477»

The Real Reason Why Men and Women Can’t Be Friends

The Reason

Pure projection by both sexes. 

Guys want to have sex with their girl friends, and assume girls feel the same way. 

Girls do not want to have sex with their guy friends, and assume guys feel the same way. 

The Cause

It’s built-in, massive miscommunication and it rarely ends well. Another wacky consequence of the feminist denial of sex differences, and of the sexes’ different mating strategies

Men were…more likely than women to think that their opposite-sex friends were attracted to them—a clearly misguided belief. In fact, men’s estimates of how attractive they were to their female friends had virtually nothing to do with how these women actually felt, and almost everything to do with how the men themselves felt—basically, males assumed that any romantic attraction they experienced was mutual, and were blind to the actual level of romantic interest felt by their female friends.

Women, too, were blind to the mindset of their opposite-sex friends; because females generally were not attracted to their male friends, they assumed that this lack of attraction was mutual.

As a result, men consistently overestimated the level of attraction felt by their female friends and women consistently underestimated the level of attraction felt by their male friends.

Cross-sex friendships are a historically recent phenomenon, according to the study’s authors, and mating strategies get in the way.  

Humans’ evolved mating strategies motivate involvement in cross-sex friendships and also lead to attraction to friends, even when not consciously intended. 

There are good reasons for men and women to view friendships differently:

As facilitators of a short-term mating strategy, men desire a greater number of sex partners than women do, experience lower levels of sexual attraction to their partners after initial sexual access to them, over-infer the degree of sexual attraction portrayed in ambiguous signals from women, and fantasize more about sexual access to a variety of partners.

In other words, men are all about getting it in, while women are (or should be) all about being selective. It is not surprising, then, that men had the hots for their female friends regardless of whether they were in a relationship, while women were less likely to diverge from a long-term mating strategy when partnered.

The men reported moderate levels of attraction to (and desire to date) their friend regardless of their own current romantic involvement or their friend’s current romantic involvement.

We predicted this pattern of effects from evolutionary logic that young males possess strong short-term mating desires that are activated in the context of the opposite sex, regardless of their current relationship involvement.

Women, whose long-term mating orientation tends to dominate, reported less desire to date their friend when they were already in a committed relationship. 

The Rules

Just in case you’re thinking it’s all good if you have a boyfriend, men didn’t hesitate to assume romantic interest from “taken” women, aka the mate poaching strategy:

…Although men were equally as likely to desire “romantic dates” with “taken” friends as with single ones, women were sensitive to their male friends’ relationship status and uninterested in pursuing those who were already involved with someone else.

However, single women were more likely than women in a relationship to develop a romantic interest in a guy friend:

Single men across age groups reported relatively high levels of attraction to their cross-sex friend, and single women across age groups reported moderate levels of attraction to their cross-sex friend.

Romantic feelings towards friends of the opposite sex decreased the quality of the relationship with the existing partner:

Younger females and middle-aged participants who reported more attraction to a current cross-sex friend reported less satisfaction in their current romantic relationship.

First studied in the late 1980s, cross-sex friendships present several problems:

1. They incite jealousy in romantic partners.

2. They are viewed with suspicion by others in social situations, reflecting the frequent undercurrent of sexuality in the relationship.

3. Some people use platonic friendship as a mating strategy – parties are frequently at cross purposes in the friendship.

4. The media portrays ‘‘normal’’ relationships between men and women as sexual, and hence non-sexual relationships between men and women as strange and essentially impossible.

Moonlighting, Cheers, When Harry Met Sally, Friends, The Office, Scrubs, He’s Just Not That Into You – all…thrive on romantic tension and excitement portrayed between cross-sex ‘‘friends’’ who end up either in a romantic partnership or a temporary attempt at one.

They may also provide some benefits, however, including a boost to confidence and self-esteem depending on the relative status of the parties. Also, the discrepancy between men and women decreases as they age, perhaps reflecting a higher frequency of existing partnerships.

The most extreme example of cross-sex friendship mentioned by the authors is the Friend With Benefits arrangement. A cross-sex friendship of sexual activity without romantic involvement. The FWB is well adapted to male mating strategies. 

Finally, the authors note that we do not have a good understanding of causation in cross-sex friendships:

  • Perhaps men and women who are dissatisfied in their romantic relationships increasingly turn to their cross-sex friends or develop new cross-sex friendships. 
  • Perhaps attraction to a cross-sex friend leads to dissatisfaction with one’s romantic relationship. 
  • Perhaps men and women with certain dispositions, such as high levels of novelty seeking, are likely to both pursue cross-sex friends and grow dissatisfied with their long-term mateships.

Cross-sex friendships are messy and laden with drama. As humans, our mating strategies are at cross purposes, and this is nowhere more evident than in these friendships. 

The Strategy

 

One Pingback/Trackback

    14 November 2013 at 11:11am
    […] And here are two accounts from WOMEN who say the same. Why Can't Married ...
  • the "friend zone" - Page 7
  • Lokland

    Ohh shit.
    I like pumpkin spiced lattes….

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

      Ohh shit.
      I like pumpkin spiced lattes….

      HAHA! Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

  • JP

    My problem was always my girl friend wanted to be my girlfriend.

    Since I was love-shy, if I was calling you all the time, it meant that there was no attraction, because if there was attraction, I would be hiding from you in terror (so to speak).

    The worst place for me to be was in the upper-right quadrant.

    Yes, I know that I am an outlier and completely irrelevant to any analysis here.

  • JP

    Isn’t a problem here that you need professional networks of friends who are opposite sex in order to navigate the professional sphere?

    So, you have to have opposite-sex friendships to deal with the modern world.

    Isn’t this a problem?

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

      Isn’t a problem here that you need professional networks of friends who are opposite sex in order to navigate the professional sphere?

      Professional networking is a whole other topic. The friendships discussed here are of the kind where two people spend time hanging out platonically. The study was done with pairs of good friends.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    JP, work friends are more like acquaintances most of the time. There is no need to get all deep and personal with opposite sex coworkers.

    I do have coworker friends who are closer, but they are females, which was a conscious decision. I have one opposite sex friend, and that’s my husband.

  • INTJ

    Err, I think there was a typo in the title. Surely you meant “cross-sex-friendships”?

  • Joe

    For the most part, the male stance of preferring “short term arrangements” when dealing with the opposite sex resonates with me. It’s a preference, not an imperative.

    But I can tell you one place where it really misses the mark, the way it’s described, Susan. That’s in the notion of Friends With Benefit.

    I’ve been there, so from experience, it’s only a matter of time before it starts to feel like something is missing – something important is being withheld. I imagine that with the most alpha of alphas, it doesn’t take long for him to realize that he’s not dominating at all, because he can’t get at that missing core she’s withholding. It’s a fail.

    So who’s being satisfied here? I guess the most-alpha just move on. The rest just get blah.

  • JP

    @INTJ:

    “Err, I think there was a typo in the title. Surely you meant “cross-sex-friendships”?””

    That’s just the title.

    It brings in hits to the website because it’s shocking on its face and very, very counter intuitive.

    You have to actually read the article to figure out that it’s about cross-sex friendships and that the title just led you on.

  • Jonny

    This confirms men and women should not be friends under any circumstances. It also means if one person should breakoff a romantic relationship, the friendship should not be the fall back position. It has happened to me that a potential love interest express none and then wanted to be friends. It was stupid for her to insist and dumb for me to agree.

    It is probably better to not call such friends as friends. They should be considered friendly acquaintances. I know such women throughout my live since college to today. I was invited to their weddings and parties, but nothing more.

    Women need to move on. Women seem to love being friends with everyone and anyone. Men won’t pursue a women that made her intentions known, but many women seem to leave their options open. Women love having options. It gives them power, and maybe a lunch date.

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

      @Jonny

      I agree with you about exes being friends. The only time is makes sense to aim for that is when there are children. I’ve actually known some families where this works so well the exes and kids go on vacation together, than kind of thing. It’s rare, though.

      The dumper generally offers to be friends to assuage guilt. It’s never a good idea for the dumpee.

  • Jonny

    I will also fix the summary somewhat. The opening paragraphs sound definitive, but are actually not. The later paragraphs disprove them.

    “Guys want to have sex with their girl friends, and assume girls feel the same way.”

    This is not 100% correct. Guys want to have sex with their girl friends, and hope to persuade girls to change their feelings. The friendship is the vehicle to turn the relationship around. Otherwise, what chance will the man have with this woman that he already knows?

    “Girls do not want to have sex with their guy friends, and assume guys feel the same way.”

    There’s an exception for Friends with Benefits, which sort of confirms to men that women can change their minds in some circumstances. Not all male friends are equal. Like you already said, when the women are already in romantic relationships, their male friends can intrude upon the relationship and poach the women.

  • Jonny

    It should also be mentioned that for a cross-sex friendship, when a man is already in a romantic relationship, the women will find that guy more attractive. This is dealing with female hypergamy. Women will find a guy more attractive when preselected.

    The girl friend might consider the guy attractive and her feelings will change if he suddenly breaks up or he expressed desired to date her.

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

      The girl friend might consider the guy attractive and her feelings will change if he suddenly breaks up or he expressed desired to date her.

      True, but it was interesting to note that women avoided attraction scenarios with men who were already partnered, while men did not.

  • Clarence

    This is badly in need of a Title Change.

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

      This is badly in need of a Title Change.

      I’m such an idiot. Thanks, guys, changing it now. Next I’ll be writing a post on Cross-Sex Marriage.

  • Clarence

    Oh, and by the way:

    Please don’t be essentialist and start arguing about how men or women “should be”: we are the way we are, and humans being humans there are always plenty of exceptions.

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

      @Clarence

      Please don’t be essentialist and start arguing about how men or women “should be”: we are the way we are, and humans being humans there are always plenty of exceptions.

      Is this addressed to me? I’m not sure what you mean by this in relation to the post.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “Thanks, guys, changing it now. Next I’ll be writing a post on Cross-Sex Marriage.”

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  • J

    The worst place for me to be was in the upper-right quadrant.

    I differ completely. DH and I were friends first, and if anything happened to our marriage, I would pull a new guy from my pool of male friends and acquaintances long before trying to hit the bars or the net in search of a man.

    It also means if one person should breakoff a romantic relationship, the friendship should not be the fall back position. It has happened to me that a potential love interest express none and then wanted to be friends. It was stupid for her to insist and dumb for me to agree.

    Women, especially young women, want to let men down easily. As we get older we realize that male friendship usually coexists with male desire; a man who wants to be a “friend” generally wants more.

    IME, real friendships with men, or at least the closest one can get to a real friendship, exists only when both parties are in very happy and secure marriages. I’ve had a few male friends who liked me but loved their wives. I felt safe for the most part, but I’ve also had the feeling in those relationships that, if any of those wives were suddenly killed in a plane crash, those guys would rapidly make themselves available to me if I were interested. The sexual undercurrent is always there, but it can be forced underground if both friends are being satisified elsewhere.

  • Ted D

    This is a really tough subject for guys in relationships.

    On one hand, admitting discomfort at your SO’s male friends makes you look weak. On the other, men have instinctively ALWAYS known that this study shows: 9 times out of 10 any man willing to spend his free time with your woman is interseted than more then friendship.

    I’ve always made it a point to meet any male friends of my SO’s throughout the years. Of course that doesn’t mean he wont still try for more, but I’ve found that after I meet a guy and shake hands, he seems much less interested in pushing his luck. Maybe that’s because I’m a large, scary guy. *shrug*

    My take is that it is much easier to screw another guy over if you don’t know him. Once you meet him though, it becomes harder to simply “forget” he exists. Any guy still pushing for more is playing hardball, and that requires a different strategy. I always did my best to look as intimidating as possible when I met them too, while at the same time appearing pleasant enough not to set my SO off on being ‘too jealous’ or ‘possesive’.

    I don’t play that game now. I tell my wife in no uncertain terms that I consider her mine, and I’ll do whatever it takes to protect my property. Much to the surprise of my former beta programming, she seems to find this rather attractive, even as she tries to tell me I have nothing to worry about. It’s another one of those things I was completely wrong about. Women don’t mind jealousy, they mind unnecessary and over the top jealousy. But, I think most want to know that thier guy IS on guard for interlopers to some extent.

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

      Women don’t mind jealousy, they mind unnecessary and over the top jealousy. But, I think most want to know that thier guy IS on guard for interlopers to some extent.

      Definitely. I expect my husband to look askance at any 1 on 1 friendship with another man. It just isn’t done. And for obvious reasons, a man’s having a “platonic friend” he texts or emails with is a dangerous situation for his wife. I would not tolerate that either.

  • J

    Next I’ll be writing a post on Cross-Sex Marriage.

    As controversial as it may be, I am in favor of Cross-Sex Marriage.

  • Ted D

    “I agree with you about exes being friends. The only time is makes sense to aim for that is when there are children. I’ve actually known some families where this works so well the exes and kids go on vacation together, than kind of thing. It’s rare, though.”

    I’ve talked before about my ex-wife and our continuing friendship. Not only does it work for us, but it got my wife to let go of her anger towards her ex and foster a similar relationship. Unlike my ex and I, she really didn’t have much of a friendship with her ex before they married, so there isn’t much there to go on. But, they don’t fight, and they work together to do what’s best for the kids.

  • JP

    @J:

    “IME, real friendships with men, or at least the closest one can get to a real friendship, exists only when both parties are in very happy and secure marriages. I’ve had a few male friends who liked me but loved their wives. I felt safe for the most part, but I’ve also had the feeling in those relationships that, if any of those wives were suddenly killed in a plane crash, those guys would rapidly make themselves available to me if I were interested. The sexual undercurrent is always there, but it can be forced underground if both friends are being satisified elsewhere.”

    Unless one of them goes limerant for you.

    That’s one of the real problems in friendship world here, I think,

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “Definitely. I expect my husband to look askance at any 1 on 1 friendship with another man. It just isn’t done.”

    One of the problems here is that you have tight networks of cross-sex friendships that existed prior to the marriage.

    I always seemed to have better close friendships with women than with men, as long as they were unattractive enough.

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

      One of the problems here is that you have tight networks of cross-sex friendships that existed prior to the marriage.

      It’s very important to welcome your SO into those networks and make it comfortable. I know many networks that have changed over time to incorporate partners. One of our friend groups is a mix of men and women who lived in a group house together in the 80s, and their spouses.

      I always seemed to have better close friendships with women than with men, as long as they were unattractive enough.

      Ha, that’s the bottom right quadrant. Girl needs to move on.

  • Jonny

    @Susan “True, but it was interesting to note that women avoided attraction scenarios with men who were already partnered, while men did not.”

    While it might be true as a general statement, but the exception proves the exception exists and we all know its a numbers game for men.

    Women are more aggressive these days. Women are likely to pursue married men for booty calls. No strings sex. Some women just don’t care.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “Ha, that’s the bottom right quadrant. Girl needs to move on.”

    It’s always fun when the girl thinks you are on a date and you have no idea that you are on a date.

    That happened once. I kept her as a friend, though. Things went fine after that.

  • Old Foggy

    The article in Scientific American is a hand waving summary of a narrow study, the results of which appear to be suggestive of behavior in a particularly narrow population. The notion that men and women cannot be friends because of sexual tension (whether asymmetric or not) is a pleasant trope for romantic comedies but hardly reflective of life.

    Ever since high school I have had women friends. Most of these friendships were different but largely equivalent in strength and quality to those of my male friends. I have had women friends from school, work, church, social settings, etc.

    These women have been single and married, older and younger and my same age. I have helped some of them find boyfriends, commiserated with them over breakups and have them consult with me about health problems, child problems, work problems, husband problems. I have been in the wedding party for some of their weddings and been at the husband’s funerals of some. I have held their children and helped teach them (the children) ball playing and maths and English and French. I have fed them and been fed by them (the women). We have been to the symphony and the ballgame and the school play and the library and the beach, and many other places, together many times. Some of them were friends for a few months, some of the have lasted decades. With few exceptions in high school and university (3 that I can count), I was never particularly eager to see these women naked.

    I have been career mentor to young women and coached their teams in sports and not only have I not wanted anything physical with them, I would have been horrified, even in my twenties, if any of them had ever expressed an attraction for me. They were my “children.”

    Before anyone starts casting aspersions I am and always have been a heterosexual male with, apparently, higher than average libido, though not sky high. Some of the women near my age, by the way, wanted badly to be my girlfriends and even marry me, though I was not always aware of it at the time.

    The difference is that I always see women in the flesh, young and old, pretty and not, pleasant and annoying, as real people. I choose my friends, and I have always been choosy, based on common interests and beliefs and attitudes.

    I have had, over the years, (women) fishing friends and cooking friends and game-playing friends and sports friends and church committee friends and social party friends and friends who included me in their wedding parties and their Passover and thanksgiving meals. Friends whose children I have baptized and even one I gave away at her wedding.

    So, based on my own life and that of some other people I have known, I know that while friendships across the sexes may be unworkable for some, they hardly are unworkable for all.

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

      @Old Foggy

      I believe your account – I have known others who have reported similar experiences. I can honestly say that I have never had a friendship with a male that did not evolve (devolve?) into sexual tension, on one side or the other. I think that holds true going back all the way to third grade or so. :) Acquaintances? Yes, but not friendship with time spent alone. For me, the study rings true, and I believe that will be true for most people, though there will undoubtedly be exceptions.

  • J

    Unless one of them goes limerant for you.

    Yes. I’ve had a work place mentor become limerant over me. Luckily, he was a great guy who knew enough not to act on it. He confessed it to me–not that I didn’t already know. I told him that “we feel what we feel,” and, as long as he didn’t act on it, we were fine. He felt horribly guilty because of his wife, but it passed after he confessed to me and eventually things went back to normal.

    The truly poignant thing though was that we had a genuine friendship based on commonalities and admiration that had grown over years of working together on a nearly daily basis for years. That, plus the sexual attraction, sort of caused him to crack and tell me, but he’d sat on that feeling for a very long time. He tried to be a “gentleman,” but his feelings got the better of him.

    Everyone in a cross-sex friendship walks a very narrow line. It works out better in theory than in practice.

  • http://blog.seliger.com jseliger

    And a lot of people don’t realize that the basic dynamics you describe are going on—which leads me to write posts like “The Beta Orbiter Problem,” and you to write posts like this one.

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

      @jseliger

      Thanks for leaving a comment and linking to your blog – I enjoyed your post. BTW, the NYXs gave Back to Blood a good review this weekend. I’m only on page 20 and I’m already cackling. I have never enjoyed reading anything more than a Tom Wolfe novel.

  • Cooper

    I tendency to say:

    A man who doesn’t set strict boundaries against only-platonic, is most likely to receive such.

    I actually had an argument/discussion with sown friends about this very topic. And they all said that “friends first” is a completely standard, if not best, stragety to follow – I disagreed. I think it’ a recipe for disaster.

    I said, that always, one party (usually the higher-SMV man or woman) has immediately concluded how far, romantically, the two will go.
    And I think it’s foolish to assume otherwise.

    I’ve said this before here, and I’m not sure whether any guys had ever spoke out against it – guys usually only hang out with, girl friends, that they consider above their, datable or sleep-with, standards.
    So the fact that guys report having attraction to their girl friends doesn’t surprise me in the least. And girls not having romantic feelings for their platonic friends doesn’t either.

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

      @Cooper

      I said, that always, one party (usually the higher-SMV man or woman) has immediately concluded how far, romantically, the two will go.

      The strategy is the same for either sex if they’re attracted. Escalate and make your interest known. If you’re a guy, this actually increases your attractiveness, and therefore your odds. It also allows you to avoid entering the dreaded friend zone. If you’re a girl, he’ll tell you straight out whether he reciprocates or not, and it allows you to not waste time pining. There’s no downside to telling a guy friend “I like you.” If he doesn’t, you’ll get rejected either way.

  • JP

    @Cooper:

    “I’ve said this before here, and I’m not sure whether any guys had ever spoke out against it – guys usually only hang out with, girl friends, that they consider above their, datable or sleep-with, standards.”

    Unless you’re me.

    In which case, you are such an outlier anyway, it kind of proves the rule.

  • JP

    @J

    “Yes. I’ve had a work place mentor become limerant over me. Luckily, he was a great guy who knew enough not to act on it. He confessed it to me–not that I didn’t already know. I told him that “we feel what we feel,” and, as long as he didn’t act on it, we were fine. He felt horribly guilty because of his wife, but it passed after he confessed to me and eventually things went back to normal.”

    At least he didn’t shut out his wife first and she came out of it unscathed.

  • pvw

    @Susan regarding this difficulty with men and women being friends, I can see this easily happening among the 80% who might drift into just “being friends,” ie., they hang out together, they don’t know if their hanging out means they are dating; the traditional markers of dating aren’t there. They don’t escalate because of the uncertainty, presume it must be friendship. Then both might see the friendship as leading to something more, but each one is too timid to do anything about it….It sounds like this might have happened among some of the young women in your focus group who have orbiters? I think this is particularly the case among friends who begin friendships in high school or even college, things can be blurry, epecially when there is not much experience with escalation, etc. I can see women among the 80% pursuing this strategy with men they find desirable, but when the men don’t escalate, they presume lack of interest. But might the men want them to escalate?

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

      @pvw

      I think this is particularly the case among friends who begin friendships in high school or even college, things can be blurry, epecially when there is not much experience with escalation, etc. I can see women among the 80% pursuing this strategy with men they find desirable, but when the men don’t escalate, they presume lack of interest. But might the men want them to escalate?

      That’s a great point. College kids do hang out in friend groups, and from there they find ways to pair off to hook up. However, as we know, many young people don’t follow that script. I suspect there is a lot of silent suffering as people wonder whether their attraction is reciprocated. I think the study addresses more of the girl-guy BFF scenario than the casual friendships in large groups of kids.

  • Cooper

    “In which case, you are such an outlier anyway, it kind of proves the rule.”

    Sorry? The rule being? That it can or can not work?

  • JP

    @Cooper:

    ““In which case, you are such an outlier anyway, it kind of proves the rule.”

    Sorry? The rule being? That it can or can not work?”

    Meaning when I was younger and extremely love-shy.

    Attraction (generally mutual attraction) caused me severe anxiety, which I couldn’t deal with.

    So, if I had zero interest in a woman, I could easily be friends with her and hang out because it wasn’t causing me severe anxiety.

  • Sassy6519

    I think that cross-sex friendships can work for some people. Such friendships prosper the most when both people are not attracted to each other.

    Cross-sex friendships don’t work for me. I’m very wary of any man who claims to want to be my friend. I don’t trust the motives.

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

      I think that cross-sex friendships can work for some people. Such friendships prosper the most when both people are not attracted to each other.

      It strikes me as unlikely. If there’s an SMV differential, the lower SMV person is likely to be attracted. If there isn’t, they’re both likely to be attracted, no?

  • J

    At least he didn’t shut out his wife first and she came out of it unscathed.

    I had actually become close to her as well over the years, and she and I still get together occasionally. I don’t think she ever really realized how he felt about me, and I’m thankful for that. They had, and no doubt still have, a very solid longterm marriage with grown kids. They were/are quite happy. It was just that through years of proximity, he started to feel for me. And, while I was not flirtatious with him, I had a real affection and admiration for him that has actually very pure and very appreciative of who he was as a person.

    It was a weird situation. No one was looking for it happen, but it did.

  • Cooper

    ” I can see women among the 80% pursuing this strategy with men they find desirable, but when the men don’t escalate, they presume lack of interest. But might the men want them to escalate?”

    I have had romantic feels manifest for a existing girl friend. I found the sense to not disrupt the ‘group’ by escalating overwhelming. It’s not the feelings were completely unrequited either, but a guy has to realize, with the history of a 0-5% success rate, he is almost certainly risking disrupting the group. We have guys having troubles approaching women they know, or likely not see again. To me, expecting a guy to essentially risk disturpting an social group to explore a sexual attraction, which from the sounds of it could commonly exist for guys’ girl-friends, seems insurmountable.

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

      @Cooper

      To me, expecting a guy to essentially risk disturpting an social group to explore a sexual attraction, which from the sounds of it could commonly exist for guys’ girl-friends, seems insurmountable.

      I wonder if other guys feel this way. I think many guys seem more than willing to disrupt the group for a shot at sex. I remember the first time I hooked up with my husband, I said, “Do you think this will affect our friendship?” He gave me a look of pure bewilderment. Translation: “What friendship?”

  • pvw

    @Cooper, your example explains the risk inherent in what I was thinking of, disrupting a friendship group with escalation, which again, poses the challenge of socializing today in cross-sex friendships, the argument that these are historically recent? I wonder if it is a matter that in previous times, any sort of cross-sex friendship (beyond childhood) would have been seen as a dating relationship, or that it was a prelude to it.? Today, a cross-sex friendship can mean different things on a continuum, which is obviously why Susan is posting on this–don’t take the friendship on face value, but be willing to assess and work with that assessment.

  • INTJ

    @ J

    As controversial as it may be, I am in favor of Cross-Sex Marriage.

    Good for you. I live in a state where marriage is illegal:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Proposition_2_(2005)

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

    JP wrote:

    @Cooper:

    “I’ve said this before here, and I’m not sure whether any guys had ever spoke out against it – guys usually only hang out with, girl friends, that they consider above their, datable or sleep-with, standards.”

    Unless you’re me.

    In which case, you are such an outlier anyway, it kind of proves the rule.

    Nah I have women friends too. I think if at least one of the two parties is aware of the real natural dynamics and the pitfalls of orbiting, they can set boundaries and have a platonic relationship.

    Most of my female friends are: quite older, or heavy, or married. There are about 3-4 that are not this way and I have to be careful with them. I don’t let them orbit me and if we’re doing anything social I tend to invite others to come along. Even if we go out just the two of us, it’s okay if she knows that I’ve invited other people because then it’s not a date.

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

      @Mr. Nervous Toes

      I don’t let them orbit me and if we’re doing anything social I tend to invite others to come along. Even if we go out just the two of us, it’s okay if she knows that I’ve invited other people because then it’s not a date.

      Those women are in the bottom right quadrant with you.

  • JP

    I’ve even been on dates that weren’t with my ex-girlfriend (who I never actually broke up with – I just went to college and stopped dating her).

    Meaning that I went on alone-time nothing happened or expected to happen date-ish thingies after I stopped dating her.

    (She apparently wasn’t that into me, even though it was *her* idea to fling herself at me and date me, which is part of the reason I fired her in the first place.)

    I went on an number of non-dates with her (alone) with zero intention or desire to do anything with her.

    So, that works too.

    Yet another incoherent data point for everybody.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    ” If you’re a girl, he’ll tell you straight out whether he reciprocates or not, and it allows you to not waste time pining.”

    I allowed somebody in the lower-right to date me for two years, with her falling in love with me.

    It was then explained to me by a friend that I really needed to break up with her if I wasn’t interested in her.

    I’m like a traveling dating catastrophe now that I think about it.

  • J

    @INTJ

    You must feel so much safer now that the Texas state legislature has so affirmatively protected your rights. ;-)

  • J

    I remember the first time I hooked up with my husband, I said, “Do you think this will affect our friendship?” He gave me a look of pure bewilderment. Translation: “What friendship?”

    Once, in an attempt to see if DH really loved the inner me, I asked him a series of questions like, “You you still love me is I were older?” “Dumber?” “Flat-chested?” When I got to “You you still love me is I were a guy?” he looked at me as if I were insane.

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

      Is anyone else watching Hurricane Sandy right now? The trees are whipping around like crazy outside my window!

  • JP

    @J:

    “Once, in an attempt to see if DH really loved the inner me, I asked him a series of questions like, “You you still love me is I were older?” “Dumber?” “Flat-chested?” When I got to “You you still love me is I were a guy?” he looked at me as if I were insane.”

    This does raise the question as to what happens when your spouse becomes unattractive due to age and you are no romantically into them.

    Hmmmm.

  • Cooper

    “Escalate and make your interest known.”
    IMO, the best bottom-line, if we were to have one.

    Re: #52
    “If you’re a girl, he’ll tell you straight out whether he reciprocates or not, and it allows you to not waste time pining. There’s no downside to telling a guy friend “I like you.” If he doesn’t, you’ll get rejected either way.””

    Haha, try flipping the script. The post even says that most girls do not have, or even have thought of, their male friends romantically. This spells that 99% of the time, if it the guy doing the confessing its most, most commonly not reciprocated, ATM.

    ” I think many guys seem more than willing to disrupt the group for a shot at sex.”
    Of course!! For multiple reasons. Because emotional intimacy isn’t to prelude physical, for one!! Lol.
    It’s because it’s more excusable. “I tied to make out with Melissa while I was drunk… :S *shrugs* next time we see each other might be awkward lol”
    Compared to “so, I finally confess my romantic feeling towards Melissa. :s I haven’t heard from her, I hope I do”

    Which do you think is going to have a girl feeling more uncomfortable?

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

      Haha, try flipping the script. The post even says that most girls do not have, or even have thought of, their male friends romantically. This spells that 99% of the time, if it the guy doing the confessing its most, most commonly not reciprocated, ATM.

      Actually, one thing that jumped out at me was that single females express moderate levels of attraction to their male friends. Their interest is bound to be more subdued because it is less sexual. Still the potential is there.

      Also, from the male perspective, going for the makeout on the first hang (or second at the latest) is good strategy. If she balks, she was definitely not attracted. If she is attracted, you’ve just moved the ball forward.

      Good point about plausible deniability, by the way. This is why beer is your friend.

  • Cooper

    “He gave me a look of pure bewilderment. Translation: “What friendship?””

    Probably because, to him, the relationship (or friendship) had always been a strategy towards something romantic.

    The concept that it morphed from something else, into lust, is completely bewildering.

  • Cooper

    “Also, from the male perspective, going for the makeout on the first hang (or second at the latest) is good strategy. If she balks, she was definitely not attracted. If she is attracted, you’ve just moved the ball forward.”

    It sure is, at hang one or two. Now try calculating the sensibility of that stragety when you’re on hangout #300. (Not that one has gone 299 with feelina, rather they’re new – what’s a guy to do? Nothing.)

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

      @Cooper

      (Not that one has gone 299 with feelina, rather they’re new – what’s a guy to do? Nothing.)

      I’m not sure I understand you correclty, but are you saying that the feelings are new to you? If there has been a shift in the dynamic, it’s possible she felt it too, or that she has been interested all along. Look at it this way: You have nothing to lose but your chains!

      Helen Fisher has talked about how switches get tripped sometimes – and suddenly you can see someone in a new light and fall for them. She says that some incident or action precipitates this.

      In any case, I’m all for making a fool of myself with my feelings. I did it, got rejected, and I didn’t even feel ashamed. In fact, it was sort of ennobling in a weird way. I understand guys sustain a lot more rejection, but you’re still better off laying it out there than orbiting.

  • Tom

    I agree it is difficult to just be friends with women unless there is a strong friendship with their hubby and me. I have a lot of married friends I am friends with, and in some cases I`m better friends with the wife than I am with the husband. I am always suspicious with single women who want to be my friend. Once the word got out I was single again, they started coming out of the woodwork. I do have a few single women friends, but not many anymore. My fiance is still friends with a few of her ex boyfriends, but only comes in contact with them if I`m with her. I have also become their friend.

  • JQ

    @Susan:

    I read the original article linked through the link you provided to the summary piece. Per the seeming usual, there is a paucity of discussion of the technical details and merits of the statistical techniques chosen in the paper. A little digging shows some of them make a good deal of sense, others are on shakier ground without information not provided in the original article.

    The only think I’ll call out as truly egregious (full disclosure: happens to be a pet peeve of mine) is the number of times when a mean and standard deviation (SD) are reported such that out-of-bounds values are within two SD of the mean. This happened at least six times that I noticed in the write-up of each of the two studies reported. Not so much because I don’t like means and standard deviations, but because it’s indicative that the goal of using a 9-point scale (to fake a continuous normal variable) has not been met. This then calls into question the validity of many other statistics based on these numbers because the normal curve simply doesn’t seem to fit the data observed; a hypothesis of things like the t-test or the usual measure of correlation.

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

      @JQ

      As always, thanks for the caveats. I know nothing of study design, but why do researchers make these design flaws? Are you suggesting that they are stacking the deck to confirm their hypothesis, i.e. lying with statistics? Or is there some diversity of opinion on this sort of thing?

  • Mike C

    It strikes me as unlikely. If there’s an SMV differential, the lower SMV person is likely to be attracted. If there isn’t, they’re both likely to be attracted, no?

    Susan,

    I don’t think this is accurate because I don’t think SMV and SMV differential are that clear cut depending on the woman. The previous thread highlighted that male SMV is likely to be highly variable across different women. The exact same man might be attractive to one woman and repulsive to another, and it might not even matter what the woman’s physical appearance or SMV level is. For example, you found Nathan Harden very attractive and sexy, so perhaps you or someone who feels like you would have difficulty being friends with him. A few women on the Vox thread thought he was very unattractive so they would have no problem being friends with him because there is no attraction to mess up the friend dynamic.

