859»

Can Lysistrata Work For College Women?

So you’re happy to see me!

LYSISTRATA:

There are a lot of things about us women

That sadden me, considering how men

See us as rascals.

 

CALONICE:

As indeed we are!

 

Emily Esfahani Smith has a Plan to Reboot Dating in The Atlantic, calling on  women to implement the Lysistrata strategy as a way of ending hookup culture. (Hat tip: Stuart Schneiderman) I first became aware of Smith via her excellent article HBO’s ‘Girls’ depicts wasteland of sexual promiscuity. (She’s doing incredibly well for someone who graduated from Dartmouth in ’09.) Though a feminist, Smith disagrees with Hannah Rosin’s recent assertions:

Rosin argues that the social progress of women depends on the hook-up culture. Women in their 20s and 30s are, for the first time, more successful than their male peers. These alpha females not only outnumber men on college campuses, they have also overtaken men as the majority of the work force. This would not have been possible without sexual liberation, which has let women delay marriage and child-rearing to pursue their educational and career ambitions without worrying about the emotional burdens of a relationship. Women are better off in part because of the hook-up culture, the argument goes.

Smith then goes on to offer evidence (all of which I have previously covered here) that most women are pretty miserable in hookup culture:

  • Part of the reason the culture is so widespread is, as Rosin correctly notes, because women are choosing to have casual sex. But in another respect, they don’t have a choice. Women make the hook-up culture possible, but men are the beneficiaries of it.
  • The balance of power in the hook-up culture lies with the men, an issue that has become more pronounced as women outnumber men on campuses, creating a surplus of girls and a scarcity of guys…Robert Epstein, a professor of psychology at Harvard and an expert in relationships, said in an interview with me that the more women there are on campus, the more prevalent the hook-up culture is: “You have a situation in which relationships are bound to fail and men keep switching off from one woman to the next.”
  • The feminist sociologist Lisa Wade, based at Occidental College…found that most of [her freshman students] were “overwhelmingly disappointed with the sex they were having in hook ups. This was true of both men and women, but was felt more intensely by women. College women today feel disempowered instead of empowered by sexual encounters. They didn’t feel like equals on the sexual playground, more like jungle gyms.”
  • According to a2010 study by Carolyn Bradshaw of James Madison University, only 2 percent of women strongly prefer the hook-up culture to a dating culture.
  • Miriam Grossman, author of the 2006 book Unprotected, reports that women long for emotional involvement with their partner twice as often as men following a hook up; 91 percent of women experience regret; 80 percent of women wish the hook-up hadn’t happened; and 34 percent of women hope the hook-up develops into a relationship.
  • NYU sociologist Paula England, whom Rosin cites, says that 66 percent of women and 58 percent of men want their hook up to develop into “something more.”
  • A 2010 psychology study out of Florida State University found that students who have casual sex experience more physical and mental health problems, defined as eating disorders, alcohol use, stress, depression, suicidal feelings, than those who are in committed long-term relationships.
Smith rejects Rosin’s assertion that “The hookup culture is too bound up with everything that’s fabulous about being a young woman in 2012—the freedom, the confidence, the knowledge that you can always depend on yourself.”
 

Sexual liberation may be indispensable to female progress, but the hook-up culture is not empowering for all women. This isn’t to say that early marriage or abstinence is the solution. But these are not the only alternatives to the hook-up culture, either. There is a middle way: meaningful sex in the context of a non-marital relationship.

In other words, the solution is a dating culture, which still allows women to delay marriage and pursue their careers, and also lets them have those intimate relationships with men that they don’t want to delay.

This puts Smith and me squarely on the same page, as this reflects my own views about what constitutes potentially achievable change. Smith spoke with a woman on staff at Dartmouth’s Women’s Center, who began their discussion by saying this:

The point of hooking up is for both people to get something out of it. If it’s to get off, then that’s great. . . . If it’s to work some issue out—like sexual assault—then that’s great. It’s basically to get pleasure and enjoyment out of it . . . the hook-up culture is good for experimentation, and what someone does for experimentation is up to them.

…I don’t think [love is] necessary. Yeah, you know—it’s nice. But if you’re talking about sex and the hook-up culture, it’s not needed. The point of the hook-up culture is not to get attached—no strings attached.

Aside from the deeply disturbing idea that hooking up is a good way to get past the trauma of sexual assualt, it turns out this woman doesn’t even believe in the politics she’s spewing, as she goes on to say that hooking up certainly was never right for her.

Smith retorts:

Hooking up, in fact, shares the defining feature of a sexual assault: using another person for your own sexual gratification, without any regard as to what that person wants or how he or she feels. The philosopher Immanuel Kant—who warns against using another person as a mere means to some end—was closer to the truth than many of today’s sexual health experts when he wrote that sex “taken by itself … is a degradation of human nature.”

…One friend tells me that the girls on campus would prefer a culture of dating to one of hooking up, but they would never admit it or ask for it. If girls demanded dating before hooking up, guys would be unmoved, she explained. “There are always going to be other girls for them to hook up with so we’ll just get left behind.”

These women are looking at the problem the wrong way, I think. They need to realize that, in spite of campus sex ratios and prevailing cultural trends, they hold the power when it comes to the hook up culture. They hold the power when it comes to sex.

This was the insight of Lysistrata, the shrewd heroine of Aristophanes’ marvelous play by the same name. Lysistrata was able to diagnose a problem in her society and to take actions and overcome obstacles to solve it. 

For those who have not read the ancient Greek play, it was written in 411 BCE, and is a comedy where one woman convinces all the other wives to withhold sex from their husbands as a way of pressuring them to achieve peace and end the Peloponnesian War. Hilarity ensues as men stumble around with obvious erections, and ultimately they agree to initiate peace talks. 

Lysistrata has been a feminist favorite, as it celebrates the power of women over men, who appear to do all their thinking with their dicks. However, it also portrays women as using their own genitals to get what they want. There is perhaps some truth in both of these caricatures, as evidenced by the play’s popularity for 2,400 years. 

I first mentioned Lysistrata as a possible model for change years ago here at HUS, but readily acknowledged that such a plan could never work. The strategy amounts to the creation of a cartel, where a small group of suppliers agrees to fix prices in order to share the wealth rather than drive one another out of business via competition. Cartels are notoriously unstable, because at any time one member can defect, drop the price, and scoop up all the demand for a larger short-term gain. The incentive to cheat is great.

To deal with hookup culture, the Lysistrata strategy would be effective only if all female participants (hardly a small group of suppliers) agreed to stop having casual sex, demanding commitment of some form in exchange for sex. We do not need to look very far to find women staunchly defending their right and desire to hook up, whether to pursue physical pleasure freely without judgment or to defend the political stance of feminists. In fact, what we have now is a free market where a small group of women offers sex for free (see: cow, milk) and a small group of men has access to that supply.

While some of those women are clearly distressed by their inability to obtain girlfriend status from their hookups, they have bet on hooking up as a better road to commitment than sitting out, and they are unlikely to forfeit the male attention they currently receive in hopes of making things better for everyone. Raising the price of sex would invite greatly increased competition from all the women not hooking up much, weakening the bargaining power of promiscuous women, limited though it is. 

However, I do think there is value in the Lysistrata concept with some adaptation. If all of the women currently not benefiting from hookup culture in any way (obviously a large majority) were to declare their unwillingness to participate and play by those rules, it would serve two purposes:

1. It would explode the myth that basically everybody is hooking up regularly and feels comfortable doing it, which is prevalent on college campuses. 

2. It would identify the women who are interested in a more traditional dating model where emotional intimacy precedes physical intimacy. 

In other words, this move would clearly identify the dissatisfied 80+% of females. Their unhappy male counterparts would have an opportunity to bring back the date. Of course, some of the women only want the players to take them on dates, but that isn’t going to happen. They’re probably better off continuing to hook up and snag whatever crumbs of affection and attention they can from men who have no desire or incentive to offer anything in return for sex. 

Lysistrata isn’t quite right, we need something more along the lines of Take Back the Date Night. But I do think Smith is onto something here – if most women don’t dig it, there’s real potential for a shift. 

I’ll be giving this more thought, perhaps reaching out to campus groups, associations of university women, etc. All suggestions are welcome!

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Underdog

    “Hooking up, in fact, shares the defining feature of a sexual assault”

    I stopped reading right there.

  • VD

    As you probably already know, I am dubious about the proposition myself, due to the fact of Lysistrata being complete fiction. In real life, the Spartans raped the starving, disease-stricken Athenian women after Athens surrendered. Also, it strikes me rather like men trying to fix the SMP by citing Star Trek.

    “First, we build a holodeck!”

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

      @VD

      As you probably already know, I am dubious about the proposition myself, due to the fact of Lysistrata being complete fiction.

      Ha, I did know that. I think Lysistrata is really just a convenient popular culture reference to desribe the cartel concept, which is what Smith is really proposing. Obviously, in the play these were women and their husbands, not strangers.

      Coincidentally, a recent bestselling novel is based on Lysistrata: The Uncoupling by Meg Wolitzer:

      When the elliptical new drama teacher at Stellar Plains High School chooses for the school play Lysistrata-the comedy by Aristophanes in which women stop having sex with men in order to end a war-a strange spell seems to be cast over the school. Or, at least, over the women. One by one throughout the high school community, perfectly healthy, normal women and teenage girls turn away from their husbands and boyfriends in the bedroom, for reasons they don’t really understand. As the women worry over their loss of passion, and the men become by turns unhappy, offended, and above all, confused, both sides are forced to look at their shared history, and at their sexual selves in a new light.

  • http://www.alfin2500.blogspot.com Alice Finkel

    The problem will correct itself, eventually. Higher education has become an incredibly artificial and surprisingly authoritarian (no free speech) environment. College debt in the US is stratospheric, and is not going to be paid in full. Colleges are top-heavy with staff and unnecessary luxuries. And the value received by students from college credentials is diminishing steadily.

    Alternative education and alternative credentialing are cropping up. A failing national economy will eventually shift the locus of power in education away from colleges to more practical and efficacious learning institutions.

    Extreme forms of hooking-up are reminiscent of the pre-HIV San Francisco bathhouse culture. Driven necessarily by male libido, gay bathhouses were custom made for the rapid spread of HIV and other STDs.

    Minority students at particular institutions can be particularly affected by the downside of hooking up. It is not a homogeneous phenomenon, and is not without collateral damage.

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

      @Alice Finkel

      Welcome, you’ve made some good points. We are seeing huge changes in higher education, and online education is going to be huge. The unique American four-year college experience is definitely endangered. In the short term, hookup culture will worsen if women continue to outnumber men by ever greater numbers in college. All of this is going to take a while to shake out, and women who are 21 today need some practical ways of addressing the issue.

      Extreme forms of hooking-up are reminiscent of the pre-HIV San Francisco bathhouse culture. Driven necessarily by male libido, gay bathhouses were custom made for the rapid spread of HIV and other STDs.

      Very much so. In fact, I’ve been struck by several parallels to gay culture. Of course, two men who are wired to enjoy sexual variety are going to find the culture less risky from an emotional POV, though obviously it’s risky from a physical health standpoint. It’s interesting – no matter how much I beat the drum re STDs, even here, I find that no one focuses on that very real risk. We really don’t pay attention as a population until we’re experiencing an epidemic that threatens everyone in some way. Remember how heavily the idea that straight people would all get AIDS was promoted? I remember feeling terrified of that, and I was already married with children!

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    Lysistrata cannot work, since it requires slut-shaming to avoid breaking the cartel — and if there’s anything that feminist-influenced college girls hate, it’s slut-shaming. You can’t have a dating culture with hookup culture assumptions. Besides, they don’t want to do away with hooking up entirely, making the problem worse.

    As for commitment, there’s no reason to commit to a girl who isn’t having sex with you, since she’s free to break up the relationship whenever she wants, making all your relationship investment a waste. This creates an incentive for women to put out early for the possibility of commitment, but the guys women like — alpha cads — don’t commit, so they end up losing out.

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

      Lysistrata cannot work, since it requires slut-shaming to avoid breaking the cartel — and if there’s anything that feminist-influenced college girls hate, it’s slut-shaming.

      Agreed. Slut shaming is a non-starter. DOA. That’s why a voluntary group of “Ask me on a date!” t-shirt wearing women would be a far better approach.

      As for commitment, there’s no reason to commit to a girl who isn’t having sex with you, since she’s free to break up the relationship whenever she wants, making all your relationship investment a waste.

      When I came of age, the ultimate goal was the simultaneous orgasm, which is quite silly. Today it’s the simultaneous DTR/Let’s have sex moment.

  • Apollinian

    Such a coordinated move would work if performed in a visible way by the most attractive women, who indeed can dictate their terms in the sexual market. Herd mentality and the aspirational inclinations of the other women would take care of the rest. Men would adapt to the new conditions, as we have always done. But such move would imply a reasoned approach, an understanding of sex differences and a long-term orientation on the part of the leading women. The promotion of such attitudes was the role of culture, but with that gone, we are left with the short-term-oriented, emotion-driven behaviors that guarantee a worsening of the situation: the exultation of our basest nature and further distancing between men and women.

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

      @Apollinian

      Such a coordinated move would work if performed in a visible way by the most attractive women, who indeed can dictate their terms in the sexual market. Herd mentality and the aspirational inclinations of the other women would take care of the rest.

      Yes, you’d have to get some of the “cool” girls with high status to do it. Some Queen Bees. They don’t necessarily need to be the best looking, as they are influencing women, not men.

      Men currently having sex with good-looking slutty girls have little to fear.

      The promotion of such attitudes was the role of culture, but with that gone, we are left with the short-term-oriented, emotion-driven behaviors that guarantee a worsening of the situation: the exultation of our basest nature and further distancing between men and women.

      Sadly agree.

  • Escoffier

    The big flaw in that article is that the author completely fails to recognize that it’s not “men” who benefit from hook-up culture but “some men.”

    The strategy could work but only if a strong majority participated and very few ever broke ranks. The regime of societally/religiously enforced monogamy was built up over centuries, even millenia, and I don’t see it being replaced within our lifetimes. It could be rebuilt though after a really spectacular collapse.

    Although, there are examples of societies “re-moralizing” themselves, e.g., randy Regency England gave way to the Victorians. But there still was a lot of cultural and religious capital in that country back then to draw from and build on. It’s just not present in the West any more.

    So, no.

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

    It’s a really interesting situation. As a general statement, the guys on campus don’t have much in the way of current resources to exchange for sex. Obviously the men could signal that they are good horses to bet on and engage in LTR patterns that consider economic prospects and future resources, but that story would involve “marrying the college sweetheart” and this is very difficult to buy into given the volatility of post-college travel, employment, etc.

    The traits that would make a great husband are clearly less valuable if there is little chance that the guy is going to become the husband, and I think members of both genders are pretty fatalistic on this score. It’s perhaps akin to: Option A) spend 6 months with a fun, highly entertaining BMOC guy—then break up; Option B) spend 6 months with an ambitious, hard-studying, serious guy—then break up. Option B would make sense if you removed the near certainty of the relationship shelf-life, but I think this shelf-life really is a key part of the current feminist-approved lifeway for young professional women.

    The cartel model is difficult when the # of suppliers exceeds the # of customers and each customer is being asked to commit to an exclusivity contract; even if this was practical it would guarantee the insolvency of some % of suppliers, and of course exclusivity contracts cut both ways and could limit female post-college mobility.

    Basically feminism and preferential treatment of female students have succeeded in their proximate goals at the cost of creating tremendous overcapacity of potential sexual supply on college campuses, and internet porn (“threat of substitute products”) has probably done the rest. When Emily Smith writes about men having SMP power on campus, she may be engaging in some survivorship bias: she’s not including the many young men who have not been able to participate in the campus hook-up culture because, these days, they aren’t able to get on campus at all.

    I think it will sort itself out over time if more women come to prioritize “traditional” relationships and college enrollments eventually shift back to reflect this, but for all I know that could take decades. Ultimately this is a story of trade-offs in a world of unlimited wants and limited means.

  • tito

    the only thing that will work for women is to have “it all” taken away from them. lysistrata can only work if it is imposed by the culture, they’ll never go to it themselves.

  • Andy

    This is just women whining about not getting their own way, despite getting their own way. You fought to be sluts, well sluts you are and you can never go back.

    Look at it this way, it’s very funny for all those watching.

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

      Where on earth are these people coming from?

  • mr. wavevector

    Over at the Atlantic site I left a comment, currently the “best”, that blasted Ms. Smith for her feminist mindset – advocating the sexual coercion of men to meet female emotional demands rather than negotiating a fair exchange. I too proposed another solution – “that young women acknowledge that the emotional investment they want from men is something of considerable value and cannot be coerced nor demanded as an entitlement. Instead, young women should make an effort to find out what men would like in return for their emotional investment, and then offer them that in a mutually satisfactory exchange.”

    What is that that men want, and that women can provide, that might motivate greater male emotional investment? I didn’t want to get into it there, but you know what men like: feminine, nurturing behavior, with bit of vulnerability and an enticing hint of willing submissiveness. That’s what triggers the male instinct to care for and cherish a woman.

    The trouble with the college girls is that the very idea of feminine behavior, particularly the submissiveness, has become so repugnant to them that they can’t even fake it to coax a relationship out of a guy. Instead they double down on their physical sexual displays and promiscuous behavior. But while their physical sexuality may induce an erection, it is inadequate to induce a commitment.

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

      mr. wavevector

      I too proposed another solution – “that young women acknowledge that the emotional investment they want from men is something of considerable value and cannot be coerced nor demanded as an entitlement. Instead, young women should make an effort to find out what men would like in return for their emotional investment, and then offer them that in a mutually satisfactory exchange.”

      I think this is extremely reasonable and as you say, much better than a withholding strategy, which even if it could work, would bring men to the table unwillingly and feeling taken advantage of. The problem I see is in the second part of your statement. In practical terms, how can women find out what men would like? What sort of effort is required? Before you say, “ask them” let me just point out that the vast majority of students is not hooking up habitually. Rather than trying to get promiscuous men and women to give others a chance, which is doomed to failure, I propose finding a way to bring together the men and women who would welcome a dating culture. All voluntary. But those groups are currently divided, or are at least failing to communicate well enough to date.

      The trouble with the college girls is that the very idea of feminine behavior, particularly the submissiveness, has become so repugnant to them that they can’t even fake it to coax a relationship out of a guy.

      I think some women find femininity repugnant (I had a swarm of radfem knitters here just last week despising a post urging femininity), but I think many more literally have no idea how to go about being feminine. I certainly wasn’t taught that growing up, and that was the 60s and 70s. Trying to teach my daughter that was an experiment, really. I had no idea what I was doing. As for submissiveness, you’re right – that’s the third rail. I like the idea of an enticing hint, particularly since it’s not very hard to point out to women that they are attracted to dominance.

  • Mireille

    @ Andy,

    The only funny thing we’re watching here is your tiny appendice showing through that sad post :(
    We sluts know how to recognize those; after all we do “handle” a lot of them on a daily basis.

    @ Wavevector,
    If you probably took the time to read the articles properly, you’d see that the surveys cover both, female and male, discontent. It not about forcing men to meet our demands, its about forcing the system so that all, female and male, can have their needs met.

  • J

    While I regard much of what Hannah Rosin has to say about the hook up culture as BS, I do think she is right in saying that to a degree, the female agenda of not comitting until education is complete, is part of what drives it. Alice Finkel makes some excellent points regarding how changes in the educational system will change the SMP. Nonetheless, I do think that young women can and should refuse sex without monogamy–and, given your figures, Susan, I think that many already do.

  • Höllenhund

    “As you probably already know, I am dubious about the proposition myself, due to the fact of Lysistrata being complete fiction.”

    Another thing conveniently ignored is that the women in the play mobilized to make men, you know, end a war, not to better behave themselves in the mating market, which is a lot different.

    And the thing with that is: has there ever been a documented case of women in any community making a conscious, organized and successful effort in order to end male-on-male violence? I think not.

  • Darsh

    @Susan Walsh:

    Where on earth are these people coming from?

    Readers from the Atlantic perhaps? Or more likely: Your readers who haven’t bothered to post before for one reason or another. You’ve said it yourself, the people who participate in the discussions are far fewer in number than the ones who read your blog.

    For my part, I find myself wondering whether I would like a Lysistrata-solution or not… On the one hand, finding good girls would be easier, and I actually like going on dates. On the other, after finally adding enough Alpha (thanks to Roissy et al.), I’m able to do quite well for myself in the current SMP. And the good girls are quite rare anyways.

    If I was still a teenager or if I were a father, I might be more inclined to this solution. But as a mid- to late twenties former nice guy, I’m having it pretty good right now. And any change wouldn’t much benefit me.

    Though as other have said, you’re more or less considering joining a losing battle.

  • Mireille

    @ Hollenhund,

    You should do a bit of reading; women in Liberia (West Africa) actually put an end to conflict in their country using a mix of sex strike, non-violent protest and public space occupation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_of_Liberia_Mass_Action_for_Peace

    There are plenty of instances where women push for the end of violence, especially when rape is use as a weapon of war, In Colombia, Argentina, India, etc… A bit of education is in need.

  • Jonny

    Men should withhold sex. Withholding sex becomes the new “War on Women”. Women will fight back. Men will give in.

    What I don’t get is there is no such thing as the middle ground as proposed. Screwing around via a pretense of a semi-committed relationship. Men will pretend and then dump her.

    Should college kids date? Goodness, dating is for relationships and marriage candidates. It is not for hookups and semi-commitments.

    If women don’t like it, don’t do it. Is that so hard?

  • Sassy6519

    Lysistrata cannot work, since it requires slut-shaming to avoid breaking the cartel — and if there’s anything that feminist-influenced college girls hate, it’s slut-shaming. You can’t have a dating culture with hookup culture assumptions. Besides, they don’t want to do away with hooking up entirely, making the problem worse.

    + 1 on both counts. I don’t think that a Lysistrata situation, with regards to hookup culture, could ever fully be accomplished. Even if some women did purposefully start withholding sex, there will always be a segment of women who have and enjoy sex for its own sake. Women who thoroughly enjoy hooking up would never jump on the bandwagon. It would set up a cartel like situation.

    What is that that men want, and that women can provide, that might motivate greater male emotional investment? I didn’t want to get into it there, but you know what men like: feminine, nurturing behavior, with bit of vulnerability and an enticing hint of willing submissiveness. That’s what triggers the male instinct to care for and cherish a woman.

    Yeah, I know I’m deficient in those areas. I think I’m a work in progress however. I’ll never be highly feminine/vulnerable/submissive, but I think I can at least try to add a little bit of those things to my personality. Having said that, there’s only so much radical change that a person’s inherent personality can go through. I know that I will never be a doting housewife or SAHM. Those two things are simply incongruent with who I am and who I want to become.

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

    Let’s pick some future date and say that we have 100 students on campus and a 60/40 split. Let’s pretend that everyone is equally attractive.

    40 men pledge “till graduation do us part” monogamy oaths to 40 women. 20 women get nothing.

    At graduation, this explodes. 100 college-educated singles emerge. The 60 women get their acts together sooner than the males do, and decide after 3 years in NYC that it is time to go husband shopping. They decide to look for men aged 27-28—successful/stable enough to provide, perhaps able to be support an SAHM option, etc.

    The problem is that this asymmetry in college graduation rates has been going on for some time now, and so there are fewer college-educated 27-28 year old men than there are college-educated 27-28-year-old women. So those older women will be understandably reluctant to have their younger “sisters” poach from their cohort of eligible males.

    So let’s say that 27-28-year-old women refuse a bidding war and instead seek men aged 32-33. But we have only managed to hand the grenade off to the 32-33 women, who were facing their own austere conditions. Still, we can push out one more time…

    The game is now coming to its dramatic climax. The commitment-minded men of the next several age cohorts PROBABLY WANT TO BE DADS. They won’t continually accept older female candidates; they’ll start to freeze their requirements on women who they can raise families with.

    Perhaps we can expect some “Dad-shaming” attempts to begin in a few years.

    Perhaps this may not be a war of men against women so much as it is a war of women of different age cohorts going to war with one another as they face two harsh, unavoidable scarcity realities: 1) not enough similarly-educated men to go around; and 2) a biologically-imposed, limited safe reproductive window.

    It is certainly possible that women will seek mates outside of the pool of college-educated males and this of course may be quite rational if professional/academic hypergamy proves to be a Manosphere will-o’-wisp (I don’t think it is; I think that at least this variation of hypergamy is quite real, and it creates yet an additional layer of asymmetry as traditional-marriage-minded, college-educated Provisioning-type men may be quite ok with having non-college-educated wives, but the reverse may not be true).

    It seems to me like ultimately this comes down to a numbers game, with two quantitative entities—“60/40″ (or worse) and “Age 35″ (+/1 a few years) being the chief generators of much mischief.

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

      @BB

      Perhaps this may not be a war of men against women so much as it is a war of women of different age cohorts going to war with one another as they face two harsh, unavoidable scarcity realities: 1) not enough similarly-educated men to go around; and 2) a biologically-imposed, limited safe reproductive window.

      Bingo. Expect intrasexual female competition to get even more fierce. A young woman shared a story with me recently. She was celebrating her 23rd birthday at dinner with some friends, and they went to a bar for a drink afterwards. There she ran into someone she had worked with in her 18th summer at a camp. He was 6 years older – what seemed like a HUGE difference when she was 18 now seemed like an attractive and reasonable age difference. He appeared to sense it too, treating her more like a peer than a high school kid as he had back in 2007. They struck up a conversation and had great chemistry. After a while a woman sidled up to him and appeared to stake her claim. She looked about 30. She said, “Who’s this girl you’re talking to Jack?” He introduced them and mentioned that Kate was celebrating her 23rd birthday. The woman said, “23? Oh that is so cute, you little baby.” The young woman felt the put down, but Jack turned to the 30 yo and said, “Actually, if you’ll excuse us, Kate and I have some catching up to do.” That 30 yo woman is SOL and she knows it.

      It is certainly possible that women will seek mates outside of the pool of college-educated males and this of course may be quite rational if professional/academic hypergamy proves to be a Manosphere will-o’-wisp (I don’t think it is; I think that at least this variation of hypergamy is quite real

      I don’t think it is either. I think we’re going to see female college graduates howling in indignation. You know, all the women I know in college are well aware that the ratio is lopsided, even if it isn’t at their particular campus. But when I mention the impact on assortative mating for marriage in a few years, they look dumbstruck. And after a minute or two, they say, “I’ll just go older.” Someone is going to have to pay the piper.

      It seems to me like ultimately this comes down to a numbers game, with two quantitative entities—”60/40″ (or worse) and “Age 35″ (+/1 a few years) being the chief generators of much mischief.

      Haha, I love the word mischief, but in this case it will not be of the impish, entertaining variety.

  • Thomas

    “Of course, some of the women only want the players to take them on dates, but that isn’t going to happen.” For “some,” read “most, if not all.” It’s the small number of the most attractive and socially-dominant men (mostly Greeks, as the article implies) who are hooking up whom college women are going to want to somehow start engaging in traditional courtship, not the 80-90% that would have to be in the game for the pareto optimal goal of this strategy to be attainable. That’s the definition of hypergamy, and an additional reason why the “Lysistrata strategy” would never work. In addition to Lysistrata being, you know, fictional.

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

      In addition to Lysistrata being, you know, fictional.

      The fact that Lysistrata is a fiction rather than a historical fact does not strike me as relevant. Even if it had actually happened in 411 BCE we would hardly be able to extrapolate and predict its success today. It is the idea that is interesting, though perhaps unrealistic. We have a marketplace with supply and demand for sex. If we restrict the supply of sex, the price for sex will go up. We don’t need the history books to grasp the truth of this.

      Lysistrata will not work because single women would not abide by the rules of the cartel. If they did, however, there is no question but that men would line up with marriage proposals to get sex, just as they did before the price of sex plummeted.

  • Ion

    “Nonetheless, I do think that young women can and should refuse sex without monogamy–and, given your figures, Susan, I think that many already do.”

    Yup. I believe that some (probably millions) of young women do. But without the “we’re on strike!!!” headlines… well, what good is going on a food strike against war if you’re in your room starving and no one knows?

    I happen to know several women who’ve just decided to sit out during all 4 years of college. Not because they have a low SMV and no one wants them anyway, nor because they have too high standards and no one wants them anyway. The truth is that the assembly line of tail was a depressing environment for them: not even an entertaining harem, just a depressing harem.

    When the option is 1.”HIV harem”, and 2.”re-runs of Grey’s Anatomy”, I believe many women silently choose box 2.

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

      @Ion

      Yup. I believe that some (probably millions) of young women do. But without the “we’re on strike!!!” headlines… well, what good is going on a food strike against war if you’re in your room starving and no one knows?

      Precisely. Which is why I think there’s something to be said for a PR gambit here.

  • Brendan

    Rather than trying to get promiscuous men and women to give others a chance, which is doomed to failure, I propose finding a way to bring together the men and women who would welcome a dating culture. All voluntary. But those groups are currently divided, or are at least failing to communicate well enough to date.

    I think a core problem is that these groups, often, don’t find the counterparts attractive. That is, the women in that group are looking for *hot* men who will commit to them, and the men are looking for *hot* women who will commit to them. The hot men and women are mostly (not exclusively, but mostly) in the hook-up culture of course, particularly on the male side of the equation, because being a hot man on a college campus where there is already a man shortage is like being the fat kid at Willy Wonkas — he has no incentive at all, barring personal preferences or moral restrictions, to not partake, and so most of them partake, and partake heartily in what is on offer.

    Attraction is a key issue here, I think. The men in the “interested in dating” group are going to be disproportionately not “hot”, due to the lifestyle afforded the hot guys on college campuses today. To change that without changing the sex ratio would require a more comprehensive Lysistrata, which isn’t realistic or workable (there would be too many female scabs). Changing the sex ratio is more realistic, but of course the educational community, being in the back pocket of academic feminism, has no interest at all in that.

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

      @Brendan

      Attraction is a key issue here, I think. The men in the “interested in dating” group are going to be disproportionately not “hot”, due to the lifestyle afforded the hot guys on college campuses today. To change that without changing the sex ratio would require a more comprehensive Lysistrata, which isn’t realistic or workable (there would be too many female scabs). Changing the sex ratio is more realistic, but of course the educational community, being in the back pocket of academic feminism, has no interest at all in that.

      I’m glad you showed up, I’d like to run something by you. You are younger than me I think, by at least 10 years, but you remember an earlier period of assortative mating, if I’m not mistaken. I agree with you that attraction is a key issue. There is no doubt that Greeks and athletes (and their female counterparts) make up a large portion of the population that is high status, cool, and hooking up. Everyone on campus knows who they are, by virtue of their sense of ownership of their surroundings, as well as the fact that they all wear clothing that brands them part of this elite population. Nothing new about that – this goes back to the advent of dating in the 20s and the role of Greek organizations in promulgating that culture.

      Here’s what I’d like to compare to today: When I was in college (mid-late 70s) people were pretty good at pairing up, even though the Sex Rev was beginning to have an impact, women were going home with Mr. Goodbar, etc. There was still the traditional norm of going steady in college, and most women did not have sex casually. Those who did were branded sluts. So the two hottest people would pair off. There would be several couples like that – golden. And so it filtered on down. I distinctly recall figuring out precisely what my SMV was based on which guys did not flirt back, which guys flirted back, and which guys eagerly asked if they could carry my books. I wound up dating guys that flirted back. And truly, I was attracted to them. I did not long for what I obviously could not have. In my experience, this system worked quite well all around. There were various SMVs represented, even in the Greek scene I was a part of, and assortative mating took place within that realm quite successfully. In fact, the least attractive women in my sorority happily paired off with the less attractive guys – and not only that – they were genuinely sexually attracted.

      This is what has been lost perhaps. The idea that you figure out your place, and then select from people in the same range. We did not “settle” – the butterflies were real. I think we wanted relationships, we wanted to date, we wanted to fall in love with someone, and we wanted to have sex. We found the best in people we were well matched to and we made that happen.

      This is how I know that attraction triggers are culturally malleable. In my day, a 6 couldn’t get a 10, and didn’t try. But the 6 did get the hots for another 6. Obviously, the unleashing of female sexuality/hypergamy is a factor, but I sense it is more than that. Your thoughts?

  • VD

    Having said that, there’s only so much radical change that a person’s inherent personality can go through. I know that I will never be a doting housewife or SAHM. Those two things are simply incongruent with who I am and who I want to become.

    (Laughs) That may well be, but keep in mind that you never know, Sassy. You truly never know. There are no shortage of people who believe that the fact that I am married as absolute proof of divine intervention in human affairs. And I know ambitious Ivy League MBAs who never wanted marriage or kids who are now happy, doting housewives.

    Life is what happened when you look in the mirror one day and wonder “who the hell is that and what is she doing here?”

  • VD

    When the option is 1.”HIV harem”, and 2.”re-runs of Grey’s Anatomy”, I believe many women silently choose box 2.

    I think you’re underestimating the appeal of STD bingo. You might be surprised at how many women respond favorably to an intoxicated man standing on a table and shouting “I need syphilis, are there any women in the house tonight with syphilis?”

    Most amusing response: “I think I might have chlamydia, would that be okay?”

  • http://aplace-formythoughts.blogspot.com/ Renee

    Brendan,
    I think a core problem is that these groups, often, don’t find the counterparts attractive. That is, the women in that group are looking for *hot* men who will commit to them, and the men are looking for *hot* women who will commit to them.

    You hit the nail on the head…..

  • Madelena

    @Brendan

    I think a core problem is that these groups, often, don’t find the counterparts attractive. That is, the women in that group are looking for *hot* men who will commit to them, and the men are looking for *hot* women who will commit to them.

    My response:

    I look at old pics and there seems to be greater proportion of decent looking people in crowd shots and random portraits. My parents’ high school graduation pics was full of 6-8s (both men and women). Sometimes I wonder if we are regressing looks-wise generation by generation…

  • Sassy6519

    @ VD

    (Laughs) That may well be, but keep in mind that you never know, Sassy. You truly never know. There are no shortage of people who believe that the fact that I am married as absolute proof of divine intervention in human affairs. And I know ambitious Ivy League MBAs who never wanted marriage or kids who are now happy, doting housewives.

    Life is what happened when you look in the mirror one day and wonder “who the hell is that and what is she doing here?”

    Yeah, there’s always a slim chance. Knowing myself though, I’d be willing to bet good money that I will never become a doting housewife/SAHM.

    It’s hard to describe really. When I think of those two scenarios, I have an instinctive gut reaction of disgust. I know it’s odd and not that common, but that’s what I experience.

    I have never opposed other women wanting those things. Whenever some of my friends talk about wanting to have kids or talk about being housewives, I encourage them to do so. I just really believe that it isn’t for me.

    I’ve been doing quite a lot of introspection lately, per the usual, and I’ve started to wonder whether or not I’m really cut out for traditional relationships/monogamy/marriage. I’ve even contemplated whether or not I would be willing to enter into an open relationship. To be honest, I haven’t been fully satisfied by any of the relationships I have been in. Whenever I’ve been in a relationship, one of the 4 following things have happened:

    1. I always feel like something is missing.
    2. I reminisce about being single.
    3. I fantasize about sex I’ve had with other people.
    4. I encounter another person I want to sleep with.

    Every single one of my relationships have run into one of the aforementioned glitches/bumps. I’m starting to wonder if those things will ever cease to affect my relationships. Maybe I’m never very satisfied in relationships because I try to force myself into traditional relationships/monogamy. Maybe I’m just not cut out for those things. Maybe I should stop fighting it.

  • Ramble

    As some others have already pointed out, Lysistrata is simply Slut Shaming by a different name.

    It still involves getting a large percentage of girls to not be slutty.

  • Abbot

    “Minority students at particular institutions can be particularly affected by the downside of hooking up. It is not a homogeneous phenomenon,”

    Thats where the future worthy wives come from

  • Ion

    Sassy

    “Every single one of my relationships have run into one of the aforementioned glitches/bumps. I’m starting to wonder if those things will ever cease to affect my relationships. Maybe I’m never very satisfied in relationships because I try to force myself into traditional relationships/monogamy. Maybe I’m just not cut out for those things. Maybe I should stop fighting it.”

    Sassy, this seems to be more about commitment avoidance and lack of trust of men than about something inherently missing from your personality. To me, these issues can definitely be fixed once worked on. You’re still young, and even as a 28 year old I’ve learned so much about myself since I was your age, about my likes and dislikes, personality gliches etc.,

    For example when men ask if you want kids, I hope you will reconsider the answer. In 5 years, you won’t know how you feel (many of the women now 30 and single had no idea they wanted kids at 23).

    Sometimes, you have to date against type in order to discover what type of relationship you’d be good at. i.e, I thought I’d always love the intellectual high-end beta/successful loner type, and got exactly what I wanted more than once. After dating this type for a while, I discovered that this is NOT what I want. Intellectual men often come with some “moody” personality baggage, pretentiousness, and arrogance, for example (I even doubt that it’s healthy for me to date another loner). Anyway as you date more, you may even discover that your “type” is responsible for the glitches and bumps you’re experiencing, and it might be time to “tweek” your preferences just a bit.

    The good news is that you’re self-aware and introspective, so you will quickly adapt to any changes you need to make.

  • Abbot

    How much longer until Jezebel and good ol Marcotte start spitting all over this Atlantic piece?

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

      How much longer until Jezebel and good ol Marcotte start spitting all over this Atlantic piece?

      Yeah, I’m surprised it hasn’t happened already. It wasn’t two days before Marcotte had Tracy Clark Flory backpedaling on her piece at Salon. Smith is not a sex-pozzie though. She has written for the Washington Times – taking a decidedly conservative and unusual stance for a young feminist re casual sex. I hope that Marcotte tried and was shot down.

  • Ion

    VD

    “You might be surprised at how many women respond favorably to an intoxicated man standing on a table and shouting “I need syphilis, are there any women in the house tonight with syphilis?”

    Holy crap, is that where your alias came from?!!?

  • Tom.s

    College women don’t need Lysistrata.

    They just need to find me.

    May I please have a girlfriend now?

  • Sai

    @mr. wavevector
    “I too proposed another solution – “that young women acknowledge that the emotional investment they want from men is something of considerable value and cannot be coerced nor demanded as an entitlement. Instead, young women should make an effort to find out what men would like in return for their emotional investment, and then offer them that in a mutually satisfactory exchange.”
    That’s perfectly reasonable and fair.
    (How much submissiveness is enticing? I have no problem with supplying food and sex, but I am the sort of person who when ordered to jump for seemingly no good reason will ask “why?”)

    @VD

    “I think you’re underestimating the appeal of STD bingo. You might be surprised at how many women respond favorably to an intoxicated man standing on a table and shouting “I need syphilis, are there any women in the house tonight with syphilis?”
    Where is that establishment so I can never go there?

  • Esau

    Escoffier: The big flaw in that article is that the author completely fails to recognize that it’s not “men” who benefit from hook-up culture but “some men.”

    I agree. Smith would have been a lot more credible, more sympathetic, and more practical, if she didn’t obviously have her apex stuck so far up her fallacy, so to speak.

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

      I agree. Smith would have been a lot more credible, more sympathetic, and more practical, if she didn’t obviously have her apex stuck so far up her fallacy, so to speak.

      In Smith’s defense, it is unlikely she perceived this at Dartmouth, has read about it elsewhere in the media, or found it in the literature about hooking up. Truly, the apex fallacy remains a secret. I don’t know why.

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

    Susan, here’s a heavily simplified run-down of something that I have heard in my classes. I figure you can put it into your analytical engine and make sense of it.

    Me: “So, ladies, now that we’ve talked about the Japanese demographic crisis…how many children do you think you would like to have?”

    Typical Female Student: “Oh, 2-3.”

    Me: “Ok, sounds good. How many years between kids?”

    Typical Female Student: “2-3, I think.”

    Me: “How old do you want to be when you have your last kid?”

    Typical Female Student: “Around 35-36.”

    Me: “How long do you want to be married before you have your first child?”

    Typical Female Student: “Approx. 2 years.”

    Me: “How long do you want to date your man before you get married?”

    Typical Female Student: “2-3 years.”

    Me: “How important is career, grad school, travel, etc. to you?”

    Typical Female Student: “Very important. That’s what my 20s are for.”

    !!!!

    This is what engineers might call a “tightly-coupled system”. There isn’t much slack here to absorb shocks if anything goes wrong with the plan.

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

      @BB

      This is what engineers might call a “tightly-coupled system”. There isn’t much slack here to absorb shocks if anything goes wrong with the plan.

      Seriously. I just ran the numbers and she basically has to start dating her future husband at age 25-26. In fact, I do not think that is unusual – it’s probably the most common timeline for educated women. However. She obviously cannot do that if she’s setting aside her 20s for self-actualization, or if she is writing them off as one long party. The woman with future time-orientation will sort this out as she moves forward – meeting her husband in grad school (as I did), at work, through friends made at work, etc. However, you are right that there is little margin for error. Quite a few of my attractive female classmates in grad school have never married – and these were women who were giddy over guys at 25.

  • HanSolo

    There was a culinary Lysistrata on Little House on the Prairie that I remember from my childhood. lol The women stopped cooking and taking care of their kids until the men caved in and supported their voting rights.

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

      There was a culinary Lysistrata on Little House on the Prairie that I remember from my childhood. lol The women stopped cooking and taking care of their kids until the men caved in and supported their voting rights.

      In The Quiet Man, Maureen O’Hara refuses to have sex with John Wayne after the wedding until he has stood up to her brother and demanded her dowry. The sexual tension between them is fierce – and John Wayne said it was his favorite of all his movies. Needless to say, her plan works, and seeing him dominate her brother drives her wild with desire for him.

  • Abbot

    “the apex fallacy remains a secret. I don’t know why”

    Its not discussed as a concept per se. Its part of the spectrum of delusion inherent in the the hook up scene that women follow, consciously or otherwise.

  • HanSolo

    “the apex fallacy remains a secret. I don’t know why”

    It goes in the face of you can have it all, and because maybe half of women in their 20’s are only focusing on men of slightly or outright greater SMV.

  • mr. wavevector

    @Sai,

    (How much submissiveness is enticing? I have no problem with supplying food and sex, but I am the sort of person who when ordered to jump for seemingly no good reason will ask “why?”)

    Well, as an experiment, I just asked my wife to jump. It went like this:

    Me: mrs.wavevector … jump.
    Her: What?
    Me: Jump!
    Her: What? No!
    Me: Go on, jump.
    Her: Why? No, I don’t want to!
    Me: OK
    Her: Why are you telling me to jump?
    Me: Just wondering if you would.
    Her: You’re weird!

    But then, as she walked out of the room, she turned her head, smiled at me, and did a little bunny hop.

    Me: You did it for me! Thank you.

    Mrs. wavevector looked super cute doing her bunny hop, and I’m feeling a surge of affection for her. Tomorrow I’ll do something nice for her – maybe bring home flowers or some tasty treat.

    And that’s how submission works. Mrs. wavevector isn’t weak, nor is she a doormat. I’m not a domineering husband. But in the end she decided to do what I asked because she loves me, and she did it in a playful, flirtatious way that made me want her and care for her even more.

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

      And that’s how submission works. Mrs. wavevector isn’t weak, nor is she a doormat. I’m not a domineering husband. But in the end she decided to do what I asked because she loves me, and she did it in a playful, flirtatious way that made me want her and care for her even more.

      OMG I love that story.

  • Jack Amok

    they are unlikely to forfeit the male attention they currently receive in hopes of making things better for everyone

    That statement misses the point though. A woman avoiding slutting it up isn’t making things better for everyone else. She’s making things better for her future self. The hot guys you want commitment from are willing to take the village bicycle for a spin now and then, but they’re not going to call it their girlfriend and they sure aren’t going to marry it. The less hooking up you do now, the better your LTR/Marriage prospects later.

    Delayed gratification is an important skill to learn.

    Oh, and regarding the age range issue, here’s another little secret for college-aged women: college aged men are not very interested in marriage. For most of their 20’s, guys are naturally somewhat averse to commitments. It’s a consequence of the SMV. Guys SMVs usually don’t peak until their late 20’s or even their 30’s, so guys are going to be subconsciously reluctant to make a commitment now when their barganing power is going to be better later.

    So if you want commitment, don’t look at any guy under 27 or 28.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, another reason Lysistrata wouldn’t work is that otherwise responsible parties like yourself say to young women “hooking up is the gateway to a relationship” and some of them take that as sanction/blessing.

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

      @Escoffier

      Susan, another reason Lysistrata wouldn’t work is that otherwise responsible parties like yourself say to young women “hooking up is the gateway to a relationship” and some of them take that as sanction/blessing.

      I haven’t ever promoted hooking up as the gateway to a relationship. Certainly not intercourse. Nothing wrong with some making out, IMO. I believe you may be referring to the 12% stat that Kathleen Bogle found in her research. She stated that many young people are in a bind, because as few relationships result from hooking up first, students perceive that hooking up is the only pathway to a relationship. We can see this is true in the absence of dating.

  • Johnycomelately

    The false assumption underlying the entire premise is that all modern women want a LTR in their 20s.

    A few do, most don’t and some can’t.

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

    I really like your Take Back the Date Night idea, but sadly I just found out that a student group on the campus of my alma mater is too busy organizing a Slut Walk. *Sigh*

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

      I really like your Take Back the Date Night idea, but sadly I just found out that a student group on the campus of my alma mater is too busy organizing a Slut Walk. *Sigh*

      There’s been a movement in recent years of students organizing into something called the Anscombe Society. It started at Princeton – here is their mission statement:

      Mission Statement
      The Anscombe Society is a student organization at Princeton University dedicated to affirming the importance of the family, marriage, and a proper understanding for the role of sex and sexuality. We aim to promote an environment that values the crucial role the intact, stable family plays in sustaining society; the definition of marriage as the exclusive, monogamous union of a man and a woman; its role as an institution which is necessary for the healthy family, and thus for a healthy society; a conception of feminism that encourages motherhood; and a chaste lifestyle which respects and appreciates human sexuality, relationships, and dignity. Therefore, we celebrate sex as unifying, beautiful, and joyful when shared in its proper context: that of marriage between a man and woman. The Anscombe Society is a proactive community that provides social support and a voice for those already committed to these values, and promotes intellectual engagement to further discussion and understanding of this ethic on Princeton’s campus and in the broader community.

      It has spread rapidly to other schools, including Harvard, Stanford, and UT Austin.

      These organizations have been very successful in attracting members, hosting social events, etc. and they view their role as one of direct opposition to hookup culture.

      It definitely can be done.

  • Assanova

    Hook-up culture doesn’t benefit men. It only benefits alpha men; the top ten percent. The rest of the men are almost completely mateless.

  • Brendan

    This is how I know that attraction triggers are culturally malleable. In my day, a 6 couldn’t get a 10, and didn’t try. But the 6 did get the hots for another 6. Obviously, the unleashing of female sexuality/hypergamy is a factor, but I sense it is more than that. Your thoughts?

    It is, I agree.

    There are many cultural factors at play. Hypergamy is one, and perhaps the biggest for women, but among women there is also the problem of conflating SMV and MMV (or in this context LTRV), such that guys who are objectively more attractive are available, and sex can be deployed in an attempt to snag commitment — it is hard to resist, I think, for many women. In your day, this was enforced *against* by a culture of going steady from the top down. In my day, we were in the “hanging out” era, where people paired off from larger mixed-sex groups, but dating was still quite rare at Stanford in the mid 80s. In this day my take on what I have seen and heard reported about is that it has gone beyond that and is now in the hookup category – not that hooking up is new, it happened in my day as well, but it was not the norm, and not that common, and it didn’t dominate the whole relationship atmosphere between men and women in college.

    For the men, clearly porn is a part of the issue. Another part is that because hookup culture has become the dominant meme (even if relatively few men and women participate in it de facto, it it still the dominant meme), that sets expectations higher for men as well, because they see girls giving it away easily and wonder why they can’t get that as well.

    I think this is even the case for men and women who want LTRs. It’s a question of attitudes and a broader cultural drift among certain higher end elements of our demographic towards increasingly optimized circumstances. The three car garage, the McMansion, the dorm-as-resort, the instant access to everything on demand culture doesn’t really lead people to think of themselves as anything other than entitled to optimize. When you couple that overarching cultural attitude with the other SMP-specific factors I note above, I think you have a brew for people finding a hard time being attracted to their de facto peers, unfortunately.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Ion

    Sassy, this seems to be more about commitment avoidance and lack of trust of men than about something inherently missing from your personality. To me, these issues can definitely be fixed once worked on. You’re still young, and even as a 28 year old I’ve learned so much about myself since I was your age, about my likes and dislikes, personality gliches etc.,

    There’s always a chance that I will change. Right now, however, I’m just considering the option of non-traditional relationships. Perhaps I may be better suited for them. I’ve always been the type to explore my options, or to at least consider them, so I’m making an effort to determine whether or not I could be happy in a non-traditional relationship.

    Where’s ozymandis when you need her?

  • mr. wavevector

    Susan,

    I think some women find femininity repugnant (I had a swarm of radfem knitters here just last week despising a post urging femininity), but I think many more literally have no idea how to go about being feminine. I certainly wasn’t taught that growing up, and that was the 60s and 70s. Trying to teach my daughter that was an experiment, really. I had no idea what I was doing. As for submissiveness, you’re right – that’s the third rail. I like the idea of an enticing hint, particularly since it’s not very hard to point out to women that they are attracted to dominance.

    I can certainly sympathize with not knowing how to be feminine. It’s taken me decades to understand how to be masculine. Feminism has taught us that femininity is weak and subjugated, while masculinity is evil and oppressive. That’s a very bad starting point for self-awareness for either sex.

    No aspect of male/female relationships has been more distorted by feminist theory than the roles of dominance and submission. It’s got to the point where one can hardly broach this subject – unless one is into BDSM! And so the complexities and paradoxes of dominance and submission are not understood. Submission can be a highly active and directed activity. By offering submission, implicit demands for care and emotional investment are placed on one’s partner. It may look like surrender but it’s really a subtle but powerful negotiation tactic! And likewise, dominance in a relationship isn’t just about asserting authority. It’s also about providing care, comfort and security. This obligating submission and benevolent dominance are a big part of the age-old mating dance between men and women – a dance we all seem to have forgotten the steps to.

    Unlearning the feminist dogma and relearning a few steps of the mating dance has certainly improved my marriage. Mrs. wavevector has been happier, more secure, and more amorous since I’ve become comfortable performing the benevolently dominant role (a role I play largely for her benefit). And few joys compare to the love, care, and devotion I feel for her when she is lying sweet, soft and submissive in my arms.

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

      mr. wavevector

      Unlearning the feminist dogma and relearning a few steps of the mating dance has certainly improved my marriage. Mrs. wavevector has been happier, more secure, and more amorous since I’ve become comfortable performing the benevolently dominant role (a role I play largely for her benefit). And few joys compare to the love, care, and devotion I feel for her when she is lying sweet, soft and submissive in my arms.

      Believe it or not, I learned the role via being a SAHM. Once my husband became the sole breadwinner, I found it only fair to defer to him on all matters financial. He even fought this – said that we had decided together that I would be at home, and that our now reduced income was not just his. But I felt very grateful for the opportunity, and I resolved that I would make his home life as perfect as I could. In turn, he relished the provider role. He likes to cook, but it is very, very rare that he does any kind of housework, and that is fine with me. It’s a fair trade.

      There are areas where I probably have the last word, mostly around the kids, but for more than 20 years he has been the head of the household.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Sassy, your broken family did a number on you. Mine did the same to me, but I grew up with such a traditional culture that it counteracted a lot of it. Plus I had loving male relatives/figures in my life, which was a blessing. You have a really hard time with men and monogamy, and the idea of family and children, which is understandable. But going down that experimentation route isn’t going to be fulfilling or fix the hole in your heart left by your father. I would suggest some real soul-searching and maybe at least a break from all dating activities for a while.

    Believe it or not, I once considered non-monogamy, too. I quickly realized it was total BS. :P

  • Wencil

    Susan, hook up culture exists at most colleges but it is totally missing from other colleges

    Just to cite one example, there is no hooking up at byu. There is assortive mating where the 6’s pair off with other 6’s. just like in your idealized scenario

    It is quite possible to skip the hookup culture. Just choose the right college

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

      @Wencil

      Just to cite one example, there is no hooking up at byu. There is assortive mating where the 6′s pair off with other 6′s. just like in your idealized scenario

      It is quite possible to skip the hookup culture. Just choose the right college

      It’s funny you should mention BYU, that is the best example of a college that has escaped the culture. Recently HanSolo linked to a paper from BYU looking at sexual behavior among Mormon youth, which is much lower than in the rest of the population. I’ve been thinking about whether there are any lessons to take from this – I’m not sure there are, as religion is the central core, but certainly the role of family and culture are both very important.

      My high school was a third Mormon in southern CA, and I can tell you those kids, many of whom were good looking and popular, did not drink Coke, or iced tea, or date outside the religion. It was really remarkable – they were squeaky clean. Yet they were not ostracized at all.

  • INTJ

    I’d imagine an “Ask me on a date!” t-shirt would work wonders!

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    There was a culinary Lysistrata on Little House on the Prairie that I remember from my childhood. lol The women stopped cooking and taking care of their kids until the men caved in and supported their voting rights.

    Oh yeah I remember that one. I think even Mrs. Olson was on the “good” side in that episode.

  • http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com Elusive Wapiti

    “If girls demanded dating before hooking up, guys would be unmoved, she explained. “There are always going to be other girls for them to hook up with so we’ll just get left behind.””The guys would be unmoved not only because of the readily available alternatives, but also because the proposal in front of them purports to make women more attractive to men by…wait for it…women taking longer to hop into bed with them and throwing up more hoops for the guys to jump through.

    In other words, just as easy, just not as cheap.

    Hmm, now that’s enticing.

    How does going from “n” to “n/2″ make a woman more attractive to a commitment-minded man, again?

  • Linda

    As a parent, you choose the social environment of your daughters when you select a college.

    If you choose to send your daughter to Smith you are choosing for her to spend a few years in lesbian experimentation

    If you choose certain other schools you are choosing hook up culture

    If you send your daughter to other schools you are choosing a more traditionalist environment

    Hook up culture is a choice

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

      @Linda

      Welcome, that’s a really interesting comment.

      As a parent, you choose the social environment of your daughters when you select a college.

      Does your daughter have any say in where she goes to college?

      If you choose certain other schools you are choosing hook up culture

      If you send your daughter to other schools you are choosing a more traditionalist environment

      Hook up culture is a choice

      Other than BYU, which may expel a student for having sex (a violation of the school’s honor code), what school’s can boast a hookup-free culture?

      At Catholic universities, including Georgetown, BC and Notre Dame, hooking up is the norm.

      And the sharp increase in the practice of anal sex in recent years is largely attributable to young people who have taken the pledge :-/

      Study Reports Anal Sex on Rise Among Teens

  • Esau

    So I’ve gone and read the Atlantic piece, and I have to say, Susan, that I think you’re doing yourself a disservice in describing yourself and E.E. “Ms.” Smith as being on the same page; and she really doesn’t merit a co-billing with you either.

    I appreciate that you appreciate her interest in focusing on the actual lives and experiences of young women, in counterpart to something like Hanna Rosin’s ideologically-driven blinkers (“if it empowers women, then it must be good!”). But the Smith Atlantic piece is, overall, clearly a product of the same noisome female supremacist assembly line that you so rightly decry elsewhere. I won’t dissect it in detail here, but I think it’s clear that (1) she shows absolutely no interest in, and does not in the least value, the experiences and lives of men, other than how they affect women; (2) she resides comfortably at the near-center of the feminist unreality bubble, believing that (all) men are in charge, with all decision-making power over women — her statement that “The balance of power in the hook-up culture lies with the men” is just disgusting, and insulting to men and women both — and, as such, (3) she can only think that the solution to sex-related problems is always that men need to change their behavior, it’s always men that are the sole source of trouble and need to be corrected or brow-beaten (does “Man up!” sound familiar?).

    Really, despite being marginally (very marginally) improved over most feminist dogmatists by a willingness to look at facts of experience, it seems clear to me that overall Smith is still quite securely in the female supremacist camp, and you should not want to associate yourself too closely with her outlook on things.

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

      @Esau

      Really, despite being marginally (very marginally) improved over most feminist dogmatists by a willingness to look at facts of experience, it seems clear to me that overall Smith is still quite securely in the female supremacist camp, and you should not want to associate yourself too closely with her outlook on things.

      In the land of the blind…

      I get what you are saying, truly. But I’m willing to ally myself with people in certain ways (without giving an overall stamp of approval), to bring about positive change. Imagine the power an EE Smith could have if she could get the ear of some of the women staffing Women’s Centers. I recently wrote about Nathan Harden’s Sex and God at Yale, where he shared letters from faculty promoting casual sex in a way that was downright prurient.

      She interviews a female faculty member at her Alma Mater, and the woman shifts her position 180 degrees in one conversation. Shifting the culture would be a hell of a lot easier with some feminist types on board. Think of it as a John Boehner/Harry Reid type effort.

  • Jackie

    “I’d imagine an “Ask me on a date!” t-shirt would work wonders!”

    Go for it, T-Paine! :)

    PS: Did you try any of the violin music?

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    You know that secretly you had a crush on 4-eyes Mary Ingalls! :D

  • Jackie

    @Sassy
    I won’t speak for Ozymandias, though in my observation open-relationships can have very complex dynamics. I really think it’s an orientation, more than anything. Any unresolved issues you have now will certainly emerge, regardless.

    I think you said you are grad school in psychology? It would be an interesting experiment:

    What would be your assessment, if you viewed this as a dossier of information? As purely detached as possible. What would recommend, in a professional capacity?

    (My 0.02: I have never regretted getting a tune-up for my mental health before making changes. For me, CBT has *really* helped. I think finding the right therapist can be some of the best money a person ever spends. Even Dogsquat would agree– on the CBT, at least. :) )

  • Jackie

    @INTJ, Han Solo

    OMG, we’re back on to a Little House On The Prairie discussion?! Woo hoo! Break out the cider and bust out Pa’s fiddle!
    :D

    Now all we need is a return to the Society of Austenites thread and my cup runneth over! Yeah!!
    8-)

  • Ramble

    When I was in college … most women did not have sex casually. Those who did were branded sluts.

