The Hypergamy Acceptance Movement

File Under Life Isn’t Fair?

The Social Pathologist has a great new post about female hypergamy and its male cousin:

Everyone who has spent any time amongst the Manosphere blogs is by now familiar with the term hypergamy: the desire for women to marry up. Unfortunately, as far as I’m aware, there doesn’t appear to be a similar term for the equivalent male urge: the desire to marry more attractive, feminine women, i.e. younger, hotter, tighter.

As a blogger who has waded into the weeds frequently (and reluctantly) to discuss and debate the nature of female hypergamy, I appreciate how eloquently SP defuses the typical gender conflict:

Many manosphere commentators, especially the MRA crowd, fail to understand that female hypergamy is a natural instinct and not some perverted moral choice.

… They can’t seem to recognise that, when it comes to the human libido, the hypergamous impulse in women is equivalent to the (femogamous?)  impulse in men. 

Weaker minds, I feel, make a category error when dealing with hypergamy, attributing to it a moral dimension which really isn’t there. Hypergamy is the natural object of female sexuality. It’s not a choice, and therefore devoid of a moral dimension, but a hard wired instinct. It’s what women involuntarily feel in the presence of a suitable male. Women have about as much choice about their hypergamous natures as men do about their femogamous ones. It’s a fact of life and getting angry about it is about as idiotic as getting angry about the orbital motion of the planets or the unfairness of Plank’s constant.

I’ve argued, and strongly believe, that we are better designed for efficient reproduction today than at any other time in the past. Let’s look at the purpose that these natural attraction triggers serve for the sexes.

Female Hypergamy

Q: Why are women most attracted to high status males?  

A: Because high status demonstrates that a male has competed against other males and come out on top. This position of leadership and respect implies access to resources. The children of these men are much more likely to thrive and enjoy the benefits of prestige.

Male “Femogamy”

Q: Why are men most attracted to hot, young females?

A: Because they are fertile. Female standards of beauty: full lips, clear skin, bright eyes, lustrous hair – are all fertility cues.

If women went for low status males their children would be less likely to thrive. 

If men went for unattractive, older females they’d be unlikely to impregnate them. 

In other words, the system works from a biological point of view. Of course, humans can come along and muck things up, but that isn’t the point. Hypergamy is a good thing. Male desire for young flesh is a good thing. Both are good for homo sapiens.

However, instinct doesn’t really take our feelings into account. Mother Nature is a vicious bitch. Very few people are at the top of the ladder, and some people may never attract a sexual partner. Most of us fall in the middle somewhere, and many feel the unfairness of this. SP says it well:

In many ways the men complaining against hypergamy are akin to the “fat acceptance” crowd and their logic, when complaining about male femogamy.  The fatties are constantly harping on about how there is something wrong with men for preferring thinner women. The MRA/MGTOW crowd are constantly asserting that there is something wrong with women for preferring higher status males. Both loser groups, being the neglected victims of natural human desires, want to punish or constrain normal people from having them. Social engineering is the preferred vehicle.

Much of the controversy centers on how to keep monogamous partners from straying into the arms of someone with more status, or a younger, tighter body. In my experience this is achieved via two strategies:

1. Choose the best raw material for marriage.

  • Filter aggressively for character, including loyalty and faithfulness as demonstrated by past and present relationships and behavior.
  • Never marry someone whose passion and love for you is uncertain. If you don’t start out with headboard banging chemistry, it’s unlikely to increase over time.

2. Nurture the bond between you attentively, with devotion and gratitude.

  • Be what you want in a partner.

The other concern sure to show up in the comments (as it did at Social Pathologist) is that today women have greater freedom to pursue hypergamy than men have to pursue “femogamy.” Again, I think this misses the mark. Hypergamy is not a strategy, it’s an attraction cue.

What is different today is that women are free to employ a strategy of staying on the market by not marrying, or reentering it by divorcing.  They have unrestrained opportunities to indulge hypergamous instinct, provided they can attract a high status male for commitment. Of course, most fail. 

Similarly, men are free to employ a similar strategy of staying on the market or rentering it by pursuing younger, hotter women than the one they married. As couples age, men actually have the advantage. Of course, there is no guarantee that the male will be able to attract a hot young thing. Many fail. 

As SP said, both male and female sexuality are hardwired, and devoid of a moral dimension. The only thing that counts is what we choose to do about that. We can only be successful if we accept it, work with it, and are grateful for what we have. The alternative of righteous indignation only serves to ensure that we remain alone.

2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • Plain Jane

    First! (but because I’m in mod it won’t come out that way).

    Female Hypergamy

    Q: Why are women most attracted to high status males?

    A: Because high status demonstrates that a male has competed against other males and come out on top. This position of leadership and respect implies access to resources. The children of these men are much more likely to thrive and enjoy the benefits of prestige.
    ____

    But Susan there is a huge assumption here that all or most females are invested in extraversion, society and other peoples opinions to the extent to want a man who comes out on top in all 3 of those categories. What about women like Hope, myself and several of your other readers here who do not put much stock in mainstream society and other people’s mainstream and mediocre opinions?

    Sure, if we want kids then we want at least a man who has proven he can at the very least support his own self well and won’t lay about the crib all day expecting a hand out from his parents, sugar momma or the rich favorite aunt who is ready to kick the bucket any day now, but honestly I don’t see or know a lot of women who are that concerned about their man being a “leader amongst men” or anything like that.
    Seems to be more of a celebrity culture type thing.

    Male “Femogamy”

    Q: Why are men most attracted to hot, young females?

    A: Because they are fertile. Female standards of beauty: full lips, clear skin, bright eyes, lustrous hair – are all fertility cues.
    ____

    These are also fertility cues for men are they not? A healthy, handsome man is expected to produce healthy handsome babies.

    The funny thing is, have you ever met hot parents who have mediocre and even below average looking kids and not hot parents who end up having gorgeous kids? I meet families like that all the time. Including families where some of the siblings will be hot and the others not.

    Its a crap shoot!

  • Höllenhund

    Nobody is off the market when marriage 2.0 is on the books. Nobody reenters the market because nobody leaves.

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

      Being on the market is a voluntary status determined solely by the person. When someone tells you they are off the market, I strongly urge you to give up. :)

  • Rollo Tomassi

    I see.

    So now you’re willing to accept that “Hypergamy is a selected-for survival mechanism.” not, “Hypergamy states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.”?

    Interesting.

    https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/the-hypergamy-conspiracy/

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

      @Rollo

      So now you’re willing to accept that “Hypergamy is a selected-for survival mechanism.” not, “Hypergamy states that a woman seeks a man of higher status than herself for marriage. Nothing less, nothing more.”?

      That’s a fair question. First, I would point out that SP defines hypergamy as marrying up.

      Second, I don’t see a conflict in your two statements. A woman seeks a man of higher status for marriage because her offspring benefit from his status as a leader and provider. It certainly is not a survival mechanism for the woman – not sure what you meant there.

      Third, I made a decision to include in the post the question of preventing mates from defecting due to hypergamous or “femogamous” impulses. I did this for two reasons:

      1. I believe that female hypergamy lies on a spectrum, like all aspects of sexuality. Some women may feel little of it, others may struggle with the desire to trade up throughout their lives. The best way to prevent that is: Avoid hypergamous women and be an attractive husband.

      2. I made this concession for the sake of argument, partly because I realize the sense of 1. and partly because if I didn’t, this thread would quickly devolve into me and Escoffier going at one another. :) I’m interested in the debate about the moral neutrality of the sexuality of men and women, not whether women are hypergamous throughout their lives. (I still believe most women are not, but am willing to leave that aside.)

  • Esau

    * must suppress urge to bang head repeatedly *

    Once again, and for the record:

    The common “manospheric” usage of the term “female hypergamouse” does not, repeat not, in my reading refer simply to the desire to be with as attractive/desirable partner as possible. That’s a trivial idea, and of course is widespread in men and women both; pretty much by definition, people will of course feel more desire for those who are, well, more desirable.

    The useful, non-trivial meaning of “female hypergamy” is not about the simple gradient — people want the best that they can get — it’s specifically about the floor that they put under their attraction: the claim that “female hypergamy” is real is from the observation that young women are typically unwilling to consider having any intimacy with young men of similar SMV percentile rank..

    One may usefully dispute that this observation actually holds in the real world, once various observer biases are accounted for, etc. But don’t beggar a useful and non-trivial concept by mis-stating it. It’s not just “I want the best I can get”, it’s specifically “I insist on getting someone better than my assortative counterpart”. Stated this way, we can also observe that such hypergamy us emphatically not sex-symmetric: in any group of young single people, the median man would likely be willing to give the median woman a try, while she would typically not give him the time of day (note that I’m specifically talking about young people, the pattern may well change ten or twenty years later).

    So I think if anyone is “weak-minded” here it’s actually SP, who seems to have rather collossally missed the point. At least, that’s my reading.

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

      @Esau

      it’s specifically about the floor that they put under their attraction: the claim that “female hypergamy” is real is from the observation that young women are typically unwilling to consider having any intimacy with young men of similar SMV percentile rank.

      Neither Social Pathologist nor I said “as attractive a partner as possible.” As can you see from my fun graphic, many females are likely to want the same men. Well, guess what percentage of people get to be in the 1%?

      The floor, as you put it, is real. Hypergamy is relative, in that most women do in fact marry a man who is not a “10″ in MMV, but ideally he will have status greater than her own. Increasingly, however, marriages of equal status are commonplace, though relative status is likely to change over time if the woman has children.

      But don’t beggar a useful and non-trivial concept by mis-stating it. It’s not just “I want the best I can get.”

      Have I missed something? You’re using words and phrases neither in my post nor SPs. It’s not a question of the best a woman can get. If there are no suitable males (in her perception), she will not mate. She will keep searching for a male who has achieved status vis a vis other males.

      Yesterday, someone linked to a paper on the economics of marriage. I found this excerpt interesting:

      Because of the hypergamy effect, we can also show that the equilibrium can only be of two types. In the “Victorian” type, all agents marry somebody of the same rank in the distribution of income. In the model households produce the same number of boys and girls of each genetic type and provide the same investment in human capital to both; therefore, the distribution of human capital is the same for men and for women. In such a “Victorian” equilibrium, therefore, people marry somebody with exactly their human capital (homogamy).

      In the “Sex and the City” (SATC) type, women marry men who have more human capital than themselves. There is a mass of unmarried men at the bottom of the distribution of human capital, and a mass of single women at the top of that distribution. It is shown that the economy switches from a Victorian to an SATC equilibrium as inequality goes up; one interpretation is that less skilled women underbid more skilled ones for their husbands, which in equilibrium drives the skilled woman’s share in bargaining down. As a result, the most skilled women end up better-off unmarried, and mating with alpha men. The same mechanism explains why the equilibrium may be SATC even though all homogamous marriages would be viable: starting from a homogamous assignment, less skilled women would successfully underbid more skilled ones by accepting a lower share of the surplus, thus driving them out of the marriage market.

      Clearly, we are living in a SATC era.

  • mr. wavevector
    Both loser groups, being the neglected victims of natural human desires, want to punish or constrain normal people from having them. Social engineering is the preferred vehicle.

    Societies have been doing that type of social engineering for millenia. It’s called religion.

    As SP said, both male and female sexuality are hardwired, and devoid of a moral dimension. The only thing that counts is what we choose to do about that.

    I’ve got to disagree with you on that one, Susan. Our appetites may be hardwired (at least partially) but our actions aren’t. Morals are tools invented by society specifically to regulate the actions resulting from such appetites. The long history of suppression of female sexuality is testimony to the effectiveness of sexual morals in regulating hypergamy. Morals even have had some success regulating male sexual appetites.

    Sexual morals that suppress hypergamy their conflict with modern morality which emphasizes female autonomy, so many people would consider them outdated and invalid. That’s a different point.

    Both loser groups, being the neglected victims of natural human desires, want to punish or constrain normal people from having them.

    This paper argues that the imposition of sexual repression on women can force a society from a hypergamous to an assortative mating equilibrium – to the benefit of beta males, who are then more likely to have a mate. This “loser group” has been successful throughout much of history at “punishing normal people” and thereby altering the basic structure of society to their advantage. In fact, what we consider traditional society based on monogamous marriage may be largely due to their success.

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

      @Mr. Wavevector

      Our appetites may be hardwired (at least partially) but our actions aren’t.

      That’s what I was trying to say when I wrote this:

      The only thing that counts is what we choose to do about that.

      In other words, what do we do as human beings of higher order thinking and character to behave in a moral way despite our “wiring?”

  • Höllenhund

    At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what one thinks of female hypergamy or its male equivalent, whatever we want to call it. It doesn’t matter if it’s fair/moral or not. As far as the sexual/mating marketplace is concerned, the only thing that matters about female hypergamy is its defining feature, namely that when it’s unrestrained, as it is today, it erodes and undermines the one thing women ultimately want, which is the offer of commitment from high-status men. In a society where the only potential force curbing and mitigating female hypergamy is women’s self-control, men simply have fewer and fewer incentives to invest in women, knowing that women will only mate on a purely conditional basis that the only form of commitment they’d accept is one that they can end on a whim anytime they want.

    As I’ve noted earlier, women elicit various responses from men in a world of unrestrained hypergamy: thuggery/chavism, “Light Game”, “Dark Game” (whatever the hell those two are supposed to mean), ghosting, spree-killing, porn addiction, MGTOW, Athol’s MAP, video game addiction, you name it. The ONLY male behavior they generally more and more FAIL to elicit is that of a responsible, dutiful husband and father. I’m sure that’s purely a coincidence.

  • Escoffier

    Odd, Susan, that you get so irritated when some of us say the same stuff. I guess Vox is right that it’s all in the presentation but I’ll be damned if I know how to present the same concept in a way that does not get your back up.

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

      Odd, Susan, that you get so irritated when some of us say the same stuff. I guess Vox is right that it’s all in the presentation but I’ll be damned if I know how to present the same concept in a way that does not get your back up.

      Awww, Escoffier, did you have to come out swinging? Why not assume that I have given your commentary serious thought and amended my judgment? That is, in fact, the case. Because I have experienced no hypergamous impulse since finding my husband, I reasoned that hypergamy could not be “hard wired” as an active influence throughout a woman’s life. As in, NAWALT. However, I think it’s more likely that some women are extremely hypergamous, while others may be minimally so. I was certainly concerned about status when I selected Mr. HUS, and remain satisfied with his rank. But my “anecdotal evidence” does not prove the point.

      As for presentation, yes, it is important. Not an intersexual issue either – more along the lines of vinegar, honey and all that.

  • Heartless

    I don’t think men think that hypergamy itself is immoral. What is immoral, is how many women disregard promises, vows, contracts (legal, verbal and moral) and what’s best for their family and children. Men can’t help but be aroused by younger females, but they often opt not to act upon those feelings, because they feel loyalty and inclination to keep promises. Of course there are men who are unloyal as well. But my main point is that it is not hypergamy itself that men hate, but women’s inability to control their behavior next to it.

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

      Men can’t help but be aroused by younger females, but they often opt not to act upon those feelings, because they feel loyalty and inclination to keep promises…But my main point is that it is not hypergamy itself that men hate, but women’s inability to control their behavior next to it.

      This is a ridiculous comment. Since men have always and traditionally cheated more than women (though the gap is closing), I’m wondering where you get your data.

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

    “Because high status demonstrates that a male has competed against other males and come out on top. This position of leadership and respect implies access to resources. The children of these men are much more likely to thrive and enjoy the benefits of prestige”…also, of course, high status may be an indicator of genes that increase the odds that the kids will survive and thrive, even if the status/resources of the parents evaporates.

    BUT…both of these evolutionarily-beneficial effects happen only to the extent that the status ladder in a given society is one which turns out to be evolutionarily appropriate. To take an extreme example: a woman in 1939 Germany might well have been attracted to a high-ranking SS officer. But as things turned out, what this attraction bought her was being the widow of an executed war criminal, and children with this cloud over their head. And, to the extent that such things have a genetic component, maybe also children with a tendency to cruelty.

    Basically, mate selection on status sort of represents outsourcing one’s own estimates of mate value to the collective opinion of the herd. I do think some women are attracted directly by a man’s accomplishments, whether they are high-status in that time and place or not–say, a high school girl who is attracted to a boy with artistic talents, even though such talents are not particularly well-regarded among her friends or by her parents.

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

      @david foster

      BUT…both of these evolutionarily-beneficial effects happen only to the extent that the status ladder in a given society is one which turns out to be evolutionarily appropriate.

      And that’s what might lead to a mutation or some major evolutionary shift. However, from a reproductive standpoint, the woman is drawn to the SS officer because he advertises good genes and resources for her potential offspring. I am speaking biologically. She may indeed deem him unworthy of a sexual relationship, which is where the raw material question comes in. But her hypergamy will not lessen his attractiveness. She will need her cerebral cortex for that.

  • deti

    Hypergamy, or female desire for an ever-higher status man, is not the problem.

    Moreover, the complaint is not that women have more opportunity to indulge their hypergamy than men do because men are more sexually available to women than women are to men. That’s a different story altogether.

    The problem is the unrestrained, uncontrolled hypergamy rampant in our society now. It’s a problem because when it is unrestrained, the female tendency to want ever better, ever hotter, ever higher status men is never satisfied. Indeed, it never has to reach an endpoint of satisfaction or contentment when it has no restraints.

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

      @deti

      The problem is the unrestrained, uncontrolled hypergamy rampant in our society now. It’s a problem because when it is unrestrained, the female tendency to want ever better, ever hotter, ever higher status men is never satisfied. Indeed, it never has to reach an endpoint of satisfaction or contentment when it has no restraints.

      I agree that is a problem, and have written several posts to that effect. However, that is not what SP is addressing. He is challenging the demonization of female sexual instinct. Many men here have complained that society does this to them, e.g. it’s wrong to want a thin and beautiful partner. SP is correct to make them analogous – and shaming either one is wrong.

      I have debated the point here many times, and have objected to use of the word base to describe the sexuality of either sex. Base is defined as “mean, vile, low, ignoble, sordid, scurvy, villainous, abject.”

      I really do mean it when I say that the male desire for sexual variety and fertility is a good thing, biologically speaking. Every woman should understand that is male instinct, and that men forgoing that are making a tradeoff, or sacrifice. The same holds true re hypergamy.

  • mr. wavevector

    An interesting quote from the paper I previously linked:

    I show that it (sexual repression ) unambiguously benefits beta men and harms beta
    women; alpha men lose while alpha women are indifferent (and would gain
    if they valued marital fidelity per se). Thus, societies are more likely to implement sexual repression, the more they are politically dominated by beta men.

    Sexual repression leads to assortative mating. The winners under sexual repression are beta men because they get a mate, or a better one; alpha men lose, because they can’t monopolize women; beta women lose, because they can get a better man under the hypergamous system.

    Given the socio-political ascendancy of beta women and the decline of beta men, we’re going to be living in a hypergamous society for some time, regardless of whether it can be cast as a moral issue or not.

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

      @Mr. Wavevector

      Sexual repression leads to assortative mating. The winners under sexual repression are beta men because they get a mate, or a better one; alpha men lose, because they can’t monopolize women; beta women lose, because they can get a better man under the hypergamous system.

      Given the socio-political ascendancy of beta women and the decline of beta men, we’re going to be living in a hypergamous society for some time, regardless of whether it can be cast as a moral issue or not.

      Agreed. I’ve noticed that you have prescribed sexual repression for all, which I appreciate. Very often we only hear of unleashed female sexuality. In fact, male sexuality has also been unleashed. In my view, the unbridled pursuit of sex is embraced by people of unrestricted sociosexuality, who tend to be drawn to one another. Most people are not promiscuous, either by choice or opportunity.

      This gets at the question of what kind of “status” women seek – and there is considerable variance in the female sexual algorithm. You are a man who bested many other males when you earned a PhD at MIT, and you make a handsome living. For many women, your considerable status puts you high on the ladder for a certain kind of woman (like me :) ). Other women might go for the thug. There is still considerable assortative mating.

  • Abbot

    “They have unrestrained opportunities to indulge hypergamous instinct, provided they can attract a high status male for commitment. Of course, most fail.”

    “In a society where the only potential force curbing and mitigating female hypergamy is women’s self-control, men simply have fewer and fewer incentives to invest in women”

    The “modern” response to “modern women” is N scrutiny. It is the universal and pervasive defining measure by which to invest. Prior to “getting to know her” a man’s comfort with a particular woman is a direct function of her N. Its where the first cut is made; it divides women into camps. More than any other time in the past, a man who manages to find a low N women along with other desirable features is a man who gets deep respect from his peers.

  • Andy

    So a females natural instinct is hypergamy, which must be accepted. A males natural instinct is to fu@k young attractive women which makes him shallow and an animal.

    One rule for one…..can those little ladies not control their instincts? I thought our hairy lesbobo friends thought all was malleable?

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

      @Andy

      So a females natural instinct is hypergamy, which must be accepted. A males natural instinct is to fu@k young attractive women which makes him shallow and an animal.

      This is straight up trolling, as I expressly offered a different view in the post.

  • deti

    The more I think about it, the more this post completely misses the point.

    Hypergamy per se is NOT the problem. The problem is that it is unrestrained. What is ignored is that women writ large want it this way.

    It is almost as if the current SMP is feminist payback for apex males’ tomcatting around in the early days of the Republic from about 1800 to 1950.

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

      @deti

      Hypergamy per se is NOT the problem. The problem is that it is unrestrained. What is ignored is that women writ large want it this way.

      Define “women writ large.” I think you’re wrong. The vast majority of women are sexually restricted by nature, and would welcome sexual repression in society.

  • Cooper

    “In other words, the system works from a biological point of view. . . .
    Both are good for Homo sapiens.”

    And both are required to be checked when enter monogamy. (At the door, like a coat sense)

    “The other concern sure to show up in the comments (as it did at Social Pathologist) is that today women have greater freedom to pursue hypergamy than men have to pursue “femogamy.” Again, I think this misses the mark. Hypergamy is not a strategy, it’s an attraction cue.”

    Aren’t they both attraction cues? And can an attraction not be “persued?” (Void of stragety)

    “Be what you want in a partner.”
    Men should be feminine and chaste!!? /s

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

      @Cooper

      Aren’t they both attraction cues? And can an attraction not be “persued?” (Void of stragety)

      Strategy is the action, which is pursuit.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Good post. I think that finding out the true nature of people and accepting that (and then setting up appropriate constraints on natural behavior that is detrimental to others, e.g. rape, murder, stealing, etc.) is important. So accepting female hypergamy and male femogamy (to the extent they exist) is an important foundation. Also, accepting the male desire for variety (in most males) and the female desire for variety (no doubt a lower percentage than men for multiple partners in a short time span; serial monogamy can be considered too) are important factors. Hypergamy is unsettling to all but the upper echelon men. Male desire for variety and youth/beauty is unsettling to monogamous-leaning and less-attractive/older women but it makes no sense to hide from the truth. Accepting the truth does not mean that all natural tendencies will be acted upon or promoted. Rather, it provides the true understanding of human nature upon which to build a rationally-based framework that includes desires, behaviors, prescriptions and consequences.

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

      Accepting the truth does not mean that all natural tendencies will be acted upon or promoted. Rather, it provides the true understanding of human nature upon which to build a rationally-based framework that includes desires, behaviors, prescriptions and consequences.

      +1!

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I’ll add a couple of things.

    1) The male of higher status not only confers greater resources and protection to her and his offspring, he likely also provides better genes since his higher status is probably a significant though partial result of better genes.

    2) A slight quibble with the following statement:

    I’ve argued, and strongly believe, that we are better designed for efficient reproduction today than at any other time in the past.

    We evolved to be well-suited to the hunter-gatherer environment. Many of those traits actually served humanity even better once agriculture was developed and that ability and desire to invent more technology and seek knowledge gave birth to the modern, technologically “miraculous” era.

    So I would agree that as a species we have the highest population, life expectancy and wealth that humanity has ever seen, and that proves your assertion in a way that you probably weren’t thinking of.

    However, many of our tendencies that evolved in the hunter-gatherer environment and served us well to invent technology may now be “outsmarting” developed nations and lead to their decline or even ruin. Notice how procreation was historically less of a choice and something that resulted from something pleasurable (sex). Instead of rational thought about what our needs were, desires and emotions evolved to ensure our survival and reproduction “needs” were met. Now that procreation is much more of an elective act birth rates are falling and most developed nations are aging and either declining in population or will do so within then next 20 or 30 years. And even countries like China will increasingly have top-heavy populations.

    We have learned how to intensify and isolate the pleasurable aspects of survival and reproduction activitities, sometimes completely removing them from said activities (sex with birth control, porn, etc.) and in other cases amplifying their effects (e.g. delicious food/snacks and plenty of it leading to weight and health problems).

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

      @Han Solo

      Clearly, there have been periods in history where a large change occurred to promote survival among some groups. Prior to that shift, things would have been less efficient, or that branch of homo sap doomed to extinction. Today we are more efficient reproductively than we have ever been before, but it’s possible that homo sap will change dramatically and that people like you and me will disappear.

      I should offer the caveat that I am no expert on evolution, and am happy to be corrected on any erroneous statements or concepts.

      The dysfunction you describe is not the product of instinct, which remains efficient, but of poor human decision-making. If we are no longer suited to the environment, then it is likely that sexual selection will proceed and we will evolve. If we don’t destroy one another first.

  • Plain Jane

    “Be what you want in a partner.”

    “Men should be feminine and chaste!!? /s”

    Why not? In the sense that (provided you subscribe to dualism) men and women should be cultivating the positive traits of both masculinity and femininity, and yes, if you are already in or desire a monogamous, committed relationship, then you should be chaste.

  • Jonny

    The concept of hypergamy is slightly altered in favor of natural alphas, not necessarily just higher status males. It’s an incomplete concept.

    Men are attracted to younger, hotter, tighter women, but not necessarily. He is also attracted to virginal women, less experienced, and less worldly for marriage.

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

      @Jonny

      The concept of hypergamy is slightly altered in favor of natural alphas, not necessarily just higher status males. It’s an incomplete concept.

      Not really, although alphas may be the higher status males. Researchers have studied the components of social status, separating it into dominance and prestige. Prestige was a much stronger attractor than dominance.

      Men are attracted to younger, hotter, tighter women, but not necessarily. He is also attracted to virginal women, less experienced, and less worldly for marriage.

      Men cannot perceive virginity visually. Male attraction is heavily visual, and very much in line with female fertility cues, which serve as timeless standards of female beauty.

  • Abbot

    “the current SMP is feminist payback for apex males’ tomcatting around in the early days of the Republic from about 1800 to 1950.”

    They are rubbing their hands saying “yessss…payback!” while, um, pleasuring the very people (men) who they are supposedly getting this payback against?

  • HanSolo

    @Esau

    Good point about hypergamy having a greater impact on the S/MMP due to the floor or minimum level of what you will accept as opposed to the maximum level you would love to get.

    Women have greater economic power than they did hundreds of years ago so they don’t need men as much on an individual level (collectively, that’s a different story since men pay more taxes). This frees them up to not need a provider/protector as much and they can (subconsciously) indulge the hypergamous side of their attraction triggers and go for the men that seem to have better genes or more wealth and power, even if it is only for casual sex.

    Unleashed hypergamy (to whatever extent it exists, and I think it is significantly present in maybe 50% of young women in their 20′s) is a natural consequence of technology leading to a society where males are not needed (as much or at all) on the individual level for providing and protecting.

  • Abbot

    “Men are attracted to younger, hotter, tighter women, but not necessarily. He is also attracted to virginal women, less experienced, and less worldly for marriage.”

    How do women feel about these universal dual attraction desires among men?

  • Höllenhund

    Funnily enough, we’re headed for a global demographic implosion. When you observe the societies where female hypergamy is the least restrained, you’ll see that they’re practising voluntary extinction, so to speak. Sanghai, probably the most vibrant, booming etc. city in the world, has a total fertility rate of 0.6. In Milan and Singapore it’s roughly 0.9. So much for humans being “better designed for efficient reproduction today than at any other time in the past”.

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

      So much for humans being “better designed for efficient reproduction today than at any other time in the past”.

      You’re confusing biology and environment.

  • Abbot

    “indulge the hypergamous side of their attraction triggers and go for the men that seem to have better genes or more wealth and power, even if it is only for casual sex.”

    Its only for casual sex because they are taking what comes easy and deep down know that they have pretty much blown it for commitment now or in the future…

  • Passer_By

    I agree with everything Essau said. You are contorting (unintentionally, I assume) the real meaning of female hypergamy (IN THE MANOSPHERIC/DEVLINESQUE SENSE) so as to make a point that most people don’t really have an issue with (other than low status males, I suppose). Being attracted to status is not a defining feature of hypergamy in the manospheric sense. As you say point blank in the article, it’s just an attraction cue for women. The fact that men don’t really share that cue (and have stronger cues for pert breasts and tight round butts) is irrelevant.

    What makes it “hypergamy”, for purposes of this discussion, is the relative inability of women (especially young women) to be attracted to men of equal or slightly lower SMV. And by “relative inability”, I mean in comparison to men, most of whom have no trouble generating sexual attraction to women of equal or even lower SMV.

    Accordingly, in my view, hypergamy’s evil twin is not the tendency of men to be more attracted to younger, hotter women. It’s the tendency of men to be relatively (in comparison to women) less satisfied with having one partner. If multiple women tend to want the same man (to the exclusion of other men), it stands to reason that the man often wants multiple women.

    However, the desire for multiple women is shamed. But the desire by many women to ONLY have sex with men of much higher comparative sex rank is not. But, numerically, that desire cannot be indulged unless the the high rank male’s desire for multiple women is similarly indulged.

    Another fallout of hypergamy is the act of cuckoldry of low to mid status males whose roughtly equal SMV mates like their provisioning and commitment much less than their dicks, but that’s another matter.

    Having said all that, even in your scenario, the primal impulse of the 45 year old man to dump his aging wife for younger tail is greatly shamed by society, whereas the wife’s impulse to trade up when her husbands status falls drastically is not similarly shamed. I guess you acknowledged this.

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

      @Passer By

      However, the desire for multiple women is shamed.

      Are single men shamed for not marrying? Dating around? Having ONSs? I don’t think so, I think the opposite is true.

      But the desire by many women to ONLY have sex with men of much higher comparative sex rank is not.

      Many women are not seeking uncommitted sex with men of higher sex rank. A minority of women are. Most women are seeking committed sex with a man of higher status (which is not necessarily just sex rank) than themselves.

      But, numerically, that desire cannot be indulged unless the the high rank male’s desire for multiple women is similarly indulged.

      If both are indulged, civilization dies. Productive civilization requires monogamy. I guess you could say the guys got a raw deal on that, but only because they kill each other when we don’t have it. Their sexual instinct is so powerful they will destroy one another competing for sex.

  • Ted D

    Wow Susan. I’m surprised you got into this debate, again… Did you miss the male agression? LOL

    It is NOT hypergamy itself that is the problem. It is that as a society, we have removed much of the morality that kept hypergamy from being an issue in assortive mating.

    Put it this way: in a society where men are not only expected but pushed to have sex with lots of women, most men are more than happy to do so. In a society where women are not only expected but pushed to constantly look for and trade up to “better” men, most women are more than happy to do so.

    Hypergamy is not the problem. Lack of morality to counter it is the problem. Not only does it keep women in an extended period of “lets see what I can catch”, it also causes problems down the road for marriage, because easy no fault divorce allows men and women to look for a better deal with ease. Once upon a time it was mostly men that did this, the old “trading her in for a new model” schtick. Today I think it is fair to say that it is at least a 50/50 split of men and woman “trading in”, but add to it the women that find themselves longing for some adventure after the kids get older, and ejecting to “find themselves” or whatever, and I’d say women have the upper hand when it comes to divorce.

    I can’t think of one divorced guy that did so because he needed to “find himself” or some such nonsense. But I know of at least a handful of such women. It seems to happen most often when they hit their mid-30′s into the 40′s, and usually when the kids are older or out of the house. To me it looks an awful lot like “well the kids are gone, and I don’t need the ball and chain anymore. Time to go have fun!”

    And yes, I realize this is probably a biased opinion. But remember, I don’t hang with the UMC types. My people are mostly MC and lower, where divorce is almost an epidemic.

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

      It is NOT hypergamy itself that is the problem. It is that as a society, we have removed much of the morality that kept hypergamy from being an issue in assortive mating.

      I agree. So. What’s the solution? Incendiary language in online forums? Misogyny? Finger pointing at the feral female?

      The solution is in either turning over feminism, or selling voluntary restraint as beneficial personally. I’m working on the latter. Several bloggers in the sphere are working on the former. There is no good reason for bitter, angry and divisive gender acrimony. It can only delay improvement.

  • Abbot

    “I can’t think of one divorced guy that did so because he needed to “find himself” or some such nonsense.”

    Or when single and screwing multiple women. For some reason women can’t seem to “find themselves” without multi penis and freely admit it with terms such as “expressing sexuality” “discovering boundaries” and other such “don’t think of me as a ho” terms.

  • deti

    @ Han Solo:

    “Unleashed hypergamy (to whatever extent it exists, and I think it is significantly present in maybe 50% of young women in their 20′s) ”

    What restraints or controls are there on hypergamy currently, other than a woman’s own internal controls and/or decision not to indulge it? For all intents and purposes, not even marriage is an effective restraint on hypergamy when it can be ended at any time for any reason.

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

      What restraints or controls are there on hypergamy currently, other than a woman’s own internal controls and/or decision not to indulge it? For all intents and purposes, not even marriage is an effective restraint on hypergamy when it can be ended at any time for any reason.

      The female desire to have pair-bond and have children. That objective requires that women make the best possible deal they can and go all in. Women who fail to do so will howl in their 30s. It is certainly harder for some women than others. Future time orientation, low impulsiveness, high conscientiousness, high agreeableness – all of these traits predict sexual behavior.

  • Plain Jane

    “Today I think it is fair to say that it is at least a 50/50 split of men and woman “trading in”, but add to it the women that find themselves longing for some adventure after the kids get older, and ejecting to “find themselves” or whatever, and I’d say women have the upper hand when it comes to divorce.

    I can’t think of one divorced guy that did so because he needed to “find himself” or some such nonsense. But I know of at least a handful of such women. It seems to happen most often when they hit their mid-30′s into the 40′s, and usually when the kids are older or out of the house. To me it looks an awful lot like “well the kids are gone, and I don’t need the ball and chain anymore. Time to go have fun!” ”

    I know some single moms who divorced with small children for similar reasons. They found themselves almost poverty stricken after the divorce, really struggling to make ends meet and sometimes unable to do so, living in lower-middle class to lower class neighborhoods but these particular women preferred that to living with their husbands in middle-middle class neighborhoods and the benefits of sharing two full time incomes.

    I don’t know what this is other than mapping the soul’s quest for freedom and liberation onto the misplaced body/mind.

  • Lokland

    This essentially works out to:

    Women feel free to not settle down, divorce your husband if you can do better , if you can’t divorce just cheat, and god forbid you mate with someone with an equal SMV. You deserve a movie star. you go grl.

    Guys, you want many women. Go for it, cheat on your wife, obviously you need variety. What? you don’t want to settle down either. Thats fine, its only natural.

    Remember everyone as long as its biological in nature its okay to indulge in because biology is divorced from morality to extend even farther, place basic biological needs ahead of society, culture and civilization.

    ————–

    Susan

    What worked when we ran around in lion skins chanting uggah-buggah is most definitely NOT effective in maintaining civilization. The very fact that every advanced civilization placed checks and balances on human nature is proof of that. More specifically, female nature kinda has to be checked at the door if you want an iPad. (Not male however, advanced societies with non-monogamous men exist. They don’t with non-monogamous women.)

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

      @Lokland

      What worked when we ran around in lion skins chanting uggah-buggah is most definitely NOT effective in maintaining civilization. The very fact that every advanced civilization placed checks and balances on human nature is proof of that. More specifically, female nature kinda has to be checked at the door if you want an iPad. (Not male however, advanced societies with non-monogamous men exist. They don’t with non-monogamous women.)

      I agree completely! What we need to do is have everybody take a deep breath and say, “I’m OK, you’re OK.” We’re all imperfect, if we indulge ourselves we’re never going to get anything done. So let’s figure out how to negotiate these wildly different mating strategies! I’ll give up “must be a CEO” if you give up “has to be DD.” And that is in fact what most of us do.

      It’s worth noting that human beings have many needs that are not sexual, including the need to be creative and productive. So we need to balance all of our instincts. That’s hard to learn, which is why it takes humans 18 years to grow to adulthood.

  • Ted D

    “For all intents and purposes, not even marriage is an effective restraint on hypergamy when it can be ended at any time for any reason.”

    +1. This is exactly the point. It isn’t that hypergamy is evil, it is that we as a society are NOT teaching women to control it.

    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. It is my natural urge to strangle someone that pisses me off. Yet I’m not in prison for murder. Why? Because I can control my natural urges for long term benefit. It seems that many women are UNABLE to control their natural desire to “mate up”, and society is making it easier for women to not even try.

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

      It seems that many women are UNABLE to control their natural desire to “mate up”, and society is making it easier for women to not even try.

      What do you mean by many? What have you observed? If it’s frivolous divorce, can you say what percentage of those are caused by hypergamy? If you’re going to make claims about what people are actually doing, you’re going to need data and information about why.

  • Lokland

    note:

    I’m not talking basic men want young women, woman want status. its the rest of it thats bad.

    Trading up, bad.
    Female infanticide, bad.
    Siblicide, bad.
    Abandoning children, bad.

    All are very effective at promoting the individual. Not so much for society.

  • Cooper

    Well, this is how I’ve come to view it.
    I dispel “femogamy.” I refuse to let, what is a, biological impulse direct the course of my lifes’ relationships. (Not to say I never feel it, of course!)

    That is my basis of believing that there must be women who would feel the same about hypergamy.

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

      @Cooper

      That is my basis of believing that there must be women who would feel the same about hypergamy.

      Exactly! You are in the long tail, and there’s an equal number of women there on our side of the fence.

  • deti

    Ted:

    “It isn’t that hypergamy is evil, it is that we as a society are NOT teaching women to control it. ”

    Exactly. And that’s why Susan and Slumlord have both missed the point on this one. Again: a man’s tendency to polyamory (I refuse to use “femogamy”) is not evil. His character deficiencies leading him to stray are evil. I’d point out also there are numerous societal and cultural checks on polyamory (except for apex men).

    A woman’s natural hypergamous instinct does not make her intrinsically bad or evil. The problems are the failure to teach her to control it, her inability or unwillingness to control it, and society’s failure to check and restrain it.

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

      And that’s why Susan and Slumlord have both missed the point on this one.

      WADR, I think you have. I have had male commenters here opine that hypergamy needs to be snuffed out. That it is a female flaw. Period. Obviously, SP has seen much of the same. I could easily spend the next hours accumulating hundreds of comments around the sphere saying exactly this. It’s warped thinking.

      The point is not that hypergamy is or is not a problem. It doesn’t care what you think about restraining it. It just is. It is society’s obligation to organize itself optimally for the entire population. It is perfect reasonable, in my view, to claim that a feminist society is sub-optimal. However, in a perfect society, hypergamy would be present, as would the male desires for variety and fertility.

      The sexes are at cross purposes wrt mating. That’s the beauty of it! That’s where the sexual tension comes from! We may be doing a crappy job of managing ourselves, but we should not be tempted to wish hypergamy away, even if we could.

      Again: a man’s tendency to polyamory (I refuse to use “femogamy”) is not evil

      Those are not the same. Polyamory is an arrangement around commitment, and it’s certainly consensual for all parties, so it couldn’t possibly be evil.

      A man’s desire to have sex with multiple women is not evil, though we all hope he procures that sex ethically.

  • Johnycomelately

    The natural expression of femogamy is Genghis Khan, dominate other men through violence, subjugate people, steal and rape as many women as possible.

    He is the rawest expression of the pure animal masculine drive devoid of higher enlightened reason and institutionalized restraint.

    Carl Sagan talked about the triune brain and the different overlays of the mind, defering to the lower parts of the self and giving it primacy is devolution.

  • shamus

    You’ve changed the wrong part of the compound word.
    Hyper means ‘above’ or ‘high’
    “Femo” doesn’t mean anything–it’s the gamy whence comes the female portion of the word.
    You want hypoandrous or the like.

  • HanSolo

    @deti

    Well, there are still some constraints from religious communities but my point in saying “to whatever extent it exists” wasn’t so much about the lack of leashes (I agree, they’ve been largely eliminated) but on hypergamy itself. I don’t think all women in their 20′s are hypergamous since I see a good deal that do get married to men that seem to be roughly of equal value. IIRC, the median age for marriage for women lately is roughly 26. OTOH, I know a lot of very picky women who’s minimum level of value that a man must bring was unrealistically high and they are single to this day. So, my point is that the leashes are largely gone but I would guess (and it’s just a guess) that about half of women in their 20′s are hypergamous and half are not. This hypergamous half would include those that are putting off marriage til 30+ since implicitly it would require a man of much superior value to anything they are imagining to woo them away from their intended singlehood.

    Thoughts?

  • Plain Jane

    “Well, there are still some constraints from religious communities but my point in saying “to whatever extent it exists” wasn’t so much about the lack of leashes (I agree, they’ve been largely eliminated) but on hypergamy itself.

    Thoughts?”

    Look up the word hypergamy and one of the definitions is the classical Hindu arranged marriage system by caste where men were permitted to marry down but women were not. There were obvious rational reasons for this.

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

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/279579/hypergamy

  • deti

    Han:

    I get it.

    I was talking about hypergamy as I understood it to be used in the OP, which is the natural instinct, hardwired into all women, of either (1) insisting on a man of a higher SMV than her; or (2) seeking the highest status man she can get (at all times).

    You are talking about the extent to which a woman indulges or acts upon her hypergamous instincts.

    I agree that not all women act on or indulge their hypergamy. I don’t know if it’s 50%.

  • Escoffier

    I agree with others that the male equiavalent or counterpart of hypergamy is not the desire for young and hot so much as the desire for variety and plenty.

    Susan, I have posted a million times about the “moral neutrality” of both male and female sexuality, that is the sexual impulse, and it has made you quite angry. I am going to quote something I recently wrote for another context but that applies here:

    There is in political science—the old political science—a sort of second law of thermodynamics. But to see that first we have to understand the dual meanings or levels to the concept of “human nature”: 1) what our instincts, biological urges and passions impel us to do, and 2) our potential to achieve higher things and perfect ourselves to the extent possible. Both of these are natural and inborn, but the former is as it were on auto-pilot while the latter requires constant vigilance and effort if the autopilot impulses are to be controlled and channelled and if any of that potential is to be realized, and still more vigilance and effort if what is achieved is to be maintained.”

    Hypergamy for women and polygamy for men clearly belong to the first category, which I call low or base nature. The phrase “base nature” really pisses you off but it should not. I would put hunger and thirst in that category, too: natural impulses that are necessary to the survival of the self, or of the species, but that can otherwise be put to good or bad ends.

    The fact is, we also have a higher nature, which is what we today are not so good at cultivating in either sex, certainly not as a society.

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

      @Escoffier

      Happy to cosign your comment. I still don’t like the word base, though.

      As for my feelings of frustration (not really anger) I can only say that I felt like I was at the bottom of a pile on that lasted hours. It didn’t help that you referenced as your primary source a deeply misogynist essay. Let’s leave it there, sweetheart. (Allen called Kelley sweetheart.)

  • HanSolo

    @deti

    I think I am talking about natural instinct. I think women exist on a spectrum of hypergamous instinct and desire. I think that maybe 20% of women aren’t very hypergamous at all (a lot of the female commenters on here seem to be more that way), 30% would be mildly so realize they have to be realistic if they want a husband and are happy to do so, 30% are quite hypergamous, and 20% are highly hypergamous.

    This is muddled because I think women’s attraction cues are influenced somewhat by herd dynamics (what the alpha mares of pop culture, education, media, etc. say should be attractive). It’s also muddled because I think women’s impulse to be hypergamous is environmentally influenced. In safe, prosperous areas their natural attraction to being provided and protected will fall asleep (not needed) and that will leave more room for their hypergamous nature to dominate their overall attraction mechanisms, seeking better genes and “winning the lottery” with some much richer or more powerful man, either for casual or hoping for an LTR.

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

      @HanSolo

      I think women exist on a spectrum of hypergamous instinct and desire. I think that maybe 20% of women aren’t very hypergamous at all (a lot of the female commenters on here seem to be more that way), 30% would be mildly so realize they have to be realistic if they want a husband and are happy to do so, 30% are quite hypergamous, and 20% are highly hypergamous.

      I would use slightly different percentages but I think this is right on.

      This is muddled because I think women’s attraction cues are influenced somewhat by herd dynamics (what the alpha mares of pop culture, education, media, etc. say should be attractive).

      Very much so. The herd in high school can make a guy popular and highly desired who would not have that status in any other high school in the nation. All hypergamy is local. :)

  • deti

    “others may struggle with the desire to trade up throughout their lives.”

    Is your position on this evolving? I recall in prior threads your insisting that hypergamy is not a constant subroutine. It seems you’ve backpedaled on this somewhat.

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

      @deti

      Is your position on this evolving? I recall in prior threads your insisting that hypergamy is not a constant subroutine. It seems you’ve backpedaled on this somewhat.

      Yes, my position on this has evolved. That is part of the reason I was moved to write this post. As you can see, I address the question of tamping down sexual impulse to make marriage work. See comment #53 (and also 39 to a lesser extent).

      I still would not describe it as a constant subroutine.

      BTW, deti, I would like to take this opportunity to say something to you. I was going to email you but might as well say it here. Despite the fact that we disagree on some things, your civility, generosity and general reasonableness is something I appreciate very much. I’ve been thinking a lot about the cross-sex communication here (post to come) and honestly you stand out as one of the men who is both extremely agreeable and often in opposition. You are definitely the guy in the sphere that can cross the aisle with ease, and I think you should do it more.

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

        I have a meeting this evening, so will check back later or tomorrow. I didn’t want anyone to think I was avoiding the thread – it’s a good one.

  • Plain Jane

    ” I’m interested in the debate about the moral neutrality of the sexuality of men and women, not whether women are hypergamous throughout their lives. (I still believe most women are not, but am willing to leave that aside.)”

    See the links I put above. In South Asian culture hypergamy was and still is forced on us. I really don’t think its something biological. Or maybe its innate in situations of danger or extreme want. Otherwise, if you are living a healthy and safe life in a civilized environment then it seems its more culturally enforced against the will of women who would rather just be with the men they love, despite his income or caste/class status in the social hierarchy.

    In other words, its a relic from pre-historic and pre-agricultural days that some cultures have held on to, even as the individual women in those cultures have moved on to egalitarian loving.

  • Plain Jane

    “In the “Sex and the City” (SATC) type, women marry men who have more human capital than themselves. ”

    IIRC, Horseface was the only one who “married up”, right?

  • Cooper

    Escoffier,

    Awesome post #40.

    (Autocorrect wants to make your name Wax officer – heh)

  • mr. wavevector

    Once again, with corrected tags:

    What Susan said SP said:

    As SP said, both male and female sexuality are hardwired, and devoid of a moral dimension. The only thing that counts is what we choose to do about that.

    What SP actually said:

    How a woman chooses to act on those feelings confer a moral dimension to them, but the fact of being attracted to alpha males is morally neutral.

    Susan’s rephrasing obscures SP’s point that there is indeed a moral dimension in a woman’s actions based on her sexual attractions.

    I’m interested in the debate about the moral neutrality of the sexuality of men and women

    Since morality deals with actions, biological attractions by themselves are by definition morally neutral. But any actions motivated by them are in the moral sphere. Since we are generally interested in who a woman sleeps with or who she marries, it’s the actions that count.

    I think the question of whose morals we’re using is the really interesting question. As I pointed out, men with low SMV have strong incentive to invent morals that punish hypergamy. That’s the real dynamic behind the MRA/MGTOW anger with female sexual behavior.

  • Plain Jane

    ” The best way to prevent that is: Avoid hypergamous women and be an attractive husband.”

    I’d love to see you write about how to become an attractive husband, or have you already done so?

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Be what you want in a partner.

    What like projection? That never works.

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

      @INTJ

      Be what you want in a partner.

      What like projection? That never works.

      Man that fell really flat. Here’s what I meant.

      Be the change you want to see in the world.

      Gandhi

      IOW, be of exemplary character, be generous and loving, (and don’t be supplicating), and your marriage is very likely to be a good one.

  • mr. wavevector

    In other words, what do we do as human beings of higher order thinking and character to behave in a moral way despite our “wiring?”

    Sure, I agree with that. So what do you think the moral implications of women acting on hypergamy in the modern SMV?

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “And that’s what might lead to a mutation ”

    Mutations occur randomly. Its the effect that mutation has on phenotype that subsequently leads to hits selection/deselection from the population.

  • deti

    “However, [failure to control hypergamy] is not what SP is addressing. He is challenging the demonization of female sexual instinct.”

    It is really tilting at windmills for both MRA/MGTOW to demonize female sexual instinct, and for SP/Slumlord even to address it, because that’s not the problem.

    A constructive use of effort would be discussing how best to restrain hypergamy.

  • Cooper

    @Anyone

    There is 2 or 3 forum post, of girls asking relationship advice, that have yet to be answered.

  • deti

    “In fact, male sexuality has also been unleashed.”

    Not really. The difference is in sexual availability.

    In reality, only a few men are able to engage in “unleashed” male sexual conduct. By stark contrast, nearly ALL women can engage in unleashed or unrestrained female sexual conduct. It’s simple: men are more sexually available to women than vice versa.

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

      @deti

      In reality, only a few men are able to engage in “unleashed” male sexual conduct. By stark contrast, nearly ALL women can engage in unleashed or unrestrained female sexual conduct. It’s simple: men are more sexually available to women than vice versa.

      But that is not the relevant comparison. From a sexual economics standpoint, all sexuality has been unleashed. That has concentrated the supply of sex among more attractive males compared to the past (but not nearly as much as you might claim). That has eroded the supply of commitment from attractive males, which is the female’s prize.

      IOW, it’s not advantageous for women to engage in unrestrained sexual conduct, because the vast majority have restricted sociosexuality. They benefit more from restricted sexuality in males who are then more likely to offer commitment.

      It’s only the promiscuous who benefit in this SMP.

  • Jacob Ian Stalk

    I think you’ve missed the critical point of anti-hypergamy discourse: that because feminism, family court cash-and-prizes, and equal outcomes for women have entirely undermined the biological value of hypergamy. The imposition of the articificial system we incorrectly term ‘equality’ has turned the matter into a moral one. It’s the moral side of this equation the anti-hypergamists are seeking to resolve. They don’t seem to condemn hypergamy itself (at least not the sensible amongst them), but to condemn and correct the artificial system that is starting to see hypergamy as a prescription for female mating behaviour rather than merely a description of it.

    Hypergamy may be instinctive, but the fruits of its cultural manifestation are as toxic to civilised humanity as eekwalitee. Reducing the anti-hypergamist argument to merely a biological one and declaring that men should simply accept the fact and learn to live with it is to either abdicate responsibility for keeping the weeds at bay, or to miss the point entirely. Every parent knows, deep down, that to raise a good daughter her ego must be judiciously pruned and to raise a good son his ego must be suffused with promise. That’s the point of the anti-hypergamists argument, surely

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

      @Jacob IS

      Every parent knows, deep down, that to raise a good daughter her ego must be judiciously pruned and to raise a good son his ego must be suffused with promise. That’s the point of the anti-hypergamists argument, surely

      If it is you’ve just done them a great service in saying so, as I have not seen the point made before. The problem is that the argument is primarily being made by males whose egos were not suffused with promise. And of course, there are many ready examples of women whose egos were not judiciously pruned.

      I have shared here before that my husband and I have actively and hopefully judiciously pruned our daughter’s ego pretty much from the moment she could talk. Without significant ego management, I think she would have been a real brat.

  • deti

    “The vast majority of women are sexually restricted by nature, and would welcome sexual repression in society.”

    Really? That’s news to me. Women would agree voluntarily to cultural and social constraints on their own sexual conduct? Women would agree voluntarily to wholesale restructuring of family laws to disincentivize frivolous divorce? A return to slut shaming?

    You yourself have said slut shaming is a nonstarter.

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

      @deti

      Really? That’s news to me. Women would agree voluntarily to cultural and social constraints on their own sexual conduct? Women would agree voluntarily to wholesale restructuring of family laws to disincentivize frivolous divorce? A return to slut shaming?

      I think most women would, yes. Something like 80% of women say they would love to see hookup culture abolished and a return to traditional dating. Keep in mind, for women who are not slutty by temperament, sluts are really, really wrecking the SMP.

      You yourself have said slut shaming is a nonstarter.

      That is true, because we have raised the Millennial generation to be tolerant of diversity in every way, and that includes sexual behavior.

  • deti

    “Define “women writ large.” I think you’re wrong. The vast majority of women are sexually restricted by nature, and would welcome sexual repression in society.”

    I hope I am wrong. I don’t think I am, though.

  • Plain Jane

    My extended family (yes they still exist) used to always be on my case to be hypergamous. Not my parents, mind you, because they went against the cultural grain when they married each other, but certainly my grandparents and great aunts and uncles. They remain flabbergasted that the men I choose to date consistently earn less than me, and, if they are from my culture, are of considerably lower caste status (though often higher than they are in socio-economic status).

    I tell you this hypergamy is a relic from the past that is still forced upon us otherwise egalitarian lovers.

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

      My extended family (yes they still exist) used to always be on my case to be hypergamous.

      This is a good point about culture. Throughout history fathers have attempted to drive a hard bargain for their daughters’ hand in marriage. The dowry was one way of sweetening the deal for a higher status male.

      Fathers are hypergamous.

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

    Susan wrote:I have debated the point here many times, and have objected to use of the word base to describe the sexuality of either sex. Base is defined as “mean, vile, low, ignoble, sordid, scurvy, villainous, abject.”

    I think he means ‘basis’, not ‘debased’. I.e. “a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis: the base of needed reforms.”

    The French word ‘base’ doesn’t have the double-meaning that the English version does. Rather, ‘bas’ is ‘low’, which is the context you are inferring.

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

      @Mr. Nervous Toes

      I think he means ‘basis’, not ‘debased’. I.e. “a fundamental principle or groundwork; foundation; basis: the base of needed reforms.”

      Where were you in July? We needed you!

  • Rum

    Nature is not ashamed of male sexuality. It puts it out there in the open – a big, upright boner waving in the wind towards nubile-ness and a forth-right, “You and me babe; how about it?”
    Nature is so ashamed of human female hypergamy that She hides it from everyone, even, apparently (especially?) human females themselves.
    Remember, it has only been brought into discussion by some ruthlessly observant men-folk. Another few millenia could have gone by without a single hint or clue coming from the other side.

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

      @Rum

      Nature is so ashamed of human female hypergamy that She hides it from everyone, even, apparently (especially?) human females themselves.

      Hides it? In my experience, it was obvious to everyone by 7th grade. Seriously, folks, even kindergarten females all flock to the same boys. I did it myself. In first grade I competed for the attention of John Dallas and won.

      I don’t really get the cluelessness about women thing. I understand that parents lied, society lied, etc. but female nature has not budged one bit. You want to see feral females? Go to a preschool.

  • JP

    @Mr. WaveVector: “Societies have been doing that type of social engineering for millenia. It’s called religion.”

    Religion isn’t social engineering.

    You can try to engineer a pseudo-religion for social engineering purposes, but it doesn’t really work.

  • Huggum

    I agree that hypergamy is hardwired, has no moral dimension, and shouldn’t be complained about. I do not see most of the “manosphere” complaining about hypergamy per se. I DO see men noting evil actions committed against men that are motivated by hypergamy. Men may be femogamous, but when they make marriage vows, they are still expected to remain faithful ’til death. Unfortunately, we find ourselves dealing with an increasingly licentious female population that is at liberty to ruin lives without so much as a second glance from the bulk of society. Also, it’s no longer a “good” thing when high status means celebrity and the traits that make women wet are “dark triad” traits. Unrestricted female sexuality is disastrous for civilization. For more information, walk to your nearest ghetto. Take a gun.

  • deti

    “The female desire to have pair-bond and have children. That objective requires that women make the best possible deal they can and go all in.”

    That’s an internal control which exists (or not) in each woman, to differing degrees (if it exists at all). Apparently that strong desire for bonding and getting pregnant isn’t enough to restrain women from casual sex and nuking good men in favor of bad boys. Society used to recognize this and thus decided not to rely on women’s internal controls but to impose external societal sanctions.

    Our ancestors knew, and we have forgotten, that you can’t get rid of hypergamy, you can only corral it and rein it in.

    (BTW, if the drive to have kids is so strong, why are so many women on hormonal BC? Rhetorical question.)

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

      @deti

      Apparently that strong desire for bonding and getting pregnant isn’t enough to restrain women from casual sex and nuking good men in favor of bad boys.

      This is certainly an option for women, but what percentage of women exercise it? It may be potentially catastrophic for society if women go crazy and wild, but the damage will vary considerably depending on which women do so. It is very clear that risky behaviors are embraced by individuals, both male and female, with certain traits and characteristics. Fortunately, that is a relatively small percentage of the population – for both sexes.

      Pew Research wrote an excellent report on the decline of marriage, the rates of which are decreasing in all groups in society. Part of that is due to an increasing age at marriage, which means that people are married for fewer years in their lifetimes, and this has a dramatic effect. Still there has been a big change in 50 years. In 1960, 93% of people were married before the age of 40. Today that number is 77%.

      Another interesting 80/20 split. The vast majority is marrying instead of enjoying unleashed sexuality.

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “Base is defined as “mean, vile, low, ignoble, sordid, scurvy, villainous, abject.””

    I think it can mean different things, and in this case I think he means something more along the lines of that which is driven by the most basic of needs. I prefer to use “primal” do avoid any negative connotation of the type you infer.

  • tito

    instinct or not, once you know about it, it is up to you to control yourself for the sake of civilization. civilization is more important that your measly life.

    biology is fine, but these attempts to remove agency are attempts to avoid placing blame and thus, lessening the yelling that you will receive. forego the bloodless, sterile yapping and have the balls to deride.

  • tito

    additionally, if women have no agency then there is no reason to have rights. lifelong status as a minor would be the next logical step.

  • Escoffier

    once again, with respect to “presentation,” I did not consider that “swinging” at all!