    Main takeaway….female SMV is more rigid because it is primarily physical appearance and men are more consistent in what they prefer. Male SMV is a lot more fluid because women are going to prefer and be more or less attracted to different looks. So you could have two women, one a 5 and the other a 7, and a guy who is an 8 to the 7 and maybe a 5 to the 5. So the guy who the 7 is attracted to could actually be friends with the 5 because she isn’t attracted to him like the 7 is. Of course, this hypothesis is contingent on the idea that different women evaluate different men dramatically differently which does in fact seem to be the case based on the variety of comments based on a variety of men (Harden, Arnold, Statham, Mangioline???).

    Putting it into numbers, I think women have about a 2 point range based on the guy. For example, Obsidian might rate a thick woman higher than me, whereas I might rate a long-legged tall European higher, but we will be within 2 points. The female range seems to me could extend 4 points, maybe even 5 where an 8-9 for one woman could quite literally be a 4-5 for another. Again, I’m simply drawing this conclusion from the comments I observed from women in a variety of places on different men.

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

      @Mike C

      That makes sense re female’s valuation of male SMV. I wonder how true this is though:

      .female SMV is more rigid because it is primarily physical appearance and men are more consistent in what they prefer.

      I have noticed quite a lot of variation right here on the thread. True, you may not get much argument re Megan Fox or Brad Pitt, regardless of personal preferences. But Jason has expressed he likes petite, dark women. Someone else (HanSolo?) said that Anne Hathaway is female perfection. I know a young man who can’t resist curvy blonde women in the Scarlett Johanssen, Katherine Heigl mold.

      Even the way men self-segregate into tits, ass and legs men demonstrates this.

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

    The female range seems to me could extend 4 points, maybe even 5 where an 8-9 for one woman could quite literally be a 4-5 for another. Again, I’m simply drawing this conclusion from the comments I observed from women in a variety of places on different men.

    If you want to use a celebrity example, you can see this principle at work in boy bands you have four or five guys of different types, bodies and personalities to supply a huge variety and you can see that all of them have their audience. When I was a BSB fan my favorite was Bryan (the good guy) and I despised the living daylights of Tommy (he had a womanizer face and persona) while the most popular according to the pools was Howdie D (he was the middle ground, probably the perfect balance of Alpha and Beta or so I heard), the other two had a different niche market on the spectrum of female tastes.
    Try to find similarities on female groups and you can see that they usually just sell sexy or hot and there are more single singers than in males, YMMV.

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

      @Anacaona

      If you want to use a celebrity example, you can see this principle at work in boy bands you have four or five guys of different types, bodies and personalities to supply a huge variety and you can see that all of them have their audience.

      Very true. I used the Beatles as an example earlier. I was a Paul girl, and remember being baffled that my friends thought George or Ringo were the sexiest.

      Female attraction triggers are all over the map. Why? Because we’re selecting on more than a dozen factors. (Remember the Buss checklist?) We look at a face, and we decide a lot of things, most notably restricted vs. unrestricted based on testosterone cues.

      Men: 1 factor.

      Women: 12

  • INTJ

    @ JQ, Susan

    If anything, that paper seemed to show that the beta orbiter meme is not too prevalent. The differences in mean level of attraction based on gender, especially between single friends, was actually quite small. Of course, means don’t tell much of the story. I’d imagine the actual distribution of attraction would be bimodal (either you’re not attracted or you’re pretty strongly attracted).

    But in my observations, beta orbiting does occur quite often with close friends, but it doesn’t occur to the same extent in large mixed sex friend groups.

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

    When I was a BSB fan my favorite was Bryan (the good guy) and I despised the living daylights of Tommy (he had a womanizer face and persona) while the most popular according to the pools was Howdie D (he was the middle ground, probably the perfect balance of Alpha and Beta or so I heard), the other two had a different niche market on the spectrum of female tastes.

    As a past diehard BSB fan, I have to ask…. who the hell is Tommy? I think maybe you meant Nick Carter? Or perhaps AJ? ;-)

  • Ion

    “Is anyone else watching Hurricane Sandy right now? The trees are whipping around like crazy outside my window!”

    Yep!!! I am on the NYC Zone B border and its getting a little scary, luckily I still have power :-)

  • ExNewYorker

    “Even the way men self-segregate into tits, ass and legs men demonstrates this.”

    My favorite sushi is tuna. But I also like salmon, yellowtail, shrimp, and eel…

    The men are saying they have preferences, but that doesn’t mean they find the women outside their preferences to be unattractive. A lot of male arguments above female beauty have that undercurrent (that we find the lot of them attractive), but the fact we guys love to argue amongst ourselves makes those differences seem larger than they really are. Most guys are operating from a viewpoint of scarcity…so Anne Hathaway vs. Scarlett Johanssen would only matter if those two choices were actually a reality rather than a fantasy …

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

      @ENY

      Most guys are operating from a viewpoint of scarcity…so Anne Hathaway vs. Scarlett Johanssen would only matter if those two choices were actually a reality rather than a fantasy …

      First, I just want to say that it puts a spring in my step whenever you come by to comment. :)

      Your point makes sense of course, given the differing mating strategies of men and women. Anne Hathaway is divine, but I won’t turn Scarlett away. The goal is to inseminate, so it makes no sense to be too picky.

      Also, I haven’t had sushi in ages, and now you’ve given me a craving for Sushi Fusion’s spicy tuna maki, which I am unable to get due to the hurricane!

  • Mike C

    The men are saying they have preferences, but that doesn’t mean they find the women outside their preferences to be unattractive.

    Exactly. Certain guys are going to find certain women more attractive than others. But pretty much 99.9% of men are going to find Jessica Alba or Scarlet Johannson hot even if one prefers darker-skinned dark hair over porcelain and blonde.

    What you are unlikely to find is a women where one man’s reaction is “Oh, good God, she is smoking hot” while another is like “ewwww, she is gross, blech”. This actually seems quite common with women evaluating men.

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

      “Oh, good God, she is smoking hot” while another is like “ewwww, she is gross, blech”. This actually seems quite common with women evaluating men.

      Haha, it’s so true! There are some men who we can objectively agree are “beautiful,” e.g. Tom Brady, but even there a lot of women might say, “He does nothing for me.” Women are clearly quirkier, i.e. pickier, and it is a very individual thing. When you think about it, this is good for homo sap – many men make the grade.

  • pvw

    @Mike C: What you are unlikely to find is a women where one man’s reaction is “Oh, good God, she is smoking hot” while another is like “ewwww, she is gross, blech”. This actually seems quite common with women evaluating men.

    Me: It seems I did see this once, on one of the manosphere blogs, where the host put up images of all sorts of women and asked the men to rank. The greatest differences showed up when the men ranked the women of color who were in the mix, ie. most of the images were of women who appeared to be white, as were most of the participants. Numbers of them said that because they couldn’t ever possibly think of a woman of x ethnicity attractive, they ranked them among the lowest, even though the women of color fit within a similar spectrum to the others, ie., similar features, hair and shape. Only their complexions were different.

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

      @pvw

      Numbers of them said that because they couldn’t ever possibly think of a woman of x ethnicity attractive, they ranked them among the lowest, even though the women of color fit within a similar spectrum to the others, ie., similar features, hair and shape. Only their complexions were different.

      I’m sorry to say it, but there is a fair amount of racism in the manosphere. :(

      I think it’s part and parcel of the “I’ve been robbed” mentality that pervades so many of the blogs.

  • Lokland

    @Mike C

    “Exactly. Certain guys are going to find certain women more attractive than others. But pretty much 99.9% of men are going to find Jessica Alba or Scarlet Johannson hot even if one prefers darker-skinned dark hair over porcelain and blonde.”

    +1

    I prefer black hair. I still find blondes beautiful, just less so, not enough that they wouldn’t be considered beautiful just less so. Not even much less so.

    A beautiful women is a beautiful women is a beautiful women. We might bitch and squabble about who gets spot 1 vs. 2 and 7 vs. 8 etc. but we would never have trouble determining 1/2 vs. 7/8.

  • Cooper

    “If there has been a shift in the dynamic, it’s possible she felt it too, or that she has been interested all along. Look at it this way: You have nothing to lose but your chains!”

    You can sure make chuckle. “A shift in dynamic” LMFFFFAO.

    Guys, myself included, can’t tell if a girl has a romantic interest. And according to the post, we even have ourselves believe the interest is mutual, even when they’re taken!

    So, exactly how is a guy suppose to discern “a shift in dynamic” when we, quite clearly, can’t identify the dynamic in the first place?!

    Furthermore, since we’re getting into ‘cross-sex friendships’ – I claim guys don’t hang onto friends that they don’t find attractive, this post says quite a few guys feel romantic attraction to their girl friend, even when taken – it kinda begs the question: what is a female-platonic-friend to a male? And, also, how do they come about?

    And quite simply, I have a feeling it is “a failed romantic interest.”
    With of course the exceptions where romantic attraction just simply isn’t on the table. But for single guys, their girl friends are unsuccessful girl-friends.

    I grew wing told girls know what they want, and I’m not to force yourself upon them, yadda yadda.

    When I, and I think most guys, meet a woman that they find sexually attractive, we consider how we’d like to be romantic first, and friends second, if at all.

    So, what I’m saying is, for guys, looking at female friends, and re-evaluating the dynamic, is – absolutely, unequivocally, irrefutably – a bad strategy. (Nmv the exaggeration)
    Because for a lot of guys, they’ve already tried those girls – it’s how they became friends! (he was interested, she wasn’t (romantically), and result was “friendship.”)

    I’m not trying to defend orbiting here, I know it’s bad. (I do! Lol) All I’m saying is cross-sex friendship is more a sign of a unsuccessful romantic attempt than a potential, unconsidered, sexual partner – cause the guy has already considered it, and since the two are friends – he didn’t get there and is sure to keep that thinking.

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

      @Cooper

      Just catching up on comments, sorry for the delay.

      So, exactly how is a guy suppose to discern “a shift in dynamic” when we, quite clearly, can’t identify the dynamic in the first place?!

      Signs of a shift:

      She finds ways to be alone with you – more than she used to.

      She touches you more. Your forearm, shoulder, thigh when sitting, etc.

      She makes more eye contact and holds it.

      She occasionally seems out of sorts and pouts for no apparent reason. (This could be PMS, but it could also be you failing to receive and respond to IOIs.)

      She either stops or starts mentioning other guys – any change should be noted.

      She is peevish when you mention other girls.

      She does nice things for you for no reason – which is her way of demonstrating her girlfriend potential.

      Obviously, not all of these need to happen to signal a shift. By the way, I was thinking overnight about drinking and plausible deniability. This can be tricky, because I’ve heard women describe being really psyched the guy made a move, but wondering if it was only because he was drunk. If he then acts platonic or even awkward the next time they see him, they feel rejected.

      Go for the kiss on impulse without discussing it first and see what she does. If she balks, just laugh and say, “I could have sworn you wanted it.” IOW, you are rejection proof.

  • Tasmin

    @Susan@Cooper

    “To me, expecting a guy to essentially risk disturpting an social group to explore a sexual attraction, which from the sounds of it could commonly exist for guys’ girl-friends, seems insurmountable.”

    “I wonder if other guys feel this way. I think many guys seem more than willing to disrupt the group for a shot at sex. I remember the first time I hooked up with my husband, I said, “Do you think this will affect our friendship?” He gave me a look of pure bewilderment. Translation: “What friendship?”

    I’m agree with Cooper on this as far as my actions are concerned. I have certainly left an opportunity or ten on the table in choosing to act this way, but I also believe that friend groups can be a rich pool of potential mates. My view, and I’ll assume Cooper’s as well, is that I value the group, the friendships within this grouping highly. So before anything, I think it depends on whether this is a loosely affiliated group of college kids, “friends” that hang out because they are on the same floor of a dorm, or if it has greater structure and depth like groups that form over time based on a conscious, purposeful, and lasting investment of its members.

    It is tricky because friendship groups are repeatedly touted as good hunting grounds. I think this is true, but I also think there are a few things that differentiate for me whether it makes sense, or it doesn’t, and what factors can minimize my perceived risk of disruption.

    (1) intent, i.e. getting laid vs finding an LTR. If it is a purely physical attraction or it is about sex first then “see what happens”, that intent is probably better directed toward someone well outside the group. FWB within close groups rarely end well.

    (2) selection, i.e. there are inner groups of friends and there are extensions; the periphery of bigger groupings. The closer in, the higher risk of disruption. It is always easier to move an outlier closer than a core member outward. To me the value of friend groups in terms of dating is not in what they are today, but in terms of expanding my reach – what they might bring down the road. IOW, its not the friends, but the friends of friends or the venues of friends.

    (3) execution, i.e. some familiarity can be a great springboard, but letting sexual/relationship interest stew for too long can lead to confusion, missteps, and hard feelings. If there is attraction, some indication of mutual interest, and the situation provides some comfort relative to intent and selection, then the execution should be quick and direct.

    I agree that there are definitely men who can’t or refuse to see the implications of their actions in all kinds of ways, particularly in the space between their desire to get laid and a potential mate. IME these are typically the same guys who regularly approach women, are aggressive, and hold a general view of the social groupings as merely a subset of the greater SMP. They regularly employ “we are all consenting adults” as the ultimate override.

    That said, there are also a lot of “friend” groups these days that are actually closer to the live on the same dorm floor types as opposed to more deeply rooted, longstanding, circles. I think the groups that are larger and more transient are subject to greater interpretation of those binds in terms of what is really at risk.

    My own view of these groups has changed over time. When younger (right out of college) my friendship group was much closer in terms of geography, place in life, goals, age, etc. and thus I was much more conscious of how my actions would impact these close friendships. Now I find that I occupy several overlapping groups of friends. My “core” group has moved all over the world, married, single, kids, jobs, between jobs, settled, and searching. And we all have other groups rooted in where we live, our jobs, a hobby, etc. that span a much wider age group and socioeconomic base. While I know that I am much more cautious about disrupting any of my groups of friends than many other men, I am also certain that as I have aged and these groupings have expanded, my considerations are much less focused on the potential damage of my actions relative to romantic pursuits.

    Of course, some men just never see the group/circle to be worthy of any consideration. This doesn’t always mean a lack of respect, though it can, but rather they view the group as individuals who are free to do as they please assuming they are not directly harming anyone else. They see the social contracts with the group as being at-will. They may consider the feelings of certain individuals, but don’t feel they (or their actions) are in any way responsible for the overall well-being of the group.

    Perhaps this is the way to go, but for me it has always felt like a personal orientation that I think follows similar lines to any of the internal vs external, extrovert vs introvert, restricted vs unrestricted, etc. And to be honest, it has been a while since my feelings on this have been tested. I’d welcome the opportunity :-)

  • Lokland

    @Susan, Cooper

    I’m thinking back to a couple past experiences.
    One of my biggest problems was escalation, especially with women from a shared friend group.
    It was unbelievably unnerving.

    I wish i had known that: if a woman’s alone with you it means she likes you, back when I was in high school in uni.

  • Cooper

    “I wish i had known that: if a woman’s alone with you it means she likes you, back when I was in high school in uni.”

    BULLSHIT!! Then I have a ton of admirers.

  • JP

    @Cooper:

    “Furthermore, since we’re getting into ‘cross-sex friendships’ – I claim guys don’t hang onto friends that they don’t find attractive, this post says quite a few guys feel romantic attraction to their girl friend, even when taken – it kinda begs the question: what is a female-platonic-friend to a male? And, also, how do they come about?”

    Well, you’re wandering around with space in your life for a friend, and you start talking to girl/woman “Insert Name Here” and you decide that they seem intelligent and sane and that they would make a good friend.

    You like friends, so you decided that girl/woman “Insert Name Here” would make a good friend.

    Then you start calling (back in the days of non-texting) them a lot because they are fun to talk to and you also like spending time with them because they are interesting.

    However, you don’t have any romantic interest in them, so nothing ever happens because you don’t want it to happen.

    You might go to prom with them because neither of you have a date and you want to go with *somebody* to prom.

    The end.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    J: “DH and I were friends first, and if anything happened to our marriage, I would pull a new guy from my pool of male friends and acquaintances long before trying to hit the bars or the net in search of a man.”

    Unless you spent copious time alone with him, you weren’t “friends” in the sense we mean here. You were acquaintances, or in a social circle. If you were truly friends, then congrats, you executed the orbiter strategy perfectly and your husband played the long, horrible odds and won the lottery.

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    Re: 57 (me)
    “Which do you think is going to have a girl feeling more uncomfortable?”

    I think this can relate to Tasmin’s post re: (1) intent.

    I think a guy is going to have significantly easier time expressing a physically-sexual intent than a emotional one. Partially due to the plausible deniabliliy that may be salvageable after it does work out. “I was drunk, and tried to make out with friend” is waaay more excusable, within a social group, than anything remotely romantic. I think a guy with the utmost romantic interest would even recognize that expressing a interesting in something short-term, or sexual, than something ‘official.’

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

      @Cooper

      I think a guy is going to have significantly easier time expressing a physically-sexual intent than a emotional one.

      It’s good you feel that way, because that is what you should be doing!

      No emo up front!

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    So, exactly how is a guy suppose to discern “a shift in dynamic” when we, quite clearly, can’t identify the dynamic in the first place?!

    You escalate and see how she responds initially to determine the dynamic. ;)

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I wish i had known that: if a woman’s alone with you it means she likes you, back when I was in high school in uni.

    Have to admit, this is sometimes hard for me to trust, too. I can remember my one-itis baking cupcakes with me, alone, for my birthday, but not making a single move or coming close to me. She also invited me to her dorm room before class once, so we could “watch the History Channel” together, but left the door open, and again made no move to get close to me or show any IOIs.

    She also invited me to her dorm room again for my 21st birthday with the idea that we would pre-game, but, again no IOIs….

    Then again, I didn’t escalate.

    Ahhhhhh, tales of the 80%. Maybe I’ll share a picture of the two of us together.

    Goddam my beta life, lol

  • SayWhaat

    LOL, that lower-right quadrant defines half of college and all of high school. XD

  • SayWhaat

    @ Susan and Ion:

    My apartment is in a Zone C flood area and apparently not too far from some serious damage. Thankfully, I’m hunkering down at my boyfriend’s. We can barely tell there’s a storm outside.

    Hope you and your families are safe and dry!

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I’m not racist, I’m just a beta guy that likes women that remind him of Sister, Mother, or That One Girl I Fell In Love With.

    Similarly, Brother-In-Law=Dad and Sister-In-Law=more goth version of Sister and Mother

  • SayWhaat

    I’m sorry to say it, but there is a fair amount of racism in the manosphere.

    Yep, and when you point it out, they vehemently deny it. “Racist” has become the new N-word. Even racists don’t want to be called “racist”.

  • SayWhaat

    I’m just a beta guy that likes women that remind him of Sister, Mother, or That One Girl I Fell In Love With.

    Haha, that reminds me of this guy I knew in college. He was white, but his first crush was this black girl in his hometown. She was the only black girl he knew, which set her apart from all the other girls. To this day he only dates black/latina women.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    I’m sorry to say it, but there is a fair amount of racism in the manosphere.

    The manosphere is filled with a lot of hate in general. It’s why I’m so glad HUS exists.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    That is strange. I can admit I don’t find most non-Causcasian women attractive, but there are always a few attractive women of every and any race. Racist? (I suppose I see nonwhite women, like women see men.)

  • Ted D

    I have no female friends that are not firmly attached to a male friend other than my ex-wife. It’s intentional.

    Regarding race. I’ve found many non-Caucasian women to be highly attractive. I don’t know that I’ve found one of every race, but I’m fairly certain I’ve found at least one from most.

    I’m an equal opportunity pervert I guess. :-p

  • Ion

    INTJ

    “The manosphere is filled with a lot of hate in general. It’s why I’m so glad HUS exists.”

    Hatred seems to be a common side effects of people feeling disenfranchised in general–unproductive focus on those who they can reject, not on the insecurity of being rejected by who they think should accept them.

    Saywhaat

    “My apartment is in a Zone C flood area and apparently not too far from some serious damage. Thankfully, I’m hunkering down at my boyfriend’s. We can barely tell there’s a storm outside.”

    Are you bored out of your mind yet? I am getting pretty stir-crazy being stuck in the house all day. That’s my main complaint (and the looming threat of losing internet) :(

    “He was white, but his first crush was this black girl in his hometown. She was the only black girl he knew, which set her apart from all the other girls. To this day he only dates black/latina women.”

    Why can’t he just date who he’s attracted to, and leave race out of the picture? I’ve asked guys on dates about their “type”, and usually they just have said they found me attractive so they wanted to get to know me better :-) that’s the right answer. I have heard from one white guy (who happens to be a platonic friend I only occasionally talk to after a few semi dates) that he prefers black women because they’re more feminine, have more feminine body shapes and features, and are honest and loyal. Now ask a guy who prefers asian women, and he says the same thing!

    My point is, I don’t exactly feel flattered when someone says they prefer one race of women, whether he was white, black or green.That’s not some liberal pie-in-the-sky “I’m colorbind” answer, either. It’s the truth.

  • J

    @OTC

    Unless you spent copious time alone with him, you weren’t “friends” in the sense we mean here. You were acquaintances, or in a social circle. If you were truly friends, then congrats, you executed the orbiter strategy perfectly and your husband played the long, horrible odds and won the lottery.

    We met at a party. He then joined my a social circle and began to also spend time one-on-one time with me. That phase of the relationship lasted about 6 months. After that he asked me out; after about 2 1/2 months of dating, we became lovers. Six months or so later, we got engaged. Six months or so after that, we got married.

    If you were truly friends, then congrats, you executed the orbiter strategy perfectly and your husband played the long, horrible odds and won the lottery.

    I’m not sure where we fit into your definition, but I think we both won the lottery. ;-)

  • http://jseliger.wordpress.com jseliger

    @Susan Walsh:

    Thanks for leaving a comment and linking to your blog – I enjoyed your post. BTW, the NYXs gave Back to Blood a good review this weekend. I’m only on page 20 and I’m already cackling. I have never enjoyed reading anything more than a Tom Wolfe novel.

    Glad you like “The Story’s Story.” I have Back to Blood and will get to it soon. Can’t imagine it’ll top my favorite novel from this year—Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl, which is much recommended—but I always hope.

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

      @jseliger

      I enjoyed Gone Girl this summer. Just read a great novel – The Newlyweds – by Nell Freudenberger.

  • J

    This does raise the question as to what happens when your spouse becomes unattractive due to age and you are no romantically into them.

    We’ve been together 25 years, JP. It hasn’t happened yet.

  • J

    @SW

    I’m watching the storm now. I hope you are safe and dry.

  • Ion

    “Cross-sex friendships are messy and laden with drama. ”

    Yep. Of the 5 or 6 close male friends I’ve had, one I ended up dating, one I ended up hooking up with a few times (we were pretty good friends for 4 years prior to that). Two made consistent moves even though I shut them down.One I thought I loved (he had a girlfriend, and I had to smile in their faces regularly until I got over it).

    Sometimes “we should hang out” means just hanging out, other times, it means “I’m interested”, so I get confused (this isn’t the case with the male acquaintances I know, who are all pretty cool). There are also situations where guys have reached out as friends and I didn’t want straight male friends, so I just didn’t reach out back (I know now that they were following the advice about “being friends first”).

  • J

    I’m sorry to say it, but there is a fair amount of racism in the manosphere.

    Racism in the ‘sphere? No kiddin’?

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    J, I totally misread your comment as saying you *did* pull your husband from a pool of existing platonic friends. So never mind…

  • J

    @OTC

    Not a problem…

  • ExNewYorker

    “J, I totally misread your comment as saying you *did* pull your husband from a pool of existing platonic friends. So never mind…”

    It still is a low probability strategy for a guy. I also had one successful beta orbiter result, but once I realized how low probability it was, I never again tried that strategy…

  • pvw

    @Susan, J and the others re. manosphere racism. Having preferences in my view are perfectly normal; SWPL men like what they like–Megan Fox, Scarlett Johansen, Joan Holloway. But when linked to a seething contempt for women of color merely because they aren’t Megan, Scarlett or Joan, they sound really off the wall….

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

      @pvw

      But when linked to a seething contempt for women of color merely because they aren’t Megan, Scarlett or Joan, they sound really off the wall….

      Exactly. I recall a few years ago Roissy put up pics of various women including BBW for men to rate on his site. I believe it was meant to taunt Obsidian, IIRC. It was just a free for all of racist ranting, which of course was Roissy’s goal the whole time.

  • szopen

    @Mike C

    What you are unlikely to find is a women where one man’s reaction is “Oh, good God, she is smoking hot” while another is like “ewwww, she is gross, blech”.

    One word:

    Imogen
    (I hope IMG tags work here – if not, then the url is
    http://i.models.com/oftheminute/images/2009/09/imogen.jpg

    For me, she is creepy. Crrrrrreeeeeepy. And really ugly. Yet I’ve read comments by guys, that they find her absolutely hot and beautiful.

    OTOH, I feel attraction to woman with wide pelvis and blue eyes. Really – I find dark-eyed girls unattractive, though I may admit that objectively they are beautiful.

  • Iggles

    @ Ted D:

    Regarding race. I’ve found many non-Caucasian women to be highly attractive. I don’t know that I’ve found one of every race, but I’m fairly certain I’ve found at least one from most.

    +1 to this sentiment.

    I get preferring to date someone within your culture. That doesn’t seem odd in the slightest to me, to prefer to be with someone you share commonalities with. But I give to side-eye to men who profess they see women outside of their race as asexual beings.

    Personally, I see men as men. I’ve seen men of all colors who I acknowledge were hot regardless if they were my “type”.

    I’m an equal opportunity pervert I guess. :-p

    Ha! Then I guess I am too!

    @ Ion:

    My point is, I don’t exactly feel flattered when someone says they prefer one race of women, whether he was white, black or green.That’s not some liberal pie-in-the-sky “I’m colorbind” answer, either. It’s the truth.

    +1

    And this is the opposite end of the spectrum.

    It’s makes me uneasy for someone to hyper-focus on just “one race”. I get the sense they’re more into the “culture” or what that person represents than the individual they’re dating. No one wants to feel replaceable.

    I’m in an IR relationship, and before I met my bf I filtered out guys who gave off that vibe.

  • Iggles

    Meant to say:
    I give the side-eye to..

  • INTJ

    @ szopen

    Yeah she looks like a cat haha. I dunno if I’d find her attractive in real life if she weren’t wearing that makeup.

  • INTJ

    Re: race

    Don’t care about race with one exception: the nerd in me would choose a green-skinned space babe over anyone else. :D

  • J

    But when linked to a seething contempt for women of color merely because they aren’t Megan, Scarlett or Joan, they sound really off the wall….

    Race is a strange and comlicated issue in the ‘sphere. Part of it springs out of the belief in evo-psych. I envision a flow chart that looks like this:

    Evopsych—->HBD—->Racism and/or Right-wing or Libertarian Views

    There is a sprinkling of “the primacy of intellect” and “I’ve been robbed” mixed in. The economic robbers are Jewish males and the sexual robbers are black men, both of whom are seen as intimidating sexual competitors. The grand (and attainable) prize is an Asian woman since they are viewed simultaneously as the pinnacle of feminity and most desirous of beta males (unlike the highly coveted and aloof Nordic goddess–Roissy loves his ice maidens).

    BTW, it’s not limited to men. There is a female blogger who comments all over the ‘sphere and is obsessed with the deleterious effects of “mud people” on her non-native US. She also seems to believe that Jews are conspiring to make her fat and old.

    Somewhwere up thread, you remarked that all the women in the “averaged” photos looked alike regardless of race or ethnicity. That was Roissy’s point. He is a huge believer that beauty can be categorized and is fungible. There is no room for individuality much less diversity.

  • J

    J, I totally misread your comment as saying you *did* pull your husband from a pool of existing platonic friends. So never mind…

    Oh, I see now what misled you. I said I’d that, if anything happened to my marriage, I would pull a new husband from a pool of existing platonic friends. As I’ve commented on other threads, I’ve seen widows marry their late husband’s friends, etc. It’s very do-able, and I think safer and easier than trolling the bars. There are already a lot of built-in commonalities when you stay within your established circle or rely on people you already know to network for you.

    Because DH doesn’t enjoy casual socializing, I go to a lot of things alone. There have been a number of occasions when other women have assumed I was widowed and tried to set me up with their male relatives. It seems like a good way of meeting men.

  • pvw

    @Susan: I recall a few years ago Roissy put up pics of various women including BBW for men to rate on his site. I believe it was meant to taunt Obsidian, IIRC. It was just a free for all of racist ranting, which of course was Roissy’s goal the whole time.

    Me: I didn’t see that one, but I’m not surprised….

    @J: Somewhwere up thread, you remarked that all the women in the “averaged” photos looked alike regardless of race or ethnicity. That was Roissy’s point. He is a huge believer that beauty can be categorized and is fungible. There is no room for individuality much less diversity.

    Me: Thanks for this clarification. It is funny, this was a Roissy post. The features of the women posted were within a similar range, nose, chin, shapes, weight, just the complexions were different. A fair number were fashion models who easily fit into the 8+ category, it is just that their ethnicities/races were different. So if that was his message about the universality of beauty standards in the fashion industry, it seemed to be lost on a fair number of the commentators who didn’t realize it. They were so focused on the racial aspects and going off on their diatribes against women of color…But they seem to do that anyway, regardless of what the topic is.

  • J

    @pvw

    The features of the women posted were within a similar range, nose, chin, shapes, weight, just the complexions were different.

    Right.

    So if that was his message about the universality of beauty standards in the fashion industry,

    No, there was no comment intended about the fashion industry. Roissy, who panders to the “spergy” at times, was attempting to show that there IS a science to attraction that can be codified, systemitized and ultimately understood and used to compensate or adapt to the SMP. He loves studies about ratios: the WHR, ratios involving facial proportions, etc. The women in the photos illustrate those ratios and therefore are beautiful. And, because they all fit the same ratios, they are all essentially the same…fungible and interchangeable. (So don’t go thinking that you are some sort of special snowflake who might be loved for herself, and for God’s sake, don’t gain weight.) There’s no room for anything endearingly quirky or individual. And anyone who thinks so is some sort of feminist who is attempting to dictate to men what should attractive to them, in an attempt to make her own fat/ugly ass acceptable while screwing men into settling for an inferior product.

    Susan is also correct in saying that there was an attempt to wind up Obsidian who:

    –likes BBW, as long as they have a .7 WHR
    –tends to monopolize threads and won’t let go of a subject until he beats it into the ground
    –in their imaginations, has a huge black wonder dick that mesmerizes the ladies and can not be competed with

    And now, I have summoned the Kraken. Obs will appear in 5, 4, 3, 2,1………

  • VD

    I’m sorry to say it, but there is a fair amount of racism in the manosphere.

    That’s an fascinating sentiment, Susan, considering your heavy reliance upon evo-psych. Racism, in the formal sense of “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement”, is little more than biological science. I realize the latest genetic science hasn’t trickled down to the masses yet, but at this point, it appears that not only are all men not evolved equal, they are not even all equally Homo sapiens sapiens.

    Surely you haven’t forgotten the full title of Darwin’s masterpiece: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

    Now, the science doesn’t justify the derogatory language that one occasionally sees exhibited from time to time, but there is observably less of it in the androsphere than one will see, for example, in the left-wing blogosphere. Witness the treatment of Stacy Dash, the black actress who endorsed Romney, for instance. And black men certainly appear to be much more welcome throughout the androsphere than white feminists of either sex.

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

      @VD

      Now, the science doesn’t justify the derogatory language that one occasionally sees exhibited from time to time, but there is observably less of it in the androsphere than one will see, for example, in the left-wing blogosphere.

      It’s the derogatory language that I object to the most, whether it is applied to race or sex. There’s obviously more misogyny than racism, but there’s a fair amount of hateful speech on both topics. For example, Yohami at one point went on a tirade here about conspiracies among Jews to hog the world’s wealth. It’s highly inappropriate, not to mention embarrassing. I can’t control what is said on other blogs, but I can certainly prevent that kind of talk on my own.

      PVW’s objection was in regard to female standards of beauty. I’m sure you’ll agree that it is simply hostile and unnecessary to opine that black women are ugly.

      In any case, I think Obsidian has always asked the most pertinent question about racial differences, which he supports:

      “So what? What are the implications for policy?”

      Personally, I support a meritocracy – to each according to his achievements and demonstrated abilities.

      Witness the treatment of Stacy Dash, the black actress who endorsed Romney, for instance. And black men certainly appear to be much more welcome throughout the androsphere than white feminists of either sex.

      Disagreement trumps both sex and race as an evil in the manosphere.

  • Ion

    J@ 115 I agree with everything you said :-)

    “The grand (and attainable) prize is an Asian woman since they are viewed simultaneously as the pinnacle of feminity and most desirous of beta males ”

    Which is definitely ego/power related. If a beta male nerd sees himself as being constantly rejected by women around him, it makes since to project a ultra-feminine trope onto a group of women who have a reputation for preferring him. That would mean he is 1. highly evolved and “chose her” to a degree 2. He is still masculine because the “most feminine women” prefer him.

