Men Want Sex with Girlfriends, Not Randoms

Good news! My theory that 80% of both young men and women are unhappy with hookup culture and struggle to form relationships just got some serious traction in the mainstream press. 

Wake-Forest professor Andrew Smiler has just published a new book based on his research on males and masculinity: Challenging Casanova: Beyond the Stereotype of the Promiscuous Young Male.  Though he doesn’t use the term, Smiler’s book exposes the degree of Pluralistic Ignorance around sex on college campuses by examining the data and attitudes of young males. He also offers some ideas for turning things around.

There is a widespread belief that guys just want to have sex and don’t care about relationships. In other words, “Men are dogs.”…Many Americans believe that boys and young men – especially those between about 15 and 25 years old – are primarily, if not exclusively, interested only in [hooking up]. We think this is normal. When we act as though this is normal, we may very well be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This stereotype tells us that guys are primarily interested in sex, not relationships. This contributes to the notion that guys are emotional clods who are incapable of connecting with their partners because, hey, they’re just guys, and guys are only interested in sex.

Interviewing Smiler at Salon (H/T JP and mr. wavevector), Tracy Clark Flory writes, “Smiler has an important question: “If Casonova-style promiscuity is men’s naturally evolved state, then why do most men want no more than one partner?” In “Challenging Casanova,” the Wake Forest University professor lays out the current data on young men’s sexual desires and behavior to make a case against this insidious stereotype.” Smiler:

It’s only a minority of guys who have multiple partners per year, and I typically talk about this as three partners a year because that’s the Casanova average. It’s actually a minority of guys who want multiple short-term partners — that even comes up in the evolutionary research.

The evolutionary argument basically goes that guys have the ability, theoretically, to produce hundreds of children per year, and they can never quite be 100 percent sure that any child is theirs, so they should spread their seed widely. But what gets left out of that is the fact that if you want your genes to go beyond that next generation — beyond your children to your grandchildren, then your odds are better if you actually stick around and help raise that kid until that kid is old enough to pass on his or her genes.

What is the Casanova Complex?

Peter Trachtenberg’s research on The Casanova Complex 25 years ago defined the behavior as “the compulsive pursuit and abandonment of women.” He also found that these men were not primarily physically attractive or high status, but they had developed a seduction skill set. I was amused to learn that Trachtenberg found that the most common observable behavior among would-be Casanovas was ignoring one’s female companion in public.

Smiler set out to learn how today’s college player differs. Undergraduates today describe campus players in the following terms:

  • Attractive
  • Flattering
  • Flirty
  • Self-centered, jerks, loudmouths
  • Well groomed and dressed
  • Very social, attend lots of parties
  • Heavy drinker
  • Lower GPA

In contrast, self-described players profess these traits:

  • Pride in having multiple concurrent sex partners
  • Competitive
  • Risk-taking
  • Invested in advertising heterosexuality
  • Sexist
  • Strong desire to be dominant over others
  • Not religious
  • Top 6 self-descriptors: jock, popular, prince, tough, criminal, rebel

What do players actually do?

  • 50% have more than one sex partner per year, compared to 20% of non-players.
  • 3-5% have 4 or more partners per year over a four-year span.
  • Having multiple sex partners concurrently becomes more common among men who have 5 or more partners per year.
  • In any given year, aspiring Casanovas may be up to 15% of the male population, but only about 5% of men sustain this behavior for three years.

So half of these self-anointed players have 0 or 1 sex partners per year? Only 3-5% of players rack up 16 partners in four years? Clearly, there is a massive disconnect between the way players perceive themselves and measurable results. At what point does this become fraud rather than myth?

What does everyone else do?

Men have three approaches to dating and sex:

1. Casanova: 5-15%

2. Abstinent/religious: 10-15%

3. Traditional Romantic: 70-85%

“[This] doesn’t mean that romantic men don’t occasional have one-night-stand-style hookups. Some of them do. But unlike Casanovas, and going against our general conception of hooking up, these guys often hook up with people they know.”

Smiler gives a typical example:

Mike and Jenn met sophomore year and became good friends. One night, they started making out and after a few times, they got drunk one night and “it just happened.” Mike felt regretful.

Your first time is supposed to be like really special or whatever but I just felt like it was just in a complete haze and like stupid decision making.

Mike is a Traditional Romantic. Smiler found common traits among this vast majority of males:

  • Experience low levels of family conflict around the time they enter puberty.
  • Raised in families that are emotionally expressive – showing feelings at about an average level.
  • As adolescents, experience moderate levels of “parental monitoring.”
  • Trusted by parents as teens.
  • Use alcohol and drugs, but at much lower levels than Casanovas.
  • Engage in low to moderate deviant behavior, e.g. shoplifting, vandalism, public nuisance making.
  • Punished by parents for poor behavior.

Why is the Casanova myth a problem?

According to Smiler, teaching girls that all guys are only interested in sex has detrimental effects not just on girls but also on boys:

The idea that male sexual desire is powerful, ever present, and barely controlled has been a part of American culture for at least 200 years. (Rotundo, 1993). Taken to the extreme, it contributes to the possibility that any guy could be a rapist, child molester, or some other type of sexual predator.

…This isn’t just about changing how we raise boys and talk to them about relationships and sexuality, it’s also about changing girls. After all, if we continue to teach girls to be suspicious of boys’ and young men’s motives, then a guy who is honest about his sexual desires is going to run into problems.

Clark Flory asks “How does the Casanova myth impact female sexuality?” Smiler:

One of the ways it impacts girls and women is they get the wrong proportions. They’re told that most guys, if not all guys, just want sex, that they don’t want relationships. So we have a lot of stories and evidence that girls are putting their bodies out there and doing things sexually in order to entice guys into relationships. We’re giving girls the wrong percentages which makes them perhaps behave in ways in which they wouldn’t behave otherwise — starting your contact with somebody sexually instead of relationally, for example.

At the same time, he notes that the media enthusiastically promotes male promiscuity, which confuses guys:

In mainstream media we’ve had all of this stuff on TV since the 1970s that really promotes this idea of promiscuous young men. The history, as far as I can tell, really starts with Fonzie on “Happy Days” and “Hawkeye” Pierce on “M*A*S*H.” And it continues with guys like Sam Malone on “Cheers” and Charlie Sheen’s character on “Two and a Half Men” and Barney on “How I Met Your Mother.” For several years now we’ve had so-called good guys who were also promiscuous. If you looked at TV and movies from the ’50s and ’60s, the promiscuous guys were always very clearly the bad example.

Clark Flory correctly challenges the notion that men control the culture: “What do you make of the popular wisdom that in hookup culture, young men are pressuring young women into casual sex — that they’re setting the terms of these engagements?” Smiler rightly addresses this in terms of the apex fallacy issue, though like me, his focus is not on the disputably “lucky” 15%, but the far larger “normal” 85%.

I don’t buy it. When we interview adolescents or undergrads, the girls really have the impression that guys are just interested in sex, that they’re not interested in relationships. What we know is that most guys do get into relationships, they enjoy relationships, they do a lot of things in relationships that are not about sex and they’re not doing them just to put up with them in order to get sex.

Guys get something out of relationships; they like relationships. If you add in the fact that average age of first marriage is something like 28 for guys, a lot of guys have the sense that this girl they’re starting to date at 17 or 19 or 21 probably isn’t going to be the one — and yet they are choosing to date. They could easily choose to just hook up — or instead of spending that money in a bar you could get a prostitute — but they’re consistently choosing to be in relationships.

At the same time, Smiler says that “we need to stop assuming that girls are only interested in relationships, and acknowledge that some may be primarily (or exclusively) interested in sex.” He shares the story of an undergraduate woman who planned to enter medical school immediately after graduation, and didn’t see herself settling down until she was finished with medical school. In the meantime, she wants to get laid “every now and again.” This is the independent young woman championed by Hannah Rosin – the future of feminism, which depends on women not marrying and having children, so that they can make career strides.

What can be done about this wackness?

Smiler believes that we can change the culture by changing how we raise and talk to kids:

When we develop sex education curricula based on the assumption that Casanova is the norm and when we act as though Casanova is the reality for all boys and men, we’re giving our kids incorrect information. That’s irresponsible behavior by the adults.

Only a small percentage of guys follow the Casanova Complex script. But because we understand young men’s sexuality in terms of that script, we often fail to notice or emphasize the guys who aren’t Casanovas. When we do notice them, we think they’re exceptional and unusual, even though they are in fact the majority. One way to start changing the script is to get accurate information on what’s really happening.

The solution is not a return to a Happy Days America, impossible in any case. But there is real opportunity for change just by busting the myth and redefining normal based on the real distribution of behaviors and attitudes.

We know that most young people want to have romantic relationships. Smiler tackles the male side of the equation:

If we’ve changed our expectations once, to promote the Casanova Complex, we can change our expectations again. And change means change; it doesn’t mean going back to the 1950s. We can return to emphasizing responsibility, honesty, caring and respect as male traits without sending women back home to care for the house and family. And we can do this while holding onto such “traditional” male values as independence, loyalty and hard work.”

I’ll continue to tackle the female side of the equation, which is a return to the same traits while holding on to such “traditional” female values as nurturing, emotional intelligence, and femininity in both behavior and appearance.

 

2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • http://thepathtopasison.com Clay

    What I find sad is that the traits that self-described players posses is that they seem to be rooted in a feeling of inadequacy.

    Granted, these are typically young men in their early twenties, which is a time when young people are exploring and defining their own identity.

    It’s only natural to be concerned about “fitting in” feeling adequate and getting social approval from society.

    However, after reading this article, I’m left with the feeling that these men are particularly damaged and feel the need to prove their manliness by hooking up as much as possible.

    When this becomes what society tells men they should aspire to, I believe it created even more male insecurity, causing more men to believe that they need to be good at seducing women in order to be okay and acceptable.

    So you end up with perfectly normal guys thinking that they need to become “PUA’s” in order to catch up with all the players out there.

    Just my two cents.

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

      @Clay

      However, after reading this article, I’m left with the feeling that these men are particularly damaged and feel the need to prove their manliness by hooking up as much as possible.

      Smiler does present a very clear link between family dysfunction and male promiscuity. This is the first time I have seen this stated so clearly for males – there are similar findings re promiscuous females. I believe that research on males and masculinity is growing rapidly due to the now inescapable evidence that young men in our society are not thriving in the same numbers young women are.

      When this becomes what society tells men they should aspire to, I believe it created even more male insecurity, causing more men to believe that they need to be good at seducing women in order to be okay and acceptable.

      That’s obviously an enormous amount of pressure on young men. It’s clear that even the players aren’t racking up the kinds of numbers they’d have you believe. No doubt they feel pressure to live up to what is largely an empty and manufactured reputation. This sounds like a self-esteem crisis in young men, all the more unfortunate as their female peers revel in the “Participant trophy” culture. In this case, the normal and healthy are dragged down by men who have a vested interest in promoting the seduction and abandonment of women, a goal not resonant for healthy or “undamaged” men.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Great stuff here.

  • Ted D

    This post gives me hope for my children’s future in terms of relationships.

    And put me in a good mood on a Monday!

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

      This post gives me hope for my children’s future in terms of relationships.

      And put me in a good mood on a Monday!

      Me too! Yesterday I read the Salon article, promptly downloaded the book onto my Kindle and read the whole thing in one sitting. I really appreciate Smiler’s work here – slowly the truth is coming out, and once that happens the culture will change rapidly, because there is nothing much more encouraging than learning, “I’m normal! I’m not a loser after all!”

      Just removing the shame from not wanting a lot of sexual partners is huge. There’s a big difference between asking men “How many sexual partners do you think you want in your lifetime?” and “How many casual sex partners do you want now?” The former question (median 1, mean 7-8 IIRC) is clearly thrown out of whack by the extreme outliers who hope to channel Wilt Chamberlain. I suspect the responses from college males would follow a similar pattern.

  • JP

    I’m pretty sure that I was the one who threw the Salon article up here.

    So I feel slighted.

    Sad.

    Deeply despondent.

    :(

    (Granted, he was the one who actually did something with the link, but still…)

    (Also, this will in no way change my approach to throwing up random links.)

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

      @JP

      Fixed! Sorry about that…

  • JP

    Grrrr.

    Take this you auto-smile system:

    <:-(

  • Ted D

    JP – “I’m pretty sure that I was the one who threw the Salon article up here.

    So I feel slighted.”

    Glory hound. :P

  • JP

    No problem.

    There’s nothing like a good wander through the Salon comments when you want to see some high quality trolling in action.

    Imagine my surprise when I found a relevant article.

  • Cooper

    Great post, probably most indicated by the few comments haha.

    “there is nothing much more encouraging than learning, “I’m normal! I’m not a loser after all!”
    Just removing the shame from not wanting a lot of sexual partners is huge.”

    +1

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

      Great post, probably most indicated by the few comments haha.

      Yup, could be one of the less controversial ones. Still, I’d like to get a good discussion going, this is really important, IMO.

  • Emily

    Great post! And it’s a nice reminder of how many awesome guys there are out there.

  • Ted D

    “Yesterday I read the Salon article, promptly downloaded the book onto my Kindle and read the whole thing in one sitting”

    Is it a good read? And, did you polish it off in a marathon sitting, or is it short and easy to digest? I’d like to give it a go myself, and with a holiday weekend coming up I might have time to do it.

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

      Is it a good read? And, did you polish it off in a marathon sitting, or is it short and easy to digest? I’d like to give it a go myself, and with a holiday weekend coming up I might have time to do it.

      It’s short and easy to digest. I thought it was a great read, but that’s partly because I was so excited to find someone who has reached the same conclusion I have :)

      It’s not a page-turner by pop culture standards. Still, I think you would like it. It’s $10 on Kindle.

  • J

    This post gives me hope for my children’s future in terms of relationships.

    Aw, Ted. You worry too much. Yeah, things are crappy out there ,but good people do find good relationships. You’re a solid person, so you’ll raise solid kids and eventually, even if they get sidetracked by the culture for awhile, they’ll do fine. As much as my kids worry me in the short run sometimes, I have to recognize and have faith in their being basically good, solid kids.

  • Abbot

    Can you imagine if the book was something like -

    “Challenging The Loose: Beyond the Stereotype of the Promiscuous Young Female”

    Marcotte would have an absolute exploding shit fit. As it is, she is already all over the current version:

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/11/19/challenging_casanova_are_men_really_only_looking_for_commitment_free_sex.html

    .

  • J

    In “Challenging Casanova,” the Wake Forest University professor lays out the current data on young men’s sexual desires and behavior to make a case against this insidious stereotype.”

    Hell, even Tracy Clark Flory’s porn star lay was subconsciously looking for a relationship. He scanned her possessions looking for some object that night start a conversation or hint at something in common, failed and left.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    I read the introduction on Amazon. Looks like a really good book.

    There is a rather strange definition of long-term, though. The book says only 25% of men wants more than one partner *this* month, and 75% don’t. But that 75% has a lot of wiggle room – a new girl every 32 days counts as the latter, but is quite promiscuous, isn’t it? Haven’t read the rest to see if the author changes his tune.

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

      @OTC

      There is a rather strange definition of long-term, though. The book says only 25% of men wants more than one partner *this* month, and 75% don’t. But that 75% has a lot of wiggle room – a new girl every 32 days counts as the latter, but is quite promiscuous, isn’t it? Haven’t read the rest to see if the author changes his tune.

      That’s actually interesting. Smiler points out that proponents of Sexual Strategies Theory like to focus on very short time frames when asking question to maximize the difference between male and female responses. For example, if you ask both sexes how many sexual partners they would like in the next month, the female mean is one and the male mean is 2, a difference of 100%. However, if you ask about the next year, you might get a different answer, like 2 and 3, a 50% difference. Of course, focusing on the mean, as we have seen Schmitt do repeatedly, is also misleading because extreme outliers drive up the mean. The median is a much better measure, and the sexes are quite close on this.

      In any case, Smiler did not conduct this research – his point is only that when you ask men how many women they’d like to have sex with in the next month if they were able to, 75% say 0 or 1.

  • Ted D

    J – “Aw, Ted. You worry too much.”
    I come from a long line of worriers. Just holding up the family tradition!

    “Yeah, things are crappy out there ,but good people do find good relationships. You’re a solid person, so you’ll raise solid kids and eventually, even if they get sidetracked by the culture for awhile, they’ll do fine. As much as my kids worry me in the short run sometimes, I have to recognize and have faith in their being basically good, solid kids.”

    I appriciate the vote of confidence. In most things I don’t worry much to be honest. Our kids are good people, and overall they’ll succeed at whatever they set their mind to doing. My concern over relationship issues stems directly from my experience (or lack there of) and the feeling that I’ve done them a disservice by being so clueless about the subject. Not understanding relationship dynamics in addition to realizing that the SMP/MMP is nothing like what I experienced or imagined just makes me less than confident in my abilities to help them find what they want/need from a partner.

    But I’m fixing my own shit partly to resolve that issue. Of course I’m not going to hit the bricks to increase my N and “get experience”, but I’m not hoping to raise players and/or sluts anyway. I just want them to at least see what a good relationship looks like, and hope that they’ll learn by example. It is in large part why we both decided to become ‘official’ by getting married. I won’t push them towards marriage, but if it’s something I’d like them to consider, I figure I should put my money where my mouth is, so to speak. Besides, I didn’t want her kids thinking *I* didn’t feel like their mother was worth the effort, and I didn’t want my kids to think I’m taking the “easy” way out.

    Besides, now I can say that my wife’s ass belongs to me… :p

  • Todd

    First, when I stumbled onto this article, I awaited your post because it seemed right up your alley. Two, is it just me, or does Amanda Marcotte’s article look like she’s looking for an argument where there isn’t any. I’m sorry, but when someone agrees with me, I gently applaud, not just throw out snark like someone should be grateful I agree with them.

    I could have used this book in the mid 90s, thanks! It would have saved me a lot of heartache and drama. Considering that I grew up with a father and older brother that were players (and were on their 1% style according to this book #NoOccupy), there was a lot of pressure to be a player. A lot! Of course, I’d eventually find out that, long story short, I’d managed to duck a lot of sexual abuse that came my dad and brother’s way. Still, when you’re in high school or even college, and there are no other socially acceptable ways to prove your manhood, the pull of the Dark Side is strong.

    Ironically, through a series of breaks, I did manage to stumble into that 15% category for back-to-back years, but I got sick of it. No one can keep up that pace and keep sane. Heck, even male porn stars get sick of it, and they literally get paid to do it. I can only imagine what a civilian could pull off.

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

      @Todd

      Two, is it just me, or does Amanda Marcotte’s article look like she’s looking for an argument where there isn’t any. I’m sorry, but when someone agrees with me, I gently applaud, not just throw out snark like someone should be grateful I agree with them.

      She’s bristling at the anti-promiscuity findings, but she can’t fault Smiler’s research so she falls back on “Everyone likes to try on different sexual roles to see what’s right for them, and that’s OK!”

      Considering that I grew up with a father and older brother that were players (and were on their 1% style according to this book #NoOccupy), there was a lot of pressure to be a player. A lot! Of course, I’d eventually find out that, long story short, I’d managed to duck a lot of sexual abuse that came my dad and brother’s way.

      Wow, that’s really alarming. I checked back and the book does not deal with sexual abuse as a correlating factor, but it’s been demonstrated to correlate to promiscuity in prior studies. I’m glad you did not share that experience!

  • J

    @Todd and Abbott

    I think Marcotte agrees with Smiler’s basic premise that most men want a relationship. What she seems to find amusing is that evo-psych, so long used to prove that men are naturally polygamous, is now being used to show that they aren’t. That’s an intersting point, IMO.

  • J

    Ted-I see your response, but I need to do some pre-holiday housecleaning. Catch ya later!

  • Cooper

    “Still, I’d like to get a good discussion going, this is really important, IMO.”

    Mmhmm. Well, to note on Emily’s comment:
    “And it’s a nice reminder of how many awesome guys there are out there.”
    (See: “Guys get something out of relationships; they like relationships.)

    I suppose it’s also important to be reminded that they are Casanova-type women.
    (See: “we need to stop assuming that girls are only interested in relationships, and acknowledge that some may be primarily (or exclusively) interested in sex.”)

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

      @Cooper

      I suppose it’s also important to be reminded that they are Casanova-type women.

      Indeed! And I know you count a few of these among your acquaintance…

      Bastiat Blogger has described his female students this way. For the women who are fans of the hookup scene, it works really, really well.

  • deti

    Sure, I think men want steady relationships and to have sex within those relationships. But the ideal sexual situation for men (just purely sexual, not relationship-focus) would be to have a relationship, but with concurrent flings/ONSs. Of course most men cannot do this. But if we’re talking about what men would want ideally if they were philosopher kings, this is what I suspect many men would want.

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

      @deti

      But the ideal sexual situation for men (just purely sexual, not relationship-focus) would be to have a relationship, but with concurrent flings/ONSs. Of course most men cannot do this. But if we’re talking about what men would want ideally if they were philosopher kings, this is what I suspect many men would want.

      Nope, that is precisely Smiler’s point. This is not what men want, it’s just that they have been made to feel ashamed of not wanting to be promiscuous.
      Certainly, Smiler does make the point that the culture tells men that’s what they want.

      In truth, even the self-described players aren’t racking up high numbers. The average Casanova has three partners per year – a paltry number for a man who spends his life partying, skipping class and chasing pussy, no?

      Less than 2% of men have concurrent sexual partners. If women find 20% of men attractive, then 90% of those hot men have to be making a different choice.

      The data is quite clear. Unless you have different information, what you suspect must be chalked up to your having bought into the Casanova Myth.

  • Todd

    @J

    I see your point. However, there are ways to make the same point without being a total jerk about it. Think about gay people for a minute. They’re ~5% of the population, give or take a percentage point. Save for the most benighted people, most people know this. Just because they’re a small part of the population doesn’t mean we should limit their freedoms in any way. Likewise, you can think so of the promiscuous people without issues. Yes, they’re a minority, but they should be free to live as they wish so long as they’re dealing with consenting adults. You don’t have to resort to snark to defend that kind of position.

    @Susan

    The reason I thought of sexual abuse is because of the family dysfunction/player correlation you mentioned. Though the thing is that family dysfunction matters a lot more than sexual abuse per se. It turns out that sexually abused kids are more likely to be in families with a lot of dysfunction, because that’s what the predators are looking for in terms of openings. Also, on the off chance that a kid in a functional family gets targeted, they tend to bounce back better.

    @Cooper

    I like how you put it. Just because someone is different doesn’t make them bad. Just different. :)

  • Jonny

    Two things.

    1. Men want random sex with girls if they can get it. It’s not like they have a choice to not have random hookups. Since they can’t hookup, they take the next best thing, which is have girlfriends. However, hookup culture made having girlfriends a tougher proposition to realize. Lacking the ability to have a girlfriend or random sex, the majority of men live like monks.

    2. The PUA community will see this post and laugh. It’s another version of making men conform to an image that women want.

    “we can change the culture by changing how we raise and talk to kids”

    Again, this puts the responsibility on kids when the responsibility is with adults who own the culture. Adults must say say they are the role models. Kids must follow direction. Since it is clear that adults doing the right thing, it is hard for the culture to change.

    The traditional pattern is date and marry young. Anything else is casual. Waiting longer means you will have random sex (hookups) or be celibate (not a choice for most men).

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

      @Jonny

      1. Men want random sex with girls if they can get it. It’s not like they have a choice to not have random hookups. Since they can’t hookup, they take the next best thing, which is have girlfriends.

      I wonder what to make of the very strong correlation between manosphere readers and poor reading comprehension.

      rc

      How we cling to our beliefs, however disappointing. It’s fascinating.

      The PUA community will see this post and laugh. It’s another version of making men conform to an image that women want.

      It’s male-driven research by someone whose expertise is masculinity, and he is concerned not for the PUAs, but for the 90% of men who don’t fit that script. Smiler does point out in this book that most of the contestants on The Pickup Artist on MTV expressly stated they wanted a gf, not to become a player. Mark Manson’s comment is also not surprising. What most men want is to be able to get a girlfriend, and that’s especially true of men who study PUA, most of whom has little experience with women.

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

    This is not what men want, it’s just that they have been made to feel ashamed of not wanting to be promiscuous. Certainly, Smiler does make the point that the culture tells men that’s what they want.

    It occurs to me that this is an interesting reversal of the typical anti-feminist (read: manosphere) narrative, which is that men are shamed for their biological sexual urges. According to Smiler, men are shamed for not living up to the cultural stereotype of Man as a Sexual Pig, which also has a shaming slant on it. Essentially, this is a story of men being tired of being shamed into being shamed.

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

      @Olive

      It occurs to me that this is an interesting reversal of the typical anti-feminist (read: manosphere) narrative, which is that men are shamed for their biological sexual urges.

      That struck me too. I realized in thinking about it, though, that Smiler is also saying something the manosphere also says, which is that men have been shamed for their sexuality to the point where they are always under suspicion as potential rapists. Smiler is pointing out that in fact, male sexuality is not something that men are unable to control, and that highly impulsive, promiscuous behavior (which includes sexual assault) is limited to relatively few men.

  • Escoffier

    “Nope, that is precisely Smiler’s point. This is not what men want, it’s just that they have been made to feel ashamed of not wanting to be promiscuous.”