  • Beta2Alpha

    This is the reason why marriage is a bad deal for men and better for women. If the trade off is my money for her looks, my wealth will go up while her looks will go down. If I “trade up” it costs me dearly. In the long run, she wins. Why MGTOW is important to me at 35 years old is that I am looking for something more than just looks. If I don’t get it, I’d rather stay single. In fact, one of my requirements is that if I ever get married (highly doubtful) my mate must have similar finances since that is the number 1 cause for divorce:
    -Salary (180k) and I live on about 30k
    -No debt except for one of my houses that is still mortgaged at 3.25%
    Many women today have student loan debt out the keester. I would require them to pay that off prior to marriage as well as all credit card debt. I would be okay with house/car debt provided she bought within her means and could make the payments. Of course there would also be a prenup.

    Now the problem is finding a girl like this THAT IS HOT, YOUNG, KIND, and actual likes you back haha. If I never find it, I’m happier staying single and sailing around the world with a beer!

  • deti

    “However, in a perfect society, hypergamy would be present, as would the male desires for variety and fertility.”

    And they would both have external controls superimposed upon them, because external controls are necessary for an orderly society. We’re living now through the removal of external controls on hypergamy but with external controls on male desires for variety fully intact and tightening by the day.

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

      @deti

      We’re living now through the removal of external controls on hypergamy but with external controls on male desires for variety fully intact and tightening by the day.

      I’d like to understand this better. By external controls on hypergamy, I assume you mean no birth control and strong cultural shaming for loss of virginity before marriage. Are there others?

      What are the external controls on male desires?

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “So let’s figure out how to negotiate these wildly different mating strategies! I’ll give up “must be a CEO” if you give up “has to be DD.” And that is in fact what most of us do.”

    Just to point out there is no need to negotiate.
    Most people don’t have a choice. They take what they can get or they get nothing.

    As an ass man who is the CEO of his own company (admittedly tiny, not planning on doing much more than living well of it) I must decline the offer. You’ve seen my wife. I’m not in it for the tits.

    “What we need to do is have everybody take a deep breath and say, “I’m OK, you’re OK.” We’re all imperfect”

    Your right.
    These conversations tend to bring out the worst in people and leave their fears on display.

    Its rather obvious upon simple observation that not all women are evil hypergamous hags who only want (insert stereotype).
    Much the same as there are quite a few men though interested in variety willing to give it up.

    I think what does need to be reinstated is that monogamy requires a sacrifice on the part of both parties for a gain in others.
    (Men, no variety, assured paternity. Women, lower quality, iPad and someone to change some diapers.)

    Society (i.e.. feminism) has basically dismissed the male sacrifice as, garbage, unreal, non-existent. Theres a plethora of words to choose from, none are good.

    “The dysfunction you describe is not the product of instinct, which remains efficient, but of poor human decision-making. If we are no longer suited to the environment, then it is likely that sexual selection will proceed and we will evolve. If we don’t destroy one another first.”

    I think our instincts are quite dysfunctional with our current environment. I can pretty much guarantee my instinct is not to have kids or be in a monogamous relationship.

    Those decisions are occur on a conscious level with a balance of risk:reward.

    Some people do not view the risk:reward in the same way or do not make a conscious decision to have kids and choose not to have them.
    Regardless of how they feel it is natural selection de-selecting them.

    Those who choose to have kids, not just sex, own the future. Assuming we don’t blast ourselves back to the stone age or remove BC for religious reasons.
    I think if you look at human civilization in a million years, almost everyone will choose monogamy and kids as those who did not will not have descendants around.

    Natural selection has started favouring the desire for children over the desire for sex.

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

      @Lokland

      Just to point out there is no need to negotiate.
      Most people don’t have a choice. They take what they can get or they get nothing.

      I don’t believe that is true. You’re saying that most people have no ability to select a mating partner. There are a few souls who will never have the opportunity to mate due to the inability to attract a single person. For most people, though, there is a negotiation process where people assess both what they have to offer and what they can get in return. They may decide that they are unwilling to make the best deal they can get, but there’s an element of choice there. There have been people here at HUS who have stated that they are not attracted to any of the people who find them attractive, so they prefer to be celibate. Taking what you can get or nothing is a choice.

      I think our instincts are quite dysfunctional with our current environment. I can pretty much guarantee my instinct is not to have kids or be in a monogamous relationship.

      The male instinct is to reproduce, not raise children. Men who stick around and co-parent have historically been able to get more attractive mates. (Not just physically attractive, but also sexually faithful.) Men make that tradeoff, and in return women give up a bit of “good genes” to get the guy who’s in it for the long haul.

      Those who choose to have kids, not just sex, own the future. Assuming we don’t blast ourselves back to the stone age or remove BC for religious reasons.

      I think if you look at human civilization in a million years, almost everyone will choose monogamy and kids as those who did not will not have descendants around.

      I agree. I wish I could be around to see the Dark Triad males and females made extinct. :)

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

    @Mr. Wavevector

    How a woman chooses to act on those feelings confer a moral dimension to them, but the fact of being attracted to alpha males is morally neutral.

    Uh oh, I was referring to this from SP:

    It’s not a choice, and therefore devoid of a moral dimension, but a hard wired instinct.

    Did I misunderstand this sentence? I took it to mean that SP was saying that hypergamy is instinct, not choice, so there is no moral dimension to its existence. Obviously, there is a moral dimension to what actions one takes.

    But any actions motivated by them are in the moral sphere. Since we’re generally interested in who a woman sleeps with or who she marries, it’s the actions that count, and actions are not morally neutral.

    Yes, we are on the same page here.

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “Are single men shamed for not marrying? Dating around? Having ONSs? I don’t think so, I think the opposite is true. ”

    Ok, but I was thinking more of a desire to maintain multiple concurrent LTRs, which is the only way to accomodate a female desire to only have sex/LTR with the highest status mate. Both are a problem because they impede assortative monogomous pairings.

    Having said that, I think a large segment of society (especially feminists) would condemn a man for going through a lot of women. Generally, such a man is painted as a misogynist. Certainly, Roissy would get condemnation from most of society – including you when you first came upon him. “Cad” is generally a negative term – you may have defined it as “a deceitful seducer” but most don’t, I don’t think.

    Anyway, the points I’m making are:

    1. I agree that asking women not to be attracted to higher status men is like asking men not to be attracted to hotter women more than fatties. But those are just attraction cues, not hypergamy.

    2. Hypergamy, like the urge for polygamy, is an impediment for orderly assortative monogamous pairing. Both should be controlled. But hypergamy is encouraged in accepted entertainment, especially female-oriented entertainment, with the constant realized fantasy of Mr. Big sweeping her away. Outside of, perhaps, Hank Moody in Californication, I can’t think of any generally approved popular entertainment that really encourages and endorses the polygamy urge. And even Hank was given a dose of one-itis to make him culturally acceptable. I don’t think “Big Love” qualifies as endorsing the urge.

    Anyway, just my two cents.

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

      @Passer By

      Hypergamy, like the urge for polygamy, is an impediment for orderly assortative monogamous pairing. Both should be controlled. But hypergamy is encouraged in accepted entertainment, especially female-oriented entertainment, with the constant realized fantasy of Mr. Big sweeping her away. Outside of, perhaps, Hank Moody in Californication, I can’t think of any generally approved popular entertainment that really encourages and endorses the polygamy urge. And even Hank was given a dose of one-itis to make him culturally acceptable. I don’t think “Big Love” qualifies as endorsing the urge.

      This is a point Ramble often makes. We recently did get a bunch of examples here of charming rakes in popular culture. But there’s no question that entertainment aimed primarily at women caters to female fantasies about high status men. One of the reasons I liked the show Girls so much is that it does not cater to women, it is honest and fair to both sexes, IMO.

      I think it would be interesting to do a study of various shows, who they’re aimed at, and what kind of sexual lifestyle the main character chooses. For example, James Bond may be enjoyed by both sexes, but I believe it has always been primarily targeted at men, and it represents male fantasies very well.

      I also think that many shows, films and novels portray monogamy because it is the primary mating model for humans in the world today. Because monogamy allows productivity in civilization, it is the default. So it’s really not very likely that we’ll see many portrayals of polygyny except as cultural curiosities, e.g. The King and I, Big Love.

  • JP

    “Those who choose to have kids, not just sex, own the future.”

    Exactly. This is why I said to myself, I need to get myself some kids.

  • JP

    “This is the reason why marriage is a bad deal for men and better for women. If the trade off is my money for her looks, my wealth will go up while her looks will go down.”

    I think I traded my debt for my wife’s wealth.

  • JP

    I don’t think that natural selection really works at the human level because culture tends to substantially overpower neurology.

  • Beta2Alpha

    @ Hollenhund (Post #6)
    “As I’ve noted earlier, women elicit various responses from men in a world of unrestrained hypergamy: thuggery/chavism, “Light Game”, “Dark Game” (whatever the hell those two are supposed to mean), ghosting, spree-killing, porn addiction, MGTOW, Athol’s MAP, video game addiction, you name it. The ONLY male behavior they generally more and more FAIL to elicit is that of a responsible, dutiful husband and father. I’m sure that’s purely a coincidence.”

    +1
    My male friends and I are at wits end wondering why we should get married when we look at what’s “offered” to men in marriage:
    -Divorce laws favor women
    -Custody laws favor women
    -No fault divorce is allowed
    -Eat, Pray, Love was written…and accepted as awesome (not feeling you honey, see you….off to travel the world and marry someone else)
    -Hookup culture is easy and available should you want sex
    -% of men unhappy in marriage because of lack of sex
    -% of men unhappy with the way their wife spends money
    -% of men unhappy in marriage because his wife gives her career, kids, pets, gardening, scrapbooking and anything else more love than him

    The risk of financial ruin is just too high to take on the role of dutiful husband. There are no safety nets for men. Many men could easily squash their sexual desires for newer younger models if they could have the same loyal guarantee that their wife won’t upgrade should the opportunity present itself, nor will she change the way she treats him over time.

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “I still would not describe it as a constant subroutine. ”

    I don’t the “constant subroutine” theory is consistent with the concept of pair bonding.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I had in mind women in their 20′s when I made up those percentages (I originally told Deti ~half of them were more hypergamous and ~half weren’t).

    I think that in going from junior high to say 30 that most women will shift a little bit on average to being less hypergamous–they mature and their hypergamous desire (to whatever extent it exists) is displaced somewhat by a bit more attraction to comfort traits, a greater realization that they can be happy with someone of their level, and perhaps hormonal changes (pure speculation) that make them happier with equal-value guys too. I know several girls like this. One was a big-boned, slightly fat, average-looking girl who was hopelessly in love in High School with this other good looking but moody, agressive and lone-wolf kind of guy. I would guess her SMV was a 5 or 6 at best. His was more an 8. Fast forward 7 years. He married an 8 and she married a 6. She is still married and has a couple of kids and seems reasonably happy. She was definitely hypergamous in jr and sr high school but not once she got into her mid 20′s and found her husband.

    Now I think a lot of the really hypergamous will stay that way to a large extent, because their shift will still leave them hypergamous. I just know so many girls that say in their mid or late 20′s or early 30′s that they’ve given up their badboy phase and are ready for someone willing to commit and treat them right. Are all that way? No. But I think there are enough that shift somewhat that the average hypergamy shifts to a lower level as women move from late teens to late 20′s or early 30′s.

    Thoughts?

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

      @HanSolo

      I think that in going from junior high to say 30 that most women will shift a little bit on average to being less hypergamous–they mature and their hypergamous desire (to whatever extent it exists) is displaced somewhat by a bit more attraction to comfort traits, a greater realization that they can be happy with someone of their level, and perhaps hormonal changes (pure speculation) that make them happier with equal-value guys too.

      I think all of that is true, but also the fact that if women are paying attention, they get a huge reality check. I talked about how I figured out my SMV in college – you send out IOIs and see who takes the bait. Not very complicated, right? Today it’s much harder because:

      1. There is a risk of sending out IOIs to someone who will interpret them as DTF.

      2. It can be difficult to sniff out a cad at first meeting, so an enthusiastic response from a guy may be the start of getting played.

      The fact that women get positive feedback from guys with higher SMV confuses them, because they may still be thinking LTR while he is thinking strictly STR. There are extreme cases like Karen Owen where the female seems to be announcing she’s in it strictly for the sex, but I don’t buy it. Her Power Point diary was rather emotionally vulnerable. She wanted to be liked. Same with Tracy Clark Flory’s recent confession.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Also, regarding those percentages, I just made them up to roughly match what I have observed amongst those I know so I am flexible in adjusting them if there are better numbers (whether they’re anecdotal, empirical or theoretical). I should also say that I think there is a small % of women (maybe 10?) that are hypogamous and seem to go for someone worse than what they could get.

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

      @HanSolo

      Also, regarding those percentages, I just made them up to roughly match what I have observed amongst those I know so I am flexible in adjusting them if there are better numbers (whether they’re anecdotal, empirical or theoretical). I should also say that I think there is a small % of women (maybe 10?) that are hypogamous and seem to go for someone worse than what they could get.

      I am aware of two or three studies on hypergamy, but they look strictly at which men women marry, the traditional definition of the term. Data of this sort is very hard to come by. For now I think estimates like yours are a good starting point.

      I don’t understand the 10% hypogamous though. What would be the incentive to go for someone lower in status than you could get?

  • Beta2Alpha

    @ Susan
    “I think most women would, yes. Something like 80% of women say they would love to see hookup culture abolished and a return to traditional dating.”

    Of course. Traditional dating is that old “chivalry” thing where men plan dates, pay for dates, and basically dote all over the girl. Why would someone not want that? The problem is that this type of relationship is one-sided. I would ask you to look at online dating sites that have public profiles you can read without joining and prepare to be amazed! Most women want “traditions” when it helps them but not when it doesn’t. I always wanted to sign up and write something like “I would prefer a more traditional relationship where my wife cooks and cleans all day.” I’m sure that would go over well.

    I never liked the chivalry thing because it always felt like prostitution to me. Dating in some aspects just feels that way. Maybe I’m crazy when I say I want more of a 50-50 and less of a “I spent X dollars on you for our date, now let’s have sex,” which is the expected quid pro quo in chivalry.

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

      Of course. Traditional dating is that old “chivalry” thing where men plan dates, pay for dates, and basically dote all over the girl. Why would someone not want that?

      I wrote about a large survey this past summer where they asked both men and women who should pay on a date. A much, much larger percentage of women said women should pay.

      Maybe I’m crazy when I say I want more of a 50-50 and less of a “I spent X dollars on you for our date, now let’s have sex,” which is the expected quid pro quo in chivalry.

      Um, I think you’ve missed the mark on chivalry there. That strategy is a poor one for men. It’s false good guy game – the guy is not in it for courtship, but for quick sexual gratification. That is indeed prostitution.

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland

    Why do you think humanity will be very similar in a million years to what it is now and choose monogamy? I think transhumanism, in some form or other, is coming eventually (no idea if that’s 100, 1000 or 10000 years) and we’ll be so different either by computer implant, bionic attachments, genetic engineering, drugs or whatever thing we can’t even imagine now. People will likely be immortal and may have figured out how to transfer their consciousness into some other kind of “body” and who knows if there is any kind of spiritual reality that will be scientifically discovered and engineeringly tapped into.

    Thoughts?

  • SayWhaat

    In this thread: no girls.

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    You’re here so you’ve just broken the trend!!! lol

    Girls are free to post and the men are being pretty civil from what I can see. No one is saying women are evil for having hypergamic attraction (to whatever extent they do), just that it needs to be reined in as does men’s desire for variety or youth.

    Also, I think most of the female commenters here are on the non/less-hypergamic end of the spectrum and don’t feel like it relates, kind of in the same way that the light triad don’t relate to wanting sex with tons of women.

  • Plain Jane

    “Are single men shamed for not marrying? Dating around? Having ONSs? I don’t think so, I think the opposite is true. ”

    Yes they are. Especially in traditional cultures, like mine. However they are shamed even in non-traditional cultures like our current Western cultures as well, at least I’ve seen it in USA. The dating around and one night stands are expected to last a decade, maybe 2 at most. If one passes 40 without ever having been married or in a serious LTR, then he is looked at suspiciously.

    “Nature is so ashamed of human female hypergamy that She hides it from everyone, even, apparently (especially?) human females themselves.
    Remember, it has only been brought into discussion by some ruthlessly observant men-folk. Another few millenia could have gone by without a single hint or clue coming from the other side.”

    What? The Kama Sutra and other ancient texts have alluded to the female orgasmic capacity which out-competes the males.

    As far as “hypergamy” that was a social construct from the Hindu caste system where men were allowed to marry down but women were not. Even today all traditional cultures encourage women to marry up if at all possible, but to at the very least marry her socio-economic equal. If anything what is happening in the modern world is women exercising their CHOICE to mate with men whom they are genuinely physically/sexually attracted to, and those men are often below us in the socio-economic realm.

    “In this thread: no girls.”

    I made the first comment and have commented all along but moderation prevents my comments from showing up on time. (Susan!)

  • JP

    I think that Susan counts as a girl.

  • Plain Jane

    ” Many men could easily squash their sexual desires for newer younger models if they could have the same loyal guarantee that their wife won’t upgrade should the opportunity present itself, nor will she change the way she treats him over time.”

    There’s no getting around the fact that any average or above looking woman (and often those are not even average) will have options. That’s just a fact men will have to deal with just as we women have to deal with the fact that if we couple up with “alphas” or at the very least, good looking men, they will have options too.

    This is where trust comes in. (and probably some shit testing, for both genders).

    Also, if your union has a purpose (other than just “being in love” and feeling good about each other), a sense of duty can compel a noble man or woman to honor commitments made.

  • Ion

    “I really don’t think its something biological. Or maybe its innate in situations of danger or extreme want. ”

    Perhaps women are hypergamous through biology, but what hypergamy is is most definitely socialized. You cannot “unleash” a hypergamy that doesn’t exist biologically, you just have to change the category that puts some men above others, culturally.

    If you live in a culture of hunter gatherers, what kind of hypergamy would we adopt? Strongest hunters.

    If you live in a communal culture based on agriculture? The guy who brings home the barley, if not, he better be an awesome pottery maker, or scribe, or tool maker etc.,.

    If you live in a society that glamorizes crime, rap, materialism, swagger, suits, motorcycles and money? Well…

    Female beauty is also biological at base (curves and youth is basically it), since this is all that’s required for women around the planet to be incredibly fertile. Anything other than that is socialized definitions of beauty that vary from culture to culture.

    Totally unrelated, the Omega-male ridden manosphere has a lot of men complaining about hypergamy because to any man, the man directly above him is an alpha. A socially dominant/higher beta has less bitterness because there’s only a few men above him. For the average omega, that number is all other men . I’m sure to him, there are loads of alphas, all more successful with women than he is.

  • Ted D

    SayWhaat – I noticed it and it made me chuckle. So far none of the men commenting have gone all angry and bitter, yet the female voices are few and far between. PJ (who never misses a chance to scrap wi the boys) and Susan are representing the female side here, and I honestly can’t figure out why.

    I’m more than willing to have a frank discussion about my natural desire for sexual variety and how I personally deal with it. (In my case that desire is NOT strong as long as I have some sexual outlet) it boggles my mind that women seem reluctant to do the same in regards to hypergamy.

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

      PJ (who never misses a chance to scrap wi the boys) and Susan are representing the female side here, and I honestly can’t figure out why.

      I’m more than willing to have a frank discussion about my natural desire for sexual variety and how I personally deal with it.

      That’s what we’re afraid of. ;)

  • JP

    @HanSolo:

    “Why do you think humanity will be very similar in a million years to what it is now and choose monogamy?”

    People are the purpose of biological evolution. Once we discover other worlds inhabited by other people we can gather data for my hypothesis.

    “I think transhumanism, in some form or other, is coming eventually (no idea if that’s 100, 1000 or 10000 years) and we’ll be so different either by computer implant, bionic attachments, genetic engineering, drugs or whatever thing we can’t even imagine now.”

    You’re already inhabiting a biotechnology avatar. Is there a problem with it?

    “People will likely be immortal and may have figured out how to transfer their consciousness into some other kind of “body” and who knows if there is any kind of spiritual reality that will be scientifically discovered and engineeringly tapped into.”

    I’m already immortal. That’s not my problem. My problem is that I’m bored out of my mind and I’m kind of wandering around life aimlessly.

    I already have access to spiritual reality. I don’t need any more that I already have at the moment.

    Also, I don’t feel like giving people access to the dark sciences or doing any experimental work in that direction. We have enough problems our nuclear weapon and ecosystem destruction at the moment.

  • Escoffier

    So, when I think about my desire for variety, which participating here sometimes impels me to do, and I let my mind stroll in those pastures, I am eventually drawn up short by a number of concerns, not least STDs. I mean, supposing I were single and able to play the field, I think that in the end I still would not because the “ick” factor would be very strong. There is something to be said for, at the outset of a good time, knowing that there won’t be any lasting adverse consequences.

  • Lokland

    @Han Solo

    “People will likely be immortal”

    Impossible. Biological immortality is impossible. Full stop, its actually not possible under the laws of the universe. no matter how fancy the technology gets we will never be able to make gravity reverse itself so we float away from Earth nor can we make a biological body live forever.

    “and may have figured out how to transfer their consciousness into some other kind of “body”

    The number of people who currently want to be robots, you. If you mean transfer to another biological body, yup but again the problem is the number of transfers cannot be indefinite as NOTHING can be achieved with 100% accuracy.

    You may think it’d be cool to live forever. I have extreme doubts, both upon the possibility (biological immortality is an impossibility) and the availability (rich get richer, poor get poorer).

    “I think transhumanism, in some form or other, is coming eventually (no idea if that’s 100, 1000 or 10000 years)”

    Depends upon your definition of trans-human. If you mean “hey look at my cool new eye that can detect x rays” yeah reasonably possible and NBD.

    If you mean somehow transcend our genetics your high. Even if people could, they wouldn’t. Four billion years of life has been driven by one command: replicate. To suggest that can be ended by anything manmade is laughable (or for that matter ended by anything).

    Some individuals choose not to breed in every generation. That can be via BC or because they wanted to be the terminator. As long as they don’t interfere with the breeding population, no one cares, we all get along. If they try and interrupt however, as you are suggesting, then the result would be war.

    What you dream about will be far from universal. If anyone tries to make it universal the result will be war.
    I also doubt the ability of a non-breeding group to not interfere with the breeding group, especially if immortal. Again end result, war.

    Now as for eugenics, breeding superior humans, very possible. End result, war.

    Watch China over the next 20-30 years, essentially the more men than women creates a natural eugenic situation in which only the uber-top quality men get to breed. The result will not be good and yes I think war will be the end result.

    Trying to enforce that across the human race well…as one of those who would probably be told to gtfo I would not stand there and accept it.

    The only thing worth fighting for is the kids you already have or to gain/retain the ability to produce some in the first place.

  • Lokland

    @Han Solo

    “Why do you think humanity will be very similar in a million years to what it is now and choose monogamy?”

    It was half tongue in cheek.
    If the selective pressures stay the same then we get to that spot in X years.

    The selective forces will change.
    I just doubt it will be in the way you think.

    I do expect true monogamy to become more common overtime though if BC remains.

  • Passer_By

    “In this thread: no girls.”

    Cool. Perfect thread to go on some rants about ex-wives. Who is with me?!!!!

  • Sai

    Here I am! I was eating!

    I am perfectly willing to fight my girly devils if my husband will fight his. If he misbehaves I will leave; if I stray I expect to be kicked out.

    “instinct or not, once you know about it, it is up to you to control yourself for the sake of civilization. civilization is more important that your measly life.”
    I can’t imagine anybody willing to be 100% thrown under the bus for the sake of civilization or society. That’s why I don’t support feminism -men are expected to do XYZ, but what will they get for it?

    “In safe, prosperous areas their natural attraction to being provided and protected will fall asleep (not needed)”
    I am guilty of this… What should I do?

  • Plain Jane

    Ion, “Perhaps women are hypergamous through biology, but what hypergamy is is most definitely socialized. You cannot “unleash” a hypergamy that doesn’t exist biologically, you just have to change the category that puts some men above others, culturally.

    If you live in a culture of hunter gatherers, what kind of hypergamy would we adopt? Strongest hunters.

    If you live in a communal culture based on agriculture? The guy who brings home the barley, if not, he better be an awesome pottery maker, or scribe, or tool maker etc.,.”

    - What’s wrong with this? What’s wrong with wanting to secure resources for your children? This is SMART, not evil. Even the forced hypergamy which many traditional cultures impose on their womenfolk, they ultimately mean well and have the best interest of their future grandchildren in mind.

    The problem isn’t hypergamy. The problem is women selling themselves and their future children short by going for guys that have nothing of value to offer.

  • Lokland

    @Han, Sai

    “civilization is more important that your measly life.”
    I can’t imagine anybody willing to be 100% thrown under the bus for the sake of ”

    Han, what you want was perfectly described by Sai in a totally unrelated comment.

    For some people to be immortal, others are getting thrown under the bus.
    For eugenic improvement of the human race, others are getting thrown under the bus.

    Throwing people under the bus does not go over well with the person getting thrown under the bus.

    thank you Sai, you summed up my 7 paragraph argument in 2 lines without even meaning to.

  • Marie

    Susan – if I understand correctly, hypergamy is not just the urge to get the “best” possible man, but the urge to trade up whenever you have the possibility? So that means a woman who dumps a man after one year together when she has a shot with someone richer/higher social status and then repeats the process? I don’t think I’ve ever met a woman who does this, even though I know quite a few women married to high status/wealthy men. Women’s looks go down, and if you’re married to a CEO or partner in a law firm, his wealth (and status) will go up in his 40s and 50s. I am not sure if there are that many options to ‘trade up’, unless she did a bad deal to begin with.

    I definitely have a streak of this (not the ‘trade up’, but the attraction to status). Wealth and social status are major attraction cues to me – I haven’t ever dated a man who wasn’t well off – these were not things I actively looked for, it just happened that way (they are the ones who approach me as well). I don’t care if they spend a penny on me – it is only an attraction cue. On the other hand, I am not particularly visual. I’ll take an average looking guy with charisma and confidence over Bradley Cooper any day.

    I agree with the article, because I still think women are judged for seeking high status men. Words like ‘golddigger’ is thrown around, and you can’t really escape it, even if you have money of your own. Sometimes I think very visual girls have it easier. Perhaps because men “get” a girl’s fascination for Orlando Bloom (visual attraction), but he cannot see anything other than taking advantage in terms of a woman dating a moneyed man (because that’s what he would have done).

    I think hypergamy is the opposite of promiscuity in a way, at least how it applies to me. My sister is extremely promiscuous and have low standards for men (I think it goes: 1. Owns a penis, 2. Interested in her). She has often been shaming me for choosing high status men. That gives her the opportunity to be the tolerant one (“everybody has a chance”). Deep down the search for a successful man is rooted in an interest in commitment. Does that make sense?

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

      @Marie

      Susan – if I understand correctly, hypergamy is not just the urge to get the “best” possible man, but the urge to trade up whenever you have the possibility? So that means a woman who dumps a man after one year together when she has a shot with someone richer/higher social status and then repeats the process? I don’t think I’ve ever met a woman who does this, even though I know quite a few women married to high status/wealthy men

      This is the age old debate at HUS. Personally, I think that the vast majority of women seek to make a great deal at marriage and go all in for life. It’s also important to remember that status is just one female attraction cue. It’s an important one, but there are many others. I don’t think it’s unusual for women to get interest or even offers from higher status males and reject them. I did this myself when I was engaged, and the difference in status was very considerable. However, my personal “weighted formula” of attraction meant that Mr. HUS still came out on top. (This is aside from any considerations around loyalty, a character issue.)

      Anecdotally, I have seen much greater infidelity among men than women in my social cohort, at least in the cases that came to light. A few of those were male-male infidelity, btw. Hopefully, there will be less of that in future generations.

      I agree with the article, because I still think women are judged for seeking high status men. Words like ‘golddigger’ is thrown around, and you can’t really escape it, even if you have money of your own.

      Yes, there is a lot of shaming for going after status, even if it’s not a question of trading up, but just making a really strong initial deal.

      I think hypergamy is the opposite of promiscuity in a way, at least how it applies to me…

      Deep down the search for a successful man is rooted in an interest in commitment. Does that make sense?

      That’s a really interesting thought. Yes it does make sense – attaining the highest status you possibly can when young is probably a good strategy for successful marriage. If women “settle” for men with low status, provisioning becomes a problem and the relationship is stressed, especially if there are children. Better to look for a life partner thinking, “I’m only going to do this once, so I’d better do it right.”

  • HanSolo

    @JP

    Once we discover other worlds inhabited by other people we can gather data for my hypothesis.

    You and the Mormons agree on a fundamental idea, many world inhabited by people. Since evolution is thought to be blind and random it is unlikely that humans would evolve on other planets and so this would suggest that some other guiding “force” or God directed evolution that way. It will be very interesting to see. The latest predictions (with huge uncertainties) are that there are billions of earth-size or super-earth-size planets in the habitable zones of stars in our galaxy. It seems almost certain that some have life.

  • asdf

    Susan,

    The problem isn’t that hypergamy exists, but that women don’t seem to be able to control it. Men want to fuck everything they see, but they control it. Women seem to exert no control over hypergamy, or their emotions more generally.

    When a women wrecks a marriage and family to satiate her hypergamy she is committing a sin. When she purposely chooses single motherhood to satisfy her hypergamy she is committing a sin. Women are sinning on a massive scale.

    You may not understand this, but men and women value moral codes very differently. Women almost expect each other to talk behind their back and betray them. Few women seem to have true friendships with each other or speak honestly. It is a very opportunistic outlook on life. So for women these things don’t seem important. However, to men loyalty and honesty are extremely important. It is how men judge other men. When a women shows disloyalty and dishonesty to engage in hypergamy she is moral scum to a man. These are terrible sins in our eyes. When a man learns that women are inherently prone to things he considers incredible character flaws under his moral code he is revolted.

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

      @asdf

      Men want to fuck everything they see, but they control it. Women seem to exert no control over hypergamy, or their emotions more generally.

      Women are sinning on a massive scale.

      Few women seem to have true friendships with each other or speak honestly. It is a very opportunistic outlook on life.

      It is clear from statements like this that Social Pathologist is lookin’ at you!

  • HanSolo

    @JP

    I’m already immortal. That’s not my problem. My problem is that I’m bored out of my mind and I’m kind of wandering around life aimlessly.

    I already have access to spiritual reality. I don’t need any more that I already have at the moment.

    Also, I don’t feel like giving people access to the dark sciences or doing any experimental work in that direction. We have enough problems our nuclear weapon and ecosystem destruction at the moment.

    You may believe you’re immortal but how do you know you are? Until you die and see that you continue on it’s all just your belief, whether a true belief or not. I know some people who claim to see spirits of the dead that they knew and interact with them. For them, this is proof enough that life goes on after death. What do I think of their claims? I think they might be right but they could also be perceiving things that aren’t there.

    You don’t want others to experiment on those things but unless you can enforce a 100% ban then sooner or later someone will. Look at nuclear weapons. You had the 5 nuclear countries say “us and no more” with many others agreeing. But then bit by bit you got Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Soon Iran may have them. And you have dozens of other nations that could go nuclear relatively quickly. Now, so far, we’ve been lucky and only 2 bombs have ever been used but it seems like sooner or later someone might use one, as the technology makes such weapons more and more accessible to less powerful groups.

  • JP

    @HanSolo:

    “Since evolution is thought to be blind and random it is unlikely that humans would evolve on other planets and so this would suggest that some other guiding “force” or God directed evolution that way.”

    Evolution is bound by the laws of physics and the laws of biology, so it is certainly not unconstrained.

    The force, so to speak, is the geometry of space-time itself.

    In addition only certain kinds of life are permissible in certain environments.

    Cacti don’t evolve in the middle of a rain forest.

    That’s hardly random.

  • JP

    “You don’t want others to experiment on those things but unless you can enforce a 100% ban then sooner or later someone will.”

    People don’t need to be opening other people’s brain boxes and playing with wires.

    In any event, occultists try to play these games all the time and have been doing so for years.

  • Plain Jane

    Marie November 14, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    Susan – if I understand correctly, hypergamy is not just the urge to get the “best” possible man, but the urge to trade up whenever you have the possibility?
    -

    Not classically. Classically hypergamy was linked to the South Asian caste and arranged marriage system wherein men were permitted to marry down but not women. Women were encouraged to marry up or at the very least their socio-economic equals. This of course would NOT include trading up for a better model because marriage was for life, even up to 7 lifetimes.

  • Plain Jane

    ” Now, so far, we’ve been lucky and only 2 bombs have ever been used”

    By whom?!

  • JP

    “I know some people who claim to see spirits of the dead that they knew and interact with them.”

    I can’t say I give much credence to those types. I consider them wackadoo until proven otherwise.

    For example, I think ghosts are “real” in that they can be experienced. But I think that all they are are patterns, perhaps electrical, left over from the past. Perhaps patterns of thought burned onto the film of the world. They are left over from people’s lives. Like old images burned onto a TV screen.

  • Plain Jane

    “Sometimes I think very visual girls have it easier. Perhaps because men “get” a girl’s fascination for Orlando Bloom (visual attraction), but he cannot see anything other than taking advantage in terms of a woman dating a moneyed man (because that’s what he would have done). ”

    I’m an artist and very visual. My men are my muses. Can’t say its been “easy” as I’m no Aishwarya Rai myself, and I’m very picky about habits, values, lifestyle, ethics, spirituality, character, culture, etc so meeting men who meet my bare minimum threshold for any of the above is by no means an everyday experience, but every once in a while I hit the jack pot.

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland

    Impossible. Biological immortality is impossible. Full stop, its actually not possible under the laws of the universe. no matter how fancy the technology gets we will never be able to make gravity reverse itself so we float away from Earth nor can we make a biological body live forever.

    I get that you were meaning a million years somewhat tongue in cheek. I was not meaning literal immortality but rather quasi-immortality where the aging process could be slowed and that people could still be blown up by bombs.

    As to the laws of the universe, there is currently no guarantee that the universe will end in a heat death. Dark energy (if true) is being created every second as space grows and if it turns out to increase in density as space expands and this dark energy can decay into matter at some point then you can have new matter and free energy generated to create new mini universes within the overall universe, forever. A different but similar speculative model is eternal inflation where the energy density just stays the same in the inflating regions and small pockets decay into a lower energy state and create a pocket universe. The other thing is that we never learn the “true” laws of the universe, only better and better approximations to how they are now and over the period of time we’ve measured them. There is no guarantee that those “laws” we think exist don’t have some time dependence built in that will change in the future.

    I disagree about all people continuing to replicate in the same way we have up until now. People often replicated unintentionally. Now, with birth control, it’s become much more intentional. I don’t see why it’s implausible that when beneficial genetic engineering becomes available that some people will choose to use it. That may give rise to war but who’s to say that the conservatives (genetically speaking) will win? Maybe the gen-mod-people will.

    As far as my personal desires, I don’t desire to be a robot or dream about it. I’m just looking into the future and see transhumanism as very plausible and likely. We apparently disagree as to what level of understanding and ability to manipulate life is theoretically and practically possible eventually. You don’t think it’s likely whereas I think we will eventually come to understand biology sufficiently well to manipulate it to a high degree. I make no claim as to when that will come, maybe a 1000 years from now. And, it is possible that never, but that doesn’t seem likely to me.

  • Sassy6519

    Alright, time to crash this party

    In many ways the men complaining against hypergamy are akin to the “fat acceptance” crowd and their logic, when complaining about male femogamy. The fatties are constantly harping on about how there is something wrong with men for preferring thinner women. The MRA/MGTOW crowd are constantly asserting that there is something wrong with women for preferring higher status males. Both loser groups, being the neglected victims of natural human desires, want to punish or constrain normal people from having them. Social engineering is the preferred vehicle.

    Oh, this paragraph. This wonderful paragraph…..

    How do women feel about these universal dual attraction desires among men?

    I feel indifferent.

    Really? That’s news to me. Women would agree voluntarily to cultural and social constraints on their own sexual conduct?

    I wouldn’t agree to that.

    Women would agree voluntarily to wholesale restructuring of family laws to disincentivize frivolous divorce?

    I would agree to that.

    A return to slut shaming?

    I wouldn’t agree to that.

  • Abbot

    “When a man learns that women are inherently prone to things he considers incredible character flaws under his moral code he is revolted.”

    Throw in some slut-phase empowerment and feminist parroting and got yourself a foreign culture…right next door

  • Lokland

    @Han Solo

    “s to the laws of the universe, there is currently no guarantee that the universe will end in a heat death.”

    Funny enough. My reasoning includes increasing entropy but doesn’t actually extend to heat death (which is some crazy physics nonsense that isn’t in my range of specialties). I honestly didn’t think much beyond the limited physical body and what was possible within it.

    You can’t make everything in the body run at 100% efficiency DNA-Pols fuck up, RNA-Pols fuck up, ribo’s fuck up, protein interactions fuck up. Shit happens its the general law of the universe.

    Then you just merely look at the number of states which are “living” vs. the number of states that are “dead”. The number of potential dead states massively outnumber the number of potential living states, toss in shit happens and its merely a matter of time before a dead state arises by random chance. Obviously this could be mitigated by creating biochemical machinery that nears perfection but thats the problem, the closest it can ever get is near actual perfection is impossible.

    I will agree quasi-immortality is a possibility, though the extent to which it occurs is unknown.

    “The other thing is that we never learn the “true” laws of the universe, only better and better approximations to how they are now and over the period of time we’ve measured them. There is no guarantee that those “laws” we think exist don’t have some time dependence built in that will change in the future.”

    Too much physics. I follow but cannot comment with any degree of certainty in what I’m saying but I’ll give her a go anyway.

    Your right, what we have themselves are only approximations. Would you agree that the general shit happens principle precludes the possibility of creating ‘perfect’ biochemical interactions?

    As for laws changing. Never heard of that before, please explain.

    “I disagree about all people continuing to replicate in the same way we have up until now. People often replicated unintentionally. Now, with birth control, it’s become much more intentional. ”

    I half-said this. Natural selection will always play a role in who reproduces and who doesn’t. When we go to war with our first alien nation in X years whether or not we win will be a form of natural selection (on an extremely large scale). Universal natural selection.

    To suggest that selection is somehow transcend-able is laughable. Its possible but so ridiculously unlikely, our sun could accidentally super nova, some aliens could show up and enslave us, all the volcanoes could go off etc.

    The possibility that our species becomes so powerful that we are actually incapable of going extinct seems so unlikely we might as well call it impossible.
    I’m all for space exploration and colonization because it gets all the eggs out of one basket but that doesn’t guarantee all the eggs are safe.

    Birth control is merely a new selective pressure. Life has found a way for four billion years, the desire for sex will be replaced with a desire to reproduce.
    We will always breed, not so much because we can’t find a way to not need to breed but because people won’t willingly give it up.

    I think its entirely possible to create a species of test tube humans that don’t actually need to birth humans. I just don’t think that is somehow going to preclude breeders from breeding.

    Unless like you said, transhumans win the war, which is the only eventual outcome is you try to stop people from breeding.

    “I don’t see why it’s implausible that when beneficial genetic engineering becomes available that some people will choose to use it. ”

    I think we’ve hacked this out before.
    Theres a difference between, “lets change a few NTs in your gene” “lets replace your gene with someone else’s” and “your not good enough to reproduce”.

    The last two are essentially the same as neutering the person, the result is the same. That might be good for society, its very bad for the individual however.

    You seem to be under the impression that people will willingly walk into their own extinction for the betterment of everyone else.

    As a very selfish bastard I can guarantee you if someone tries to pull that shit on me I’m taking as many of them with me as possible. I’m probably not alone.

    Obviously the other side could win but I refuse to accept that possibility. Beyond that, assuming we find a way to make resources plentiful theres no reason the breeders and trans-human societies can’t just go their separate ways.

    Looking at the number of states again, theres a plethora of ways breeding can continue to exist with a relative few that would result in the end of breeding while continuing the human race in another form.

    “We apparently disagree as to what level of understanding and ability to manipulate life is theoretically and practically possible eventually.”

    Excluding immortality I’m pretty much all aboard. Its the human side that I think you are misinterpreting.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    I think most women would, yes. Something like 80% of women say they would love to see hookup culture abolished and a return to traditional dating. Keep in mind, for women who are not slutty by temperament, sluts are really, really wrecking the SMP.

    That is true, because we have raised the Millennial generation to be tolerant of diversity in every way, and that includes sexual behavior.

    I think this is an example of what VD was talking about wrt making two contradictory statements.

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

      @INTJ

      I think this is an example of what VD was talking about wrt making two contradictory statements.

      I see this has already been addressed but just to clarify. Millennial women may be miserable about hookup culture – the average 21 year old female graduating from college has been on 1.5 dates – but they have been raised to celebrate individualism, and to practice tolerance and respect. This makes them feel loath to shame promiscuity.

      However, more recent studies indicate that both men and women are quite judgmental about it – they’re just not willing to call out their peers face to face.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Where were you in July? We needed you!

    *Facepalm* There were several of us back then who pointed out basically the same thing – that you were looking at the wrong definition of base.

  • Passer_By

    I am the embodiment of genetic perfection (excluding my bad knees), so I could only accept any attempt to engineer human genetic perfection if it begins with my DNA and alters it only to eliminate Chondromalacia patellae – well, that and my apparent gluten intollerance (I know, TMI).

  • INTJ

    @ Ion

    If you live in a society that glamorizes crime, rap, materialism, swagger, suits, motorcycles and money? Well…

    :(

  • Lokland

    @INTJ

    “I think this is an example of what VD was talking about wrt making two contradictory statements.”

    How so?
    (Let me white knight a bit.)

    The first was in regards to most women preferring dating over hooking up.
    The second was in regard to not being able to return to slut shaming.

    Those two don’t strike me as contradictory as much as the second lends to the first and without it the task is more difficult (though still within the realm of possibility).

  • Plain Jane

    “Women would agree voluntarily to cultural and social constraints on their own sexual conduct?”

    Nope. I grew up with that. I much prefer making my own choices as an adult and living with the consequences, even if negative. (But because I’ve always made good choices I haven’t had to live with any negative consequences.)

  • INTJ

    @ Sai

    I am perfectly willing to fight my girly devils if my husband will fight his. If he misbehaves I will leave; if I stray I expect to be kicked out.

    That’s all we ask.

  • Lokland

    @Passerby, Han

    “I am the embodiment of genetic perfection”

    This is the other problem.
    How do we determine what is the best?

    ————

    @Han

    Heres another reason eugenics is not so good.

    Lets just take IQ.

    A person of 80IQ works at a gas station, 100IQ at an office job, 120 at X, 140 at Y etc.

    Now lets take a eugenic/ genetic engineering approach and suddenly jump the average from 100 to 120.

    Where does the 80IQ guy work now?
    Admittedly some new jobs will open up but in most cases are going to be shuffled down until the people at the lower end are shunted out completely.

    It hits EVERYONE as what was once average is now below average, above average is now average etc.

    The quality of life for EVERYONE but those at the top decreases to what they could have expected pre-eugenics.

    Its not something that just hits the lowest ranking (though thats where the hardest hit occurs).

    As you can probably tell I’m a nerd with strong opinions of eugenics and genetic engineering which beyond the treatment of human disease IMO should remain illegal.

  • Plain Jane

    “I think most women would, yes. Something like 80% of women say they would love to see hookup culture abolished and a return to traditional dating. ”

    Traditional dating has not disappeared, unless you count women doing the asking out and “going Dutch” as non-traditional. I’ve traditionally dated since my teens and I know several other women who have as well. Bottom line is people will treat you how you let them.

    If women WANT to date, they can. My hunch is those who are not dating don’t want to. Hooking up and friends with benefits have their pay-offs too and there are women who like those pay-offs.

  • Plain Jane

    “A person of 80IQ works at a gas station, 100IQ at an office job, 120 at X, 140 at Y etc.”

    Not so fast. Loners, introverts, those who don’t drink mainstream kool aid and don’t want to make working a job their life or identity often take jobs at gas stations or the like so that they can leave their job at work when they go home and write their books, create their software, play their music, make their art, or whatever.

  • Abbot

    “Hooking up and friends with benefits have their pay-offs too and there are women who like those pay-offs.”

    Finger snapping insta-penis?

  • Plain Jane

    “Theres a difference between, “lets change a few NTs in your gene” “lets replace your gene with someone else’s” and “your not good enough to reproduce”.

    The last two are essentially the same as neutering the person, the result is the same. That might be good for society, its very bad for the individual however.

    You seem to be under the impression that people will willingly walk into their own extinction for the betterment of everyone else.

    As a very selfish bastard I can guarantee you if someone tries to pull that shit on me I’m taking as many of them with me as possible. I’m probably not alone. ”

    …. Oh hell naw you ain’t alone, son! If anyone tried to pull that shit on me I’d be like “YOU FIRST!”

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

    In this thread: no girls.

    Was JUST about to make this comment.

    *Sigh* Susan, after all that effort I put into pointing out to the guys that they can’t discuss certain sphere concepts here (presumably because you’re trying to expand your female readership/encourage female participation) you go on to write about hypergamy of all things?? *bangs head against wall* ( ;-) )

    As for my more serious opinion, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The best way for women to control hypergamy is to re-channel it into a relationship. Athol Kay argues something similar for men, encouraging them to seek sexual variety in their marriages.

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

      @Olive

      In this thread: no girls.

      Was JUST about to make this comment.

      *Sigh* Susan, after all that effort I put into pointing out to the guys that they can’t discuss certain sphere concepts here (presumably because you’re trying to expand your female readership/encourage female participation) you go on to write about hypergamy of all things?? *bangs head against wall* ( )

      I think it is good to discuss hypergamy in an objective manner. Most women have never even heard the word. And when they do, I don’t want them to be ashamed.

      As for no girls in the thread, that’s not entirely true – the truth is that some things are getting worked out at HUS – how it dovetails (or doesn’t) with the manosphere. There are bound to be more men than women in this discussion.

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

      @Olive

      It’s still early – only 200 comments so far, but this has been a very interesting thread in terms of tone. I specifically wanted to observe the intersexual communication here, and to gather some informal data about how men and women communicate.

      I’m amazed! Do you hear that? It’s the sound of a civilized conversation in a living room, not a barroom brawl. True, we have a few people who would like to crash the party, but they’re unlikely to stay long.

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

    For the sake of argument, let’s assume that “hypergamy” means women seeking “higher status” mates, and “higher status” is conferred by:

    A. Money (or proximity to it)
    B. Looks

    So Typical Tina has Status Components of Money=4 and Looks=6. She meets Joe Average, who has Money=5 and Looks=5. On paper, Tina could pair off with Joe and have her hypergamy needs met, as he has superior economic resources.

    Now let’s say that Tina and Joe have been part of a grand social engineering experiment. She now has Money=5 and Looks=6. Joe Average is still a 5/5. Tina will no longer consider Joe to be a good catch, and will ignore Joe. When Manosphere writers complain about female hypergamy being unleashed, this may to some extent be a symptom of a breakdown in the old resource distribution pattern. If women tend to value economic resources in men MORE than men value the same in women, if women tend to want men with GREATER economic resources than they have, and if women now HAVE greater independent economic resources themselves, then the obvious result will be a relative scarcity of “eligible” men.

    Men who are in this fortunate position will of course respond rationally by raising their prices: women will have to be either A) hotter; or B) DTF with no strings attached; or C) both. A few of these guys may be late-bloomers who commit too early (when by design they have weak hands and should be keeping bet sizes low), but “Diamond Dave” Petraeus serves as a case study in how these men may behave later on when they start to feel their market power and the SMV trajectories between late-blooming husband and early (?)-blooming wife become pronounced. The high-T, high-sex drive alpha female athlete with two graduate degrees and a pretty face lies in wait like a trapdoor spider.

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

      @BB

      Great analysis, as always. It is very true that a relative shift in status can be very problematic. Depending on a woman’s level of hypergamy, she may be OK with making more than her husband, but many women will not be. This can happen at all SES levels – see Blue Valentine.

      I do think your definition of status if off, though. For one thing, women are not likely to put looks in the second slot for status. In fact, status is generally viewed as a separate attraction cue entirely. Physical strength, prowess and symmetry gets its own slot. :)

      However, the point I wanted to make is that status is made up of both dominance and prestige, and it is the prestige that matters most to women. The college professor may be quite a catch even if he has no other source of income. Doctors are paid pretty poorly these days, but landing a surgeon is high status even if he makes 200K. (Not to sneeze at 200K, but doctors have fallen in the earnings percentiles relative to the past.) Women are extremely happy to land husbands who went to grad school, etc. A well known poet enjoys great prestige even with minimal income.

      Prestige may not deliver financial resources directly, but it confers influence that can be very profitable for offspring.

  • Sassy6519

    The high-T, high-sex drive alpha female athlete with two graduate degrees and a pretty face lies in wait like a trapdoor spider.

    Haha, that’s a great description of things.

    I find the entire Petraeus situation to be disappointing.

    I may not have nearly as many scruples as some other commentors here do, but I definitely look down on women who date married men. That is one line that I don’t think I will ever cross.

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland 122

    I’m not saying what I want, only what I predict will probably happen in some form. I’m also not suggesting eugenics or that anyone should be thrown under the bus. I think those that use the new technology will or may have advantages over those that don’t. That need not necessarily lead to extinction of those that don’t but they may languish in poverty in the same way that most people who don’t finish high school earn less than those who get an engineering, medical or business degree.

    I am not advocating all this happening. I’m rather positing that such technology will be developed and those that use it will probably have an advantage over those that don’t. There may be some of those that don’t that will be able to continue on (like a few primitive Amazon jungle tribes that still live in their largely natural state) but most will. I think the history of the world suggests that new, effective technologies eventually get adopted by most groups that come into contact with it because it gives them more power and those that don’t take that power are left at the mercy (sometimes favorable, sometimes not) of those that do.

  • Plain Jane

    Bastiat Blogger November 14, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    For the sake of argument, let’s assume that “hypergamy” means women seeking “higher status” mates, and “higher status” is conferred by:

    A. Money (or proximity to it)
    B. Looks

    The term in which it was classically used had little to do with looks and only partially to do with money. It was about caste and social status, which may or may not mean a lot of money. For example a wise sage such as Patanjali (author of Yoga Sutra) would have been high status in that culture, but not necessarily wealthy, and may have even been dirt poor, but it would have been considered an honor to the family for the daughter to marry him and consequently take up her own sage like status as a result.

    Basically men who were thought to be good, and if they had more money or more status or more renown than the bride, were thought to be good catches and parents sought them out as sons in law.

    If those young women were of lower caste than those men it was socially acceptable, but not so in the reverse.

  • mr. wavevector

    In my view, the unbridled pursuit of sex is embraced by people of unrestricted sociosexuality, who tend to be drawn to one another. Most people are not promiscuous, either by choice or opportunity.

    Susan, you’ve done a good job presenting data supporting this point, that promiscuity has been exaggerated. Could all this consternation about hypergamy be similarly overhyped? It sounds a bit like an internet echo chamber in here.

    There is still considerable assortative mating.

    I’ve read several things recently that suggested that assortative mating is actually increasing among educated Americans. They are becoming more homogamous, not hypergamous. Here are a few references. Most of them discuss educational achievement, but this correlates reasonably well with other status factors such as class, IQ, and earnings.

    Drawing on the extensive technical literature and the CPS, sociologists Christine Schwartz and Robert Mare examined trends in “assortative marriage,” as it is known in the jargon, from 1940 to 2003.26 They found that homogamy has increased at both ends of the educational scale— college graduates grew more likely to marry college graduates and high school dropouts grew more likely to marry other high school dropouts.

    Murray, Charles (2012-01-31). Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010 (Kindle Locations 1044-1047). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.
    /

    Education, Hypergamy and the “Success Gap”

    It is commonly believed that women tend to marry more successful men (i.e., that
    there is “hypergamy” with respect to success) and that success hampers women’s
    marriage prospects. Using education as a proxy for success, I test these two hypotheses.
    The “success gap” is the difference between the proportion of women with twelve years
    of education who are married and the proportion of women with graduate or professional
    degrees who are married. The success gap for women age 40-44 declined significantly in
    the 1980’s and 1990’s. In fact, according to some measures, the gap has disappeared.
    Hypergamy has declined as well. What has changed is that marriage rates for the lesseducated have declined precipitously, although the patterns differ for blacks and for
    whites.

    “The reversal of the gender gap in education and its impact on union
    formation: the end of hypergamy”

    We use newly integrated
    IPUMS census micro-data from 103 samples and taken in 38 countries. Results from
    multilevel linear regression models show that female educational hypergamy is lower in
    societies with a lower gender gap in education and that where the gender gap reverses
    female hypogamy becomes the norm. Thus, if current trends in education are to
    continue, the pervasiveness of hypergamy will tend to disappear.

    The Changing Role of Education in the Marriage Market: Assortative Marriage in Canada and the United States Since the 1970s

    Our analysis of marriages among young adults shows that the overall level of both absolute and relative rates of educational homogamy have unambiguously increased in both countries over the three decades.

    Finally there is this article, which suggests that women do indeed make an effort to maximize their return on marriage. They may be more motivated by the desire to avoid hypogamy rather than to achieve hypergamy.

    Waiting for Mr. Right: Rising Inequality and Declining Marriage Rates

    This paper demonstrates that women search longer for their first or second husband in cities with higher male wage inequality, and examines several alternative explanations. A causal link is established by controlling for city fixed effects and city-specific time trends, and by using inequality in the woman’s state-of-birth as a proxy for local male inequality. Increasing inequality explains about 25% of the marriage rate decline over the last few decades, and this is not due to the endogenous moving or labor force decisions of women, nor to the marital decisions of men in reaction to changes in their own wages.

  • HanSolo

    @JP

    In addition only certain kinds of life are permissible in certain environments.

    Cacti don’t evolve in the middle of a rain forest.

    Yes, but that doesn’t mean if you could go back in time and let the world run again that you would get the exact same evolution. Quantum physics says that things are not 100% deterministic and so you could have had different actualizations of the “wave functions” of the particles making up the ancestors of the cacti and the mutations would have been different.

    So, if you get humans on other planets then that will be a huge sign (maybe not proof) that there is some guiding force that is driving evolution towards humans that is currently not realized or taken seriously scientifically. If that is the case then that would be one of the most profound discoveries ever.

  • mr. wavevector

    Did I misunderstand this sentence? I took it to mean that SP was saying that hypergamy is instinct, not choice, so there is no moral dimension to its existence.

    No, I agree with that. I must have misunderstood you.

  • INTJ

    @ Sassy

    I may not have nearly as many scruples as some other commentors here do, but I definitely look down on women who date married men. That is one line that I don’t think I will ever cross.

    Well the bigger line that Paula Broadwell crossed was to cheat on her husband. Funny how that’s rarely mentioned.

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

      Well the bigger line that Paula Broadwell crossed was to cheat on her husband. Funny how that’s rarely mentioned.

      It’s certainly mentioned on Fox News!

      This whole sordid affair is so over the top if this was a Homeland script it would be thrown out. I especially like the FBI guy sending shirtless pics of himself to Kelley.

  • tito

    @SusanWalsh
    “The point is not that hypergamy is or is not a problem. It doesn’t care what you think about restraining it. It just is.. It is perfect reasonable, in my view, to claim that a feminist society is sub-optimal. However, in a perfect society, hypergamy would be present, as would the male desires for variety and fertility.”

    boom!!!!! well said. especially the part about “It is society’s obligation to organize itself optimally for the entire population.”

  • mr. wavevector

    @Olive,

    The best way for women to control hypergamy is to re-channel it into a relationship. Athol Kay argues something similar for men, encouraging them to seek sexual variety in their marriages.

    I think some of the subtle roleplaying mrs. wavevector and I do serves that purpose. It helps her see me as a man she looks up to, and helps me see her as a sexy woman I desire. Society isn’t helping us at all though. It tells women that their husbands are lazy losers and men that their wives are controlling shrews.

  • Sassy6519

    @ INTJ

    Well the bigger line that Paula Broadwell crossed was to cheat on her husband. Funny how that’s rarely mentioned.

    That was definitely horrible as well.

    I have seen pictures of her husband and 2 children. He looks like a great guy, and her kids are still quite young. This entire situation has most likely turned their lives upside down.

  • Esau

    Susan at 44: Neither Social Pathologist nor I said “as attractive a partner as possible.”

    Have I missed something? You’re using words and phrases neither in my post nor SPs. It’s not a question of the best a woman can get. If there are no suitable males (in her perception), she will not mate.

    First, I think you have it right in these last two quoted sentences, agreeing with my “floor” metaphor. But I think SP has it wrong, and has, as I said, rather egregiously missed the point. Let me see if I can make this crystal-clear for everyone.

    I’m distinguishing two concepts, and I’ll assign each a short metaphor tag:

    1) “Everyone reaches high”: This is just the idea, that essentially everyone sees a range of attractiveness among people of the opposite sex, and tries to get together with the most attractive person they can, for whatever kind of relationship they’re looking for. This is a pretty trivial, almost tautological, notion, deserving no more than “well, duh” and certainly not any special term. (Note that if a person finds status attractive, then “most attractive” and “highest status” are simply interchangeable.)

    2) “Women hold their floors above their heads”: This is a non-trivial idea, as I described it above: everyone desires to reach high, and everyone has a floor below which they’re not interested; and women, when young, typically put their “floor” somewhat above their own position on a percentile attractiveness scale. Thus the phrase, “the median man will accept the median woman, but not vice versa”; she, but not he, will rule out her assortative counterpart; this is not a sex-symmetric behavior.

    The problem I have is that SP appears to use the term such that

    “hypergamy” = “Everyone reaches high”,

    which is just silly and trivial; while I think the much more useful and informative equation is

    “female hypergamy” = “Women hold their floors above their heads”

    which is decidedly non-trival and is a result of observation in the real world.

    Now let me state the case against SP based on the post you linked to. The central passage, which you quoted, contains this line:

    “the [] male urge: the desire to marry more attractive, feminine women, i.e. younger, hotter, tighter.”

    It is clear here that the “male urge” SP is describing is simply a gradient: men want women who are “younger, hotter, tighter”, not compared to themselves (!) but to other women. This is pure Type 1 from above, that men seek up the gradient, ie “Everyone reaches high”. Can we agree on this so far?

    Now here’s the fuller passage, including what precedes this line:

    “familiar with the term hypergamy: the desire for women to marry up. Unfortunately, as far as I’m aware, there doesn’t appear to be a similar term for the equivalent male urge: the desire to marry more attractive, feminine women, i.e. younger, hotter, tighter.”

    Clearly SP is outright equating “female hypergamy” with the “equivalent male urge”; and since the latter is simply an example of “Everyone reaches high”, it follows that he’s declaring “female hypergamy” to be in that same category. It’s just gradients, with zero mention of floors, which is the important part. QED.