  • INTJ

    @ VD

    The proportion of neanderthal dna in most humans is quite small. Europeans and Asians are only slightly less Homo Sapiens than Africans.

  • JQ

    @Susan:

    I think most people just don’t know any better.

    My impression is that most people and most graduate degree programs treat statistics as a subject taught or learned under duress or as secondary to the main body of material. So it is easy for statistics to become an arcane cookbook of techniques to turn data into publishable results. The result of which is inadvertently poor statistical analysis.

    Getting statistical analysis “right” is breathtakingly hard. So hard, in fact, the practising statistician’s I’ve trained under were all very explicit about only working within their particular realm of expertise (usually quite narrow) and these were all guys with PhD’s. I routinely go look stuff up again to make sure I’ve got it really right–including when I’m preparing a comment to post here. I’ll admit to not knowing what McNemar’s test (used in the second study reported in the original article) was
    before looking it up. Further, I generally limit my comments to the analysis side because neither design of experiments nor survey design are my area of expertise.

  • pvw

    @J:

    No, there was no comment intended about the fashion industry. Roissy, who panders to the “spergy” at times, was attempting to show that there IS a science to attraction that can be codified, systemitized and ultimately understood and used to compensate or adapt to the SMP.

    There’s no room for anything endearingly quirky or individual. And anyone who thinks so is some sort of feminist who is attempting to dictate to men what should attractive to them, in an attempt to make her own fat/ugly ass acceptable while screwing men into settling for an inferior product.

    me: Thanks, for clarifying; his logic just gives me another reason to roll my eyes!

  • SayWhaat

    @ Ion:

    Hope your power is still running! We got lucky and didn’t lose power, though I need to figure out how exactly I’m gonna get home with only the buses running!

    My point is, I don’t exactly feel flattered when someone says they prefer one race of women, whether he was white, black or green.That’s not some liberal pie-in-the-sky “I’m colorbind” answer, either. It’s the truth.

    Hey, nothing wrong with that. There are people who just genuinely aren’t attracted to their own race and prefer to date outside of that. In the case of that guy I knew, he just simply wasn’t attracted to other white chicks.

    I do know what you mean though; I once met a guy with a serious Indian fetish. He was into everything that was Indian, and confessed to me exactly what you said: that he liked Indian girls because they were beautiful, feminine, and tended to be very submissive. I remember thinking, “Okaaaaay.”

    My boyfriend sometimes comments on my “pretty color”. He genuinely appreciates me for more than just my skin/perceived feminine attributes, so I have no problem with him fetishizing every now and then. After all, I do the same with his gorgeous blue eyes. :P

  • SayWhaat

    Question: what do HBD, SWPL, and BBW stand for, exactly?

    I’m guessing BBW = “Buxom Black Women”?

    And every time I see “SWPL” I think “Single White People Ladies” which makes no sense whatsoever lol

  • pvw

    Human bio diversity? Big Beautiful Women? Stuff White People Like….

  • Thrasymachus

    @J:

    Race is a strange and comlicated issue in the ‘sphere. Part of it springs out of the belief in evo-psych. I envision a flow chart that looks like this:

    Evopsych—->HBD—->Racism and/or Right-wing or Libertarian Views

    This is less than fair to evo psych. Evo psych is an established academic discipline with many respected theorists such as David Barash, Roy Baumeister, David Buss, Leda Cosmides, Robert Kurzban, Donald Symons and John Tooby who publish scholarly articles in prestigious peer reviewed journals. HBD enthusiasts rarely hold research positions in major universities. Their work is usually funded by organizations and foundations supporting extreme right wing causes, and rarely published in the leading academic journals. They selectively quote some evo psych findings while ignoring others, and misuse the concepts introduced by the discipline.

    Most serious evo psych theorists have little time for HBD ideas. See this paper, for instance:

    http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~sangin/perceptionsrace.pdf

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

      @Thrasymachus

      HBD enthusiasts rarely hold research positions in major universities. Their work is usually funded by organizations and foundations supporting extreme right wing causes, and rarely published in the leading academic journals. They selectively quote some evo psych findings while ignoring others, and misuse the concepts introduced by the discipline.

      Thank you for clarifying this. As much evo psych as I’ve read, I have never once come across a study or paper dealing with race from any of the evo psych experts you mentioned.

      I confess I am ignorant re HBD (by choice), but I don’t see why it should necessarily follow from the study of evolutionary psychology or biology.

  • Passer_By

    @saywhaat

    In normal usage, BBW = Big Beautiful Woman (i.e., how fat women like to describe themselves). BBBW = Big Beautiful Black Woman. However, I think Susan was using BBW as a reference to black women, so she must have meant Big Black Women.

    HBD + Human Bio Diversity (I won’t get into all that this entails here)

    SWPL – This one is a bit complicated, but it derives from a website called “Stuff White People Like”, which makes fun of white people for liking certain things – but what it is really making of fun of is stuff that nominally liberal (sometimes hypocritically so), coastal urban, white collar, PC white people like, often young women and often single, but not necessarily so. So, in the Roissysphere (I think he started using the term SWPL to describe actual people), the term has actually come to mean to people who fit that description (i.e., SWPLs means the actual people, not the stuff they like).

  • Passer_By

    @saywhaat

    Also, the use of “SWPL” above by pvw seems a bit off, since bona fide SWPL men would pretend to be equally (or nearly equally) attracted to black women, even if they were not. Manospherians are not SWPLs, almost by definition.

  • SayWhaat

    Thanks pvw and Passer_By! Most illuminating…

  • JP

    With respect to the entire HBD issue, the thing to recognize is:

    Apple. Fall. Tree.

    I don’t think it’s race as much as it is your immediate family tree.

    Nature or nurture, poor life choices are generally heritable.

    And I’ve represented entire families of psychiatrically and mentally disabled.

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

    JQ, I enjoy your posts. Re: statistical methods with messy data…there is a security/conflict studies analysis academic named Thomas Homer-Dixon who looks at social problems related to high- and low-sex ratios in the population, resource scarcities, etc.

    Homer-Dixon has written about the difficulties with making simple linear correlation inferences when dealing with highly complex systems, and how this has created some incentive problems within the social sciences (his critique is not unlike some of the Austrian arguments against bringing a fetish for mathematical elegance into economics). Provocative studies are frequently cited in the media and treated as definitive long before they have been successfully replicated even once, let alone a satisfyingly large number of times. The result can be a wild atmosphere of cherry-picking and confirmation biases run amok.

  • JP

    With respect to intelligence, I’m going to go ahead and post Tom Wolfe:

    “Even more radio–active is the matter of intelligence, as measured by IQ tests. Privately—not many care to speak out—the vast majority of neuroscientists believe the genetic component of an individual’s intelligence is remarkably high. Your intelligence can be improved upon, by skilled and devoted mentors, or it can be held back by a poor upbringing—i.e., the negative can be well developed or poorly developed—but your genes are what really make the difference. The recent ruckus over Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve is probably just the beginning of the bitterness the subject is going to create.

    Not long ago, according to two neuroscientists I interviewed, a firm called Neurometrics sought out investors and tried to market an amazing but simple invention known as the IQ Cap. The idea was to provide a way of testing intelligence that would be free of “cultural bias,” one that would not force anyone to deal with words or concepts that might be familiar to people from one culture but not to people from another. The IQ Cap recorded only brain waves; and a computer, not a potentially biased human test–giver, analyzed the results. It was based on the work of neuroscientists such as E. Roy John 1, who is now one of the major pioneers of electroencephalographic brain imaging; Duilio Giannitrapani, author of The Electrophysiology of Intellectual Functions; and David Robinson, author of The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and Personality Assessment: Toward a Biologically Based Theory of Intelligence and Cognition and many other monographs famous among neuroscientists. I spoke to one researcher who had devised an IQ Cap himself by replicating an experiment described by Giannitrapani in The Electrophysiology of Intellectual Functions. It was not a complicated process. You attached sixteen electrodes to the scalp of the person you wanted to test. You had to muss up his hair a little, but you didn’t have to cut it, much less shave it. Then you had him stare at a marker on a blank wall. This particular researcher used a raspberry–red thumbtack. Then you pushed a toggle switch. In sixteen seconds the Cap’s computer box gave you an accurate prediction (within one–half of a standard deviation) of what the subject would score on all eleven subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale or, in the case of children, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—all from sixteen seconds’ worth of brain waves. There was nothing culturally biased about the test whatsoever. What could be cultural about staring at a thumbtack on a wall? The savings in time and money were breathtaking. The conventional IQ test took two hours to complete; and the overhead, in terms of paying test–givers, test–scorers, test–preparers, and the rent, was $100 an hour at the very least. The IQ Cap required about fifteen minutes and sixteen seconds—it took about fifteen minutes to put the electrodes on the scalp—and about a tenth of a penny’s worth of electricity. Neurometrics’s investors were rubbing their hands and licking their chops. They were about to make a killing.

    In fact—nobody wanted their damnable IQ Cap!

    It wasn’t simply that no one believed you could derive IQ scores from brainwaves—it was that nobody wanted to believe it could be done. Nobody wanted to believe that human brainpower is…that hardwired. Nobody wanted to learn in a flash that…the genetic fix is in. Nobody wanted to learn that he was…a hardwired genetic mediocrity…and that the best he could hope for in this Trough of Mortal Error was to live out his mediocre life as a stress–free dim bulb.”

    http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/Wolfe-Sorry-But-Your-Soul-Just-Died.php

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

      @JP

      Thanks for the Wolfe – always welcome here. Of course intelligence is largely genetic. It’s also carried on the X chromosome for sons. That means smart women may feel free to marry their personal trainers without compromising the intelligence of their offspring, but smart men who marry bimbos will have dumb sons.

      I find this very gratifying. :)

  • Cooper

    I’ve got a topic to discuss. It’s whether a girl can obtain commitment from a guy, whom with she has a relationship that resembles a exclusive-FWB. As in everyone considers them a couple, except themselves, and the guy doesn’t do anything remotely a boyfriend would, (ie he’d never meet at her apt.)

    This is a girl I know. And both of them are very content with “where they’re at, right now.” And nearly everyone girl friend of hers is going “wtf! You two aren’t ‘official!’?”

    This difference in sexes, when I comes to friendship, has me realize that both sexes can’t be blamed for taking, and not reciprocating with their own “commodity” if you will. Guys really can’t complain when a girl accepts his emotional investment, and monetary resources, and expect the girl to have a desire to have sex with them. And likewise, girls have no grounds to complain when a guy accepts their sex, and offers no commitment.
    In both cases, where the “commodity” is given away too early, it leaves the other party with absolutely no need to trade theirs. They’ll keep accepting, and accepting, until they are forces to trade for something more, or better.
    It’s the process of how either sex de-values themselves. (I’m curious as to whether this can ever be undone. I’d think not.)

    The beta orbiter is truly the equivalent of a slut. Neither have the right to complain about not demeaning a fair trade.

    This is something I have to definitely remember.

    I find it funny that both sexes discriminate against the behavoir they claim to seek. Guys was a acrobat in bed, while de-valuing any girl that demonstrates this while single. And girls want an emotional beta, while de-valuing any guys offering too early.
    It seems everybody want a fair trade, but we can’t stop DQ’ing every one that shows their hands, first.

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

      @Cooper

      In both cases, where the “commodity” is given away too early, it leaves the other party with absolutely no need to trade theirs…The beta orbiter is truly the equivalent of a slut. Neither have the right to complain about not demeaning a fair trade.

      You have traveled far, Grasshopper.

      It seems everybody want a fair trade, but we can’t stop DQ’ing every one that shows their hands, first.

      It’s all about being (or pretending to be) the least interested party. I am convinced this prematurely squelches relationships that both parties want.

  • Cooper

    Cont.

    The way I connect this to the girl friend of mine, who I believe won’t be able to get commitment from her bf this late into their relationship. (2years)

    It’s goes with “why buy the cow, when you get the milk for free.”

    The beta orbiters’ milk is emotional, where as for women it is sexual.

  • VD

    I can’t control what is said on other blogs, but I can certainly prevent that kind of talk on my own.

    You know I support your maintaining whatever standard you see fit. I just thought it was a little ironic for anyone who utilizes evolutionary theory to decry racism qua racism when said theory absolutely and intrinsically dictates different outcomes for different population groups. But basic human decency is entirely another matter.

    PVW’s objection was in regard to female standards of beauty. I’m sure you’ll agree that it is simply hostile and unnecessary to opine that black women are ugly.

    I’m not sure it is necessarily hostile, but it is certainly both unnecessary and impolite to express one’s opinions about what one finds ugly, particularly when one’s opinions on the matter have not been solicited.

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

      @VD

      I just thought it was a little ironic for anyone who utilizes evolutionary theory to decry racism qua racism when said theory absolutely and intrinsically dictates different outcomes for different population groups.

      “Evolutionary psychology (EP) is an approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological traits such as memory, perception, and language from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations – that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection.”(Wiki but good enough)

      How does EP dictate different outcomes for different population groups?

      I think you are subscribing to the primary definition of racism:

      1. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

      While I am using the secondary definition:

      2. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief

      I’m not sure it is necessarily hostile, but it is certainly both unnecessary and impolite to express one’s opinions about what one finds ugly, particularly when one’s opinions on the matter have not been solicited.

      There are times when people with racist (see def. #2) beliefs do solicit opinions to buttress their own arguments. The outcome is rigged from the start, as in Roissy’s post about BBBW.

      Personally, I don’t see why we need absolute judgments about what is or is not attractive. It’s clear that homo sap has made it this far with enormous variability in what people find attractive. As long as a man has sexual options (or even one option!), and a woman has commitment options (or one), they are good to go in the reproduction sweepstakes, regardless of where others might rank their SMV.

  • J

    @Ion

    Which is definitely ego/power related. If a beta male nerd sees himself as being constantly rejected by women around him, it makes since to project a ultra-feminine trope onto a group of women who have a reputation for preferring him. That would mean he is 1. highly evolved and “chose her” to a degree 2. He is still masculine because the “most feminine women” prefer him.

    Yes. To illustrate, here’s a paraphrase of a comment I once saw on Roissy, “Yeah, I have yellow fever. I love how big my dick looks in her little hands.” If I were Asian, I’d run in the other direction. I hate that people fetishize members of the opposite sex based on ethnicity. Whenever a man has fetishized my backgroound, I have found it….um, what is the word so often used in the ‘sphere? Oh yeah, creepy.

  • VD

    Evo psych is an established academic discipline with many respected theorists such as David Barash, Roy Baumeister, David Buss, Leda Cosmides, Robert Kurzban, Donald Symons and John Tooby who publish scholarly articles in prestigious peer reviewed journals. HBD enthusiasts rarely hold research positions in major universities.

    Even so, I will bet you 100 jermajesties that the HBD theorists turn out to be more scientifically correct, and to produce more hard scientific evidence through scientody, than the evo psych theorists. Womyn’s Studies is also an established academic discipline, as are Neo-Keynesian Macroeconomics.

    Addendum: “absolutely and intrinsically dictates different outcomes for different population groups subject to different environmental pressures.

  • J

    @Say Whaat

    BBW = Big Beautiful Women

    SWPL=Stuff White People Like; there’s a website by the same name

    @pvw

    Glad I could help. This almosts evens the score. You’ve explained so uch to me.

    @All

    Do you think Susan is OK?

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

      @J

      @All

      Do you think Susan is OK?

      Shoot, I didn’t even consider people would wonder where I was. The markets were closed for two days so Mr. HUS was underfoot home! We actually got out for a long walk today – many downed tree limbs. Now the sky is filled with lightning!

  • pvw

    @Passerby:

    130 Passer_By October 30, 2012 at 3:22 pm
    @saywhaat

    Also, the use of “SWPL” above by pvw seems a bit off, since bona fide SWPL men would pretend to be equally (or nearly equally) attracted to black women, even if they were not. Manospherians are not SWPLs, almost by definition.

    Me: I meant it in the sense of mainstream white American culture, what types of women are traditionally seen as attractive, brunettes, blonds, redheads.

  • Ion

    Saywhaat

    “so I have no problem with him fetishizing every now and then. After all, I do the same with his gorgeous blue eyes. ”

    Two people who are genuinely attracted to each other for their differences is fine. In fact, it’s hot!

    “There are people who just genuinely aren’t attracted to their own race and prefer to date outside of that. ”

    To me, it makes sense for everyone to prefer someone within their own culture to a degree, but also find large amounts of white people attractive because they are the majority, men who date white women the majority of the time are not doing anything wrong, or being racist either. In an an open market, to exclude huge amounts of the population is to take yourself off the market.

    I don’t want to summons the Obs demon either, but I only care when men of color try to put out a Obsidian style PSA saying “no one finds you attractive!!! So Join my harem!”, in the hope that you’ll see them as your only option. Abusers do the same thing. It would be easier if they just admit that men don’t like losing the very best of their women to another race (I’ve been told this first hand by some men that I should stick to my race because of this multiple times). Whether they blame that on a magical phallus, or “well, you’re ugly anyway!” or “you’re just a fetish anyway!” the motive is clear.

    “HBD, SWPL, and BBW”

    Haha. I had a hard time figuring out what YMMV, NAMWALT and MGTOW meant.

  • Lokland

    @Susan, VD

    “Even so, I will bet you 100 jermajesties that the HBD theorists turn out to be more scientifically correct, and to produce more hard scientific evidence through scientody, than the evo psych theorists.”

    I’m with VD on this.
    There are racial differences which can be explained by different evolutionary pressures in the past.

    Some races are more attractive across a broad spectrum than others, in quite a few there is a division down the M/F line.

    A very simple exercise would be to use dating sites messaging info. etc. to find out which race is preferred over others.

    Ohh lookie what I found.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/no-asian-no-indian-picky-dater-or-racist-dater/article548736/

    It applies to gay men first and foremost.
    It then works over to a discussion with the owner of some site which discusses hetero-dating.

    Certain groups go largely ignored.

  • J

    @Thras

    I was illustrating a chain of thought I think is prevalent among various posters as opposed to making a judgment on evopsych as racist. But IMO, while interesting, a lot of what is explained by evopsysch, at least in the ‘sphere, can be otherwise explained. “Push=pull,” for example, is Skinnerian intermittent reinforcement; “negging” is teasing. You can apply Occam’s razor to evopsych, and see that a lot of it is unnecessary. It is also quite controverial among psychologists AFAIK as it extrapolates a lot from the behaviors of tribal peoples to the behaviors of people long gone and unobservable.

  • Ted D

    “No emo up front!”

    As introverted as I am, I have issues with this. I think it is partly that I do hold that stuff in so tightly that I relish the idea of having someone to share it with. I only learned to control this AFTER realizing that the male version of a “slut” is a guy that dumps too much emotion into a relationship too soon.

    Lucky for me I found MMSL before my relationship with my wife started progressing. I had to reign myself in hard, but it paid off. It is still something I have to grapple with to an extent, but now that we are almost 3 years together, she is fully aware of my emotional complexities. This gives me that breathing room I’ve always craved without the need to lean on her too much for emotional support. I’m better at controlling it, and she is understanding when I fail.

  • Ion

    “Yes. To illustrate, here’s a paraphrase of a comment I once saw on Roissy, “Yeah, I have yellow fever. I love how big my dick looks in her little hands.” If I were Asian, I’d run in the other direction. I hate that people fetishize members of the opposite sex based on ethnicity. Whenever a man has fetishized my backgroound, I have found it….um, what is the word so often used in the ‘sphere? Oh yeah, creepy.”

    And it’s funny because sometimes IRL and online I heard men who excluded asian women entirely saying “asian women don’t have boobs” “asians are shaped like little boys”, or “asians are golddiggers for only the low-end nerds they could actually get”, and stereotyping asians as being marry-for-pay. All of which made me really uneasy, and I’ve actually told men off because of it, and later felt guilty because I didn’t know if I was “right” to be upset about these statements. They’re uncomfortable to say the least, and I’m always unsure of how to handle it.

    Even more disturbing are the women who are flattered (sometimes “giggling” online and agreeing) with these types of comments about other races of women. I find it incredibly disturbing.

  • pvw

    @ Ion: It would be easier if they just admit that men don’t like losing the very best of their women to another race (I’ve been told this first hand by some men that I should stick to my race because of this multiple times).

    Me: Any woman confronted with that silliness should only begin to take such arguments seriously when they begin to apply the same standards to themselves and their boys regarding dating women of ethnic and racial groups outside of their own….

    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |

    Crickets….

    Yes, I thought so!

    From way back, they could lose me with that mess!

  • J

    @SW

    So, ther you are! Hope all is well.

    In any case, I think Obsidian has always asked the most pertinent question about racial differences, which he supports:

    “So what? What are the implications for policy?”

    Exactly! I would hate to see the best and brightest of any group denied opportunities because of the rest.

    Personally, I support a meritocracy – to each according to his achievements and demonstrated abilities.

    Me too. It’s equitable, which I think is sometimes more fair than absolute equality.

  • Cooper

    “No emo up front!”

    I take issue with this as well. Although I am beginning to see why it is true.

  • Ted D

    Cooper – “I take issue with this as well. Although I am beginning to see why it is true.”

    Take issue with it all you want, but internalize it and live it.

    Let me try this on you:

    If you were out with a women for the first time, and she came onto you hard, would you wonder if she is like that with every guy she dates? If she escalates into sex quickly, would you worry you aren’t the first?

    Same thing for women in general and “emotion”. She is going to wonder if you just dump your entire emotional being on every women you go out with, which frankly just is NOT attractive. It sucks like hell for those of us that truly want and desire that deep connection with a woman, but only in the beginning. It’s OK IMO to want it, but it isn’t something to run full speed at. Remember, YOU are the puzzle she is trying to figure out. Not only will you make her wonder if you are this “needy” and “clingy” with other women, but you’ll totally ruin her fun of figuring you out.

    Hell, look at it as an exercise of sorts. Feed her little pieces. Give her glimpses of your “inner gooey center” but don’t dump the whole bucket on her at once. After the relationship is established and that connection is forming nicely, THEN you can start to truly “open up” to her. It will in most cases strengthen her resolve to “figure you out” and help her build the connection you want so badly.

    Don’t think of it as hiding your true self. Think of it as handing her a book she has to read to “figure you out”. There usually isn’t much enjoyment in a mystery if you know all the answers up front.

    Or at least that’s how I internalized all that. Maybe my view is skewed, but it work(s)(ed) for me. YMMV

  • J

    All of which made me really uneasy, and I’ve actually told men off because of it, and later felt guilty because I didn’t know if I was “right” to be upset about these statements. They’re uncomfortable to say the least, and I’m always unsure of how to handle it.

    I thnk you can logically and politely disagree with these guys.

    Even more disturbing are the women who are flattered (sometimes “giggling” online and agreeing) with these types of comments about other races of women. I find it incredibly disturbing.

    I find it a sign of insecurity and feeling ugly. In fact, I find many examples of collective identity to be indicative of weak and insecure personal identity.

  • Ted D

    J – “I find it a sign of insecurity and feeling ugly. In fact, I find many examples of collective identity to be indicative of weak and insecure personal identity.”

    How INTJ of you. :P

    I only say that because it is almost exactly the way I see it.

  • JQ

    @ Bastiat:

    Thank you. I may look up Homer-Dixon when I get the current reading pile burned down to a single forest’s worth of paper.

    There seems to be a growing set of voices calling for more cautious research and especially more repetition given how easy it can be, especially in observational studies, to perform bad research. This is excellent and hinges both on the ability to better train researchers and to get the incentives right.

  • J

    How INTJ of you!

    Nah, it was perceptive, and I’m an INTP. Unless, of course, you are rubbing off on me.

  • Tiom

    attraction can change with maturity. People get to chose what they like. An Asian acquaintance politely declined my offer for a drink/date as she stated her clear preference for Asian men – in line with her desire to marry an Asian man. Now I have observed the “game” response to this – (frequently used by black men) – accuse her of being racist. Which is absurd – she gets to chose who she is attracted to – despite the protester’s offer to “cure” her of the fake racism charge by getting with him.

    I had a preference earlier and I got want I wanted – aryan looking children. Now divorced and beyond child-siring, my tastes have definitely expanded. My prior self-limitation was just that – too limiting. Too-bad for me.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    I do know what you mean though; I once met a guy with a serious Indian fetish. He was into everything that was Indian, and confessed to me exactly what you said: that he liked Indian girls because they were beautiful, feminine, and tended to be very submissive. I remember thinking, “Okaaaaay.”

    Lol that stereotype of Indian women being very submissive is so funny because it’s so far from the truth. It was perfectly subverted here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8q804F7sZ4&t=38m00s

  • Cooper

    “If you were out with a women for the first time, and she came onto you hard, would you wonder if she is like that with every guy she dates? If she escalates into sex quickly, would you worry you aren’t the first?”

    Ted, the scary thing is I wouldn’t. I complete understand what your saying, and why. But honestly, that whole “he/she must be like this with everyone” literally DOES NOT cross my mind – although im much more likely to consciously do so nowadays. Just like a girl that wishes to take things slowly. To me, that means she doesn’t like me. The idea that this is the way she is with every guy – which would be a good thing – does not cross my mind. It doesn’t.
    Like the ol’ ‘sphere saying “judge them by their actions, not what they say.”

    I don’t know, I’m slowly starting to see that a first impression can give a glimpse to how that person acts toward others, and member of the opposite sex. But I still inherently think that the impression speaks to the partcular scenario, with me, than all the past. Which I suppose isn’t the best way of thinking.

    It’s been kinda hard to start thinking of girls that don’t really seem interested as restricted girls, ones that I may like very very much, other than girls with no romantic interest.

    So to your original question, if you had me go on two dates; one which the girl comes on too hard, and another where she doesn’t. I’d probably call the one who can on hard, and not the other. I’m going allocate my interest where it seems to causing results.

    I know now that the one coming on hard might very well be promiscuous and the other not. But it’s not how my guy works.

  • INTJ

    @ BB

    JQ, I enjoy your posts. Re: statistical methods with messy data…there is a security/conflict studies analysis academic named Thomas Homer-Dixon who looks at social problems related to high- and low-sex ratios in the population, resource scarcities, etc.

    Homer-Dixon has written about the difficulties with making simple linear correlation inferences when dealing with highly complex systems, and how this has created some incentive problems within the social sciences (his critique is not unlike some of the Austrian arguments against bringing a fetish for mathematical elegance into economics). Provocative studies are frequently cited in the media and treated as definitive long before they have been successfully replicated even once, let alone a satisfyingly large number of times. The result can be a wild atmosphere of cherry-picking and confirmation biases run amok.

    This is something I notice quite often when linear correlations are made in social science studies. It’s clear a lot of these relationships are probably highly nonlinear. I mean, I recall seeing a paper make a linear correlation between BMI and attractiveness. It would lead one to conclude that hyperanorexic women are the most attractive.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Cooper:

    The beta orbiters’ milk is emotional, where as for women it is sexual.

    Bravo, Cooper. This is exactly what I was telling you the last time you, me, and INTJ went ’round about what constituted the “friend-zone” for women.

  • SayWhaat

    Lol that stereotype of Indian women being very submissive is so funny because it’s so far from the truth.

    Indeed. I have no idea where that stereotype even came from; all the women on my mother’s side of the family are spitfires. :P

  • Case

    This is the most important statement in the whole article referenced from Scientific American: “…researchers brought 88 pairs of undergraduate opposite-sex friends into…a science lab.” To reduce it to the mosy important single word: “undergraduate”.

    Had this study been conducted of 35-45 yo’s, all the same words would apply but the gender trajectory of every single statement and conclusion would be reversed.

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

      @Case

      Had this study been conducted of 35-45 yo’s, all the same words would apply but the gender trajectory of every single statement and conclusion would be reversed.

      There were actually two studies, and the second one was indeed conducted with older folks, many of whom were married.

  • JP

    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

    >

  • Ted D

    JP – open mailbox

  • Ted D

    Cooper – “Ted, the scary thing is I wouldn’t”

    Oh I understand you here. I used to believe in the “special snowflake” that was me. Which used to mean any woman showing such interest simply MUST think *I* am that special. Part of the Red Pill was realizing it had very little to do with me and much to do with how she behaves for most/all men she is interested in.

    Don’t let it get you down man. It isn’t so bad to realize she is just following her tried and true methods. What’s important is to understand what that means. Like you, I’ve learned that I am generally attracted to women that present a less than fully restricted attitude, while wanting her to have a restricted past. That is: a unicorn. Lol

    So I either get what I seem to be attracted to and deal with how I feel about how she got that way, or start fishing with a different lore. I want what I want, so I’m learning to deal.

  • JP

    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

    >open mailbox
    Opening the small mailbox reveals a coin. It looks small, yet significant.

    >

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    So to your original question, if you had me go on two dates; one which the girl comes on too hard, and another where she doesn’t. I’d probably call the one who can on hard, and not the other. I’m going allocate my interest where it seems to causing results.

    Restricted Girls Take Note:

    YOU MUST SEND IOIS

    The vast majority of the girls that we consider “friends” are not even vaguely interested in us, based on the research in this post. The vast majority of women we deal with and approach on a daily basis will not be interested in us.

    So if you restrain your affection for us, it will be interpreted as you being in the 95% of girls that are NOT interested in us, and you will receive no more attention or investment from us.

    If you want a guy, IOIs are an absolute must.

    That is the advantage the unrestricted girls have over you, even with restricted guys.

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

      @ADBG

      Restricted Girls Take Note:

      YOU MUST SEND IOIS

      Preach it brother!

      +1

  • tsimmons

    On the race issue, I think that you have to remember that you’re looking at it from the perspective of people striving for “healthy” dating habits, where you’re attracted to a wide variety of people, immediately bail on any friend-zoning, move on as soon as you don’t get IOI’s, date many people before settling on one, etc.

    From that vantage point, it would be absurd to limit your tastes to one particular race, or one particular “type” in any area.

    But things look different from the perspective of someone who is a perpetual beta orbiter or who suffers from terminal one-itis.

    It made me laugh when I clicked through to someone’s blog link above and it was a post purporting to explain what was wrong with Jay Gatbsy. (“Formerly, all the world was mad…”)

    I’ve been a one-itis person myself, my whole life, and what you need to understand is that to someone suffering from that disorder your dating advice ultimately can be summed up as “Date people you’re not actually attracted to.” To the one-itis practitioner, it is not attraction and has never been attraction unless and until you’ve suffered for months. If you don’t have a powerful infatuation that is coming close to fucking up your life, you aren’t actually attracted – by the one-itis standard. And this whole “Well, if you’re a little attracted to someone you meet, ask them out, and if they say no, ask the person next to them, and so on and so forth until somebody says yes!” sounds to people in one-itis land like the way you’d hire a plumber: very clinical and procedural and is in some ways a bland kind of Game that is just not speaking its own name.

    Sure, if you’re hiring a plumber, race wouldn’t come up. But with one-itis, race inadvertently comes up because all of the Ones are going to occupy a pretty tight range on the “type” spectrum. If they aren’t all copies of one another, they will share many features in common. That makes it hard for them to be different races. If there’s somebody out there suffering from serial one-itis where the first One in line is Cate Blanchett and the next One is Serena Williams, I’ve never met them. It just doesn’t happen.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    That means smart women may feel free to marry their personal trainers without compromising the intelligence of their offspring, but smart men who marry bimbos will have dumb sons.

    I find this very gratifying.

    I’m not sure why you find this gratifying.
    If women start preferring sexy but dumb to intelligent but unsexy, then why in the world would I want a Smart Son?

    So the winning strategy for me here is to marry a bimbo. ;)

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

      If women start preferring sexy but dumb to intelligent but unsexy, then why in the world would I want a Smart Son?

      So the winning strategy for me here is to marry a bimbo.

      Bah, outsmarted again! I feel like Wile E. Coyote.

  • Just a thought

    No offense Cooper, but I don’t understand. If you are really attractive girl, you will think , ” oh this guy loves me because I am attractive” , but even then he doesn’t know you. He doesn’t know the name of your favorite teddy bear, your quiet, reclusive, study spot or any of your major struggles. How can anyone love you after one date or even two? Love is not supposed to be something you just get, or deserve by excuse of living, otherwise everyone would have non-platonic love. Women want to work to deserve love and man should make women work to get love. A man who simply gives his love on the first date, or a woman who does so , cannot really love you.

    Another thing, I’ve been thinking about. Can I posit a new theory on SMV? We continually hear about PUA’s who are overjoyed about getting sex. However, sex has a low value in our SMV. So, the PUA’s are actually thrilled about getting more of something that has low value. The assumption is that if a woman wants to sleep with you, you can easily segue that into a relationship. But that’s not necessarily true, as even Zack can attest. Could it be that the relationship market and sex market are more separate than we think? Also, that would mean that for both men and women it is harder to find a relationship than to get easy sex. Of course, it’s easier for women to get sex than men, but harder for both to get into relationships.
    Well, I’ve got to go. I’m starting to understand why there are few relationships in college. College is a crush-load of work, and no one has time. I couldn’t/wouldn’t even pursue a guy now if I knew how. Bye.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    ” That means smart women may feel free to marry their personal trainers without compromising the intelligence of their offspring, but smart men who marry bimbos will have dumb sons.”

