. It’s rare, and much rarer than the reverse, but it happens.

    I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that he is necessarily “pro” infidelity. Rather, he cites infidelity as a behavior more likely to be found among alphas, and also as a sign that a man is perceived as alpha by women. That is, a true beta would not dare, and even if he could, he could not find a woman who would consent to cheat with him. He lacks the magnetism to tempt a woman away from her BF/spouse and the magnetism required for her to risk becoming a homewrecker.

    I also think it’s too pat to say that he is simply anti-relationship. He has a lot of good things to say about relationships and, if you read between the lines, it’s clear that most of his advice is geared toward relationships.

    However, I would say that he does look down on men who are simply incapable or unwilling to play the field and rack up big counts. His ideal man seems to be a guy who racks up a lot of conquests when young, then has he gets older settles into LTRs, with periods of more conquests during his time off from LTRs. He would certainly say that it’s more alpha to date a hot girl for a year than it would be to screw two dozen fives in that same year.

    Re: identity, I honestly think that the same person has been writing it all along and that the occasional references to multiple authors is just a ruse.

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

      @Escoffier

      But of course it’s possible to be alpha and get chetaed on. It’s rare, and much rarer than the reverse, but it happens.

      I submit that alphas get cheated on more than betas do. Why?

      1. They partner with women who seek out cad qualities in men at the expense of dad qualities. Those women are more likely to be short-term oriented, and share a lot of the same personality traits as STR men, including impulsivity, dopamine chasing, narcissism, etc.

      2. They cheat at a much higher rate, and are therefore more likely to experience vengeful cheating on the part of their partners.

      3. They have low emotional intelligence, and women married to alphas often seek emotional connections elsewhere. Emotional affairs are much more likely to occur.

      That is, a true beta would not dare, and even if he could, he could not find a woman who would consent to cheat with him. He lacks the magnetism to tempt a woman away from her BF/spouse and the magnetism required for her to risk becoming a homewrecker.

      You obviously have not been keeping up with the alpha beta convo. Please see Vox Day hierarchy.

      His ideal man seems to be a guy who racks up a lot of conquests when young, then has he gets older settles into LTRs, with periods of more conquests during his time off from LTRs

      I can specifically recall proud posts of his conquests while in LTRs. Since he clearly sees himself as the ideal man, I can’t agree with your assessment.

      Re: identity, I honestly think that the same person has been writing it all along and that the occasional references to multiple authors is just a ruse.

      Perhaps, but I find the quality of posts very uneven. I suppose some might say the same of me. If it has always been the same person, he has successfully kept his sadism hidden and his kinder, gentler side front and center for more than two years.

  • Tasmin

    @Mike C
    Agree. And I will add that it is not just those outliers that get trotted out, the population-wide stats can be equally as irrelevant IMO. For some upper % of single, “dating” or hooking up men and women – alpha/beta whatever, there are all these anecdotes, stories, stats that point to the occurrences of hooking up, “dating” multiple people, internet dating, vacation sexing, and things like third-date sex as some kind of threshold, yet many of the N conversations anchor in this average or that median, which all seem to point to these “low” ranges; it just seems incongruent. I get that there is this sense that we think everyone else is out there doing this or that, having all of this sex and that is probably not the case, yet I often find these discussions difficult to reconcile with the (my) reality I see “out there”. My effort to find some comfort level in terms of what is relevant to my reality often feels like herding unicorn cats.

    Much of what I discuss re: N is rooted in my experience, which is far from the norm. I’m low N, restricted, but have an SMV that apparently suggests I’m capable of otherwise. In many ways I’m looking for the female counterpart. I want to believe they exist, but I am coming to terms with the fact that my selectivity relative to past decisions will have to stretch to accommodate a great deal more “context” than I would prefer.

    Given my age, I’m particularly sensitive to Susan’s point about not overlooking a potential “catch” for the sake of running up my N. Yet I’m inching closer to stretching my restricted nature a bit, chalking it up to the whole self-improvement process and moving my count up to avoid that lack of balance in sexual history that I seem to be continually encountering.

    Even as I type that out, it sounds absurd, but it goes to my point about walking the line between short-term approaches for long-term goals. It doesn’t matter that some low % of hookups turn into LTRs what matters is that a great many women – even the restricted ones, maintain the hookup as an acceptable – if not primary means to secure a LTR. I have to be prepared to walk down that hookup line with authority long enough to secure attraction and form a bond, otherwise I am continuing to preemptively eliminate myself from competition by choosing to take some imaginary higher road (blue pill stuff) because at that initial stage the alphas-Dbags-HighN-unrestricted you name it guys are winning hands down. There are the stats and then there are the actionable realities.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “There’s a middle ground, and I think I’m walking it wrt women”

    Actually I said this in my last post here:
    “When you focus down to the finite, it is often easy to see where male and female desires meet, and foster those traits which will make better relationships.”

    But the rub is, no man can GET to that individual level with a woman until he gets his foot in the door. And, to get his foot in the door, he may very well have to employ strategies that are NOT so great for women. I agree with you that there is common ground to be found, but who is going to take the first step in that direction? For the most part the ‘sphere at large is not interseted in doing so, and most of what they “teach”does NOT instruct men to make that first step, despite telling men over and over that THEY are the initiators. In their mind, men are the initiators to sex, which I agree with. However, sex can also mean LTR, if that is what a man considers success.

    Of course there are a few ‘sphere-like blogs that do lean towards this take, but even those tend to slant it in a MGTOW take, because somehow it just doesn’t seem very “manly” to want an LTR or something. Take Cooper’s posts here as an example: this is a good looking guy that wants an LTR, and he is constantly DQ’ed because he expresses that intent. Is his example extreme? Very possibly so be virtue of his local environment or some other variable. But that doens’t mean that many other men don’t suffer from the same exact issue to a lesser extent.

    So what are men left with? Play the cad role, and then hope to back off into the dad role after he gets some action? Does that seem like a good strategy to you? And more importantly, it is the environment that forces guys like Cooper to play the cad that is the issue, and that issue does stem largely from women’s behavior.

    So I ask again: who will/can make that first step towards the middle ground? I don’t know that men have much choice in the matter if they want sex/LTRs. For now it is mostly a “play the game by the rules” scenario, and those rules are largely created by female behavior. Not trying to lay blame here honestly, just trying to work out the WHY again. :P

    Perhaps women need to understand better why men feel the need to act like cads when they clearly aren’t? Tasmin kinda proved this point for me here:
    “Yet I’m inching closer to stretching my restricted nature a bit, chalking it up to the whole self-improvement process and moving my count up to avoid that lack of balance in sexual history that I seem to be continually encountering.”

    Here we have a guy that is restricted and wants monogamy considering going the semi-cad route JUST so he can feel like he is playing on a level field. Jesus Mahony did something similar as well I believe? Doesn’t this strike you as bad for men AND women across the board?