    And, once again, this where I will say that when a “study” flatly contradicts all personal experience and observation, I have to object.

    The idea that men don’t want, at least biologically, to screw a multitude of women should be laugh-worthy. The evidence to the contrary is all around us.

    Now, human nature is far simpler than biology. There are lots of reasons not to want to screw around that transcent raw sexual desire. But if we are going to understand this issue in its full complexity, then we have to start from understanding that for most men, raw sexual desire wants variety. It wants numbers. The WHOLE man may not–and I am inclinded to believe that most men, qua human beings, do not want to be players. But most penises do.

    I suspect, also, that men and especially young men are not so much ashamed of not wanting to be promiscuous. Rather, they are ashamed that they cannot achieve (high N count) what the dominant youth culture tells them is the truest mark of a high value man. What Vox said a while back about a master key and a broken lock is right on here.

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

      @Escoffier

      And, once again, this where I will say that when a “study” flatly contradicts all personal experience and observation, I have to object.

      First, it’s not a study, it’s a book referencing many studies. There are 131 footnotes in the first two chapters alone.

      Second, Smiler talks with many young men about what they want in his own research. Here are the reasons young men give for preferring relationships to casual sex:

      A. Connection:

      1. I like her.
      2. I like spending time with her.
      3. I want to get to know her better.
      4. I have strong feelings for her.

      B. Emotional Support and Intimacy

      1. I like having someone to talk to.
      2. I like having someone to hang out with.
      3. I like having someone who listens to me when I’m worried about something.
      4. I like having someone who has my back.
      5. My girlfriend is more supportive than by best friend or parents.

      C. Secondary factor mentioned by a minority as a reason for dating: Physical Intimacy

      1. Kissing
      2. Holding hands
      3. Sex

      Downsides to dating:

      1. Takes a lot of time.
      2. Descreased spontaneity.
      3. Loss of freedom.
      4. Risk of getting hurt or having a broken heart.
      5. Financial costs.

      Top things guys look for in a girl:

      1. Funny
      2. Nice
      3. Outgoing
      4. Understanding of others
      5. Decisive
      6. Self-confident

      Note: Looks came in at #9.

      Turnoffs:

      1. Stubbornness
      2. Bossiness
      3. Sense of superiority
      4. Competitive
      5. Too independent
      6. Fighting
      7. Nagging
      8. Jealousy

      Third, it’s important to remember what we mean when we say what guys “want.” Men do not answer this question assuming an imaginary world of zero consequences and complications. Just as with the sociosexuality index, men express their attitudes about sex based partly on class, culture and values.

      Finally, I’m not here to debate men by speaking for Smiler. I’m reporting on his book, which reaches the same conclusions I have reached using even more data, all of which is compatible with these conclusions. It turns out that the most promiscuous men don’t have that many partners. The 200+ guys appear to be as rare as the Bornean Orangutan. :)

  • Escoffier

    Whoops, human nature is far more COMPLEX than mere biology …

  • Escoffier

    Susan, maybe in this context it would make more sense to listen to what acutal men are telling you (especially since it comports with so much observable reality over many centuries) rather than accept one happy-talk study as the last word.

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

      @Escoffier

      Susan, maybe in this context it would make more sense to listen to what acutal men are telling you (especially since it comports with so much observable reality over many centuries) rather than accept one happy-talk study as the last word.

      Hopefully you see that this is not a study. The book contains 510 footnotes referencing studies, though there are bound to be some duplicates in there. Overall, though, a very robust undertaking that surveys the research very thoroughly.

      I can only assume that the studies included represent several thousands of undergraduate college males.

  • Ted D

    Jonny – “1. Men want random sex with girls if they can get it. ”

    NAMALT! Thinking back on all of the men I’ve been close to since high school, I’d say at most 1/3 of them wanted lots of random sexual partners. The rest were somewhere between serial monogomy and looking for the mother of thier children. Personally I’ve never actively “wanted” random sex with anyone. Ever. The chances I had to do so I passed on, regardless of whether or not I was in a relationship at the time. I’m not interested in sex for sex’s sake, I want an emotional connection with the woman I have an orgasm with. And knowing how I’m wired, I suspect that IF I tried the casual route, I would subconsiously start forming an emotional bond to any casual sex partner I had even if it wasn’t my goal. So, it just made sense to me to simply conentrate my efforts where I’d naturally go anyway, and try to make the best choices for it to work out long term.

    I have never had sex with a woman I wasn’t already planning to stay with, and that isn’t going to change.

  • deti

    SW:
    “In truth, even the self-described players aren’t racking up high numbers. The average Casanova has three partners per year – a paltry number for a man who spends his life partying, skipping class and chasing pussy, no?

    “Less than 2% of men have concurrent sexual partners. If women find 20% of men attractive, then 90% of those hot men have to be making a different choice. ”

    Look, Susan, I accept the numbers are what they are. But what does the biology of the human male actually impel him to do? What would a man want if he could do it with no moral, legal, social, financial or marital repercussions? Marriage or LTR, with side dishes of NSA sex with a rotating pool of women.

    From personal experience, I know that I had wanted an LTR with First College Girlfriend with flings on the side. I sometimes tried dating two or three women simultaneously. But invariably one would find out about the others, and all of the would break up with me, all of them expecting exclusivity.

    We know there is a certain percentage of men who cheat on their wives. The usual motivations for a man cheating are (1) he just wants some sexual variety with a fling; or (2) he’s not getting any from his wife. Think about Don Draper, admittedly a fictional portrayal. He lives a man’s illicit perverted dream: marriage to an attractive woman, yet has had flings with a number of women, none of whom he got particularly attached to, but whom were totally sexually available.

    Here’s the point: a man wants variety. It’s what a man WANTS that we’re talking about, not what he actually DOES. If a man had his druthers I would suspect he’d have his spouse, and have flings and ONSs of varying duration and frequency.

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

      @deti

      What would a man want if he could do it with no moral, legal, social, financial or marital repercussions? Marriage or LTR, with side dishes of NSA sex with a rotating pool of women.

      What is the basis for this claim? I’m genuinely curious, as not even the evo psych gods say this. Did you get this from Roissy? Helen Fisher:

      Q: What’s the difference between love and lust?
      Dr. Fisher: Lust generally dissipates after having sex and returns hours or days later. You can feel it for several people at the same time and not necessarily feel jealous. But when you’re in love, you are very possessive. And romantic feelings don’t dissipate after having sex; in fact, they can intensify.

      In other words, the possessive and slightly obsessive feelings that occur during the falling in love period serves to prevent lust for another. This explains the male preference for serial monogamy. Many more young men want to have that falling in love experience than want to have casual sex.

      Here’s the point: a man wants variety. It’s what a man WANTS that we’re talking about, not what he actually DOES. If a man had his druthers I would suspect he’d have his spouse, and have flings and ONSs of varying duration and frequency.

      Again, I would point out that Smiler has asked men what they want. We’ve also covered this question here in other formats – for example, when asking men how many lifetime sexual partners they would like to have, the median answer is one:

      sw

      Of course, you are free to suspect or believe whatever you wish, and it is not my goal to change your mind. Certainly, we believe that is what you want if you say so.

      My goal in writing the post was to continue to demonstrate to that 80+% restricted population that they are the normal ones, and that male promiscuity as practiced is actually strongly correlated to family dysfunction.

  • JP

    “What most men want is to be able to get a girlfriend, and that’s especially true of men who study PUA, most of whom has little experience with women.”

    Or getting rid of a girlfriend they didn’t want.

    Over half of my dating adventures involved that problem.

    So, knowing this relationship stuff would have helped say 15 years ago.

  • Passer_By

    Actually, what I think they really want is “both”. In other words, sex in multiple concurrent relationships, or a long term relationship but with multiple partners on the side. If forced to choose between a string of one night stands or a long term relationship, I suppose a lot (maybe most) guys would choose the latter. One night stands aren’t all they’re cracked up to be. Awkward condom sex with no real intimacy. But there are, of course, a lot of scenarios in between. You could have several short term flings (a month?) one after the other, or maybe concurrently, with lots of intense sex. Those are nice, but even those ultimately would be unfilling for most.

    Men have conflicting needs. Perhaps the best would be a long term relationship/marriage with a woman who just loves 3-ways and actively recruits new partners for you (hey, a guy can dream, eh?).

    The problem I have with Escoffier’s points here is that he is confusing mere biological impulse with happiness. Since he’s never actually had a bunch of one night stands or short consecutive flings (I think), he’s not in a position to say whether acting on the biological impulse would result in fulfillment for him or a void in his life.

  • JP

    “But what does the biology of the human male actually impel him to do?”

    Apparently you get to experience intrusive obsessive romantic thoughts and hypomania (coupled with a distinct urge to immediately shut down any current relationship).

    Romantic OCD is certainly impelling.

    Would I consider dating more than one woman at a time?

    Uh, no.

    Unless I wanted significant emotional overload.

    I don’t think it’s possible given my emotional topography.

  • Jonny

    @Susan: I was responding to this quote “It’s only a minority of guys who have multiple partners per year, and I typically talk about this as three partners a year because that’s the Casanova average. It’s actually a minority of guys who want multiple short-term partners — that even comes up in the evolutionary research.”

    It seems like the ones that “can” have hookups are the ones who “want” to do that although I do think it isn’t mutually exclusive. Is there research that says men who don’t have hookups will want them if it is available?

    It isn’t odd to hear this from you “Smiler does point out in this book that most of the contestants on The Pickup Artist on MTV expressly stated they wanted a gf, not to become a player.” Not seeing the show, are they actual pickup artists or wannabees.

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

      @Jonny

      It seems like the ones that “can” have hookups are the ones who “want” to do that although I do think it isn’t mutually exclusive. Is there research that says men who don’t have hookups will want them if it is available?

      I’m sure there is a lot of research that shows that men not having sex want to have it! However, I believe the point of Smiler’s book is that men express a proclivity for having sex in relationships, owing to the other benefits that relationships confer.

      If the top male seducers have three partners a year, I think we need to redefine what a sexually successful male is, and also what men want. Couldn’t the top 3% have a dozen or more partners a year easily, if they chose? Yet they don’t, and even male virgins do not generally seek out prostitutes. Why? Because they view sex as a meaningful act.

      Not seeing the show, are they actual pickup artists or wannabees.

      They are wannabees, they are competing to be the best PUA, and apparently just about all of them are in it to get a gf. As well, Mark Manson stated that 90% of his clients wanted a gf, not to learn how to get casual sex or ONSs.

  • JP

    Basically what I’m saying is that if I was dating girl X, and became interested in girl Y, I would immediately dump girl X to pursue girl Y.

    So, at least in my world, I’m quite willing to dump a current relationship for a not yet extant potential relationship.

  • Escoffier

    I’m not confusing anything. I’m saying that it seems like Susan wants to present this study as “Good news! Male nature just wants a GF!”

    Well, not so fast. Male nature wants conflicting things. The lower half wants variety. Some men can act on that and score variety. Most can’t. Among those who can and those who can’t, some significant cohort will not be made happy by variety, nonetheless they will pursue it anyway. The same way we all know women who are not made happy by the carousel and yet they stay on it anyway. SOMETHING in them must desire it or they would stop.

    I am pretty sure that being a player would not make me personally happy. But to some extent the baseline desire is still there, simply as a matter of male biology.

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

      SOMETHING in them must desire it or they would stop.

      As pointed out in the OP, poor parenting and family dysfunction are closely linked to promiscuity.

      Escoffier, please stop saying study. Smiler’s book is not a study. He has done studies, and he has now written a book that comprehensively examines all the research on this topic.

  • http://www.rooshvforum.com/user-774.html samseau

    The bottom line is that women sleep with players because women want players.

    Regular men (i.e. betas) want relationships because they hate the cutthroat world of dating. They want to get a decent girl and just have some steady pussy with a girl who could be considered a friend.

    Too bad the average young woman today doesn’t give a shit about that. She wants thrills, she wants a guy she can show off to her friends, she wants drugs, and she wants hot sex that gives her multiple orgasms. The only guys who can give her those things are precisely the kinds of guys she claims to hate, the “Cassanovas”.

    The average girl today does not give a rats ass about dating unless there tangible benefits to go along with it. It’s funny, the last four girls I’ve banged in the past two months (I don’t care if you think that’s promiscuous or not) have all assumed I was fucking other girls behind their back, but didn’t give a shit and slept with me anyways.

    Thus the poor disillusioned betas realize that if they want any sort of affection at all, let alone a relationship, they must become players or continue their involuntary dry-spell.

    The issue has nothing to do with men. Men (demand) are merely responding to the market created by young women (supply). This is supply-side economics. If you want to see more young men in relationships, then the answer is that we need more young women for men to choose from.

    “What do players actually do?

    50% have more than one sex partner per year, compared to 20% of non-players.
    3-5% have 4 or more partners per year over a four-year span.
    Having multiple sex partners concurrently becomes more common among men who have 5 or more partners per year.
    In any given year, aspiring Casanovas may be up to 15% of the male population, but only about 5% of men sustain this behavior for three years.”

    Hahaha, if these numbers are true it just goes to show how few can survive in the player lifestyle. Only 3-5% have 4 or more partners over four years?

    These numbers sound absurdly low. I have triple that in just a one year span, and that was back when I was still learning game.

    I have a feeling this poll was conducted among young males, which will skew the numbers lower.

    Had the study been conducted with men in their sexual prime (i.e. 26-34) those numbers would probably be much higher.

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

      @Samseau

      Your comments did go into moderation due to your rooshvforum email, which has been the source of some very hostile commentary in the past :) I’ve released them.

      The bottom line is that women sleep with players because women want players.

      And players get 3 girls a year on average. So I guess the desire is not exactly burning up the ladies. Speaking of Roosh, I saw a reference recently to Roosh’s admission that he gets about 5 girls a year. Do you know where that comes from? I was surprised that a professional sexual jackal would earn such an anemic ROI.

      It’s funny, the last four girls I’ve banged in the past two months (I don’t care if you think that’s promiscuous or not) have all assumed I was fucking other girls behind their back, but didn’t give a shit and slept with me anyways.

      Keep banging those girls! The goal is to have sluts getting with sluts!

      These numbers sound absurdly low. I have triple that in just a one year span, and that was back when I was still learning game.

      I’m guessing you had a terrible childhood.

      I have a feeling this poll was conducted among young males, which will skew the numbers lower.

      Had the study been conducted with men in their sexual prime (i.e. 26-34) those numbers would probably be much higher.

      LOL, more reading comprehension fail. Are PUAs more likely to be dyslexic by any chance? Or not very bright?

  • Mike C

    Susan, maybe in this context it would make more sense to listen to what acutal men are telling you (especially since it comports with so much observable reality over many centuries) rather than accept one happy-talk study as the last word.

    LOL. This should be interesting. I predict at least 50 comments back and forth with no ground given or understanding.

    Here is my one and only comment on this (hopefully). Clearly, men like Ted and Cooper exist. I don’t dispute for one second they know their innermost authentic desires:

    NAMALT! Thinking back on all of the men I’ve been close to since high school, I’d say at most 1/3 of them wanted lots of random sexual partners. The rest were somewhere between serial monogomy and looking for the mother of thier children. Personally I’ve never actively “wanted” random sex with anyone. Ever.

    I’m not so arrogant to think I know better than Ted or Cooper what they want. I believe them.

    At the same time, Deti is most certainly right about this for some sizable segment of men:

    But the ideal sexual situation for men (just purely sexual, not relationship-focus) would be to have a relationship, but with concurrent flings/ONSs.

    This would personally be my ideal “relationship/sexual situation” but obviously this wouldn’t fly with my partner and be hurtful to so I see the “price of monogamy” is giving that option up.

    I have no idea what the exact breakdown is between men like Cooper and Ted and myself in terms of our genuine preferences, but I know a survey can be phrased a bunch of different ways to garner a different percentage response. My gut instinct is both men like Cooper and Ted and guys chasing pure randoms are in the minority with the majority preferring monogamy with some side action. Isn’t that what the Petraeus affair is evidence of? If men didn’t have that instinct, there would be nothing to fight in terms of avoiding infidelity.

    No offense to Susan, but clearly because of her goal of relationship formation which is a noble one, any and all information is going to be interpreted as pointing to a strong relationship/monogamy biological preference.

    The other point is there is a massive grey area between committed girlfriend and a “random”. For example, a short-term fling which is neither.

    Hopefully, I can leave this at my one comment. I’ve said my peace and will try to refrain from any further comments.

  • Escoffier

    I know a guy who recently (well, a few years) got divorced. Never cheated, beat, or anything else. Just beta-ed out a bit and the wife left him. He is around 50, gray, handsome but not terribly fit, well spoken, and makes a descent living. Classic “restricted type” if you aske me, spent his prime years faithfully married and raising a family. The last guy you’d expect to want to be a player.

    Well, once he found himself “out there” the female attention was (he reports) almost overwhelming and he became a sort of middle-aged mini player. No dark triad or anything like that, but he found himself having–at least superficially–a hell of a good time.

    A couple of years later he is having doubts about where it all leads and worrying about his “soul.”

    The point is, even a guy like that does/did not simply want a GF. He was happy to play around for a while, because he could.

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “Top things guys look for in a girl:

    1. Funny
    2. Nice
    3. Outgoing
    4. Understanding of others
    5. Decisive
    6. Self-confident

    Note: Looks came in at #9.”

    LOL! That calls in to question the integrity of the whole thing – they are just conditioned to say that. I’m not saying looks are everything, but if you really believe that young men value “self confidence” in women over looks, well . . .

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

      @Passer By

      Smiler did find those responses were priorities among the males he interviewed. However, he backs it up with Buss’ survey of mating preferences:

      “A team of researchers led by David Buss was able to examine the characteristics desired in a mate by building on a study originally conducted in 1939 and used again in 1956, 1967,1977, 1984-85, and 1996. The survey was given to undergraduates at a variety of institutions over the 57 years. The survey remained exactly the same.

      Both male and female participants were given a list of eighteen characteristics and asked to rate each on a 0-3 scale. An average was computed for each characteristic, which was then placed in order from most desired to least desired.

      In each of the six survey periods, men’s top four characteristics were the same:

      1. Dependable character
      2. Emotional stability or maturity
      3. Pleasing disposition
      4. Mutual attraction or love

      After 1970, characteristics related to homemaking fell in importance, and were replaced by education and intelligence, sociability, and good looks.

      Good looks didn’t crack the top half of the ratings until 1977. Female chastity was always in the bottom half, and dropped after 1970.”

      Coincidentally, I recently posted an example of that study here, though it’s a bit large:

      we

  • http://www.rooshvforum.com/user-774.html samseau

    “1. Funny
    2. Nice
    3. Outgoing
    4. Understanding of others
    5. Decisive
    6. Self-confident”

    Not even gay men would list these qualities

  • Escoffier

    Thought experiment, Susan:

    Take 100 guys, college-age through mid 20s. A random sample that cut across attractiveness, physical fitness, height/weight, dominance/personality, SES, etc. In other words, a true gamut.

    Put them in an enviornment with 100 girls, all 6s and above. BUT crucially, for some reason (hypnosis? brainwashing?), all these girls are really unrestricted and they are NOT holding out for the hottest and most alpha. They will spread happily for just about anybody.

    Now, what do you think would happen?

    Me, I think our little “society” would look a lot like a hetero version of the Castro bathouse scene circa 1979. Most of the guys would dive in (heh) with gusto.

    Now, a great many–perhaps even a majority–would not find this conducive to their long term happiness. I don’t doubt that for a moment. But I think they would all indulge themselves, and not for a short time either, rather they would binge like dogs with ever-filling food dishes. Until some of them got sick of it and started looking for something else.

    As to how many would say “No thanks, I’m holdnig out for a girlfriend”–I would put it at under 20%.

  • deti

    Passerby:

    “Top things guys look for in a girl:

    1. Funny
    2. Nice
    3. Outgoing
    4. Understanding of others
    5. Decisive
    6. Self-confident

    Note: Looks came in at #9.”

    I missed this. This is remarkable, and as Esco said, contradicts what we know about what men find attractive. I’d like a look at the source material and raw data.

    This has to be a case of the subjects telling the investigators what the subjects thought the investigators wanted to hear.

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

    Quick question: in self-reported campus survey results, what % of college men admit to fapping to porn multiple times per week? Does anyone know…?

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

      Quick question: in self-reported campus survey results, what % of college men admit to fapping to porn multiple times per week? Does anyone know…?

      I did some digging – I’m interested to hear what you’re thinking on this. Here’s one excerpt:

      In his 2009 book Porn University: What College Students are Really Saying about Sex, Michael Leahy, an author and expert on pornography, surveyed 29,000 individuals in North American universities. In the study, it was discovered that 62% of males and 17% of females admit to watching porn, while 36% of males and 82% of females claim they never watch porn.

      In a 2007 study conducted by Brigham Young University, 86% of college males from six schools across the US admitted to having viewed porn within the past year, while one in five said they watched porn daily or nearly every day.

      http://www.collegemagazine.com/editorial/2285/Indulging-in-Porn

      In a study at Colby College, it looks like (Pie chart) around 5% of males watch more than once a day, another 15% watch once a day, and about 35% watch it once a week. About 10% never watch porn.

  • Passer_By

    Further to Escoffier’s point, how many young rock stars of the 60s and 70s passed on groupies entirely and said “I’m saving myself for a girlfriend”? Eventually, I think most of them became disillusioned and sought out a girlfriend (most of whom allowed the guy some side dalliances), but at first they were probably like a kid in a candy store.

    I limit it to the 60s and 70s because the perceived risks of such encounters for wealthy, high status guys has since gone way up (STDs, AIDS, women trying to get pregnant so they can sue, etc.).

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

      Further to Escoffier’s point, how many young rock stars of the 60s and 70s passed on groupies entirely and said “I’m saving myself for a girlfriend”?

      Everyone knows that guys learn to play the guitar to get laid. :)

      Unrestricted sample.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Here’s what I agree with – most men are not looking for ONLY sex, to the exclusion of all relationships. That seems to be main point of the article.

    I think Esc/deti’s point is stated vs. revealed preferences. Asking a guy “how many partners do you want” is very different than making him turn down the risk-free advances of an attractive woman. The former implies lots of things, lots of which is the effort and risk involved. It’s pretty easy to imagine a man saying “1″ to the first situation, but when tested, accepting two or more in the latter situation. Which is what he “really” wants, then?

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

      Asking a guy “how many partners do you want” is very different than making him turn down the risk-free advances of an attractive woman

      Of course, but I’m not really interested in hypotheticals. There are no risk-free advances. That does not exist, so focusing on such a preference is meaningless.

      I am interested in what young men say about relationships, and about what kind of sex they’re looking for. And they say “not casual.”

      Even the best looking guys aren’t going for that much casual, as it turns out. Casual sex has high costs. Considerable effort may have to be expended to get it. Even players drink heavily in order to deal with the awkwardness of it. The next morning is almost always akward and uncomfortable. There is often fallout. People feel cheapened after casual sex, and that includes males, because it’s mutual masturbation. And it’s often not physically fulfilling, even for males, who have a 48% orgasm rate in hookups. And this doesn’t even begin to address STDs, doing poorly in school, and the increase in physical illnesses experienced by those males who adopt a promiscuous lifestyle in colleges, i.e. burning the candle at both ends.

  • Cooper

    “I suppose it’s also important to be reminded that they are Casanova-type women.

    Indeed! And I know you count a few of these among your acquaintance…”

    I do. I’ve got a lengthy off-topic response, but I’m going to post it within “The Hypergamy Acceptance” thread to avoid hijacking this one.

  • Escoffier

    I look back on my own youth and I was not a player. Why not? Well, two main reasons: 1) I didn’t have the constitution for it. I wasn’t alpha/attractive/dominant enough. 2) Morals were considerably less degraded then, it was not so easy to get girls to have sex with you unless you were at least dating them for the long term.

    In other words, I wasn’t becasue I couldn’t have been. I was not stopped by internal restraints.

    If I had been presented with the option to screw a lot of very pretty girls, well, who knows what I might have done? Looking back it’s clear that the path I actually took was good for me and it all worked out. But at that age, the hormones are stronger than the brain waves. I certainly would have “wanted” lots of girls if I could have gotten them. Whether I would have had the presense of mind to say “No, one is better” is a tough question. I would have been more likely than most to actually pursue a LTR over casual, but I’m not sure it would have been a given.

    Which is why societal limitations can be really, really good for us all.

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

      If I had been presented with the option to screw a lot of very pretty girls, well, who knows what I might have done?

      You are misunderstanding the point of the book. Smiler did not take guys to a room full of beautiful escorts and tell them they could screw whomever they wanted. He asked them what they would like best and why, in some depth.

  • Stephen B

    I like this article quite a bit. It jibes with my own experience and attitude, and that of most guys I knew in h.s. and college. A few guys were trying to score all the time, and a few girls were the ones falling for that kind of thing. But most guys wanted a serious thing with a given woman, one at a time and hopefully for a long relationship. When I got to college in the late 90s I was quickly made to believe everybody was out there having sex all the time, multiple partners per week. I figured out in discussion with others that it was more likely that a few guys were getting with a few girls all the time, and most men and women avoided this, at least as a lifestyle.