    Yes, but then you get sons who have approximately zero in common with their fathers, which doesn’t really help anything. (e.g. me)

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

      @JP

      Yes, but then you get sons who have approximately zero in common with their fathers, which doesn’t really help anything. (e.g. me)

      Yikes, that’s a good point. I can’t take credit for the line – that is how a segment on NPR discussing this science ended. I found it memorable, though.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Thanks for the Wolfe – always welcome here. Of course intelligence is largely genetic. It’s also carried on the X chromosome for sons. That means smart women may feel free to marry their personal trainers without compromising the intelligence of their offspring, but smart men who marry bimbos will have dumb sons.

    Except that the women who marry their personal trainers will have stupider daughters than if they married smart men.

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

      @INTJ

      Except that the women who marry their personal trainers will have stupider daughters than if they married smart men.

      Is that true? Last I heard the research only had been done on sons.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    College is a crush-load of work, and no one has time.

    LIFE is a crush-load of work. If you don’t prioritize love, you aren’t going to get love.

    The reason college relationships are impossible is because the people involved have no idea what the fuck they are doing, and are vociferously defensive of bad ideas. They’d be better off building nuclear reactors than relationships.

  • J

    Shoot, I didn’t even consider people would wonder where I was. The markets were closed for two days so Mr. HUS was underfoot home! We actually got out for a long walk today – many downed tree limbs. Now the sky is filled with lightning!

    Well, it sounds like you had a great day, so no harm, no foul.

    Despite the closed markets, DH went into work to catch up on paperwork. He came home relaxed for a change!

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Bah, outsmarted again! I feel like Wile E. Coyote.

    I’m not so sure you’re outsmarted, because you’re a smart gal that likes a smart fella.
    Hard to be outsmarted when you’re not even marrying the dumb guy :P

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Is that true? Last I heard the research only had been done on sons.

    They say intelligence is determined by X chromosomes. All girls inherit their father’s X chromosome (in addition to one of their mother’s X chromosomes). Granted, the effects of these chromosomes tend to mix together, (which is why men have a higher variance in IQ than women), but the father’s chromosome does have a 50% effect.

  • Cooper

    @SayWhaat
    “Bravo, Cooper. This is exactly what I was telling you the last time you, me, and INTJ went ’round about what constituted the “friend-zone” for women.”

    Thanks. Like so many life lessons, one can only appreciate their magnitude after coming to the conclusion yourself.
    Although, to be fair the female version would, appropriately, be coined “slut-zone”

    I’m curious as to people thoughts between friend-zone/slut-zone.

    Perhaps it is my male perspective, but when I read about a slut not receiving commitment, I think “ya silly idiot – of course! What did you think was going to result from giving it away.”
    Maybe there is a difference between the two, cause for slut-zone it seems to have much more onus on the female.
    When I think back to times I’ve beta-orbited, I don’t recall ever feeling like I should’ve known better, or that I was giving something away for free. More like being encouraged to find someone that appreciates it. (Que: “I have a girlfriend you’ll like”)
    I don’t know, perhaps girls go through similar realization, earlier on. But, I kinda wish in those times I would have felt more responsibility for, well, fucking it up. Beta guys don’t get shamed as much as sluts; and I could’ve used it.

    @ADBG
    “If you want a guy, IOIs are an absolute must.
    That is the advantage the unrestricted girls have over you, even with restricted guys.”

    That’s not going to arm them, up against unrestricted girl, very well. I’d re-word it to ‘ESCALATE!’ Far too often I see IOIs described as smiles, laughs, ect. I think suggesting to escalate emphasizes the action required, more so than what a “indication” suggests.

    Now, I completely understand how a restricted girl might think some things like that may be as overt as they feel comfortable, but in comparison to unrestricted-girls’ attention, I fear thos IOIs won’t even come up as a blip on a guys’ radar.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat, Cooper

    Bravo, Cooper. This is exactly what I was telling you the last time you, me, and INTJ went ’round about what constituted the “friend-zone” for women.

    That’s because FWB isn’t directly analogous to the friend-zone. You’re right though that there is equivalent for women, and as Cooper points out, it’s the friend-zone.

    It’s a very good analogy. Guys are told girls want guys to get to know them as friends instead of pushing for sex. Girls are told guys want sex. Thus, girls have sex and place themselves in the slut-zone while guys become friends and place themselves in the friend-zone. The reality is actually quite the opposite of what guys and girls are told. Girls want guys who push for sex, and guys want girls who push for friendship.

  • INTJ

    @ Cooper

    That’s not going to arm them, up against unrestricted girl, very well. I’d re-word it to ‘ESCALATE!’ Far too often I see IOIs described as smiles, laughs, ect. I think suggesting to escalate emphasizes the action required, more so than what a “indication” suggests.

    Definitely! Escalate, escalate, escalate!

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    You’ve come a long way, Cooper.

    Yeah, the orbiter is similar to the slut, as SayWhaat notes, but there are gradations to it. It’s kind of an extreme case.

    Most orbiters, I would hope, don’t really really fixate on a single girl and have intense emotional, lopsided relationships where she gets all the benefits. Even me at my absolute worst did not do this. I’d rather think orbiters orbit a few women, and don’t have the guts to make a move on any of them.

    Similalrly, some women just want a good fuck – they might be messed up in some ways, but, they don’t always do it pining away for a boyfriend.

    Coop: “When I think back to times I’ve beta-orbited, I don’t recall ever feeling like I should’ve known better, or that I was giving something away for free.”

    Probably because you didn’t orbit to the degree I descirbed abovoe. however, in a harsh SMP, simply being *open* to monogamy in concept, can LOOK like you are an “emotional slut”.

    It’s far more important to be withhold monogamy than emotion.

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

    Girls are told guys want sex… The reality is actually quite the opposite… Girls want guys who push for sex.

    How are these opposite, exactly?

    Of course, the inherent flaw in this generalization is the existence of a large contingent of “restricted” girls who completely write off guys who push for sex too soon. I could introduce you to a few of ‘em…

  • Emily

    >> “If you want a guy, IOIs are an absolute must.

    That is the advantage the unrestricted girls have over you, even with restricted guys.”

    +1!!! Easier said than done, but also very true.

  • Emily

    >> “That’s not going to arm them, up against unrestricted girl, very well. I’d re-word it to ‘ESCALATE!’ Far too often I see IOIs described as smiles, laughs, ect. I think suggesting to escalate emphasizes the action required, more so than what a “indication” suggests.”

    >Definitely! Escalate, escalate, escalate!”

    Actually this is better!

    It’s not that the previous “don’t-be-a-slut” advice was *bad* advice, but I get the sense that it’s not particularly useful to the average female HUS reader. I get the sense that most of these girls already aren’t sluts, but they’re still struggling. I think that this sort of thing is the missing piece. That and the stuff in the Emotional Escalation Post (RIP).

  • szopen

    @VD

    absolutely and intrinsically dictates different outcomes for different population groups subject to different environmental pressures

    I hope you would agree to correct this statement further
    1) The gene flow between these populations must be limited (by geographical distance, deserts, mountains, large rivers or societal taboos)
    2) The different traits may be evolved in two different populations even if they face exactly the same environmental pressure, simply due a chance (as it was discussed in conversation about Genghis Khan, i’m sure You remember )

  • VD

    I confess I am ignorant re HBD (by choice), but I don’t see why it should necessarily follow from the study of evolutionary psychology or biology.

    It flows from genetic science. That’s why I am willing to bet it will trump evo psych, which is little more than philosophical exercises. But they’re fun, I’ve even concocted the occasional Evolutionary Stable Strategy myself.

    I think you are subscribing to the primary definition of racism…. While I am using the secondary definition:

    I concur. That’s what I meant by “racism qua racism.”

    Personally, I don’t see why we need absolute judgments about what is or is not attractive

    I concur and would even extend the assertion. We not only don’t need them, we cannot make absolute judgments about what is or is not attractive, since attraction is a form of value and value is intrinsically subjective. We can, of course, make objective observations concerning large pools of subjective valuations, but that’s as far as it goes.

    I hope you would agree to correct this statement further. 1) The gene flow between these populations must be limited (by geographical distance, deserts, mountains, large rivers or societal taboos). 2) The different traits may be evolved in two different populations even if they face exactly the same environmental pressure….

    Certainly. The mutation must precede the pressure, it is not a consequence of it.

  • A definite beta guy

    I had a friend who orbited for years. It finally ended after we startEd shaming him hardcore for it.

    He’s got a nice gf now.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Meg: “Of course, the inherent flaw in this generalization is the existence of a large contingent of “restricted” girls who completely write off guys who push for sex too soon.”

    You changed INTJ said – “push for sex” to “push for sex too soon”. There’s a world of difference there. Pushing for sex means escalating towards sex because generally women won’t do it. They don’t have to!

    Anyway, my experience is women rarely dump a man even for pushing for sex too soon, if they back off properly. It’s not a one-strike-you’re-out thing, like betas often believe.

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

      Anyway, my experience is women rarely dump a man even for pushing for sex too soon, if they back off properly. It’s not a one-strike-you’re-out thing, like betas often believe.

      A woman is not going to dump a guy for trying to move through the bases, even if she’s not ready to go there yet. A guy who expects P in V immediately – or even more common, a guy who expects a BJ on the first night – he’s unlikely to be with a non-slut, but if it happens, the parties generally next each other immediately.

      In those cases, the woman will feel mistreated, as in “he only wanted one thing!”

  • INTJ

    @ OTC, Megaman

    You changed INTJ said – “push for sex” to “push for sex too soon”. There’s a world of difference there. Pushing for sex means escalating towards sex because generally women won’t do it. They don’t have to!

    Anyway, my experience is women rarely dump a man even for pushing for sex too soon, if they back off properly. It’s not a one-strike-you’re-out thing, like betas often believe.

    Exactly. “Don’t keep pushing for sex too soon” is true, just as “don’t be a psycho stalker girl” is also true, but it’s still the man’s responsibility to push for sexual intimacy in the relationship, as it is the woman’s responsibility to push for emotional intimacy and commitment.

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

    @OTC

    You changed what INTJ said – “push for sex” to “push for sex too soon”.

    No, I didn’t change what he said, just sharpened the distiction, which seemed completely obvious to me. His generalization “as-is” wasn’t particularly useful. I’ve witnessed some women taking the initiative also, once the rules of the relationship have been established. Nothing wrong with that. The guys (they were honest about their intentions) certainly appreciated it.

    Timing is going to vary from girl to girl, and the most “restricted” will be the most leery. I’d expect to wait awhile, especially these days.

    But I do love the continued schizophrenic advice around here: Girls, don’t put out until monogamy is clearly and firmly established. Guys, always try to get her to put out and monogamy is to be completely avoided. And never the twain shall meet.

    It’s no wonder fewer and fewer (and fewer) relationships develop through dating complete strangers. The Costs >>> the Benefits.

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

      Girls, don’t put out until monogamy is clearly and firmly established. Guys, always try to get her to put out and monogamy is to be completely avoided. And never the twain shall meet.

      My advice is always of the former variety. There are some DTBs (Dark Triad Bloggers) who recommend the latter approach.

  • Ion

    @ pvw

    ” Any woman confronted with that silliness should only begin to take such arguments seriously when they begin to apply the same standards to themselves and their boys regarding dating women of ethnic and racial groups outside of their own….”

    lol it definitely is really hypocritical, but I think, and please correct me if I’m wrong (INTP in me likes to confront taboo subjects head on for fun, just to understand), that men are fixated with having a surplus of available options, more so than women (and the lower you go on the SMV the more this is the case). Especially if they see other men as possessing something they don’t have (it’s either going to be assumptions of power or penis lol, depends on guy’s background). They don’t like hearing that their options are limited, no matter if that’s real or imagined.

    Idk if I’m explaining what I mean well. An analogy would be that perhaps men are obsessed with obesity even if they don’t date obese women because it lessons the amount of women to look at, because they now have less to choose from (as fitness becomes more rare, the men on the top -both high SMV betas and alphas) get all of the attractive girls, so lower SMV beta and alphas would be more invested in the obesity conversation.

  • INTJ

    @ Ion

    Idk if I’m explaining what I mean well. An analogy would be that perhaps men are obsessed with obesity even if they don’t date obese women because it lessons the amount of women to look at, because they now have less to choose from (as fitness becomes more rare, the men on the top -both high SMV betas and alphas) get all of the attractive girls, so lower SMV beta and alphas would be more invested in the obesity conversation.

    I’m certainly an example of this.

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

    @SW

    My advice is always of the former variety.

    How about advice for likeminded guys? Wait indefinitely until she’s comfortable? What’s the “green flag” for trust these days? Especially since expressing one’s interest in a relationship kills any chance of a relationship, or so conventional unwisdom goes.

    For the record, as long as there’s been initial attraction, I’ve *never* known a guy to be disqualified for stating his preference for exclusivity. In fact, female friends here in California (some still single) have *hoped* that actually happens, and the guy’s telling the truth.

    Some have been accused of being “clingy” for suggesting a BF/GF situation. And 9 times out of 10, the guys (again, dating complete strangers) showed no interest in DTR whatsoever. The subject is usually avoided, despite seeing each other for weeks and sometimes months. The few times they’ve been “open to monogamy”, it was a pretense.

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    For the record, as long as there’s been initial attraction, I’ve *never* known a guy to be disqualified for stating his preference for exclusivity. In fact, female friends here in California (some still single) have *hoped* that actually happens, and the guy’s telling the truth.

    Some have been accused of being “clingy” for suggesting a BF/GF situation. And 9 times out of 10, the guys (again, dating complete strangers) showed no interest in DTR whatsoever. The subject is usually avoided, despite seeing each other for weeks and sometimes months. The few times they’ve been “open to monogamy”, it was a pretense.

    Sounds like they’re perfect examples of alpha-chasers.

  • Mike C

    Some have been accused of being “clingy” for suggesting a BF/GF situation. And 9 times out of 10, the guys (again, dating complete strangers) showed no interest in DTR whatsoever. The subject is usually avoided, despite seeing each other for weeks and sometimes months. The few times they’ve been “open to monogamy”, it was a pretense.

    Sounds like they’re perfect examples of alpha-chasers.

    Sounds about right. Again, using Susan’s paradigm, there is roughly 80% restricted and 20% unrestricted. And one of the defining characteristics of restricted as I understand it is that they are relationship oriented. Restricted men are not going to be reluctant to “DTR” (unless of course this paradigm is a flawed model). So if a woman is encountering this dynamic “9 times out of 10″ then obviously she is pursuing and interacting with unrestricted men for the most part. So the next logical question might be why is a relationship oriented woman mostly interacting with unrestricted men instead of the restricted, relationship oriented men.

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

      And one of the defining characteristics of restricted as I understand it is that they are relationship oriented.

      No, SOI has nothing to do with one’s interest in relationships. It relates strictly to sexual behavior, attitudes and desires, in or out of relationships.

      People can be unrestricted and want relationships, as you describe yourself, or restricted and want to avoid relationships, as some young women and men in college appear to today for fear of losing ground in their achievements.

      Restricted men are not going to be reluctant to “DTR” (unless of course this paradigm is a flawed model)

      This is also untrue, in part for the reason stated above. In addition, social status among males in college depends at least in part on “having options” and therefore being unwilling to commit – which reflects both hookup culture and the lopsided sex ratio. I have shared stories here of guys who had their first makeout session ever in college, then told the girl they were not looking for anything serious. They appeared to believe that the boost in social proof from that hookup would catapult them to the success the erroneously believe most other males have.

      So the next logical question might be why is a relationship oriented woman mostly interacting with unrestricted men instead of the restricted, relationship oriented men.

      The unrestricteds on campus are largely accounted for by Greeks and athletes. As Zach has reported, there’s little overlap between these groups and other students on campus. The unrestricted males don’t waste time on restricted females except in targeting freshman each fall.

  • Ted D

    “So the next logical question might be why is a relationship oriented woman mostly interacting with unrestricted men instead of the restricted, relationship oriented men.”

    because in most cases the restricted men are all but invisible to her, either because of her tastes in men, or because the restricted men are MUCH less likely to initiate with her in the first place.

  • INTJ

    or because the restricted men are MUCH less likely to initiate with her in the first place.

    I think female pickiness is a major culprit here. The rejection rate for men who initiate is rather high. Unrestricted men are fine with this and happy to play the numbers. But restricted men aren’t.

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

      I think female pickiness is a major culprit here. The rejection rate for men who initiate is rather high. Unrestricted men are fine with this and happy to play the numbers. But restricted men aren’t.

      Female pickiness is a feature, not a bug. All you can do is take your shot. If you don’t even show up, you’ll miss 100% of the shots you didn’t take. There’s no reason why restricted men shouldn’t approach restricted women of similar SMV.

  • Cooper

    “So the next logical question might be why is a relationship oriented woman mostly interacting with unrestricted men instead of the restricted, relationship oriented men.”

    Social hierarchy. They have confirmed status among men, which draws other men’s company. I have hung out with players/AMOGs specifically to try to see what it is about them that seemingly makes women tick.

  • Ted D

    INTJ – “I think female pickiness is a major culprit here. The rejection rate for men who initiate is rather high. Unrestricted men are fine with this and happy to play the numbers. But restricted men aren’t.”

    To be fair this cuts both ways. Perhaps women should be a little less picky, but “restricted” men should also get a tougher skin. I’m guilty as charged of being afraid of rejection in the past, so I understand that take on things. BUT, rejection is an integral part of finding a long term mate. So if those guys don’t take a chance, they’ll never win the lottery.

    I’m not trying to pick sides here, and I agree that both have work to do. I think for men and women it is partly the attitude in the West that teaches people to expect easy and fast results that does them both in. Women see “easy” access to guys, but those guys aren’t the ones they will get LTRs with. And men see those guys getting play all day and feel like something must be wrong with the world because THEY don’t get the same results. Both sides aren’t seeing the whole picture. The women don’t realize until sometimes FAR too late that they are pulling cads, and the other men don’t realize just how many rejections those cads get for each “success” they get.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Female pickiness is a feature, not a bug”

    Sure if it is properly calibrated. The issue is, I think many young women are far too picky when compared to their own SMV. If they are filtering out peer level men because they believe they can do better, THAT is a bug IMO. Of course they can pull those high SMV guys for sex, but that won’t get them a relationship. This is where young women need to put in some work. Taking that long hard look in the mirror and realizing your place in the market so they can act accordingly. But the pull of validation from “bad boys” and cads is a strong one, and it can lead a woman to spend many years barking up the wrong trees.

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

      Sure if it is properly calibrated. The issue is, I think many young women are far too picky when compared to their own SMV. If they are filtering out peer level men because they believe they can do better, THAT is a bug IMO

      I anticipated this response and agree with it.

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D, Susan

    Female pickiness is a feature, not a bug. All you can do is take your shot. If you don’t even show up, you’ll miss 100% of the shots you didn’t take. There’s no reason why restricted men shouldn’t approach restricted women of similar SMV.

    To be fair this cuts both ways. Perhaps women should be a little less picky, but “restricted” men should also get a tougher skin. I’m guilty as charged of being afraid of rejection in the past, so I understand that take on things. BUT, rejection is an integral part of finding a long term mate. So if those guys don’t take a chance, they’ll never win the lottery.

    Female pickiness would be fine if it were accompanied with female proactiveness. If you’re only interested in 5% of the opposite sex, you’d better be sure to signal your interest in members of that 5%. That doesn’t happen.

    Also, accepting rejection is trivial. One simply needs to adopt a mercenary mindset towards relationships and consider girls replaceable. The only problem is that adopting such a mindset will necessarily move a person towards the cad side of the spectrum. Basically, unless you’re near the top of the SMP (i.e. Vox beta), you’re going to have a high rejection rate, and the way to deal with that is to adopt a slightly caddish attitude.

  • Ted D

    INTJ – “Also, accepting rejection is trivial. One simply needs to adopt a mercenary mindset towards relationships and consider girls replaceable. The only problem is that adopting such a mindset will necessarily move a person towards the cad side of the spectrum.”

    Preach it brother! I’ve been saying this and similar things for well over a year now. It is forcning otherwise decent men to become more “cad-like” in order to have any level of success in the SMP. And then we’ll keep on hearing “where have all the good men gone” for the next few decades.

  • INTJ

    Interesting to see that women aren’t clueless about guys wanting to be more than friends:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_lh5fR4DMA&feature=related

  • JP

    “INTJ – “Also, accepting rejection is trivial. One simply needs to adopt a mercenary mindset towards relationships and consider girls replaceable. The only problem is that adopting such a mindset will necessarily move a person towards the cad side of the spectrum.”

    Preach it brother! I’ve been saying this and similar things for well over a year now. It is forcning otherwise decent men to become more “cad-like” in order to have any level of success in the SMP. And then we’ll keep on hearing “where have all the good men gone” for the next few decades.”

    Because people are widgets and if one widget fails, just replace it with another similar widget.

  • Ted D

    JP – “Because people are widgets and if one widget fails, just replace it with another similar widget.”

    Well that seems to be the common theme. I personally think it truly stinks, and that is coming from a guy that thinks “people” in general suck. I get the ‘abundance’ mentality when it comes to relationships, but I also think it is truly shitty to be told I should view my wife as completely replaceable. Could I find another women to be happy with? Surely. But I would never really be able to “replace” her. I could find someone to fill the role, but no other woman can BE her, so to speak.

  • pvw

    @Ion, regarding the hypocrisy of men and the “do as I say, not as I do” with respect to dating interculturally/interracially:

    [M]en are fixated with having a surplus of available options…Especially if they see other men as possessing something they don’t have….They don’t like hearing that their options are limited, no matter if that’s real or imagined.

    Me: I think that is part of it, but arguably another motivation is at play: maximizing one’s chances to poach on another group of men’s home turf while minimizing their chances to enter onto yours and do the same. The stupidity, of course, is that women who go along with this in the name of “loyalty” are shooting themselves in the foot by minimizing their own options while the men of their group feel free to maximize theirs.

  • J

    Also, accepting rejection is trivial. One simply needs to adopt a mercenary mindset towards relationships and consider girls replaceable. The only problem is that adopting such a mindset will necessarily move a person towards the cad side of the spectrum.

    Or, you can just accept that you are not everyone’s cup of tea or are “hard to fit,” and increase your odds by narrowing your demographic.

    I myself had to do this. I had a look that was attractive to men, yet I knew the minute I opened my mouth, a large number of men were going to lose interest because I was brighter than they were/had interests they didn’t share. (Or worse yet, they’d perservere in the hopes of getting laid in spite of not liking the inner me). Eventually, I learned to avoid those who would use or reject me and seek out those who would appreciate me. You have to know who you are and then work with it.

  • INTJ

    @ J

    Or, you can just accept that you are not everyone’s cup of tea or are “hard to fit,” and increase your odds by narrowing your demographic.

    I myself had to do this. I had a look that was attractive to men, yet I knew the minute I opened my mouth, a large number of men were going to lose interest because I was brighter than they were/had interests they didn’t share. (Or worse yet, they’d perservere in the hopes of getting laid in spite of not liking the inner me). Eventually, I learned to avoid those who would use or reject me and seek out those who would appreciate me. You have to know who you are and then work with it.

    Perhaps there’s an underlying pattern behind women’s tastes that can be tested for using heuristics. If there is, I haven’t discovered it. It seems like women’s preferences are rather idiosyncratic and it’s very difficult to tell what a particular woman’s tastes would be.

    How do I figure out a target demographic?

  • Jason773

    Susan,

    I believe your account – I have known others who have reported similar experiences. I can honestly say that I have never had a friendship with a male that did not evolve (devolve?) into sexual tension, on one side or the other. I think that holds true going back all the way to third grade or so. Acquaintances? Yes, but not friendship with time spent alone. For me, the study rings true, and I believe that will be true for most people, though there will undoubtedly be exceptions.

    +1. This is my experience exactly.

  • Lokland

    @INTJ

    “Also, accepting rejection is trivial. One simply needs to adopt a mercenary mindset towards relationships and consider girls replaceable. The only problem is that adopting such a mindset will necessarily move a person towards the cad side of the spectrum.”

    Point being what?
    My wife is totally replaceable. If she royally fucked up or died I could walk out the door tomorrow start hitting on women and find a replacement whom I could spend the rest of my life with and be equally if not more happy.

    Does not mean I want to do any such thing.
    I adore her, the thought of being without her is unbearable but in reality thats not true. I would endure and I would prosper.

    “Basically, unless you’re near the top of the SMP (i.e. Vox beta), you’re going to have a high rejection rate, and the way to deal with that is to adopt a slightly caddish attitude.”

    All men have a high rejection rate. An uber alpha jock might have a rejection rate of 90% instead of a betas 95% but we are not talking large numbers here. Game emphasizes selecting the right/most receptive targets and its largely true.

    The reason players have lower rejection rates is because they’re playing to the right crowd not some mystical mumbo jumbo, neg here, insert A&A comment, drop compliment.

    Fact of life, me and bar sluts don’t get on well. Stick me in a party with friends, library, book store or even better in front of a crowd talking about something I am passionate about and me and the women involved get on quite well.

  • J

    How do I figure out a target demographic?

    At the risk of oversimplifying, I’d say that most people end up with someone remarkably like themselves. Since you come from a culture that arranges marriages, you could actually start by asking your parents what sort of girl, with what sort of personality, they’d pick for you. I’d also recommend building a social circle as your odds opf meeting someone compatible within that circle are good. IU realize that it doesn’t sound too “gamy” but it works. Most people met their spouses through a friend of a friend or family.

  • Emily

    >> “Anyway, my experience is women rarely dump a man even for pushing for sex too soon, if they back off properly.”

    I think this is generally true. It’s only a problem if the guy does it too aggressively or if he’s constantly pestering the girl.

    I’m no Game expert, but I think the safest “date night” approach is probably to initiate through each of the “steps” of escalation in order (kiss–>make out–> groping–> ??? ), and then stay at whatever “step” the girl stops you at. I don’t think it’s bad to test a girl’s comfort zone, as long as you respect it once you’ve figured out where it is.

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

    INTJ, here is my simplistic take: before you segment your market and target a niche, you should start at the top and consider the two basic strategies and which one you will be biased towards. Your generic strategies are designed to get past the female’s primary mate-selection filter by brute force. The filter could be called “Stud vs. Provider” and require you to be Hot, Economically Attractive, or Both (and these are relative terms that depend heavily on what other men are presenting).

    If you go through the filter using an approach that emphasizes being Economically Attractive, rationalizations will occur in the woman’s mind that will make you seem physically and/or psychologically attractive. Euphemistic terms like “conscientious” and “reliable” and “successful” may be employed as part of a larger issue with avoiding a transactional, sex-for-pay feel to the relationship. In this way, the so-called hamster is your friend. However, the downside is that you will probably be
    subjected to price discrimination, and this may start to bother you deeply if you do spend time unpacking what is going on.

    If you are able to use the Hot factor to clear the filter, you will access sexual relationships quickly, but may struggle in LTRs if your behavior is seen as irresponsible , unproductive, etc. The same rationalization process that helped Economically Attractive man can now work in reverse, as you are seen as increasingly unattractive in a sexual sense if the woman loses respect for your economic prospects.

    There are pros and cons to both approaches. As it stands today, Hot seems to be the winner on campus, where the relative economic success levels between students remain relatively undifferentiated (but looks are highly differentiated), and Economic Attraction comes into its own later on, when the horse race opens up and some leaders gain visibility.

  • Ted D

    Lokland – “My wife is totally replaceable. If she royally fucked up or died I could walk out the door tomorrow start hitting on women and find a replacement whom I could spend the rest of my life with and be equally if not more happy.”

    At the risk of pissing you off, is this really how you feel? By that I mean, is there nothing about your wife that is so unique you doubt you’ll find it anywhere else? Maybe it’s just me and my dislike of “people”, but the few I let into my “inner world” are actually rather special to me in many ways. Yes, I can find another women to be happy with, and have a few times actually. However, that doesn’t mean that any one of my LTR/Wives “replaced” the woman before her. She may very well fill that role, but that doesn’t leave anywhere to acknowledge that people ARE individuals. I know, “special snowflake” and all that. To be truthful, I do believe in that concept to an extent. We are each individuals with different lives and different experiences. Can I lose a good friend and find another? Hell yeah. But that new friend will never truly replace the one I lost.

    I’m not trying to go down the path of oneitus here, but honestly I can’t see the people I care about as completely replaceable. Ever. If they were that easy to replace, I wouldn’t have invested in them at all.

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    “At the risk of pissing you off”

    Not likely. I grew up around factory workers. My language is colourful that doesn’t make it angry. Read most of my comments as if I’m chuckling and shaking my head, unless I call someone an idiot.

    “is this really how you feel?”

    Yes to an extent. I downplayed the good mostly for getting the point across. I really do adore her, there are statements she makes and actions she takes that melt my heart every time I see her. One of my favourite parts of every day is waking up, making my coffee and letting her sleep with her face pressed into my chest while I read the paper.

    PS I’d probably grieve first. I wouldn’t just walk out the door and get started. again exaggeration.

    “By that I mean, is there nothing about your wife that is so unique you doubt you’ll find it anywhere else? ”

    I couldn’t ‘replace’ my wife in the sense you seem to think. I would find new things to love about the new person. Example, I might no longer to enjoy having a woman’s faced pressed to my chest as I read the paper but I have no doubt I could find something to enjoy.

    I’m not so attached to her uniqueness that it would inhibit my ability to move on. That does not mean I want to move on though.

    You see the difference as the edge of a knife, I see it as trying to fall onto the other side of the Grand Canyon.

  • INTJ

    @ J

    At the risk of oversimplifying, I’d say that most people end up with someone remarkably like themselves. Since you come from a culture that arranges marriages, you could actually start by asking your parents what sort of girl, with what sort of personality, they’d pick for you.

    Well, my parents aren’t the marriage arranging types, but I have discussed this with my mother. She hasn’t been able to suggest much, aside from saying that fellow Asian-Americans are more likely to be like-minded to me. Aside from that, all she says is the usual “things will work out somehow” line.

    I’d also recommend building a social circle as your odds opf meeting someone compatible within that circle are good. IU realize that it doesn’t sound too “gamy” but it works. Most people met their spouses through a friend of a friend or family.

    Yup. Hopefully I’ll be able to build a suitable social circle after college. My current social circle of STEM people certainly isn’t suitable. (http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/10/25/hookinguprealities/the-learned-cluelessness-of-women/comment-page-5/#comment-162507)

  • INTJ

    @ Lokland

    Fact of life, me and bar sluts don’t get on well. Stick me in a party with friends, library, book store or even better in front of a crowd talking about something I am passionate about and me and the women involved get on quite well.

    I’ve seen the library and book store mentioned a few times . Does approaching strangers in libraries or book stores actually work? That always seemed somewhat tongue-in-cheek to me…

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

      I’ve seen the library and book store mentioned a few times . Does approaching strangers in libraries or book stores actually work? That always seemed somewhat tongue-in-cheek to me…

      Yes it works! I would be so amenable to chatting with a guy in a bookstore if I were young and single. Right away, you’ve got smart + common interest working in your favor. Those women are much less likely to be promiscuous, and much less likely to be ultra hypergamous.

      I sometimes write at my town library during the day, and I swear there are attractive young people working there too. They must have flexible hours or be work from home types. It’s a goldmine and no one is running Books Game!

  • Lokland

    @INTJ

    “book stores actually work? That always seemed somewhat tongue-in-cheek to me…”

    Most successes come through social circles, friend-of-a-friend type thing. Thats not so much because their inherently better but because MOST people don’t have the balls to speak to a stranger.

    My father is an extrovert who can genuinely talk to anybody and makes most people feel good about themselves (this one time on vacation my entire family ended up in a bar, we were kids, as he talked to two homo’s (couple) about economics…wtf?). I inherited that ability, with introversion, so I get tired but can still do it.

    If your willing to accept being called a creep every once in a while being outgoing and actually taking interest in others can be really effective at moving forward not just romantic relationships. I knew the head of admission for my graduate program cause I asked a lot of questions and spoke to people at a conference a few years prior until I ended up talking to her.

    Its very rare to have someone put up a bitch shield and tell you to fuck off. I’ve done it once in my entire life. I still feel bad about it.
    Helps even more if you can be charming, naturally or from experience.

    As for bookstores,

    Ohh you read X.
    I’m a huge fan, where are you in the series…

    Thats awesome what’d you think of X.

    Assuming their halfway socially intelligent they should reciprocate and ask you a question.

    Also helps that I’ve never been a fan of social media.

    Note: my social skills were stunted as a teenager. I had trouble speaking to people, period. I just got pissed off and learned how via practice.

  • Lokland

    @INTJ

    “I’ve seen the library ”

    During undergrad my school had large communal tables.