  • Mike C

    Sigh. I said many times that those are likely N’s and behaviors, not requirments. Sure, some Roissy lesser-alphas are 100% faithful and have low N. And sometimes betas cheat a little. It’s a likely correlation, not a deciding factor. I don’t see promiscuity as necessary to being alpha, it’s the OPTIONS that make promiscuity as possiblity, whether exercised or not.

    Yes, it comes down to whether optionality exists or doesn’t. Another way to think about this is that men display, women select. Optionality essentially implies the reverse, women display and men select. Not many men will have the luxury of that role reversal. Those are your alphas.

    I’m going to rephrase this across 3 dimensions. You’ve got actuality, ability, and motivation.

    Actuality is what the N actually is and actual conduct.

    Ability is my hypothetical test of go approach and seduce women or you get shot in the head. How many survive this test?

    Motivation would be largely driven by sociosexuality- restricted or unrestricted.

    So across those 3 metrics, you could have numerous permutations. Just one would be a guy who has the ability to rack up serious numbers but chooses not to for a various reasons. But to me, the existence or lack of the ability is an important factor and it ties into motivation. I think motivation is a tricky one in that no doubt some men don’t really want to make a higher N an actuality regardless of whether they have the ability or not. I think there are other men who with the help of their male hamster essentially make a virtue out of there actuality when the number also is a result of lack of ability. Depending on what classification scheme you want to use, betas have some ability whereas gammas and deltas basically have nonexistant ability.

  • Mike C

    Today I threw out the number 50, so yeah, you’re correct. I think the ceiling is much higher for women. This is all guesswork on my part – based on chit chat with the young ladies. I can say that they have avoided and refused guys above their cutoff, which varies. But even the low N women I know don’t think 25 is a dealbreaker – not at all.

    FWIW, I think we pretty much are in agreement here. I’d note this is meaningful difference between men and women. Again, I am going off of recollection, but I think it was even Jason773 who had some issues with a GF with a N around 15 or so. I’ve mentioned this before but I’ll say it again…I’m uncertain for how many men a certain N literally becomes an absolute dealbreaker. I think a lot of guys ultimately end up accepting it, or once the relationship maybe progresses to a certain point they simply choose not to ask. I actually agree that context does matter somewhat, and so some of the things Jesus and Tasmin are talking about are more relevant than a specific N.

    I do think that many of those women would be put off, however, by even one threesome. I know I would. To me that says so much about a man’s attitude toward sex that our being compatible would be unimaginable. Same with having even one open relationship in his history. Or having had sex with a stripper or hooker. No go. I realize these things are high status among men, but they are definitely not among women. In fact, a woman’s friends learning something like that about her bf would be deeply shaming. Unless of course, the women are of the sort to participate in such high jinx :)

    That’s all good. I firmly believe any woman can rule out any guy for whatever reason and vice versa. Personally, I think you are overestimating here. My sense is your sociosexuality is highly restricted despite some of the casual stuff you had (you had mentioned I think it was all very unsatisfying). Like anything else, the restricted versus unrestricted thing lies on a spectrum so I think there is a pretty big grey area where a woman isn’t going to automatically DQ a guy for some of the reasons you’ve listed. I have to say, no woman I have ever dated has ever asked me if I’ve had a threesome, had an open relationship, or had sex with a stripper. Perhaps quite ironically, I’ve done none of those, despite having the opportunity on the table for all 3, but for various reasons passed on each one at the time. Regarding the “deeply shaming”, I literally cannot fathom my fiancee telling her friends anything about my previous sexual history, and obviously if there was something that was shaming to her, it would make zero sense for her to reveal it to her friends. And I know I wouldn’t tell them either, so I’m actually perplexed how a woman’s friends would ever learn about something her SO had done sexually.

    This is a purely academic point that isn’t that important, but it is possible to meet strippers in environments outside of an actual strip club. For example, night/dance clubs. And it is actually possible to hook up with one before you even know she is a stripper. Theoretically, there is no difference between hooking up with or having a ONS with a girl you pull from a club whether her occupation is stripper or accountant, especially if you don’t know what she does. So I find the whole “stripper” thing kind of interesting. My sense is the displeasure around it is triggered by the same dynamic as is a guy found out his girl had sex with a alpha type.

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

      I have to say, no woman I have ever dated has ever asked me if I’ve had a threesome, had an open relationship, or had sex with a stripper.

      I would never even think of asking such a question. Nor would I even wonder about it. Such a small percentage of the population engages in these activities that selecting for certain personality traits would make the question unnecessary. However, if something like that got revealed along the way, I would have to seriously reconsider the relationship.

      FTR, the fact that women do not ask about things does not mean they are not interested or even worried. You’ve mentioned that your fiancee didn’t ask if you were having sex with other people. I can guarantee you she was wondering and hoping that you were not. I’ve shared enough of those moments with women to know how it works – we’re all the same in that way if we’re falling for a guy.

      Regarding the “deeply shaming”, I literally cannot fathom my fiancee telling her friends anything about my previous sexual history, and obviously if there was something that was shaming to her, it would make zero sense for her to reveal it to her friends

      Again, I was referring to something being divulged down the road. It happens not infrequently, sometimes even during wedding toasts! I’ve seen it happen at a 30th birthday party. One reader here had it happen when dining with his fiancee’s college friends. I agree that no woman would ever divulge such a thing willingly.

      My sense is the displeasure around it is triggered by the same dynamic as is a guy found out his girl had sex with a alpha type.

      Yes, although as said above, it’s the opposite. The alpha type bugs you because he is high ranking. The stripper bugs us because she is of low rank.

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

      @Mike C

      My sense is your sociosexuality is highly restricted despite some of the casual stuff you had (you had mentioned I think it was all very unsatisfying).

      80% of women regret hookups the next day and describe them as very unsatisfying.

      In my 20s I would have been firmly in the middle of the pack for SOI, on all three dimensions. Obviously, the measurement would have little meaning now.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Regarding Roissy

    I really don’t think he (if there is still a “he”) has any respect whatsoever

    Are you saying he’s undergone a sex change? ROFL :D

  • Ted D

    Mike C – “And I know I wouldn’t tell them either, so I’m actually perplexed how a woman’s friends would ever learn about something her SO had done sexually.”

    Actually I’ve witnessed many “sexual” conversations in semi-mixed groups of friends that went quickly bad because one SO “confessed” to doing something sexual with a past partner that either their current SO didn’t know about, or is HIGHLY upset by. Perhaps I just run in loose lipped circles, but the subject of past sexual experience actually comes up often enough that I don’t find it surprising. IF I engage in the conversation, it normally ends with people being pissed off at me, for obvious reasons if you’ve read any two or three of my posts.

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

    @Tasmin
    Good points, all around. For women in the marriage market, it’s not that big of a deal. Either consciously or not (and I think it’s more conscious when it comes to a marital partner), they’re choosing lower N guys… something like 60% of currently married men under 44 are at of below the median number of lifetime partners ~ 5 to 6 or less.