    Before I realized this, I thought I was unusual wanting to meet someone great early on and stay with her. I quickly learned that most guys wanted that, I wasn’t unusual. I met my (now) wife then and we’ve been together ever since. The fact that we really only had ever been with each other has made our bond that much stronger over the years, but there’s nothing wrong with having some experience of course. We aren’t overly religious or anything, it’s just that being together made sense for us and we happened to meet young. I had a first roommate who was the player type and many guys looked up to him. He always seemed damaged and probably an abuse victim to me, as did at least some of the ladies who went with him. To this day he’s listed on websites as a guy to avoid because he’s the “pump and dump” type to use the terminology of some of the manosphere, which made him a man to be admired at 19 and one to be avoided in his mid-30s.

    I don’t judge him but he seems kind of sad to me. Nothing wrong with being casual I guess, but it seems to be very limited as a culture compared to what the media tells us to believe. Most people seem to want to find that right person and stay with them if possible. This isn’t to say most of us do, though it worked out for my wife and me, but most of us date or whatever is done now with an eye to finding the kind of person we can spend our days with. I hope the stereotypes of the hook-up culture don’t get in the way of that process for the majority of young people, but I think they might.

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

      @Stephen B

      Welcome, first time commenter I think? Glad to have you here!

  • Passer_By

    “If the top male seducers have three partners a year, I think we need to redefine what a sexually successful male is, and also what men want. Couldn’t the top 3% have a dozen or more partners a year easily, if they chose? Yet they don’t, . . .”

    Speaking from experience, it may be that they just don’t like how hurt the women are when they break it off after a STR, especially if they are natural bonders who are prone to developing a protective instinct for women they are having sex with.

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

      @Passer By

      Speaking from experience, it may be that they just don’t like how hurt the women are when they break it off after a STR, especially if they are natural bonders who are prone to developing a protective instinct for women they are having sex with.

      I was referring to the Casanovas – who are hardly empathic and protective. Their mission is to P&D.

      The natural seducers avg. three sexual partners a year. Doesn’t that strike you as low?

  • Just1Z

    Top things guys look for in a girl:

    1. Funny
    2. Nice
    3. Outgoing
    4. Understanding of others
    5. Decisive
    6. Self-confident

    Note: Looks came in at #9.

    Naaaahhh

    Had the testicles of the boys dropped yet? How old were they? Was a feminazi waving a gun around at the time of interrogation? Lesbians passed off as boys? Super late April Fools jape? Drugs (and lots of them) ?

    I mean, seriously? I thought those tales if chemicals in thé water erre far fetched, no longer

  • Escoffier

    “Unrestricted sample.”

    I’m not so sure about that.

    Consider, for instance, the Jackson family. Steelworker’s children, all of them. By the time they hit it big, Michael (the youngest in the group) was 9 and most of his brothers were already teenagers. In other words, they had grown up for most of their formative years in a very strict religious household believing that a blue collar future much like their father’s was the best they could do. OK, possibly, one or two of them were naturally “unrestricted.”

    But look what happened. They became stars, went on the road, and girls through themselves at them. And all four of the older boys took full advantage. So, were they all “unrestricted”? Seems too convenient to me to assume that any many who makes it big status-wise and garners a lot of female attention must ipso facto have been “unrestricted” all along.

    Rather, a better explanation would be that lots and lots of guys would screw lots of girls if given the chance but most never get the chance.

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

      Consider, for instance, the Jackson family.

      True! And don’t forget Pat Boone!

      OK, I’ll play. How about Paul McCartney? The Beatle with the most fans, he was also the Beatle with the fewest sexual partners.

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

    Why won’t these guys address the obvious issues created by the 60/40 ratio on campus? Why is the admissions office always beyond the discussion? Is this a hot-button for feminists that will cause them to immediately circle the wagons?

    For better or worse, we as a society have “decided” to train young women to be the breadwinners of tomorrow. This is enormously important. We have invested in them. You can’t churn these numbers for years and then promise college-educated women that there will be equivalently-trained, eligible (i.e., “provisioning-capable on demand”), and relationship-minded man in every pot.

    PERHAPS THERE AREN’T ENOUGH RELATIONSHIPS ON CAMPUS BECAUSE THERE AREN’T ENOUGH MEN.

    Many of these women will probably NOT have the option to be SAHMs unless they are willing to make certain concessions in their mate selection demographics. Why aren’t these realities being promulgated at the high school level?

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

      PERHAPS THERE AREN’T ENOUGH RELATIONSHIPS ON CAMPUS BECAUSE THERE AREN’T ENOUGH MEN.

      Many of these women will probably NOT have the option to be SAHMs unless they are willing to make certain concessions in their mate selection demographics.

      Amen to that. It’s clear that Smiler is concerned about males, though he obviously is focusing on the men who are in college. Which raises an interesting point – the lopsided sex ratio should make sex easier to obtain, and the number of men able to procure it should be larger. In a 50/50 environment, casual sex would be available to fewer men. So it’s interesting that even now the majority of men cite a desire for real relationships.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    I think its true most guys are looking for a relationship. It’s an error to say most men want sex, to the exclusion of a relationship.

    But it’s equally an error to say most men want a relationship, to the exclusion of ALL uncommitted sex. From the article – ““[This] doesn’t mean that romantic men don’t occasional have one-night-stand-style hookups. Some of them do. But unlike Casanovas, and going against our general conception of hooking up, these guys often hook up with people they know.” I think this is point Esc is also making.

    Sometimes your definition of casual morphs around a bit, as I’m not sure what you mean at any given time. A few month fling with someone you know and like as a person, is very different than an one night stand with a complete stranger. In the past you’ve said casual anything that’s not strict monogamy, which includes a wide range of things. When you mention those “casual is bad” stats, which is it? Do people in extended FWB arrangements really repeatedly go back for such bad sex?

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

      Sometimes your definition of casual morphs around a bit, as I’m not sure what you mean at any given time. A few month fling with someone you know and like as a person, is very different than an one night stand with a complete stranger. In the past you’ve said casual anything that’s not strict monogamy, which includes a wide range of things. When you mention those “casual is bad” stats, which is it? Do people in extended FWB arrangements really repeatedly go back for such bad sex?

      Let me be clear. I’m not defining the terms here. I am reporting on someone else’s research. It’s clear in the book that the vast majority of males indicate a preference for emotionally and physically intimate relationships over “one and done” sex.

      Here’s what Smiler says on the subject of FWB:

      “As a cultural phenomenon, the Casanova Complex requires that most people approve of hooking up, or at least don’t disapprove. It doesn’t matter if we call it a ONS or casual sex or FWB or some other name; what’s important is that the general public is on some level OK with this behavior and views it as normal or typical.”

      “When it comes to sexual behavior, questions about the value and the lifestyle portrayed are particularly imporjtant, as is the question regarding what’s being omitted. Asking your son what he thinks when an unmarried couple has sex is an excellent question. It doesn’t much matter if it’s a hookup, FWB or an established monogamous couple. [This] creates an opportunity to talk about your own values.

      Depending on the specifics, you can use the conversation to talk about how long someone needs to be in a relationship before having sex, having learned about a partner’s sexual history (or not). The effect of sex on someone’s reputation is also fair game.”

  • INTJ

    @ Escoffier

    Put them in an enviornment with 100 girls, all 6s and above. BUT crucially, for some reason (hypnosis? brainwashing?), all these girls are really unrestricted and they are NOT holding out for the hottest and most alpha. They will spread happily for just about anybody.

    Sounds like hell to me. But I don’t doubt that most guys would eagerly jump right in.

  • Passer_By

    “I was referring to the Casanovas – who are hardly empathic and protective. Their mission is to P&D. The natural seducers avg. three sexual partners a year. Doesn’t that strike you as low?”

    Yeah, ok, I think had misread your original post, though I’m not sure I would call these the “natural seducers” as much as the most “compulsive” seducers and abandoners. I agree that that number does seem low, although he does say that they aren’t, by and large, very good looking or high status, so maybe that limits most of them. You might imagine that a Cassanova (compulsive seducer and abandoner) who is also good looking and high status might rack up huge numbers. And you, yourself, knew a very nice kid who had racked up over 200 (I think) in about 4 years, no?

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

      @Passer By

      And you, yourself, knew a very nice kid who had racked up over 200 (I think) in about 4 years, no?

      I know he was at 58 at high school graduation. He had a gf for much of college, but my guess is he is at around 100 now, at age 24. FWIW, the girl he really wants won’t even consider him – he’s damaged goods.

      But he is a sweetheart. Both body and face are a 10. Went to Brown, works in Private Equity. A very loyal friend. On paper, the catch of the century.

  • Cooper

    Hey, I’m trying to get a discussion going over in the Acceptance thread, regarding remaining friends with exes. (And the deal breaker of a girlfriend/boyfriend requesting that it ends)

  • Joe

    Susan, now I’m really confused.
    These stats:
    1. Casanova: 5-15%
    2. Abstinent/religious: 10-15%
    3. Traditional Romantic: 70-85%

    seem to be exactly what I saw in college back in the early ’70s. Certainly the idea that men are just “dogs” and are only after one thing is a trope that predates today’s college scene.

    And I know I heard the words “they started making out and after a few times, they got drunk one night and ‘it just happened.’” back then too.

    I know something’s different – you can’t go anywhere near a group of young adults and not see it, just like my college experience was vastly different from Dobie Gillis.

    But what is it that’s so different? I don’t see it in the stats, and I don’t think I see it in the words coming from college kids today either. Am I missing something?

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

      @Joe

      But what is it that’s so different? I don’t see it in the stats, and I don’t think I see it in the words coming from college kids today either. Am I missing something?

      That’s what is truly amazing. The Sexual Revolution happened, but only 15% of people choose to participate. We can argue till the cows come home whether their choice is born of necessity or not, but the bottom line is that when you ask college men to describe what they want, they overwhelming cite the desire to fall in love. They do not want ONSs.

      Furthermore, those who want to fall in love come from close-knit functional families.

      According to Smiler, hookup culture is the myth that has everyone believing they’re the only one not “doing it.”

      It’s been documented in several studies that when you ask college males what percentage of fellow male students had sex the previous weekend, they answer 75-80%. The true number is 5%. This misunderstanding, plus the belief that most other people are comfortable having casual sex, is Pluralistic Ignorance. Colleges have caught on to this and are doing their own studies. For example, Duke University surveyed 1,500 students anonymously and found that just 10% expressed comfort with hookup culture and a desire for casual sex.

  • Cooper

    Nice post Stephen B

  • ExNewYorker

    Oh boy, this thread is one that is going to be rife with the possibility of misunderstanding.

    Susan, I think pretty much all the guys would agree with: “given the general societal restrictions and general male upbringing, most guys would say they prefer relationships to randoms”. I think you would agree as well, as you wrote: “Of course, but I’m not really interested in hypotheticals. There are no risk-free advances. That does not exist, so focusing on such a preference is meaningless.”

    What the guys are saying, is that this preference is conditioned on the fact that there are very, very few men who get the chance to pursue “the hypotheticals”. But doesn’t mean that the preference isn’t there, at some level. Even us restricted guys have, somewhere in the back of our mind, some fantasy of a different colored haired woman for each day of the week, yet we’d never act on it (even if the opportunity might arise).

    The examples of this are too numerous to really have to go into depth. Look at Petraeus…he was in that position and even knowing the risks, went in full bore. Most guys never have the status change to a level where they get the chance to pursue that preference…

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “A. Connection:

    1. I like her.
    2. I like spending time with her.
    3. I want to get to know her better.
    4. I have strong feelings for her.

    B. Emotional Support and Intimacy

    1. I like having someone to talk to.
    2. I like having someone to hang out with.
    3. I like having someone who listens to me when I’m worried about something.
    4. I like having someone who has my back.
    5. My girlfriend is more supportive than by best friend or parents.

    C. Secondary factor mentioned by a minority as a reason for dating: Physical Intimacy

    1. Kissing
    2. Holding hands
    3. Sex”

    +1

    I’d however say physical closeness is huge when you don’t have it.
    My wife’s gone home atm. Two weeks to go.
    Woman at my gym has been initiating kino too much (asked her to stop), I enjoyed it far too much. Not in any type of arousal just an ‘it feels really good to have human touch’ kinda way.

    I never even realized she was doing it until now.
    We want what we don’t have.

    As for category A and B, combined these two mean this:

    You go to work for 14 hours on a hay bailer. You come home covered in dust, sweat, shit and other unmentionables. You stumble into the shower and stand their for 5 minutes. You stumble to your lazy boy, sit down and the feeling is just ‘aaahhhh’ relaxation, contentment.

    Thats what coming home to a good wife feels like and again, you don’t realize that until she is not there.

    Having a partner whom you trust implicitly more than any other is a wonderful thing.

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

      Having a partner whom you trust implicitly more than any other is a wonderful thing.

      It’s the best feeling in the world. I have no desire to police my husband’s thoughts, but I trust him 110%. Life would be hell if I didn’t have that. I would much rather be single than wonder about the fidelity of a spouse.

  • Ted D

    Susan – Everyone knows that guys learn to play the guitar to get laid. ”

    NAMALT! I learned to play guitar, piano, and drums because they are ways I can express my emotions that do not require me to directly interact with another person. In fact, I can sit down with my guitar alone in my room and in an hour unload a lot of pent up stuff. I forgot until recently however full a tool that actually is. ;-)

    I’m sure you were joking, but opportunities to NAMALT you are just too rare to pass up… :-p

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

      I’m sure you were joking, but opportunities to NAMALT you are just too rare to pass up… :-p

      I was joking, though my husband (who has worked in the record industry) is of the firm opinion that guys form and join bands primarily to get girls. For your average musically-inclined guy, an SMV bump of 4 points is not unusual.

      He was extremely wary of a punk pop guitarist our daughter dated for a time. That kid wasn’t a player, but there was no question his SMV was higher as a result of his being in the band. We worried that his spawn would emerge from the womb wearing black Chuck Taylors.

  • Ted D

    Ugh! Stupid iPad

    I forgot until recently how powerful a tool that actually is.

  • Tom

    I would say that once a guy matures enough to get his ego in check AND he experiences relationship sex, most of the time he will prefer relationship sex, because it is normally better sex than sex without feelings. A lot of guys get strange because they never have been in a relationship.

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

      @Tom

      most of the time he will prefer relationship sex, because it is normally better sex than sex without feelings.

      I can’t speak for all men, but I know that Mr. HUS feels this way. I somehow managed to get him off the market when he had a lot of options, and he was thrilled to step off.

      Smiler indicates that a common theme even among Casanovas is that they just can’t keep it up. The juice is not worth the squeeze in the end, which is why only 5% of males pursue casual sex for three years or more.

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

    Susan, I don’t mean to sound cynical, but I think that, despite the advantageous ratio, the majority of men on campus cannot access sex outside of relationships (and, for whatever reason, cannot reliably obtain relationships). Maybe it is a chicken and egg thing—if one of these men *could* access sex w/o a relationship, would he?

    This may be how we can square the results of Smiler’s meta-study with the results that we had when they put a hot girl undercover on campus and had her randomly proposition male students for casual sex (her offer had a high % of willing takers—over 85%, IIRC).

    Maybe I’m off base here (I haven’t read the book), but Smiler’s analysis *appears* to assume that all men face the same menu of mating options, and so those who are promiscuous outliers can be dismissed as “unrestricted” or “damaged” and cut from the sample. It’s essentially saying that male sexuality is completely dependent on psychological factors internal to particular males, as all men have the same theoretical sexual options.

    Perhaps it is akin to saying that an SMV 10 woman and an SMV 5 woman should share the exact same checklist of mate expectations, and a 10 woman who wants a really wealthy, handsome, charming, educated, etc. guy must have been abused when she was a little girl, is a gold-digging sociopath, etc.

    This limitation isn’t Smiler fault; it is very difficult to assign a priori SMV values to men and then to go on to find out both their stated and revealed preferences (and some inveterate players will state that they do in fact want LTRs—they just have exceedingly high threshold prices for this nesting instinct to be triggered and the SMV 9-10 nymphomaniac bikini model/heiress/Culinary Institute grads that they would settle down with are not in abundance).

    My guess is that if you listed things like this:

    A) Sex w/ relationship
    B) Sex w/o relationship
    C) No sex/no relationship
    D) No sex/relationship

    Most guys—with no other data given—would probably prefer A, then B (for most men, A seems to promise a much more predictable and stable supply than B does), then D (you at least get companionship there), then C.

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

      @BB

      My guess is that if you listed things like this:

      A) Sex w/ relationship
      B) Sex w/o relationship
      C) No sex/no relationship
      D) No sex/relationship

      Most guys—with no other data given—would probably prefer A, then B (for most men, A seems to promise a much more predictable and stable supply than B does), then D (you at least get companionship there), then C.

      Agreed. That’s it in a nutshell, AFAICT.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “It’s clear in the book that the vast majority of males indicate a preference for emotionally and physically intimate relationships over “one and done” sex.”

    To be crude, but… “DUH”. Who actually *prefers* one night stands? Even the most hardened players will go back to a good thing, won’t they? Even Jason and Zach don’t have THAT high an N. It sounds outright pathological to prefer one lay per person at most.

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

    While it might be true that women engage in sexual activity early into a relationship now as compared to thirty years ago, I’m 100 % positive that women are going on fewer dates with fewer men than they used to.

    Women do seem to more aggressively filter before they get to the first date. For most men, ‘dating’ in this mileau means beating down a woman’s walls until he can convince her to go on a date. It’s exhausting and not the least bit enjoyable. Part of the problem has to be that since women have a greater expectations of early sexual adventures, it discourages them from casual dating.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Said it before: Back in the day, I was a fraternity grad adviser, loosely employed by the Dean of Students.
    The guys we had to watch were the ones whose girlfriends had dumped them, not the ones who didn’t get laid this weekend.
    Not hard to drink yourself into the campus health center with a fifth of Jim Beam.

  • Abbot

    Casual or not, any claim of being “friend zoned” is now going to get you flak from feminists. They just haaaate losing any control of the discourse…

    “a man in the Friend Zone is just “a dick in a glass case” put on reserve while a woman tries to fuck someone better.”
    –Chris Rock

    http://www.nerve.com/love-sex/why-everyone-should-be-insulted-by-the-term-friend-zone

    .

  • Abbot

    “once a guy matures enough to get his ego in check ”

    More like he just meets someone who happens to satisfy his major criteria and finds charming/adorable etc

  • Lisa C

    Having read only the article, what confuses me is that Smiler seems to have a very broad definition of “relationship sex” – perhaps anything other than sex with a stranger whom you never see again. For example, he says Petraeus was having sex in a relationship with Broadwell. I think he would count FWB as having sex in a relationship. I think most of us, though, equate a relationship with a committed, monogamous relationship, and that doesn’t seem to be his definition. So, the title of the Salon article, “Guys Don’t Want Casual Sex” could simply mean “Guys Don’t Want One-Night Stands.” Guys could still want FWBs, extra-marital affairs, small harems or other non-committed sexual relationships. In fact, my recollection is that many guys who had a FWB situation in college were not necessarily getting any on the side. They just didn’t want to commit to the FWB and make her a girlfriend because she wasn’t girlfriend material for him, he didn’t want to put in any extra effort, he wanted to keep his options open etc … Susan’s title, “Guys Want Sex With Girlfriends, Not Randoms” seems to be a little different and may not be exactly what Smiler is getting at in the Salon article.

    Susan, since you have read his book and I have not, do you think Smiler defines relationship sex as sex with any type of emotional involvement – basically everything except pig sex with strangers? Do you think Smiler concludes that “Guys Want Sex With Girlfriends?” Or is his conclusion more along the lines that most guys do not want or do not prefer “One and Done” sex – a point which many will not find surprising. See OTC (comment 96).

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

      @Lisa C

      For example, he says Petraeus was having sex in a relationship with Broadwell.

      Yes, he implies Petraeus fell for Broadwell. That appears to be a reasonable assumption based on what we know.

      I think he would count FWB as having sex in a relationship

      No, he expressly categorizes FWB as casual sex.

      Susan, since you have read his book and I have not, do you think Smiler defines relationship sex as sex with any type of emotional involvement – basically everything except pig sex with strangers? Do you think Smiler concludes that “Guys Want Sex With Girlfriends?” Or is his conclusion more along the lines that most guys do not want or do not prefer “One and Done” sex – a point which many will not find surprising.

      He defines relationship sex as emotionally intimate sex, and he specifies that men prefer to relate emotionally with women before having sex with them.

  • JP

    Petreaus was having sex in a relationship with Broadwell.

    In fact, nothing I’ve seen indicated that Petreaus was having sex with anyone but Broadwell.

    Broadwell was attempting to protect her relationship position which is what caused her problem.

  • Tasmin

    @Bastiat Blogger
    “My guess is that if you listed things like this:

    A) Sex w/ relationship
    B) Sex w/o relationship
    C) No sex/no relationship
    D) No sex/relationship

    Most guys—with no other data given—would probably prefer A, then B (for most men, A seems to promise a much more predictable and stable supply than B does), then D (you at least get companionship there), then C.”

    Interesting that if you take the preferred male condition as you state here (A, B, D, C) and reverse the order (C, D,B, A) we basically get what appears to be a probable distribution of how the SMP is experienced by that 80% of college men: (C) Nothing at all; (D)Friend Zone; (B) hooking up; (A) Girlfriend. Which seems crazy considering the stated desires referenced in this post as well as the gender imbalance at most colleges. And assuming the female desires primarily match up, just who/what is holding these two populations hostage?

    Could it be the 20% ers? The men who are racking it up because they are attractive (and on a relative basis scarce) or the x% of women who are only attracted to that 20% or the x% of women who won’t hold out for what they want because that 20% of men have no incentive to deliver commitment. Or when it is directed at one of the 80% he believes he is paying a higher price (commitment) to get what he believes is given (has been given) away for free?

    Certainly some of the 80% guys are cutting off their nose, but it seems like if men are scarce and they actually want (A) and women are more plentiful and actually want (A), the 80% men should have more access to relationships. Or is this a hypergamy argument again?

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

      @Tasmin

      And assuming the female desires primarily match up, just who/what is holding these two populations hostage?…it seems like if men are scarce and they actually want (A) and women are more plentiful and actually want (A), the 80% men should have more access to relationships. Or is this a hypergamy argument again?

      That’s the reason Smiler wrote the book. His claim is that men have been taught – in sex ed, in the media, and by one another – that the Casanova is the normal, healthy default for males. He sees this as problematic in several ways, as outlined in the post. Most importantly, the 85% of males who do not aspire to Casanova status feel abnormal and unsuccessful. The modern “ideal” of male sexuality is something they don’t identify with, as it comprises a cycle of pursuit followed by abandonment. Many men don’t find that proposition appealing. They indicate that they wish people still went on dates, and that they would like to be with one girl they have feelings for.

      I think what’s missing so far in the male responses to this post is the sexual economics piece. This is not about male fantasy – no one is asking young men if they would be psyched to be marooned on a desert island and have two dozen sirens walk out of the sea to sex them up.

      The research aims to get at what men want IRL. Let’s say each guy gets to go to the Sex Life Store. There are two products. The first is the Hookup Package. Benefits include:

      a wide variety of female bodies
      no emotional entanglement
      rapid turnover
      a boisterous group of rowdy friends who approve

      The price:

      Casanova mindset
      emotional intimacy not available
      rapid turnover
      a boisterous group of rowdy friends
      females from the promiscuous pile only
      party hard mentality, excessive alcohol consumption
      exposure to risk of disease
      exposure to risk of pregnancy/fatherhood

      The other product is the Girlfriend Package. Benefits include:

      falling in love experience
      female companionship, including loyalty and support
      sex tailored to your needs
      reliably frequent sex

      The price:

      relationship mindset
      forfeit variety and novelty for period of relationship, i.e. potential boredom
      risk of eventual heartbreak
      hanging out with bros

      Obviously, which package a male prefers will depend on many factors, including childhood experience, adolescent identity, personality traits, hormone levels, and moral values.

      Smiler’s point is that 85% of men go for the Girlfriend Package at point of purchase. Furthermore, only 5% buy the Hookup Package three years in a row.

      The other thing to keep in mind is that Smiler defines Casanovas as men with the P&D mentality who have 3 or more partners per year. These are men who are likely to continue at that pace into middle age, accruing up to 100 partners. Interestingly, that was the real Casanova’s N and pace.

      Smiler does not claim that men don’t want sexual variety, only that when guys get to choose between Player and Boyfriend, most choose Boyfriend.

  • JP

    What I need to do is find out how often one of my fellow attorneys hooks up (after getting dumped by his fiance).

    He would make an absolutely wonderful data point.

  • HanSolo

    Good to see you again Richard Aubrey.

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

    @SW

    I am interested in what young men say about relationships, and about what kind of sex they’re looking for. And they say “not casual.”

    Dateline HUS, Keith Morrison reporting: “In a word, shocking!”

    Thanks to JP and Mr. WV for the Salon.com article. A good synopsis of the AFT in action.

    I’m enjoying watching “The Backfire Boys Strike Back” in this thread. :mrgreen:

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

    Tasmin: I think you are on to something. If the preference sets between male and female students were identical and women outnumbered male students, men in general would seem to be quite well-off in the campus SMP. After all, even a relationship w/o sex would be seen as better than nothing at all.