    Hey do you mind if I take this seat? (Opposite corner)
    I always did this to people, men and women, in my classes and would ask if they wanted to work/study together.

    I also had randoms sitting their ask me for help sometimes as well. I tended to generally stack my texts up so people could see what i was studying.

    “Hey your in fourth year would you be able to help me understand X.”

    The intent in both is not sexual but one of actual interest in the other person or a cooperative effort to produce mutual gain.
    No sexy time on the mind. After that a lack of anti-game and very, very diluted game was enough to make SOME women interested.

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

      The intent in both is not sexual but one of actual interest in the other person or a cooperative effort to produce mutual gain.

      You must take this approach when someone is working. People get understandably annoyed to be hit on when they are studying or working. And it can feel like nowhere is safe! But a friendly approach with no sexy vibe is an excellent in. It helps if you’re both regulars and you can arrange an accidental sighting again.

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

    Sounds like they’re perfect examples of alpha-chasers.

    Of the one’s who’ve settled down for the long-term, NOPE. They’re the kinds of young women who had steady (non-hookup) BFs in college, and most of them *got* dumped by said BFs right after graduation.

    I wouldn’t call their current beaus “alpha” by any stretch of the imagination. Those guys didn’t avoid the exclusivity convo (or whatever it was). But it took quite awhile to find them in CA, and they weren’t complete strangers, that was the main difference. The few who’re still single, possibly… they’re low N, but have been explicitly deceived at least once before on the dating scene.

    There are lop-sided gender ratios in every large+ city in CA, and everywhere else in the country. Single men outnumber single women, yet guys in those big cities are the least willing to commit, and possibly the most promiscuous. What explains that, exactly? Easy access to escorts and strippers, among other things?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    It’s a goldmine and no one is running Books Game!

    Sexual zoning. What kind of creep picks up girls in the library?

    It must be a true player. Or a loser guy that can’t pull girls in a REAL place for that stuff, like a club or a party, so he prays on the girls in the library.

    I’m such a smart girl for instantly DQ’ing this guy :)

    I wonder how close the above situation is to reality.

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

      @ADBG

      Sexual zoning. What kind of creep picks up girls in the library?

      If there’s any kind of a leer, he’s toast. She’ll probably report him at the Reference Desk. No sexual vibe at all! It has to be an intellectual sort of exchange to work. Like Lokland suggested for the bookstore.

      One day I saw a cute young guy at one table and a pretty girl at another. They looked about the same age – I have no idea if either was single. I was wishing he would change his seat to her table.

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

        The trick or treaters are so adorable. Two little brothers, about 3 and 4 just came by dressed as “Army Zombies.” They didn’t look any different than GI Joe, lol.

        So, completely OT, what are the best costumes you’ve seen this year? Here are mine, so far:

        A baby dressed as a taco, with toppings popping up around its head.

        A woman dressed as Windswept, with her hair and clothing all starched stiffly to one side. She was also carrying a blown out umbrella.

        A woman dressed at Tippi Hedren in The Birds, with fake crows pinned to her suit and blood all over her face.

        A woman dressed as a voodoo doll, with “Pins” stuck into her heart and head.

  • INTJ

    @ Lokland, Susan

    Cool! I should start running my natural Books Game.

    Thats not so much because their inherently better but because MOST people don’t have the balls to speak to a stranger.

    I’m naturally introverted, but I don’t have any problem talking to strangers. Under no circumstances can I do smal talk, but if there’s something interesting to talk about, I have no problem with strangers. And yes, books are definitely something interesting to talk about. :)

  • INTJ

    @ ADBG

    Or a loser guy that can’t pull girls in a REAL place for that stuff, like a club or a party, so he prays on the girls in the library.

    Seems like something a Catholic priest would do. ;)

    I know, I mix up spellings a lot so glass houses and all that, but I couldn’t resist commenting on the visual picture I got from this! :D

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “If there’s any kind of a leer, he’s toast. She’ll probably report him at the Reference Desk. No sexual vibe at all!”

    I think this is one instance where maintaining plausible deniability, especially as a guy, is of the utmost importance.

    With sexual zoning, if you try to be even a tiny bit sexual outside of a club your pretty much toasted and on your way to prison.

    In the library, if I wanted to see a girl again I asked if she wanted to get together another time to study/work on an assignment.

    Thats actually how I started dating my first gf.

    ‘Hey do you wanna meet up and work on this assignment on Thursday,’ quite a few times the answer was no. However to say that I’d been hitting on her was deniable. If she said yes, then alls well.

    Its essentially like circumnaviagting the sexual zoning laws by making the date invite non-sexual/non-romantic.

    Our first (as in the gf mentioned previously) study date ended up with her on my lap and a kiss good night.

    @INTJ

    Two more things,

    The book store was way more difficult than the library, logistics is just plain hard
    and
    The library also applies to groups of individuals. I was somewhat ubiquitous in that I would work with any ‘clique’ to get my marks up. I was smart enough and added enough to each individual group that I wasn’t deemed a promiscuous user of different cliques. Helps that my clique consisted of the top-ish people in the class and we were genuinely willing to help others and weren’t considered snobs, unlike our competition.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Yeah, I’d have to say plausible deniability is an absolute requirement. Those asexual zones are damn hard to break into and girls seem very keen on the use of this “creeper” word.

    Most guys just need to do the 100 approaches and get used to rejection. You get used to it after a while. Besides going to the gym, that’s game addict #1 that needs to be drilled into every college student.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Erm, game EDICT!

  • pvw

    @INTJ: check out the book readings/signings at libraries and bookstores.

    Look at this: http://events.austin360.com/austin-tx/events/book+readings+in+austin

    It would be quite natural to chat with someone about the book being spoken about.

    I’m presuming that at your university (UT?) there are all sorts of libraries which cater to different communities.

    For example, you have some libraries that cater primarily to the graduate students, others to the undergraduates or to the STEM folks. Branch out and find the ones where other non STEM students congregate.

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

      @pvw

      Book readings are a great suggestion. Independent bookstores are great, because they often have cohesive groups of regulars who come to things, sometimes including book groups.

  • pvw

    @Susan: Trick-or-treaters don’t show up in our area–all the kids are grown up. But I did get into the spirit–I dressed up yesterday in a black suit with a bright orange shirt and black and white earrings, carrying a few bags of candy to distribute to my students. I brought in the rest earlier today for the staff at the Y, especially for their children’s Halloween events. The staff was all dressed up and the children in the preschool looked adorable in their costumes!

  • Ted D

    Lokland – I’d say we are actually pretty close in terms of replacement then. I’m not so stuck at the knifes edge as you think. I was really just looking for clarification on the way you worded it.

    Thanks for the reply. :-)

  • Ion

    @ Susan, the taco sounds soooo adorable!

    Being that I’m 6′ I was going to be Big Bird with a shirt that said “unemployed” on it. Har Har.

    I haven’t seen many kids this Halloween outside, probably because of Sandy, and ended up deciding to stay in.

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

      @Ion

      That prank is hilarious. A lot of children came by tonight and most were adorable and polite, but a couple were really rude. One kid asked why I wasn’t handing out Skittles and suggested I get them for next year. I told him it could have been worse, I could have slipped him an apple instead of a Milky Way.

      One little guy was dressed as a toucan, and he came to the door in a big group. After they left the doorbell rang again and I found him alone, crying. He said, “I never got my piece of candy.” I was reminded of Charlie Brown, who always gets a rock, lol! I made him take a big handful.

  • INTJ

    @ Ion

    That is such a cool prank. :D

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Meg: “But I do love the continued schizophrenic advice around here: Girls, don’t put out until monogamy is clearly and firmly established. Guys, always try to get her to put out and monogamy is to be completely avoided.”

    That’s a bit of an overstatement, if you are referring to me. I say be as *selective* with your monogamy as women are with sex, not avoid it entirely. Sometimes monogamy is a desired goal – just don’t hand it to her on a platter before sex. I fully support men and women’s right to seek monogamy, as well as anything else that isn’t monogamy!

    There is nothing crazy about it. A person can’t be both female and male at the same time.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Ion:

    Apparently caramelized onions are actually delicious!

    @ Susan:

    One little guy was dressed as a toucan, and he came to the door in a big group. After they left the doorbell rang again and I found him alone, crying. He said, “I never got my piece of candy.” I was reminded of Charlie Brown, who always gets a rock, lol! I made him take a big handful.

    LOL! Oof, my heartstrings.

    A small group of children came into the office today to trick-or-treat. They were being led around by this one lady, when we all got into the same elevator she played “Monster Mash” on her phone and all the kids started dancing on cue. It was adorable. ADORABLE.

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

    @OTC

    I fully support men and women’s right to seek monogamy, as well as anything else that isn’t monogamy!

    No, I take your point, it makes sense, and sounds more moderate than usual! Though I’m less interested in rights than I am in *reasons*. Everyone should be as selective as is reasonably possible, but something’s got to give. If there’s no compromise before monogamy, from either party, well, I doubt there’s much afterwards. That whole “gatekeeper” analogy doesn’t really work IMO. The two things are tangibly different, and Susan’s pointed out (and I’ve witnessed) that women have a lot more to lose up-front.

    I’ve just found the advice vis-à-vis men VS. women to be often mutually exclusive. I certainly wouldn’t raise sons and daughters identically, but I also wouldn’t raise them on different ethical planets.

    As if there’s no emotional overlap going on between two people who dig each other? No couple would ever stay together for very long if that were true. It’s interesting, for a site devoted to the analysis of sex and relationships (in that order), there’s very little discussion about that worthless emotion called “love”, which is probably the only glue that keeps people together past a certain age…

  • ExNewYorker

    @Susan

    “First, I just want to say that it puts a spring in my step whenever you come by to comment.”

    It’s been a hectic summer and fall, so I’ve not had much chance to comment, but it’s good to be so liked :-)

    Your point makes sense of course, given the differing mating strategies of men and women. Anne Hathaway is divine, but I won’t turn Scarlett away. The goal is to inseminate, so it makes no sense to be too picky.

    When you get guys arguing, you’ll get a lot of hyperbole and exaggeration (which other guys know to discount). A good example of this is the female beauty thing, but just listen to sports radio any morning to see another facet of this type of male behavior (i.e. Magic vs. Bird was just one example when I was a boy, but when you got down to it, guys would have switched allegiances if the guy got traded to their “favorite” team).

    Also, I haven’t had sushi in ages, and now you’ve given me a craving for Sushi Fusion’s spicy tuna maki, which I am unable to get due to the hurricane!”

    I lived in the Boston area for 4 years, and it wasn’t till after grad school when I moved to California that I first had sushi. One of my biggest Boston area regrets.

    Hope you rode out the hurricane. My Mom’s area in Queens was mostly ok…but it was weird seeing pics of so many places in NYC under water. Hope the cleanup goes well.

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

      @ENY

      Hope you rode out the hurricane. My Mom’s area in Queens was mostly ok…but it was weird seeing pics of so many places in NYC under water. Hope the cleanup goes well.

      Thanks, we were lucky, we had little damage. My brother is still without power in NY. Glad your family was OK.

  • Emily

    I didn’t get any Trick-or-Treaters this year. My flat is weirdly located so I didn’t think I would, but I was prepared just in case. Oh well! More candy for me! ;)

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    I’ve just found the advice vis-à-vis men VS. women to be often mutually exclusive. I certainly wouldn’t raise sons and daughters identically, but I also wouldn’t raise them on different ethical planets.

    You’re confusing ethics and morality. The two sexes are on the same ethical planet. They just have very different morals.

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

      @INTJ

      You’re confusing ethics and morality. The two sexes are on the same ethical planet. They just have very different morals.

      What do you mean by this? Different mating strategies?

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

    there’s very little discussion about that worthless emotion called “love”, which is probably the only glue that keeps people together past a certain age…

    You know, it’s funny, I actually think a fair amount of people are raised in families that are not demonstrative about their feelings of love towards each other. I know my parents don’t say “I love you” to each other, and I’d actually feel weird saying it to them.

    Having said that, I’m not sure my comments really reflect this, but I am the Most Affectionate Person Ever in relationships. When I think about my parents, it really makes no sense, but in both my relationships, I’ve constantly showered my boyfriends with “I love yous” and snuggles and backrubs. When I’m with someone it’s because I fell hopelessly deeply in love with them, and that’s honestly how I feel about my boyfriend. But it’s hard for me to talk about it outside of the context of my relationship, because to me love is such a private thing. I’ve watched people write “happy anniversary baby, I love you!” on their facebooks, and I just never understand how someone could say something like that in such a public setting.

    So yes, I think love is the #1 most important component of a successful relationship, but it’s not something I enjoy discussing in a general sense because my own conceptualization of love is so intense and personal. It’s the same reason I wouldn’t discuss the play-by-play details of my sex life.

  • Ion

    Saywhaat

    “Apparently caramelized onions are actually delicious!”

    Carmelized onions are just fried onions.

    Biting into a raw onion when you think its a sweet apple is never delicious :-/ lol

  • Ion

    Susan “One little guy was dressed as a toucan, and he came to the door in a big group. After they left the doorbell rang again and I found him alone, crying. He said, “I never got my piece of candy.” I was reminded of Charlie Brown, who always gets a rock, lol! I made him take a big handful.”

    OMG. Aww!! :-D

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

      @Ion

      So here’s an update to make everyone jaded. Talking with neighbors in the park this morning I learned that the toucan did that same routine at every single house. He was only about three, he must have been put up to it by his older brother. Sounds like a good way to identify Dark Triad males by age 5.

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

    @IntJ

    The two sexes are on the same ethical planet. They just have very different morals.

    You’re a philosopher now, too? Generalizations like this need clarifications, or they’re just sophistry. Please delineate these ethical similarities and moral differences, in detail. I’d really like to know…

  • Cooper

    @Susan 267

    Lol

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

    @Olive
    Ditto. My wife is very similar, which is ironic as she’s got a sarcastic sense of humor. It may sound trite, but old-fashioned advice is usually the best: one “I love you” a day, and don’t go to bed angry. Works wonders.

  • Ted D

    MegaMan – “one “I love you” a day”

    Just one? Wow, I’m way over the daily limit then. The wife and I usually get at least three in by lunch: one when she gets out of bed, one by text when she gets to work, one when she texts me on her lunch break. And that still leaves many hours in the day. I’d say we are probably around 10 to 15 a day.

    For as much as my family was very loud and argumentative, there was never any shortage for displays of love and affection. We argue hard, and we love hard.

    Cooper – the new pic: FFS how can you be having problems with the ladies? You look like a truly decent guy, and your other pics show you’re pretty damn cut as well. (No homo!) If I met you at work or some other similar setting, you’d be one of the guys I’d break my “no friends at work” rule for. You and INTJ aren’t even CLOSE to troll-like, AND you are both really cool people. I understand just how screwed up the SMP is, but good Lord… Being a decent person just really doesn’t count for shit these days, does it? And I’m starting to believe it truly is a net-negative when it comes to dating and relationships, at least in the beginning. This is really just stupid!

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

    @Ted
    Should have been “at least one” a day. I didn’t want to come across as too “beta”. :neutral:

    For the young guys, being a decent person will help tremendously once in a relationship. But it’s not body armor, so to speak. You’ll have to really search for a girl who’ll recognize it and appreciate it…

  • Ted D

    Mega man – yep that is kinda my point. Even truly good guys must play the cad card JUST so they can prove layer they are actually dad types. That’s just screwed up beyond all belief to me.

  • SayWhaat

    Having said that, I’m not sure my comments really reflect this, but I am the Most Affectionate Person Ever in relationships. When I think about my parents, it really makes no sense, but in both my relationships, I’ve constantly showered my boyfriends with “I love yous” and snuggles and backrubs.

    I’m the same way. :) My parents never showed affection to each other while I was growing up (in fact, there was a lot of hostility). On top of that, the Tiger Parenting method made me really crave praise and affection, and that’s manifested today in my need to shower affection on those I really care about.

    I will say that the last time I saw my parents, they were being very affectionate. It was *very unsettling* for me and my sister. : /

  • SayWhaat

    So here’s an update to make everyone jaded. Talking with neighbors in the park this morning I learned that the toucan did that same routine at every single house. He was only about three, he must have been put up to it by his older brother. Sounds like a good way to identify Dark Triad males by age 5.

    ….

    Remember his face and next year, give him toothpaste.

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

    @Ted

    Even truly good guys must play the cad card JUST so they can prove layer they are actually dad types.

    No, I’ll disagree with you on that one. I think you commented in the other thread that young guys are *forced* to hop on cad pads like a frog, just to get a chance to prove that they’re princes fit for a relationship. Call it free, or taking the high road, whatever you want to call it. Even if you stay single for awhile and don’t get laid, that isn’t the end of the world. There are bigger, longer-term benefits to not compromising one’s principles. Besides, there are plenty of “restricted” girls out there who are in the same position.

    I for one wouldn’t have been proud of myself for having landed a GF through questionable or unethical tactics. Nor would I have been very proud of the type of girl who would fall for that kind of thing… they typically aren’t well-suited for long-term monogamy.

    The best way to assess this dilemma is to ask the guys who’ve tried that strategy: Did acting like a “cad” work get you a LTR? Did it last? Was it what you were hoping for or expecting? Did you dump her when it became obvious you weren’t compatible? Or did she dump you when some other guy acted “caddier”? I honestly don’t know because I’ve never seen it succeed…

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman, Susan

    What I mean is that the basic ethics of “don’t lie to/mislead people”, “keep your word”, etc. are the same for both sexes. Many liberals believe that ethics are all that matter. But I believe that morals — i.e. standards of behavior) — are also important for a functioning society. These can include for example, “don’t sleep around”, “don’t do drugs”, “stand up to bullies”. Whereas ethics are concerned with fairness in interactions between people, morals are concerned with optimizing the outcomes for people. For example, sleeping around might not directly hurt anyone but you, and is thus ethical, but it still might not be a moral thing to do, because it can hurt you and has subtle harmful effects on society.

    Because of the dimorphic asymmetry in the SMP/MMP, moral values for the two sexes are not identical and in some cases are diametrically opposite (e.g. “don’t put out without commitment” vs. “require physical intimacy before emotional intimacy/commitment”).

  • SayWhaat

    Because of the dimorphic asymmetry in the SMP/MMP, moral values for the two sexes are not identical and in some cases are diametrically opposite (e.g. “don’t put out without commitment” vs. “require physical intimacy before emotional intimacy/commitment”).

    I don’t see how those two examples are diametrically opposed. One can abstain from sex until commitment while still engaging in plenty of physical intimacy beforehand. IMO, the best relationships begin with physical and emotional intimacy hand-in-hand before commitment.

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

    @SayWhaat

    I don’t see how those two examples are diametrically opposed. One can abstain from sex until commitment while still engaging in plenty of physical intimacy beforehand. IMO, the best relationships begin with physical and emotional intimacy hand-in-hand before commitment.

    Bingo. I for one have no problem with two people kissing and making out before they’re “official”. That’s part of normal dating, or at least it used to be. It’s getting to 3rd base and beyond before exclusivity that poses a problem, for women.

    But his “this vs. that” example begs the question… if the goal is a successful and monogamous LTR, one which involves love, trust, passion… what are the odds it’ll happen by doing things the “male” way vs. the “female” way?

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    I don’t see how those two examples are diametrically opposed. One can abstain from sex until commitment while still engaging in plenty of physical intimacy beforehand. IMO, the best relationships begin with physical and emotional intimacy hand-in-hand before commitment.

    They aren’t contradictory. Just opposed to each other. Ideally, everything goes hand in hand (physical intimacy, emotional intimacy, and level of commitment). But when in doubt, morals for guys are to err on the side of physical intimacy first while morals for women are to err on the side of commitment first.

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    I for one have no problem with two people kissing and making out before they’re “official”.

    Are you kidding me? They should even be holding hands!

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

    @IntJ

    Are you kidding me? They should even be holding hands!

    This is either a bad joke or more garbled communication. :?:

    Hey, it’s your so-called moral strategy, not mine. When it actually succeeds and you land a GF, great! But my guess is if you’re interested in a “restricted” lower N girl, that kind of approach will probably fail most of the time.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Meg: “I for one wouldn’t have been proud of myself for having landed a GF through questionable or unethical tactics.”

    I agree, but I don’t think Ted mean *deception* when he says cad – just means anything but tradition courting followed by monogamy. Direct sexual interest, perhaps short-term.

    Now, if you think that is produces bad outcomes, then, you are assuming that the women you make your GF, is the same woman that you “cad” with, which isn’t the cade. Getting experience with women is important. Women hate noobs, you need to practice.

    I am not for deception, but it’s nearly impossible to a girlfriend when you are virgin, unless she is 14.

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

      I agree, but I don’t think Ted mean *deception* when he says cad – just means anything but tradition courting followed by monogamy

      I hope not, but just in case I’ll provide a dictionary definition of cad:

      a man who is habituated to immoral conduct, frequently a heartless womaniser.

      I don’t think you can have a cad without deception.

  • INTJ

    I believe by “play the cad card” he means act in such a way that one appears to be somewhat of a cad. He didn’t mean literally be a cad.

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

    @OTC

    I am not for deception…

    Unfortunately, ~40% of guys do admit to being for it, at least in one survey. Is there anything comparable to sex that 40% of women admit to lying about? Forget I asked that one. :mrgreen:

    Again, what kind of GF will “acting the cad” get a guy? A GF who likes pretend “cads”? I guess she’d be a pretend “cad” GF at that point!

    And what if the STR strategy doesn’t lead to a quality LTR? I don’t see how “experience” necessarily means non-romantic NSA sex. Not sure how that actually prepares a young guy for a relationship that’s supposed to last, either…

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    I can’t speak for what Ted meant by cad. But I think INTJ nailed it, adopt the attitude.

    Sue: “a man who is habituated to immoral conduct, frequently a heartless womaniser. I don’t think you can have a cad without deception.”

    The dictionary says “immoral”, not “deceptive”. Lots of people think any unmarried sex is immoral, I used to. Ted thinks any casual is immoral, but unmarried sex isn’t. You think both are ok, but deception is immoral. A big difference on what a “cad” is, then, depending on your worldview, huh?

    Meg: “Unfortunately, ~40% of guys do admit to being for it, at least in one survey. Is there anything comparable to sex that 40% of women admit to lying about?”

    Their true partner count? *Including* oral, handjobs, flings, birthdays, vacations, while drunk, and rebounds?

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

      @OTC

      I derive my belief in deception as a cad tactic not from the word “immoral” but from the phrase “heartless womanizer.” Think about it, what does a heartless womanizer do in order to get sex? Engage the emotions of a woman by acting the part of being equally engaged, then dumping her once sex has been achieved. Deception is the primary tactic of cads.

      Their true partner count? *Including* oral, handjobs, flings, birthdays, vacations, while drunk, and rebounds?

      You believe that at least 40% of women have partaken in all of the above and lied about it? The data doesn’t even remotely support that claim, and women don’t lie about their hookups any more than men do.

      Personally, if a guy asked me that question as you’ve written it out, with that implied tone, I would immediately brand him as a Gamma. (I’m trying to include Deltas and Gammas in the debate, as requested.)

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Meg: “Is there anything comparable to sex that 40% of women admit to lying about?”

    Shit tests?
    Money?
    I have a headache?
    Let’s just be friends?
    Sorry, I’m washing my hair Saturday night?

    No, never…

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

      Shit tests?
      Money?
      I have a headache?
      Let’s just be friends?
      Sorry, I’m washing my hair Saturday night?

      No, never

      He said comparable to sex. For men, that’s commitment, as in the comment you just made – lying about her number.

      Aside from money (not sure what that one means), the other things you mentioned are not lies, they’re just indirect ways of saying, “I don’t like you.” They are meant to indicate disinterest, and are therefore not lying or leading the guy on.

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

    @OTC

    But I think INTJ nailed it, adopt the attitude.

    I still fail to see how this will attract the right kinds of women, as opposed to just being a little assertive and expressing one’s honest romantic interest. Why should a girl looking for a BF assume he’s just pretending to be a cad, when so many real cads pretend to be BF-material interested in relationships?

    Certainly there’s an opportunity cost here, as some significant % of single women will immediately DQ guys with any kind of “cad” veneer (either real or pretend), most all of whom are no doubt “restricted” and LTR-oriented.

    Their true partner count?

    Hey, if there’s a survey out there that came to that conclusion, bring it on! I’m the last person to discount something like that out of hand.

    Though I’m not sure it’s exactly comparable to intentionally lying about wanting a monogamous relationship in order to get sex. Unless the underlying intent was the same.

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

      Why should a girl looking for a BF assume he’s just pretending to be a cad, when so many real cads pretend to be BF-material interested in relationships?

      It’s true. Cads run Nice Guy Game, and Dads run Pretend Asshole Game. It is very, very difficult to tell them apart, especially after college graduation when reputations evaporate.

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

    Their true partner count? *Including* oral, handjobs, flings, birthdays, vacations, while drunk, and rebounds?

    Okay honest question. I have nothing to hide, but why would it be considered “lying” to include only P in V partners as part of one’s N? Do guys include oral/mutual masturbation as part of their N counts?

    Not that it’s a huge deal. If someone asked me for this number, I would truthfully say 4. But if someone asks for my N, I’m going to assume they mean P in V, which for me is 1.

  • Lokland

    @Olive

    “But if someone asks for my N, I’m going to assume they mean P in V, which for me is 1.”

    If you realize the person is trying to DQ you and then proceed to omit information on the basis of a definition your committing a lie of omission.

    I don’t disagree as by N I usually think PinV as well but the fact is if someones trying to decide whether or not your worthy they deserve to make the decision based on all the facts.

    I wouldn’t just deliver a number but a divided set of numbers. Kinda like going through immigration with a foreign wife, we are staying here until this date then here then here etc.

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

    @Olive
    N = 3rd base* or more, in my book anyway. That should be unambiguous enough for pretty much anyone. :neutral:

    * there is somewhat of a grey area/tangible difference, though, between 3rd base and a home run.

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

    Megaman,
    I don’t even know what third base is. I was never educated on the bases lol.

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

    @Ms. Olive
    Sorry, I didn’t think I was all that old. :wink:

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

    I don’t usually subscribe to silly metaphors, but these actually make a lot of sense.

  • INTJ

    @ Olive

    Just to confuse you more (though the actual base definitions in there are accurate):

    http://xkcd.com/540/

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

    Wait now I’m confused. The xkcd thingy has third base as oral only, the wikipedia article has it as oral and mutual masturbation. Megaman says N count is anything at 3rd base and beyond, but I still don’t know what third base is!!!!

    Lokland,
    So you’d give numbers for P in V, oral, HJs, and the casual subsets of each?

    Interestingly I’ve never met a guy in real life who was interested in such a fine level of detail. Admittedly I don’t know very many guys.

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

    I still don’t know what third base is!!!!

    Go with Wikipedia. I wouldn’t vouch for anything Mr. IntJ links to. :???:

    What’s interesting, and Susan’s done some semantic research on this, “hooking up” can mean anything from 1st base to a home run. It’s intentionally vague and ambiguous, and meaningless if you’re trying to assess someone as a potential mate. Which causes the skeptic in me to conclude that it’s the higher N college students trying to save face who probably first came up with that useless term. OTOH, the baseball metaphors are crystal clear as to what’s going on.

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

    Megaman,
    Yes I’m well aware of the ambiguity of the term. But I’m actually really just interested in the definition of N count, as N is one of the primary measures by which SOI is assessed. Again, it’s interesting here that you and OTC both define N as mutual masturbation and beyond, because the vast majority of Susan’s studies count N as P in V only.

    After I wrote above that my “true N” (as defined by you guys) is 4, I actually recalled someone I’d forgotten. This puts my “Susan’s Studies N” as 1 and my “True N” as 5. Not a huge difference but significant nonetheless. So what is really being reflected in the literature?

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

      I have never, ever, heard of partner count discussed between individuals as including any behavior other than P in V. I didn’t make the rules, but that’s the operational definition that is ubiquitous. The famous scene from Clerks pokes fun at the obvious shortcoming in that statistic. Furthermore, I have been present at many all-female discussions of girls’ numbers and even without men present there has been no evidence that women have even tracked other kinds of activity. A guy wanting that information would do well do focus on very inexperienced women.

      In addition, most of the large statistical sources count P in V partners only.

      Researchers studying hookup culture have drilled down deeper in order to get a clearer sense of sexual activity among college students, and it’s most common in studies to see partner count defined as oral, vaginal or anal. Occasionally, studies will define partners as “penetrative hookups.”

      If I had to estimate, I’d say that a woman with a P in V count of 10 has gotten to third base at least that many times in addition. I suspect the progression is geometric. I have never seen this question addressed in surveys, the media or literature.

  • Lokland

    @Olive

    “So you’d give numbers for P in V, oral, HJs, and the casual subsets of each?

    Interestingly I’ve never met a guy in real life who was interested in such a fine level of detail. Admittedly I don’t know very many guys.”

    No. I doubt you would meet any.

    My point is that as a general rule women tend to take a definition of what counts and be very conservative the the point of deceit. Ie. that spring-break doesn’t count cause I was in Cancun and it doesn’t mean anything

    You never see the opposite where they overdo it and deliver ALL the information, necessary and unnecessary.

    This suggests that the actions are conscious and meant to deceive. I’m sure someone will argue that stereotyping and judging from the whole to the individual is bad but it also works.

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

      Ie. that spring-break doesn’t count cause I was in Cancun and it doesn’t mean anything

      I’ve heard this exactly once, and I shared the story here. I don’t think vacation hookups are unusual, but women having them are generally happy to include them in the number for their own tracking purposes.

      You never see the opposite where they overdo it and deliver ALL the information, necessary and unnecessary.

      Of course not, why would they? If a man is asking he’s already tipping his hand as to what the right answer is.

      Women with low N will happily report that (aside from some shame at being virgins) and women with high N will lie consistently. The solution? Avoid women with high N – it really is not hard to distinguish unrestricted women from restricted women.

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

    So what is really being reflected in the literature?

    Overall, no idea. Social science can be pretty imprecise and inconsistent. I’m sure definitons vary from survey to survey. I usually default to the CDC/Census, which has the best numbers IMO. They define a partner as anyone you’ve had “vaginal, oral, or anal sex” with. That’s somewhere between 3rd base and home plate.

    BTW, I wouldn’t consider your “True N” (whether 4 or 5) to be high at all. That’s literally where most women your age are.

  • Ian

    @Olive

    I’m not sure that your actual number is important enough to split hairs about. The spectrum goes from the Virginal and near-Virginal on one side, imbued with magical wifeliness, to the Loose and near-Loose on the other, stripped of all pedestalizations, maybe having real-life cooties. White and Black, everybody else in the Grey, unremarkable middle.

    The question of whether multiple hand and mouth events are consequential, seems very Grey to me. Loose couldn’t matter, Virginals couldn’t ask.

  • INTJ

    @ Olive

    Don’t worry too much about the definition of N. Everybody has a different definition (just look at the disagreements over what constitutes loss of virginity). Though I agree with Megaman in considering 3rd base to be sex, many (probably most) people don’t consider oral sex or handjobs to be actual sex. However, Lokland’s observation is to the point that women try to rationalize down the N significantly, and always err on the side of underestimating.

    As for your own N, you have nothing to worry about. All but the most conservative of people are going to be fine with it.

    Out of curiosity though:

    Not that it’s a huge deal. If someone asked me for this number, I would truthfully say 4. But if someone asks for my N, I’m going to assume they mean P in V, which for me is 1.

    Have you actually been asked for your N? Cause personally I can’t imagine asking for a girl’s N. I would ask a girl about all her past sexual experiences, which is really what matters to me (not a somewhat arbitrary number that is assigned to those experiences).

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Personally I like more mutual disclosure over less. My husband knew everything by end of first month, and he could make a fully informed decision before committing to me for life. I never want to put someone through what my ex did in lying to me for so many years. Besides that I was honest to every person in my past, and volunteered the info without being asked. I didn’t hide anything, and I had more leverage to ask about his past, which I also wanted to know.

    Pertaining to the original topic, the mutual sharing was part of how I filtered from “friendship” with guys. If he was interested in more disclosure and dialogue after I got it started, then awesome. It rarely happened though. Most people are not easy to talk to and keep themselves walled off. My husband and I talked for hours at a time. We still do, when we get the chance.

  • Ted D

    Megaman – “No, I’ll disagree with you on that one. I think you commented in the other thread that young guys are *forced* to hop on cad pads like a frog, just to get a chance to prove that they’re princes fit for a relationship. Call it free, or taking the high road, whatever you want to call it. Even if you stay single for awhile and don’t get laid, that isn’t the end of the world. There are bigger, longer-term benefits to not compromising one’s principles. Besides, there are plenty of “restricted” girls out there who are in the same position.”

    You might be surprised to find that I agree with you 100% here. However, *I* as a 42 year old man can say that not “getting laid” isn’t the end of the world. But my 21 year old self wouldn’t have agreed with you in the least. I was fortunate that I didn’t spend my youth lacking sexual intimacy, but I can easily see that if I had, I might have gone the “cad” route a bit to try and get it.