    I’m not religious nor is my wife, but there’s a sizable portion of young women *and* men, even college-aged, who’re moderately-to-strongly so. This cohort (maybe 1/3 to 1/2) is probably the most likely to prefer lower N, but maybe also forgive higher N. Some very good-looking specimens, too. I went to school with one guy, stellar looks, water polo player, tanned and alpha as the day is long, but kind and considerate as well. Married his college sweetheart, who was also rather religious. As far as I know, they were both each others’ firsts. He’s now an ordained minister, in California of all places! I’ll admit these kinds of stories aren’t all that common, but I don’t think they’re all that rare either…

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

    @SW
    Add sex with another man, even once, for *any* reason, to the list of most common DQs. I’ve come across this sentiment even here on the Left Coast, from women who describe their political positions as quite progressive!

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

      Add sex with another man, even once, for *any* reason, to the list of most common DQs. I’ve come across this sentiment even here on the Left Coast, from women who describe their political positions as quite progressive!

      Ha, just say no to bisexuals! You can’t compete if you don’t even have the equipment. That would be an immediate dealbreaker for me.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    I think the visceral dislike of strippers is not that they are considered female “alphas,” but that they take away the sexually restricted female’s power of reserving sex for only love, commitment and male provisioning in fatherhood. Basically, strippers and prostitutes are like Chinese factory workers who sell their labor for less than 50 cents per hour, and who even see it as a “good deal.” Meanwhile, the women who would not want to sell their sex for cheap see it as a terrible deal.

    It could be a matter of culture or upbringing or genetics, or a combination, but there are women who happily engage in sexual acts for money, and women who refuse to do so, and some in-betweens. The men who think of prostitutes as more “honest” have very incompatible attitudes from women who think of sex as something wonderful to be had between people who love each other. Therefore those women would seek to filter out men who would rather go for emotionless and casual sex.

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

      @Hope

      The men who think of prostitutes as more “honest” have very incompatible attitudes from women who think of sex as something wonderful to be had between people who love each other. Therefore those women would seek to filter out men who would rather go for emotionless and casual sex.

      Precisely. Filtering out men who have engaged in certain behaviors is an easy first pass for shared values. The idea is to get the “no way Jose” men out of the picture ASAP.

  • Mike C

    @Mike C Agree. And I will add that it is not just those outliers that get trotted out, the population-wide stats can be equally as irrelevant IMO. For some upper % of single, “dating” or hooking up men and women – alpha/beta whatever, there are all these anecdotes, stories, stats that point to the occurrences of hooking up, “dating” multiple people, internet dating, vacation sexing, and things like third-date sex as some kind of threshold, yet many of the N conversations anchor in this average or that median, which all seem to point to these “low” ranges; it just seems incongruent. I get that there is this sense that we think everyone else is out there doing this or that, having all of this sex and that is probably not the case, yet I often find these discussions difficult to reconcile with the (my) reality I see “out there”. My effort to find some comfort level in terms of what is relevant to my reality often feels like herding unicorn cats.

    You and me both. Actually, recently I’ve been able to in my mind start to reconcile it. I think the restricted versus unrestricted model does explain a lot and when you get more granular about it, I think you can start to distinguish other differences that separate the two populations. There are certain places where you are more likely to run into girls/women like this:

    http://thebrigade.thechive.com/2012/10/29/thank-you-gals-halloween-is-here-to-stay-178-photos/

    And there are places you could go where never in a gazillion years would you run across women who would dress that way for Halloween. Hint, double hint, ….you wouldn’t have to go too far.

    Much of what I discuss re: N is rooted in my experience, which is far from the norm. I’m low N, restricted, but have an SMV that apparently suggests I’m capable of otherwise. In many ways I’m looking for the female counterpart. I want to believe they exist, but I am coming to terms with the fact that my selectivity relative to past decisions will have to stretch to accommodate a great deal more “context” than I would prefer.

    Couple thoughts. I think it was Zach that worked the math once that if you have a female 8-9 she may have been approached thousands of times so even if her N=10, in some sense she has still been selective. The higher you go up in female SMV, the less likely I think it is for her N to be really low unless she is very, very restricted sociosexually. I think Susan had some good comments somewhere about how you might match up with women who share your values. I think ultimately serendipity plays a role. I crossed paths with my fiancee under the most unusual of situations. One thought experiment I’ve had is what would her N have been had I met her 2-3 years later as I caught her very shortly after her dramatic physical transformation. Based on what I’ve read of your comments, it seems to me that finding a woman who shares your lifestyle values especially as it relates to “status” and material wealth is more important then the sexual history part. IDK….just thinking out loud.

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

      @Mike C

      I think you can start to distinguish other differences that separate the two populations.

      Based on your link, this cracked me up as understatement. You really love those 20 percenters!

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

    So this idea that girls are going to go from bad boy biker to the guy in that picture, yeahhhhhhh. I don’t grok that.

    I admitted that my tastes changed a little but it was more like adding details to the type I already liked than anything else, more or less body hair, different hair color or skin color…. Heh this could be a good dating advice The facebook test if all the men/women on his wall are nothing like you, is a good sign that this person is not really that attracted to you, YMMV.

    I also don’t find Megan Fox even remotely attractive.

    I find her perfect, problem is perfect faces bore me after a while there is nothing new to discover. I had the same issue with Matt Bomer perfect face indeed but see one pic of him and you seem them all. I prefer faces that allow me to discover new things depending on the angle, lightning and so on…odd that.

    Is this really a universal fact? Wouldn’t it depend upon a woman’s own N, sociosexual orientation, degree of religiosity, etc.? Context of the guy’s escapades? I’ve known at least one woman who employed a reverse double standard of sorts. I’ll agree that men probably care about this more than women, but that doesn’t mean women don’t care at all…

    IME is more of tolerance than consider him attractive. Is not a deal breaker like men say it is for them (emphasis on say we have proof here that many men will get past a high number if they think is worth it) but is not something like:
    Girl 1: My beau slept with 50 women!
    Girl 2: That is nothing my husband was already in 200 when we meet he surely would had made it to 300 with more time.
    Girl 1: Oh you are so lucky, I wish my man was in three digits like you
    Girl 2: *glowingwithpride*

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

      IME is more of tolerance than consider him attractive. Is not a deal breaker like men say it is for them (emphasis on say we have proof here that many men will get past a high number if they think is worth it) but is not something like:
      Girl 1: My beau slept with 50 women!
      Girl 2: That is nothing my husband was already in 200 when we meet he surely would had made it to 300 with more time.
      Girl 1: Oh you are so lucky, I wish my man was in three digits like you
      Girl 2: *glowingwithpride*

      Hilarious.

      It’s so good to see the young mommies here! Hope and Anacaona, we need new pics!

      I find the Megan Fox before and after pics fascinating:

      mf

      I prefer before by a mile. I think she looks like a female Terminator now.