    In case you didn’t get it from the first paragraph, SP says it again in the second:

    “They can’t seem to recognise that, when it comes to the human libido, the hypergamous impulse in women is equivalent to the (femogamous?) impulse in men. There may be better words to describe the impulse out there”

    Again, he’s completely equated “the hypergamous impulse in women” with the simple desire by men to reach higher and get as “young, hot and tight” a woman as they can. It’s inarguable, then, as far as I can see, that he’s simply defining female hypergamy as an instance of “Everyone reaches high”. And, as I said, this is trivial and misses the important point completely.

    And, in case you still don’t see what he’s doing, look at this line from the fourth paragraph:

    “The MRA/MGTOW crowd are constantly asserting that there is something wrong with women for preferring higher status males.”

    Again, he’s defining “hypergamy” as simply a kind of “preference”, without any further nuance; just gradient, with no conception of floor. Reading through the entire SP post carefully (fortunately it’s quite short), there is really no point at which he even _recognizes_ the concept of “holding your floor above your head”, holding out for someone strictly above one’s own SMV rank. Am I missing something? And yet SP has the laughable gall to talk about how others with “weak minds” miss the important point! Good Lord, but the irony is rich here.

    Lastly I will just point out, in case any further proof is needed, that SP has obviously missed the important point of the term “female hypergamy” when he continually touts a simplistic male-female symmetry. Sorry, SP, but this alone shows that you have not been paying attention: the insistence on partnering above one’s own level, and only above one’s own level, is primarily a women’s behavior: observation shows that the median man will entertain the median woman, but the reverse is not true, ie the “hyper” tendency is manifestly not sex-symmetric. Again, QED.

    So, no, Susan; based on what’s plainly written in the linked post, I think SP has clearly missed the important point completely. You have shown a much fuller understanding in your own writing, and I think you suffer by holding this SP post up as an example of useful thinking.

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland

    I don’t think I said that selection disappears. In fact, by saying the environment (technological improvements) changes and those that adapt and take advantage of them or incorporate them will be the ones adapting. I was a bit too loose in not qualifying the immortality as quasi-immortality–quasi-immortality is less susceptible, but not completely immune, to environmental changes and so they can be killed and selection will still be in play.

    As to not being able to perfectly have the cells and body maintain its state, you don’t need 100% but just really close. Even right now, a person changes over time (grows, ages, whatever, is made of partially different atoms than 10 years before) but is still considered to be the same person. I guess perfect immortality would have no changes at all but I’m really referring more to quasi-immortality. Also, you could imagine a scenario where you choose to die so that you can have a “child” take your place.

    About laws changing. First of all, we never arrive at knowledge of the “law.” All we do is measure some data points and make a mathematical model that connects the dots (or imagine a function in two dimensions for simplistic but easy visualation). But there are always an infinite number of models that could connect those points but until we measure the points inbetween we don’t know if it’s a smooth function or a jagged one that really describes reality. So even though an exponential curve may fit the data points best there could be other curves that fit the current data fine too and the yet-to-be-measured data better. Until we measure we can’t rule those others out, and even once we rule something out it still leaves an infinite number of possibilities. We like to use Occam’s razor but it offers no guarantees that the simplest model is better. Rather it is bias that favors simplicity in the face of uncertainty.

    Also, as to changing over time, we have not yet measured the future so we don’t know. Since we see the “laws” behaving the same over hundreds or thousands of years (and can make measurements to go much further into the past, though measured in the present–astronomy measures light that was emitted millions or billions of years ago) we can have good confidence but not certainty that they will continue that way in the future. Simple example, the sun has come up every day so it will likely do so tomorrow. A more complex example (speculative) would be that the universe is in its current energy state but could undergo a quantum transition to a lower energy state (and possibly a state with different “laws” or conditions than those in our current state) and everything would be different.

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland

    I think we’ve hacked this out before.
    Theres a difference between, “lets change a few NTs in your gene” “lets replace your gene with someone else’s” and “your not good enough to reproduce”.

    The last two are essentially the same as neutering the person, the result is the same. That might be good for society, its very bad for the individual however.

    I agree that someone who is interested in maintaining and propagating their own DNA will not want to replace their genes with other “better” ones. But I think a lot of people won’t look at it that way. Look at all the people today who don’t want any kids or don’t care if they have kids or not. They’re not concerned about their DNA going extinct. Many people will see that some genetic alteration or implant or whatever can give them more power now, make them smarter, healthier, whatever, and that it could make their kids so too, and they will opt to go for it.

    I personally think along the lines of wanting to pass on my genes but I don’t think most people think of it that exactly if they think of it at all. If they see a better life for themselves and their kids they’ll be all for it.

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland

    A person of 80IQ works at a gas station, 100IQ at an office job, 120 at X, 140 at Y etc.

    Now lets take a eugenic/ genetic engineering approach and suddenly jump the average from 100 to 120.

    Where does the 80IQ guy work now?
    Admittedly some new jobs will open up but in most cases are going to be shuffled down until the people at the lower end are shunted out completely.

    But this is kind of making my point. The 80 IQ guy before could take the bump up and be at 100 now and still perform a useful function. If he chooses to remain at 80 he may be out of a job. But that is what has already happened. The previous guy that was a 60 that got bumped up to 80 will still probably be at the lowest end and will have to perform whatever menial tasks there are. And what if the add-on technology was so much more dominant than the human capacity that the original 60, 80, 100 and 140 guys could jump up to IQ 960, 980, 1000 and 1040 and be on basically the same playing field or up to 996, 998, 1000 and 1004?

    The farmer with just his labor cannot compete with the farmer+tractor+diesel+fertilizer. The engineer doing calculations on a piece of paper can’t compete with the engineer+computer. Humans have already invented themselves out of many jobs and will presumably continue to do so more and more (as long as cheap energy is there to fuel the technology).

    Well, I’m way off topic, so maybe we should end this fascinating discussion soon, but this scenario would probably lead to the end of hypergamy and polygamy as we know them. lol

  • SayWhaat

    As for no girls in the thread, that’s not entirely true – the truth is that some things are getting worked out at HUS – how it dovetails (or doesn’t) with the manosphere. There are bound to be more men than women in this discussion.

    Re: no girls, the comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. :P

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    The engineer doing calculations on a piece of paper can’t compete with the engineer+computer.

    Yes I can! The engineer with his computer has let his brain cells rot, so I can outdo him.

    I agree with you that transhumanism is probably inevitable, but I think because of unforeseen consequences, things will not necessarily work out for the better with people who undergo genetic modification.

  • Lokland

    @Han

    “As to not being able to perfectly have the cells and body maintain its state, you don’t need 100% but just really close.”

    No you need perfection.
    Lets ook at it this way. Without perfect DNA replication and repair, no matter how close, cancer is an inevitability (as it is now).
    You can cure cancer but over time every single cell in the body will become cancerous given enough time, which grants quasi-immortality because you run out of cells.

    “Even right now, a person changes over time (grows, ages, whatever, is made of partially different atoms than 10 years before) but is still considered to be the same person. I”

    Nah, You can’t have a static system. It has to be dynamic, unless you bubble wrap the person to hell.

    Thats why you need perfection, stuff won’t hold together unless it is constantly repaired and replaced.

    “Also, you could imagine a scenario where you choose to die so that you can have a “child” take your place.”

    I’ve done this immortal thought experiment before. It took until my third century before I took over the world built a space station full of Thai strippers and laughed as I tortured the insects.

    Power corrupts.

    “f they see a better life for themselves and their kids they’ll be all for it.”

    This is where they need further information. Their not raising their kids but someone else’s. Call it cuckoldry, call it adoption its all the same they stop existing.

    What I think you miss is that by the time we reach this level of technology evolution will have produced people who REALLY WANT kids as BC will have been around for a very long time.
    Those who reproduce will be doing so because they want to, which would hopefully mean they want to raise their kids.

    “But this is kind of making my point. The 80 IQ guy before could take the bump up and be at 100 now and still perform a useful function.”

    You kept change someones genes post birth. Its gotta be done during embryogenesis (eventually you probably could do it afterwards but technology wise, this will show up first and be what eugenics deals with).

    By upgrading the next generation you would be relegating the previous to a place of servitude.

    —————

    Now as a far more interesting and happy ending hypothetical.
    Medical/drug induced biochemical effect that increases natural abilities and body type WITHOUT changing genetic code.

    I’d be happy with that and frankly it might actually be easier.
    —————

    Ohh I did understand the law bit.
    Kinda surprised I still know some physics.

    ——————–

    “Well, I’m way off topic, so maybe we should end this fascinating discussion soon, but this scenario would probably lead to the end of hypergamy and polygamy as we know them. lol”

    Lol yeah. Very interesting, no more hypergamy, ahh what a world….

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

    Susan,
    I know, I was mostly kidding. FWIW I do find this topic quite interesting and worthy of discussion.

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

      I know, I was mostly kidding. FWIW I do find this topic quite interesting and worthy of discussion.

      I’m glad to hear you were kidding, because I don’t want anyone banging their head against a wall on my account!

  • Lokland

    “(as long as cheap energy is there to fuel the technology).”

    And this is another can of worms entirely which is probably equally as interesting as the debate we just had.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    Yeah, but INTJ+paper < INTJ+computer. Sorry. lol

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

    JP wrote @ 101:
    I don’t think that natural selection really works at the human level because culture tends to substantially overpower neurology.

    For humans, and the effect we have on animals, it is called ‘artificial selection’ and not natural selection. The massive variation in dogs (all the same species as wolves!) is a good example. Another example is how mountain sheep have been selected by hunters to have smaller horns, because males with big racks get a bullet. Darwin basically said that when human preferences or influences have a substantial impact, it is ‘artificial’ and not ‘natural’.

    Humans are actually evolving at an incredibly rapid rate right now by pretty much any measure. Carl Zimmer has written a bit about this, as I’m sure have some others. The drop in birth rate thanks to women’s suffrage and contraception will only increase the rate of genetic evolution in the human gene pool.

    Another interesting issue is gene expression, which can be heavily affected by environment (i.e. diet et al.). Autism, for example, probably is a result of how genes are (not) expressed, and not genes per sae.

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland

    No you need perfection.
    Lets ook at it this way. Without perfect DNA replication and repair, no matter how close, cancer is an inevitability (as it is now).
    You can cure cancer but over time every single cell in the body will become cancerous given enough time, which grants quasi-immortality because you run out of cells.

    Okay, I agree with you. But why can’t we improve cells and the environment they’re in to prolong the longevity of cells before cancer, have improved monitoring and removal to remove any cancerous cells, and have one’s genetic identity stored elsewhere if needed as well to have extra copies of one’s true “code”? Perhaps such cells are not possible using purely unmodified human dna, maybe they will have to be genetically altered (not necessarily using someone else’s but just being altered to some other state) so as to be able to live a lot longer and then reproduce with 100% accuracy many more times than current cells can.

    I am discussing this not because I think we should but because I think it will happen in some form or other, and with lots of fuck ups along the way that will maybe lead to our extinction or maybe to the scenario I am envisioning.

  • INTJ

    @ Lokland

    And this is another can of worms entirely which is probably equally as interesting as the debate we just had.

    Dyson sphere man.

  • pvw

    @BastiatBlogger:

    A few of these guys may be late-bloomers who commit too early (when by design they have weak hands and should be keeping bet sizes low), but “Diamond Dave” Petraeus serves as a case study in how these men may behave later on when they start to feel their market power and the SMV trajectories between late-blooming husband and early (?)-blooming wife become pronounced. The high-T, high-sex drive alpha female athlete with two graduate degrees and a pretty face lies in wait like a trapdoor spider.

    Me: Now isn’t that some kind of mess! I agree with Sassy, a very good way of describing the story, an apt example of hypergamy run amok, as well as of men seeking younger more attractive women.

    Even with her own husband and children, a man who doesn’t seem a slouch, ie., he’s a medical doctor, that wasn’t good enough. That is where the morality and integrity issue so many have been speaking of matters.

    That is one feral chick, scary. Chasing after a married man when you have your own, and going after another chick because she was trying to get with your “man.” Whew!!!!! Yes, that is one alpha chick, a high T killer b***ch….

  • Physicsgeek

    “I agree with you that transhumanism is probably inevitable, but I think because of unforeseen consequences, things will not necessarily work out for the better with people who undergo genetic modification.”

    I think you’re on to something here, INTJ.

  • Physicsgeek

    I am regarded by nearly all my friends – who are clearly self-loathing masochists – as an arrogant, condescending SOB…but even I wouldn’t have the gall to end my arguments on a comment thread with “QED”. No offense intended, but…really?

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

      even I wouldn’t have the gall to end my arguments on a comment thread with “QED”. No offense intended, but…really?

      Haha, that’s a pet peeve of mine too. It’s like some pathetic virtual fist pump.

  • szopen

    Re immortality issues:
    Lokland and HanSolo, you really should stop to discuss and instead get your copy of “Summa Technologiae” by Stanislaw Lem, a book old by several decades, where he discusses what kinds of immortality is possible and what kind is not possible. He continues with this topic also in “Wizja Lokalna”. The argument from Summa Technologiae was recently repeated (even with almost exactly the same examples, which strongly suggests a plagiate) by some recent English philosopher.

    Unfortunately, both books were not transalted into English. Strange thing, from the best five books by Lem, only two are available in English. Hence, the concepts of “ethicosphere” (nanotechnology used to change the world into happier place, where no one can hurt anyone… and good chunk of population tries anyway) and results of biotechnology (Lem loves to delve into teology) are completely missed by English readers :)

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    If you have kids purely for genetic legacy, just donate sperm and egg. It’s really quite more than genes.

    My personal spiritual beliefs lead me to think of this talk of physical immortality as silly, even a bit like constructing a prison for the soul. I’d never want to live that long in this density.

  • deti

    Esau has perfectly captured the issue here in his comments at 4 and 165. Women set the floor above their own SMV; while men reach up, down, and alongside to whatever they can get.

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

      Women set the floor above their own SMV; while men reach up, down, and alongside to whatever they can get.

      For marriage?

  • pvw

    @Bastiat Blogger:

    Further thoughts regarding Petreus; I find the alpha-beta distinction interesting on another level.

    It is true, he can be seen as a hapless and naive beta, giving up his value when he was young (22) when his young wife (also 22) was at her peak smv/mmv, but he hadn’t yet reached his smv/mmv peak–see the New York Times reports from May and July of 1974 announcing their recent graduation from college, their engagement and their subsequent wedding.

    Whether young men thought like that in 1974 about changing smv/mmv when they married, that is another thing.

    But on the other hand, he pursued a very shrewd strategy likely to enable his long term smv/mmv prospects while hers would have floundered?

    His family was fairly modest; hers was very prominent and old line military. She attended a fancy girls’ school (Madeira) in Virginia and was presented at one of the debutante balls. But most importantly, her father was superintendent at West Point, and I’m sure that went a long way towards benefitting his career in the long run. They met while she was on break from Dickinson college; she was his blind date for some school event…

    So yes, he pulled a beta move, but he got a lot out of it, what some might call the potential for situational alpha status, which he got in spades, as he moved way up the hierarchy with her and her family supporting him….

    The irony I find is that the younger chickie babe was born while he was a student at West Point, when women were not allowed to be cadets. Years later, she matriculated too…

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

      Re Petraeus’ SMV, that’s a great example of looks having nothing to do with status. He is an extremely unattractive man, IMO.

  • Slumlord

    Susan, thanks for the link love.

    @Esau

    The problem I have is that SP appears to use the term such that

    “hypergamy” = “Everyone reaches high”,

    No, the problem is you don’t get it.

    Attraction is not a choice, it is a physiological response. Women have no more control over whom they find attractive than they do over their blood pressure.

    Women who are 4′s and 5′s in SMV are always going to prefer the alpha males over their beta counterparts. It’s not an issue of sexual social justice, it’s physiology and subconscious cognitive processing. Women only get turned on the presence of appropriate biopsychosocial stimuli. If they’re not there its not going to happen.

    Where she sits with regard to sexual market value is irrelevant. Ugly chicks have the same wiring as the good lookers.

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

    Esau,
    One observation about women refusing to consider men below their SMV levels: I sort of have trouble seeing how that’s such a horrible thing, considering the nature of hypergamy. Wouldn’t it be defying the whole idea of marrying up for a 5 to consider 4s and below? I think the problem is not so much that you have 5s who want to date 6s, but that you have 5s (and 6s) who want to date 8s. I’ve been on a Princess Diaries kick lately, so witness the dorky-looking Mia Thermopolis, who at first didn’t really give her best friend’s brother, Michael, a second look (he was well above her SMV too), but was stuck on the hottest guy in school. Another good example is Lee Fiora, the very plain character in the novel Prep who would not consider anyone other than the most popular male student in her class (BTW, Susan, you should read Prep if you haven’t already). And of course, I can think of tons of real life examples as well.

    I will say that Bastiat Blogger summed up the dynamic quite nicely:

    When Manosphere writers complain about female hypergamy being unleashed, this may to some extent be a symptom of a breakdown in the old resource distribution pattern. If women tend to value economic resources in men MORE than men value the same in women, if women tend to want men with GREATER economic resources than they have, and if women now HAVE greater independent economic resources themselves, then the obvious result will be a relative scarcity of “eligible” men.

    The reality, of course, is that many college-age(ish) women will eventually be forced to “marry down” if they want to get married, simply because of the college sex ratio. I am an example of that, as my BF is WC and I’m MC. It will be imperative for women to develop a new set of standards by which to measure “marriageability,” and to me that’s really what re-channeling hypergamy is all about.

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

      @Olive

      Another good example is Lee Fiora, the very plain character in the novel Prep who would not consider anyone other than the most popular male student in her class (BTW, Susan, you should read Prep if you haven’t already).

      That is a great book. I remember feeling her pain as she succeeded in getting that guy to have a FWB sort of arrangement that he never even acknowledged to his peers.

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

      The reality, of course, is that many college-age(ish) women will eventually be forced to “marry down” if they want to get married, simply because of the college sex ratio. I am an example of that, as my BF is WC and I’m MC. It will be imperative for women to develop a new set of standards by which to measure “marriageability,” and to me that’s really what re-channeling hypergamy is all about.

      It will indeed be very interesting to see how this pans out. For all the talk of “the end of men” there is very little attention paid to how this lopsided college ratio is going to affect marriage. I actually love raising this point with very feminist women who have daughters. I can see the wheels spinning as they try to square their ideology with the fact that their daughters may have trouble finding a husband. Of course, the radfems like Hannah Rosin see no problem with fewer women marrying, but that is not a typical viewpoint for mothers who have daughters.

  • tito

    hahaha! indeed. no we know why boys and girls were separated more often back in the day. the “backward” people of the time must’ve known something we don’t.

  • Just1Z

    “I wrote about a large survey this past summer where they asked both men and women who should pay on a date. A much, much larger percentage of women said women should pay. ”

    but what do they do?

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

      but what do they do?

      The young women I know always offer. Now, guys will say it’s the fake offer – the pretend reach for the handbag when it’s perfectly clear they expect the guy to say no way. Girls say this is true, but it’s because the guys always do say no way.

      There’s also the fact that men want to pay. That was clear in the survey. Of course, we don’t know if they actually do want to pay when the check comes.

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

    Finger snapping insta-penis?

    HA! How did I not notice this before? Best Abbott comment ever.

  • Escoffier

    To those speculating on what magnificent biotech advances await us, what makes you think civilization will capable of such “progress”? The last 30 years have give us mostly frivolities and very few advances in any truly important sector beyond IT and medicine. Medical advances are slowing down and probably will slow much further with this vast new layer of regulation. As for IT, I like Peter Thiel’s line re: VC: “we wanted flying cars, we got 140 characters.”

    Anyway, it is far from self-evident that civilizationally we are marching toward the Star Trek era. Tyler Cowen’s “Great Stagnation” is closer to the truth and almost certainly too optimistic.

  • Madelena

    Like PJ, I would have to say that hypergamy that I saw enforced is cultural. My mother, an astounding beauty, had to select from a choice of men when it came time to marriage, each of who was vetted as high-achieving and high status. My father, an arrogant young man very much disinclined to kow-tow to her family, managed to win her probably because of his over-confidence.
    Even though he was my mother’s family least favourite candidate (which probably recommended him highly to her) they recognized his success, background and status and overcame their antipathy to his arrogance for the sake of hypergamy.
    Around me, I see women marrying men who make less than them and a few marrying men who decide to become stay at home dads. Really, the majority of women are marrying men who are equal to them in terms of SMV and status.
    Being hypergamous in the selection process is the traditional way. That is the way women have been encouraged to mate for ages. The problem is that the strides feminism has made, combined with the erosion of traditional masculine dominated sectors (construction, manufacturing, etc), has made the pool of men with with provider (status) capabilities smaller. I don’t know too many women with college degrees wanting to marry blue collar types.
    As for being hypergamous AFTER getting married, this entails looking outside of your marriage and cheating (immoral actions) and I don’t think the Paula Broadwell’s are that common (I don’t have studies to back me up on this though).
    Do you consider a woman who has divorced her husband for what you would consider “frivolous” reasons, hypergamous, if she chooses not to enter into a relationship for a while nor remarry? I notice that divorced men jump much faster into relationships.

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

      @Madelena

      Do you consider a woman who has divorced her husband for what you would consider “frivolous” reasons, hypergamous, if she chooses not to enter into a relationship for a while nor remarry?

      Good question, I hope some men answer it. Frivolous divorce is often cited as an example of hypergamy run amok, but the stats I’ve seen on reasons for divorce don’t really back this theory up. I think it’s a rare woman who divorces for a man of higher status. I suppose more might if they had opportunities, but they don’t so it’s a moot point.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan

    I don’t really see why you expected a brawl (apart maybe, possibly, one started by women)

    1) male sexual preferences are widely known. attempts to shame men into fat-acceptance, not to date younger (paedophilia insinuation), not like ze big boobiez have all failed. we know that we have hamsters too, we just lock their shit down more. men accept reality, we try to manage our baser instincts by recognising them.

    2) female preferences, well that’s different. telling women that they’re not morally superior, just differently wired but equally far from biblical perfection? that’s what the women were squawking about. women deny their baser instincts even exist, so they are real easy to rationalise away by hamsterbation. you appear to have changed the consensus over hypergamy denial, amazing (really), quite a feat.

    3) the issue for society isn’t the raw, amoral drives of both sexes, it’s how they are manifested. society always tried to stamp down on both sexes. it wasn’t as effective on men (not herd creatures, shaming isn’t that effective) as it was on women (the scarlet letter, slut!, village bike etc). Feminism has removed shame from women (or tried to) and society generally does shame less anyway (jersey shore, kardasses etc).

    Denying the existence of human baser instincts is dull, the debate fun to be had is:
    1) return to the Victorian era? (no, thanks)
    2) veils for women (maybe fun in the bedroom, but otherwise? nah)
    3) chastity belts for both sexes until their parents approve of the partner? (lmao)
    4) telling women that high-N is not attractive to most men considering commitment, so they should be more picky about sleeping with multiple random men for a comfort-shag. then the supply of free-shags for men decreases and society might stabilise because assortive mating might have a chance to return (instead of women waiting until it’s too late to settle with a previously sub-par man – who gave up waiting years ago). (now I know that I have been smoking something)

    My impression was that HUS was more about #4?

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

      4) telling women that high-N is not attractive to most men considering commitment, so they should be more picky about sleeping with multiple random men for a comfort-shag.

      I certainly do communicate to women what men find important in a mate. However, I’m most speaking to women who aren’t going for the comfort shag anyway – and they need support to figure out how to get a bf without shagging first.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    ” don’t believe that is true. You’re saying that most people have no ability to select a mating partner. There are a few souls who will never have the opportunity to mate due to the inability to attract a single person. ”

    Not my meaning.

    I mean that most people don’t face the dilemma of choosing the CEO/ DDs as they themselves are not worthy of them.
    There is no need for negotiation as the only choice is whether they take what is available or not.

    To put it more simply, the concept of I’ll give up X if you give up Y is fallacious because X and Y were unattainable. It might be a nice touch of ego mastrabation to think that its giving something up but you cannot give up what you never had.

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

      To put it more simply, the concept of I’ll give up X if you give up Y is fallacious because X and Y were unattainable. It might be a nice touch of ego mastrabation to think that its giving something up but you cannot give up what you never had.

      But at the bottom of the ladder the trade still happens, it’s just different, e.g. he’s employed, she has a vagina.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    possible debate sparking comments (if you want to liven things up)

    1) your social circle appears to be populated with bipedal unicorns
    2) society expects men to pay. as this advantages women even feminists soft-pedal about breaking down this patriarchal taboo
    3) blue-pill guys mat figure that coughing up for the date might get them lucky

    but again that old manosphere maxim; don’t listen to what women say, watch what they do…which is accept the free stuff much more often than not. I actually think it’s a good guide in life regarding dealing with both sexes, politicians take note.

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

      1) your social circle appears to be populated with bipedal unicorns

      How so? What are you saying is rare?

      2) society expects men to pay. as this advantages women even feminists soft-pedal about breaking down this patriarchal taboo

      Many men want to pay, and they are drawn to women who like for men to pay. Other men never pay, and they tend to be drawn to women who enjoy that as a DHV. It breaks down along LTR/restricted vs. STR/unrestricted lines.

      but again that old manosphere maxim; don’t listen to what women say, watch what they do…which is accept the free stuff much more often than not.

      That sounds like a sound economic decision to me. As we currently are not a society that approves of obligatory sex in exchange for a meal, the male is free to refuse to participate.

      I’ve said it before – the idea that women are spending evenings with men they find unattractive in order to score a chicken dinner is a myth.

  • Just1Z

    @Maddie
    “I notice that divorced men jump much faster into relationships.”

    don’t think so, where are those numbers coming from?

    men are much more likely to commit suicide over divorce than women are (those numbers exist).

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “I certainly do communicate to women what men find important in a mate. ”

    I know, did you miss my sense of humour again? –> :)

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

      I know, did you miss my sense of humour again?

      Yeah, I guess so. I’m finding it hard to judge what’s funny vs. snarky.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “What are the external controls on male desires?”

    The same as its always been. Female selection. The only way to overcome that is rape which is externally prohibited.

  • deti

    “By external controls on hypergamy, I assume you mean no birth control and strong cultural shaming for loss of virginity before marriage. Are there others?”

    Well, there used to be.

    –Lack of effective birth control

    –Slut shaming

    –female premarital sex/promiscuity greatly reduces chance of marriage (and this is culturally accepted and openly discussed)

    –female premarital sex/promiscuity greatly reduces quality of man willing to marry her (also culturally accepted and open)

    –no marriage means probable poverty or low standard of living due to dearth of educational/employment opportunities. Most women who worked were teachers, nurses or in assistant/clerical positions, all low pay and little advancement

    –woman reaching 30 and never married brings shame on family, especially her father who makes very clear there will be severe consequences for shaming the family

    –woman reaching 30 and never married, the reason was clear — she’s either a slut or a shrewish bitch — either way, she’s undesirable and unwanted

    “What are the external controls on male desires?

    These are nearly all cultural in nature.

    –severe shaming of all but apex men for polygynous tendencies

    –punitive divorce and family laws heavily favoring women, even women who frivolously divorce

    –severe shaming of men who reject sluts for dating and marriage as “judgmental”; cultural demands that no man ever judge a woman’s N

    –insisting that men accept ever-higher Ns in women as suitable for marriage

    –stark and widening divide between “attractive men” and “unattractive men”. A man is either a “lovable rogue” or completely invisible. The increasing need for men to be ever more outrageous, ever more alpha, ever more douchebaggy to attract even average women. For most men, this is impossible ab initio or unsustainable over the long haul. The decreasing ability of conventionally attractive men with qualities women SAY they want (good education, good job, good earning prospects, sucessful, average looking) to attract even average and below average women

    –punitive, wildly overreactive and ridiculous sex harassment laws and policies. Men losing their jobs for awkwardly asking out coworkers on dates; or looking a few seconds too long at a female coworker; or telling off-color jokes to men only (noting that attractive men who engage in EXACTLY the same behavior suffer no penalties)

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

      @deti

      Thanks for expanding on that. I agree on the disappearance of all the external controls on women, owing to the Women’s Movement plus the Pill, which ushered in the Sex Rev. I do think that it is still very important to parents that their daughters not be slutty – I witnessed this as my own kids grew up. I don’t know whether they are failing to communicate that, or being undermined by the culture to the point that the message gets lost. I suspect it’s both.

      Re controls on men:

      –severe shaming of all but apex men for polygynous tendencies

      Polygyny enforces the apex better than any other system, so all males other than the top ones have considerable incentives to shame it. Women don’t like it naturally, so it’s not hard to see why they’d bitch up a storm, though I don’t think feminists have much of a stake in this. There is shaming of cads, as they are seen as corrupting innocent women, which is admittedly often a false claim.

      Also, our natural tendency in society is to shame gluttony of all forms, whether it relates to food, sex, or even video games. We rightly shame overindulgence. I do not think this is worse for one sex or the other overall.

      punitive divorce and family laws heavily favoring women, even women who frivolously divorce

      Not disputing this, but how does this shame male sexuality? If anything, it directly encourages men to forego marriage and continue to pursue sexual variety.

      severe shaming of men who reject sluts for dating and marriage as “judgmental”; cultural demands that no man ever judge a woman’s N

      The male instinct is to pair off for STRs with sexually experienced women (Buss). Agreed, there is severe shaming re the double standard, but I don’t see how this shames men for wanting numerous, fertile women.

      The decreasing ability of conventionally attractive men with qualities women SAY they want (good education, good job, good earning prospects, sucessful, average looking) to attract even average and below average women

      Again, I’m not saying this doesn’t happen, but where is the shaming aspect? If anything, women going with rogues and badboys is a reward for base male desires, not a punishment. When conventionally attractive men ramp up the “I’m only after sex” routine, they get laid, right?

      The other issue is that conventionally attractive men attempting to court hypergamous, promiscuous women is a pond problem.

      punitive, wildly overreactive and ridiculous sex harassment laws and policies.

      Agree 100%, it’s ridiculous.

      So here’s what I am wondering – we know that we could reduce female promiscuity if slut shaming in all its forms could be used. That’s obviously not going to work, the sluts are free to be slutty.

      What is the best way of respecting natural male sexuality to level the playing field? If we could do that, is that a good thing?

  • Lokland

    @Esc, 202

    +1

  • deti

    deti: “Women set the floor above their own SMV; while men reach up, down, and alongside to whatever they can get.”

    SW: “For marriage?”

    No. For sex.

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

      No. For sex.

      But that’s an apples and oranges comparison. Actually, it’s an apples to apples comparison and what we need is apples to oranges.

      Women are very selective about who they have sex with. Men are very selective about who they offer commitment to.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan 188

    The greater difficulty in women assessing their MMV today due to usually having a higher SMV than MMV in terms of what men you can get for casual vs LTR/marriage makes it easier for the hypergamous hope to spring eternal (or at least for 10 years or so).

  • deti

    Just1Z reminded me of this additional external control on men:

    –severe cultural shaming of men for focus on physical attributes of women.
    –The fat acceptance movement (which is really the fat WOMEN acceptance movement)
    –”All you want is sex, sex, sex!”
    –The demands that men accept increasingly older women as suitable for marriage (30 is the new 20! 40 is the new 20! Cougar Nation! I had a baby at 45!)
    –severe shaming of men for wanting to date and marry younger women

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

      The Just1Z inspired controls apply to radfems, not the whole female population.

      severe cultural shaming of men for focus on physical attributes of women.

      Not true, the beauty industry, including fashion, cosmetics and plastic surgery caters to this.

      The fat acceptance movement (which is really the fat WOMEN acceptance movement)

      Totally bogus, and referenced by slumlord.

      All you want is sex, sex, sex!”

      Well, it’s true! Seriously, the equivalent for women is shame around shopping, consumption, gold digging, etc.

      The demands that men accept increasingly older women as suitable for marriage (30 is the new 20! 40 is the new 20! Cougar Nation! I had a baby at 45!)

      Limited to Slate, Salon et al. And besides, it is not working.

      severe shaming of men for wanting to date and marry younger women

      Disagree, unless the age difference is not offset by status. For example, a 50 year old guy on a PUA forum saying he wants 20 yo old vag is just super creepy. A 50 yo CEO with a model on his arm is not.

      Young women prefer men just 2 years older than they are. That’s the sweet spot, on average. For every year older than that you are, you’ll have to have more status to offset the age difference.

      This is why old guys staring at much younger women, trying to get validation from them by chatting them up, or even approaching them is generally frowned upon. It’s not the natural way of things, and it also is not lost on people that there is a father-daughter aspect, and sometimes even an aspect or suspicion of inappropriate motives (as in the stories women here recently shared about being hit on by men they were babysitting for at age 14).

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “But at the bottom of the ladder the trade still happens, it’s just different, e.g. he’s employed, she has a vagina.”

    I agree. The trade occurs HOWEVER

    Women can have the star basketball player for a night or the father for a lifetime.
    Men can have women 2-3 points lower for a night or a women average to slightly higher SMV for life.

    Women are not giving up a lifetime of athlete for a lifetime of dad.
    Men are not…
    To suggest they are is fallacious because they never had those choices in the first place.

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

    @SW

    Prestige may not deliver financial resources directly, but it confers influence that can be very profitable for offspring.

    Prestige seems like a very difficult metric to gauge, and probably varies moreso than most other female preferences. Perhaps it’s a combination of looks, income, intelligence, personality? And it will be highly dependent upon a woman’s own upbringing. As you said, “all hypergamy is local.”

    Back to BB’s definition of status, I’m not disputing that the few men with really “good looks” attract a disproportionate # of women, and consequently N+.

    But if hypergamy is a widespread phenomenon, and “money” is also an indication of status, one that ideally increases over time (the opposite with looks), and is probably more important long-term, why is there ZERO correlation between that and N for men?

    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~blnchflr/papers/sentScanJEsexmoneyhappinessjune2003.pdf

    Most women still marry guys who are under 30, which aren’t their peak earning years at all.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan

    “I’ve said it before – the idea that women are spending evenings with men they find unattractive in order to score a chicken dinner is a myth.”

    oh ho!

    googled “woman dating free dinner new york”
    lots of results for the story that I remembered:

    This Young Woman Scored $1,200 A Month In Fancy Dinners Using Match.com
    A young New Yorker we’ll call Minerva McGonagall* was tired of dipping into her savings to keep up with her Manhattan lifestyle.

    Her $45k salary was not enough and she needed at least an extra $500 a month and sometimes $1,000 to pay her credit card bills and afford her $1,475 a month apartment in Murray Hill.

    Then she discovered Match.com– the perfect site for a broke 23-year-old.

    “Before I barely had enough money to pay for food,” said McGonagall. “After using Match.com I found I wasn’t going into debt anymore.”

    McGonagall started eating out five nights a week using a rotation of different guys she met through the dating site. McGonagall kept things simple—no more than five dates with the same guy.

    http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-29/news/30453560_1_match-com-roommates-japanese-restaurant

    According to our calculations, McGonagall made over $1,200 a month.

    Match.com does require a $50 monthly subscription, but the dates more than made up for the entry price.

    “I mean, a guy buys me three drinks at $15 a pop and that right there made up for my Match fee,” said McGonagall.

    McGonagall’s roommates played the money-saving game as well. In fact, McGonagall first learned about online dating after watching one of her roommates go on extravagant outings every night.

    Two weeks later, McGonagall and her other roommate joined.

    “We made ground rules,” said McGonagall.

    One of them called for making spreadsheets about each guy who took them out for their drinks and/or meals. It included names, photos and details from their Match.com accounts.

    The girls also let each other know where they were going for the night. And they never let guys pick them up at their apartment and instead met up at a public location.

    After awhile at their escapades, they soon learned how prevalent the online dating scene had become in New York City. McGonagall commonly ran into people she recognized from the site, and discovered that others using Match.com averaged at least ten dates before meeting her.

    I’m sure that there are lots of words that describe this behaviour…salty ones

    I’m sure one of the versions that I read had her explicitly stating that she did do this with men that she found unattractive

    thoughts?

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

      @Just1X

      Exception fallacy! If I’m not careful, we’ll be going down the Daily Mail rabbit hole again.

  • Tasmin

    @Just1Z
    “A much, much larger percentage of women said women should pay. ”
    -but what do they do?”

    That was my thought as well. Yes, a larger % of women may believe it is reasonable that they “should” pay/split, but a much smaller % *want* to and so even less actually *do*. It is a DLV for a man, even if she does feel that she should pay, if he allows her, his stock just went down. She may offer, he thanks and declines, he pays. Thats how it works. The only value in that kind of survey is that it indicates some level of awareness of the economics of a “date”. But IME, it still seems like an awful lot of women can’t seem to gauge just how costly “dating” can be for a man and in a larger sense, why many men resist actual “dates” in favor of the lesser forms, especially with younger men who have not hit their $ stride yet. I know women here swear up and down that they don’t date for entertainment, meals, something to do on a friday night, but I have called out a couple of women friends who would say the same thing, until I catch them in action.

    In any case, if a women wants to go on an actual “date”, keep her phone in her handbag, and have a grown up conversation about something (anything) other than what’s on TV, I’ll pick up the check no worries. But lets not pretend that because people respond that they “should” do something is where the rubber hits the road.

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

      But IME, it still seems like an awful lot of women can’t seem to gauge just how costly “dating” can be for a man and in a larger sense, why many men resist actual “dates” in favor of the lesser forms, especially with younger men who have not hit their $ stride yet.

      Well, FWIW, I do think it’s changing. The women I know in their early to mid 20s are still not going out on dates except with older guys. The guys under 27 still text, “Where you at? Come here!” to get the party started.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “Yeah, I guess so. I’m finding it hard to judge what’s funny vs. snarky.”

    it’s worse than that, I kind of made that point as a compliment :o

    I like HUS particularly because it is a realistic attempt to address the issues society has. I realise that that is a by-product of trying to help young women hook up smart (i.e. less often, with better men), but still…I approve this message (FWIW).

  • Just1Z

    @Deti
    “Just1Z reminded me of this additional external control on men”

    I’m honoured man, you’re a manosphere legend *blushes*

  • Just1Z

    @Susan

    “What is the best way of respecting natural male sexuality to level the playing field? If we could do that, is that a good thing?”

    maybe (i.e. guess):
    * stop demonising men in the media as useless boys
    * stop treating boys’ natural behaviour as bad (and drug them for ADHD)
    * in fact teach boys in ways that work for boys (and girls for girls). men do exams best (react well to pressure), women do course work best (diligent)
    * teach women about their real nature, address hypergamy and so allow women to temper their behaviour to maximise their long term results. (good work being done here at HUS – clear enough?)
    * stop treating women as perpetual victims of teh patriarchy
    * stop labelling men as oppressors – it is effing ridiculous
    * start calling out feminist lies (72c / 77 cents on the dollar is illegal for the same job, same hours, same experience – stop claiming that it’s a flat fact, it’s a distortion of reality)

    there’s a few ideas anyway (HTH)

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    I agree that someone who is interested in maintaining and propagating their own DNA will not want to replace their genes with other “better” ones. But I think a lot of people won’t look at it that way. Look at all the people today who don’t want any kids or don’t care if they have kids or not. They’re not concerned about their DNA going extinct. Many people will see that some genetic alteration or implant or whatever can give them more power now, make them smarter, healthier, whatever, and that it could make their kids so too, and they will opt to go for it.

    I personally think along the lines of wanting to pass on my genes but I don’t think most people think of it that exactly if they think of it at all. If they see a better life for themselves and their kids they’ll be all for it.

    Also, for the same reason people support their siblings’ reproductive efforts, it might be advantageous to alter some of ones genes so that the rest of ones genes will be coupled to these altered genes and will be more successful

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    Yeah, but INTJ+paper < INTJ+computer. Sorry. lol

    Only because I limit my usage of the computer and keep my brain sharp. Thus INTJ who handicaps himself with paper and resorts to computer for important things is superior to INTJ who would have just used computer.

  • deti

    SW 239:

    “where’s the shaming aspect”

    Some of these are not really overt shaming; but are more a control or a check.

    E.g.: the divisions between attractive and unattractive men. Women are weeding out the so-called “good” or “safe” prospects by going for sex with the attractive badboys and rogues. The way it seems to work for sluts is that they (I know, I know) waste their 20s on the badboys and save the “good” and “safe” men until later. This works to control the SMP, and the “less attractive” men in particular. It keeps them in their place, so to speak.

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

      This works to control the SMP, and the “less attractive” men in particular. It keeps them in their place, so to speak.

      OK, I get that. I guess if I were a guy, I wouldn’t let alphas off the hook so easily. I see a lot of sub-alpha enabling of alpha behavior within groups.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “So let’s figure out how to negotiate these wildly different mating strategies! I’ll give up “must be a CEO” if you give up “has to be DD.” And that is in fact what most of us do.”

    I’m going to re-explain my point in better detail while not on a phone.
    There is no negotiation to be had.

    Women can have high quality men for a night or a lower quality man for life.
    Men can have lower quality women for a night or one higher quality woman for life.

    Neither is capable of getting the best option which is CEO for life/multiple hotties STM.

    They are not sacrificing those things when pairing up hence suggesting that negotiation is required is ridiculous. The woman never had the CEO in the first place, the man never had the hotties in the first place.

    “You need to stop wanting that uber rich guy and I’ll stop wanting variety” is not possible as neither sex actually had those to begin with (excluding a select few apex individuals).

    “I’ll give up “must be a CEO” if you give up “has to be DD.”

    Is actually more like

    “I’ll give up a string of pointless STR with CEOs if you give up multiple less pretty women.”

    Demanding that a man go for monogamy AND go for an equal to lower quality woman is not how it works.

    I give up variety for an increase in quality.
    Women give up quality in genes for an increase in paternal care quality.

    Essentially, you give up the CEO and have DDs and I’ll take care of the kid and not fuck around.

    Note: Ass man here. Tits, not important.

  • INTJ

    @ Hope

    If you have kids purely for genetic legacy, just donate sperm and egg.

    I would, but my descendants aren’t likely to be people who will thrive in any environment.

    The beta in me refuses to create kids I don’t raise and support.

  • Escoffier

    There is a college in our little village from which we draw our pool of baby sitters (very infrequently used). A year or so ago I was walking in the village with my daughter and it’s fairly common to see these girls strolling around some of them dressed to emphasise their assets. Well, one of them started walking toward us wearing clothes that were superhero costume tight, and I could not help but think, “wow she’s hot” and then she stops right in front of us, stoops a little and says “Hi, ____!” (daugher’s name). I had not recognized her but she had babysat for us 3-4 times. I felt like a perv even though I’m pretty sure I had not done anything wrong.

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

      @Escoffier

      I had not recognized her but she had babysat for us 3-4 times. I felt like a perv even though I’m pretty sure I had not done anything wrong.

      Unless you flirted with her of course you did not do anything wrong! I’m sure Mr. HUS thinks many of our daughter’s friends are super hot, but he remains firmly in dad mode when they are present.

      I recall a bridesmaid of mine complaining after the wedding that the father of one of the other women had asked her to dance, and had gotten an erection. She was really upset. I can see how that might be hard for the dad – but it was his duty to stick his butt out and keep that boner away from her, or to excuse himself promptly.

  • HanSolo

    @Olive

    I think Princess Diaries is a terrible role model for girls because it makes them think to some extent that they can be that princess (okay, I know it’s just a story and not all take it seriously but some will be influenced by it). The thing is is that even as a dorky girl she’s still pretty cute, like an 8, it’s hard to hide true beauty. After her makeover she is a 9.5 or more IMO.

    http://assets.flavorwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/PrincessDiaries.jpg

    So having an 8 to 9.5+ transformation is just so out of the realm of reality for most girls that it’s just kind of ridiculous to have these extremely beautiful girls take the parts of the ugly duckling. The ugly duckling that they get made up as in the beginning just isn’t that ugly.

    There’s a Mormon video in the Polynnesian Islands somewhere and there’s a supposedly ugly daughter called Mahana who then transforms into a beauty after marriage. The only problem is she’s quite pretty before and just has messy hair and a dirty face. lol The stated moral of the story is that the most important thing about what makes her beautiful is what she thinks of herself. Total nonsense if just talking about physical beauty though important for self esteem.

    Here her dad says, “Mahana, you ugly!”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNhvYvB1NxY

    Before:
    http://cf2.imgobject.com/t/p/original/bVnp7cQ1uR4HtowMXo9D8vPPgnH.jpg

    After:
    http://www.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres/744517/744517.jpg

  • Lokland

    @Hope

    “If you have kids purely for genetic legacy, just donate sperm and egg.”

    I actually wanted to but there is a minimum height requirement. :(

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    There isn’t much of incentive in hypogamy, genetically or materialistically speaking, but it does ensure never being alone and some girls can’t bear the thought of being alone or have poor self esteem. Like I said, I’ve seen girls sometimes date/marry down in overall perceived value and you get that reaction, “what does she see in him?” Now some of these could be niche players too and really like a kind of guy that most other women wouldn’t place as much value on.

  • Höllenhund

    “Being on the market is a voluntary status determined solely by the person. When someone tells you they are off the market, I strongly urge you to give up.”

    That’s beside the point. The point is that the current situation is markedly different from Marriage 1.0, where the wife could “pig out” and turn into a land whale, the husband could turn into a beta chump and go into “cruise control” mode, and neither was grounds for divorce, and the entire culture plus the community expected both to nevertheless suck it up. In contrast, Marriage 2.0 is a certified LTR where both spouses are generally expected to keep doing their best to remain attractive, the one difference being that husband is the only party who’ll get penalized if he fails or resists.

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

      @Hollenhund

      Regardless of what you think of marriage 2.0, it is simply untrue that there are no incentives to remaining married for women. Furthermore, being married is in no way comparable to being on the market unless you’re actively cheating.

  • Plain Jane

    Slumlord,
    “Attraction is not a choice, it is a physiological response. Women have no more control over whom they find attractive than they do over their blood pressure.

    Women who are 4′s and 5′s in SMV are always going to prefer the alpha males over their beta counterparts. It’s not an issue of sexual social justice, it’s physiology and subconscious cognitive processing. Women only get turned on the presence of appropriate biopsychosocial stimuli. If they’re not there its not going to happen.

    Where she sits with regard to sexual market value is irrelevant. Ugly chicks have the same wiring as the good lookers.”

    Yes, this is physical attraction only which is separated from a wholistic attraction. I drive through a certain neighborhood every once couple of months to get that visual satisfaction and physiological response. It is instantaneous when I see a certain group of young muscular men shooting hoops barechested or in those sleeveless shirts. And the feeling leaves as soon as it comes. I don’t stop my car and holler at ‘em. I don’t honk the horn, I just gaze as I drive by and move on. I don’t want to date them as I know that none of them would be culturally compatible with me. But I do like to enjoy their artfully crafted physiques and get that physiological response.

    That’s called eye candy and it melts in the pit of your stomach and feels warm and nice for a few seconds.

  • Escoffier

    You know, the last thing I would want would be to KNOW that I had a “genetic legacy” (i.e., biological child) out there but not know who he was and have zero contact.

  • INTJ

    @ Just1Z

    but what do they do?

    I remember reading the question asked on one forum. One woman responded “I would ask to split the cost, but I’d want the man to offer to pay before we agree to split the cost.” Another response was “I’m willing to split the cost, but if a man offers to pay, who am I to complain?”

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

      One woman responded “I would ask to split the cost, but I’d want the man to offer to pay before we agree to split the cost.” Another response was “I’m willing to split the cost, but if a man offers to pay, who am I to complain?”

      I think that’s pretty typical, and hardly surprising. People are not going to give up free goodies voluntarily. If men don’t like it, they should refuse to pay and take the risk that it will turn the woman off. Or they can pay. No ideal solution there.

  • SayWhaat

    But IME, it still seems like an awful lot of women can’t seem to gauge just how costly “dating” can be for a man and in a larger sense, why many men resist actual “dates” in favor of the lesser forms, especially with younger men who have not hit their $ stride yet.

    Well then those younger men should get creative. I still remember one of the nicest dates I had involved us buying our own cup of coffee (<$2), going for a long walk through a park in Brooklyn, and ending with a trip through the Farmer's Market (apple cider: $1).

    Seriously, it's not hard to have a good time on a shoestring budget. If a girl objects to that as an initial date then she wasn't worth your time to begin with.

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

      Seriously, it’s not hard to have a good time on a shoestring budget. If a girl objects to that as an initial date then she wasn’t worth your time to begin with.

      Agreed. Not only that, I think cheap dates are a whole lot more fun. Who wants to go on a first date to some expensive restaurant with a formal vibe? I’d take a hike or a bike ride any day.

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

    Susan,

    I’m amazed! Do you hear that? It’s the sound of a civilized conversation in a living room, not a barroom brawl. True, we have a few people who would like to crash the party, but they’re unlikely to stay long.

    It’s a miracle! ;-) It helps that we’re having a constructive discussion with new information, rather than the same old tired round-and-round.

    It will indeed be very interesting to see how this pans out. For all the talk of “the end of men” there is very little attention paid to how this lopsided college ratio is going to affect marriage. I actually love raising this point with very feminist women who have daughters. I can see the wheels spinning as they try to square their ideology with the fact that their daughters may have trouble finding a husband. Of course, the radfems like Hannah Rosin see no problem with fewer women marrying, but that is not a typical viewpoint for mothers who have daughters.

    Yeah and to be honest, I haven’t met very many women who don’t want to get married. In fact, I’m not sure I know any. The obvious solution is to encourage more guys to go to college, but in the meantime people in my age-bracket will have to figure out something else, whether that’s foregoing marriage or choosing to marry down.

    re: Prep,

    That is a great book.

    I’ve read it 5 or 6 times. :-) I’m planning a post soon, I think there’s a lot of useful information there about the SMP and gender dynamics.

    I remember feeling her pain as she succeeded in getting that guy to have a FWB sort of arrangement that he never even acknowledged to his peers.

    It’s funny, whenever we talk about the “benevolent cad” with the guarded vulnerable side, I immediately think of Cross Sugarman. Lee is the perfect example of a girl who tried to create a relationship out of a hookup situation and came out empty-handed. Except she didn’t even try, she sat around hoping and praying that it would happen.

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

      @Olive

      Lee is the perfect example of a girl who tried to create a relationship out of a hookup situation and came out empty-handed. Except she didn’t even try, she sat around hoping and praying that it would happen.

      It’s been years since I read it, but wasn’t a big problem her lower social status relative to his? That she was an uncool scholarship student? Male hypergamy? This would be the “Victorian” equilibrium – mate within your class – rather than the SATC equilibrium. So there are undoubtedly micro pockets of that still.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I don’t really get the cluelessness about women thing. I understand that parents lied, society lied, etc. but female nature has not budged one bit. You want to see feral females? Go to a preschool.

    OMG, I never thought I would hear you say this! lol Not that I disagree.

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

      OMG, I never thought I would hear you say this! lol Not that I disagree.

      Three real anecdotes from my life about young girls being vicious:

      When my daughter was in preschool the Director called me one day and said that another girl was being cruelly excluded from all the girly play activities. My kid was the only girl with any social sway who was not participating. She asked if we could set up some playdates in an effort to increase this girl’s social standing. Of course, I was happy to do so. It made a huge difference, the girl was able to join in from then on. I don’t think she was ever the most popular girl in the class, but the exclusion stopped.

      When my daughter was in kindergarten, she and another girl were very competitive in general, and the dynamic was not a positive one. I was unaware of this, but learned of it when the other girl’s mom called me and asked me if we could work on it together. Of course I said yes, and we started doing some things as a foursome. The girls became good friends. That was 18 years ago and they’ve lost touch, but that mom and I are still very good friends to this day.

      When my daughter was in 5th grade, the Queen Bee in the class conspired to banish her from the group. She created a very popular role playing game for the girls at recess that involved a pretend castle and people of various levels of power. My daughter wanted to join but was told she could only participate if she was willing to be the “serf slave” every day. At first she agreed, and you can imagine the abuse and bullying that began. After a couple of days, she opted out. I didn’t learn about this for a month, when my daughter finally told me that she had been hiding in a bathroom stall every day during recess for that whole time. I remember bursting into tears upon hearing this story. Nothing changed until sixth grade, when my daughter was suddenly the “it” girl as far as the boys were concerned. The girls quickly reassembled under a different hierarchy.

      The interesting thing about this is that in all these cases, adults tried to speak with the girls to mold their behavior. They talked about character, right and wrong, being kind to others, etc. None of that worked. It was not until incentives changed that behavior changed.

      There’s a lesson there for men in the SMP. I don’t begin to think I can persuade women to “be attracted” to beta males. Beta males must be attractive. (Note I did not say they must be alpha.)

  • Plain Jane

    ” The point is that the current situation is markedly different from Marriage 1.0, where the wife could “pig out” and turn into a land whale, the husband could turn into a beta chump and go into “cruise control” mode, and neither was grounds for divorce, and the entire culture plus the community expected both to nevertheless suck it up. In contrast, Marriage 2.0 is a certified LTR where both spouses are generally expected to keep doing their best to remain attractive”

    Yeah I don’t like that either. What’s the point of living after 40 if you can’t let yourself go and relax a little?

  • Abbot

    “–severe shaming of men who reject sluts for dating and marriage as “judgmental”; cultural demands that no man ever judge a woman’s N

    –insisting that men accept ever-higher Ns in women as suitable for marriage”

    ________________

    That right there can be an entirely new post.

    “N should be seen and not heard” is not going to last for long

    .

  • Ted D

    PJ – “If those young women were of lower caste than those men it was socially acceptable, but not so in the reverse.”

    Well the “caste” system in the U.S. is pretty much all about how much money you have and which ethnicity you belong to. So as less men go to college, do you see how this can become a problem? If women want a man with a higher social “status” than her, she will want one with at least an equal education and possibly more money. It would be the same as going back to your old caste system and elevating women above men in the hierarchy. And, since you pointed out that women are looked down on for marrying “down”, it would completely destroy the system.

    Mr. Wavevector – “I’ve read several things recently that suggested that assortative mating is actually increasing among educated Americans.”

    That’s fine and well, but what about the less educated Americans? I mean, divorce in the UMC is pretty damn low, but look at the stats for high school educated poor folks. It’s a freaking disaster, and I don’t see it getting any better down here in the near future. So, although I’m glad to see that the UMC is holding on, people down here in the MC and lower are falling off the cliff when it comes to marriage/divorce, out of wedlock child births, and the other less than savory side effects of the current SMP/MMP.

    This quote from your post sums it up nicely: “Hypergamy has declined as well. What has changed is that marriage rates for the lesseducated have declined precipitously, although the patterns differ for blacks and for
    whites.”

    As someone who lives in a rather mixed neighborhood, I’m here to tell you it IS NOT just the black community suffering any longer. I see just as many white teen mothers as I do black/latino/other, and there are no signs of things improving.

    “Society isn’t helping us at all though. It tells women that their husbands are lazy losers and men that their wives are controlling shrews.”

    Exactly!

    Susan – “That’s what we’re afraid of.”

    What is to fear? I haven’t seen a single guy here argue that men don’t tend to want sexual variety. Pretty much every man I know is fully aware of their desires, and most of them know how to control them. Some don’t control them, but it is a matter of choice.

    Women however seem to be unaware of at least some of their natural desires (I’ll avoid using the word base…) and in being so unaware can often claim ignorance for misbehavior. Personally I’d love to see women with full understanding of their nature make the choices they want, because then they will not be able to play the blame game later.

    If man whores around and gets a rep, he is fully aware of WHY he got that rep and must admit that it is HIS fault he has it. Yet when women are shunned for promiscuous behavior, they tend to play victim and claim “they didn’t know.” Well, that is something that can be fixed.

    “However, more recent studies indicate that both men and women are quite judgmental about it – they’re just not willing to call out their peers face to face.”

    And this is another area for improvement IMO. Saying nothing just makes everyone feel like all is well, when in fact secretly many people are unhappy. Political Correctness is killing morality, because everyone is afraid to speak their mind.

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

      @Ted D

      Susan – “That’s what we’re afraid of.”

      What is to fear? I haven’t seen a single guy here argue that men don’t tend to want sexual variety. Pretty much every man I know is fully aware of their desires, and most of them know how to control them. Some don’t control them, but it is a matter of choice.

      Women however seem to be unaware of at least some of their natural desires (I’ll avoid using the word base…) and in being so unaware can often claim ignorance for misbehavior.

      I don’t know where the idea originates that women are not aware of what they like. Ask 100 women whether status is important to them, and 100 will say yes. In studies about male dominance, women are asked (hypothetically, oh noes!) how they feel about male dominance and they readily report that they find it attractive. (Should we disregard that as a worthless study?) I can think of two examples that demonstrate this. Mule’s adolescent daughter and her friends were dividing guys by “Hot and mean” vs. “Nice and hot hot.” IOW, they are open about liking mean guys. The other is in my focus groups when we discuss the chicks dig jerks meme. They all laugh and raise their hands. Of course, they’re not saying they want to mate with a sociopathic narcissist, they just like a guy who is hard to get. They’re not ashamed to say so.

      I think you could ask women about all 14 or so female attraction cues and they’ll be able to tell you which make them tingle and which don’t. Women here can certainly do it easily.

      Where women do lose some understanding, is in figuring out how those 14 traits act in concert to create attraction, and what weighting each trait is given. I think this is understandable, as the combinations get pretty complicated and vary enormously from woman to woman.

      Men here report that the boner test is all that is needed. Well, we’re not wired like that.

  • Plain Jane

    INTJ November 15, 2012 at 11:31 am

    @ Hope

    If you have kids purely for genetic legacy, just donate sperm and egg.

    I would, but my descendants aren’t likely to be people who will thrive in any environment.
    -

    Why do you say they are unlikely to thrive?

  • Just1Z

    “Exception fallacy!” hmmmmmmm

    At least you’ve gone from ‘never happens’ to ‘exception’

    oh come on,

    is it even hard to imagine a hamsterbation session going along the lines of

    “Well…I don’t really find him attractive, but I’m a nice girl so I’ll let him take me somewhere fancy and expensive, I mean maybe he can change my mind…”…”oh well, I still don’t fancy him (but great meal at the Ritz, must tell grrrllzz about it)”

    It wouldn’t even take the hamster getting up to speed on the wheel!

    are you seeriously saying that this (hardly) ever happens? ((( :) )))

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

      Well…I don’t really find him attractive, but I’m a nice girl so I’ll let him take me somewhere fancy and expensive, I mean maybe he can change my mind…”…”oh well, I still don’t fancy him (but great meal at the Ritz, must tell grrrllzz about it)”

      Shrug. Maybe it happens, but I’ve never seen it happen, either as a young woman or a mom of a girl and a guy.

  • Lokland

    @Saywhaat

    “Seriously, it’s not hard to have a good time on a shoestring budget. If a girl objects to that as an initial date then she wasn’t worth your time to begin with.”

    +1

    If you can’t figure out how to buy two cups of coffee and walk around a park for 30 mins its such a DLV on so many levels beyond interacting with woman.