    Susan, I really think that you answered your own question.

    Also,

    In fact, the least attractive women in my sorority happily paired off with the less attractive guys – and not only that – they were genuinely sexually attracted.

    What about the unattractive girls? Not the least attractive, but the unattractive? And, would you say that there are more unattractive girls then, or today? And, if there is a difference, how has that affected the value of the not-unattractive girls (nice double negative)?

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

      What about the unattractive girls? Not the least attractive, but the unattractive? And, would you say that there are more unattractive girls then, or today? And, if there is a difference, how has that affected the value of the not-unattractive girls (nice double negative)?

      As I go about my daily business, I see many unattractive women wearing wedding rings. I presume they are married to men of similar SMV. In fact, I’d say that the vast majority of women I have known who have wanted to marry and have not been able to do so are attractive. Certainly in the 5+ range.

      I know where you are going with the question about the numbers of attractive women…I think that there are fewer people attractive people today of both sexes, and by the look of it, they’re still marrying.

  • Steve Canyon

    A cartel can only work when the resource under control of the cartel is in limited supply. Diamonds, oil, uranium, are all in limited supply and require ample processing to become marketable. Even then, there are still incentives to cheat, and people still take those incentives.

    Last I heard, sex wasn’t a finite resource that requires ample amount of processing to become marketable. Show up, spread your legs, and as ample numbers of porn stars have proven, you can produce as much of it as you can handle in a 24 hour period of time.

    For that simple reason any sort of cartel-like behaviour on the part of women is doomed to failure as there is an incentive to cheat the cartel. Once that happens, the cartel breaks down completely.

    Women can act like a Lysistrata situation can work and try to rally the masses to behave that way, all while never passing up those incentives to cheat that inevitably catch their eye. Yeah, it’ll work in a vaccuum or on a small scale (like a marriage or LTR), but in the aggregate, it’s nothing more than an empty threat.

  • HanSolo

    @Jackie

    Speaking of Little House, Nelly is quite nice when she’s in love with a man. lol Both of her husbands, Luke the pig farmer and Percival, brought out the sweet side of her that Mrs Oleson couldn’t completely spoil and poison away.

    I saw the BBC S&S and couldn’t stand that Willoughby. The 1995 Willoughby is so much better and “perfect” as Marianne would have thought.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sassy: “Maybe I’m never very satisfied in relationships because I try to force myself into traditional relationships/monogamy.”

    Bingo, been saying this for months now, if not more. Your attitudes and priorites align a lot more with FWB’s, harems, open relationships, or poly, than monogamy.

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

    What about the unattractive girls? Not the least attractive, but the unattractive? And, would you say that there are more unattractive girls then, or today? And, if there is a difference, how has that affected the value of the not-unattractive girls (nice double negative)?

    Lol I can’t tell, but I think you’re hinting at obesity here, so I’ll bite. Obesity rates have skyrocketed since the 1980s, so no doubt there are more unattractive people (not just women) now than there were.

    Which is interesting because I was just telling Jackie in another thread that as long as a woman is not obese or dirty, it’s hard to be labeled ugly these days, at least IME. My guess is it’s only the top 10% of guys who talk about “butterfaces” (though you should hear my BF rip into Taylor Swift, I’m not a fan either but yeesh).

    I have watched some of my chubby friends really struggle, and at least two of them have never had boyfriends. My guess is they could probably land unattractive, obese men, but they aren’t interested. I also suspect that perhaps obese men would not be interested in them.

    Diets and exercise for all!

  • Jackie

    @Han Solo

    Nellie and “her first husband”– ha ha! They were married about 5 minutes before the Little House posse busted in on them and forced the annulment. :)

    I think YOU were the one, Han Solo, who got every one in to watching Little House! It wasn’t just me and INTJ. Once you posted that YouTube link, everyone started hopping on that thread! And yes, she was *much* sweeter once she hooked up with Percival.

    (This reminds me when my sister and I would play Laura and Mary when we were little. Only we went hardcore and would act out the scene from the books where Pa gives them a pig’s bladder as a toy balloon! And one stick of candy and an orange for Xmas! I wanted to be Mary because I would practice playing “blind” after she got scarlet fever.)

    And didn’t Escoffier say he was a dead ringer for Albert? Little House forever!!!

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

      Albert all grown up:

      al

  • Jackie

    @Ramble

    Oh man, Ramble, if you are going to talk about how much you long for women to get dumped if they gain 5 lbs… :(

    By the way, I recently saw some old, old pictures from my family’s ancestry. There were definitely a lot of LEAN people back then, but there were still lots of overweight ones. And they were a lot smaller, overall, too. Not just skinnier. Smaller.

    My grandmother’s wedding dress had a waist of something like 20 inches, maybe not even that. But her clothes were shorter than certain things in the children’s section.

  • HanSolo

    hahaha, you’re funny, playing blind Mary. Oranges were a big treat back in the day. I loved how Mrs. Oleson always called Almonzo, Zaldamo!

  • Ramble

    Olive, Jackie,
    More pants, more sweatshirts, more aggressive behaviour, more sarcasm, more snarkiness, more (assumed) superiority, more tattoos, more piercings, more masculine behaviour, etc.

    Today’s girls are much less attractive.

  • Ramble

    Granted, so are the guys.

  • Tasmin

    @Brendan
    “guys who are objectively more attractive are available, and sex can be deployed in an attempt to snag commitment — it is hard to resist, I think, for many women. In your day, this was enforced *against* by a culture of going steady from the top down.”
    +1
    Those LTR-ish college relationships of yesteryear were not only the cultural norm, but they were also reinforced by the fact that sex outside of a relationship was more risky, rare, and complicated. The alternative as a single person in terms of attention, intimacy/sex, and social opportunities were actually a step down; the relationship was the prize and for most people sex was part of the prize – not THE prize.

    In my college years ’90-’95, AIDS would f-ing kill you if you weren’t careful. Reputation risk was real – for both men and women, though the alpha’s guys did have more latitude. Women kept their N’s in mind when making decisions; notches counted, sluts were real.

    There was very little in terms of free-for-all in attitude to sustain a hookup culture, so even those who were willing to hookup found the actual opportunities to be infrequent. Hooking up was rarely PinV or even oral. It was the beginning of the (hopeful) gateway to a relationship, so hooking up was complicated, it had meaning. Both men and women considered what it would “mean” the next day in terms of progression or not. A good proportion of those make-outs did indeed end up in BF/GF situations and everyone knew it. There was far less of the “just having fun” no-strings mindset. Sure there was a fair amount of making out that never went anywhere, but making out also didn’t progress to sex very often.

    “Another part is that because hookup culture has become the dominant meme (even if relatively few men and women participate in it de facto, it it still the dominant meme), that sets expectations higher for men as well, because they see girls giving it away easily and wonder why they can’t get that as well.”

    This works as a disincentive for many of the men in the 80% to accept that opportunity cost in the first place – even if they aren’t even getting that free sex, because they just *might*. And it erodes at the foundation of the existing relationships because the hookup meme carries not just the fun and excitement of open-ended sex options but also drives the status (hypergamy) lifting as a result of the displacement within assortive mating.

    Now, sex is the prize, it is cheap and seemingly plentiful. Relationships are work and are by definition, limiting – particularly when it comes to the sexual variety trigger for men and the hypergamy trigger for women. And self-limiting choices are precisely the opposite of the “have-it-all” culture. And even for those 80% on the outside looking in, the underbelly is visible, but asserting their will to reset/reorient the prize back to the relationship is more work (and perceived risk) than holding their noses and jumping in or just avoiding the whole thing.

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

      @Tasmin

      Thanks for that description of college life 90-95 or so. I had never heard that, it’s a very interesting period between the Sex Rev, AIDS and today.

      This works as a disincentive for many of the men in the 80% to accept that opportunity cost in the first place – even if they aren’t even getting that free sex, because they just *might*.

      Definitely. I have heard of this quite a bit among college guys who are by no means players. They have the choice of locking it down with a gf, or shooting for player status. Quite a few choose the latter.

      And even for those 80% on the outside looking in, the underbelly is visible, but asserting their will to reset/reorient the prize back to the relationship is more work (and perceived risk) than holding their noses and jumping in or just avoiding the whole thing.

      Yes. Furthermore, even if they were willing to do the work and assume the risk, they don’t know what that reset would look like. An individual is very unlikely to just stand up and announce they are accepting invitations to dates.

  • VD

    The fact that Lysistrata is a fiction rather than a historical fact does not strike me as relevant.

    That’s a fascinating statement considering that I cannot imagine you would take seriously an economic plan based on replacing nuclear and coal-fired plants with harnessed unicorns.

    Even if it had actually happened in 411 BCE we would hardly be able to extrapolate and predict its success today.

    Read Thucydides on revolution and tell me that. It was written around the same time and is vastly disturbing to the ability to believe in the idea of human progress.

    We have a marketplace with supply and demand for sex. If we restrict the supply of sex, the price for sex will go up. We don’t need the history books to grasp the truth of this.

    Now this is reliably true.

    Lysistrata will not work because single women would not abide by the rules of the cartel. If they did, however, there is no question but that men would line up with marriage proposals to get sex, just as they did before the price of sex plummeted.

    As is this. The problem is that women are unlikely to abide by sexual rules that are not violently enforced. Which is why the long term societal consequence is more likely the burqah than the brothel.

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

      @VD

      That’s a fascinating statement considering that I cannot imagine you would take seriously an economic plan based on replacing nuclear and coal-fired plants with harnessed unicorns.

      My point was that we do have real historical examples in cartels, both private and public. They are unstable and now mostly outlawed, but there have been many, and they have had some degree of effectiveness. We do not need to rely on a theatrical comedy to see the economics at work in this concept.

      Even if it had actually happened in 411 BCE we would hardly be able to extrapolate and predict its success today.

      Read Thucydides on revolution and tell me that. It was written around the same time and is vastly disturbing to the ability to believe in the idea of human progress.

      Lysistrata is about male-female relations, and those have changed quite a bit since 400 BCE, and much of that change has occurred in the last 50 years. Lysistrata makes no sense in the current SMP, as others have pointed out. It probably would have worked among a closed population of married people. In fact, as Mireille pointed out, it has worked in recent history:

      Still, there are some interesting examples of women achieving their objectives — which, incidentally, always seem to benefit society at large, not just women — after the sex strike was called. Whether one thing produced the other is a subject of debate.

      The clearest case of success took place in the Colombian town of Barbacoas, where last year women launched their “crossed legs strike” to demand construction of a road. They would not have sex, they vowed, until the men managed to get a road built so that it wouldn’t take 10 hours to reach the provincial capital just 35 miles away.

      Moved by the men’s unimaginable suffering, the government agreed to build the road.

      A few years earlier, also in Colombia, the wives and girlfriends of gang members in the embattled city of Pereira said they would keep their legs crossed unless the men stopped the violence that had killed nearly 500 people. The murder rate reportedly dropped by 26.5%.

      But it wasn’t ancient Greece or South America or a recent sex strike in the Philippines that inspired the Togolese pro-democracy activists. It was the amazing story of Liberia that gave them cause for optimism.

      In 2003, the Liberian people had endured 14 years of a brutal civil war that had torn the country apart. The leaders of the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace organized a series of nonviolent actions, including a sex strike, demanding an end to the war. The group’s leader, Leymah Gbowe, later won the Nobel Peace Prize, sharing with Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, another Liberian woman who was about to make history.

      Again, nobody knows just how important a role the no-sex portion of the protests played. But before the year was over, the parties to the conflict signed a peace deal ending the war and laying the groundwork for democratic elections.

      http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/29/opinion/ghitis-sex-strikes/index.html

      The reason monogamy prevails is that in a polygynous system men without women rise up. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that women can barter successfully with their vaginas.

  • Höllenhund

    “Lysistrata will not work because single women would not abide by the rules of the cartel. If they did, however, there is no question but that men would line up with marriage proposals to get sex, just as they did before the price of sex plummeted.”

    Well, actually there very much IS a question indeed. What you’re forgetting is that before the Sexual Revolution, women were trained from childhood by their parents, the church and society to display worth as potential wives, to internalize virtues that men seek in long-term partners. The complete opposite applies today. “We just need to shut our legs, and men will finally shape up!” is nothing but a common female fantasy rooted in delusions and ignorance rather than reality.

  • http://endofwomen.blogspot.in namae nanka

    “It was considered comically absurd at the time, due to the prevailing idea that All Women Are Lustful — though it should also be noted, that when Aristophanes wrote the play, women weren’t considered citizens, and were just above slaves on the totem pole of class structure, adding to the preposterous idea that a group of women would take over the government. ”

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LysistrataGambit

    “The trouble with the college girls is that the very idea of feminine behavior, particularly the submissiveness, has become so repugnant to them that they can’t even fake it to coax a relationship out of a guy.”

    why should they when they are in an equivalent position or even better since school?

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

      It was considered comically absurd at the time, due to the prevailing idea that All Women Are Lustful

      Re the oath the women take, from Wiki:

      “It is a long and detailed oath, in which the women abjure all their sexual pleasures, including The Lioness on The Cheese Grater (a sexual position).”

      This is what I could find on this position:

      ‘standing on all fours’:the woman stood bending forward (sometimes resting her hands on the ground or on a bed), in a posture reminiscent of a lion crouched to spring, and was penetrated from behind (either vaginally or anally). The reference to a cheese-grater is due to the fact that the handles of such utensils were often made in the form of crouching animals.

  • http://endofwomen.blogspot.in namae nanka

    and of course the evidence that’s out in the open now, patriarchal societies have rigidity about sex and marriage, the ones with emancipated women don’t, so how exactly can Lysistrata be true today even if it weren’t before?

    As Daniel Amneus writes about Gilder’s Fallacy:

    ‘Most of the male disrupters had mothers who undermined patriarchal sexual stability by divorce, marital disloyalty, or promiscuity. It is the female who initiates the cycle which culminates in the visible male disruption. Gilder blames the male; the law imprisons the male; and as crime continues to increase undeterred by punishment, society imagines it must compensate for the withdrawal of males from the system by increased subsidization of females–subsidization which causes them to imagine themselves independent of males and free to follow the Promiscuity Principle. Improperly socialized women like things this way because they lack the long-term horizons Gilder ascribes to them. ‘

    http://www.fisheaters.com/gb7.html

    “That’s a fascinating statement considering that I cannot imagine you would take seriously an economic plan based on replacing nuclear and coal-fired plants with harnessed unicorns.”

    Unwin’s Sex and Culture

    http://blog.jim.com/culture/christianity-yields-to-zoism.html

  • Höllenhund

    „I think some women find femininity repugnant (I had a swarm of radfem knitters here just last week despising a post urging femininity), but I think many more literally have no idea how to go about being feminine.”

    I’d say that is the defining characteristic of a sizable segment, probably the majority, of the demographic you’re discussing i.e. college-educated middle-class single women. I’d also point out, though, there there apparently is a smaller but still sizable segment that simply cannot be bothered to do what it takes to elicit the commitment of men they find attractive, because it’s too much work and the incentives just aren’t there – one-on-one male economic provisioning is less and less important, being in a relationship with a beta no longer carries any social status, no man from the top 10% will commit to some woman from the bottom 90% either way etc. So unless we consider the small minority that is rabidly feminist, it’s indeed not about repugnance, but ignorance and indifference.

    We can observe the same attitudes among men, although for different reasons. There’s a segment that has been conditioned from birth to act as the matriarchy’s eunuchs, having no clue whatsoever how to be masculine, and there’s another segment, which I argue is at least as large as the previous one, which, again, simply cannot be bothered to do what it takes in order to flourish in the current SMP – for most men, „flourish” equals assortative mating, if that – because it’s too much work and there’s simply no prize. Of course, you won’t read about this even on Game sites, not to mention the mainstream media.

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

    but I sense it is more than that. Your thoughts?

    Brendan was brilliant as usual but I want to add as an outsider a couple of other things that I think also add to this mess.
    Media/magazines/Celebrity culture adding to porn creates the illusion that there is an overpopulation of hot people so the average looking people that in the past only had to compete with the hottest girl/boy in a group of 100 now is competing with Robert Pattinson and Megan Fox. The brain can’t really grasp the idea that this people don’t really live in close proximity so for them they are just potential mates I think some people are more sensible to this effect than others but with enough exposure everyone can think they have a chance of landing one of the millions of hotties around.
    People stay and become single too long and easily. Another part is the people is technically always available to move on. Assortative mating worked when there was a sense of permanence and longevity now there is no shame on breaking up with a long timer boyfriend to pursue a friend or a better mate, no fault divorce, dating after certain age, mate poaching and so on, there is too many people single at the same time and those people can make a play for almost anyone this makes the disconnect worst because the average person can still wait to have a chance for hotter partner if the occasion arise, and they don’t actually concentrate on falling in love and preserving and nurturing the relationship.
    There is no “age” for dating. The sense is that you can date till you die having a clear cut age helped people to asses their cost benefit find the best mate and concentrate on making it work. Not such a thing when the 40’s are the new 30’s and we have the cosmetic industry helping with surgery and creams to make people look young for longer time and there is not shame on trying to compete sexually with the younger crowd.
    Just my two cents

    My grandmother’s wedding dress had a waist of something like 20 inches, maybe not even that. But her clothes were shorter than certain things in the children’s section.

    Hubby and I joke about having a time machine to do historical tourism and a huge part of the logistics is that we are huge compared to people in the past every time we visit an historical house and see the tiny beds and chairs we say that we need to have a shrinker handy or we will mess history with the accounts of “the giants that visited us”, I think diet is the reason we grow larger now, but also people used to move a lot more so they probably were never as overweight as us modern can get.

  • Brendan

    Now, sex is the prize, it is cheap and seemingly plentiful. Relationships are work and are by definition, limiting – particularly when it comes to the sexual variety trigger for men and the hypergamy trigger for women. And self-limiting choices are precisely the opposite of the “have-it-all” culture. And even for those 80% on the outside looking in, the underbelly is visible, but asserting their will to reset/reorient the prize back to the relationship is more work (and perceived risk) than holding their noses and jumping in or just avoiding the whole thing.

    More work, but also more want. I’m not sure that the “outside looking in”, on both the male and female sides of the equation, wants relationships. I suspect that, as you say, there is a reluctance because of the limiting factor they feature, even if people *say* they want them. I often wonder if this stated desire is really just a cover for the desire to legitimate medium-term casual sex.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Men want sex, women want commitment, let’s restrict the sex and we can get more commitment!

    That’s the thought here, right?

    The damn stats she quotes say the MEN want commitment, too.

    Good fucking god. Maybe the men are hesitant to commit because feminists and the culture they have created a culture where our opinions don’t matter AT ALL. How is that supposed to be a loving relationship?

  • Höllenhund

    I often wonder if this stated desire is really just a cover for the desire to legitimate medium-term casual sex.

    I suppose “No sex before monogamy!” falls into that category. “Medium-term casual sex”…heh, gotta laugh at that. Shows how screwed up things have become.

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

    Alice Finkel…”Higher education has become an incredibly artificial and surprisingly authoritarian (no free speech) environment”

    Very true. And it is not psychologically healthy, for most people, to spend 18 or 20 years on the educational conveyor belt. Here’s something Peter Drucker wrote, way back in 1969:

    “Schools have become, by design, institutions for the preservation of adolescence. They keep the young person in the most unnatural society, a society composed exclusively of his contemporaries. School, even if it builds performance and experience into its curriculum to the fullest extent possible, is finite, certain, predictable…In school one cannot become an adult.

    The best example is the delayed adolescence so common among highly trained young physicians…The same delayed adolescence is only too noticeable among graduate students who stay on year after year in an environment in which all the emphasis is on their being “promising” and almost none on their performing.”

    But breaking the unjust power of the credentialists over the job market isn’t going to be easy. Too much money and power is involved. Victor Davis Hanson wrote:

    “By the millennium, faculty were conscious that the university was a sort of farm and the students the paying crop that had to be cultivated if it were to make it all the way to harvest and sale — and thus pay for the farmers’ livelihood.”

    I’m not sure this is fair as applied to the majority of the faculty, but it is true as applied to university administrators.

  • mr. wavevector

    Lysistrata will not work because single women would not abide by the rules of the cartel.

    Researchers who study
    sexual economics
    have shown that women can indeed form successful and stable sex cartels, but only in cultures where men monopolize the economic resources. In these cultures women must drive a hard bargain for sex to obtain material resources. In cultures where women have access to their own economic resources, they do not form sex cartels. Certainly there is no chance the independent women of our consumerist society could pull it off.

  • Ion

    “This is what engineers might call a “tightly-coupled system”. There isn’t much slack here to absorb shocks if anything goes wrong with the plan.”

    Excellent post BB.

    The problem also is that women have a tendency to “heal” for sometimes 1-2 years after a major breakup. They’re not considering that when you’re a woman in your 20s you simply don’t have that time.

    Ana

    “The brain can’t really grasp the idea that this people don’t really live in close proximity so for them they are just potential mates I think some people are more sensible to this effect than others but with enough exposure everyone can think they have a chance of landing one of the millions of hotties around.”

    Exactly! Just like according to t.v. there’s an abundance of educated, successful bachelors willing to settle down; women can spend years chasing a pipe dream that just is not available, especially in major cities. I feel that the male equivalent is this notion that soooooooo many women are average, pointing out the ways that she doesn’t look like a model, or nitpicking about different ways to drop her in the “she should be in my league!” category. On both sides, who “should” be in our league, and who actually is IRL, are two entirely different stories.

  • Laney

    Well, a related topic to this one is being discussed at Urban Baby. Hooking up smart is not the only blog where we moms send our daughters to educate themselves about the realities of relationships.

    Read from urban baby:

    The snarky double standard is shocking. We all know that even if my dd does not enjoy giving bj’s to multiple alpha males, she will be pressured to do that, because that is what is expected of her at some colleges. we all know that if she goes to some other colleges, even if my dd doesn’t enjoy taking drugs, she will be pressured to do that. The hipster snarky pc moms here at ub rightly deplore the above. But when tolerant open minded dd’s like mine go to smith and tell the other students that they have nothing against lesbianism, they are supportive of lesbianism, they just don’t want to personally partake, dd is put under tremendous and unrelelenting pressure to to engage in lesbian activities. The snarky PC hipster moms here at urban baby are rightly against dd being pressured to give the football players bjs but are very cool with dd at Smith being pressured to do lesbian acts. Total double standard on this blog

  • Ion

    “Last I heard, sex wasn’t a finite resource that requires ample amount of processing to become marketable. Show up, spread your legs, and as ample numbers of porn stars have proven, you can produce as much of it as you can handle in a 24 hour period of time.”

    But it is also important to realize that so many LTR/beta women do not think the way men do. Men think that women will sleep with alpha cads if they are all that’s available, which is the equivalent of assuming that a man will sleep with a 600 pound woman if she’s all that’s available, when only the most desperate men will (or the men who like that sort of thing). Most men would quietly resign to their right hand and a sock.

    If you’re an LTR oriented woman, in a sea of cads, they might as well be a 600 pound woman. You just sit home and forget you ever had a sex drive.

  • Laney

    Susan,

    Read the blogs of students at different colleges. The experience is very different at different schools.

    Let me give you an example. All of us here at HUS I am sure agree that it is a bad idea for our daughters to experiment with Heroin while in college. Well there are certain colleges in the USA where you are considered a hopeless square if you don’t experiment with Heroin. I don’t want to make the parents who sent their kids to those schools feel bad, but let it be said that there is a toxic mix of peer pressure that results in daughters that really are not excited about Heroin trying Heroin at these schools.

    Second, google the blogs of any parents whose daughters are at Smith. Smith is a wonderful place for young women who really want the Lesbian lifestyle. Such women can thrive at Smith and not feel the stigma they might feel elsewhere. But for young women that really just want close friends of the same sex, a young woman that wants to form platonic friendships with other young women, Smith is a disaster. because the expectation at Smith is that young women are not friends, they are friends with benefits to other young women. In fact the same sex hook up culture and friends with benefit culture is much stronger at Smith than the opposite sex hook up culture is at some other schools. Think about it – at smith the administration and the faculty actively encourage same sex hook ups.

    Susan, say what you will about the hook up scene at most colleges, the truth is that that admin and professors really don’t care what heterosexual students do sexually. They tend to leave the students alone.

    Now Susan, I would further say that the vast majority of affluent young white women ( not that no others count, but affluent young white women are the main audience we are speaking of here) do watch Sex and the City while in High School. They do find themselves fascinated by hook up culture WHILE THEY ARE SENIORS IN HIGH SCHOOL they do look forward to partaking in hook up culture when they arrive at most colleges as freshmen. But that is really not relevant because studies show that they discover they really don’t like hook up culture and want to return to a more traditional dating culture such as what you described where 6s get in to ltrs with 6s.

    Susan, the traditional dating culture certainly exists at many colleges, not just at BYU, but the dating culture is a subculture. Students have to seek that culture out.

    At many campuses the traditional dating culture survives among most of the religious sub groups. Most campuses have traditional Christian groups where the students in the groups essentially agree to live by the norms that were in place when you Susan were in school. That doesn’t mean virginity til married, but it means plenty of sex within roughly exclusive relationships.

    You would not be surprised to know that the natural 10s match up with natural 10s and on down the line. But the 5s don’t spurn the other 5s cause the 5s hope for hook ups with 10s.

    As soon as you permanently and clearly remove from the 5s the fantasy that they will be able to get with the 10s, the 5s get pretty motivated to match up with other 5s in exclusive relationships.

    Everyone finds their own level and pairs off.

    Susan, look it up. there is no one monoculture at the Universities of America. there is one dominant culture and a lot of sub cultures.

    Young people that passively swim in the dominant culture will of course have a different experience than the ones that seek out a sub culture

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

      @Laney

      Read the blogs of students at different colleges. The experience is very different at different schools.

      I have read many of them. The individual experiences are very different at different schools. For example, Lena Chen made her Sex and the Ivy blog very famous while a student at Harvard. Reading it, one would be very surprised to learn that at graduation the mean number of sexual partners for Harvard students is < 1, and that 24% of Harvard seniors express that they are not sure whether they are in a relationship or not. The picture is very complicated at most schools.

      Another example is Duke, long considered the poster child for hooking up behavior. The administration studied the phenomenon on campus, surveying a large number of both freshmen and seniors. They determined, with convincing data, that only 10% of the student body regularly engages in hooking up. Since 30% of the campus is Greek, that means 2/3 of Greeks are not even hooking up habitually. One might assume that it’s the women’s lack of participation that drives this. However, if you ask Duke students what percentage hooks up every weekend, they cite a very high number, like 75%.

      As Brendan said, the culture dominates, regardless of the actual behavior of students.

      As for Smith and SLUGs (Smith Lesbian Until Graduation) that is nothing new. I have a friend who had an only slightly less stressful experience there in the 80s.

      Wesleyan is another wacky setting – the pressure there is to be LGBT, with big bonus cred points going to transgender students. They actually have a Queer and Questioning dorm, and every fall after they fail to fill it with volunteers some incoming freshmen are dismayed to learn they’ve been assigned a room in Q&Q.

      There is obviously some self-selection that goes on, but there are also many students, even at Smith, who do not participate in the culture at all.

      It’s also true that there are subcultures available to students. As I mentioned previously, one can go to an urban, liberal, East Coast college and be active in the Anscombe Society. That’s my point – you can create a subculture for students just about anywhere – and in time, if enough people prefer it, it will take over the prevailing culture.

  • Abbot

    Any relation to the hook-up gap and the increasingly divided sexual culture?

    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/gender-gap-near-historic-highs/?hp

  • Esau

    Susan: In The Quiet Man, Maureen O’Hara refuses to have sex with John Wayne after the wedding until he has stood up to her brother and demanded her dowry. … her plan works, and seeing him dominate her brother drives her wild with desire for him.

    Is this an example of the famous phrase, “Let’s you and him fight”? I admit I never really understood the term, but this certainly sounds like it.

    I don’t remember if the brother character is also married; but if so, one wonders what effect the fight had on her feelings for him. Male-on-male dominance is, pretty much by definition, a zero-sum game, and every man’s dominant triumph is his opponent’s humiliating retreat. But, then, only losers bother to think about what happens to other losers (cf Charlie Brown).

    If I remember the film correctly — back in the broadcast TV days it used to be a St. Patrick’s day staple, and may have single-handedly popularized the cable-knit sweater in America — the John Wayne character is reluctant to fight, not because he is a coward but because he once accidentally killed a man in a boxing match and has since forsworn hitting people. So there can be pretty legitimate reasons for reticence besides cowardice, even if no one bothers to consider them. But, in the end of the story masculinity is restored in the only way that the audience can understand it and all is right with the world.

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

      @Esau

      Is this an example of the famous phrase, “Let’s you and him fight”? I admit I never really understood the term, but this certainly sounds like it.

      Haha, perhaps its bastard cousin. Mary Kate wants her husband Sean Thornton to fight for her belongings, which her nasty brother has refused to let her take now that she is married. Because of his history as a fighter, Sean refuses to engage the brother physically. She states that she is ashamed of her husband and refuses to have sex with him.

      Ultimately, as you say, they do fight, a great big brawling fight that moves from venue to venue throughout the village. I can’t recall if there is a winner or if it is a draw but all ends well – the nasty brother has newfound respect for Sean Thornton, and Mary Kate is very happy with both her men.

  • Mireille

    @ Wavevector,

    I’m quite bothered by your definitions of submissiveness in your posts. You describe playful behavior and display of affections, which really is not what most people, or feminist equate with defer to a man. I think Susan illustrated how common submissiveness is generally understood in the dynamics with her husband as a SAHM.
    Being playful and cuddling with your GF/Wife seems to me a basic perk of being in love/developing attachment with someone, not a political matter. Whether or not your GF indulges your idiosyncracies has nothing to do with being submissive.
    I think it is important to define what “submissiveness” is (God, I dislike that word) otherwise we’ll rub people the wrong way unnecessarily. Indulging someone’s quirks is different from indulging someone gambling habit for example and no one will call me rebel or feminist for opposing the latter. That is just common sense.

  • Maggie

    @Susan
    “Once my husband became the sole breadwinner, I found it only fair to defer to him on all matters financial.”

    Susan, you are highly intelligent and very well educated so I assume you are capable and knowledgeable enough to handle all your financial matters if the need arose, but for the average SAHM it might be best if she had some involvement. I know of women who lost their husbands and were clueless about their finances. I even had an aunt who had never written a check in her life!

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

      @Maggie

      Susan, you are highly intelligent and very well educated so I assume you are capable and knowledgeable enough to handle all your financial matters if the need arose, but for the average SAHM it might be best if she had some involvement. I know of women who lost their husbands and were clueless about their finances.

      Sorry, I think I gave the wrong impression there. I meant more that he has the final say on big items. Where can we go on vacation? What will we spend on the kids at Christmas? That kind of thing. I’ll run any big ticket items by him – can we fix the roof for 6K? etc. He has the final say on money matters. For example, we might have a conversation that goes something like this:

      Susan: Can we get a beach house?

      Mr. HUS: No.

      Whereas our closest friends both work, and their conversation went more like this:

      Her: I want a beach house.

      Him: Do you have any idea what it means to take on a mortgage at our age?

      Her: That’s fine, I have no plans to retire anytime soon. Let’s do it.

      Him: I don’t have a great feeling about this…

  • Ramble

    Oh man, Ramble, if you are going to talk about how much you long for women to get dumped if they gain 5 lbs…

    Whoa. I am curious, when did I ever say this?

  • Ramble

    mr. wavevector,
    That was a great story. Women like that are just great.

  • Abbot

    “not a political matter”

    Neither is submissiveness

  • http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

    A Mrwavevector

    “Her: You’re weird!”

    Her: “Can I have a piece of that chocolate you’re eating?”

    Me: “Sure.” (Licks chocolate three times.) “Here!”

    Her: “You’re gross! But you’re funny!”

    Humor goes a long way to making things right.

  • jack

    Susan- long time no comment.

    Anyway, the fact that (infuriatingly) no one will address is that the number of men who are desirable to these women is smaller than the number of women looking for relationships.

    There are oceans of commitment – ready beta males for these women to connect with. But when a woman is looking even for long term dating (as opposed to marriage), she is still going to seek the thrill factor, rather than the dad factor.

    If women applied the same compromises to dating that they applied to marriage, the hookup culture would never have started in the first place.

    The hookup culture is the sum of its parts, and trying to remove a single ingredient will not work.

    The hookup culture is directly a result of women leveraging their higher SMV while young to get the fewer number of high SMV men.

    Unwilling to invest in a man who is still building his status in career and income, they spend their fleeting beauty and youth on hookups and th occasional LTR.

    I will not marry a woman who has given that away to other men. Period. She will not get the benefit of me comforting her when she is old, because she ignored me while I was young.

    Many of us will die alone in th desert of singleness because of these womens’ choices to waste themselves during their youth. It cannot be undone.

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

      @Jack

      Wow, it has been awhile! Good to see you.

      I will not marry a woman who has given that away to other men. Period. She will not get the benefit of me comforting her when she is old, because she ignored me while I was young.

      And I see that nothing has changed… :)

      I get this, but I would point out that a full quarter of both males and females graduate college as virgins. Most of the men would wish it otherwise, but most of the women have clearly made a choice to abstain. They have neither occasional hookups nor an LTR.

      25% of a population is a very significant number. Why are these women invisible to you?

  • Doc

    The present situation was created by women, for women – yet they say they have no power in the situation? It is driven by their own desires. Men are simply taking advantage of the situation – at least those whom are benefited the most by it. To me, it just proves that women will ALWAYS find reasons to complain, and as such needs to be considered noise.

    If women really wanted it different it would change. As it is, it is EXACTLY what they want it to be, but they just don’t want to take ownership of it, since it tends to reflect badly that this is what they want – rather than what they SAY they want. To me, it makes little difference – it benefits me, but then I understand women and pretty much thrive in any situation.

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

      @Doc

      The present situation was created by women, for women – yet they say they have no power in the situation? It is driven by their own desires. Men are simply taking advantage of the situation – at least those whom are benefited the most by it. To me, it just proves that women will ALWAYS find reasons to complain, and as such needs to be considered noise.

      Not all women have the same desires or express the same feelings about the culture. The fact that some women are speaking out against casual sex as a norm is not idle complaining, it’s agency. However, it doesn’t matter if you hear it or not, because they are really speaking to one another, not to men. Men will adapt to the market conditions for sex as determined by women, as you say.

      If women really wanted it different it would change. As it is, it is EXACTLY what they want it to be, but they just don’t want to take ownership of it, since it tends to reflect badly that this is what they want – rather than what they SAY they want.

      You too should read the Definitive Survey post. You’re spouting a myth based on an apex fallacy about women rather than men.

  • J Mann

    Assuming that Susan is right, then the market seems pretty straightforward.

    1) If young women want the absolute hottest guy who is willing to hook up with them, and/or don’t want to invest any search time or effort, then probably most encounters will be hook ups or FWB.

    2) There’s a second pool of guys who are willing to enter a LTR, either for access to hotter women than they could otherwise hook up with or because they also prefer an LTR. Even when dating in that pool, easy hook ups and FWB reduces an individuals changes of getting to an LTR.

    So I think Susan is right. A cartel is unlikely to stand, so if the point is to get a cartel so that young women can actually force the alpha cads into LTRs, good luck with that. On the other hand, for any individual woman, not hooking up outside a relationship will increase your chances of getting one.

    On the gripping hand, Roissy would probably say that the women currently in hook up culture don’t WANT to date betas during their wild oats years; they want alphas to suddenly agree to LTRs with them personally.

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

      On the gripping hand, Roissy would probably say that the women currently in hook up culture don’t WANT to date betas during their wild oats years; they want alphas to suddenly agree to LTRs with them personally.

      Roissy is right. The women participating and satisfied are unrestricted in their sociosexuality, which is a perfect match for alphas. Personally, I don’t think they’re going to want betas at any point. They’ll either go into marriages with alphas (most of whom will marry), or try to snag men they perceive as high SMV who were actually betas at a younger age, or they’ll stay single.

  • Ramble

    As I go about my daily business, I see many unattractive women wearing wedding rings.

    That wasn’t my question. You had referenced how well the “least attractive” girls at your sorority did. I was curious how the unattractive did. And, I am also curious if you think that there are more unattractive girls today than back then. I understand that I have developed a reputation because of my hobby horse, so, let’s leave weight out of it.

    So, putting weight aside, do you think that the average (non-overweight) college girl is as attractive today as she was back then?

    Also, in regards to your idea about unattractive people hooking up with one another, I am guessing that you are way off. I tried to find some stats on this, but I could not:

    The marriage rate has been going down for decades. Consistently. The average weight (now I am bringing weight back into the equation) of the nation has been going up for decades. Consistently. (Granted, I don’t think the 2 are that tightly coupled). The Lower Class and Lower Middle Class are much more likely to be overweight relative to the UC and UMC. The LC and LMC are much more likely to not be married, or, get divorced if they do get married.

    My guess is that the unattractive are doing much worse today than they did in the past.

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

      @Ramble

      You had referenced how well the “least attractive” girls at your sorority did. I was curious how the unattractive did.

      I didn’t answer your question directly because I have no data. We didn’t actually have any unattractive girls in our sorority. :)

      My only evidence is anecdotal, I’m afraid.

  • Ramble

    I think it is important to define what “submissiveness” is (God, I dislike that word)

    Mireille, do you find dominant men exciting or attractive?

    Or, to put it another way, do you like your man (when you are in a relationship) to display, at times, some dominance or assertiveness?

    Lastly, does that word, “Dominant”, bother you?

  • Ion

    Mireille

    “I think it is important to define what “submissiveness” is (God, I dislike that word) otherwise we’ll rub people the wrong way unnecessarily.”

    Agree. I think it’s that the media has done a pretty good job of making words like “femininity”, “submissive”, “housewife”, filthy dirty words. But that’s only because they’ve been presenting these things as a caricature and exaggeration– devoted subservient stepford wife; femininity as a girl in a bubble pink tutu or a fashion glamazon; submissive as a bowing doormat grateful to wash her man’s smelly feet.

    The other day, I got into an argument on facebook with a feminist on a male friends page. She was saying that she wanted to live in a matriarchy because women “earn more”, and “control society”, which is B.S. that’s NOT what matriarchy meant to humans.

    So I ask what’s wrong with femininity? Her exact response? “its a society that expects women to cross her legs while eating shit”. Wtf?

    I think the best thing to do definitely is to make a list of what femininity is via what we learned in pop culture and deconstruct each point individually.

  • Ramble

    Once my husband became the sole breadwinner, I found it only fair to defer to him on all matters financial. … I felt very grateful for the opportunity, and I resolved that I would make his home life as perfect as I could.

    There are areas where I probably have the last word, mostly around the kids, but for more than 20 years he has been the head of the household.

    Susan, I am curious, if you had communicated this to your girlfriends in Brookline at the time it started what do you think their reaction would have been.

    Specifically, you said something like:
    Now that he is the sole breadwinner, I am going to try and make his home life as perfect as I can, and I am grateful for the opportunity. I will probably have the last word on things related to the kids, but, in general, he will be the head of the household.

    The exact wording of it is not that important. Also, remember, you are communicating this to your, then, GFs. That is, if their attitudes have changed over the years, I want you to picture this conversation with them at that age, in that day with what their attitudes were back then.

    (I am assuming that your GFs were not hardcore feminists).

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

      @Ramble

      Susan, I am curious, if you had communicated this to your girlfriends in Brookline at the time it started what do you think their reaction would have been.

      (I am assuming that your GFs were not hardcore feminists).

      That’s a good question. I didn’t ever say it that way, it was more of a role I slipped into and a personal choice. I never felt it was political. By far, the most common response from my gf’s at the time was naked envy. Every single one of them wished they could stay home full time with their kids.

  • Ramble

    Agree. I think it’s that the media has done a pretty good job of making words like “femininity”, “submissive”, “housewife”, filthy dirty words.

    Wait, Ion, do you dislike the word “submissive” or do you dislike what “the media” have portrayed it as?

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

    Susan…re the beach house conversation that your friends had, I suspect that this kind of dynamics had a LOT to do with the inflation of the housing bubble.

    In most cases, it was surely the wife who lobbied for a bigger house, second home, etc, since women usually care more about residences than do men. When it was men pushing the overextension, it was probably usually due to theories about how much money they would make off the property and overconfidence in their own knowledge/ability as investors. I know of one very sad case like this, which resulted in the loss of 2 houses in a desirable location, followed shortly by divorce.

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

      @david foster

      Susan…re the beach house conversation that your friends had, I suspect that this kind of dynamics had a LOT to do with the inflation of the housing bubble.

      First, may I just say how dimwitted some very smart people are about financial matters? Right now in our lives we have two sets of couples who have stretched big to buy new homes, including in one case keeping a job just long enough to get the mortgage approved, then quitting it! In addition, my 53 year old brother is considering going back to grad school! These situations keep Mr. HUS awake at night, literally. (I think he fears we will be the lenders of last resort.)

      Years ago an old friend called weeping to explain that they had gone upside down on their mortgage in CA. They walked out and left the keys on the kitchen counter. She was terrified of being homeless, and with Mr. HUS in the background, I immediately offered them a place to live while they got back on their feet. Mr. HUS raised an eyebrow and gave me a look that this was perhaps excessive. She declined my offer, at which point I said, “Do you need money? I can send you whatever you need.” Mr. HUS jumped out of his chair, waving his arms and shaking his head vehemently. Lucky for him, she declined that too.

      (Note: this is my oldest friend of 43 years.)

  • Ramble

    There’s been a movement in recent years of students organizing into something called the Anscombe Society. It started at Princeton – here is their mission statement:

    Mission Statement
    The Anscombe Society is a student organization at Princeton University dedicated to affirming the importance of the family, marriage, and a proper understanding for the role of sex and sexuality. We aim to promote an environment that values the crucial role the intact, stable family plays in sustaining society; the definition of marriage as the exclusive, monogamous union of a man and a woman; its role as an institution which is necessary for the healthy family, and thus for a healthy society; a conception of feminism that encourages motherhood; and a chaste lifestyle which respects and appreciates human sexuality, relationships, and dignity. Therefore, we celebrate sex as unifying, beautiful, and joyful when shared in its proper context: that of marriage between a man and woman. The Anscombe Society is a proactive community that provides social support and a voice for those already committed to these values, and promotes intellectual engagement to further discussion and understanding of this ethic on Princeton’s campus and in the broader community.

    It has spread rapidly to other schools, including Harvard, Stanford, and UT Austin.

    Susan, this is just Slut Shaming by another name. All of these attempts at resetting Hookup Culture are simply ‘updated’ rehashes of old fashioned social norms.

    It’s funny you should mention BYU, that is the best example of a college that has escaped the culture. Recently HanSolo linked to a paper from BYU looking at sexual behavior among Mormon youth, which is much lower than in the rest of the population. I’ve been thinking about whether there are any lessons to take from this – I’m not sure there are, as religion is the central core

    Susan, imagine if you were in a debate about this issue and you were forbidden from using the word “religion”. But, you could use a phrase like, “widely shared set of strongly held beliefs”. Would you describe what is happening at BYU as stemming (partly) from a “widely shared set of strongly held beliefs”? What about the Anscombe Society (I know, not as widely shared, but still)?

    I have said it before and I will say it again, by the time this is all over Western Society will look a lot like it did about 100 years ago.

    Oh, and Susan, how long until the Anscombe society is accused of Homophobia?

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

      @Ramble

      Susan, this is just Slut Shaming by another name. All of these attempts at resetting Hookup Culture are simply ‘updated’ rehashes of old fashioned social norms.

      For the students who believe in the mission, the Anscombe Society is a very viable social scene. I recall reading a profile of the Harvard group, and there were quite a few couples within the organization.

      Oh, and Susan, how long until the Anscombe society is accused of Homophobia?

      Oh, I’m sure they have been. I’m sure they’re vilified on campus. Apparently, they don’t care.

  • Ion

    Ramble

    “Wait, Ion, do you dislike the word “submissive” or do you dislike what “the media” have portrayed it as?”

    Sorry about that, I mean I dislike how the word’s being portrayed.

    For example traits like kindness, softness, affectionate, willingness to learn, adaptability, easy-goingness, selective, good parenting, playfulness, humility, ingenuity, etc., are positive traits, or at the very least, neutral traits, I think most women would agree? Yet, they are also traits associated with femininity and submissiveness, which have a negative connotation.

    So they end up seeing traits like “playfulness” as “childlike”, “humility” as “docile” ,”easy-going” as putting up with any behavior imaginable to make your man happy, because they’ve applied the caricature.

    Some feminists have also been conveniently labeling societies as matriarchy in the cases where women run the household, even if men are accountable for resources in these very same societies. I’m sure they envision men laying around in hammocks all day while women run the households and raise children, but it generally doesn’t work that way. It is definitely pretty similar to the breadwinner and housewife roles with a communal twist.

  • Ramble

    Susan…re the beach house conversation that your friends had, I suspect that this kind of dynamics had a LOT to do with the inflation of the housing bubble.

    The housing bubble was at it’s worst in the “sand states” with large levels of immigrants and anti-racist loans. There is a reason why the housing bubble just wasn’t that big of a deal in North Dakota, or Montana, or Idaho, or Vermont, or New Hampshire, or …

  • Ramble

    Sorry about that, I mean I dislike how the word’s being portrayed.

    No need to apologize, I was simply curious.

    So, if you met a guy (let’s say you were single, and this was at a friends house/dinner party…he is a friend of a friend) and you were confident that he was not some pop culture washed blank slate, and he said that he is most attracted to submissive girls (amongst other positive traits), how would you react?

    So they end up seeing traits like … “humility” as “docile”

    Actually, I believe that “docile” is commonly used to help define “Submissiveness” in many dictionaries.

    Some feminists have also been conveniently labeling societies as matriarchy in the cases where women run the household, even if men are accountable for resources in these very same societies.

    Well, it is actually not that hard to find examples of true matriarchies. Sub-Saharan Africa has tons of them.

  • Sai

    “Haha, I love the word mischief, but in this case it will not be of the impish, entertaining variety.”

    http://www.gameclassification.com/files/games/Super-Solvers-Gizmos-x26-Gadgets.png

    @mr. wavevector
    I am always bad at grasping this subject… How is submission a demand for care?
    I understand why any man would love having somebody around to follow all his instructions. But everything I read about it on the web smacks of “God made men superior and brains in women are just vestigial structures, what you think and like do not matter.” If I agree to do everything he says, he could then order me to not expect to be taken care of (I didn’t), and take care of my darn self and him, and I’d be trapped but good. Is this the vulnerability you were referring to? (It makes me think of Davy Jones’ heart in PotC 2.)
    I know nothing of subtlety though. Or dancing. (If you squint hard enough you can smell awkwardness and fear.)

    @Jackie
    “And they were a lot smaller, overall, too. Not just skinnier. Smaller.”
    A teacher once told me that as more people got access to better food, average heights increased. (Unfortunately, so did something else.)

    @VD
    “The problem is that women are unlikely to abide by sexual rules that are not violently enforced. Which is why the long term societal consequence is more likely the burqah than the brothel.”
    Will I still be alive when that nightmare hits?

    @Susan
    “I get what you are saying, truly. But I’m willing to ally myself with people in certain ways (without giving an overall stamp of approval), to bring about positive change.”
    Allied Forces, yo.

    @Ion
    “If you’re an LTR oriented woman, in a sea of cads, they might as well be a 600 pound woman. You just sit home and forget you ever had a sex drive.”
    +1

    “I think the best thing to do definitely is to make a list of what femininity is via what we learned in pop culture and deconstruct each point individually.”
    Also +1

    @Ramble
    “I have said it before and I will say it again, by the time this is all over Western Society will look a lot like it did about 100 years ago.”
    Will I still be able to vote?
    (Before anybody starts, I have voted for candidates from both major parties.)

  • Ion

    “So, if you met a guy (let’s say you were single, and this was at a friends house/dinner party…he is a friend of a friend) and you were confident that he was not some pop culture washed blank slate, and he said that he is most attracted to submissive girls (amongst other positive traits), how would you react?”

    Honestly? Since he’s not a pop culture ‘droid, I’d find it offputting but I’d still be turned on by him being bold enough to ask.

    In general though pop culture has influenced both sexes. With women not wanting to be a submissive caricature, and men wanting a submissive caricature if the alternative is a ballbusting feminist who would be a lazy parent.

    “Well, it is actually not that hard to find examples of true matriarchies. Sub-Saharan Africa has tons of them.”

    I kinda wonder what these societies would have looked like over millenia if not for outside/environmental factors (the drying out of some parts of Africa as a result of the last ice age for example, and the introduction of the money system). Regardless, in these societies, the women’s roles haven’t changed for millenia, but the mens roles have had to adjust because of the lessened resources. A similar comparison is that a woman’s role as primary caretaker during breastfeeding years is not going to change, even if most men lose their jobs. Feminists refuse to admit this fact.

  • MNL

    Susan, this is one of the most illuminating posts I’ve read in a while. You might appreciate the following recent academic articles for an even deeper explanation of the drivers behind what you’re addressing:

    – Baumeister & Vohs (2012) “Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends”
    – Regnerus (2012) “Mating Market Dynamics, Sex-Ratio Imbalances, and Their Consequences” …Which is itself a condensed summary from his book, “Premarital Sex in America: How Young Americans Meet, Mate, and Think about Marrying”

    Hats-off to you for raising the issue (and a Lysistrata solution) in the blogosphere. But as others have said, the Lysistrata concept is essentially a sexual cartel. And for a cartel to work, two things need to happen:

    1. The urgency and needs of “buyers” from the cartel must exceed the needs of the cartel members themselves (the Lysistrata or “sellers”). OPEC’s oil buyers, for example, must need oil more than OPEC needs petrodollars.

    2. There needs to be a method of restricting supply; some method of catching and punishing those who break from the cartel (or Lysistrata).

    And neither of these exist today in the college sexual marketplace. In fact, our present culture is hard at work knocking down these restrictions.

    The first challenge to a new female Lysistrata is that college females desire relationships just as much as college men desire sex. Therefore, the women of the Lysistrata don’t have complete bargaining power. Women could withhold sex, but they’ll only hurt themselves in the process. Keep in mind that a great many women in the ancient Lysistrata story were already married. They had already obtained what they wanted (relationships) which explains why they were successful (at withholding sex). The problem faced by single women on campus today is very different. Most college women are single and without intimate male relationships.

    Second, the single women on college campuses are in surplus! They have no bargaining power. To keep with the OPEC comparison, today’s college SMP is similar to a situation in which OPEC countries out-numbered oil-buying ones. A cartel (the Lysistrata) just won’t work in that condition.

    The third problem with a Lysistrata cartel is that the greatest restrictions on sexual supply–fear of pregnancy and slut shaming have all but gone away. The pill handily solved the first issue here and effectively lowered the price of sex. And slut shaming? Well… we both know how well that’s been working out these past few decades. You go grrrl! You’re empowered now.

    The Lysistrata is a nice idea, but it too, is doomed to failure.

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

      @MNL

      Thanks for the article suggestions. The Baumeister article has definitely been getting some exposure, and that’s a good thing. I really like Regnerus’ work, and I give him kudos for taking on the feminists directly there. Surprisingly, even he failed to note the apex fallacy.

      The first challenge to a new female Lysistrata is that college females desire relationships just as much as college men desire sex. Therefore, the women of the Lysistrata don’t have complete bargaining power.

      Very true, which is why participation would be half-hearted at best, and defections would occur early and often.

      There needs to be a method of restricting supply; some method of catching and punishing those who break from the cartel (or Lysistrata).

      Yup, and slut shaming is unacceptable, even to the young women who do not engage in casual sex. This last part is very important – Millennials do not believe in shaming anyone for sexual behavior, even if they would benefit personally.

      Second, the single women on college campuses are in surplus! They have no bargaining power.

      True. I think the best case scenario, as outlined in the post, is some women voluntarily identifying themselves as women who want to go on dates (and are willing to pay half). It nothing else, it would destroy the prevailing Pluralistic Ignorance and provide intrasexual support for women who are sitting out the hookup scene. And it might even work to get a few people dating. The first step is to give people a voice and a message. They need a leader and an organizer.

  • VD

    I think it is important to define what “submissiveness” is (God, I dislike that word) otherwise we’ll rub people the wrong way unnecessarily.

    “inclined or ready to submit; unresistingly or humbly obedient”

    Why is it that you dislike that word so much? Am I correct in guessing that you pride yourself on never being obedient to a man?

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

      If I told Mr. HUS that I planned to be “humbly obedient” from now on, he would laugh heartily and then say, “Please tell me you’re joking.” I always did do well with men who like a bit of feistiness, and in my experience they are not rare.

  • MNL

    @Susan…

    This is what has been lost perhaps. The idea that you figure out your place, and then select from people in the same range. We did not “settle” – the butterflies were real. I think we wanted relationships, we wanted to date, we wanted to fall in love with someone, and we wanted to have sex. We found the best in people we were well matched to and we made that happen.

    …Or as my grandmother used to say: “For every crooked pot there’s a crooked lid.” We fall find our match–and are happy about it. The 4’s find the 4’s the 9’s find the 9’s.

    It was a wonderful time, yes. But it’s indeed lost. More specifically, the fundamentals required for assortive mating are now lost. And the genie just can’t be put back in the bottle. All those “crooked pots” (female 4’s) that were previously content with their “crooked-lid” counterparts (male 4’s) can now all mate with the alpha males (the 9’s).

  • Ramble

    Media/magazines/Celebrity culture adding to porn creates the illusion that there is an overpopulation of hot people so the average looking people that in the past only had to compete with the hottest girl/boy in a group of 100 now is competing with Robert Pattinson and Megan Fox. The brain can’t really grasp the idea that this people don’t really live in close proximity so for them they are just potential mates I think some people are more sensible to this effect than others but with enough exposure everyone can think they have a chance of landing one of the millions of hotties around.

    Anacaona,
    Hollywood has been a pretty big deal since, at least, the 1930s. TV, then, became a really big deal in the 1950s and has remained so. However, if I am understanding your hypothesis correctly, you are saying that these unrealistic beliefs are relatively modern (I am guessing that you are putting it at starting some time in the 1980s…please correct me where I am wrong). So, with that said, I am a little lost.

    Is it:
    – that the movies were more “glamorous” back in the day and people did not perceive these things as representing some sort of reality.
    – as attractive as they were, the average American did not look THAT different than what they saw on TV and in the movies.
    – as big as Hollywood, TV and all the other media outlets were back then, it is simply so much bigger now that the effect is, now, overwhelming.
    – Hollywood and Madison Avenue are not THAT much bigger, but, today, we just care more about them (i.e. Us Weekly, TMZ, etc.)
    – the Media is much better at targeting it’s audience today than before and so different demographics can see the same type of images over and over again, therefore reinforcing certain ideas that they may have been leaning towards already (i.e. MTV has teenaged girls, ESPN has 18-44 year old men, prime time dramas have 35-55 year old women, etc.)

    All of the above? None of the above?

  • mr. wavevector

    Mireille @ 114;

    I wasn’t trying to define submission, which is a complex and multifaceted behavior. I totally agree with Susan’s remark at #99. I was just giving an anecdote about my wife’s response to my purposely ridiculous demand that was intended to test her compliance. She submitted to me, in that she complied with my demand, but she did so in a way to gain a certain advantage on me, knowing that her cute behavior would elicit a positive emotional response from me. This illustrates how the dominance/submission dyad is in a loving relationship is not a simple matter of top-down authority, but rather a means of mutual influence.

    The influence of the subordinate partner is well known in other areas of life. In business it’s called “managing up”. In the BDSM scene it’s called “topping from the bottom”. But in a hetero relationship, dominance and submission have become such “filthy dirty words” (as Ion put it) that we’re reluctant to even think about it.

  • Mireille

    @Ramble,

    From Merriam-Webster :

    Dominant:
    1

    a: commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others

    b: very important, powerful, or successful

    2

    : overlooking and commanding from a superior position “

    None of the above. No thanks!

    Assertive:
    1

    : disposed to or characterized by bold or confident statements and behavior;
    2

    : having a strong or distinctive flavor or aroma

    Much better!

    I like men who know what they’re doing and are assertive about it. Just like I can be assertive about things I feel strongly about. However, I do not accept the authority of any men just because they are men. I had to living in my father’s home, however there was a difference since he’s the reason I’m here in the first place. And even then, such authority diminishes as children are able to support themselves.
    If I have to rely on the definition of dominant above mentionned, I’m probably dominant myself in many aspects, over women and men; this is why I do not really subscribe to the postulate that women have to leave space for men to be dominant. Male assertiveness or lack thereof is the main issue to me. There is probably not many spaces for them to express their uniqueness, which should be remedied. If however, this is about women leaving all decisions to men for the sake of dominance, count me out of such equation.

  • Ramble

    Honestly? Since he’s not a pop culture ‘droid, I’d find it offputting but I’d still be turned on by him being bold enough to ask.

    You lost me, what was he asking? In the scenario I laid out, he stated that he is attracted to submissive girls.

  • Ramble

    Haha, perhaps its bastard cousin. Mary Kate wants her husband Sean Thornton to fight for her belongings, which her nasty brother has refused to let her take now that she is married. Because of his history as a fighter, Sean refuses to engage the brother physically. She states that she is ashamed of her husband and refuses to have sex with him.

    Ultimately, as you say, they do fight, a great big brawling fight that moves from venue to venue throughout the village. I can’t recall if there is a winner or if it is a draw but all ends well – the nasty brother has newfound respect for Sean Thornton, and Mary Kate is very happy with both her men.

    Yes, Esau, this fits the Roissy paradigm just fine.

  • Mireille

    Yay!!! HTML plug success!

    That’s one little step for Mireille, one giant eyeroll for Mankind!