  • Lokland

    @Ppl in general

    On the N issue for guys.

    I’ve never known a guy who was rejected for an N that was too high.
    Granted the highest I know is my buddy who is in the 30-40 range who is now married.

    On the other hand, I’ve seen more than a few guys get rejected for low N. Not an outright, not a chance in hell loser direction. The topic comes up and the girls interest fades away within a week or so. It might be that the guy simply lacks skill which then creates a correspondingly low N but frankly I suspect theres more selection pressure in terms of reproduction for low N men than for high N.

    Even more so in a culture void of religious and moral constraint that praises casual sex.

  • Lokland

    @Ana

    “Girl 1: My beau slept with 50 women!
    Girl 2: That is nothing my husband was already in 200 when we meet he surely would had made it to 300 with more time.
    Girl 1: Oh you are so lucky, I wish my man was in three digits like you
    Girl 2: *glowingwithpride*”

    What about 1 vs. 5, 10, 15, 20 at what point does that actually start to apply where girl 1 is not jealous of girl 2.

    Most men don’t reach 50. Most men don’t reach 15.
    Discussing the upper limit is actually pointless as it applies to almost no one. The lower limit would be far more interesting as it has real world applicability on a larger scale.

    I suspect the realistic conversation would be more along the lines of

    Girl 1: Me and my boyfriend are each others first.
    Girl 2: My boyfriend had 10 before me.
    Girl 1: Either silent or voiced jealousy.

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

      @Lokland

      Girl 1: Me and my boyfriend are each others first.
      Girl 2: My boyfriend had 10 before me.
      Girl 1: Either silent or voiced jealousy.

      Jealousy? No way, you’re wrong about that. I’ve seen embarrassment, usually when the woman’s N is higher than her guy’s. But I can’t imagine women being jealous of another person’s boyfriend’s higher N. This is more likely:

      Girl 1: Me and my boyfriend are each other’s first.
      Girl 2: My boyfriend is a Duke lacrosse player.
      Girl 1: Yikes.

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

    Girl 1: Me and my boyfriend are each others first.
    Girl 2: My boyfriend had 10 before me.
    Girl 1: Either silent or voiced jealousy.

    I never meet a woman jealous of a man having more women before her, in fact the times this has been talked about there is a level of “Oh well at least he stopped” kind of resignation more than pride. Jealous of presents, jewelry,flowers received at work so other women can see how good they have it or something like a guy writing a poem to her or serenade her or bring her desert at work, the odd phone call in the middle of work and so on yes. Women get jealous of present treatment of the man TOWARDS HER! not the past women and there is nothing more nerve wracking thtn meeting an ex for women too, IME.
    This is the restricted crowd mind you, the sluts can feel pride only if they managed to “cure” the womanizer if he stills looks like he is having something on the side then it goes back again to “He showers me with money at least…” YMMV.

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

      This is the restricted crowd mind you, the sluts can feel pride only if they managed to “cure” the womanizer if he stills looks like he is having something on the side then it goes back again to “He showers me with money at least…” YMMV.

      They almost always do have something on the side, and everyone knows it. It’s more likely to be an awkward moment than a jealous one. Even sluts wouldn’t be jealous, they’re just happy to take a spin on that particular stallion, they know it won’t last.

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

    Most men don’t reach 50. Most men don’t reach 15.
    Discussing the upper limit is actually pointless as it applies to almost no one.

    Oh I wanted to add that this depends on the culture even the “restricted” men in my country reach double digits just because there is enough cheap sluts around to serve them. Sleeping with a lot of women is really not that hard there so there is not really that much skill needed just enough to find the nearest colmadon and have enough money to buy some beers and any young slut will start giving you the IOI’s in no time. I mentioned Fried Chicken Girl long time ago guess what was the admittance price for her to open her legs?
    Which is part of the lack of being impressed I guess but then aren’t all sluts like that regardless? I mean in my country is beer/chicken/half a decent car… in here it seems that if you learn some party tricks and work the grey zone never being totally honest and making sure to turn everything in her head to add DRAMA! A whole generation of daddy issued girls will ge drooling over you? So whatever way you rack your number is not some sort of superpower is just learning the game and playing it, as hard it might be for some men to accomplish that in the end the reward is sex and sex in the great scheme of things is meaningless unless it has a lot of other things hard to obtain and maintain along with it like love, loyalty, companionship, babies… YMMV.

  • Madelena

    @Anacoana

    IME is more of tolerance than consider him attractive. Is not a deal breaker like men say it is for them (emphasis on say we have proof here that many men will get past a high number if they think is worth it) but is not something like:
    Girl 1: My beau slept with 50 women!
    Girl 2: That is nothing my husband was already in 200 when we meet he surely would had made it to 300 with more time.
    Girl 1: Oh you are so lucky, I wish my man was in three digits like you
    Girl 2: *glowingwithpride*

    My response:

    That actually made me laugh out loud :-)

  • http://R Cooper

    “I’ve seen more than a few guys get rejected for low N. . . It might be that the guy simply lacks skill which then creates a correspondingly low N”

    I’ve always been a huge fan of Occam’s Razor. *sign*

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

    Girl 1: Me and my boyfriend are each others first.
    Girl 2: My boyfriend had 10 before me.
    Girl 1: Either silent or voiced jealousy.

    Hm. I gotta say, I’ve never felt that twinge of jealousy.

    While I fully realize that I’m probably an outlier here, I’ve never once wanted to be with someone who’s been with others. It’s not that I view guys who’ve been with a lot of girls as “manwhores” who have “trashdick.” It’s just that I feel sex is an intense bonding experience, and that someone who’s been with many people does not value the bond in the same way. It’s like a devout Christian not really wanting to date an atheist.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Susan

    Yep, definitely me. And thanks! Most of the pictures are pre-game…and I had no idea what to do with the attraction of the girls once I had it, and I am pretty sure they had no idea what the hell they were supposed to do either.

    Since the forum isn’t seeing much us, I think I am going to put a thread in there just sharing all the stupid-ass stories of my 80% life.

    I dare say I actually am more attractive now than I am in these pictures ;)

    The important thing for me, though, is the quality of the girls. On that list is a school teacher, 2 girls that spend their spare time teaching children how to swim, sunday school teachers, and the president of my high school’s public service organization.

    Oh, and a few of them built homes for Habitat for Humanity, too.

    In the years that I have known them/did know them, they either didn’t date at all or dated at most 2 guys. Granted that two of them cheated, though.

    This idea that guys somehow are attracted to sluts and then have their tastes “evolve” probably doesn’t make sense to a lot of guys here. I’ve definitely INTERACTED with sluts, hooked up with them even because they passed the boner test, but these are the girls I crushed on and pursued.

    I’ve been this way since 6.

    @ Ana

    Heh this could be a good dating advice The facebook test if all the men/women on his wall are nothing like you, is a good sign that this person is not really that attracted to you, YMMV.