    Way easier than sitting their picking at steamed vegetables asking her what her favourite colour is.

  • Tasmin

    @Susan
    “…attaining the highest status you possibly can when young is probably a good strategy for successful marriage.”

    Yes, this was my approach, but I would caution young men to slow down and contemplate. I was keenly aware of hypergamy the first day of kindergarten and it only became more clear going forward. The danger is that this path to status must be aligned with the other dimensions of his life; he has to value this course for reasons other than its status/income or risk a serious dislocation down the line. This is a difficult thing for a young man to evaluate.

    In my case, awareness of hypergamy was a big part of why I chose status over passion as a young man. The economic path to status is much easier to predict than the expertise/highly skilled or “softer” paths to status. For alpha men – where that ego/confidence has a natural tail wind and for whom their natural disposition be it physical and/or social has already placed them in the upper 20%, the decision is much easier. For Betas who are likely to bloom much later and who’s egos have been on the defensive and who have, for a long time in most cases, been aware that they must manufacture their attractiveness, the decision is quite different. And FWIW, I don’t think most women have any idea how these decisions are an order of magnitude different than their own.

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

    HanSolo,
    Yeah I really only mentioned Princess Diaries because of the storyline lol (and I used to read the books. Was so big on young adult chick lit for awhile). It’s Ann Hathaway, of course she’s gorgeous no matter how she dresses/wears her hair/etc! I always felt that way about Sandra Bullock in Ms. Congeniality too.

  • Plain Jane

    “I recall a bridesmaid of mine complaining after the wedding that the father of one of the other women had asked her to dance, and had gotten an erection. She was really upset. I can see how that might be hard for the dad – but it was his duty to stick his butt out and keep that boner away from her, or to excuse himself promptly.”

    I just threw up my saffron chai a little, literally.

  • HanSolo

    @Escoffier

    The premise of achieving the biotech wonders talked about is that the “laws” of human biology can be sufficiently understood at some point and that the physical realities would allow for solutions to improve human capacity, whether by computer implant, genetic alteration, chemical enhancement, etc.

    Some of these imagined possibilities will turn out to be too difficult or impossible. Others will be feasible. For example, figuring out how to directly connect a computer to your brain doesn’t seem so hard. We’re already connected to one via our eyes and fingers. The genetic engineering and perhaps chemical modification to enhance cell replication fidelity may be more difficult but it should be possible to some extent.

    The flying car is possible within known “laws” of physics but is very expensive energy wise. Implanting computers and genetic engineering will probably become possible to some extent and cheap at some point.

  • INTJ

    @ Physicsnerd

    I am regarded by nearly all my friends – who are clearly self-loathing masochists – as an arrogant, condescending SOB…but even I wouldn’t have the gall to end my arguments on a comment thread with “QED”. No offense intended, but…really?

    It’s an INTJ thing. Helps us become AMOGs in intellectual circles.

  • Lokland

    Srupid question time.

    Whats a QED?
    What was he referring too?

  • deti

    “If a girl objects to that as an initial date then she wasn’t worth your time to begin with.”

    SayWhaat, I don’t usually agree with you but this I agree with.

    If a girl is complaining about what you’re doing on a date, she probably isn’t attracted to you.

    This is where the PUAs have it right, I think. You keep the investment low at the start because you’re gauging the woman’s attraction to you. If she is attracted she will be happy to sit at her place watching a video or playing a nice game of Yahtzee.

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

      You keep the investment low at the start because you’re gauging the woman’s attraction to you. If she is attracted she will be happy to sit at her place watching a video or playing a nice game of Yahtzee.

      Ha, “let’s watch a movie” is code for “I’m booty calling you.” A woman should not “stay in” with a guy she is interested in until they’re a couple.

  • Plain Jane

    Lokland
    “I give up variety for an increase in quality.
    Women give up quality in genes for an increase in paternal care quality.

    Essentially, you give up the CEO and have DDs and I’ll take care of the kid and not fuck around.”

    CEO = quality genes? How does that work?

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

      CEO = quality genes? How does that work?

      It’s not a rule, I was just using an example of a male who has achieved considerable leadership over many other people.

  • Tasmin

    “Note: Ass man here. Tits, not important.”
    Concur.

  • Höllenhund

    This issue has already been examined on another thread at Slumlord’s blog. No systemic solution to the current SMP can be based on the idea of somehow training or molding average people into becoming more attractive to the opposite sex. It just won’t work, because evolution has ensured that sexually attractive traits are difficult to either fake or acquire. Women only consider a minority of men sexually attractive, and men only consider a minority of women really worthy of investment and commitment. That’s the same reason why Athol’s MAP doesn’t work for the bottom 50-50% of the mating hierarchy, because those people simply don’t find each other attractive enough.

    Only the small minority of people with ample self-awareness and brains recognizes this fact, and it’s small wonder they make up most of the social elite. They’re the ones who have “consumption marriages”. They know that stable marriages aren’t based on sustained mutual attraction but on the realization that marriage is the best route for intelligent people with long-term orientation who want to procreate, provide the best possible future for their children and acquire social status. But Marriage 2.0 works only for them, not the rest of society, because the rest of society simply cannot and doesn’t want to realize all this.

    Again, there’s not much that can be done about it. People’s cognitive abilities cannot be altered, and most people are just dumb and lack foresight. As I’ve noted, trying to make them more attractive won’t work either.

  • Escoffier

    Han, I don’t see any reasons to have any confidence in civilization continuing to make these advances. We are doing a really bad job at basic things, so continued “progress” seems truly dubious.

    I expect some regress, actually.

  • Plain Jane

    Hypergamy is another one of those words like solipsism which is totally misunderstood and misused in the M-sphere.

  • Plain Jane

    “Men make that tradeoff, and in return women give up a bit of “good genes” to get the guy who’s in it for the long haul. ”

    Is not long haul ability a sign of good genes?

  • Just1Z

    @Lokland

    “I actually wanted to but there is a minimum height requirement. ”

    Really???

    Probably for the best as they are dismantling the anonymity rules for donors around the world. Next comes the bill for child support.

    I always have mixed feelings for the gay (or straight friend) guy who contributes sperm for a lesbian turkey baster party, who then gets sued for child support – mixed because; what was he thinking? This is only one step from sperm donors finding the anonymity and free of obligation rules being reversed (when the social security budget runs out of QE cash)

    Child Support Agency orders gay sperm donor to pay child maintenance for “his” two children

    It has been reported that a gay man from Essex who donated his sperm to enable a lesbian couple to have two children is being forced by the Child Support Agency to pay for their support – 13 years after the first child was born.

    Mr Langridge, who has been with his partner for 16 years (and in a civil partnership for the last five), has called on the Government to review the law after the CSA demanded that he start paying £26 a week for two children he technically fathered over a decade ago.
    Mr Langridge made the first of two sperm donations in 1998, after he and his partner became friends with a lesbian couple who wanted to have children. The second donation followed in 2000, and on both occasions the couple were promised that he would not be named on the birth certificate. He was also assured that the lesbian couple were financially secure and would require no money from him.

    Mr Langridge had some contact with the family until 2004 but then lost touch. The lesbian couple, who never became civil partners, split up, and the biological mother housing the children later claimed benefits. It is reported that the mother’s former partner continues to visit the children but is not regarded as having any financial responsibility by the CSA.

    removing anonymity for sperm donors ‘for medical reasons’ is half way there for him then being sued for child support / abandonment…

    Men helping their single female friends to have a baby should also take note…
    ‘Make a baby’ parody video ‘I just met you, let’s make a baby’- pretty cool and funny (funny for all sexes))
    http://screen.yahoo.com/make-a-baby-29856096.html

  • Just1Z

    Link for lesbian dad
    http://www.steeleslaw.co.uk/news-item.aspx?id=fc5e2695-8c3c-4a2c-9860-623fd9737770
    just to prove that it is kosher (and look! not the Daily Wail!)

  • Ted D

    HH @ 273 – Cosigned. I’d also like to add that this is a primary contributor to the dismal marriage situation with the poor IMO.

    Susan – “I don’t really get the cluelessness about women thing. I understand that parents lied, society lied, etc. but female nature has not budged one bit. You want to see feral females? Go to a preschool.”
    *sigh* I’ve explained this before. Yes, I saw hypergamy in action, and when I questioned what I saw, the reply was always “those women just don’t know what a good man is. They will come to their senses when they get older”, which oddly enough is true for many it seems. But by then it is often too late.

    Look, some people learn by observing, and some people learn by being actively taught. For me, being as socially awkward as I am (and I was SO MUCH worse as a child) “figuring people out” wasn’t really possible. I could see how they behaved, but without some logical reason for that behavior I was unable to ‘learn’ or predict it. When I asked my mother why girls in school went after the jocks/”hawt” boys, what I needed to hear is: those girls are chasing the boys that are the most sexually attractive. What I heard was: those girls are just being stupid. So, being as it was “stupid” behavior, I just disregarded it as unecessary to understand. I didn’t look any closer at it, because I’d been told there IS no logical reason for the behavior, and I had very little desire to delve into illogical things.

    Olive – Do the men here at least get a point for being civil? So far I think the regular male commenters have been very “well behaved” for a thread on hypergamy, since the subject tends to send some of us into a tizzy of sorts.

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

      @Ted D

      So, being as it was “stupid” behavior, I just disregarded it as unecessary to understand. I didn’t look any closer at it, because I’d been told there IS no logical reason for the behavior, and I had very little desire to delve into illogical things.

      This is an interesting statement, because it implies that you would have grown up assuming most women are stupid if they don’t choose you or guys like you. How did that affect your attempts to date? Did you assume that the hot girls who went for the top males were stupid, but that the girls who were willing to date awkward males were wise? And did that make them more attractive?

  • Tasmin

    @Susan
    “The guys under 27 still text, “Where you at? Come here!” to get the party started.”
    Haha, agree. They do it because: it works. And worse, the “older” guys are catching on. I know guys in their 30′s who have had to change their phone plans to ‘unlimited texting’ in order to accommodate the preferred method of the younger women. And they are changing their game from ask out on a date to “meet up later for a drink”.

    So why do women bemoan the death of “dating”? It seems that if the young women had an issue with the “where U at?” approach they would just not play that game. Particularly those who are able to go out on actual dates with older men; they have a direct experiential comparison. And presuming the older guys have higher status, why then are these women wallowing in the shallows with the booty-call text banter at all?

    The stronger, preferred segment of the market (based on hypergamy) – older men with status and $ or even just men who are offering a real “date” should be elevating the market. The younger men should have to “up” the quality of their approach. This is how it worked when I was a young man – which is why it was so difficult to compete with older men in the SMP.

    Something has changed. I think the young women actually enjoy the texting, casual, non-committal banter because it feeds the optionality, the hedging, and is more stimulating than the old school approach. Which is why they should not complain about the demise of actual “Dates”. The thing is, young women are unwilling to risk a momentary lack of attention – even if that attention is a very small investment (“where U at?”) even from perhaps a lower status man in order to secure their value as a women who only goes on a “date”. There are plenty of men out there who go on dates and plenty more who would oblige if the late night texting path were not an option. If he doesn’t, then it should be plainly clear that he is not looking to “date” and/or progress toward anything real. Why is it so hard for women to see that they are the market markers?

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

      @Tasmin

      So why do women bemoan the death of “dating”? It seems that if the young women had an issue with the “where U at?” approach they would just not play that game. Particularly those who are able to go out on actual dates with older men; they have a direct experiential comparison. And presuming the older guys have higher status, why then are these women wallowing in the shallows with the booty-call text banter at all?

      Well the women who reported this to me have totally exited that scene, and are focusing exclusively on guys 27 and up. It’s harder to meet people, but they’re much more likely to meet someone who is interested in a committed relationship.

      It’s tough for the young guys, because if they do the texting thing, they come across as player types, but if they do the dating thing they risk coming across as lame. I know one young woman who has been seeing a guy who is also 23 and he’s doing the texting thing. He texts on a Friday early evening, for example, curious about her plans, saying he’d like to see her. Ultimately this will depend on one of them convincing their friends (who don’t know the other crew) to go with them so they can meet up with someone they like. As you can imagine, the friends are not highly motivated to do these favors if they’re having fun, so it’s very likely both parties will either get stranded with their own crews, or one has to hop in a cab and come alone as the only guy or girl to meet up with the group. It’s just super awkward, and in the 1/3 or so of cases where it does happen, it’s already 12:30 or 1:00 a.m. and the very awkward closing time is looming.

      Anyway, this girl Bev finally told Ted that she wanted to go on a date. He said sure! They went on a date, split the bill, which was fine with her, and at the end of the evening she said she’d had a good time and would love to do it again. Ted said, “What, you mean like a regular thing? Just you and me?” These two have not had sex, they’re just getting to know one another, and he is really uncomfortable outside the usual dynamic.

      Why is it so hard for women to see that they are the market markers?

      Because everyone is competing to be the party of least interest, even the men who are actually willing to date. I believe there are a lot of young people at cross purposes in the SMP.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “The Just1Z inspired controls apply to radfems, not the whole female population”

    Are ‘Radical-Femininsts’ to ‘Feminists’, as ‘Bad Nazis’ are to ‘normal-run-of-the-mill-go-along-to-get-along-Nazis’?

    (( –> :) ))

  • INTJ

    @ Lokland

    Srupid question time.

    Whats a QED?
    What was he referring too?

    “Quod erat demonstradum”, meaning “thus it is proven.” It is usually used to terminate the punchline of a mathematical proof.

    The usage by everyday nerds is more commonly “QED, bitches!”

  • Plain Jane

    “My personal spiritual beliefs lead me to think of this talk of physical immortality as silly, even a bit like constructing a prison for the soul. I’d never want to live that long in this density.”

    DD.

    Double Ditto.

  • Plain Jane

    “The guys under 27 still text, “Where you at? Come here!” to get the party started.”

    Bring da movies?

    ;)

  • INTJ

    @ Just1Z

    Haha. That “Let’s make a baby” song is so much better than the original.

  • Just1Z

    @Intj

    I remember reading the question asked on one forum. One woman responded “I would ask to split the cost, but I’d want the man to offer to pay before we agree to split the cost.” Another response was “I’m willing to split the cost, but if a man offers to pay, who am I to complain?”

    the thing is, that this ‘who am I to complain’ is not unreasonable, is it?

    the problem is, for men, that it allows women to not pay and not feel bad about it – they were just being (self-servingly) ‘polite’.

    if one judges by actions, rather than words, then ‘women want to pay their way’ falls short of the reality of what men experience. Maybe not a ‘pretty lie’*, but a ‘fallacious fable’ perhaps (*h/t Roissy)

  • Just1Z

    @Intj
    I’m not sure that I ever heard the original, but yes it is a goody

  • INTJ

    @ Just1Z

    I’m not sure that I ever heard the original, but yes it is a goody

    “Call me maybe” – it’s in the youtube top 20 or something.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    Han is correct about “You want to see feral females? Go to a preschool.”

    That is epic! Much respect! LMAO

    I missed it originally, so gratitude to Capt. Solo for the save.

  • Plain Jane

    “2) female preferences, well that’s different. telling women that they’re not morally superior, just differently wired but equally far from biblical perfection? that’s what the women were squawking about. women deny their baser instincts even exist, so they are real easy to rationalise away by hamsterbation.”

    Most girls start masturbating between 9 and 12 so I don’t see how there could have ever been a time in history when women “denied their baser instincts even existed.”

    And morally superior? Who would want to be that? Too much pressure.

    “equally far from biblical perfection?”

    Who are these Longsuffering Sitas demanding to be seen as biblically perfect?

    We are humans with all the imperfections and frailties that comes with.

    Perfection, biblical or puranic, was nothing more than a societal construct imposed on women in an attempt to mold uber-conformist, self-sacrificing Madonnas/Sitas.

    We don’ want to be kicked around like a street god in Medina, nor do we want to be worshipped with lights like a deity, permitted no blemish.

    We are simply human.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ 242

    Yes, and plus even now, no one passes on their genes 100%, you mix them with someone else’s in sexual reproduction.

  • Just1Z

    @Intj
    seeing the original video (thanks)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWNaR-rxAic

    made the parody even better
    http://screen.yahoo.com/make-a-baby-29856096.html

    Got to say that I prefer the parody to the original – same song (practically), many themes of the video carried across, but with added sense of humour…very cool

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ 244

    But you’re looking at just INTJ when the real-world situation of how much productivity you bring to bear is INTJ+technology, where technology can be the paper, computer or something else. Those who adopt the better technology will provide more overall value to their enterprise (while admittedly possible atrophying their non-technologically-enhanced abilities).

  • deti

    Ted D 277:

    “Susan – “I don’t really get the cluelessness about women thing. I understand that parents lied, society lied, etc. but female nature has not budged one bit. You want to see feral females? Go to a preschool.”
    *sigh* I’ve explained this before. Yes, I saw hypergamy in action, and when I questioned what I saw, the reply was always “those women just don’t know what a good man is. They will come to their senses when they get older”, which oddly enough is true for many it seems. But by then it is often too late.”

    Susan, WADR, one of the reasons we get into shouting matches here over the same old shit is because we explain it over and over to you and anyone who will listen, and it still doesn’t seem to be getting through. Perhaps it’s a gender thing, or a “way we were raised/taught” thing.

    You’re just not grokking what men of our generation were taught. Our own mothers either didn’t get it or, more likely, simply lied to us. Frankly I think it was that our own mothers didn’t want to admit the truth to themselves that they did the exact same things they saw the girls doing and that they themselves made some mistakes they regretted. They also didn’t want to admit that their sons weren’t getting the girls because they weren’t on the top of the sexual marketplace/hawt man heap.

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

      @deti

      You’re just not grokking what men of our generation were taught. Our own mothers either didn’t get it or, more likely, simply lied to us.

      I believe that, but I don’t see why you didn’t believe your own eyes, and what you observed in social dynamics. Consider this statement from Tasmin, in his mid-30s IIRC:

      I was keenly aware of hypergamy the first day of kindergarten and it only became more clear going forward.

      I mean, every kid in the class knows who all the girls are writing little love notes to. In 7th grade every boy knows exactly which guys are getting to make out at school dances. Hypergamy positively rages among children.

      Yes, I saw hypergamy in action, and when I questioned what I saw, the reply was always “those women just don’t know what a good man is. They will come to their senses when they get older”,

      And you got all the way through college waiting for girls to come to their senses? I find that hard to believe. I suspect that some boys are told this when very young, and begin to be aware of it as they age. However, if they are not in the group targeted by females, they feel like losers with girls and they have no idea what can be done to fix it. By the time they get to college, they think “I’m not one of those lucky guys.” The die is cast by then.

      FWIW, I do not think that most men are told this growing up. I fully understand that many men here were – perhaps most gammas and/or deltas were, which would explain their views of women, perhaps. Also, introversion is a big factor. Women are drawn to extroverts, and introverts struggle with the kinds of behaviors necessary to grab attention from girls as they grow up. They are not big risk takers as a rule, nor are they cocky funny, charming with the ladies, etc.

  • Ted D

    “They also didn’t want to admit that their sons weren’t getting the girls because they weren’t on the top of the sexual marketplace/hawt man heap.”

    Which also adds to their shame at bad decisions. After all, if the guy they “chose” to be the babby-daddy was all that, their own sons should have been all that as well.

    In my case, the more I think on it the more I think my mother made a concerted effort to make sure I did NOT grow up to be like my biological father. Thing is, I didn’t need all that “encouragement” because my personality made me “restricted” so much that I probably needed to be pushed to be MORE like him just to break even.

    it would be interesting to see how all my half-siblings ended up. I know one half-sister that spent her childhood with him (her mother married him when she got knocked up) and to be honest she was VERY promiscuous in her teens and 20′s. I lost touch with her after she married the second time, but at that point she was still going strong. I have at least two male half-siblings, and possibly one other female half-sibling, but at this point I have NO idea whatsoever how to get in touch with any of them.

  • Tasmin

    @SayWhat
    “Seriously, it’s not hard to have a good time on a shoestring budget. If a girl objects to that as an initial date then she wasn’t worth your time to begin with.”

    True, shoestring budgets, good times, no problem. But this is a little reductive. Women rarely “object” openly. Many people aren’t nearly as aware of their expectations as you might be. There is a lot of subtle expectation, wants, and preferences that come out in the process. Sure its any easy DQ if a woman expects fine dining and entertainment and is openly disappointed by a cup of coffee and stroll. Hell, I can pick most of those women out of a lineup, It wouldn’t occur to me to ask them out.

    But you can’t just strip away all of the competition from other men, the options/alternatives she may have, the other “dates” as comparison, what her friends are doing/getting out of the SMP, her natural sense of entitlement (or are we assuming this is no longer an issue?), her tendency to associate “lower investment” dates with “lower income” with “lower status” and claim that its all walks in the park.

    I’m a master of creative, low-cost dates, in fact it is how I screen for entitlement. But you know, women still want to “try that new little french place on 17th” no matter how charming I may be. And sometimes my conversational skills turn that cup of coffee into a glass of wine, or two. Hey, thats great, thats the point. But the point is also that there is a difference between being the one having low expectations and being the guy who has to figure out what your expectations are on the fly and how those expectations (might) change over time and the actual and potential costs to bear throughout that process.

    We are not in disagreement here on the surface, but there is also more at work than just eliminating the obvious high-maintenance women. If it were that easy, then the entire SMP should be reset based on this majority of women who report that they want “dates”, don’t need/want to be treated, etc. Your “…its not worth your time to begin with..” is similar to how I reduce this dysfunctional SMP to (comment 278) to “why don’t women just refuse to put up with, indulge in, accept, etc.” all the stuff they reportedly don’t like and “demand, respond positively to, and accept only the approach, communication, interaction, respect, they desire/deserve”.

    I mean if a guy won’t ask you on a proper date (a walk in the park qualifies) he is probably not worth your time, right? easy. In that case, no woman who actually wants a proper date should ever be disappointed, complain, or take issue with all of these men who text for a “meet u later?”, “lets party”, “grab a drink?”, etc. So why then do so many play along?

    Why not just align their actions with their reported beliefs, thereby constructing an SMP that upholds such? Or is there more to it?

  • INTJ

    Regarding expensive dates vs. random texts, us young guys simply don’t have the status to compete with older men. Thus it’s a much more optimal strategy for us to try to appear sexy than good providers.

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

      Regarding expensive dates vs. random texts, us young guys simply don’t have the status to compete with older men. Thus it’s a much more optimal strategy for us to try to appear sexy than good providers.

      I agree, it’s a pretty good strategy from a male POV.

  • J

    Another debate about hypergamy. Oh, goody!

    Let me weigh on this for the 8 thousandth time. Obviously, we all, male and female, want to find the best spouse we can. For men, we are usually talking looks and fertility as the prime criteria. For women, it generally means finding the best provider. Being a good provider is often linked to what Susan has called prestige or the sort of social dominance that society confers upon men who are capable. IMHO, the ideal expression of social dominace is not man over woman, but man over environment and over other men in such a way that facilites resources being delivered to the family. In animal models, among species where there is a lot of sexual dimorphism, there is also a lot of competition among males. The male needs to be bigger, or stronger, or have some sort of display like a large mane because he needs to fight or intimate other males, not dominate his mate. Though the best providers will have high status, I don’t think women are necssarily on a constant prowl for men who have a higher status than they do. (In fact, outside of fairy tales, most women marry men of similar social class.) Corollary notions, like the idea that men need to continually be DHV or dominating women in order to insure fidelty, are also mostly overblown.

  • Ted D

    Tasmin – “Why not just align their actions with their reported beliefs, thereby constructing an SMP that upholds such? Or is there more to it?”

    LOL man. You are using logic where it is completely irrelevant. I’m with you 100%, but I’ve also been told over and over that logic has no place in how women meet and greet men. (not in those words, but as a general idea the statement is sound for the advice I’ve been given.)

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

      I’ve also been told over and over that logic has no place in how women meet and greet men.

      You were misinformed. Hypergamy is highly logical.

  • Just1Z

    @Tasmin

    “Why not just align their actions with their reported beliefs, thereby constructing an SMP that upholds such? Or is there more to it?”

    put down the drugs…they’re messing with your head. lmfao

  • Ted D

    J – “Corollary notions, like the idea that men need to continually be DHV or dominating women in order to insure fidelty, are also mostly overblown.”

    Well this may very well be a matter of local environment then. Down here in the poorer trenches, there are PLENTY of women that are “constantly on the prowl” for the guy with more money/status/influence. It is a very common thing to see a young women hop from man to man, having children along the way, because she is trying to use them as stepping stones to get into a comfortable living situation. I can easily see how this isn’t so much of a problem in the UMC on up, as women in that cohort are probably at a pretty good standard of living without the “help” of a man’s resources. But poor girls that have little to no hope of getting a college education tend to pick the biggest badest “thug” to hitch their wagon to, until he gets bumped off by a bigger, badder thug.

  • Just1Z

    Hot news

    BBC and Oxford Uni report that pregnant women should drink less than one small glasses of wine per week. It can harm their baby’s IQ

    This may explain multi generational chav baby syndrome…or whatever you call it where you are.

  • deti

    ted D:

    “this (nonmalleability of sexual attraction traits and low attraction among people at the lower half of the SMP) is a primary contributor to the dismal marriage situation with the poor IMO.”

    HH is right about this: that esp. in the bottom 50% of the SMP the little that unattractive people can do to make themselves more attractive doesn’t really help all that much, because they just aren’t all that attractive to each other. And also, men and women working to increase their attractiveness is not going to be a wholesale solution to the entire SMP problem. At best a person can improve a point or two in SMP, but that’s about it. A male 3 will be a 4 or 5 at best. The best he can get is a 4. Why should he do all that work for a 4? Same with a woman. A female 2 can take herself to 4 if she’s lucky.

    The reason why all this contributes to the low marriage situation is because our country has created a network of services for women, who marry the beta state. The beta provider state is ideal — he provides money, food and medical care; but doesn’t demand sex in return. She can have more babies, which means beta provider state provides more money. She doesn’t marry a man simply because she doesn’t have to in order to get what she needs.

    Formerly, these people HAD to marry each other if they had any hope of staying out of grinding poverty. They weren’t college bound or going to work in air conditioned offices. Both he and she are a 4 at best, AT BEST, on the SMP scale.

    He was going to work at the local factory or on the farm, like his dad and granddad. Her choices were: find some man, ANY man, and get married by age 19 or 20; or go to work teaching school or cleaning toilets. For him, it was marry the homely girl who would have him, or do without. (His new wife had a pretty good chance of dying from a disease or in childbirth.) For her, it was marry the local yokel farmhand, or starve. (Her new husband had a pretty good chance of getting killed on the job.) Nonetheless, they were each other’s best chance at survival. They pooled their resources and eked out an existence and maybe a little contentment as best they could. They had as many babies as they could, knowing that out of 5 or 6 kids, they would probably lose two or three to disease or starvation or injury before they turned 16. (This is my family four generations ago, circa 1900.)

    That’s what Ted D is talking about, here.

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

      A male 3 will be a 4 or 5 at best. The best he can get is a 4. Why should he do all that work for a 4? Same with a woman. A female 2 can take herself to 4 if she’s lucky.

      IDK, because beggars can’t be choosers? He wants to have sex? Reproduce? Not sit alone in an empty house 7 nights a week?

      Others have made the Wal-Mart joke before, but just go anywhere that represents a big slice of humanity. A state fair, the mall, Disneyland. The pairings between ugly people are very numerous, and they’ve got their children in tow, who are also clearly on their way to being 4s. I don’t see evidence that 4s don’t marry. Jerry Springer almost entirely features 4s.

      Obviously it’s a personal choice. If you won’t have someone of your own SMV, you can go celibate or hire prostitutes.

  • Tasmin

    @TedD@Just1Z
    Exactly. which is my point: the “logic” of “if a woman….she wasn’t worth your time to begin with.” coming from women is pretty rich.

  • HanSolo

    @Escoffier

    I don’t predict a straight line to such knowledge and technology. But I do think there is new knowledge and technology waiting to be had. As long as society doesn’t implode (and you never know when that might happen) and there are resources devoted to further exploration then eventually someone will find that knowledge and technology (within whatever physical limits truly exist). So, if the world economy slumps then things will slow down. I don’t hold such a pessimistic view as you do. Not related to biology but cosmology is in a golden era of discovery. Within the last 14 years dark energy has been discovered and increasingly validated. In the last few years alone many planets have been discovered in the habitable zones around stars. New and better telescopes are being built as we speak and will unlock more cosmological understanding.

    Better instruments for biological purposes are being developed and better understanding of genetics is unfolding. I know little about medical and biological things, however, so maybe we are in a slow period now or maybe some things are being discovered now that haven’t yet been appreciated.

    So, I can accept that if cheap energy dries up, or we have extensive war or plague, that society will diminish and there will be less or no resources for further discoveries. OTOH, if resources are directed towards research I think discoveries will continue, of course limited to the reality that is being unveiled.

  • J

    Seriously, it’s not hard to have a good time on a shoestring budget. If a girl objects to that as an initial date then she wasn’t worth your time to begin with.

    Cosigned.

    I’m a master of creative, low-cost dates, in fact it is how I screen for entitlement.

    That’s good. A smart woman BTW wil use creative dates as a way to screen for intelligence, creativity and resourcefulness. DH had nothing in hids pockets when I met him. However, he had a lot going on in his head. I liked that. I’d rather be with a brighter, low SES guy who can hustle then a dumb or lazy guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. And, I have dated both.

    Sometimes women want the expensive date as opposed to “Let’s just hang out” because they don’t want to be confused with a booty call, but save the French bistro for women you know are worth the investment. That probably means putting off sex until she is assured that you really have gotten to know her.

  • Ted D

    Tasmin – “Exactly. which is my point: the “logic” of “if a woman….she wasn’t worth your time to begin with.” coming from women is pretty rich.”

    Welcome to the club brother! I think one of the most surprising things in all this Red Pill knowledge for me was finding out that not only women, but most people in general do NOT use logic when making decisions. WAY too much reliance on “feelings” in the general populace for my liking. But, it explains why I think most “people” suck, they don’t make any damn sense. :P

  • HanSolo

    @Tasmin 278

    +1

    Women are (mostly) the market makers. A few apex men are too but they’re kind of rare.

  • Plain Jane

    “BBC and Oxford Uni report that pregnant women should drink less than one small glasses of wine per week. It can harm their baby’s IQ

    This may explain multi generational chav baby syndrome…or whatever you call it where you are.”

    Fetal alcohol syndrome is common in the USA. Whenever I meet someone who acts a certain kind of way I immediately chalk it up to FAS, whether I know they have it or not. Its that common.

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

      @Plain Jane

      You’re out of moderation. Don’t make me regret this!

  • Passer_By

    @ion
    “Totally unrelated, the Omega-male ridden manosphere has a lot of men complaining about hypergamy because to any man, the man directly above him is an alpha. A socially dominant/higher beta has less bitterness because there’s only a few men above him. ”

    Yeah, OK, they’re all bitter omegas who couldn’t get laid in a whorehouse with a fist full of hundred dollar bills. You forgot to mention that they are impotent and have tiny dicks too.

  • SayWhaat

    Damn you, Tasmin, for making me craft an extensive reply on my phone. :P

    Women rarely “object” openly. Many people aren’t nearly as aware of their expectations as you might be.

    Alright, here’s your slap of Red Pill: she isn’t objecting to the date, she’s objecting to YOU.

    A poorly date will become the major focus if she didn’t like the dude himself. If you’re 20 minutes late but compensate by being charming and attractive in-person, she won’t think much about your tardiness (though she will if it happens again on the next date). But if the guy is an obvious boor/incompatible with her values and tastes/etc., the venue and sequence of events of the date come into sharp focus.

    But you can’t just strip away all of the competition from other men, the options/alternatives she may have, the other “dates” as comparison, what her friends are doing/getting out of the SMP

    No, you can’t. Might as well be the best version of yourself then, eh? ;)

    her tendency to associate “lower investment” dates with “lower income” with “lower status” and claim that its all walks in the park.

    Are we talking about someone in particular, here? I thought we already established that these types of girls were weeded out after the walk in the park. ;)

    Look. The actual date itself is a presentation. Sometimes presentations go horribly wrong, but if the content is good then it’s worth a second review. If the presentation is full of fluff, you’ll get a second review from the people who like clip art. And if the content AND the presentation is good, well sir, you’ve just won a client.

  • J

    googled “woman dating free dinner new york” lots of results for the story that I remembered

    It’s egregious but not common. If it were common, it wouldn’t have been “news.”

  • SayWhaat

    Fuck, how did I get subscribed to this thread? I’m not even interested in this topic! -__-

  • Ted D

    SayWhaat – “Alright, here’s your slap of Red Pill: she isn’t objecting to the date, she’s objecting to YOU.

    A poorly date will become the major focus if she didn’t like the dude himself”

    Would it be so hard for women to just say this? I’d much rather know that she wasn’t into me than wonder if my “presentation” sucked.

    I know, I’m trying to be logical again. It’s a bad habit, I know…

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

      @Ted D

      Would it be so hard for women to just say this? I’d much rather know that she wasn’t into me than wonder if my “presentation” sucked.

      LOL, I think you’d be happiest with a male-brained woman. Don’t forget: solipsism, hypergamy, hamsterwheeling and many other features for women only! You are never, ever, ever going to get women to turn down a date by stating outright that they find you unattractive or to turn down a second date because you are boring. Not gonna happen, so you might as well stop wishing for it.

  • Plain Jane

    Thanks Susan. I was just going to make a few commenters here happy by saying Adios Amigos because I wrote several comments now on previous page 2 that nobody will read because we are already on page 3 and that’s frustrating.

    Ted, I just want to say that like you, I’m naturally sexually/socially conservative too but theoretically more liberal as it applies to other people because I’ve seen all sorts of conditions and situations and understand why people do what they do (specifically in regards to our other convo about open relationships). So I’m able to see both (or 3, or 4 ;) …) sides to one issue.

    I think being low libido and not having or wanting kids also helps in not being overly invested in the SMP and whether it trends this way or that.

    I appreciate your attitude of not having double standards but holding yourself to the same standards you hold your partner to. That is logical and mature.

  • Ted D

    SayWhaat – “Fuck, how did I get subscribed to this thread? I’m not even interested in this topic! -__-”

    Because you love all the intelligent male comments? :P

    Hey, women love drama right? This subject = lots of drama. (although I think we are all behaving very well, if I may pat myself on the back so boldly!)

  • Plain Jane

    Susan Walsh November 15, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    Seriously, it’s not hard to have a good time on a shoestring budget. If a girl objects to that as an initial date then she wasn’t worth your time to begin with.

    Agreed. Not only that, I think cheap dates are a whole lot more fun. Who wants to go on a first date to some expensive restaurant with a formal vibe? I’d take a hike or a bike ride any day.
    -

    My favorite date is a day or evening at the beach swimming and soaking up the sun or walking and watching a sunset.

  • Plain Jane

    “This would be the “Victorian” equilibrium – mate within your class – rather than the SATC equilibrium. ”

    Susan, wasn’t SJP’s character the only one married up?

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

      Susan, wasn’t SJP’s character the only one married up?

      The SATC equilibrium was described as having two pools of SMP losers: top females and lower ranked males. I believe it was meant as a label to describe the current SMP rather than the mating results for those four characters.

  • Madelena

    @Tasmin

    That was my thought as well. Yes, a larger % of women may believe it is reasonable that they “should” pay/split, but a much smaller % *want* to and so even less actually *do*. It is a DLV for a man, even if she does feel that she should pay, if he allows her, his stock just went down. She may offer, he thanks and declines, he pays. Thats how it works. The only value in that kind of survey is that it indicates some level of awareness of the economics of a “date”. But IME, it still seems like an awful lot of women can’t seem to gauge just how costly “dating” can be for a man and in a larger sense, why many men resist actual “dates” in favor of the lesser forms, especially with younger men who have not hit their $ stride yet. I know women here swear up and down that they don’t date for entertainment, meals, something to do on a friday night, but I have called out a couple of women friends who would say the same thing, until I catch them in action.

    In any case, if a women wants to go on an actual “date”, keep her phone in her handbag, and have a grown up conversation about something (anything) other than what’s on TV, I’ll pick up the check no worries. But lets not pretend that because people respond that they “should” do something is where the rubber hits the road.

    My response:
    My preference is for coffee/drinks/ice cream for the first dates for sure, and occasionally for the second date. Most of my friends who date prefer that as well. That is one of keeping costs down for him and lessening the feeling of obligation (of time and attention) for her.
    I have made the motion of reaching for my purse and only one guy took me up on it. He immediately got discounted as a prospect. Most men refuse and a few get offended even, which I like.

  • Passer_By

    J

    “In animal models, among species where there is a lot of sexual dimorphism, there is also a lot of competition among males. The male needs to be bigger, or stronger, or have some sort of display like a large mane because he needs to fight or intimate other males, not dominate his mate. ”

    Right, but, if I’m not mistaken, among animals with a lot of sexual dimorphism, the general tends to be that females are drawn to one or two alpha males, and they get all the goods. In essense, that’s hypergamy (in the Devlinesque sense used by the manosphere).

    I’ve often wondered if civilization didn’t spring up right as mankind was evolving in transition from the alpha male-multi female model to a monogamous pairing model, which is why there are so many seeming contradictions and tensions in behavior.

  • J

    Well this may very well be a matter of local environment then. Down here in the poorer trenches, there are PLENTY of women that are “constantly on the prowl” for the guy with more money/status/influence.

    Ted, let’s don’t forget that I grew up in the “poorer trenches.” Most of my cousins on my dad’s side never left. I see some man-hopping, but it rarely is from poor man to richer man. It tends to be from dysfunctional asshole to more dysfunctional asshole, with both parties having a real dearth of relationships skills and a surfeit of personal problems. I wouldn’t want to be with most of the guys my cousins have come up with. OTOH, if I were a guy, I wouldn’t want to be with women like my cousins. TBH, I tend to avoid my cousins of both sexes because I can no longer stand the drama or the resentment.

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

    Most of the technological change occurring in the present is under the hood and completely invisible to the casual observer. You might not know it, but subjects even as boring and dull as metallurgy have advanced massively over the past twenty years thanks to better characterization tools. It’s inherently sophomoric to expect technological progress to be ‘sexy’ or in the direction you want it to progress. In reality its more of an organic process, as you wait for someone creative to combine enough disparate concepts to come up with a revolutionary concept, while most of us iterate to evolve existing processes and techniques.

    Pretty much all of the low-hanging advancements are gone (since the 1960s really), now we’re dependent on the infrastructure of the past. That’s restricting in its own right on what can and cannot be done. Unfortunately, the scientific class doesn’t do a great job of explaining what we do to the general public, in large because we speak a different language than the rest of you. Sometimes I say math is the language of science, but the more general problem is that while we share the same vocabulary, the definitions in science are often very precise and refer to specific physical phenomena. If I say the word ‘interference’ it means something entirely different to me then it does to an arts major. Thus, explaining a new scientific advance to a layman is a big pain in the ass, because before you can do it, you have to define half of the words you use.

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

    Plain Jane wrote:
    Most girls start masturbating between 9 and 12 so I don’t see how there could have ever been a time in history when women “denied their baser instincts even existed.”

    You are wrong. Medical doctors used to have to manually masturbate women to orgasm as a cure for hysteria. In fact, the vibrator was invented to relieve doctors of this burden, because it was consuming so much of their time around 1900.

    Look it up. Even in modern times many women can’t bring themselves to orgasm on their own with just their fingers.

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

      You are wrong. Medical doctors used to have to manually masturbate women to orgasm as a cure for hysteria. In fact, the vibrator was invented to relieve doctors of this burden, because it was consuming so much of their time around 1900.

      On Nantucket they have found plaster dildos going back to the whaling era, for the wives of sea captains left alone for months at a time.

      Also, I believe the “hysteria” treatments were a prime money making opportunity for doctors. Women were obviously strongly shamed (as were men) for masturbation. But they certainly knew about their base desires. I figured that out climbing the rope in gym in the fourth grade.

  • Ted D

    PJ – “I appreciate your attitude of not having double standards but holding yourself to the same standards you hold your partner to. That is logical and mature.”

    Thanks! Being fair is actually one of the things I strive for, so I actually consider this a huge compliment.

    I have a friend married to a woman that works in mental health, so I actually understand why you have liberal attitudes on many social issues. But I am very much a “grand scheme” type of person, which is to say I focus on the big picture, and leave the details to people that are better equipped to do so. In my IT capacity, I was once the “detail” guy, and I remember laughing and making snide comments when my manager would say something like “I don’t care how you do it, just get it done” because IMO it was easy for him to say, not knowing what it actually took to DO so. Now I am that manager, and I realized it isn’t lack of knowledge, it is a matter of priorities. I have other things to worry about than the actual work involved in getting something done. Other people get paid to do that. My job is simply to push the project along and fix any roadblocks along the way.

    When it comes to social issue, I work from a top down model as well. So, to me it makes sense to find the solution that works for most folks, and rely on people like yourself to figure out how to make it actually work for the individual people that perhaps can’t benefit from what works for “most” people. I don’t see people as individuals for the most part, but one large group that needs direction. As such, if I were in charge (Lord help us all!) I’d set policy that worked for the majority, and expect people smarter than myself to work out the details of making it work for everyone.

    Details generally just frustrate and piss me off. :P

  • Ted D

    J – “It tends to be from dysfunctional asshole to more dysfunctional asshole, with both parties having a real dearth of relationships skills and a surfeit of personal problems.”

    Yep this is absolutely true in my neck of the woods. However I would counter that those women often believe the next dysfunctional asshole IS indeed a higher status man. He isn’t, but perception is reality.

    Susan – “Where women do lose some understanding, is in figuring out how those 14 traits act in concert to create attraction, and what weighting each trait is given. I think this is understandable, as the combinations get pretty complicated and vary enormously from woman to woman.”

    This is a fair argument actually. But, it seems to me that it is in the best interestes of women to figure this out for themselves pretty early on, lest they end up chasing “alpha douchebags” because they don’t realize they are putting far too much importance on the dominance trait, and not nearly enough on others. In fact, I’d say that one of the primary reasons men complain about women “switching tracks” is that it often takes many years for women to figure this out. So, when she is in her 20′s and allows her “dominance” trait to direct her course in dating/mating, she ends up with little success and a higher N. So when she hits 30, she finally realizes that the guy on the Harley with a criminal record may be exciting and “hawt”, but he sucks as a mate. Then and only then does she start focussing on the other traits she finds attractive.

    And this is why I say women aren’t aware of their desires. It isn’t that they don’t know what turns them on, but they put little to no thought into IF those desires are even healthy. From my perspective, that just looks like not knowing yourself very well.

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

      But, it seems to me that it is in the best interestes of women to figure this out for themselves pretty early on, lest they end up chasing “alpha douchebags” because they don’t realize they are putting far too much importance on the dominance trait, and not nearly enough on others.

      Agreed, this is an important role for parents to play.

      In fact, I’d say that one of the primary reasons men complain about women “switching tracks” is that it often takes many years for women to figure this out. So, when she is in her 20′s and allows her “dominance” trait to direct her course in dating/mating, she ends up with little success and a higher N. So when she hits 30, she finally realizes that the guy on the Harley with a criminal record may be exciting and “hawt”, but he sucks as a mate. Then and only then does she start focussing on the other traits she finds attractive.

      I think the women who truly tingle for alpha douchebags are not going to find other traits attractive enough to take the place of that level of dominance. I believe that women riding the carousel are alpha chasers for life, or would be if they could pull it off. Whether they dupe some poor sucker they don’t really like into marriage is another question. I’ve questioned how common that is, as you know.

  • Ion

    Passer_By

    “@ion. Yeah, OK, they’re all bitter omegas who couldn’t get laid in a whorehouse with a fist full of hundred dollar bills. You forgot to mention that they are impotent and have tiny dicks too.”

    I also forgot to mention that a lot of their problems would be solved if they date people who would gladly reciprocate interest. The fatties, uglies, blind, crippled and elderly of the world need mates too. :-)

  • JP

    “I mean, every kid in the class knows who all the girls are writing little love notes to. In 7th grade every boy knows exactly which guys are getting to make out at school dances. Hypergamy positively rages among children.”

    Nope.

    Missed this entirely.

    I think I was too busy contemplating cosmology.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “I do not think that most men are told this growing up. I fully understand that many men here were – perhaps most gammas and/or deltas were, which would explain their views of women, perhaps.”

    This is oxymoronic.

    Gammas/deltas are the majority of men by definition.

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

      This is oxymoronic.

      Gammas/deltas are the majority of men by definition.

      You’re right, I just looked at the definitions again:

      Delta: The normal guy. Deltas are the great majority of men. They can’t attract the most attractive women, so they usually aim for the second-tier women with very limited success, and stubbornly resist paying attention to all of the third-tier women who are comfortably in their league. This is ironic, because deltas would almost always be happier with their closest female equivalents. When a delta does manage to land a second-tier woman, he is constantly afraid that she will lose interest in him and will, not infrequently, drive her into the very loss of interest he fears by his non-stop dancing of attendance upon her. In a social setting, the deltas are the men clustered together in groups, each of them making an occasional foray towards various small gaggles of women before beating a hasty retreat when direct eye contact and engaged responses are not forthcoming. Deltas tend to put the female sex on pedestals and have overly optimistic expectations of them; if a man rhapsodizes about his better half or is an inveterate White Knight, he is almost certainly a delta. Deltas like women, but find them mysterious, confusing, and are sometimes secretly a little afraid of them.

      That actually sounds exactly like what the men here have described. I stand corrected.

      What do you think about that idea of stubborn resistance to lower SMV women? That seems to be what Deti was saying.

      So, Lokland, that seems like a pretty tough climb – from Delta to Vox Beta. Do you think Game can get guys there? Furthermore, in light of your recently expressed concern about my priorities, can you suggest what might be most helpful to Deltas here at HUS? The fact that Deltas like women is a huge plus from my perspective. In contrast, read Vox’s description of Gammas:

      Gamma: The introspective, the unusual, the unattractive, and all too often the bitter. Gammas are often intelligent, usually unsuccessful with women, and not uncommonly all but invisible to them, the gamma alternates between placing women on pedestals and hating the entire sex. This mostly depends upon whether an attractive woman happened to notice his existence or not that day. Too introspective for their own good, gammas are the men who obsess over individual women for extended periods of time and supply the ranks of stalkers, psycho-jealous ex-boyfriends, and the authors of excruciatingly romantic rhyming doggerel. In the unlikely event they are at the party, they are probably in the corner muttering darkly about the behavior of everyone else there… sometimes to themselves. Gammas tend to have have a worship/hate relationship with women, the current direction of which is directly tied to their present situation. However, they are sexual rejects, not social rejects.

      I’m going to find that a lot harder to work with, obviously, and I suspect these are the men slumlord was addressing in his OP.

      Maybe liking women should be the one requirement for men who want to hang out here.

  • J

    People are not going to give up free goodies voluntarily. If men don’t like it, they should refuse to pay and take the risk that it will turn the woman off. Or they can pay. No ideal solution there.

    It’s tough. On one level, I think that even the most feminist of women want the guy to pay, not for the freebies necessarily, but because food sharing is so primal and such a test of a man’s personality, generosity and abuility to provide. It’s a case of the mind and principles not being able to overcome the DNA and the emotional wiring.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “Obviously it’s a personal choice. If you won’t have someone of your own SMV, you can go celibate or hire prostitutes.”

    Isn’t part of the problem that the women have to be attractive enough for men to not be turned off by their physical appearance?

    It’s kind of hard to have a relationship with someone who you find physically distasteful.

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

      Isn’t part of the problem that the women have to be attractive enough for men to not be turned off by their physical appearance?

      It’s kind of hard to have a relationship with someone who you find physically distasteful.

      Of course, but it does seem as if in this SMP quite a few men (mostly at the low end of the scale?) reject women with the same SMV as theirs. They seem to be saying, “I’m a 4, but I’m only willing to bang 5s and up.” That’s a tough sell, obvs.

  • Höllenhund

    “Others have made the Wal-Mart joke before, but just go anywhere that represents a big slice of humanity. A state fair, the mall, Disneyland. The pairings between ugly people are very numerous, and they’ve got their children in tow, who are also clearly on their way to being 4s.”

    The point is that marriage is dying at an accelerating rate among the underclass, a disproportionately large segment of whom belong to the bottom half of the mating hierarchy, and at a slower but also accelerating rate among the middle class, which itself is disappearing. Serial monogamy, cohabitation, thuggery and single motherhood are replacing stable marriages, which is a sign that these couples are unable or unwilling to retain mutual attraction. These people see each other more and more as unfit for relationships.

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

      Serial monogamy, cohabitation, thuggery and single motherhood are replacing stable marriages, which is a sign that these couples are unable or unwilling to retain mutual attraction. These people see each other more and more as unfit for relationships.

      Good point. I wonder if it’s just physical attraction, or do people also lack the skills to be good partners?

  • J

    Right, but, if I’m not mistaken, among animals with a lot of sexual dimorphism, the general tends to be that females are drawn to one or two alpha males, and they get all the goods. In essense, that’s hypergamy (in the Devlinesque sense used by the manosphere).

    That’s certainly true of harem animals like lions. I wonder if it’s true for other animals like moose or deer. It would be interesting to follow up on this.

    I’ve often wondered if civilization didn’t spring up right as mankind was evolving in transition from the alpha male-multi female model to a monogamous pairing model, which is why there are so many seeming contradictions and tensions in behavior.

    Again interesting. Just off the cuff, I think gorillas have harems, but that chimps and bonoboos, to whom we are more closely related, are fairly promiscuous, both male and female. I would think that early hominids would have been more like chimps, with a lot of indiscriminite sexual activity, than like gorillas, whom I think have an alpha male-multi female model. I really should look this up, but I’m feeling lazy.

  • Tasmin

    @SayWhat
    I appreciate your response, but it missed my points. It isn’t about “me” or “being myself” or being the object of rejection, it is the basic fact that dating costs men more $ than women – regardless of some report about some high % of women saying that they would-should pay. And if men choose to avoid spending $, there are risks and costs involved that are (apparently) easily dismissed as “she was not your type – bullet dodged”. Based on this thinking, I guess I’m confused why then it is (apparently) difficult for women to get the actual “Dates” they (apparently) desire within an SMP that they create/control. But I’ll accept Susan’s take on “why”.

    The cost burden of dating is either disproportionately on men or it is not; I am glad to hear that it is not. Either way, I will just continue to be frugal and creative, and discerning of her underlying expectations yet not overly assumptive of such to allow for temporary alterations of her expectations based on a variety of internal and external factors to which I have little knowledge all while outperforming other men (past, present, and potential) long enough for her to figure out they are duds, players, whatever and for me to unearth any (apparently extremely rare) desires or expectations or preferences that may involve expenses beyond what her and I have yet to determine as reasonable demonstrations of our mutual investment going forward. No worries.

    I’m just glad to know that the economic components of hypergamy are disarmed in an actual “date” by my inventive charm, creative whim, and chiseled jaw. Some might ask, “But for how long?”. Not this guy. I will also no longer consider the relationship between providing access to benefits requisite of a financial investment and how that access (or lack of) might relate to my perceived status or my competitive position relative to other men’s ability for provisioning which may or may not be evaluated within that critical early stage.

    But according to the stated preferences of women, the SMP should be based on everyone going on proper dates and splitting the bill 50/50 – that is in those extremely rare cases when there is actually a bill to split. Yet I have this strange sense that it just might be risky to split that bill… In any case, my co-signature of this arrangement awaits this inevitable intersection of women’s desires and reality.

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

      @Tasmin

      I see that you are getting a little testy, and I totally get it, so I hesitate to play devil’s advocate about the $ thing. However, there are a couple of points I think are worth making. One is that the sex ratio plays a role. When women are scarce men spend more, and vice versa.

      http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2012/01/23/mit_study_says_men_spend_more_money_if_women_are_scarce/

      The other is that women do spend a lot of money on dating. Dressing (clothing, shoes) and Grooming (Hair, Nails, Waxing, Makeup) are costly. Now, if a man is cool with his date not putting that time into looking good for him, fine. But a lot of men here emphasize these things quite heavily, and they are costly. Add in the monthly cost of the gym and it’s clear that women do invest in dating. I agree that the benefit is less tangible, and not necessarily for you alone, but if it’s a male requirement, then women have to pay up.

  • Plain Jane

    “So why do women bemoan the death of “dating”? It seems that if the young women had an issue with the “where U at?” approach they would just not play that game. Particularly those who are able to go out on actual dates with older men; they have a direct experiential comparison. And presuming the older guys have higher status, why then are these women wallowing in the shallows with the booty-call text banter at all?”

    Whoa! How much “older” are you talking about here?

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    Hey, women love drama right? This subject = lots of drama. (although I think we are all behaving very well, if I may pat myself on the back so boldly!)

    That might actually explain why there are so few girls in this thread. Normally when we bring up hypergamy, there’s a lot of drama, and the women participate in it, but this time when we discuss it without drama, they all seem to be gone.

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

      @INTJ

      That might actually explain why there are so few girls in this thread. Normally when we bring up hypergamy, there’s a lot of drama, and the women participate in it, but this time when we discuss it without drama, they all seem to be gone.

      Ha, that is not true! I can assure you that during many of those conversations, the women have slipped away until I was the only X chromosome on the thread.

      I think that it gets to what I’ve discussed before. Young women do not perceive the need to swallow the Red Pill. I’m working on that – they have their own they need to swallow and they totally need to get why men are digesting it. But if you could see which of my posts are the most heavily trafficked, they are not the posts that are the most heavily commented on. When young women find HUS via the search query “why don’t I have a boyfriend?” they do not generally get referred to “The Hypergamy Acceptance Movement.” The audience for these ‘sphere posts is probably limited – commenters probably are a much larger share of readers on these.

  • deti

    Serial monogamy, cohabitation, thuggery and single motherhood are replacing stable marriages, which is a sign that these couples are unable or unwilling to retain mutual attraction. These people see each other more and more as unfit for relationships.
    +1

    In addition, Susan, the underclass sees alternatives as suitable replacements for LTRs or marriage. For women wanting providers, the beta provider State is adequate because it gives the underclass woman and her thugspawn food, medical care and shelter, and doesn’t demand sex in return.

    For the underclass or unattractive man wanting sex, online porn is his alternative of choice. Porn is free and requires neither effort nor Game, nor demands to be texted back or taken out for dinner and a movie.

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

      @deti

      In addition, Susan, the underclass sees alternatives as suitable replacements for LTRs or marriage. For women wanting providers, the beta provider State is adequate because it gives the underclass woman and her thugspawn food, medical care and shelter, and doesn’t demand sex in return.

      For the underclass or unattractive man wanting sex, online porn is his alternative of choice. Porn is free and requires neither effort nor Game, nor demands to be texted back or taken out for dinner and a movie.

      Yes, I do understand this. The overwhelming nature of those problems is part of why I’ll stick to my “educated” bubble. I feel like I can reach people who can effect change with their actions.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    The interesting thing about this is that in all these cases, adults tried to speak with the girls to mold their behavior. They talked about character, right and wrong, being kind to others, etc. None of that worked. It was not until incentives changed that behavior changed.

    Precisely. This is the problem with liberal morality. They try to teach people what is right and wrong, but aren’t willing to force people to behave right. That’s why we have such a non-judgemental attitude (except for feminists, who’re judgmental towards men). It doesn’t work.

    There’s a lesson there for men in the SMP. I don’t begin to think I can persuade women to “be attracted” to beta males. Beta males must be attractive. (Note I did not say they must be alpha.)

    That’s like telling your daughter to not be a serf in the roleplaying game. Easier said than done.

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

      That’s like telling your daughter to not be a serf in the roleplaying game. Easier said than done.

      Yup, I know. That’s why I asked Lokland what percentage of Deltas and Gammas can actually find Game helpful. Game does shift the incentives.

  • Plain Jane

    “You are wrong. Medical doctors used to have to manually masturbate women to orgasm as a cure for hysteria. In fact, the vibrator was invented to relieve doctors of this burden, because it was consuming so much of their time around 1900.”

    That was just in one culture amongst many this planet offered up in a specific time and place – Victorian British culture. And it was a scam. Shame human sexuality so that “doctors” and other “professional men” can make money off of women and give it a name to make it sound official.
    All they needed was oral sex from their husbands/lovers (shame! shame! that’s not missionary position!) or manual stimulation from themselves but both masturbation and oral sex was considered “sinful”. Remember, the medical industry supported the genital mutilation (circumcision) of baby boys as a valid means to prevent masturbation later on.

    “Look it up. Even in modern times many women can’t bring themselves to orgasm on their own with just their fingers.”

    Great. Now I’ve got a man on a blog telling me how I can or cannot bring myself to orgasm. Friend, I had that all figured out and squared away by 11. And it did not involve inserting objects either.

  • Plain Jane

    Why back in mod?

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

      Why back in mod?

      No clue, I have just whitelisted you which should prevent that.

      Maybe the spam filter just got to know you really well. :)

  • J

    That might actually explain why there are so few girls in this thread. Normally when we bring up hypergamy, there’s a lot of drama, and the women participate in it, but this time when we discuss it without drama, they all seem to be gone.

    Actually I saw this thread last night and decided not to get involved in the inevitable drama that this subjct invariably generates. When I saw that things were cool, I jumped in.

  • J

    Plaster dildoes? I thought the discriminating captain’s wife demanded scrimshaw.

    Seriously, can plaster stand up to the task at hand? (Pardon the puns.) Wouldn’t the heat and moisture involved cause it to flake apart inside the vagina?

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

      I thought the discriminating captain’s wife demanded scrimshaw.

      HAHA!

      Seriously, can plaster stand up to the task at hand? (Pardon the puns.) Wouldn’t the heat and moisture involved cause it to flake apart inside the vagina?

      Yikes, I’m not sure! I read about this in the book In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex by Nathaniel Philbrick. Let me google.

      OK, lol, I just searched on Nantucket antique dildo and got fed a page of limericks. “There once was a man from Nantucket…”

      There’s a few scurrilous historical anecdotes about the Nantucket women, rumoured to be addicted to a morning dose of opium and marital aids, ‘he’s at home’ being the polite euphamism for the plaster cast dildos of the era. As the whaling industry expanded across the globe, Nantucket husbands were often away at sea for years, home for a few months, then gone again.

  • Tasmin

    @Susan
    Least interest is a quite a bitch. I am glad to hear that some of the young women have shifted their strategy and the Ted & Bev situation sounds cute. Getting out of the comfort zone is a good thing – perhaps even a requirement. The description really does sound like the fumblings of post-college social circles. I have to think way back to those days, but i think my college experience was so unique and my social circles were no where near as intact – we spread out to the far reaches right after graduation and work left little time for out of office shenanigans that admittedly I struggle to relate with all of this herd behavior.