  • Ramble

    I wasn’t trying to define submission, which is a complex and multifaceted behavior. I totally agree with Susan’s remark at #99. I was just giving an anecdote about my wife’s response to my purposely ridiculous demand that was intended to test her compliance. She submitted to me, in that she complied with my demand, but she did so in a way to gain a certain advantage on me, knowing that her cute behavior would elicit a positive emotional response from me. This illustrates how the dominance/submission dyad is in a loving relationship is not a simple matter of top-down authority, but rather a means of mutual influence.

    Mr Wavevector, please keep coming back. This is so well put.

  • Ion

    “You lost me, what was he asking? In the scenario I laid out, he stated that he is attracted to submissive girls.”

    Yes, and I meant that I’d be turned on that he asked stated this as a preference.

  • Ion

    “Yes, and I meant that I’d be turned on that he asked stated this as a preference.”

    Grrr. *asked* was suppose to be strikethrough, but the tag didn’t work.

  • Ramble

    We didn’t actually have any unattractive girls in our sorority.

    Haha. You grew up in Los Wobegon, then went to the University of Wobegon and now live in Lake Wobegon.

    Life is beautiful when everyone is above average.

    But, no comment on my extrapolation of the LC and LMC, their weight, marriage and divorce rates?

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

      But, no comment on my extrapolation of the LC and LMC, their weight, marriage and divorce rates?

      If you’re suggesting that the marriage rate has gone down in those groups because people are fat, I think that’s a stretch. No question there is a correlation, but I have no info. re causation.

  • Ramble

    That’s a good question. I didn’t ever say it that way

    I understand. But, can you guess as to how they would have reacted? You said that they had naked envy, but, would they have said that they were envious of your attempt to make your husbands home life as perfect as possible and that you were grateful for the opportunity.

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

      You said that they had naked envy, but, would they have said that they were envious of your attempt to make your husbands home life as perfect as possible and that you were grateful for the opportunity.

      I think it probably would have raised eyebrows. Keep in mind where I live – most of the people I see at dinner parties are extremely liberal, and that includes my close friends. I used to either bite my tongue or piss off everyone in the room. I’ve learned that I can have interesting and productive conversations with feminist-leaning women when I don’t come at the topic via politics. For example, when I say to people, “Are you aware that 60% of college students are women? That means a third of today’s female college students will not marry a man with the same education.” – they are very interested in hearing more.

      Also, when MA finally changed its alimony laws, which was front page news, I raised the topic several times with married women, who were all unaware of it beyond a superficial level. I noted that prior to the change, second wives of men would have their income added to the child support formula for the man’s children from a previous wife. They were all incredulous. Some of this is willful ignorance, and some of it is the result of highly slanted media coverage – we choose to watch those sources that confirm our own biases.

  • mr. wavevector

    Susan @99;

    Believe it or not, I learned the role via being a SAHM.

    I believe we’ve had very similar life experiences. Mrs. wavevector was a professional in a similar field with a similar education to my own, and we started out with a mostly modern egalitarian relationship. Things really changed (for both of us!) when we had children and she stayed home.

    But I felt very grateful for the opportunity, and I resolved that I would make his home life as perfect as I could.

    I imagine that your husband felt as I did: incredibly honored that such an intelligent and capable woman would show him that much trust.

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

      @mr. wavevector

      Thank you for the kind words. I do credit this shift in our relationship with our marital happiness, in part.

  • Ramble

    From Merriam-Webster :


    Dominant:
    1

    a: commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others

    b: very important, powerful, or successful

    2

    : overlooking and commanding from a superior position “

    None of the above. No thanks!


    Assertive:
    1

    : disposed to or characterized by bold or confident statements and behavior;
    2

    : having a strong or distinctive flavor or aroma

    Much better!

    Mirielle, it was just a question. So, to clarify, you are not excited by, or attracted to dominant men.

  • Ramble

    Ion, I got you. Thanks.

  • Esau

    Yes, Susan, I think you’ve got the plot of The Quiet Man down correctly; do I take it you’re a fan of the film? If so, do you basically approve of, or sympathize with, Maureen O’Hara’s value system, that she can’t respect her husband unless he’s willing to hit people? Presumably a strongly-worded letter from a solicitor wouldn’t suffice, even if it got the job done to pry loose the dowry, since that’s just hiring a proxy to do his fighting for him. How is Mr. HUS as a pugilist? Personally I find the whole logic kind of monstrous, that neither the wife nor the brother, nor presumably society as a whole, will or even can respect a man who eschews violence, no matter how good his reason for pacifism may be.

    But, that was a different time from when I grew up. According to the internets the film was made in 1952, pretty much they heyday of John Wayne and Gary Cooper, when a “real man” was reluctant to commit violence but would step up to the job when really necessary for peace and justice. We can see this as a central embodiment, or justification, of the US’ behavior as viewed in the post-war era: we were reluctant to engage in violence and get involved in the war, but when we were directly threatened we didn’t dither or capitulate or accommodate but stepped up and did the job. “High Noon” (also 1952) is deadly serious, while in “The Quiet Man” the violence is all cartoonish and no one actually gets hurt; but the theme in both is basically the same, that once the good man has risen to his duty and dispensed the necessary violence — but no more than that — then we can all go back to living peacefully.

    This brings up the interesting question, which has necessarily been batted around at great length here but never really pinned down: what is a man’s duty in the present-day world? Do we even have the idea anymore?

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

      If so, do you basically approve of, or sympathize with, Maureen O’Hara’s value system, that she can’t respect her husband unless he’s willing to hit people?

      Of course not! The whole disagreement is ridiculous and the brother is a boorish fellow who is basically a caricature. She doesn’t tell him to fight, she tells him to get her things. She says, “Like my mother and her mother before her, I want my things about me” – or something like that.

      What I like about the film is the chemistry between Maureen O’Hara and John Wayne. The kiss in the windy cottage is one of the steamiest in film history, IMO.

      This brings up the interesting question, which has necessarily been batted around at great length here but never really pinned down: what is a man’s duty in the present-day world? Do we even have the idea anymore?

      It’s funny you should ask that. Last night I joked that I’m so glad Obama won because now we don’t have to worry about Susan Sarandon moving to Canada. That led to a discussion about great Viet Nam War movies, and how the soldiers were treated disgracefully, which led to talking about those who moved to Canada. This was between my son and me – it was interesting to hear how he perceives the 60s and 70s – quite different than it actually was. I told him he needs to see The Deerhunter and Born on the Fourth of July.

  • Ramble

    For the students who believe in the mission, the Anscombe Society is a very viable social scene.

    I am not saying otherwise. Nor am I saying that they should not pursue these paths.

    What I am saying is that this is simply an attempt at applying old fashioned social norms (one of which is Slut Shaming, whether direct or indirect).

    It’s the same concept with a new name:

    Shell Shocked > Battle Fatigue > PTSD

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    How about a personal strategy? If a girl makes herself as attractive as possible, actively shows interest and is girlfriend material, the guys will “pay” for the goods. I went to Northwestern during 2000s and never hooked up. I have never made out with any guy who wasn’t on track to saying “I love you,” and my kiss N is in single digit.

    The key is self-respect. If she holds herself to a certain standard, like “I won’t eat poop,” then no matter how many people around her are eating poop because it’s the “cool” thing to do, she will not. And she’ll attract a man who respects her to not make her eat poop.
    Also, using sex as a bartering tool doesn’t really work, because as in the food analogy, she also wants good food. It’s senseless to try to treat sex as a commodity when she also wants it. Rather, she should look for a situation where love is given for love, commitment for commitment, respect for respect, and finally after all those are met, sex for sex.

  • Ramble

    If you’re suggesting that the marriage rate has gone down in those groups because people are fat

    I specifically said that I DIDN’T think that.

  • Maggie

    @Susan
    “I don’t have a great feeling about this…”

    This is excellent progress! I bet you have a beach house within two years.

  • Mireille

    @VD

    “inclined or ready to submit; unresistingly or humbly obedient”

    Why is it that you dislike that word so much? Am I correct in guessing that you pride yourself on never being obedient to a man?

    There is no pride in it. I consider my independence a state in it self, not something I had to wrestle a man to get. I’m not inclined or ready to submit, nor humbly obedient. The problem I have with that phrasing is that, to me, these adjectives can apply to any individual, not just women. If I have a superior skill over my husband or BF, I will therefore be dominant in that area. It is not a question of establishing that men are simply dominant in every situations. For example (and this is a caricature), men are “inclined and ready to submit” when a woman proposes to help them choose what to wear or picks some of their outfits. Or when it comes to all those domestic things women seem to be good at (we actually learn that stuff you know! lol) I’m from the school of different and equal.

    @ Wavevector
    The influence of the subordinate partner is well known in other areas of life. In business it’s called “managing up”.

    You lose me at “subordinate”. There is no hierarchy in my home; it isn’t the army or some corporate environment. I think you mentionned “mutual influence” earlier and I understand this as an egalitarian effort, not a dominant/submissive dynamic. There are some days where one indulges the other in the couple, and none will be dominant or submissive for it.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    i guess i am confused by the initial example of the downtrodden freshman who is hooking up with the frat broseph. does she really need a “dating culture” to teach her simple lessons about personal dignity? i think hanna rosin’s basic point is that under the current system, the strong and the smart of either gender will have maximum flexibility to arrange their affairs as they please, and everybody else… wait, why am i supposed to care about them again?

    put it differently, if my daughter were undergoing what the sad freshman was undergoing, i would be outraged — not that “the culture had let her down” — because it ALWAYS DOES — but because my daughter failed to rise above the culture and use its quirks to squeeze other people…

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

      @slim’s tuna provider

      put it differently, if my daughter were undergoing what the sad freshman was undergoing, i would be outraged — not that “the culture had let her down” — because it ALWAYS DOES — but because my daughter failed to rise above the culture and use its quirks to squeeze other people…

      I agree with you. That’s one reason I did not feature that story in my post – that young woman sounds unstable, damaged, low self-esteem, etc. Girls like her do fall into the hookup scene, but then again, those were the girls who bucked the norms and were sluts even before the Sexual Revolution.

      I can only imagine the backstory of that young woman – but it doesn’t matter, as she cannot be helped by me or even by her friend. There will always be self-destructive people.

  • VD

    There is no pride in it. I consider my independence a state in it self, not something I had to wrestle a man to get. I’m not inclined or ready to submit, nor humbly obedient.

    Fair enough. I simply recommend that you recognize that someone is always in charge. The Catch-22 that many women have is that they don’t want to be submissive and they don’t want a man who is submissive to them. But at least you recognize la difference.

  • Abbot

    “for most women – hookups are experimental”

    Is that just another euphemism for fucking around?

    “Hey Jane, did you get good and experimented last night?

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-11/l-ar110812.php

    .

  • Abbot

    “sluts even before the Sexual Revolution”

    were a fringe cultish bunch and that cult is now imposing and enlarged

  • J

    Seriously. I just ran the numbers and she basically has to start dating her future husband at age 25-26. In fact, I do not think that is unusual – it’s probably the most common timeline for educated women.

    I typically attend 2 or 3 weddings each summer where the bride fits that profile; also in attendence will be some young women who are clearly worried that they are behind the curve. I notice that the girls tend to be super-dolled up for these occasions and that the grooms friends are often looking for likely women. For all the talk of marriage strikes, both sexes seem to want to pair up in my neck of the woods. The bridal couple often invites people who are looking for a spouse.

  • Ramble

    I think it probably would have raised eyebrows.

    That is what I assumed. And, again, I am talking about your non-feminist (regardless of how liberal) friends who envied you.

    The truth, even if accepted and envied, is often derided if it does not fit the narrative or at least show some nuance to protect the innocent.

    We are getting lies because we are asking for them.

    They were all incredulous. Some of this is willful ignorance, and some of it is the result of highly slanted media coverage – we choose to watch those sources that confirm our own biases.

    Right on.

  • Ramble

    She doesn’t tell him to fight

    They rarely do.

    What is the point of having feminine wiles and emotional manipulation if you are then going to be honest and direct.

  • Ted D

    Ramble – “What is the point of having feminine wiles and emotional manipulation if you are then going to be honest and direct.”

    Maybe its just me, but this statement seems like an oxymoron to me. “Feminine wiles” is to me the exact opposite of honest and direct.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    if you agree with me, Susan, I am not sure why you’re so down on Rosin. i think she essentially supports sexual libertarianism, which is think is quite reasonable. i think she is pretty clear that this is not intended to benefit all women. to me, people like esfahani smith are just complianing that social structures that are rigged for them have disappeared and been replaced with social structures that are rigged for other people.

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

      @slim’s

      if you agree with me, Susan, I am not sure why you’re so down on Rosin. i think she essentially supports sexual libertarianism, which is think is quite reasonable.

      She has said that the future of feminism depends on hookup culture. In explaining it she described what she claimed was the norm, when it actually applies to 20% or less of the female population. That bald admission, followed by a purposeful distortion of the data, amounts to proselytizing in my view.

  • Mireille

    It seems to me “feminine wiles” are honest, just not direct. You can take a convoluted approach to get a guy to do something and let him think that is his idea, doesn’t mean you’re acting dishonestly. Simply not directly.

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

      Men like coy women, not direct women.

  • mr. wavevector

    @Sai,

    I am always bad at grasping this subject… How is submission a demand for care?

    Submission is one behavior in the dominance hierarchies that most social animals exhibit. Submission is used in some animals (including humans) to solicit food or other resources, establish or re-enforce social bonds with more dominant animals, to solicit protection, and to avoid aggression.

    In my household I am the dominant animal. I am the biggest, strongest, smartest, and most aggressive. I am the source of resources for the other animals. I keep them safe from marauding wolves and nasty computer viruses. The other animals show submissive behavior to me – to solicit resources, to re-enforce the social bonds that tie us together, and presumably to keep on my good side so my (theoretical) capacity for aggression isn’t used against them. The dog rolls over for me. My youngest child gets in my lap and nuzzles his face in my chest. My wife does pretty much the same thing as the child -and she likes rolling over for me too.

    But everything I read about it on the web smacks of “God made men superior and brains in women are just vestigial structures, what you think and like do not matter.”

    Well, that’s not what I’m talking about. I do not think women are inferior. I do not think a woman who is not submissive (like Mireille above) should be forced to be so. My wife is submissive in that she willingly and happily accepts me as the leader of the family. There was no coercion on my part – in fact I was uncomfortable taking the lead for a long time, because I was convinced that male dominance was a very bad thing.

    Let’s talk about equality now. There are several areas where equality is vital to a healthy relationship, even (or especially) one that has a dominance hierarchy. Respect is the first – each partner must respect the other as they do themselves. Commitment is the second – each partner must be equally committed to the relationship. Effort is the third – each partner must commit an equal amount of their effort overall into the relationship. That doesn’t mean 50-50 on everything. It means that at the end of the day, each has spent comparable amounts of time, energy, and care on doing the things that need to be done, each according to their preferences and abilities.

    So even though my wife and I have a very traditional marriage with gender-segregated duties and a hierarchy that places me at the head of the household, we are equal in the respect we give each other and the commitment and effort we put into our marriage and family life.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    wavevector’s latest made me giggle remembering the countless literary works where in households like he describes the husband thought he was in charge while the wife let him continue in said delusion and quietly directed the household through him. see e.g. the parents i “my big fat greek wedding”.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    @ Susan —

    it is pretty clear that Rosin has not intention of describing the “norm”. she makes clear that the strategy she describes is much more likely to be successful for the particularly ruthless and the particularly privileged women. and nowhere does she define “feminism” to mean “the increase in the well-being of all women”. rather, i suspect her definition of “feminism” is “closing the gap between particularly ruthless, particularly privileged men and similar women”. the fact is that we’ve been moving to a winner take all society, and i guess i am okay with women getting to play on an equal footing if the want to.

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

      it is pretty clear that Rosin has not intention of describing the “norm”. she makes clear that the strategy she describes is much more likely to be successful for the particularly ruthless and the particularly privileged women

      That’s true, and feminists don’t have have much use for any other women – those who stay home, for example. However, the MSM picked up her Boys on the Side article as portraying what college is typically like for young people today. She certainly attempts to obfuscate the small number of women eagerly embracing it, as she cherry picks the women she speaks to and doesn’t present any other views, though she does include Paula England’s data at the end.

      The problem with sexual libertarianism is twofold:

      1. The culture can dominate even while most students reject it.

      2. The Pluralistic Ignorance phenomenon leads many students to feel like “have nots” or losers if they don’t follow the culture.

      3. Promiscuity is detrimental to society, and we are all affected by these sexual mores.

  • Ted D

    Mireille – “It seems to me “feminine wiles” are honest, just not direct. You can take a convoluted approach to get a guy to do something and let him think that is his idea, doesn’t mean you’re acting dishonestly. Simply not directly.”

    I stand (or sit) corrected!

    Susan – “Men like coy women, not direct women.”

    This made me laugh, but only because I have more than once said to my wife “don’t be coy with me woman…” I prefer the direct route, but I’ve been recently informed that it is due to my narcissistic tendencies. Probably true, and a point for me to ponder much further.

  • Sassy6519

    I think a question I have is this:

    What should women who are not naturally inclined to “submission” supposed to do?

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

      What should women who are not naturally inclined to “submission” supposed to do?

      Make the struggle fun, a la Hepburn and Tracy. TBH, I can’t see good sex without a little sexual tension, and I can’t see any sexual tension coming out of humble obedience. To each his own, I guess.

  • mr. wavevector

    @slim’s tuna provider;

    the husband thought he was in charge while the wife let him continue in said delusion and quietly directed the household through him.

    I totally agree. That’s what I was thinking of when I referred to dominance/submission as mutual influence, or my performing my dominant role for my wife’s benefit. My wife is the center of our family, the mother of my children, the keeper of hearth and home. All the things I value most in life I have through her. I am well aware that I serve in my roles of provider, protector, and leader at her behalf, and my real job is to support her and make possible the work she does.

    That’s the paradox of female submission. The wife who submits to her husband has more power over him than the wife who fights for perfect disgendered equality.

  • J

    She submitted to me, in that she complied with my demand, but she did so in a way to gain a certain advantage on me, knowing that her cute behavior would elicit a positive emotional response from me. This illustrates how the dominance/submission dyad is in a loving relationship is not a simple matter of top-down authority, but rather a means of mutual influence.

    That’s cute and fun and all, but basically it’s what my late mother used to refer to as “using feminine wiles” to get what you want out of a man. I personally rarely do it; it smacks of manipulation to me. DH, whose mother was the queen of “feminine wiles,” dislikes and distrusts women who do. (My MIL once got a house out of a guy like that.)

    While we both understand that some couples just relate to each other in that way, our personal preference is for more direct interaction. Outside of the playful sort of interaction wavevector describes, serious use of “feminine wiles” seems like a nasty power play to me, and I have a hard time respecting men who fall for it. It seems like a particularly insidious form of pussywhipping to me. I would hate to see some girl whip my sons like that. I’d rather see direct rational discussion between my sons and their hypothetical wives where big issues are concerned.

    wavevector’s latest made me giggle remembering the countless literary works where in households like he describes the husband thought he was in charge while the wife let him continue in said delusion and quietly directed the household through him. see e.g. the parents i “my big fat greek wedding”.

    Exactly. And it makes the husband look like fool. My own father would bluster about the house as though he were large and in charge, but my mom really ruled the roost. I never took my dad seriously.

  • Ted D

    J – I think you pretty much summed up my opinion of “feminine wiles” and manipulation in general very well. The problem it seems is the vast majority of people work on that model far more often than they work on the direct one.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Sassy6519;

    The same thing everyone has to do – find someone with a compatible personality, and figure out how to make a relationship work with them.

    Perhaps you are the dominant one. I’ve read there are many more men who want to be the submissive in a relationship than there are women willing to be dominant. In that case you should have easy pickings!

  • J

    That’s the paradox of female submission. The wife who submits to her husband has more power over him than the wife who fights for perfect disgendered equality.

    It depends on how good the wife is at pumping up the husband’s ego and on how susceptible he is to that. There are also whole cultures where women are truly submissive (not just flirtaciously) and the quid pro quo you allude to just doesn’t happen.

  • J

    @Ted #194

    Yep. And I’m always a little surprised when I hear men say they want MORE of that. I don’t get it.

    On a personal level, I could do what wavevector’s wife did and it would go over well here if something like an ice cream cone were at stake, but I don’t quite understand families where the wife gets a beach house by blowing sunshine up the husband’s ass.

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

      I don’t quite understand families where the wife gets a beach house by blowing sunshine up the husband’s ass.

      Just to be clear, Mr. HUS said no beach house, and that was the end of it. :(

      My friends, OTOH, did buy a beach house on MV – largely because the wife was determined and she makes half the income.

      I think female submissiveness is much less likely when women have careers of their own. As we have seen for the last few decades now.

  • Escoffier

    It’s quite plausible to me that a whole sorority would have no unattractive girls. Sororities recruit and screen partly on that basis. Frats do too, but less so. Overall, at my school, the Greeks were better looking than the average student and I bet that holds everywhere.

  • mr. wavevector

    J,

    You are describing feminine wiles, nasty power plays, and pussywhipping. Each of these sound like ways women wield power in relationships without respecting their male partners. Equal respect is the foundation of any good relationship. Women are equally capable of disrespect and abusing their powers as men are.

    As for your father blustering about the house, it’s clear your mother didn’t really submit to him, so he wasn’t really dominant. There are two ways of being dominant: by consent of the submissive partner, or by force. What Susan and I are discussing is the former. Assuming the latter is off the table because it’s both morally wrong and illegal, then no husband can be truly dominant in the relationship without the consent of his wife.

  • Escoffier

    “I have said it before and I will say it again, by the time this is all over Western Society will look a lot like it did about 100 years ago.”

    This made me smile. I see close to zero prospect that there will be any sort of Western Society in 100 years.

  • J

    I think a question I have is this: What should women who are not naturally inclined to “submission” supposed to do?

    I found a man who actually and affirmitively valued my honesty.

    Now, that is not to say that he values bitchiness.

    A while back I checked out a blog by one of Dalrock’s female commenters. She had a post about how hard it was for her to learn to submit after years of rolling her eyes and being snarky to him. Now she’s finding the red pill hard to swallow.

    Had I wanted to waste time in posting there, I’d have told her that if she and her husband had treated each other with simple, common sense mutual respect earlier on, she wouldn’t have needed the red pill. There’s no need IMO to “submit,” but there was no need to spend years snarking at someone she purported to love enough to marry either.

    I hate to butt into your issues because I know what it’s like to survive a dysfunctional family, but there is a sane middle ground that you can find, Sassy. At the risk of sounding like a Nexium commerical, take the purple pill. Don’t be a simp; don’t be bitch. Be a decent person worthy of love, and love will find you.

  • mr. wavevector

    J,

    “It depends on how good the wife is at pumping up the husband’s ego and on how susceptible he is to that.”

    You misunderstand. The real power of female submission isn’t in pumping up the male ego. It’s in how it triggers the male instinct to care for a woman.

    And as for the male ego – my observation is that women tend to have bigger egos than men, and more fragile ones too. It’s the rare woman who doesn’ t think she’s all that, or who can take criticism without responding with tears or rage.

  • Escoffier

    Another point about the cartel, the word implies one party coming together to enforce behavior on all members of that party. To the extent that anyone breaks ranks, the cartel weakens. If enough desert, it eventually fails.

    Those saying that the cartel can work again because it has in the past have to ask yourselves, to what extent was the past “cartel” simply a matter of women agreeing with other women en masse not to have sex outside marriage (or “relationships”)? I don’t the evidence is very strong that it was.

    Rather , all of society and every institution in it enforced the norm. It wasn’t a cartel, it was broadbased, top to bottom agreement on what the norm had to be, based on moral and religious principle. Note that once parts of society began to withdraw their objection to casual sex, the whole system collapsed. No cartel emerged, even though women broadly speaking were among the last to cease objecting to widespread casual sex.

  • Cooper

    Hey Sassy,

    I think you should start saying “I am capable of monogamy!”

    I really hope you don’t think I’m taking at shot at you when I say, you sound like some of the girls I hang around.

    I seem quite settled in your thoughts/doubts of whether you are even suited for monogamy. You may, or may not – but I think you “say” greatly influences your relationship orientation. Quite frankly, if you keep saying what you are, you may be shooting yourself in the foot, on whethe you’ll get a healthy, monogamous, relationship.

    I actually saved something you said yesterday: (didn’t think I’d be bringing it up so soon)

    “If a man sees no benefit in marriage, he doesn’t have to get married. No one is forcing him.
    I’ve recently started to question the benefit of monogamy. If I don’t see a benefit of monogamy, I simply won’t be monogamous. It’s as simple as that. No one is forcing me to be/do otherwise.”

    The way I see is, if you aren’t fully committed to finding a monogamous relationship, and believe you are capable of having one, no guy is ever going to change your mind. Or, should I say, I’d never dare to try.
    The choice must be made by you first, and I really, really believe that no guy in the world, no matter how perfect, would do a better job at changing your mind than you.

    This line especially: “If I don’t see a benefit of monogamy, I simply won’t be monogamous” – would most certainly have me running for the hills.

    Hope you appreciate my thoughts – I don’t intend to offend, really! :)

  • Escoffier

    Sassy, it’s possible that your issue/problem is not that you don’t want to submit to a dominant man. Rather, perhaps you have yet to find a man whom you think is dominant enough to be worthy of your submission.

  • Cooper

    3rd paragraph; “I seem” should read “you seem”

  • J

    @wave

    We are crossposting with similar underlying ideas. I don’t really think we have a debate here.

    As to my folks, my dad, for all the bluster, was actually a very weak man–as are so many men who seek to prove dominance. She was smarter than he was and actually was far better able to lead the family than he was. He was a loose cannon. The idea of his being in control was terrifying to me as he was completely incapable in making good decisions. Her mistake was NOT in not respecting him; he was indeed hard to take seriously once you really got to know him. Her mistake was in marrying him in the first place. I loved my dad, but he was an alpha thug. In the end, I wound up treating him like one of my sons. That way I could love and take care of him without having to deal with his bullshit.

    And that BTW is why more than playful female submission to male leadership doesn’t work. In an ideal world, every man would be a wise and natural leader. In reality, that’s not the case. Dysfunction is more common than not.

  • AmandaSm

    Susan,
    I think there are a few mixed up people here.

    Different males select for females depending on the cultural mores of the group the male is in.

    If you read Murray’s “Coming Apart” you see that the overall trend 50 years ago was that males with genetically high IQ would select a wife based on traits other than her IQ. You most men did not understand that IQ was a genetically determined trait and that selecting a woman with lower IQ meant having a son with a lower IQ.

    Today, all of the evidence from Murray’s book is that men with higher IQs are marrying women with higher IQs.

    That doesn’t mean the men are marrying domineering loud bossy feminists with high IQs, but somehow or the other, high IQ men are finding the higher IQ women and marrying them. The statistics in Murray’s book are very clear.

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

      @AmandaSM

      Today, all of the evidence from Murray’s book is that men with higher IQs are marrying women with higher IQs.

      That doesn’t mean the men are marrying domineering loud bossy feminists with high IQs, but somehow or the other, high IQ men are finding the higher IQ women and marrying them

      As the mother of a smart daughter, I am happy to hear it, truly. Actually, I have an interesting graphic on how men’s checklists have changed over decades. Notice how intelligence goes way up. And look at what happened to chastity! (from the NYXs):

      sc

  • JP

    “I get this, but I would point out that a full quarter of both males and females graduate college as virgins. Most of the men would wish it otherwise, but most of the women have clearly made a choice to abstain.”

    Unless you had no interest in having sex with your college girlfriend.

    Ever.

    Like me.

    I’m still trying to figure out how that lasted 2 years.

  • J

    You misunderstand. The real power of female submission isn’t in pumping up the male ego. It’s in how it triggers the male instinct to care for a woman.

    No, I understand completely and am not criticizing your interaction with your wife. But I would NOT define it as “true submission.” What went between you two is “love play.” Handing over one’s persoanl autonomy is “true submission” in my book.

    Let’s take some time to read all each other’s cross posts. I think our disagreements are semantic.

  • JP

    “That doesn’t mean the men are marrying domineering loud bossy feminists with high IQs, but somehow or the other, high IQ men are finding the higher IQ women and marrying them.”

    We look for them on purpose.

  • Wencil

    JP, respectfully, someone who had a two year relationship in college that involved no sex at all is a few standard deviations away from the mean. I am not sure that your perspective fits within the mainstream.

    That being said, the best University in America for young women who want a fun all around college experience but who want a boyfriend, not a series of hook ups and friends with benefits, is the Rochester Institute of Technology. the male / female ratio is 68% male / 32% female and this gives the females the bargaining power to insist on dates and a real relationship before sex. Not all young women eschew the hook up scene, but the hook up scene is really small – it just doesn’t dominate the way it does at other colleges.

  • Sassy6519

    @ J

    I found a man who actually and affirmitively valued my honesty.

    Now, that is not to say that he values bitchiness.

    A while back I checked out a blog by one of Dalrock’s female commenters. She had a post about how hard it was for her to learn to submit after years of rolling her eyes and being snarky to him. Now she’s finding the red pill hard to swallow.

    Had I wanted to waste time in posting there, I’d have told her that if she and her husband had treated each other with simple, common sense mutual respect earlier on, she wouldn’t have needed the red pill. There’s no need IMO to “submit,” but there was no need to spend years snarking at someone she purported to love enough to marry either.

    I hate to butt into your issues because I know what it’s like to survive a dysfunctional family, but there is a sane middle ground that you can find, Sassy. At the risk of sounding like a Nexium commerical, take the purple pill. Don’t be a simp; don’t be bitch. Be a decent person worthy of love, and love will find you.

    Thanks J. :)

    @ mr. wavevector

    The same thing everyone has to do – find someone with a compatible personality, and figure out how to make a relationship work with them.

    Perhaps you are the dominant one. I’ve read there are many more men who want to be the submissive in a relationship than there are women willing to be dominant. In that case you should have easy pickings!

    I don’t want to dominate anyone I’m in a relationship with (outside of the bedroom anyway). I also don’t want anyone to dominate me (outside of the bedroom anyway) in a relationship.

    I can relate to Mirielle’s description of assertiveness vs dominance. I like a man who has no problems with expressing his opinions and asserting his desires. It allows me the ability to choose whether or not I want to act in a way that satisfies his desires.

    Dominance implies that I don’t have any choice in the matter.

    A man that expects to dominate me (outside of the bedroom), or who expects me to submit to him freely, will most likely not get very far.

  • J

    Rather, perhaps you have yet to find a man whom you think is dominant enough to be worthy of your submission.

    No, like myself, she is the daughter of an alpha thug and doesn’t need to find a guy thuggier than daddy. She doesn’t need domination; she just needs a guy too strong to be dominated by her. She needs a solid, trustworthy guy with moral courage and gentle strength with whom she can build a relationship based on mutual respect…………..not that I project much. ;-)

    But srsly, I think I understand where Sassy is coming from.

  • Brendan

    She has said that the future of feminism depends on hookup culture. In explaining it she described what she claimed was the norm, when it actually applies to 20% or less of the female population. That bald admission, followed by a purposeful distortion of the data, amounts to proselytizing in my view.

    It is proselytizing, to be sure, but as I read her what she is saying is that the hookup culture is a great boon to women who are very ambitious, because it allows them to avoid the potentially goal/ambition-derailing “problem” of an actual relationship during their educational and career building years while still getting sex on whatever terms they want. In other words, by de-relationshipizing a woman’s relationship with men, she is freed up to slam the pedal down on her career, which leads to greater empowerment vis-a-vis her male peers. It applies only to the very ambitious, driven women who want to get ahead with the most ambitious men — but that’s always been the main focus on feminism, as you know. It’s true that it isn’t good for most women, but it’s empowering for the most ambitious women in the very literal sense that it allows them to give more free reign to their ambition without being held back by a relationship and its ties — as always with feminism, empowerment comes first, and particularly empowerment for the highly ambitious alpha females.

    Happiness isn’t the goal, and it never was. Feminists like Linda Hirschman have been very clear that increasing female happiness was never the goal of feminism — increasing female empowerment was and is, and Rosin’s logic on that is sound, sad to say.

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

      @Brendan

      Happiness isn’t the goal, and it never was. Feminists like Linda Hirschman have been very clear that increasing female happiness was never the goal of feminism — increasing female empowerment was and is, and Rosin’s logic on that is sound, sad to say.

      Even though only 25% of American women identify as feminists, I suspect most of them would be very surprised to realize this. Grabbing power, happiness and contentment be damned, is not going to resonate for most women. This is why the Stevenson Wolfers research showing that women are not as happy as they were in the 70s got so much press and worries so many women. Among my female peers, I’d say 9 out of 10 of us are saying, “I may be able to have it all, but I don’t want it all.” Anne Marie Slaughter is the most recent example, but unfortunately, she prescribed more pro-female legislation to deal with the problem.

      In any case, Forbes recent survey of women showed that a full 84% said they would consider staying home with children a luxury. It may not be too long before feminists are understood to be a small and not very female cohort within the population.

  • Escoffier

    I have never understood Sassy to be saying she wants anything like a thug, and the BFs and dates she describes certainly don’t sound thuggish. Rather, it sounds like she wants a really dominant but not sociopathic successful male. Which is fine, it’s just that the supply is finite.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Cooper

    There is no offense taken whatsoever.

    I know that I may be capable of practicing monogamy, but I’ve started to wonder whether or not I would be happy or can be happy with a long-term monogamous relationship. This is what I know:

    -I don’t want children.
    -I have an extremely high sex drive.
    -I also don’t have a strong inherent disdain for sexual variety.
    – I have spoken about my need to practically lock myself in my own home during ovulation to avoid running amok and hooking up with strange men.
    -I fantasize about other people when I’m in relationships.
    -I have commitmaphobic tendencies.

    I really see no point in ignoring any of those things. I’d rather be honest with myself than to potentially hurt someone in the future. Would I be a safe bet for a man who was looking for a completely faithful (sexually and emotionally) companion for life? Knowing myself, at this point, I’d say no.

    To be honest, I’m not sure that I can find everything that I want in only one person. Perhaps I can find what I’m looking for from a variety instead of a singular unit.

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

      @Sassy

      I understand why you perceive that you might not make a good monogamous partner. But are you OK with the idea of sharing a man or avoiding close relationships entirely?

  • JP

    I found it impossible in college to find a girlfriend who I actually wanted to be with.

    Worst 5 years of my life.

    Knowing what I know now, I could probably have made it into a much more meaningful and pleasant experience, and I’m not really even talking about the girlfriend issue.

  • Brendan

    No, like myself, she is the daughter of an alpha thug and doesn’t need to find a guy thuggier than daddy. She doesn’t need domination; she just needs a guy too strong to be dominated by her. She needs a solid, trustworthy guy with moral courage and gentle strength with whom she can build a relationship based on mutual respect…………..not that I project much.

    But srsly, I think I understand where Sassy is coming from.

    The way I read this is that a very dominant woman simply needs a man who is dominant as well — not that he dominates her (he can’t, because she’s kind of femdom herself), but that he avoids being dominated by her. That’s a tough guy to find, though, because most guys who are that dominant are going to prefer not to be in an equalist relationship with a dominant woman (Kind of a super hero marriage, as I like to call it), but will opt for a relationship with a more conventional woman who is happy to be the submissive partner in a relationship with the guy. So it’s a small pond, I think.

  • Escoffier

    Brendan:

    Rosin would have despised my college GF. We glommed onto each other after a year, she stayed with me the rest of the time, her whole ambition was to become a teacher, and she could not have cared less about advancing any high-powered career. Nor did she see me as any obstacle, she was quite eager to lock me down and go for the picket fence after graduation. This was at a nominally “elite” school in Northern California no less.

    Times change.

  • JP

    Rosin’s a self-hugger.

    God only knows what a monstrosity this world would become if I modeled it after me and what I wanted.

    However, I’m smart enough to know that’s a really bad idea.

  • Brendan

    Rosin would have despised my college GF. We glommed onto each other after a year, she stayed with me the rest of the time, her whole ambition was to become a teacher, and she could not have cared less about advancing any high-powered career. Nor did she see me as any obstacle, she was quite eager to lock me down and go for the picket fence after graduation. This was at a nominally “elite” school in Northern California no less.

    Times change.

    Yes, that’s exactly what she means, and exactly what she was referring to in terms of the hookup culture being empowering for ambitious women.

    You went to Cal, I’m guessing?

  • Sassy6519

    @ J

    No, like myself, she is the daughter of an alpha thug and doesn’t need to find a guy thuggier than daddy. She doesn’t need domination; she just needs a guy too strong to be dominated by her. She needs a solid, trustworthy guy with moral courage and gentle strength with whom she can build a relationship based on mutual respect…………..not that I project much.

    But srsly, I think I understand where Sassy is coming from.

    You do understand. You’ve hit the description right on the head.

    @ Brendan

    The way I read this is that a very dominant woman simply needs a man who is dominant as well — not that he dominates her (he can’t, because she’s kind of femdom herself), but that he avoids being dominated by her. That’s a tough guy to find, though, because most guys who are that dominant are going to prefer not to be in an equalist relationship with a dominant woman (Kind of a super hero marriage, as I like to call it), but will opt for a relationship with a more conventional woman who is happy to be the submissive partner in a relationship with the guy. So it’s a small pond, I think.

    That’s a very apt description of the situation as well. It’s a very small pond, and is also one of the reasons that I’ve been so unsatisfied in my relationships so far.

  • JP

    “Yes, that’s exactly what she means, and exactly what she was referring to in terms of the hookup culture being empowering for ambitious women.”

    She neglected pointing out the risk of psychological dysfunction.

    Basically because she really has no idea what’s really going on nor does she have the intellectual horsepower to actually analyze macrotrends.

    The Rise of Women is predicated on one thing and one thing only.

    Really cheap energy in conjunction with western materialism.

    In any event, we’ve probably got another 30-40 years before the next spiritual impulse wave which is the best point at which to change culture.

  • J

    I have never understood Sassy to be saying she wants anything like a thug,

    I get that. However, Sassy has a very strong personality and desire not to submit–in the sense of giving up autonomy. Any guy who was strong enough to get her to do that would have to be a thug, and I think a lot of her inability to commit comes from childhood submission to and abandonment by an alpha thug father.

    I am suggesting that the problem isn’t that she needs to find a guy strong and noble enough for her to submit to. Instead, she needs to find a guy who is strong enough to be with her as well as good and generous enough to support and nurture her from that position of strength. Since she neither wants to be dominated or to dominate, she will need to find a guy with whom she can have a truly egalitarian relationship with based on a strong mutual regard. It’s a different model of relationship that I am proposing. It’s not a question of her finding the right captain to be first mate. It’s more like finding an evenly matched horse that she can get in harness with.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    @ sass

    “-I don’t want children.
    -I have an extremely high sex drive.
    -I also don’t have a strong inherent disdain for sexual variety.
    – I have spoken about my need to practically lock myself in my own home during ovulation to avoid running amok and hooking up with strange men.
    -I fantasize about other people when I’m in relationships.
    -I have commitmaphobic tendencies.”

    so you’re like every 25 yr old male i have ever met! and yet many of them (including me) change by the time they’re 35 if not earlier. it’s not that some big change happens, it’s that you slowly learn to let the more family-oriented parts of yourself come out and temper the stallion-like qualities. and at to some point you get too busy to be too randy.

  • Cooper

    @Sassy

    You do not think that what you listing is influencing your attitude more than anything? I beleive if you really wanted to, you could have wonderful list of reasons why you are best suited for a long-term monogamous relationship.

    Let’s face it, everything you list is a huge red flag.

    I think the list demonstrates the attitude you’ve decide to take, more than it predetermines your future relationship. And if you were determined to change your stance, a list of reasons why you’re good for long-term monogamy may follow, eventually.

    “Would I be a safe bet for a man who was looking for a completely faithful (sexually and emotionally) companion for life? Knowing myself, at this point, I’d say no.
    To be honest, I’m not sure that I can find everything that I want in only one person. Perhaps I can find what I’m looking for from a variety instead of a singular unit.”

    Again, I’m purposefully stepping over the line here, but maybe you don’t know yourself that well. Just because you’ve observed something about yourself, don’t mean it’s set in stone – more importantly is you attitude towards the observation.

    You seem content in your list of red flag, and that you’ve to settled with what you know about yourself. The fact that what you’ve conclude doesn’t bothered you, is probably most telling. (Ie: “-I also don’t have a strong inherent disdain for sexual variety.
    -I fantasize about other people when I’m in relationships.”)

    “Knowing myself, at this point, I’d say no.”

    Don’t let this define you. If I were to realistically evaluate myself, (and I really value a realistic assessment, with numerical support) I would not list many things that predicts healthy, long-term, monogamous relationship. Though, I’d idealistically want to list a few pro-monogamy points, but none would the backing evidence.
    I have a pretty terrible track history with maintaining attractions, this is only thing I know about myself that has proof, and been observed countlessly. (the observation being very key to my appreciated)

    Nonetheless, I choose not to define myself by my observations. I’ll follow what I ideally think I’m capable of, and ignore all the evidence that says I’m, well, not.

  • Sassy6519

    @ J

    I get that. However, Sassy has a very strong personality and desire not to submit–in the sense of giving up autonomy. Any guy who was strong enough to get her to do that would have to be a thug, and I think a lot of her inability to commit comes from childhood submission to and abandonment by an alpha thug father.

    I am suggesting that the problem isn’t that she needs to find a guy strong and noble enough for her to submit to. Instead, she needs to find a guy who is strong enough to be with her as well as good and generous enough to support and nurture her from that position of strength. Since she neither wants to be dominated or to dominate, she will need to find a guy with whom she can have a truly egalitarian relationship with based on a strong mutual regard. It’s a different model of relationship that I am proposing. It’s not a question of her finding the right captain to be first mate. It’s more like finding an evenly matched horse that she can get in harness with.

    Once again J, spot on. The part that I’ve bolded is brilliant and absolutely what I’m looking for.

    I’ve dated men who didn’t have strong enough personalities to counter my own, and they either felt that I didn’t care or that I was too much to handle (those were their words). I’ve also dated men who did have strong personalities that wanted to tame me, in a sense. Those men became frustrated when their efforts didn’t accomplish what they had hoped. I want a man with a strong personality who does not feel the need to tame my own. The horse analogy is perfect.

  • J

    You do understand. You’ve hit the description right on the head.

    Good. We’ve identitified the problem. It took me years to understand myself, but after I did I could get somewhere.

    Now the hard part is finding the guy. If I can extrapolate from my own experience, the sort of guy you are looking for isn’t out there flashing himself around. To borrow VD’s analogy, you don’t want the alpha who gathers a crowd to listen to his self-aggrandizing stories, you want the guy in the corner with the knowing smirk. That guy, unless it’s just a pose, is the real strong man. He is the steak, not the sizzle. He’s overcome some bad stuff of his own and has learned from it. He has a strength and confidence that comes organically from that experience–because he’s earned it. Your immediate reaction to him will not be tingles; it will be RESPECT because he will truly be a formidable and impressive person by virtue of how he has dealt with his life challenges, not because of what paper alpha bullshit techniques he is affecting. You will be able to trust him because he IS trustworthy and then the two of you will step into harness together be able to work towards a mutually held goal. And that’s what the sort of no bullshit relationship I think you need will look like.

  • J

    The horse analogy is perfect.

    It’s the one DH and I use for our marriage– two horses, yoked together, pulling in the same direction, towards the same goal.

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

      @J, @Sassy

      I have chills hearing about what it was like to grow up with a very alpha father. Bad news, clearly. Ladies reading, beware what happens when you reproduce with a cad.

  • mr. wavevector

    @J,

    “Handing over one’s persoanl autonomy is “true submission” in my book.”

    Yes, you are right – we are disagreeing on semantics. I wouldn’t want that sort of “true submission” for anyone.

    “Her mistake was in marrying him in the first place.”

    That does seem to be the case. I certainly don’t think all men are fit to be leaders due to their sex. Many aren’t, as you demonstrate.

    I wouldn’t call a man who is dominated by his wife and daughter an “alpha thug”, though. Alpha implies “leader of the pack”. It doesn’t seem that anyone wanted to follow your father’s lead.

    @Sassy;

    “Dominance implies that I don’t have any choice in the matter.”

    Like with J, we disagree on semantics. I would call that slavery, which is definitely not what I’m advocating.

    “It allows me the ability to choose whether or not I want to act in a way that satisfies his desires.”

    My wife always has a choice, as should every woman. She most always chooses to satisfy my desires, or to follow my lead, but everything is consensual and open to negotiation. And “no” is always respected.

  • J

    I’ve dated men who didn’t have strong enough personalities to counter my own, and they either felt that I didn’t care or that I was too much to handle (those were their words). I’ve also dated men who did have strong personalities that wanted to tame me, in a sense. Those men became frustrated when their efforts didn’t accomplish what they had hoped. I want a man with a strong personality who does not feel the need to tame my own.

    It’s the strong woman’s dilemma. I had the same problems. You gotta find the guy who regards you as, not a bitch, but as a force of nature–the guy who understands that you are strong, but not malicious. The guy who sees your fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities and attempts, not to take advantage of them, but to pour his own strength into them and help you be better. To me, that’s what real love is.

  • Lokland

    @J

    “Exactly. And it makes the husband look like fool. My own father would bluster about the house as though he were large and in charge, but my mom really ruled the roost. I never took my dad seriously.”

    Pardon the rudeness but

    How exactly does one run the house through someone else?

    “He thinks I’m cleaning these dishes for him, phaw, this is all for me. Muhahaha.”

    Seriously, paying the bills and cleaning the house is stuff you could hire people to do.

    Did your mother decide where you lived? Went to school?
    What exactly was she in charge of?

    The only thing i can think of that woman are in charge of is kids which is often dependent upon where and how often Dad works.

    The rest of it tends to be an equal division of labour.

    Who’s in charge is usually who control the money and where you live which in most scenarios I can think of is Dad.

  • Tom

    They didn’t feel like equals on the sexual playground, more like jungle gyms.”
    __________
    That is probably a very true statement. Especially with all the two minute wonders out there…lol

  • J

    I wouldn’t call a man who is dominated by his wife and daughter an “alpha thug”, though. Alpha implies “leader of the pack”. It doesn’t seem that anyone wanted to follow your father’s lead.

    Well, believe it or not, he had a merry band of assholes who regarded him as a very big man. From the outside, it would have looked like he was the lord and master of all he surveyed. And we didn’t dominate him as much as we protected him from himself. It was “our job” to quietly rearrange reality in a way that he could cope with, a true exercise of “female wiles.”

    I recently found an old picture of my family. My dad is sprawled in a chair, smiling cockily, dominating the frame with his body language as a good alpha should. I am a toddler in his lap; my mom is behind the chair, smiling, with her arms around his neck. I showed it to my son who took one look into a face he had only known as elderly and a bit senile and said, “Wow, Grandpa looked like a real asshole.” And then we all laughed–because we were all on to him.

    BTW, don’t get me wrong; I did adore my father. He was a dynamic, dashing and handsome man and, if you judge him soley by his own professed standards, was a good man as well. Unfortuantely, the standards that he lived by meant nothing in the modern world, outside of the country of his parents’ origins at the time that they left there. As a result, he, with the best of intentions, unfortunately did a lot of harm. Nonetheless, I took good care of him until he passed in his early nineties, so perhaps it’s better to have a daughter’s love than her respect.

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

      Wow. The Power of the Pussy

      Exhibit A: General David Patraeus brought to his knees.

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

    J wrote:It’s the strong woman’s dilemma. I had the same problems. You gotta find the guy who regards you as, not a bitch, but as a force of nature–the guy who understands that you are strong, but not malicious. The guy who sees your fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities and attempts, not to take advantage of them, but to pour his own strength into them and help you be better. To me, that’s what real love is.

    And here we are back to the question of: what’s in it for the guy? What’s the advantage of going for a Strong Woman™ instead of a kind and pretty nurse?

    The other problem you’re glossing over is that these strong women need a man who’s equally strong, but not stronger. That further winnows the school of suitable men. I’ve been in relationships with Strong Women™ and it’s damn unworkable because they are so tied up in their accomplishments that they can’t deal being with someone who can do what they do better. I’m pretty much done with women who supplement me now, and I look primarily for complimentary women.

    I’m sorry but in my experience, your model of the female is broken.

  • Brendan

    Wow. The Power of the Pussy

    Exhibit A: General David Patraeus brought to his knees.

    Stay tuned on this one. He was slated to testify before the intelligence committee next week on Benghazi and now he is no longer going to do so, due to the resignation. There’s a lot more to this than pussy. Stay tuned.

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

      Stay tuned on this one. He was slated to testify before the intelligence committee next week on Benghazi and now he is no longer going to do so, due to the resignation. There’s a lot more to this than pussy. Stay tuned.

      He’s not going to testify? Wow. This after a week long delay in announcing the drone strike. I did hear that apparently the affair has been well known for some time – the timing is definitely questionable.

      How much you want to bet the NYXs buries it?

  • Ion

    mr. wavevector

    “My wife always has a choice, as should every woman. She most always chooses to satisfy my desires, or to follow my lead, but everything is consensual and open to negotiation. And “no” is always respected.”

    Your wife is a lucky woman.My personality is much closer to the submissive end of the spectrum than dominant, so I wouldn’t feel “forced” into a submissive role. From what you’ve said here, your situation just seems harmonious and balanced to me.

    “Perhaps you are the dominant one. I’ve read there are many more men who want to be the submissive in a relationship than there are women willing to be dominant.”

    I think there’s a lot to be said about there being more women who value dominance than there are women willing to be submissive (if both submissive and dominant women want some dominant traits in men). Even female feminists regard beta male feminists as asexual. Allies, sure, will call them when Occupy whatever is happening…but they view them as asexual nonetheless. You’re more likely to see feminist girls on booty call rotation for bad boys than giving much attention to male feminists in their circle.

  • J

    It was like watching a marionette show, Lok. It looked like he performed all the major actions, but she pulled the strings. She was brilliantly manipulative; she could convince nearly anyone of nearly anything. Luckily, she was not a loose cannon like he was, so a lot of her energy went into keeping him from doing stupid things. They were in some senses a perfect couple; they were crazy in complementary ways.

    And BTW it wasn’t such an uncommon a pattern in my working class neighborhood. The wives were often both brighter and better educated than the husbands and covertly ran the show. The typical dad in my neighborhood worked at manual labor or in a factory, was a high school dropout and had some vice like drinking or gambling. If your dad was a plumber, you were practically an aristocrat. The wife typically had completed high school, eventually went back to work at something low paying, handled the finances and covertly ran the family. A good husband was one who didn’t cheat or beat. Most of us girls were raised with the idea that “Father Know Best” and Ward Cleaver was good TV, but IRL we were going to end up with a brawny guy whom we would have to some degree or another manage through feminine wiles.

  • mr. wavevector

    J,

    I’m enjoying reading your posts, because I think we’re observing the same phenomenon from two very different perspectives. Take your last comment:

    The guy who sees your fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities and attempts, not to take advantage of them, but to pour his own strength into them and help you be better. To me, that’s what real love is.

    This is really not so different than what I’ve been saying. The difference is in personal temperaments and histories. My wife is very trusting and unhesitatingly puts herself in my care, whereas you express a strong need to defend your autonomy and preserve your boundaries. But you still value the care and support a man can provide.

    My wife’s father is a very kindly, competent, conscientious and successful man, which probably explains a lot relative to your family story. My wife often says that the importance of fathers to daughters is much under-appreciated.

    I think I understand your strong woman’s dilemma. I once dated a woman of the J/Sassy type, and it didn’t last long. I just didn’t understand her. The problem was that I had experienced only two types of friendships. My male friends respected autonomy but neither asked for nor provided much care or emotional support. All my girlfriends, on the other hand, had been the sweet submissive type, quick to surrender autonomy but desiring a lot of care and support. The J/Sassy type woman requires something else – some combination of the autonomy of a male friendship and the care of the girlfriend, with some complex set of “fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities” hidden away behind her defenses, and likely to be stepped on unawares like a landmine, sending emotional shrapnel flying everywhere. Figuring all that out was beyond the limited emotional intelligence of my younger self!

  • J

    @SW #241

    Oh, I understood that. I actually had in mind a non-career woman that I know who really did BS her doctor husband into a beach house.

  • JP

    “And here we are back to the question of: what’s in it for the guy? What’s the advantage of going for a Strong Woman™ instead of a kind and pretty nurse?”

    I didn’t know that you really got a vote on who you were attracted to.

    So, there’s that problem.

  • SayWhaat

    It’s the strong woman’s dilemma. I had the same problems. You gotta find the guy who regards you as, not a bitch, but as a force of nature–the guy who understands that you are strong, but not malicious. The guy who sees your fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities and attempts, not to take advantage of them, but to pour his own strength into them and help you be better. To me, that’s what real love is.

    *sigh* I think I would like this type of relationship very much as well…

    And here we are back to the question of: what’s in it for the guy? What’s the advantage of going for a Strong Woman™ instead of a kind and pretty nurse?

    They are not mutually exclusive. Nurses can be kind, pretty, and really fucking strong when they need to be. In fact, they have to be, it’s part of the job!

    To answer your general question: there is considerable benefit to your offspring if their mother is a Mama Bear. ; )

  • slim’s tuna provider

    @ susan

    i am not clear how promiscuity is detrimental to society. it might be detrimental to certain segments of society, but every shift in mores is advantageous to some and detrimental to others. i generally agree that marriage is an institution that is beneficial to society, but marriage in the upper two income quartiles is actually doing quite well, and the lower two quartiles are generally not exposed to the college hookup culture.

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

      i am not clear how promiscuity is detrimental to society.

      i generally agree that marriage is an institution that is beneficial to society, but marriage in the upper two income quartiles is actually doing quite well, and the lower two quartiles are generally not exposed to the college hookup culture.

      It’s true that promiscuity in college is not where the bulk of the detriment lies in economic terms. The lower two quartiles are incurring enormous expenses for OOW, STD diagnosis and treatment, and assistance.

      In less tangible terms, I am concerned that the ever increasing marriage age and the increased number of sexual partners that implies will compromise fertility among the top two quartiles, who are already facing a declining childbirth rate.

  • JP

    I grew up in the executive father household, where he was the primary executive administrator and the font of all authority. Instructions flowed from his seat of power.

    Also, he was the school superintendent.

    So, I was double administered.

    I do think my mother pushed him into getting his Education doctorate thing. Her brother was a neurosurgeon, so I think he felt somewhat embarrassed by his profession and his farming roots.

    Whereas his father was the smoking alcoholic wastrel father who would shoot at his relatives when they tried to steal his beer.

    I personally don’t recommend blending extreme intelligence and emotional instability, but that’s just me.

  • JP

    My wife has most of those thingies on that list.

    Except cooking.

    She can’t really cook.

    I’m not sure what I was looking for but I got 17 of those thingies.

  • Lokland

    @JP

    Woo hoo. 18 for 18.

    We did good.

  • Lokland

    @J

    Hmm, explains it.

    i was gonna say your not controlling someone if your making them do what they were going to do anyway.

    But it turns out they weren’t gonna do it anyway.
    That must’ve been hella annoying.

    I don’t even like showing up late, (DQ if a woman does it- was a girl who skipped classes in uni, really hot, really sweet really couldn’t consider a relationship), god forbid not doing something else.

  • slim’s tuna provider

    the advantage of going for a strong woman is that she can call you on your BS, tell you to cowboy up if you’re being a quitter, and have your back if you eff up.

  • J

    @Mr. NT

    And here we are back to the question of: what’s in it for the guy? What’s the advantage of going for a Strong Woman™ instead of a kind and pretty nurse?

    TBH, it does take a certain kind of guy. A very strong guy who has had his adversities to overcome and has overcome them. One who sees that sort of woman as heroic, exciting and a strong partner and who might regard the stereotypical nurse or kindergarten teacher as bland or as sort of simp that he needs to be very careful not to streamroll over unintentionally.

    You are correct in noting that it’s hard to find that sort of guy–though I think it’s harder for a tough cookie to try to turn herself into something she’s not. Sassy is never going to be able to turn herself into a kind and pretty nurse (TM) type, although she is a good person and certainly is pretty. Me neither, though frankly, I’ve done more good for others in my neck of the woods than many of the sweet girl types and am a damn goodlooking old broad to boot. And I’m happy to report that some men really do appreciate that.

    I’ll date myself with a movie star metaphor. Sophia Loren never had the girl next door vulnerability that Sandra Dee had, but she had a smoldering sensuality and rugged salt of the earth peasant strength that no one could hold hold a candle to. There are probably more men who are attracted to the Sandra Dee/Debbie Reynolds type, but Sophia did OK for herself.

    I’m sorry but in my experience, your model of the female is broken.

    Well, it works for who it works for. It works for me; I suspect it will work for Sassy too. BTW, it’s not a model of female; it’s a model of a relationship for a certain kind of couple. If it doesn’t resonate with you, just feel free to ignore it.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    I never aspired to be a SAHM. It’s going to be rough when I go back to work, but I am going back. My husband offered me the option to stay home, and I said no. Financially we could do it, but it would not be good. Both he and I went to daycare and ended up fine, so we have nothing against it.

    I have lots of coworkers who are mothers, and we have a flexible work schedule with some working from home days. It’s not a high-stress job, but pay and benefits are good. Also, I suck at teaching and would never do homeschooling. I’d rather make money toward sending him to good schools.

    As to the submissiveness discussion, my personality is on the submissive side, but I think I’m fairly strong in the resilient sense. My husband is on the dominant side, though he is not domineering but very caring and loving. He sees my weaknesses and strengthens me, and I do the same for him. I can’t really envision a more harmonious and compatible match-up than what we have.

  • J

    @slim

    LOL. That too.

    And vice-versa. DH feels free to call me on BS, keep me from being a quitter and has my back as well.

  • mr. wavevector

    J,

    Yes, I see why you call your father an alpha now. He certainly seemed to be the type of man that Roissy et al. celebrate today.

    Your story of the gender relations in your neighborhood growing up is fascinating, and so different from what I grew up with (where father actually did know best). It supports the idea that women always had a lot of covert power, even if men held all the overt power.