    Heh. I do like that. To be fair, I don’t resent “refining” tastes a little bit. Most of the girls on my “collage” look like my sister, my current SO more closely resembles my mother. Then there is that clear outlier (do I really have to say which one?) that sort of built an attraction to south asian girls.

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

      @ADBG

      Now that I’ve seen your pic, I feel compelled to say that you don’t need to take any crap from your SO. If she’s worthy, great, but you are definitely capable of attracting lots of women if you have your head in the right place.

  • Tasmin

    @MikeC
    Thanks for the pictures. Its all so awesome as long as you don’t view those (sexy) nurses and (sexy) witches as (sex) objects. I used to like Halloween, back when costumes were clever, funny, sweet, or dorky. As far as I’m concerned, every friday and saturday night is halloween down in the bar district.

    I’m with you on the restricted/unrestricted. Its a solid post. I think I’ve been doing that unconsciously anyhow. Unless you’ve grown up with together, talking about pasts can only shed so much on the truth anyhow and I’ve never been one to want “details”. When you are in your 30’s and a LTR is at stake and marriage bells and baby cries seem to be everywhere, the truth becomes slippery, memories fade. All of the context stuff that I’ve ever discussed has really been about pegging that restriction and selectivity as close to my comfort zone as possible.

    And I’ve done the math re: the 9’s* and agree that selectivity and restraint are relative in those cases. That is why I’m not hard and fast about #’s. That said, a 9 would have to bring more than just being a 9 to get me comfortable with say 10 or 15 years of being single and “having fun.” Its never as simple as numbers and relativism has its limits too – especially when those other variables like changing tastes in men, changing attitudes toward LTRs, and capping a decade of exploring, test-driving and having fun with settling down (err: you) are considered. I’ve met plenty of restricted women who have managed to sandwich short periods of something we will call “less” restricted between the relationship years. Shit happens. I know that doesn’t really square with how the orientation is for life, but it isn’t quite binary in real life either. *I have never had an IOI from a 9-10, but I’ll keep you posted.

    “Based on what I’ve read of your comments, it seems to me that finding a woman who shares your lifestyle values especially as it relates to “status” and material wealth is more important then the sexual history part. IDK….just thinking out loud.”

    I’m starting to feel rather high maintenance. The status-wealth-material stuff takes care of itself most of the time. Women into that are decisively not into me. But yes, sometimes that sentiment needs to settle in for a while as I think women (people) can quitclaim the value/importance of something that is not currently present (wealth and certain material things, a home, fancy vacations) or the value of that unspoken male obligation to “provide” because they really want the relationship, but are not in fact being honest with themselves. They could be grounded, non-material, etc. but the potential to want/expect more needs to get worked through so there isn’t stewing resentment when life goes on. Think social-worker and part-time yoga instructor with a penchant for $100 lulu pants and sushi dinners.

    I don’t really think of the hierarchy of N relative to other considerations like value alignment other than I am conscious of the limiting potential of placing too much emphasis on the past. I’m looking for a whole package. Yep it can feel like a tall order, but I don’t think it is up to unicorn status either. And to be fair, I’m a strange cat myself, not easy to unwind in her mind. So this stuff goes both ways. And I have never, ever, ever been as tall as they have wanted. We all weigh it out when the real deal is in hand.

  • SayWhaat

    @ JM:

    At least I don’t remember ever doing that. I know that I felt bad because I know some of them wanted more than just sex. I may have mentioned that. But I honestly don’t remember ever lying to girls about wanting a relationship with them.

    I don’t have the time to go hunt through the HUS archives, but I do recall at the beginning of summer 2011, I had asked you to be ethical and not lead girls on and you said, “of course, I’m not going to lie to them.” Shortly before your exit (in a verbal tussle with another commenter) you confessed (in the same vein that you confessed about the boy you bullied upthread) that you lied to some girls in order to keep having more sex.

    Whatever, it’s in the past, let bygones be bygones. FWIW, I am glad that you are back.

  • SayWhaat

    In light of the fact that women don’t care until some ridiculously high N is surpassed…
    Is this really a universal fact? Wouldn’t it depend upon a woman’s own N, sociosexual orientation, degree of religiosity, etc.? Context of the guy’s escapades?

    Speaking only for myself here, my bf’s casual experiences (and even prior relationships!) are a real thorn in my side. And his N is not nearly as high as that of Susan’s betas.

  • SayWhaat

    @ADBG
    Another good looking guy reveals himself! Is that you in the photos? Seriously, there is NO reason for a lack of success with women from any one of the guys whose pic I have seen from this site. Dudes, this is all in your heads. Do the Inner Game work, get your head straight red-pill wise (don’t overdo it please) and find yourselves securely in Vox’s Beta category, which is a pretty good place to be.

    Heh, I concur. I think ADBG’s SMV outranks the SMV of many of those girls in those pictures. That he’s even hotter now would not be a surprise.

  • SayWhaat

    And I know I wouldn’t tell them either, so I’m actually perplexed how a woman’s friends would ever learn about something her SO had done sexually.

    “OMG, Ashley. I need your advice. Swear you won’t tell anyone.”
    “Okay, I won’t. What’s up?”
    “I just found out Brad had sex with a stripper last summer when he was in Cancun on spring break. :(”
    “WHAT? Omigod, EWW!”
    “I KNOW! What do I do? :(”
    “Ugh, I dunno, girl. Dump him.”

  • SayWhaat

    So I find the whole “stripper” thing kind of interesting. My sense is the displeasure around it is triggered by the same dynamic as is a guy found out his girl had sex with a alpha type.

    Nope, Hope had it right. It’s not displeasure, it’s disgust. I’d be happier if my guy made snow angels in a pit of gangrenous human scabs.

  • A definite beta guy

    I am at Starbucks and getting checked out by half the girls here. Cool!

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

      @ADBG

      I am at Starbucks and getting checked out by half the girls here. Cool!

      Don’t screw it up by ordering a Pumpkin Spice Latte! (Just kidding.)

      Aren’t you glad you had your SMV appraised?

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

    I actually think THIS is more likely:

    Girl 1: My boyfriend and I are each other’s firsts.
    Girl 2: You’re not going to marry him right?
    Girl 1: Well I love him and we’ve been together a few years now.
    Girl 2: But how do you know that the sex isn’t bad if you’ve never been with anyone else?

    I’ve watched that conversation happen.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Wow! I’ve always wondered why people consider Megan Fox hot… She has never appealed to me. But seeing that before pic you posted, I have to say she’s pretty hot.

  • INTJ

    * she was pretty hot.

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

      * she was pretty hot.

      Here’s another one of her before multiple plastic surgeries. Beautiful!

      nf

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

    @SW

    But even the low N women I know don’t think 25 is a dealbreaker – not at all.