    It also feels like the fumbling, herd approach is infesting further up and into the SMP. Maybe that is the least interest effect, but I see an increasing amount of the texting arrangements and decreasing formality of how people come together within my age group. It is frustrating to me for many reasons, not the least of which is having to endure or witness the cross-purposing and subsequent confusion – and wasted time!

    I watch as women friends in their 30′s who want marriage and children adopt the approach of the herds of 24 y/o’s and then wonder why they can’t find what they are looking for. I can tell you that the majority of men I know sending and answering those texts are not looking to lock down and impregnate a woman anytime soon. Hey, they might surprise themselves, but their intent and priorities are nowhere near that of many women who use that approach. I guess that is why I get frustrated when certain questions raised by men are addressed in such a simplistic manner, as if we are the ones with the massive blind spots.

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

      @Tasmin

      I watch as women friends in their 30′s who want marriage and children adopt the approach of the herds of 24 y/o’s and then wonder why they can’t find what they are looking for. I can tell you that the majority of men I know sending and answering those texts are not looking to lock down and impregnate a woman anytime soon. Hey, they might surprise themselves, but their intent and priorities are nowhere near that of many women who use that approach. I guess that is why I get frustrated when certain questions raised by men are addressed in such a simplistic manner, as if we are the ones with the massive blind spots.

      I hear you. I don’t have too many women in their 30s asking me for advice (none, in fact). However, if I did here’s what I would suggest. That they tell men right off the bat they are seeking a serious relationship leading to marriage. Yes, they might scare some good guys away, but IMO they need a very aggressive filter to maximize their opportunities in a narrow time frame. They should also be prepared to explain why they are a good bet – a catch – and that should focus on what they can bring to the relationship, not what they expect.

      And speaking of hypergamy, If I were 35 and single and making a good living I would be totally open to dating men who made less than myself. The right way to think about it is “If we pool our resources, do we have enough for a comfortable life?” Now, I admit I would want them to have other kinds of prestige – intellectual would do it for me, but YMMV, obvs.

      A woman could do everything I just mentioned and make a good match without “settling,” but only if she has good values.

  • J

    Would it be so hard for women to just say this? I’d much rather know that she wasn’t into me than wonder if my “presentation” sucked.

    Women are tremendously afraid of hurting people. They feel they have to let guys down easily. They are also, to a leser degree, afraid of male anger.

    Men do something similar in terms of avoiding hurtful situations. Rather than talk things out or deliver the bad news, they just diasppear. DH once was broken up with a woman for three weeks before she realized it. I’ve had men just go missing and sat around wondering what was happening. It’s a cruel thing to do, but men do it.

  • Plain Jane

    Why am I back in mod?

    “When my daughter was in kindergarten, she and another girl were very competitive in general, and the dynamic was not a positive one. I was unaware of this, but learned of it when the other girl’s mom called me and asked me if we could work on it together.”

    What do you mean it was not a “positive” dynamic”? Surely you wouldn’t discourage competition in your children would you? Is it because they were girls that competition was seen fit to be socialized out of them?

    ” What is to fear? I haven’t seen a single guy here argue that men don’t tend to want sexual variety. Pretty much every man I know is fully aware of their desires, and most of them know how to control them. Some don’t control them, but it is a matter of choice.

    Women however seem to be unaware of at least some of their natural desires (I’ll avoid using the word base…) and in being so unaware can often claim ignorance for misbehavior. ”

    Susan,
    “I don’t know where the idea originates that women are not aware of what they like”

    Tell me about it. The ones pimping this idea must not know or talk in depth with very many women.

    Throughout our lives we talk about what we want and like in men, from “types” (this is my type, that’s not my type), to what moves, techniques, and styles of bedroom behaviour that turns us on.

    I knew from a very young age what sort of look and personality type I preferred and the gist of that has not changed, though some aspects have been tweaked for age appropriateness.

    We know EXACTLY what we want.

    All the women that go for bad boys, and I’ve known a handful, are very vocal about preferring that type.

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

      @Plain Jane

      What do you mean it was not a “positive” dynamic”? Surely you wouldn’t discourage competition in your children would you? Is it because they were girls that competition was seen fit to be socialized out of them?

      They were hurting each other’s feelings. I never learned who was threatened by whom, or why, but forcing them to go get ice cream a couple of times did the trick.

  • Plain Jane

    “Good point. I wonder if it’s just physical attraction, or do people also lack the skills to be good partners?”

    There is a huge lack of interpersonal, bonding and family building skills. Huge.

  • Lokland

    @Sue

    “You’re right”

    I know. :)

    “What do you think about that idea of stubborn resistance to lower SMV women? That seems to be what Deti was saying.”

    Yup. I can tell you that my chubby lil fat fuck self in high school totally ignored the only girl who showed interest in me in my entire life (exaggerated) who was also a chubby little fat fuck.
    I didn’t get the girls I wanted till I dropped 50 pounds and hit the gym.

    Yeah I think its very real as I was someone who did exactly that.

    “So, Lokland, that seems like a pretty tough climb – from Delta to Vox Beta. Do you think Game can get guys there?”

    Nope.
    First, game will never reach the majority.
    Second, the farther up the scale you go the less effective game becomes. Think of it like pain medication, you need more for the same effect the higher your tolerance becomes. most who try won’t make it.

    “Furthermore, in light of your recently expressed concern about my priorities, can you suggest what might be most helpful to Deltas here at HUS? The fact that Deltas like women is a huge plus from my perspective. In contrast, read Vox’s description of Gammas:”

    Let me lay out a hypothetical scenario.
    10 women and 10 men get stranded on an island and monogamy magically occurs.

    The SMVs of the men are 1 2 3 4 5 (two of each). The SMVs of the women are 10 9 8 7 6 (two of each).

    Guess who gets the SMV 5 guy? It’ll be a bloody fight between the two tens.

    As a general rule I’d say average female SMV is higher than average male SMV (your all such wonderfully beautiful creatures).

    So if the SMV 7 (average girl) wants a boyfriend, guess who she has to date? Hint, its not the SMV 7 guy.

    You can’t deal with SMVs as absolutes. Its representative of a sliding scale. If most guys are below average, most women get below average guys.

    Male SMVs are pyramidal, female SMVs (IMHO) are bulged at the 6,7 area.
    Assortative mating doesn’t necessitate the people have equal SMVs but merely the same value SMV which is dependent upon supply of that given SMV.

    ———————–

    I’ve said this a few times, most women don’t deserve a male 7. Most men deserve a female 7. Thats merely a facet of whats available on the market, bitch all you want but we can’t magically increase the product quality.

    However, this doesn’t change that guys are deluded into thinking they deserve porn quality women.

    For the guy, lower your standards, don’t watch porn and go to the fuckin gym.
    Other that stop staring at people and actually use that hole in your face to try speaking, It’ll improve with practice.

    Before you complain/argue: “In a social setting, the deltas are the men clustered together in groups, each of them making an occasional foray towards various small gaggles of women before beating a hasty retreat when direct eye contact and engaged responses are not forthcoming. ”

    ——————

    As for the women.

    Most of your readers don’t deserve and will be unable to attain a beta male. they are not hot enough.
    They themselves are average and will date an average man. (Read the first line of Vox’s Delta description.)

    You can encourage women to date betas all you want but for MOST of them, its outta their league. They do not have enough money to buy the nice purse, credit is available in the form of short term validation.

    Same rule applies though, boost your SMV as much as possible.

    ————-

    My general advice to both sexes, if you don’t like whats available improve yourself, if you can’t improve yourself further either accept whats availible or GTFO (ie. lower your fuckin standards tubby.)

    My advice to you, you can recommend women date beta men all you want and if they practice girl game they MIGHT succeed. At the same time, I can tell men that with enough game they can pull SMV 10s every night…..you see where this goes.

    If your curious, I did just compare you to the snake oil salesman that are game preachers, I see you as preaching something that is actually unattainable for most of your clientele. (However, unlike them, I think you are misinformed and not deluded.)

    My 2 cents.
    Most women HAVE TO date/marry deltas. Purely by the numbers, or get cats.

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

      @Lokland

      If your curious, I did just compare you to the snake oil salesman that are game preachers, I see you as preaching something that is actually unattainable for most of your clientele. (However, unlike them, I think you are misinformed and not deluded.)

      My 2 cents.
      Most women HAVE TO date/marry deltas. Purely by the numbers, or get cats.

      First, I have never said that I am trying to get all my readers to marry Vox betas. I am trying to get my readers to find partners, and a big part of that is knowing your own value on the market. So if my reader is in the 50% percentile of MMV, she’d better be prepared to marry a man with the same MMV or stay single.

      I am not preaching something unattainable. I am saying that every transaction of commitment will reflect the relative contributions of each party. Men dictate their standards, women dictate female standards. If two low ranking people find each other and fall in love because the woman read here, then I have succeeded.

      I have no cutoffs for attractiveness. That’s one of the reasons I grow weary of all the threads arguing about who is hot and who is not. It doesn’t accomplish anything.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “And you got all the way through college waiting for girls to come to their senses? I find that hard to believe.”

    Actually I technically waited until just a few years ago when I found Athol’s site to learn this, as hard as it may be for you to believe it. Don’t forget, I spent most of my life in LTRs with women that were not the norm. I didn’t have to figure this stuff out, because I wasn’t “on the market” actively looking. Imagine how much this all sucked considering I found out at 38 years old after a divorce!

    “I suspect that some boys are told this when very young, and begin to be aware of it as they age.”

    That assumes that the boy in question has a decent set of social skills to base that learning on. Remember Susan, I simply do NOT relate well to the average person. Not that I’m better or worse than the average Joe, I simply don’t understand what motivates him.

    “Also, introversion is a big factor. Women are drawn to extroverts, and introverts struggle with the kinds of behaviors necessary to grab attention from girls as they grow up. They are not big risk takers as a rule, nor are they cocky funny, charming with the ladies, etc.”

    I’m beginning to believe this was/is much of my problem actually. To be honest, I am considered to be rather charming and humorous by those few women that actually get to know me. The thing is, there are very few that ever do get to know me well enough to realize this.

    “This is an interesting statement, because it implies that you would have grown up assuming most women are stupid if they don’t choose you or guys like you.”

    Absolutely! But you know my opinion of ‘people’ in general isn’t so great either.

    “How did that affect your attempts to date? Did you assume that the hot girls who went for the top males were stupid, but that the girls who were willing to date awkward males were wise?”

    YES YES YES! In fact, I still tend to think women that choose thugs over decent guys are stupid. It is what it is… and my attempts to date were few and far between. When I found a girl that actually got to know me and liked what she found, I locked it down and stuck with it until the bitter end. Hence my LTRs all lasting 4 years or more starting at the age of 16.

    “And did that make them more attractive?”

    Surprisingly it did, at least for the few women I ended up in LTRs with. I considered them to be rather mature for their age (which in fact they mostly were) and they also tended to be higher in IQ than the average HS cheerleader, based on their scholastic achievements and whatnot.

    “You were misinformed. Hypergamy is highly logical.”

    I disagree. Hypergamy is simply a natural drive. What makes it logical or illogical is how a woman applies it to find a mate. Most women don’t sit and think logically about what guy is the best choice, they tend to simply go with the flow and see what happens, which to me is highly illogical. I have never spent any amount of time with another human being (man or woman) without first having a lengthy “thinking” session about whether or not it makes logical sense to do so. In other words, if I liked a person but they seemed to be a ‘bad influence’ I didn’t persue a relationship with them, be it friendship or romantic. I base almost everything I do on some form of logic, and in some cases my decision goes completely against how I feel about it.

    “The pairings between ugly people are very numerous, and they’ve got their children in tow, who are also clearly on their way to being 4s. I don’t see evidence that 4s don’t marry. Jerry Springer almost entirely features 4s.”

    And what is the current divorce rate in this group of people? THAT is the problem. Sure they may marry and have kids, but are most of them managing to keep it together for a lifetime? I think not, and the primary reason might just be lack of attraction. Without that, there is little to keep two people together other than perhaps financial incentives.

    “LOL, I think you’d be happiest with a male-brained woman.”

    How many times have I said that here? At least a handful! And every time I’m basically told I’m looking for a unicorn. I have no complaints, my wife is one of the most rational women I’ve ever known, which is why we work well together. She is still a woman, but she makes up for it. Just Kidding ladies! Honest attempt at humor there…

    “I think the women who truly tingle for alpha douchebags are not going to find other traits attractive enough to take the place of that level of dominance. I believe that women riding the carousel are alpha chasers for life, or would be if they could pull it off.”

    I agree, but I’m not talking about the women who are truly unrestricted Susan. I’m talking about the vast majority of women who are restricted, yet spend their 20’s bouncing from Alpha to Alpha attempting to get a LTR out of the deal. They just don’t seem to put 2 and 2 together until well past the time when they probably should have found their future husband. The alpha chasers can keep on keeping on, but the woman that want relationships from alphas are the ones fooling themselves. And, what makes matters worse? When they finally realize their mistake, guys like me that might be a good prospect for them are pissed off that they have a sexual history with asshats/cads/whatever and a higher N than they themselves do.

    “Of course, but it does seem as in this SMP quite a few men (mostly at the low end of the scale?) reject women with the same SMV as theirs. They seem to be saying, “I’m a 4, but I’m only willing to bang 5s and up.” That’s a tough sell, obvs.”

    Not exactly. Often the problem is the female 4’s aren’t attracted to the male 4 either. So, even IF they marry, it is likely to fail long term because there is a lack of mutual attraction. And, there are no longer any social pressure to STAY married if you are not “haaaaaaaaapy”.

    JP – “Nope.
    Missed this entirely.
    I think I was too busy contemplating cosmology.”

    I was reading about space, electronic synthesis of sound (I bought a book when I was 13 to learn how to build circuits to make music. Of course back then you couldn’t just go to a music store to buy a synthesizer unless you had 50K to spend) I also started teaching myself to program in BASIC at 14.

    “Isn’t part of the problem that the women have to be attractive enough for men to not be turned off by their physical appearance?
    It’s kind of hard to have a relationship with someone who you find physically distasteful.”

    Steel on Target! Is there any wonder why divorce is such a problem for the lower 50%?

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

      @Ted D

      I’m talking about the vast majority of women who are restricted, yet spend their 20’s bouncing from Alpha to Alpha attempting to get a LTR out of the deal

      I’ll just say that I don’t think this is accurate based on what I’ve learned. Restricted women do not bounce. :)

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “I was the only X chromosome on the thread.”

    Face-meet-palm-meet-desk.

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

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

      Face-meet-palm-meet-desk.

      Haha, you’re like my science teacher. I actually knew that one, I just messed up. I should have said only XX.

  • Plain Jane

    “The other is that women do spend a lot of money on dating. Dressing (clothing, shoes) and Grooming (Hair, Nails, Waxing, Makeup) are costly. Now, if a man is cool with his date not putting that time into looking good for him, fine. But a lot of men here emphasize these things quite heavily, and they are costly. Add in the monthly cost of the gym and it’s clear that women do invest in dating.”

    Thankyou Susan!

    Excellent and overlooked point. I remember after my divorce when I started dating this one guy (lasted at least a year, imagine the cost), and I for the first time in my life started buying clothes, lots of the men, to look good for him. Did he ever compliment how I looked in a dress? Nope. I bought cute swim wear for the beach, for him, when previously I just wore shorts and T’s to swim. I also invested in painful waxing (never EVER again and I’m not even talking about Mount St. Venus here), and very expensive natural/organic lip and eye colors (much pricier than the cancer causing petro-chemical brands). This all at a time when I did not have a lot of money.

    Sure, he paid for a few dates, big deal and discounted airline flights, big deal. It in no way compared to how much I spent on attempting to look good to please him.

    And I have never done that since. Now, if any guy wants me he’ll have to take me as I am, au naturale, otherwise I can’t be bothered and I certainly cannot afford it. What to speak of finding it morally wrong to spend that much money on stupid shit for myself and him when I know children who are struggling to get 3 square meals a day.

    Right spending is a virtue.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Good point. I wonder if it’s just physical attraction, or do people also lack the skills to be good partners?”

    I am 100% sure it is both. Everyone in general seems to believe they deserve a “hawter” person than they actually do based on their own MMV, and both sexes are sadly misinformed about the other.

    Lovely place we find ourselves while trying to raise healthy children into adulthood!

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Lokland, male SMV is in the eye of the prospective female. A lot of girls would not find my husband hot, but I totally do. He’s my 10, but some other girl’s 5 or 7 or whatever. So really you have to take the niche thing into account when doing the math.

  • Mireille

    INTJ

    That might actually explain why there are so few girls in this thread. Normally when we bring up hypergamy, there’s a lot of drama, and the women participate in it, but this time when we discuss it without drama, they all seem to be gone.

    You’re mistaken; We’re actually lurking. As you mentionned, this thread is a great festival of “Women are evil, amirite?”. The bemoaners of female hypergamy are all reveling like pigs in mud. No reason to engage in that. It isn’t because we love drama; it’s because there is no way any of the guys around here will actually change their mind or consider a different opinion so why comment?

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

      @Mireille

      As you mentionned, this thread is a great festival of “Women are evil, amirite?”. The bemoaners of female hypergamy are all reveling like pigs in mud.

      Ah, I think this debate is a big improvement in tone. I’m trying to refrain from getting defensive (which can be a challenge) and I do think that the guys are doing a good job of explaining their POV in a neutral and informative way. I don’t think we’re going to remove all emotion from some of these touchy topics, and that’s OK.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Yup, I know. That’s why I asked Lokland what percentage of Deltas and Gammas can actually find Game helpful. Game does shift the incentives.”

    If we can assume that every man in the world learns about game, I’d wager that at best 20% of all Deltas and Gammas can improve their lot in life.

    But also keep in mind, IF that were to happen, it would simply up the ante in terms of what a man brings to the table, because if all Deltas became Betas, Betas would lose their value.

    What Lokland said is true: for the vast majority of your readership, a Delta is what they probably deserve based on their own real MMV. After all, if most people are average or less, then most peope deserve to marry average or less.

    It totally sucks to realize this, but there isn’t much to be done about it other than accept it and try to make the best deal you can for yourself. That being said, it probably means that many women will have to marry guys they really DO NOT find that attractive, and IME that leads to divorce down the road. Which is probably a contributor to the rampant divorce rates and declining marriage rates in the lower 50%.

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

      @Ted D

      That being said, it probably means that many women will have to marry guys they really DO NOT find that attractive, and IME that leads to divorce down the road. Which is probably a contributor to the rampant divorce rates and declining marriage rates in the lower 50%.

      Under this logic, women would always have had to do so. I think it was deti who said that in the old days couples became unattractive to one another but didn’t divorce, they just sucked it up. So there were lots of marriages with little attraction, probably infrequent sex, and little emotional intimacy. I don’t think that sounds so great. Of course, most marriages throughout history had nothing to do with romantic love.

      I would never marry someone I didn’t have the hots for. That’s just crazy. I can make enough money to take care of myself and even have a baby if I want to. Life with a partner I found unattractive would be torture.

      The marriage rate is declining in part because more men and women are unsure they want to marry at all.

  • Ted D

    Mireille – “As you mentionned, this thread is a great festival of “Women are evil, amirite?”. The bemoaners of female hypergamy are all reveling like pigs in mud. No reason to engage in that.”

    Please. This has been the most civil discussion on hypergamy I’ve seen anywhere on the ‘net including HUS. My honest take on it? Women simply don’t want to admit the truth when it comes to this stuff. Talking about it destroys the “feminine mystique” and that removes power from women in the SMP/MMP.

    But maybe I’m just a bitter pig wallowing in the mud.

    *Note: remember when we had that discussion a thread back about statements meant to instigate hostility? Your entire last post strikes me as one of those…

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    ” seems like a pretty tough climb – from Delta to Vox Beta. Do you think Game can get guys there? Furthermore, in light of your recently expressed concern about my priorities, can you suggest what might be most helpful to Deltas here at HUS?”

    I’ll let lokland speak for himself, but I personally don’t like being advised to learn more Game. I find it’s only purpose to be: abolished the pedestal, or to become a PUA. Everything else, I beleive, really only requires a taste of the manosphere. Again all IMO, but I think all Game teaches is how to have contempt for women.

    “Maybe liking women should be the one requirement for men who want to hang out here.”

    “Liking women” should be a requirement, but also the reason Game can work for Delta/Gamma with their hands over their eye, is because so often “liking women” can end up vein detrimental in attracting women.

    I don’t get why, for some girls, it’s such a turnoff for a guy to like them. It’s cause they loose respect for the guy, cause they rarely feel like they’ve earned it. I’m kinda like Ted in the way that I only keep those I want close, close. So, for me to even wish to spend time with a certain girl, she has in a way had to already earn that. But girls don’t see it that way, they’re so used to platonic relationship, or guys willing to orbit, that they literally loose respect for the guy who sees them as more, that early. But I’m literally never going to be investing myself, at all, before I like them somewhat.

    Yesterday you had said this:
    “@Cooper
    “That is my basis of believing that there must be women who would feel the same about hypergamy.”
    Exactly! You are in the long tail, and there’s an equal number of women there on our side of the fence.” #83

    It got me thinking about what type of girls are going to be in my “tail end.”
    It made me think up one my crazy analogies. It’s like I’m on the sidewalk (SMP) trying to flag down a cab (women) by waving my hand full of cash (emotional investment) – but to my dismay the cabs are passing and stopping to ask people with their wallets in their pockets whether they want to pay for a cab ride. This leaves me on the corner saying “wtf, I showed then exactly what they wanted, why’s they pass on it?”

    It’s made to realize, something I’ve mentioned before, that the female equivalent is to be offering sex, and thus getting no value for it.
    I understand the failure, but I still think if two people are very proactive about finding someone, waving around your “cash” isn’t a bad way to show you want a “cab.” (cookies for anyone still keeping up!)

    This is truly a “long tail” mentality. (Similar to how I dispel my base nature, a slut too also dispels hypergamy)
    So, am I destined to be matches with a slut? It really seems we are each other equivalents. It also coincides with my hookups, cause majority of them were seemingly-unrestricted girls, quite literally, dragging me away from parties. (It once took two!)

    It seems there is little appreciation, if any, for male chasity. Oddly, or perhaps ironically, I’m starting to wonder whether a slut would be the most appreciate it.

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

      @Cooper

      I was right there with you until this:

      This is truly a “long tail” mentality. (Similar to how I dispel my base nature, a slut too also dispels hypergamy)
      So, am I destined to be matches with a slut?

      NO! A slut is the most hypergamous woman of all! She uses her vag to tempt higher SMV men into hookups for one night. She has embraced life on the carousel, so she sees the benefit in trading up based on her sexual availability (although she may be deluded about this).

      A slut is also much more likely to crave a taste of that old sexual variety after marriage, which is of course why men don’t want to risk high N in a partner.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Ted:

    Please. This has been the most civil discussion on hypergamy I’ve seen anywhere on the ‘net including HUS.

    Which is a surprise, and which is why more women are now beginning to chime in.

    You and INTJ have this bass-ackwards. If women here felt comfortable discussing their flaws in good faith, they would.

    But maybe I’m just a bitter pig wallowing in the mud.

    You said it, not me. :P

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

    I’ve tried to get to understand underlying causes of hook-up vs. traditional dating and some of the results have been really interesting. For instance, let’s say that a girl and guy meet out, with their friends around, 3-4 times and then have sex. Total elapsed time spent together may be 12 hours or something.

    Another girl and guy go on 3-4 dates where time is spent in an exclusive, isolated situation, then have sex. Total elapsed time spent together may be the same 12 hours.

    Situation A will normally be described as an unsatisfying hook-up, while Situation B is a more female-friendly, traditional dating scenario. For our purposes here, let’s assume that, during Situation A, the male and female really were able to to spend time talking among themselves, albeit from within a more crowded social contextual sheath.

    I guess one could be cynical about this and say that women prefer Situation B simply because the man will end up paying more ($$$) and the woman will end up paying less, while Situation A might be more stressful for the woman, cause her to have to absorb some costs (transportation, cover charges, maybe buying a round of drinks or two, etc.), but that’s not necessarily true: the traditional date could be a fairly inexpensive one (especially if it takes place during the day—I think the timing is an important consideration), while the social scene could involve paying for expensive drinks and so on.

    What is it that makes Scenario B seem superior to Scenario A, indicative of good character and commitment orientation, etc.? If monetary costs were equal (which they probably are not), is it the idea that the privacy and exclusivity of Scenario B makes for a different kind of experience, one more likely to lead to a high-quality relationship?

    From a young man’s perspective, Situation A may be far less risky. He’s bound to have a good time because his friends are there, he has more control of his expenses, if he’s a student with a modest car (or no car) he doesn’t have to risk shaming himself with a traditional dating pick-up, etc. I’m not sure that young girl’s fully appreciate what young guys would have to endure to make a “traditional dating” world reappear in an environment that boasts record-high levels of female educational/professional achievement; these courtship costs are shouldered asymmetrically and many male students just don’t have slush funds to throw around.

    I think that we can be a bit unfair in labeling men who pursue Scenario A strategies “douchebags” and “asshat players.” It may be that, for many young guys, traditional (nocturnal) dating is just not affordable for many student budgets anymore, and having a cheap meal separately before meeting up at drink-specials bars and parties becomes a cost-effective way of having an active nightlife.

    Thoughts?

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

      @BB

      What is it that makes Scenario B seem superior to Scenario A, indicative of good character and commitment orientation, etc.? If monetary costs were equal (which they probably are not), is it the idea that the privacy and exclusivity of Scenario B makes for a different kind of experience, one more likely to lead to a high-quality relationship?

      First, there is no way the two are going to get the same kind of intimate quality time in Situation A. Even if they stand alone at the bar, they’re not going to share their hopes and dreams in that setting.

      Second, they’re drinking – in many cases, a lot. Quite a few of these intended meetups never happen because one party or the other got too drunk. Next day texted apologies are common.

      Third, even if the costs were the same, the date says something about the male’s interest. He set aside time just to get to know her, put effort into thinking up a creative plan, etc. He didn’t just leave things to chance – he made a play for real connection.

      I’m not sure that young girl’s fully appreciate what young guys would have to endure to make a “traditional dating” world reappear in an environment that boasts record-high levels of female educational/professional achievement; these courtship costs are shouldered asymmetrically and many male students just don’t have slush funds to throw around.

      I agree, they do not appreciate that. I have said before that I really believe dating (were it ever to come back for that age group) would have to be 50/50. Feminism made women equal and there is no good reason whatsoever that men should pay more. Somehow, this needs to change – and as I’ve said, it is not only women perpetrating this problem. Recently a young woman told me that her bf absolutely refused to let her take him out for dinner to celebrate his birthday. He was adamant. She cooked for him instead, and it was fine, but this guy has a very, very strict idea that no girl of his will ever pay. It was actually very frustrating for her, as she is more than capable of contributing.

      I think that we can be a bit unfair in labeling men who pursue Scenario A strategies “douchebags” and “asshat players.”

      I agree, I think many of them are just playing by the rules they’ve known for several years. However, the truth is that a 23 yo guy looking to meet up at a bar is probably less interested in commitment than he will be in 5 years. So there’s that.

  • Plain Jane

    “What do you think about that idea of stubborn resistance to lower SMV women? That seems to be what Deti was saying.”

    Lokland,
    “Yup. I can tell you that my chubby lil fat fuck self in high school totally ignored the only girl who showed interest in me in my entire life (exaggerated) who was also a chubby little fat fuck.
    I didn’t get the girls I wanted till I dropped 50 pounds and hit the gym”

    The thing is some people prefer being alone to being with their SMV equals and prefer being able to eat whatever they want when they want to having to stop that just to get someone a few points higher.

    And I think increasingly people are ok with being unmarried their whole life. There’s something to be said for no compromise.

  • INTJ

    I seem to have misplaced my X-chromosome today. Better call mom and ask her if she took it back or something.

  • Lokland

    @Hope

    “So really you have to take the niche thing into account when doing the math.”

    Your correct. I examined everything from a very macro level. At the micro level it gets far more complex with subjective values which can change by varying degrees depending on the observer.

  • Cooper

    @BB

    I’m for a Situation B type guy – I usually shoot for dates. I find it counterproductive. I really only want a girl who WILL go on dates, but so often “a hangout” is often suggested instead, by girls.

    Going for dinner, nowadays, just screams “trying too hard” or “awkward.”
    I’ll keep trying it though.

  • Plain Jane

    “I for the first time in my life started buying clothes, lots of the men, to look good for him. ”

    LOL I just caught this. Was it a Freudian slip?

    I meant “lots of them” – meaning clothes.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    What is it that makes Scenario B seem superior to Scenario A, indicative of good character and commitment orientation, etc.? If monetary costs were equal (which they probably are not), is it the idea that the privacy and exclusivity of Scenario B makes for a different kind of experience, one more likely to lead to a high-quality relationship?

    Scenario A and B are equally bad from my personal perspective. A total of 12 hours spent together is not long enough to evaluate someone. My past has averaged 100+ hours before a makeout session, so I’ve never been “pumped and dumped.”

    The privacy and exclusivity of scenario B are important, but more important would be actually getting to know each other well and thoroughly vetting each other’s backgrounds. It doesn’t matter how it is done, just that it has been done.

    So for example, a girl and a guy can hang out together a few times in a group, but then talk to each other on the phone privately for about 20 hours each week, and then after a month they go on a single date together, by which time they have really gotten close and emotionally bonded, and they sleep together on that date. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    The tone of your post suggests offence.
    You must be aware that if i didn’t approve of what you were doing I wouldn’t be here.

    You’ve recommended betas in the past, your definition of beta has always been that of a VB.
    You cannot recommend betas to ALL women whilst being on the side of the deltas.

    I don’t think your wrong, merely that your definitions and reasonings require modification to reflect the new terminology.

    Date a beta ——> Date a beta/delta depending upon your own SMV rank.

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

      You’ve recommended betas in the past, your definition of beta has always been that of a VB.
      You cannot recommend betas to ALL women whilst being on the side of the deltas.

      That is where you are mistaken. It is true I have always liked Vox’s scheme, but nearly all of my uses of the term beta at HUS have been the more generic definition – because frankly, there is very little use of Vox’s definition. So I have spoken many times about “beta” to mean “non alpha.” In fact, I’ve been doing that in the last week or so – I’m really just interested in separating alphas from everyone else. I don’t have particular feelings about betas vs. deltas vs. gammas. (Although, as I said, I’m not too keen on the bitterness.)

  • Plain Jane

    PS:
    7 and 1/2 years later and I still have not needed to buy a single new item of clothing yet and I suspect this will be the case for the next 7 years. There are so many, and I keep them in good condition so maybe it was cost effective after all.

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    “After all, if most people are average or less, then most peope deserve to marry average or less.”

    This is not what i said.

    If most men are average or less, most women deserve a man who is average or less.

    Thats strictly part of a supply-demand curve.

    I have 0 training in economics and I know that.

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    Note: remember when we had that discussion a thread back about statements meant to instigate hostility? Your entire last post strikes me as one of those…

    *cough* women, drama *cough*

  • Lokland

    @Coop

    “I’ll let lokland speak for himself, ”

    I’d like to point out that my advice for men did not actually include game.
    I think learning to remove anti-game is useful whereas game is more for show.

  • INTJ

    @ Lokland

    I’m not sure I get the distinction between what you said and what Ted D said.

  • J

    However I would counter that those women often believe the next dysfunctional asshole IS indeed a higher status man. He isn’t, but perception is reality.

    I dunno, maybe they BS themselves that they aren’t going from the fying pan into the fire, but they still recognize a quality man when they see one–hence my cousins’ resentment of me.

  • Plain Jane

    Ted
    “I have a friend married to a woman that works in mental health, so I actually understand why you have liberal attitudes on many social issues. But I am very much a “grand scheme” type of person, which is to say I focus on the big picture, and leave the details to people that are better equipped to do so. In my IT capacity, I was once the “detail” guy, and I remember laughing and making snide comments when my manager would say something like “I don’t care how you do it, just get it done” because IMO it was easy for him to say, not knowing what it actually took to DO so. Now I am that manager, and I realized it isn’t lack of knowledge, it is a matter of priorities. I have other things to worry about than the actual work involved in getting something done. Other people get paid to do that. My job is simply to push the project along and fix any roadblocks along the way.

    When it comes to social issue, I work from a top down model as well. So, to me it makes sense to find the solution that works for most folks, and rely on people like yourself to figure out how to make it actually work for the individual people that perhaps can’t benefit from what works for “most” people. I don’t see people as individuals for the most part, but one large group that needs direction. As such, if I were in charge (Lord help us all!) I’d set policy that worked for the majority, and expect people smarter than myself to work out the details of making it work for everyone.”

    … I agree. There has to be an overall direction to a society or culture, while allowing for exceptions to exist but not become norms. Something like plural marriage is not for the masses who can’t even successfully manage monogamy.

  • Lokland

    @INTJ

    “I seem to have misplaced my X-chromosome today. Better call mom and ask her if she took it back or something.”

    My wife can’t seem to find mine. Would you mind asking your mum if she has a spare?

  • Plain Jane

    “They were hurting each other’s feelings.”

    That’s a normal part of life. But as you are her mom I know you knew what was best for her at the time.

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

    I don’t want to sound unsympathetic or mean-spirited, but I have little sympathy for the “make myself pretty” component of female dating costs. In fact, I personally find those concerns a bit frightening because they *could* indicate someone who is planning on relaxing these expenses—including gym fees and commitment to physical fitness, possibly even including sexual frequency/quality—once she has secured an LTR.

    Men don’t get a special hall pass where attractiveness-products are concerned; speaking for myself, I still feel that I should shop at well-edited menswear boutiques, buy good shoes, etc., both as a signal of resource command and a sign of respect for her time (and, perhaps even more importantly, my own). I still have to physically train and to be able to provide some modicum of intellectual stimulation/entertainment, conduct restaurant research, plan trips, purchase thoughtful date gifts, etc. Modern dating can be quite expensive for the man.

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

      In fact, I personally find those concerns a bit frightening because they *could* indicate someone who is planning on relaxing these expenses—including gym fees and commitment to physical fitness, possibly even including sexual frequency/quality—once she has secured an LTR.

      Yikes, that is a real problem, though what woman would want to go from an 8 to a 4?

      I hear you re dating costs, I don’t feel strongly about it myself, and I agree that men also incur many of the same costs. I think I’ve mentioned that my husband is an excellent dresser. He spends way, way more money on clothes than I do.

  • J

    plaster cast dildos

    Maybe that means cast in a plaster mold as opposed to being made of plaster.

    I once read that women once used lemon halves as diaphrams.

    Anway, I think we can all be grateful for modern technology.

  • Plain Jane

    What would you say about women aged 40 – 65 who say, “I know good men are good for me but I’ve always loved the bad boys. Its a risk I’m willing to take”? As they go riding off into the sunset on the back of an Angel’s Harley?

    Do they “not know what they want” and are they “denying their base instincts”?

  • SayWhaat

    @ INTJ:

    *cough* women, drama *cough*

    Ah, but here you are trying to stir the pot. Are you sure you don’t want a woman who causes drama? Remember, water seeks its own level… ;)

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    I gotta go but let me re-explain (as it must be obvious by now that I love my own words far too much)

    Your definition of beta has always been in line with Vox’s.
    Your definition of beta has never encompassed deltas.

    You have always recommended betas (Vox). You cannot continue to do so, deltas must become recommended as well.

    Instead of thinking of them as two separate categories, think of them as both betas but with varying degrees of social dominance/ prestige/ charisma. obviously, as per your logic, the VB is the better choice. However the VD is like the cheaper discount version. (Mac and PC).

    Both beta and delta are quite capable of forming lasting relationships that will be good for children. Delta is the slightly less confident/attractive version of beta.

    For the slightly less attractive women a delta is actually a decent match.

    So your new advice would be to recommend VD and VB depending upon the attractiveness of the women in question.

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

      Both beta and delta are quite capable of forming lasting relationships that will be good for children. Delta is the slightly less confident/attractive version of beta.

      For the slightly less attractive women a delta is actually a decent match.

      So your new advice would be to recommend VD and VB depending upon the attractiveness of the women in question.

      Consider it done, I like that suggestion.

  • Plain Jane

    “Hysteria” was nothing more than a fabricated Victorian British doctor’s scam.

    Not all cultures in the world shamed the clitorous and masturbation to such an extent. Male circumcision is still unheard of in my culture and when its heard of its rightly considered infant genital mutilation.

    Remember what I said about being careful not to assume the entire world thinks and works like X, Y, or Z culture at any given time in history?

    Hysteria, my ass.

  • Plain Jane

    “Under this logic, women would always have had to do so. I think it was deti who said that in the old days couples became unattractive to one another but didn’t divorce, they just sucked it up. So there were lots of marriages with little attraction, probably infrequent sex, and little emotional intimacy. I don’t think that sounds so great. Of course, most marriages throughout history had nothing to do with romantic love.”

    Its still like that now to some degree in my culture. Its assumed that love will bloom after the arranged marriage, and in many cases it does, but in many cases it also doesn’t. But there is still extremely little divorce.

  • Plain Jane

    “Men don’t get a special hall pass where attractiveness-products are concerned; speaking for myself, I still feel that I should shop at well-edited menswear boutiques, buy good shoes, etc., both as a signal of resource command and a sign of respect for her time (and, perhaps even more importantly, my own). I still have to physically train and to be able to provide some modicum of intellectual stimulation/entertainment, conduct restaurant research, plan trips, purchase thoughtful date gifts, etc. Modern dating can be quite expensive for the man.”

    I just have to add that not only did I spend a lot of money on clothes and other items to look good for him (never got a compliment for it either), but I also spent money buying HIM clothes!

    All he did was pay for a few nice dates and discounted airline tickets. Big freakin’ deal!

  • Plain Jane

    “I don’t want to sound unsympathetic or mean-spirited, but I have little sympathy for the “make myself pretty” component of female dating costs. In fact, I personally find those concerns a bit frightening because they *could* indicate someone who is planning on relaxing these expenses—including gym fees and commitment to physical fitness, possibly even including sexual frequency/quality—once she has secured an LTR. ”

    Well, it is ok to let yourself go and relax a little after 40.

  • Plain Jane

    “NO! A slut is the most hypergamous woman of all! She uses her vag to tempt higher SMV men into hookups for one night.”

    what if she’s having sex with low SMV men? I see it all the time.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    You’re right, I just looked at the definitions again:

    That actually sounds exactly like what the men here have described. I stand corrected.

    What do you think about that idea of stubborn resistance to lower SMV women? That seems to be what Deti was saying.

    So, Lokland, that seems like a pretty tough climb – from Delta to Vox Beta. Do you think Game can get guys there? Furthermore, in light of your recently expressed concern about my priorities, can you suggest what might be most helpful to Deltas here at HUS? The fact that Deltas like women is a huge plus from my perspective. In contrast, read Vox’s description of Gammas:

    I’m going to find that a lot harder to work with, obviously, and I suspect these are the men slumlord was addressing in his OP.

    Maybe liking women should be the one requirement for men who want to hang out here.

    Whoohoo! Now that we have the whole Delta vs. Beta business cleared up, we may be on the same page again!

    I still think there’s a missing category in Vox’s definitions though. My attitude towards most women is rather like the attitude of the Betas. I like them, but I’m not going to pedestalize them either. But the introversion that you mentioned keeps me from being a Beta, and prevents me from having success with women.

    The options for me are pretty bleak. When I entered college, I looked around at the success (or lack thereof) of others in my category, and perceived that I had a bad hand and defaulted to MGTOW to wait and get a mulligan. Most other males like me didn’t, and they ended up turning into Gammas.

    At this point, my options are limited. I’m really not capable of developing the extraversion needed to become a beta. I could turn into a sigma by adopting a much more selfish attitude towards women. But my moral inclinations make this attitude very difficult to adopt.

    Which means I’ll probably just end up turning into a Gamma. It’s really annoying, because I can see it coming from a mile away, but I can’t find a way to escape it.

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

      @INTJ

      How about trying on Delta for size and going from there?

  • Tasmin

    @Susan
    The sex ratio makes sense. Interesting though how in the female scarcity model women also expected men to pay/spend more. Part of my point was that these expectations are not readily on the surface, self-reporting is not reliable, and they are relative to other options both on the table – and more importantly, those in her mind. There are costs associated with figuring out where those expectations reside and in terms of the “date”, the man has to decide how to do so.

    But yeah its a little bit of a button for me ;-), primarily because IME there is a constant message that does not seem to match the market and honestly, it gets tedious. There are costs associated with figuring out out if $ is important to a woman and the level of that importance is slippery, dynamic, and relative. And so in light of a discussion on hypergamy, I’m not sure why the notion of expense/cost and risk was so easily reduced to “if she requires (x), she isn’t for you”.

    “But a lot of men here emphasize these things quite heavily, and they are costly. Add in the monthly cost of the gym and it’s clear that women do invest in dating. I agree that the benefit is less tangible, and not necessarily for you alone, but if it’s a male requirement, then women have to pay up.”

    A woman’s physical appearance is a “male requirement” as much as hypergamy is a “female requirement” and hypergamy is based on status and status is largely based on economic-provisioning-access to resources and “dating” is an opportunity (desired or not, conscious or not) to demonstrate these things within an SMP that rewards such.

    I get that women have their unique costs to bear – though most are not specific to dating and certainly not specific to me. Most men could give a shit about expensive shoes, handbags, etc. and it is generally accepted that a great deal of this spending is for other women. Hair, makeup, sure. Regardless, the diffusion of those costs is substantial; the benefit is not finite or exclusive. But still, can’t all of those womanly expenses spent solely for the purpose of appealing to men’s desires be categorized the same way?

    e.g. “if a man is (just) into how you look, your hair/makeup/clothing/shoes/handbag he isn’t worth the trouble?” That is PJ’s take and thats cool, but I have a feeling if she were under your advisement you would recommend spending a little $ to project her femininity and physical attributes in an SMP that is on the whole responsive to such? And that recommendation doesn’t mean there are not men out there who don’t care, but it means that you recognize that it is a substantial risk to NOT spend that $ in light of the competitive marketplace and that even men who *may* not need those things are still going to have a biological undercurrent in terms of attraction that will very much respond positively to those things.

    In terms of a “date” her costs amortize and the “n” can be quite high. Mine are either sunk or realized or avoided, but they are mine to bear. I spend $ when I want to, but the notion that the optionality in terms of $ is equitable for a man and a woman in a date situation just doesn’t ring up.

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

      @Tasmin

      In terms of a “date” her costs amortize and the “n” can be quite high. Mine are either sunk or realized or avoided, but they are mine to bear. I spend $ when I want to, but the notion that the optionality in terms of $ is equitable for a man and a woman in a date situation just doesn’t ring up.

      Agreed, I just thought I’d float that balloon. I know that my son is constantly fretting – her birthday is coming, that means a gift and dinner out, she wants to try that new bar, the drinks there are $14, etc. They do split costs for the most part, but he feels more pressure than she does to get nice gifts and that sort of thing. Also, he would be happy to go out less, but because she likes going out he winds up having to spend money on himself just to go along with the plan.

      And she’s a great kid, she doesn’t take him for granted at all. Which just proves your point that “if the woman balks, she isn’t worth it” is not really a very good metric. Most women will expect substantial financial investment over time. Relationships are expensive, even with women who are not at all materialistic.

  • INTJ

    @ Cooper

    (It once took two!)

    Lol you da man dude.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    How about trying on Delta for size and going from there?

    What? That would also require me to become rather extraverted and manage to fit in to social groups. If I managed that, I’d probably become a beta anyways.

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

      @INTJ

      That would also require me to become rather extraverted and manage to fit in to social groups

      IDK, you seem pretty extraverted here. I think you could do fine in social groups, as long as you had time alone to recharge. There’s a lot to be said for learning to imitate extraversion so you can do it when you have to. At least that is what a lot of introverted types have told me.

  • J

    Which means I’ll probably just end up turning into a Gamma. It’s really annoying, because I can see it coming from a mile away, but I can’t find a way to escape it.

    Really? I always picture you being introduced to a “suitable” girl by your parents and eventually ending up happier than most people.

  • INTJ

    @ Cooper

    I don’t get why, for some girls, it’s such a turnoff for a guy to like them. It’s cause they loose respect for the guy, cause they rarely feel like they’ve earned it. I’m kinda like Ted in the way that I only keep those I want close, close. So, for me to even wish to spend time with a certain girl, she has in a way had to already earn that. But girls don’t see it that way, they’re so used to platonic relationship, or guys willing to orbit, that they literally loose respect for the guy who sees them as more, that early. But I’m literally never going to be investing myself, at all, before I like them somewhat.

    Holy crap this makes so much sense. Us introverts tend to have very high standards for who we let in, but once we let someone in, we tend to be really nice to them. Girls don’t notice the selectivity and mistake us for lesser Deltas.

    The female equivalent would be a girl who screens for a worthwhile guy and then throws herself at him. Though she is very discriminating, she can get mistaken for a slut for not playing sexually hard to get.

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

      The female equivalent would be a girl who screens for a worthwhile guy and then throws herself at him. Though she is very discriminating, she can get mistaken for a slut for not playing sexually hard to get.

      Great insight, I’ve seen this happen. Restricted women worry about this a lot.

  • Tasmin

    @Plain Jane
    “Well, it is ok to let yourself go and relax a little after 40.”
    Assuming it is also ok for him to cut back to part time at work so he can fly fish and drink three fingers of Blanton’s uninterrupted in the shed while building a rocking chair out of that old hickory tree that came down last fall in that lightening strike. That and if both of you are well aware of the risks, re: attraction, lifestyle expectations, and the growing chasm between his SMV and yours that happens to be significant right around 40.

    I turn 40 next year. Somehow relaxing is the last thing on my mind. As much as three fingers of Blanton’s sounds tasty right about now, I’m off to the gym.

  • INTJ

    @ J

    Really? I always picture you being introduced to a “suitable” girl by your parents and eventually ending up happier than most people.

    Yeah arranged marriage is perfect for Gammas or would be Gammas. My parents are mostly out of the loop w.r.t. the whole Indian matchmaking thing, but I could always luck out with my mom introducing me to a suitable student from her college classes or something.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Ha, yeah, just wanted to chime in that male fashion is DEFINITELY expensive, too.

    It takes a bit of money to look good, no matter which side of the SMP you are on.

    It was especially difficult for me, because my family does not believe in fashion, period. My mother is a penny-pincher, my father is blue collar and thinks shirts with less than 5 holes in them are acceptable evening wear. Talk abut an uphill fight

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Great insight, I’ve seen this happen. Restricted women worry about this a lot.

    Yes. I’m glad I realized this. I’m guilty of this mindset, but now I can consciously avoid it. Doing so would stop me from filtering out my natural counterparts.

  • Ion

    Cooper

    “Going for dinner, nowadays, just screams “trying too hard” or “awkward.”
    I’ll keep trying it though.”

    Reminds me of the old college days. Among sluttiest acquaintances, they were “shocked” at the idea of going off campus on dates when I told them, a few had a number of 20+ on me, and just never went out on dates. It was just that unheard of that guys and girls went to dinner and movies, unless they were actually serious (definitely after they knew each other pretty well and had sex).

    “Hanging out” meant meeting up informally at a house party, or someone’s dorm room, or a dive bar, free concert, etc., was definitely standard for 25 and under crowd. I can’t imagine that things have changed much since I graduated 2007.

    If younger folks do want to date more formally but not over-the-top check out timeoutny “free things to do”, and going the “I was planning to check out this free event, it looked pretty cool you should come” route. Informal, but still special enough.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    As for advice for deltas:

    -Basic red-pill deprogramming
    -Remove Anti-Game
    -Learn to approach women and not care too much about rejection

    This should remove a lot of the garbage results men are getting. That should improve interactions with women enough so that men can actually learn, going forward.

    Others:
    -Go to gym (but it really needs to be more specific…go to gym and do WHAT?!)
    -Build social networks
    -Dress a bit better
    -Have a positive male role model/mentor

    I think the last is pretty critical. Humans learn by modeling behavior. You need a mentor to show you the ropes, and I think most young men don’t have anything like that. There also aren’t really any positive role models in the media and I don’t think there really has been for, like, decades.

  • Tasmin

    @Susan
    “… he winds up having to spend money on himself just to go along with the plan.”

    “if the woman balks, she isn’t worth it” is not really a very good metric. Most women will expect substantial financial investment over time. Relationships are expensive, even with women who are not at all materialistic.”

    I suppose thats it in a much more concise form. I try to only date women who hold $ in a similar value system. This is hard to establish without actually doing stuff. Even then I find that over time, things adjust. You can only cook at home so many times, or go to the museums on free days, or botanic gardens, or picnics, etc. – especially if the social circle is going out a lot, before that nagging feeling that you are not performing comes around.

    And the “tells” for these views are extremely difficult because her own choices are not always straight-lined. I’ve dated women who are doing good things, teaching, social work, nonprofit, etc. who make little money and live very modestly, who don’t shop, etc. but those are conditions upon which she lives, not those upon which she desires to live. And it is tough when you can see them struggle with reconciling their desire for a “good” man and their desire for a trajectory of lifestyle. It isn’t that the women aren’t out there, but it also isn’t a matter of dismissing the obvious. So it goes.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    IDK, you seem pretty extraverted here. I think you could do fine in social groups, as long as you had time alone to recharge. There’s a lot to be said for learning to imitate extraversion so you can do it when you have to. At least that is what a lot of introverted types have told me.

    Well there’s a few things. First, the internet is a natural refuge for introverts. I think the author of “Quiet” talked about that. But the bigger thing is that while I can be very social (unlike some introverts), I can only do so in small groups. Additionally, when the conversation shifts to small talk, I have a hard time participating. I can be very eloquent when talking about something I’m passionate about, but can’t or the life of me fake any small talk. This is why in certain groups, I tend to sit in the corner, while in other groups, I tend to be the AMOG. Unfortunately, the latter groups are usually heavily, if not exclusively, male.

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    I guess slut isn’t the right word, as it does imply an overly promiscuous and extremely hypergamous woman.I was meaning someone who may have been P&D’d a bunch of times.

    @INTJ
    #437, exactly.

    Believe it or not, it’s why I always resonate with the Charlie character from te show Girls’ (not sure if you watched it) when he said “I chose you.”
    I’m rather selective in who I choose to give my attention, but it’s usually all-in after that. Which of course, yea, comes off as a lesser delta – or undeserved pedestalization.

    Re:#432
    I think it may have cause me to “peak” way too early. Quite the story nonetheless, the two of them were kissing each by the time I had my “Ooh! I get what’s going on!” moment.

  • mr. wavevector

    Mr. Wavevector – “I’ve read several things recently that suggested that assortative mating is actually increasing among educated Americans.”

    That’s fine and well, but what about the less educated Americans? I mean, divorce in the UMC is pretty damn low, but look at the stats for high school educated poor folks. It’s a freaking disaster, and I don’t see it getting any better down here in the near future. So, although I’m glad to see that the UMC is holding on, people down here in the MC and lower are falling off the cliff when it comes to marriage/divorce, out of wedlock child births, and the other less than savory side effects of the current SMP/MMP.

    This quote from your post sums it up nicely: “Hypergamy has declined as well. What has changed is that marriage rates for the lesseducated have declined precipitously, although the patterns differ for blacks and for
    whites.”

    Excellent summary, Ted D. Yes, there is a huge and growing inequality separating the UMC from the rest in wealth, education, social behaviors, and opportunities. This is the thesis of Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart”. He shows that the marriage rate of white adults 30-49 in the UMC is 84%, while it is only 48 percent in the white working class, as of 2010.

    One of the papers I linked to showed that hypergamy has decreased among couples with only a high school education. But this only counts the half that are married. Hypergamy (in terms of sex, not marriage) may run rampant in the other half.

    As someone who lives in a rather mixed neighborhood, I’m here to tell you it IS NOT just the black community suffering any longer. I see just as many white teen mothers as I do black/latino/other, and there are no signs of things improving.

    Very true. In discussing the problems of the WC (such as teen mothers) Murray limits his analysis to only whites to avoid the confounding effects of race and class, and also to avoid charges of racism.

    Murray’s conclusion is the UMC has turned into a ‘cognitive elite’ with advantages in resources, education, opportunities, cultural values, and even genetics, that is compounding their advantage over the rest.

    The issue of cultural values is particularly interesting. Most everyone in the U.S. used to have rather strict guidelines to live by that were promulgated by religion, civil authorities, and the media. With the liberalization of society, these have fallen by the wayside. Now it’s all up to individual choice. The members of the cognitive elite have the native ability and education to make good choices, which is re-enforced by their “success culture”. While they claim to have liberal values, they actually police rather conservative values on each other when it comes to things like marriage and divorce. The white WC is, on average, less gifted with education and native ability, and have lost the cultural re-enforcement that guided them to good decisions. The problems you describe are the result.

    That’s why I think hypergamy (the action, not the desire) IS a moral issue. Morals (and religion) are invented by society to regulate behavior that leads to bad consequences. By discarding our old moral codes, we get to see what sort of bad consequences led to those old morals in the first place. This does not necessarily mean we have to keep the old moral codes – it means that our new moral codes needs to be based on the reality of human nature.

  • Ion

    Plain Jane

    “Its still like that now to some degree in my culture. Its assumed that love will bloom after the arranged marriage, and in many cases it does, but in many cases it also doesn’t. ”

    Interesting, I wonder how hookup culture would impact arranged marriages if it ever hit India?

  • INTJ

    @ Ion

    Interesting, I wonder how hookup culture would impact arranged marriages if it ever hit India?

    We’ll see soon enough. Middle class kids are already switching to serial monogamy, and it’s only a matter of time before they adopt hookup culture.

  • mr. wavevector

    Höllenhund,

    Only the small minority of people with ample self-awareness and brains recognizes this fact, and it’s small wonder they make up most of the social elite. They’re the ones who have “consumption marriages”. They know that stable marriages aren’t based on sustained mutual attraction but on the realization that marriage is the best route for intelligent people with long-term orientation who want to procreate, provide the best possible future for their children and acquire social status.

    That nailed it. Marriage is becoming the vehicle of the cognitive elite, whereby two gifted and successful individuals partner to produce gifted and successful children. Their marriages are becoming less hypergamous as the wives enter marriage with equivalent social standing as their husbands. As a class, this group has surprisingly old fashioned values about marriage, despite their lip service to liberal ideologies.

  • Clarence

    Susan:

    “I agree. I wish I could be around to see the Dark Triad males and females made extinct.”

    This will never happen as the dark triad traits have evolutionary advantages all on their own. Ironically someone with strong dark triad traits is more likely to either save or eliminate humanity than the average.

  • JP

    @Clarence:

    “This will never happen as the dark triad traits have evolutionary advantages all on their own. Ironically someone with strong dark triad traits is more likely to either save or eliminate humanity than the average.”

    I’m pretty sure that one of the metaphysical goals is to eliminate the influence of the Dark Feminine and the Dark Masculine.

    They subtract value. They don’t add value.

  • Mireille

    The female equivalent would be a girl who screens for a worthwhile guy and then throws herself at him. Though she is very discriminating, she can get mistaken for a slut for not playing sexually hard to get.

    Guilty! Rejection in this case is pretty disheartenning, especially considering that I meet someone I like on average every leap year. The major risk is men who straddle the unrestricted/restricted fence. They’ll have no problem sleeping with you if you make yourself available.

    And it is tough when you can see them struggle with reconciling their desire for a “good” man and their desire for a trajectory of lifestyle. It isn’t that the women aren’t out there, but it also isn’t a matter of dismissing the obvious.

    Guilty again! However, I definitely reconciled my desires by changing careers and building from there.
    Earlier this year, I went on 2 dates with a fellow alumnus. The first date was dinner (which he graciously covered). We talked a lot and seemed to get along ok. However hearing talking about his professional hurdles and frustrations, it was like I was hearing myself talking. We basically had the same issues. This is when I knew I had to refrain from dating at all. Even if people think career for women is not that important, it is as it determines also who we can “afford” to marry. Did I want to date someone like myself at that point? probably not. I didn’t like my situation, and couldn’t credibly try and sell it to someone else, let alone double it by coupling with someone similar. It is a self-esteem and ambition issue.

    I think you have to be able to offer what you demand, and when you can’t, you should either lower your expectations or improve yourself.

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

      Did I want to date someone like myself at that point? probably not. I didn’t like my situation, and couldn’t credibly try and sell it to someone else, let alone double it by coupling with someone similar. It is a self-esteem and ambition issue.

      This is a great example of why we shouldn’t take rejection personally. Mireille made a judgment call that was sensible, and had nothing to do with the merits or attractiveness of the guy.

  • JP

    @INTJ:

    “We’ll see soon enough. Middle class kids are already switching to serial monogamy, and it’s only a matter of time before they adopt hookup culture.”

    In today’s lesson, we learn that hookup culture (and the rest of so-called secular liberalism) is a product of consumer capitalism.

  • Cooper

    “you should either lower your expectations or improve yourself.”

    I’ve been doing both!! Lmao.

  • mr. wavevector

    IMHO, the ideal expression of social dominace is not man over woman, but man over environment and over other men in such a way that facilites resources being delivered to the family.

    Corollary notions, like the idea that men need to continually be DHV or dominating women in order to insure fidelty, are also mostly overblown.

    I think the point is authenticity. A man who truly can dominate the environment and other men isn’t likely to be pussy whipped at home. In other words, he isn’t dominating the woman, but he is indomitable. The benefit of maintaining this frame is that it provides a subconscious reassurance to the woman that she is with a man who really can deliver the resources.

    You mentioned the animal models. Male wolves do not fight for dominance with the female wolves. Male wolves will take a lot of shit from the female wolves, especially when they have cubs. Not too different from human males really.

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

      I think the point is authenticity.

      This is a very profound statement. Fake it till you make it is OK if the final destination is true authenticity. Faking it for life in a marriage has got to be a living hell. Find someone you can be authentic with, once you have worked on self-improvement.

  • Mireille

    @ Cooper,

    “I’ve been doing both!! Lmao.”

    LOL, that is so not productive!

  • JP

    @Cooper:

    “Believe it or not, it’s why I always resonate with the Charlie character from te show Girls’ (not sure if you watched it) when he said “I chose you.”
    I’m rather selective in who I choose to give my attention, but it’s usually all-in after that. Which of course, yea, comes off as a lesser delta – or undeserved pedestalization.”

    You would love being limerant, then.

    It’s just like that only you don’t get a vote.

    Involuntary obsessive oneitis is a good description.

    Emphasis on the involuntary.

  • Sai

    Re: Paula the tramp
    “Well the bigger line that Paula Broadwell crossed was to cheat on her husband. Funny how that’s rarely mentioned.”
    I started paying attention when I happened to be passing by a TV and they mentioned she had a family. Now when I hear her name I pretend to care for imaginary plants with an imaginary implement. :)
    (And she couldn’t find anybody better-looking to cheat with?)

