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
{ 476 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 4 »
Ohh shit.
I like pumpkin spiced lattes….
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.
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?
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.
Err, I think there was a typo in the title. Surely you meant “cross-sex-friendships”?
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
This is badly in need of a Title Change.
HAHA! Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
I’m such an idiot. Thanks, guys, changing it now. Next I’ll be writing a post on Cross-Sex Marriage.
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
True, but it was interesting to note that women avoided attraction scenarios with men who were already partnered, while men did not.
@Clarence
Is this addressed to me? I’m not sure what you mean by this in relation to the post.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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:
“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,
@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.
@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.
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.
Ha, that’s the bottom right quadrant. Girl needs to move on.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@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.
@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?
“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?
@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.
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.
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.
” 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.
@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.
@ J
Good for you. I live in a state where marriage is illegal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Proposition_2_(2005)
@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.
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.
@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
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.
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.
@pvw
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.
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:
” 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.
@Cooper
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?”
@Mr. Nervous Toes
Those women are in the bottom right quadrant with you.
@INTJ
You must feel so much safer now that the Texas state legislature has so affirmatively protected your rights.
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.
@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.
“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?
Is anyone else watching Hurricane Sandy right now? The trees are whipping around like crazy outside my window!
“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.
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.
“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.)
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.
@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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
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?
“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
@Cooper
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.
@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
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.
@Anacaona
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
“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 …
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.
@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.
@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.
“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.
@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
@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.
“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.
@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.
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.
@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.’
You escalate and see how she responds initially to determine the dynamic.
@ENY
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!
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
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
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.
LOL, that lower-right quadrant defines half of college and all of high school. XD
@ 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!
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
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”.
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.
@ Susan
The manosphere is filled with a lot of hate in general. It’s why I’m so glad HUS exists.
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.)
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
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.
@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.
@Susan Walsh:
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.
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.
@SW
I’m watching the storm now. I hope you are safe and dry.
“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”).
I’m sorry to say it, but there is a fair amount of racism in the manosphere.
Racism in the ‘sphere? No kiddin’?
J, I totally misread your comment as saying you *did* pull your husband from a pool of existing platonic friends. So never mind…
@OTC
Not a problem…
“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…
@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….
@Mike C
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.
@jseliger
I enjoyed Gone Girl this summer. Just read a great novel – The Newlyweds – by Nell Freudenberger.
@pvw
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.
@ Ted D:
+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”.
Ha! Then I guess I am too!
@ Ion:
+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.
Meant to say:
I give the side-eye to..
@ 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.
Re: race
Don’t care about race with one exception: the nerd in me would choose a green-skinned space babe over anyone else.
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, 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.
@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.
@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………
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.
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.
@ VD
The proportion of neanderthal dna in most humans is quite small. Europeans and Asians are only slightly less Homo Sapiens than Africans.
@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.
@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!
@ 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!
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.
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
Human bio diversity? Big Beautiful Women? Stuff White People Like….
@J:
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
@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).
@VD
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.
Disagreement trumps both sex and race as an evil in the manosphere.
@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.
Thanks pvw and Passer_By! Most illuminating…
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
@Cooper
Just catching up on comments, sorry for the delay.
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.
@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.
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.“
@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?
@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.
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.
@Cooper
It’s good you feel that way, because that is what you should be doing!
No emo up front!
@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.
@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.
“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.
“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.
@ 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!
@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.
1 2 3 4 »