    I’m a firm believer in “taking the high road”, but I can’t help but question if that is good advice in today’s society, where it rarely ever pays dividends. I’d love for all my kids to do so, but I also don’t want to see them suffer needlessly living by a set of rules no one else cares about. And IF there are plenty of restricted girls in the same position (and I don’t doubt that there are) then THEY need to get a little more vocal. I suspect if more guys knew there was such a woman around, they’d be more than interested in chatting them up. Thing is, I think most restricted young men get the impression that most/all women are more unrestricted, because those are the women they see out every weekend at the bar. I firmly believed I was lucky to find 3 women with an N less than 3 when I was younger, and the highest number was my ex-wife at 2 before me. It never occurred to me (and I mean never) that perhaps it wasn’t luck, but the fact that most women do NOT make a habit of screwing like rabbits.

    INTJ – “Are you kidding me? They should even be holding hands!”

    LOL I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not. But I’ll say that kissing is probably OK in my book. Perhaps a little “petting”, but if clothes are coming off and/or genitalia are being exposed, then to me it is commitment time. And no, I’m not kidding. I put off getting further than that for a few weeks with my wife, and even after we decided to “be exclusive” I still didn’t “do the deed” until we clearly committed. I told her it was all or nothing, and she took all. *shrug*

    OTC – “I agree, but I don’t think Ted mean *deception* when he says cad – just means anything but tradition courting followed by monogamy. Direct sexual interest, perhaps short-term.”

    Yes this. I didn’t mean to imply any guy should/would go rouge, just that most restricted guys (or maybe just me LOL) don’t generally pursue a woman with the intent and purpose of sexing her up. To be sure sex IS part of the package, but I have NEVER once in my entire life asked a women out because I wanted to bang her. Because I thought she was hot? Hell yeah! But, it was implied in my mind that BEFORE I got to see what she looks like naked, I’d have to lock it down. THAT is the mindset that has to change, and to me it is very unfortunate. I simply wouldn’t bother truth be told. Of course at my age, I think most women would be charmed to find out how I feel on the subject. I’m not sure if it would or would not count against me, but it would depend greatly on the woman. Thing is in my age bracket, even women that rode the carousel would probably appreciate a guy that is as “restricted” as I am. My problem would be figuring out if they truly wanted to be with me, or if they just wanted to be with someone, and I was available.

    Susan – “hope not, but just in case I’ll provide a dictionary definition of cad:
    a man who is habituated to immoral conduct, frequently a heartless womaniser.
    I don’t think you can have a cad without deception.”

    Yeah I’m not saying they will go 100% douchebag. Cad-light, or semi-cad. Basically, any “restricted” guy is going to have to act “unrestricted” for awhile, which is truly awful in my book. I simply can’t imagine trying to talk myself into having sex with a woman I didn’t already feel a connection with IN HOPES of making that connection with her later. Frankly the thought makes me sick to my stomach, I shit you not. I’ve tried to talk myself into it many times over the years, and each and every time I get the opportunity, my body reacts very badly to the concept. It is a built in trigger that I don’t seem to have much control over. It may be too much TMI, but here it is: I get whiskey dick without the need for the whiskey. It isn’t fear, it is revulsion plain and simple.

    “I believe by “play the cad card” he means act in such a way that one appears to be somewhat of a cad. He didn’t mean literally be a cad.”

    UGH sorry all. Clearly I wasn’t doing a very good job of communicating yesterday.

  • Sassy6519

    Their true partner count? *Including* oral, handjobs, flings, birthdays, vacations, while drunk, and rebounds?

    Wait, handjobs count?

    If that’s the case, my partner count is 12.

    Adding that I’ve kissed 31 men, I am practically a regular floozy.

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

      Surely dry humping counts? Oh, and I really think we should include those times at the middle school dance when you could feel the boy’s erect penis as he pressed against you. There’s consent there, surely. Boob touches? Definitely, that can cause breastgasms!

      Oh ho, what about sexy phone time? Touching yourself while talking to your bf? Slut!

      Do I have to count that time I pressed my pelvis against Chuck Boe’s ass when he gave me a ride on his minibike at age 14?

      And how much sexual activity occurred with each of these guys anyway? I think women should keep a journal of orgasms, preferably segregated by cad orgasms (real or fantasized) and dad orgasms (obviously just real, fantasy is N/A).

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Personally, if a guy asked me that question as you’ve written it out, with that implied tone, I would immediately brand him as a Gamma. (I’m trying to include Deltas and Gammas in the debate, as requested.)

    Hence DADT.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “The solution? Avoid women with high N – it really is not hard to distinguish unrestricted women from restricted women.”

    I’m not so sure Susan. Perhaps in a more restricted soceity in general? Yes I’d agree. But even you have said that “restricted” women will from time to time engage in casual sex of some sort, even IF that is sex with a man they’ve known for some time. IMO that counts just the same as a ONS. Finding a “low N” woman isn’t a surefire way to find someone with a similar sexual orientation it seems. And, to my comments earlier, I honestly believe that many younger guys don’t even know such a thing exists. In a culture that promotes casual sex SO much, I think most almost assume women are ‘looser’ than they truly are. And, if that is the case, what point is there in trying to find a “low N” woman?

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

    He said comparable to sex. For men, that’s commitment, as in the comment you just made – lying about her number.

    I was think about this equivalency, even it’s not the best analogy. Lying about sexual matters is just plain wrong all around, that’s a Cardinal Rule around here. Everyone should have the right to make a well-informed decision. But consider:

    1) Men: 40% admit to intentionally lying about wanting a monogamous relationship in order to get sex. The implication being, he’ll “use her and lose her” and disappear afterwards. He’s not really interested in a relationship, though he could change his mind, but how often does that really happen?

    2) Women: Lying/fudging their N to some extent in order to get a monogamous relationship. The implication being, she does want commitment, for however long, but has to lie to convince the guy to agree. She may actually care for him, in a controlling, manipulative way. No idea how common this is. Surveys, anyone? Not just how common, but to what extent?

    From the standpoint of malice aforethought, #1 strikes me as especially bad. In both situations, though, “the ends justifying the means” is a very crappy way to treat other people.

    Depending upon how much women revise their N down to appear attractive, is that really demonstrably different than guys “acting the cad”, putting on a front, and possibly fudging their N higher to appear attractive? False advertising is a terrible way to start a relationship. Though I seriously doubt relationships that start either way are particularly successful. :shock:

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I think women should keep a journal of orgasms, preferably segregated by cad orgasms (real or fantasized) and dad orgasms (obviously just real, fantasy is N/A).”

    Wait. Are you telling me that women don’t normally do this? What happened to all those journals I used to see girls with in school?

    Oh, nevermind. I forgot that was before the internet… And now I feel very old. :(

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    Wait. Are you telling me that women don’t normally do this? What happened to all those journals I used to see girls with in school?

    Oh, nevermind. I forgot that was before the internet… And now I feel very old. :(

    Yup. They call them blogs these days.

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    By the way, outside of bars, only 33% of men said they’d lie to get sex.

    Also, according to that book,

    “If they didn’t explicitly tell a girl they didn’t want a relationship, they felt they had lied about their relationship intentions. I also spoke with guys who didn’t believe a girl would ever want to have sex outside of a relationship. These guys literally thought that when a girl they weren’t exclusively dating slept with them — in any situation — it was because they had somehow made her think a relationship was possible. They couldn’t wrap their heads around the idea that maybe sex was all she wanted too.”

    So a lot of this lying is really just DADT.

  • JP

    “Surely dry humping counts? Oh, and I really think we should include those times at the middle school dance when you could feel the boy’s erect penis as he pressed against you. There’s consent there, surely. Boob touches? Definitely, that can cause breastgasms!”

    I can no longer tell what this conversation is about.

  • INTJ

    @ JP

    I can no longer tell what this conversation is about.

    Straw men.

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

      I can no longer tell what this conversation is about.

      Absurdity. Angels dancing on the head of a pin. Perhaps we need a human equivalent of the American Kennel Club. Controlled breeding with papers confirming any and all rutting. No surprises, no bitches pulling a fast one.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Absurdity. Angels dancing on the head of a pin.”

    I’ll lay it out simply.
    I agree that N does not incorporate anything other than PinV, I’ll agree that most men don’t consider much else.

    What I disagree with is the implication that the woman who gave out 10 bjs is equal in value to the woman who gave out none. That a woman who made out with 10 guys is equal in value to the woman who made out with one.

    Not being considered does not mean the factor does not carry value. To suggest such nonsense is an insult to those who actually haven’t as it cheapens their value in relation to others.

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

      Not being considered does not mean the factor does not carry value. To suggest such nonsense is an insult to those who actually haven’t as it cheapens their value in relation to others.

      I agree, and I respect the right of every individual to request whatever information they require to make a good judgment, and to receive an honest answer.

      But seriously – we’re dividing this into ever thinner slices of chastity. How do you separate the women who have suitors from the women who don’t? Recently here it was suggested that women who have made out with a bunch of guys are sluts. I have no idea how many guys I have made out with in my life. Maybe 40 or 50?

      You can have whatever checklist you like, but I think some of the men here are swimming in something the size of a kiddie pool.

  • Ted D

    “Not being considered does not mean the factor does not carry value. To suggest such nonsense is an insult to those who actually haven’t as it cheapens their value in relation to others.”

    This +1. I’d go higher but Susan frowns on it.

  • JP

    ” I have no idea how many guys I have made out with in my life. Maybe 40 or 50?”

    Wow.

    That’s 10 times as many girls whom I’ve made out with.

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

      @JP

      Wow.

      That’s 10 times as many girls whom I’ve made out with.

      Didn’t you know? I hit double digits by age 25! I’ve offended many a commenter at Lackrod’s by not being ashamed of my slutty past. :)

  • Escoffier

    Lokland is right.

    The rise of the casual BJ may be said to define this dismal SMP more than any other factor. N to most people may only mean PinV for now but I wonder how long that will hold. I would value women differently based on their “other” experiences just as Lokland would and I suspect we are not alone.

    Part of of this is generational no doubt. In my younger days getting BJs was rare and basically only a very committed long-term GF would do it. The sense from the vast majority of females was that they found the act unpleasant and would do it only out of a sense of obligation or love.

    There was no quicker path to being judged a slut than to have it said of a girl that she gave one or more casual BJs. Instantly made her non-GF material, though of course it raised her value in the eyes of the players.

    Plus, I know guys who–when judging wife material–could live with a past PinV BF or two but not with oral. One explicitly told me that was his test, “no oral.” That is, no oral in her past. On the question of how he could believe her, he said that when he finally convinced her to give him one she was so bad at it that he believed her.

    Anyway, the modern girl who has several BJ hookups with guys she never sees again, but only one or two PinV boyfriends–yeah, she’s a slut in my book. I wouldn’t marry her or even date her.

    Yet another way all these “enlightened” attitudes are ruining the world.

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

      On the question of how he could believe her, he said that when he finally convinced her to give him one she was so bad at it that he believed her.

      I’ve actually seen this as advice for women. “Do a bit of inadvertent teeth scraping at first so he thinks you’re new at it.”

      Oh, I meant to add: it used to be a cliche that women hating giving oral, that you’d never get another one after your wedding day, or at most once a year on your birthday if you were really lucky or really insistent.

      What happened? Was that always a big lie, did female nature change, or are today’s supersluts just powering through their natural aversion?

      That’s news to me. I do recall in the 70s that men were especially proud to boast if their gf’s were willing to swallow. (This was before the “cum on your face” era.) In my experience, mutual oral was on the menu and a regular feature of LTRs. I will say that it was a very intimate act – never a precursor to intercourse, and certainly not the handshake it is today.

      I don’t think most women do have a natural aversion to it. I think it’s awesome and very empowering as well. Penises are magic!

  • Escoffier

    Oh, I meant to add: it used to be a cliche that women hating giving oral, that you’d never get another one after your wedding day, or at most once a year on your birthday if you were really lucky or really insistent.

    What happened? Was that always a big lie, did female nature change, or are today’s supersluts just powering through their natural aversion?

  • Ted D

    “Penises are magic!”

    Perhaps, but I won’t be trying to pull a rabbit out of mine anytime soon…

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “But seriously – we’re dividing this into ever thinner slices of chastity.”

    Yes so what. The closer you get to the top the more subtle the differences become. Someone one tried to compare the 98% to my 99.5% as essentially equal, I wondered if they’d hit their head.

    Theres no real difference in outcome because they’ve surpassed all necessary requirements but that does not make them equal. To do so is insulting.

    “How do you separate the women who have suitors from the women who don’t? ”

    No one cares what the woman who don’t have suitors do because not having suitors makes her past irrelevant.

    If you mean, hot women get more suitors and have higher N, yeah your right.
    I’m not interested in 9/10s for relationships though so again, nonissue as far as I’m concerned.

    A 7-8 by my observation doesn’t get significantly more attention than a 5-6, maybe quality but not in quantity. A high N there isn’t representative of options but lack of gate keeping.

    “Recently here it was suggested that women who have made out with a bunch of guys are sluts.”

    My wife’s never kissed another guy.
    Yeah, I do find woman who make out with randoms in bars slutty. Same for woman who make out with other woman.

    I largely agree past a certain point any action can be slutty. Obviously PinV has a lower threshold than making out.

    Should be noted, I don’t count relationships or the hook ups leading to relationships. I’m interested in casual only (failure to secure relationship indistinguishable from casual therefore assume worst case scenario).

    As for the bj thing. ‘I gave my boyfriends blow jobs’ is probably a requirement for relationships. ‘I gave a bunch of dudes bjs in the washroom of a club’ is slutty. In between is a continuum at which point every man will draw a line and declare slut vs not slut. Some might draw them at the poles.

    “You can have whatever checklist you like, but I think some of the men here are swimming in something the size of a kiddie pool.”

    Not really. Your views are coloured by your past experiences.
    The number of woman I know with an N over 10 is 2. Both are single and miserable.

    I’ll admit to not knowing the detailed pasts of all my friends but the number of woman in my social circle who’ve made out with 40-50 men is just ridiculously small. Strikes me as an absolute impossibility in a lot of cases. In some cases I’m probably wrong but I’m a relatively smart cookie and suspect I probably got that 90-95% right.

    I do know all of my wife’s close friends were virgins before they met their now husband. She touted it as her superior culture (she told me in a related discussion, I didn’t go on a fishing expedition). Thats 6 including her.

    We’re made up of professionals with a scattering around the average marriage age of + or – 2 years.

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

      @Lokland

      I’m glad it worked out for you, truly.

      As for making out, I never did with a stranger. I’ve been trying to recall…

      7th grade: Chris Something

      8th grade: Butch Gibbons, Rick Kay

      9th grade: Tom Hadley, Tom Robinson

      10th grade: Drug addict guy

      11th grade: Scott Dickinson

      So 7 by end of HS.

      In college, 3 BFs and at least 15 dates between LTRs that ended with kissing. That’s 25.

      Three years after college: Dated 4 guys for a bit, nothing serious. Made out with two coworkers at work parties. 31

      Grad school: Made out with 7 people. 38

      Husband. 39

      And that history is far from unusual. Sorry not sorry.

  • Lokland

    Ohh yeah, forgot this.

    I nicknamed my wife cheese grater, silently of course, for the first few months of our relationship.
    Smart girl, quick learner.

  • Ted D

    This discussion of BJ’s reminded me of something I overheard at work. A couple of women from my office were eating lunch and talking about buys (I swear for some women that kind of gossip never ends) and one of them exclaimed that she would NEVER “blow” a guy they weren’t serious with, but had no problem screwing them.

    I was floored. So, at least in her mind, a blowjob is “intimate” but P in V sex isn’t?! This is a woman in my age range, although I suspect mid-30′s.

    It seems the attitudes around oral have changed a great deal in the last 20 years…

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

      I was floored. So, at least in her mind, a blowjob is “intimate” but P in V sex isn’t?! This is a woman in my age range, although I suspect mid-30′s.

      When I grew up in the 70s and 80s, sex happened once you were dating/going steady, and BJs came after that. They were definitely perceived as more intimate.

  • Ted D

    buys = guys

    Being at a client location is forcing me to use my phone, and it is really getting on my nerves. :(

  • JP

    “And that history is far from unusual. Sorry not sorry.”

    Wow.

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    buys = guys

    Haha. I thought that was a typo of “boys”.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    What’s unusual is that you can exactly recall stuff like “Grad school: Made out with 7 people.”

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

      What’s unusual is that you can exactly recall stuff like “Grad school: Made out with 7 people.”

      I could actually type their names but I’m too afraid they’d find it. My kids hate what they call my “steel trap” memory. The one time I boasted about it Ramble immediately caught me out saying I’d forgotten something, so I won’t do that again.

      But yeah, I have a head for details like that. From time to time I recount every meal of our 3 week honeymoon in France and Italy for my husband, and we reminisce. :)

  • JP

    In hindsight, I shouldn’t have assumed that if a girl was kissing you that meant that they really, really wanted to date you.

    That burnt me once.

  • JP

    I’m an outlier anyway.

    I kind of missed most of the actual human parts of life.

    Yay, social isolation!

  • JP

    I’m actually not certain that my wife even made out with anyone other than me.

  • JP

    I can remember all of my physical involvement (of any kind) with women generally because it involved some sort of emotional trauma for me.

    Intense emotions = better memory.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “And that history is far from unusual. Sorry not sorry.”

    Lol, funny role reversal we have going on.

    Usually the guys are trying to convince you all women are sluts while you maintain most women have a low N.

    Switch topics and sides reverse.

    “As for making out, I never did with a stranger. I’ve been trying to recall…”

    This seems like a solid guiding line. too much is still too much but this is useful.

    Difference between my group and you is that we were all paired off by the first year of grad school to our future SO. Mostly.

  • Ted D

    “From time to time I recount every meal of our 3 week honeymoon in France and Italy for my husband, and we reminisce.”

    I can’t remember what I had for dinner yesterday more often than not. It isn’t that I have a bad memory, but I don’t bother committing things to it that I don’t view as relevant. It gets me in trouble though, and it is a primary reason why I am so terrible at gift giving. I can mention something just once in May and my wife will remember it in November and get it for me. Most of the time I don’t even remember mentioning it, and when I ask how the hell she figured out what to get me she’ll tell me exactly when I brought it up. For the life of me I can’t figure out how people do that. There are just FAR too many little points of data coming at me every day to commit it all to memory. And perhaps a few too many “voices” in my head as well. I suppose if I spent less time thinking internally perhaps I could focus more on the everyday details. At this point it isn’t likely to happen though.

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

      @Ted D

      While I have a good mind for taking inventory of details, I easily get confused and distracted about which points I’ve argued when. I have trouble keeping the threads straight (they’re all combined on my dashboard) and as you’ve noticed it’s not unusual for someone to point out that I have contradicted myself in some way.

      Sometimes people quote a comment and respond, and I’m not even sure if I’m the person who said the original comment. I think I might be an OCD/ADD combo. Nothing debilitating. :)

  • Escoffier

    Susan, you honestly never heard the meme/cliche that most women do not like to give BJs? That one is everywhere I thought.

    That an eager blower is the sign of a depraved slut–that one may be a little less common but it used to be conventional wisdom, I thought.

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

      @Escoffier

      Susan, you honestly never heard the meme/cliche that most women do not like to give BJs? That one is everywhere I thought.

      I have heard it, but never from women, lol. I think perhaps it was true of the generation before mine? IDK though, it’s not like the French weren’t doing this eagerly 500 years ago…

      Among young women, some are meh about it, others are enthusiasts. Similar to how guys report they feel about giving oral, I’d say. I know one couple that gives demerits to one another for small transgressions, and when either party earns 5 the other one gets to have a “special treat.” The guy chooses coming on his gf’s face every single time, lol. My guess is that anal is excluded from the deal in the fine print. :P

  • Ted D

    “That an eager blower is the sign of a depraved slut–that one may be a little less common but it used to be conventional wisdom, I thought.”

    Actually my wife recently had a discussion with a female co-worker on this subject. Somehow they got on the subject of BJs, and the co-worker said ” I don’t do that! I got married so I didn’t have to!” My wife looked at her and said, “That is false advertising! You can’t pull a bait and switch on a guy!” This co-worker is probably in her late 20′s, but was raised VERY Catholic. I recognize the brainwashing in her everytime we chat.

    The next weekend the co-worker surprised her hubby with an enthusistic oral session. :D

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

      I don’t do that! I got married so I didn’t have to!”

      This cracked me up, poor husband! Thank goodness your wife set her straight! One woman wrote to me and told me she didn’t think she was any good at it b/c the guy stayed silent. She was looking for some groaning and moaning as a measure of her success. I said he might be the silent type but I recommended she try the following:

      1. Surprise him early in the evening – like push him down on the couch, and go for his belt buckle.

      2. Lights on, obvs.

      3. Sexy bra, and work in some irrumatio (I had to look that word up).

      4. Hair down and swinging.

      5. Lots of eye contact.

      She couldn’t believe the difference, she said he almost lost his mind. I reminded her that men are visual creatures.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    The solution? Avoid women with high N – it really is not hard to distinguish unrestricted women from restricted women.

    Except for the ever popular “incongruent behavior.”

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

      @Jimmy

      Except for the ever popular “incongruent behavior.”

      Touche, you got me there!

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    Actually my wife recently had a discussion with a female co-worker on this subject. Somehow they got on the subject of BJs, and the co-worker said ” I don’t do that! I got married so I didn’t have to!” My wife looked at her and said, “That is false advertising! You can’t pull a bait and switch on a guy!” This co-worker is probably in her late 20′s, but was raised VERY Catholic. I recognize the brainwashing in her everytime we chat.

    The next weekend the co-worker surprised her hubby with an enthusistic oral session. :D

    Your wife is awesome!

  • Escoffier

    “The guy chooses coming on his gf’s face every single time, lol. My guess is that anal is excluded from the deal in the fine print.”

    There are so many things I have absolutely no interest in, you know, like White Zinfandel.

    :shudder:

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

      @Escoff

      There are so many things I have absolutely no interest in, you know, like White Zinfandel.

      :shudder:

      LMAO, same here. Hey, Escoff, speaking of colons, what do you think of Wolfe’s new writing Tic: ::::::: prose ::::::: ?

  • Escoffier

    Annoying, as is his new habit of repeating words over over over over.

    He used to do fine interior monologues set off in italics without the damned colon armies. It worked, no need to change it.

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

      Annoying, as is his new habit of repeating words over over over over.

      He used to do fine interior monologues set off in italics without the damned colon armies. It worked, no need to change it.

      My feeling exactly. Chapter 1 drove me crazy with all the SMACKs I had to start ignoring them to get the jist of the action. I read that last weekend and put it down. I haven’t been able to muster enthusiasm for it since. Ugh, I feel disloyal but really disappointed so far. Maybe it will get better.

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

    @IntJ

    By the way, outside of bars, only 33% of men said they’d lie to get sex.

    Not exactly a feather in their cap. 67% honesty is still a D on the test. This is the fundamental problem with dating complete strangers these days. I’m going to track down that book, but this was particularly interesting:

    If they didn’t explicitly tell a girl they didn’t want a relationship, they felt they had lied about their relationship intentions.

    Seems like the guys in the survey were much more willing to admit their behavior constituted deception than guys around here would! They didn’t make the usual excuses…

    Honestly, I don’t know you’re so averse to being frank and candid with women about your intentions *before* sex. Even the “Ethical Slut” herself Janet Hardy follows that standard. If you don’t like that simple little rule, what does that say?

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

      @Megaman, @INTJ

      I don’t have a copy of Are All Guys Assholes? in front of me, but I do have notes from when I read it. Amber Madison surveyed over 1,000 men in person. From those:

      44% said they would take a girl on a few dates and fake an interest to have sex with her. (56% in bars, 41% not in bars.)

      35% would lie about their relationship intentions to get sex. (44% in bar, 33% not in bars.)

      87% of guys agreed with the statement that “most guys would lie to get sex.”

      Many guys expressed that lying to get sex is “just part of being a guy.”

  • OffTheCuff

    Olive: “Okay honest question. I have nothing to hide, but why would it be considered “lying” to include only P in V partners as part of one’s N? Do guys include oral/mutual masturbation as part of their N counts?”

    Generally, yes – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8a_-zFBldA

    But this is just a silly tangent. I was responding to Mega’s assertion that 40% of men lie to get sex, and women don’t. Sorry, I don’t have a study for it, but Susan’s given enough examples from her focus groups (either by outright lying, or by using the Bill Clinton definition “sex” — he did not have sexual relations with that woman) that we should see that it does happen.

    You can call me omega or gamma all you want – I was just goofing on the rather silly idea that Women Don’t Fib, but Men Do.

    So, back onto the tangent, cause it’s fun… I think Hope and Lokland really nailed it here. What matters is knowing the context, not so much the number itself.

    Personally, I can’t imagine not counting oral as a sex partner. But that’s just me… I know a few lesbian couples. Is their N zero? Really?

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

      @OTC

      Susan’s given enough examples from her focus groups (either by outright lying, or by using the Bill Clinton definition “sex” — he did not have sexual relations with that woman) that we should see that it does happen.

      I have given one example of this – a girl who creatively whittled her number from 36 to 6. When she did so, all the other women thought it was hilarious and bogus. Everyone called her out.

      You’re not the first person to exaggerate this, I think Mike C did too. Clearly, that story made a strong impression.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, the SMACKs were annoying but overall the boat scene is great. The book does get better, though I am not yet sure I would call it “good.”

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

      Susan, the SMACKs were annoying but overall the boat scene is great.

      Agreed, I was doing my usual chortling as I read about Nestor making his way up and then back down again.

      I hope he tours in support of the book. I’d love to hear him read from it.

  • OffTheCuff

    I don’t believe women are morally superior to men. Or vice-versa.

    Ah! This reminds me of something! You might find this interesting: http://www.npr.org/2012/10/24/163527979/what-we-say-about-religion-and-what-we-do

    Yes, it’s about religion… but I think this applies to sex too. If not even more.

    I immediately thought about your assertion that anonymous surveys *must* to be accurate, because they’re anonymous. Well, it turns out that people lie on surveys, sometimes quite significantly, based on social pressure.

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

      I immediately thought about your assertion that anonymous surveys *must* to be accurate, because they’re anonymous. Well, it turns out that people lie on surveys, sometimes quite significantly, based on social pressure.

      I’ve never said that surveys are accurate if anonymous. Guaranteeing anonymity – in the form of a PIN number or other code one uses online – has been shown to markedly improve the truthfulness of responses. However, guys round up and girls round down. I’ve covered that in detail in the Definitive Survey post.

      Sex surveys are notoriously difficult to get accurate responses for. The best we can do is satisfy ourselves that the distortions are about equal.

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

    Interesting convo (and sorry I wasn’t available to respond until now).

    I really brought up this topic because I’m interested in how it affects the statistics. It’s been argued that 20% of women are promiscuous, and 80% are restricted, based on the stats. But here we have guys who think making out with randos makes a woman a slut. And there’s the boyfriend-casual distinction, which is not accounted for in the vast majority of the literature.

    My point: I’m not ready to accept this 20% unrestricted-80% restricted paradigm (and Susan, for what it’s worth, I don’t believe in the 20%-of-guys-have-sex-with-80%-of-girls meme either). It’s not that I think it’s unbelievable, I just haven’t seen enough evidence for it.

    As for my personal numbers, I’m not really concerned, as my BF has all the info. I really brought up my own track record to demonstrate how different a single person’s N can be based on two separate definitions.

  • INTJ

    @ Olive

    I really brought up this topic because I’m interested in how it affects the statistics. It’s been argued that 20% of women are promiscuous, and 80% are restricted, based on the stats. But here we have guys who think making out with randos makes a woman a slut. And there’s the boyfriend-casual distinction, which is not accounted for in the vast majority of the literature.

    My point: I’m not ready to accept this 20% unrestricted-80% restricted paradigm (and Susan, for what it’s worth, I don’t believe in the 20%-of-guys-have-sex-with-80%-of-girls meme either). It’s not that I think it’s unbelievable, I just haven’t seen enough evidence for it.

    This would help explain why so many try to white-knight for sluts.

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

    @SW (#538)
    Wow, that’s pretty damning, if true. Thanks for the info. I have no idea what the sample scope was, so this could be totally wrong, but I suspect she got a good cross-section of the attitudes of single guys in a large metropolitan environment. Interestingly, those huge cities actually have *more* single men than single women, which always puzzled me as to their sloppy behavior…

    But if it does hold for the entire population, it makes a world of sense when women are extremely selective and make guys jump through hoops before sex. DQing half up front, perhaps for seemingly superficial reasons, seems more and more reasonable, given situations like this on the ground IMO. All the more reason to avoid dating complete strangers. Boy, a compatible, trustworthy mate really does have a high premium these days…

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

      @Megaman

      Thanks for the info. I have no idea what the sample scope was, so this could be totally wrong, but I suspect she got a good cross-section of the attitudes of single guys in a large metropolitan environment.

      IIRC, she went to 3 or 4 large cities. NY, Chicago, SF for sure. She approached guys randomly on the street, in coffee shops and bars, and asked them to chat with her for a book about guys’ dating experiences. I think 1,100 agreed. They took a survey then did an interview, for a total of 20-30 minutes.

      After reading her book, while I could understand the plight of guys pretending to be jerks to get girls, I advised women to eliminate all assholes from contention, pretend or otherwise. The return does not justify the risk, IMO. Assholes running Nice Guy game is much harder to deal with. Short of telling women, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is” it’s a more complicated assessment.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    DQing half up front, perhaps for seemingly superficial reasons, seems more and more reasonable, given situations like this on the ground IMO.

    My guess is DQing for superficial reasons is a big part of the reason why some women find themselves dealing with a high percentage cads… the normal guys are out of the running before they even have a chance to demonstrate their “dad” qualities.

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

    @JH

    My guess is DQing for superficial reasons is a big part of the reason why some women find themselves dealing with a high percentage cads… the normal guys are out of the running before they even have a chance to demonstrate their “dad” qualities.

    I did say “seemingly” superficial. Something seems a little off with “Jim”, DQ him. They could be turning down a decent guy, and that’d be unfair. I know that’s happened to me. But they could also be avoiding a creep, and that’s be very good, even essential. Given the rates of lying Susan quoted in #358, which isn’t just harmless fibbing, I can hardly blame them. I’ve witnessed it firsthand.

    This is a great example of how bad actors have poisoned the well for the “restricted” crowd.

    After all, if a girl’s too trusting and gets played, you guys are ready to pull the “slut” lever. If a girl’s too skeptical and takes a pass, she’s being superficial. Catch 22? Sort of. However, given that most people want to meet (and do meet) their SOs through family, friends, and co-workers, being suspicious and DQing complete strangers seems entirely appropriate these days.

    Susan’s advice in #369 is the only safe way to go for risk-averse, restricted women. It’s also a lesson for the “good” guys. They might get DQ’d just by playing the jerk, or for no particular reason, just guilt by association!

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    Honestly, I don’t know you’re so averse to being frank and candid with women about your intentions *before* sex. Even the “Ethical Slut” herself Janet Hardy follows that standard. If you don’t like that simple little rule, what does that say?

    My intentions? As in wanting an LTR? Oneitis? :D

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    Not exactly a feather in their cap. 67% honesty is still a D on the test. This is the fundamental problem with dating complete strangers these days. I’m going to track down that book, but this was particularly interesting:

    In my graduate plasma physics class, 60% got you an A.

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

    My intentions? As in wanting an LTR? Oneitis?

    Funny, I recall you wanting to cause some “collateral damage” awhile back. :shock:

    You don’t have to wear a sign around your neck. Ever hear of balancing physical assertiveness and emotional subtlety?

    In my graduate plasma physics class, 60% got you an A.

    That doesn’t say much at all for the students in the middle of the curve! :???:

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    IIRC, she went to 3 or 4 large cities. NY, Chicago, SF for sure.

    Wonder how the numbers would shake out if she went to cities like Nashville, Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, etc.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    After all, if a girl’s too trusting and gets played, you guys are ready to pull the “slut” lever.

    I find it funny that for all your championing of women making snap decisions and remaining cautious (“that guy’s a creep”), you seem to think it’s unfair for guys to make snap decisions and be careful (“that girl’s a slut”).

    FWIW, I’m 100% in support anybody having whatever standards they want and rejecting anyone for not meeting them.

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

    I find it funny that for all your championing of women making snap decisions and remaining cautious (“that guy’s a creep”), you seem to think it’s unfair for guys to make snap decisions and be careful (“that girl’s a slut”).

    I guess you missed the whole point entirely. I’m not championing anything, but if I did, given the facts Susan’s quoted, it would be for restricted women to DQ potential liars who’re just trying to “use them and lose them”. If decent guys are playing the “cad” role to get female attention, as has been advocated here, they stand a good chance of being DQ’d too. That’s their choice, however.