    @Hope
    “If you have kids purely for genetic legacy, just donate sperm and egg. It’s really quite more than genes.”
    I believe you and I’ve been giving that option a lot of thought lately.
    I think not wanting to raise kids causes me to look at some aspects of the SMP a certain way (eg. I don’t care if a man has TEH BEST GENES EVAR or insane parenting skills).
    (Also, cats are not for me, does anyone like fish or frogs?)

    @Just1Z
    “society generally does shame less anyway (jersey shore, kardasses etc).”
    Tea, meet nasal cavities. :)

    “My impression was that HUS was more about #4?”
    I like #4. #1 and 2 would be fun for Halloween, conventions and/or role-playing, but that’s about it.

    “I’m sure that there are lots of words that describe this behaviour…salty ones
    I’m sure one of the versions that I read had her explicitly stating that she did do this with men that she found unattractive

    thoughts?
    I say *bleep* her.
    Also, “let’s make a baby” > original song.

    @Susan Walsh
    “None of that worked. It was not until incentives changed that behavior changed.”
    One of the first things I learned in AP Economics was that people respond to incentives. I’m guilty of it…

    “LOL, I think you’d be happiest with a male-brained woman….You are never, ever, ever going to get women to turn down a date by stating outright that they find you unattractive”
    You just have to look hard enough. XD I figured if I was honest and made him angry I’d drive him off faster. (God only knows how, but it backfired.)

    @Mireille
    “I think you have to be able to offer what you demand, and when you can’t, you should either lower your expectations or improve yourself.”
    +1

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

      @Sai

      I figured if I was honest and made him angry I’d drive him off faster. (God only knows how, but it backfired.)

      Haha, he liked that feisty spirit! Anger —–> passion —–> sex.

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

    Excellent posts by Tasmin

    Clarence, good observation re: Dark Triad. The psycho sub-type may be simultaneously the most likely to set the building on fire and the most likely to rush into a burning building to save someone that he doesn’t know.

    Ladies, imagining that this could be magically set by a female voters’ referendum, what sacrifices do you feel that young women, collectively, would be willing to make to marginalize the casual mating system and bring back a traditional, LTR/dating-based mating model?

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

      Ladies, imagining that this could be magically set by a female voters’ referendum, what sacrifices do you feel that young women, collectively, would be willing to make to marginalize the casual mating system and bring back a traditional, LTR/dating-based mating model?

      Wow, what a fantastic question. Perhaps I should write a post simply asking for this feedback? I bet we’d hear from a bunch of women who have never commented.

  • Sassy6519

    Personally I’d love to see women with full understanding of their nature make the choices they want, because then they will not be able to play the blame game later.

    That is what I do. I’m not afraid of making my own choices. Whatever the consequences are, I’ll have no one to blame but myself.

    So why do women bemoan the death of “dating”? It seems that if the young women had an issue with the “where U at?” approach they would just not play that game. Particularly those who are able to go out on actual dates with older men; they have a direct experiential comparison. And presuming the older guys have higher status, why then are these women wallowing in the shallows with the booty-call text banter at all?

    I think a lot of women complain about the death of “dating” because a good portion of them are relegated to booty calls and hookups only. I’ve known a few women who hate booty calls and late night texts, but respond to them anyway. These women could have tried to demand or ask for better treatment, but they didn’t. I’ve heard some women speak of fearing men losing interest in them. They feel like they have to accept the booty call because they think or know, deep down, that the men in question aren’t willing to offer them more.

    Dating has never died for me personally. All the men I’ve been interested in have taken me on legitimate dates. I think I’ve been booty called/texted by only 2-3 men before, and I simply turned those offers down. It never failed that those same men fell in line and pursued me for actual dates afterwards. They knew that I wouldn’t accept anything less. If they wanted any of my time, they were going to have to up their game, and they did.

    But you can’t just strip away all of the competition from other men, the options/alternatives she may have, the other “dates” as comparison, what her friends are doing/getting out of the SMP, her natural sense of entitlement (or are we assuming this is no longer an issue?), her tendency to associate “lower investment” dates with “lower income” with “lower status” and claim that its all walks in the park.

    I love creative/free dates. They can be really fun. Most of the men I’ve dated, however, have loved to flash their money around. I have earnestly asked some men to let me pay for dates, but they refused. They liked spending money on me. I guess it was an ego boost to them. They could throw down $80-$150 for an evening, and parade me around on their arms. I would be just as happy at a local free event or exploring a museum, but some men wanted to be flashy. Clearly, men are on a spectrum with regards to how freely and lavishly they spend their money on women.

    My general advice to both sexes, if you don’t like whats available improve yourself, if you can’t improve yourself further either accept whats availible or GTFO (ie. lower your fuckin standards tubby.)

    Amen!!

    The thing is some people prefer being alone to being with their SMV equals and prefer being able to eat whatever they want when they want to having to stop that just to get someone a few points higher.

    I get it, but it makes no sense for people in such predicaments to complain then. If a person does not want to put in the effort to become attractive enough to attract someone they would be happy with, that’s on them. What I think happens is that some people complain with an almost “attractive people should be attracted to me just the way I am” air about themselves. I always want to say “Sorry, but that’s not how things work”.

    Being a 4-5 and expecting to land a 7-10 is ridiculous. Such a pairing may happen once in a blue moon, but it definitely isn’t the norm.

  • JP

    ” Male wolves do not fight for dominance with the female wolves.”

    Well, with feminism you certainly have men and women engaged in a contest for economic and career dominance.

    There are only so many seats available in the partnership ranks and the executive suites.

  • mr. wavevector

    Good point. I wonder if it’s just physical attraction, or do people also lack the skills to be good partners?

    Susan, I think the way you ask this question reveals the problem. Today we view society as a collection of autonomous individuals. Behavioral problems have become solely problems of the individual – a question of that person’s skills or education or motivation or neurochemistry.

    But problems such as sustaining marriage didn’t use to be individual problems, they were community problems. The couple had an extended family and a community of friends, neighbors, and church members to help them do the right thing (as the community defined it).

    So yes, it is true that these individuals don’t have the necessary skills. But 50 years ago, they had much more to rely on than their skills alone. What has changed is the loss of this support structure. Particularly, as Ted D and J illustrate, in the lower middle and working classes.

    I think what you are doing here is good, because you’re created a new vehicle for a value system that supports good judgments.

  • JP

    “Today we view society as a collection of autonomous individuals. Behavioral problems have become solely problems of the individual – a question of that person’s skills or education or motivation or neurochemistry.”

    Why?
    Because of the way generations work:

    GI Generation – Collective and Materialist
    Silent – Collective and Spiritual
    Boomers – Individualist and spiritual
    Xers – Individualist and materialist

    Who’s running the show?

    Boomers and Xers

    Any surprise that we’re currently individualistic?

  • mr. wavevector

    @JP

    ” Male wolves do not fight for dominance with the female wolves.”

    Well, with feminism you certainly have men and women engaged in a contest for economic and career dominance.

    And the fight so far has been as one-sided as it is with the wolves.

  • mr. wavevector

    Because of the way generations work:

    GI Generation – Collective and Materialist
    Silent – Collective and Spiritual
    Boomers – Individualist and spiritual
    Xers – Individualist and materialist

    Who’s running the show?

    Boomers and Xers

    You forgot the millenials: individualistic and narcissistic. So the future doesn’t look brighter!

    You describe a long-term trend of society increasingly valuing individual autonomy over the collective good. There certainly have been a lot of positives to this trend. But it’s unclear how to deal with the negative consequences, like we’re discussing here.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Re: Coming Apart, I can see it happening a lot in my own family.

    3 generations ago, mostly rural, hell, there were some first-generation immigrations

    2 generations ago, some shotgun weddings. My grandmothers were strictly SAHMs, the fathers went out and earned. Though my dad’s side divorced, unfortunately, and my mother’s dad died young. Not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

    Last generation, my mother and father had an “oops” baby. So my mother couldn’t work at the BIg 4 accounting firms that were offering a full ride and payment towards a CPA, and my dad had to drop out of a prestigious engineering school to work a blue collar job. My dad has had trouble finding work since the recession, my mother’s company keeps trying to offer her promotions but she turns them down because she would have to move. And her grand-babies are here.

    My sister makes enough money for my brother-in-law to be a stay at home dad, my brother dropped out of college but he is such a whiz at the ERP software his company uses that they want to offer him $60k starting (lots of hours though), and I’m just the chump by comparison. I’m the youngest person in my business unit at a Fortune 50 company by almost a decade, and overseeing a large part of a major outsourcing project.

    Meanwhile, other parts of my family are getting stuck in the welfare trap and more unplanned pregnancies, with shit work ethics and shit financial decisions. Getting fired from Target is not good and having a kid with a 17 year old when you are 20 is unwise.

    If I were to theoretically form a household with my SO, who is UMC, our combined income would be $170,000 at 26, which is pretty damn good, all things considered. And I have a lot of upward trajectory on that path. Guy-who-got-fired from target probably isn’t going to come close to that.

  • Mireille

    @ WaveVector,

    I disagree about the millenials; we might be individualistic and narcissistic (or “whatever”) but we are also the most innovative, creative and concerned about the planet and other people on it, plus we have to deal with all the toughest times of all, degraded environment/relationships/job markets/ life expectancy. Thanks for messing that up for us, old timers!

    I think we, as a group will come up on top of this casual sex thing. I see all around that revival or renewed interest for old time values, and this from liberals. As someone mentionned, people make their choices, they just don’t necessarily feel the need to broadcast them and erect them as the one path to follow.

  • JP

    “I think we, as a group will come up on top of this casual sex thing. I see all around that revival or renewed interest for old time values, and this from liberals.”

    And the pendulum swings back as it did after the Roaring Twenties.

    Millennials – Collective and Materialist (?)
    Homelander – Collective and Spiritual (?)

  • mr. wavevector

    but we are also the most innovative, creative and concerned about the planet

    I’ll give you the one about the planet. Let’s hope you don’t sell out like your hippy parents / grandparents did.

    As for innovative and creative, I don’t see that at all. In both technology and art, I think today’s youth culture is very derivative. When I was a kid, man walked on the moon. All you have is Twitter. And they still play “Stairway to Heaven” at middle school dances, for crying out loud!

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

      And they still play “Stairway to Heaven” at middle school dances, for crying out loud!

      Oh boy, that brings back memories. Also, Knights in White Satin and Free Bird.

  • INTJ

    @ Sai

    I hope you can find an NT guy who appreciates your logical thinking.

  • INTJ

    @ Mireille

    I disagree about the millenials; we might be individualistic and narcissistic (or “whatever”) but we are also the most innovative, creative and concerned about the planet and other people on it, plus we have to deal with all the toughest times of all, degraded environment/relationships/job markets/ life expectancy. Thanks for messing that up for us, old timers!

    Yup. Neil Howe has written an excellent indictment of the old people who criticize us millenials. The boomers messed things up so badly that they really don’t have any right to complain about us, however bad we may be.

  • Mireille

    Innovative and creative as in able to think globally about issues felt locally and how to solve them. Man walking on the moon? Well, chalk it up to the abundance of recent technological advancements that make any new discovery a drop in the ocean of progress. Every year there is something new happening, so much so we can’t keep up ( and don’t care too sometimes).
    If you’re talking about music, well, yeah we’re doomed. I mean, Nicky Minaj????

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

      Millennials are very generous and tolerant of others – they have rebelled against individualism. Also, they cite having children as an extremely high priority – even more than marriage. Millennial women prioritize family over career as well. I think we’re going to see the pendulum swing back some in the next 10 years.

  • Feelist

    The term ”hypergamy” is not used only in the context of marriage. Its applied on(theorically) women only being sexually interested in men who are stronger, taller, better-looking, more charimastic and more powerful than most guys.

  • mr. wavevector

    And the pendulum swings back as it did after the Roaring Twenties.

    But it took a Great Depression and a World War to do it.

    I have a half-baked theory about why society got so much more conservative going from the 20′s to the 50′s. The deprivation of the Depression instilled a fear of deprivation in girls and young women, while WWII created a shortage of eligible men. Women responded to these upheavals by seeking the security of marriage at an early age. The marriage rate soared and the average age of marriage plummeted, reaching a low in 1960.

    If this is true, young women may eventually respond to today’s financial stress and a scarcity of suitable mates by trying to marry earlier.

    I think we, as a group will come up on top of this casual sex thing.

    I hope so.

  • Mireille

    Last, I will add, is that Millenials are screwed big times because none of the previous generations are capable to mentor us in the new world we’re living in. We have to deal with all the shit that piled up for years, excuse my english. That lack of leadership makes me want to pull my eyelashes out.
    This is a conversation I have had with my father; I told him that contrarily to what he thinks, he had it made when he was my age: garanteed job while in university, already homeowner, with a family and a child, all that at 28; I’m 1 year older and don’t see any of this happening in the next 5 years.

  • mr. wavevector

    The boomers messed things up so badly that they really don’t have any right to complain about us, however bad we may be.

    True. Don’t keep doing what we’ve done. The sooner you rebel and do something about it, the better.

  • JP

    “This is a conversation I have had with my father; I told him that contrarily to what he thinks, he had it made when he was my age: garanteed job while in university, already homeowner, with a family and a child, all that at 28″

    This was me at 28.

    Now I’m 38.

    “That lack of leadership makes me want to pull my eyelashes out.”

    That’s because the GI generation was supplying the leadership.

    Boomers don’t lead and Xers are busy hating boomers.

  • JP

    The real fun will come about 2030 when the U.S. either reconfigures itself (again) or fractures.

    JMG’s done a nice little whatif over at his blog. And he’s not into Strauss and Howe. He’s really looking at the next Macrodecision point in the Great Power dance where the U.S. either comes back for another round of World Leadership or gets defeated by the rising contender, China.

    (And no, I’m definitely not a druid)

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/10/how-it-could-happen-part-one-hubris.html

  • Feelist

    ”Good point. I wonder if it’s just physical attraction, or do people also lack the skills to be good partners? ”

    Men are born with the instinct to be good partners, to protect women, even when they don’t have anything to do with her.

    Personal example would be how a girl from one of my classess was being so sweet to me by wanting to have a conversation with me despite the circumstances and the place we we’re at: She has difficulties with the English language and while I dabble with her native language I just can’t understand most of what she said. I offered her to sit when a seat became vacant and she’d rather stand up while looking very tired to talk to me.

    Another seat became vacant, this one was right next to me. I offered it to the girl but instead of sitting on it she used the seat to put her purse.

    2 seats became free, she called her girlfriend but her girlfriend declined. Strange. Anyway. I sat with her and we talked. I teased her most of the time, she said I had been more nice when I met her the first time but she was smiling a lot and laughing. Girl got distracted with the conversation that her girlfriend had to call her.

    Cute girl. Love her hair. Shame my social status is not that great. She knows I’m intelligent and I can’t help myself but provide for her whatever she needs at the time. I remember entering the bus – it was packed full- and turning to the girl to ask if she was ok, if she needed any help.

    Dunno why. I just did. It just happens that I’m naturally friendlly to women. Not sure if its a trait of being a beta or if it was ingrained in me. Certain girls, the ones who are kind to me do arouse a desire to protect them, but I don’t see how that’d attract said girl when my social status is the same as hers(I am not a senior, and we’re both from the same class. I seem to be richer, though. But I’m not going to be a douchebag and show off my gadgets).

  • Tasmin

    @Mirielle
    “I think you have to be able to offer what you demand, and when you can’t, you should either lower your expectations or improve yourself.”

    I like the first part a lot, but the latter half seems easier for men to apply successfully given that without hypergamy driving their expectations/desire, male self-improvement is not as circular a relationship with expectations as it can be for women. Men can self-improve and find that they won’t have to lower their expectations, women can self-improve to a higher station in life but are much more likely to be in the same (or worse) position relative to to available options unless there is some tempering of the expectations as well.

    Isn’t that part of why we are seeing hypergamy backfire a bit? All these educated women climbing the ladder who are effectively shrinking the market for themselves?

    Makes me wonder if hypergamy is really the issue; might the issue be something less rigid, more manufactured, less biological more sociological? And thus subject to modification? I think there is a natural breakpoint in natural hypergamy in terms of evaluating status that is much lower and less sensitive to relativity than how it is playing out in the modern SMP. Meaning, there is something else at work, call it entitlement, excessive expectations, ego, etc. that is greatly elevating the artificial measures – our proxies for status like having a college degree – to the point where they have broken from their the natural/biological roots.

    The fact that these proxies seem to be scaling up despite tapering even declining validation in terms of real-world efficacy, might suggest that status is more closely tied to ego than some survive and thrive instinct. So what is driving those expectations: hypergamy or ego? Is “settling” violating a biological imperative or is it swallowing some ego? I think there is plenty of room to dial back expectations before we even need to worry about bumping into biology.

  • Feelist

    ”Girl got distracted with the conversation that her girlfriend had to call her.”

    When her station came by. The people around us were checking out our conversation and after the girl left I noticed that women were turning their backs to stare at me.

    Seems like talking to a girl more attractive than the girls around us and being cool about it makes women see you as having more value than you’d have, if you depended on your native looks to have a desirable social rank.

  • Feelist

    I forgot to mention that I’ve seen this girl talking to other guys and her English with them is pretty decent. Its only – at least so far – when she’s with me that she can’t speak in English.

    She forgets the words. Becomes nervous. Of course it could be just a way to avoid talking to me, but I’ve purposedly avoided being near her before and she was always seeking out my attention by staring at me non-stop, and playing with her hair for 2 straight hours.

    I don’t think she realized that I could see her from where I was, but it could’ve been an involuntary action to draw my attention.

    Anyway, if I’m near her and I’m silent she’ll try to start a conversation. What I’m curious about is, is it so weary for a woman to be near a low social status value guy that she’s afraid of talking to him because he might assume interest from her, or is this girl bipolar and goes from wanting attention from the guy who was nice to her, to ignoring him?

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    One nation, under Gawd, and divisible, with hypergamy, and just-ass, for all.

  • Just1Z

    Maybe liking women should be the one requirement for men who want to hang out here.

    Meowwww

    Was that really called for?

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

      @Just1Z

      Meowwww

      Was that really called for?

      That wasn’t meant to be glib. I’m serious! If I could rid the threads of bitterness and resentment, that would help a lot.

  • Just1Z

    @Just1Z
    “society generally does shame less anyway (jersey shore, kardasses etc).”
    Tea, meet nasal cavities.

    Sorry Sai…

    For that and your other comments…I think that you’re great!

  • Just1Z

    The real fun will come about 2030 when the U.S. either reconfigures itself (again) or fractures.

    Nah, it won’t take that long…

  • Just1Z

    Regarding hysteria

    One of my favourite Boston Legal episodes had a steam powered ‘hysteria machine’

    The origin of ‘blowing smoke up someone’s ass’ is also an old medical cure

    Radium baths for a natural tingle

    Electric current in a bath for a tingle in the cat flap

    Kellogg was a nutcase of extreme imagination too.

  • Mireille

    Makes me wonder if hypergamy is really the issue; might the issue be something less rigid, more manufactured, less biological more sociological? And thus subject to modification? I think there is a natural breakpoint in natural hypergamy in terms of evaluating status that is much lower and less sensitive to relativity than how it is playing out in the modern SMP. Meaning, there is something else at work, call it entitlement, excessive expectations, ego, etc. that is greatly elevating the artificial measures – our proxies for status like having a college degree – to the point where they have broken from their the natural/biological roots.

    The fact that these proxies seem to be scaling up despite tapering even declining validation in terms of real-world efficacy, might suggest that status is more closely tied to ego than some survive and thrive instinct. So what is driving those expectations: hypergamy or ego? Is “settling” violating a biological imperative or is it swallowing some ego? I think there is plenty of room to dial back expectations before we even need to worry about bumping into biology.

    I concur! I think advertisement in a consumerist and overly optimistic culture is what has brought that perpetual race up.
    The “you deserve it”, “because you’re worth it”, “you’re so unique and complex” did a number on people’s perception of themselves and others.

    Plus Americans have that motto where there is always room for self-improvement and upgrades; if you’re not settled with yourself, how can you do it with someone else? If you do, people might perceive it as if you gave up, especially if they think you should or could do “better”.

  • Tasmin

    @Susan
    “Perhaps I should write a post simply asking for this feedback? I bet we’d hear from a bunch of women who have never commented.”

    Sounds good.

    I’d also be curious about: “Being honest, do you actually desire the “traditional, LTR/dating-based mating model” [defined as x,y,z] and if so, what behaviors, actions (if any) are you already doing to attempt to secure this path for yourself within the current SMP? What do you feel you are sacrificing in this regard?

    I’m thinking of this comment from Sassy: “I’ve known a few women who hate booty calls and late night texts, but respond to them anyway. These women could have tried to demand or ask for better treatment, but they didn’t. I’ve heard some women speak of fearing men losing interest in them. They feel like they have to accept the booty call because they think or know, deep down, that the men in question aren’t willing to offer them more.”

    And then there are the women like Sassy who demand more. Sassy may get what she demands, and I’m sure other women do as well, but others clearly do not. Asking the question of what they are willing to give up when they seem to already have that option and are either not taking it or taking it and assuming – correctly or not, that they are paying some price, some opportunity cost feels like we are missing something. Perhaps we need to ferret out pluralistic ignorance and pose that against a cake-and-eat-it-too or other logical, structural perspectives that are supporting a minority-driven SMP.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    I am 28, “own” (mortgage on) a house with my husband who is the same age, and we have a baby. I do know quite a few women my age who have the same situation, but most of them live in smaller cities in the mountain west and midwest, which have lower living costs.

    If these things are important to a woman, she should really feel a sense of urgency around mid-20s and be either already with a suitable man or actively searching for one. There is an element of luck involved, but she is a much better bartering position due to youth — plus a lot of other women are not actively interested in that at 24, so for her to say “I want to get married and have kids” will not sound “desperate.”

  • Tasmin

    @Susan
    Aw man, just when I was feeling young. I’ve got “Knights in White Satin” on vinyl :-).

    When I was (actually) young, a friend and I would visit his bachelor uncle who lived in a cabin up the coast near Cambria where we would help him prepare dates for sale at farmers markets. No TV, hand pumped well water, and all the view you could eat. He would spin all the good old stuff from his old turntable and speakers that doubled as end tables. When we were much older we found out about his other, uhm, cash crop. And his music choices made a lot more sense. I will never forget the smell of the cypress and chaparral, dripping with leftovers of that shifty Pacific fog and the crackle of the mesquite beneath a fat tri-tip that would be supper and all the ice-cold Sierra Nevada’s we could poach from the cooler until we give him reason to cut us off all while his dirty-ass country dogs squabbled over rat carcasses we tossed from the storage trailer. So gross, so cool. Those were the days to be boys. Too bad it is more about White Knights in Satin Sheets these days. In any case, he eventually got married and when he moved back into civilization, he gave us each a record of our choice. Moody Blues just nailed that place for me. As for “Stairway..” I still don’t “get it”.

  • mr. wavevector

    Millennials are very generous and tolerant of others – they have rebelled against individualism.

    I wonder how “rebelling against individualism” can be reconciled against the reported increasing narcissism of the millenials? Perhaps the claims of narcissims are overstated.

  • mr. wavevector

    That wasn’t meant to be glib. I’m serious! If I could rid the threads of bitterness and resentment, that would help a lot.

    Is the bitterness and resentment an exclusively male phenomenon? Excluding of the radfem world, is there a female correlate to the manosphere? Or is everything copacetic for the ladies?

  • Mireille

    They call the Mills narcissistic in regard of the overly cheerful parents they had, always praising them. However, it just translated as young people valuing their passions and interests more than what Society is demanding of them; it’s a bit like a result of the Montessori schooling. We want to acquire knowledge fast, not wait and “skywalker” it in the swamp somewhere. What I see with my friends is such eagerness to learn; they don’t care if they have to go live in some slum/Guetto overseas if it means acquiring what they need to succeed. Plus they have master from the get-go all types of technologies. I don’t think any other generation did this.

    Sorry, I get pretty tense about this Millenials thing.

  • mr. wavevector

    Makes me wonder if hypergamy is really the issue; might the issue be something less rigid, more manufactured, less biological more sociological? And thus subject to modification?

    The “you deserve it”, “because you’re worth it”, “you’re so unique and complex” did a number on people’s perception of themselves and others.

    Tasmin and Mireille, I think that’s brilliant. Despite the female attraction to status and resources and the male attraction to youth and beauty, most people pair off with their approximate equals. So I doubt hypergamy (or the male equivalent) is such an irresistible force for most people. But if these natural desires are boosted by societal messages of entitlement? That could cause some mischief.

  • SayWhaat

    @ wave

    That wasn’t meant to be glib. I’m serious! If I could rid the threads of bitterness and resentment, that would help a lot.

    Is the bitterness and resentment an exclusively male phenomenon?

    At HUS? Pretty much, yeah. The threads are male-dominated, so if a woman voices her concern too loudly she usually gets brow-beaten.

    We’re all marveling at the tenor of the conversation in this particular thread, though. Your arrival is opportune.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Susan:

    This is OT, but when I was managing my subscriptions for this thread, I noticed I was still subscribed to another thread, which happened to be the first HUS post I commented on!

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/08/30/hookinguprealities/getting-over-a-total-player/

    ROFL at the comments. It’s fascinating to see how some topics have never changed and how some people have. I have certainly become less patient over time. :P

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

      @SayWhaat

      Reading that 2010 post and comments was indeed interesting. Mostly I came away missing Aldonza and Sox. Also, Hollenhund is in there dismissing women as solipsistic, lol.

  • mr. wavevector

    At HUS? Pretty much, yeah. The threads are male-dominated, so if a woman voices her concern too loudly she usually gets brow-beaten.

    The other places I’ve encountered where these issues are discussed are even more male dominated. Where are the women? Are women happy with the current sexual marketplace, so they don’t need to discuss it? Do they discuss these issues elsewhere? Or can’t they discuss it in a public forum because disgruntled men crash the party?

  • SayWhaat

    Or can’t they discuss it in a public forum because disgruntled men crash the party?

    Yep.

    (Btw, check out the old thread link I just posted. It’ll give you a good sense of what the conversations here used to be like.)

  • INTJ

    @ Mireille

    If you’re talking about music, well, yeah we’re doomed.

    It depends. Eminem might be a Gen Xer, but his fanbase is mostly Millenials. I would argue that we could claim him as an example of good Millenial music.

  • INTJ

    @ JP

    The real fun will come about 2030 when the U.S. either reconfigures itself (again) or fractures.

    JMG’s done a nice little whatif over at his blog. And he’s not into Strauss and Howe. He’s really looking at the next Macrodecision point in the Great Power dance where the U.S. either comes back for another round of World Leadership or gets defeated by the rising contender, China.

    Nah. By 2030, China’s demographic time bomb is going to cause it to implode.

  • J

    of the radfem world, is there a female correlate to the manosphere?

    No, the radfem world is the female correlate to the manosphere.

    I think the point is authenticity. A man who truly can dominate the environment and other men isn’t likely to be pussy whipped at home. In other words, he isn’t dominating the woman, but he is indomitable. The benefit of maintaining this frame is that it provides a subconscious reassurance to the woman that she is with a man who really can deliver the resources.

    I’d buy that. In fact, I married that.

    You mentioned the animal models. Male wolves do not fight for dominance with the female wolves. Male wolves will take a lot of shit from the female wolves, especially when they have cubs. Not too different from human males really.

    There is some thought that people were able to domesticate wolves because the human tribal structure is so simalar to the structure of a wolf pack.

    So I doubt hypergamy (or the male equivalent) is such an irresistible force for most people.

    I’m getting more and more worried about you and that man card. What you just said are fighting’ words around here.

  • INTJ

    @ Feeler

    Dude she’s spamming IOIs at you! Ask her out or something.

  • INTJ

    @ J

    So I doubt hypergamy (or the male equivalent) is such an irresistible force for most people.

    I’m getting more and more worried about you and that man card. What you just said are fighting’ words around here.

    Huh? I agree with his statement, as long as it’s followed up by “But if these natural desires are boosted by societal messages of entitlement? That could cause some mischief.”

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “What do you think about that idea of stubborn resistance to lower SMV women?”

    Tacit acceptance of monogamy as the only possible choice.

    They only have one “girlfriend” ladder, instead of a proper dual-ladder system for sex vs. commitment. The commitment threshold is higher than the sex threshold for men, so, if your moral idea sex is only under commitment, then your standards will be slightly higher, even at your own peril as you destroy preselection.

    This is the “beta mindset” of scarcity, and is why it’s critical for them to realize all they have to do is withhold commitment and fuck freely.

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

    For women wanting providers, the beta provider State is adequate because it gives the underclass woman and her thugspawn food, medical care and shelter, and doesn’t demand sex in return.

    Sorry deti, this is going to be a rant. Before I start, I just want to say that my frustration with this statement is not just aimed at you. I’ve seen this notion repeated throughout the sphere. Actually I think Roissy was the one who wrote a post about it that pissed me off, and, welp, here’s why I think it’s total bullshit.

    First, I want to talk for a minute about how difficult it is to access welfare programs (and I feel qualified to discuss this because my internship last year involved helping people–mostly single moms–apply for public health insurance programs for their children, and sometimes food stamps). There is this idea that someone who’s struggling can always feel free to fall back on the government, which will help them through the bad times. One guy in college actually tried to tell me that if you’re black or latino, you can walk into a welfare office and they’ll just hand you a check. I have no idea where he heard that (coughmaybeRushLimbaugh?), but it’s the biggest bunch of baloney I’ve ever heard.

    The application process is fairly cumbersome, and there’s a long complicated list of eligibility requirements. For example, in order to qualify for Medicaid, you have to fall under a specific category (in other words, you can’t just be the average typical healthy person, hence my boyfriend currently doesn’t have health insurance) AND you must fall under the income limits, many of which are low (the income limits are different for every category). So it’s not just a matter of “oh hey, I’m poor, let’s apply for Medicaid!” I’m not positive, but I THINK most of the individuals who qualify are children (yeah, that thugspawn. By the way, do you really have to refer to children that way? I find that distasteful. Children are not responsible for the situations into which they are born. Some of the greatest kids I’ve ever known were “thugspawn”).

    Once you do qualify for Medicaid (focusing on it because I have the most experience with it), you must renew every six months. This essentially means you must reapply twice a year. There are so many ways to slip through the cracks here, and I can’t tell you how many of my clients lost benefits because they didn’t renew. In my state, the government laid off a bunch of County Assistance Office (CAO) workers, so there aren’t enough employees to deal with the paperwork. As such, some people will not receive the renewal paperwork, and then receive a notice saying their benefits have been cut. Last year, some of the renewals were being sent out of the county to other surrounding CAOs with less work, and then renewal paperwork slipped through the cracks and benefits were cut. It was estimated that in my state some 88,000 children lost public health insurance last year, because of these changes. And it’s not an accident. My state government does not WANT people on welfare.

    The other issue I have with this Daddy Provider Government meme is that the government doesn’t really resemble a beta provider. When I think of the beta provider, I think of a guy going to work his ass off every day while his wife stays at home buying jewelry online and sipping mimosas. Folks, cash welfare is around 200 bucks a month, and ya can’t buy alcohol with food stamps! The government is not buying single moms a life of luxury. On the contrary, I would argue that it’s providing just the bare essentials, and to be honest I still can’t fathom why that’s a bad thing. Do we really want more people on the streets? Do we want children to go without food, shelter, and medical care?

    Also, one more point. I saw a list somewhere of top costly government programs. The top three were Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Looks like Daddy Provider is dishing out more to senior citizens.

  • Jackie

    @Lokland
    ” I can tell you that my chubby lil fat fuck self in high school totally ignored the only girl who showed interest in me in my entire life (exaggerated) who was also a chubby little fat fuck.”
    =====
    :(
    :cry:

    Lokland, ouch! What a way to talk about yourself, especially when Susan has said how you’re so cute! :( And that young girl who had a crush on you– what a way to repay it!

    SCENE
    Lokland’s Crush (thought bubble): Lokland is so cute! Somehow I am going to work up the gumption to ask him out!
    Lokland (thought bubble): You are a chubby lil fat f. I hate myself and I hate you.

    Request: Please check out the very end of the “Cluelessness” thread and read the comment by purplesneakers. Girls who are HUS’s target audience are departing because so many comments are hurting them. :(

    I don’t mean to pick on you, Lokland, only to say that I believe what we send out with our words and actions ripples out, issues forth and, ultimately, returns back to us. You have so much– a new marriage, awesome work, and tons of success– is it possible to spare some compassion for those who don’t?

  • Plain Jane

    “In fact, I personally find those concerns a bit frightening because they *could* indicate someone who is planning on relaxing these expenses—including gym fees and commitment to physical fitness, possibly even including sexual frequency/quality—once she has secured an LTR.”

    Being physically fit and healthy does not cost money, nor should it. There is absolutely no reason to spend money on gym fees in order to be fit. All the physical exercise we need can be had without paying a single cent for it. Of course we do have to buy food but it doesn’t cost more to buy healthy food than it does to buy junk. Even though many organic items are more expensive than non-organic, I find that organic produce is not that much more expensive than the non-organic and some of it is even the same price. You have to know how to shop.

    For people who enjoy working out in a gym and thus pay for the expense, fine. But you should not be under the false assumption a gym membership is a requirement for physical fitness, it is not.

    Which leads us to Tasmin’s comment to me…

    Tasmin November 15, 2012 at 5:34 pm

    @Plain Jane
    “Well, it is ok to let yourself go and relax a little after 40.”
    Assuming it is also ok for him to cut back to part time at work so he can fly fish and drink three fingers of Blanton’s uninterrupted in the shed while building a rocking chair out of that old hickory tree that came down last fall in that lightening strike. That and if both of you are well aware of the risks, re: attraction, lifestyle expectations, and the growing chasm between his SMV and yours that happens to be significant right around 40.

    I turn 40 next year. Somehow relaxing is the last thing on my mind. As much as three fingers of Blanton’s sounds tasty right about now, I’m off to the gym.
    ___

    Gym is your choice. Go for it. I don’t work out in the gym and didn’t require it of my husband or any of my boyfriends but we were all still healthy, fit and attractive.

    As far as “cutting back to part time work” I have no problem with him or me doing that. However my “letting yourself go after 40″ comment was in context of the discussion about physical attraction. Personally I wouldn’t care if me or my man gained 10 or 20 pounds after 40.

    Honestly I never understood the purpose behind gym rat culture and it has never attracted me.

    The great outdoors however do attract me and I am attracted to men who love nature and it shows in their physique.

  • Plain Jane

    Ion,
    “Interesting, I wonder how hookup culture would impact arranged marriages if it ever hit India?”

    Outside of a few metros we don’t even have a dating culture yet, so hook up culture is out of the question for still a long time coming.

    However there is some pre-marital sex but it would be kept hush hush. There’s more extra-marital than pre-marital sex in South Asia.

  • Jackie

    @Deti, Olive

    Olive, Deti, can you point out the comment about “thugspawn” of the “underclass woman”?

    Deti, perhaps I am mistaken, you claim to be a Christian?

    Where do you think Jesus would be seen if He came back today: On Game and PUA boards, discussing the amount of “action” he got compared to other men (namely, NONE) or advocating for children born into potentially hellish situations?

    Ahh, and I seem to remember: Mary was a teenager, not married when she became pregnant with child. Does that mean… Jesus is a thugspawn?!?! :shock: Joseph was a Beta dad on the hook, getting played?! I guess God is the ultimate Alpha in this scenario!

    I am joking but the truth is often spoken in jest.

    If you read the words of Jesus, he is almost continually advocating for the poor and saying,
    As you do to the least of these, you have done to Me.

    Deti, read Matthew 25:34-40, 44 or so. Or the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16. Not exactly the happiest endings, for those with contempt for the poor.

  • Jackie

    This is weird, my comment (520) says it’s being held in moderation. Is this a sign that I shouldn’t be picking on Deti? ;)

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

    @Coop

    It seems there is little appreciation, if any, for male chasity. Oddly, or perhaps ironically, I’m starting to wonder whether a slut would be the most appreciate it.

    Hm, interesting. Your observation caused me to stop and think awhile.

    If she’s truly reformed, I could certainly see that being the case. Though most guys looking for something serious probably wouldn’t appreciate that kind of tarnished love, anecdotally I have one particular buddy with a big heart who actually did.

    OTOH there’s a great deal of appreciation among restricted women for guys who eschew the NSA scene altogether. That’s a signal for sure. You’re right though that women tend not to value “chastity” (i.e. the V-card) as much as men do. Neither seem to value it all that much anymore, nor did they back in 1939! But based upon what Ms. SayWhaat’s reported, and my own observations, women are much more willing to date + enter relationships with such men rather than vice-versa.

  • Plain Jane

    “A man who truly can dominate the environment and other men isn’t likely to be pussy whipped at home.”

    Dominating our environment and other men has not proven beneficial for the planet, its animals, plant life and peoples at large.

    Its time to work in tandem with the environment and other men and women now, not dominate them.

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

    (Sorry guys I fell really far behind.)

    Ted,
    Haha indeed, you do get points for tone! Again, I think it’s helpful that you guys feel heard in this thread, that we’re having an open discussion instead of a round-and-round about what we should and should not be discussing at HUS. Props to Susan for being willing to discuss this, though I did see her mention that these posts don’t get tons of traffic from new readers (presumably of her target demographic). Oh well, as she said it’s about striking that balance of bringing new readers but not isolating the regulars.

    Susan re: Lee Fiora,
    It’s funny you had the impression that it was about class, because that never even occurred to me. I’ll have to think about that, because the very fact that he approached her sort of confuses the situation for me.

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

    This is the “beta mindset” of scarcity, and is why it’s critical for them to realize all they have to do is withhold commitment and fuck freely…

    …in their own little unrestricted petri dish.

    I can’t say I’d want any fish, nor shake the hand of any fisherman, from that pond!

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Jackie, let me translate from man to woman.

    Lokland meant he his status was much lower back then (insulting your past/unimproved self is de rigeur, e.g., “I was a stupid moron as a kid”), and rather cluelessly ignored the still-cute girl who was his *rightful SMV peer* at the time. He didn’t realize it at the time time, only with hindsight, so the “scene” you imagine never happened. He also regrets doing so.

    Did I come close, Lok?

    Olive: “When I think of the beta provider, I think of a guy going to work his ass off every day while his wife stays at home buying jewelry online and sipping mimosas.”

    Uh, that’s the fantasy sugar-daddy where all her needs are taken care of. A real beta provider probably will not be rich enough to do that. She will have to work, or parent the kids, or generally pull her own weight to some degree.

    I dunno, my recently divorced neighbor walked into the local community college and got totally free tuition, pretty much instantly. That’s a good deal from the government. She also would qualify for food stamps but elects not to take it. If she were still married, her income would be comingled with her ex’s, so now she cohabitates with her boyfriend. With her kids, I bet she pays zero taxes and even gets refundable tax credits. Compare that to the xx,xxx I pay in taxes yearly. I don’t think Daddy Government can be a real dad, but it sure makes it easier to not need one.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Mega: “…in their own little unrestricted petri dish. I can’t say I’d want any fish, nor shake the hand of any fisherman, from that pond!”

    Good, I don’t date boys.

    That was a bit of hyperbole to mean: date whoever you want. “Freely” might mean a whopping n=2, well within Susan’s “good beta kid” range (n<40, I think).

    You sound like my abstinence teacher trying to scare/shame us out of sex. It worked… in 8th grade. Imagine to my surprise, years later, I never caught anything, and was scared shitless over nothing.

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

      @OTC

      “Freely” might mean a whopping n=2, well within Susan’s “good beta kid” range (n<40, I think).

      Haha, the Vox beta thing really sticks in your craw.

      Imagine to my surprise, years later, I never caught anything, and was scared shitless over nothing.

      You were lucky, that doesn’t mean you were smart.

  • Plain Jane

    “Marriage is becoming the vehicle of the cognitive elite, whereby two gifted and successful individuals partner to produce gifted and successful children. Their marriages are becoming less hypergamous as the wives enter marriage with equivalent social standing as their husbands. As a class, this group has surprisingly old fashioned values about marriage, despite their lip service to liberal ideologies.”

    Sounds like our blog mistress! ;)

    Sassy,
    “Being a 4-5 and expecting to land a 7-10 is ridiculous. Such a pairing may happen once in a blue moon, but it definitely isn’t the norm.”

    Being a 5 and expecting a 7 is perfectly normal. Next time you’re out take notice of couples. They are usually within 2.5 points of each other. A 5 is average and a 7 is above average but still not in the amazingly good looking category. If you open your eyes you’ll several such couples.

    Now, a 4 and a 10 is rare. A 5 and a 9 is blue moon. But a 5 and 7, quite common.

    Olive,
    “The other issue I have with this Daddy Provider Government meme is that the government doesn’t really resemble a beta provider. When I think of the beta provider, I think of a guy going to work his ass off every day while his wife stays at home buying jewelry online and sipping mimosas. Folks, cash welfare is around 200 bucks a month, and ya can’t buy alcohol with food stamps! The government is not buying single moms a life of luxury. On the contrary, I would argue that it’s providing just the bare essentials, and to be honest I still can’t fathom why that’s a bad thing. Do we really want more people on the streets? Do we want children to go without food, shelter, and medical care?”

    - Wanna bet that if the WIC, EBT, cash assistance and Section 8 were pulled and all those people actually DID start living in the streets, parks, beaches, alleys, wherever they could, all the other people who now complain about “Big Daddy Gov” would be begging Daddy to take sweep them up and put them in housing again? And gladly pay taxes for it so they wouldn’t actually have to see them ever again?

  • Plain Jane

    JP November 15, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    @INTJ:

    “We’ll see soon enough. Middle class kids are already switching to serial monogamy, and it’s only a matter of time before they adopt hookup culture.”

    In today’s lesson, we learn that hookup culture (and the rest of so-called secular liberalism) is a product of consumer capitalism.

    How is “consumer” capitalism any different from just plain ol regular capitalism?

    And INTJ is wrong about India’s middle class. There is no dating culture in India outside of a few metros, forget about hookup culture.

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

    OTC,

    I dunno, my recently divorced neighbor walked into the local community college and got totally free tuition, pretty much instantly. That’s a good deal from the government.

    Out of curiosity, which specific government program, and what were the eligibility requirements? Was it Pell Grants she received? I ask because this is how “if you’re black, you can get free checks from the welfare office” myths get started. I want the specifics before I’m willing to believe it’s “just so simple.”

    I mean, I could also tell you that I walked into the Office of Vocational Rehab and they pretty much handed me hearing aids for free. That’s only part of the story. Yes, OVR purchased my hearing aids (those buggers are about 6 grand and not covered by insurance, and my parents couldn’t afford to help me out when my old ones were eaten by a dog). But it was a long process… at least 4 months, and I had to have a lot of pointless tests to prove what I already knew about my hearing loss. I actually sat through about a month and a half of school without them. I’m not totally deaf, and I managed, but it wasn’t a good time. And it wasn’t just a matter of “can you get me some hearing aids?” “Oh yeah, sure, just fill out two pages of paperwork!”

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

    @OTC

    Good, I don’t date boys.

    Hmmm, I guess you missed the fish/fisherman (F/M) metaphor completely… :wink:

    You sound like my abstinence teacher blah, blah…

    Interesting… so questioning how the “subhuman beta” male achieves long-term happiness and marital satisfaction by ignoring his nature, buring his conscience, and going down the NSA path is somehow equivalent to advocating Victorian-style abstinence-only before marriage?

    Hey, nobody’ll ever accuse you of moderation whatsoever! :mrgreen:

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

    Oh also, the last time I got new hearing aids, I was still under 21 so I had to apply for wrap-around services through CHIP (my state’s health insurance program for children). Wrap-around is for kids with disabilities who have other insurance that doesn’t cover services for the disability. It took a Whole. Freaking. Year. By the time I was finally approved, it was literally 3 days before I was turning 21, at which point I’d lose coverage.

    Like I said:
    http://memegenerator.net/instance/30304452

  • Just a thought

    Olive +3

  • Höllenhund

    „Regardless of what you think of marriage 2.0, it is simply untrue that there are no incentives to remaining married for women.”

    The incentives are there…for those on the top of the hierarchy. Everywhere else marriage is dying rapidly. Once the nanny state stops acting like a beta provider proxy, the incentives for underclass women will suddenly shoot across the roof, but they won’t have any means at their disposal to do anything about it. They’re the ones who technically need marriage the most for social mobility and it’s exactly them for whom it’s out of reach the most. Again, this is a feature, not a bug. The whole purpose behind the entire current legal-cultural edifice is to create an IQ-based caste system.

    „Furthermore, being married is in no way comparable to being on the market unless you’re actively cheating.”

    You may decide that you’re off the market, but your spouse may decide that he/she isn’t. There’s no law against it, and in the bottom 90% of society it’s not even shamed or culturally discouraged, although it’s also a fact that husbands are routinely sodomized by family law courts. That’s how marriage 2.0 turns into a certified LTR where neither side can just lay back and rest.

    „Good point. I wonder if it’s just physical attraction, or do people also lack the skills to be good partners?”

    They absolutely do. They never acquired them to begin with.

    „The overwhelming nature of those problems is part of why I’ll stick to my “educated” bubble. I feel like I can reach people who can effect change with their actions.”

    Just make sure the moats around your castles are deep enough and the fences are high enough, because your society will turn into another version of Brazil, and it won’t be the only one.

  • mr. wavevector

    There is some thought that people were able to domesticate wolves because the human tribal structure is so simalar to the structure of a wolf pack.

    The way my wife and I dote on our silly dog, I’m pretty sure the wolves tamed us.

    I’m getting more and more worried about you and that man card. What you just said are fighting’ words around here.

    I’m not sure where I left my mancard – haven’t needed it in years. It’s like buying booze – no one cards you when you’re sporting a gray beard.

  • szopen

    @intj, cooper
    “Us introverts tend to have very high standards for who we let in, but once we let someone in, we tend to be really nice to them”

    Rep +1 :)

    BTW, re alphas, status etc. The carving for “status” makes a lot more sense than saying, common in manosphere that “girls dig jerks”. Confidence may come in from having good status, so girls may be attraced by confidence jus as a secondary, indirect signal of good status in social hierarchy…

    I was just reading today about Yanomani. You know, the guys who basically are going around beating their wives on regular basis, in addition to beating other guys. You could say that they are most alpha males in the planets: they do not pedestelize their woman, they use machetas to discipline them?

    Now, what is the non-paternity rate around Yanomani? One study says 9%. http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/analysis_and_opinion/choices_and_behaviours/misattributed_paternity.htm

    Wow, somehow being arsehole to your wife does not prevent her from cheating, who would think that..

    This is compatible with “status is attractive” and definetely not with “jerks are attractive”

    Compare that to 1-2% in Iceland (compatible with a theory which was independently advances here by me and other commenters, that “arsehole” triggers should be weaker in northern populations) and 5-10% around the world (note that there are figures floating at around 30-50% rates – those came, seems to me, mainly from paternity labs, which skews obviously the results – the non-paternity rate is higher for guys who have doubts about whether they are fathers…)

  • Sai

    @Bastiat Blogger
    “Ladies, imagining that this could be magically set by a female voters’ referendum, what sacrifices do you feel that young women, collectively, would be willing to make to marginalize the casual mating system and bring back a traditional, LTR/dating-based mating model?”

    I decided to sleep on this one… I think that if the referendum were preceded by lots of information, featuring lots of men stating they honestly don’t like manning up and marrying empowered multi-penis women, we could at LEAST ditch the 2 AM booty call. Depending on how extensive the STD component of the publicity campaign was, we might drive the percentage of drunken ONSs down into the single digits. It would also help if more and more people said something along the lines of at LEAST having your teeth straightened before even thinking you have half a chance at deserving a male model.
    (I really think that with enough girls absorbing certain media enough times we could vote to eliminate most of these behaviors. It works with candidates for office, right?)

    @mr. wavevector
    “And they still play “Stairway to Heaven” at middle school dances, for crying out loud!”
    I would have killed to have “The Immigrant Song” played at prom. (Or “Boogie Wonderland.”) I think I danced twice. :/

    @INTJ
    “I hope you can find an NT guy who appreciates your logical thinking.”
    That makes two of us XD

    “Nah. By 2030, China’s demographic time bomb is going to cause it to implode.”
    I thought about that… but then I thought about all the lonely girls right over the border just dying to have families. I’m not sure what to think some days.

    @JP
    I haven’t been that depressed by online fiction since the time I accidentally turned my cute bug Pokemon into a zombie. I am grateful for the warning though. If it actually comes to this I hope the two countries just wipe each other off the map and get it over with already. (it sucks, I wanted to see the Wall) India can have whatever’s left and smash Pakistan like a spoiled grape.
    (I have spoken with my dad about this… he says he’s going to shoot at them until they shoot him. I’m going to throw homemade explosives until they shoot me. Both of us want to do as much damage as we can and we are NOT going to anybody’s prison camp.)

    @Susan
    “Haha, he liked that feisty spirit! Anger —–> passion —–> sex.”
    FFFFFFFFFFF
    It makes so much sense in retrospect. >_<

    "Wow, what a fantastic question. Perhaps I should write a post simply asking for this feedback? I bet we'd hear from a bunch of women who have never commented."
    I look forward to reading such a thing.

    @Just1Z
    I think you are great too.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Mega: “Interesting… so questioning how the “subhuman beta” male achieves long-term happiness and marital satisfaction by ignoring his nature, buring his conscience, and going down the NSA path is somehow equivalent to advocating Victorian-style abstinence-only before marriage?”

    Well, our “nature” isn’t mongogamy. That has to be drilled into our heads by external forces, usually, women. Because you can simply always stop doing NSA.

    Maybe I wasn’t clear. I never meant that going strictly NSA is the only way. I meant withholding verbal commitment of fidelity until you find someone *very* worthy of it.

    All I am saying is have a two-ladder system. Not a single sex ladder, or a single relationship ladder. Two.

    After all, worked for Mr. HUS, right?

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

      Well, our “nature” isn’t mongogamy. That has to be drilled into our heads by external forces, usually, women. Because you can simply always stop doing NSA.

      I believe the most recent thinking is that left to their own devices, human beings would mate as serial monogamists in 4-7 year increments.

      Men evolved to pair-bond, fall in love, and prefer sexual exclusivity, at least for a period of time.

      From Buss:

      Why men marry poses a puzzle. Casual sex without commitment would have sufficed if all he needed was to reproduce. So there must have been powerful adaptive advantages to committing years of investment to a woman.

      One possibility is that men who refused to commit would have had trouble attracting the most desirable mating partners. Women did not consent to sex without the commitment. Women desire a lasting commitment, and the most desirable women are in the best position to get what they want.

      A second possibility is that infants and young were more likely to die without the prolonged investment from two parents or related kin. Even children who survived without a father would have suffered from the absence of his teaching and political alliances. Fathers often have a strong hand in arranging beneficial marriages for offspring – so children without fathers would be hurt. This gave an advantage to men who married.

      Conversely, most women can obtain a more desirable temporary mate if they are willing to forgo commitment. Men of high status typically insist on more stringent standards for a spouse than most women are able to meet.

      This often gets lost in discussions about male sexuality. The truth is that men have evolved to want monogamy when they fall in love. It is not a question of “settling.” This is the corollary to the debate about what women are attracted to. We have evolved to seek comfort traits – they are attraction cues, and they can make us feel quite sexy. Women who enjoy a larger share of comfort traits are not “settling.”

      This is not a denial of the male enjoyment of sexual variety or the female enjoyment of male dominance. But the picture is far more nuanced and complex than the typical Game perspective would suggest.

  • Just1Z

    Hey Sai,

    you’re in good form, great to see.

    is this the personality that you let the guys around you see? if not, have a think about that. Keep smiling though…

    BTW did you get your glasses’ prescription fixed?

    I remember you saying about the hideous woman you saw in the mirror – clearly your glasses were out of whack…hope that you’re progressing that issue. On some issues you should take somebody’s word for it.

    My unreasonably good mood continues as I look forward to a weekend practicing for the zombie ‘pocalypse. With the addition of just a chainsaw, my arsenal will be complete. I’ve loaded up the airsoft gun in the avatar with plastic balls and am just about to put the batteries in – sorted.

  • Just1Z

    (though you may need to clear your cache to see the avatar I’m talking about)

  • deti

    Jackie:

    “Thugspawn” is a reference to the children of women becoming baby mamas to men who then fly the coop. Both are wrong: the woman for failing to screen appropriately; the man for impregnating a woman and then not doing right by her.

    It is not a criticism of one being a member of the underclass. (I come from the stock of the underclass and working class.) It is a criticism of a growing number of women in the underclass making poor decisions to have sex with men who have no intention of staying with them and getting pregnant.

    In fact, to us they seem to be poor decisions. To the woman making them, the promise of government services to support her and her baby means the decision to get pregnant makes economic sense.

  • mr. wavevector

    I think the point is authenticity. A man who truly can dominate the environment and other men isn’t likely to be pussy whipped at home. In other words, he isn’t dominating the woman, but he is indomitable. The benefit of maintaining this frame is that it provides a subconscious reassurance to the woman that she is with a man who really can deliver the resources.

    I’d buy that. In fact, I married that.

    I’m happy you agree. This is what I was struggling towards in our previous conversation on another thread. That you weren’t buying it suggested I hadn’t quite hit the nail yet.

  • Ion

    “It is not a criticism of one being a member of the underclass. (I come from the stock of the underclass and working class.) It is a criticism of a growing number of women in the underclass making poor decisions ”

    Yet, the claim is that all women are hypergamous. How can an underclass woman be hypergamous if she allows herself to fall in love with men who have nothing? “They have less options” doesn’t seem to work for anyone else, since the claim is that women will definitely sit and wait for a man above their league.

    Women in the underclass will choose from what’s available. If that’s plumbers, golf caddy’s and janitors, they will pick from those men. If it’s thugs and criminals, they will pick from those men. Men in the underclass definitely have the privilege to choose from a variety of women in that group, because those women are not as hypergamous as women from higher classes.

    Szopen

    “BTW, re alphas, status etc. The carving for “status” makes a lot more sense than saying, common in manosphere that “girls dig jerks”. Confidence may come in from having good status, so girls may be attraced by confidence jus as a secondary, indirect signal of good status in social hierarchy…”

    100%, the men in the manosphere seem to forget this fact.

    Either be goodlooking or have resources. Women will faint over you whether you are an asshole, or a nice guy.

    Now try it the other way. Be ugly and have no resources. No amount of asshole/nice guy on the planet will save you. Makeup and wardrobe won’t work on a 500 pound gorilla.

    Game works for men who have a minimum threshold of attractiveness and resources. Athol can use game because he’s already a reasonably goodlooking and reasonably successful guy.

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

    @SW

    The truth is that men have evolved to want monogamy when they fall in love. It is not a question of “settling.”

    Again, gratzi for the clarity and understanding. My guess is serial monogamy IS variety for restricted guys. Why NSA is the Holy Grail, I have no idea, except perhaps for the validation from other *men*.

    When I first met my SO, I was “naturally” attracted to her and no longer considered pursuing other women. Of course, mutual interest and reciprocity were strong incentives. But I didn’t need to be goaded into monogamy at all.

    But apparently I did it all wrong, since I wasn’t spinning multiple plates, sleeping with several other women, and keeping her at arm’s length guessing and feeling insecure in a position of weakness. Call me an alien from another planet. :wink:

  • mr. wavevector

    Why men marry poses a puzzle.

    Not really, and you did a good job of showing why. The “dad” mating strategy is the most successful one for most men.

    Casual sex without commitment would have sufficed if all he needed was to reproduce.

    This is what we call an ‘apex fallacy’ when feminists do it. Casual sex without commitment + hypergamy = involuntary celibacy for the many men who aren’t anywhere close to being alpha studs.

    On the other hand, enforced assortative monogamy + “wifely duty” = every man has a wife who will have sex with him once in a while. It’s not hard to see why most traditional societies ended up with this model.

  • Ion

    Plain Jane

    “How is “consumer” capitalism any different from just plain ol regular capitalism?”

    I’m not sure what INTJ meant but I agree that Consumer Capitalism is different. Media has a HUGE impact for one. Even Karl Marx couldn’t have predicted that media and the illusion of class mobility (from student loans to tokenism and the “middle class”) would be paramount in maintaining division. Regular capitalism also produced more kids and kept families in tact, consumer capitalism is more about the individual’s ability to acquire things at the expense of having children.

    “And INTJ is wrong about India’s middle class. There is no dating culture in India outside of a few metros, forget about hookup culture.”

    Aren’t these metros populated by some millions of people? If so, what’s happening there can definitely start to affect all.

  • Tasmin

    @Plain Jane
    “Well, it is ok to let yourself go and relax a little after 40.”
    “were all still healthy, fit and attractive.”

    We can skip the debate whether or not the two statements above are contradictory or not, but certainly on its own, the first statement you made is a red flag for most men. Of course we age and our bodies change and there is less time for ourselves and we may have a harder time keeping weight off and all of that, but no man wants to hear that there is an actual plan in place to let off the gas at a certain age – or (gasp!) post-marriage. That statement is a total softball for all those ‘sphere voices who are constructing the worlds longest laundry list of reasons to avoid marriage. So in a sense, your statement is bad PR.

    I pounced because it totally plucks that string of concern that most men have that post-marriage or at some point the investment in physical appearance is relaxed. Most men care about the physical appearance of their partner. Either you don’t know this or don’t care. I don’t care either way, thats up to you of course, but the notion of scaling back investment in a critical dimension of a relationship is, in the wider sense, bad strategy.

    In my previous post, I posed it against my letting off the gas in the status-provider sense, as I believe that is comparable in terms of attraction as well as part of the same “agreement” that I think should be part of a marriage – that is, the mutual commitment of prioritizing and re-investing in the very things that brought us together (attraction, compatibility, shared values, etc.) You may not “care”, but this doesn’t mean that most people do not care.

    I’m no gym rat, but I live in one of the fittest cities in the US and I am well aware that in terms of how I compete fitness is important. Now if I had a career trajectory of high status or a job with high income then I could actually relax a little without risking a SMV decline but since I (mostly) understand female attraction, I focus on what I have.

    But the reality is that the health, psychological state, energy, cognitive function, and testosterone bump that I get from exercise is enough reason alone. I have been an athlete my entire life and for a good portion at an elite level. I practice yoga, swim, lift, trail-run, cycle, ski, and play organized sports. Going to the “Gym” was a shortcut for saying that I take care of my body. Your reductive beeline to the negative connotation of “gym rat” is just one more way in which your not-so-subtle elitist attitude permeates your comments.