    Now that women hold overt power too, what are those neighborhoods like today? If Hannah Rosin and Charles Murray are to be believed, not very many of the men are around at all and the women run the whole show. Are those women better off on their own compared to being a puppet master like your mother? And what if your mother were a young woman today? Would she be better off on her own? Or could she accomplish more by manipulating a “dynamic, dashing and handsome man”?

  • J

    @SW

    In some regards, I was actually very lucky. He didn’t drink, cheat or beat. I had friends whose fathers did. He’d explode every once in a while, but I learned how to avoid his bad moods. He wasn’t overtly cruel, just evil tempered and over-sensitive to imagined slights. I learned from my mom to cushion him from things that would set him off. In the end, I felt that I was the stronger of the two of us. But I sure the hell didn’t go and marry someone just like him, which is more than I can say for some of the neighbor girls. LOL.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    I understand why you perceive that you might not make a good monogamous partner. But are you OK with the idea of sharing a man or avoiding close relationships entirely?

    Honestly, I don’t know.

    I think the biggest deterrent to potentially having an open relationship would be the threat of STDs. Having multiple partners would increase the risk of getting an STD and spreading them among partners.

    As far a sharing a man, I’m on the fence about it. I’m naturally not a very jealous person, but perhaps I would still feel some pangs of jealousy. Having said that, I’d have other partners that I could engage with, so all of my energy would never be solely focused on one person. If one partner left me wanting, in some way, I could hypothetically have my desires met by another individual.

    @ J

    I’ll date myself with a movie star metaphor. Sophia Loren never had the girl next door vulnerability that Sandra Dee had, but she had a smoldering sensuality and rugged salt of the earth peasant strength that no one could hold hold a candle to. There are probably more men who are attracted to the Sandra Dee/Debbie Reynolds type, but Sophia did OK for herself.

    I have always really liked Sophia Loren’s character in the movie “Houseboat”, and Sophia Loren in general. She definitely had a strong sensual aura around her. Your description of her “rugged salt of the earth peasant strength” definitely fits, in my opinion.

  • Brendan

    Even though only 25% of American women identify as feminists, I suspect most of them would be very surprised to realize this. Grabbing power, happiness and contentment be damned, is not going to resonate for most women. This is why the Stevenson Wolfers research showing that women are not as happy as they were in the 70s got so much press and worries so many women.

    Right, but Hirschman’s response to that specific outcry was basically “don’t blame us, we never did this to make you happy, but to make you equal in power — your own happiness is for you to figure out with the power we gave you”.

    In any case, Forbes recent survey of women showed that a full 84% said they would consider staying home with children a luxury. It may not be too long before feminists are understood to be a small and not very female cohort within the population.

    It’s definitely a rising sign of opulence and luxury, because it’s quite expensive. It requires a husband who blows the doors out financially (where I live, 350k+), because the wife’s expensive degree and student loans are not earning anything to pay them off, together with the mortgage and the tuitions and the tutors and nannies and so on. It’s becoming as much of a status symbol in UMC communities as houses, cars and kids’ college admissions.

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

      It’s definitely a rising sign of opulence and luxury, because it’s quite expensive.

      Yup, a feature of the consumer marriages you talk about, and only those at the upper end, at that.

  • Brendan

    He’s not going to testify? Wow. This after a week long delay in announcing the drone strike. I did hear that apparently the affair has been well known for some time – the timing is definitely questionable.

    How much you want to bet the NYXs buries it?

    Of course it will. And the drone strike timing to delay the reporting of it to post election is another issue as well. Questionable timing all around.

  • Brendan
  • J

    @wave #261

    You raise some interesting questions particulary around Murray.

    “Are those women better off on their own compared to being a puppet master like your mother?”

    A significant number would do well as puppet masters, I agree.

    “And what if your mother were a young woman today?”

    I think the biggest tragedy of my mom’s life was that she never had a chance to educate and self-actualize herself the way I did. She had a lot of potential that went to waste, and she would have had a better life and a healthier marriage, no doubt with someone other than my dad, had she had different opportunities. I sometimes wonder if he would have been better off with someone less controlling than she was. She did however keep him out of trouble. He’d have died young or in jail had he never met her. He was so volatile.

    “Would she be better off on her own? Or could she accomplish more by manipulating a “dynamic, dashing and handsome man”?”

    She could never stay away from him for long. They had a very interesting emotional dynamic between them. Very Stella and Stanley Kowalski.

    My wife is very trusting and unhesitatingly puts herself in my care, whereas you express a strong need to defend your autonomy and preserve your boundaries. But you still value the care and support a man can provide.

    Actually, I’d trust my husband with my life–and have. But he’s pretty special.

    wife’s father is a very kindly, competent, conscientious and successful man, which probably explains a lot relative to your family story. My wife often says that the importance of fathers to daughters is much under-appreciated.

    Sher is both lucky and correct.

    I think I understand your strong woman’s dilemma.

    Me too–and I really appreciate that BTW.

    The J/Sassy type woman requires something else – some combination of the autonomy of a male friendship and the care of the girlfriend, with some complex set of “fears, weaknesses and vulnerabilities” hidden away behind her defenses, and likely to be stepped on unawares like a landmine, sending emotional shrapnel flying everywhere. Figuring all that out was beyond the limited emotional intelligence of my younger self!

    LOL. You catch on very quickly now.

    It’s been a real pleasure, wave, but I need to get ready for dinner. Stick around. I’ve enjoyed talking to you!

  • Just1Z

    @Sassy
    have you ever tried discussing things with a therapist?

    I don’t mean that you have a problem, just that understanding yourself and your motivations allows you to realistically address them. You have always struck me as being very rational, in fact quite masculine in temperament (no insult intended, but you should know that).

    I would expect that you could get great use out of some data about yourself.

    Best of luck

  • Escoffier

    Sassy, a bigger problem, it seems to me, is that you are going to have a hard time finding a man who doesn’t mind sharing YOU. Beyond the most detached alpha players, most are not going to want to put up with that, so you wil either have to settle for very low emotional involvement with your BFs, or else lie to them.

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

    The reason monogamy prevails is that in a polygynous system men without women rise up. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that women can barter successfully with their vaginas.

    I wish I could teach this concept to my Dominican friends to stop all the violence against women there. *lesigh*
    FYI
    Did you knew that the upcoming day against violence against women was selected because of three Dominican women that were killed by Trujillo on November 25?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Day_for_the_Elimination_of_Violence_against_Women

    All of the above? None of the above?

    First I want to mention that I had been studying the way celebrities influence the culture for over 10 years now. I mention this because most of this things are conclusions I had come not have the data and links handy.
    First celebrity culture is as old as time, it was first done by prominent individuals of the community, kings, queens, shamans, priests you can find tales of gladiators fangirls doing all sorts of crazy stuff to gain access to the their stars and do crazy things like collecting their sweat and in there was a riot during The presentation of The Rite of the Spring ballet in the early 20 century that needed the authorities to intervene.
    Now what has changed is that the media is more abundant and accessible than even before. See how many magazines, movies are dedicated feature the pretty people compared to 100 years ago, add that people can share this info faster than light with Internet, Twitter and Facebook and season it with how many “commoners” had reached fame through youtube making it look like being one of the “shiny ones” is just a lucky streak away and I think this makes more people focus on the top than before and this influence the lack of “visibility” of the average crowd to each other.

  • Mosquito

    “I wish I could teach this concept to my Dominican friends to stop all the violence against women there. *lesigh*”

    Any chance that you could put a word in for the men too? *les sighs*

    And what day is
    International_Day_for_the_Elimination_of_Violence_against_Men
    ?

    Or is life just peachy for all men in the D.R.?

  • Tasmin

    @Sassy
    Perhaps it is worth thinking about finding a partner from the same perspective as the Beta men are encouraged to do here and elsewhere in the ‘sphere. IOW, the choice is the same: you can keep the bar extremely high in terms of your Alpha-dominance requirements/preference in the man you seek and accept all the risks and limitations of such, just as low-dominance Beta men can keep the bar low in terms of the supplication, pedestal tendencies, passivity, and onenitis that he exhibits and accept the risks and limitations of such. Both approaches *may* get people what they want without altering what they bring to the table, but I think both approaches are limiting and very risky in terms of long-term success.

    I know you are spending a lot of time thinking about your views on relationships in general (monogamy, LTR, marriage, etc.) but as others have said, I would work on shifting your thinking away from deconstructing the relationship model to more fringe arrangements that suit your specific and rigid preferences and spend that energy on considering how you might work on adapting and modifying what you bring to the (potential) relationship.

    Learning how to dial back your own dominance, aggression, etc., will greatly expand your reach. This doesn’t mean becoming less “powerful” or “strong”, especially if you consider that our power within the SMP can be loosely gauged by our ability to get what we want – which you are clearly not at the moment. But it does mean shifting the perspective from what qualities the men need to have in order to meet your needs to that of what Alpha men out there want (need to have) in a potential partner and then adapting yourself accordingly.

    Like most things, there is a continuum. No need to curtsey and lower your head, but you can’t expect to compete with a man 100% of the time while you simultaneously need him to win 100% of the time. Men don’t want to compete with their partners, we compete everywhere else; it is exhausting. And keep in mind that Alpha men are sprinters; endurance is the Beta man’s race. IOW, Alpha=options, and they will look at the amount of “work” the relationship takes relative to the amount of “work” it takes to secure a new one (and that assumes they are already tipping into the monogamy camp).

    That said, how can you open up to accept less dominance? I’d start with working on modesty. Part of what makes the attraction and eventual relationship exciting is allowing the partner to discover your strengths along the way. Next would be to work on being grateful. Gratitude is a very positive and powerful lens. And in that mindset, we enter a potential relationship to give, what we get in return is merely a reflection of what we give. Your strength is for him to discover in that exchange – that is part of the joy of growing together over time; it is not something he needs to overcome, accept, temper, or control in exchange for the pleasure of your company/relationship. This:
    “Rather, perhaps you have yet to find a man whom you think is dominant enough to be worthy of your submission.”
    is like a Beta guy searching for the woman who is submissive enough to be worthy of his lack of dominance. What would you tell that guy? Probably something like “grow a pair” and your options will increase exponentially.

    The common “cure” for beta men in terms of increasing their chances in finding a good partner, increasing their attractiveness and ultimately their long-term prospects (think Athol in MMSL) of maintaining a strong relationship is about teaching themselves how to incorporate more dominance, more confidence. I think it is reasonable to apply the same (inverse) to your situation. Learn to recognize and dial down your own dominant behaviors and mentality. Intensity can be a great thing, but unbridled or misdirected or competitive/confrontational intensity is a no-go.

    You are attracted to Alphas. Dominance is already higher than most of the population in that package. You have to focus on your side of the equation. I think it is too early in the game for you to effectively settle for the fringe in terms of alternative lifestyles or some tiny population of uber-dominant men. All that said, you may also consider dating into a much higher age bracket as well. This could provide for some “fatherly” attribution of dominance as well as align your desire to not have children. There are plenty of salt n pepper ballers who are looking to snag a hottie. You may end up with a step daughter two years your junior, but the father-figure seems to play a role here, so it is something to either overcome or embrace, depending on where you come out in your self improvement/exploration process.

  • Ramble

    Men like coy women, not direct women.

    And girls like assertive/dominant men. That doesn’t mean the girls want to get smacked.

    We can use tools for good or evil. She wanted to see who was more alpha.

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

    @Mosquito
    I invite you to check for yourself. Google Dominican news and count how many women had been killed by husbands, boyfriends, lovers, the domestic violence epidemic and the cheating off the charts. Life is not peachy because is a third world country but is lot peachier if you have a penis…

  • Mosquito

    “I invite you to check for yourself” – invitation declined

    So, the men aren’t worth worrying about at all then?

    Don’t ask men to care about women until women care about men.

  • Ramble

    I’ve got $50 that says the White House knew about the Petraeus affair, and resulting resignation, before the election.

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

      I’ve got $50 that says the White House knew about the Petraeus affair, and resulting resignation, before the election.

      Not taking that bet – apparently the FBI has known for some time. I saw a pic of the woman – obvs much younger than Mrs. Patraeus. It’s such a tawdry ending to a truly amazing career.

  • Mosquito

    @Anacaona

    if you can’t see the point that I’m trying to make, then society is fucked and it deserves to be.

    If women cannot or will not care about men then every man taking the red pill will of necessity recognise that there is a war between the sexes.

    As has often been asked in the manosphere; “What happens in the sex war when the men turn up?”

  • Maggie

    @Susan
    “Among my female peers, I’d say 9 out of 10 of us are saying, “I may be able to have it all, but I don’t want it all.”

    Did you see this woman’s schedule on “The Departure Memo” that’s all over the internet: http://abovethelaw.com/2012/11/departure-memo-of-the-day-parenting-gets-the-best-of-one-biglaw-associate/

  • Brendan

    Did you see this woman’s schedule on “The Departure Memo” that’s all over the internet: http://abovethelaw.com/2012/11/departure-memo-of-the-day-parenting-gets-the-best-of-one-biglaw-associate/

    She’s strong and independent, though!

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

      @Maggie

      I could really relate to that biglaw associate memo. I had so many days like that. The worst was one morning when we got up and our infant son was clearly feverish. My husband said, “I can’t stay home, I’ve got a huge meeting today.” I said, “I’m on the shuttle to NY at 8, I’m presenting to a client at 10 today. I can’t stay home.” We looked at each other, gave our son Tylenol and took him to day care. After my presentation, I called my husband’s office. His AA told me, “He left an hour ago to pick up your sick baby.” Shit.

      All of my work was in NY – this was in the days before cell phones, and I was often sitting on the tarmac at LaGuardia without any way to alert my husband or the day care center that I was running late – 5$ a minute!

      When my son was 2, we finally acknowledged that it was a disaster. He was miserable in day care, I was on the road all the time. The mere sight of a tube of mascara started him begging “Mommy please no go work!” (I generally didn’t wear makeup at home.) When my husband and I decided I would stay home when our daughter was born, there was such a sigh of relief in our house. It was worth every penny of lost income.

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “That’s why a voluntary group of “Ask me on a date!” WET t-shirt wearing women would be a far better approach.”

    There – fixed that for you. :)

    “I distinctly recall figuring out precisely what my SMV was based on which guys did not flirt back, which guys flirted back, and which guys eagerly asked if they could carry my books. I wound up dating guys that flirted back. And truly, I was attracted to them. I did not long for what I obviously could not have. In my experience, this system worked quite well all around. ”

    The thing is, back then, if he wasn’t interested in an LTR with you, he probably wouldn’t “flirt back.” This might be because he didn’t want to hurt a woman by taking advantage of her (there was still the notion then that a woman would be hurt by one night stands). Or it might have been because it was unlikely that he would get sex without a fairly meaningful time investment, which presented an opportunity cost since he would be forgoing the opportunity to invest that time and commitment in someone he saw as more attractive.

    Now, though, there is no such restraint on him “flirting back”. He will flirt back if he wants to get laid that night. He no longer worries about harming the girl, since everyone is doing it and it’s ok, and he no longer perceives an opportunity cost, since he will get in quickly. So the male urge for variety takes over, and he flirts back. Consequently, young women probably have a much harder time figuring out their SMV (or, more accurately, their relationship market value).

    The problem is exacerbated, I suspect, by the fact that even if a college-aged woman correctly perceives her relationship market value, she’ll have a tough time securing commitment from a similarly valued male at that age, since his preference for variety will cause him to choose casual sex with multiple women of lower value over steady sex with one of equal value. Even if he’s not actually getting sex from multiple women of lower value, the environment probably creates an irrational illusion for him that it’s just around the corner and that he will be forgoing that opportunity by committing.

    Just a guess by one who is too old to have first experience with this.

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

      @Passer By

      So the male urge for variety takes over, and he flirts back. Consequently, young women probably have a much harder time figuring out their SMV (or, more accurately, their relationship market value).

      Yes, I can totally see how this happens. There’s a lot more ‘what the heck, let’s see where this goes’ today.

      The problem is exacerbated, I suspect, by the fact that even if a college-aged woman correctly perceives her relationship market value, she’ll have a tough time securing commitment from a similarly valued male at that age, since his preference for variety will cause him to choose casual sex with multiple women of lower value over steady sex with one of equal value.

      Yes, and you can imagine the seething resentment on the part of the women with higher value! Being ignored while watching the guy you like hit on some mustachioed 6 is just really, really depressing.

      Even if he’s not actually getting sex from multiple women of lower value, the environment probably creates an irrational illusion for him that it’s just around the corner and that he will be forgoing that opportunity by committing.

      Yes, as I’ve said before I think this happens frequently. Guys see their friends doing well, hooking up, and they figure, “He doesn’t have anything I don’t have. I can do this.” They make out with some girl at a party and think they’re on their way. The value proposition is something like this:

      College marriage with someone you meet at Freshman Orientation: 2/10

      Cute girlfriend acquired freshman or sophomore year: 5/10

      Hook up with and subsequently ignore one girl junior year: 7/10

  • Sassy6519

    @ Just1Z

    Have you ever tried discussing things with a therapist?

    I have. I found it to be very helpful.

    @ Escoffier

    Sassy, a bigger problem, it seems to me, is that you are going to have a hard time finding a man who doesn’t mind sharing YOU. Beyond the most detached alpha players, most are not going to want to put up with that, so you will either have to settle for very low emotional involvement with your BFs, or else lie to them.

    I wouldn’t want to lie. If I were to enter into an open relationship, I would do it under terms that have been agreed upon by both parties. If a guy wasn’t open to it, I’d accept it and move on. We would be incompatible, in that regard.

    I guess only time and experience would tell me how the issue of jealousy/territoriality would play out in an open relationship.

    @ Tasmin

    Perhaps it is worth thinking about finding a partner from the same perspective as the Beta men are encouraged to do here and elsewhere in the ‘sphere. IOW, the choice is the same: you can keep the bar extremely high in terms of your Alpha-dominance requirements/preference in the man you seek and accept all the risks and limitations of such, just as low-dominance Beta men can keep the bar low in terms of the supplication, pedestal tendencies, passivity, and onenitis that he exhibits and accept the risks and limitations of such. Both approaches *may* get people what they want without altering what they bring to the table, but I think both approaches are limiting and very risky in terms of long-term success.

    I think I’ve already committed to the bolded part. I know the risks. I’m willing to take my chance though.

  • Ramble

    Actually, I have an interesting graphic on how men’s checklists have changed over decades. Notice how intelligence goes way up. And look at what happened to chastity!

    It looks like the 4 that dropped most were:
    Chastity
    Refinement
    Good Cook
    Desire for a Home and Children

    Meanwhile, these had the biggest increases:
    Education
    Looks
    Good Financial Prospect

    In other words, “We can’t afford a home, or children, so we might as well have fun (i.e. you better be hot) and fuck. So, stick with that education and internships so that we can buy a home 10 years from now, when we are done fucking.”.

  • Ramble

    Anne Marie Slaughter is the most recent example, but unfortunately, she prescribed more pro-female legislation to deal with the problem.

    Shocking. An educated, successful woman from a wealthy family claimed victimhood and demanded more from the masses.

  • Passer_By

    I’m not clear why he had to resign. Was his affair with a Russian spy?

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

      I’m not clear why he had to resign. Was his affair with a Russian spy?

      I didn’t get that either. Is adultery so rare in the CIA? Estes on Homeland had his marriage end this way and he’s still head of the CIA :)

      A CIA guy said that it’s bad b/c any secret represents leverage other actors may have over you, and this could really impact national security at that level. Makes sense. The whole thing is strange, though. I think Brendan’s right, this is going to be big.

  • Ramble

    …you can find tales of gladiators fangirls doing all sorts of crazy stuff to gain access to the their stars and do crazy things like collecting their sweat …

    I remember reading that their sweat was collected so that soap could be made from it.

    Now what has changed is that the media is more abundant and accessible than even before. See how many magazines, movies are dedicated feature the pretty people compared to 100 years ago, add that people can share this info faster than light with Internet, Twitter and Facebook and season it with how many “commoners” had reached fame through youtube making it look like being one of the “shiny ones” is just a lucky streak away and I think this makes more people focus on the top than before and this influence the lack of “visibility” of the average crowd to each other.

    OK, I get that. But what about the timing?

    All of the things you just referenced happened after the mid 90’s. Yet, we started to see Hookup Culture starting in, at least, the mid 80’s, maybe earlier (so much of the craziness started, IMO, in the late 50’s). So, if this stuff started before the Facebook/Youtube generation, then why are you focusing on it? This is where I am confused.

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

    if you can’t see the point that I’m trying to make, then society is fucked and it deserves to be.

    If you cannot see that i was talking about Dominican men ONLY then society is fucked and it deserves to be.

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

    OK, I get that. But what about the timing?

    Had you heard about the Roaring 20’s? All societies have cycles of debauchery the thin is this cycles are usually self destructive and contained. With the media and all the money to be made with it, and the push for consuming as a mark of status,things had gotten worse than before, there is also now a lot of profit to be made from the chaos,like with credentialism there is a whole industry that lives out of this nowadays.

  • Mosquito

    So how about US men, do you give a shit about them?

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

    So how about US men, do you give a shit about them?

    Of course I do, I married one and I gave birth to one a month ago. I adore good Beta males I’m actually a nerd that loves nerds I started posting here because I saw that unrestricted American women seem to behave like Dominican men and I though I could add to the discussion by relating how another market going wild is terrible for civilization. Seriously you are new why don’t you do a search on my old posts.

  • JP

    I had enough of billing hours in legal associate world, so I had my wife’s family acquire me a job near the beach. And now I’m working for one of my MIL’s friends. Amazing, isn’t it? And I was only in mid-law (granted I was doing patent work).

    It took me about 6 years to get my salary back up, but hey, not billing hours is worth it.

    Although now I have too much work, but it’s my fault because I’m the genius who took it on.

  • JP

    Our most recent Roaring Twenties just ended in 2008.

    The credit mania lasted much longer this time.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Hawaiian

    If men hold me up as an example for why they shouldn’t be in relationships, so be it. I don’t attempt to control anyone but myself. There are roughly 7 billion people on this planet, and roughly half of them are female. I am but one person of the entire female sex. Make extrapolations as you like.

    It’s good to know that I, Sassy6519, have so much importance in the lives of men across the globe. Why hasn’t anyone brought this to my attention before?

    Don’t I get a medal or something? I could have received at least a ribbon by now for my efforts. Delivery systems and networks aren’t what they used to be, that’s for sure. If all of the major magazines and news channels don’t contact me soon for an interview, I will be thoroughly insulted. Don’t they know who I am?!

    On a serious note, you give me way too much credit man.

  • JP

    You’re arguing with yourself again Sassy.

  • Esau

    Susan at 188: “Men like coy women, not direct women.”

    Not 100.0% true. Some of us, maybe in a minority but you may be surprised, generally prefer direct to coy; and this may be especially true as you move in the “Aspie” direction on the continuum of men.

    Speaking just for myself, to me directness means ease and trust: I don’t have to work, I don’t have to second-guess, and whomever I’m with feels secure and safe enough to just say it like it is. Coyness and other kinds of indirection, by contrast, I find relatively stressful and threatening: What if I over- or under-interpret this incorrectly? Why can’t she just tell the plain truth? is she hiding something? Doesn’t she respect me enough to think that I can handle the truth straight up? if not, then do I really want to be with her? How can I ever hope to have a rational conversation with her about important things, if she won’t answer simple questions directly and won’t state how she really feels? I could never settle down comfortably with someone who operated like that.

    So, don’t over-generalize too far here; some of us definitely appreciate the value of directness, and dealing with a dependably rational human being as a partner.

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

      @Esau

      So, don’t over-generalize too far here; some of us definitely appreciate the value of directness, and dealing with a dependably rational human being as a partner.

      I’m glad to hear it, being from the Direct School myself. I wouldn’t know Coy if I fell over it.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    As the mother of a smart daughter, I am happy to hear it, truly. Actually, I have an interesting graphic on how men’s checklists have changed over decades. Notice how intelligence goes way up. And look at what happened to chastity! (from the NYXs):

    It seems that status traits have gone up dramatically while character traits have gone down. Really disappointed in my male cohort. :(

  • INTJ

    @ Jackie

    I remember you asking me how the Violin music is going. I love it! Some of the FF tunes are really nice. Haven’t had to much time to practice though, as I was swamped with schoolwork. In fact, I’m now doing research that will get me my first co-authored paper! :)

  • Sai

    @mr. wavevector
    I understand better now, thanks.

    @JP
    “In any event, we’ve probably got another 30-40 years before the next spiritual impulse wave which is the best point at which to change culture.”
    What creates those?
    “I didn’t know that you really got a vote on who you were attracted to.”
    Well, you still have the choice to back away (avoid? hide? I would) and/or push them away.

    @Anacaona
    “Did you knew that the upcoming day against violence against women was selected because of three Dominican women that were killed by Trujillo on November 25?”
    I remember they showed a movie about that in Spanish class. I with my lack of cinema skills didn’t see the ending coming at all and was very sad.

    @INTJ
    ” In fact, I’m now doing research that will get me my first co-authored paper! :)”
    You are the man.

  • Sassy6519

    On an extreme sidenote, has anyone played the flash game named “QWOP” before? I decided to stay in tonight, and started playing it. It’s so funny, but quite hard at the same time.

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

    I remember they showed a movie about that in Spanish class. I with my lack of cinema skills didn’t see the ending coming at all and was very sad.

    How long ago? Do you remember the actresses?

  • Höllenhund

    “The problem is exacerbated, I suspect, by the fact that even if a college-aged woman correctly perceives her relationship market value, she’ll have a tough time securing commitment from a similarly valued male at that age, since his preference for variety will cause him to choose casual sex with multiple women of lower value over steady sex with one of equal value. ”

    I find it comical that this baseless notion keeps popping up over and over. Another classic example of the apex fallacy, really. This behavior only applies to the top 10-15% of men, and even they are open to assortative mating as long as the exclusivity expected of them is emotional and material but not sexual. Plus the bottom 50% of men’d prefer porn to casual sex with women of lower sexual rank.

  • Mosquito

    @Ana
    “Seriously you are new why don’t you do a search on my old posts.”

    Seriously, you are dead wrong there. I thought it was obvious, maybe that’s my bad.

    Given that you haven’t worked out the fact that I’ve been here a while (a separate issue that I’d prefer not to get into) I need to explain my ‘if you don’t get it comment’.

    It was actually a kind of a compliment because I regard you as the most insightful, clear thinking, smart woman on the blog – bar none.

    So…if you don’t get the radical notion that men are people too, and so deserve the same rights not to be subjected to violence that you appear to reserve for women (vaWa vs vaPEOPLEa, why not an international day against violence? what about the men, hell, what about the kids?). Well then, I seriously do think that society is going to go down the pan. And given that attitudes like that seem prevalant on a site catering for the highly educated women in the USA, the sooner the better.

    I wasn’t insulting you, I was sounding an alarm.

    *kissinthecheek*

  • VD

    What should women who are not naturally inclined to “submission” supposed to do?

    Understand that you are not a helpless automaton, swallow your pride, and figure out how to surmount your natural inclinations. We all have natural inclinations we have to surmount, it’s called being civilized. Your second option is to find a man of sufficient dominance to crush your pride and cause you to roll over and urinate on yourself. Metaphorically speaking, of course. Look, you’re not the Only Inflexible Woman on the planet. There are men to whom you would submit after simply meeting their eyes. Your third option is to be the dominant partner. That’s the easiest one, but you would likely be unsatisfied and unfaithful.

    The more dominant you are, the less likely it is that you will find a man who can both resist your domination and not dominate you in return. J’s suggestion of finding an equally matched ox is not impossible, but it’s like deciding to find a man who is your exact height and weight who also happens to prefer your favorite 10 books. In the same order.

    While we both understand that some couples just relate to each other in that way, our personal preference is for more direct interaction. Outside of the playful sort of interaction wavevector describes, serious use of “feminine wiles” seems like a nasty power play to me, and I have a hard time respecting men who fall for it. It seems like a particularly insidious form of pussywhipping to me. I would hate to see some girl whip my sons like that. I’d rather see direct rational discussion between my sons and their hypothetical wives where big issues are concerned.

    First, J, you have a hard time respecting men, period. That has been readily apparent from the start. And, it is no myster as to why: “I never took my dad seriously…. As to my folks, my dad, for all the bluster, was actually a very weak man….” Feminine wiles are neither a “nasty power play” nor “a particularly insidious form of pussywhipping” and if you had any, you would understand that. They are merely about appealing to the male instinct to care and protect rather than challenging his authority.

    My own father would bluster about the house as though he were large and in charge, but my mom really ruled the roost. I never took my dad seriously…. As to my folks, my dad, for all the bluster, was actually a very weak man–as are so many men who seek to prove dominance.

    This is the root of the problem. You simply don’t understand the difference between dominance and a weak man attempting to feign it. Real dominance isn’t merely capable of crushing the submissive, but also inspiring them. My uncle is such a man; he’s been described as “the warrior prince of the Marine Corps”. A friend of my wife’s once served under him; upon hearing his name come up in conversation, the friend shook his head and said “I would run straight down the barrel of a cannon for that man.”

    No, I understand completely and am not criticizing your interaction with your wife. But I would NOT define it as “true submission.”

    I suggest you don’t understand submission any better than dominance.

    A man that expects to dominate me (outside of the bedroom), or who expects me to submit to him freely, will most likely not get very far.

    Catch-22. But you might surprise yourself one day.

    I think there’s a lot to be said about there being more women who value dominance than there are women willing to be submissive….

    Very perceptive. That is the essential dilemma. Women who are not willing to be voluntarily submissive must either a) be broken, b) be the dominant partner, or c) be alone. Now, being broken is very exciting to a woman, as we know from all the movies and libraries full of romance novels. But fewer and fewer men are either capable of it or inclined to bother in the current marital regime.

    And that BTW is why more than playful female submission to male leadership doesn’t work. In an ideal world, every man would be a wise and natural leader. In reality, that’s not the case. Dysfunction is more common than not.

    Thus spake the woman from the dysfunctional family. Come on, J, this is the voice of pure female solipsism. You prize rational discussion, so look at the subject rationally rather than through the filter of your own experience. Of course every man is not a wise and natural leader; we can’t all be chiefs. But not being wise or a natural leader doesn’t make a man dysfunctional. It makes him normal.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    A woman can be direct, honest, sweet, vulnerable and submissive all at the same time. Feminine wiles is mostly about delivery, not content. She can say what’s on her mind and have a good reception, so long as she phrases it well, and uses kind body language and gentle voicing. Also it helps to be calm in state of mind and treat the other person with genuine respect — that is, how she might want to be treated in turn.

    I find that when I address people this way, not just my husband or even men, they respond to me well. I am not treated like a child or pathetic, weak girl, but I often either get my desires met, my voice heard, and/or given a good explanation as to what is going on otherwise. It is more difficult online to convey these nuances, but careful wording can help.

  • Ion

    Slim

    “the advantage of going for a strong woman is that she can call you on your BS, tell you to cowboy up if you’re being a quitter, and have your back if you eff up.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I’ve heard, unless she’s a truly one-of-a-kind woman, strong women do not like having to do any of these things for men. She might do it more than other women would, but she loses respect for the man in the process.

    Additionally, many dominant women do not seem to:

    Want to feel like they have to protect their man from harm.

    Want to go toe-to-toe, and win.

    Want to constantly encourage her man to be a better person.

    Want to dominate her man in the bedroom.

    Want to constantly reprimand or yell at her man in public because he’s doing something wrong (if a woman does this regularly, she likely lost respect for you a long time ago, time for a long talk asap).

    Want to have to remind her man not to fail today.

    Want to deal with the girly/irrational/bruised emotional level of psuedo-dominant types like thugs, jocks, etc.,

    Want to deal with male body image issues.

    Want to feel like they should encourage their men to succeed at life, because although most women including self would appreciate a man asking for feedback, a woman does lose respect for a man who needs her so that he won’t easily give up.

    Want to deal with low EQ and low IQ (one of these things better be high….and very high).

    etc

  • Ion

    Sai, Ana

    “I remember they showed a movie about that in Spanish class. I with my lack of cinema skills didn’t see the ending coming at all and was very sad.”

    Time of the Butterflies? I agree, when I saw it, I didn’t know that was the ending. Very very sad.

  • J

    In fact, I’m now doing research that will get me my first co-authored paper!

    Good for you! Congratulations!

  • J

    The more dominant you are, the less likely it is that you will find a man who can both resist your domination and not dominate you in return. J’s suggestion of finding an equally matched ox is not impossible, but it’s like deciding to find a man who is your exact height and weight who also happens to prefer your favorite 10 books. In the same order.

    This is true, Sassy. From a numerical perspective, it is very difficult to find that right balance and even then you’ll still have to learn to negotiate things. OTOH, it’s also not very fulfilling to be with someone who is not equally matched to you and, in most human relationships, water does find it’s own level. Most people do eventually end up with someone who is about as smart, as attractive, as strong, etc as they are. Often when we settle for someone whose is less than what we are, we feel cheated.

    FWIW, it’s very rarely that I see a marriage or relationship that I envy and I’m very happy to have found what I have. Ultimately, only you can assess how much of yourself you can change/heal and how much of a search you are willing to make to find a guy who is a good fit for you. Take whatever is said here that resonates with you and use it to whatever advantage you can; forget the rest.

  • J

    I have always really liked Sophia Loren’s character in the movie “Houseboat”, and Sophia Loren in general.

    Ever see “Two Women”? She dropped the usual Italian sexpot stuff, let them photograph her without the glamour makeup and took on the most gritty role of her career as mother WWII Italy. It’s amazing.

  • Sassy6519

    @ VD

    Understand that you are not a helpless automaton, swallow your pride, and figure out how to surmount your natural inclinations. We all have natural inclinations we have to surmount, it’s called being civilized. Your second option is to find a man of sufficient dominance to crush your pride and cause you to roll over and urinate on yourself. Metaphorically speaking, of course. Look, you’re not the Only Inflexible Woman on the planet. There are men to whom you would submit after simply meeting their eyes. Your third option is to be the dominant partner. That’s the easiest one, but you would likely be unsatisfied and unfaithful.

    The more dominant you are, the less likely it is that you will find a man who can both resist your domination and not dominate you in return. J’s suggestion of finding an equally matched ox is not impossible, but it’s like deciding to find a man who is your exact height and weight who also happens to prefer your favorite 10 books. In the same order.

    1. That metaphor of a man being dominant enough to make me want to roll over and urinate on myself seems very similar to how a dog would behave. Dogs are okay creatures, but I have always been a cat person. They are self-sufficient and independent, but they also have very sweet and affectionate sides. I’ve always found dogs to be too needy, too demanding of my time, and too animated.

    2. I find the scenario of submitting to a man due to eye contact alone highly improbable.

    @ J

    This is true, Sassy. From a numerical perspective, it is very difficult to find that right balance and even then you’ll still have to learn to negotiate things. OTOH, it’s also not very fulfilling to be with someone who is not equally matched to you and, in most human relationships, water does find it’s own level. Most people do eventually end up with someone who is about as smart, as attractive, as strong, etc as they are. Often when we settle for someone whose is less than what we are, we feel cheated.

    I think this is a key thing here.

    I have never stated that I wouldn’t be willing to negotiate/compromise with a future partner. I think that both of those things are extremely important and necessary for most/all relationships to work.

    My qualm with dominance is that I’ve experienced men trying to dominate me the way they wanted to dominate me, and those attempts were futile.

    I’ve always had the personality that if someone tells me to do something, I will ask why. I’ve never been one to nod my head like a good little girl and just say “okay”. If a man wants to tell me to do something, that’s fine. He should know, however, that my response will include me asking him why he wants me to do what he wants me to do. If he gives me valid reasons, and I agree with those reasons, I’ll do it. That’s not domination though. You can’t dominate a person into doing something that they have been willing to do all along.

    If I don’t agree to the reasoning given, however, I will tell him that I don’t agree and explain my reasoning. If he still wants me to do what he wants, I’ll tell him no and suggest a compromise. If we can’t agree on a compromise, then we will be at an impasse until more favorable terms can be agreed upon.

  • VD

    OTOH, it’s also not very fulfilling to be with someone who is not equally matched to you and, in most human relationships, water does find it’s own level. Most people do eventually end up with someone who is about as smart, as attractive, as strong, etc as they are. Often when we settle for someone whose is less than what we are, we feel cheated.

    I think this is largely untrue for two reasons. First, there is no such thing as human equality in any material sense. It simply doesn’t exist in any way, shape, or form. Second, it is complementary relationships that are the strongest and most satisfying, and complementary relationships, by definition, do not involve equality.

    People make tradeoffs all the time. Her beauty for his wealth. His thug swagger for her massive badonka. His artistic nature for her kindness and supportive tolerance. Because everyone places different subjective values on different human attributes, a “good match” is almost never going to be an equal one. Spacebunny values high intelligence. I value high cheekbones. We’re not equal, and yet we both win. People don’t usually feel cheated if they knowingly strike a bargain that others might find unequal, but rather when the other party doesn’t live up to what was considered their end of the bargain. If he quits his job as a bank executive to become a masseuse, if she belatedly decides she doesn’t want children, etc.

    Ultimately, only you can assess how much of yourself you can change/heal and how much of a search you are willing to make to find a guy who is a good fit for you.

    This is true. To paraphrase Mises, only acting woman can assign motivation to her actions. But it is usually wise to pay attention to the probabilities when doing so.

  • JP

    @Sai:

    “What creates those?”

    People, in general. These days it seems to be related to social mood/credit cycle. I think it takes a good 20 years of cultural austerity/sterility, which in the case of the 1960s would be the period from 1945-1963.

    By my watch and warrant we’re still in the 1930’s so to speak. And we’re going to hit a major crisis well before then if the Great Power conflicts hold and the U.S. suffers standard-issue delegitimation (already underway). So we’re going to be quite busy before we get to the next awakening.

    “I didn’t know that you really got a vote on who you were attracted to.”

    Well, you still have the choice to back away (avoid? hide? I would) and/or push them away.”

    Yes, but it’s hard to create a relationship without the necessary underlying attraction, so ultimately you are stuck with the people you are attracted to if you want things to work. I don’t think I ever found more than about one person every two to three years. I can count the total I’ve ever found on one hand.

  • deti

    Susan:

    “Susan: Can we get a beach house?”

    Mr. HUS: No.”

    Heh. And you say Mr. HUS is BETA. I don’t buy it. that’s classic ALPHA right there.

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

      Heh. And you say Mr. HUS is BETA. I don’t buy it. that’s classic ALPHA right there.

      Well as I said, I’ve become more submissive over time. However, he describes himself as a beta male – not in a Game sense – more in a general sense about his personality type and interests.

  • Sai

    @Anacaona
    It was called “In the Time of the Butterflies,” and somebody told me the guy who played Trujillo was also the dad in “Selena.” That’s all I can remember.

    @VD
    “Your second option is to find a man of sufficient dominance to crush your pride and cause you to roll over and urinate on yourself. Metaphorically speaking, of course. Look, you’re not the Only Inflexible Woman on the planet. There are men to whom you would submit after simply meeting their eyes….Women who are not willing to be voluntarily submissive must either a) be broken”
    All this sounds very scary and reminds me of “The Shawshank Redemption.” Is this legal? Is this what most women look forward to when getting married? Why would they want that? What’s in those men’s eyes, anyway… would I be safe if I just refused to look?

    @Ion
    “Want to deal with low EQ and low IQ (one of these things better be high….and very high).”
    Wait, what person, male or female, would want that?
    (The more I think of this list the more I wonder: if the reverse were true, if my husband had to keep doing all this, would his respect for me keep going down, and if it went below a certain level would he kick me out?)

    @JP
    “By my watch and warrant we’re still in the 1930’s so to speak. And we’re going to hit a major crisis well before then if the Great Power conflicts hold and the U.S. suffers standard-issue delegitimation (already underway). So we’re going to be quite busy before we get to the next awakening.”
    Do I need to move and/or start living as a man?

  • JP

    @Sai:

    “Do I need to move and/or start living as a man?”

    I have absolutely no idea.

    Human systems are chaotic. It’s like trying to predict exactly where a hurricane is going to hit land next year and how much damage it’s going to cause.

    I’m like a meteorologist who says “hey, we are almost certainly going to get a major hurricane hitting the east coast in the next several years.”

    Yeah, I might be 95% accurate, but it’s not very helpful if you are wondering what you really need to do.

  • deti

    “I’ve got $50 that says the White House knew about the Petraeus affair, and resulting resignation, before the election.

    Not taking that bet – apparently the FBI has known for some time. I saw a pic of the woman – obvs much younger than Mrs. Patraeus. It’s such a tawdry ending to a truly amazing career.”

    And I’ll add what no one else seems to want to say: Gen. Petraeus’ paramour is orders of magnitude more physically attractive than Mrs. Petraeus. Moreover, the general is probably orders of magnitude more alpha than any other men she has interacted with in her lifetime.

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

      New York Post headline on Petraeus affair is priceless:

      CLOAK AND SHAG HER

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

      So many hugely famous and exalted men seem willing to burn down their lives, their marriages, families, and reputations, to get laid.

      — ANNE LAMOTT

      Alpha?

  • deti

    Sassy:

    “I’ve always had the personality that if someone tells me to do something, I will ask why. I’ve never been one to nod my head like a good little girl and just say “okay”. If a man wants to tell me to do something, that’s fine. He should know, however, that my response will include me asking him why he wants me to do what he wants me to do. If he gives me valid reasons, and I agree with those reasons, I’ll do it.”

    I can tell you that in an LTR or a marriage in which you expect a husband to be dominant, there will be times in which you will need to do what he tells you to do.

    If he tells you to get out of the house because it’s burning down, I don’t think you’ll stop to question why he wants you to do so.

    If he tells you that you can’t buy the new car this year because the two of you cannot afford it, a long series of queries from you about why you can’t do what you want is nothing but pointless tedium.

    It’s pretty clear, Sassy, that a man who will be with you will need to be very dominant indeed, almost to the point of detached indifference most of the time. He will be dominant, but the man who can exercise that level of dominance will not put up with “What for” and “Why do you want me to do that” from you every time he says something. He’ll simply find someone else who isn’t so inquisitive and who is more submissive.

  • Mosquito

    @Susan

    perhaps a Beta can be the AMOG?

    (your call, but maybe you and he should get a third opinion about him being a beta? I’m not sure that I’d put money on it. Although pinning down definitions has been tricky)

  • deti

    Sassy:

    “I’ve never been one to nod my head like a good little girl and just say “okay”.”

    That’s not submission. That’s doormat. That’s a caricature of submission propagated by radical feminists who constantly shriek that men want women to be barefoot and pregnant, chained to a kitchen stove, Stepford wives, bowing and scraping, acting like Geisha girls, and all that nonsense.

  • deti

    Sassy:

    Let me give you an example of the constant questioning “why” and how it shows the whole power struggle thing.

    deti: We’re going out to eat tonight.
    mrs. d: Why? You know we don’t have time for that because of soccer practice and I want to get on the computer to do some work and our son needs to get to bed early. No, let’s not go out. Let’s eat leftovers. Why should we go out.
    deti: Oh, all right.

    Result? unhappy mrs. d. because she is dominant. Unhappy me, because I didn’t get to do what I wanted.

    Now?

    deti: We’re going out to eat tonight.
    Mrs. d: Why? You know we don’t have time to do that because —
    deti: Because I want to.
    Mrs. d: Why? You said that—
    deti: Because I WANT to.
    Mrs. d: Well, okay. Kids, get your coats!

    result? Mrs. d. is happy because she doesn’t have to make the decision or think it through. I am happy because I got what I wanted.

  • Brendan

    Alpha?

    An Alpha with flaws, sure. Apparently Petraeus has a thing for the ladies (http://academywatch.blogspot.com/2012/11/bye-bye-davie.html), and it eventually caught up with him. That doesn’t mean he isn’t alpha. It means he has flaws. Many alphas are very flawed.

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

      @Brendan

      I wasn’t questioning whether Petraeus is alpha – he may actually be the most alpha man alive today. I meant, is the affair an alpha move? Is it alpha to have an adulterous affair as head of the CIA and end your career in the process?

      From a sexual success standpoint, it is. (This gets at what we often debate here – is sexual success the only determinant of alphaness? The males here mostly say yes.)

  • Iggles

    @ deti:

    result? Mrs. d. is happy because she doesn’t have to make the decision or think it through. I am happy because I got what I wanted.

    +1
    (No, the world isn’t ending :lol: )

    As a woman, scenario 2 appeals to me. I think it’s a spot on example of “leading” the relationship. The end result is a win/win situation for you both.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Deti

    If he tells you that you can’t buy the new car this year because the two of you cannot afford it, a long series of queries from you about why you can’t do what you want is nothing but pointless tedium.

    It’s pretty clear, Sassy, that a man who will be with you will need to be very dominant indeed, almost to the point of detached indifference most of the time. He will be dominant, but the man who can exercise that level of dominance will not put up with “What for” and “Why do you want me to do that” from you every time he says something. He’ll simply find someone else who isn’t so inquisitive and who is more submissive.

    1. I tend to be very logical and thrifty, concerning money matters. I don’t blow away money on unnecessary things. The only time I’m open to buying a large purchase is if I have more than enough funds to accommodate the purchase comfortably. I think it’s important to understand that I don’t want children. I’m working on my own career, and I’ll bring a great deal of money to any relationship I have. I’m sure that a future partner and I could agree on or find a compromise about purchases. We would be working with both of our incomes, so both of us should be able to offer our inputs.

    2. If a man wants a more submissive woman, fine. He has plenty of women on this planet to choose from. Dating a woman, knowing full well that she isn’t the submissive type, and expecting her to change is foolish. I know my personality and I know what I would like in a relationship. I’m willing to take my chances in order to get what I want. If I don’t get what I want, I can live with that. The world keeps on turning, and I’ll die eventually, so I want to live my life the way I see fit. I only get one shot.

    Let me give you an example of the constant questioning “why” and how it shows the whole power struggle thing.

    deti: We’re going out to eat tonight.
    mrs. d: Why? You know we don’t have time for that because of soccer practice and I want to get on the computer to do some work and our son needs to get to bed early. No, let’s not go out. Let’s eat leftovers. Why should we go out.
    deti: Oh, all right.

    Result? unhappy mrs. d. because she is dominant. Unhappy me, because I didn’t get to do what I wanted.

    Now?

    deti: We’re going out to eat tonight.
    Mrs. d: Why? You know we don’t have time to do that because —
    deti: Because I want to.
    Mrs. d: Why? You said that—
    deti: Because I WANT to.
    Mrs. d: Well, okay. Kids, get your coats!

    result? Mrs. d. is happy because she doesn’t have to make the decision or think it through. I am happy because I got what I wanted.

    Yeah….that kind of situation would never fly with me. If a man wanted to go out to eat so badly, despite my opinions on why I don’t want to go out to eat, I’d tell him to go eat by himself or to go out to eat with one of his buddies. If I honestly have things to do that prevent me from going out to eat, I’d let him know. If he continued to protest, I’d suggest the aforementioned solutions.

    I wouldn’t be happy with going along with a decision that I didn’t agree to. Nothing would be stopping a man, in such a situation, from going out to eat by himself or with someone else. Expecting me to just cave to demands, despite my own valid protestations, is foolish.

    Understand that I’m not criticizing you Deti. If that dynamic works between you and your wife, more power to you. That model just doesn’t work for me and has never worked for me. I want something different than that.

  • mr. wavevector

    Susan,

    However, he describes himself as a beta male – not in a Game sense – more in a general sense about his personality type and interests.

    I think the most of the best husbands and fathers are high-level betas.

    The game-alphas are consumed by the lust for tail. The master-of-the-universe-alphas are consumed by a lust for power. While both types marry and have families, their wives and children are never more than a sideshow to them.

    Most of the men in my social group are very intelligent, well educated, successful, and emotionally stable. They are also successful as husbands and fathers – very few divorces, their wives seem happy, and their children are thriving. And they are betas, one and all. High ranking and highly paid betas for sure, but betas none the same.

    As one of those betas, I wouldn’t trade places with either a Roissy or a Trump for anything.

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

      @Mr. wavevector

      The game-alphas are consumed by the lust for tail. The master-of-the-universe-alphas are consumed by a lust for power. While both types marry and have families, their wives and children are never more than a sideshow to them.

      This is why I’m down on alpha – some women will be more than happy to make that tradeoff, but at least they should go in with their eyes open. David Brooks had an interesting article recently about men and emotional intimacy:

      But as this study — the Grant Study — progressed, the power of relationships became clear. The men who grew up in homes with warm parents were much more likely to become first lieutenants and majors in World War II. The men who grew up in cold, barren homes were much more likely to finish the war as privates.

      Body type was useless as a predictor of how the men would fare in life. So was birth order or political affiliation. Even social class had a limited effect. But having a warm childhood was powerful. As George Vaillant, the study director, sums it up in “Triumphs of Experience,” his most recent summary of the research, “It was the capacity for intimate relationships that predicted flourishing in all aspects of these men’s lives.”

      The Heart Grows Smarter

      Most of the men in my social group are very intelligent, well educated, successful, and emotionally stable. They are also successful as husbands and fathers – very few divorces, their wives seem happy, and their children are thriving. And they are betas, one and all. High ranking and highly paid betas for sure, but betas none the same.

      As one of those betas, I wouldn’t trade places with either a Roissy or a Trump for anything.

      Again, our life experiences are similar! This is why I just can’t get behind beta = loser, no matter how many times I hear it. And this is also why my husband can say that without thinking that he is putting himself down.

  • Mosquito

    “is sexual success the only determinant of alphaness”

    I’ve had friends that considered every notch a validation, I’ve never seen things that way. He now lives in SE Asia, he must be validated all to hell…YPYMYTYC

    it’s not how I see things, but he and they are happy…seems sad to me though

    (You Pays Your Money; You Takes Your Choice)

  • JP

    “And I’ll add what no one else seems to want to say: Gen. Petraeus’ paramour is orders of magnitude more physically attractive than Mrs. Petraeus. Moreover, the general is probably orders of magnitude more alpha than any other men she has interacted with in her lifetime.”

    Isn’t this a general problem in life?

    Interacting on a regular basis with people who are more appealing to you than your spouse, perhaps both in physical attractiveness and personality?

    I would think that this is how a lot of co-worker affairs get started.

  • deti

    Sassy:

    You missed the point. It was less about major purchases or going out to eat than it was about who is going to be dominant or show dominance. From your comments, it’s pretty clear any man who can be with you for any length of time will have to be dominant to the point of extreme detachment. You might have to expect dark game, dark triad behaviors, dread (both intentional and unintentional), and maybe even his expecting an open relationship.

    Perhaps he will not be able to demonstrate dominance with you (which is not the same as dominating you), but he will most definitely have to show you cannot dominate him. That is a constant power struggle.

    You’re practically saying that you intend to fight with him over absolutely EVERYTHING by demanding that he explain himself every time he asserts his will in the relationship. You’re effectively saying you are going to challenge every assertion of dominance. You’re effectively admitting you’re going to shit test him to within an inch of his life.

    For example, if you don’t agree with him sometimes on the going out to eat thing, he will feel that getting ANYTHING he wants in the relationship requires constant negotiation. Unceasing bargaining about such things, both mundane and consequential, is an incredible headache and a turnoff for most men. We have to do this all the time at work. We don’t want to do it with wives and GFs.

    Any man who can be dominant to the level you expect will likely have a lot of options, and won’t be likely to remain with you because he can find a more submissive woman.

  • Sassy6519

    @ deti

    You’re practically saying that you intend to fight with him over absolutely EVERYTHING by demanding that he explain himself every time he asserts his will in the relationship. You’re effectively saying you are going to challenge every assertion of dominance. You’re effectively admitting you’re going to shit test him to within an inch of his life.

    For example, if you don’t agree with him sometimes on the going out to eat thing, he will feel that getting ANYTHING he wants in the relationship requires constant negotiation. Unceasing bargaining about such things, both mundane and consequential, is an incredible headache and a turnoff for most men. We have to do this all the time at work. We don’t want to do it with wives and GFs.

    Any man who can be dominant to the level you expect will likely have a lot of options, and won’t be likely to remain with you because he can find a more submissive woman.

    I have no intention of fighting with a future partner about everything. If a man suggests doing something, and I want to do it too, there will be no problem. As I said in another post, it’s not dominance if the other party wants to do the same thing as you or agrees with you. In my opinion, dominance is asserting one’s will over the differing will of another individual.

    I understand that many men may not like the type of relationship that I want, and that’s okay. That’s why free choice is so fantastic. The men who don’t like the type of relationship I want don’t have to date me. They are free to choose people that they feel are more compatible with them.

  • Just1Z

    @Sassy

    “and I want to do it too”

    that might be your key; being determined to be open to doing what he wants to do the majority of the time, without asking for clarifications, justifications and requiring persuasion.

    Doing stuff that you actively don’t want to do, even with the best will in the world…can’t see many people doing that. That isn’t just a Sassy issue, you just have even less tolerance than the vast majority, I reckon.

    Men don’t want a constant battle (SMANLT).

    An alternative, potentially contemporaneous*, approach is to be the person suggesting the joint activity, just get good at judging mood and timing. Otherwise it looks like nagging…nagging is definitely not a good thing.

    I can see why it looks difficult to achieve, but I hope that you find a way to be happy. Member of parallel harems might work(mehhh?) for a while, but as a long term approach…I have my doubts. I would have thought that maximising your femine instincts was a safer bet (ameliorating factor)…but hopefully, you know you best.

    (*mmmm feel the wine expand the vocabulary)

  • VD

    Yeah….that kind of situation would never fly with me. If a man wanted to go out to eat so badly, despite my opinions on why I don’t want to go out to eat, I’d tell him to go eat by himself or to go out to eat with one of his buddies. If I honestly have things to do that prevent me from going out to eat, I’d let him know. If he continued to protest, I’d suggest the aforementioned solutions.

    I don’t know, Sassy. It seems unlikely that anyone dominant enough to attract you is going to be inclined to put up with that sort of bullshit for long. Men really don’t want a bloody debate every single time they open their mouths about anything. The problem can’t be that you might have something else to do, in which case the reasonable woman would simply say “hey, I’m sorry, I can’t because of X, how about tomorrow?” Not “why?”

    I mean, seriously, is it really difficult to figure out why someone wants to eat at a restaurant? We’re not dealing with an enormous probability space here. Notice that you’re quite happy to tell him what to do: “I’d tell him to go eat by himself or to go out to eat with one of his buddies.” Do you not understand that if you’re telling him what to do, and you don’t permit him to tell you anything without subjecting him to the third degree, then you must be the dominant one?

    Fortunately, Susan is building better betas for you….

  • deti

    Sassy:

    “In my opinion, dominance is asserting one’s will over the differing will of another individual.

    Then respectfully, you don’t understand what dominance is in the context of male-female relationships. Dominance in Game parlance is determining the overall course of a relationship, its overall tone, tenor, and direction. It’s breaking the tie on major decisions.

    In that context, it appears you want to be the one who determines the course of your relationships, their tenor and direction; and you want to be the one who breaks all ties.

    Good luck finding a man who will be down with that.

  • VD

    An Alpha with flaws

    No way. No chance. Consider: “At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.”

    He got dumped and sent her THOUSANDS of emails. Soldier boy is Gamma. And he’s not much of a soldier either. Forget his incompetence in Afghanistan and Iraq. He never once saw combat until he was a major general. He’s a classic model of the Perfumed Prince.

  • JP
  • deti

    “Fortunately, Susan is building better betas for you….”

    Holy shit. Now if that’s not bringing in concepts from other blogs (*cough Rollo cough*) I don’t know what is….

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

      “Fortunately, Susan is building better betas for you….”

      Holy shit. Now if that’s not bringing in concepts from other blogs (*cough Rollo cough*) I don’t know what is….

      I confess I am astounded.

      It’s not a concept from another blog, which would be fair game for discussion. It’s the mockery of another blogger, a very different thing.

      As for Sassy, we’ve all known from the start she’d eat betas for breakfast. The odd thing is, some of her descriptions of her intense ex sounded sort of beta, IIRC.

  • JP

    @VD:

    “No way. No chance. Consider: “At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.”

    He got dumped and sent her THOUSANDS of emails. Soldier boy is Gamma. And he’s not much of a soldier either. Forget his incompetence in Afghanistan and Iraq. He never once saw combat until he was a major general. He’s a classic model of the Perfumed Prince.”

    Was she flirting back?

  • JP

    How is Susan building betas? I thought the blog’s target audience was 25 year old women. Are women going to build artificial cybernetic betas?

    I’m only here because Stuart Schniderman links here and it’s pretty commenty (meaning fun!!!).

  • JP

    I don’t know what a Rollo is.

    I don’t think I want to know what a Rollo is.

  • deti

    “It’s not a concept from another blog, which would be fair game for discussion. It’s the mockery of another blogger, a very different thing.”

    If you’re astounded, I’m confused. Anyway I’ll stand down on that little aside.

  • deti

    As for Sassy, we’ve all known from the start she’d eat betas for breakfast.

    My point was simply this, and then I need to leave it. If Sassy or any other woman like her wants to be the dominant partner as VD has expertly pointed out, her choices are:

    1. A submissive beta who will repulse her; or
    2. An uberdominant alpha who will put up with her shit for exactly two minutes before finding a more suitable partner.

    Either way, it’s relationship failure.

  • SayWhaat

    “I’ve always found dogs to be too needy, too demanding of my time, and too animated.”

    D:

    D:<

  • Tasmin

    “I’m willing to take my chances in order to get what I want. If I don’t get what I want, I can live with that. The world keeps on turning, and I’ll die eventually, so I want to live my life the way I see fit. I only get one shot.”

    Cool. I think we can put this one to bed and just let the world turn.

  • Sassy6519

    @ VD

    I don’t know, Sassy. It seems unlikely that anyone dominant enough to attract you is going to be inclined to put up with that sort of bullshit for long. Men really don’t want a bloody debate every single time they open their mouths about anything. The problem can’t be that you might have something else to do, in which case the reasonable woman would simply say “hey, I’m sorry, I can’t because of X, how about tomorrow?” Not “why?”