    There is a possibility that students tell the truth in anonymous surveys and don’t tell the truth to each other, leading to those in the arena being ignorant about the true state of their own SMP. If this were the case, then those who have access to the aggregated survey data would have a more accurate depiction of campus sexual mores than would the students who actually live and study on campus.

    The narrative would go something like this: Tom tells Steve (or heavily implies) that he got bombed the other night and then hooked up with Amy for oral sex, but then Tom goes online to take an anonymous survey and admits that he has never hooked up. Steve, given false information, feels like he is missing out because he’s not hooking up. Steve suffers needlessly until someone puts the aggregated survey results in his hand and he sees that hardly anyone is hooking up on campus. I suppose that this is the basis for the pluralistic ignorance explanation for hookup culture.

    It seems like there must be a bottleneck that is preventing the market from clearing, and another possible explanation is that a small % of men and women are dominating the SMP and attracting the lion’s share of attention. The result would be a kind of reality show that has a few amused participants of both genders serving as the Talent (the confident and aggressive campus elites who are hooking up with one another) and acting out in exaggeratedly sexist ways—men seeking casual partners and avoiding the expense of traditional dating, women being extremely hypergamous. Then we’d have the many who simply sit on the sidelines and watch rather than form relationships of their own because, for whatever reason, they aren’t attracted to one another.

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

      @BB

      The result would be a kind of reality show that has a few amused participants of both genders serving as the Talent (the confident and aggressive campus elites who are hooking up with one another) and acting out in exaggeratedly sexist ways—men seeking casual partners and avoiding the expense of traditional dating, women being extremely hypergamous

      Bingo. We know who hooks up and how often, that is not new information. Smiler doesn’t even address the female role, btw. He’s interested in what men want – do the 85% not participating wish to join the Talent? Smiler says no.

      Then we’d have the many who simply sit on the sidelines and watch rather than form relationships of their own because, for whatever reason, they aren’t attracted to one another.

      Maybe. This is less clear. Smiler’s point is that many sit on the sidelines with no idea how much company they have. His research, and more importantly Buss’ research, does point very clearly to a set of traits men seek in female partners, and those qualities are not generally found among the Talent.

      This book dovetails quite nicely with the restricted vs. unrestricted model. The Talent is unrestricted. People generally don’t shift their sociosexual orientation, so the idea that Restricteds want to become Unrestricteds doesn’t really make much sense.

  • Kirk

    “Certainly some of the 80% guys are cutting off their nose, but it seems like if men are scarce and they actually want (A) and women are more plentiful and actually want (A), the 80% men should have more access to relationships. Or is this a hypergamy argument again?”

    @Tasmin
    This is America we’re talking about. Male scarcity is not a compelling reason for women to jump into less than ideal relationships. Also, keep in mind that these groups could be finding relationships through other venues (church, work, bars, etc.)

    In my experience, college is a horrible place to meet women, especially for psych majors (Care to guess why?).

  • INTJ

    @ Bastiat Blogger

    A) Sex w/ relationship
    B) Sex w/o relationship
    C) No sex/no relationship
    D) No sex/relationship

    Most guys—with no other data given—would probably prefer A, then B (for most men, A seems to promise a much more predictable and stable supply than B does), then D (you at least get companionship there), then C.

    For me it’s A, C, B, and D in that order. But I’m pretty far outside the norm (among other things I’m in that small minority that doesn’t ever watch porn).

  • INTJ

    @ Kirk

    In my experience, college is a horrible place to meet women, especially for psych majors (Care to guess why?).

    All the females are psychos?

    Seriously, I find it hard to believe that anyone would have it as bad as STEM (biology doesn’t count) majors.

  • Lokland

    @Kirk

    “In my experience, college is a horrible place to meet women, especially for psych majors (Care to guess why?).”

    As a general rule its hard to meet woman anywhere, which is a good thing.
    If it wasn’t fidelity wouldn’t exist.

  • Tasmin

    @kirk
    “This is America we’re talking about. Male scarcity is not a compelling reason for women to jump into less than ideal relationships.

    What is ‘less than ideal’? You’ve built in a lot of assumptions there. Unless of course you are referring to a relationship with a less attractive man, say a man within that occasionally invisible 80%. The ‘compelling reason’ is the stated desire to do so, I never implied that people should do anything they don’t desire and certainly they don’t desire to enter into a “less than ideal” situation.

    What we have within hookup culture is a “less than ideal situation” because there is a disconnect between the culture, the behaviors it encourages, and what the young men and women really want. And many leave college with a view of the SMP and their place within it that is warped, perpetuating the patterns of thinking and behaving that will continue to impair their ability to find what the desire. That is a huge problem.

    “Also, keep in mind that these groups could be finding relationships through other venues (church, work, bars, etc.)””

    They “could” indeed, but if these groups were finding relationships – relationships both men and women apparently prioritize very highly, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. If they can’t seem to do it while in close proximity in which they share all kinds of things: lifestyles, meals, housing, class sessions, study sessions, social events, sporting events, campus jobs, and a great deal of idle time, the “real world” is hardly going to be that much better.

    “In my experience, college is a horrible place to meet women, especially for psych majors (Care to guess why?).”

    I get it. College can suck in terms of relationships for many people, that’s part of the point of our discussions here. I went to a small school that was nearly 60% men and had was very nerdy. It was hard to make things work, but by and large the people who wanted relationships found them. Many didn’t, but the reasons were not due to the hookup culture running amok. Took me 2.5 years and my GF didn’t even go to my school (went to a neighboring college). That was in the early ’90′s. Something has changed.

  • J

    @Todd

    Well, if it’s not real snark, it’s not real Marcotte.

    There seems to be a coterie of female writers who are locked in everlasting battle with the manosphere. I have hope, much like many Germans of the 1930s who witnessed street battles between the Nazis and the Communists, that they will eventually destroy each other–but we all know how well that one worked out.

  • J

    I’m sure you were joking, but opportunities to NAMALT you are just too rare to pass up… :-p

    LOL. I almost jumped in on that one as well since all my guys started playing music long before they began even being aware of sex, and all of them play for personal self-expression. OTOH, I can’t say that DH’s playing never got him laid–including by me.

  • J

    Seriously, I find it hard to believe that anyone would have it as bad as STEM (biology doesn’t count) majors.

    My older son seems to be moving in a STEM direction. I expect that he will do a double major–business and computer science perhaps. He also loves music. Maybe the STEM and music will cancel each other out and he will find a girl after all. ;-)

  • Deli

    I started reading the Salon recap and at this line

    “But Smiler has an important question: “If Casonova-style promiscuity is men’s naturally evolved state, then why do most men want no more than one partner?””

    … my bullshit alarm went off, because how can most men want no more than one partner, when the most common male sexual fantasy involves 2 partners already?

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

      @Deli

      because how can most men want no more than one partner, when the most common male sexual fantasy involves 2 partners already?

      Even if it is true that all men fantasize about threesomes, you’re assuming that all men would choose to bring their fantasies to life if they could. That’s not a credible assumption.

  • Cooper

    @INTJ
    Re: ACBD

    Wow. That’s tough. But, yeah ACBD it is.

  • Society’s Disposable Son

    Susan-”For your average musically-inclined guy, an SMV bump of 4 points is not unusual.”

    If there’s any truth to this then I must be a CHUD. Hopefully it’s just my body language after a set is totally “leave me the fuck alone”. 17 years of guitar playing and 15 years of drumming and playing in bands that tour I never get blatant offers from groupie types. Maybe it’s the fact I’m behind a drum kit and no one knows I write 50% of the guitar in my current band unless they ask.

  • Johnycomelately

    If men didn’t want sex without relationships prostitution wouldn’t exist.

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

      If men didn’t want sex without relationships prostitution wouldn’t exist.

      It exists primarily for men who can’t get relationships. Smiler points out that if men wanted sexual variety, they could easily purchase it, but college males do not do so.

  • Physicsgeek

    “If men didn’t want sex without relationships prostitution wouldn’t exist.”

    There are many reasons men use the services of working girls, and not all of those men have merely a desire for NSA sex. Many of those men would prefer an actual relationship. Hence many prostitutes offer the “Girlfriend Experience”.

  • Emily

    >> “Seriously, I find it hard to believe that anyone would have it as bad as STEM (biology doesn’t count) majors.”

    From what I can tell, it’s even worse for STEM guys once they’re out in the work world. At least on campus there are liberal arts girls running around everywhere.

    This weekend I was hanging out with my bf and his friends (pretty much all STEM guys). By the end of the night, we were at a club and I was the only girl in a group with seven guys. It was great fun for me, but it’s definitely not an ideal social situation for meeting girls.

  • Emily

    >> “17 years of guitar playing and 15 years of drumming and playing in bands that tour I never get blatant offers from groupie types. Maybe it’s the fact I’m behind a drum kit and no one knows I write 50% of the guitar in my current band unless they ask.”

    Yeah, I think it also depends on the type of band/music that you’re doing. For example, IME the guy/girl ratio in the metal scene wasn’t much better than the STEM world. Although maybe that varies from place to place.

    I had some friends who were in bands, and from what I could tell, the ones who attracted the most female attention were the ones who probably could have attracted girls without the band. The band thing is a definite DHV, but I don’t think it’s a guarantee that you’ll get laid.

  • mr. wavevector

    deti:

    But if we’re talking about what men would want ideally if they were philosopher kings, this is what I suspect many men would want.

    Susan:

    Nope, that is precisely Smiler’s point. This is not what men want, it’s just that they have been made to feel ashamed of not wanting to be promiscuous.
    Certainly, Smiler does make the point that the culture tells men that’s what they want.

    I agree with Susan that a lot of promiscuous sex is not what most men really want. But deti’s statement has an additional element worth analyzing: the fantasy of absolute power – being the “philospher king”. I suspect that the average man’s decision making would change towards the promiscuous if he could have absolute power over women, because that would dramatically change his cost/benefit decision. There would be no cost for sex, either before or after – he could have whatever he demanded without any consequences.

    In the real world, of course, there is a cost/benefit decision. Initiating sexual relationships with women is emotionally costly, and there are emotional consequences that follow. So while many men probably fantasize about promiscuity with unlimited sexual power, their real world behavior is nothing of the sort. “What men want” should be interpreted in terms of their actions, not their fantasies.

    Cooper:

    I suppose it’s also important to be reminded that they are Casanova-type women.

    There are, and non-Casanova men should not be ashamed of turning down sexual advances from such women. I did so several times in my dating past, and while it was certainly the right decision, I kind of felt like a wimp at the time for turning down sex. There’s a lot of shaming of men who decline sex – especially from the rejected women.

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

      So while many men probably fantasize about promiscuity with unlimited sexual power, their real world behavior is nothing of the sort. “What men want” should be interpreted in terms of their actions, not their fantasies.

      This is the key point. I’m sharing real world information that young women need to hear, and that is that the vast majority of men are interested in relationships. It’s not really very important why, how unrestricted their sexuality might be in a world without consequences, etc. The information has a practical application, and that is why I shared it.

      Smiler points out that when college women are interviewed, they say that college males only want sex. He is seeking to correct that impression. In fact, there are a few males who want no-strings sex and to avoid relationships. Those males have certain traits in common.

      None of this surprises me. I’m simply gratified that bad information is being corrected, as that is likely to lead to more relationships, assuming people want them.

  • VD

    I’d like to get a good discussion going, this is really important, IMO.

    As you wish. Towards whom shall I direct the egregiously cruel criticism?

    In any given year, aspiring Casanovas may be up to 15% of the male population, but only about 5% of men sustain this behavior for three years.

    I think this is an interesting observation. College makes it so much easier for men to run up large numbers, but it’s hard to even come across similar quantities of women once everyone is no longer locked in on campus together. Between the student population and the various groups visiting from other colleges, graduation can be like going from shooting fish in a barrel to fishing from a dock with a worm-and-bobber. Also, the guy who went through college like a freight train, then settles down with a girlfriend while focusing on hi job after graduation will probably still consider himself a Casanova even if he isn’t actively maintaining the lifestyle.

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

      @VD

      As you wish. Towards whom shall I direct the egregiously cruel criticism?

      Ha, not me! Direct criticism of the book to its absent author – I’m happy to discuss it. Or direct criticism of my handling of it to me. What is NOT helpful is asking me to justify someone else’s work.

      College makes it so much easier for men to run up large numbers, but it’s hard to even come across similar quantities of women once everyone is no longer locked in on campus together.

      Agreed. There is a vibrant post-college scene – the STR types take it to the bars and clubs. But the logistics are less friendly – there’s no opportunity to drag an acquaintance up to the frat room you share with three other dudes. You need to convince a stranger to go home with you instead. Slightly more challenging.

      Also, the guy who went through college like a freight train, then settles down with a girlfriend while focusing on hi job after graduation will probably still consider himself a Casanova even if he isn’t actively maintaining the lifestyle.

      Right, he’s likely to say, “I could have that if I wanted it.” OTOH, I’m not sure how many players do settle down after college. The players I know up to about age 26 have not entered relationships. Though their rate of conquest may be down, they show little inclination toward monogamy.

  • mr. wavevector

    Susan @125;

    I think what’s missing so far in the male responses to this post is the sexual economics piece. This is not about male fantasy – no one is asking young men if they would be psyched to be marooned on a desert island and have two dozen sirens walk out of the sea to sex them up.

    Well put. Most of the objections so far are from men who are deeply invested in their sexual fantasies, where sex is free of cost and consequence.

    Come to think of it, being deeply invested in sexual fantasy is a defining feature of the PUA/Game community.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “Smiler points out that if men wanted sexual variety, they could easily purchase it, but college males do not do so.”

    Define “easily”. Prostitution is illegal, underground, carries widespread shame (as opposed to marijuana), costs a LOT of money for a person making minimum wage, and is flat out cost prohibitive for a man with any normal sex drive. You’re off your rocker here.

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

      Define “easily”. Prostitution is illegal, underground, carries widespread shame (as opposed to marijuana), costs a LOT of money for a person making minimum wage, and is flat out cost prohibitive for a man with any normal sex drive. You’re off your rocker here.

      Aaaaannnnd… here’s a clear example of criticizing me for someone else’s work. I have absolutely no knowledge of the availability of prostitutes at a practical level. I do know that the numbers are large enough that when it’s corrected for in the CDC sex statistics, the gap between male and female means disappears.

      Here is what Smiler said:

      If you add in the fact that average age of first marriage is something like 28 for guys, a lot of guys have the sense that this girl they’re starting to date at 17 or 19 or 21 probably isn’t going to be the one — and yet they are choosing to date. They could easily choose to just hook up — or instead of spending that money in a bar you could get a prostitute — but they’re consistently choosing to be in relationships.

  • Lokland

    @OTC

    “Define “easily”. Prostitution is illegal, underground, carries widespread shame (as opposed to marijuana), costs a LOT of money for a person making minimum wage, and is flat out cost prohibitive for a man with any normal sex drive. You’re off your rocker here.”

    Here prostitution occurs in brothels, legally, above ground with large men named Steve who will beat the shit out of anyone who causes trouble.

    The rest of your points are correct however.

    But still, hardly anyone uses it.

    Probably a good time for you guys to look beyond your own borders though. I can think of a few places where upwards of 80% of men are visiting prostitutes a couple times a month.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “Most importantly, the 85% of males who do not aspire to Casanova status feel abnormal and unsuccessful”

    I disagree here. I felt unsuccessful back then for not attracting a *girlfriend*, not for failing to be a player, which I never tried.

    Sue: “Only that when guys get to choose between Player and Boyfriend, most choose Boyfriend.”

    Well, since 25% cheat, then it seems a many of them choose both.

    J: “I expect that he will do a double major–business and computer science perhaps. He also loves music. Maybe the STEM and music will cancel each other out and he will find a girl after all. ”

    Could be. I did a double in music and CS, and I met the Mrs. in the music department.

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

      @OTC

      “Most importantly, the 85% of males who do not aspire to Casanova status feel abnormal and unsuccessful”

      I disagree here. I felt unsuccessful back then for not attracting a *girlfriend*, not for failing to be a player, which I never tried.

      But you’re old ;)

      The point is that young men today feel pressure to be promiscuous, and to keep silent about their desire for a girlfriend, because it’s not cool.

      Sue: “Only that when guys get to choose between Player and Boyfriend, most choose Boyfriend.”

      Well, since 25% cheat, then it seems a many of them choose both.

      You’re assuming that college boyfriends cheat at the same rate that men cheat in marriage over the course of a lifetime. You’re also assuming that all cheating is premeditated at the point of entering a relationship.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    For the record, I think his definition of Casanova is ridiculous and creates an unduly large gulf.

    The real split is men who want ONLY monogamy (single ladder) vs. men who who will take either/or opportunistically, and possibilty waiting for a high quality girlfriend (dual ladder – Susan’s stated lots of boys who get laid occasionally, but prefer to keep their options open), vs. those who will not only avoid monogamy, but apparently (pathologically) take things to such am extreme they only have anonymous sex with random people, never to see them again.

    That third category is so small as to be pointless to consider. Even the highest N guys I know (40-150) don’t act like that, they all enjoy relationships.

    From a woman’s POV it makes sense to group the first two together, since they are both *open* to having a girlfriend. I think it’s a good message to get out. But, don’t take it too far and make it look like the dual-ladder men are in the first group.

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

      @OTC

      For the record, I think his definition of Casanova is ridiculous and creates an unduly large gulf.

      How so? He defines the player, and he does so accurately, as far as I can tell. Where do you disagree?

      The real split is between the cultural ideal or norm, which is player, and the actual norm, which is boyfriend. 3% of men are behaving in a way that the culture promotes as normal and typical. That’s the issue Smiler is addressing.

      those who will not only avoid monogamy, but apparently (pathologically) take things to such am extreme they only have anonymous sex with random people, never to see them again.

      Now you’re getting silly. He’s talking about men who have casual sex in college and afterwards. The sex is never anonymous, and is indeed often random. About half of college hookup partners do see one another again.

      Smiler references one study of 350 men of all ages. Here are the percentages at each age that self-described as players:

      18-29: 12%
      30-49: 7% (Hi Roissy and Roosh!)
      50+: 3%

      I am amused OTC, how your opinion of the post has shifted so dramatically in a short time.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “The point is that young men today feel pressure to be promiscuous, and to keep silent about their desire for a girlfriend, because it’s not cool.”

    I’d have to read the book to see the rationale. I think the former doesn’t exist to the level of promiscuity Smiler defines, and the latter only exists because being “eager” is the death knell to college women. Men have to play their cards very close, or be severely punished. What we used to call “courtship” is now called “creepy”, even 20 years ago.

    Where are all the men really saddened they can’t be players, vs. not being able to attract a woman at all?

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

      I think the former doesn’t exist to the level of promiscuity Smiler defines

      (Former referring to young men feeling pressure to be promiscuous.) Smiler defines a player as someone who specifically seeks STRs, not someone who hooks up to get a relationship. He also says that the average # of partners per year for STR-oriented men is 3. I’m not sure what you mean to say about that level of promiscuity.

      the latter only exists because being “eager” is the death knell to college women.

      (The latter referring to the notion that it’s not cool to have a gf.) Nope, here’s what Smiler says:

      Today, being able to “score,” and especially being able to score repeatedly, turns a boy into “the Man.” Even though a fair number of guys I’ve interviewed have told me they don’t really buy this, they’re also clear that this is how things work. Showing Casanova-like promiscuity has moved from unacceptable behavior to the – or at least a – preferred behavior.

      A guy who breaks these rules, by showing emotion, “acting gay,” or not sleeping around – or not sounding as though he wants to sleep around – is likely to be called fag, gay, etc. These are explicit challenges to a boy’s masculinity, and boys feel compelled to prove otherwise.

      Smiler also talks about the importance of identity groups, formed in adolescence, e.g. jocks, nerds, rebels, drama geeks, chorus and band kids, etc. These groups tend to share values.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    The *post* by itself great and I still think so. It’s a good message to get out, that men want do relationships. Where I think you’re going awry is that the bar for “player” is so high that nobody really qualifies, so, the actual gap between the two is suspect. I’d like to see the numbers, then, that back up, the idea that P&D is the ideal, if this is the case.

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

      It’s a good message to get out, that men want do relationships. Where I think you’re going awry is that the bar for “player” is so high that nobody really qualifies

      You think three partners a year is a high bar?

  • Thrasymachus

    Susan:

    What’s the source of the chart presented in post #52 on the desired number of sexual partners? These results are inconsistent with other studies on the subject. For example, in her book The Male Brain Louann Brizendine quotes a median figure of 18 for (lifetime) desired number of sexual partners for men. (The corresponding figure for women varied between 1.5 and 4, depending on the study). Another study asked how many partners people would like over the next two years. The median answers: men 8, women 1.

    More generally, there are MANY other studies that show a much greater male taste for sexual variety than Smiler suggests. I identified a few of them in an earlier thread.

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

      @Thras

      More generally, there are MANY other studies that show a much greater male taste for sexual variety than Smiler suggests.

      Smiler addresses Sexual Strategies Theory as written by Buss and Schmitt:

      SST’s authors extended the sociobiological description of mating by acknowledging that humans can choose to focus on finding short-term or long-term mates. Thus, some guys choose to be Casanovas and keep finding new partners, hoping to impregnate several of them. Other guys are more selective and choose a single partner.

      …We’ve long known that teenage boys, young men, and adult men report more partners, on average, than their female peers. On average, guys usually report a younger age of first sex, high rates of cheating, and greater willingness to have sex with someone they don’t know. SST gives us a way to make sense of these patterns.

      …One survey question that SST author’s often focus on is this: “Ideally, how many different sex partners would you like to have…” across a series of eleven time frames, ranging from as short as one month to “your remaining lifetime.” The question is open ended, so participants fill in whatever number they like. SST’s proponents typically focus on the shortest time frame – one month – to demonstrate that men want more short-term partners than women.

      In Buss’ worldwide study (62 countries), the average for men was nearly two partners in the next month, whereas for women it was only one partner in the next month. This pattern has been found in survey after survey. The researchers also point out that many more men than women say they want two or more partners; in that worldwide study 25% of men said they wanted two or more partners in the next month. Only 5% of women said that.

      The majority of men – 75% – want one or zero partners in the next month. Shouldn’t we take that majority as telling us about the average or typical guy? …Undergraduate men who are at or near their physical and sexual peak, unmarried, living away from home, and surrounded by lots of women – overwhelmingly say they’re looking for one partner when completing anonymous surveys.

      In the worldwide study, guys were notably more likely than women to indicate that they’d be willing to have sex with a new partner less than one month after meeting her, just as the theory predicts. An earlier study of American undergraduates went into more detail about “when”: for the average guy it was more than a day but less than a week before he was willing to have sex with someone he’d recently met; for the average girl it was closer to a month. Young men said they wanted more than a day; that rules out ONSs.

      IOW, Smiler does not question the real difference between male and female sexual preferences. However, he questions the degree of difference, and especially notes the large variation among males. As you will recall, Schmitt et al do focus on the mean, and generally do not provide median data in their research. This masks the effect of the great variation among males.

      This is also evident in the data on Sociosexuality:

      Men Bottom Quintile Score

      Had sex with someone the same day you met: 12

      Got pregnant, or got someone pregnant, before marriage: 8

      Had sex after having a lot to drink: 34

      Was unfaithful to a steady partner: 5

      Had sex with two people in a 24 hour period: 2

      Ever had a sexually transmitted disease: 4

      vs.

      Men Top Quintile Score

      Had sex with someone the same day you met: 78

      Got pregnant, or got someone pregnant, before marriage: 31

      Had sex after having a lot to drink: 88

      Was unfaithful to a steady partner: 63

      Had sex with two people in a 24 hour period: 50

      Ever had a sexually transmitted disease: 24

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/10/23/whatguyswant/restricted-vs-unrestricted-sociosexuality-what-does-it-mean/

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

    I recently heard a female grad student describe “hookup culture” as sexual relationships that arise when traditional dating is dead. The relationships can take many forms, but they are united by the absence of a conventional dating ramp that had men “proving” themselves and absorbing courtship costs prior to sex. I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it.

    She felt that a woman could think of a sexual interaction as a hook-up and her male counterpart could describe the same scenario very differently, because the woman who saw no male economic investment in courtship prior to sex—vis-a-vis traditional dates where the man takes the girl out to dinner, entertains, etc.—would feel disappointed (unless she was “unrestricted”, presumably).

    FWIW, she acknowledged that what she personally would like is unfair to men given today’s economic landscape, campus gender ratios, etc.

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

      I recently heard a female grad student describe “hookup culture” as sexual relationships that arise when traditional dating is dead. The relationships can take many forms, but they are united by the absence of a conventional dating ramp that had men “proving” themselves and absorbing courtship costs prior to sex.

      One thing that Smiler discusses is the confusion young males express about initiating relationships. They have no idea how to do it. They have figured out that they need to isolate a girl in a group hang and go for the makeout, but as you’ve noted, they have no idea what this signals, or how to figure out what the girl wants. This explains why a full 75% of college males say they would prefer dating, and over half say they hook up to get a relationship.

  • Ted D

    “most of the time he will prefer relationship sex, because it is normally better sex than sex without feelings.”

    I’ve written here many times that I tend to be risk averse and dislike how my body reacts to adrenaline/dopamine rushes. In fact, I would suggest that the reason I never found myself doing “heavy” drugs was because I very much dislike being under the influence of them because of this.