    You are awful quick to criticize and devalue the approach of others if it differs from your own, in this case your obviously superior “natural” ways of staying fit without selling out to to some corporation or engaging in some other obviously less enlightened path to fitness.

    FWIW, I can go toe-to-toe with any hippie, I practically grew up running barefoot through the woods and swimming across bodies of water for fun, so lets just drop the granola routine. I also met plenty of hippies when I was training at the USOTC and they were right there in the “gym” with me and the strength coach.

    Glad to hear you are fit and attractive though. I’m all for a healthy populous . :-)

  • JP

    ” The truth is that men have evolved to want monogamy when they fall in love. It is not a question of “settling.””

    As long as you are in the infatuation stage (meaning the falling in love part) then everything is great.

    It’s after that the personality differences / differences in worldview / different life goals become more of an issue and the relationship slowly declines over time.

  • Just1Z

    “It’s after that the personality differences / differences in worldview / different life goals become more of an issue and the relationship slowly declines over time.”

    and sometimes, not so slowly…VDM

  • JP

    “Why men marry poses a puzzle.”

    Well, for me it was a combination of a desire to conform to the moral order (non-marital sex = evil, like theft or murder) and an understanding that the husband-wife was the primary mode of social life in adulthood (no meaningful life if not married) , along with the goal of having children – I think 4 was my target number in my early 20′s.

    Plus, it was on the list, like college (check) and career (check).

    Also, I had been trying and failing to form meaningful permanent relationships since about age 13 (and failing).

  • Sassy6519

    Either be goodlooking or have resources. Women will faint over you whether you are an asshole, or a nice guy.

    Now try it the other way. Be ugly and have no resources. No amount of asshole/nice guy on the planet will save you. Makeup and wardrobe won’t work on a 500 pound gorilla.

    Game works for men who have a minimum threshold of attractiveness and resources. Athol can use game because he’s already a reasonably goodlooking and reasonably successful guy.

    I can dig it.

    Again, gratzi for the clarity and understanding. My guess is serial monogamy IS variety for restricted guys. Why NSA is the Holy Grail, I have no idea, except perhaps for the validation from other *men*.

    When I first met my SO, I was “naturally” attracted to her and no longer considered pursuing other women. Of course, mutual interest and reciprocity were strong incentives. But I didn’t need to be goaded into monogamy at all.

    But apparently I did it all wrong, since I wasn’t spinning multiple plates, sleeping with several other women, and keeping her at arm’s length guessing and feeling insecure in a position of weakness. Call me an alien from another planet. :wink:

    Hahahahaha!!

    Great comment Megaman.

  • JP

    @Deti:

    “In fact, to us they seem to be poor decisions. To the woman making them, the promise of government services to support her and her baby means the decision to get pregnant makes economic sense.”

    This only works until the machine stops.

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

    Jackie:

    I think you meant me.

    “Thugspawn” is a reference to the children of women becoming baby mamas to men who then fly the coop. Both are wrong: the woman for failing to screen appropriately; the man for impregnating a woman and then not doing right by her.

    It is not a criticism of one being a member of the underclass.

    Yeah I get that. I just think it’s a really derogatory term for children of single moms. It conjures up images of the devil’s children or something lol.

    In fact, to us they seem to be poor decisions. To the woman making them, the promise of government services to support her and her baby means the decision to get pregnant makes economic sense.

    Huh. I’m pretty sure the most logical economic decision would be to not have the kid. I heard somewhere that one kid costs $12,000 in the first year (seems sort of conservative IMO but we’ll go with it). Let’s say the woman gets $200 a month in cash welfare, $200 in food stamps, and $300 in section 8 housing (to live in a shitty neighborhood). That’s 12000 – 12(200 + 200 + 300) = -3600. A net loss. And that’s just the first year.

    Also, you apparently neglected to read my word vomit about how the government doesn’t “promise” anything. You have to jump through a bunch of hoops and then some.

  • deti

    Olive:

    No. I meant Jackie. She objected to the “thugspawn” reference as unkind to mother and child, and in denigrating the poor.

    I haven’t responded to you because I haven’t decided whether or how to do so.

    As I said, the issue is not the socioeconomic status. Four generations ago, my family (both sides) were in this SES but most of the women didn’t make the dumb decisions that comparable women do today, 100 years later. I am from the stock of the underclass and lower classes.

    The issue is engaging in sex with men who are likely to knock you up and likely to leave you when it happens. I was not being “unkind to poor people”, I was criticizing a particular substandard decisionmaking pattern that presents repeatedly among the underclass and lower classes.

  • INTJ

    Holy crap this is amazing! XKCD just indicted the entire ideology of frequentist statistics in one short comic!

    http://xkcd.com/1132/

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

    No. I meant Jackie. She objected to the “thugspawn” reference as unkind to mother and child, and in denigrating the poor.

    Oops sorry. I apparently missed her comment, that’s what I get for falling so far behind.

    Four generations ago, my family (both sides) were in this SES but most of the women didn’t make the dumb decisions that comparable women do today, 100 years later.
    Agreed, it was the same situation in my family (actually, one side was back in Syria, but they were dirt poor when they came to this country). The single mom issue is sort of complicated I think. To an extent, you’re right, they often choose the wrong men. And a lot of it, as you’ve already said, is society sort of turning the other way instead of outright shaming these decisions. And there’s the weird idea, parroted most often by academics, that a child growing up in a single-parent household will do just as well as a child in a two-parent household (I often wonder if this isn’t a product of the controversy about gay couples adopting children…. “we have to accept ALL types of families”).

    But I still push back against the notion that a single mom makes the conscious economic decision to have a kid to a guy who won’t commit, simply because she knows the government has her back.

  • INTJ

    @ Plain Jane

    And INTJ is wrong about India’s middle class. There is no dating culture in India outside of a few metros, forget about hookup culture.

    India’s middle class is mostly urban, and a lot of today’s kids do stuff behind their parents’ back. Certainly, dating culture is concentrated in some of the more cosmopolitan cities, but it’s rapidly entering Indian culture. Guys there complain about it a lot.

  • JP

    “And there’s the weird idea, parroted most often by academics, that a child growing up in a single-parent household will do just as well as a child in a two-parent household (I often wonder if this isn’t a product of the controversy about gay couples adopting children…. “we have to accept ALL types of families”). ”

    Given that you need some sort of human model both male and female behavior, it makes sense that you would want two parents.

    I know that boys definitely need fathers, however, I’m not sure about girls needing fathers in the same way, so single women with girls probably isn’t much of a problem. They had a solid model.

    With gay couples, you generally have one who’s more masculine and one who’s more feminine (because you still need that tension), so I’m not sure it’s as much of an issue.

  • JP

    @INTJ:

    “India’s middle class is mostly urban, and a lot of today’s kids do stuff behind their parents’ back. Certainly, dating culture is concentrated in some of the more cosmopolitan cities, but it’s rapidly entering Indian culture. Guys there complain about it a lot.”

    Western (Faustian) civilization is entering cultural winter, so to speak. Apparently, this is one of the side-effects.

    We’ll get another mythos eventually, but this one is finished.

  • Ted D

    Olive – “But I still push back against the notion that a single mom makes the conscious economic decision to have a kid to a guy who won’t commit, simply because she knows the government has her back.”

    But this is largely a matter of perspective.

    Let me start by saying that I am the result of a mother that made a bad choice on who to have sex with, and am the result of a single parent home. I certainly don’t hate my mother, but objectively I CAN say that she made some very stupid choices, and she agrees in general. Of course, she counters that I was the result of that stupid choice, and she can’t be upset by the result. However that is another matter of persepctive. I digress…

    Anyway, my point is that perhaps these women aren’t plotting to get knocked up so they can get government assistance. But, to me on the outside, it matters very little. What I see is building after building filled with single mothers on welfare and assistance, with a gaggle of children from fathered by multiple men. To me it either means they are trying to work the system, or they are just too ignorant to realize that they are being stupid. I generally lean towards working the system, because to accept that it is all based on ignorance means I am literally surrounded by some pretty stupid people. (not stupid in an IQ sense, but stupid in a “can’t make a good decision to save their life” sense.)

    I honestly don’t know how hard it is to get assistance, but only 5 blocks from me are too rather large multi-story buildings filled with people on it. The grounds are in terrible shape, and the parks nearby are always littered and covered in graffiti. The crime rate down there is horrible, and what concerns me is these folks aren’t staying to “their” area. They often wander around vandalizing other people’s property. Our basketball hoop was ripped off our garage, because after we let the local kids use it, the police asked us NOT to allow it. It seems the kids were thowing rocks at a neighbors dog, and broke a window. When we told them we couldn’t allow them to use it anymore, they broke it.

    So tell me, how exactly am I supposed to empathize with these folks when they obviously don’t give a shit about me? How can I see the ‘welfare state’ as anything other than a safety net for people that are too ignorant to simply take care of themselves? Yes, I know that sometimes things happen, and assitance is needed. But these families are multi-generational welfare clans. These aren’t people that lost their jobs, they never had one to begin with.

    And I’m not a class hater elitest. My own family was mill workers and coal miners in Western PA. They came here to work their asses off for the few dollars they made, because it was better than the situation in Poland at the time. I don’t begrudge anyone for their SES, but I can’t stomach people that simply won’t take responsibility for their own situationl, and instead look to ME the tax payer to give them a free ride. I worked hard for what I have, and I don’t see any effort from the folks 5 blocks away.

  • INTJ

    @ Sai

    And INTJ is wrong about India’s middle class. There is no dating culture in India outside of a few metros, forget about hookup culture.

    In Russia? They have a high female to male ratio, but their population just isn’t large enough to balance out the missing females in China. But more importantly, it’s too late for China. No matter what they do, the one child policy has already warped the demographics to the point that a decade or two down the road the dependency ratios are going to shoot through the roof.

  • SayWhaat

    When I first met my SO, I was “naturally” attracted to her and no longer considered pursuing other women. Of course, mutual interest and reciprocity were strong incentives. But I didn’t need to be goaded into monogamy at all.

    But apparently I did it all wrong, since I wasn’t spinning multiple plates, sleeping with several other women, and keeping her at arm’s length guessing and feeling insecure in a position of weakness. Call me an alien from another planet.

    Megaman ftw! :)

    @ INTJ:

    Certainly, dating culture is concentrated in some of the more cosmopolitan cities, but it’s rapidly entering Indian culture. Guys there complain about it a lot.

    Really? What sort of complaints do they have?

  • Ted D

    Megaman – “When I first met my SO, I was “naturally” attracted to her and no longer considered pursuing other women. Of course, mutual interest and reciprocity were strong incentives. But I didn’t need to be goaded into monogamy at all.

    But apparently I did it all wrong, since I wasn’t spinning multiple plates, sleeping with several other women, and keeping her at arm’s length guessing and feeling insecure in a position of weakness. Call me an alien from another planet.”

    ya know what? I did the exact same thing, and to be honest I was happy about it until I found the ‘sphere. I can’t say I was happy about my previous results, being that I ended up divorced and all, but once upon a time I used to be relatively happy with myself. Now? I have my good days, and I have my bad. On the good side, the upset the Red Pill caused me kicked my fat ass into gear and got me losing weight and getting in shape. On the bad, I now tend to doubt all of my own instincts in regards to how I should relate to my wife, and how I should behave around women in general. As it is I’m not very good at social stuff, and all of this has really done a number on my self confidence in terms of relating to women, and people in general.

    I’m good with recognizing my flaws and fixing them. In fact I feel better knowing because then I can DO something about it. But man, the feeling of uncertainty I have that stems from comparing how I feel and behave to what the ‘sphere and even Athol suggest just throws me off kilter so much sometimes that I can’t even figure out what course of action to take. I hate being indecisive, but I also hate making decisions based on bad/inadequate knowledge. So I often find myself spinning my tires.

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

      So I often find myself spinning my tires.

      Tires OK. Plates bad.

  • mr. wavevector

    But apparently I did it all wrong, since I wasn’t spinning multiple plates, sleeping with several other women, and keeping her at arm’s length guessing and feeling insecure in a position of weakness. Call me an alien from another planet.

    That’s because you, like most men, don’t have the will to power that motivates the alpha. The alpha gets off on making many women submit to his sexual power. Most of us wouldn’t enjoy that even if we had that kind of power.

  • SayWhaat

    ya know what? I did the exact same thing, and to be honest I was happy about it until I found the ‘sphere.

    This speaks volumes.

    The Red Pill comes with a Red Flag.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Ted D,

    But man, the feeling of uncertainty I have that stems from comparing how I feel and behave to what the ‘sphere and even Athol suggest just throws me off kilter so much sometimes that I can’t even figure out what course of action to take.

    I can relate to that. I think the problem with the ‘sphere is that it is based on an apex fallacy – what works for the alpha will work for the rest of us. It’s not true. You end up trying to do things that just don’t fit your personality or life situation.

    There are certainly valid points of red-pill wisdom, particularly that a strong frame is more attractive to most women than a supplicating one. Many of us end up with the latter because we’ve been told that’s what women like, or because we adopt that pose because of a subconscious sense of inferiority to women. But there’s a big gap between “supplicating omega” and “dominant alpha”, and the right spot for most men is somewhere in between.

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

      @Mr. Wavevector

      I can relate to that. I think the problem with the ‘sphere is that it is based on an apex fallacy – what works for the alpha will work for the rest of us. It’s not true. You end up trying to do things that just don’t fit your personality or life situation.

      Especially troubling, I think, is that many Game bloggers are highly narcissistic and manipulative personalities. They’re sharing their unethical, shady tactics with guys who couldn’t be Dark Triad if their life depended on it. As a result, their regulars tend to be sexually unsuccessful males trying to morph into James Bond. It’s Gammas reading the Alpha Asshole Playbook and it’s actually painful to witness, at least for me.

      I asked what might be most useful to guys here at HUS and one thing that at least a couple of guys said is “lose the anti-Game.” Most guys want to lose the supplicating behavior and find that in-between sweet spot without signing up for a lifetime of being a bad person!

  • Just1Z

    “The Red Pill comes with a Red Flag.”

    Well yeah, but on the whole, men prefer to live in the real world. Warts and all. Those ‘pretty lies’ that we’re brought up with can get men killed (financially and emotionally).

    Men want to know when their internal model of the world differs from the real one. IMNSHO that’s why male debates are very different in character to female ones (NADALT).

  • SayWhaat

    I know that boys definitely need fathers, however, I’m not sure about girls needing fathers in the same way, so single women with girls probably isn’t much of a problem. They had a solid model.

    I disagree. Girls definitely need a good father as a role model. The daughters of single women are just as screwed as the fatherless sons.

  • Tasmin

    @mr. Wave
    “Most of us wouldn’t enjoy that even if we had that kind of power.”
    +1
    Agree, though I think there is much more than ‘enjoyment’ (or lack of) that drives it. One of the most under-appreciated aspects of a person is their possession of power without the desire to leverage that for personal benefit; power with restraint. Maybe this is an unnatural state in some biological or Machiavellian sense, but from a social and relational standpoint it might just be quite valuable.

    Within the current SMP power seems to be understood solely in how it is reflected upon others; the visible spectrum dominates. But as all the STEM folks know, the visible spectrum is in fact a very small segment. People who take the time to hone their senses, become attuned to those other wavelengths will do well in finding those people with the balance Mr. Wave notes above.

    Shiny objects are for hooking fish.

    @SayWhat
    “The Red Pill comes with a Red Flag.”

    Please expand.

  • Tasmin

    @SayWhat
    “The daughters of single women are just as screwed as the fatherless sons.”

    Damage can be done certainly in either case and it might be hair-splitting to compare the two, but it is worth noting that in a Feminist driven society, the framework is much more favorable to that of a young woman growing up.

    I’m sure there are studies out there but for some reason my internal data collector thinks that part of this whole ‘boys falling behind’ thing – in light of the increasing single-parent (and more often single-mother) households is already reflecting this difference.

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

      @Tasmin

      Damage can be done certainly in either case and it might be hair-splitting to compare the two, but it is worth noting that in a Feminist driven society, the framework is much more favorable to that of a young woman growing up.

      I think less women are less screwed, for the reason you mention, but I also think they’re just as screwed up. Rising female narcissism, unrealistic standards and expectations, a sense of entitlement, and superficial values are increasingly common among coddled girls.

  • Ted D

    Just1Z – “Well yeah, but on the whole, men prefer to live in the real world. Warts and all. Those ‘pretty lies’ that we’re brought up with can get men killed (financially and emotionally).”

    This. Yes, I was happy with who I was, but only because I was viewing the world through my own personal rose colored glasses. The man I used to be was ill equipped to deal with the reality of our modern Western world, but probably very well suited to what is used to be like in the “good old days”.

    And agian, I’m good with knowing my flaws and fixing them. I know beyond all doubt that I totally fucked up my first marriage, which pisses me off. I’m one of the most stubborn and bullheaded people I know (not to toot my own horn…) but I completely and utterly caved to my ex-wife’s will, based on a large number of lies and false assumptions. It sucks, but knowing the truth allows me to fix it.

    The problem is, I’m not 100% sure exactly what WILL fix it. Getting in better shape? no brainer. Concentrating on putting some effort into things I enjoy? Easy enough. But honestly, when I start trying to get down to “shit tests” and “captain/first officer” I truly feel completely out of my depth, and the ONLY thing I can use as a metric is what I get here and in the ‘sphere. I have faith that Athol knows his shit, but I can’t deny that some of this stuff just makes me extremely uncomfortable. thing is, I also know that ANY change is uncomfortable at first, and I can’t tell if it is this or that the particular thing I am “trying” just isn’t for me. And honestly, I don’t want to use my marriage as a damn Red Pill experiment. I want it to work. I can’t describe just how upsetting it is to me personally that I have to “experiment” on people at all. I see a lot of “just try it and see if it works” advice, and that strikes me as not only irresponsible, but downright dangerous. It is my nature to be cautious and calculating, and those traits don’t mix well with “try something new”. Add to that my apprehension based on my first failed marriage, and you get, well, me.

    Obviously this isn’t one of my good days. My old self would have simply crushed all this emotion down until it was nothing but a small blip of discomfort that I would simply ignore. I’ve learned along my Red Pill journey that this behavior is NOT the way to fix things. But I’ll be damned if I know the way to fix it otherwise…

  • Just1Z

    TedD, let’s face it, you don’t even know how to start giving up…however long it takes, you’ll get there (wherever that is, I’m not so sure that I know either).

  • Ted D

    SayWhat – “This speaks volumes.

    The Red Pill comes with a Red Flag.”

    I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion right away. I think for the vast majority of delta-type men, the Red Pill does the job just fine. Mostly because they don’t put much thought into it, and instead just jump in and get going. They probably have a MUCH easier time finding balance because they don’t spend countless hours thinking about exactly what that balance is. I on the other hand spend more time thinking about doing something than doing it in many cases. This isn’t new as I’ve done it my entire life. It is exactly why I managed to be a 42 year old guy with a N of 4: casual sex struck me as a VERY risky proposition, and the more I thought about it, the more I became disgusted by it. I’ve had opprotunities to romp around with some pretty decent looking women. (groupies come in all shapes and sizes after all) but in every case what stopped me was the feeling that it was all so cheap and tawdry that it was beneath me. Now, I can’t say if that is my own personal thinking, or programming that was pushed on me as a child, but it is what it is.

    UGH I’m in a mood and rambling again. I’m going to hang out with one of my best buddies tonight sans the wife and other females. I might just decide to finally broach this subject with him.

  • Ted D

    Just1Z – “TedD, let’s face it, you don’t even know how to start giving up…”

    Fuck giving up! This mood isn’t resignation man, it is frustration from not knowing what the hell I should be doing. I hate having to work without a plan, and at this point I don’t know the destination, so drawing the map (no pun to Athol intended…) is pointless. I’m not sitting still and am working on the things I know need fixing, but I can’t help but feel there is a ton of stuff I haven’t even found yet.

    God I truly hate the unknown. But thanks for the words of encrouagement. I’m not even close to giving up, and in fact I wouldnt’ be this frustrated if I was. Giving up for me means having no hope, and I’m more than hopeful. I just pissed off that I seem to be lacking what so many men just have naturally, and can’t figure out whos advice is the best fit for me.

  • Just1Z

    “I’m not even close to giving up”

    it never even crossed my mind that you were…promise. it was a comment on your chaacter, not your current mental state.

    hope that you enjoy the Grand Prix in Austin on Sunday. Looks like a good track (low grip issues, maybe). I shall wind down from ‘the competition’ in the day with a beer and watch your Grand Prix in the evening (UK)

    Have a great Friday evening and weekend to follow.

  • Ted D

    Just1Z – LOVE the new avatar!

    I’m going to be in the mountains this weekend having a man retreat of sorts. I’ll miss the race, but I think I need a dose of testosterone. :P

  • Just1Z

    Why thank you very much!

    I have more manly toys, they’ll be being played with on Sunday…

  • Just1Z

    Note the finger OFF the trigger…those plastic balls can sting…safety first.

  • Ted D

    Just1Z – paintballs sting like a bitch as well!

    And I think we successfully killed the thread. At least I got something done today. LOL

  • SayWhaat

    “The Red Pill comes with a Red Flag.”

    What I meant by that was that along with a *slightly* more precise of understanding male/female sexual dynamics, there is an overdose of misogyny, sexism, and cynicism. It’s like taking chemo because you’re tired of shaving.

    If a guy is familiar with these concepts, he may “know” how to be sexually attractive, but he may still be shit at relationships. For every well-adjusted family man, there are many others that fall to the Dark Side.

    A woman dating such a man has no idea if his ideas are aligned with Athol, (who is generally benevolent), or a dark blogger. The latter outnumbers the former by far, so the odds aren’t good that you’re dating a guy with a realistic yet healthy view of women. That’s why if I knew any woman dating a guy familiar with the ‘sphere, I’d strongly caution her. Chances are, that guy’s no good.

  • Just1Z

    I have had the same effect before…

    Just waiting to go out for the evening, killing time, killing threads, killing beers, it’s all the same to me

  • Just1Z

    I think that you’re mixing up the concepts of ‘Game’ (Athol / Roissy / PUA) and ‘teh Red-Pill’ (seeing how the world works).

    Taking the red-pill is seeing reality (perish those pretty lies), then you can chose to:
    GYOW (MGTOW)
    ‘improve’ your marriage (Athol, he seems to get some great reviews)
    improve your attractiveness to women (while still being the same basic guy)
    decide that your life revolves around pussy (PUA).

    anyway, that’s my opinion FWIW

  • Ted D

    SayWhaat – “What I meant by that was that along with a *slightly* more precise of understanding male/female sexual dynamics, there is an overdose of misogyny, sexism, and cynicism. It’s like taking chemo because you’re tired of shaving”

    makes sense. But the thing to remember is, most guys NEED a very serious bitchslap to kick things into gear if/when they are so far down the rabbit hole. the ‘sphere may be full of bitter men, but the truth is I needed to get my virtual ass kicked a few times before it triggered my “fuck this I’m not taking this crap” response and got me truly motivated. There is no doubt that some guys may go too far over to the ‘dark side’, and I’ve voiced those concerns many times here and elsewhere. But truly, when I look around the the men I know and see daily, most of them DO NOT have it in them to become a real player. Many might try, but few would succeed. I suspect that most would find some new success with women in general, find one they like a great deal, and move on to the LTR type thing hopefully with the right frame of mind to make it last.

    Don’t base anything regarding how “men” in general repsond to the Red Pill on my reactions. I’m telling you that I am fully sure that in my case, I am my own worst enemy here. I think too much, worry too much, and for all that I tend to be rather unemotional in general, I have FAR too much emotional investment in this issue. It is one of those times when I almost wish I was more “normal” for lack of a better word. Most people don’t think about a fraction of the stuff I consider daily. I’m one of those people that can stretch a game of chess over days, because I can think about my next move that long. Before internet gaming, it made remote chess games very interesting. LOL

  • Just1Z

    Actually, seeing as it is GYOW (Going Your Own Way), an MGTOW can pick’n'mix all the variants and just call them His Way.

  • Cooper

    @Ted
    “But man, the feeling of uncertainty I have that stems from comparing how I feel and behave to what the ‘sphere and even Athol suggest just throws me off kilter so much sometimes that I can’t even figure out what course of action to take.”

    Yup. Believe it or not, despite what I post here that may sound like I pour on be affection, often, and too soon – I’m usually operating with the default “withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal” frame. My feels make it very had to maintain the “2/3 rule;” if I didn’t know better, and I haven’t always, it can end up being 3:1 (megaman: “keeping her at arm’s length guessing”)

    I always laugh really hard when a girl asks “what it is I am looking for.”
    Because I know want I want, and I know what she wants to hear, but telling her want she wants to hear is NO WAY to get what I want.
    Hahahahahahaha, amiright?

  • Just1Z

    doh

    I forgot MRA (in theory at least) become politically active, socially active about the red-pill realities

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    SayWhaat “That’s why if I knew any woman dating a guy familiar with the ‘sphere, I’d strongly caution her. Chances are, that guy’s no good.”

    I would say that participation in the ‘sphere is dangerous, but knowledge of red pill/game isn’t. My husband participated more on spiritual and video gaming forums/blogs, but he did have red pill knowledge. That in itself wasn’t bad. It’s what a guy puts his time/effort/energy towards.

    Cooper

    I always laugh really hard when a girl asks “what it is I am looking for.”
    Because I know want I want, and I know what she wants to hear, but telling her want she wants to hear is NO WAY to get what I want.

    Then those girls aren’t really interested in you. They are more interested in the “game” than in you as a person.

    My husband and I told each other ILY within two weeks of starting to talk to each other. That’s the kind of timeline that led to us being married a little over a year after meeting each other. :P

  • Cooper

    “My husband and I told each other ILY within two weeks of starting to talk to each other. That’s the kind of timeline that led to us being married a little over a year after meeting each other.”

    That’s unheard of!! I know girls that consider ILY absolutely crazy talk, even after 6months.

    I have no interest in “games.” And it seems most girl, save you, love them.
    It’s all about making the other “earn it.” *scoff*
    It is why hate how being “withdrawn” is so effective – because it is!
    Ideally, I do like moving quickly, because I do think it greatly filter out girls interested in “games” or drama. But, it also seems that I’m not taking into consideration the process of building attraction – which restricted girls may require more time to do so(?).

  • Just1Z

    SayWhaat “That’s why if I knew any woman dating a guy familiar with the ‘sphere, I’d strongly caution her. Chances are, that guy’s no good.”

    so, resistance (or even knowledge of) the femborg will not be tolerated?

    any man that knows of the sphere would tell a woman with that attitude to go get stuffed anyway. So, we’re all good.

    bit late for that, the word is spreading…happy days.

  • Ted D

    Just1Z – “Actually, seeing as it is GYOW (Going Your Own Way), an MGTOW can pick’n’mix all the variants and just call them His Way.”

    I think what you are describing is what I call “fuck it” momemts. As in, fuck it! I’m going to do what I want regardless of what anyone thinks. If that description is correct, then I’m awfully close to it. I can’t complain about my current state: I’m with a woman that loves me, I went from no sex to lots of sex, and because I’ve had a generally positive attitude for the past few years (despite what I post here LOL) things are going well at work and in my personal life. But the truth is, I still can’t be sure I’m doing it right, and there is a LOT riding in me doing it right.

    Cooper – “I always laugh really hard when a girl asks “what it is I am looking for.”
    Because I know want I want, and I know what she wants to hear, but telling her want she wants to hear is NO WAY to get what I want.
    Hahahahahahaha, amiright?”

    Well since we seem to have scared the lady folk away, I’m going to give you my comletely honest man-based opinion. (note: this is only MY opinion, and based on what I posted above, you should probably take this with a huge grain of salt…)

    I would say that in your age bracket what you said is true in a general sense. I fully believe there are 20-something young women out there that want what you have to offer, but it would be a lie if I told you there were a lot of them. I think that 20-something young women are generally interested in the long-term/marriage thing, but not now. (meaning they want it “someday” but today isn’t that day…) I would also say that the women who runs screaming from you today because you want a full committment is likely to be the woman actively looking for you in 5 to 10 years.

    As to what you can do to fix it? LOL brother, if I knew that I’d be a wealthy man spending my days in some place much warmer than Pittsburgh. That being said, you know there are some things about yourself you can work on. I don’t know what they are, but if you put some thought into it, you will. Don’t stop looking for what you want, but don’t expect to find it easily either. Don’t sacrifice the things about yourself you believe in simply to find success. Instead find ways to get success with those traits intact. Do change the things about yourself you dislike, or that you find are simply wrong headed: giving committment too soon strikes me as one of those. I feel for you, because I am exactly the same way. (I say am because although I’m aware of it, I don’t know that it has changed.) As INTJ pointed out (I think) I’m VERY picky about who I spend time with, and IF I decide to “be” with a woman, I’ve already concluded that she is “worth it”. I guess the problem is, most women want to feel that they earned it somehow, and ME deciding they are a good prospect just doesn’t provide that feeling.

    I honestly don’t know much else. As Megaman wrote, I also didn’t do it the “right way” according the the ‘sphere. My (now) wife started our relationship by telling me after our first kiss that she wasn’t looking for a “boyfriend”. I told her that was cool, but in my head all I heard was ‘game on!’ and I began working my way in. She escalated physically, I escalated emotionally. Once we got to the point that sex was inevitable, I clearly explained that I wasn’t willing to go further before I felt that she was in it to win it, or at least try. I can’t say if her original statement was meant to be a challenge, or if she was just fearful of being the “rebound girl” or something, but I tease her often that it is HER fault we married. You see, she said she didn’t want a boyfriend, so instead I made her my wife. *shrug* Plus, she fed me, which I told her was a HUGE mistake…

  • Cooper

    @Just1Z
    “so, resistance (or even knowledge of) the femborg will not be tolerated?”

    *terminator voice*
    “Come with me if…. you don’t know any better”

  • SayWhaat

    I would say that participation in the ‘sphere is dangerous, but knowledge of red pill/game isn’t. My husband participated more on spiritual and video gaming forums/blogs, but he did have red pill knowledge. That in itself wasn’t bad. It’s what a guy puts his time/effort/energy towards.

    +1. That’s actually more along the lines of what I was trying to say. Thanks. :)

    (How’s Aidan doing, btw?)

  • Ted D

    “I would say that participation in the ‘sphere is dangerous, but knowledge of red pill/game isn’t. ”

    This depends largely on what you consider “participation in the ‘sphere”. Would you consider me a participant? Cooper and INTJ? Most of the guys here at least read some ‘sphere sites, but if you think Cooper or INTJ are a bad bet because of it, I’m at a loss.

    Now if your idea of participation is blogging and/or constantly bitching on ‘sphere sites that women are evil? yeah, I wouldn’t agrue with you one bit. But honestly, just going there for the kernals of truth found among the tons of misogyn and bitterness isn’t a bad thing.

    Remember, just because someone is angry/bitter doesn’t mean they are wrong. Biased? surely. but not necessarily wrong at the core.

  • Just1Z

    MGTOW is generally considered to involve looking at where society is going, shrugging because there’s nothing to be done, and then focusing on personal contentment (which may involve one, or more, women – each to their own Own Way).

    There’s a lot less stress when you show the wisdom to know the difference between the things that you can change and those that you cannot. I think that achieving another piece of this is why my mood has been very good over the last few days…which is nice.

    You being married with kids kind of puts a kink in the viability of a laissez-faire attitude. But you get love and sex, so it’s not all bad. And what is done is done (and knowing that, probably works with your personality – a guess, but I believe that we’re not so dissimilar)

  • Cooper

    “Do change the things about yourself you dislike, or that you find are simply wrong headed:”

    You’ll probably relate to this, that the things I like the are also sometimes the things I feel I need to change the most. Namely because I dislike ineffectiveness so much. (Totally INTJ-behavoir)
    So, I end up disliking the things i do truly love about myself, because of their effectiveness. But, I won’t change, I’m far too stubborn.

    “As INTJ pointed out (I think) I’m VERY picky about who I spend time with, and IF I decide to “be” with a woman, I’ve already concluded that she is “worth it”. I guess the problem is, most women want to feel that they earned it somehow, and ME deciding they are a good prospect just doesn’t provide that feeling.”

    I think it may have actually been me that mentioned first. (See #437)
    So, yeah! I know, that’s why I originally mentioned you. (Didn’t you know I knew you that well!!? Lol)

  • Just1Z

    “That’s actually more along the lines of what I was trying to say”
    ahhh, no problem then

  • Just1Z

    “This depends largely on what you consider “participation in the ‘sphere”.”

    that’s a reasonable point.

    personally I read all over the place, but take or leave stuff as I wish. There’s no site that I identify with, it’s all just data.

    I try to get guys to take the red-pill, but have no view on what they should do with it – apart from not hating women (which can happen in the early days of re-pill choking), I really don’t see the point of that.

    I have always believed that NAWALT, if I didn’t believe it I wouldn’t bother coming here to understand the market place. Or try to flag up the male point of view where I think (IMHO) that the women would be better off being aware of it.

    The fact that many women don’t care to listen is outside my control, so be it, they’re the ones that put their future interests at risk. My investment in society is something that I keep a tight watch over.

  • Ted D

    Cooper – “You’ll probably relate to this, that the things I like the are also sometimes the things I feel I need to change the most. Namely because I dislike ineffectiveness so much. (Totally INTJ-behavoir)
    So, I end up disliking the things i do truly love about myself, because of their effectiveness. But, I won’t change, I’m far too stubborn.”

    Man, we could seriously be brothers…

    Yes, I’m in the same boat with many of my so-called ‘bad’ traits. But honestly, you don’t have to change them so much as simply control them. If you tend to go “all in” too quickly, do your best to reign it in. Don’t kill it, just curb it. Truth is, depending on the woman you are with, you might not have to curb it much, or you may need to squash it ruthlessly. I’d say the best chance for success is to find a woman that is OK with a pretty fast escalation, but you can’t find that out without witholding a little at first.

    It sucks man, it really does. But as Hope said, any girl that takes off from a whiff of committment probably isn’t the one for you anyway, so look at it as a way of NOT wasting time. (and being MORE efficient at getting what you want!) Like I said, if you truly like that trait, DO NOT change it. Just learn to make it your bitch, and you’ll be in the winners circle on your terms.

    Fuck what the ‘sphere says: you want a LTR, so play LTR game. If they run for the hills, find a new valley and try again. I won’t tell you its easy, because it isn’t. In fact it will probably frustrate the total hell out of you. But, when you find her, it will all be worth it. Just be aware of your game, and use it to your best advantage.

    I still think it is a realy whacked world we live in that guys like you and INTJ are having this problem. This is SO rediculous…

  • OffTheCuff

    SW: “The truth is that men have evolved to want monogamy when they fall in love. It is not a question of “settling.”

    Sure, I agree. The question is what do you until then? Stay celibate like your elders and church say, or go out and have a good time?

    Mega: “When I first met my SO, I was “naturally” attracted to her and no longer considered pursuing other women. Of course, mutual interest and reciprocity were strong incentives. But I didn’t need to be goaded into monogamy at all.”

    I agree and felt the same myself when I met her. I admitting that I had a lifetime of conditioning that monogamy was “correct” via family and church, and that played a part in my worldview, not that someone forced me at gunpoint to be monogamous.

    Mega: “But apparently I did it all wrong, since I wasn’t spinning multiple plates, sleeping with several other women, and keeping her at arm’s length guessing and feeling insecure in a position of weakness. Call me an alien from another planet.”

    You’re busy debunking an argument that I’m not making, so I guess you’re arguing with yourself, or something. I never said NSA is the holy grail, I meant don’t immediately offer commitment to anyone who gives you the time of day. That’s called being selective.

    After all, the difference “serial monogamy” and outright promiscuity is very little, given a short enough term. I believe the great Meat Loaf described as such:


    I started swearing to my god and on my mother’s grave
    That I would love you to the end of time
    I swore that I would love you to the end of time!
    So now I’m praying for the end of time
    To hurry up and arrive
    ‘Cause if I gotta spend another minute with you
    I don’t think that I can really survive
    I’ll never break my promise or forget my vow
    But God only knows what I can do right now
    I’m praying for the end of time
    It’s all that I can do
    Praying for the end of time,
    So I can end my time with you!!

  • Senior Beta

    Weird assumption in the cited article. It is precisely because the Manosphere emphasizes that there is no moral aspect to hypergamy that it makes so much sense. In other words, there was nothing personal by all those rejections when men were younger. Girls are just wired that way. And the teaching is to understand it so you can react and act accordingly. Nothing to see here.

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

      Girls are just wired that way. And the teaching is to understand it so you can react and act accordingly. Nothing to see here.

      And yet hypergamy rants are commonplace in the ‘sphere, and women are derided mercilessly for it. How have you failed to notice this? Social Pathologist’s post was right on – he didn’t imagine all the whining and bitching.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Cooper

    Yup. Believe it or not, despite what I post here that may sound like I pour on be affection, often, and too soon – I’m usually operating with the default “withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal” frame. My feels make it very had to maintain the “2/3 rule;” if I didn’t know better, and I haven’t always, it can end up being 3:1 (megaman: “keeping her at arm’s length guessing”)

    I always laugh really hard when a girl asks “what it is I am looking for.”
    Because I know want I want, and I know what she wants to hear, but telling her want she wants to hear is NO WAY to get what I want.
    Hahahahahahaha, amiright?

    I may regret this, but here I go.

    Coops, I’m going to try to explain why you may not be having the best luck with attracting and keeping a woman interested. In my opinion, it’s definitely not your looks. That’s not the problem.

    I think your approach with women may be a bit, how do I say it, “eager”. I’ll let you in on something. Women can typically sense when a man is “eager” to be in a relationship or date them. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. The problem happens when your “eagerness” is directed towards a woman who simply doesn’t like it.

    I’ll be honest in admitting that I don’t like it when a man is overly “eager” to pursue me or date me. It sets off alarm bells in my mind. I instinctively think that something may be wrong with him. When a man pursues me hard, it comes across as overbearing and needy.

    Don’t take this to mean that I don’t like it when a man shows interest in me. That is completely untrue. I like male interest, but I think a lot of men have a hard time understanding how to calibrate it to different women. Some women love the hot and heavy, full-speed ahead approach to dating/love while others like things to slowly heat up over time. I think I’m the type that likes things to heat up slowly over time. I’ve experienced dating some men who were the hot and heavy types, and I wanted to and did put on the brakes all the time while with them. They were much too forward and appeared too “eager” to me.

    You may also notice that the women most likely to reciprocate your “eagerness” are women 1-2 points below you on the SMV scale. Those women may readily accept your advances because they consider you such a catch in their eyes.

    I think men may take a woman’s aversion to “eagerness” as a sign to overload on the douche. They think that ignoring her will make her want to pursue them. You don’t have to start completely ignoring women you are interested in though Cooper. I think the key here is balance. You will need to find a balance between cool detachment and over-eagerness. That sweet spot will probably help you to increase your success rate with women.

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

      Given that women get a lot of information about men subconsciously via scent, I have a theory that women can smell eagerness, which often has an element of nervousness or even fear to it. If neurochemical changes are happening, I think women can smell it. That’s why true indifference to rejection is such an asset – the woman gets no whiff of what she perceives as weakness.

      I also believe that micro facial expressions are very important – I think we read cues at a level not at all well understood yet. This is perhaps one of the ways that women can identify players and cads from photos alone.

      Confidence cannot be faked in mating, I don’t think. I met someone with supposedly tight Game, but he came across as having a serial killer vibe and a real undercurrent of agitation. It was very discomfiting. Clearly not yet time to take off the training wheels.

  • Jackie

    @SayWhaat (507)

    SW, I just checked out that thread; dear old HellHound is as constant as the North Star. ;) (I’ve asked him why he keeps coming back here, but apparently he is a man of mystery since he never replied.)

    There were TONS of other chicks commenting then — what happened? A lot of the commenters sound really awesome, wish they would have stuck around. :(

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

      (I’ve asked him why he keeps coming back here, but apparently he is a man of mystery since he never replied.)

      He is a sub.

  • Jackie

    @OTC (526)

    OTC, thanks for the translation!

    Did you see the rest of my post, though? Or read the comment from purplesneakers on the “Cluelessness” thread? This is, ostensibly, a blog for women. Who Susan is trying to cultivate as an audience. We could put a translator on the site, like the LOLCAT one.

    Though people seem to get by without Male:Female translation in all kinds of situations IRL– even in the workplace. ;) Maybe I’m missing the benefit of his comment, but those kinds of words really did hurt people like PS and keep them from coming round.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “I believe the most recent thinking is that left to their own devices, human beings would mate as serial monogamists in 4-7 year increments.”

    I read that as that would be the upper limit of monogamy, not the minimum. Certainly there still would be lots of cheating, STRs, and casual sex left to our own devices. And such STRs are likely how the next increments were executed.

  • Jackie

    @Deti

    Hi Deti,

    I think you missed my point. Those people who make poor decisions are the people Jesus told us to care for. Our treatment of “the least among us”– the people it’s easiest to look down upon with contempt– is what we be held accountable for. They are God’s creation just as much as you are, Deti.

    (Unless I am mistaken about your religious affiliation, in which case I do apologize.)

  • Just1Z

    The desired outcome should be making sure that the lesson has been learned, by the specific person in question, and by society in general. That isn’t being mean for the sake of it.

    All the stats say that children of single mums are disadvantaged and are more likely to have a negative effect on society – society has an interest in reducing the issue (if it has any sense anyway)

    Shaming for it’s instructional value is one thing, shaming to be mean is another. Shame can be a useful tool if used properly, religion being a key user of it in the past for both sexes. According to ‘Dread blogger D’ its use is now restricted to men, in the churches that he is aware of anyway.

  • Cooper

    @Sassy
    I appreciate the words, and understand what you’re saying.

    But…. Haha

    “Then those girls aren’t really interested in you. They are more interested in the “game” than in you as a person.” -Hope #590

    Surely, you and I are past risking offending one another. You are the type I am trying to avoid. You’re, or any womans’, aversion to eagerness, to me, signals insecurities about being fit for monogamy. And I truly, truly believe being fit, or desiring, a monogamous relationship comes from within – and not a byproduct of the extreme attraction of meeting the “perfect” person, or fate.

    It’s not fate that says once a person wants to fall in love, that they fall in love. It’s the former that cause the latter – essentially it’s being proactive about finding what you want.

    A girl being turned off by eagerness, and I am not THAT eager, (I did say they I’ve learned to be withdrawn by default) signals, to me, to find another who is interest.

    Story time!!!

    My dad sometimes used to harp on my mom for taking her sweet time getting ready, which quite often would cause them to be late, something my dad hates.
    He has always said: “There’s no excuse for being late.”
    Because it a sign of whether or not you care. (“Don’t give me an excuse, if you cared, you wouldn’t be late” he’d say to me, or “you just don’t care do you?” to my mom)
    My mom never has understood this. She’ll want to put a load of laundry in last minute, even if they’re already late.
    My mom would respond “it’s not that I DON’T CARE, it’s just I’m busy, it takes me a while to get ready, and there tons to so.”

    All of those are excuses to my dad, and just evidence that she doesnt bother to try to being on time – cause if she did, she would.

    I’ve been in contact with this particular girl for a couple months now, and she seems to be pretty reciprocative, which I like. But she takes forever to get back to me. If it wasn’t for her enthusiasm for us to make plans to get together (which hasn’t been able to be too often, due to somewhat conflicting schedules), and that she did initially explain that she’s like this with even her closest friends. (She’s an Introvert I take it, and she said she’s horrible at responding to texts)
    Nonetheless, I take all this as signs that she isn’t really interested, despite her tone and enthusiasm. Because, to me, if getting back to me was eveb remotely important to her, she would right away. Instead she waits hours, and sometimes days. There’s a ton of excuses of why she might be busy, but to me they all are just indications of not caring. I’m tempted to say to her “look, if you can’t be bothered to get back to me, in any timely manner, it means you’re not very interested.”

    Anything else, just signals that the girl is more interested in “games” than actually finding a relationship partner.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    SayWhaat, Aidan’s doing well. Over two months now. :)

    Ted D, “This depends largely on what you consider “participation in the ‘sphere”. Would you consider me a participant? Cooper and INTJ? Most of the guys here at least read some ‘sphere sites, but if you think Cooper or INTJ are a bad bet because of it, I’m at a loss.”

    I don’t really consider Susan’s blog a part of the manosphere, although there is some overlap in commenters. Athol isn’t really either, since he is relationship and female friendly. By manosphere I mean the Roissy, Roosh, Rollo, etc. I used to comment at some of those places myself, but to be honest, while I was participating, I wasn’t the best of relationship material either.

    I consider the things I learned during that time to be valuable. However, after we got together, my then boyfriend now husband told me that I shouldn’t go to those places as they were too negative. He didn’t like the effect they had on me. That is because the men who comment there tend to be extremists and think women are horrible. I usually came away with a bad self-image, which was a drag on our relationship as well. I don’t tend to get as much of that feeling here, although maybe that is because I’ve been desensitized by the “real manosphere.”

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

      @Hope

      I don’t tend to get as much of that feeling here, although maybe that is because I’ve been desensitized by the “real manosphere.”

      I have tried very hard to rid HUS of extremism and fundamentalism in all its forms. I do not tolerate misogyny. I would estimate that I have succeeded in getting rid of 85% of it. There is still more work to do. One of the challenges is that as soon as one bitter extremist leaves, a new one springs up to take his place. :( These guys are the equivalent of blog suicide bombers – there are always more.

  • Cooper

    @Sassy

    If I may reword what you said:

    “You may also notice that the women most likely to reciprocate your “eagerness” are women [who] consider you such a catch in their eyes.”

    So why not be eager? I DO ONLY WANT a girl that considers me a catch.
    Testing for this aversion can sometime serve to filter out the ones who don’t think Im a catch.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Cooper “Because, to me, if getting back to me was eveb remotely important to her, she would right away. Instead she waits hours, and sometimes days. There’s a ton of excuses of why she might be busy, but to me they all are just indications of not caring.”

    Yeah, this is exactly right. I didn’t go a single day without talking to my husband when we first started talking. I always got back to him either immediately, or if it did take me more than an hour, it would be because I was at a work meeting (yeah, we talked a lot at work, too). I wanted to talk to him all. the. time.

    Well, I still feel that way, but he’s too busy at work these days.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Cooper

    Surely, you and I are past risking offending one another. You are the type I am trying to avoid. You’re, or any womans’, aversion to eagerness, to me, signals insecurities about being fit for monogamy. And I truly, truly believe being fit, or desiring, a monogamous relationship comes from within – and not a byproduct of the extreme attraction of meeting the “perfect” person, or fate.

    Well, you certainly came out with guns bared, blazing and hot. Pardon me for giving a rat’s ass enough to offer some suggestions.

    Nonetheless, I take all this as signs that she isn’t really interested, despite her tone and enthusiasm. Because, to me, if getting back to me was eveb remotely important to her, she would right away. Instead she waits hours, and sometimes days. There’s a ton of excuses of why she might be busy, but to me they all are just indications of not caring. I’m tempted to say to her “look, if you can’t be bothered to get back to me, in any timely manner, it means you’re not very interested.”

    Why do you think she wasn’t interested in you? Was she not attracted to you that much from the very beginning, or was she turned off by potential over-eagerness on your part?

    So why not be eager? I DO ONLY WANT a girl that considers me a catch.
    Testing for this aversion can sometime serve to filter out the ones who don’t think Im a catch.

    I never said that you shouldn’t want a woman who considers you a catch. The problem is that women who are attractive don’t easily consider any man a catch. It takes time to suss that out.

    Hear me out on this. Very attractive women are used to men approaching them. They are used to men offering them the world. They are used to men jumping through hoops for them. Yes, they may think any man who does so is interesting, but they most likely won’t assume he is a catch until they get to know him a great deal. Laying all your cards on the table from the very beginning won’t be very effective.

    I have seen it all before. I’ve heard almost every line in the book. Nothing that a man says to me anymore, during the early stages of dating, is special because I have heard it so many times before. Such words/proclamations have lost value to me. You need to understand that many women have heard “pretty little words” spouted at them since they grew tits.

    A woman with options, which is a good portion of women, will need a good amount of information to go off of before deciding that a man is a catch and worthy of committing themselves to. Young women typically do not have a scarcity mentality. They are able to be choosy. Offering them bread when they are not hungry won’t get you very far.

    You may think that women who are not chomping at the bit to secure commitment from you, eagerness and all, is not fit for monogamy. I don’t think that is the case. I’m telling you that a good portion of women are generally spooked by a man that comes on too strong. You may wish it were not so, but it is what it is.

    You pay the consequences for fishing in an extremely small pool of women, just as I pay the consequences for fishing in a small pool of men. Those are the breaks.

  • Just1Z

    “I think less women are less screwed, for the reason you mention, but I also think they’re just as screwed up. Rising female narcissism, unrealistic standards and expectations, a sense of entitlement, and superficial values are increasingly common among coddled girls.”

    Note to self: Susan has taken the red-pill, I say again, Susan has taken the red-pill

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

    IntJ

    Holy crap this is amazing! XKCD just indicted the entire ideology of frequentist statistics in one short comic!

    Well, you’re easily amused! Interesting… so large, random sampling, asking straightforward questions, collecting data, and counting marriage licenses and birth certificates now qualifies as an “ideology” (uh oh, scary). :shock:

    It’s funny, too bad you haven’t been able to indict a single thing Susan’s cited around here. Because having knee-jerk, non-specific objections without even reading the details strikes me as somewhat… how could we put it… ideological? I’ll never understand how such smart people can be so willfully ignorant…

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

    @SW

    These guys are the equivalent of blog suicide bombers – there are always more.

    I listen to a lot of radio, and certain commercials are so frequent, repetitive, and irritating (usually w/jingles), sometimes twice in a row, and always during *every* program break, that I’ve dubbed them the advertising equivalent of saturation bombing.

    The same could be said of your detractors @ HUS. The counter-arguments never seem to change, no matter what new information you bring to the table!

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

      The counter-arguments never seem to change, no matter what new information you bring to the table!

      You know what the worst thing is? A lot of these guys don’t even read the post – they just leave some nasty comment that makes no sense. Sometimes they complain that I’m all wrong, and then go on to argue the point I made in the OP. I resent the imposition on my time more than anything. Drive-by haters are a nuisance.

  • Iggles

    @ Cooper:

    And I truly, truly believe being fit, or desiring, a monogamous relationship comes from within – and not a byproduct of the extreme attraction of meeting the “perfect” person, or fate.

    +1,000!

    A girl being turned off by eagerness, and I am not THAT eager, (I did say they I’ve learned to be withdrawn by default) signals, to me, to find another who is interest.

    I think this is wise. You’re an LTR guy, so it’s best for filter for girls with that mindset!

    I am a LTR girl and I have always ruled out flaky guys (nothing is a bigger turn off). I hate the push-pull playing games aspect of the “principle of showing least interest”.

  • mr. wavevector

    And yet hypergamy rants are commonplace in the ‘sphere, and women are derided mercilessly for it.

    They call that “shaming language” when women do it.

    Not that I’m making fun of it. There clearly are a lot of very unhappy men out there. Their pain and frustration are real. That can lead to bad things.

    Can society preserve the hard-won women’s rights that allow them to express their hypergamous instincts, while limiting the negative consequences of that expression – this sub-population of disgruntled and disenfranchised men?

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

      Can society preserve the hard-won women’s rights that allow them to express their hypergamous instincts, while limiting the negative consequences of that expression – this sub-population of disgruntled and disenfranchised men?

      I think educated women are going to effectively give back some of those “rights.” I think we’ll see more women opting out of high powered careers and prioritizing family. Basically, we got it all and it’s too damn much work. We don’t want it all – I think a lot of women are curious and interested in being female. IOW, we’ll hopefully see a shift from female supremacy to more of a level playing field.

  • Iggles

    @ Sassy:

    Well, you certainly came out with guns bared, blazing and hot. Pardon me for giving a rat’s ass enough to offer some suggestions.

    Damn.. Once again I realize it’s best not to comment without getting up to date on the latest ones!

    I am not taking sides! Sorry if it came off that way.

  • Cooper

    Sassy,

    “Well, you certainly came out with guns bared, blazing and hot. Pardon me for giving a rat’s ass enough to offer some suggestions.”

    I’d only expect the same in return, and I did say that I appreciate the suggestions.

    “Why do you think she wasn’t interested in you? Was she not attracted to you that much from the very beginning, or was she turned off by potential over-eagerness on your part?”
    No, it wasn’t anything on my part, I feel. Cause she was like this from the start, and also mentioned things could seem this way. So, I’m trying to give her benefit of the doubt, and not assume. it means little interest.
    But, at the same time, I’m also try to filter – avoid wasting to much time – but in doing so I risk over extending myself.

    “Nothing that a man says to me anymore, during the early stages of dating, is special because I have heard it so many times before. Such words/proclamations have lost value to me.”

    I have hopes that such proclamations WILL have value.

  • Sassy6519

    I think what is not understood a lot of times is that women may be initially attracted to men for more superficial reasons, but fall hard for very random/strange reasons. Women love quirks. I’m not talking about severe deficiencies or brokenness, but quirks. We fall for something inherently unique and cute about the men we care about. Most women, as I stated earlier, have most likely heard every pickup line/compliment under the sun. Those petty words aren’t special. Offering commitment from the very beginning isn’t special. It doesn’t show us the unique aspects at the core of the men we meet.

    I remember Susan spoke of falling very hard for her husband, while they were still friends, when she heard him speak of his gap between his front teeth. If I remember correctly, she said that he stated that he always left a stripe of the white filling in oreos on the cookies whenever he tried to scrape the filling off. She thought it was extremely cute, and fell hard because it was uniquely him. He wasn’t afraid to poke fun at himself, and that moment showed her a hint of vulnerability.

    I had a similar experience when I fell hard for my ex of 1 year. On our second date, he and I decided to go ice skating. He ended up falling on the ice and dislocating his shoulder during the incident. I escorted him to the emergency room and stayed by his side for 3 hours that evening. I watched him get poked and prodded with needles. I watched as he sat shirtless with several heart monitor pads stuck to his chest. It was revealed to me that night that he had epilepsy as well.

    They ended up having to give him a sedative to relax him enough to pop his arm back in his socket. While he was sedated, he told me with slurred speech that he liked me. At that moment, seeing him in his weakened stated and telling me that he liked me, I fell hard. I learned a lot about him that night, and I was drawn to his quirks. He became a unique person to me that night. I no longer viewed him a just another man attempting to get into my pants. I was able to separate him from the rest of the pack.

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

      @Sassy

      If I remember correctly, she said that he stated that he always left a stripe of the white filling in oreos on the cookies whenever he tried to scrape the filling off. She thought it was extremely cute, and fell hard because it was uniquely him. He wasn’t afraid to poke fun at himself, and that moment showed her a hint of vulnerability.

      Yes! He was reserved, an introvert, which came across to me as “too cool for school.” When he told that story admitting that hint of vulnerability, it knocked me back on my heels! It was indeed a powerful moment, I think that is when I fell.

      . While he was sedated, he told me with slurred speech that he liked me. At that moment, seeing him in his weakened stated and telling me that he liked me, I fell hard.

      Ha, if only we could administer truth serum all the time!

  • Cooper

    @Iggles
    Lol – too late. You’re in my corner now! Haha.

  • Ion

    Iggles:

    “Once again I realize it’s best not to comment without getting up to date on the latest ones!”

    lol.

    I’ve been doing that too recently and have been missing people’s point in my responses. I also hope I haven’t offended anyone. :-(

  • JP

    “These guys are the equivalent of blog suicide bombers – there are always more.”

    They’re not suicide bombers.

    They’re incoming artillery.

    Apparently it’s a sign that a blog is useful, so it’s technically a sign of healthy blogness.

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

      They’re not suicide bombers.

      They’re incoming artillery.

      You’re right, that’s a better description.

      I know that if HUS didn’t matter, I wouldn’t have haters. Still, obscurity looks tempting sometimes…

  • mr. wavevector

    Basically, we got it all and it’s too damn much work.

    A female neighbor who recently went back to work full time declared “Work is SO over-rated. Thanks a lot, Gloria Steinem!”

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

      A female neighbor who recently went back to work full time declared “Work is SO over-rated. Thanks a lot, Gloria Steinem!”

      There’s a lot that’s been written about the tension between SAHMs and working moms. I’m well acquainted with it. Once I said to my full-time working friend, “All mothers are working mothers,” and she was clearly pissed, though she didn’t say anything. Anyway, I’ve known a few women who wanted very much to work – in fact, I had one friend who actually requested to be allowed to come back early halfway through her maternity leave. But most women I’ve known would like more time with their children.

  • Iggles

    Ok, now that I’ve caught up I can comment :D

    @ Sassy:

    I don’t think that is the case. I’m telling you that a good portion of women are generally spooked by a man that comes on too strong. You may wish it were not so, but it is what it is.

    I don’t think Cooper comes on too strong. My impression is that his problem is he’s a restricted guy with a social network that’s heavily dominated by unrestricted men and women. If his environment consisted of a larger share of restricted women, he’d have a girlfriend right now.

    YMMV, but as a LTR girl Cooper’s approach wouldn’t spook me. I think he’s right to DQ a girl if she takes days to responds to his texts. Either she’s playing games or she isn’t that into him. I think it’s a waste of time for him to wait around to figure her out.

    @ Cooper:

    @Iggles

    Lol – too late. You’re in my corner now! Haha.

    :lol: Guess so!

    @ Ion:

    lol.

    I’ve been doing that too recently and have been missing people’s point in my responses. I also hope I haven’t offended anyone. :-(

    The threads moves so fast! It’s hard to keep up, especially during the day when I’m busy at work. In the evenings, if I’m hanging out with my bf then I don’t have time to comment either. *sigh*

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

      I don’t think Cooper comes on too strong. My impression is that his problem is he’s a restricted guy with a social network that’s heavily dominated by unrestricted men and women. If his environment consisted of a larger share of restricted women, he’d have a girlfriend right now.

      I agree. Cooper is the token restricted guy. That is not a good strategic position.

  • JP

    “I think educated women are going to effectively give back some of those “rights.” I think we’ll see more women opting out of high powered careers and prioritizing family. Basically, we got it all and it’s too damn much work. We don’t want it all – I think a lot of women are curious and interested in being female.”

    I think there will be significant rebalancing, but with a number of the gains being kept as durable gains.

    Everybody’s happy when everybody’s happy.

  • JP

    “A female neighbor who recently went back to work full time declared “Work is SO over-rated. Thanks a lot, Gloria Steinem!””

    This is why I don’t want to subject my wife to work if I can avoid it.

    I don’t like work, so I don’t see how two people in the family not liking most of the day can improve anything.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Iggles

    YMMV, but as a LTR girl Cooper’s approach wouldn’t spook me. I think he’s right to DQ a girl if she takes days to responds to his texts. Either she’s playing games or she isn’t that into him. I think it’s a waste of time for him to wait around to figure her out.