    And I have no problem with guys, looking for relationships, to be cautious and careful WRT women. However, if they’re merely looking to sleep with women, and then label them with a big “S” in order to extricate from the situation, well, I don’t have any sympathy there…

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    If decent guys are playing the “cad” role to get female attention, as has been advocated here, they stand a good chance of being DQ’d too. That’s their choice, however.

    The free market works everything out.

    If attractive girls as a whole start DQ’ing cad behavior up front, you’ll see it drop off.

    If attractive girls as a whole reward cad behavior up front, you’ll see more guys start to employ it, even ones who aren’t naturally inclined for it.

    Based on accounts on here and what I’ve seen and experienced … the second situation seems to be the one that’s growing in number, rather than the first.

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

      If attractive unrestricted girls as a whole reward cad behavior up front, you’ll see more guys start to employ it, even ones who aren’t naturally inclined for it (incongruent behavior).

      FTFY

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “she went to 3 or 4 large cities. NY, Chicago, SF for sure. She approached guys randomly on the street, in coffee shops and bars, and asked them to chat with her for a book about guys’ dating experiences. I think 1,100 agreed. They took a survey then did an interview, for a total of 20-30 minutes.”

    That word… random. If there’s one thing I’ve learned recently, is that sampling bias is everything, and only professional pollsters and scientists really have any idea how to overcome that, so that useful extrapolations can be made.

    In other words, this applies to 33% of men… who live in big cities, are out and about during the day, and have time and inclination to talk with strangers about dating experience in coffee shops. Would an honest Megaman even be asked?

    I’m guessing she didn’t visit men dropping off their kids at school, at work in an office building, and so on.

    There are other surveys where women lie about getting pregnant to their man. Huge numbers of women admitting to “forgetting” to take the pill, and so on. I imagine that hits the same amount of sampling bias, too.

    Men and women both lie, when it comes to sex. It’s that women usually have no need to lie to GET sex, because of their market advantage as the “seller”. But it will show up elsewhere.

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

      @OTC

      In other words, this applies to 33% of men… who live in big cities, are out and about during the day, and have time and inclination to talk with strangers about dating experience in coffee shops. Would an honest Megaman even be asked?

      OK, I looked it up. She surveyed and conversed with over 1,000 males aged 21-40 in ten different cities. She specifically excluded college students, gay men and married or engaged men.

      “I set out on a cross-country journey, approaching straight, unmarried guys ages 20 to 45 in fast-food joints, office courtyards, parks and bars.”

      She surveyed during days and nights, weekdays and weekends.

      No one is saying they should make important life decisions based on Madison’s research. Personally, I’m not surprised by her primary finding, which is that many men pretend to be jerks to seem more appealing and “harder to get.” However, I agree with Megaman that it’s a high risk/low reward strategy to consider this when filtering. Asshole behavior – OUT. Unless you believe in the soulmate theory of love (and I don’t) then passing on a few good guys who are running Asshole Game represents minimal opportunity cost.

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

    @OTC

    Would an honest Megaman even be asked?

    Probably not. Even when I was single, I didn’t frequent the bar scene much. Though she did find ~1/2 of single guys who said they wouldn’t lie. I’ve only ever been polled in person at my home, and over the phone, on political stuff.

    I suspected limitations in her methods in #367 (only certain big cities, probably non-random). I’d have to take a close look at her book, but it doesn’t sound like you can generalize to the male population at large. That’s why I said “if” it were true, women should consider DQing guys when things seem askew, with extreme prejudice, just in case.

    However, she probably got a good picture of single guys in those big cities she did visit. S.F. I can attest to being a cesspool of actual dating opportunities. Since Chicago, New York, and San Francisco are routinely touted as “great places” for young, single women to find employment *and* love, I wouldn’t say Madison’s findings should be disregarded, just considered with those caveats…

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

    @SW

    If attractive restricted girls as a whole reward cad behavior up front, you’ll see more guys start to employ it, even ones who aren’t naturally inclined for it (incongruent behavior).

    FTFY? I keep making that mistake myself.

    If so, bingo. Jimmy mentioned the free market working everything out. That’s certainly the case with young, married men (who don’t divorce). I seriously doubt they “played the cad” to land their wives. That’s quite a stretch, especially without anything backing it up.

    Beyond anecdotes (stock in trade @ HUS), is there any real evidence that such strategies actually succeed? Do those guys land quality, restricted girls for LTRs that actually last?

    One thing I’ve observed suggests not really. If real cads are willing to employ some amount of deception vis-à-vis wanting actual relationships (as Madison wrote about), then clearly displaying a cad veneer isn’t all that successful with restricted women. Why would they have to lie and put on the “good BF” mask if women, restricted or not, inherently love cads and are willing to fall into their laps?

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    If attractive unrestricted girls as a whole reward cad behavior up front, you’ll see more guys start to employ it, even ones who aren’t naturally inclined for it (incongruent behavior).

    FTFY

    Not so sure about that… I don’t think many guys judge restricted vs unrestricted very well up front. Especially when they’re used to seeing unrestricted behavior on a regular basis, and know of the incongruent behavior among their restricted female friends.

    I think most are honestly just looking to end their latest dry spell (and I think many would prefer to do that in a relationship, but will also take what they can get). And over time they figure out what works.

    “If I do X, hot girls respond sexually… If I do Y, hot girls don’t respond sexually… I better do X.”

    I think it’s honestly that simple, and there isn’t much more thought.

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

      I don’t think many guys judge restricted vs unrestricted very well up front.

      My point is they don’t often need to, as these populations largely self-segregate.

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

    To add to what JH has already said, I don’t think girls (both restricted and unrestricted) are necessarily rewarding non-cad, “nice guy” behavior. Case in point: my brother, who was recently LJBF’d by a fairly introverted, seemingly inexperienced girl he met on a blind date. He and I have been trying to figure out why that happened, and though her reason was that she “felt awkward” by how they met, I can’t get rid of the nagging feeling that he just didn’t escalate fast enough, however “caddish” it might have been to do so.

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

      To add to what JH has already said, I don’t think girls (both restricted and unrestricted) are necessarily rewarding non-cad, “nice guy” behavior.

      Well, the array of non-cad nice guy behaviors is very large indeed. Not escalating might be less of a non-cad move and more of a bonehead move. Nice guys can and do escalate. There are relatively few cads in the world – not even all of the unrestricted 20% are cads. And lots of other people figure out how to have sex.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “Unless you believe in the soulmate theory of love (and I don’t) then passing on a few good guys who are running Asshole Game represents minimal opportunity cost.”

    The problem isn’t the soulmate theory of love as much as it is the problem of falling in love itself.

    For the purposes of this comment, my emphasis is on “This passion-related region was on the opposite side of the brain from another area that registers physical attractiveness”

    From a random NYT sciency article:

    “New love can look for all the world like mental illness, a blend of mania, dementia and obsession that cuts people off from friends and family and prompts out-of-character behavior – compulsive phone calling, serenades, yelling from rooftops – that could almost be mistaken for psychosis.

    Yet falling in love is among the most irrational of human behaviors, not merely a matter of satisfying a simple pleasure, or winning a reward. And the researchers found that one particular spot in the M.R.I. images, in the caudate nucleus, was especially active in people who scored highly on a questionnaire measuring passionate love.

    This passion-related region was on the opposite side of the brain from another area that registers physical attractiveness, the researchers found, and appeared to be involved in longing, desire and the unexplainable tug that people feel toward one person, among many attractive alternative partners.

    This distinction, between finding someone attractive and desiring him or her, between liking and wanting, “is all happening in an area of the mammalian brain that takes care of most basic functions, like eating, drinking, eye movements, all at an unconscious level, and I don’t think anyone expected this part of the brain to be so specialized,” Dr. Brown said.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/health/psychology/31love.html?pagewanted=all

    Anyhow, here’s another one:

    http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk/archive/archive_home.cfm/volumeID_18-editionID_115-ArticleID_809-getfile_getPDF/thepsychologist/0205tall.pdf

    There’s nothing like a combination of mania, dementia, and obsession to help you cope rationally with the world.

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

    Well, the array of non-cad nice guy behaviors is very large indeed. Not escalating might be less of a non-cad move and more of a bonehead move.

    For a guy who hasn’t ever kissed a girl, calling it a “bonehead” move is a little harsh. He’s shy. But, I think that’s exactly why many “nice guys” are disqualified… they’re inexperienced, or they have this idea that they need some signal from the girl before they have permission to get physical.

    And by the time he felt it really was time to escalate, he told me he had the feeling she could sense his intentions, and was recoiling. I wonder how that would have been different if he’d started out bold on their first date.

    There are relatively few cads in the world – not even all of the unrestricted 20% are cads.

    Okay, but you just got done giving the stats about the percentage of guys using caddish behavior to get sex, and they weren’t exactly low.

    My point is, for a nice guy, it really would not hurt him to err on the side of “pushy.” You have to consider his starting point, which is all about waiting for some special signal that isn’t going to come.

    There really are a lot of good dudes–like Cooper, like INTJ, like my brother–who can barely get one foot in the door. Telling them “don’t act like an asshole!” is kind of like throwing a gallon of water on a tiny flower after a big rain. It’s just not necessary.

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

      @Olive

      There really are a lot of good dudes–like Cooper, like INTJ, like my brother–who can barely get one foot in the door. Telling them “don’t act like an asshole!” is kind of like throwing a gallon of water on a tiny flower after a big rain. It’s just not necessary.

      Agreed, which is why I spend a fair amount of time telling them to stop jumping the gun emotionally and to start distancing themselves.

      I’m not sure what we’re debating – it seems like we’re saying the same thing.

      I don’t know how old your brother is, but if he’s over 17 and he’s never kissed a girl, I’d say introduce him to Game. Until he gets a better sense of how to calibrate and escalate, he’s going to keep getting blown out. Personally, I would recommend always going for the kiss close on the first date. No woman would hold that against a guy – there is no percentage in waiting.

      However, I don’t think any of this comes anywhere close to being caddish or asshole behavior. It’s confident behavior, and that is something very different.

  • HanSolo

    @Olive

    they have this idea that they need some signal from the girl before they have permission to get physical

    The nice guys have taken to heart that a woman should not be harassed or pressured sexually and so they don’t escalate as much. This is an example of the message that the cads need and don’t listen to is being heard by the “dad” types that don’t need it.

  • Lokland

    @Olive

    “For a guy who hasn’t ever kissed a girl, calling it a “bonehead” move is a little harsh. He’s shy. But, I think that’s exactly why many “nice guys” are disqualified… they’re inexperienced, or they have this idea that they need some signal from the girl before they have permission to get physical.”

    Stop being ridiculous.
    Obviously a man with no experience is expected to come out of the box swinging like Casanova.

    Of course, this tends to cause DQ of all but the hardcore players.

    Feature not bug… for the guy who got DQ’d.
    Every woman who rejects you because you weren’t willing to grab her tits on the first date is probably one less time you’ll get cheated on.

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

      Every woman who rejects you because you weren’t willing to grab her tits on the first date is probably one less time you’ll get cheated on.

      Grab her tits? I thought we were talking about a kiss. Doesn’t that seem like a reasonable place to start?

  • JP

    “I don’t know how old your brother is, but if he’s over 17 and he’s never kissed a girl, I’d say introduce him to Game. Until he gets a better sense of how to calibrate and escalate, he’s going to keep getting blown out. ”

    Or just wait for a girl to fling herself at him, so to speak.

    That works too.

    In fact, that’s why my dating success rate is 130%. Meaning that every time I’ve asked a girl out, she’s gone out with me and become my girlfriend. It’s over 100% to take into account the times I’ve been on dates without realizing it and the times the girl thought she was my girlfriend but I didn’t think so.

  • Iggles

    @ SW:

    Agreed, which is why I spend a fair amount of time telling them to stop jumping the gun emotionally and to start distancing themselves.

    +1

    There’s no need to act like an asshole or cad if they follow these directions. Being assertive will win over supplicating every time.

    Women want men with a backbone, which is why given the choice of asshole or chump, they will choose the asshole. Hence all “nice guysTM” see are assholes getting the girl. But there’s a better way..

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Ig: “But there’s a better way.”

    Better for who? Why should a young man inves the effort in *not* being an asshole, from his perspective? Calibration is tough, and every woman is different – what you consider assertive, a church girl might consider “asshole”.

    Oh, and good post, Olive. It’s nice to see someone sticking for a inexperienced kid, rather than just making fun of him. He needs to know that’s how women see him (bonehead), and that you’re on his side, but no other women are.

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

      He needs to know that’s how women see him (bonehead), and that you’re on his side, but no other women are.

      Correct, girls he’s going on a blind date with are not “on his side.” This is the sexual marketplace we are talking about. Surely the pain of watching a young woman recoil from you is unpleasant enough that practical solutions are higher on his list of priorities than empathy from strangers.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Grab her tits? I thought we were talking about a kiss. Doesn’t that seem like a reasonable place to start?”

    Tongue in cheek.

    Just pointing out the literal punishement men go trhough for not being experienced or unsure of themeselves even slightly.

    If you DQ everyone who shows even a hint of hesitation all that will make it through are those with extreme confidence.

    Most women aren’t that bad obvs.

    But when your new they sure as hell all seem like it.

    As for Olives brother.
    I agree, kiss close to any date is pretty much a minimum requirement.

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland and any guys

    I agree, kiss close to any date is pretty much a minimum requirement.

    I have no idea how many girls I’ve kissed–well over 100 and probably closer to 200–but I still have trouble believing that I should kiss on any first date I go on because I really look for that willingness from the girl and sometimes they just don’t show it, lol. There have been some times where I was shot down but probably more times where it worked. I guess what I have found works is to slowly escalate by getting close and cuddling and then you can kiss their cheek and ear and then move over. That way it makes the going for the lips seem less extreme and if they’re not into the kiss they don’t respond so well to the kiss on the cheek. Some girls have been a little not so into kissing right at that moment but then 10 minutes later have warmed up. Sometimes I just go for it too and it has surprised me when they do too–lol–because they didn’t seem to be showing any overt desire to kiss me. And there have been a few times where they didn’t want to and that sucks but so be it.

    I think I just need to internalize more that I’m going to escalate in an effective way and then go for a kiss on the first date always, unless I don’t like them or I get a clear indication not to. Instead of looking for a signal to kiss, I’ll assume that I should and only heed a clear signal not to kiss. Even with a quite high kiss N I still have a huge angst against making a move unless I’m receiving clear signals from the girl. But, just gotta realize it’s better to be shot down for being too bold than for not being bold enough.

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

      But, just gotta realize it’s better to be shot down for being too bold than for not being bold enough.

      Much better. Here’s the way women look at it:

      If we are feeling attracted to you, we want to kiss you. If you kiss us with confidence and even boldness (none of this moving over from cheek and ear), it’s a turnon and our attraction to you increases. If you kiss us but we can tell your nervous, that’s OK, and may even be a plus depending on the girl (I know one girl who fell for a guy when she saw his hands trembling as he moved in for the kiss). If you fail to kiss us, we’re disappointed, and we assume that either you are not attracted to us, or that you are terrified to make a move. Both are obviously bad for attraction.

      If we are not feeling attracted to you, we do not want to kiss you. We will either recoil or give a halfhearted kiss. The relationship is going nowhere.

      No woman (unless she’s in a religious sect) feels that an attempt to kiss her is disrespectful.

      There is no penalty to going for the kiss. It’s all upside.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Uh, of course don’t expect women on the date to be on his side. More of the “don’t take advice from women” variet”. Clearly he confided in his sister, and he’s lucky she didn’t call him a bonehead for he crime of being inexperienced.

  • J

    “Penises are magic!”….Perhaps, but I won’t be trying to pull a rabbit out of mine anytime soon.

    You slay me, Ted.

  • Mike C

    But, just gotta realize it’s better to be shot down for being too bold than for not being bold enough.

    So true. It is important that this message get delivered and reinforced young. I think I’d argue that boldness is one of the key components of masculinity. Unfortunately, I think culture has often promoted a message of tentativeness and hesitation.

    I have no idea how many girls I’ve kissed–well over 100 and probably closer to 200–

    Wow. That is impressive. Hard to remember exactly, but I’m guessing I’d be 1/4 of that number. Trying to recall, but I’d guess I’ve probably kissed 4 to 5 times more girls from just being out at dance clubs, both of us were buzzed, and start making out on the dance floor or in the club than actual end of night proper dates.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Susan

    However, I don’t think any of this comes anywhere close to being caddish or asshole behavior. It’s confident behavior, and that is something very different.

    Yes, but we were not educated to see the difference. All we heard was “oh my god, guys are such jerks!” and, in our almost infinite honor, we resolved not to be a “jerk.”

    Rarely did anyone ever explain what this “jerk” behavior was, except that it was made pretty clear it had SOMETHING to do with pressuring girls into sex or sexual things, so we don’t do that. At all.

    Because that’s what jerks do.

    This is a message so heavily internalized it STILL runs through most of our heads, I imagine. I’ve tried for YEARS to kick it out and it’s still there, running all the time.

  • HanSolo

    @Mike C

    I have probably one kissed maybe 2 or 3 girls in a club/bar since I rarely go to them and don’t have the best loud-environment game. One of these girls was drunk but she grabbed me and a few minutes in started making out with me to make her ex-bf jealous who was in the club with another girl. I think she’s the only drunk girl I’ve ever kissed and I’ve never had sex with a drunk girl. Since I don’t drink they tend not to or, in the few times they did drink, at most have 1 or 2 drinks and that’s it.

    My point of saying that I have kissed a lot of girls was that even after having a fair amount of experience I still have that visceral caution and fear of having her think I’m a pervert and not wanting to see me again. That fear is less than before, especially when I was a Mormon and the idea of kissing w/o commitment was viewed by many as a sin. As I started to stray into more libertine paths I had a couple of Mormon girls freak out at me after we had kissed and they were shocked that we weren’t automatically bf/gf because they assumed that.

    The interesting thing amongst faithful single Mormons is that kissing is the equivalent of sex. That’s the farthest a righteous single Mormon will go, and it should only be done in or leading to a committed relationship. NCMO (non-committal makeout) is viewed as very sketchy and even sinful by some. And even passionate kissing before marriage is frowned upon by some of the Church leaders though most of the single Mormons don’t buy into that.

  • HanSolo

    I have probably only* kissed

    *instead of one

  • HanSolo

    I remember learning that girls liked kissing in my late 20′s when my N_kiss=3 (including me) gf would not come up for air and my (N_kiss=13) lips would get sore and I’d have to–she was a nuclear submarine and I was a diesel!

    I had been so brainwashed that women didn’t like kissing that much (except maybe if they really loved you) by tv and church and school that it was a real eye-opener.

  • Mike C

    The interesting thing amongst faithful single Mormons is that kissing is the equivalent of sex. That’s the farthest a righteous single Mormon will go, and it should only be done in or leading to a committed relationship. NCMO (non-committal makeout) is viewed as very sketchy and even sinful by some. And even passionate kissing before marriage is frowned upon by some of the Church leaders though most of the single Mormons don’t buy into that.

    The other interesting there is that they would have a totally different take on the whole restricted versus unrestricted paradigm since they would see anyone who has engaged in passionate kissing as “unrestricted” behavior. My point there is a model is only relevant against the norms of a particular group. I think there is some value in that particular model but the more it becomes a binary classification scheme the more it is misleading.

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

      The other interesting there is that they would have a totally different take on the whole restricted versus unrestricted paradigm since they would see anyone who has engaged in passionate kissing as “unrestricted” behavior. My point there is a model is only relevant against the norms of a particular group. I think there is some value in that particular model but the more it becomes a binary classification scheme the more it is misleading.

      The SOI is designed to measure attitudes about sex, and culture plays a large role. It doesn’t matter what someone would do “in the wild,” the point is to study what people are actually doing. However, the fantasy or desire portion of the instrument effectively captures the biological aspect, so a Mormon may have a very unrestricted score on that portion of the test.

      The classification scheme is not binary – that’s just a semantics issue like alpha/beta.

      The SOI has been found to be statistically valid and reliable in 48 countries, among all ages, and all sexual orientations. Two groups that it is less reliable for, not surprisingly, are asexuals and the sexually inexperienced.

  • HanSolo

    @Mike C

    Yeah, my views of an acceptable N and behavior changed quite a bit, before and after leaving the church. Before, I would have seen a bit of NCMO as fine and could have even forgiven an N of 1 for a Mormon girl and probably a handful if she were a convert but beyond that I wouldn’t have felt good about it. Now my N-threshold is quite a bit higher.

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

    I don’t have much to add, since ADBG pretty much hit the nail on the head. My brother is 21, and while I would not feel right introducing him to Game (I have no firsthand experience with it, I’ve only read about it/I’m a girl) I’ve considered sending him to this area of the internet. He really looks down on guys who he perceives to spend their whole lives figuring out new ways to get laid, so I probably won’t direct him towards Roissy. I also won’t be sending him here… I’ve written too much about myself lol.

  • INTJ

    I remember learning that girls liked kissing in my late 20′s when my N_kiss=3 (including me) gf would not come up for air and my (N_kiss=13) lips would get sore and I’d have to–she was a nuclear submarine and I was a diesel!

    ROFL. Guess you didn’t have air-independent-propulsion back then. :D

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

    @Ms. Olive

    To add to what JH has already said, I don’t think girls (both restricted and unrestricted) are necessarily rewarding non-cad, “nice guy” behavior.

    Well, you’ve chosen one, and so has Ms. SayWhaat and a number of other women around here. And restricted women are marrying them, by and large. And not divorcing them, by and large. That’s the ultimate reward IMO. But dating is certainly a challenge, for restricted folks male or female. I have my theories on why…

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    Yeah, I was like a fucking U-boat!

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

    Megaman,
    My boyfriend is a classic nice guy, like my brother, in that he hesitated to escalate physically, but opened up emotionally almost immediately. Our relationship is unusual in that I did all the physical escalating, and that I actually like feeling emotionally close to someone very quickly like that (our facebook messages from the beginning were off the wall). Also, we are the result of a ONS-like situation (we didn’t have sex, but we got very physical the first night, and we met in a bar, both drunk). Finally, my boyfriend has little to no prior experience with women. He kissed one person before me, and he had a “fake girlfriend” in 9th grade.

    I’d wager money that very few women would have gone for him without DQ’ing him very quickly. In fact, he told me that before me, he’d always been the guy stuck in the friend zone.

  • Emily

    >> “I don’t think many guys judge restricted vs unrestricted very well up front. Especially when they’re used to seeing unrestricted behavior on a regular basis, and know of the incongruent behavior among their restricted female friends.”

    I think that in general, people are a lot better at judging their own gender.

    So if a frat boy pulls “Fake Boyfriend Game” on a naive freshmen, she’ll honestly think that he’s a nice guy, even though her beta orbiter will instantly know that the guy is a jerk.

    Meanwhile, girls are a *lot* better at spotting sluts/bitches/drama queens than guys are.

    Some of this is a tendency on both sides to hamster-rationalize/justify bad decisions because the person is really hot, but I think there are also a lot of situations where people honestly have NO CLUE that the other person is bad news.

  • INTJ

    @ Emily

    Some of this is a tendency on both sides to hamster-rationalize/justify bad decisions because the person is really hot

    I think that it’s also due to an action deficit on the part of restricted people. The cads do perhaps 90% of the required work of approaching and showing interest. The nice guys do perhaps 30% of the necessary work. Meanwhile, sluts do perhaps 80% of the necessary work while good girls do 10% of the necessary work. Thus, the good guys and girls are incapable of meeting each other in the middle, causing them to get paired up with cads and sluts who are sufficiently proactive.

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

      The cads do perhaps 90% of the required work of approaching and showing interest. The nice guys do perhaps 30% of the necessary work. Meanwhile, sluts do perhaps 80% of the necessary work while good girls do 10% of the necessary work. Thus, the good guys and girls are incapable of meeting each other in the middle, causing them to get paired up with cads and sluts who are sufficiently proactive.

      This is a good summary of the dynamic, though I’m not sure how successful those “incongruent” pairings last or how successful they are. They’re more likely to occur when one party is pretending to be compatible with the other party – either more or less promiscuous.

  • Lokland

    @MM

    “And restricted women are marrying them, by and large. And not divorcing them, by and large. That’s the ultimate reward IMO.”

    That seems like a rather pathetic definition of sucess.
    If everyone who got married and then didn’t get divorced regardless of the quality of the marriage thought of themselves as successful….nvm.

    Suffice it to say, getting married means very little to me. Its the treatment I recieve afterwards that defines sucess.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    I agree Game blogs would be overkill for your brother, Olive, even if he does have misconceptions about the application of it (not all game = PUA notch-seeking). He needs to learn very basic mindset things about life and person what he wants, and women are just a small piece of that. Bob Glover’s “No More Mr. Nice Guy” really spells it out, and instead of learning it all the hard way, it could save him a lot of frustration.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    *person = pursuing.

  • JP

    “No woman (unless she’s in a religious sect) feels that an attempt to kiss her is disrespectful.”

    It would have been nice to understand this when I was is, say, high school, college, or law school.

    I was of the school of thought that passionate kissing means that you are now in a committed relationship.

    Plus, you have this:

    “Rarely did anyone ever explain what this “jerk” behavior was, except that it was made pretty clear it had SOMETHING to do with pressuring girls into sex or sexual things, so we don’t do that. At all.”

    So, the general rule I followed was no avoid escalation except when you knew that you had a 100% chance of success because otherwise you would be a jerk.

    This was my attitude toward the cultural ideal to which humanity *must* adhere:

    “The other interesting there is that they would have a totally different take on the whole restricted versus unrestricted paradigm since they would see anyone who has engaged in passionate kissing as “unrestricted” behavior. My point there is a model is only relevant against the norms of a particular group.”

    So I was always in favor of hunting down and punishing (severely) all unrestricted in that paradigm because they were committing great crimes against the moral order and humanity itself.

    Anyone wonder why I was no fun at parties?

  • Ted D

    “This is a message so heavily internalized it STILL runs through most of our heads, I imagine. I’ve tried for YEARS to kick it out and it’s still there, running all the time.”

    I STILL to this day a year past taking the Red Pill hesitate when staring to initiate sex WITH MY WIFE! Yes, I still, to this very day get those fast “pangs” of doubt that “I am being a perv” or “I’m bothering her” or “we just had a knockdown session two days ago and there is NO reason to be all horned up again…” I have to make the effort to remind myself that NOT ONLY is it OK for me to want to have sex with my wife often and always, but that SHE is actually OK with it as well.

    I truly don’t know what kind of subliminal mind techniques were used on me, but they are strong.

  • JP

    @Lokland:

    “If everyone who got married and then didn’t get divorced regardless of the quality of the marriage thought of themselves as successful….nvm.”

    It depends on what ideals you are shooting for in the bigger scheme of things.

    For instance, now that I think about it, my ideal world includes no fornication, no adultery, and no divorce and near 100% marriage rates, with the rest being monks and priests (or nuns).

    The closer we get to that, the better I feel about the world.

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

    @Olive
    I wasn’t suggesting that your BF was necessarily typical. Things may have gotten off to an unconventional start, but you still found him attractive, and you’re still with him. From that standpoint, it doesn’t really matter whether other girls would give him the time of day or not.

    I hope I didn’t misread your story: he wouldn’t physically escalate, but you did, on your first actual date? Yeah, following conventional unwidsom, both of you should have DQ’d each other! For that matter, Mr. HUS ought to have DQ’d Susan!

    Honestly, I’ve heard of stranger ways successful relationships have started… :wink:

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Olive, send your brother to postmasculine.com. Mark Manson is an ex-PUA who is also much more than that. I think it is worth a look. This in particular speaks to younger men.

    http://postmasculine.com/open-letter#comments

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

    @(Happily Married?) Lokland

    That seems like a rather pathetic definition of success.

    Heh, you are the King of the Cynics. When I suggest that marriage + no divorce = success, I’m implicitly channeling the General Social Survey (~63% “very happy”, ~33% “pretty happy”) on marital happiness, which I don’t cite too often as it tends to tick off the anti-marriage crowd. Would you agree that that qualifies as some kind of success?

    But I take your point on how two people treat each other after the wedding day, which based on the crude divorce rate, isn’t a measure of success (the wedding, I mean). However, in this day and age of easy no-fault divorce, a couple that’s having problems but stays together and tries to work things out is at least showing effore. That’s a different kind of success, at least in my book.

    Since you tied the knot, I really can’t tell when you’re playing the devil’s advocate anymore. :mrgreen:

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    I don’t think it is purely indoctrination that made you cautious about initiating sex, though that was part of it. I think some people are just more cautious than others. I think that our fear of rejection and looking like a loser and perv and gaining negative social proof in front of the tribe is a huge factor for most men. So, I think it’s part what we’re taught and part innate biology for many men.

  • Ted D

    HanSolo – “I don’t think it is purely indoctrination that made you cautious about initiating sex, though that was part of it. I think some people are just more cautious than others. I think that our fear of rejection and looking like a loser and perv and gaining negative social proof in front of the tribe is a huge factor for most men. So, I think it’s part what we’re taught and part innate biology for many men.”

    Here is the thing though, and the one that still has me stumped. I’ve had this conversation with my wife. She has clearly and in no uncertain terms said to me that she WILL NOT “reject” me in any case short of sickness and possible exhaustion. (She has to get up at 5am some mornings.) And, she has never once “rejected” my advances. And yet, I STILL have to “talk myself” into escalating at least a few nights a week. (We still manage 4-6 sessions a week, and on the weekends we sometimes knock out more than one a session.) So out of 5 days of sex, I maybe have to get past my fear of escalating 2 to 3 times. To me that makes no logical sense whatsoever, and yet I find myself dealing with it regardless. That just doesn’t strike me as a biological problem at all. Biologically speaking, I want to be sexing her up any available moment we have. (Slight exaggeration, but only slight.) So it is all in my head, whatever it is, that still has be doubting.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    Your head is also partly biology. I’d say it’s a big part. That consciousness that we like to think governs us governs us a lot less than we’d think. That’s the whole message of evolutionary psychology, that our psychological preferences (thoughts, feelings, desires, emotions, logical side) all have a significant though not exclusive rooting in raw physical properties of the brain (created by genes that combine with our environment and our own personal choices).

    So, I think that part of your and my inhibitions are genetic and part are the environment that we were raised in and part our own thoughts and choices. My inhibition are much less now than before leaving the church because my environment and personal views have changed. But I am cautious in many ways and have no doubt that part of my caution in wanting to escalate physically is to avoid the risk of looking like an ass in front of the tribe (e.g. her telling people we know that I tried to kiss her and she shot me down).

  • JP

    “So, I think that part of your and my inhibitions are genetic and part are the environment that we were raised in and part our own thoughts and choices. My inhibition are much less now than before leaving the church because my environment and personal views have changed.”

    Some inhibitions are also much stronger than others.

    For example, my fear of heights is severe and I simply cannot override it even enough to ride a roller coaster.

    However, were I decide to randomly attack people on the street with my fists, I could easily turn off my inhibitions toward anti-social behavior.

    I don’t want to hurt other people but there is nothing like my fear of heights standing in the way of me turning off my inclination to pro-social behavior.

  • Ted D

    HanSolo – “Your head is also partly biology. I’d say it’s a big part.”

    I get that and agree. But that would imply that BY NATURE I am somewhat fearful of sexual rejection? By nature?! That just doesn’t make sense to me, as biology would just tell me to move on to the next “target” if one rejected my advances, right? It seems that “fear of rejection” is largely a learned fear, which makes it part of “nurture” and not “nature”. Now, is my brain chemically wired to trigger harder on that fear? Perhaps. As JP pointed out, many people have a fear of heights, although biologically that makes far more sense to me than a fear of sexual rejection. :P

  • HanSolo

    @Susan and other women

    Much better. Here’s the way women look at it:

    If we are feeling attracted to you, we want to kiss you. If you kiss us with confidence and even boldness (none of this moving over from cheek and ear), it’s a turnon and our attraction to you increases. If you kiss us but we can tell your nervous, that’s OK, and may even be a plus depending on the girl (I know one girl who fell for a guy when she saw his hands trembling as he moved in for the kiss). If you fail to kiss us, we’re disappointed, and we assume that either you are not attracted to us, or that you are terrified to make a move. Both are obviously bad for attraction.

    If we are not feeling attracted to you, we do not want to kiss you. We will either recoil or give a halfhearted kiss. The relationship is going nowhere.

    Thanks for your insight. Can other women say how they feel about kissing on a first date?

    Susan, I agree that if a woman is attracted she wants you to kiss her. I would also expect that in many cases you will be able to tell by her body language. You can also usually tell when she outright doesn’t want to, with cold body language.

    But I have observed a third category in the middle, where she’s enjoying her time with me but also isn’t really send any indications of attraction. These are the cases where by slowly escalating you can build her attraction to the point where she outright wants to be kissed. This was the spirit in which you can be standing on a bridge seeing the sunset and move behind her and cuddle and then a few minutes later smell her hair (and for God’s sake girls should wash their hair before a date! lol) and kiss her hair. In the middle cases where you’re not sure if she likes you I don’t think you should just immediately grab her and kiss her on the lips (though sometimes that can work well). Especially for guys without experience I think that the gradual warming her up and seeing how she responds is much smoother and allows her to either accept or reject that escalation without making a big scene. Then moving to the ears and whispering that she smells so good or that you love holding her and seeing the sunset together and then kissing her ears and then cheek and then her mouth almost longingly turns to kiss mine….