    I mean, seriously, is it really difficult to figure out why someone wants to eat at a restaurant? We’re not dealing with an enormous probability space here. Notice that you’re quite happy to tell him what to do: “I’d tell him to go eat by himself or to go out to eat with one of his buddies.” Do you not understand that if you’re telling him what to do, and you don’t permit him to tell you anything without subjecting him to the third degree, then you must be the dominant one?

    Fortunately, Susan is building better betas for you….

    Oh good Lord.

    Either I’m not explaining myself clearly enough, or some of the male commenters are having a hard time accepting my opinions on the matter.

    I’ll try approaching this from a different angle.

    There is a difference between asking someone to do something and telling someone to do something. I don’t mind men asking me to do things. I can easily say yes or no. I have a problem with men telling me to do things. If a man asked me to go out to eat with him, I would either agree to it or say that I didn’t want to. If I couldn’t go out to eat with him, I’d give him my reasons why. If he wasn’t satisfied with my answers, I would suggest that he go out to eat by himself or go out to eat with one of his buddies.

    If a man told me that we were going out to eat that night, I’d either be happy because I also wanted to go out to eat or I would let him know that I couldn’t do it. If he had a problem with that, I’d suggest other options.

    This reminds me of a scenario that happened with the last man I dated. One day I asked him if he wanted to catch a movie with me. He told me that he had other tentative plans for that night. He also said that he would let me know whether or not he would be able to see me that night later on. I said okay. As the evening approached, the movie’s starting time got closer and closer. Since I had not heard from him about whether or not his plans had changed, I figured that he wouldn’t be able to go see the movie with me. I decided to go see the movie by myself instead, since I was really interested in seeing the film. After the movie, I went to my favorite local bar.

    Around 11pm that night, he got in touch with me and wondered what I was up to. He also asked what I had done during the day. I told him that I was at my favorite bar and that I had gone to see the movie by myself.

    For reasons totally lost on me, he got angry with me. I still don’t understand it. From my understanding, he told me he was busy, I accepted that, and I entertained myself that day.

    Could some men explain this? Is that sort of behavior common or uncommon?

    I just don’t get it. I ask people to do things all the time, and plenty of people tell me that they can’t. I accept it and move on. Men I’ve dated in the past have denied some of my requests, and I roll with it.

    Why would it be so bad for me to tell a man that I simply can’t go out to eat with him on an occasion that he wants to go out to eat. I have a busy life. I have shit to do. I can’t accommodate all requests.

    I don’t think that this is a male phenomenon, but maybe I’m mistaken.

  • deti

    “If I don’t get what I want, I can live with that. The world keeps on turning, and I’ll die eventually, so I want to live my life the way I see fit.”

    “Cool. I think we can put this one to bed and just let the world turn.”

    Indeed. Sassy will get to live her life the way she sees fit, but the unfortunate result will likely be that she does so alone.

    I hope I am wrong about this.

  • Escoffier

    Way unfair, false really, to say that Petraus was “incompetent” in either IQ or AF. The rest is true enough, I guess.

  • deti

    “If a man told me that we were going out to eat that night, I’d either be happy because I also wanted to go out to eat or I would let him know that I couldn’t do it. If he had a problem with that, I’d suggest other options.

    “This reminds me of a scenario that happened with the last man I dated.”

    Sassy, I really have no idea why the man telling you we’re going out to eat scenario reminds you at all of the “past BF didn’t get back to me so I did what I wanted” scenario. The two are not even remotely similar in any manner.

    The guy probably got mad at you because you weren’t at his beck and call (Gamma), not because you were actively pushing back at him for expressing dominance.

  • Sai

    “A submissive beta who will repulse her;”
    That’s the question I forgot to ask in my last post. Why are submissive betas repulsive?

  • Lokland

    @Sassy

    “For reasons totally lost on me, he got angry with me. I still don’t understand it. From my understanding, he told me he was busy, I accepted that, and I entertained myself that day.

    Could some men explain this? Is that sort of behavior common or uncommon?”

    Nope. Thats just weird.

    @Susan

    Feisty and submissive are not opposites. they can be quite complementary, submissive without feisty is as VD described it “rolling over and urinating on yourself” whereas feisty without submissiveness is a bitch.

    Together feisty serves to keep it interesting while at the same time submissiveness ensures the correct result for both the woman’s attraction and the mans headache.

    Ex.

    I like to ask my wife to dance. ‘You need to dance for me.’
    Sometimes she just does it, other times she says ‘no’ smiles. ‘I need music.’
    I sing la-la-la to some random beat.
    Others she says you need to dance first, I just walk up and grab her, dance with her and sing la-la-la.

    Note: Dance= random dancing which strangely enough usually includes the “bunny hop” as mention by mr. wavevector earlier.

    Definitely loveable/adorable behaviour that melts the heart.

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

      I like to ask my wife to dance. ‘You need to dance for me.’
      Sometimes she just does it, other times she says ‘no’ smiles. ‘I need music.’
      I sing la-la-la to some random beat.
      Others she says you need to dance first, I just walk up and grab her, dance with her and sing la-la-la.

      Note: Dance= random dancing which strangely enough usually includes the “bunny hop” as mention by mr. wavevector earlier.

      Definitely loveable/adorable behaviour that melts the heart.

      I love that. It’s funny, Mr. HUS and I also have a silly ritual around dancing, and it spoofs on the sub/dom thing. We start dancing, but then I try to switch positions and take the lead. Mr. HUS stops dead in his tracks and refuses to move one inch until I give in and let him lead again. The whole ritual takes about ten seconds. I have no idea why, but we’ve been doing this and I’ve been giggling about it for about 30 years.

  • Sassy6519

    @ deti

    In that context, it appears you want to be the one who determines the course of your relationships, their tenor and direction; and you want to be the one who breaks all ties.

    Good luck finding a man who will be down with that.

    Sigh.

    Let’s try this one more time.

    I don’t want to make all the decisions. That’s absolutely not what I want. I want a relationship where both my partner and I work to please each other as much as possible. I don’t expect to have the last say on everything. I’d also find it a little extreme if my partner expected to have the last say on everything.

    I don’t know what else to say that I haven’t already said.

    My point was simply this, and then I need to leave it. If Sassy or any other woman like her wants to be the dominant partner as VD has expertly pointed out, her choices are:

    1. A submissive beta who will repulse her; or
    2. An uberdominant alpha who will put up with her shit for exactly two minutes before finding a more suitable partner.

    Either way, it’s relationship failure.

    Let’s go back to the restaurant example. Here is an example of what some exchanges would look like.

    Man: Let’s go out to eat tonight.
    Me: Okay!

    or

    Man: Let’s go out to eat tonight.
    Me: Sorry, I can’t. I have some work I need to finish up, so I was planning on just eating in.
    Man: I want to go out to eat tonight though.
    Me: I understand that, but I can’t. Perhaps you can call up one of your friends and grab some food with them.

    At this point, he can either continue to push his point or not. If I can’t go out to eat that night, despite his desire to, I’ll continue to let him know that. If he kept demanding that I go out to dinner with him, I’d start to think that something was wrong with him. I would see it as whining and either become annoyed or put off.

    The guy probably got mad at you because you weren’t at his beck and call (Gamma), not because you were actively pushing back at him for expressing dominance.

    This is what I don’t get. How is it dominant to suggest going to a freaking restaurant? In my opinion, it is not. It’s simply being assertive and proactive.

    Also, as I said earlier, I really value free choice. I understand that a man may be a little disappointed if I didn’t agree to go out to eat with him, but that’s life.

  • Just1Z

    “Could some men explain this? Is that sort of behavior common or uncommon?”

    TBH you sound like you’re getting the same experience as many (beta) men do. Which is not surprising, you haven’t got an imposing male body; you can’t be an alpha (or it’s gonna be tough).

    You have a very male sounding outlook and you describe a very male experience; I took ‘her’ at her word…now she’s pissed at me – what the fuck happened?

    FWIW

    try and become more feminine. Put yourself in situations where you need the help of a nice muscly expert guy (it’s heavy / it’s complicated and you’re a novice / or you don’t have a natural aptitude for it). Scuba / Sailing / air boating / shooting / freefall (anything masculine, but not too masculine – you can do it, but help is (close to) required – men love helping beginners, it isn’t about sex – I was a scuba instructor, I was always helping trainees and less experienced divers.)
    OR
    read up on the red-pill in the Roissy / Heartiste archives and see if you can adapt the knowledge…not sure how viable this is.
    OR
    use a therapist to identify why you are so masculine in outlook. maybe you can soften it, maybe you can’t. maybe you want to, maybe you don’t – that is up to you, but you need to know about yourself.

  • Höllenhund

    “So many hugely famous and exalted men seem willing to burn down their lives, their marriages, families, and reputations, to get laid.”

    There are many alphas who don’t attach any value to their marriages, families, reputations etc. The reason isn’t that they want to get laid at any cost, it’s that they just cannot be bothered.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Lokland

    I like to ask my wife to dance. ‘You need to dance for me.’
    Sometimes she just does it, other times she says ‘no’ smiles. ‘I need music.’
    I sing la-la-la to some random beat.
    Others she says you need to dance first, I just walk up and grab her, dance with her and sing la-la-la.

    Note: Dance= random dancing which strangely enough usually includes the “bunny hop” as mention by mr. wavevector earlier.

    Definitely loveable/adorable behaviour that melts the heart.

    Okay, we are definitely getting somewhere.

    Perhaps this will shine some light on this situation.

    I have a question for you. What would be your response if your wife politely declined your request for her to dance for you, and she held to it? I’m not saying that she refuses to dance for you every single time, just every now and again. What would be your response?

  • Iggles

    @ deti:

    1. A submissive beta who will repulse her; or

    I’d amend that to:
    A submissive gamma who will repulse her

    https://wwnh.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/923-the-male-matrix-alpha-beta-gamma%E2%80%94part-i/

    Though, I agree with the overall principle.

    Sassy – I think it has more to do with the balance of energy. With male and female relationship it usually is configured three ways:

    1. The man is more dominant / woman is submissive
    2. The woman is more dominant / man is submissive
    3. Egalitarian / man and woman are equally yoked

    Model #1 encompasses the majority of M/F relationships, varying from an ultra dominate male to slightly more dominate male (think the captain/first office model Athol talks about on MMSL).

    Model #2 are relationship where the woman rules the roost and has the “final say” on most decisions. Usually the woman is considered an alpha female and the man gamma.

    Model #3 is what I think appeals to you. However, in terms of numbers, most women and men who prefer this model are in the middle of the road in terms of dominance (in terms of masculine and feminine energy, both parties are neutral). Very few dominant/dominant types come together for equally yoked relationships, just as very few submissive/submissive couples can make it work.

    This is a quiz, but the “neutral” types are the ones who tend to gravitate towards the egalitarian model of relationships:
    http://www.thefemininewoman.com/2010/04/are-you-masculine-feminine-or-neutral-a-quiz/

  • VD

    Either I’m not explaining myself clearly enough, or some of the male commenters are having a hard time accepting my opinions on the matter.

    You’re not explaining yourself clearly enough. I have absolutely no problem accepting your opinion on the matter.

    There is a difference between asking someone to do something and telling someone to do something. I don’t mind men asking me to do things. I can easily say yes or no. I have a problem with men telling me to do things. If a man asked me to go out to eat with him, I would either agree to it or say that I didn’t want to. If I couldn’t go out to eat with him, I’d give him my reasons why. If he wasn’t satisfied with my answers, I would suggest that he go out to eat by himself or go out to eat with one of his buddies.

    Yes, there is. I concur that you have a problem being told to do things, probably not just by men. Here is the problem: you are conflating “I don’t want to” with “I can’t”. No man is going to have a problem when you CAN’T do something. He will have a problem when your “I don’t want to” always trumps his “I want to”. The issue of you not being able to do it is a red herring and irrelevant. As has already been pointed out, dominance is determined by who makes the decisions in a democracy of two.

    One day I asked him if he wanted to catch a movie with me. He told me that he had other tentative plans for that night. He also said that he would let me know whether or not he would be able to see me that night later on. I said okay. As the evening approached, the movie’s starting time got closer and closer. Since I had not heard from him about whether or not his plans had changed, I figured that he wouldn’t be able to go see the movie with me. I decided to go see the movie by myself instead, since I was really interested in seeing the film. After the movie, I went to my favorite local bar. Around 11pm that night, he got in touch with me and wondered what I was up to. He also asked what I had done during the day. I told him that I was at my favorite bar and that I had gone to see the movie by myself. For reasons totally lost on me, he got angry with me. I still don’t understand it. From my understanding, he told me he was busy, I accepted that, and I entertained myself that day.

    Hmmm, that is strange. I MIGHT understand it if he was the one who really wanted to see the movie and suggested it to you, but that’s not the case. He didn’t get back in touch with you in time, which was his fault, not yours. My guess is that his being angry had little to do with the movie; even if he claimed that was the reason it is probably just cover for his being upset that you went out to the bar alone. Remember, in most men’s minds, going out bar-hopping means a woman is out looking to meet someone new. That was most likely the real issue. Did he make any “sarcastic” remarks about you meeting someone that night?

  • Höllenhund

    “I meant, is the affair an alpha move? Is it alpha to have an adulterous affair as head of the CIA and end your career in the process?”

    It’s certainly alpha to have an affair. No question about that. Ending your career in whatever way is an alpha move if that career is already going downhill, if superior powers that you cannot resist in the long run are slowly pushing you out, or if you’re simply becoming fed up with it all. Cutting your losses is alpha. I’m pretty sure Petraeus would’ve been forced out anyway.

  • VD

    Man: Let’s go out to eat tonight.
    Me: Okay!

    or

    Man: Let’s go out to eat tonight.
    Me: Sorry, I can’t. I have some work I need to finish up, so I was planning on just eating in.
    Man: I want to go out to eat tonight though.
    Me: I understand that, but I can’t. Perhaps you can call up one of your friends and grab some food with them.

    Both are perfectly fine. My impression is that you initially described something rather different than you intended.

  • Sassy6519

    @ VD

    Hmmm, that is strange. I MIGHT understand it if he was the one who really wanted to see the movie and suggested it to you, but that’s not the case. He didn’t get back in touch with you in time, which was his fault, not yours. My guess is that his being angry had little to do with the movie; even if he claimed that was the reason it is probably just cover for his being upset that you went out to the bar alone. Remember, in most men’s minds, going out bar-hopping means a woman is out looking to meet someone new. That was most likely the real issue. Did he make any “sarcastic” remarks about you meeting someone that night?

    Haha, you’re right. Your suspicions are correct.

    He did sarcastically remark about me potentially meeting someone else, but it wasn’t restricted to the bar. He asked me, point blank, “How do I know that you didn’t go to the movies with someone else?”. Seriously?

    I guess, as deti suggested, he wanted me to be at his beck and call. Perhaps he wanted me to wait patiently at home, instead of going out by myself, for him to decide to contact me or meet up with me.

    Is this a common or uncommon sentiment among men? Is this a potential “relationship landmine” that I am unaware of?

    Both are perfectly fine. My impression is that you initially described something rather different than you intended.

    Yeah, the way I described what I wanted may have been a bit confusing.

  • Iggles

    @ Sassy:

    I’ll try approaching this from a different angle.

    There is a difference between asking someone to do something and telling someone to do something. I don’t mind men asking me to do things. I can easily say yes or no. I have a problem with men telling me to do things.

    I agree with this completely.

    Maybe I read it differently, but in deti’s example scenarios I read it as being insistent with a smile. It’s different than, “Woman, we’re going out to dinner and that final!” with a menacing scowl :lol:

    In a situation like deciding on dinner, either party could be swayed. He wanted to go out and made the decision for them. She acquiesced and they had a good meal.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Brendan: “It requires a husband who blows the doors out financially (where I live, 350k+), because the wife’s expensive degree and student loans are not earning anything to pay them off, together with the mortgage and the tuitions and the tutors and nannies and so on. It’s becoming as much of a status symbol in UMC communities as houses, cars and kids’ college admissions.”

    It simply requires lowered consumption, not 350K.

    Depends on the town, not the general area. I live outside Boston, and support 3 kids with one income, and have been doing it for 10 years, long before I ever saw 6 figures. Now, I couldn’t live in Brookline or Weston with my kids on one income. On the flip side, I could telecommute from Central NY (houses sub-100K) and live like a king.

  • Escoffier

    Well, my wife stays home but luckily she had no debt to pay off. Also, we don’t have nannies and the like, no help at all except the occasional visit from a landscaper. She does all of it except some of the cooking, which I do when I can. $350K is not a crazy number but nannies and servants are in another snack bracket, as one of Canadian grad student buddies used to say.

  • JP

    @OTC:

    “It simply requires lowered consumption, not 350K.”

    Having no debt helps. I figure that I spend about $2,000 per month for a family of four.

    Now, that’s with no mortgage, no car payment, and no student loans.

    I’m also not making six figures, but I am able to save about 60% of my gross income.

    My primary hobby is financial speculation.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Iggles

    This is a quiz, but the “neutral” types are the ones who tend to gravitate towards the egalitarian model of relationships:
    http://www.thefemininewoman.com/2010/04/are-you-masculine-feminine-or-neutral-a-quiz/

    I just finished taking the quiz. Out of the 15 questions, 10 of my answers were in the neutral category while 5 of my answers were in the feminine category. That sounds about right. I tend to be very middle of the road, with regards to my dating/sexual role, and I would prefer an egalitarian type relationship.

  • VD

    Is this a common or uncommon sentiment among men? Is this a potential “relationship landmine” that I am unaware of?

    Not really. His behavior mostly indicates that he is insecure about your level of interest in him. Now, most guys wouldn’t be happy about you going out to the bar without them, for the aforementioned reason, but they wouldn’t get angry about it. This guy sounds mildly problematic.

    A man who has faith in the relationship wouldn’t even say anything about the movie except perhaps to ask if it was any good. And a high alpha would probably say “what movie?”

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

    @SW

    Actually, I have an interesting graphic on how men’s checklists have changed over decades.

    Interesting, moreso with regard to what hasn’t changed very much:

    Top 7 (in 1939): Dependable character, emotional stability/maturity, pleasing disposition, mutual attraction/love, good health, desire for home/children, refinement/neatness

    Top 7 (in 2008): Mutual attraction/love, dependable character, emotional stability/maturity, education/intelligence, pleasing disposition, sociability, good health

    The important traits have shifted a bit, but not significantly. Despite the sexual revolution and the rise in narcissism, “good looks” only went up to #8 (from #14). Am I the only one who *doesn’t* see status > character qualities in this graphic?

    Being a good homemaker, middle of the list (in 1939!). Similar educational, political, religious backgrounds, even favorable social status, all pretty low and continue to bring up the rear today. Even chastity (i.e. virginity) wasn’t high on the list even back then. I think the Guttmacher Institute concluded that even ~1940 couples were getting it on before they married (only 5% didn’t).

    Do you know if there’s a similar graphic for women’s preferences?

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

      @Megaman

      Do you know if there’s a similar graphic for women’s preferences?

      Here’s the source:

      “Measuring Mate Preferences: A Replication and Extension” by Christine B. Whelan, University of Pittsburgh, and Christie F. Boxer and Mary Noonan, University of Iowa

      ww

      http://christinewhelan.com/wp-content/uploads/Mate-Preferences-Chart.jpg

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

        Looks like the right side got cut off, but the full chart is at the link. I don’t know why there’s no similar graphic for women.

  • Lokland

    @Sassy

    “What would be your response if your wife politely declined your request for her to dance for you, and she held to it? I’m not saying that she refuses to dance for you every single time, just every now and again. What would be your response?”

    Yell, swear, brake thing… maybe light the cat on fire (neighbours, PITA), try and rationally discuss how her failure to submit to my indomitable will leaves me no choice but to go on a campaign showing the evil that is female non-sumissiveness.

    Jokes.

    Depends on the reason and the frequency. As VD said ‘I can’t’ is different than ‘I don’t want to’.

    At which point it becomes why does she not want to and how often does it occur. (I don’t think she has ever actually refused, except teasingly, so this is spit-balling.)

    If it was for something stupid…SATC, twilight, I’m 9 and a 1/2 and pregnant, Lets judge the fat chick in the wedding dress type show (which she does not watch) then I’d be annoyed.
    If its for some kinda physical ailment… would you like some soup?

    Last comes the frequency. Everyone doesn’t always want to do everything someone else says. So she can have a pass now and then. On the other hand, I am the dominant one here, if she continually says no it is a form of disrespect (whilst it is also disrespectful for me to continually ask her to do something she does not want to do).

    Largely, depends on the context but NDB in most cases unless its chronic and/or for bad reasons.

    Last, most of my requests are phrased as demands/statements. Most of my wife’s are phrased as questions (or some whacked out indirect form that makes no sense). That just kinda happened, its not a 100% thing but a general trend.

    Also, I agree with VDs assessment of your date. Even I’m not bothered about my wife going out to a bar with friends, and I don’t date women who go to bars. Anger is overkill. The movie, I would have made fun of you for being the creepy person watching a movie by yourself.

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

    So…if you don’t get the radical notion that men are people too, and so deserve the same rights not to be subjected to violence that you appear to reserve for women (vaWa vs vaPEOPLEa, why not an international day against violence? what about the men, hell, what about the kids?)

    I didn’t commented on Lysistrata as a concept for women to get the upper hand on men in this culture or even in general but to the examples Susan linked on places similar to my country third world countries full of violence exercised by men in 90% of the time, where the women tried to use the little power they have to end violence. It was not a comment about men not being victims of rape and violence by other men in higher numbers than women are (something I know very well) or Vawa which I think is unfair to men by adding everything and the kitchen sink as abuse if a woman says so, BTW, but there is nothing like Vawa in the third world, the problem is the opposite, like antipodes way opposite) Not all men are the same and there are plenty that do use women as quickbags with warm holes to stick their dicks in, whether they want it or not.
    I totally support any initiative to protect men that suffer violence I mentioned that piece of info about the international day to stop violence against women because someone mentioned some activities in my country about it and I suddenly though “I wonder if the HUSies know that…?” not malice or putting down men from my end, capisce?
    Also
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Men%27s_Day

    I’m glad to hear it, being from the Direct School myself. I wouldn’t know Coy if I fell over it.

    I can’t flirt for the life of me either. Hubby also dislike the “fluttering eyelashes” school of getting men to do what I want. He has had bad experiences with that type so he rather have me asking directly or at best nerdily. We are a good match in that aspect as well.

    She might do it more than other women would, but she loses respect for the man in the process.
    Athol has this female commenters that do feel like they are their husband’s mom if they so much need to listen to their problems from work…I would be ashamed of calling myself wife if my husband couldn’t talk to me without drying my vagina. One has to wonder if is worth to have the hottie if you can’t do anything weak in her presence without her losing attraction. Something for the guys to think about.

    Time of the Butterflies? I agree, when I saw it, I didn’t know that was the ending. Very very sad.

    Knowing the ending I didn’t watched that movie, neither another version done with Michelle Rodriguez as Minerva. We grew up hearing the bloody details since I was a child every year I actually visited the house they lived in that is now a museum and I couldn’t see the part with the clothes what where wearing when they were murdered spotted with blood. Is sadder than you could possibly imagine :(

    Dogs are okay creatures, but I have always been a cat person. They are self-sufficient and independent, but they also have very sweet and affectionate sides. I’ve always found dogs to be too needy, too demanding of my time, and too animated.

    I don’t mind the animated part but as a cat person I approve this comment. Sorry Ted I also consider somehow unattractive a man that basically wants a chump as a pet. Is easy to love an animal that loves you (and everyone for that matter) for no reason at all I have to earn my cat’s love by being a good caregiver it makes her sitting in my lap and licking me more rewarding.

    Again, our life experiences are similar! This is why I just can’t get behind beta = loser, no matter how many times I hear it. And this is also why my husband can say that without thinking that he is putting himself down.

    Likewise with hubby I also call myself Beta female no shame in that.

    Men really don’t want a bloody debate every single time they open their mouths about anything.

    What about if is for curiosity? Why is my first word pretty much over any suggestion hubby does. Mind you I always comply and accommodate (or at least 99% of the time, if it clashes with another commitment I explain and try to reschedule or I try to see if I can do both…that usually ends in very funny situations) I just want to know why because…I’m curious as mentioned. If the why is “because I want to” I just accept it and move on but sometimes I do think I can be annoying.

    He’s a classic model of the Perfumed Prince.

    Care to elaborate on that? Is that a fairy tale I don’t recognize?

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Deti: “And you say Mr. HUS is BETA. I don’t buy it. that’s classic ALPHA right there.”

    You missed a lot of recent clarification. He is a Vox beta, which akin to is a Roissy lesser alpha – does well with women, well liked, social, and successful, just not the rare leader of men. He was never a delta or gamma, which is what we think of beta.

  • Brendan

    re the $350k, it depends on where you live. The main cost in most cases is housing cost. If you live in an area, or even choose to live in a specific place in an area, which has low housing costs, obviously your overall cost of living is lower, and you need less income to to the SAHM thing comfortably.

  • J

    @Sassy

    I have never stated that I wouldn’t be willing to negotiate/compromise with a future partner. I think that both of those things are extremely important and necessary for most/all relationships to work.

    Oh, I know that you weren’t saying that. I just wanted to emphasize that even with the best of guys, women still need to work on their relationship skills. And vice-versa. I don’t think a man can find his “dream girl” and then expect to live “happily ever after.” Relationships take skills for both parties.

    My qualm with dominance is that I’ve experienced men trying to dominate me the way they wanted to dominate me, and those attempts were futile.

    I get that.

    I’ve always had the personality that if someone tells me to do something, I will ask why. I’ve never been one to nod my head like a good little girl and just say “okay”.

    Some of us are just wired that way. I think intelligent people and, particularly, more global thinkers need to ask why. My older son used to get into trouble with that at school until I got them to realize that it wasn’t defiance as much as needed to see the final destination befofre starting on a journey. Anyway, I think there is a huge difference between offering child-like obedience, as some commenters seem to want women to act, and being uncooperative or bitchy.

    If a man wants to tell me to do something, that’s fine. He should know, however, that my response will include me asking him why he wants me to do what he wants me to do. If he gives me valid reasons, and I agree with those reasons, I’ll do it.

    And that makes perfect sense.

    If I don’t agree to the reasoning given, however, I will tell him that I don’t agree and explain my reasoning. If he still wants me to do what he wants, I’ll tell him no and suggest a compromise. If we can’t agree on a compromise, then we will be at an impasse until more favorable terms can be agreed upon.

    Still making sense to me.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Yes, Brendan. My point is that such areas that require that amount of outlay have have surrounding areas that aren’t so rich. The choice to consume a lot in housing in a super high-end town, is still a consumption choice. Nobody’s job requires them to live in a Weston suburb, when a Waltham apartment is just down the street.

  • Brendan

    That’s true, of course, although I would point out that school district quality is often directly related to housing cost. Of course, if you are homeschooling that isn’t an issue, but not many people do that, even SAHM households.

  • JP

    “Yes, Brendan. My point is that such areas that require that amount of outlay have have surrounding areas that aren’t so rich.”

    This is why you avoid major metro areas if you want to have kids and stay home.

  • JP

    Oh, and the answer to the question originally posed by this thread is “No.”

    I figured I would take this opportunity to make a comment that was directly related to the original post.

  • Esau

    Anacaona at 380: “I would be ashamed of calling myself wife if my husband couldn’t talk to me without drying my vagina. One has to wonder if is worth to have the hottie if you can’t do anything weak in her presence without her losing attraction. Something for the guys to think about.”

    +1
    Very worth thinking about, indeed, as to what makes for a good LTR prospect.

  • Mike C

    There is a difference between asking someone to do something and telling someone to do something. I don’t mind men asking me to do things. I can easily say yes or no. I have a problem with men telling me to do things.

    Sassy,

    There is a grey area in between her where “telling” is very different depending on how it is told….in terms of tone, body language. I tell my fiancee to do stuff all the time, but it is NEVER in some overbearing, domineering tone. The tone is almost always neutral, and just OK I made a decision, now let’s roll with that.

    I literally cannot imagine a relationship where the guy is asking a question every single time for every potential action or decision. That is literally the definition of supplicating beta/delta/gamma.

    I’ll give you an example of a recent decision. I am the architect/captain of the financial aspect of our relationship. I have a clear destination for our financial ship (which is an early retirement of considerable wealth). So based on some other things that had occurred, I decided it was time for her to increase her 401(k) contributions. I didn’t ask here, I told her, I’ve decided we need to bump up your 401(k) contributions. And again, this was said neutrally, matter of factly, without a hint of being domineering. Now when we got down to discussing actual numbers she did pushback based on wanting to have X dollars saved up for the wedding. I showed her the spreadsheet with the adjusted numbers that demonstrated she would still hit X by our wedding next year, and that was the end of it. Most big decisions we make work this way. There is an element of deferring to whoever has more expertise. She selected the reception place and other vendors. I will say that if she had continued to argue the increased 401(k) contribution amount, that would have been highly problematic. I’m not really sure how I would handle that. My best guess is I would not be marrying or I would break up with any woman that constantly fought me on big picture decisions. Been there, done that. Never again. Of course, betas and/or deltas will go along with that with a “Yes dear”. For a woman though, there is a contradiction between wanting an assertive, take charge, leader type of guy and wanting someone who is going to phrase everything has a question.

  • VD

    I don’t mind the animated part but as a cat person I approve this comment. Sorry Ted I also consider somehow unattractive a man that basically wants a chump as a pet.

    First, it is a known scientific fact that owning a Viszla makes you at least two points more attractive by association. Don’t hate them because they’re beautiful. Second, most dogs are not chumps. Labradors, sure. But not most dogs. I truly cannot fathom anyone who genuinely prefers a pet that would cheerfully eat them if it could to one that will defend you to the death. I mean, surely even dedicated cat owners understand that the reason the only cats you can own are small ones is because that cute little Mittens purring in your lap would murder you in a heartbeat if she could.

    Some of us are just wired that way. I think intelligent people and, particularly, more global thinkers need to ask why. My older son used to get into trouble with that at school until I got them to realize that it wasn’t defiance as much as needed to see the final destination befofre starting on a journey.

    Surely intelligent people are capable of learning to recognize the pattern of who can, and who cannot, be trusted to have a good reason for their actions and requests. My wife seldom asks me why about anything anymore because she has learned over time that I will have a reason with which she will agree. I seldom ask her why because I trust her judgment. And perhaps that’s why people react badly to those with the need to ask why. It can be indicative of a lack of trust in the other person’s judgment.

    My best friend developed an excellent tactic for dealing with people who always feel the need to ask why. Just give them excruciatingly detailed explanations every single time they ask. Walk them slowly through the entire thought process from the beginning as if they are retarded, then keep asking them if they now understand and agree with it. Do that a few times and soon enough they’ll just shut up and do as they’re told.

  • JP

    “Do that a few times and soon enough they’ll just shut up and do as they’re told.”

    A much younger version of myself would have loved this. Specifically asking why and getting an extremely detailed explanation.

    Because it would be fun to have them do that each time. Free entertainment!

    Kind of like the time that control over the practice group lunch menu was handed over to me because I complained about the lunch menu. Apparently the goal was to dissuade me from complaining and to teach me some sort of lesson, whereas I took the opportunity to ord.er pepperoni pizza every time. The lesson I learned was that I really liked controlling the lunch menu.

    Yes, I have since realized that my approach to social situations was somewhat retarded and counterproductive. But it took about a decade.

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

    @VD
    LOL! :)

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

    Susan wrote:
    As for Sassy, we’ve all known from the start she’d eat betas for breakfast. The odd thing is, some of her descriptions of her intense ex sounded sort of beta, IIRC.

    She also told us that she feels unfulfilled with monogamous relationships and consistently thinks about other men outside of the relationship. From post #32:

    … Whenever I’ve been in a relationship, one of the 4 following things have happened:

    1. I always feel like something is missing.
    2. I reminisce about being single.
    3. I fantasize about sex I’ve had with other people.
    4. I encounter another person I want to sleep with.

    Every single one of my relationships have run into one of the aforementioned glitches/bumps. …

    I’m not usually in agreement with VD and company, but in this case, I am.

  • Sai

    @VD

    Kind of like the time that control over the practice group lunch menu was handed over to me because I complained about the lunch menu. Apparently the goal was to dissuade me from complaining and to teach me some sort of lesson, whereas I took the opportunity to ord.er pepperoni pizza every time. The lesson I learned was that I really liked controlling the lunch menu.

    Yes, I have since realized that my approach to social situations was somewhat retarded and counterproductive. But it took about a decade.”

    ROFL
    I think it’s funny when that kind of thing backfires.

    Seriously though, the way the whole business is being discussed now sounds to me like only the man gets what he wants.

  • INTJ

    @ J, Sassy

    Anyway, I think there is a huge difference between offering child-like obedience, as some commenters seem to want women to act, and being uncooperative or bitchy.

    This. Plenty of men would appreciate your rationalitsy and respectfulness, as long as it isn’t accompanied by aggression.

  • J

    Plenty of men would appreciate your rationalitsy and respectfulness, as long as it isn’t accompanied by aggression.

    Exactly so. The choice isn’t between unquestioning, child-like obedience and aggression or disrepect. There’s a huge middle ground in which people can and often do move in a trusting and loving fashion.

  • J

    @SW, Ana

    SW:I’m glad to hear it, being from the Direct School myself. I wouldn’t know Coy if I fell over it.

    Ana: I can’t flirt for the life of me either. Hubby also dislike the “fluttering eyelashes” school of getting men to do what I want. He has had bad experiences with that type so he rather have me asking directly or at best nerdily. We are a good match in that aspect as well.

    While I’m basically pretty direct when I’m serious about things, I’m a champion flirt when I want to be. I actually do the eyelash flutter in a very campy, parody-ish way that simultaneously says, “Yes, I know how hokey this is, but aren’t I cute and funny as hell?” DH never fails to laugh.

  • Esau

    Mike C: I tell my fiancee to do stuff all the time, but it is NEVER in some overbearing, domineering tone. The tone is almost always neutral, and just OK I made a decision, now let’s roll with that.

    Somewhere in the considerable range between competence and dominance lies authority. I think the words “authority” and “authoritative” can capture the sense of what a lot of people have been expressing but having difficulty describing exactly, ie being in charge but not being overly forceful or domineering about it. Just a thought, linguistically.

  • J

    deti: We’re going out to eat tonight.
    Mrs. d: Why? You know we don’t have time to do that because —
    deti: Because I want to.
    Mrs. d: Why? You said that—
    deti: Because I WANT to.
    Mrs. d: Well, okay. Kids, get your coats!

    result? Mrs. d. is happy because she doesn’t have to make the decision or think it through. I am happy because I got what I wanted.

    I am happy to report that DH and I went out to dinner tonight based upon our mutual desire to eat. He reported to me that, though he enjoyed it the first time around, he did not care to eat the leftover chili in the frig, while I countered that it was a pretty day out and that I’d enjoy a ride and a meal out. He asked for my input as to the restaurant (What are you in the mood for, babe?). Although this required decision making on my part, I was able to come up with an answer without my head exploding. Italian was agreed upon, and we both came away from the table happy. We held hands on the way in and out of the restaurant. YMMV.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Olive called attention to this from AG, and it captures my reaction to this post exactly:

    [from the Lysistrata post]…

    In other words, the solution is a dating culture, which still allows women to delay marriage and pursue their careers, and also lets them have those intimate relationships with men that they don’t want to delay.
    This puts Smith and me squarely on the same page, as this reflects my own views about what constitutes potentially achievable change.

    Susan Walsh supports feminism, but just wants to make it less destructive to women. That is not a great cause for which to fight, or support. The choice of dating culture over hookup culture amounts to demanding more from men in order for them to get sex.

    I don’t know what other men in this culture want. But personally, if I had to rank my preferences in terms of the type of sexual relationship it would be:

    1. Marriage/relationship that ends in marriage
    2. Casual sex
    3. LTR that doesn’t end in marriage

    The only thing I’m not sure about is whether celibacy is preferable to casual sex for me. I don’t know if that will change down the road.

    A dating culture that allows women to delay marriage and pursue their careers might be preferable to hookup culture for a majority of both sexes, and thus might be a culture worth supporting for society as a whole. But it isn’t something I personally am going to sign up for. I don’t know how most men feel about this though.

  • J

    I think the words “authority” and “authoritative” can capture the sense of what a lot of people have been expressing but having difficulty describing exactly, ie being in charge but not being overly forceful or domineering about it. Just a thought, linguistically.

    To me, “authority” has the connotation of externality and appointment about it. One respects the authority of a judge one dislikes because s/he is the appointed authority. One respects the office. One may respect a parent he or she dislikes because one repects the role.

    OTOH, “authoritativeness” rests on an individual’s accomplishment, merit or worth. Profssor Smith is a respected authority because he knows his stuff. Everyone respects Grandma because she is wise. Real leaders IMO command respect because they are authoritative.

  • INTJ

    @ J

    He asked for my input as to the restaurant (What are you in the mood for, babe?). Although this required decision making on my part, I was able to come up with an answer without my head exploding. Italian was agreed upon, and we both came away from the table happy. We held hands on the way in and out of the restaurant. YMMV.

    This example might work with one’s wife, but it’s suicide during dating.

    Some of my friends who have gone on proper dates were talking about restaurant choice. They said never to ask a girl for input on restaurant choice. Just choose some restaurant and don’t check if the choice is okay with the girl. This is the wisdom that these guys have developed through experience. Keep in mind that these guys are Vox deltas who the manosphere would refer to as rather supplicating.

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

      @INTJ

      They said never to ask a girl for input on restaurant choice. Just choose some restaurant and don’t check if the choice is okay with the girl. This is the wisdom that these guys have developed through experience. Keep in mind that these guys are Vox deltas who the manosphere would refer to as rather supplicating.

      This is a really interesting point. It’s inaccurate and even dangerous to assume that every guy who goes into the Game chute comes out the other end with the same degree of dominance. (I understand your friends have not studied Game, they’ve learned via trial and error.) And while dominance is a key sexual attraction trigger for women, individual tastes vary enormously. If deltas have made the change from eagerly asking their dates to choose and appearing to have no stake in the decision, to stating they have selected a restaurant, that is a huge step forward. The delta is likely to come across as confident while still invested in how well the date goes.

      The extremely dominant man can often come across as insensitive. “I want a steak.” So he might perhaps benefit (from a female POV) by asking his partner if there’s anything she has a craving for, or otherwise considering her preference.

  • JP

    @INTJ:

    “I don’t know what other men in this culture want.”

    I’ve kissed a girl a grand total of one time outside the context of some sort of relationship.

    But then I was never trying to get casual sex because the thought simply wasn’t present. It was simply unfathomable.

    I don’t think I even count as a data point because I’m going to be three standard deviations away from anybody in any culture in a number of different ways.

  • JP

    “OTOH, “authoritativeness” rests on an individual’s accomplishment, merit or worth. Profssor Smith is a respected authority because he knows his stuff. Everyone respects Grandma because she is wise. Real leaders IMO command respect because they are authoritative.”

    Ergo, the reason that I generally listen to just one opinion. Mine.

    This hasn’t necessarily resulted in the most favorable outcomes.

  • J

    @JP

    LMAO

    @INTJ

    That’s interesting. Why do they say that? Do the girls try to take advantage by picking expensive places or are the guys afraid of looking indecisive or cheap? If it’s money, I think a guy could give limited choices by suggesting 2-3 places he can afford. Any girl who insisted on a more expensive place should be firmly and honestly denied her choice and be offered a lift home if she continues to insist. If she wants a big dinner more than she wants the guy’s company, then he’s better off putting a stop to things immediately.
    If it’s an attempt to look decisive and is done without being flexible, I would think that could backfire. I used to hate hot and spicy food. If some guy had insisted on Thai or Mexican over my stated dislike for hot food, I’d want to go home.

  • Cooper

    @INTJ
    Yup.
    “What do you feel like?/Where would you like to go?” mustn’t be uttered.

  • Cooper

    @J
    “Why do they say that?”
    See:
    “He asked for my input as to the restaurant (What are you in the mood for, babe?). Although this required decision making on my part, I was able to come up with an answer without my head exploding.” -You
    Not exactly postive response to being asked what your in the mood for. (Makes you think, should he?)

    Many girls frown upon making date decisions, or consider it a DLV for a guy to pass the decision on or ask for her preference. Whether its cause they like the man demonstrating his decisiveness, or masculinity, attractive (women get frustrated when their man can’t make a decision**), or they don’t want to be the one to choose, or just feel it’s something the man should do. Nonetheless, it’s a DLV that’ll get a guy on the road to a DQ.

    **
    See Iggles post #366, Feminine/Masculine Test:
    “14) Which of the following situations would frustrate you more:
    A) When I ask my partner what we are doing, they say “I don’t know, what do you want to do?
    B) When I’m driving, my partner tells me to stop and ask for directions.”
    (A=Feminine, B=Masculine)

    Well, I know guy do hate asking for directions….

  • J

    “He asked for my input as to the restaurant (What are you in the mood for, babe?). Although this required decision making on my part, I was able to come up with an answer without my head exploding.” -You
    Not exactly postive response to being asked what your in the mood for. (Makes you think, should he?)

    LOL. I was teasing Deti; my point was that, unlike his wife, I felt up to the decision. I can’t imagine that being too taxing for a married woman.

    OTOH, I think it can be awkward for a woman to have to be the one who suggests a place if she doesn’t know what’s in a guy’s price range. I recall doing the restaurant negotiation dance. If you ask for too much, you look bitchy. If you settle for fast food, you look desperate. That’s why I suggested guys give limited choices–unless of course they have some place really cool in mind. My husband was always great at finding these little hole in the wall ethnic restaurants with amazing food. This was definitely a DHV. However, I would not regard consideration for my preferences to be a DLV.

    I would also recommend that girls order from the middle of the menu, price-wise.

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

    J,

    I would also recommend that girls order from the middle of the menu, price-wise.

    This is a feminist world, dontcha know? All this men paying for the ladies stuff…. SO old-fashioned. :-)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_PTxpIjGXE

  • J

    Olive, I hate to sound like someone’s grandmother, but back in my day, we used to reciprocate for dates–a home cooked meal or some bakery. I knit my husband a sweater once.

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

    J,
    It was just a joke. :-P Although my BF and I generally take turns paying for each other, that’s always sort of been our way of “making things equal.”

    I knit my husband a sweater once.

    That’s my plan! I’m just getting back into knitting… I learned in elementary school and the most advanced things I’ve made are socks and mittens, but my BF said he’d wear a sweater if I made him one. New life goal.

  • Sassy6519

    With my ex of one year, I used to mend his clothing. I did it of my own accord, and I liked doing it for him. My mother taught me how to sew/knit/crochet, and I offered to repair some of his clothing that he had damaged. He was so pleased, and I liked doing that for him.

    Despite the problems he and I had, I miss him.

  • INTJ

    @ J

    That’s interesting. Why do they say that? Do the girls try to take advantage by picking expensive places or are the guys afraid of looking indecisive or cheap? If it’s money, I think a guy could give limited choices by suggesting 2-3 places he can afford. Any girl who insisted on a more expensive place should be firmly and honestly denied her choice and be offered a lift home if she continues to insist. If she wants a big dinner more than she wants the guy’s company, then he’s better off putting a stop to things immediately.
    If it’s an attempt to look decisive and is done without being flexible, I would think that could backfire. I used to hate hot and spicy food. If some guy had insisted on Thai or Mexican over my stated dislike for hot food, I’d want to go home.

    No I don’t think they’ve had problems with girls picking expensive places.

    From what they mentioned, it seemed to fall into two possible problems:

    1) The girl wants to see confidence, and simply asking her for her input is a sign of weakness.

    2) The girl does want you to take her input, but is herself very indecisive. Though the manosphere interpretation would be that she does want to see confidence, and is just shit-testing. The indecisiveness usually goes as follows:

    Guy: “I was thinking of X restaurant, is that okay with you?”
    Girl: “I don’t like that type of food.”
    Guy: “Okay, how about Y restaurant?”
    Girl: “Not really.”
    Guy: “Alright do you have any suggestions?”
    Girl: “No”

  • Cooper

    “Guy: “Alright do you have any suggestions?””

    Third time’s the charm, and test failed.

  • INTJ

    @ Sassy6519

    and I offered to repair some of his clothing that he had damaged. He was so pleased, and I liked doing that for him.

    To become more feminine, don’t try to be someone you’re not by acting stupid or submissive. Instead, you should play up this nurturing side of yours.

  • chris

    If all of the women currently not benefiting from hookup culture in any way (obviously a large majority) were to declare their unwillingness to participate and play by those rules, it would serve two purposes:

    1. It would explode the myth that basically everybody is hooking up regularly and feels comfortable doing it, which is prevalent on college campuses.

    2. It would identify the women who are interested in a more traditional dating model where emotional intimacy precedes physical intimacy.

    There’s another thing it will do; it will demarcate the line between those women which are sluts and those which aren’t, thus allowing men to attach differing long-term mate value to different women, and thus result in some women receiving negative long-term mate labels versus other women. Feminists won’t allow this, it is antithetical to ‘team’ women.

    But of course, if you want men to pursue long-term relationships you need to allow them the ability to determine/discriminate between the good bets and the bad ones.

    But like I said it won’t happen. Not as long as women put ‘team woman’ ahead of ‘team LTR’.

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

      @chris

      But of course, if you want men to pursue long-term relationships you need to allow them the ability to determine/discriminate between the good bets and the bad ones.

      But like I said it won’t happen. Not as long as women put ‘team woman’ ahead of ‘team LTR’.

      I think it can happen at the micro level, which is a big part of what I am trying to do here. A woman who makes it clear that she “doesn’t do casual” will get immediately labeled a prude and a waste of time by some guys, but theoretically there may be others who can now put her in the potential LTR box.

      I’ve heard mixed results on this. For example, sorority girls who don’t do casual are pretty much relegated to the sidelines, because they are restricted women in an unrestricted culture, and they don’t really have restricted guys in their scene. I imagine it might also be difficult, say, for the female slutty STEM student who is surrounded by males less likely to be extremely unrestricted in their sociosexuality (though Ozymandias, a one-time commenter here, seems to have made a very successful sexual play for a lot of fellow STEM guys).

  • INTJ

    On an extreme sidenote, has anyone played the flash game named “QWOP” before? I decided to stay in tonight, and started playing it. It’s so funny, but quite hard at the same time.

    Some of my friends have finished the run. Apparently there’s a way to slowly crawl forward.

    Of course, it’s extremely impressive to see youtube videos of people run the whole thing.

  • VD

    Seriously though, the way the whole business is being discussed now sounds to me like only the man gets what he wants.

    It sounds that way because, being female, you don’t understand how proactively most men take women’s wishes into account. Go to any married couple’s house. Look at the items in the living room. Then guess what percentage of them would have been purchased if the woman did not live there. It is because men so proactively cater to women’s wishes that it is so vital for women to submit to their wishes when one actually gets expressed or there is a conflict. Being solipsistic, many, if not most wives couldn’t even tell you what their husband’s wishes and interests are.

    I’m a novelist and I occasionally listen to strangers’ conversations in public for the purposes of writing more realistic dialogue. The next time you’re at a coffee shop, listen closely to a nearby married couple’s conversation. A surprisingly high percentage of the woman’s statements will likely begin with “I want”, “we need”, and “you have to”.

    That’s interesting. Why do they say that? Do the girls try to take advantage by picking expensive places or are the guys afraid of looking indecisive or cheap?

    Because they have learned that if you ask a girl’s opinion about where to go or what to do for a date, it is a perceived as a DLV that increases the chances that she will flake or that the date will be unsuccessful. They have repeatedly and reliably observed that vast majority of women crave displays of male dominance; as someone – was it Ana or Ion? – pointed out, even the women who actively resist being submissive desire it.

    I can’t flirt for the life of me either…. I’m a champion flirt when I want to be.

    Now that was beautiful. It perfectly illustrates the impossibility of taking what a woman says literally. Those two phrases were all of four sentences apart.

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

      @VD

      Go to any married couple’s house. Look at the items in the living room. Then guess what percentage of them would have been purchased if the woman did not live there.

      Doesn’t this say something about most men’s degree of interest in interior design? In the “bachelor pads” I’ve been to, there are often no items in the living room other than a sofa and a TV. Even the basic necessities have not been attended to. How about a coffee table to set that pizza box on?

      My husband has a strong sense of aesthetics and design. He is the best-dressed man I have ever met (I suspect Escoffier would top that, though.) When we furnished our home he had strong opinions re color and even fabric, and he had veto power over every decision.

      I can’t flirt for the life of me either…. I’m a champion flirt when I want to be.

      Now that was beautiful. It perfectly illustrates the impossibility of taking what a woman says literally. Those two phrases were all of four sentences apart.

      I realize that you have amended this comment, but I don’t understand what this point demonstrates if said by two different women. I know women who are natural flirts and others who are completely incapable of it. I believe this is a combination of personality and feminist culture. Where’s the contradiction?

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

    VD,
    “I can’t flirt for the life of me either.” – Anacaona
    “I’m a champion flirt when I want to be.” – J

    In comment 399, J was quoting Anacaona at comment 380…

  • mr. wavevector

    J,

    I used to hate hot and spicy food. If some guy had insisted on Thai or Mexican over my stated dislike for hot food, I’d want to go home.

    Back in the day (over 20 years ago now) when I was dating, I would always have a plan for the date, and a plan B in case the first one didn’t work out.

    Me: I’m taking you to the Bangkok Bistro.
    Her: Is that Thai? I hate Thai!
    Me: OK. The Maison Henri then.

    If she hated Plan B too, then it probably wasn’t meant to be.

    This discussion reveals the tricky set of demands that women place upon men – to be assertive and resourceful but empathetic and attuned to her needs at the same time. Believe me, it’s a tough juggling act.

  • mr. wavevector

    @Sassy6519,

    With my ex of one year, I used to mend his clothing.

    That’s awesome. I agree with INTJ that this type of nurturing behavior is very attractive. I get the impression that you project a tough exterior, and this shows there’s a softer part of you inside.

    One of the great pleasures of being a couple is caring for each other in different ways, and these gender-stereotyped acts often have a deep emotional resonance. The flip side is to let your partner do some of these things for you even if you can do it yourself.

  • VD

    In comment 399, J was quoting Anacaona at comment 380…

    Ah, that makes considerably more sense. Thanks. I’ve seen the yes/no thing plenty of times before, but not usually quite that egregiously in writing.

  • mr. wavevector

    There’s an interesting article about on Paula Broadwell on NYT touching on a couple of the themes in this thread: Petreaus and leadership.

    On her Twitter account, she often commented on the qualities of leadership. “Reason and calm judgment, the qualities specially belonging to a leader. Tacitus,” she wrote. In another message, she said: “A leader is a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they don’t want to do and like it. Truman.”

    I think that last quote is particularly germane to this discussion of dominance. Several of the folks here understand dominance only in its extreme, such as acting like Genghis Khan. But dominance exists on a spectrum, including the type of leadership that Truman described. Leadership is a dominant role by definition.

    Truman’s quote also shows why the guy shouldn’t just ask the girl what she wants to do. If he can take her somewhere she didn’t think she wanted to go but ends up enjoying it anyway, then he’s demonstrated leadership. In my observation, a lot of women like men who can challenge them like this and expand their horizons.

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

      @mr. wavevector

      This is just an aside, but I have been struck by how incredibly masculine Paula Broadwell is. I am referring to her personality and mindset, as well as her interests – she almost seems like a man trapped in a woman’s body. (Her body is obviously very fit, but even that seems masculine – all hard angles.)

      It’s really interesting to see which people are drawn to one another.

  • VD

    It’s inaccurate and even dangerous to assume that every guy who goes into the Game chute comes out the other end with the same degree of dominance.

    This is an astute observation. The jerk is always concerned that he’s being too nice. The pushover is always worrying that he’s being too forward. In the current milieu, the average guy needs to be more dominant and assertive. Worrying that such men might be be too assertive it is akin to worrying that drunk and unrestricted sorority girls might be too sexually repressed.

  • Höllenhund

    “The main cost in most cases is housing cost. If you live in an area, or even choose to live in a specific place in an area, which has low housing costs, obviously your overall cost of living is lower, and you need less income to to the SAHM thing comfortably.”

    Yeah, but I don’t think living as a SAHM among white trash and NAMs is much fun.

  • http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

    @ Hollenhund

    “And the thing with that is: has there ever been a documented case of women in any community making a conscious, organized and successful effort in order to end male-on-male violence? I think not.”

    The idea that women want to end male violence is a myth. During the War Between the States the women would hiss in public at men who decided not to fight.

    Then, of course, there was the whole white feather phenomenon in England where women tried to give white feathers to men who decided not to fight, One man said he collected a few dozen and was proud of it.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    I imagine it might also be difficult, say, for the female slutty STEM student who is surrounded by males less likely to be extremely unrestricted in their sociosexuality (though Ozymandias, a one-time commenter here, seems to have made a very successful sexual play for a lot of fellow STEM guys).

    Girls in STEM (slutty or not) clean up with the guys. The male-female ratio and scarcity mindset works wonders here. My EE friend likes Indian guys and has had hookups with around half the Indian EE majors. She, in her own words, gets “the pick of the bunch”.

  • Escoffier

    My living room looks like the library of a Pall Mall club circa 1910. Both the wife and I like it that way.

  • SayWhaat

    Girls in STEM (slutty or not) clean up with the guys. The male-female ratio and scarcity mindset works wonders here. My EE friend likes Indian guys and has had hookups with around half the Indian EE majors. She, in her own words, gets “the pick of the bunch”.

    Heh, agreed. One of my best friends (who resembles Ozymandias in many ways) attends GA Tech, and she has never been without a boyfriend/propositions. She even had a polygamous relationship at one point, though it blew up in her face. (Rather fantastically, I might add.)

  • SayWhaat

    I know women who are natural flirts and others who are completely incapable of it. I believe this is a combination of personality and feminist culture. Where’s the contradiction?

    I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about my feminine nature with respect to my cultural background and the way I was raised. It’s funny, but I can see how my mom tried to raise me with both a feminist/careerist mindset (“You need to go to grad school, don’t waste your time in your 20s!”) but still hews back to the feminine when it is convenient (“You should always finish off all the food on your plate, what will boys say if they see you cannot finish a meal? It is such a turn-off!”).

    In a larger sense, I can see where my Indian culture stepped in where my American culture failed me. For example, my dance background nurtured my feminine side whereas my mouth betrays me sometimes, lol.

    I still consider myself a dunce at flirting and recognizing the interest of other males, but I think I’m improving. It also helps to have a boyfriend who can verify said interests (“Yep, that Associate was definitely making a sexual power play”), lol. Yikes.

  • VD

    Doesn’t this say something about most men’s degree of interest in interior design? In the “bachelor pads” I’ve been to, there are often no items in the living room other than a sofa and a TV. Even the basic necessities have not been attended to. How about a coffee table to set that pizza box on?

    That’s the whole point! The “basic necessities” are no such thing in the male mind. They are frivolous unnecessities. And yet, even dominant men will often completely and proactively alter his living space, with which he is entirely content, in order to proactively suit his wife’s wishes. Women are so wholly unaccustomed to considering men’s wishes that they can’t even recognize when men are actually taking their wishes into account.

    It’s a continuum. Saying “we need to furnish the home”, then listening to his opinions and abiding by his vetoes is great. It’s a reasonable middle ground. But hardly the same as saying “hey, do you want to redecorate the kitchen or buy an old Porsche?” Your husband might well choose the redecorating. He might not. But the point is that he’d have a choice.

    I don’t understand what this point demonstrates if said by two different women. I know women who are natural flirts and others who are completely incapable of it. I believe this is a combination of personality and feminist culture. Where’s the contradiction?

    There is no actual contradiction here. It demonstrates nothing here. But such contradictions are readily observed, therefore the nonexistent contradiction can serve as a useful hypothetical example in walking through the underlying processes at work as I did at AG. Think of it like a wargame. Blue and Red are both actually US troops, but that doesn’t mean the exercise is useless in better understanding Soviet tactics.

    It’s not about flirting or not flirting. I’m interested in understanding how women can say X and Not-X and genuinely appear to believe both at the time they are saying it.

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

      Saying “we need to furnish the home”, then listening to his opinions and abiding by his vetoes is great. It’s a reasonable middle ground. But hardly the same as saying “hey, do you want to redecorate the kitchen or buy an old Porsche?” Your husband might well choose the redecorating. He might not. But the point is that he’d have a choice.

      I see the difference, but in our case my husband very much enjoys his comforts and considers those furnishings necessities. As I said, he is very aesthetically inclined – he nearly became an architect. He is so invested in the appearance of our garden (which I maintain), that he has timed summer vacations around not missing the daylilies blooming.

      Back to this:

      being female, you don’t understand how proactively most men take women’s wishes into account. Go to any married couple’s house.

      Among the couples we socialize with, the female’s having constructed a comfortable nest is a source of pride and satisfaction for the husbands. I do not believe her wishes take priority over his – or at least, he takes her wishes into account at the same time she takes his into account.

      Personally, wanting to buy an old Porche when there’s no coffee table on which to set the pizza box would be a red flag for me, as it would put his sole wants (assuming she does not also want the Porsche) ahead of the needs of the household (a table on which to eat).

      I’m interested in understanding how women can say X and Not-X and genuinely appear to believe both at the time they are saying it.

      Ah, OK. LOL, any woman who could say both those things in quick succession would have to be nuts.

  • Sai

    @VD
    “It is because men so proactively cater to women’s wishes that it is so vital for women to submit to their wishes when one actually gets expressed or there is a conflict.”
    You mean a woman can ask for something and her husband will just go get it?
    You’re all probably face-palming, going “DURRRR,” but so much of this is still new to me.
    But it’s starting to make more sense now.

    (One of my life goals is to knit stuff for all my family members… whether they want it or not. XD Dad is taken care of, Mom and Grandma are in progress.)

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    “You should always finish off all the food on your plate, what will boys say if they see you cannot finish a meal? It is such a turn-off!”