    Again, depends on context I suppose. A couple of thoughts… Do these girls “not care” so much due to pluralistic ignorance? Boys will be boys, guys just want sex (and that’s it), and they’re having sex, one way or the other. Perhaps the only guys they’ve met and considered dating have a relatively high N. When a guys with a more “normal” (median) N shows up, maybe he’s considered an abnormal mutant because it’s just so uncommon for them to encounter.

    Have there been any good studies done on (sexual) social proof? Have they actually had successful LTRs with guys whose N was 15-25+? For LTRs that might lead to marriage, not just dating per se. I mean, if there’s chemistry, it’s unclear why they’d balk at a relationship with a lower N guy. It’s hard to believe that if a girl liked a guy, and they were highly compatible, she’s take a pass because he hadn’t slept around yet. Or because her friends didn’t think he was a “good enough” catch.

    Sorry, didn’t mean to overload you with Qs. And I’m not doubting your and Mr. Tasmin’s observations of the SMP whatsoever, but perhaps we’re all prone to generalize from only a slice of the population.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Jealousy? No way, you’re wrong about that. I’ve seen embarrassment, usually when the woman’s N is higher than her guy’s.”

    Okay call it whatever you want.
    The point was that having a low N is far more detrimental for a man than having a high N. Due to the upper limit being astronomically high and the lower being very strict.

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

    @LL

    It might be that the guy simply lacks skill which then creates a correspondingly low N but frankly I suspect theres more selection pressure in terms of reproduction for low N men than for high N.

    I’ve posed this question in other discussions, but if you believe this to be true, how do you explain this correlation?

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

    I honestly don’t know the answer myself. But it certainly doesn’t fit the stereotype that’s *often* repeated online, among other places.

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    I’ve posed this question in other discussions, but if you believe this to be true, how do you explain this correlation?

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

    Isn’t it obvious? Low N men are more likely to want kids than high N men…

  • Lokland

    @MM

    “I’ve posed this question in other discussions, but if you believe this to be true, how do you explain this correlation?”

    Makes sense.
    Lower partner count = more restricted. Even an ugly unrestricted guy is gonna get some tail. A dude chillin at N=1 is almost guaranteed to be there cause he wants to be.

    Back in cave man times more partners meant more kids. BC changed that and actually changed the direction of selection in favour of the beta male. (Or since this is Susan’s blog, put it more in favour than it already was.)

    However the old selection filters still apply in actually getting the woman to have your kid. One of which was proving you weren’t an inept toddler who couldn’t speak to women.
    If social dominance triggers preselection a string of 9-10s is like hitting it with a couple shots of epi while downing a red bull.

    That largely doesn’t affect children output now because of the previously mentioned pill. All you need is one is actually more true know than it was in 1968. (I believe the pill was 69′ if not move it one year prior.)

    But having more than one sure as hell makes it easier to get THE one.

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

    Isn’t it obvious? Low N men are more likely to want kids than high N men…

    I do agree, but that wasn’t quite the insight I was looking for. Mr. Lokland’s observation (correc me if I’m wrong) was that low(er) N men are at a disadvantage when it comes to reproducing because women view them as generally unfit in the fatherhood department. Which isn’t statistically the case at all, particularly if you look at currently married men. I actually think other men feel that way about low(er) N men.

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

    @LL

    I believe the pill was 69′ if not move it one year prior.

    They were researching it for other uses in the 1950s, but it was first approved in 1960. No idea when it became widespread.

    I take your point on “restricted” guys only needing one good woman (and a lot have found them), it makes perfect sense. Though I’d disagree that there’s any kind of correlation between ugliness and low N, for men or women.

    I just don’t see it as a massive stigma, which you seemed to suggest. It’s certainly not as great as the stigma men associate with high(er) N women. A guy who still has his V-card past a certain age? Yeah, that could pose a problem for him. But just low(er) N guys with 1-6 partners, that’s actually pretty normal, even in this day and age.

  • Lokland

    @MM

    “I just don’t see it as a massive stigma, which you seemed to suggest. It’s certainly not as great as the stigma men associate with high(er) N women.”

    Your kinda over thinking how bad I think this is.
    I think its bad enough to warrant drawing attention to.

    The most alpha guy I know has an N of 1 and he’s my height. My Uncle, short Italian dude, met my Aunt in high school grade 9. (Least thats what my grandmother said.)

    “I take your point on “restricted” guys only needing one good woman (and a lot have found them),”

    I agree most do. The inability to harvest a woman with an N under 3 under the age of 30 is a problem with the farmer not the crops. Probably a decent way past 30 as well.

    “Though I’d disagree that there’s any kind of correlation between ugliness and low N, for men or women.”

    Hot people have more sex, sooner and it kinkier positions with more than one person at a time.

    Whether not thats true I don’t know and I’ll go about looking it up another time.

    “A guy who still has his V-card past a certain age? Yeah, that could pose a problem for him. But just low(er) N guys with 1-6 partners, that’s actually pretty normal, even in this day and age.”

    We need to segregate more. I’m not talking a difference between 1 and 10.

    Frankly I think with an N of 4 a dude should be able to find a quality mate with a blind fold on who has a lower count. (Women’s median 3, as Susan said women embarrassed about man with lower count. At that point he tops 50% of the target audience.)

    0 is bad news. No way around it.
    I think 1 and 2 are almost as bad unless the dude is twu wuv and the woman’s actually into him.
    3 is the tipping point.

    My honest opinion is that theres a certain N that must be bypassed by her man for her to feel secure in that relationship.
    Its as much of a requirement as a steady job, enough dominance, beta comfort and all that crap.
    That number probably varies by the woman in question.

    They key point is that I suspect she needs to ‘think’ he bypasses that point. Whether or not he actually does is irrelevant.

    Personal story, I have a younger cousin, 17 asked me for some advice.
    He lied to his first girlfriend about his number. Said 5 instead of 1.
    To suggest that men don’t realize that 0 is a detriment is ridiculous. Which begs the question, why do they view it as a detriment.

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

    @LL

    To suggest that men don’t realize that 0 is a detriment is ridiculous. Which begs the question, why do they view it as a detriment.

    The anecdote about the guy I went to school with earlier (#724), he certainly didn’t view it as a detriment. Not typical, sure, but I don’t think rare either. There’s quite a bit of variation out there in how young people feel about an N of zero…

    But you beg a good question. Past a certain age, yeah, guys see it as a big problem, except for a handful. But do they feel that way because of how girls have treated them? Or because of how other guys have treated them? Or because of the dreaded condescension of not-so popular culture? My guess is, some of all 3.

  • Mike C

    I prefer before by a mile. I think she looks like a female Terminator now.

    Definitely better before. Softer look. Actually, the after looks like her facial structure is radically different. If that is purely the result of plastic surgery that is terrible work.

  • Mike C

    Based on your link, this cracked me up as understatement. You really love those 20 percenters!