    I never said that he shouldn’t move on. I have never waited days to text a guy back that I was even remotely interested in, not even once. This girl is flaking, and I’m sure she has her reasons. My guess is that she just isn’t that interested in him, which is her call. She seems to be pulling what I like to call the “slow fade”. It’s not the best way to end things, by any means, but it seems to be what she is doing.

    My question is how can a person DQ another person when the other person has already DQed them?

  • Ion

    Iggles:

    “I am a LTR girl and I have always ruled out flaky guys (nothing is a bigger turn off). I hate the push-pull playing games aspect of the “principle of showing least interest”.”

    JUST saw this comment :-) I agree 100% here.

    Feelings I’ve felt with guys who do push and pull:

    Nausea

    Heartache (why did I get rejected in the beginning? did I have spinach in my teeth?).

    Disappointment

    Disrespect

    5 days later, I’d hear from a few of the guys “what’s up, I had fun with you, what are you up to this wknd”, and then “hello? hello you there?” when I don’t reply. I realize now that they might have been trying to create anticipation. Maybe the aversion to push-pull behavior fits those closer to the introvert side of the spectrum cus’ the slightest pull is more difficult for us, and pushing seems disingenuous.

  • Iggles

    @ Sassy:

    She seems to be pulling what I like to call the “slow fade”. It’s not the best way to end things, by any means, but it seems to be what she is doing.

    Perhaps. Personally I hate the “slow fade”. If someone isn’t interested why not put on your “big boy” (or girl) pants and admit that? I have before. It’s not fun, but I felt it was only fair to be clear since we went on dates.

    As to Cooper, I’m not sure what his situation is with this girl. Going from his post #610, I’m not sure if she’s trying to fade.

    @ Cooper:

    I’ve been in contact with this particular girl for a couple months now, and she seems to be pretty reciprocative, which I like. But she takes forever to get back to me. If it wasn’t for her enthusiasm for us to make plans to get together (which hasn’t been able to be too often, due to somewhat conflicting schedules), and that she did initially explain that she’s like this with even her closest friends. (She’s an Introvert I take it, and she said she’s horrible at responding to texts)

    Who knows, but she’s not being proactive enough from where I stand. I’d tell a guy friend in his situation to FIDO and find a girl who will do a better job of emotionally escalating.

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

    Coops, I think that your rapid-escalation approach is, paradoxically, also fairly common in the dopamine/”Explorer” set, and this may have some complicated results when combined with your LTR preferences.

    Speaking personally, I realized early in adulthood that I was, in terms of mating psychology, wired for sprinting rather than marathons. My preference is for a sort of romantic storm that takes over everything, but which unfortunately tends to have problems coping with everyday tedium. So my ideal theater of operations is a hotel in a glam location, somewhere that exists in a kind of bubble of excitement and possibility and which encourages short-term, intense romantic flings because of the fleeting and opportunistic nature of any relationship.

    I usually have to signal certain (predictable) attributes quite heavily and then focus on attractive candidates that respond favorably to said signals. Once contact is made, however, I tend to ramp up quite quickly and I am given top-cover on this by the “now or never” context of the situation, which creates an immediacy and drama that I of course enjoy.

    Historically, this hasn’t been a great process for LTRs.

    While it is probably true that people in the SMP are relying on an “expensive=good” heuristic to guide decisions and therefore it pays to be aloof and to show passive displays of quality, I think that is also possible that some women could misread your earnest, focused approach as a sign that you are wired like I am—i.e., opportunistic, “player”, whatever—and that you are taking this tack simply because you believe that these are things that girls want to hear (and that the full-court press will get you laid quickly).

    It’s kind of funny: the person who wants primarily STRs may have to emphasize some kind of fantasy LTR potential to take the edge off, while the person who wants an LTR may have to adopt some of the behavioral characteristics of the player.

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

      It’s kind of funny: the person who wants primarily STRs may have to emphasize some kind of fantasy LTR potential to take the edge off, while the person who wants an LTR may have to adopt some of the behavioral characteristics of the player.

      Yes. Contrary to popular belief, most cads in college spend their time running Earnest Guy Game on freshmen girls.

  • Plain Jane

    @Plain Jane
    “Well, it is ok to let yourself go and relax a little after 40.”
    “were all still healthy, fit and attractive.”

    “We can skip the debate whether or not the two statements above are contradictory or not”

    > Its not. None of us are anywhere near 40.

    “but certainly on its own, the first statement you made is a red flag for most men. ”

    > I don’t see why. I’d think they’d be over the moon with a partner who was willing to cut them some slack in the body image department once they hit the age that usually shoots to hell.

    Ironic. I’ve been accused of being a “hypergamous outlier” here because of my emphasis on looks in my men (I’m an artist and my men function as my muses and inspiration for my art), as well as “shooting above my range” considering that I’m not an 8-10 myself and I guess they think I should “settle” for a guy below my own looks rating or something.

    Its funny to see you get the exact opposite impression from me.

    I said not to blow up to 300 pounds, but a 10 – 20 pound weight gain is acceptable to me after 40 and I never expected or pushed any of my men to be gym rats even at 20.

    We have always led a healthy and active lifestyle (extremely healthy compared to most Americans), so by cutting them some slack over 40 it just means I’m accepting that in middle age they won’t be as hot, muscle toned or limber as they were at 25, and might start gaining a little bit of a gut. I wouldn’t get on my partner’s case for that.

    And of course that slack would be reciprocated.

    On the other hand if a man doesn’t want to be cut any slack and wants to be a gym rat til he keels over and dies, then I’m not the woman for him.

    I was never attracted to those kinds of guys anyway.

    Extreme fanatics are best paired with other extreme fanatics.

  • Cooper

    @Sassy

    Yes. This is what I am sense – a close fade. That she’s does have the courage to reject me, or isn’t sure whether she should. (The latter being equal to the former, IMO)

    She is by definition flaking, and flaking hard. But she did warn me about this, and also asked me to have patience with her, when I expressed that I felt I was over extending my offer. She does seem to very enthusiastic, like saying “I hope so!” to “we going to hang out before too long” and uses a ton of :)’s.

    I don’t know what to do. I really feel like if I gave up, she would too – with little grief.

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

      @Cooper

      I don’t know what to do. I really feel like if I gave up, she would too – with little grief.

      You’ve just said she doesn’t give a damn so move on. And in future beware of women who give you the “I’m difficult and complicated” speech. She sounds like a wench.

  • Plain Jane

    “A female neighbor who recently went back to work full time declared “Work is SO over-rated. Thanks a lot, Gloria Steinem!”

    How is it GS’s fault her neighbor’s man doesn’t make enough money so she can stay home?

  • Plain Jane

    “Given that women get a lot of information about men subconsciously via scent, I have a theory that women can smell eagerness, which often has an element of nervousness or even fear to it. If neurochemical changes are happening, I think women can smell it. That’s why true indifference to rejection is such an asset – the woman gets no whiff of what she perceives as weakness.”

    OMG Susan, nothing is a hotter than an 8+ in looks guy with thick dark hair who always smells some kind of way! After a shower, without cologne or body spray added, just his fresh clean natural scent is totally awesome. Scent has been something I’ve always screened but I don’t recall ever picking up on a man’s motives, attitude, character or flaws via scent.

    How is this done? I wanna learn.

  • Plain Jane

    “I have tried very hard to rid HUS of extremism and fundamentalism in all its forms. I do not tolerate misogyny. I would estimate that I have succeeded in getting rid of 85% of it. There is still more work to do. One of the challenges is that as soon as one bitter extremist leaves, a new one springs up to take his place. :( These guys are the equivalent of blog suicide bombers – there are always more.”

    Abbot always struck me as bitter (and a few others noticed it too). Odd, because didn’t he claim to be married to a non-American woman whom he loved?

    So then why the consistent “multi-penis” agenda?

  • Plain Jane

    “The Red Pill comes with a Red Flag.”

    ^^^
    T-shirt! Bumper sticker!

    Another good one would be

    “Honk if You Took the Red Pill”

  • Tasmin

    @Plain Jane
    “Well, it is ok to let yourself go and relax a little after 40.”
    I obviously took this to be a statement about yourself, not as pre-approval for your hypothetical future man to add a few around the waist. In that case, you are very much in the majority – assuming of course his status is securely where you need it to be. Plenty of guys get a little thick over time, they need only worry when they are both thick and laid off/unemployed; then they’d be wise to hit the gym.

    So you are still safely in the hypergamous outlier camp :-) By the way are you a sculptor? I dabble in the art field, but have yet to assemble a stable of of female muses. Hmmm.

  • Plain Jane

    Ion,
    “Regular capitalism also produced more kids and kept families in tact, consumer capitalism is more about the individual’s ability to acquire things at the expense of having children.”

    But they were consuming manufactured products too, so what’s the difference?

    What you see in our society now is the natural outcome of capitalism, nothing more or less. It baffles me when some loons argue that “capitalism is the only moral economic system”. Its NOT moral or immoral.
    Its completely amoral.

    “And INTJ is wrong about India’s middle class. There is no dating culture in India outside of a few metros, forget about hookup culture.”

    Ion,
    “Aren’t these metros populated by some millions of people? If so, what’s happening there can definitely start to affect all.”

    Yes but all of those millions are not hooking up. Most of those urban millions are having arranged marriages or at the very most, marrying the first person they fall in love with and sneak behind their families’ back to meet, provided they eventually can squeeze a blessing to do so out of both sets of parents.

  • Plain Jane

    Hold on a minute there, Tasmin! You aren’t assuming that its ok for my man to get a little thick after 40, but not me, are you?
    The slack cuts both ways ;)

    I have done some sculpting, but its not my main art form.

    And yeah, finding muses can be hard because lets face it, there’s just not that many great looking people out there. And then you have to screen for other traits also. Beer drankin’ burger eaters do not muses make. However because I do a lot of international travel, particularly to countries where the men have great genes for physicality, and they also retain native cultural values and aesthetics, I regularly increase my chances of being inspired.

  • Ion

    PJ

    “But they were consuming manufactured products too, so what’s the difference?”

    In 1900, the average family probably used a bar of soap per week and water/ammonia mix to clean, at what $.003?

    Now, a family uses a soap for dad (gilette, irish springs), Dove for mom, multicolored toothpaste with glitter for kids, clearasil for teens, leave in, pre, and 2 in 1 conditioners for everyone, baby shampoo, dishsoap, laundry soap, shower cleaner, oven cleaner, fridge cleaner, toilet bowl cleaner, vacuum cleaner, rug cleaner, carpet cleaner, and probably about 30 different cosmetics for each woman in the household.

    That’s an exaggerated example, but the capitalism from 1900 varies strongly as a result of consumerism and media. It’s not bad or good, it is what it is.

    And I agree with you that capitalism is immoral, but so long as the “middle class” dream is separate from working class reality, no one will care until it’s too late. We’ve already seen how “pathological cultures” in capitalism are considered inherently different and less intelligent, when they’re only 20 years ahead of what’s going to happen with everyone else.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Cooper, since you’re an INTJ, you might be having trouble emotionally connecting with her.

    Here’s a good article about how:

    http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/10/what-makes-you-click-with-someone-else/

    I think the reason why my husband and I escalated with each other and fell in love so quickly is because we’re both INFJ, so we are both “picky” about who let in, but we are also both capable of using very emotional language and can open up quickly once we do let someone in.

    Of course, it has to be a two-way street.

  • Plain Jane

    INTJ,
    “India’s middle class is mostly urban, and a lot of today’s kids do stuff behind their parents’ back. Certainly, dating culture is concentrated in some of the more cosmopolitan cities, but it’s rapidly entering Indian culture. Guys there complain about it a lot.”

    Wrong. The modernized, westernized large metropolises are few. Cities like Agra and Lucknow are examples of what MOST Indian cities are like. There are many thousands of such cities across India and there is no mainstream dating culture there, forget about the smaller cities, towns and literally millions of villages.

    Within cities like Mumbai, Bangalore and New Delhi, the types of families that have accepted modern dating are a minority. Arranged marriage is the norm, second to that are young couples who fall in love for the first time, sneak behind their parent’s backs to see each other, and eventually “come out of the closet” to ask for their parents’ permission to marry.

    I’m not saying serial hooking up doesn’t happen at all there but its so small as to not even register. The logistics for one thing – where they hell would all this hooking up take place? At home? Have you ever seen an Indian home with nobody in it? There’s always a grandparent, aunt, uncle, sibling, cousin. Hotels? They interrogate couples to prove they are married.

    JP,
    “Western (Faustian) civilization is entering cultural winter, so to speak. Apparently, this is one of the side-effects.”

    What would that have to do with India?

    “We’ll get another mythos eventually, but this one is finished.”

    Faustian Civilization was never a mythos for Asia or the rest of the world. It is (was, now) a mythos only for a few countries in Europe and the Americas.

    Every culture has its own mythos.

  • Plain Jane

    “India’s middle class is mostly urban, and a lot of today’s kids do stuff behind their parents’ back. Certainly, dating culture is concentrated in some of the more cosmopolitan cities, but it’s rapidly entering Indian culture. Guys there complain about it a lot.”

    INTJ, with the “guys there complain about it a lot.”

    You’d think they’d be happy that they no longer have to try to cop feels on buses and instead can have mutually agreed upon make out sessions. I guess they prefer committing covert sexual crimes on strangers.

  • Iggles

    @ PJ:

    > Its not. None of us are anywhere near 40.

    No, there are plenty of middle-aged male commenters here. Whereas most of us women seem to be in our 20s or early 30s…

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    Really? What sort of complaints do they have?

    I think there’s a few things at work. First, Indians who adopt Western cultural norms such as dating tend to be more narcissistic in general than other Indians. Second, the girls who choose dating are much more picky and not as directly interested in marriage as men. They expect to be wined and dined indefinitely, and the restaurants in major cities are almost as expensive as American restaurants, even though the wages in India are 1/10th that in America.

  • Tasmin

    @Plain Jane
    “…the slack cuts both ways.”

    That was actually my point: it might not. You may give that slack and he may give you some as well, but I suppose my point is that stating in advance that you are going to dial it back at some point – the point at which it starts to get significantly more difficult to stay fit and the point at which your SMV and his SMV are most divergent, just sounds a little risky. Plus it is a real male concern that “things” change too much post-wedding so to even hint at this can send all kinds of messages.

    Mutual slack is good, but mutual attraction is deaf to that verbal agreement, and attraction can trump a lot of things. The reality is most people are going to give that slack anyhow, love trumps a lot too, but some things are best unspoken.

    I will keep you posted on my muse effort, though I am more of a landscape guy so I will have to get creative. I agree, travel is great for inspiration. I spent some time in a small town in Hungary where I socialized with a woman’s basketball team. Women from Russia, Czech, Poland, Hungary….I fell in lust several times ;-) This was before digital cameras were everywhere. Bummer.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    Of course, no one can beat the reputation that Pune girls have. But from what my mom says, they were that way even 30 years ago.

  • INTJ

    @ Just1Z

    hope that you enjoy the Grand Prix in Austin on Sunday. Looks like a good track (low grip issues, maybe). I shall wind down from ‘the competition’ in the day with a beer and watch your Grand Prix in the evening (UK)

    I won’t. I have to show solidarity with the local Austinites and complain about the corruption that went into that thing.

  • Tasmin

    @Iggles
    “My impression is that his problem is he’s a restricted guy with a social network that’s heavily dominated by unrestricted men and women.”

    Good point. I have run into this as well. After all, same gender relationships don’t really consider restricted/unrestricted (and a whole lot of other things about how they might interact with the opposite sex) as qualities that make/break a friendship. Of course there are some cases where a guy may be just too far away in terms of values or into some dark stuff in which I personally can’t ignore; at some point it goes to character and it counts in a big way.

    We have talked a lot here about the female herd effect, the queen bee, and all of the influence in terms of both behavior and thoughts/views on the opposite sex and SMP as well as simple things like venue selection. Goes for men as well. I have consciously cut back on socializing with some friends/acquaintances because I have found that the types of women, situations, and overall vibe they attract/create is not aligned with my approach and I either feel the pull to participate or feel myself becoming negative, either way it doesn’t do much for me.

    I am constantly weighing the cost/benefit. I think it is important to be “out” and to get out of our comfort zones and certainly our friends are an important part of this, but I have found that there is out of the comfort zone and there are zones of discomfort. Sure, it costs in terms of bites at the apple, but it is psychologically beneficial to avoid certain groupings and venues that have a good chance of putting me at odds with the situation or people involved.

    I think the tricky part is that with pluralistic ignorance afoot, there are a lot of people out there bumping around in these friend groups that are just swept up by the alpha/queen and aren’t actually as unrestricted as one might think. Based on all these stats floating around, there certainly isn’t as much hooking up going on as it might seem. Thats the most frustrating part for me: how the few can steer the ship straight into the hooking up iceberg and the rest are talking about the weather or busily rearranging the deck chairs.

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

      I think the tricky part is that with pluralistic ignorance afoot, there are a lot of people out there bumping around in these friend groups that are just swept up by the alpha/queen and aren’t actually as unrestricted as one might think. Based on all these stats floating around, there certainly isn’t as much hooking up going on as it might seem. Thats the most frustrating part for me: how the few can steer the ship straight into the hooking up iceberg and the rest are talking about the weather or busily rearranging the deck chairs.

      +1 Great metaphor, dovetails nicely with HUS observing the Titanic go down.

  • Tasmin

    @Iggles
    “No, there are plenty of middle-aged male commenters here. Whereas most of us women seem to be in our 20s or early 30s…”

    Ah yes, Si jeunesse savait, si vieillesse pouvait.
    “If youth only knew; if old age only could”

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    This depends largely on what you consider “participation in the ‘sphere”. Would you consider me a participant? Cooper and INTJ? Most of the guys here at least read some ‘sphere sites, but if you think Cooper or INTJ are a bad bet because of it, I’m at a loss.

    I’m only a regular manosphere participant if HUS counts as a manosphere blog. I don’t read any other blogs unless they’re linked to here or I find some article through Google.

  • Plain Jane

    Ion,
    “And I agree with you that capitalism is immoral”

    I said it was neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. Capitalism does not have morality but a capitalistic individual may be moral. Similarly, capitalism is not immoral but a capitalistic individual maybe immoral. Thus the sort of business that is conducted by either one of those individuals will reflect the morality or immorality of those individuals. Porn is a great example of immoral capitalism, but my own small business is a great example of moral capitalism.
    By the way, nobody ever answered me as to whether Romney helped extremely small business owners in Mass while he was governor there or not. His platform was “small business, small business” during his pres campaign. Well, what’s his record with “small business, small business” in Mass?

    Tasmin,
    “…the slack cuts both ways.”

    “That was actually my point: it might not. ”

    - I’d never be with someone like that. One standard for both, or no standard at all!

    SayWhaat,
    The only ones complaining are those who can’t compete and the ones who are uncomfortable with women choosing their own mates. But they are perfectly ok with eve-teasing. OK don’t get me started on the warped sexual sensibilities of my fellow cultural compatriots. I’ll take this SMP over that anyday, and I’m not even a participant in the SMP.

  • Plain Jane

    Iggles November 16, 2012 at 7:17 pm

    @ PJ:

    > Its not. None of us are anywhere near 40.

    No, there are plenty of middle-aged male commenters here. Whereas most of us women seem to be in our 20s or early 30s…

    Iggles, that was in context of me and my men. We’re all still young, fit and healthy. But none of us are gym rats. Really, I read these blogs of old guys 40+ obsessing over pecs, abs, quads, reps, and “increasing T levels” and I seriously don’t get it. You’re 46 for crying out loud!

  • Tasmin

    @Plain Jane
    “I read these blogs of old guys 40+ obsessing over pecs, abs, quads, reps, and “increasing T levels” and I seriously don’t get it. You’re 46 for crying out loud!”

    Lol. On one hand I’m with you. I don’t really want to be “that guy” with the swollen pecs at the bar at 46, but on the other hand, in a country bursting at its midsection and a soon-to-be socialized healthcare system, I’m going to do what I can to make this body last.

    When you are 40+, you may be lucky enough to “get it” from a rather fit 46 y/o who isn’t slamming pills for his cholesterol, pills for his high blood pressure, and oh yeah, little blue pills for his ding-dong. Testosterone is no joke when you are on the receiving end – you know, in a good way…

    You are an enigma PJ. “…me and my men.”

  • SayWhaat

    First, Indians who adopt Western cultural norms such as dating tend to be more narcissistic in general than other Indians. Second, the girls who choose dating are much more picky and not as directly interested in marriage as men. They expect to be wined and dined indefinitely, and the restaurants in major cities are almost as expensive as American restaurants, even though the wages in India are 1/10th that in America.

    Is this common outside of major metropolitan areas? Is dating common, at all? I was under the impression that only a few dabbled in dating culture, which is largely disapproved of in a culture that has every capability of stomping it out. As PJ said, have you ever been in an Indian home where there was nobody in it? Lol.

    Of course, no one can beat the reputation that Pune girls have. But from what my mom says, they were that way even 30 years ago.

    What reputation do Pune girls have?

  • Plain Jane

    “When you are 40+, you may be lucky enough to “get it” from a rather fit 46 y/o who isn’t slamming pills for his cholesterol, pills for his high blood pressure, and oh yeah, little blue pills for his ding-dong. Testosterone is no joke when you are on the receiving end – you know, in a good way…”

    Its not binary like that. Its not either be a gym rat til 80 or suffer from chronic disease. How about the great outdoors? Swimming, surfing, hiking, biking, etc?

    “You are an enigma PJ. “…me and my men.” ”

    ;)

    And I thought you were a woman. Every time I see “Tasmin” my mind reads “Jasmin” and a I picture a Persian Princess.

  • VD

    Most women, as I stated earlier, have most likely heard every pickup line/compliment under the sun. Those petty words aren’t special. Offering commitment from the very beginning isn’t special. It doesn’t show us the unique aspects at the core of the men we meet.

    Lines I have found effective in the past were “You’re interrupting, now f— off” and “What?” combined with an irritated glare. Apparently it is always a good move to start things off with a woman looking vaguely alarmed and apologizing. Looking back, I suspect that the main reason for the subsequent interest may have been sheer disbelief that anyone could be THAT obnoxious.

    I asked what might be most useful to guys here at HUS and one thing that at least a couple of guys said is “lose the anti-Game

    Most definitely. Stopping the self-sabotage is the main thing.

    Innovative and creative as in able to think globally about issues felt locally and how to solve them.

    This sort of thing makes me wonder what it is like to have one of those fuzzy little minds that regurgitates what passes through it without ever processing the information. Does the process create a nice warm feeling inside or something? But I am curious, what problem, be it local or global, has any millennial solved anywhere?

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

      @VD

      Lines I have found effective in the past were “You’re interrupting, now f— off” and “What?” combined with an irritated glare. Apparently it is always a good move to start things off with a woman looking vaguely alarmed and apologizing.

      Something tells me you took a different approach with Spacebunny. You were made weak in the knees by those snake hips and you came off as just a little bit – just a tad – vulnerable.

  • Plain Jane

    SayWhaat to INTJ,
    “Is this common outside of major metropolitan areas? Is dating common, at all? I was under the impression that only a few dabbled in dating culture, which is largely disapproved of in a culture that has every capability of stomping it out. As PJ said, have you ever been in an Indian home where there was nobody in it? Lol.”

    I said before I think there is more EXTRA-marital sex in South Asia than pre-marital sex just because of logistics of privacy. You might ask, “if the logistics for privacy are tough for pre-marital trysts then how do they manage privacy for extra-martial trysts?”

    I don’t think I want to go there with this right now.

  • Plain Jane

    INTJ,
    ” Of course, no one can beat the reputation that Pune girls have. But from what my mom says, they were that way even 30 years ago.”

    SayWhaat,
    “What reputation do Pune girls have?”

    Pfft! Pune is very conservative. Look sideways at a hot guy and the aunties start chi-chi-ing.

    Seriously Desis, grow the eff up.

  • Tasmin

    @PJ
    “And I thought you were a woman. Every time I see “Tasmin” my mind reads “Jasmin” and a I picture a Persian Princess.

    Its not just you, ’tis a girl’s name.

  • JP

    “I said it was neither moral nor immoral, but amoral. Capitalism does not have morality but a capitalistic individual may be moral. Similarly, capitalism is not immoral but a capitalistic individual maybe immoral”

    I’m pretty sure that modern consumer finance capitalism is insane because it discounts the future to zero.

    It’s not immoral.

    Rather, it’s completely bonkers.

    I’ll think about this more after we’ve pumped another 20 years of non-renewable resources out of the ground.

  • Plain Jane

    Thinking about it, India could do with a little bit of “hook up culture” if you ask me. Its way too tight-assed about body autonomy and personal freedom.

  • Plain Jane

    “I’ll think about this more after we’ve pumped another 20 years of non-renewable resources out of the ground.”

    The result of immoral people taking over energy production. Research how industrial hemp farming became illegal in the US.

  • Ion

    PJ

    “I said it was neither moral nor immoral, but amoral…Porn is a great example of immoral capitalism, but my own small business is a great example of moral capitalism. ”

    These are not amoral examples. Its more accurate to say that capitalism is both moral and immoral relative to the personal benefits you get from it.

    Is an chinese spa that offers massages during the day, and “happy endings” at night an example of a moral small business compared to Wal-Mart? Is Starbucks moral if it can pay some of its employees’ healthcare while a mom and pops coffee shop can’t? The answers change depending on who you ask. “Weighing the consequences” does not mean something is amoral.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Cooper, I’d like to sum up with this:

    I don’t know what to do. I really feel like if I gave up, she would too – with little grief.

    Sounds like a win-win to me. What positives does this girl have to make her worth your time and energy?

    You got a perfectly good filter right here, and you aren’t using it. So….why?

  • Plain Jane

    Ion,
    By moral I include products offered, how they obtained, their effects on environment, culture and consciousness, among other things. I guess you could say ultimately all production and business is immoral at least to a small degree because there is some level of exploitation taking place, but that applies to just existing, consider that as you breath in oxygen there are microbial life forms that are killed as you do so.

    If you want to get all cosmic and existential here I can. The end realization is that life itself is a form of exploitation. Knowing this, we do what we can in our given circumstances to make our personal life the least exploitative as we can within reason.

    For the record that goes for any other mainsteam economic ism as well – including the oft hated “communism”. Completely amoral and totally dependent on who’s hands it ends up in.

    These isms are not living, breathing, thinking beings so there’s no question of them having or not having morality. Ironic though isn’t it that corporations are considered “legal individuals”?

    I suppose then that we could assign the capacity to be moral or immoral to them. Monsanto, I’m looking at you.

  • Plain Jane

    Cooper, don’t sweat the small stuff.

    Just enjoy the ride while you can and don’t get too hung up. She has faults, you have faults, we are a frail species.

    You’re young, just date and have fun.

    Don’t worry. Be happy.

  • Plain Jane

    Susan to Cooper,
    “You’ve just said she doesn’t give a damn so move on.”

    Not so fast! Cooper needs to gain experience interrelating with people and with women in particular. He doesn’t have to marry her or pay her cell phone bill. He can just hang out with her and enjoy human interaction and flirty banter.

    “And in future beware of women who give you the “I’m difficult and complicated” speech. She sounds like a wench.”

    So what if she said that or even if she is difficult and complicated? He doesn’t need to be her Superior Man ala David Deida. All he needs to do is hang out with her to gain experience relating with women, and he may make a good friend in the process, or meet someone else through her, or who knows – maybe they’ll even click and give a relationship a go.

    Cooper, live the adventure that is life. Don’t get overly analytical.

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

      @Plain Jane

      If someone is taking days to respond to a text, these are the possibilities:

      1. They are not interested.

      2. They are rude and inconsiderate.

      The fact that she warned him she is prone to this behavior does not excuse it. She needs to grow up and take responsibility for herself. She does not deserve Cooper.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    This sort of thing makes me wonder what it is like to have one of those fuzzy little minds that regurgitates what passes through it without ever processing the information. Does the process create a nice warm feeling inside or something? But I am curious, what problem, be it local or global, has any millennial solved anywhere?

    Don’t lump all of us millennials together and don’t blame us too much. We were TAUGHT mindless regurgitation was “thinking” and were rewarded for it, in the form of good grades, adoration, college acceptance letters, and then jobs that pay good money.

    Some of us millennials do have a brain between our ears, though. My recent work supervisor is an under-30 who completely renovated our business processes and saved millions of dollars. She also makes all of our customized databases, and I would say she’s quite cute, but could stand to lose 10-20 pounds. Quite a catch.

  • JP

    “All he needs to do is hang out with her to gain experience relating with women, and he may make a good friend in the process, or meet someone else through her, or who knows – maybe they’ll even click and give a relationship a go.”

    Somehow I don’t think that this will solve Cooper’s problem.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Not so fast! Cooper needs to gain experience interrelating with people and with women in particular. He doesn’t have to marry her or pay her cell phone bill. He can just hang out with her and enjoy human interaction and flirty banter.

    It’s hurting him to have even this level of involvement with the girl. Enough that he wants to vent here at HUS.

    That’s a pretty good sign he shouldn’t be in that situation. She isn’t worth the headache. Maybe you have good advice, but not good advice for Cooper.

  • JP

    “If someone is taking days to respond to a text, these are the possibilities:

    1. They are not interested.

    2. They are rude and inconsiderate.”

    or 3. They have the attention span of a gnat.

  • Plain Jane

    “It’s hurting him to have even this level of involvement with the girl. Enough that he wants to vent here at HUS. ”

    Would you mind re-posting his hurting comment here for me or telling me which number it is? Thanks.

    But I still think very young people take this stuff way too seriously.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    All Cooper wants is a nice girl to have a LTR with and doesn’t want his time wasted.

    I don’t think that’s a lot to task, or taking things too seriously when someone isn’t living up to your standards. I’d say the only thing where he is taking it too seriously is that he is spending emotion and time thinking about a girl who probably isn’t worth a fraction of either.

    I get what you are saying.

    He should enjoy the flirting. What’s wrong with that? Low investment, low energy.

    In male terms, we call that the slut pile.

  • Plain Jane

    A Definite Beta Guy November 16, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    All Cooper wants is a nice girl to have a LTR with and doesn’t want his time wasted.

    Fair enough. But in the meantime it can’t hurt for him to gain some experience relating with women. He doesn’t need to chase her. If she contacts him and suggests they go out, he should agree to it.

  • Madelena

    @Susan
    You’ve just said she doesn’t give a damn so move on. And in future beware of women who give you the “I’m difficult and complicated” speech. She sounds like a wench

    My response:
    Some men love difficult and complicated. I accidentally came across this when in getting to know one man. He characterized himself as a simple man with simple needs and I playfully sassed him back by declaring myself a complicated woman with complicated needs. That sparked a 30 minute conversation, mainly with him talking, about how he likes complicated women, how they are mysterious and how he can never predict their actions. He liked the challenge but it seemed he never actually “conquered” that complicated nature. Over the course of that date, and the subsequent ones, it was apparent to me that his weakness was emotionally aloof women (his ex-gf was one) and if I was the female equivalent of a Roissy I could have had this man wrapped around my finger in no time. Instead I let him go.

  • JP

    @PJ

    “But I still think very young people take this stuff way too seriously.”

    Or not seriously enough.

  • JP

    “All Cooper wants is a nice girl to have a LTR with and doesn’t want his time wasted.”

    The risk isn’t the waste of time.

    The risk is trauma if your psychological defenses are not appropriately set.

  • Iggles

    PJ – See Cooper’s comment #610

    I disagree that he should spend any more time around this girl. Cooper is LTR oriented. For those of us who are spending energy on flaky and inconsistent people is a zero sum game. There’s no real “point” in continuing to date someone when you realize they’re a bad match.

    In the best case scenario, you know things between you won’t work out and you find that their inconsistencies slowly erodes any feelings you have for them.

    However, the worst case scenario is that against your better judgement you form an attachment to them which will a) cause you to miss out on a better partner because you’re emotionally unavailable to seek out someone new, and b) cause you pain when the inevitable break up occurs.

    Unrestricted folks who enjoy sex without emotions are likely to enjoy casual dating and FWBs because it’s low investment, whereas restricted folks want emotional intimacy with a partner before anything. So what does one get out of a low investment hang out if they’re not into sex for the sake of sex? (In other words, take sex off the table — would unrestricted folks be so fond “hanging out” with random near strangers just because?)

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

    @SW

    I resent the imposition on my time more than anything.

    If didn’t enjoy researching certain stuff in my limited spare time, I wouldn’t even bother. The Backfire Effect on display is practically political. Eric Hoffer was definitely on the mark…

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

    Ted,
    Just one more comment about welfare, then I promise I’ll drop it (it’s OT and doesn’t seem to interest others). “Working the system” essentially amounts to committing welfare fraud. That definitely happens; one of my good friends is a waitress, and she knows people who don’t report their tips to the government. I also had a client who’d tried to submit fake social security numbers; that’s a big no-no. She was caught and my boss said we would not help her anymore. Also my BF says he sees people at his work all the time who have wads of 100s in their wallets (presumably because they sell drugs) and then pull out EBT cards. So yes, people game the welfare system, and I totally agree that it should not be tolerated.

    Welfare, IMO, should be a temporary solution, while people are getting back on their feet. Unfortunately, there’s something called the wage gap, in which people actually start to LOSE earning power as their wages increase but their benefits are lost (because they reach the income limits). This effectively encourages people to stay on welfare, because that gap actually takes them two steps backwards. This is nothing more than poor policy, and while I suspect it’s the government trying to be frugal, it seems like it’d actually cost more money in the long run, as people are then given an incentive to use welfare as a permanent solution.

    I’d be interested in what you think about me taking government handouts, since that’s essentially what I did (hearing aids). If you had a deaf child, what would you do? Could you afford to shell out the 6 grand? Would you let the child go without aids?

    People often say they wouldn’t take government handouts… until they do.

    Okay shutting up now.

  • Kathy

    @ Hope.

    “However, after we got together, my then boyfriend now husband told me that I shouldn’t go to those places as they were too negative. He didn’t like the effect they had on me. That is because the men who comment there tend to be extremists and think women are horrible.”

    This is exactly the same thing that happened to me, Hope.
    My husband told me to stop reading The Spearhead, because it was too negative and he also did not like the effect that blog had on me either.

    I stopped reading and commenting on that blog as soon as he said that.
    I felt like a huge weight had been lifted from my shoulders.

  • Lokland

    On the not texting thing.

    I have a really bad tendency to open emails/texts/messages etc. read them and then continue reading new ones which upon completion I intend to go back and respond to.

    Almost never happens that way for some reason…

    @Cooper

    She is just not that into you.

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

    @Mr. WV

    The alpha gets off on making many women submit to his sexual power. Most of us wouldn’t enjoy that even if we had that kind of power.

    Yep, astute. I’ve never felt the desire for that kind of leverage over a woman (they’re human beings, too).

    Maybe I’ve just heard too often ’round here that power (i.e. options) are all that matters in the current SMP. I’ve also heard the claim that such guys can be trusted to not abuse their power (heh).

    On that point, I’ll again quote what a wise (and fictional) gentleman once observed:
    I should allow no sister of mine to accept such a situation.

  • Joe

    @A Definite Beta Guy

    That’s a pretty good sign he shouldn’t be in that situation. She isn’t worth the headache. Maybe you have good advice, but not good advice for Cooper.

    I’ll say.

    Susan, I’m really sorry to say this, but for the first time, your advice has made me angry. And that’s not me. I’m no kid, and I’m not that emotionally invested in the argument anymore so much as I’m invested in the people I see writing here every day. What you just said to Cooper is damaging.

    You’re in my age cohort, so perhaps I can explain it to you this way. As I read Cooper’s words minutes ago and then yours, my wife happen to play The Beatles And I Love Her in the background. Now imagine that. I’m sure you know the song.

    What you’ve done is taken Cooper’s image of this person and thrown mud on it. He’s got that song in his head (figuratively speaking) and you’re saying it’s false, it’s wrong, a lie and probably stupid. You’ve shot a horse pill (a red one, I’m sure) down his throat and said “Swallow this!”

    And, while he’s being advised to turn away and forget this woman, several are standing by shouting “…and don’t you dare become an Alpha-asshole!” at him. How is he going to think of himself if and when he takes the advice?

    I can’t speak for Cooper, but I’d guess he won’t be happy with what he’s become. He may be miserable now; I know I was when in that situation. But at least he’s being true to himself.

    That said, it’s true you may have given him exactly the right advice. Maybe. But I guarantee, you’ve done him no favors.

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

      @Joe

      I’ll say.

      Susan, I’m really sorry to say this, but for the first time, your advice has made me angry. And that’s not me. I’m no kid, and I’m not that emotionally invested in the argument anymore so much as I’m invested in the people I see writing here every day. What you just said to Cooper is damaging.

      ???I’m not sure what you mean. First, ADBG was responding to Plain Jane’s advice, not mine. Second, I did not have the sense that Cooper is in love, just that he’s trying to get a first date with someone who is stringing him along. She is flaky in responding, makes excuses for not getting together, but because she told him early on that she was going to be like this, he hopes she is just not demonstrative rather than not interested.

      I have told many women to FIDO when guys gave them the same treatment, because they were being disrespected and no one who treats you that way is worth pursuing. Why should I tell Cooper something different?

  • Lokland

    @Jackie, OTC

    Essentially correct OTC.
    I do not however regret that decision as it shortly thereafter led to a spiralling set of events which led me to game and a few other unpleasant but necessary events.

    Without that unfair rejection of another person I may not be where I am now which is quite warm (literally I’m frickin toasty atm).

    However, my point was to give an anecdotal agreement to the Vox Delta rejecting women at their own SMV, nothing more.

    @Jackie

    As for how mean I am to the lil fat fuck I used to be.

    I’m not big on, I’ve come so far and the journey was filled with tears and hard work.

    The journey took 8 years, previously I sucked now I’m half-decent. The amount of effort involved is irrelevant, what I felt during that time is irrelevant. At a certain point you have to stop thinking about how it will make you feel and just git-r-done. (Ie. I think self improvement via positive thoughts is a load of shit.)

    ——————————–

    So for all the lil fat fucks reading. Stop being lil fat fucks already so you can have what you want. Hold the tears no one will care till your finished anyway.

    If you want to come out of hiding to ask for sympathy I’ll give you none. If you want advice and how to actually get what you want I’ll be more than willing to lend my 2 cents.

  • Lokland

    @MM, Mr. Wavevector

    “The alpha gets off on making many women submit to his sexual power. Most of us wouldn’t enjoy that even if we had that kind of power.

    Yep, astute. I’ve never felt the desire for that kind of leverage over a woman (they’re human beings, too).”

    I’m no alpha but I enjoy this. Female sexual submission is a powerful aphrodisiac.

    Yet that has to be balanced with a healthy sense of respect for her submission.

    I could probably convince my wife to do…anything. That does not mean I will.
    She handed me the keys, I’ll make sure she gets through it without more than a ding or three.

  • Plain Jane

    “Some men love difficult and complicated.”

    Pfft! What do you mean “some”?

    Kathy November 16, 2012 at 10:41 pm

    @ Hope.

    “However, after we got together, my then boyfriend now husband told me that I shouldn’t go to those places as they were too negative. He didn’t like the effect they had on me. That is because the men who comment there tend to be extremists and think women are horrible.”

    This is exactly the same thing that happened to me, Hope.
    My husband told me to stop reading The Spearhead, because it was too negative and he also did not like the effect that blog had on me either.

    I stopped reading and commenting on that blog as soon as he said that.
    I felt like a huge weight had been lifted from my shoulders.

    Not too long ago I met a very handsome mid-20s man at my cousin’s arengatram who asked for my number. We started talking on the phone and he initially seemed very interested. Then I started throwing out manosphere theories to him and he dropped me like a hot potato. He had never heard of such things and thought I was whack.

    The sphere is wrong when they say all men think like this.
    The sphere is ruining relationships.

  • Plain Jane

    “I could probably convince my wife to do…anything. That does not mean I will.
    She handed me the keys, I’ll make sure she gets through it without more than a ding or three.”

    A ding?
    Is that like a dong?

  • Plain Jane

    “That definitely happens; one of my good friends is a waitress, and she knows people who don’t report their tips to the government. ”

    Wait. They gubmint wants to know what tips people are making too?! Sheesh. Where does it end?

    And get this: when applying online for EBT the government asks you how much money you have in the bank, which bank, AND your bank account number!!! I suppose this is so they can directly draw from you account if you commit what they consider “welfare fraud” (in other words, any ol time they please).

    I sincerely hope not many people are foolish enough to actually give them that info.

    “Maybe I’ve just heard too often ’round here that power (i.e. options) are all that matters in the current SMP. ”

    This “options” thing is such bullshit. On the R-man’s blog they are all about “making sure she knows you have options”. Oooooooooh scary! That’s really intimidating!

    Who the hell DOESN’T have options today?

    Any guy that would say, “you know I’ve got options” to me would get laughed at and his ass kicked all the way to the land of crisps and mash. And that a pretty place to wind up, innit?

    Options, my foot.
    The only people who don’t have options are, well, I don’t know any. We ALL have options.

    Guys, here’s a tip: we don’t feel theatened by “options”. We have them too.
    If you are saying that to a woman she knows you think having options is something out of the ordinary. Not a good look.

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

    PJ,

    Wait. They gubmint wants to know what tips people are making too?! Sheesh. Where does it end?

    LOL I mean servers do make a good chunk of their wages in tips. It would be dishonest to not report all income.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Cooper, I say focus on other women (plural, follow a parallel strategy), but don’t burn this bridge. Play with her, enjoy her company, just don’t invest anything into her. Kick her off the GF ladder unless she makes a self-directed 180.

    Despite all the crap coming out of PJ’s mouth, this is the one place I agree. You’re never going to get an LTR until you take the baby steps of STRs and hookups first (even if the hookups are just first base) and, ideally, wash the stink of virginity^H^H^H^H^H^H^Heagerness from your soul.

  • Sai

    @Just1Z
    Still working on things… I do my own eyebrows regularly now, and don’t freak out any more when I see a woman with a wide face.
    (Somebody in an awesome snack shop said I sound like Candice Bergen. My to-do list now includes researching her, because I don’t think that was an insult.)

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Jackie, I just read the rest of that thread. She sort of demonstrated what I talking about there, which is HUS catering to the top end. I cam identify with her, being middle to below myself. I am not sure what to think, is she mad at men here, or for the women being so elite, as you (you are quite kind so I can’t imagine anyone being mad at you, but face it, you’re still part of the elite)? Seemed the latter.

  • szopen

    A, VD. I have noticed you still have neither admitted you made an error, nor explained to me how it is possible that you took so absurd conclusion from my lines posted at your blog. Somehow, I am not surprised. Anyway, EOT from me and I won’t continue bothering you.

    HollenHund: you are one of the types I was writing about in VD’s blogs. In short, you appear here seemingly only to try to convince females that they are inferior, and when they are not even listening to you, you take that as a confirmation that they are, indeed, inferior. And the attitude that if someone has different opinion on a topic it means she “picks a fight”, tells a lot about you.

  • VD

    Thinking about it, India could do with a little bit of “hook up culture” if you ask me. Its way too tight-assed about body autonomy and personal freedom.

    Perhaps after you finish your magnum opus of improving Western culture to the betterment of us all, you would be so gracious as to fix Indian culture as well. I’m sure we all owe you a tremendous debt for your efforts to teach us how to have successful relationships, Plain Jane.

    Something tells me you took a different approach with Spacebunny. You were made weak in the knees by those snake hips and you came off as just a little bit – just a tad – vulnerable.

    Actually, no. It was very much that sort of thing with Spacebunny. In my experience, vulnerability doesn’t really appeal to a girl with a Rottweiler. I can’t prove it, but I suspect that women with dogs tend to be more attracted to dominance than the norm, and that goes double for women with potentially dangerous dogs. But yeah, the snake hips definitely caught my attention, to say nothing of the grey-blue eyes.

    VD. I have noticed you still have neither admitted you made an error, nor explained to me how it is possible that you took so absurd conclusion from my lines posted at your blog. Somehow, I am not surprised.

    You’re not the first to make the mistake of confusing a lack of interest in kicking them around with a lack of ability to do so. Never fear, I’m sure I’ll eventually get to it. In the event I did make an error, I’ll admit it. And if I didn’t after your demands that I return my attention to the subject, well, you’ll merit what you get.

  • szopen

    @VD

    You’re not the first to make the mistake of confusing a lack of interest in kicking them around with a lack of ability to do so.

    VD, I wouldn’t care to point it if you wouldn’t post a blog entry dedicated to it.

    And quite frankly, i cannot understand how any person would think that explaining something to someone is “kicking him around”. If I will say to my students that they made an error and they claim they have not and I have simply misunderstood them, then explaining them where they lack clarity in their expressions or admitting they are right is not “kicking them around”.

    In the event I did make an error, I’ll admit it.

    Good. As I wrote earlier at your blog:
    ” I do not intend to be aggressive, VD – I am not native speaker, so maybe it’s just I have used English in a way which made me misunderstood.”

    I can express myself clearly in Polish, but I admit I have problems with English, and I am always eager to find out why someone would understand me.

    “X try to convince males, using math, that they should not be attracted to younger girls, and X is surprised that they do not listen” does not imply “males cannot use math”. Rather, it means that males wouldn’t even try to listen to X’s argument, because they would consider X is an idiot making idiotic claim. Now, if someone makes a blog entry starting with “szopen claims males cannot use math” I would insist that he should explain, how he could came to that conclusion, and correct this misunderstanding.

  • szopen

    argh, why someone would NOT understand me.

  • Just1Z

    @Sai
    “I don’t think that was an insult”

    I don’t think so either…

    One cool, eternally classy lady, Candice Bergen was elegantly poised for trendy “ice princess” stardom when she first arrived on the screen, but she gradually reshaped that débutante image both on- and off-camera.
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000298/

    She was ‘Shirley’ in ‘Boston Legal’ (I’ve mentioned that that was a favourite show of mine a few times.) One of the main characters. Her face was a picture when she saw the steam powered hysteria machine that I mentioned recently. I miss that show, Denny (Capt James T Kirk was great as the lead character who was suffering from BSE (sic).

    [Denny, Tara, and Lori in Denny's office as Denny loads a rifle, preparing to save Alan from a gunman holding him hostage just outside of Denny's office door]
    Denny Crane: It’s okay; I’m an ex-Marine. I was a trained sniper. Or was I a pilot? I can’t remember. Anyway, I’m more of a skeet shooter now, so when I say ‘pull,’ you’re going to open that door.
    Tara Wilson: You’re insane!
    Denny Crane: Pull!
    [Tara opens the door; Denny fires]

    ——————————————————————————–

    Denny Crane: It’s a good feeling, you know, to shoot a bad guy. Something you Democrats would never understand. Americans… we’re homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys.

    She was Cuddy’s Mother in House. Not as funny, but a cool character.

  • mr. wavevector

    @Lockland,

    I’m no alpha but I enjoy this. Female sexual submission is a powerful aphrodisiac.

    I agree totally. My wife’s romantic and sexual response is submissive too. All my girlfriends were the same. They were all “bottoms” and I was the “top”.

    But that’s different than what I was talking about. I like being the top in a relationship with a woman I care about. I like the combination of dominance and caring, the fucking and the caressing, that I do when making love to my wife. Because while I may be in the dominant position, I’m working hard for her sexual and emotional pleasure. It’s as much give as take. In other words, the dominance/submission dynamic is just one element of a very complex and deep emotional connection.

    I don’t get off on pump’n'dumping women, where the entire point is to make the woman submit (using sexual power, not coercion), taking pleasure in her body, then explicitly denying her any emotional connection. That’s all take and no give. It’s about getting off on power. It’s that “will to power” I think is the primary motivation for alphas, while the primary motivation for betas like me is the relationship.

  • mr. wavevector

    @Megaman,

    Maybe I’ve just heard too often ’round here that power (i.e. options) are all that matters in the current SMP. I’ve also heard the claim that such guys can be trusted to not abuse their power (heh).

    What it looks like to me is that the changing balance of power between the sexes (hypergamy and all that) has left a group of men feeling very dis-empowered. To compensate for this, they are trying to emulate the behavior of the men who do have a lot of sexual power (hence the emphasis on options as you said). While they may learn some useful things (particularly how to avoid anti-Game behavior), I don’t think this strategy is likely to be successful for most. It seems to be a path from delta (frustrated guy) to gamma (bitter guy) for many; not the path from delta to alpha (poonhound) that they hoped for. What most should really be working on is delta to beta (relationship guy).

    Of course, I’m looking at this from the viewpoint of an outside observer and a parent (like Susan is). It’s been over 20 years since I actively participated in the SMP.

  • VD

    VD, I wouldn’t care to point it if you wouldn’t post a blog entry dedicated to it.

    Basic blog etiquette lesson here, Szopen. Do not attempt to discuss things at one blog at another blog. This is of zero interest to Susan or to any of her readers except you and me… and it’s not of that much interest to me.

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

      Basic blog etiquette lesson here, Szopen. Do not attempt to discuss things at one blog at another blog.

      +1 :)

  • mr. wavevector

    But I am curious, what problem, be it local or global, has any millennial solved anywhere?

    I am guilty of poking fun at millennials upthread, but it’s not fair to be too critical of them. The world is still dominated by us boomers. My generation thought it could change the world, and it did so. Unfortunately, much of this change was motivated by a lot of silly idealism and hubris with a lack of pragmatic understanding of how the world works. The results have been mixed at best.

    The ambitions of the millennials may be more modest, but this isn’t necessary a bad thing.

  • mr. wavevector

    How is it GS’s fault her neighbor’s man doesn’t make enough money so she can stay home?

    In this case, her husband is very seriously ill, and can’t work anymore. So she’s working from necessity. But the point of her joke was that the value of work as a life goal has been oversold to women. She would rather not have to work full time, and is only doing it because of circumstances.

    I think educated women are going to effectively give back some of those “rights.”

    I hope it’s not a matter of giving up rights. Just making better decisions on how to use them.

  • mr. wavevector

    @Jackie,

    Where do you think Jesus would be seen if He came back today: On Game and PUA boards, discussing the amount of “action” he got compared to other men (namely, NONE) or advocating for children born into potentially hellish situations?

    Ahh, and I seem to remember: Mary was a teenager, not married when she became pregnant with child. Does that mean… Jesus is a thugspawn?!?! Joseph was a Beta dad on the hook, getting played?! I guess God is the ultimate Alpha in this scenario!

    You are right that we should be concerned with people who can’t seem to help making poor decisions and the children arising from those poor decisions. Society used to provide a lot more guidance and restrictions on people to keep them from making poor decisions. Today, we have a lot more freedom, including the freedom to make bad decisions, and a lot more people are doing just that. One of the way society discouraged poor decisions was to shame people who made them so others wouldn’t make the same mistake. “Thugspawn” is a colorful version of “bastard” and its intent is the same – to deter people from making a decision that will ultimately be bad for their kids. It’s cruel, but it may be effective.

    I like your religious alpha/beta analogy – I was thinking along these lines recently. The God of the Old Testament is definitely alpha – domineering, authoritarian, vengeful. You don’t mess with Yahweh. Jesus on the other hand is more of a Vox beta: a gentle leader, the Good Shepherd, the teacher, caregiver, and healer. Or to continue the idea in my previous comments, Yahweh is all about the power, Jesus is about the relationship.

    Christianity supplanted the alpha values of Yahweh with the beta values of Jesus. This was a key development in the advancement of western civilization, which is built around beta values – justice, equality, and the rule of law.

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

      I like your religious alpha/beta analogy – I was thinking along these lines recently. The God of the Old Testament is definitely alpha – domineering, authoritarian, vengeful. You don’t mess with Yahweh. Jesus on the other hand is more of a Vox beta: a gentle leader, the Good Shepherd, the teacher, caregiver, and healer. Or to continue the idea in my previous comments, Yahweh is all about the power, Jesus is about the relationship.

      Christianity supplanted the alpha values of Yahweh with the beta values of Jesus. This was a key development in the advancement of western civilization, which is built around beta values – justice, equality, and the rule of law.

      Awesome.

  • Ion

    PJ

    “By moral I include products offered, how they obtained, their effects on environment, culture and consciousness, among other things.”

    Right, but that’s all relative too. i.e. vegans take the moral high road. Yet apparently they kill millions more animals indirectly by eating grains and meat substitutes than they ever could eating cows. http://theconversation.edu.au/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

  • Ion

    PJ

    “And get this: when applying online for EBT the government asks you how much money you have in the bank, which bank, AND your bank account number!!! I suppose this is so they can directly draw from you account if you commit what they consider “welfare fraud” (in other words, any ol time they please).I sincerely hope not many people are foolish enough to actually give them that info.”

    People on EBT usually don’t have checking accounts…there is a check cashing place on the corner in every poor neighborhood. It cost about $50 per $500 dollars you cash or send at a Pay’O Matic/Western Union. One of those many examples of how expensive it is to be poor.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    What reputation do Pune girls have?

    They’re the Indian equivalent of Valley girls. Too focused on fashion and turning their noses at both guys (because most guys are undeserving of them) and other girls (they have to consider themselves superior to all the other girls).

  • INTJ

    @ JP

    This is why I don’t want to subject my wife to work if I can avoid it.

    I don’t like work, so I don’t see how two people in the family not liking most of the day can improve anything.

    Meh. I consider myself ahead if she wants me to work and she is willing to do most of the hard work of raising babies. I get the rewards of having kids (getting to play with them) without the cost (raising them).

  • Just1Z

    @Sai

    as a run-of-the-mill, average-man-on-the-street male I won’t enter into debates over specifics of your looks, fashions to maximise ‘things’ etc. The girls here already did that and frankly I’d go with their advice. The herd here is on your side, and that is very cool to see.

    What I am doing is telling you that the monster in the mirror only exists in your head – that’s a fact that I’ll testify to. I am qualified to do that.

    Susan said

    “I think less women are less screwed, for the reason you mention, but I also think they’re just as screwed up. Rising female narcissism, unrealistic standards and expectations, a sense of entitlement, and superficial values are increasingly common among coddled girls.”

    There are many women like that, but there are also women that under sell themselves. That’s where you are, and that isn’t healthy either. Sometimes you need to show a little faith in the herd (NAHALT) and show a little trust in their good-will and good advice. The herd here appears to have a good heart, maybe I’m not the one to say it, but what the hell.

    Also; good-natured humour, smiling, femininity and keep positive…but you knew that, right?

    be lucky and trust the healthy voices in your life on such issues.

  • Sai

    @Just1Z
    That’s why I replaced panicking with plucking, because I feel better now. I also started using nail polish again.

    @Ion
    “Right, but that’s all relative too. i.e. vegans take the moral high road. Yet apparently they kill millions more animals indirectly by eating grains and meat substitutes than they ever could eating cows. http://theconversation.edu.au/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659
    Let the record show I never gave up meat. I tried for a few days, but then there were hot wings. (Texas Pete just is not as good on tofu.)

  • Plain Jane

    “In this case, her husband is very seriously ill, and can’t work anymore. So she’s working from necessity. But the point of her joke was that the value of work as a life goal has been oversold to women. She would rather not have to work full time, and is only doing it because of circumstances.”

    Silly. Women have ALWAYS worked. There is no point in human history anywhere where the majority of women did not work to bring money/resources in for their families.

    @Ion
    “Right, but that’s all relative too. i.e. vegans take the moral high road. Yet apparently they kill millions more animals indirectly by eating grains and meat substitutes than they ever could eating cows. http://theconversation.edu.au/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

    Not this vegan. Anyway I’ll give the link a read but I’ve read similar arguments and they were always very “creative” with the facts and maths.

    There’s an ethical way to do animal flesh consumption, but mass breeding billions of them for slaughter, pumping them with hormones, feeding them gmo soy, torturing and even cannibalizing them is not it. A return to sporadic and respectful hunting could be one. Eating animals (including pets) that die a natural death is another. There is just too much waste, pain, sickness (for both humans and animals) and overall lack of humanity and civilization involved in the current industry to ever, even for a split second, to imagine its anywhere near “ethical”.

  • Joe

    @Susan (to me)

    ???I’m not sure what you mean. First, ADBG was responding to Plain Jane’s advice, not mine.

    Yes, and I was responding to this, which you wrote.

    The fact that she warned him she is prone to this behavior does not excuse it. She needs to grow up and take responsibility for herself. She does not deserve Cooper.

    I apologize for adding to the already convoluted path the discussion was taking, but not for the content. The advice “pushed my buttons” because like PJ’s, it too did nothing for the Coopers of the world except lead them further down the path toward bitterness. It does not lead them out.

    M. Scott Peck offered this, in a slightly broader context – “The quickest way out of the desert is to go through it.” You’re advising Cooper to turn around and walk away. This will lead to more misery when Cooper sees this girl (and others) “grow up and take responsibility for herself”, which she will, eventually, with somebody else sharing her life. And in their minds eye, the Cooper’s of the world will see this happening again and again and again.

    But I’ll repeat, your advice may be right. I can’t say it isn’t. It still does nothing for Cooper. Of course, you’ve said many times that helping the Coopers of the world was never your mission here.

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

      @Joe

      But I’ll repeat, your advice may be right. I can’t say it isn’t. It still does nothing for Cooper.

      I’m curious what you would have Cooper do – should he allow himself to be played by someone who doesn’t respond in a timely manner and seems generally ambivalent at best? How much should Cooper invest in this potential partnership – what is the best way for him to “go through it?”

      Of course, you’ve said many times that helping the Coopers of the world was never your mission here.

      Mission Statement

      Relationships have never been more complicated or elusive than they are today. Hooking Up Smart aims to help people figure out how to navigate the hostile terrain of the contemporary SMP (sexual marketplace). I support both women and men in their search for meaningful relationships by providing strategic insight, guidance, and perspective as they manage their social and sexual interactions.

      I would like nothing more than to help Cooper and guys like him, and I hope I provide a forum where he may ask questions and learn. Many people here are fond of Cooper and have taken time to give him feedback and advice when asked. Of course, he is free to reject any of it, including mine. I think he would probably appreciate hearing yours.

  • Plain Jane

    ” But the point of her joke was that the value of work as a life goal has been oversold to women. She would rather not have to work full time, and is only doing it because of circumstances.”

    Additionally it wasn’t Gloria Steinem who did this. Men were sold a bill of goods with the “American Dream” as well. Its probably accurate to say that unless one owns her or his own business doing something they love (like me) and is very financially successful at it, that most people DO NOT look forward going to work everyday and do not identify themselves with their “jobs”.

    INTJ,
    “Meh. I consider myself ahead if she wants me to work and she is willing to do most of the hard work of raising babies. I get the rewards of having kids (getting t