    LOL! Seems all Marathi kids have problems with finishing their food. :D

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    Heh, agreed. One of my best friends (who resembles Ozymandias in many ways) attends GA Tech, and she has never been without a boyfriend/propositions. She even had a polygamous relationship at one point, though it blew up in her face. (Rather fantastically, I might add.)

    Haha.

    I have had the feeling in the past that one of the girls in our STEM friend group is interested in me. Wouldn’t be surprising, considering I’m an AMOG there. The problem is that they tend to be either unrestricted, or have expressed a wish for not getting married or having kids, which are all dealbreakers for me.

  • INTJ

    @ Sai

    You mean a woman can ask for something and her husband will just go get it?
    You’re all probably face-palming, going “DURRRR,” but so much of this is still new to me.
    But it’s starting to make more sense now.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bYIPrsMgtc&feature=related&t=1m50s

  • INTJ

    @ VD

    It’s a reasonable middle ground. But hardly the same as saying “hey, do you want to redecorate the kitchen or buy an old Porsche?” Your husband might well choose the redecorating. He might not. But the point is that he’d have a choice.

    No he wouldn’t. If he decides to get the Porsche she’ll get mad about it. Just because she asks for your opinion doesn’t mean she won’t get angry about your opinion. There often tends to be a “correct” answer that you have to give otherwise she’ll get mad.

  • INTJ

    @ VD

    I’m interested in understanding how women can say X and Not-X and genuinely appear to believe both at the time they are saying it.

    That isn’t what happens though. What happens is that they will say X and Y, without thinking about how X and Y are mutually contradictory.

  • SayWhaat

    LOL! Seems all Marathi kids have problems with finishing their food.

    Haha, I can assure you it wasn’t always the case! Whenever I go home I just get served Indian food in American-sized portions. :P

  • SayWhaat

    What happens is that they will say X and Y, without thinking about how X and Y are mutually contradictory.

    I think it’s possible that there’s a nuance of overlap that others gloss over.

  • chris

    I think it can happen at the micro level, which is a big part of what I am trying to do here.

    True, but even then all your doing is walking westwards on the dock of a ship sailing eastwards.

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

      True, but even then all your doing is walking westwards on the dock of a ship sailing eastwards.

      Ha, don’t I know it! I’ve actually said before that I’m on the Titanic making observations and if you want to grab a deck chair I have a lot to say before it slips beneath the water.

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

    My husband has a strong sense of aesthetics and design. He is the best-dressed man I have ever met (I suspect Escoffier would top that, though.) When we furnished our home he had strong opinions re color and even fabric, and he had veto power over every decision.

    99% of the items and decorative choices in the house are done by hubby. I’m not the domestic type (except for cooking which I love and I’m very good at) and even so I was raised with only the basics so for me there is not a need to nest so I pretty much care little and hubby’s memory is triggered by objects so it makes sense to have him in charge of the decoration so he can have things that brings good memories, aside from my clothes and my books, gifts from him and my Twilight memorabilia and my PC I really don’t have much stuff that I treasure. But this is weird and I had gotten the ” subtle eyeroll of shame” every time some female friends here ask me “what had you done with the place?” I do wonder how much of the “nesting instinct of females” is done by real need of “pretty stuff” or herding from the other females to conform to the let’s show off our artistic skills by competing with the house? Just a though.

  • VD

    You mean a woman can ask for something and her husband will just go get it?

    Pretty much. If you are around another couple, pay attention to the difference between when a husband is going out and the wife asks him to pick something up and the other way around. More often than not, the husband will simply say “sure” even if he wasn’t intending to that store. This is less common with wives, who not infrequently will come up with some sort of excuse as to why she can’t, even if she is going to the same store. “Oh, I’ll have too much to carry, etc etc”

    Of course, this doesn’t mean the husband will actually remember….

    Among the couples we socialize with, the female’s having constructed a comfortable nest is a source of pride and satisfaction for the husbands. I do not believe her wishes take priority over his – or at least, he takes her wishes into account at the same time she takes his into account.

    No chance. No chance at all. Try talking to the guys when their wives aren’t around sometime. I’m not saying men don’t enjoy the construction of the comfortable nest, they do, but believe me, it is nowhere near the priority for them that it was for their wives. I’ll bet most of them can’t even identify some of the items they’ve bought, that’s how little they care.

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

      I’ll bet most of them can’t even identify some of the items they’ve bought, that’s how little they care.

      I don’t doubt that this is true. One pet peeve of my husband is having pillows everywhere. Six pillows on the bed, pillows on every chair and sofa. It drives him crazy, as he finds them very uncomfortable to lean against.

      I am also reminded of one of my favorite scenes from It’s a Wonderful Life:

      George: Gosh, it’s this old house. I don’t know why we don’t all have pneumonia. This drafty old barn! Might as well be living in a refrigerator. Why did we have to live here in the first place and stay around this measly, crummy old town?

      Mary: George, what’s wrong?

      George: Wrong? Everything’s wrong! You call this a happy family? Why did we have to have all these kids?

  • Höllenhund

    Re: 429

    Indeed. The simple fact is that women’s behavior normally escalates male-on-male violence (or mere competition) instead of ameliorating or curbing it. “Let’s you and him fight”, “prove that you’re a real man” and all that. The complete opposite of Lysistrata is the norm; Lysistrata is a mere invention. But you won’t read about this in the Atlantic.

  • mr. wavevector

    Susan,

    This is just an aside, but I have been struck by how incredibly masculine Paula Broadwell is. I am referring to her personality and mindset, as well as her interests

    So true. She’s like an alpha male in many ways. But like most women, she still must have wanted a man she could look up to. There are exceedingly few men that could top her; Petraeus must have been one. Hypergamy is tough when you’re at the top of the heap!

    But even she is getting in touch with her feminine side:

    “I was driven when I was younger,” she was quoted as saying on the Web site, noting her induction into her high school’s hall of fame. “Driven at West Point where it was much more competitive in that women were competing with men on many levels, and I was driven in the military and at Harvard, both competitive environments.”

    “But now,” she is quoted as saying, “as a working mother of two, I realize it is more difficult to compete in certain areas. I think it is important for working moms to recognize that family is the most important.”

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

    @ Hollenhund,

    “Indeed. The simple fact is that women’s behavior normally escalates male-on-male violence (or mere competition) instead of ameliorating or curbing it. “Let’s you and him fight”, “prove that you’re a real man” and all that. The complete opposite of Lysistrata is the norm; Lysistrata is a mere invention. But you won’t read about this in the Atlantic.”

    That “Let’s you and him fight” is a staple of fiction. Worse, many men have that White Knight attitude in which they feel compelled to come to a woman’s rescue, even when she doesn’t deserve it.

    It will never happen, but I wonder what women would do if men stopped protecting them? They think they deserve that chivalrous behavior from men, no matter what they do or say to men.

  • JP

    “That “Let’s you and him fight” is a staple of fiction””

    Classic Came.

    Games People Play.

    Some commonly found games
    Here are some of the most commonly found themes of games described in Games People Play by Eric Berne:

    “YDYB: Why Don’t You, Yes But. Historically, the first game discovered.
    IFWY: If It Weren’t For You
    WAHM: Why does this Always Happen to Me? (setting up a self-fulfilling prophecy)
    SWYMD: See What You Made Me Do
    UGMIT: You Got Me Into This
    LHIT: Look How Hard I’ve Tried
    ITHY: I’m Only Trying to Help You (becoming a neglected martyr)
    LYAHF: Let’s You and Him Fight (staging a love triangle)
    NIGYYSOB / NIGYSOB: Now I’ve Got You, You Son Of a Bitch (escalating minor disagreements or errors into major interpersonal conflicts)
    RAPO: A woman falsely cries ‘rape’ or threatens to; related to Buzz Off Buster, a milder version in which a woman flirts with a man and then rejects his advances”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis#Some_commonly_found_games

  • JP

    @INTJ:

    “That isn’t what happens though. What happens is that they will say X and Y, without thinking about how X and Y are mutually contradictory.”

    Things that appear contradictory are often not completely contradictory.

  • JP

    Anyhow, I was doing my periodic reading of Fabius Maximus, and I found this gem for everyone to enjoy.

    I was surprised to find it, but hey, I’m surprised by a lot of things.

    http://fabiusmaximus.com/2012/11/11/family-marriage-divorce-45446/#more-45446

  • J

    If she hated Plan B too, then it probably wasn’t meant to be.

    I think that’s fair. If I were a guy, I”d put the ball in her court at that point. I’d say, “OK, I’ve come up with two suggestions. At this point, I need you to help up a decision. I have this much to spend (if he’s paying) and I’m willing to drive this far. Within those parameters, where do want to go?’ No answer means there’s no where to go. A date is, in some ways, an interview for a partner. If two people can’t negotiate dinner pleasantly, I think they are pretty much screwed.

    This discussion reveals the tricky set of demands that women place upon men – to be assertive and resourceful but empathetic and attuned to her needs at the same time. Believe me, it’s a tough juggling act.

    LOL. Somewhere upthread is a query regarding what’s in it for a man in being with a “strong woman.” Well, for starters, we can generally express a dinner preference. For all the stated preference for coyness, I think most men really do get frustrated with the gaminess, coyness and lack of decisiveness on the part of “feminine” women. My own husband would tear his hair dealing with that sort of thing.

  • J

    @Olive and Sassy

    I knit, sew and crochet as well as cook, bake and can. Some of that stuff can be fun and creative, and people do appreciative handmade gifts.

    @Sassy

    I’m sorry you still miss him. That can be really hard. I do think that eventually you’ll met the right guy. You have a lot to offer. I think Ana offered some good strategies. I wouldn’t advocate a chance meeting like I had with DH because it leaves too much to, well, chance. ;-) OTOH, I think to some extent, it’s a numbers game. I think you need to identify what character traits you need in a man and then screen heavily for them. Don’t waste a lot of time with guys who aren’t really compatible on a fundamental level. It’s bad for both of you.

  • http://uncabob.blogspot.com/ Bob Wallace

    @ JP,

    “Here are some of the most commonly found themes of games described in Games People Play by Eric Berne:”

    The biggest problem I have with the Manosphere is that a lot of guys in it imitate the ideas of the “leaders.” Game, hamsters, alpha, beta, etc.

    They aren’t familiar with the fact people in the past covered these problems hundreds if not thousands of years ago. They don’t know novelists covered it, too. “Madame Bovary”? Shakespeare? “War and Peace”? Charles Dickens? Oh, yes, they covered it.

    Eric Berne distilled a lot of it in his “Games People Play,” along with his followers.

    In fact, feminism is mostly based on “It’s your fault,” blaming their problems on men. Unfortunately, a fair amount of the Manosphere is based on the same thing, only directed towards woman.

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

    @SW

    Looks like the right side got cut off, but the full chart is at the link. I don’t know why there’s no similar graphic for women.

    Thanks. One thing I noticed is that men’s and women’s preferences seem to have changed but also converged over time. I don’t know what to make about women placing home/children at #4, that seems to be the only major difference with men. This seems to be consistent, though, with the Men’s Health article I’ve cited once or twice.

    Though you often talk about the rise in hypergamy and narcissism amongst the younger generation, it doesn’t appear to be evident from this particular source. Perhaps information on “the bad” is naturally more cause for concern?

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

      @Megaman

      Though you often talk about the rise in hypergamy and narcissism amongst the younger generation, it doesn’t appear to be evident from this particular source. Perhaps information on “the bad” is naturally more cause for concern?

      ????Not sure I got that. Do you mean that people are not putting looks and superficial qualities at the top? What is “the bad?”

  • mr. wavevector

    For all the stated preference for coyness, I think most men really do get frustrated with the gaminess, coyness and lack of decisiveness on the part of “feminine” women.

    One thing I really like about my wife is that she is straightforward. She’s not very decisive, but she’s straightforward about her indecisiveness. If she can’t decide she asks me to. In fact, that’s a big part of the little dom/sub dynamic between us. We don’t often have a battle of wills over who gets to decide, because she’s generally all too happy to have me do it. And you know, that’s a service I do for her rather than a self-aggrandizement. Deciding stuff is hard work!

    On the other hand, when she really has her opinion on something, I usually don’t contest it unless it’s really important to me.

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “A CIA guy said that it’s bad b/c any secret represents leverage other actors may have over you, and this could really impact national security at that level. Makes sense. The whole thing is strange, though. I think Brendan’s right, this is going to be big.”

    Yeah, I was mostly being facetious with the question. Way, way back in the day in my former life (i.e., before law school and Big Law (TM) and all that), I was EE for a brief time with pretty high level clearance (and this was back when the Soviets were still quite strong and this was taken seriously). Doing something that would put in you in a position to be blackmailed (whether or not you broke a law) was a big no-no. For the head of the CIA to do it, is a really really big no-no. Not sure if that means others haven’t done it. I would guess that President Kennedy doing things that could have gotten him blackmailed was an even bigger no-no.

    Scary that a loose cannon like John Edwards could get so close the VP spot in this day and age where it would be so easy to get dirt on him.

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

      @Passer By

      Scary that a loose cannon like John Edwards could get so close the VP spot in this day and age where it would be so easy to get dirt on him.

      I was thinking about that! John Edwards was a promising presidential candidate for a time! (Amanda Marcotte worked on his campaign until she was fired for bigoted statements.) What a slimy operator.

      It’s probably naive of me, but I really prefer a President with exemplary character, if possible.

  • JP

    One of the current problems in modern society is the massive amount of time you have to waste to get the meaningless credentials you need to begin some sort of career.

    College? Absolute waste of time. I ended up with a chemical engineering degree I could have cared less about and I was stuck in the stupid degree because I was on a full engineering scholarship.

    Law School? Nearly absolute waste of time. I could have picked up what I needed in about a year.

    How in the world do you get anywhere when you go into college with no idea who you are or what you are doing with yourself?

    The entire system is a complete mess from a human perspective and this entire feminism-relationship mess just kind of flows from that.

  • JP

    On sober second thought, I would never have learned mysticism if I hadn’t been in college or financial speculation if I hadn’t been in law school.

    So I learned things.

    Just not the things I was ostensibly there to lean.

  • Sai

    I didn’t know it was so easy for women to ask for stuff.

    @JP
    “Anyhow, I was doing my periodic reading of Fabius Maximus, and I found this gem for everyone to enjoy.”
    I read a few more posts on his page. He seems unhappy, but I’m not quite sure what it is he wants from other Americans.

    @Passer_By
    “I was EE for a brief time with pretty high level clearance (and this was back when the Soviets were still quite strong and this was taken seriously).”
    Wow, what was that like?

  • JP

    @Sai:

    Fabius Maximus is always unhappy, it seems.

    I don’t recommend reading his blog if you want to be happy, but I thought that particular post was interesting.

    And I don’t know what he wants, either. I don’t think he knows what he wants.

    I don’t read it often, it’s just on my large “blog list” and I happened to see it.

  • Escoffier

    I read some of that blog after your link because I love Bloom and I figured that someone who loves Bloom would be worth a look but he seems all over the map.

    College was, for me too, intellectually useless except to the extent that I ignored what I was asigned and read on my own, and a handful of good profs and one great prof. Grad school, on the other hand, was golden.

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

    Are you sure that said boss doesn’t read the blog? Just sayin’ …

    Haha, no worries there. But thanks, there have definitely been times when I’ve been a tad indiscreet.

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

      Esau, now I’m paranoid! Deleting that comment!

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

    I despise John Edwards, and as a Democrat I’m ashamed he once represented my party as the VP candidate (admittedly before I could vote lol). What really pisses me off about him, more than the fact that he was using campaign money to cover up his affair/love child, is that he did it while his wife was dying of breast cancer! What a sleazeball.

  • J

    One thing I really like about my wife is that she is straightforward. She’s not very decisive, but she’s straightforward about her indecisiveness. If she can’t decide she asks me to.

    It’s nice that she’s straightforward. Real, hard core indecisiveness is sort of hard for me to relate to. With the exception of a few areas were we each have particular expertise, DH and I share decision-making with the idea that two heads are better than one. Where one of us has a particular talent or expertise related to our professions, we tend to defer to each other.

    We don’t often have a battle of wills over who gets to decide, because she’s generally all too happy to have me do it.

    We don’t have battles of the wills either, but we also have very similar values and tastes. We picked each other on that basis and have grown even more similar through the years.

    And you know, that’s a service I do for her rather than a self-aggrandizement. Deciding stuff is hard work!

    It can be, but it’s an inescapable part of adult life. I can understand not wanting to make decisions sometimes. It can, in fact, be really painful at times; I’ve had to make life and death medical decisions for others that I agonized over, but as an adult I had to make them.

    On the other hand, when she really has her opinion on something, I usually don’t contest it unless it’s really important to me.

    That’s reasonable.

  • HanSolo

    @VD

    Try talking to the guys when their wives aren’t around sometime. I’m not saying men don’t enjoy the construction of the comfortable nest, they do, but believe me, it is nowhere near the priority for them that it was for their wives. I’ll bet most of them can’t even identify some of the items they’ve bought, that’s how little they care.

    This reminds me of Pride and Prejudice but changing the subject to houses from this:

    “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”

    “It is a truth universally [assumed by married women], that a [married] man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a [bigger, nicer house].”

    On a sample of two my mom and sister were/are that way. lol

  • J

    SW: My husband has a strong sense of aesthetics and design.
    Ana: 99% of the items and decorative choices in the house are done by hubby

    That’s interesting. DH also has a strong sense of aesthetics and design. With the exception of inherited pieces, just about everything else was spurchased together.

    It’s funny sometimes how similar the female HUS commenters can be in such random ways.

  • HanSolo

    Chris Rock on the differences between men and women:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPesKyIhGZg

    Women cannot go backwards in lifestyle. No going back once you date a man with a car, then with his own house, then one who takes you on vacation. lol

    Men cannot go backwards sexually.

  • HanSolo

    From Dave Chapelle, “If men could fuck a woman in a cardboard box, he wouldn’t buy a house.” And men get nice surroundings because women like it.

    Start at 01:30

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZRflz-93JA

  • Mike C

    Men cannot go backwards sexually.

    Han, what do you mean by this?

  • HanSolo

    @Mike C

    That was what Chris Rock said. That once a man experiences certain kinds of sex he likes he’s not going to want to go back to lesser kinds. I agree that you’re going to want it sometimes but I don’t think you need it that way every time.

  • Barky

    Mrs. Walsh, I hope you don’t take this as an offensive remark, but I found your belief that men would line up for marriage if women were to demand a ring on their finger before putting out. It’s funny because most young men have been fed a diet of porn since puberty and many, if not most guys below the age of 25 are too in love with porn. They aren’t interested in sex. Matter of fact, the youngish guys have their standards too high. I’ve heard ugly guys say the hottest of girls – and they are perfect – are nothing special. Speaking of myself: an 8.5 offered oral, but I refused. I’m not a nine nor a 10. I refused because free sex is often the most expensive, and I’m more interested in unlocking all of the modern warfare 3 achievements(no sex means no drama, no stds etc).

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

      @Barky

      It’s funny because most young men have been fed a diet of porn since puberty and many, if not most guys below the age of 25 are too in love with porn. They aren’t interested in sex. Matter of fact, the youngish guys have their standards too high. I’ve heard ugly guys say the hottest of girls – and they are perfect – are nothing special.

      Thanks for this comment, you make a really good point. Men are indeed finding other ways to gratify their needs and wants.

  • chris
  • Ion

    @ J

    “I think most men really do get frustrated with the gaminess, coyness and lack of decisiveness on the part of “feminine” women.”

    There are different forms of femininity. Just because a woman isn’t dominant, doesn’t mean she’s a lapdog or a game player. For example, being shy does not mean that I’m pretending to be coy for a guy. It’s how I actually behave around all new people I meet. Indecisive? Describes me, but it’s something I consider a flaw that I’m trying to work on, etc., I agree with Hope above that women can be direct, sweet, etc., at the same time. I’m a passive person, but so is my dad and brothers and they are all happily married.

    I remember up thread somewhere about “feminine wiles” being playing games and manipulation and I agree. I’ve seen some nasty beeyotches get flip on the “girl switch” (either crying or acting like a child) when a man is present. Usually these women are dominant extroverts, and I disagree that they should have to do this to get men. I think dominant/submissive women can cultivate aspects of their personality to find mates that will suit them.

  • Ion

    @ Barky

    “Matter of fact, the youngish guys have their standards too high. I’ve heard ugly guys say the hottest of girls – and they are perfect – are nothing special.”

    Totally agree. I think this goes back to what Ana was saying upthread about media slanting the attractiveness scale. Men think women are “average” who are above average, and are therefore confused about who’s in their league (i.e. I was surprised to hear that men said Kate Bollick was below average in some cases, which happened many posts ago).

  • Ion

    “Girls in STEM (slutty or not) clean up with the guys. The male-female ratio and scarcity mindset works wonders here. My EE friend likes Indian guys and has had hookups with around half the Indian EE majors. She, in her own words, gets “the pick of the bunch”.”

    Hahahaha. Reminds me of my brother’s stories about women cleaning up in the military. Not only for hookups, but for marriage (for guys wanting to get out of the Barracks, getting hitched is a great motivator…).

  • Ian

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/201004/five-tests-determine-if-your-partner-will-cheat

    Interesting.

    I see your link, and raise you:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18957940

    Everything’s structural, and a major structural problem with feminism is that it requires the removal of the mother from an infant, screwing up the kid’s oxytocin system for later in life. No oxytocin, no bonding, no marriage, less people for infants to bond with. See below:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/karolinska-institute-divorce-gene_n_1304899.html

    Some percentage of the problem with college has to be that a large percentage of the kids are starting from scratch socially there – no families, no old friends. Social animals, remember. Grab bag: Caesarian sections are a sucky idea too. Organized education before the age of ten. Pitocin…

  • INTJ

    @ Ion

    I was surprised to hear that men said Kate Bollick was below average in some cases, which happened many posts ago.

    IIRC, men objected to Susan’s description of Kate Bollick as “gorgeous”. She’s certainly good looking for her age, but let’s face it, she’s past her prime and she’s no stunner without heavy lipstick, makeup, and airbrushing:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh7ziNnCiBo

  • deti

    So the whole point of this article is that a Lysistrata situation in which women withhold sex as a cartel in order to achieve a certain objective is never going to work, because you’ll always have a few “strike breakers”.

    Here’s my question. Is there peer pressure for women in general to start having sex? I’m talking about a specific kind of peer pressure here. Not talking about a BF pressuring a GF to “go all the way”. Not talking about a player mack daddying a girl into bed for the night. I’m not really even talking about media or cultural pressures. I am talking about women specifically pressuring, directly or indirectly, their friends and acquaintances into casual sex or sexual activity in general, when they don’t want it for whatever reason (moral, avoid diseases, etc)

    My take on this is that maybe there is a little of this, but I can’t see it being much of a factor in women’s sexual decisions. I can’t see GFs telling other women that “you gotta try this, it’s GREAT” (like sampling a deep dish pizza or a microbrew beer) or “you can’t hang with us if you’re not sleeping around”.

    It seems to me more that women are not having sex because other women in their peer groups are or because other women in their groups think they should have sex. It appears to me that women are having sex, casual sex, and “in a relationship” sex more because they want to and because there are no (at least immediately) negative consequences for it. And they can select the top men for sex, because they can. So not only is there a lack of bad consequences, they can select pretty much the top men to have sex with.

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

      @deti

      I am talking about women specifically pressuring, directly or indirectly, their friends and acquaintances into casual sex or sexual activity in general, when they don’t want it for whatever reason (moral, avoid diseases, etc)

      I think it depends on the crowd. Certainly, women in sororities pressure one another to not be a “prude” or “buzzkill.” After all, maintaining a steady stream of attention from top frats won’t happen if the girls in a sorority are perceived as no fun. OTOH, I have never heard of this happening as part of rush, i.e., “Are you prepared to hook up with randoms?” I do know that it is quite common on the day sororities get their new pledges to get them very drunk and have a mixer with a frat. So they’re very actively primed for certain kinds of behavior. And these groups account for half of hookups.

      In other student populations there are fewer social “rules”, so there are not the same kinds of norms to adhere to or practices to promote.

      IOW, women who hook up do actively promote hooking up, reward each other with shots and high fives for outrageous hooking up stories, and generally avoid socializing with women who avoid that behavior.

      And they can select the top men for sex, because they can. So not only is there a lack of bad consequences, they can select pretty much the top men to have sex with.

      Obviously, attractive women willing to have casual sex can select from the most desirable men. Not all promiscuous women fit that description, though. (See the campus Women’s Center for evidence :) ). It’s also important to define “top men” – only 4% of college men have more than six partners.

  • deti

    Susan: “Among the couples we socialize with, the female’s having constructed a comfortable nest is a source of pride and satisfaction for the husbands. I do not believe her wishes take priority over his – or at least, he takes her wishes into account at the same time she takes his into account.”

    VD: “No chance. No chance at all. Try talking to the guys when their wives aren’t around sometime. I’m not saying men don’t enjoy the construction of the comfortable nest, they do, but believe me, it is nowhere near the priority for them that it was for their wives. I’ll bet most of them can’t even identify some of the items they’ve bought, that’s how little they care.”

    VD is right on this. I have a nice house and nice stuff, but we have that nice house because of Mrs. deti and the kids. No Mrs. deti, no kids, no nice house, a lot less nice stuff. Not because I don’t want the nice house and stuff; but because I just don’t care about whether I have it or not.

    And I don’t care about whether I have it or not because I don’t need it. It seems to please Mrs. deti, so we have it.

    The house we are in now? There’s no way I would have purchased it if it were just me. No way in hell. It would cost too much and take too much time and money to take care of.

    And so when I tell Mrs. deti I don’t care whether the color is mauve or taupe or aquamarine; I don’t care whether it’s French colonial or art deco; it is not that I don’t care about her or the house or how it looks. It is because I genuinely don’t care. I am glad to let her have what she wants. All I care about is the price tag.

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

      Here is Vox’s original comment:

      It sounds that way because, being female, you don’t understand how proactively most men take women’s wishes into account. Go to any married couple’s house. Look at the items in the living room. Then guess what percentage of them would have been purchased if the woman did not live there. It is because men so proactively cater to women’s wishes that it is so vital for women to submit to their wishes when one actually gets expressed or there is a conflict. Being solipsistic, many, if not most wives couldn’t even tell you what their husband’s wishes and interests are.

      I think there are two main points here:

      Men eagerly cater to women’s wishes wrt the home. Men agree, and I won’t disagree – although I do know that my husband derives great pleasure from our home. Would he have purchased it and furnished it if he were single? Of course not. One of the reasons he loves being married is that he gets to live in a comfy, cozy nest with good meals and sex. By indulging my nesting instinct, he benefits directly both physically and psychologically.

      Which I think disproves the other point, which is that most wives couldn’t tell you what their husband’s wishes and interests are. I could write a lengthy essay on it – any other wives want to weigh in?

  • Lokland

    @Bob Wallace, Hollenhund

    “It will never happen, but I wonder what women would do if men stopped protecting them? They think they deserve that chivalrous behavior from men, no matter what they do or say to men”

    They freak out have a sever panic attack and quickly come to the realization that you only kill lions when she is not being a bitch.
    Beyond that, learning that bitchy behaviour will not just result in you not killing lions but actively leaving her where ever she happens to be is quite frightening and ultimately decreases the frequency and intensity of bitchy behaviour.

    Trust me.

    Of course, its probably better to just let her get eaten by a lion and find a new one thats pleasant.

    “Lets you and him fight.”

    “Nah you can go for it thought.” Walk away. Find new woman.

  • JP

    “Some percentage of the problem with college has to be that a large percentage of the kids are starting from scratch socially there – no families, no old friends. ”

    This is the reason why I always say that college pretty much broke me as a person.

    Basically five years of depression, anxiety, and social withdraw because I lacked the emotional maturity and life coping skills to be there.

    I still haven’t figured out how to recover from it and reconstitute my life into something meaningful for me. And I started college 20 years ago.

  • Ion

    INTJ, I get that as a 40 yr old, she’s certainly past her prime, and certainly don’t mean to rehash the “hot or not” re Kate Bolick. I do think she’s attractive (obviously she would have been much more so at 26, probably a 7/8 or so). And she definitely looks totally different in that video than she does in pictures (airbrushing definitely does wonders).

    The thing is, average means just that, average. If men don’t view the majority of women in their own age range as attractive, then they want someone ABOVE average.

    What is SUPPOSED to be average, and what actually is are two different stories for both genders. We can certainly blame media for contributing to the notion that there are plenty of extremely attractive young women and wildly successful men to go around. We filter based on perception, so a good chunk of us are going to mainly notice the people who are out of our league IRL.

  • JP

    @Barky:

    Here are two life hints:

    (1) Using porn is generally a dumb idea. So avoid it.

    (2) Playing too many computer games is generally a dumb idea. So avoid it.

  • Lokland

    @VD, Susan

    Early 20s, apartment consisted of box spring/mattress, 4 pillows, desk, lamp, clothes dress, bookshelf.

    Mid-20s- I was such an epic interior decorator the ground was set aflame where I walked. Jokes.

    I take quit a bit of pride in having a well decorated home but thats because I reached this point where I get absolutely sick of the bachelor pad.

    Although VD is right. I made many changes to accommodate the lady.

  • SayWhaat

    Here’s my question. Is there peer pressure for women in general to start having sex?

    Absolutely, deti. Absolutely.

    The peer pressure is the root of virgin-shaming. I’ve been in the presence of a group of girls who gossip about things such as:

    – how embarrassing it is for a girl to be a virgin past the age of 19
    – how much of a loser one girl was after losing her virginity at 21 (this info was revealed at said girl’s bachelorette party)
    – how people who remain virgins at 20 are on a fast-track to being 40yo virgins

    Now, I focused exclusively on virgin-shaming, but in the past it was slut-shaming that enforced girls from NOT having sex (or at least, not having sex without being in a relationship)

    Peer pressure from girls, enforced by girls, is about one of the strongest influences there is. It supersedes your role as a parent. Your authority is simply not enough to counter it.

    That is why it’s so important to make sure your children are hanging out with “the right crowd.”

  • deti

    SayWHaat:

    Keep in mind I’m asking about a particular kind of peer pressure: Women pressuring other women in their peer group into having casual sex, or sex in general.

    So you’re saying one thing you’ve seen is virgin shaming. I get that, I suppose. Pressuring women into not being virgins; “have sex with a guy and get it over with”. That seems to me to be the “college boyfriend” phenomenon: virgin graduates HS and/or is college freshman; gets BF, has sex with BF, enjoy sex for a while until one of them gets tired of it or she meets someone better or he gets an ONS.

    But that seems different from pressure into casual sex — have sex with the hot guy, go home with the hot guy, break up with that loser and get with that sharp dude over there, etc.

  • SayWhaat

    But that seems different from pressure into casual sex — have sex with the hot guy, go home with the hot guy, break up with that loser and get with that sharp dude over there, etc.

    That happens too.
    “OMG just go for it, we’re young, have fun!”
    “Don’t be such a prude. This is why you don’t have a boyfriend.”

    Followed by celebratory drinks at brunch so the pressured girl can feel less like shit afterwards.

  • SayWhaat

    IIRC this happened at one of Susan’s focus groups too. A pair of best friends were arguing and one snapped, “why don’t you hook up? Everyone thinks you’re such a prude.” Or something to that effect.

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

      IIRC this happened at one of Susan’s focus groups too. A pair of best friends were arguing and one snapped, “why don’t you hook up? Everyone thinks you’re such a prude.” Or something to that effect.

      Yes, that did happen, between the girl with the highest N and the girl with the lowest N. Which illustrates why promiscuous women shame prudes. They are well aware how men feel about female promiscuity, and they look better when more women have high N. You may recall this comment left by a woman at Feministing:

      “There is this notion of slut shaming in the media and it happens on a more personal level among people who shame one another. There is also something that is discussed on other websites but never in the wider media – something called slut rejection. The latter is what heterosexual men who seek a life partner supposedly engage in. I have personal experience with this. My ex did not try to shame me but upon knowing more about me, he just sort of faded away. Its so wrong that women may have to lie or not say anything and either strategy is prone to backfire. I believe that if men had less alternatives, that is if most or many women had a fruitful sexual history, then that would become the norm and therefore acceptable.”

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Ion: “Totally agree. I think this goes back to what Ana was saying upthread about media slanting the attractiveness scale. Men think women are “average” who are above average, and are therefore confused about who’s in their league”

    I totally disagree, this sounds like feminist boilerplate. The OKCupid graph clearly showed that men rate women’s attractiveneess on a perfect bell curve. It’s women who rate the typical man as below average. Care to explain this discrepancy for me?

    Now, the second half of that article DOES show that men will often send emails (and remember, an email is a low-cost approach) to higher-ranked women, and women will send email to lower-ranked men. I believe these to be risk/reward calculations, where SMV is one factor, not solely judgement of SMV. The fact that approaches are skewed do not necessarily show the entire story of how the sexes see each other.

  • Lokland

    @OTC, Ion

    Lets put it simply.
    Men see women on a bell curve and we realize where we are on that curve.
    We are also totally aware that were are shooting out of our league.

    However if by some miracle it works…. happy dance.

  • deti

    “Followed by celebratory drinks at brunch so the pressured girl can feel less like shit afterwards.”

    More like “You fucked up. You listened to us/trusted us.”

  • mr. wavevector

    @ deti;

    And so when I tell Mrs. deti I don’t care whether the color is mauve or taupe or aquamarine; I don’t care whether it’s French colonial or art deco; it is not that I don’t care about her or the house or how it looks. It is because I genuinely don’t care. I am glad to let her have what she wants. All I care about is the price tag.

    I used to have this attitude too. I would get annoyed at mrs. wavevector for always asking my opinion about stuff I didn’t care about. I thought I was doing her a favor by just saying “whatever you want dear, you decide”. So I was puzzled that she didn’t really seem to like that answer – although she couldn’t tell me why.

    I realized two things were going on with her. First, she was soliciting my involvement because she wanted the decision making to be a bonding activity. My involvement signifies more than just the practical matter of making a decision – it signifies my emotional investment in her. Second, she doesn’t have high self confidence in her own decision making. If I wasn’t there she would turn to her parents for help. So it’s reassuring to her to have me around, because I do have a lot of confidence in my decision making ability.

    My wife responds positively when I play the role of benevolent leader – understanding her needs, opinions, and desires; leading the way through the decision tree; and ultimately making the final decision if necessary. This demonstrates both alpha leader and beta comfort skills. Emotional closeness and good sex ensues.

    Sometimes just giving the wife what she seems to want isn’t the answer. What she really wants may be much more involved emotionally and psychologically.

  • Jackie

    Deti, SayWhaat is absolutely right. The peer pressure of The Herd can have more pull than g force at NASA. The only way you can win against it is not to play.

    For me, that meant I could have those girls as friendly acquaintances but never really true friends. And a huge swath of people and events will have be kept at arms length. (I’m not saying “don’t go,” I am saying “see it for what it is.”) The best way to keep your (her) head about it is to view it with the detachment of an anthropologist, ie the beginning of the movie Mean Girls.

    The best thing you can do for your daughter is to help her build her friendships with like-minded girls. Girls with good character who are on the right track.

    The second-best thing you can do is to keep the lines of communication open. NOT preaching at her or sneering with disapproval, “You should know better.” Nothing will get her to shut down or become secretive faster. I have heard it said dismissal and contempt is a failure of love. And that love needs to say, You deserve so much better than this, how can I help you?

    That is my 0.02, Deti. I will be thinking of you and your daughter–

  • deti

    SayWhaat:

    “That happens too.
    “OMG just go for it, we’re young, have fun!”
    “Don’t be such a prude. This is why you don’t have a boyfriend.””

    OK, but how much of a factor is this in a woman’s decisionmaking process in having sex? Can’t be very much, it seems to me. It would seem that, knowing women as I do, the greater factors are

    1. her attraction to the man
    2. biological factors — her overall horniness, where she is in her ovulation cycle, etc.
    3. how she feels about and perceives herself

    See, it seems to me if it’s really just about casual sex or getting it over with because your BFFs are pressuring you, just pick a man and sex him. But it’s not just that. She’s not going home with Paul Pimpleface or Ned Nerd. She’s going home with Alpha McGorgeous or Harley McBadboy.

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

      OK, but how much of a factor is this in a woman’s decisionmaking process in having sex? Can’t be very much, it seems to me.

      Casual sex is either going to be congruent for the woman or incongruent. For the female with unrestricted sociosexuality, peer pressure is not required. She is on the front lines, and she will be drawn to high testosterone men. It’s that simple.

      For the unrestricted female – say a college freshmen who hopes for a boyfriend rather than a string of hookups – peer pressure may influence her perception of casual sex as the best (or even only) strategy for getting a boyfriend. Many freshmen experiment with hooking up at first (75% do not have intercourse) and stop due to feelings of regret and discomfort.

      The biggest influence on college campuses is Pluralistic Ignorance – the belief that everyone else is considerably more comfortable with and accepting of the practice than you are. This is reinforced by the conversations that girls have with one another.

  • Jackie

    @Deti
    “OK, but how much of a factor is this in a woman’s decisionmaking process in having sex? Can’t be very much, it seems to me. It would seem that, knowing women as I do, the greater factors are

    1. her attraction to the man
    2. biological factors — her overall horniness, where she is in her ovulation cycle, etc.
    3. how she feels about and perceives herself”
    ==========
    Remember Susan’s story about TCF going home with the porn star? The bragging rights? Social cachet among the group has a HUGE motivator.

    Remember how Jacqueline Friedman wrote the “sluthood” articles asking for support and “empowerment”? That is what it takes for that culture to thrive.

    The pull of the herd will override all.

  • deti

    Jackie:

    “Remember Susan’s story about TCF going home with the porn star? The bragging rights? Social cachet among the group has a HUGE motivator.

    “Remember how Jacqueline Friedman wrote the “sluthood” articles asking for support and “empowerment”? That is what it takes for that culture to thrive.”

    Yeah, I remember those stories. But those are sex pozzies. How widespread is the bragging rights aspect, i.e. Susie Snowflake gets high fives for bagging Frank Fratboy or Alpha McGorgeous?

  • Ion

    OTC, can you link the graph on OKcupid you’re referring to?

    “I totally disagree, this sounds like feminist boilerplate.”

    What? HOW?

    “The OKCupid graph clearly showed that men rate women’s attractiveneess on a perfect bell curve. It’s women who rate the typical man as below average. Care to explain this discrepancy for me?”

    That many of the men on OKCupid could possibly be below average?

    “I believe these to be risk/reward calculations, where SMV is one factor, not solely judgement of SMV. The fact that approaches are skewed do not necessarily show the entire story of how the sexes see each other.”

    Women reward themselves for making the first move by sending messages only to the men on the top of the list, just like when women approach men, they reward themselves for taking the initiative by shooting above their weight. Window shopping shows us little about what we’d actually be willing to purchase.

    Another potential problem is that climbing obesity is changing the average spectrum; men who want a fit young woman is no longer within his league if he is below/average, because the average woman is no longer fit. It’s comparable to young women in major cities wanting men who earn more than they do. I’m not saying that female hypergamy isn’t a problem, I know it is. But how can we fix the problem when what’s available is being skewed by media?

  • Ion

    Lokland

    “Lets put it simply.
    Men see women on a bell curve and we realize where we are on that curve.
    We are also totally aware that were are shooting out of our league.

    However if by some miracle it works…. happy dance.”

    LOL. :-D

  • Jackie

    @Deti
    “How widespread is the bragging rights aspect, i.e. Susie Snowflake gets high fives for bagging Frank Fratboy or Alpha McGorgeous?”
    ====
    Deti,
    Hmmm… The dynamics can be complex. Let me just give you an example from real life:

    In college, I went out with some friendly acquaintances (all girls) to go dancing. While there we met a bunch of guys who were there from out of town. One of them, a very cute German (a pilot? I think? His English was terrible, my German is crap and, anyway, it was loud in there) asked me to dance and we ended up dancing and talking until it was time to go home.

    One of girls was *TICKED* at me because she liked him and was trying to get with another guy so GP (German Pilot) could see how attractive she was. The rest of the girls were thrilled that drama was stirring on multiple levels– me vs her, what was happening with these guys, GP vs Other Guy. (Sound and fury signifying NOTHING. I know!)

    Anyway, if I had “hooked up” with GP, it would have not only impressed this group of girls but it would have taken this other girl down a peg as well with the hierarchy. The thrill of being chosen– especially if it’s over a “frenemy” has a weird power over girls.

    (An epilogue: At the end of the night, GP told me he wasn’t interested in going home with me. Ha ha! As I had made no such proposition and was probably even more morally strict than I am now, I just told him I appreciated his honesty. ;) )

    This is just one example from one evening from one set of acquaintances. I’d say if you are a frequenter of clubs, bars, drinking and dancing that it’s par for the course.

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

      I’m not sure how this fits in with Deti’s theory, but I’ve heard many women describe waking up in the morning and feeling horrified by who they see sleeping next to them. They often sneak out. Don’t forget, college students often have a lot to drink – 7-9 drinks for women and 10-15 for men. They do this in part to get drunk enough to hook up, and the “selection” process at closing time is often less than rigorous, on both sides. I’ve seen women tease one another mercilessly for hooking up with a guy everyone thought was ugly, a loser, a manwhore, etc.

  • J

    For me, that meant I could have those girls as friendly acquaintances but never really true friends. And a huge swath of people and events will have be kept at arms length.

    One thing that I think is hard for young people top learn is that it’s better to go for quality as opposed to quantity when it comes to friends. Kids, male and female, have a pack mentality. They are working hard to break away from family and be more independent, but they need the support of a peer group in order to do that. Popular kids not only have the benefits of popularity, there are also usually farther along in the task of separating from parents and therefore seem more mature. That’s what makes them so appealing.

    The best thing you can do for your daughter is to help her build her friendships with like-minded girls. Girls with good character who are on the right track.

    Great advice. I recently had a talk with my sons selecting friends whose company will do them so good.

  • J

    But those are sex pozzies.

    Indeed.

    How widespread is the bragging rights aspect, i.e. Susie Snowflake gets high fives for bagging Frank Fratboy or Alpha McGorgeous?

    It depends on the clique. Most of the daughters of my friends would not behave that way, but I do think that the more unrestricted girls reinforce each other’s behavior, probably, as Jackie says, to keep each other from feeling like shit.

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

    Yeah, I remember those stories. But those are sex pozzies. How widespread is the bragging rights aspect, i.e. Susie Snowflake gets high fives for bagging Frank Fratboy or Alpha McGorgeous?

    Clearly you’ve never been present when a girl admits she banged Tucker Max. Serious bragging rights, apparently.

    Susan’s partly right in that it depends on the group. But here’s some food for thought. I once studied abroad with three other female students. Two of us were incredibly inexperienced sexually: I’d kissed two boys, she’d kissed one, and neither of us had done anything else. The other two were approaching (P in V) partner counts of 30. They were constantly sensationalizing the hookup experience and sort of poking fun at the rest of us, and by the end of the semester, both of us who were less experienced had gone waaaaaay outside our comfort zones. I did some of the most risky, stupid shit I’ve ever done that semester. The Queen Bee and her sidekick(s) are incredibly powerful.

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

      @Olive

      They were constantly sensationalizing the hookup experience and sort of poking fun at the rest of us, and by the end of the semester, both of us who were less experienced had gone waaaaaay outside our comfort zones. I did some of the most risky, stupid shit I’ve ever done that semester. The Queen Bee and her sidekick(s) are incredibly powerful.

      That’s a great example of incongruent behavior – the restricted female adopting unrestricted behavior and feeling uncomfortable, strictly on account of peer pressure.

  • JP

    @Olive:

    “Clearly you’ve never been present when a girl admits she banged Tucker Max. Serious bragging rights, apparently.”

    One of the things I deeply regret in life was not being at the party in law school when my roomate almost inserted Mr. Max into a fireplace.

    It haunts me to this day.

  • JP

    ” For the female with unrestricted sociosexuality, peer pressure is not required. She is on the front lines, and she will be drawn to high testosterone men. It’s that simple.”

    So some people are….born….evil….

  • J

    Which I think disproves the other point, which is that most wives couldn’t tell you what their husband’s wishes and interests are. I could write a lengthy essay on it – any other wives want to weigh in?

    I feel like I know DH inside and out. Everything from his favorite dish (stuffed pork chops with sauerkraut) and his preferred shirt style and fabric(blue or white oxford) to his tastes in books and music. I have had duplicate orders from Amazon arrive within days of one another because he has already ordered himself the same items that I am attempting to surprise him with. In terms of values, I’ve said before that screening for mutual values was played a big part in our courtship on both sides, so that sort of thing was discussed ad nauseum.

  • J

    For the unrestricted female – say a college freshmen who hopes for a boyfriend rather than a string of hookups – peer pressure may influence her perception of casual sex as the best (or even only) strategy for getting a boyfriend. Many freshmen experiment with hooking up at first (75% do not have intercourse) and stop due to feelings of regret and discomfort.

    I’ve stories of this from my friends’ daughters.

  • J

    @Olive

    Queen Bees have as much power as you give them. Now that you’ve had an opportunity to experience their influence, you’ll be able to see their bullshit coming and deal with it appropriately. Just some motherly advice.

  • J

    One of the things I deeply regret in life was not being at the party in law school when my roomate almost inserted Mr. Max into a fireplace.

    LOL. I envy your social circle.

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

    J,
    Two things. First, I generally don’t expose myself to Queen Bees or all-female herds anymore. I said this elsewhere and I think you responded, but just to reiterate, the best strategy I’ve found is to spend time with individual female friends depending on their relevance to your life situation. For example, I have a friend with bipolar. I also have a friend who knits. Both good people, no reason to introduce them and create a group dynamic.

    Second, what I described above occurred four years ago, when I was 20. I like to think I’ve matured a bit since then.

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

    @SW

    ????Not sure I got that. Do you mean that people are not putting looks and superficial qualities at the top? What is “the bad?”

    Right, generally speaking those traits haven’t shifted to the top of the lists. Interesting that “good looks” rose more for men than for women, but both are still about where they were 20+ years ago.

    By “the bad”, I meant the negative consequences of narcissism and promiscuity, which are a cause for concern, but you’ve presented enough evidence to show they aren’t widespread or universal. Though the restricted crowd trying to establish relationships seem to have more trouble than they used to, particularly in college. A theory on that is, despite a spectrum of different activity, there’s two primary “camps” in the SMP that don’t mix very well at all…

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

      @Megaman

      A theory on that is, despite a spectrum of different activity, there’s two primary “camps” in the SMP that don’t mix very well at all…

      Yes, that is the theory I’m working under at the present time.

  • J

    @wave

    I realized two things were going on with her. First, she was soliciting my involvement because she wanted the decision making to be a bonding activity.

    I can deeply relate to this. Shared decisions do bring couples closer. The rest of your post, not so much…

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

    J,
    One more thing. I shared that story because I want Deti to understand how powerfully Queen Bees and female herd dynamics can influence the individual decisions of herd members. He seems to want to argue that there’s a huge majority of women out there who are hooking up because they can, because they’re horny and they like the feeling of having access to Top Males. IMO that’s a myth.

    Anyway, whether or not Queen Bees have “as much power as you give them,” the reality is that they are incredibly powerful within herds, especially young herds (middle school anyone?). In a way, Pluralistic Ignorance is just another manifestation of the “herd values” of group pressure and shaming, through false advertisement about the majority opinion. Any thoughts, Susan?

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

      @Olive

      He seems to want to argue that there’s a huge majority of women out there who are hooking up because they can, because they’re horny and they like the feeling of having access to Top Males. IMO that’s a myth.

      It is definitely a myth – the math just doesn’t work. Simply put, 2% of males do a lot of ONSs with different girls and avoid commitment. So any woman going for those guys is going to have high N because they P&D as a rule. Yet only 3% of women get to 11 partners, or 4 guys per year, including summer break at home. The number of women who are horny and DTF with Top Males is very, very small.

      Also, some of the men appear to think that ovulation is like the full moon for a werewolf, lol. People don’t change their patterns of behavior markedly during ovulation – meaning, they don’t alter their sociosexual orientation.

      In a way, Pluralistic Ignorance is just another manifestation of the “herd values” of group pressure and shaming, through false advertisement about the majority opinion.

      That’s a brilliant insight – I’ve never thought of that. Since both sexes are susceptible to PI, it is perhaps a manifestation of both herd and pack mentalities. False advertisement is also a great way of putting it, because it suggests a deliberate campaign of misinformation – if you look at various campus Sex Weeks, freshmen orientations that focus heavily on sex and hand out condoms by the gross and September parties hosted by frats to check out the freshman class, you can see that a freshman of either sex could get the sense that everyone is having sex casually and frequently.

  • deti

    “I’m not sure how this fits in with Deti’s theory”

    It’s not really a theory. I’m asking questions. I’m hearing around the ‘sphere that a big part of why women hook up and why they get into casual sex is peer pressure — everyone else is doing it, so I should. I am not sure that explains it.

    The “peer pressure” argument sounds like an attempt at ex post facto excusing and hamsterwheeling. “Don’t blame me; I was just doing what I saw everyone else doing” isn’t a good reason for doing something nor a convincing explanation for why it was done.

    I get that for the unrestricted woman, hookup will probably be her sexual way of life, and she won’t be swayed by peer pressure either way. But even for the restricted women, they want to have sex too, right? And sex with hot men is always on offer, even to an average woman who wants to dip her toe in the carousel pool. A bonus is that she at least gets a shot at something more than an ONS. Being in his soft harem is better than nothing. Seems like that’s a pretty enticing offer, even without pressure from her BFFs. So the point I’m making is that I don’t think peer pressure explains why restricted women have sex.

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

      @deti

      But even for the restricted women, they want to have sex too, right? And sex with hot men is always on offer, even to an average woman who wants to dip her toe in the carousel pool.

      The nature of the restricted woman is that she has had zero or few partners in the last year, believes that sex without love is not OK, and reports a low frequency of fantasy sex with strangers. These are women who want to have sex with a favored male, which is the default female sexual preference per Buss. Restricted women also have a strong preference for restricted men, and are adept at reading this from facial features alone, probably as a result of testosterone markers. They regularly rate the faces of restricted men as better looking than the faces of unrestricted men.

      IOW, the restricted woman does not want to dip her toe in the carousel pool, because she doesn’t desire unrestricted men.

      A bonus is that she at least gets a shot at something more than an ONS. Being in his soft harem is better than nothing. Seems like that’s a pretty enticing offer, even without pressure from her BFFs.

      It’s not an enticing offer at all. The number of women willing to “double dip” is actually very small, commensurate with the small number of males who even have a soft harem. (My guess is that number is well below 1%.)

      You’re focusing on the exceptions.

  • J

    I said this elsewhere and I think you responded,

    Could well be. My memory for things like that is going; it’s a middle-aged thing. ;-)

    Anyway, I’m glad you’ve found helpful strategies.

  • Passer_By

    @sai

    “Wow, what was that like?”

    Pretty boring. Complicated schematics are pretty dry, even if they relate to some hypothetical spaceborne electronics for a black ops program.

    But I didn’t do it for very long or get too deep into it before I decided to chuck it and go to law school.

    I always wished that, when we went to work, we would have to go through a whole bunch of big metal doors that slammed behind us like at the beginning of Get Smart. But it was just two glass doors (the first one had to shut behind you and then lock, and then you’d use your card key to open the second one).

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

    But even for the restricted women, they want to have sex too, right? And sex with hot men is always on offer, even to an average woman who wants to dip her toe in the carousel pool.

    I honestly think this is untrue. I know it’s a big sphere meme, that 6-9s and sometimes even 5s can get it in with alpha hotties. In college I spent way more time at frat parties than was probably good for me, and one thing I noticed was that average looking ladies were hooking up with average looking guys. Female 6s were not hooking up with male 10s, probably because male 10s had access to female 9s.

    It’s not really a theory.

    But it is. This right here is your theory:

    The “peer pressure” argument sounds like an attempt at ex post facto excusing and hamsterwheeling.

    Believe what you want. I’ve been a girl long enough to know that some girls will do practically anything to fit in.

  • Tasmin

    @Susan
    “…women who hook up do actively promote hooking up, reward each other with shots and high fives for outrageous hooking up stories, and generally avoid socializing with women who avoid that behavior.”

    I can’t speak to the college scene, but I have seen this quite a bit later in life and have heard first-hand about those hookup storytelling sessions. I think a lot of the hookup mindset burns off as other female bonds take precedent over the hookup herd and as women enter into relationships and form more diverse social groupings. But interestingly, the storytelling component of this ‘pressure’ seems to be timeless. In fact, ironically it seems to be most common and powerful in terms of the emotional/psychological pull when it (commonly) happens as part of the marriage rituals of one of the women, e.g. bridal showers, bachelorette parties, wedding weekend festivities, etc.

    I dated a women (of very restricted nature) who had anxiety over these little sit-downs because of her lack of content fodder for story-time, even to the point of feeling that the other women somehow thought less of her because of her (apparent) lacking sexual prowess. And I wouldn’t describe her friends as particularly slutty – in fact at least half of the group was married.

    It is interesting that it is sexual prowess that is celebrated in these storied brunches and cosmo-inspired cock tale sessions when the prize is supposedly the high status man for marriage. In her case, she had married (and later divorced) her college BF who was a handsome surgeon, so in many ways you would think she would have “won” that game already – or at least proven her ability to win where it supposedly counted. Even if marriage is still what most women feel is the “win”, the ultimate goal, those tryst spin sessions are an odd and counterproductive validation ritual that seems to survive well beyond the sorority days.

    To me this is revealing about how the prize is no no longer just the high(er)-status man for marriage, but rather the establishment of sexual power, sexual independence, and then the high(er)-status man of her choosing at the time of her choosing. While I still think a woman is better off the sooner she breaks from those pro-hookup herds, the social rewards for hookup behavior remain to be quite powerful despite the arguable fact that most women don’t participate in full. That may not be peer pressure, per se, but it is something. There seems to be pressure to “win” at the hookup game and pressure to “win” at the marriage game, but nobody is admitting that these games are most often at odds. That hookup minority – or even past periods of hooking up (regrettable or not) seem to cast a long shadow. The difference is these days that shadow is something to be celebrated.

    I guess it is just one more way in which feminism has pressed upon women the assumption of the masculine viewpoint. Male social circles have long rewarded that association of sexual prowess and independence with status. So welcome to the party. Except for the fact that for a man the power and independence and status – be it sexual or economic are what pave the way toward marriage; they elevate his marriage market status. Perhaps the younger generations of men will be more aligned with (or more accepting of) women adopting the male-oriented reward system, but for the time being, most men still count female “success” in the hookup SMP somewhere between neutral and non-starter in terms of marriage market status, quite contrary to the validation she may get from her friends.

    Even though plenty of men see how the hookup culture is damaging the entire SMP/ MMP, men are not going to tell women that playing the hookup game is making them less attractive within the MMP. Not only would that be an instant DLV for him but it would be sexist and judgmental of a man to even suggest such a relationship exists.

    As women continue to subordinate the importance of marriage – or at least delaying indefinitely, men are going to be less inclined to prioritize it – or even consider it in their own decision paths. In this culture of “equality” men and women are moving further apart; we are actually working toward a new form of separate but equal.

    Where is this silent majority of women who are not hooking up and who believe in marriage as the “prize”? Until the majority of women who view marriage as the goal, seek to understand the value of their intimacy from the male perspective, are willing to be honest about the real risks and costs of having it all – including the costs that men continue to bear, embrace the unique differences of men and women as complimentary strengths, take their voices to the streets and the airwaves, and align their actions with their beliefs, they are going to continue to enslave themselves in a society that would rather see their genetic line (and spirit) wither and die than let men “win” at some imagined struggle for “power”.

    You don’t vote, you don’t have a right to complain. As long as we let the tail wag the dog, we might as well start handing out the Soma because the brave new world is already here.
    http://www.huxley.net/soma/somaquote.html

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

      @Tasmin

      I dated a women (of very restricted nature) who had anxiety over these little sit-downs because of her lack of content fodder for story-time, even to the point of feeling that the other women somehow thought less of her because of her (apparent) lacking sexual prowess.

      Wow, that’s a great example of peer pressure lasting well past college. I’m actually a little surprised at that – shame on them.

      To me this is revealing about how the prize is no no longer just the high(er)-status man for marriage, but rather the establishment of sexual power, sexual independence, and then the high(er)-status man of her choosing at the time of her choosing.

      Agreed. If I could sum up one word that drives the culture of casual sex, it would be power.

      There seems to be pressure to “win” at the hookup game and pressure to “win” at the marriage game, but nobody is admitting that these games are most often at odds

      I’m curious, do you have a sense of the divorce rate among these types? I think my husband would be quite unhappy to hear I’d been sharing randy stories. In fact, he makes himself scarce when my focus groups come over – he really hates it when the girls talk about sex. Women who are married and do this seem to me to be either reminiscing or living vicariously through their sexually free friends. It doesn’t bode well for marriage.

      As women continue to subordinate the importance of marriage – or at least delaying indefinitely, men are going to be less inclined to prioritize it – or even consider it in their own decision paths. In this culture of “equality” men and women are moving further apart; we are actually working toward a new form of separate but equal.

      Great insight here. And yet women are going to howl with indignation when they finally feel they’re ready and there are no willing suitors. We’ve already seen the first wave of this, and it’s going to get worse.

      Where is this silent majority of women who are not hooking up and who believe in marriage as the “prize”?

      The problem, I think, is that even the women not inclined to go for casual have not been raised to view marriage as a prize. They have been raised to view themselves as the prize. I think the number of women who focus on marriage and are acting accordingly is actually quite small. That’s very discouraging, but that is also why I tell my 23-24 year old friends to be searching for a life partner now. It is not too early. Most of them agree, but most had not thought in these terms before we discussed it. It’s literally not on their minds.

  • Ted D

    Olive – “Believe what you want. I’ve been a girl long enough to know that some girls will do practically anything to fit in.”