    Haha, actually M3 blogged about it which is where I saw the link. FWIW, I think women that are that ostentatiously overt about displaying their sexuality, even for a Halloween costume are bad bets for a quality LTR. It isn’t just the slutty appearance but all the personality traits that usually accompany it as well.

  • Emily

    >> “Girl 1: Me and my boyfriend are each others first.
    Girl 2: My boyfriend had 10 before me.
    Girl 1: Either silent or voiced jealousy.”

    I’m jealous of Girl 1 in this situation!!!!

    >> “Speaking only for myself here, my bf’s casual experiences (and even prior relationships!) are a real thorn in my side. And his N is not nearly as high as that of Susan’s betas.”

    Me too! And I honestly thought I was a total freak for feeling this way! It’s nice to know that I’m not the only one. Of course, at my age you’re not going to find a male virgin who doesn’t look like Comic Book Guy. Maybe I’m an extreme outlier here, but I would have *loved* to have found a male virgin of similar SMV.

  • INTJ

    @ Emily

    I don’t think you’re an extreme outlier. But the thing is in the end most girls who prefer low-N guys will do what their male counterparts do – accept a person’s high-N. The only difference for guys is that there is also a significant subset of girls who will filter out low-N guys due to lack of preselection/status. The end result is that overall low-N guys are in less demand than high-N guys. Of course, I’m neglecting the ultra-high-N guys with 50+ partners here.

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

    Maybe I’m an extreme outlier here, but I would have *loved* to have found a male virgin of similar SMV.

    Likewise. I gave up on that “fantasy” because the chances of finding a male virgin were lower the more time passed. I mean men are in constant search of sex even by luck, or hiring a prostitute if the need was high, a man would had managed to score at least once in its mid 20’s which was the age I decided that I was going to stop wishing for prince charming to fall in my lap and actively hunt him. I did knew a couple of girls that were virgins looking for male virgins. But they decided to join the churches to find their men, and many of them did.
    Doing a google search there is dating sites for virgins: http://virginsingles.com/
    https://wewaited.com/
    Interesting the mainstream articles are not really supporting of this sites, I do think the bad image of virginity might be part of the reason of the stigma attached to it for men specially but obviously for girls too.
    PS
    I wonder if there is no preference without a dating site nowadays Bacon lovers, maybe?

  • Ted D

    SayWhaat – “Speaking only for myself here, my bf’s casual experiences (and even prior relationships!) are a real thorn in my side. And his N is not nearly as high as that of Susan’s betas.”

    and yet you “deal” with it. I’m not jabbing at you, because I’m kinda in the same boat. My wife’s N is actually in the range that the latest Askmen survey reported doesn’t matter to most men, but since mine is so low anyone with more than a half dozen partners looks rather ‘loose’ to me. LOL

    What I find interesting here though is this: if women are often bothered by N just as many men are, why don’t they ever mention it? Why aren’t more women vocal about not wanting to end up with someone that has laid more pipe than a plumber? IMO it is because we have all mostly just given up (myself included I suppose) on the idea that there are many people left out there that actually see sex as something only to be shared in a relationship, even though it appears that 80% of the population or so is restricted.

    This ties in with my comment on the other thread. Why in the hell are we all letting the 20% set the rules?

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

      What I find interesting here though is this: if women are often bothered by N just as many men are, why don’t they ever mention it?

      Women in general are less concerned with N than with previous emotional engagement. Learning that your bf had an unrequited thing for someone for two years is far more distressing to many women than learning he had some ONSs during a post-breakup bender.

  • Ted D

    Lokland – “0 is bad news. No way around it.
    I think 1 and 2 are almost as bad unless the dude is twu wuv and the woman’s actually into him.
    3 is the tipping point.”

    WooHoo! Yet again I just make it in the door! Although my current wife makes number 4…

    “Which begs the question, why do they view it as a detriment.”

    IMO several reasons:
    1. Guys shame each other on low number. Or maybe it was the d-bags I hung out with in high school
    2. Women almost EXPECT any decent guy today to have a few notches on his bed post. Guys are generally very conscious of “performance” and understand that IF a woman is also concerned with it, a low N will NOT help his cause.
    3. Society pretty much says that we should be banging like a jack-hammer, and many young guys feel inadequate if they don’t have a higher N. What’s worse is many of those guys don’t WANT a higher N.
    4. Having a higher N is often seen as “studly”, and I can easily see that it kinda qualifies as preselection of a sort.
    5. Guys with high N are often more popular, and young guys often long to BE just a little more popular.

    There are probably a lot more, but I need some coffee…

    Megaman – “But do they feel that way because of how girls have treated them? Or because of how other guys have treated them? Or because of the dreaded condescension of not-so popular culture? My guess is, some of all 3.”

    Ding ding ding! I think you just summed up what I said above in three small sentences. I really gotta figure out how to NOT be so long winded…

    Emily – “Me too! And I honestly thought I was a total freak for feeling this way! It’s nice to know that I’m not the only one. Of course, at my age you’re not going to find a male virgin who doesn’t look like Comic Book Guy. Maybe I’m an extreme outlier here, but I would have *loved* to have found a male virgin of similar SMV.”

    LOL you are not even close to alone. The issue is other women (and men in some cases) that feel like you are often too ashamed to admit it.
    And just wait until you hit your 30’s. You want to feel discouraged? Try finding a low N man in his 30’s outside of the most devout religious groups. And by low I mean under 5. If he wasn’t locked down in a LTR of some sort for years, he’ll probably be past Loklands threshold and possibly further along. Same for women in most cases.

  • Escoffier

    It gets worse, Megan Fox is pretty heavily tatted these days.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, I was using A/B the way Roissy does, which seem appropriate given that we wer talking about him.

    I don’t recall him ever boasting of his own cheating exploits. I do recall him boasting of his ability to get women to cheat on THEIR SOs. A fine distinction perhaps.

    Regardless, I think a lot of what he writes is akin to the more sensationalistic passages in Machiavelli: not meant seriously but meant to amuse and also to brutalize the innocent (blue pillers) out of their fog.

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

      @Escoffier

      I don’t recall him ever boasting of his own cheating exploits. I do recall him boasting of his ability to get women to cheat on THEIR SOs. A fine distinction perhaps.

      Ugh, I just spent 20 minutes I’ll never get back looking for a post I recall. I don’t think it’s there – he has purged much of what he wrote before 2011. In the post I am thinking of, he was in a relationship with a woman in her 20s, and she was leaving at the end of the summer to attend business school at Columbia. He was very proud of her smarts, I recall, which was interesting since he advises staying under 120. Anyway, he was also banging someone else, and she was getting fed up with his not being available on more weekend nights that summer. As I recall, she did not suspect him of cheating, but oh, he certainly was. The post was a “hilarity ensues” sort of tale where he bangs the slutty sidepiece on Friday after work, then goes racing off to meet his gf at some bar in DC, still smelling of the other woman. I think he pulls it off, and of course is very self-congratulatory and alpha in the telling.