    Anyway, that more gradual method has worked many times for me and is personally more enjoyable…it’s almost like you’re tantalizing her and letting her build up the final kiss in her imagination.

    The kiss on the cheek I mentioned was not meant to be just some peck on the cheek from a distance.

    But, if you can tell she’s attracted then I would say that the more spontaneous grabbing her and pushing her up against a wall and kissing with passion is better.

    Anyway, I think we agree on what a man should do when there is and isn’t attraction. But what about that middle ground where she just needs a little more attraction and build-up before going for the kiss? Thanks.

    Ladies, can you give your input from your own and others’ experiences and desires of how much IOI’s you give when you want him to kiss you and whether he perceives it? If you’re in that middle state of liking him but not yet sufficiently attracted or in the mood would you want him to kiss you or escalate with some other things like cuddling or something first?

    There was a girl who was showing interest and so I went to kiss her and she moved her head, even though we were holding hands. I really don’t think she was unattracted though. I just think she didn’t want to kiss me too soon. She was not Mormon but seemed somewhat restricted. Later that evening we cuddled watching a movie on her couch and finally kissed and even slept together that night (with no sex). We then had sex on the 2nd date so I think she was attracted all along but was nervous and wanted to put the kiss off until a bit later on the first date.

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

      @HanSolo

      Especially for guys without experience I think that the gradual warming her up and seeing how she responds is much smoother and allows her to either accept or reject that escalation without making a big scene. Then moving to the ears and whispering that she smells so good or that you love holding her and seeing the sunset together and then kissing her ears and then cheek and then her mouth almost longingly turns to kiss mine….

      You are such a romantic! Oh my goodness, lucky lucky girl who snags you in the end.

      I do think that bit is waaaayyyy too much for a first date.

      Agree about warming her up. One thing to keep in mind is that many women will not be sending blatant IOIs on the first date (or maybe ever!). You’ll get a better read by touching her. The small of her back, putting your arm around her shoulder, etc. Taking her hand at some point is a good move. If all of this goes well, the kiss in ON. Your story about the restricted girl who turned her head on date 1 and had sex on date 2 seems a bit unusual. I’m not sure what to make of that.

      I have talked to a lot of women who had a great time on a first date, even said something encouraging, and the guy backs away when he drops her off. I know it’s a question of nerves for most guys – but if you feel that the date went well, go in for the kiss!

      Personally, I don’t think the middle ground of attracted, but not enough for a kiss makes a lot of sense. I do think it’s an either/or proposition for women. Don’t forget – women get a lot of information via kissing, re your T levels and whether the DNA match is a good one. It’s very possible and even common to be attracted to a man and then lose that after kissing. The opposite can also happen.

      Men would do well to consider kissing a research opportunity for women.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    I get that and agree. But that would imply that BY NATURE I am somewhat fearful of sexual rejection? By nature?! That just doesn’t make sense to me, as biology would just tell me to move on to the next “target” if one rejected my advances, right? It seems that “fear of rejection” is largely a learned fear, which makes it part of “nurture” and not “nature”. Now, is my brain chemically wired to trigger harder on that fear? Perhaps. As JP pointed out, many people have a fear of heights, although biologically that makes far more sense to me than a fear of sexual rejection.

    Okay, so here is how it could be nature. You’re in a tribe of 50 people, 25 females, only 5 are single at that moment. You go to kiss one or escalate and she rejects you and goes and tells the other 4 females. You now have negative social proof and the other 4 are less likely to want to fuck you. Your genes don’t get passed on. Or, if you try to fuck a girl and she doesn’t want to and comes back and gets her 3 brothers to come after you and drive you out of the tribe and then you die alone. In the small tribal setting very few men had the luxury of just saying “next” unless they were truly alphas or sigmas and had several options or could go survive in the wilds alone and find another tribe or so on.

    What do you think about that scenario?

  • Ted D

    “What do you think about that scenario?”

    Makes some sense. But again, I’m talking about fear of rejection from a woman that has given her word she wouldn’t, and has never once gone back on her word regarding it.

    Logically there should be no apprehension left in my mind about simply rolling over and kick starting the drive. But, a few nights a week I find myself struggling with it all the same. I think I still must harbor some shame for my male sexuality or something that just manifest in rejection anxiety. I’m picking it apart slowly, but I’ve never been good at getting out knots.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    Okay, I get it then, that you’re focused more on that feeling with you, after you know that you always have a green light. I was referring more to before you have that green light and you don’t know yet.

    I can’t speak for you but is part of it that you want her to really desire you and not just accept your advances but initiate a lot and really show you that she’s crazy for you? Do you want to be seduced so to speak by her?

    I had a gf that it was awesome. I would start kissing, whatever, and get her turned on but not escalate beyond that because I loved to see her simmer and then boil over and rip off my boxer briefs and attack me.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted

    I think you may have some internalized shame too and it would be good to really reflect on why and remember how you felt as a boy about sex and so on. Maybe you’ll realize something and have a certain catharsis.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Thanks. I am a hopeless romantic at heart and I think the girl that ends up with me will be lucky, if I do say so myself, and thanks for thinking so. lol That’s one of the things I’ve had to reign in and only let it out as I perceive the girl enjoying things, and even then error on the side of saving the romance for later, although slight romantic things are alright if I sense she’s into me.

    I’m curious. IIRC you’re an extrovert and more likely to be showing that you’re enjoying yourself and not so shy on a first date and so I would imagine that a guy could more easily pick up on the fact that you were enjoying his company and that this would signal to him that a kiss would be a good thing. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    I’m wondering if introvert or shy girls would display their enjoyment as much or if they would feel that desire and attraction and get really nervous because of it and clam up.

    I think the girl from my story was a shyer type and didn’t want to be perceived as a bad girl even though I assume she wanted to kiss me but maybe just wait until she felt it a bit stronger–we kissed later that night. I really think she was thinking she just didn’t want to be seen as some easy slut in that first moment she moved her head…and she kept on holding my hand.

    Overall, I think that the escalating of touch on her back and arm and smiling into her eyes for a moment and observing her reaction can be very helpful. Gradually escalating and taking a step back so that she is given time to assimilate and even miss the escalation is important so that you don’t just come out of the blue and try to kiss her.

    Any thoughts on the differences in how to go about perceiving the interest level of shy versus expressive girls?

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

      @HanSolo

      I’m wondering if introvert or shy girls would display their enjoyment as much or if they would feel that desire and attraction and get really nervous because of it and clam up.

      Definitely! Honestly, as you say I am quite extroverted, I’ve always felt comfortable flirting and I tend to touch people. Still, I often felt awkward and nervous on first dates! I can recall some occasions when I was wracking my brain to come up with something to say. Even gregarious people get nervous when we have a lot at stake. In a way, I was more likely to be charming and fun when I wasn’t as attracted.

      For introverted girls, it’s much harder. She’s not going to hold long periods of eye contact or touch you randomly – she’s probably terrified you’ll perceive her as DTF.

      That raises a really good point about going in for the kiss. Don’t boldly grab the face of a shy girl and go in for the kiss. And don’t add in the full body hug. She may want you to kiss her, but she is more likely to appreciate something more romantic rather than sexually aggressive.

      An extrovert with a lot of confidence? Yeah, you’re going to want to handle her with more dominance.

      It’s very important to calibrate by personality type. The rules that were codified to attract “hired guns” in nightspots are going to be disastrous with more introverted, restricted girls.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I have talked to a lot of women who had a great time on a first date, even said something encouraging, and the guy backs away when he drops her off. I know it’s a question of nerves for most guys – but if you feel that the date went well, go in for the kiss

    I agree that guys should, especially if it’s gone well and she says something like she really liked it or looks into your eyes and smiles. I think a lot of guys have the compounded problem of intrinsically being cautious to avoid being mocked or shunned by the hypothetical tribe their genes evolved in plus the excessive rapist shaming towards good guys and that you should never do anything a woman doesn’t want physically unless she clearly expresses you should (and I’m not discounting that rapes occur but the real rapists that need the message aren’t listening and the Teds and HanSolos that don’t need that message were listening).

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

    Megaman,
    My point was that, because the way my relationship got started is so unconventional, my BF’s strategy should not be offered up as a model of any sort (which, if I’m not mistaken, is what you seem to want to imply). I really couldn’t care less that other women don’t find him attractive (less competition for me, mwahaha!), so from that standpoint no it does not matter. But we’re talking here about successful strategies for guys, particularly inexperienced guys. Most inexperienced guys are not going to come across girls who escalate like that, and as such, they need to learn to escalate.

    I hope I didn’t misread your story: he wouldn’t physically escalate, but you did, on your first actual date?

    No. We met in a bar. Drunk. I took him home. I escalated. About a day after he left (he’d been visiting a mutual friend at my college), we talked on the phone, he said he liked me, we started exchanging ridiculous facebook messages and we were “official” 3 weeks later.

    Not a trajectory I’d recommend for other guys.

    Yeah, following conventional unwidsom, both of you should have DQ’d each other! For that matter, Mr. HUS ought to have DQ’d Susan!

    I can’t remember the exact specifics of Susan’s story, but if you’re hinting here that women who escalate are usually thrown in the slut box (…interesting how you turned that around), that is NOT my point. My point is that women don’t usually escalate at all, so it’d be silly to send a guy out with the advice “don’t worry, if you give her enough space, she’ll escalate.” Most guys get DQ’d for not escalating fast enough, which I suspect is what happened to my brother.

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

    Hope,
    Thanks for the reference! I’ve actually come across that site before but I’ll definitely take a closer look.

  • Cooper

    @Olive
    Re: game, and your brother

    You summed it up well @388

  • Lokland

    @MM

    “Happily Married?) Lokland”

    Most definitely.

    “Would you agree that that qualifies as some kind of success?”

    Most definitely.

    “That’s a different kind of success, at least in my book.”

    So is going to grad school after failing to get into med school.

    “Since you tied the knot, I really can’t tell when you’re playing the devil’s advocate anymore.”

    I think Susan’s POV is far to feminist/team woman for a healthy society. That and her opinions on male ranking however special every snow flake who deserves a beta is are not compatible with large scale monogamy.

    I think the manosphere is also full of shit with too much ‘wimmins are evilzz’ for my taste.

    I’m essentially becoming an old school religious no sex before marriage dude, for women only of course, without the god.

    I finally realize why religion was invented/created in the first place. I think its a load of crap but it is really effective. We need that or Big Brother to return our society to a healthy state.

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

      @LL

      I think Susan’s POV is far to feminist/team woman for a healthy society.

      Oh Really? How so?

      That and her opinions on male ranking however special every snow flake who deserves a beta is are not compatible with large scale monogamy.

      I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Could you elaborate?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I’m essentially becoming an old school religious no sex before marriage dude, for women only of course, without the god.

    I am increasingly coming to the same conclusion, with the addition that men should not have sex before marriage either.

  • Lokland

    “I am increasingly coming to the same conclusion, with the addition that men should not have sex before marriage either.”

    Yeah but I’m a fuckin asshole.

  • JP

    “I am increasingly coming to the same conclusion, with the addition that men should not have sex before marriage either.”

    It never occurred to me until I was in college/law school that people generally didn’t hold this as the ideal to which we should all aspire.

    So, I never left this conclusion in the first place, although it only works if you have an actual way to get compatible people together. So, I’ve become much less conservative generally as I’ve grown older. Ideals always have to be tempered with experience and actual outcomes.

    I’m on the rightish side of the spectrum now. It wouldn’t surprise me if I ended my life in 2060 finding myself on the left side of the spectrum. And not necessarily because I changed my mind.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Oh Really? How so?”
    “I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Could you elaborate?”

    “That and her opinions on male ranking however special every snow flake who deserves a beta is are not compatible with large scale monogamy.”

    These points are all relatively the same.
    first and foremost, i’m not accusing you of rad-fem type behaviour, nor does it apply to sex-possy behaviour nor to any aspect beyond those of gender dynamics.

    From Vox

    “Deltas: The normal guy. Deltas make up the majority of men.”

    Sex pozzy feminism essentially released the kraken which screwed everyone at this tier or lower.
    Your viewpoint is merely to encourage the 80% of women to compete for the betas. Fine, it doesn’t help many people out.

    I’m a delta, my sons will be deltas.
    I cannot in good conscience stand behind anyone that condemns them.

    Our viewpoints are not so misaligned that were are enemies they are however different enough that I cannot stand behind your message like I did before.

    The recent discussion was enlightening.

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

      @Lokland

      Your viewpoint is merely to encourage the 80% of women to compete for the betas. Fine, it doesn’t help many people out.

      I’m a delta, my sons will be deltas.
      I cannot in good conscience stand behind anyone that condemns them.

      I think you misunderstood my viewpoint. I am definitely concerned for the welfare of all men, including omegas. However, I find it useful to segregate groups of males into more than “haves” and “have nots.” The interesting thing about Vox’s scheme is that it breaks out males by attitude and psychology rather than looks, testosterone, etc. That implies that males do indeed have some direct control over their own SMV – simply by changing one’s view of women (not always easy, I know), one can shift one’s position. Inner Game can get any guy to beta, as far as I can tell. And alphas are a whole pack of trouble – you don’t want to be that anyway, and you probably can’t become a Vox alpha even if you try.

      In Vox’s paradigm, there is more rational hope for improvement than in Roissy’s. The number of Roissy betas who make it to Roissy alpha is very small, and correlates to a mindset that is sociopathic.

      My point last week re betas is that according to Vox we have 40% of men in the SMP doing OK with women. We don’t really need to worry about Vox’s betas. It’s the deltas and gammas who stand the most to gain from Game, and beta should be their goal.

  • Lokland

    PS

    Don’t call me LL please.
    Screws up my find function.

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

    @Ms. Olive
    Just to clarify a few things…

    My BF’s strategy should not be offered up as a model of any sort (which, if I’m not mistaken, is what you seem to want to imply).

    I wasn’t suggesting that. In fact, I don’t believe there is a single path or strategy that works for every single guy, or even most. I wouldn’t trust someone who claimed there was. When my wife and I first started seeing each other lo those many years ago, we both escalated at about the same speed from what I remember. No DQing for silly reasons whatsoever. Figure that one out!

    But if you’re hinting here that women who escalate are usually thrown in the slut box (…interesting how you turned that around)

    I believe a significant number of guys do this, and try to take advantage of the situation when it happens. But I’m not one of them. I don’t even use the “S” word to describe women. Nor whatever passes for the male equivalent.

    Most guys get DQ’d for not escalating fast enough, which I suspect is what happened to my brother.

    I’m not so sure about that (in general). That may have been the case for your brother, but only the girl he’s interested in knows for sure. Not escalating AT ALL, yeah, it’d be reasonable for a girl to conclude something is wrong (or “up”). But not fast enough? That’s going to depend upon the individual girl in question. There are clearly wide variations all along the restricted-to-unrestricted spectrum.

    As we seem to be having communications problems, I think I’ll just cease and disist. :sad:

  • J

    It may be too much TMI, but here it is: I get whiskey dick without the need for the whiskey. It isn’t fear, it is revulsion plain and simple.

    That’s not so odd. DH had number of LTRs before me, but very few ONS. I suspect that he wasn’t going to try to to fight the repulsion. Sometimes the little head is smarter than the big one, oddly enough.

    Both of my sons have expressed disgust for some girls as well.

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

    In fact, I don’t believe there is a single path or strategy that works for every single guy, or even most. I wouldn’t trust someone who claimed there was.

    Huh. I assume this means you don’t believe in the general effectiveness of Game, or even Athol’s MAP strategy. Fascinating. I have to ask: if there are no strategies that work for the majority of people in the SMP, what do you suggest is Susan’s mission or role here?

    As we seem to be having communications problems, I think I’ll just cease and disist.

    I think it’s more a disagreement than miscommunication, but I can’t force you to participate in the debate.

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

    @Olive
    Final thoughts:

    If there are no strategies that work for the majority of people in the SMP, what do you suggest is Susan’s mission or role here?

    I think the Mission Statement sums it up quite nicely. It doesn’t claim to have answers that will work for everybody. Susan’s focused on college graduates, which make up less than half the population. Which is fine, they also have the lowest divorce rates.

    I don’t buy into any product being pitched without evidence that it works, that’s all. If the goal is a happy and successful LTR or marriage, culture is too complex and diverse to distill that down into one cure-all “pill” IMO.

    In hindsight, I shouldn’t have said earlier that no one thing works for most people. It’s not a strategy per se, but more an observable fact and preference that large majorities of men and women share WRT to finding a compatible mate: How would you like to meet your SO? How did you first meet your SO? I’ve mentioned what this commonality is in a number of discussions.

    I think it’s more a disagreement than miscommunication, but I can’t force you to participate in the debate.

    Agree to disagree, I guess. Though I’m still not clear on what exactly. I will say my my interest evaporates when words get put in my mouth… :???:

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

    I think that Machiavelli’s observations about battlefield success frequently being a combination of Fortuna (chance, luck) and Virtu (strategic agility rather than moral virtue) may be applicable to the SMP.

    In musing over that rather cynical Baumeister piece, I had the thought that the Scarface Maxim, in which a man gains money so that he can gain power so that he can gain women, may have use as a simple model of how individual male sexual ambitions can be harnessed to a group’s socio-political goals. Perhaps an updated version would go something like this:

    Man Wants Sex
    Formula: 1) Develop Economic Skills—-2) Use Skills to Get Money—3) Use Money to Signal Status/Power—4) Obtain Wife—5) Wife Provides Access to Sex

    Now imagine that, as part of a larger social experiment in gender norming, we have collectively “chosen” to diminish a man’s ability to follow that process and get that same output result. To compensate, we offer him a competing formula that goes something like this:

    Man Wants Sex
    Formula: 1) Develop Social Skills—2) Use Skills to Obtain Sex

    An important question for the social sciences to continually explore is the question of whether or not men generally jump through the hoops of Formula #1 because they enjoy it or find it otherwise satisfying to do so, or because following the steps of Formula #1 was, in the past, the dominant strategy in terms of obtaining sexual access.

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

      @BB

      An important question for the social sciences to continually explore is the question of whether or not men generally jump through the hoops of Formula #1 because they enjoy it or find it otherwise satisfying to do so, or because following the steps of Formula #1 was, in the past, the dominant strategy in terms of obtaining sexual access.

      Great question. In your version the wife is obtained for the sole purpose of sexual access. That’s really the bottom line. If a man wishes to marry only to gain access to sex, he may circumvent that process quite easily via Game, and have sexual access without commitment.

      If a man wishes to live a life in a committed partnership and perceives that marriage confers benefits other than sex, the second formula is woefully inadequate.

  • JP

    “Man Wants Sex
    Formula: 1) Develop Economic Skills—-2) Use Skills to Get Money—3) Use Money to Signal Status/Power—4) Obtain Wife—5) Wife Provides Access to Sex

    Now imagine that, as part of a larger social experiment in gender norming, we have collectively “chosen” to diminish a man’s ability to follow that process and get that same output result. To compensate, we offer him a competing formula that goes something like this:

    Man Wants Sex
    Formula: 1) Develop Social Skills—2) Use Skills to Obtain Sex”

    I didn’t have to develop skills to get anywhere in life or get married.

    It was pretty automatic.

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

    I think the Mission Statement sums it up quite nicely. It doesn’t claim to have answers that will work for everybody.

    From the Mission Statement:

    I support both women and men in their search for meaningful relationships by providing strategic insight, guidance, and perspective as they manage their social and sexual interactions.

    One such strategic insight is the restricted-unrestricted paradigm. In particular, Susan has specifically suggested that women who are interested in LTRs and marriage should suss out a man’s SOI and are better suited for restricted men. Perhaps it’s not an appropriate strategy for every person (i.e. the unrestricted folks) but it is an overgeneralized strategy aimed at the majority of young people (if we assume that 80% are restricted).

    There’s a big difference between claiming there is NO strategy that will work for any cohesive group of people and arguing that certain strategies will work for particular portions of the population.

    By the way, the use of Game, in my opinion, does not require that a man be a card-carrying Red Piller. I find the various tenets of the Red Pill interesting, but certain Red Pill enthusiasts have not impressed me with their wild claims that “most women will cheat,” or my favorite, “women do not have the intellectual capacity to be voting” (thought I’d add that in on election day for good measure :-) ).

    Agree to disagree, I guess. Though I’m still not clear on what exactly. I will say my my interest evaporates when words get put in my mouth…

    I generally try to ascertain what people are communicating by analyzing the text in front of me, not by jumping to conclusions. I will say that, since I got sick in March, my analytic and critical thinking skills have been severely compromised, which is one of the main reasons that I comment far less than I once did (and it’s the reason I dropped out of school). Like Susan, I very much don’t appreciate when I am accused of dishonest debate tactics, but if that’s how you see this discussion, my work is done here.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Han: “I think you may have some internalized shame too and it would be good to really reflect on why and remember how you felt as a boy about sex and so on. Maybe you’ll realize something and have a certain catharsis.”

    Easy – Ted was raised Christian.

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

      Easy – Ted was raised Christian.

      Eh, Ted was raised Catholic. We like our booze and sex and we really don’t get shamed for either one.

  • HanSolo

    So was I…Ted himself said he thinks he does so I was mostly just agreeing. No worries.

  • HanSolo

    Rather, Ted was thinking he might and so I was agreeing that he might and that it would be good to try and look deeper to see, that’s all. I wasn’t criticizing him.

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

    @Olive

    Perhaps it’s not an appropriate strategy for every person but it is an overgeneralized strategy aimed at the majority of young people.

    Yeah, I agree SOI is an important aspect to consider when dating someone, perhaps a minimum requirement. Restricted people tend to be much more monogamous, and probably as close to 100% relationship-oriented as possible. I used to call this “Team R”, single men and women who’re looking for relationships and would be good in them, based on their beliefs and interpersonal qualities. Some would say it’s just common sense to focus on those types of people, if that’s what you’re looking for. Do we really need to codify that as a smart strategy?

    I’m less enamored and have misgivings with “game” (the how-to book for purely unrestricted guys IMO), but there are two areas where some of Susan’s generalized (and secular) strategies start to hit some roadblocks WRT to effectiveness. One goes back to the issue of: How would you like to meet your SO? How did you meet your SO?. The other is young peoples’ religiosity. HUS is very focused on certain things, mainly for the college-educated crowd, which is fine, but it is based upon an incomplete picture of the relationship landscape. These aren’t criticisms, just observations of mine.

    Like Susan, I very much don’t appreciate when I am accused of dishonest debate tactics.

    I didn’t say it was intentional. But you were suggesting in #441 and #453 that I was suggesting things that I wasn’t suggesting.

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

    Some would say it’s just common sense to focus on those types of people, if that’s what you’re looking for. Do we really need to codify that as a smart strategy?

    Unfortunately yes, I think we do. As demonstrated by the various anecdotes told on this blog and elsewhere, there’s a very large disconnect when it comes to people seeking out relationships. And young folks are ignorant, to a certain extent, about qualities that make for a good relationship partner. I wasted several months hoping to be in a relationship with a guy I met online who was just looking for a booty call. If only I’d known about HUS back then…

    I’m less enamored and have misgivings with “game” (the how-to book for purely unrestricted guys IMO),

    A very strange take on game. Athol Kay, hardly the poster boy for unrestricted playerdom, has created a brand of game meant for relationships and has helped a fair amount of men save their marriages. Even Susan has suggested that my brother seek out game. The issue, here, is that mate selection will only take you so far. Once you find a potential partner, you gotta reel him/her in somehow. Would you say that “girl game” (dressing in a feminine way, wearing makeup, learning to flirt) is only meant for the unrestricted ladies?

    but there are two areas where some of Susan’s generalized (and secular) strategies start to hit some roadblocks WRT to effectiveness. One goes back to the issue of: How would you like to meet your SO? How did you meet your SO?.

    Yes, I noticed you said this before. Could you expand that idea? In particular, do you believe there are appropriate ways in which to meet an SO that are more conducive to relationships?

    The other is young peoples’ religiosity.

    Again could you explain more in depth? A slight tangent: I come from a very religious small town, and I know a bunch of young religious couples who were high school sweethearts and either got married right out of high school or right out of college (erm, presumably because they didn’t believe in sex before marriage and wanted to get it going, or at least that’s the common belief among those of us who are less conservative). I recently reconnected with an old high school friend, and according to her, several of these marriages have already ended. Just another anecdote that probably bears no significance in light of all the stats. :-P

    HUS is very focused on certain things, mainly for the college-educated crowd, which is fine, but it is based upon an incomplete picture of the relationship landscape.

    Agreed, though Susan has acknowledged her particular interest in and focus on the college population, so this is what conversations will focus on.

  • Ted D

    “Eh, Ted was raised Catholic. We like our booze and sex and we really don’t get shamed for either one.”

    Ahhh but you left out raised by a single mother in the 70′s and 80′s. I got more than my share of sexual shame sent my way. From the Church and from my family. However your comment about booze is dead on. My family enjoyed liquor, and no family event was complete without a lot of it. Unfortunately, it led to one divorce in my family as my uncle was a rather violent drunk guy. Totally great guy when sober though. I spent my early years with him hunting and fishing. He had two daughters, and I think he saw me back then as the son he didn’t have. But he became an alcohalic and my aunt left for fear of her daugthers safety. At least he wasn’t blood, and there are no alcohalics in my immediate family.

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

    @Olive
    Election results went late last night. Will be back later today, to clarify w/some answers!

  • Rgoltn

    Such deep conversations about such basic, common sense things. I have always believed that men and women cannot be friends. At some point, the guy will want to have sex with her; period. I have been happily married 18 years and my wife and I have lots of male and female friends. However, we are a minority these days as there are so many single people over 40 now.

    So, you throw in texting, Facebook and other social media and things get blurred. My wife is also very attactive and she has high SMV which brings in the “orbiters.” These are the divorced, single guys that are part of the group social events that “like” everything she says on Facebook, post comments and act more like women than men. They are also the guys who would be lined up at my wife’s door if something were to happen to me or I was out of the picture.

    She is well aware of how it all works and I am too.

    The reality is that even though our relationship is rock-solid, I know that biology is an influence. My SMV is in line with hers and I have my share of great women flirting with me; especially in the 30 – 35 crowd. I act like I ignore her orbiters, but I keep tabs on how brazen they may get . I found out a while ago that being jealous does nothing but makes me weak and BETA in her eyes.

    On the other hand, she is hyper-aware of the women who do the same to me. She will know when the 34 year old Yoga instructor “likes” something of mine on Facebook within seconds of it happening. I would not have noticed if she had not pointed it out to me. Too funny!

    There is truth in being validated externally; it keeps attraction alive and we both get it. In a weird way, it pushes us to each other and does not pull us away. Anyway, enough of my ramblings. Billy Crystal had it right in “When Harry met Sally”…duh!

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

      @Rgoltn

      There is truth in being validated externally; it keeps attraction alive and we both get it. In a weird way, it pushes us to each other and does not pull us away.

      That is clearly because you don’t abuse it, and you don’t play the jealousy card. It sounds like you both have high SMV, and you’re perfectly aware of each other’s attraction to the opposite sex, but your relationship is clearly strong enough to withstand it and you reassure one another with attention.

      This is a great model of how two very attractive people can make monogamy work.

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

    @Olive

    A very strange take on game.

    Perhaps this is semantics, perhaps not, but I’m specifically referring to the Mystery/Strauss brand. I’ve skimmed the book, and wasn’t too impressed. I shared some of the strategies with my wife, and asked her if they would have worked on her when we first met. She found them mostly immature and transparent. Seems like “game” as an umbrella term has been expanded (similar to the “autism spectrum”) to encompass a whole range of things that may or may not help restricted folks meet, attract each other, and mate successfully.

    But I’m not opposed whatsoever to guys taking the initiative and using some focused assertiveness when they’ve got a girl they want to seal the deal with. A little confidence goes a long way, that just seems like common sense in my book. And “girl game” as you describe it sounds to me like old-fashioned feminine allure. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Kay’s take on things, as well, which have clearly helped marriages in distress. But do all married couples require that kind of reinforcement?

    Hence the irony with the “game” IMO: restricted guys are encouraged to ignore their own nature and act and think as if they were unrestricted. All of which will somehow prepare them for *and* get them LTRs that last with restricted women. I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence that such strategies actually work. Just my take on it…

    Could you expand that idea? In particular, do you believe there are appropriate ways in which to meet an SO that are more conducive to relationships?

    You and Susan made things work in unconventional ways, and I’d never cast aspersions in the face of success. It’s be stupid to say such methods *never* work, as exceptions always disprove the rule. However… for the majority of people it seems these ways are the most common:

    http://www.eharmony.com/blog/2011/02/10/how-you-meet-your-spouse-matters/

    38% through school or work
    26% through friends and family
    6% through church/place of worship

    That’s ~70% of people who met their SO in environments more conducive to honest dating, and far less prone to “gameplaying” and combat dating situations IMO. There’s more trust and verification involved, though attraction is still a prerequisite.

    Admittedly limited, this survey is pretty consistent with other ones I’ve
    found. Additionally, I believe most people express a preference for meeting their spouses through closer-knit social networks of some kind (i.e. not as complete strangers).

    Again could you explain more in depth?

    I’m an agnostic, but I have a number of friends who’re religious to varying degrees. I take your point on young evangelicals who tend to marry young and divorce often too, and don’t dispute that. I’m referring more to those young people who are spiritual or somewhat to moderately religious. The mainstream, so to speak. I read this particular book on the college SMP years after graduating, but it put a lot of things I experienced into perspective:

    http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Soul-Juggling-Sexuality-Spirituality/dp/B0071UMPI2/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352358407&sr=1-1&keywords=sex+and+the+soul

    My social circle was a pretty mixed crowd, but I had the most sympathy for friends who were trying to find meaningful relationships outside of the hookup scene. They typically had some religious or spiritual beliefs that influenced their behavior, and consequently struggled the most to find someone compatible. As such, the kind of clinical, secular “game” based advice wouldn’t have translated very well for them.

    Susan’s stated numerous times that “hooking up” (an unrestricted strategy, by the way) is the *only* way to establish relationships in college. I think that’s overtstating things a bit, but not completely.

    I don’t think you and I are necessarily at loggerheads, maybe just differing interpretations of the same SMP?

  • Marc

    Ladies, if a guy genuinely wants to be your friend, he thinks youre unattractive. We dont want women friends who want to sleep with.
    .
    I dont believe in cross sex friendships when a couple is married. It can hurt your marriage, but it certaintly wont help it. So why do it? Besides, you will never know for sure if your spouse used to sleep with one of their current friends. How creepy (by creepy, I mean gross), would it be to learn that your wife used to sit on the cock of one of her current friends? Put the kabash on it completely by eliminating all of them. There are 3 billion women on the planet, my wife doesnt need a friend with a penis.
    .
    Ladies, dont fall for one of my signature moves when a woman puts up slight resistance…..
    Her: “No, we shouldnt, we just met”
    Me: “I guess we´ll just be friends then”
    Her: “Friends? Why?”
    Me: “Do you have sex with your friends?”
    Her: “NO!!!”
    Me: “Then if we dont have sex, what are we?”
    .
    You laugh, but she sees the rational side of what I said. Sex commences.

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

      @Marc

      There are 3 billion women on the planet, my wife doesnt need a friend with a penis.

      Brilliant! That’s the line that cracked me up.

  • Doc

    “The Real Reason Why Men and Women Can’t Be Friends”

    Because men have a p*nis and women have a v*gina… And men always want to get into it – so to speak – well, if he finds the “packaging” nice…

  • Ivona

    women and men CAN be friends, once men get over their urge to have sex with the lady.
    the thing is, they don’t usually consider the woman in question to be girlfriend material, but out of their needs they might wish for sex.

    I have had some quite successful friendships with men. period.

  • Bongstar420

    Women want friends to ad to their social networks. This is a subconscious mechanism that most women employ to extract the material/emotional benefit of accessing a man with out giving him an actual profitable relationship for him. It usually benefits women more than men to have intersexual plutonic relationships. I have never had a woman friend that yielded a good return on investment as a friend. Most of my male friends also have fairly low ROE’s but they generally perform better than women.

  • Professor

    How do you turn a girlfriend into a “friend” and ultimately into an enemy is the same punch line as the old joke about that special food that takes away a woman’s sex drive forever- wedding cake.

    Once you marry a woman and start living with her the sex drops, often precipitously down to once a month or even a few time a year. So the analysis of women and men’s different approaches to “friends” also applies to marriage! HE overestimates the degree of physical attraction. SHE underestimates the degree of desire. HE wants to get it on just like they did before the vows. SHE has already achieved her goal of obtaining a lifetime sinecure from her new “friend” and no longer needs to make an effort. Do I have that figured out about right?

  • Pingback: the "friend zone" - Page 7