    And that is the core of the issue for many young women right there. Seems like wanting to “fit in” is a lot like a young guy wanting to “hang with the boys” and in doing so ends up wrapping his car around a telephone pole because driving drunk was the norm. I saw this first hand since the massive campaign to end drunk driving didn’t really kick in until the 90’s and most of my peer group made a habit of pressuring each other into getting drunk and doing some very stupid stuff. Only the kid I knew used a few trees instead of a telephone pole…

    So here we are a few decades later, and drunk driving as a “sport” seems to be largely on the decline. It took a lot of media attention and some pretty harsh rules to get us here, and I imagine any change to be made here would take as much effort.

    But individually, does it help if a young woman has a strong sense of self and some confidence in her abilities? I ask because it seems most “peer pressure” works because the people wanting so badly to belong often lack a good sense of self, and crave validation from others. If this is true, then the advice given to blue pill men would also apply to young restricted women: get a bit more self confident and have some faith in yourself.

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

      @Ted D

      But individually, does it help if a young woman has a strong sense of self and some confidence in her abilities? I ask because it seems most “peer pressure” works because the people wanting so badly to belong often lack a good sense of self, and crave validation from others. If this is true, then the advice given to blue pill men would also apply to young restricted women: get a bit more self confident and have some faith in yourself.

      This comment thread is great today!

      There is no question that succumbing to peer pressure is linked to self-esteem, and so is casual sex. The girl gets a hit of female validation for going along with the herd, and a hit of male validation when he “chooses” her.

      I’m also thinking of those Yale students who were boasting that they were playing the guys – they were congratulating themselves in a way that made no sense, but they had all bought in. That’s also a form of pressure – rewriting the narrative to claim victory, when in fact it’s unlikely any of them had ever received that actual feedback from one of the football players.

  • J

    But even for the restricted women, they want to have sex too, right? And sex with hot men is always on offer, even to an average woman who wants to dip her toe in the carousel pool.

    Deti, everyone wants sex. The salient questions are whether it has to be with “hot” men and how much women are willing to pay for it. Olive is right in saying that most of the time, couples form out of two people with similar SMVs. Among the young restricted women I know, few seem to want to do the walk of shame in exchange for “5 minutes of alpha.” I think it’s possible for a young woman, especially one who is away from home for the first time, to be bowled over by a handsome frat boy or athlete, but AFAICT one hurt is enough to dissuade the average girl from staying on that path. And, as Susan has pointed out, while most freshman girls have had a disappointing hookup, that hook up often does not include intercourse.

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

    I totally disagree, this sounds like feminist boilerplate. The OKCupid graph clearly showed that men rate women’s attractiveneess on a perfect bell curve. It’s women who rate the typical man as below average. Care to explain this discrepancy for me?

    Err in my example I considered both genders in the 80% disconnect men and women.

  • HanSolo

    @Olive and anyone else

    We often speak of females as acting like herds and males like packs. I’m wondering what the real difference is though. Both have social structure and exclude others.

    On this link describing horse herds (one stallion with many mares), the alpha mare actually does go around driving out other mares that don’t submit to her but allows submissive mares to stay. The stallion drives out all males except for sometimes some non-threatening or younger males.

    http://www.netplaces.com/horse/horse-behavior/herd-behavior.htm

    This seems like a pack, that will also drive out members and has a social hierarchy.

    The difference in function is that a pack will hunt and finds advantage in numbers primarily for attack while a herd forages and finds advantage in numbers for defense. So, in this sense calling males (the pursuers of females, and hunters prehistorically) packs and females (receivers of males’ pursuit and more desirous of defense) make sense.

    This link

    http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf/meanderings/herd.html

    discusses the difference between packs and herds and states that herds will welcome anyone that conforms to herd behavior because this avoids setting off danger alarms (e.g. if it looks like a gazelle and acts like one then it is of no danger, whereas if it doesn’t then it probably is less likely to be a gazelle and is more likely to be a threat). Perhaps the herd wants to exclude those that don’t conform (because difference is equated with danger) whereas the pack isn’t looking so much for conformity per se (you could have a different looking wolf maybe) but whether that pack member’s skills and disposition contributes to the purpose of the pack (e.g. that different looking wolf might be good at helping in the hunt and is permitted to stay).

    Packs require greater trust since each member is required to contribute and has a greater potential of being a rival (as compared with herd members) to trying to take over the pack.

    So, after reading up and writing this I think it does make sense to loosely think of most females as more herd-like. I think males will also fall into the herd category sometimes but are more pack-like, especially when they are out to accomplish some task like a military strike or go hunting.

    Thoughts?

  • SayWhaat

    But individually, does it help if a young woman has a strong sense of self and some confidence in her abilities?

    Well, it *can*, but it’s probably more dependent on her maturity level. At certain ages the Herd outweighs the Self. Looking back, I was lucky to belong to a peer group of little Indian and Asian girls who were just as sheltered restricted as I was, haha. But when I studied abroad in London in college, I experienced so much shaming that, like Olive, I did stupid shit that I would never have done otherwise. My strong sense of Self prevented me from really compromising my values too much, and were I in the same position today, I wouldn’t hesitate to tell them to Fuck Off, lol. But my actions were still incongruous to how I actually felt about what I did, and wanting to avoid shaming from others was a large part of it back then.

  • J

    But individually, does it help if a young woman has a strong sense of self and some confidence in her abilities?

    As someone who has spent her entire work life dealing with teens, I’d give this a resounding YES. BTW, there are oodles of studies that show that girls who have goals SELF-restrict.

    A strong and healthy sense of self is the biggest gift a parent can give to an child, male or female.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Ramble

    And, I am also curious if you think that there are more unattractive girls today than back then.

    Late on this… I wasn’t around back then, so I can’t directly compare the two… but on most campuses I’ve been to, I’ve never felt there was a shortage of attractive girls. I’d guess 70-80% of girls at most schools pass the boner test. Obesity among college girls doesn’t seem to be nearly the problem it is in the general population.

    When I look back at old pictures, a lot of the girls of past eras strike me as kind of plain. Who knows, maybe I’m heavily influenced by the culture I grew up in. But I definitely vote against the idea that college girls are less physically attractive than they used to be.

    But as you pointed out earlier, it’s when you get into behavior that they start to lose attractiveness from a commitment standpoint.

    I can think of hundreds of girls I know that I’d like to bang, but probably less than a handful that I’d like to date. That doesn’t mean the others are bad people… many of them I consider friends. But the lack of femininity just doesn’t inspire any kind of interest in commitment from me.

  • SayWhaat

    And just so we’re clear, the “stupid shit” I did was still pretty tame stuff. But I didn’t really enjoy doing it, which is the point.

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

    @SW

    Yes, that is the theory I’m working under at the present time.

    We’ll both nod on that one, and then move on… :wink:

    Different topic, but from your post:

    The balance of power in the hook-up culture lies with the men, an issue that has become more pronounced as women outnumber men on campuses, creating a surplus of girls and a scarcity of guy…

    This has been mentioned as a primary cause of the hookup scene, and it’s got me wondering. If guys are viewed as scarce by women, and sex is viewed as not-so-scarce by guys, that could explain things to a certain degree. I’ve got my doubts, though. Additionally, a fellow blogger (sorry for bringing in outside info) has analyzed the male-to-female gender ratio:

    http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/04/the-unmarried-m.html
    http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/04/unmarried-mal-1.html

    At every age below ~50 (varies by ethnic group), unmarried men outnumber unmarried women, if I read that right. Also, unmarried men literally outnumber unmarried women in every large city in America, where the unmarried population is 100,000+. Sometimes by large margins. Yet these environments typically rank highest in terms of N, promiscuity, drinking, nightlife, etc.

    I didn’t even look at the smaller cities. The bottom line appears to be there are 1.5 million more unmarried men than women on the market. We also know that college graduates actually report the lowest N as compared to other groups. Do you have an opinion on why this is the case? If more men than women translates into better female behavior, and by extension, better male behavior (dubious theory IMO), what gives?

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

      @Megaman

      Also, unmarried men literally outnumber unmarried women in every large city in America, where the unmarried population is 100,000+. Sometimes by large margins. Yet these environments typically rank highest in terms of N, promiscuity, drinking, nightlife, etc.

      That’s puzzled me as well. In fact, isn’t there data that says there are more single men than women in NYC? Yet our NYC readers report that it’s a veritable hookup buffet for single guys. One explanation I’ve seen is the paradox of choice.

      Why Dating is Difficult in New York

  • HanSolo

    @Tasmin

    Your post made me totally think of the alpha mare and the status hierarchy exhibited amongst the other mares of the horse herd.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Ion: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/

    Like any survey, there surely is some selection bias, and perhaps it isn’t true to extrapolate too much. But it sure explains a lot of things we see everyday, and is confirmed by women here (“most men are ‘grey’ and asexual”).

    As for the feminist boilerplate, it’s pretty standard to blame men’s *attraction* to women as mostly socially determined, thus the “unrealistic body image” or “skewed by media” accusation. As a man, I think this is just untrue. Attraction mostly innate, maybe with a little bit of social nudging.

    Most of the things that make it appear that men are “skewed by media” and don’t find certain women attractive, are merely risk/reward calculations. When you read that article, note the skew between the attraction rating vs. the messaging rate. That gap is illustrative of what I mean.

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

    then the advice given to blue pill men would also apply to young restricted women: get a bit more self confident and have some faith in yourself.

    Well yes, sort of. A couple things. First, the strategy would have to be different, because I think there’s already a lot of this “self-love” business coming out of the mass media, encouraging women to “accept themselves for who they are,” and that’s their version of confidence. This is clearly different from the sphere’s aim at mass self-improvement.

    It’s been touched on before that men are sort of “better” at working on themselves, because they can listen to criticism without having the world end. IMO it all comes back to communication. There’s this really great Pilates instructor named Cassey Ho, who’s become sort of an online figure for women who want to work out. You should check out one of her videos and pay attention to the way she communicates, her style of “tough encouragement” and “positivity” is what I think women will need to hear to inspire change. Here’s the link to her website: http://www.blogilates.com/

    Also, in many cases you’re talking about women who are still very young. In light of the “extended adolescence,” I think we need to expect and accept that many 19 and 20 year old girls are not going to be able to think beyond fitting in. As someone who never had a core group growing up, I’m of the opinion that I really needed to have that herd experience, to see what it was, and to move beyond wishing that I could have it.

    Oh and by the way, I know TONS of people who drive drunk, and seem to get a thrill from getting away with it. My two closest friends in high school used to drive drunk or high all the time and I would get SO angry. These days it’s my BF’s best friend. Ugh.

  • SayWhaat

    Megaman, I think you would have to break those numbers down into heterosexual males: heterosexual females in order to get a closer understanding of the dynamics at play.

    Also, I think you answered part of your question here:

    If guys are viewed as scarce by women, and sex is viewed as not-so-scarce by guys, that could explain things to a certain degree.

  • deti

    “He seems to want to argue that there’s a huge majority of women out there who are hooking up because they can, because they’re horny and they like the feeling of having access to Top Males. IMO that’s a myth.”

    HOld it right there, and calm it down, Olive. I’m not saying anything about “a huge majority of women”. You read that into what I said. I’m trying to suss out what role girl on girl peer pressure plays in a woman having sex.

    I’m having trouble conceptually with the notion that a woman’s will is so flimsy that a queen bee is going to influence her sexual behavior and/or giving up her virginity, one of the most consequential and important decisions of her life.

    Please put the 30 06 away, Olive. I’m not here firing bullets. I’m asking you not to do so as well.

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

      I’m having trouble conceptually with the notion that a woman’s will is so flimsy that a queen bee is going to influence her sexual behavior and/or giving up her virginity, one of the most consequential and important decisions of her life.

      Most women do not view losing their virginity as consequential and important. Even restricted women, who are likely to want to lose it with a bf they care about, are not focused on virginity as a precious thing. This was also the case when I was in college in the 70s, although we didn’t have casual sex, and we held off on P in V for a while (9 months in my case), the deed was still no big deal. The consequences that women focus on are pregnancy and STDs, not the loss of virginity.

      Men may wish women felt differently about this, but I can only think of two readers here who have viewed their virginity as a prize for their future husband. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! It’s just rare, IME.

      I’ll let others with more recent experience weigh in on the Queen Bee, but having grown up with these girls, as all females do, it’s not that the Bee will tell you to do one thing on one night. “You have to have sex with Jason tonight.” or “You’re so lame if you don’t do it with Nick tonight.” It’s more a case of creating a set of rules that are required to fit in, to be accepted, to be one of the cool kids, or sometimes to avoid being the victim. The rules generally encompass more than sex – including dress, underage drinking, parties when parents are not home, etc. The same girls who are susceptible to pressure from “fast” girls in high school are often the same girls who cave when they get to college.

      The hooking up to get a bf thing is a bit different – there young women and men perceive that they have to hook up to get a relationship. There is good data that shows that 50-65% of both sexes want more than sex from a hookup, and do it specifically to start a relationship. Those kids are likely to go off the market and stay off the market if it works out, but unfortunately, the parties are often at cross purposes, and it doesn’t work out (88% of the time).

  • Jackie

    @Deti, J
    “But even for the restricted women, they want to have sex too, right? And sex with hot men is always on offer, even to an average woman who wants to dip her toe in the carousel pool.

    Deti, everyone wants sex. The salient questions are whether it has to be with “hot” men and how much women are willing to pay for it”
    ======
    Well said, J. (And succintly, too!)

    Deti, most women don’t just want sex. Most women want love and companionship, a real relationship. Hook-up sex is the cruel step-sister of that.

    To me, a hot guy can be valued aesthetically, but it’s like appreciating a picture on the wall. There is no emotional connection beyond that aesthetic appreciation.

    And the fratty guys and athletes you ascribe to “alpha” are just plain gross to me. That whole culture just seems so dysfunctional to me that I’d sooner jump into a Jerry Springer mosh pit.

  • Jackie

    @Ted
    “But individually, does it help if a young woman has a strong sense of self and some confidence in her abilities? I ask because it seems most “peer pressure” works because the people wanting so badly to belong often lack a good sense of self, and crave validation from others.”
    ========
    Yes, partially. A *huge* thing, for me at least, is the role of family expectation. I am NOT talking about preaching here. In fact, I can’t remember a time my dad has *ever* ranted or preached, or even raised his voice on the subject.

    But I know exactly what my family’s expectations of me are. Some of them are really good. Some of them I reflect upon now and find somewhat unfair. (My dad’s unquenchable thirst for his children to be uber-ultra-independent. ENOUGH, DAD!)

    All of the expectations led far, far away from the hook-up stuff. I think that sometimes parents (unwittingly?) give children expectations that are unhealthy. The parents who are expectant and tacitly, or not so tacitly, proud of their sons sleeping around, for example.

  • deti

    Jackie:

    “Most women want love and companionship, a real relationship. Hook-up sex is the cruel step-sister of that.”

    I get that. Is it the case that women are giving sex in hookups in a crapshoot to get love or a relationship? If so, the odds don’t seem very good and it’s a losing proposition for most women.

    “To me, a hot guy can be valued aesthetically, but it’s like appreciating a picture on the wall. There is no emotional connection beyond that aesthetic appreciation.”

    I get that’s how you see it. But a lot of women will take that hot guy for a night if that’s what they can get, it seems to me. And if they can’t get him for a lifetime, a night or three is good enough. I get that you don’t agree with me.

    “And the fratty guys and athletes you ascribe to “alpha” are just plain gross to me. That whole culture just seems so dysfunctional to me that I’d sooner jump into a Jerry Springer mosh pit.”

    I know fratty guys and athletes are gross — to YOU. But evidently they’re pretty desirable to more than a few women, from what I’ve seen. Those guys look to me that they get more action than they can handle.

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

      @deti

      But a lot of women will take that hot guy for a night if that’s what they can get, it seems to me. And if they can’t get him for a lifetime, a night or three is good enough. I get that you don’t agree with me.

      At the risk of eliciting groans from people who hate when I ask this, may I ask why it seems that way to you? We have a plethora of data, repeated consistently across many campuses, and the sexual behavioral data is quite clear.

      It is a false statement that a lot of women will take a hot guy for a night, period. We’re talking 2 or 3% of the population. Do you think that’s a lot?

      I know fratty guys and athletes are gross — to YOU. But evidently they’re pretty desirable to more than a few women, from what I’ve seen. Those guys look to me that they get more action than they can handle.

      Look to you how? Let’s look again at the chart from Penn that breaks out frats and athletes:

      ps

      40% of frat guys have had 1-3 sexual partners in college. That includes oral.

      Another 25% between 4 and 6.

      Is this more action than most guys can handle? 6 sex parters in 4 years?

      Let’s keep going:

      Another 25% have 7-10 partners.

      More than 10: 10%

      More than 20: 3%

      Interestingly, 4% of everyone is at more than 20, so frat guys are actually below the mean.

      In any case, the guys having the most sex have 20 partners, let’s say. We don’t know which classes these respondents are from, so let’s assume that 3% of frat guys actually have 30 partners by the time they graduate. That’s 7.5 per year, or less than one girl per month.

      Is that more action than they can handle?

      Deti, I think you need to acknowledge that how things “seem” to you is way off the mark, or provide evidence other than “I talk to people” to support your claims.

  • J

    whereas the pack isn’t looking so much for conformity per se (you could have a different looking wolf maybe) but whether that pack member’s skills and disposition contributes to the purpose of the pack (e.g. that different looking wolf might be good at helping in the hunt and is permitted to stay).

    Interesting post, Han , and in general probably correct. I quoted the part I quibble with though. There is some evidence that dogs were domesticated from outlier wolves who were ejected from packs for looking, well, too doggy and that the traits that favor domestication are associated with those neotaneous “doggy” looks. And both wolf and dog packs are known for enforcing conformity. Cesar Millan capitalizes on the power of the pack.

    It also seems to me that boy-on-boy bullying seems to be an attempt to enforce conformity on outlier boys. I have personally witnessed boys gang up on a peer in a dog pack fashion. Statistically, boys with ADHD and boys who are on the spectrum are bullied at much higher rates than average boys.

  • Jackie

    @SayWhaat
    “But when I studied abroad in London in college, I experienced so much shaming that, like Olive, I did stupid shit that I would never have done otherwise. My strong sense of Self prevented me from really compromising my values too much”
    ====
    SW, this is really interesting! I responded to shaming by smiling and saying nothing. That was my way to shut it down. I didn’t ever feel like I was missing out on something– the stuff that I experienced even on dates let me know that being with some player on the DL wouldn’t be better.

    But there is a tendency for people to judge and shame HARD if you’re just out there living your life, without hooking up or getting in a bad relationship as if it somehow trumps being alone. (Spoiler: It doesn’t!)

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “That’s very discouraging, but that is also why I tell my 23-24 year old friends to be searching for a life partner now. It is not too early. Most of them agree, but most had not thought in these terms before we discussed it. It’s literally not on their minds.”

    I think I was nearly in a sheer panic having not achieved a life partner by age 23-24.

    Come to think of it, I spent most of my early-mid 20’s in a sheer panic to to the possibility of catastrophic life failure.

    In hindsight, this was not the appropriate response to life.

    Granted, now that I’m in my late 30’s, I’ve accepted that I have, in fact, achieved catastrophic life failure (which I’ve been advised by lots of people that what I consider “catastrophic failure” is really the ideal “I hope I get there” life for 90% of Americans), so I guess I was right to be concerned.

    Another reason to avoid me as a data point for anything.

  • Ted D

    J/Olive – Interesting and very good to know.

    It seems like we have a society delivering a double whammy of sorts: We tend to push the “self love” and “self acceptance” very hard, yet we do NOT teach how to improve yourself so you can HAVE love and acceptance. The second punch comes from the environment we’ve created where everyone “wins” just for showing up. This inflates someone’s self image, while the issue above doesn’t give them any way to create a solid foundation to hold up all that “self love”.

    We are raising rather selfish people with an inflated opinion of themselves that is so fragile any type of criticism sends them into a downward spiral. They have nothing internally to justify their inflated self image, so they rely on the approval of others instead. Good Lord we are raising kids to become semi-codependent people! And of course this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as these kids go off to college and are immersed in a new “herd” of people, most of which are trying to “fit in” in much the same way.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “Since both sexes are susceptible to PI, it is perhaps a manifestation of both herd and pack mentalities. False advertisement is also a great way of putting it, because it suggests a deliberate campaign of misinformation.”

    Sure. Growing up religious is an example of this, too, just in the reverse.

    If you think nobody is having unmarried sex at all, then PI can just as likely drive you towards abstinence. I honestly didn’t know the median/average N’s for women and men were as HIGH as they are until very recently. That CDC report was a real eye-opener, and should be required reading.

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

      @OTC

      If you think nobody is having unmarried sex at all, then PI can just as likely drive you towards abstinence. I honestly didn’t know the median/average N’s for women and men were as HIGH as they are until very recently. That CDC report was a real eye-opener, and should be required reading.

      Makes sense. That’s a great example of how PI can actually drive a male away from an action that he is programmed to want very strongly. The power of social pressure, including peer, religious, family, cultural – all of it, is quite dramatic.

  • Kathy

    “Which I think disproves the other point, which is that most wives couldn’t tell you what their husband’s wishes and interests are. I could write a lengthy essay on it – any other wives want to weigh in?”

    I totally agree with you Susan. And, I think that Vox is mistaken on this point.
    ( Also, the women being solipsistic meme is becoming rather tedious. ;) )

    I think women who love and care about their husbands make it their business to know what their husband’s wishes and interests are.

    For example, a short time ago I went on a search for a particular beer that my husband had mentioned that he liked and had not had in a long time. It was not stocked locally. I found out where I could buy it and surprised him with a case of it.

    I know exactly what foods he likes or does not like. I cook his favourite dishes.
    I have a cold beer waiting for him when he arrives home from work.. And I mean cold! Aussie men like their beer icy cold.

    I even know that he hates the last few dregs in the jam jar so I make sure I open a new one and use the left over stuff myself.

    We have similar interests too.. We sit together and watch our favourite team play football, for instance.

    If he has had a very busy week, I encourage him to have an afternoon nap on a Saturday , and try and work it (occupy kids) so that I can sneak away and spend a little time with him, too. (Heh heh heh heh..)

    I too, could write an essay on my husband’s interests, Susan. His likes and dislikes. His idiosyncrasies..

    No doubt he could do likewise about me. :)

    Only a selfish woman who does not give two hoots about her husband would not know anything about his interests and wishes.. Though it is more likely to be that she DOES know but really DOES NOT care.

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

      @Kathy

      Your husband is a lucky man! Those are some very thoughtful gestures.

      Only a selfish woman who does not give two hoots about her husband would not know anything about his interests and wishes.. Though it is more likely to be that she DOES know but really DOES NOT care.

      Agreed, I think it comes down to effort. I’m sure there are many women who are well aware of their husband’s desires and simply don’t bother. That’s certainly not admirable, but it doesn’t speak to a woman’s inability to prioritize her man’s happiness.

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

    @SayWhaat

    I think you would have to break those numbers down into heterosexual males: heterosexual females in order to get a closer understanding of the dynamics at play.

    True. Though on your second point, I’d agree that women do view “good” men as somewhat scarce in college. However, the hookup statistics (Susan’s mega post) showed that easy sex isn’t abundant at all.

    This is the best data I’ve seen, and it’s very recent:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx

    If that 3.4% holds for the unmarried population, maybe even round it up to 5% for sake of argument, that still leaves about a 1.5 million straight male surplus.

    Talk about Pluralistic Ignorance, though. Gallup found last year that the public thought 25% of people were gay or lesbian!
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/Adults-Estimate-Americans-Gay-Lesbian.aspx

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

      @Megaman, @deti

      From that gay survey:

      Democrats, liberals, and those who say they are socially liberal are also more likely to give higher estimates than those at the other end of the spectrum.

      This is precisely what happens when people spend time in echo chambers. If you watch Rachel Maddow every night, you’re going to come away with a very different (and inaccurate) view than if you spread your news sources around.

      I believe this is what is going on with Deti. By virtue of his online associations and conversations, he has developed a wildly distorted view of the SMP. I appreciate his coming here to discuss it, but I’ll be very surprised if we change his mind. In fact, I’ve shared all of this data before, and it doesn’t seem to have sunk in.

  • Jackie

    @Deti

    Hi Deti,

    “Is it the case that women are giving sex in hookups in a crapshoot to get love or a relationship? If so, the odds don’t seem very good and it’s a losing proposition for most women.”

    Deti, I completely agree!

    See my post above– women who are selecting for character are going to spend some time on their own. They can expect to get shamed and judged for being alone temporarily.

    Many women –for MANY reasons– are profoundly uncomfortable if they are not always dating someone. They would rather settle for a scrap of rotten meat than wait for a meal at Per Se. Even if it will only make them sick, I’m sorry to say.

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

      They would rather settle for a scrap of rotten meat than wait for a meal at Per Se.

      LMAO! You have such a way with words, and such a colorful imagination Jackie.

      And boy is that meat rotten. (gag reflex kicking in)

  • JP

    “It also seems to me that boy-on-boy bullying seems to be an attempt to enforce conformity on outlier boys. I have personally witnessed boys gang up on a peer in a dog pack fashion. Statistically, boys with ADHD and boys who are on the spectrum are bullied at much higher rates than average boys.”

    Granted, I *am* probably a good data point for this although I still don’t know what’s wrong with me, attentionally speaking.

    Elementary school bullying, check.
    High school bullying, check.
    College bullying, check.

    Granted, since I primarily take orders from me, the result wasn’t conformity, but rather additional bullying.

  • Jackie

    @Deti
    “I know fratty guys and athletes are gross — to YOU. But evidently they’re pretty desirable to more than a few women, from what I’ve seen. Those guys look to me that they get more action than they can handle.”
    ===
    Deti, can you please explain:

    Why does the “action” other men get matter to you?

    It’s not like sex is zero-sum, or some finite resource. On the contrary! ;)

  • deti

    “There is good data that shows that 50-65% of both sexes want more than sex from a hookup, and do it specifically to start a relationship. Those kids are likely to go off the market and stay off the market if it works out, but unfortunately, the parties are often at cross purposes, and it doesn’t work out (88% of the time).”

    Yup. So how many times do people need to do this to figure out that it’s not working very well? Five times? 10 times? 20? What will it take for a woman to figure out that the odds are her 10th hookup is probably going to work out the way the previous nine did — with her confused, misled, alone, and another notch?

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

      What will it take for a woman to figure out that the odds are her 10th hookup is probably going to work out the way the previous nine did

      15% of women have 10 hookups or more in college, and that includes making out on the dance floor, no sex required.

      2% of women have 10 or more sexual partners, according to this source:

      http://csuchico-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.4/221/Anna_thomas_thesis.pdf?sequence=1

      Assuming you mean sexual hookups, you’d have to ask one of those 2%.

  • deti

    Why does the “action” other men get matter to you?

    It doesn’t “get to” me. I see other men getting a lot of action, and used to see it. I used to get some too, but nothing like they got. I wanted to know why. I still want to know why. I see what my eyes tell me; then listen to what you and the other women here say. I’m trying to reconcile and make sense of it.

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

      @deti

      I see what my eyes tell me; then listen to what you and the other women here say. I’m trying to reconcile and make sense of it.

      What do your eyes tell you? How much time do you spend in the company of drunk college students?

      Deti, you are fretting needlessly. We know who has sex in college, and how often. We have that information. It’s a small number of people who engage in the behavior you are concerned with.

      Even male Greeks and athletes are not nearly as slutty as you seem to believe. Why are you having difficulty reconciling this information? It’s ironclad.

  • HanSolo

    @J

    Interesting theory about the more doglike looking wolves being expelled. That would speak to acceptance being based on appearance as opposed to functional ability.

    As to the boy-on-boy bullying, is that more because of how ADHD boys behave or look? What about high school or college cliques? Are sororities more discriminating on looks than frats? It would seem that male cliques are more accepting of lesser looking males if they have something else (athletic ability, charisma, expertise amongst more nerdy cliques, etc.).

    So that brings back the question, what is the difference then between herds and packs? Are they both as demanding of conformance and submission to their zeitgeist and behavior?

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

    @SW

    In fact, isn’t there data that says there are more single men than women in NYC? Yet our NYC readers report that it’s a veritable hookup buffet for single guys.

    Yes, that’s true. Though I think there’s some very specific local reasons for this:

    http://nycedc.tumblr.com/post/16175652438/ratio-of-single-men-to-single-women-in-nyc-new

    If young people want to settle down, even in NYC of all places, they need to branch out, take the subway to a new neighborhood, and meet folks who share their preferences…

  • Lokland

    @OTC

    “I honestly didn’t know the median/average N’s for women and men were as HIGH as they are until very recently. That CDC report was a real eye-opener, and should be required reading.”

    Funny how that works.
    They were well below what I thought was average.
    As in I was thinking average was probably 200-300% of the actual.

  • Jackie

    @Deti
    “I see what my eyes tell me; then listen to what you and the other women here say. I’m trying to reconcile and make sense of it”
    ====
    Can you extrapolate what HUSsies say to the population at large, though? What you are reading here from a small group that is “in the SMP but not of it” and what you are observing in your area may be quite different, I kind of think that may part of the disconnect?

  • Lokland

    @Jackie

    “It’s not like sex is zero-sum, or some finite resource. On the contrary! ”

    Not to nit-pick but yes it is finite, at any given moment.

  • HanSolo

    @J

    Blake Griffin is rather ugly or at least not good looking (IMO) but is a beast of an athlete. I doubt his less than stellar/conforming looks would have had him driven out of the pack because his athletic prowess in high school had him as the best player on his basketball team.

    As to the wolves, was there a correlation between typical wolf looks and skill at hunting and contributing to the pack or were the dog-looking wolves worse hunters and not strong enough to resist the bullying from other wolves and stay in the pack?

    At least with human males I think that uglier boys will be persecuted somewhat but that they can make up for it with charisma, humor, skills, etc. Now most probably won’t have those other factors but those that do can maintain a position in the pack.

  • Jackie

    @Lokland

    You are right– I was being hyperbolic. ;)

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    It is definitely a myth – the math just doesn’t work. Simply put, 2% of males do a lot of ONSs with different girls and avoid commitment. So any woman going for those guys is going to have high N because they P&D as a rule.

    This doesn’t make sense. A woman might get P&Dd by a few guys in the top 5% or so and that won’t raise her N that much. The guys on the other hand would get to P&D a lot of girls, thus significantly raising their N.

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

      @INTJ

      This doesn’t make sense. A woman might get P&Dd by a few guys in the top 5% or so and that won’t raise her N that much. The guys on the other hand would get to P&D a lot of girls, thus significantly raising their N.

      As you may recall, we’ve already established that the breakouts by N are the same for both genders. I believe that is because that 3% is having sex with each other. Another theory, less plausible in my view, is that some restricted girls are having sex with players, which can only be true if some sluts are hooking up with sexually inexperienced males.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Susan:

    “That’s puzzled me as well. In fact, isn’t there data that says there are more single men than women in NYC? Yet our NYC readers report that it’s a veritable hookup buffet for single guys. One explanation I’ve seen is the paradox of choice.”

    I actually looked into this at one point, by looking at the NYC census. I’m on my phone right now otherwise I’d do it again quickly and post the links, but basically what I found is that men outnumbered women by about 5,000. I don’t recall if the data was also broken down by sexual orientation, but I suspect it widens the ratio of straight men: women even further.

    http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

    Look at pg 6:

    The Northeast has the lowest sex ratio (94.5 males per 100 females)…

  • INTJ

    @ Lokland

    Not to nit-pick but yes it is finite, at any given moment.

    Gangbangs, dude.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Interestingly, 4% of everyone is at more than 20, so frat guys are actually below the mean.

    Is this really a plausible thing? I’d argue that this is evidence that the low response rate for males was a problem. Either normal men are having less sex than the survey implies or frat guys are having more sex than the survey implies.

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

      Is this really a plausible thing? I’d argue that this is evidence that the low response rate for males was a problem. Either normal men are having less sex than the survey implies or frat guys are having more sex than the survey implies.

      There wasn’t a low response rate for males. There were over 500 returned surveys on 1,500 randomly sent out. It may be that gay males skewed the numbers – that would be my guess.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Jackie:

    “SW, this is really interesting! I responded to shaming by smiling and saying nothing. That was my way to shut it down.”

    Yes, that was/is my usual reaction.

    “But there is a tendency for people to judge and shame HARD if you’re just out there living your life, without hooking up or getting in a bad relationship as if it somehow trumps being alone. (Spoiler: It doesn’t!)”

    + 1

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “That’s a great example of how PI can actually drive a male away from an action that he is programmed to want very strongly. The power of social pressure, including peer, religious, family, cultural – all of it, is quite dramatic.”

    People have never been prisoners of their own neurology (what you refer to as programming).

    In fact, that’s kind of what makes people, people rather than, say, a wolf.

    The real problem is that no one agrees on the best approach to dealing with the issue of the underlying neurology.

    So, it’s not so much PI as it is that we need to figure out what exactly it is we want to do.

  • Lokland

    Testing

  • SayWhaat

    “000. I don’t recall if the data was also broken down by sexual orientation, but I suspect it widens the ratio of straight *women: men* even further.”

    Fixed. -__-

  • Lokland

    OMFG

  • Lokland

    Sue, something is up. Trying to post something three times now but it won’t show up.

    So for INTJ

    “Gangbangs, dude.”

    Still finite, not that great.

  • SayWhaat

    Lol, having trouble, Lokland? :P

  • Jackie

    @INTJ (584)

    T-Paine :(
    The convo in this thread has been so good so far! I would much rather see everyone high-five you for co-authoring a paper than go down that road . :(

  • Lokland

    “Lol, having trouble, Lokland? ”

    Technology is evil…

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

      @Lokland

      Sorry about that, all of those went straight to the spam filter, which is odd b/c you are Whitelisted. Let’s hope it was a fluke. I’ll keep an eye out.

  • deti

    Susan, Olive, Jackie:

    I did not come here to discuss the tired old saw of “all the women get all the sex, and 80% of the men are standing around with nothing and getting screwed over”. That’s been hashed out over and over.

    All I wanted to know about was girl on girl peer pressure affecting a woman’s decision to have sex. And leave aside the issue of a girl’s virginity. What about a woman’s being pressured to have sex again and again, with different men?

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

      What about a woman’s being pressured to have sex again and again, with different men?

      So few women are doing that it seems clear that peer pressure would not explain it. I believe those women arrive at college and immediately start engaging in self-destructive behavior a la Karen Owen. There are several factors that correlate to that behavior in women, including parental divorce, poor relationship with father, low self-esteem, etc.

      I’ve also noticed that the most promiscuous often don’t have many girlfriends. They’re almost rogues, they rely on men almost entirely for their social life, perhaps have one friend they arrive with, knowing it will be a guy they leave with.

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

    @OTC

    The OKCupid graph clearly showed that men rate women’s attractiveneess on a perfect bell curve. It’s women who rate the typical man as below average. Care to explain this discrepancy for me?

    See my dissection of it here:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/10/15/relationshipstrategies/this-is-the-era-of-nuclear-rejections/comment-page-13/
    #1940, 1945

    IMO the (self-selected) survey only proved what women who choose to participate on O.K. Cupid think about men who choose to participate on O.K. Cupid. The website certainly didn’t provide very complete or transparent information to analyze.

  • Jackie

    @Deti
    “All I wanted to know about was girl on girl peer pressure affecting a woman’s decision to have sex. And leave aside the issue of a girl’s virginity. What about a woman’s being pressured to have sex again and again, with different men?”
    ====
    Deti,

    Any kind of “pressure” used by chicks is via social disapproval. Basically they would just drop you as a friend and/or make fun of you (snide comments) before they would say, Sleep around or you can’t be our friend! Most likely, they will just talk crap behind your back and ignore you.

    And “pressure” pales in comparison to what you get from a guy in my experience.

  • JP

    BREAKING PATRAEUS NEWS:

    Petraeus shocked at girlfriend’s email to friend.

    “WASHINGTON (AP) – Ex-CIA director David Petraeus has told friends he was shocked to find that his biographer and girlfriend, Paula Broadwell, was suspected of sending anonymous, threatening emails to a Petraeus friend she saw as a romantic rival.””

    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=289&sid=3113768&pid=0&page=1

  • deti

    Thanks, Jackie. That answers my question.

  • Jackie

    @Deti

    You are most welcome, Deti. :)

    What would you like for your daughter as she starts dating?

  • deti

    Jackie:

    Thanks. I’ll leave this here, and then duck out. Mike C, Ted, Esco and Abbot have been making themselves scarce, and I think I probably should do the same.

    I am not sure what you mean by “what do I want for my daughter as she begins dating”, since it’s not going to happen for a few years. I want her to be able to stand up to peer pressure. I want her to be able to do her own thing. When she has questions, I want her to bring them to her mother and me, not to her girlfriends who know a lot less than I do.

    Bye all.

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

      Escoffier is not making himself scarce, he’s just a busy guy. He sometimes caucuses with you guys but is reliably issue-focused rather than partisan. :)

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “It is a false statement that a lot of women will take a hot guy for a night, period. We’re talking 2 or 3% of the population. Do you think that’s a lot?”

    The amount of women who have *ever* had a one night stand has to be far more than 3%. You have, I have. Perhaps you mean the ones that *continuously* do so is that low? I honestly have no good stats, so it is an honest question.

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

      The amount of women who have *ever* had a one night stand has to be far more than 3%. You have, I have. Perhaps you mean the ones that *continuously* do so is that low? I honestly have no good stats, so it is an honest question.

      I was responding to this exchange:

      Jackie: To me, a hot guy can be valued aesthetically, but it’s like appreciating a picture on the wall. There is no emotional connection beyond that aesthetic appreciation.”

      deti: I get that’s how you see it. But a lot of women will take that hot guy for a night if that’s what they can get, it seems to me. And if they can’t get him for a lifetime, a night or three is good enough.

      IOW, deti is suggesting that a lot of women see a hot guy and try to have sex with him. More of a pattern than a one-off deal.

      I don’t know what percentage of women in general have had ONSs. The closest that we have for college students is that 26% of women have had intercourse during a hookup. However, we don’t know if it was one time, a repeated hookup, or even prefacing a relationship.

  • SayWhaat

    I’ve also noticed that the most promiscuous often don’t have many girlfriends. They’re almost rogues, they rely on men almost entirely for their social life, perhaps have one friend they arrive with, knowing it will be a guy they leave with.

    Yep. They’re also more likely to say, “I don’t like girls/girls can be so bitchy.”

    Men think she’s misunderstood, but girls see her for what she really is. I believe the term was “female dog-whistle”? We covered it before in some previous HUS thread.

  • Ted D

    Deti – ” I want her to be able to stand up to peer pressure. I want her to be able to do her own thing. When she has questions, I want her to bring them to her mother and me, not to her girlfriends who know a lot less than I do.”

    Cosign all of this. But I’ll tell you, IMO this is a damn difficult thing to accomplish, for girls AND boys. I was never a social butterfly, and I have always been OK with not being one of the “herd” or “pack” although I’ve always had a few very close friendships. I have a very difficult time understanding how social pressure can make someone do something that is against their nature and/0r morality, but clearly peer pressure has a very large impact on the vast majority of people.

    I don’t know what the answer is. I certainly want my kids to be well adjusted and socially “smart” enough to survive, but to me it seems teaching them what they need to withstand peer pressure actually works against them being “social”, since part of being social is conforming to the standards of the “herd”. And in my experience it takes a very mature person to be able to not care about “being liked”. As Olive pointed out, it seems immaturity is an increasing issue in the late teen/early 20’s crowd.

    Some days I feel like I’m trying to invent faster-than-light travel when determining a best course of action for my children. I can spend all day tinkering with a program because breaking it only means I have to fix it. But “tinkering” with my kids is in no way an appealing course of action, and looking back at my own childhood I’m not too confident in the “model” of parenting I grew up with. Not a dig at my mother or grandparents in the least. But the fact is my childhood parenting situation was far from ideal.

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

      Ted, good to see you haven’t left us after all. :)

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Mega: “IMO the (self-selected) survey only proved what women who choose to participate on O.K. Cupid think about men who choose to participate on O.K. Cupid. The website certainly didn’t provide very complete or transparent information to analyze.”

    Sure, I can buy selection bias. But this means we have to throw out all surveys that are not scientifically sampled, including the one that says 33%/40% of men would lie to get a relationship, right?

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Correction: lie about a relationship to get sex.

  • Passer_By

    @deti

    “All I wanted to know about was girl on girl . . .”

    Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. Girls, fess up! :)

  • JP

    @Ted D:

    “And in my experience it takes a very mature person to be able to not care about “being liked”. ”

    Or complete confidence in themselves.

    Which I can assure you is not the same thing as maturity.

  • SayWhaat

    I want her to be able to do her own thing. When she has questions, I want her to bring them to her mother and me, not to her girlfriends who know a lot less than I do.

    With all due respect deti — and I mean this sincerely and kindly — short of locking your daughter in the basement every day after school, this will not happen. If she has a good bond with her parents, the most you can hope for is that she will take your advice into consideration *in addition* to the information she receives from her peers. That is really the best-case scenario.

    One final note: parents do not “decide” when it is appropriate for their children to date. You only decide when it is acceptable for your children to bring their dating lives above-ground.

  • Lokland

    @Passerby, deti

    “@deti

    “All I wanted to know about was girl on girl . . .”

    Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. Girls, fess up! ”

    Pudding on the way!

  • JP

    @SayWhaat:

    “One final note: parents do not “decide” when it is appropriate for their children to date. You only decide when it is acceptable for your children to bring their dating lives above-ground.”

    That depends on the child’s perceived level of parental authority.

    I know that I was 100% compliant, without question, until I was 18.

    After all, only bad people disobeyed their parents, whose word was law.

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

    @OTC

    But this means we have to throw out all surveys that are not scientifically sampled, including the one that says 33%/40% of men would lie about a relationship to get sex, right?

    Throw out? No. I’m not even suggesting that the O.K. Cupid survey be thrown out. Just considered WRT its own limitations.

    From what I’ve read, Madison’s methods weren’t strictly scientific, though she did sample a large number of men in 10 metropolitan cities. I’m willing to accept that her findings paint a pretty good picture of the attitudes of single men in those particular cities. Beyond that, I wouldn’t use it to generalize at all.

  • JP

    @SayWhaat:

    “One final note: parents do not “decide” when it is appropriate for their children to date. You only decide when it is acceptable for your children to bring their dating lives above-ground.”

    It also depends on the level of sanction.

    For example, the parents could be severe enough that any violation results in cessation of all financial support going forward.

  • Lokland

    @Ladies

    Hypothetical question.

    If a woman is easily peer pressured into X pre-boyfriend.
    Is there any reason she will not be pressured into X with boyfriend.

    Hypothetically, a woman who is easily pressed into casual sex is just as likely to have the same thing occur during a relationship unless having a boyfriend grants her a backbone.

    Comments?

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

    Deti,
    Sorry to see you’re heading out, but wanted to catch your comments addressed to me in case you happen to check back.

    HOld it right there, and calm it down, Olive. I’m not saying anything about “a huge majority of women”. You read that into what I said.

    Sorry ’bout that. You said this:

    It appears to me that women are having sex, casual sex, and “in a relationship” sex more because they want to and because there are no (at least immediately) negative consequences for it. And they can select the top men for sex, because they can.

    I interpreted “women” as “most or all women.” My mistake.

    I’m having trouble conceptually with the notion that a woman’s will is so flimsy that a queen bee is going to influence her sexual behavior and/or giving up her virginity, one of the most consequential and important decisions of her life.

    A few things about this. Setting aside the notions of “pack” vs. “herd” mentality for the moment, I’m of the opinion that women, more than men, act as a group. I kind of skimmed the thread, but I noticed Jackie had mentioned keeping the more “promiscuous” friends at bay, to avoid influence, and I think she’s very correct about that. Your closest friends are going to share your values, and if you’re a sexually conservative girl in a group of promiscuous girls, you’re going to be excluded. The pain of exclusion is worse, in the moment, than breaking your own personal code of conduct, so you go against your own values for the sake of the group. Which is a very basic herd mechanism of course: convincing the outsider to join and give up her own values in the name of embracing the group’s values. The herd in and of itself is not the problem (Anacaona taught me that!), it’s the values; and many female herds today celebrate sex-pozzy-ism.

    It’s interesting that SayWhaat and I both had similar abroad experiences; when you study abroad, you’re thrown together with people you may not necessarily come into contact with outside of the program. Of course PC culture would consider the “exposure to diverse ideas” a good thing. Hmm.

    Please put the 30 06 away, Olive. I’m not here firing bullets. I’m asking you not to do so as well.

    No bullets man. Admittedly, I get grouchy when I see people bringing up the old cock carousel debate, if only because I know it’s bound to spark a boring round-and-round.

  • JP

    @Olive:

    “It’s interesting that SayWhaat and I both had similar abroad experiences; when you study abroad, you’re thrown together with people you may not necessarily come into contact with outside of the program.”

    Same thing happens in college, generally.

    My first college roomate was an alcoholic felon (who happened to have a full scholarship).

    He would pee in the hallway and rip off the screen to get in through the window when he lost his card.

    It was kind of like being in the movie Animal House now that I think about it.

  • SayWhaat

    @ JP:

    “One final note: parents do not “decide” when it is appropriate for their children to date. You only decide when it is acceptable for your children to bring their dating lives above-ground.”

    That depends on the child’s perceived level of parental authority.

    I know that I was 100% compliant, without question, until I was 18.

    After all, only bad people disobeyed their parents, whose word was law.

    Ha, this is true. I was certainly the most “rebellious” in my peer group growing up, according to my parents. My parents constantly told me how bad I was in comparison with all the other sweet girls. :P

    What the other parents of those sweet girls didn’t know is that they all had boyfriends, even though they were expressly forbidden from dating. ;)

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

    Same thing happens in college, generally.

    Maybe, I guess it depends on your social situation. The pool of people is significantly less in most study abroad programs. I did two programs: one had 6 students, the other had 10.

  • SayWhaat

    If a woman is easily peer pressured into X pre-boyfriend.
    Is there any reason she will not be pressured into X with boyfriend.

    Not likely, no. She’s probably MORE susceptible to her BF’s pressure, because he is her pipeline of male validation and the source of her status wrt female validation.

    This is a big reason why some girls stay in abusive relationships, btw. J can probably expand on this as well.

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

    Lokland,

    Hypothetical question.

    If a woman is easily peer pressured into X pre-boyfriend.
    Is there any reason she will not be pressured into X with boyfriend.

    Hypothetically, a woman who is easily pressed into casual sex is just as likely to have the same thing occur during a relationship unless having a boyfriend grants her a backbone.

    A fabulous question, and it really comes down to the girl’s feelings about the boyfriend, IMO. A strong enough herd can convince a weak enough girl to dump the guy. The girls in my college herd weren’t really excited about my BF and practically cheered when I thought about breaking it off. Several months later, I’d said goodbye to the herd.

  • SayWhaat

    It’s interesting that SayWhaat and I both had similar abroad experiences; when you study abroad, you’re thrown together with people you may not necessarily come into contact with outside of the program.

    Yep. It was an eye-opening experience, to say the least. Like the part of high school I never experienced, plus more drugs.

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

    She’s probably MORE susceptible to her BF’s pressure, because he is her pipeline of male validation and the source of her status wrt female validation.

    Interesting… this is consistent with what I’ve observed, as well. Under the perception that “good men” are extremely rare (I don’t agree), I’ve seen one or two women put up with all kinds of crap.

    Kind of related, but I recall reading somewhere in all the social science that pressure to put out is extremely potent in high school. Most girls lose their V-card before graduating, and something like 50% or more reported feeling heavily pressured by their BFs. To some extent, that’s just teen boys being boys, but girls reported quite a bit of regret, or that it happened “too soon” for them.

  • J

    Interesting theory about the more doglike looking wolves being expelled. That would speak to acceptance being based on appearance as opposed to functional ability.

    Or say that in canids, changes in appearance signal that changes in behavior are also occuring? Ever hear of the Russian domestic fox program? Some Russian fur breeders were attempting to breed foxes that would be easier to raise for their fur; foxes apparently are nasty little biters. When they started breeding foxes for sweter temperment, they found that their coars were ruined for the fur industry as coat patterns began to look more “doggy.” They’ve recently began selling them as exotic pets. Take a look at these: http://www.domesticfox.com/#!photos Some have spots; some look a bit like shelties or pomeranians.

    As to the boy-on-boy bullying, is that more because of how ADHD boys behave or look

    That is an interesting question. I personally can sometimes identify ADHD and Aspergers boys at a glance. They both have a particular look to me–not all but some.

    What about high school or college cliques? Are sororities more discriminating on looks than frats? It would seem that male cliques are more accepting of lesser looking males if they have something else (athletic ability, charisma, expertise amongst more nerdy cliques, etc.).

    IDK. It would make an interesting study though. I think better looking people are better accepted by others overall.

    So that brings back the question, what is the difference then between herds and packs?

    Size? Function? Predator vs. prey?

    Are they both as demanding of conformance and submission to their zeitgeist and behavior?

    IDK, maybe in different ways?

  • Ted D

    Susan – I didn’t know I was missing. Lol

    Busy day. Trying to get to a point where I can start working primarily from my own office again. Driving 20 miles each way to a client site is starting to wear thin. I miss my 15 minute morning commute…

  • Passer_By

    “Kind of related, but I recall reading somewhere in all the social science that pressure to put out is extremely potent in high school. Most girls lose their V-card before graduating, and something like 50% or more reported feeling heavily pressured by their BFs. To some extent, that’s just teen boys being boys, but girls reported quite a bit of regret, or that it happened “too soon” for them.”

    I’m guessing most boys would report feeling pressured into relationships without sex, and that sex happened “too late” for them. :)

  • INTJ

    @ OTC

    If you think nobody is having unmarried sex at all, then PI can just as likely drive you towards abstinence. I honestly didn’t know the median/average N’s for women and men were as HIGH as they are until very recently. That CDC report was a real eye-opener, and should be required reading.

    You don’t have to be religious for this type of PI. Being Asian can have the same effect.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    As you may recall, we’ve already established that the breakouts by N are the same for both genders. I believe that is because that 3% is having sex with each other. Another theory, less plausible in my view, is that some restricted girls are having sex with players, which can only be true if some sluts are hooking up with sexually inexperienced males.

    And I’ve said before that I believe the second theory is the case. Being “in the trenches” so to speak with the sexually inexperienced males, I can say that at least half of whatever action they are getting is from sluts.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I sure as fuck felt pressured into relationships in high school. There was one girl I only dated because I thought she was suicidal (don’t ask, it made sense at the time), then there was one very, VERY large girl that my friend tried to set me up with for like 6 months, and I had to endure her emailing me every day.

    Then again, I also felt pressured into being more sexual than I actually wanted to be, too. There was one particular incident involving a cross country team…

  • INTJ

    @ Jackie

    T-Paine :(
    The convo in this thread has been so good so far! I would much rather see everyone high-five you for co-authoring a paper than go down that road . :(

    Sorry. I was being overly facetious. Wrong crowd for that kind of nerd humor.

    Anyway, thanks for the high-five!

  • Doug

    For the millionth time, YOU NEED TO STOP LOOKING AT COLLEGE STATS ONLY. Your stats should end at the average marrying age. I guarantee that the partner number climbs a huge amount in this time span.

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

      For the millionth time, YOU NEED TO STOP LOOKING AT COLLEGE STATS ONLY. Your stats should end at the average marrying age. I guarantee that the partner number climbs a huge amount in this time span.

      Millionth time? This doesn’t even ring a bell. Why would I not look at college stats in a post about female action on college campuses?

      As for your guarantee, got a link?

  • Kathy

    “I miss my 15 minute morning …”

    And here was I getting ready to sympathize with the fact that you were missing out on a bit of morning glory, with the wife, Ted. :)

    Mind you, having to drive 20 miles to a site every morning WOULD leave you very little time to have a game of sink the sausage. ;)

    Unless of course you were an (exceptionally) early riser. Ha!

  • INTJ

    @ OTC

    Sure, I can buy selection bias. But this means we have to throw out all surveys that are not scientifically sampled,

    Especially when you consider that so many evo-psych studies are done by recruiting college students, especially from liberal arts classes.

  • Just1Z

    The people that you end up surveying are those not savvy enough to duck the guys with the clipboards

  • Maggie

    @zKathy
    “Only a selfish woman who does not give two hoots about her husband would not know anything about his interests and wishes.”

    I second everything the married ladies have said here. A husband and wife have the most intimate relationship there is; how could they not know or learn each others interests, tastes and desires?

  • Ted D

    Kathy – every morning would be a good morning! But my wife is a medical assistant and most mornings she is up and out the door before I get up and push the kids out of bed for school.

    We make up for it on the weekends. ;-)

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

    @IntJ

    Especially when you consider that so many evo-psych studies are done by recruiting college students, especially from liberal arts classes.

    So, which of those that Susan’s cited would you throw out, again? :wink:

  • JP
  • SayWhaat

    This is a big reason why some girls stay in abusive relationships, btw. J can probably expand on this as well.

    Whoo….read back on this, realized it didn’t come out right.

    What I meant to say was that J could probably expand on the idea because IIRC she has worked with disadvantaged youth and could therefore speak more to the observation and Lokland’s initial question.

    Damn, sometimes brevity can really backfire, lol.

  • HanSolo

    @J

    That’s interesting about the foxes bred for tameness not having as beautiful of fur. Some of them in the pictures didn’t look as foxy (not that I’m an expert in foxes or anything lol).

  • Lamia

    I definitely felt the pressure to lose my V-plates as I was one of the last among my girlfriends & we were the queen bees so you can imagine how much of an issue it was. Even now, as I am single and don’t do ONS .. the girls will give me so much grief about not having had sex for ages – It just makes me laugh now though, I know they love me to bits & I quite like being the different one in the bunch. However, it was a different story in high school. When our culture encourages liberal sexuality, its very hard to listen to your intuition & hold off – particularly when: the boys are pushing you to do it, you are naive, innocent and have no idea + your hormones are running rampant. I imagine it is only getting harder for young girls too.

    On a semi-related note .. to the father’s of daughters, I think it’s quite important to exhibit beta-behaviour in front of your girls in order to ensure she ends up with someone who will take good care of her. One of the biggest challenges for me in becoming aware of the types of men who make good partners has been overcoming my very deeply ingrained preference for extremely alpha men .. as my dad is about as alpha as they get, almost to the point of a caricature. It’s quite a battle let me tell you.. but I see my GF’s who have father’s who are really affectionate, emotional, involved in daughter’s life all have found men who are similar & take good care of them!

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

      @Lamia

      Wow, thanks for your honesty about the kind of men you prefer, and for mentioning that they are like your own father. You are the third daughter of an alpha here who has been able to correlate that experience with sexual attraction.

      I’ve wondered about the father/daughter connection before. I don’t have any data on this but my own father was affectionate, high EQ and very involved in my life growing up, and I married a man who showed the same traits. Now his daughter demonstrates a clear preference for the same – that’s her first and best filter.

  • INTJ

    On a semi-related note .. to the father’s of daughters, I think it’s quite important to exhibit beta-behaviour in front of your girls in order to ensure she ends up with someone who will take good care of her. One of the biggest challenges for me in becoming aware of the types of men who make good partners has been overcoming my very deeply ingrained preference for extremely alpha men .. as my dad is about as alpha as they get, almost to the point of a caricature. It’s quite a battle let me tell you.. but I see my GF’s who have father’s who are really affectionate, emotional, involved in daughter’s life all have found men who are similar & take good care of them!

    But this goes into the whole nature vs. nurture debate. If it is due to nurture, i.e. seeing your dad behave alpha when you grow up causes you to be attracted to alpha guys like him, then it makes sense for dads to exhibit beta behavior around their daughters. But if it is due to nature, i.e. your mom was attracted to your alpha dad, and you, inheriting her genes, are also attracted to alpha guys, then behaving more beta isn’t going to help. In that case, behaving more beta will simply cause the mom to lose attraction for the dad (in red pill terms, men becoming more beta during marriage is considered equivalent to women letting themselves go during marriage).

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

      @INTJ

      But this goes into the whole nature vs. nurture debate. If it is due to nurture, i.e. seeing your dad behave alpha when you grow up causes you to be attracted to alpha guys like him, then it makes sense for dads to exhibit beta behavior around their daughters. But if it is due to nature, i.e. your mom was attracted to your alpha dad, and you, inheriting her genes, are also attracted to alpha guys, then behaving more beta isn’t going to help.

      All the discussions around heritable traits that I have seen assess their genetic component at about 50%. That represents a strong predisposition, but also a great deal of room in which one may be influenced by experience.

  • Lamia

    @INTJ

    You make a good point & I guess there is no way of knowing for sure unless my Dad suddenly did a 180 .. which I doubt will ever happen. I definitely think it can’t hurt father’s to act beta with their daughters though – as girls really do measure every man by the standards their Dad set. So even if my attraction to the super alphas is genetic (…lucky me) if my Dad had been beta, I would have two different measures of manhood that I would be drawn to. Hopefully then as I grew wiser, the beta option would grow more and more attractive.

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

    It’s funny sometimes how similar the female HUS commenters can be in such random ways.

    Not really we already did the Myer-Briggs test before and found out a huge concentration of similar types, it seems that blogs are very self selective (which explain a lot if you think about it) is very likely we share a lot of more things. I was surprised to find out that hope shops at Ross dress for less as I do, or that a lot of us girls are Sailor Moon fans. I’m sure if we started to collect more info we will find out that we are more similar than what we think we are, YMMV.

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

    Any kind of “pressure” used by chicks is via social disapproval. Basically they would just drop you as a friend and/or make fun of you (snide comments) before they would say, Sleep around or you can’t be our friend! Most likely, they will just talk crap behind your back and ignore you.