      There were other posts as well. Those of you who missed out on the old Roissy have no idea that you went from NC-17 to PG-13. I’m sure some people must have a cache of his old stuff, though I haven’t seen it.

      Regardless, I think a lot of what he writes is akin to the more sensationalistic passages in Machiavelli: not meant seriously but meant to amuse and also to brutalize the innocent (blue pillers) out of their fog.

      Excellent. Then please treat him as satire rather than at face value.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope
  • Ted D

    Escoffier – “It gets worse, Megan Fox is pretty heavily tatted these days.”

    I find her tats to be rather attractive. It is the “work” she had done that turned me off. I actually couldn’t figure out why she was less attractive to me until I looked closely at pictures. I just figured she was aging badly. LOL

    To each his own man. I spent a lot of time rolling with musicians and their groupies, tatoos are a huge part of that. I can’t feel attracted to women that look like walking art museams, any woman that has a “tramp stamp”, or tatoos on the face/neck/chest area. (talk about ruining a perfectly good view!) Oh, and piereced nipples are a total deal breaker. Belly button is OK, multiple on the ears is OK, maybe even a nose piercing as long as she isn’t sporting a loop (which looks to me like the rings put on Bulls…) I find some women look good with lip piercings, but I wouldn’t personally want to be with one. Seems like it could lead to bad stuff, and it would bother me to no end while we were kissing. Tongue doesn’t turn me off, but I wouldn’t want her on my dental coverage!

  • Ted D

    Hope – ROFL. I forgot that was an actual “sex move”. Not exactly what I meant.

    FWIW I find that my wife responds better “orgasmically” from that type of deep, slow, small thrusting as well. However she seems to respond more “enthusiastically” from a good solid pounding, much more so when she is ovulating. (another reason I keep track. I know when I should be running the marathon, and when I should be running a sprint. So to speek)

    I’ve always wondered what having a forskin would be like. I was born Catholic, so that sucker was gone within three days of taking my first breath. I had a serious moral delemma when my son was born. Tradition dictated that he get circumsized, but I had doubts. I talked to the doc, and in the end we got him circumsized, but he didn’t do the same massive hack job on him that I got. Not to get too detailed, but my son still has a decent amount of skin there compared to me. You can’t even tell I ever had a forskin, but my boy kinda still has a “turtle-neck” going on. LOL

  • Cooper

    “Jealousy? No way, you’re wrong about that. I’ve seen embarrassment, usually when the woman’s N is higher than her guy’s. But I can’t imagine women being jealous of another person’s boyfriend’s higher N.”

    That’s why girls are fighting over the low-N men. hahahaha!!!
    I think things are much closer to Olive’s example @753

    Maaaybe, once they’re their boyfriends, and its after the fact. But, I’d say its far more likely both chose their man based on the N he had, not cause of the low-N .
    I have never heard of Girls being embarrassed to be with guys of higher N. Probably quite the oppoosite

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

      I have never heard of a woman rejecting a man for having a low N. Not once. I can’t even recall a woman’s being curious about a man’s N. Women generally divide men into players and non-players, and assume that the former have high N. Even then, I’ve never heard a woman admire a man’s high N or wear it as a badge of pride. It is always the woman who brings up DTR, and it is always the man who brings up N. I guess that makes it really clear who cares about what the most.

      There are other factors that are often correlated to men having low N (see Vox Omega, Gamma and to some extent Delta). There are also very attractive men whose college years and 20s include mostly LTRs, which obviously depresses N. I would be very careful about cause and effect here.

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

    @Ted

    IMO it is because we have all mostly just given up (myself included I suppose)…

    Good luck raising kids with that attitude!

    Here’s a deal for you: you and Mr. OTC can raise your boys to be “semi-cads” in order to get female attention, and if I have girls, I’ll raise them to avoid your boys like the plague. :razz:

  • Ted D

    Megaman – “Good luck raising kids with that attitude!”

    Respectfully I ask that you go easy on the kids angle, at least with me. You really have NO idea just how difficult I find all the Red Pill stuff when it comes to my boys. Remember I had no father growing up, and it has caused me to spend my entire life since having children second-guessing what my role should be for them. I’ve spent countless hours trying to decide what all this means to my boys, which is probably 85% of why I’m still a regular here. Not only did I grow up without a father, but it is obvious to me that I am an outlier in many, many ways when it comes to sexuality. This has caused me to doubt my effectiveness in raising healthy, well adjusted boys so many times that I can’t even begin to count them.

    When it comes to what it all means to me, I worry much less. I’m an old man and at this point my only desire is to get what I want to be happy and keep ahold of it for as long as I can. But my boys (and girls) haven’t even really started their journey yet, and it scares the hell out of me to know that I will very likely be a huge part of their success or failure in making that journey. I don’t take this shit lightly in any sense of the word. When I say that I wonder if teaching them to be moral will be a hinderance to them, it breaks my heart. But I refuse to cripple them from the gate over MY possibly stupid sense of morality. And when I find myself surrounded by people that mostly look at my sense of morality as antiquated, I start to wonder if it is ME that truly is the problem, and not the rest of the world. I’m completely OK with that as long as it only involves me, but when it comes to my children I find myself torn between wanting to teach them what I believe, and wanting to teach them what will serve them best in the world. Personally I find it truly sad that often times those two things are at opposition, but it is the world we live in that they must deal with, not what I’d like the world to be.

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    And when I find myself surrounded by people that mostly look at my sense of morality as antiquated, I start to wonder if it is ME that truly is the problem, and not the rest of the world. I’m completely OK with that as long as it only involves me, but when it comes to my children I find myself torn between wanting to teach them what I believe, and wanting to teach them what will serve them best in the world. Personally I find it truly sad that often times those two things are at opposition, but it is the world we live in that they must deal with, not what I’d like the world to be.

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsOldFashioned

    :(

  • Mike C

    This ties in with my comment on the other thread. Why in the hell are we all letting the 20% set the rules?

    Ted D,

    I have to admit I continue to be utterly perplexed by this sentiment. AFAIK, no one is putting a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to engage in particular behavior, and also I’m not aware of a “rulebook” with “enforcers” for breaking the rules.

    I keep coming back to this..what exactly is preventing the 80% or so restricted from engaging in dating behavior that is conducive to their objectives. There is a lot of dancing around and ambiguity with this. Again, I hate to call out any single commenter, but you have to ask why can’t a good-looking guy who seems perfectly normal and social and who wants a relationship is unable to pair off with a “restricted” girl who presumably wants the exact same thing. Something doesn’t add up there. If a restricted guy and a restricted girl both want a relationship, and want to develop a relationship based on deeper emotional intimacy and commitment prior to physical intimacy (sexual intercourse) it is simply a matter of them connecting and then going from there on THEIR TIMELINE irrespective of what people in the 20% unrestricted are doing.

    I’m not going to pretend I know with certain