    The further along my Red Pill journey I go, the more I begin to recognize how my internal wiring manifests itself in the real world, and sex is one example. Most people greatly desire those feelings of limerence, and tend to put a lot of importance on the dopamine part of sex. Don’t get me wrong, I very much enjoy the big O part of sex, but I’ve realized it isn’t always my primary reason for wanting sex. In fact, most of the time I enjoy the snuggling/cuddling part just after sex as much if not more than the act itself. My bonding instincts are absofreakingrediculously sensitive, and I literally find myself craving those moments after we catch our breath and settle in to sleep. The touch and smell of my wife just after sex is intoxicating. The feeling of her body pressed to mine after the “deed” almost makes me feel high. I believe that much of what *I* want from sex is NOT the quick hit of orgasm, but the overwhelming desire to feel closer to my wife.

    And at the root of it, this is why casual sex repulses me. Sex with someone I will NOT be holding and caressing afterwards strikes me as torture of a sort, since it is the ‘afterglow’ I often enjoy the most. This also explains why I find myself feeling like those bonds begin to fade after extended periods of no sex. With my ex, the longer we went without, the less I felt that “in love” feeling with her, the less I wanted to make the effort to engage.

    And this is why I believe I’d have a tough time enjoying casual sex at all. I’d “catch feelings” for every woman I had sex with, because it is exactly how my body responds to the act itself. Perhaps it is something I could change, but I’ve never seen any purpose in even trying.

    “If men didn’t want sex without relationships prostitution wouldn’t exist.”

    After my ex-wife left, I tried to talk myself into just giving up on women and going the “professional” route to get those needs met. Couldn’t find a way to make it “OK” so I gave up. IF I was ever going to have casual sex, I think my best chance of success would be a prostitute though, since for them it literally is all in a day’s work. However I wasn’t willing to try and find myself “catching feelings” for a pro…

  • Escoffier

    Susan, the reason the Paul McCartney example is so notable is because it’s so rare. I mean, how many famous rock stars are like that? Very, very few. Let’s rephrase the thought experiment a little. Take 100 random guys. Make them rock stars overnight. Girls are throwing their panties at them. How many of those guys are going to say “No thanks, I’m holding out for a girlfriend”?

    The issue here is whether there is some cohort of “unrestricted” males who disproportionately become rock stars and the like. Maybe. But the obverse is, take a nominally restricted guy and make him a rock star and what’s he going to do?

    I just do not believe that, if they had the chance to indulge themselves widely, 80% of young men would decline. I bet a lot of them would quit the casual sooner rather than later because they would find it unfullfilling. But in those first months or longer, biology would take over.

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

      @Escoffier

      The issue here is whether there is some cohort of “unrestricted” males who disproportionately become rock stars and the like. Maybe. But the obverse is, take a nominally restricted guy and make him a rock star and what’s he going to do?

      You’re still dealing with fantasy, not real actions.

      I just do not believe that, if they had the chance to indulge themselves widely, 80% of young men would decline. I bet a lot of them would quit the casual sooner rather than later because they would find it unfullfilling. But in those first months or longer, biology would take over.

      You may well be right, but that’s not what the book or this post addresses. I’ve already noted that the male desire for relationships vs. casual will depend on a number of things, including but not limited to:

      How good looking he is, i.e. opportunity
      The sex ratio in his environment
      The perceived quality of women in his environment
      His genetic personality traits, including degree of extraversion
      His moral beliefs about sex
      His sexual history
      His childhood and family dynamic
      His plans for the future
      How he perceives promiscuous men in his milieu (this is generally a negative perception)
      How academically oriented he is
      How emotionally intelligent he is
      His adolescent experience

      The research focuses on real men, who describe what they want now. When they do so, all 12 of these factors are brought to bear on their choice.

      This is not about giving guys a theoretical opportunity to go into the Orgasmatron. Actually, that reminds me of a scene in True Blood, where a community of feral females holds Jason prisoner so they can have sex with him and get his genes. He writhes in agony and begs for mercy even as his penis cooperates. Perhaps there can be too much of a good thing…

      In any case, what is relevant from an HUS standpoint is: Do guys want relationships, or do they want to be players? The answer is actually very clear. That’s the 80% (actually more like 85%).

  • JP

    A bigger problem in life seems to be figuring out how to find a compatible person rather than relationships per se.

    Attracting women (in general) is relatively easy, whereas being able to endure the relationship is something else entirely.

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

    Escof., I agree. The majority of guys are conditioned to believe that you get sex by having a girlfriend and/or that you get access to a higher-SMV female through a relationship than you would through a more casual sex mechanism (i.e., that the hottest women want to be girlfriends and will not engage in casual sex). The idea that women would be directly propositioning them for sex is just totally alien, a kind of fantasy porn script. It’s just not part of the typical guy’s life experience, so he never calibrates his expectations to that kind of sexual access.

    However, he *is* fascinated by it, particularly if it appears that some men do experience the SMP this way IRL.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Ted, I agree. But apparently we have no useful agreement on what casual sex is. You think it’s having sex devoid of intimacy or something, where they have to leave the second it’s over, and you never talk to them outside of bed. Others say it’s anything that’s not strict monogamy, and what the time limit of that monogamy is unclear (1 month? 1 year? 4 years?) If someone falls in madly love with a new person every 90 days is it casual? Which is it?

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

      Casual sex is sex without commitment of any kind.

      Hooking up is the experience of physical intimacy as a precursor or prerequisite to emotional intimacy.

      Unrestricted folks are happy with either or both.

      Restricted people reject casual sex, but may engage in hooking up as a route to emotional intimacy.

      What matters is the intent. If you’re avoiding commitment, it’s casual.

  • INTJ

    @ J

    My older son seems to be moving in a STEM direction. I expect that he will do a double major–business and computer science perhaps. He also loves music. Maybe the STEM and music will cancel each other out and he will find a girl after all.

    One can always dream. ;)

  • Ted D

    OTC – point taken. I certainly don’t have a good answer. My shortest relationship lasted 4 years. It usually takes me a few weeks to a month to feel comfortable enough with a woman to get naked with her, so every 90 days would be a revolving door for me.

    If I had to pin down a definition for myself, I’d say casual sex is sex with someone you do not have deeper feelings for, regardless of the time frame involved. Of course even this gets grey if you think about real FWB situations where both parties are at least friendly with each other, but I would say that the lack of real intimacy is what marks it as casual.

    That being said, I know a few guys that are married and have been for some time. They don’t get all mushy/feely like I do after sex, and either roll over and pass out, or get the urge to go do something. (like make a sandwich). Do they have deep feelings for their wives? Yeah, I believe they do. However for them, those feelings DO NOT manifest much at all from sex.

    I’ve always been a high touch mate. My wife loves the attention, but didn’t realize she was so touchy/feely until we became an item. Her previous partners tended to be like my buddies, which is to say that once the deed was done, they either wanted to sleep or eat. Me? I’ve spent an hour after sex just stroking her hair while she sleeps on my chest. (I greatly enjoy giving back rubs too!) I might be wide awake, but there is no where I’d rather be, and nothing else I’d rather be doing. In fact, other than musical performances, the “afterglow” of sex is one of the few times I’m truly present and in the moment. For someone like me that almost entirely lives in his head, this is a big thing. I can’t imagine that casual sex would illicit this response from me, and that would leave me feeling very empty, very used, and rather dirty. I want the orgasm, but I also want those minutes of clarity that come after, and I don’t believe that is triggered by the act of sex itself. It is triggered by the feeling of being so open and exposed to a person I love and trust. The feeling of having something with this woman that I don’t have with anyone else. The relief of being able to completely let down my guard for a moment in time with her.

    The idea of casual sex truly strikes me as hell on earth. Other than an orgasm, there is nothing there of what I truly love about sex with my wife. It is an empty shell of what to me should be an emotionally engaging experience. It is a ghost of what I have now at best.

  • JP

    Another fun article. Enjoy.

    “A hormone known as “the love hormone” prompts men in relationships to keep their distance from other women who are attractive, new research suggests.

    Oxytocin, which is known to contribute to pair-bonding, encourages men to expand their personal “Don’t come near me” bubble when around an attractive woman — but only when those men are in relationships, researchers found. Single men were just as likely to get close to a pretty stranger whether or not they’d been dosed with oxytocin, according to a study published tomorrow (Nov. 14) in the Journal of Neuroscience. …”

    http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2012/11/14/good-news-boyfriends-love-hormone-wards-off-girlfriends-rivals/

  • J

    Could be. I did a double in music and CS, and I met the Mrs. in the music department.

    I think the key is to get out of the STEM environment and show that you have other, more accessible interests. He was composing some house music (yeah, I know) the other day, and I told him he needed to volunteer to DJ parties given college social organizations. He’s somewhat quiet, but also fairly handsome and extremely funny in a droll way. If he puts himself out there, he’ll do fine.

    Interestingly, I found myself discussing dating with two lovely, restricted girls who are in my sons’ social circle. I mentioned that I found it odd that the boys don’t actually date. They laughed uproariously and said that they didn’t know anyone who had EVER been on a date. I was so weirdered out by that. On the plus side, they also expressed that the boys would have no problems when I asked how the hell these kids form relationships.

  • JP

    @J:

    My approach to relationships in college (as a STEM major) was to wander around and eventually find myself in relationship (in the 1990s).

    This happened twice.

    I don’t recommend this approach because it wasn’t really a good strategy.

  • JP

    “One thing that Smiler discusses is the confusion young males express about initiating relationships. They have no idea how to do it.”

    I take it that wandering around and waiting for a girl to relationship you or to fling you at one of her friends (this is annoying btw) isn’t a good strategy.

  • J

    The thing is JP that your strategy seems to be the “go to” strategy these days. It seems so random, aimless and unproductive. And, for me as a parent, it’s frustrating. I have no idea of what I’m supposed to be monitoring, much less what is going on.

  • JP

    “This is not about giving guys a theoretical opportunity to go into the Orgasmatron.”

    This is a really funny sentence.

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

      This is a really funny sentence.

      ot

  • http://Marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    Suzan-darling … in another place … and another time … I would have spared no effort … and considered no act too unholy … to make you my noisy toisy strifey wifey deary darling of a life partner … and I would never have regretted it …

    Sincerely.

    Marellus.

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

      @Marellus

      xoxo

  • JP

    @J:

    “It seems so random, aimless and unproductive. And, for me as a parent, it’s frustrating. I have no idea of what I’m supposed to be monitoring, much less what is going on.”

    It is random, aimless and unproductive.

    I didn’t have any idea what was going on. Because it was random and aimless because there weren’t really rules or actual objectives of any kind. Except to graduate college.

    However, not knowing what is actually happening is pretty normal for me.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, it’s not a fantasy, it IS reality. We can both cite lots of examples of men whose SMV suddenly skyrockets and what do they do? They indulge.

    My “thought experiment” is nothing more or less than a stand-in for the kind of studies you like. If you really want to know how real young men would really act if they suddenly had options that they never expected to have, then run some double-blind studies with control groups. I am pretty sure I know how they would turn out, and the results would not be 80% holding out for a GF.

    This finding sounds very much like a male version of hamsterbation. Watch what young men do, not what they say. The reason that 80% them don’t plunge headlong into the pussy riot is not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t.

    That’s obviously not the whole story. The more the brain is involved and can rule the dick, the more these young men will try to lock down relationships. But the brain’s power to rule the dick is not especially strong from puberty through young adulthood. To be an effective master, it needs education plus social, cultural and religious support, which our society is today rather terrible at providing.

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

      If you really want to know how real young men would really act if they suddenly had options that they never expected to have, then run some double-blind studies with control groups.

      But I don’t want to know that. That actually doesn’t interest me in the least! What I do want to know is, do college guys want relationships, and are they likely to be happy in relationships?

      Smiler answers that question quite clearly.

      It doesn’t really matter what I would do if I won the lottery, so when I say I’m happy to vacation in Massachusetts, you can figure I’m going to be on Cape Cod again rather than Bali. And that will be delightful.

      You seem to be arguing that men like sexual variety, but I never claimed otherwise.

      Smiler does cover in great depth why men want relationships, though, and there are a whole bunch of good reasons not related to sex. Men do choose monogamy regularly, even men who have options, it would seem.

      Watch what young men do, not what they say.

      Are you claiming that Pluralistic Ignorance is bogus?

      The reason that 80% them don’t plunge headlong into the pussy riot is not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t.

      Smiler disagrees. Perhaps as a highly unrestricted male (in your head, lol), you’re having trouble seeing a different POV.

  • J

    Sex with someone I will NOT be holding and caressing afterwards strikes me as torture of a sort, since it is the ‘afterglow’ I often enjoy the most.

    I don’t think you are alone. Much of the hostility that even highly sexually active men feel towards the women they have ONS with stems from disgust when the inherent intimacy of the act doesn’t match up with the lack of connection afterwards.

  • J

    LOL. You’re not doing much to quell my anxiety, JP.

    My sons have had a relatively religious, strongly values-based upbringing. I am concerned about the culture shock of moving into a less restricted, “everything is relative” sort of environment. I hope they can stick to their values once they are out of the house.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    J, yeah I pretty much flung myself at my husband, and we met in a totally random and lucky way. I think a lot of guys nowadays, if they hate the dating scene, end up with a girl without really “trying.”

    Keep communicating openly with your son. If he’s comfortable going to you for personal stuff and advice, you’ll know when there’s a potential girl. My MIL actually googled my name and everything when my husband first told her about me. :P

  • J

    I think a lot of guys nowadays, if they hate the dating scene, end up with a girl without really “trying.”

    That’s good news, Hope.

    Keep communicating openly with your son. If he’s comfortable going to you for personal stuff and advice, you’ll know when there’s a potential girl.

    Right now, it’s somewhat difficult. They are doing the normal pulling away that they need to do in order to separate and individuate from the family. Intellectually, I know that it’s a necessary developmental task. As a mom, it’s making me crazy.

    For example, my younger son mentioned to me that he had been interested in a girl who was interested in someone else, but it was long after the fact. I think he didn’t mention it at the time intentionally. He wanted to handle it himself. My older son has an issue with the guidance department at school that I have been explicitely warned to stay out of. He also got a raise at work that he did not mention to me. They tell DH even less than they tell me; they want us out of their hair.

  • J

    Hey, Hope. I early forgot to ask. How’s Aiden?

  • Escoffier

    I do agree that most college guys are likely to be happy in relationships, but that’s a different question that asking “what do they want.” They want different things, sometimes contradictory things.

    Before society became stupid, it recognized this (about all age groups in both sexes) and tried to maintain a social order that steered people in directions that would make them truly happy even it meant giving up on some more immediately heart-felt want. We don’t do that any more.

    We are especially averse to saying “no” in any way to women’s immediate wants, which only reinforces the difficulty of steering men into relationships. So, what’s left is a minority of men who realize that they can satisfy their immediate want (variety) and a majority who not only can’t do that (though they are encouraged to want it more than ever) they even have a harder time getting a relationship.

    Great system.

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

      Before society became stupid, it recognized this (about all age groups in both sexes) and tried to maintain a social order that steered people in directions that would make them truly happy even it meant giving up on some more immediately heart-felt want. We don’t do that any more.

      Some of us do. I’m sure you are doing that for your kids. A fair number of young people do speak with conviction, future-time orientation, and strong moral values. Not everyone turned out badly. That’s the good news.

      IDK, when I see that only 3% of men have more than 9 partners in three years, I see evidence that people are choosing real connection over sexual gratification with strangers. When I read that only 50% of players have more than 1 partner per year, that tells me that “player” is a state of mind, not a measure of sexual prowess or success. How can a guy with 0 or 1 partners per year be a player? Here’s the answer: he is on a team or in a frat and he feels entitled to sex, and highly desirous of it, i.e. unrestricted.

  • Ted D

    J – “I don’t think you are alone. ”

    You’re killing my sense of being a special snowflake. :(

    I honestly don’t know. It isn’t something I’ve discussed with a lot of men I am close to. The few that I have discussed it with seem to like the “extras” of sex in a relationship, but they don’t seem to crave it much either. The craving to simply have sex? yeah, that one is discussed a lot actually.

    But has been pointed out up thread, many guys get a verbal rundown for admitting they like the intimacy part. Personally that never bothered me. My reply has always been something like “and exactly how much sex are you getting from randoms? I get laid 3 to 5 times a week.”* That usually shut any shaming directed at me right down.

    Note* – this did not apply during the “sexless” years of my last marriage. But that was partly my own fault.

  • Zach

    @Susan

    Great post, and completely in line with what I observe in real life. A huge number of the hard-drinking, hard-partying “frat stars” (both from my frat and others) that I hung out with in college are in long-term relationships currently, or have been for much of their post-collegiate lives. The only grief they get from any of our friends has to do with their not partying as much as they used to, and even that is fading. There are essentially no remarks about their being in a relationship. In my experience, what needs to be proved is the ABILITY to get women, not the actual getting of them. If a guy seems to have no ability to get women, he will be mocked for being in a relationship because it will be assumed that he’s only in one because he has no other options. Once a guy proves he can get women if he wants to, no one mocks his choice to opt out of it (unless he opts out for a fat girlfriend, mean but true).

    Also, re: insecurity and promiscuity. The most promiscuous man I know is also by far and away the most insecure. To relate one incident (of many), he once hooked up with an ugly girl while drunk at a bar. It happens to everyone, and we all just get a good laugh out of it. However, when we made fun of him for it, he exploded, and started ranting about how many girls he’d hooked up with, and that all of us had hooked up with ugly girls (undoubtedly true). Frankly, his outburst just made us laugh harder, but it was a clear example of how deeply insecure he is.

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

      @Zach

      However, when we made fun of him for it, he exploded, and started ranting about how many girls he’d hooked up with, and that all of us had hooked up with ugly girls (undoubtedly true). Frankly, his outburst just made us laugh harder, but it was a clear example of how deeply insecure he is.

      Interesting, that’s the typical PUA response as well. In this thread one Samseau is Exhibit A.

  • J

    Oh, Ted, you’ll always be special to us here at HUS.

    I think a lot of men enjoy the “extras,” especially as they mature and especially if they are in a relationship. I notice that as we age, the afterglow lasts longer and longer. DH will be more affectionate on the mornings after we have sex than on other mornings.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    So, answer me this – your N=10 nice beta boys who don’t have girlfriends because they want to keep their options open: players or not? Restricted or unrestricted? Do they seek LTRs or STRs or casual? Probably, they want girlfriends, at some point, when a good enough one comes along… but are smart enough to have a sex-only ladder.

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

      @OTC

      So, answer me this – your N=10 nice beta boys who don’t have girlfriends because they want to keep their options open: players or not? Restricted or unrestricted? Do they seek LTRs or STRs or casual? Probably, they want girlfriends, at some point, when a good enough one comes along… but are smart enough to have a sex-only ladder.

      You’ve misunderstood – my nice beta boys do want gf’s – they are usually in a relationship if they can get one, though they are not willing to settle for someone unattractive or slutty. In between these relationship “dry spells,” they sometimes hook up with randoms at a party, or sometimes a girl from the old high school days, that sort of thing. I would say they are generally restricted, with some incongruent behavior. :) Their gf’s are restricted, their hookups are definitely un. However, all of my stories of guys literally pulling out in the middle or declining Round 2 come from this group. They definitely consider casual a bit sordid, but they do it sometimes and most definitely have a sex only ladder. Interestingly, they tease each other mercilessly when these random hookups do happen. A good friend of my daughter’s had one recently, and she texted him with “Was there eye contact?” I think the whole crew was blowing up his phone.

      I have heard stories from girls, though, about beta guys in college getting a bit of social proof and wanting to keep their options open. They may be the “aspiring Casanovas” Smiler refers to – the “players” with 0-1 partners per year, lol.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    J, of course your boys won’t talk about sex. Talking to your parents about sex, when you’ve been sent to church and they’ve told explicitly not to do it, is a bit like asking your parents if they’d buy beer for you. I kept everything secret from my parents. By the time they met my wife, we’d been going together nearly a year.

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

      J, of course your boys won’t talk about sex. Talking to your parents about sex, when you’ve been sent to church and they’ve told explicitly not to do it, is a bit like asking your parents if they’d buy beer for you.

      My son was 9 and my daughter 7 when the Lewinsky scandal broke, and the cat was out of the bag re P in V and oral sex. From then on, I made a point of being very open about sex with my kids. (My husband was not so open.) I know that my son turned down sex before he had his first gf as a junior in high school, and I am certain it is because of the conversations we had about sex. When he did get his first gf, I had the “no choice” conversation with him and made him swear to use condoms at all times. He agreed.

      I bet J will have a similar dynamic with her sons.

  • Rollo Tomassi

    Newsflash! Dr. Smiler discovers 85% of males between the ages of 15-25 are feminized beta chumps with no better prospects than to align and identify their sexual strategies with those of the women they hope to bang and lock down so as not to subject themselves any further to the inhumane rigors of the sexual marketplace.

    And in other news, the sky is blue,…

    All Smiler is doing here is reiterating what the manosphere has promoted for over a decade. Of course 80%+ of guys will tell you they’re monogamy minded – it’s just classic beta Game; identify and align with what women tell them they want from a guy.

    15-25 was the age range? Men’s SMV isn’t even comparable to women’s during this phase of life. She’s enjoying her peak fertility years between 21-23 and these boys are only too willing to broadcast to anyone that they’ll give them what they want. The majority of guys in this stage of life don’t even have themselves figured out, much less women.

    I’ll take Smiler seriously when he does a study on men when their SMV begins to peak around 35 and they have a better understanding of themselves, women and the much broader selection they have of women as a result of it.

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

      I’ll take Smiler seriously when he does a study on men when their SMV begins to peak around 35 and they have a better understanding of themselves, women and the much broader selection they have of women as a result of it.

      Smiler studies young males so I guess he’ll have to cope with your dismissal.

      The sweet spot for male SMV is 28. 35 is well past it, physically speaking.

  • Kirk

    “Where are all the men really saddened they can’t be players, vs. not being able to attract a woman at all?”

    @OffTheCuff
    I definitely fall under the latter; I have never aspired to be a cad nor have I ever felt pressure to. The psych department at my university is 90% female and the few guys are mostly omegas like me.

    Though this gender skewed environment seems like easy pickings, it’s not.
    One wrong move and you’re suddenly known as “that ugly creep” around campus. If you think about it, college presents the same issues for relationships as work (sans the threat of being canned).

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

    Susan, maybe I’m just slow here, but assuming that Smiler is correct I don’t really understand why the market isn’t clearing. The “Smiler Theory” would (correct me if I’m wrong) state something like this:

    Proposition 1: Most young men want monogamous LTRs and a return to traditional dating
    Proposition 2: Most young women want monogamous LTRs and a return to traditional dating
    Proposition 3: Both genders prize LTR-compatible character traits over other mate characteristics, notably including looks and $ (which are actually ranked surprisingly low in importance).

    It would appear on the surface that this should be a golden era of traditional dating and LTRs. The explanation given for why this is not the case seems to be that young men are simply failing to bridge the chasm between the two camps because they basically lack approach confidence/competence—that certain old-fashioned courtship skills have been lost. Presumably if these skills were recovered and young men would just “man up” and ask these girls out, Happy Days would indeed be here again.

    But why would these capabilities ever have been lost? The men who seem to be suffering are also the ones who would seem to have had fathers around to keep these skills alive. (One contributing factor that I have heard offered is a sort of male equivalent to hypergamy under which a man would rather fap to porn than ask out a girl below a certain SMV).

    And how does this “approach anxiety and SMP confusion” explanation jive with the idea that men have become indoctrinated in a hetero-predator “Casanova” seduction mythology? Wouldn’t that mean that such individuals were prone to being overly aggressive in terms of approach tactics?

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      I don’t really understand why the market isn’t clearing.

      It’s complicated and I only have theories, not answers, but I’ll lay them out.

      Re Props 1 and 2, absolutely. There is robust research replicated many times that highlights this is what 50-75% of college kids say, depending on the wording of the question and the gender.

      So why don’t they just date? Mr. Nervous Toes explained it well – there is no script. Asking a girl out on a date is a DLV. Instead, the norm is hanging out in coed groups. Within these groups, most hookups occur, and they occur with plenty of liquid courage to lubricate the social exchange. Not surprisingly, half of all hookups occur at Greek social functions, even though Greeks represent only about 10% of college students.

      Non-Greeks form friend groups, sometimes coed, sometimes not. If not, there’s no hooking up. If it is a coed group, inevitably girls and guys are drawn to one another, hang out alone, wind up making out, and as the post highlights, often get drunk and wind up “doing it.” If they both want a relationship, awesome, they’ve got it. Otherwise awkwardness ensues. Now they’ve seen the genitalia of a member of the friend group. At no point in this process does one person ask another to go out for a meal and spend time alone getting intimate. The route to intimacy is sex. (Exceptions include Greek date functions, but those serve more as Bacchanalian revels than opportunities to be romantic.)