    Some examples of female pressure for the guys here curious
    *Eyeroll of shame
    *Discarding any opinion or excluding you when you are in the group because “You are just a baby, you know nothing about life/men/cooking…pick your poison”
    *The threeway (not that one) calling one of your friends with the other in line and start talking about it, usually to destroy that friendship or that girl that one is really cruel.
    *Hanging out with other girls without inviting you and you found out in a later date by accident “But I though you were busy…Oops”
    *Mocking something personal family/clothing/crushes…everywaking moment.
    *Do an united front against certain girl and make sure to make her know how icky/smelly she is. I remember one pretty girl accused by others of having lice who had a group of girls cleaning themselves everytime she passed closed by that was disgusting.
    I think men are as blind to this as they are to IOI’s because from their POV this things don’t look as bad. But for the girl in it they are absolutely horrifying.
    Now as I keep mentioning herds can also work wonders and shame girls from being too slutty, not getting good grades, not being feminine (I have a funny story of getting an intervention because I was too damn tomboyish, it was horrible when it happened and I was ready to ditch all my friends for daring, and they had to tone it down for me to stay friends with them but in hindsight I see they didn’t meant ill) so the herd is not the problem but the nature of the herd. The same with packs, IMO, YMMV.

  • Just1Z

    “so the herd is not the problem but the nature of the herd”

    I would say that the problem is with the attitudes of the herd members – ‘my herd, right or wrong’. An unwillingness to put principles over convenience. It might have been a matter of survival hundreds of years ago, but now? c’mon we’re talking convenience at best.

    “The same with packs”

    Men don’t fear being outside any pack to anywhere near the same extent as women do the herd. As you say – my milage does vary. As with many men, I’ll join a pack for a valid purpose – because serious shit needs doing.

    But join a herd just so I have someone to sit next to in the library at the cost that they make me do stuff that I do not want to do…seriously?

    That’s just weird. Vive les differences.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Men don’t fear being outside any pack to anywhere near the same extent as women do the herd.

    Based on what I am hearing here, yeah, agreed. I can get why you would try desperately hard to fit into a group, but this isn’t something I have ever felt the need to do. I’m struggling to find instances where I have.

    The closest I can think of is throwing balls at people in elementary school, and I thought it was dumb. In high school, some guys were making fun of a girl, and I kept quiet because I didn’t like people getting made fun of.

    A few months ago I was at a club and some friends tried to pressure me into smoking. To be cool, you have to smoke. It’s just so ridiculous I struggled more to keep myself from laughing. I’m a 25 year old man responsible for millions of dollars in claims and the work performance of a dozen people, does it really make any sense to peer pressure ME?

    @ thread in whole, another question:

    We have a new female contract worker. She joined us at lunch yesterday, and some of us guys were shooting shit back and forth. It had come out that I had recently finished a half marathon, and baked the cupcakes for my department that morning (Monday and all)>.

    She grabbed my arm and smiled and said something to the extent of “Whenever I am talking to you, it always feels like you’re lying a bit.”

    She clarified later that apparently I have some smirking expressions that are my default.

    Is this the “cocky-funny” I am going for?

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

      @ADBG

      She grabbed my arm and smiled and said something to the extent of “Whenever I am talking to you, it always feels like you’re lying a bit.”

      She clarified later that apparently I have some smirking expressions that are my default.

      Is this the “cocky-funny” I am going for?

      I wouldn’t call it cocky-funny, more amused mastery, but boy that is a nuclear IOI!

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Lamia: “On a semi-related note .. to the father’s of daughters, I think it’s quite important to exhibit beta-behaviour in front of your girls in order to ensure she ends up with someone who will take good care of her.”

    We can’t use the term “beta behavior” any more, because now that confuses things with Vox betas, so I am going to use “comfort traits” instead.

    While I agree on principle, this only matters if you have an excess of attraction traits, and a dearth of comfort traits. This isn’t really a problem for typical men. Instead, it’s the other way around, we have to model an appropriate level of attraction traits.

    What makes him super-alpha? Does he have multiple wives and is a billionaire?

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

      While I agree on principle, this only matters if you have an excess of attraction traits, and a dearth of comfort traits.

      This may not describe typical men, but it represents what typical men aspire to, and the number of men displaying comfort traits is decreasing. This will sort itself out in time, as they will then compete for the women who have a strong attraction to dominant males, as Lamia does.

  • Barky

    JP, porn hasn’t done me any harm so far. It has actually helped me understand how being a hot woman is many times a burden. Without porn every guy and his dog would endlessly hound attractive women and that’s disrespectful to the women and rather silly. I don’t have high expectations in women due to porn. One of the results of porn is how it mAkes me relaxed – because porn is a great release for sexual frustration – and it allows me to be charming, attentive, interesting and mysterious to women who are far above my league because I don’t come across as creepy. Most guys are either forcing the young woman to feel uncomfortabtle or they ruin any chance of the hottie developing interest. Let’s be frank. The vast majority of young women, and I consider the average-looking girls to be attractive enough for a LTR. Women know they can at least have any -6 guy to sleep with them, and one girl in particular sees the aloof guy be cocky and funny with her, and noticing how extra attentive and caring he is to her while being indifferent to other equally hot or hotter girls: she’s gonna become captivated.

  • Barky

    Furthermore, I have a high sex drive. Think of how high school was a generator of , excuse my French, mrs Walsh, blue balls. If I go a day without sexual release I begin to look at the girls like an hungry wolf would look at flock of meaty sheep. Not good. It makes me feel like I’m an animal and it makes women feel sexually objectified. I’m not too keen on jocks drooling over my youngest sister, I’m sure these girls brothers and fathers wouldn’t take it lightly that a dude is thinking all sort of cooties over “their” girls. Besides, from day one I’ve been fancying a solid 7 from Colorado and a conbination of factors have increase my SMP value above her, but she has a long-distance boyfriend, I believe, and my mom and dad did not raise me to break relationships apart. If she ends the relationship, I might be game. A pretty face is not everything. I’d have to get to know her first before committing to her. That way she’d feel safe in her choice for a high value man does not offer his commitment easily, and I’d feel that the deliverance of my freedom was a good trade for me: she’s one of the very few who can hold my interest, who can make want to talk, and who makes me wonder how cute our babies could be if I was to impregnant her(and I’m not even interested in having children).

  • Barky

    JP, video gaming is something I picked up when I was living in Alaska right out of living in California. There wasn’t much to do in Alaska besides freezing to death, so I became involved with video gaming. I still play quite a bit but not as much as I did when I was a teenager. Sorry about the lack of spaces in my posts. First time posting on a fórum/blog via iPod.

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

    In that case, behaving more beta will simply cause the mom to lose attraction for the dad.

    How so many smart guys buy into such canards, I have no idea. Honestly, chicken or the egg?

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

    Men don’t fear being outside any pack to anywhere near the same extent as women do the herd. As you say – my milage does vary. As with many men, I’ll join a pack for a valid purpose – because serious shit needs doing.

    Man fears being the weak link in the pack, lack of loyalty and lack of trust. Different fear but as socially pressured as the herd. Take a look at the male bloggers interaction to see how they all trying to become an Alpha on the terms the Alpha decides regardless if it makes any sense, that is why men became good at war they will follow their leaders to death even if that death was unnecessary and/or made no sense.

  • JP

    @Barky:

    Porn’s just a link to the so-called vital mind/lower vertical. It’s sub-real and less than human. The problem is it’s social impact, anyway. Japan is a case in point.

    Anyhow, video games in moderation is fine, just like anything else. To the extent I used them, they were quite unhelpful.

  • Just1Z

    @Megaman

    Taking the ‘normal beta’ definition (not VD’s)…

    you could try asking at
    Athol Kaye / Married Man Sex Life
    Chateau Heartiste
    Game sites in general don’t recommend trying to pull women while dressed in cardigan and slippers, drinking cocoa and smoking a pipe.

    It is a pretty wide spread view that failing to maintain a woman’s attraction to the man is bad news for the marriage. Now I see Susan’s story and it sounds plausible, but I’m not sure that a husband ought to bet the house on it, and that would be what he would be doing.

    I think that you’re out voted, but I’m sure that there’re are all kinds of women looking for all kinds of men. You go Guy

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

      Game sites in general don’t recommend trying to pull women while dressed in cardigan and slippers, drinking cocoa and smoking a pipe.

      It’s so funny you should say this! Just this weekend I was thinking that the manosphere can be summed up in the song, Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?

  • JP

    @Barky:

    ” Besides, from day one I’ve been fancying a solid 7 from Colorado and a conbination of factors have increase my SMP value above her, but she has a long-distance boyfriend, I believe, and my mom and dad did not raise me to break relationships apart.”

    Maybe the Pottery Barn rule is a better one. I’ve never really had a problem with breaking relationships, but that’s generally because my situation was my fault in the first place.

    “‘You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,’ he told the president. ‘You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.’ Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.”

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

  • Just1Z

    the rayne in spayne falls maynely on the playne?

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

    I think that you’re out voted, but I’m sure that there’re are all kinds of women looking for all kinds of men.

    Where did I say that attraction wasn’t important? I’m just amused by this simplistic labeling system. It doesn’t begin to describe the dynamics in an actual relationship IMO. But if we take it to it’s logical conclusion, “alpha” dads are probably the least likely to stick around and raise kids to begin with.

    I undertand the Jekyll & Hyde routine is the end all, be all of the SMP around here. But I seriously doubt that kind of thing keeps a relationship going for very long, let alone a marriage. My guess is Mr. HUS would be outvoted at HUS, despite his obvious bona fides in the field of marital happiness. :shock:

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

      My guess is Mr. HUS would be outvoted at HUS, despite his obvious bona fides in the field of marital happiness.

      He would be promptly dismissed by the Game-indoctrinated men as a mangina and sociosexual loser who couldn’t possibly understand what it takes to keep a woman attracted. The women would adore him.

  • Escoffier

    Not that I have researched the issue deeply (ahem), but from what I have seen, most females in porn range from unattractive to hideous. They seem hell-bent-determined to show themselves at their worst. It’s not amazing to me that porn would be a life-changer for a lot of guys but what is amazing to me is that so many guys like the toxic combination of silicon, tanning bed tans, ridiculously teased hair, caked makeup, piercings everywhere, tats, 6″ clear heels, and lingerie so trashy even Frederick’s of Hollywood wouldn’t sell it out of taste concerns

  • Just1Z

    @Megaman

    Beta (non VD) is usually considered yucky if over done. It is often described as causing a precipitous drop in attraction – cliff edge stylee. I suppose it could be seen as super-alpha to take the risk…there is that.

    But why would I worry? I’m a Titanium Alpha*

    (*small in-joke there, don’t worry about not getting it)

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

    @Just1Z

    But why would I worry? I’m a Titanium Alpha.

    Hmmm, let me guess: Titanium to get the girl, Aluminum to keep her around? :wink:

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

    Megaman,
    I gotta say, I don’t remember you being so oppositional before! You’ve become the new face of HUS skepticism. ;-)

    I undertand the Jekyll & Hyde routine is the end all, be all of the SMP around here. But I seriously doubt that kind of thing keeps a relationship going for very long, let alone a marriage. My guess is Mr. HUS would be outvoted at HUS, despite his obvious bona fides in the field of marital happiness.

    I do think that this reflects a misunderstanding of the alpha/beta balance. Don’t think of it in those terms: think of it as attraction vs. comfort. Sexy vs. sweet. Jekyll and Hyde suggests extremes, but it really doesn’t have to be that way, and I don’t think that’s what anyone here is trying to advocate. Sexy and sweet are not opposites, after all.

    When you think of it like that, of course Mr. HUS would not be outvoted!

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “All the discussions around heritable traits that I have seen assess their genetic component at about 50%. That represents a strong predisposition, but also a great deal of room in which one may be influenced by experience.”

    cought*** bullshit *** cough

    They range significantly depending on the trait/disease.

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

      @Lokland

      cought*** bullshit *** cough

      They range significantly depending on the trait/disease.

      I should have been clearer about what I meant by traits. In the genetic research around personality traits, I most often see the trait described as 50% heritable. Does that mean that a person has a 50% chance of inheriting that trait, or that the inherited gene will account for only a 50% likelihood of the personality trait being dominant?

  • Just1Z

    @Megaman
    it’s the 300 page explanation of context that makes that quote ‘funny’…maybe in another lifetime?

    in this one I’ll save you from the tale of emotional rollercoasterdom (and you’re welcome mate).

    BTW I am far from an advocate of “treat ‘em mean and keep ‘em keen”, very far from it. I just believe that you have to keep a very careful eye on the balance between alpha and beta.

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

    FYI, Susan, Emily Esfahani Smith just put up an excerpt of her Atlantic article and started a discussion thread at Ricochet:

    http://ricochet.com/main-feed/A-Plan-to-Reboot-Dating-End-the-Hook-Up-Culture-Revolutionize-Feminism-While-We-re-At-It

    …looks like it’s going to be a long one, (though not by the standards of this place)

    Ricochet is a membership site; anyone can read comments on the main thread, but you have to be member to add comments. There’s also a Members page, in which members can add new posts, promotable to the main page at the discretion of the editors. Interesting model.

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

    He would be promptly dismissed by the Game-indoctrinated men as a mangina and sociosexual loser

    No way! Didn’t you see Deti describe him as alpha?

    Nah, IMO the only people who would dismiss him would be the ones who think getting married at all is for pussies without options. I don’t really see those guys hanging out at HUS.

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

      No way! Didn’t you see Deti describe him as alpha?

      I did, but that was because he delivered a stern “no” to me. If he was on here, he’d come across as a gentle soul, very earnest, easy to get along with and having no complaints whatsoever about women, including the way we think and communicate.

      Back in the day I wrote this about seeing Mr. HUS for the first time:

      There He was. He was sitting a couple of rows up and a few seats over. He didn’t look like anyone else in the room. His hair was a little too long to be fashionable. He wore rimless glasses. He looked long-legged; his knees rose up uncomfortably behind the seat in front of him. He was wearing a colorful checked shirt, rolled up to the elbows. He seemed a bit older than many of the other guys. He looked around suddenly, and I got a glimpse of his face. His eyes were the color of swimming pool water. He had crows’ feet, which gave him a wise, sensitive look. I thought he looked like a poet, or maybe a songwriter.

      It occurs to me that this demonstrates a female preferring a “restricted” male face. I distinctly remember the attraction trigger – wisdom, intelligence, emotional sensitivity – a poet. That is what generated the tingle.

      Before anyone says I’m a wacky outlier, I had intense competition for Mr. HUS – obviously other women were drawn to the same traits. By the way, I was 100% right about his personality and character.

  • J

    I certainly want my kids to be well adjusted and socially “smart” enough to survive, but to me it seems teaching them what they need to withstand peer pressure actually works against them being “social”, since part of being social is conforming to the standards of the “herd”. And in my experience it takes a very mature person to be able to not care about “being liked”.

    It’s a difficult balance for a kid to attain. And it’s scary becasue some of the traits that make a teenager popular also come with high risk behavior. A few years ago, two of the most popular kids at my sons’ school were kiled in an accident. The whole school was in mourning — for a few days. The parents have a lifetime of mourning to do though.

  • Barky

    JP, vertical link? I’m not sure I follow. Porn is as natural as eating food is. I’m sure that the guys who throughout history didn’t have the social status to have women attracted to him, or the resources to “buy” a wife turned out to porn and managed to have at least a life of minimized sexual frustrations, which is what really matters. What’s happening in Japan is a demonstration of the young Japanese men putting their interests above those of society. Nothing wrong with that. As for long-term consequences for the consumption of porn: one Of my grandpas brother’s never had sex, only porn in his life and he was still a function able and productive member of society. You can’t really miss for what you never had(not talking about you).

  • J

    She’s probably MORE susceptible to her BF’s pressure, because he is her pipeline of male validation and the source of her status wrt female validation…This is a big reason why some girls stay in abusive relationships, btw. J can probably expand on this as well.

    Agreed. And the intimacy of the relationship is another factor.

  • Ted D

    “He would be promptly dismissed by the Game-indoctrinated men as a mangina and sociosexual loser who couldn’t possibly understand what it takes to keep a woman attracted. The women would adore him.”

    I’d like to point out Susan, that you are not the average bear when it comes to women. You have a much, MUCH better understanding of attraction/alpha/beta/comfort traits than most women. This is important because it means you are capable of seeing past what many woman cannot when it comes to determining if a particular man is or is not a good “prospect” for LTR/Marriage.

    So, although I would not dismiss Mr. Hus at all when it comes to knowing how to be a good husband, I’d say that at least some of WHY he is a good husband is you. Truth be told, I’d wager (not more than a dollar though, LOL) that most successful marriages work like this to an extent. Most men are not very Red Pill aware, yet at least 50% of marriages survive. In some cases, it may very well be that the woman in the relationship has more awareness as you do in terms of seeing their husbands as the best option, even if/when they do not appear to be so based on the usual attraction triggers.

    But honestly, do you think Mr. Hus would fair well in today’s open market SMP? Not a dig at all, just curious of your opinion on it.

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

      @Ted D

      I’d like to point out Susan, that you are not the average bear when it comes to women. You have a much, MUCH better understanding of attraction/alpha/beta/comfort traits than most women.

      But I chose him when I was clueless and 25.

      But honestly, do you think Mr. Hus would fair well in today’s open market SMP? Not a dig at all, just curious of your opinion on it.

      I’ll assume you mean if he were 27 today. (I know for a fact that the women would be breaking down the door with gourmet meals if I got hit by a bus.) He would do very well among certain women. Absolutely not well among hypergamous slutty types! But yes, he would definitely have options.

      FTR, he went to engineering school and really didn’t mature into an attractive self-confidence until his mid-20s. He was one of those late blooming betas.

  • mr. wavevector

    @Susan 665;

    While I agree on principle, this only matters if you have an excess of attraction traits, and a dearth of comfort traits.

    This may not describe typical men, but it represents what typical men aspire to, and the number of men displaying comfort traits is decreasing.

    I don’t think this (having an excess of attraction traits) represents what typical men aspire to. The typical reader of HUS or the manosphere perhaps. I think the typical man is still clueless and thinks overloading on the supplicating comfort behavior is the way to get the girl.

    The Theory of Betatude posits that today’s typical men exhibit an excess of supplicating and submissive behavior towards women they are attracted to because they perceive that women outrank them in the social hierarchy.

    The average man is a beta, meaning he does not seek absolute dominance, nor is always submissive, but comfortably occupies some middle position in the social hierarchy. As such, he is capable of both dominant and submissive behavior, depending on the situation. A beta can display situational dominance – he may be an effective leader or manager. And he can also exhibit situational submission – he will take orders from higher ranking individuals without resistance. This versatility in dominance and submission allows a beta man to work well in the hierarchy and be a good team player.

    The “betatude” of modern men – the tendency to be overly supplicating, comforting and submissive to female partners – is the result of men being trained to view women as their social superiors. This starts in childhood – many men grow up under the domination of their mothers with no father around. In school, they are dominated by the mostly female teaching staff, and are led to believe that girls are generally superior. If they go to college, they will be in the minority and be instructed by the administration that they are (potential) oppressive rapists. In the workplace, they may see women receive special protections and preferences in hiring and promotion. All these experiences teach a beta man that he is inferior in social rank to the woman he is attracted to, which is reinforced by the power her sexuality has over him.

    So what does the beta man do? What he naturally does to his social superiors – roll over. Hence the “supplicating beta” behavior. Unfortunately for him, most women are not inclined to accept the dominant role in romantic and sexual relationships and find this behavior unattractive.

    As an aside, I think this tendency of the beta male to submit is why traditional cultures spend so much effort to prop up the male role as head of household. Universal monogamy requires that female hypergamy be suppressed, and this requires husbands to occasionally make passable imitations of alpha attractive behavior. A “patriarchal” social structure which elevates men over women artificially enhances the husband’s dominant qualities and suppresses his submissive qualities. Without this cultural support, it’s hard for a beta male to maintain a strong frame in dating or marriage, even in the absence of a girl-power culture. The natural power of women – their sexuality and fertility, their dexterity at emotional manipulation, their control over hearth and home – is already daunting.

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

      @mr. wavevector

      The “betatude” of modern men – the tendency to be overly supplicating, comforting and submissive to female partners – is the result of men being trained to view women as their social superiors. This starts in childhood – many men grow up under the domination of their mothers with no father around. In school, they are dominated by the mostly female teaching staff, and are led to believe that girls are generally superior. If they go to college, they will be in the minority and be instructed by the administration that they are (potential) oppressive rapists. In the workplace, they may see women receive special protections and preferences in hiring and promotion. All these experiences teach a beta man that he is inferior in social rank to the woman he is attracted to, which is reinforced by the power her sexuality has over him.

      This is awesome analysis – I do believe you are the first man here to use the language of superiority, which is think is right on. I witnessed this as my own children were growing up, and that is when I became convinced that feminism was a play for female superiority, not equality. And that’s when I divorced myself from it.

      Mr. WV, you are a fantastic new addition to HUS – you have great insights, and you’ve shared them generously. I hope you’ll stick around – we can learn a lot from you.

  • J

    That’s interesting about the foxes bred for tameness not having as beautiful of fur. Some of them in the pictures didn’t look as foxy (not that I’m an expert in foxes or anything lol).

    Isn’t it wild? And it’s not just that the coats aren’t as pretty. The coats look dog-like–spotted coats like dalmations, sable coats like collies, facial markings like shelties. Something like that must have happened with wolves. As people bred them for neotanous behavior, their looks changed as well. Somehow, there’s a link.

  • Cooper

    Olive,
    ” IMO the only people who would dismiss him would be the ones who think getting married at all is for pussies without options. I don’t really see those guys hanging out at HUS.”

    *looks over shoulder*

  • J

    @Just1Z

    New handle again?

  • mr. wavevector

    He would be promptly dismissed by the Game-indoctrinated men as a mangina and sociosexual loser who couldn’t possibly understand what it takes to keep a woman attracted.

    Mr. HUS is not psychopathic, narcissistic, or Machiavellian enough to impress the Roissy’s and the RooshV’s of the Game world. And that’s a good thing!

  • mr. wavevector

    @ OffTheCuff 659;

    This isn’t really a problem for typical men. Instead, it’s the other way around, we have to model an appropriate level of attraction traits.

    I agree. We’ve been brainwashed into thinking these attraction traits are the tools of oppression. It’s a hard lesson to unlearn.

    @Megaman 667;

    How so many smart guys buy into such canards, I have no idea. Honestly, chicken or the egg?

    I undertand the Jekyll & Hyde routine is the end all, be all of the SMP around here. But I seriously doubt that kind of thing keeps a relationship going for very long, let alone a marriage.

    The reason you see these as canards as opposed to terse expressions of a general truth is because you are exaggerating them into caricatures – a tendency shared with many of the commentators here. It’s not a matter of Jekyll & Hyde – two opposing and contradictory forces. Rather, it’s obtaining a balance of disparate forces that work in harmony.

    And why does this smart guy into it? Because 20 years of a very successful marriage have shown me it’s true.

  • Beta2Alpha

    @John (#121)
    “I will not marry a woman who has given that away to other men. Period. She will not get the benefit of me comforting her when she is old, because she ignored me while I was young.”

    Oh my! I just registered to say that you are me! I was popular in high school. Jock, grades, etc. I was outgoing and never had problems getting dates. My problem was that I was too nice such that I usually got the “I love you but I’m not in love with you,” speech from the “10’s” that I wanted to marry. Granted, I was too giving and was probably a doormat. Girls in my mid-20’s would use me as the rebound guy, but then rush back to the broke, uneducated, bad boy when he came back because they liked his edge. I quickly learned not to return calls. I learned to ignore. I learned to treat them as insignificant. Now my phone doesn’t stop ringing. They all want me to reconsider dating them in my early 30’s. I make very good money and have no debt. I have a great life. They see all my travels and lifestyle and NOW want back in. Haha…they will never hear back from me. I’m now MGTOW for life.

    I’m so glad to see someone else out there like me. Maybe I’m stubborn but I look at what marriage has to offer a man like me…nothing. I can have love without it. I can have friendships without it. I can have children without it (I won’t though). Marriage only offers me risk to my finances. Girls in their 30’s are throwing themselves at me because their clocks are ticking or they are in huge student loan or other debt. Girls in their 20’s are throwing themselves at me because men in their 20’s have “no ambition” (their words) and are prolonging adolescence (their words). Maybe I’ll have incentive to marry when I’m 50-60 but I doubt it. I will re-evaluate it at that time. In the meantime, I’m open to a LTR without the legal bonds of marriage…but again, happy to stay single if that option is not there with someone I like.

    I HOPE this doesn’t sound conceited but I’m certain that some women will take it that way. I promise you that I don’t think I’m “all that” (ask my friends). I am merely stating the facts. No one is more shocked about my sudden boom in popularity than me. ALL I DID WAS LEARN FROM WATCHING OTHERS like any smart person would do. And I guess all these women must have received some memo that the way to compete for me was to have sex with me by date #2. I’m not complaining but I NEVER saw this coming in my 20’s when I was fighting for their attention. What a weird world.

    Susan, this website is great. Communication is lacking between the sexes. Men like me are opting out more and more. None of my male friends want to get married. I think the sexes are growing apart. To the article above, it will never work. For every woman that says she won’t hook up with me, there are 3 others ready to do so. I’m not making this up. It’s everywhere. And it wasn’t here 10 years ago I can tell you that.

  • SayWhaat

    He would be promptly dismissed by the Game-indoctrinated men as a mangina and sociosexual loser

    No way! Didn’t you see Deti describe him as alpha?

    Deti described him as alpha because the only descriptors we are ever given of Mr. HUS are through Susan. Naturally, any of the wives describing their husbands here would make it seem as though they all married alphas, *in the lens of the men commenting here.*

    I think what Megaman meant was that if Mr. HUS were to comment here, AS HIMSELF, he would be summarily dismissed. I’m inclined to agree.

  • Abbot

    “The entire system is a complete mess from a human perspective and this entire feminism-relationship mess just kind of flows from that.”

    That FR construct relies heavily on prescription as does the Western “career culture.” That is why they go beserk when an American man so much as mentions jumping ship (aka breaking the construct) to form a family in a foreign country.

  • Just1Z

    @J
    resurrected old one – the Z is for Zombie.
    I am in mourning, as I’m sure we are, for the passing of Just1X. For he is no more.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?”
    *stern tone*
    You know very well that I like feminine women.

    But does it always have to be dialled up to eleven*…?

    *okay enough with the faked stern tone* (it wasn’t foolin’ you anyway)

    (*I wonder if the reference works in the States?)

  • mr. wavevector

    @J;

    As people bred them for neotanous behavior, their looks changed as well.

    It’s interesting that humans exhibit a high degree of neoteny. Some anthropologists think that we’re a self-domesticating species; over time we’ve expelled the wildest, fiercest members who didn’t get along in a group. Too much alpha, not enough beta, perhaps?

    I was thinking about this when reading some of your somewhat dismissive remarks about childlike femininity. Women exhibit a greater degree of neoteny than men, so it could be argued they are more childlike than men in some ways, and that this is actually an important part of sexual attraction. For example, neoteny in women is correlated to physical attractiveness: In a cross-cultural study, more neotenized female faces were the most attractive to men while less neotenized female faces were the least attractive to men.

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

      Women exhibit a greater degree of neoteny than men, so it could be argued they are more childlike than men in some ways, and that this is actually an important part of sexual attraction.

      I’m sure it is, probably related to perceptions purity and innocence. We see that the mature women is not a child – her body tells us this – but her face may retain some element of vulnerability and need of protection that triggers attraction in men.

      One idea I keep floating here that never seems to get any traction is the idea that we have evolved to a certain point, and it works quite well for mating. I hypothesize that the tendencies of the different sexes, including those features that drive the other sex crazy, are all part of the formula of sexual tension and attraction.

      This came up in the recent discussion on female solipsism. Most men spoke about female emotion and our way of processing others via our own experineces as a scourge, but if you removed it from female nature, you’d have near-males. In a similar way, hypergamy is vitally important for reproduction, and it represents a prime motivator for male achievement.

      The male desire for sexual variety may seem like a curse to women, but without the male sexual urge women wouldn’t experience men’s desire for them, which is the most powerful aphrodisiac the female knows.

      If I could change one thing, I wouldn’t do it.

  • Ted D

    Actually I think the question I asked of Susan earlier might be great for all the partnered ladies here:

    How to you think your SO/Husband would fair today if he was looking for a mate in the current SMP/MMP? I’m sure this is tough because you are so fond of him, but try to be objective.

  • Cooper

    @Beta2Alpha
    “I learned to ignore.”

    Yup.

    ” I’m now MGTOW for life. . . .
    I NEVER saw this coming in my 20′s when I was fighting for their attention”

    The thing I personally keep getting caught up on is why I won’t end up like this. If I can’t get girls, of equal SMV, to have interest in me now, before my SMV continues to increase for 10+years, then how will I not want to reject? (or even worse treat the ones finally giving me the attention poor)

    Right now, I’m am fully prepared to enter a LTR.
    Provided I find one, and even if the my girlfriend is higher SMV now, it’s almost certain that my SMV will overtake hers within the next 10years.
    So, hypothetically if I’m a 8, and find an 8 now, there’s a good chance we’ll be a 9 and a 7 in 10years.

    I am OK with this! I’ll choose whoever to marry based on having the consent of my 35-40yo self. (If that makes sense.) I will not allow myself to marry early, and let having our SMV grow apart be any sort of reason of dissatisfaction in my relationship – no way.
    With that said, how am I not supposed to feel bitter about girl, my age and even lower SMV than me, rejecting me.
    I am practically offering them a man of much higher SMV and they either can’t see it or figure they can “come back.”

    I get this from girls I truly perceive below my SMV. So, provided their SMV will undoubtedly decrease, while mine undoubtedly increases – their own perceived value must be either in the clouds, or they don’t think they’ll ever hit the wall.
    Even in my early twenties, I am witnessing my value, slowly, increase. (Which says its only to pick up) I think all in all what I have to offer is a killer deal – it’s like I got hot stock, yet I can’t even sell it for low!

    /rant, how’s is everyone else doing!

  • Ted D

    Cooper – “I get this from girls I truly perceive below my SMV. So, provided their SMV will undoubtedly decrease, while mine undoubtedly increases – their own perceived value must be either in the clouds, or they don’t think they’ll ever hit the wall.”

    It’s a damn mess, isn’t it?

  • J

    I’d like to point out Susan, that you are not the average bear when it comes to women.

    It depends on what neck of the woods you’re hunting bear in, Ted. Most of my RL friends resemble Susan and their marriages resemble her marriage.

  • HanSolo

    @mr. wavevector

    A “patriarchal” social structure which elevates men over women artificially enhances the husband’s dominant qualities and suppresses his submissive qualities. Without this cultural support, it’s hard for a beta male to maintain a strong frame in dating or marriage, even in the absence of a girl-power culture.

    Agree that that helped balance things out historically. A lot of the talk of a woman’s inferiority was nonsense but it helped artificially deflate her value and inflate man’s (of course, the physical strength part of it was true). Also, the real need of a man’s provider and protector abilities back then also elevated his value.

    Today, technology has largely reduced the value of physical strength and opened up all kinds of employment where a brain and social skills are mainly what is needed. Plus, the welfare state and protection of police and armies (still largely male) contribute to eliminating the need of the individual woman for a man. Men are still needed collectively for their taxes and labor. So both the real value of a man (provider/protector role) and the artificial value (based on the old “bullshit” that women couldn’t think or work outside the home, etc.) have been reduced or eliminated and we find ourselves in the current situation.

    It’s the most ironic thing in the world that men invented themselves out of their dominant place in society by coming up with technology. Materially, the modern world is a veritable paradise compared to the drab subsistence of hundreds or thousands of years ago (life expectancy is about double of what it was and there’s 10x more people and we have unheard of wealth compared to back then) so men are much better off in their now equal or inferior status relative to women than back when they were the “king” of their home but a serf to their lord, slaving away and barely with enough to eat.

    It bring’s Milton’s Paradise Lost to mind:

    Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

    I wonder how many men would prefer that.

    But that’s all prologue. The future will be wild indeed as technology completely transforms humanity into something possibly completely different than our biology makes it right now.

  • Ted D

    J – “It depends on what neck of the woods you’re hunting bear in, Ted. Most of my RL friends resemble Susan and their marriages resemble her marriage.”

    Well *I* would be hunting in those woods. But guys like Cooper and INTJ? Yeah, I’m not even sure they are hunting bears in their age bracket.

    And honestly, how long did it take Susan and your RL friends to learn what is actually most important in a husband? Is it possible that women are simply NOT learning those lessons as early as they used to? It would explain the “mad dash” to marriage and family for many women when they hit the 30’s. Of course, that is little consolation for Cooper and his peers after they spent thier 20’s being rejected for relationships.

  • Just1Z

    @Beta2Alpha & Cooper

    relax guys, the global financial collapse will happen soon (aka the zombie apocalypse). There’s going to be a massive recalibration of SMV and MMV coming along. Sadly that might be the healthiest part of the coming changes.

    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/its-over.html
    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/nothing-left-to-lose-last-ingredient.html
    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/america-will-never-die.html

    Enjoy the decline, because whether you want it or not, it’s a-coming to a globe near you.

    @Susan – I note that Cappy Cap is now hosted in New Zealand. Does he know something that you don’t? Also his site doesn’t spout unprovoked streaming coke adverts – always a plus…

  • Just1Z

    although on a lighter note, maybe we’ll be lucky and have an alien invasion first?

    (humour alert)
    Mitchell & Webb: Alien invasion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP-rkzJ6yZw

    Best Mitchell and Webb Sketch Ever
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNo9CKmZaVA&feature=related

    Mitchell & Webb: The New Fuhrer – promotion!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pje5ROe5Y_w&feature=related

  • J

    It’s interesting that humans exhibit a high degree of neoteny. Some anthropologists think that we’re a self-domesticating species; over time we’ve expelled the wildest, fiercest members who didn’t get along in a group. Too much alpha, not enough beta, perhaps?

    Seems reasonable.

    I was thinking about this when reading some of your somewhat dismissive remarks about childlike femininity.

    What struck you as dismissive? The observation that decison making is a part of adult life? For most people, it really is. I truly worry about people who pass all major decision making to a spouse. I’m of an age where I’m starting to see friends lose their husbands through death. Those who handed everything off to their husbands tend to do very poorly as widows, which is sadly the eventual fate of most married women. I see women everyday who can’t handle car repairs, finances, etc. Yesterday, DH and I switched cars because he was too busy take care of some repairs on his car. I can’t tell you how much I hate dealing with the car and with mechanics, but I did it. Twice in fact, because they screwed up a repair the first time. I feel so accomplished now that I tackled that, and he was so grateful for the help. Sometimes it’s good to get out of the old comfort zone.

    Women exhibit a greater degree of neoteny than men, so it could be argued they are more childlike than men in some ways, and that this is actually an important part of sexual attraction. … less neotenized female faces were the least attractive to men.

    True enough, though I’m not sure that argues for women not learning to make decisions. People still have to live the life fate throws in front of them. I’d have rather not been my parents’ health care POA, but it was something I had to do, I did it, and it made me a better person for facing it. While I’m grateful for DH’s love and support through all this, I’m also glad that he declined input into my decision. It was ultimately between my folks, God and me. DH felt that he couldn’t be responsible for something that I’d ultimately be the one who had to live with decison so he didn’t mix in.

    Wiki also has an article on neoteny http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “This may not describe typical men, but it represents what typical men aspire to, and the number of men displaying comfort traits is decreasing.”

    It took me a while to parse this, but I see what you are saying. When comfort traits are penalized, then there will be less of them… pretty simple. The incentives are pretty screwed up, but they are what they are From the man’s perspective, he can either add attraction traits, reduce comfort traits, or both, to change the whole-package balance. When backed into a corner, withholding comfort may be his only option.

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

      @OTC

      From the man’s perspective, he can either add attraction traits, reduce comfort traits, or both, to change the whole-package balance. When backed into a corner, withholding comfort may be his only option.

      To be clear, I was not blaming men. I totally agree that this is a straightforward case of sexual economics. When people respond to market conditions, that is a smart thing b/c it increases their chances of success. I may tell women not to take a chance on a “Pretend Asshole,” but that doesn’t mean I would tell a man not to employ that strategy, depending on his goals.

  • Just1Z

    What the hell, the radio version (which is betterer)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YkAuDaLKpI

  • Ted D

    Just1Z – well those first three links were kinda depressing…

    I’m not sure who I am more worried about: myself of my children. If this happens soon, I’ll be in trouble which means they will be in trouble. If it holds off for several years, they may very well find themselves fresh out of college and/or just starting with NO prospects for gainful employment.

    And if no one else has money, rolling your own business is pointless.

  • J

    And honestly, how long did it take Susan and your RL friends to learn what is actually most important in a husband?

    Most of my friends married between 21 and 28.

    Is it possible that women are simply NOT learning those lessons as early as they used to?

    It could be a factor, but it think things like the economy and the extended period of adolescense that college-goers go through also have a lot to do with it.

    It would explain the “mad dash” to marriage and family for many women when they hit the 30′s.

    I don’t see this happening much IRL. Each summer, I attend 2-3 weddings where the bride in about 25 or 26 and groom is about 30. I think the national stats are similar, but I haven’t done the research.

    Also you asked how the women here think their husbands SMV would do in the current SMP. I think DH would be well in his age cohort. He’s sucessful, handsome, smart and funny. Women compliment me on him.

    I would expect that SW’s DH would also do very well, probably for the same reasons.

  • J

    resurrected old one – the Z is for Zombie… I am in mourning, as I’m sure we are, for the passing of Just1X. For he is no more

    So, Just1X is dead. He will be missed. Long live Just1Z.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Wavevector at 689, excellent analysis.

    SayWhaat, I doubt Mr. HUS would get called those words by the people present here, maybe at Dalrock or Roissy. It’s possible to Game-aware and pro-family. I certainly have never called any man that, and am not sure which men here, if any, have said such things.

  • Cooper

    “Is it possible that women are simply NOT learning those lessons as early as they used to? It would explain the “mad dash” to marriage and family for many women when they hit the 30′s.”

    I can’t even explain how similar the reactions I get from girls are.
    I know the meanings for exactly match, but it always maks me think of the story of goldilocks – where she hums and haws over each bowl of porridge not being exactly right, and wishes to try them all. (I know women don’t do this, but it is the mentality – that they ought to explore all their options before choosing one)
    I get this. That they don’t want to ‘burn a bridge’ essentially.

    I get tons of girls who welcome my attention, and enthusiastically entertain it, but not without this ‘wanting to taste the others first’ type mentality. What I’m saying is tons of girls are willing to enjoy receiving my attention, just none are willing to jump out of their seats for it. It’s all received with a “thanks, I’ll keep you around, while I decide” kinda of way. Like as if, they are still holding out for some “mr.big type” to sweep them off their feet, and that they can “come back” to me, when he doesn’t and they don’t find better.

    Another analogy I often think of is like they’re trying to sell an unscratched loto ticket. What’s it worth? (Face value – maybe a $1.) And young girls in their twenties are turning down (un)reasonably good offers (say $10) with the hopes “it could be a winner! Worth a million bucks!”

    It goes with the situation, I suppose. Young girls get so much attention, I do get why when dealing with a guy showing interest, they’re inherent reaction can possibly be “and, the next one could be even better! – let’s not get too excited about this one”

  • Just1Z

    @TedD

    Yeah, sorry, but it isn’t just him with that opinion.

    Mitchell and Webb are funnier, if that helps…? The alien crab monsters would be quicker…I, for one, welcome our new alien overlords…YMMV

    Perhaps I should have delivered the news as a shit sandwich instead?
    good news -> bad news -> good news

    See you poolside, it’s not like there’s anything we could do about it…as Cappy Cap says, “Enjoy the decline”.

  • Cooper

    “relax guys, the global financial collapse will happen soon (aka the zombie apocalypse).”

    *huge sign of relief*

    I am in the right demo to survive!!

  • Just1Z

    @Susan,

    and clearly, so was he. *hugs*

  • Just1Z

    @Cooper,
    well, I’m old(er), but I have stocked up…and I have better tactical skills than those idiots on the walking dead (but then, who hasn’t?).

  • mr. wavevector

    J,

    I’m guilty of selling mrs. wavevector short. She’s a capable woman, perfectly able to get the car fixed if I’m not around. But she’s much happier if I do it for her. I can cook dinner, but I’m much happier if she does it.

    Part of this is useful division of labor. But some of it is role playing to increase one’s attractiveness to one’s mate. I play alpha because she likes it, and she plays femme because I like it. It strengthens our bond and interdependence (which we both value over independence). I’m not saying that works for everybody.

    I see women everyday who can’t handle car repairs, finances, etc.

    That’s my mom. I do those things for her now. But widowed women still survive better than widowed men.

  • Barky

    ”Not that I have researched the issue deeply (ahem), but from what I have seen, most females in porn range from unattractive to hideous. They seem hell-bent-determined to show themselves at their worst. It’s not amazing to me that porn would be a life-changer for a lot of guys but what is amazing to me is that so many guys like the toxic combination of silicon, tanning bed tans, ridiculously teased hair, caked makeup, piercings everywhere, tats, 6″ clear heels, and lingerie so trashy even Frederick’s of Hollywood wouldn’t sell it out of taste concerns”

    It could be that most porn is bad, but a young guy only needs to find the right porn, and there’s so many sources for good porn. There’s stuff like Girls Gone Wild, filled with very beautiful and all-natural women. There’s the lesbian porn, which also features very beautiful and natural women. There’s x-Art that began as a glamour photoshoot magazine and evolved to hardcore porn.

    A few porn names are huge. Sasha Gray and Gracie Glam to name a few. There are literally porn forums filled with works from those two girls and they’re always making new scenes. Add to that a whole bunch of very attractive young women who come(and go) to porn everyday, and the very attractive amateur girls you can find even on mainstream blogs, and you can have a pretty good time with some hand lotion, a computer screen, and some tissues.

    And I can always find a porn star who strongly ressembles the women IRL I’m most attracted to.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “In the genetic research around personality traits, I most often see the trait described as 50% heritable. Does that mean that a person has a 50% chance of inheriting that trait, or that the inherited gene will account for only a 50% likelihood of the personality trait being dominant?”

    Your first guess is incorrect, your second is incorrect but closer to correct.

    your thinking Mendellian genetics, a trait is either dominant or recessive. Thats not how it actually works.

    Most traits are polygenic (multiple genes involved in producing the phenotype). This means that different alleles (versions of a given gene) can act in different combos to produce different results.

    now for the % heritability.

    They do it typically by measuring twins. I’m gonna use cancer cause its easier than personality traits and my knowledge base is greater.

    You take two twins which have three factors that effect whether or not cancer develops. Shared environment, unshared environment and the actual genes involved.

    Phenotype (cancer or no cancer) depends on how that specific gene set interacts with the total environment (shared and unshared).

    From that you can determine the % each part is involved in producing the cancer phenotype.

    Example, certain hereditary cancers are like 60-70% heritable with little environmental impact. Sporadic cancer ie. lung, is 60-70% environmental factors.

    However, this is also not the full picture. Lets use height.
    Its very obvious that nutrition plays a role in height BUT in North America we all receive essentially 100% nutrition which means the environment is shared so differences in displayed phenotype are due pretty much entirely do to genetics.

    So % heritability is a measure of the effect that genes play into producing a phenotype but they are not the only factor involved.

    Its not a probability on whether or not a phenotype develops merely a measure of % input by a given source of (stuff) that makes a certain phenotype.

    Keep in mind that different gene sets have different effects as well.

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

      @Lokland

      Thank you for the genetics lesson :) Obviously, I am very interested in genetic effects on behavior and should understand it if I’m going to write about it.

  • HanSolo

    @Cooper 715

    I hear you and have experienced everything you’re talking about, the lower SMV girl thinking she’s too good for me, the flaking out, etc. Now, I don’t think all 20-30 y/o women are like that but maybe half are while the other half are getting married and having LTRs. But it is that half that is being too picky, too demanding, or putting off marriage/LTR for either fun or career that has really upset the MMP. You may want to go join Abbot in Mexico. lol

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “This is awesome analysis – I do believe you are the first man here to use the language of superiority, which is think is right on. I witnessed this as my own children were growing up, and that is when I became convinced that feminism was a play for female superiority, not equality. And that’s when I divorced myself from it.”

    I definitely agree with his analysis, other than the unclear term “beta”, which I believe he uses in the Roissy sense, not yours.

    You said a bit earlier that when you say (Vox) “beta” it also includes delta and gammas. But they have almost *nothing* in common, other than being Not Alpha.

    A Vox Alpha and Beta have abundance mindsets – they do not see women as superiors. A Vox Delta and Gamma have scarcity mindsets – they see women as natural superiors.

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

      A Vox Alpha and Beta have abundance mindsets – they do not see women as superiors. A Vox Delta and Gamma have scarcity mindsets – they see women as natural superiors.

      I want to highlight this because it is clear that a man’s attitude towards women can have a very strong effect on how attractive women find him. And that is something that can be changed without too much difficulty. I would also suggest that Alphas as Vox describes them tend to see women as very inferior – and this is one of the reasons they make poor mates. As always, I think beta is the sweet spot.

  • HanSolo

    @Barky

    I may be an outlier but I just don’t get how someone would rather mast. to porn instead of fuck an average or better woman. If I were out looking for casual I would rather fuck the lowest looks on my casual threshold (about a 6) than view porn. In practice, I’m more looking for a relationship though so I’m not out looking for casual, though I’d do casual with a 7+ if she came looking for it. In the past I had quite a bit of casual with 6, 7, and 8’s, and even a couple 9’s but most of the 8 and 9’s I was doing it with the intention of seeing if it would lead to an LTR.

    How prevalent is it that younger guys coming up are really preferring porn to real women? Or is it that they either can’t get women, don’t think they can or have just given up and settle for porn? Now, I do believe that there are the herbivore or MGTOW types but preferring porn to a real woman seems so foreign to me that I have a hard time believing how widespread the phenomenon is.

    I know Susan or someone posted something about how young men are having problems orgasming and getting it up with real women and that was correlated with (excessive?) porn use but that doesn’t mean they initially preferred it. Rather, they started using it young, wanked off too much and some of them ruined their ability to get it up and out with a woman.

    Thoughts?

  • Just1Z

    @Susan

    “I do believe you are the first man here to use the language of superiority”

    I’m not sure that he was the first to use it, he certainly wasn’t the first to know it. Surely it’s obvious?

    the most obvious is the male-female ratio in college.

    60/40 m/f – outrageous in the 70s
    40/60 m/f – where are all these ‘we believe in equality’ feminists now?

    radfems openly talk about eradicating 90% of men, genetic engineering of men to feminise them…it doesn’t even make the news. Agent Orange infiltrated radfemhub…enjoy

    report on radfemhub. check out the SCUM video at the bottom of the page
    http://agentorangefiles.com/

    And from Agent Orange himself
    (http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/agent-orange-files-released/)

    Agent Orange in reply to Izzey

    Don’t feel like your alone. I had a couple sleepless nights after I collected the first batch of data. It was difficult to keep my emotions under control as I read some of the posts that were written. The fact that some of these people have influence in their communities and countries makes it that much worse to me. Each time I found another connection, I felt my hackles rise in response.

    Schoolteachers? Lobbyists? Public Speakers?

    This is only the tip of the iceberg. There are a couple dozen names associated with those files that I could not release, because of the lack of real data to back up my finds.

    It gets worse. There are other groups out there just like this one, each one is connected to the others by the same names in many cases. Some of our MRAs and Non-Feminist friends have had run-ins with these names all over the internet……and some of these names show up in very dark corners with a whole new set of names surrounding them.

    The fact of the matter is that this is not just some crazy conspiracy theory. These people are saying what they cannot say in public. They are revealing their heart of hearts to each other….and those hearts are filled with a black bile.

    I would task each person who thinks the “A” in MRA means “Activist”, to actually start taking a look around outside the confines of this site and others like it. Start really reading what these people say, find out who they associate with, and how they reference their ideology. now is as good a time as any, since there are going to be reactions to what has been done lately.

    Trust me when I tell you that I did not just grab any thread I saw. EVERY thread has a purpose. Every thread contains at least one phrase that outs them for what they stand for. Remember HOW they say what they say, and be prepared to use that knowledge to explain to those fence-sitters out there that siding with people like these….that electing officials that cater to these vipers….and that simply standing around and hoping it goes away will see them in chains….and see their children in chains as well.

    These people on this forum (and many other forums, I assure you), know that they collude against many of the women out there. There are explicit conversations about this in the documentation. They say straight out that they may have to kill the grown women with the men…..and keep all the girls….just to make sure that all those women did not re-institute patriarchal standards.

    SW: Edited for extreme profanity.

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

      @Just1Z

      “I do believe you are the first man here to use the language of superiority”

      I’m not sure that he was the first to use it, he certainly wasn’t the first to know it. Surely it’s obvious?

      I was specifically referring to men having grown up Blue Pill. Every other guy who has explained this to me has said that they were lied to by parents and teachers about what women want, or some variation on that. Mr. Wavevector’s point is very different – that boys are taught they deserve lower social rank than women.

  • Barky

    ”I get tons of girls who welcome my attention, and enthusiastically entertain it, but not without this ‘wanting to taste the others first’ type mentality. What I’m saying is tons of girls are willing to enjoy receiving my attention, just none are willing to jump out of their seats for it. It’s all received with a “thanks, I’ll keep you around, while I decide” kinda of way. Like as if, they are still holding out for some “mr.big type” to sweep them off their feet, and that they can “come back” to me, when he doesn’t and they don’t find better.”

    Yeah, its interesting how that can go.

    A month ago, a girl from my college changed her school course. She decided what she was in wasn’t what she was really interested in, and moved on to my course. She is attractive, but she’s nothing like the 8’s and 10’s, although she does have a nice figure, seems to have a full bossom, and she has beautiful hair. But in a college(as all are, really) filled with inamaginable beautiful women, its very easy for an 8 to be ”ignored” especially with so many ugly guys evaluating a 10 female as a 5 at the very best.

    But I disgress.

    I was building some good chemistry with the girl. She laughed at everything I was trying to be funny at, she had good body language towards me and she was keen on talking to me.

    A week later she’s ignoring my greetings and looking uncomfortable with my presence. I decided that the girl was probably having some problems in her life or that she was just moody(it could be that she assumed I was interested in her and didn’t want to lead me on) and I didn’t talk to her ever since.

    This week, I’m coming down the stairs from one of my classes and as I look to what’s in front of me, I notice the girl and I see her eye blink – as if she had been staring at me and stopped doing it as soon as she realized I was looking at her.

    I walked past her without saying anything. I enter the row of rooms my classroom is located at. She comes in some 5 minutes later with a tall African-American and she’s chatting happily.

    I enter the classroom, the girl sits behind me. I was sitting on the far left end of the first row of tables. The girl was located to the right of my right eye. She had told me previously how much she loved the subject we were going to have. I noticed the girl was bored all the time, and that she was always looking at me, including even without intending to stare at me.

    I didn’t look at her. But I noticed that one girl in particular, a hot girl, wouldn’t stop looking at me either and would give those ”look to the side as quick as possible” whenever she thought I was aware of what she was doing.

    Now, what really cracks me up is that this hot girl turns to the other girl’s friend and says that I’m hot. I heard because at that time the entire class went mute, she was looking at me, and I was the only guy(I’m the only guy out of three guys who are below average, and the entire class is made up of a lot of girls who also happen to be very hot) on that table.

    The girl who ignored me previously instantly looked at me and stared.

    The class ends. I am the first to exit the classroom. I go straight to the subway. The girl who ignored me last week goes to the same line. I always lean over the wall at the entrance to the station itself, and as I was looking to the other side of the line I see a most beautiful blonde girl. My jaw gets deeper, I drool over that blonde girl, and the other girl appears from the stairs, goes by me, while staring directly into my eyes(we were cms apart from each other), I suppose she was saying hi or whatever but I couldn’t hear anything with the headphones on.

    The blonde girl has her boyfriend show up and she starts waving at me. I look to the sides to see if she’s waving at someone else: nope.

    She’s waving at me and smiling for no reason at all.

    Man, complicated stuff all of this.

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

      @Barky

      If you’re getting lots of IOIs, why not put down the porn and go meet some women IRL?

  • Just1Z

    @Han
    I believe that Susan has described how men can re-program their desires regarding porn and ‘IRL’, it doesn’t even take that long – I concur (anecdotally and mind your own business!).

    Misuse of viagra by young men programmed by what they see on porn…not in my experience at all…but that sounds more serious long term to me.

  • SayWhaat

    Barky = Piper/Michael?

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

      Barky = Piper/Michael?

      Yeah, I wondered that. Different IP address, but that doesn’t mean anything.

  • mr. wavevector

    @HanSolo;

    Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

    I wonder how many men would prefer that.

    reign in Hell = alpha?
    serve in Heaven = beta?

    It’s the most ironic thing in the world that men invented themselves out of their dominant place in society by coming up with technology.

    Indeed. I once read an economics of marriage research paper that argued that two factors are necessary for stable, assortative marriage: restraint on female sexuality (slut shaming), and high relative power for beta males. It is the beta males that are responsible for the technology that makes our world easier to live in, going all the way back to the invention of the plow in ancient times, and this has given them enough power to keep their rulers from monopolizing all the women.

    As you point out, we betas seemed to have worked ourselves out of a job. Meanwhile, the rich are getting richer and the slutty sluttier!

    The biggest losers when monogamy breaks down into hypergamy are the low ranking males, who can’t get a woman, and the highest ranking females, who can’t monopolize the alpha males. No one cares about the low ranking males, but the laments of the high ranking females now pervade the media.

  • Iggles

    @ Beta2Alpha:

    My problem was that I was too nice such that I usually got the “I love you but I’m not in love with you,” speech from the “10′s” that I wanted to marry. Granted, I was too giving and was probably a doormat. Girls in my mid-20′s would use me as the rebound guy, but then rush back to the broke, uneducated, bad boy when he came back because they liked his edge. I quickly learned not to return calls. I learned to ignore. I learned to treat them as insignificant. Now my phone doesn’t stop ringing. They all want me to reconsider dating them in my early 30′s. I make very good money and have no debt. I have a great life. They see all my travels and lifestyle and NOW want back in. Haha…they will never hear back from me. I’m now MGTOW for life.

    So you became a jerk to get girls and got bitter as the girls who like jerks flock to you. This story is as old as time *yawn*

    Dark game attracts women with issues who actively or subconsciously seek out dysfunctional relationships. You reap what you sow, here. You don’t have to go from a “doormat” to a jerk, and shouldn’t if a healthy loving relationship is what you truly want.

    You let women of low character who are “hot” (since you stated you only wanted to marry the “10s”) define how you think of all women. Dating/sleeping with those types of women never brought you happiness — no wonder you don’t want to marry them!

    When/if you’re ever ready to pursue a relationship with an undamaged woman, you may find NAWAL the ones you’ve spent the past decade obsessed with!

  • HanSolo

    @Just1Z

    I believe the reprogramming can occur. My question is if it would make most men really want the porn more than a reasonably attractive and willing woman in the flesh.

    As for changing tastes in porn, needing something more hardcore to get aroused, I believe it happens. I think I must be an outlier though because my tastes haven’t really changed over the last several years, liking what I would call sensual porn as opposed to degrading porn. Before that I didn’t use porn and didn’t use porn growing up so maybe it has a bigger effect if you start as a young teen. I think I’m more romantic though and like porn that allows imagining some romantic connection. The close-ups of PinV do nothing for me and I skip those. Also anal porn does nothing for me. lol

  • Iggles

    SayWhaat – Yep! The minute he started talking about how porn “saved” him I figured it was Michael / Piper trolling yet again..

  • Barky

    ”I may be an outlier but I just don’t get how someone would rather mast. to porn instead of fuck an average or better woman.”

    Yeah, but you have to take into consideration that many if not most guys who are freshmen in college haven’t had sex yet. Or any sort of sexual contact. High school was traumatic in terms of sexual scarcity unless you were the Quarterback star.

    When you are used to something you can’t really outgrow it no matter how good it(whatever it is) can be, because it requires effort, energy, patience, and a lot of rejection.

    Young men are so used to having a quick fix to their sexual urges that when they reach college and see all these beautiful girls(and I consider average girls, even below average girls can be hot) dressed to the nines and they figure they can’t get anything. I believe only the most masculine of men have easy access to sex.

    You have in your hands young men without the will(Mrs Walsh forgive my bluntness: hornyness) to chase after women, the women get depressed because not even the below average girls are having any luck in finding boyfriends because the guys are on their ipads showing each other the new cam show of some porn star, and the girls, curiously, pent-up their looks with make-up, sexual innuendo, the works, to get at leat some sort of male attention, but nada.

    Its a weird reality. The PUA’s are cleaning up because the guys who have the chance to snatch up a super hottie for a long-term relationship/marriage are too afraid of doing it, and are also too accostumed to virtual stimulation to find a conversation with a hot women appealing.

    They’re literally incapable of conducting a flirty conversation, so when a woman meets a guy who can pull her chain without being a douchebag, I think his chances to date her(sexually/relationship) increase ten-fold over the good-looking dude who for some odd reason is in the beta-zone of pornography.

    Speaking for myself. I do regain that urge to (excuse me) bang every attractive women in sight when I abstain from watching porn or masturbation, but I figure that its way too much work, plus I’ve never had sex, the woman would probably feel nothing positive in the experience, and masturbation seems to be far easier and far less tiring than real sex.

  • Cooper

    @HanSolo
    “You may want to go join Abbot in Mexico. lol”

    Where is that guy! He ain’t been returning my calls! /s hahahah.

    (Oh no. Was I sounding that bad?)

    Re:729

    Keep in mind, *some* guys don’t look for casual.

  • Iggles

    Forgot to quote!

    By “him” I meant: Barky = Michael /Piper

  • Just1Z

    @Han
    “I believe the reprogramming can occur. My question is if it would make most men really want the porn more than a reasonably attractive and willing woman in the flesh. ”

    Oh, it works both ways…you can trust me on that…I guarantee it. lmao
    ‘unhealthy’ -> ‘healthy’ -> ‘unhealthy’
    no problem at all, or was it
    ‘healthy’ -> ‘unhealthy’ -> ‘healthy’?

    oh, I forget, and anyway who is making the definitions? :)

    Anyway, I’m off

  • Just1Z

    @Han

    and yeah, tastes vary wildy…very wildly. I’m sure that I’m considered very vanilla by modern standards, but extreme by the religious. c’est l’amour (well kinda)

  • Just1Z

    @Iggles
    is ‘Barky’ r