      As I’ve mentioned before, when you ask college males what percentage of guys on campus got laid the previous weekend, they answer 75-80%. The real number is 5-10%. So nearly everyone is mistaken, except perhaps the guys who did get laid and know they’re unusual. Smiler points out that when you ask college women what guys want they emphatically declare that guys just want sex. I suspect that buried in all the post-hookup awkwardness are missed signals, hedging bets instead of honesty about what one wants, and the PLI. It’s not unusual for me to hear about two people speaking years later and discovering each liked the other, and neither realized it.

      Proposition 3: Both genders prize LTR-compatible character traits over other mate characteristics, notably including looks and $ (which are actually ranked surprisingly low in importance).

      This relates specifically to LTRs. Unrestricted types who prefer STRs do not select based on character. Women select almost exclusively for social dominance for STRs and men select heavily for sexual experience and a woman’s willingness to forego commitment. The chart of mating preferences would look very different if you asked people what they look for in a ONS.

      But why would these capabilities ever have been lost? The men who seem to be suffering are also the ones who would seem to have had fathers around to keep these skills alive.

      I share your puzzlement re the role of fathers – I don’t understand how men got so “betaized.” Guys here blame their mothers and teachers, but when I’ve asked about fathers I haven’t gotten good information. However, even if dads had been on the scene teaching their sons, the Sexual Revolution shifted sexual mores – and that happened most dramatically in the culture. Recall the novels of Updike and other writers of that school – suddenly couples were swapping keys at neighborhood potlucks. The divorce rate soared. People gorged on sex and families fell apart. Boomers watched that happen, then raised their own kids. It doesn’t surprise me that the traditional ways have been lost.

      And how does this “approach anxiety and SMP confusion” explanation jive with the idea that men have become indoctrinated in a hetero-predator “Casanova” seduction mythology? Wouldn’t that mean that such individuals were prone to being overly aggressive in terms of approach tactics?

      Smiler claims that few have become indoctrinated, and that the Casanova type was studied and described in research from the 70s on. There’s nothing new here, except that rather than the seducer as natural sociopath, we now have aspiring Casanovas who declare themselves players even if they’re not having much sex. Based on Smiler’s data, which is even more conservative than I would have expected, identification as a player appears to have more to do with attitude and social behavior than sexual behavior.

      Finally, re the market clearing, I’m currently researching the number of relationships that are happening on college campuses. By no means is that number zero. There are the “college marrieds,” a significant minority. There are also couples who got together successfully via hooking up rather than dating. And there are the religious/abstinent kids who meet via campus groups and get together without having sex, presumably.

      Others have suggested that the 80% not hooking up is abstaining because no one in their own cohort trips the attraction switch. This seems difficult to believe, but I have not ruled it out, as I have no information to confirm or deny it. I’m sure some guys and more girls perceive that “all the hot people are taken.”

  • Zach

    @Samseau 46

    “The bottom line is that women sleep with players because women want players.”

    Would agree with you to some extent that women are attracted to what players offer. Whether that means they explicitly want players, or just the characteristics of players (confident, funny, socially outgoing), is another question.

    “Regular men (i.e. betas) want relationships because they hate the cutthroat world of dating. They want to get a decent girl and just have some steady pussy with a girl who could be considered a friend.”

    I bought this argument for a while, but it’s patently untrue. I know a couple dozen guys who have racked up high Ns, have women often crawling all over them, and have absolutely zero interest in anything but their girlfriends. Frankly, it may be because most of my friends are very, very smart, and sleeping with a succession of dumb girls (let’s face it, the average American is not the smartest person in the world) gets old very, very quickly. The promiscuous friend I just referred to in my earlier post has been on a streak of brain-dead girls recently, and even he can’t stand it. He openly mocks them, and often discusses how he’s pretty much burnt out by the whole player thing (he continues to do it though, mostly due to his insecurity and need for validation). Also, please explain to me why marriage rates and divorce rates are so much lower among the wealthiest and most educated people (including the men)? Since women value status and money, and these are easily the highest status-men around (and probably the most good looking and tallest, since both those attributes correlate with career success), shouldn’t these guys be out there, staying single and cleaning up? Hmm, they’re not though.

    “Too bad the average young woman today doesn’t give a shit about that. She wants thrills, she wants a guy she can show off to her friends, she wants drugs, and she wants hot sex that gives her multiple orgasms. The only guys who can give her those things are precisely the kinds of guys she claims to hate, the “Cassanovas”.”

    You’re conflating the attributes that women are attracted to (confidence, status, spontaneity) with the characteristics of bad boys. Give me the average girl, and let me put a confident, socially popular, drug-free, successful banker/consultant/lawyer against a motorcycle-riding, skydiving, drug dealer “bad boy”, and the former will win 8-9 times out of 10. The “bad boy” is all style with no substance; the first guy is style and the substance. I know a lot of girls, and absolutely there are some who fall into your categorization. They’re a very small minority. They’re the girls who aren’t happy in a relationship unless something is going wrong all the time. They’re called “crazy” and “drama queens” for a good reason.

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

    Kirk wrote:

    I definitely fall under the latter; I have never aspired to be a cad nor have I ever felt pressure to. The psych department at my university is 90% female and the few guys are mostly omegas like me.

    Though this gender skewed environment seems like easy pickings, it’s not.
    One wrong move and you’re suddenly known as “that ugly creep” around campus. If you think about it, college presents the same issues for relationships as work (sans the threat of being canned).

    Creep-shaming is annoying but the solution is in being more direct and masculine around women that you’re interested in, _not_ withdrawing. Women do naturally respond positively to authority in a male, whether they are feminist or not. I think a bigger problem in female-dominated social groups is finding friends to help facilitate your interactions with everyone else, while keeping anyone who has a romantic interest in you or vice versa at arms length.

    If a woman ever does creep-shame you, it’s appropriate to get angry and confront her about it. This may cause some short-term pain as people are like, “Whoa…” but in the long-term it’s very much to your benefit to establish your boundaries and demand respect. If women have nothing to fear from you, they won’t respect you.

  • Lokland

    @Esc

    “Before society became stupid, it recognized this (about all age groups in both sexes) and tried to maintain a social order that steered people in directions that would make them truly happy even it meant giving up on some more immediately heart-felt want. We don’t do that any more.”

    I think it had far less to do with happiness for the individual than social stability. Not sure if happiness produces stability or happiness is a by-product of stability.

  • Emily

    >> “Give me the average girl, and let me put a confident, socially popular, drug-free, successful banker/consultant/lawyer against a motorcycle-riding, skydiving, drug dealer “bad boy”, and the former will win 8-9 times out of 10.”

    +1. This is very true, especially if you work social class into the equation. The local drug dealer might be a super alpha in a bad neighbourhood, but he’d be an omega as far as miss Ivy League Princess is concerned.

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

    Bastiat Blogger wrote:
    Presumably if these skills were recovered and young men would just “man up” and ask these girls out, Happy Days would indeed be here again.

    Mate, the women don’t know how to go out on dates either. The problem is there’s no social norms, or rules, for dating anymore. It used to be that the man was in charge, paid the bills, and that was that. Now we have a lot more anxiety involved with each stage of the date, as each person has to communicate what their preference is and then negotiate a solution. As we all know, women hate being direct and prefer to drop too subtle hints which merely creates more awkwardness. It’s why the only place where dating actually occurs is from online dating, but that’s because that (very dysfunctional) world has its own set of rules that people can abide by. For dating to occur, there needs to be generally accepted dating etiquette, and there isn’t.

  • LJ

    Breaking News: Men are human too, may experience emotions, capacity for attachment. More at 11.

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

      @LJ

      Breaking News: Men are human too, may experience emotions, capacity for attachment. More at 11.

      I confess I’m surprised by the strong opinion of male commenters that college guys would eschew attachment if they could get sex without it. I really thought this post would be a boring one where everyone agreed. Ironically, I consistently find that the most vociferous opponents to something as “beta” as a relationship are the beta guys themselves.

  • Escoffier

    Lokland, I think both were true. This comes through in literature in all kinds of ways. Parents and other “elders” were happy to lecture children about the difference between immediate wants and gratifications and long term happiness. Certainly the latter correlates highly with social stability whereas the former mostly undermines it.

    But no parent ever said “Don’t date that biker because it’s bad for society”. They said “Don’t date that biker because he is a bum who will make you miserable eventually, instead go for a good man who will take care of you long term and you will be happier, trust me I am wiser and I know.”

    Nobody says that anymore, even though it’s still true.

    I guess Susan says it when she says “Date Betas!” which is fine, I hope her influence is gigantic.

  • Just1Z

    Roissy just now

    Using Women’s Beta Blacklisting Words Against Them

    November 20, 2012 by heartiste

    Women love to cavalierly toss out all-purpose smears like “creeper” and “stalker” to ear tag the beta males solemnly grazing around them who rumble a little too close to the edge of their pen enclosures, because a punchy insult is always preferable to a more articulate rationale for describing the ways in which the innocuous characteristics of the beta male are so dismaying and unattractive to women, the sex, if you will ponder, which prides itself on its wellspring of compassion.

    reading it now…bon appetit red-pillers

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

      @Just1Z

      Interestingly, Smiler claims that because we have hypersexualized the male as someone in poor control of his behavior even as we have rewarded that excess in the culture, women have hair-trigger defenses. So when they see a socially awkward guy staring at them, their response is indeed, “No sex! Get away from me!” When they see a man they find attractive however, they think “I know he wants to have sex with me, let’s start the cat and mouse game.” So the gap between the top males and lower ranking males is deeply embedded in the culture because we define the promiscuous male as normal and successful. By definition, this means the non-promiscuous male is a loser, and because we’re taught that all men want sex all the time (Every 19 seconds! Eye fucking strangers on the way to work! It’s terrifying.) we want that unattractive loser to be disabused of his lascivious notions immediately.

      I’ve said it myself, usually due to a male’s sustaining eye contact for way too long and also for invading my personal space without knowing me. Some people just don’t have good boundaries, unfortunately.

      I once had the experience of getting to know someone quite well through work before I met him. He seemed fun and witty – like a great guy. When I met him the hairs on the back of my neck stood up. He came across as so intense he seemed famished for attention – his eyes glittered and anxiety radiated from him. I literally felt like I was in the presence of a serial killer. Yes, women throw these terms around frequently, but it’s not just to be mean to beta men. It’s because the anxiety we experience from some men is interpreted by women as sexual in nature.

  • Zach

    @Just1Z

    Do not agree with Roissy on a lot of things, but this is definitely one of them. Those words get tossed about very cavalierly by women these days. It’s another case of when I press them about it, they eventually back off and admit the guy’s not actually creepy or a stalker, he’s just awkward.

  • Escoffier

    A guy doesn’t even have to be genuinely awkward to be called “creepy” these days. All he has to be is unattractive to the person who calls him “creepy.”

  • Sassy6519

    Breaking News: Men are human , too, may experience emotions, capacity for attachment. More at 11.

    Hahahaha!!!

    On another note, great post Susan.

  • Emily

    Yeah, words like “creepy” need to be reserved for actual creepers (they’re a small minority, but they exist) rather than to crush the self-esteem of well-meaning but socially awkward guys. I agree that a lot of girls use these words way too liberally.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    Great post…if your a woman.
    Its literally over the top awesome news.

    For guys OTOH its very bad news.

    Women want relationships, men want relationships.
    Women want sex less than men.

    The sex for commitment trade is no longer possible under this combination of factors as men are not the gate keepers of sex.

    Combined with hypergamy, very bad.

    Obviously, this is how the world is and it is not working.
    You have 8 of of 10 people who want to be together and simply aren’t.

    Two possible reasons.
    1) Pluralistic ignorance keeps them apart.
    2) Hypergamy drives women to have hotter men (not necessarily having sex).
    This leads to the nasty scenario in which equals cannot be together because one group intrinsically does not want their equal. (Hypergamy makes it women.)

    Since men have nothing to trade, they either date down a couple points or fap to porn.

    As I said, sounds great as a woman, your dollar is worth 10 man dollars.

    Horrible if your a guy who can’t get even exchange on the dollar because you the only people who have what you want are poor ass refugees. Of course they see you as their deserved, they would never view themselves as the poor.

    Personally, given the choice between a woman of lower SMV or fapping to porn. I might go be a monk or something…really omega it out.

    Equal trades are not possible under the given parameters.
    ———-

    It would also call into question the Vox beta hierarchy because deltas are the ones who aim high, not the other way around.

    Also contradicts the Okay Cupid message results.

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

      @Lokland

      I think it’s more like this:

      Women want relationships more than men. Men are more selective about commitment.
      Women want sex less than men. Women are more selective about sex.

      The tradeoff still occurs.

  • Lokland

    @Esc

    “But no parent ever said “Don’t date that biker because it’s bad for society”. They said “Don’t date that biker because he is a bum who will make you miserable eventually, instead go for a good man who will take care of you long term and you will be happier, trust me I am wiser and I know.”

    Your post made something click that seems obvious now.

    Long term happiness and societal stability are probably correlated but with no causal relationship (at least not direct) between them merely coincidental.

    If thats the case, our species was genuinely lucky to have evolved in such a way that happiness (I prefer contentment) and social stability can be achieved together.

    Things that make it look like there might be a god…

  • INTJ

    @ J

    The thing is JP that your strategy seems to be the “go to” strategy these days. It seems so random, aimless and unproductive. And, for me as a parent, it’s frustrating. I have no idea of what I’m supposed to be monitoring, much less what is going on.

    Yup. But whenever I voice my complaints about this, the advice I get (even from my mom) is usually something like “it’ll work out eventually” or “good things happen when you least expect them”. :(

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

      But whenever I voice my complaints about this, the advice I get (even from my mom) is usually something like “it’ll work out eventually” or “good things happen when you least expect them”.

      My mom always said, “God helps those who help themselves.”

  • J

    Yeah, words like “creepy” need to be reserved for actual creepers (they’re a small minority, but they exist) rather than to crush the self-esteem of well-meaning but socially awkward guys.

    Absolutely.

    I agree that a lot of girls use these words way too liberally.

    I don’t see a lot of girls doing this in my neck of the woods. Only the bitchiest, and they’re mean to everyone.

  • Ted D

    “Long term happiness and societal stability are probably correlated but with no causal relationship (at least not direct) between them merely coincidental.”

    I’ve always been of the opinion that happiness is simply a side effect of leading a good and proper life. Of course, happiness is not a guaranteed outcome of such a life, but I’ve also never believed that the purpose of life is to be happy.

    So to you statement above, it may be that happiness is simply a side effect of a society that is living a good and proper life overall. As society continues to decline towards the lowest common denominator in terms of morality and ethics, I would suspect such a correlation would lead more and more people to be miserable with their lives.

    Seems there is plenty of misery to go around in the modern West.

  • INTJ

    My sons have had a relatively religious, strongly values-based upbringing. I am concerned about the culture shock of moving into a less restricted, “everything is relative” sort of environment. I hope they can stick to their values once they are out of the house.

    90% of the manosphere anger is due to this sort of culture shock.

  • J

    J, of course your boys won’t talk about sex. Talking to your parents about sex, when you’ve been sent to church and they’ve told explicitly not to do it, is a bit like asking your parents if they’d buy beer for you.

    Oh, geez, I hate to go down this road again. I do realize and accept that many of the men here have been shamed for their sexuality in church and elsewhere. I also thought that we had establised that houses of worship that cater to the educated middle class tend to be fairly sound places psychologically. I can’t imagine going to a church that tells boys if they look at porn or touch their weiners in the showers, they’ll burn in hell. My sons have been taught that everyone had sex urges, it’s normal and healthy to have urges, but that those urges can also get you into trouble and that the sexuality of self and others should be treaated with love and respect. I’ve also told them to clean up after themselves in the shower. ;-)

    As to the beer analogy, I have actually allowed my kids to drink in the house. I was allowed to drink in the house as a teen as well. My goal has been to teach them to drink rationally and to recognize impending drunkeness and quit before it hits. Since no one has ever come home drunk or hungover, I assume the lesson has been learned.

    I kept everything secret from my parents. By the time they met my wife, we’d been going together nearly a year.

    Gosh, I hope not to be surprised like that.

  • Escoffier

    Well I would say that “happiness is the virtuous activity of the soul,” which requires many things to achieve, including friends, “equipment,” peace, stability, and many others. Since “man is a political animal” he cannot be truly happy outside the polis, and so a fortiori a well ordered polis, which is to say, a well functioning society.

    So there definitely is a causal relationship.

    /Aristotle

  • Cooper

    @lokland

    “Women want relationships, men want relationships.
    Women want sex less than men.”

    Perhaps this would be the simplest explaination as to why men, in attempt to get their fair exchange for their “dollar,” leverage with appearing to want relationships “less.”

  • Escoffier

    I let my daughter smell my wine and give her opinion, the problem is she always blesses every bottle, even the ones that are corked and have premox. She has no idea what she is doing. She thinks it’s fun though. I don’t let her drink any.

  • J

    I bet J will have a similar dynamic with her sons.

    I’m not sure exactly how much sexual experience my boys have. Possibly less than your son because they run in a religious crowd and don’t seem to have steady girlfriends. OTOH, I’m not so naive as to discount the probablity of some messing around. I’m told there’s a lot of hooking up at the teen religious retreats the boys go to, but I’m not sure what exactly that means.

    There’s nothing they haven’t been taught about; ignorance ain’t bliss in my book. I have no idea what parents who shelter or repress their kids think they are saving them from. My kids freely discuss all sorts of sexual behavior that I didn’t even know about at their ages. It’s out there. You can’t pretend it’s not.

  • Escoffier

    Raising my kids through that age is going to make me very miserable.

  • Sassy6519

    Women want sex less than men.

    That depends on the woman. I have yet to meet a man with a comparable sex drive to my own. I think I like sex a little too much.

  • Escoffier

    Bell curve: most women want sex less than most men. The fat part of the curve is more to the right (higher frequency) for men and more to the left (lower frequency) for women.

    I doubt the gap is all that spectacularly large for most people, though if a right tail man gets with a left tail woman, or vice versa, they are in for some misery. What’s made it worse are all the newish social memes that you don’t need me to rehash.

  • J

    Raising my kids through that age is going to make me very miserable.

    LOL. Yeah, it is. A while back, my kids were in a car when the driver ran a red light and barely escape a multiple T-boning. The intersection was video-monitored. The officer who ticketed the driver came by to show me and DH the tape. We almost died of shock. Needless to say, my kids don’t ride with their buddy any more. And I haven’t heard a whisper of complaint about that either.

    How old are your kids?

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “When he did get his first gf, I had the “no choice” conversation with him and made him swear to use condoms at all times. He agreed.”

    That’s different.. you’re initiating the talk, then, and perhaps giving him implict permission to mess around.

    J: “but that those urges can also get you into trouble and that the sexuality of self and others should be treaated with love and respect”

    Makes total secular sense, and I’d say the same, but that isn’t what the Bible says. Unmarried sex = fornication = sin, don’t do it.

    J: “Gosh, I hope not to be surprised like that”

    Oddly, I have no idea why you don’t. What does it matter?

  • J

    @INTJ

    I’m sure she means well but has no idea of how to help you.

  • INTJ

    @ J

    I’m sure she means well but has no idea of how to help you.

    Certainly. Though part of it is also that this was the strategy she and her peers used in their youth. Of course, they had the backup plan of arranged marriage to fall back on if things didn’t work out at random. Not to mention that the gender ratio at her STEM university was in excess of 10-1.

  • J

    Makes total secular sense, and I’d say the same, but that isn’t what the Bible says. Unmarried sex = fornication = sin, don’t do it.

    Not everyone is a Bible literalist or even expects others to be completely sinless. I think that many religious leaders expect that NO premarital sex is a concept more honored in its breach than in its observance.

    Oddly, I have no idea why you don’t. What does it matter?

    We’ve been pretty close, so I’d feel hurt to be totally left out to that big a part of their lives. Also, I would want to form my own relationships with serious girlfriends, as I actually have with most of their male friends. (Teenage boys love me; I’m everyone’s second mom.) And finally, I’m protective. If they pick up with some bitches or users, I want to be there to warn them. (And yes, I do realize why that might be inappropriate. I want to do it anyway. ;-) )

  • Just1Z

    I still don’t accept that we went from men wanting ‘younger, hotter, tighter’ in the last thread, to looks being #9 priority in this one…not buying it.

    that list is seriously fishy

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

      I still don’t accept that we went from men wanting ‘younger, hotter, tighter’ in the last thread, to looks being #9 priority in this one…not buying it.

      that list is seriously fishy

      Well, it has only been given for 70 years. Probably lots of bugs to be worked out yet.

  • Just1Z

    Is the effectiveness of ‘creepy’ a generational thing?

    I’m in the UK and a generation more ‘mature’ (ahem) and that shit has never been used in my presence. Not at me, or anyone else. I think I’d laugh at a woman trying it, or “what’s the matter, did ooo watch too many scawy films diddums?”

    Is it betaisation of males? it’s allowing the herd to determine male hierarchy, isn’t it? perhaps if your entire upbringing is drenched in ‘female moral superiority’ then you allow such fuckwittery to be effective…?

    I did notice in my late childhood that brands, labels and fashion were becoming more important with those a few years younger than me – emergence of the herd effect in men?

  • Just1Z

    it’s allowing the female herd to determine male hierarchy…?

    that can’t be a good thing, can it?

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Guys here blame their mothers and teachers, but when I’ve asked about fathers I haven’t gotten good information.”

    The conversations I’ve heard guys have about women in the older cohort (say 50-60) strike me as mostly pathetic little boys scared of their own shadow.

    “Don’t want to piss the wife off, She’s the boss, I let her make the decisions, I do what she wants” etc.

    Theres no other way to describe it than that they actually do view themselves as less human than their wives. Like subjects to a Queen.

    This isn’t like a small minority thing either, it was literally every married guy in my small town.

    I suspect partially its because its what they were expected to say, some of theme quite literally hated their wives and covered it over with humour though there resentment was easy to see.

    I’ll be honest when I say avoiding that mindset is going to be a lifelong task of constant vigilance because it was so pervasive as a kid.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “I confess I’m surprised by the strong opinion of male commenters that college guys would eschew attachment if they could get sex without it.”

    We may be violently agreeing. For the record, I don’t agree with anyone who is saying that – it’s good to have a girlfriend. Even rock stars have girlfriends and wives.

    But I think most men who do want girlfriends aren’t going to eschew anything casual, especially when put to the test. And a lot of men that say they would, are probably fooling themselves. It’s one thing to get a vague IOI, it’s another thing to be directly propositioned in bar and have to say “no”. Recall that test where the woman got a 75% hit rate?

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

      @OTC

      But I think most men who do want girlfriends aren’t going to eschew anything casual, especially when put to the test. And a lot of men that say they would, are probably fooling themselves.

      Smiler doesn’t claim they will:

      “What I’ve said so far doesn’t mean that romantic men don’t occasionally have ONS hookups. Some of them do. But unlike Casanovas, and going against our general conception of hooking up, these guys often hook up with people they know. Their stories don’t exactly fit our conception of a hookup as a one-time experience with a stranger.

      …Most young romantic guys have had sex before they graduated high school. But the don’t date or have sex with a lot of different people.”

      And as I shared in an earlier comment, I have seen guys get targeted by sexually aggressive females and figure, “OK! Looks like this is going to be a good night!” I have also seen guys say no thanks when they’re not attracted, or when they perceive drama will occur afterwards.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “I think it’s more like this:”

    I know thats what you meant.
    Its not what you said.

    No point letting some girl do a happy dance around her room because all guys want relationships and she can suddenly date a 9.
    I enjoy crushing stupid fantasies quickly.

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

      @Lokland

      I know thats what you meant.
      Its not what you said.

      I did not say that men want relationships as much as women do. (Nor did Smiler.)

      I did not say that men want the same number of sexual partners as women do. (Nor did Smiler.)

      I did not say that all men want relationships. (Nor did Smiler.)

      I did not say that no men want sex with as many different women as possible. (Nor did Smiler.)

      Smiler’s point (I don’t have one of my own) is that the average male is a lot more LTR-oriented than the culture would have us believe, and that that information is not reaching either young males, i.e. “You’re not alone” or young females, “Most guys do want more than hit-it-and-quit-it sex .”

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “I confess I’m surprised by the strong opinion of male commenters that college guys would eschew attachment if they could get sex without it. ”

    I’m not sure that’s what they are all saying, though Escoffier does seem to be saying that they would do that for a while until they had fed at the trough enough. As for me, I think if forced to choose between attachment with sex, on the one hand, or a constant stream of emotionless one night stands, most guys would quickly opt for the former over the latter. But I think what most guys would REALLY want is great passionate sex, with intimacy, emotional connection and love (or at least limerance), but with multiple women who are all cool with it and happy and gung ho for the arrangement. But since that’s totally unrealistic, and since the degree of fulfillment the woman experiences and the degree to which she totally gives herself over physically and emotionally directly drives the amount of pleasure and fulfillment most men get, most normal guys will clearly choose a relationship over the hypothetical endless series of cold and guarded one-time encounters.

    But I think the real problem most have with the book (as you describe it), is that author seems to take two questionable positions. First, he seems to classify all sex outside a commited relationship as “casual”. I don’t consider FWB casual. I suspect there is typically an emotional connection for both parties (perhaps one more than the other). That’s probably even true for an ongoing mere FB relationship too.

    Also, contrary to what you seem to say, he doesn’t seem to define Cassanova as “3 or more per year” or 4 or more or whatever. From your post, he defines it as those “with a COMPULSION to seduce and discard”. Among those who seem obsessed with that, the numbers of partners per year he reports aren’t all that high – and that might be because so many of them are weirdos. I don’t know how he identifies which guys have a “compulsion”, but a guy might lack that compulsion but still have multiple partners at once or several in a year if women are coming on to him.

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

      @Passer By

      But I think what most guys would REALLY want is great passionate sex, with intimacy, emotional connection and love (or at least limerance), but with multiple women who are all cool with it and happy and gung ho for the arrangement.

      Hmmm, I don’t think it is possible to be limerant with more than one person at a time. It’s the obsession with the one beloved that characterizes this state.

      First, he seems to classify all sex outside a commited relationship as “casual”. I don’t consider FWB casual. I suspect there is typically an emotional connection for both parties (perhaps one more than the other).

      I disagree, I believe FWB is designed to be entirely casual. It is true that one or both parties often “catches feelings,” but this is FWB gone awry, not its intent. It is very, very rare for FWBs to turn into committed relationships, and people often get hurt because they invested emotion where the rules stated it was not allowed.

      From your post, he defines it as those “with a COMPULSION to seduce and discard

      It was Trachtenberg who coined that definition in the 70s. Actually he said the Casanova Complex is “the compulsive pursuit and abandonment of women.”

      Smiler goes on to update the concept to today’s Player, and as you see in the post, he examines how students describe Players on campus, and how Players describe themselves.

      I don’t know how he identifies which guys have a “compulsion”, but a guy might lack that compulsion but still have multiple partners at once or several in a year if women are coming on to him.

      Well, the number of men enjoying that level of female sexual attention are 2% at most. I’m sure that the male Ford model who goes to Columbia easily racks up numbers without having any compulsion to pursue. But there aren’t all that many Karen Owens wandering around on campus. Most guys do in fact have to put considerable effort into getting girls drunk and talking them into sex. This is true even in the less restricted crowd. The sluttiest girl on campus wants to assure you she is no slut.

      What’s far more common, I think, is the average frat guy who is steeped in a player culture and judged by his peers by his ability to get laid. Based on my experience and what I’ve heard, there are one or two guys at the frat who do exceedingly well, and the rest are very much in line with Smiler’s estimates. This was very much the case at the two universities my kids went to.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan

    So when they see a socially awkward guy staring at them, their response is indeed, “No sex! Get away from me!” When they see a man they find attractive however, they think “I know he wants to have sex with me, let’s start the cat and mouse game.”

    interesting stuff.

    I read, today, somewhere (COTWA or about COTWA?) that the femtards spouting 1in3, 1in4, 5in1 women are raped blah blah is a tad far from the truth…try 1 in 2000.

    it’s not hard to scare the herd when the herd fails to show any judgement about the plausibilty of such claims.

    I saw the 72c on the dollar keyrap used in one of your presidential debates – neither candidate even considered pointing it out for the distortion that it is.

    femtards spout the same old lies, women lap them up, white knights and manginas start blustering, the rest of the men keep their heads down…and that is why modern society is going down the tubes – no honesty, no judgement, no clues in sight

  • Just1Z

    @Lokland
    “Don’t want to piss the wife off, She’s the boss, I let her make the decisions, I do what she wants”

    I’m sure that I could still be married, all I would have had to do was hand over my balls. Her father did it, I’m sure that she was just following her mummy’s path. Girls don’t only grow to look like their mothers…lmao

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

    I very much admire your reasoning and data collection skills, Susan, and I believe you are piecing together some very important parts of this puzzle. I do, personally, think there must be some other complicating factors in play.

    For example: the men who mistakenly believe that a high percentage of other men got laid the previous weekend may think that a lot of that sex is taking place within relationships. It might make them feel weird or awkward for not having girlfriends, rather than feeling weird or awkward because they aren’t meeting a Casanova/007 standard for ONS capacity. These men might feel pressure to have girlfriends like all the cool guys do (just to add local color: I played college football, was in a very rowdy and elitist fraternity, etc., and almost all of us did have steadies/GFs, even if we frequently would seek out “nutritional supplements”).

    So…if a man has an innate LTR orientation…
    …AND most women on campus also do
    …AND those women with LTR orientation do not emphasize looks, status, and dominance in their mating selections (which should reduce the attractiveness of the good-looking, alpha male Casanova type and marginalize the ability of this predator to fish in the LTR ponds and spoil the environment for other, restricted men)
    …AND the man enjoys an incredible scarcity advantage on campus…

    …then these guys should have no problems finding girlfriends unless there is some weird friction or transaction cost preventing the market from finding a clearing price between notionally willing buyers and sellers.

    One would think that a mass delusion of pluralistic ignorance wouldn’t be sustainable for this long; Google, published studies, books, etc. should make that difficult, shouldn’t it? Could there be some weird reason that these people do not *want* relationships with each other? Why is this market so inefficient??

    (Not trying to put the burden on you to solve the world’s problems, my dear. Just putting these out as possible discussion points)

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

      @BB

      For example: the men who mistakenly believe that a high percentage of other men got laid the previous weekend may think that a lot of that sex is taking place within relationships. It might make them feel weird or awkward for not having girlfriends,

      It might if the culture was relationship friendly, or even relationship tolerant. I think people who are in relationships say “I don’t give a shit what’s cool, I want this.” But guys give each other a really hard time for having gf’s, unless, as you say, it’s well known the guy is cheating on the side. Then he’s the coolest.

      I recall one story from a reader that really resonated for college guys reading here. Zach was a guy who was in a frat, OK face, great body. He had hooked up with a couple of freshmen girls his sophomore year and in the spring started hooking up with Carter. His bros starting giving him grief for making it kind of a regular thing. Carter (whom I know) was well aware that actually dating, i.e. having a relationship, was not cool at her school. Mostly the girls in her sorority settled for “regular hookups” and sometimes got to “exclusive” or “together.” But few had gone all the way to relationship status. Carter and Zach went to a party at the frat house, and Carter noticed the guys looking at her and snickering. She walked off and talked with some other people, and after a while came back to Zach, who was shooting the shit with his friends in the kitchen. She walked up behind him, grabbed his junk from around the back, and said, “I want to go upstairs. Now. Please?” He grinned and they went off to have sex. Later she learned that immediately following this stunt, the guys looked at each other in silence for a moment. Finally, one said, “Respect.” The other said, “Fuck yeah.” And that was the end of the grief.

      So…if a man has an innate LTR orientation…
      …AND most women on campus also do
      …AND those women with LTR orientation do not emphasize looks, status, and dominance in their mating selections (which should reduce the attractiveness of the good-looking, alpha male Casanova type and marginalize the ability of this predator to fish in the LTR ponds and spoil the environment for other, restricted men)
      …AND the man enjoys an incredible scarcity advantage on campus…

      Other factors that come to mind:

      Having restricted sociosexuality does not mean one wants a relationship NOW. As you know, many women avoid the time and emotional commitment while in college. Your students who expressed this are clearly unrestricted – the Hannah Rosin feminists. But many women – even more women, actually – who avoid casual sex may have no interest in having a boyfriend at any particular moment.

      No one has said that looks, status and dominance are not important in mating selection. Looks has to be the most important trigger for any relationship. Status is vitally important for offspring advantage, and women like dominance in men. You seem to be viewing this as B&W when it’s really 50 shades. For LTR-oriented women, the attraction triggers include comfort traits, but not to the exclusion of other attractors. It’s a balance that will vary from woman to woman. The research does show that STR women like over the top dominance, e.g. chicks dig jerks. And they are likely to focus more on looks or status without any regard for character.

      The Casanova type is indeed a danger to LTR females, which is why he often runs false Good Guy game, especially with freshmen. To an 18 year-old girl new at school, identifying which men are predators is a challenge, though some certainly make no secret of it. However, it’s common for attractive freshmen girls to get burned by a cad or two. They are indeed likely to conclude that “all guys want sex” and be wary of them.

      Of course, every girl would love to lock down the real thing – benevolent, brave, honorable alpha. They are rarely sighted.

      One would think that a mass delusion of pluralistic ignorance wouldn’t be sustainable for this long; Google, published studies, books, etc. should make that difficult, shouldn’t it?

      IDK – the big improvements in curtailing binge drinking by battling Pluralistic Ignorance around alcohol are quite recent. I’m aware of a couple of universities that are working on programs to apply the same principle to hookup culture. I’ve mentioned that Duke commissioned a large study of its own students to get their sense of it. 10% partake, but students think that 90% partake. These gaps are found again and again. This book is actually the first book I’ve seen exposing the reality and prescribing fixes.

      Of course, it may be that we simply have a mismatch between buyers and sellers. The products on offer do not appeal. It’s possible, but wow, quel disastre. That would mean assortative mating is gone, done, not happening. It would also bode very ill for the marriage rate even among the educated – if these people aren’t attracted to one another in college at the height of their sexual desire, it’s hard to imagine much of anyone getting married in years to come. This dystopic interpretation doesn’t strike me as even remotely likely, but I admit I do not have the answers.

      As promised, I’ll be looking for data on college relationships – we may learn that they’re just as common as they ever were, and that people who don’t have what they want are unhappy. Nothing new there either.

      What are your thoughts?

  • Just1Z

    @Susan

    Smiler’s point (I don’t have one of my own) is that the average male is a lot more LTR-oriented than the culture would have us believe, and that that information is not reaching either young males, i.e. “You’re not alone” or young females, “Most guys do want more than hit-it-and-quit-it sex .”

    That point seems reasonable to me FWIW.

    going back to the fishy list, that list looks fishy to me. either men have changed markedly (NAMALT), or there is something fishy about the questions being asked, or the environment…as I have said before, unless you know the exact questions that were asked and under what conditions they were asked, treat any results as fishy

  • Just1Z

    subliminal influence in action
    Derren Brown Mind Control | Animal Heaven | Channel 4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UpUcgPP-YY

    Derren turns the tables on a pair of advertising creatives… |

    and that is why you cannot dismiss the environment, and why social scientists are regarded with a jaundiced eye so often.

    265951

  • Johnycomelately

    Outside the Anglo world prostitution is a venerable institution, in Turkey, the Middle East, South East Asia, South America and central Europe it is the norm.

    So,
    15 % have 3+ partners annually
    70% are in LTR or looking for one
    15% aren’t getting any

    If that’s the case then people are having a lot less sex than is otherwise being inferred. Could it be that the lack of sex is driving hyper sexuality given that people not getting any are in a constant state of seeking it out?

    It certainly fits in with my anecdotal observations as I know reams of women in their late 20s and early 30s who have never had a boyfriend.

  • JP

    @J: “Not everyone is a Bible literalist or even expects others to be completely sinless. I think that many religious leaders expect that NO premarital sex is a concept more honored in its breach than in its observance.”

    I was profoundly bothered by the relatively liberal orientation of my church.

    Hey, I said, this is completely contrary to this founding document Bible thingy. I can read and perform my own textural analysis.

    So, I became a moral reactionary, in rebellion against my liberal church.

    And thus began my college adventure, an aggressive moral reactionary in the 1990′s.

    Granted, the fundamentalists didn’t like me because of my data-driven scientific approach (evolution, good!, science, good!, big bang theory, good!, technology, good!). And the non-fundamentalists didn’t like me because of my austere perfectionistic moral stance (fornication, evil! homosexuality, evil!, worldly pleasure (parties, rock music), evil!, militarism and war, evil!).

    Note: This isn’t actually a combination that exists anywhere in modern society as far as I can tell. Eventually, and fortunately for me, I mellowed a bit, although I still suffer from intermittent bouts of incohate moral anger.

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

    Yeah are you guys sure women want sex less then men? I mean 2/3rds of women have rape fantasies. I think it’s more likely they just don’t want what most men are offering in terms of sexual options.

    It might be more accurate to claim that while men want sex more frequently, they also desire shorter encounters, so that the average amount of time each sex wants to engage in sexual activities per week is about the same. Four hours a week seems a good baseline.

  • JP

    “Hmmm, I don’t think it is possible to be limerant with more than one person at a time. It’s the obsession with the one beloved that characterizes this state.”

    Limerance is distinctly monomaniacal (and involuntary).

  • Just1Z

    hmmm not cotwa..damned if I remember where I saw it.

  • Passer_By

    Hmmm, perhaps “limerance” was the wrong word – I see now in googling it that it’s considered a bit of an abnormality. I was simply referring to the intense high of the early stages (weeks or even months) of a new sexual relationship.

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

      @Passer By

      I was simply referring to the intense high of the early stages (weeks or even months) of a new sexual relationship.

      I’d like to know a little more about this. Is the intense high the same regardless of whether there is an emotional connection? Are the highs additive? IOW, if you begin three new sexual relationships one week apart, is the high during the two relationship week double the high of the one relationship week? And triple when it’s all three? Is there any point at which you think “enough already?” If a man begins to have feelings for one of these sexual partners, or falls in love, does that affect his level of desire for the other two?

      I imagine that male responses to these questions would vary across a spectrum.

  • Just1Z

    “It certainly fits in with my anecdotal observations as I know reams of women in their late 20s and early 30s who have never had a boyfriend.”

    hurrah, feminism has saved them from dominated by an agent of teh ebul patriarchy. hopefully these women can shank the feminists properly

  • Kirk

    “I’ve said it myself, usually due to a male’s sustaining eye contact for way too long and also for invading my personal space without knowing me. Some people just don’t have good boundaries, unfortunately. ”

    @Susan
    What constitutes “invading my personal space”? Does it include chatting up girls before class? If so, how else are non-greek guys supposed to meet women?

    I never make excessive eye contact/get in their face (my social anxiety prohibits it) and I don’t use any of that kino bs on women that I am meeting for the first time. Still, I frequently get hit with the “ugly creep” label (or some variation of it). : (

    It has now gotten to the point where random girls in my psych department give me nasty looks (and not the good kind of “nasty”). How do I fix my rep?

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

      @Kirk

      What constitutes “invading my personal space”? Does it include chatting up girls before class? If so, how else are non-greek guys supposed to meet women?

      It does not mean opening a conversation or other friendly approach. I mean literally moving too close to my body, way closer than stranger might usually stand apart. For example, I’ve had men place their faces just 2 or 3 inches from mine during conversation. This is intensely uncomfortable. I’ve also had men stand next to me so closely that we were touching at several points. This is also inappropriate. I believe some people just don’t have a good sense of the physical space people like to have around them in social settings. It doesn’t sound like you have that problem at all.

      It has now gotten to the point where random girls in my psych department give me nasty looks (and not the good kind of “nasty”). How do I fix my rep?

      If you are getting nasty looks I think it is safe to say that women feel threatened or alienated in some way. There has to be a reason. Just looking at your avatar, I’m struck by the rather glum expression. Why would you choose to represent yourself that way online? If that’s your default facial expression, I would definitely aim for a smile and an easygoing manner. My guess is that the social anxiety is coming across very clearly – and the best thing you can do for that is look into CBT – your school’s counseling center should have good resources, it’s a very common issue for college males.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “Others have suggested that the 80% not hooking up is abstaining because no one in their own cohort trips the attraction switch.”

    This was pretty much my experience in college. I can recall being actually attracted to about three girls during my sojurn there.

    And these weren’t the girls I ended up dating. That was purely due to my passivity.

  • Cooper

    @Kirk
    Go to class sporting your “Fuck You” face?

    I found that the “you creep!” look was definitely another way of communicating, as Susan said, “No sex! Get away from me!”

    It’s especially hurtful when you were, in fact, not thinking about sex, nor them particularly.

    Nonetheless, it was one of the things that made me start ignoring girls.

    I found that quite often girls wanted to me to check them out, but in the same vein they loved rolling their eyes, or giving me the creep-look, once I did. So I stopped playing that game.

    If any of you know me, I tend towards being fairly Black&White with things.
    I had to watch it cause I prefered the ignoring than rejection. I adopted tunnel vision. I had friends say “I saw ya in such n such building, tried calling your name, you were in your own world not noticing shit” or “did you notice I was behind in the caf line?” Me: “nope.”
    Since I’m not living on campus, or there often (where I got tons of this), I have started to correct this behavoir. But, I still do have a tendency to just keep my eyes to myself.

  • Dale

    I had women not marry me when I proposed, because I had not slept with them (I was a virgin). A lot of others did not have more than one or two dates because I did not sleep with them.

  • JP

    “Are the highs additive? IOW, if you begin three new sexual relationships one week apart, is the high during the two relationship week double the high of the one relationship week? And triple when it’s all three? Is there any point at which you think “enough already?” If a man begins to have feelings for one of these sexual partners, or falls in love, does that affect his level of desire for the other two?”

    If you add cocaine to the three-woman mix, do you completely short out your entire dopamine system and subsequently crash into a deep pit of despair from which it feels like there is no escape?

  • JP

    “My guess is that the social anxiety is coming across very clearly – and the best thing you can do for that is look into CBT – your school’s counseling center should have good resources, it’s a very common issue for college males.”

    I recommend dealing with social anxiety/depression issues rather than ignoring them and having a horrible college experience.

  • JP

    How did this hookup weirdness get started in the first place?

    It didn’t go from somewhat normal to completely dysfunctional overnight.

    So, what happened?

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    “Is the intense high the same regardless of whether there is an emotional connection?”

    I would say it’s predicated on it.

    ” Are the highs additive?”

    no

    ” IOW, if you begin three new sexual relationships one week apart, is the high during the two relationship week double the high of the one relationship week? And triple when it’s all three?”

    Well, I think more would be better than less, but there is diminishing returns. two is not double one, etc.

    ” Is there any point at which you think “enough already?””

    Well, yeah. Look, I can’t say I did this a lot – it was a fairly short period of time (and obviously between wives, lol). I’m just thinking back on it. The “enough already” for me was the ultimate disappointment for them if it didn’t turn into an exclusive LTR, although I may have assumed too much when I cut it off because I felt they wouldn’t want to continue with a relationship where I was seeing multiple people. I know in one case I did assume too much and she understood she wouldn’t be the one and only and that she preferred that to breaking it off, but the blue piller in me just didn’t take it seriously and I felt I would be doing her a disservice. It was also a lot of work and time for a guy who was working 60 hours per week.

    “If a man begins to have feelings for one of these sexual partners, or falls in love, does that affect his level of desire for the other two?”

    I think he would have feelings for all, to varying degrees. I’m sure guys would differ, but, other than the desire not to hurt someone, I could very easily have desire and intense feelings for 3 or 4 at once. I think many men are capable of loving multiple women at once (I suppose some women are as well, but not as many). I note that in polygynous societies, those men with the opportunity to have multiple wives typically take advantage of it. But I think it’s likely that he will develop more intense feelings for one and, consequently, become more protective of her feelings.

    “I imagine that male responses to these questions would vary across a spectrum.”

    Yes, I think it would. And, look, I’m not advocating it as a lifestyle like that Doug guy – I think it’s bad for society. But this is sort of a thread about fundamental male desire regarding sex partners, assuming all other factors (the partners’ happiness being one) are held equal.

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

      But this is sort of a thread about fundamental male desire regarding sex partners, assuming all other factors (the partners’ happiness being one) are held equal.

      Thanks I appreciate your honest response. I really am trying to grok it – women are sooooo different. No judgment – as you know I wouldn’t change a thing. If men were different (and more like us) I am convinced we would like them less.

  • Passer_By

    Dale:

    Just thinking out loud here, but, next time, I would suggest sleeping with her. It’s really not all that bad – pretty fun, actually. Try it – you’ll like it!

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

    @Thras

    More generally, there are MANY other studies that show a much greater male taste for sexual variety than Smiler suggests. I identified a few of them in an earlier thread.

    Still awaiting feedback here:
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/10/23/whatguyswant/restricted-vs-unrestricted-sociosexuality-what-does-it-mean/
    #96, 106

  • Lokland

    @Just1Z

    “I’m sure that I could still be married, all I would have had to do was hand over my balls. Her father did it, I’m sure that she was just following her mummy’s path. Girls don’t only grow to look like their mothers…lmao”

    Lol. Your probably lucky then.

    Yes, its actually sickening to watch after post red pill.
    Literally don’t even have to be eviscerated by others they do it completely of their own broken will.

  • Passer_By

    Whoops, sorry, I misread your question.

    “” Are the highs additive?””

    I thought this said “Are the highs addictive?” lol

    No, they weren’t addictive, but to some degree, they were additive (in that 2 was better than 1, and 3 was better than 2), though there is obviously diminishing returns and the problem of burning the candle at both ends. I would bet that dude in Sister Wives must be happy as a pig in slop, assuming he finds those women attractive and assuming they all have a good sex drive. I don’t find them very attractive, though one is bangable and one or two others might be if they dropped some weight (one has a full on FUPA and I don’t know how she competes with the others, assuming she wants to).

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “I did not say that men want relationships as much as women do. (Nor did Smiler.)

    I did not say that men want the same number of sexual partners as women do. (Nor did Smiler.)

    I did not say that all men want relationships. (Nor did Smiler.)

    I did not say that no men want sex with as many different women as possible. (Nor did Smiler.)”

    No but you have certainly been implying it.
    I’m not into happy dances over nothing and most definitely not into it over something thats inherently not true (whether that be stated directly or not).

    Your first point was to say that men are MORE into relationships than society thinks, without providing a degree of difference, its entirely open to interpretation. I doubt most people will read that without projecting a massive amount of personal priority onto that list. Players and single women alike, neither will be better off for assuming its worse than/ better than it actually is.

    The last two of your points, all or none statements are useless. The equivalent of sensationalism, I would never argue those points. You know that.

    Your second point. Kool, I don’t think you said that. And frankly the two major groups are 70% women, 50% men, 1 partner over the next 30 years. Seems close enough for government work.

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

    @OTC

    Define “easily”. Prostitution is illegal, underground, carries widespread shame (as opposed to marijuana), costs a LOT of money for a person making minimum wage, and is flat out cost prohibitive for a man with any normal sex drive. You’re off your rocker here.

    No, she’s not. I’m afraid you’re factually incorrect for the most part. Starting around 1990, law enforcement all across the country made a concerted effort to eliminate prostitution from the public space. As a result, today about 85% of prostitution is believed to be entirely “indoors”. And it isn’t confined to brothels at all, but predominantly online escorts, massage parlors, etc. where there’s plenty of cover to plead ignorance. Additionally, law enforcement has turned a blind eye to rooting out these new trends, or maybe it’s just harder to do, short of token raids (i.e. Maine fitness clubs) and emphasizing stopping human trafficking, which typically involves underage girls from abroad.

    The cost isn’t very high at all for a roll in the hay with an ostensibly “hot” young woman (they ain’t) in these “safer” venues. Even a college guy working part-time could afford a few hundred dollars (sometimes less) if he wanted to once in awhile. But only 10% of guys admit to paying for sex. Unfortunately, I’ve got some personal knowledge of this phenomenon, in college specifically. Times have definitely changed…

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    Pardon, I’m being rude and argumentative.
    I’m not in a pleasant mood.

    Feel free to delete my comments.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Cooper’s stories are just depressing to read. All the pointless dramatic bullshit, the games, the complete disinterest in understanding and the obsession to use people as a stepping stools to prove dominance.

    You’re giving me some college flashbacks, bro, lol.

    Last night I cooked up some African Chicken, then went out to drink beers with the guys and watch the Bears get crushed. Still was a fun night, nice reunion.

    This morning I woke to my GF emailing me a sexy picture and saying “I want to try this!” Went to work, served the chicken, everyone loved it and got special compliments from a guy who happened to be from that particular country. Talked to the bosses, now going on a business trip next week, getting an early night.

    Tomorrow I am going bowling with co-workers, eating filet, and going to see my GF, who is driving 4 hours to see me.

    Life’s good now.

    Thank the fucking Lord college ended.

  • Dale

    @Passer_By
    My wife would object. The relationships were 1980 and 1983; both are married to other guys now.

  • Escoffier

    I don’t think the highs are addictive. I think they are the opposite. You plunge in thinking it’s what you’ve always wanted but the more you do it, the less you want to.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    You normally make sense Mega, but now you sound crazy.

    It is illegal where I live, I have no clue where to buy it, and I don’t know a single person who ever has hired one openly, and when I was in college could not afford it at the frequency I had it for me. Hell, I have only been to a strip club once, for a bachelor party. Maybe you can show me around a bit?

    Sex with a hooker might be interesting as a one-off, but damn, as one of those purported “unrestricted” people it sounds revolting to NEED it regularly. I like women who like me for free. Why would I pay?

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

    Susan, my thoughts on this are admittedly reductionist. I think that the male-female ratio on campus is, vis-a-vis some kind of Guttentag-Secord dynamic, the primary driver of the hook-up culture. I guess that one way to test this would be to establish if “hook-up culture intensity” rises with an increasingly female-lopsided gender ratio.

    This is simplistic, but I believe that traditional dating and courtship would return if we saw, say, a 60/40 male-female ratio on campus, as there would be shortages of available women that would force men into more elaborate displays of investment and commitment.

    At the same time, it would decrease female intrasexual competition and it would probably be indicative of a larger societal shift away from the “female breadwinner” trajectory that we are currently on, and towards a traditional male breadwinner arrangement. This might mean that women were more amenable to the idea of finding a future husband during college and then allowing his career or grad school to dominate their plans for the immediate future. I realize that arguments can be made for or against the social benefits of this outcome; I’m not advocating one position or another right now.

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      I did a little research on the history of college sex ratios. I had to use a bunch of different sources but they look approximately like this:

      1972: 43F, 57M

      1975: 50F, 50M

      1995: 52F, 48M

      1999: 57.5F, 42.5M

      2010: 57.4F, 42.6M

      projected 2019: 59F, 41M

      In the simplest terms, hookup culture reflects the same forces that contribute to the lopsided sex ratio:

      The introduction of the Pill in 1960
      + The Women’s Movement (Note the jump from ’72 to ’75!)
      ——————————————————–
      Sexual Revolution

      + The demise of in loco parentis in the early 90s throughout the land, which ushered in coed dorms and no policing of underage drinking.

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

    @OTC

    Hell, I have only been to a strip club once, for a bachelor party. Maybe you can show me around a bit?

    Same here, and it was supposedly a higher-class joint than the average dingy cesspool. Even that was pretty sad. The girls really go overboard in their ($ incentive) “compliments”. Pretty transparent stuff. There’s certainly no substitute for genuine interest. Sort of related, a fair number of better-looking college girls probably pay their tuition by working at the clubs, or even as escorts. :sad:

    I’m not crazy, though. You’re just a little behind the times, chock it up to age. I take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, but they’re spot on: The internet has become the main medium through which customers find their desired escort. The law hasn’t been able to keep up with new technology, and have given up enforcement for the most part.

    It’s literally easier for an average guy to get some this way than by trying to “hook up”. But most don’t, either out of ego or disinterest, which tends to support Smiler’s argument. I was actually pressured to go this route back in college, by a couple of decidedly “alpha” guys. Declined.

  • Emily

    >> “The sweet spot for male SMV is 28. 35 is well past it, physically speaking.”

    Yeah, this whole idea that men peak at 35+ is only true for the “top” men. Girls generally won’t go for guys who are much older unless the guy is rich.

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

      @Emily

      Yeah, this whole idea that men peak at 35+ is only true for the “top” men. Girls generally won’t go for guys who are much older unless the guy is rich.

      Men and women age at the same rate. To the extent that men do better in attracting the opposite sex as they age, they can thank:

      Women’s valuing factors other than looks.

      No fertility deadline (although scientists recently discovered that genetic mutations increase rapidly in males during their 30s, explaining the majority of birth defects).

      The decline in attractiveness between a 28 year old and a 35 year old male is significant:

      Age 28:

      bp

      Age 35, still gorgeous but aging and not as hot:

      bp1

      And today, at age 49, literally looking like an old goat:

      bp2

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    J, college is the pulling away phase. Let them separate a bit and continue to be there, but start to develop that adult-adult respect relationship. They’ll come back if you were at all good parents. :P My husband did the same thing in his late teens and early 20s. But now we even see his dad once a week, and he was the “bad” parent.

    Aidan is doing great. He caught up to 50th percentile for weight, height and head, and smiles several times a day. :)

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    BB, gender ratios play a role, but as do female choices and actions. You are sort of engaging in a bit of apex fallacy, as many guys in college don’t receive female attention.

    Every girl knows where to find favorable ratios — hardcore STEM subjects and video games. There just isn’t much effort toward going there. The few nerdy girls around actually have so much attention that they can get a rep for being promiscuous, too.

    As a restricted nerdy girl, I got many relationship offers. I would tell girls who say they have problems getting relationships to go for nerdy guys, especially in video games, where 90%+ of guys in their 20s spend time each week. They didn’t really take me up on it.

  • http://bradtalk.blogspot.com BradA

    Any study/survey/whatever which has “looks” at #9 for what men want out of women is way out in left field, as has been noted. Everything else is quite suspect from that point.

    Physical attraction is an absolute necessity or all the unattractive women would not be alone. I know, lots of factors, but men are stimulated by sight and denying that is ludicrous.

    You can believe what you want to believe, but that stretches credibility.

  • Just1Z

    How might you get a survey saying that looks are #9 on the priority list for men?

    You want to do a survey of males on campus

    These men are smart and are fully aware of the feminist view on sexuality. They are surrounded by BS posters implying all men are rapists, 1in3 etc.

    Your cheapest source of labour to carry out the survey? social science UGs

    What sex are they predominantly? women

    Where are they likely to lie on the feminist – unpoliticised spectrum? feminist

    So…when a smart guy is approached by a feminist asking questions around sexuality, just what is his motivation for telling the truth?

    There’s no anonymity if the inquisitor and the accused both spend lots of time on campus.

    There’s no motivation to tell the truth, there’re are plenty of reasons to feed the ‘required’ pap answers, then head off to a bar with your mates for a laugh.

    Now, how was the ‘#9′ survey carried out?
    was it in a scientific manner, or a social scientific manner (as described above)?

    We need to know before we judge the results.

    ———————-

    And then we get to put an unfamiliar spin on a Roissy favourite;
    Don’t listen to what men say, watch what they do…

    Just where are the ugly women complaining that they are incessantly pestered for sex due to their qualities, viz
    1. Funny
    2. Nice
    3. Outgoing
    4. Understanding of others
    5. Decisive
    6. Self-confident

    ———————-

    Clearly the take home message from reality shows is that bitchier, more arrogant, hotter the better.

    ———————-

    That list is whacked. And it throws into question the valifity of the whole book. Some of it could be right, other bits not, that is not how science is supposed to be done.

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

      That list is whacked. And it throws into question the valifity of the whole book. Some of it could be right, other bits not, that is not how science is supposed to be done.

      The list is a result of interviews, but put that aside if you like. As noted earlier, the book has over 500 footnotes referencing other studies. The most reliable survey is one done since 1939. Here’s the New York Times article where you can find a link to the graphic:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/marriage-suits-educated-women.html?pagewanted=all

      Men are asked to rank 18 traits for prospective wives in order of importance. The 2008 results:

      1. Mutual attraction, love
      2. Dependable character
      3. Emotional stability, maturity
      4. Education, intelligence
      5. Pleasing disposition
      6. Sociability
      7. Good health
      8. Good looks
      9. Desire for home and children
      10. Ambition and industriousness
      11. Refinement, neatness
      12. Good financial prospect
      13. Good cook, housekeeper
      14. Similar education, background
      15. Favorable social status
      16. Similar religious background
      17. Similar political background
      18. Chastity

      You have every right but no basis to disagree.

      FWIW, here’s the female list of what they want in a man:

      1. Mutual attraction, love
      2. Dependable character
      3. Emotional stability, maturity
      4. Desire for home and children
      5. Education, intelligence
      6. Sociability
      7. Pleasing disposition
      8. Ambition and industriousness
      9. Good health
      10. Good financial prospect
      11. Similar education background
      12. Good looks
      13. Refinement, neatness
      14. Similar religious background
      15. Good cook, housekeeper
      16. Favorable social status
      17. Similar political background
      18. Chastity

  • HanSolo

    In ranking the various attributes, they gave each a 0-3 rating. They didn’t rate each 1 through 18 or whatever.

    I don’t believe looks is the 9th most important factor for men. If you asked to name and order in terms of importance the top 5 important things in a woman so that they just said whatever came to mind I bet looks would rank higher than 9th.

    However, I could understand how this could arise in this survey. Most of the men would presumably be pretty average and so you get enough of them putting 0, 1, or 2 instead of 3 because the women they would likely get would be pretty average too and it doesn’t matter how much importance they put on it because they don’t have the ability to get a more attractive woman anyway.

    Also, for each of the attributes, a weighting of how important that is was not asked. So even if everyone thinks that it would be nice for every girl to be funny, it may actually not be that important in the overall “formula” that pushes his overall attraction buttons. The fact that funny is #1 seems odd too. I have never met a guy who says the most important thing in a girl is if she’s funny. I have talked with many girls who state that as a top or the top thing they like in a guy.

    Anyway, that doesn’t take away from the overall gist of this post, that most men would prefer sex with a loved and loving girlfriend over casual.

  • HanSolo

    @Just1Z

    If the study wasn’t really anonymous but you fill out a sheet and give it to someone (especially if she’s female) then you would be more likely to water down how important looks are to you.

    Do we know how this survey was conducted?

  • HanSolo

    Also, “mutual attraction love” is listed as number 1 and “good looks” is number 9. Now just what is triggering that attraction and love that the man is feeling? Well, part of it is right there: “attraction.” And that’s going to be based on her looks. Notice that #9 isn’t “looks” but “good looks.” Many of the men surveyed likely felt that getting someone with good looks, say an 8+ was unrealistic so they would give that a lower ranking. However, if you gave the choice, “sufficiently physically attractive” (which I think is much closer to how men really think, with the definition of sufficiently varying from man to man) that that would have been much nearer the top.

  • HanSolo

    Meant to say, “And that’s going to be strongly but not exclusively based on her looks.”

  • HanSolo

    “Mutual attraction love” is a more PC way for men to say that attraction, partially and even strongly based on looks is very important. Of course, attraction is not the only thing getting the #1 average of the 0-3 rankings. Love and mutual are the other two words listed.

  • mr. wavevector

    @Bastiat Blogger

    I don’t really understand why the market isn’t clearing.

    To Susan’s explanations at #217 of a lack of script and pluralistic ignorance, I will add another: feminist FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) that poisons the relationship between the sexes. A good example of this was expressed by a young woman I was discussing with at the Atlantic “Lysistrata” piece:

    You know, I don’t think it’s so much that women ‘don’t want to do’ those things [feminine behaviors] anymore. I mean, you’re never going to get back to an 1800s-style level of feminine submissiveness and vulnerability – that was artificially imposed and quite demeaning – but there are differences between the sexes, and I think a lot of women’s natural inclination is to be the more nurturing and submissive one of a pair. The difficulty is that those same qualities are big liabilities in the world outside the mating game – after all, to stand on our own two feet, a healthy dose of self-interest and assertiveness are key; and even when you’ve made a deal to provide childcare and emotional support in return for financial support, you never know when you might suddenly need to be self-supporting.

    Here we see the elements of feminist indoctrination – the historical caricature of the female role, the apotheosis of independence, the negative depiction of feminine behaviors as “big liabilities”, and the stoking of female fears of betrayal and abandonment.

    The conflict this young woman feels is expressed quite poignantly in this sentence:

    But I know that as a girl, I am torn between wanting to be what men want me to be, and knowing that by doing so I would be putting my future at huge, huge risk.

    She understands the appeal of her femininity to men, and she wants to act on it too, but she is prevented from doing so by the FUD which rules her conscious decision making.

    FUD is a well-used tactic in business intended specifically to prevent a market from clearing when the efficient market operation would be against the interests of the party employing the FUD. Heterosexual marriage has long been opposed by many feminists, both radical and mainstream, because they view it as the seat of patriarchal power. What better way to interfere with marriage than to poison the dating well?

  • mr. wavevector

    But why would these capabilities ever have been lost? The men who seem to be suffering are also the ones who would seem to have had fathers around to keep these skills alive.

    I share your puzzlement re the role of fathers – I don’t understand how men got so “betaized.” Guys here blame their mothers and teachers, but when I’ve asked about fathers I haven’t gotten good information.

    Fathers were indoctrinated with the idea that male dominance is a very bad thing, and that their wives are their moral and intellectual superiors. Most men do not have a conscious understanding of how the two sexes interrelate -they just follow the script. The fathers of this generation had the script torn up and thrown away. In their confusion, feeling put down and outranked and not wanting to do harm, they retreated to submissive passivity. As Lockland put it:

    “Don’t want to piss the wife off, She’s the boss, I let her make the decisions, I do what she wants” etc.

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

    Hope, re: apex fallacy. Yes, I agree completely: the benefits of the lopsided sex ratio go mainly to a small % of men, who enjoy both A) sexual relationships on their terms (usually quite cost-effective for them) and B) an impact footprint that apparently extends well beyond the radius of women they are actually bedding and which “ties up” other women on the perimeter, who would rather get nothing than have relationships with the larger % of men outside of the hook-up maelstrom.

    Paradoxically, the average man may have had a better chance of having an LTR if the sex ratio was more balanced, since there would be incentives under that regime for the current hook-up SMP winners to settle down. But of course this involves a hypergamy/female intrasexual competition/female “Tiger Beat” mob behavior-inclination (wherein young women are attracted to men that other women find attractive in a self-reinforcing, autopilot sort of way) discussion that I didn’t want to even attempt to get into here.

    Mr Wavevector: fascinating stuff. Please continue this exposition; I feel that it captures an important tension between the feminist goal of a nation of empowered female breadwinners and the more traditional female goal of being in a high-quality relationship with a stable, provisioning man and at least having the option of emphasizing the parenting and nest-building roles in that domestic partnership. That traditional goal has become the lamb to the slaughter as society engages in a massive, leveraged directional bet on female breadwinners.

  • JP

    Gender dynamics of law school *overproduction*.

    “Clearly, the fact that law schools have produced an enormous oversupply of people with law degrees over the course of the last generation has an extremely significant gender component. These statistics raise all sorts of questions, and in particular this one: To what extent has legal academia’s over-expansion depended on the exploitation of the career aspirations of women in particular? Note that there’s all sorts of evidence that egalitarian gender practices in regard to law school admissions have had a remarkably muted effect in regard to making law less of a male-dominated profession (For example, 35 years after women started going to law school in numbers not much smaller than men, 85% of the partners and 95% of the managing partners at large law firms are men).

    Have law schools managed to expand far beyond the actual economic demand for law degrees in large part because of an always unstated and usually unconscious assumption that comparatively large numbers of women law graduates would drop out of the profession within a few years of graduation? One of the very few longitudinal studies of law graduate career paths suggests strongly this is the case. This study of the University of Virginia Law School class of 1990 found that while, 17 years after graduation, 98.7% of the men who responded to the survey were working full-time, approximately 63% of the women respondents who had had at least one child were not practicing law full-time. (By contrast, there was literally no correlation between the number of children a man had had and the likelihood that he would be employed full-time).”

    http://insidethelawschoolscam.blogspot.com/2012/11/gender-dynamics-of-law-graduate.html

  • mr. wavevector

    Ironically, I consistently find that the most vociferous opponents to something as “beta” as a relationship are the beta guys themselves.

    Some guesses why:
    1) They are rationalizing their own lack of success in relationships with women.
    2) They have a committed belief in Game as the solution to their women problems.
    3) They feel disadvantaged in the SMP and wish to use the denial of relationships as a means to gain leverage.
    4) They have been influenced by MRA FUD.

    MRA FUD is a corollary to the feminist FUD mentioned in #283. MRAs see men disadvantaged in family court (a legitimate concern I believe) and have spread a fear of the worst-case outcomes of relationships and marriage. Their goal is to help men avoid these bad outcomes – and it may be true that the risk of marriage outweighs the benefits for many men. But ironically, they are furthering the feminist agenda to poison the relationships between the sexes.

  • Just1Z

    @Han
    some cool points you made there. hope that you weren’t waiting for an argument.

    true anonymity is pretty much impossible to guarantee. decades ago counter-espionage was using deliberate changes in microspacing between printed characters to identify each copy of an ‘identical’ document. If you are sent a copy of a document then there are multiple ways of marking which response came from which recipient. And that was before the days of powerful computers and laser printers.

    the last election that I voted in (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England_and_Wales_Police_and_Crime_Commissioner_elections,_2012) I walked into the polling station at a random time (which was not noted – the lady just put a line through my name), I received a copy of the ballot paper off the top of the pad and placed it in the ballot box personally. that was pretty anonymous, but then nobody really cared about the results. nor who voted for whom.

  • mr. wavevector
  • Ted D

    “Ironically, I consistently find that the most vociferous opponents to something as “beta” as a relationship are the beta guys themselves.”

    Really? I’d say that most of the guys voicing contrary opinions to the article are a mix. Mike C is no run of the mill beta, and Lokland is probably somewhere between beta/alpha mix.

    The only reason I’m ‘defending’ this book in any way is it resonates with me to be honest. I’ll agree that looks at #9 strikes me as odd, but I’ll also concede that perhaps there is a reason for that low ranking.

    Looking back, none of my LTR mates were model hot, but none of them were trolls either. They met my minimum standard for looks (which isn’t all that high to be honest) but I found them more attractive once I got to know them. And to an extent, they continued to be very attractive to me as the relationship grew.

    I don’t want to write my usual book here. I’ll say this: the general viewpoint of the book (I haven’t read it yet so I’m basing this opinion on info here at HUS) resonates with me, and I believe I know many young men with a similar mindset. Now we can argue if it is TRULY their mindset or if it is the result of a “feminized society”, but I honestly believe that it represents a large number of average guys.

    For the men that think its bunk I’d say that perhaps it simply proves that we have work to do. Not to turn young men into cads, but to give them the full picture, so they can make good decisions about their own lives and future families, if they decide to have them.

    For the women here that like what they are reading: IF you want relationships, marriage, and family, here is all you need to know. There are men out there looking for it. The fact that you can’t seem to land one should be your wake-up call as well. Perhaps you send out the wrong vibe, or don’t send out any vibes at all. Maybe you should put a little more effort into being the kind of woman these men are looking for, or perhaps you’d rather put all that off a few more years and finish school. If so, do it, but be aware that your actions today WILL affect HIS actions a few years from now, when you finally meet your husband to be.

    For both, be true to yourself over everyone else. You know if you want casual sex, or a meaningful relationship. Don’t sacrifice your true desires for one night of fun, or to fit in, or to risk it all in the hopes some sex will turn into “tru luv”. Be smart. Be self aware. Be vigilant.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan & Mr Wavevector

    I believe that most MRAs state that men ought to weigh up the pros and cons of relationships (all types) in the full knowledge of the facts.
    e.g.
    family courts (as you so wisely pointed out MrWV).
    cohabiting being taken for defacto marriage.
    taking parental responsibility for a step-kid leading to child maintainence orders.
    being gaoled for not being able to meet court ordered payments that fail to reflect financial realities. then re-gaoled when the resulting prison record stops you getting another job. there’s money to be made running gaols, gaols need prisoners, lawyers need clients, ‘experts’ need consultations etc

    That’s not beta, that’s common sense.

    Whether that attitude furthers femtard agendas is neither here, nor there.

    Men should not care more about society than society cares about them – to do otherwise in the current environment makes one a sucker.

    ———

    (not really towards Susan or Mr Wavevector)

    If society wants to ‘correct’ its perceived problems with male behaviour in society, why not stop shaming such men as man-boys, betas, ‘guys’, basement dwellers – not least because it isn’t working anymore.

    How about trying to address those issues – I double dare you society.

    Part of the red-pill is doing what every other part of society does;
    asking what is in it for me?

    most ‘betas’ have been very poor at doing this, but hey, the manosphere is here to get them to man-up in their own interests not society’s.

    Just a thought

  • Escoffier

    BB, it can’t simply be the lopsided ratios. We’ve had lopsided ratios in other situations before, for instance in WW2 when most of the marriage-age men were overseas, and we didn’t quite get the lurid carnival we have now. Infidelity, fornication, illegitimacy all went up during that period, but from a very low base and not the extent of the mess we have now. Virtue+sanctions were still in place to check bad behavior. The extraordinary times caused pathology levels to rise, but only a little because our “mores” were still strong enough to resist a total collapse of all standards and behavior.

  • Just1Z

    @Ted
    “The only reason I’m ‘defending’ this book in any way is it resonates with me to be honest. I’ll agree that looks at #9 strikes me as odd, but I’ll also concede that perhaps there is a reason for that low ranking.”

    I think that Han gave an explanation (or at least a contributing factor at #278) for that position. They asked guys to value certain things independantly, then the ‘researchers’ ranked those results by strength.

    Now, that is not how I would go about producing a prioritised list of what men want.

    Call me crazy if you wish, but if that list was what I desired, I might just ask the guys to rank their importance…but then I’m not a social scientits, I just have a casual interest that doesn’t extend to reading this guy’s book.

    Susan’s post is interesting, and if what she says is his central contention is accurate, well, I think that it’s plausible. (something like; Men being more interested in relationships than urban legend has it)

  • Just1Z

    @Susan

    “Actually, that reminds me of a scene in True Blood, where a community of feral females holds Jason prisoner so they can have sex with him and get his genes. He writhes in agony and begs for mercy even as his penis cooperates.”

    How strange, sounds like a gang rape scene on mainstream tv. I guess that there was outrage, people fired etc…*tumbleweeds*

    I guess some double standards are acceptable to society. Sounds fucked up to me, just saying

  • mr. wavevector

    More insights from this paper.

    Lichter et al. (1995) documented that in lower sex
    ratio contexts women do not marry men of a lower mate value, indicating that, despite being in greater
    demand, men may still not be able to actualize their more stringent mating preferences. This is
    consistent with the current results for women, as although previous research indicates that men and
    women engage in more short-term mating behavior in lower sex ratio societies (Schmitt, 2005), women
    do not decrease, but rather increase, their mate preference standards in this context.

    In response to an environment with more women than men, this research found that women actually increase their expectations of an LTR for similar educational background, refinement/neatness, good financial prospect, emotional stability and maturity, and mutual attraction / love. The only thing they relax is their demand for male chastity. The authors conclude:

    women also appear to be motivated by a psychological defensive
    mechanism that may have co-evolved to protect them from being misled by men with short-term
    relationship intentions

    My conclusion: this result explains both the increase of hookups and the decrease in serious dating in the college scene. Men interested in LTRs should be able to do well if they use “relationship game” to distinguish themselves from the players, both the real ones and the wanna-be’s.

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

      @mr. wavevector

      Lichter et al. (1995) documented that in lower sex
      ratio contexts women do not marry men of a lower mate value, indicating that, despite being in greater
      demand, men may still not be able to actualize their more stringent mating preferences. This is
      consistent with the current results for women, as although previous research indicates that men and
      women engage in more short-term mating behavior in lower sex ratio societies (Schmitt, 2005), women
      do not decrease, but rather increase, their mate preference standards in this context.

      This is hypergamy in its purest form – women will not marry men with lower status than themselves. There have been some researchers asking how the lopsided sex ratios in college will affect marriage for the educated, and whether women will become less hypergamous to attain the goal of marriage and family. Personally, I don’t see it. For all the talk of men avoiding marriage (not true in the educated cohort anyway), there are going to be many women who don’t marry because “all the marriageable men are taken,” referring specifically to education/status.

  • Just1Z

    The orgasm ball device in ‘Sleeper’
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAKWKfVcd04

    Woody Allen disguised as a robot

  • Ted D

    Just1Z – “Call me crazy if you wish, but if that list was what I desired, I might just ask the guys to rank their importance…but then I’m not a social scientits, I just have a casual interest that doesn’t extend to reading this guy’s book.”

    You’re crazy! :P

    Nah I agree with you about the “research”, but I haven’t read the book yet and haven’t looked at any data sources, so I’m just going on what has been posted here. Is it questionable? Perhaps. But I also don’t believe it is entirely inaccurate either. I know men around the age of 18-20 that fit the description pretty well. Not many, and I only know them through my daughter and her friends, so there is probably some selection bias. (She really goes for the beta(ish) STEM guys, Lord help her. LOL)

    I’m not really taking a side here, other than to say that this stuff clicks with me a great deal. I fully believe that I am a minority in many ways, but perhaps my general attitude is more the “norm” than I believe. Does that mean I’m deluding myself? Well I did for most of my life, so there is certainly some truth to that statement. But I don’t think I’m deluding myself anymore, and I still want the same things I did as a clueless submissive husband. I want a deep and meaningful relationship with a woman, the thing is, to get and keep one, I had to change a lot of false ‘programming’ so I don’t mess it up a second time. But, none of those changes are making me want a deep and meaningful relationship any less. I’m simply getting better at managing one, so I can keep it long term.

    Truth is, many men simply want one woman to spend the rest of their life with. I can’t say if that is a bad or good thing, but just like many other things in life, it simply is. Even if I lose another 50lbs and start making more money (or win the lottery!) I have no intention of “sowing my oats” or even “trading in” for a younger model. I’ve found my woman, and no matter what my SMV is, or how much better I might be able to pull, I’m happy with her. I don’t think I’m alone, or even in the minority with this sentiment.

  • mr. wavevector

    @Just1Z;

    Men should not care more about society than society cares about them – to do otherwise in the current environment makes one a sucker.

    I agree that society’s indifference (at best) or outright hostility (at worst) towards men gives men precious little incentive to make society better.

    @Escoffier;

    We’ve had lopsided ratios in other situations before, for instance in WW2 when most of the marriage-age men were overseas, and we didn’t quite get the lurid carnival we have now.

    What I find interesting is the swing towards supposedly female-oriented values after WW2; committed relationships, widespread virginity, faithful partners, and early marriage. The classical sex ratio theory would indicate that this would occur when there are fewer females than males, but presumably after WW2 there were fewer males, since many young men were killed or maimed in the war. An alternative hypothesis is that women responded to the shortage of men during the war and the economic difficulties preceding by “selling” marriage under favorable terms to men – hence the “1950′s housewife”.

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

      @mr. wavevector

      What I find interesting is the swing towards supposedly female-oriented values after WW2; committed relationships, widespread virginity, faithful partners, and early marriage.

      Marriage was a laudable, noble goal at that time, and was generally delayed until a man had the resources to be a provider. After WWII, tons of men went to college on the GI bill, met their wives there, and sailed into an era of prosperity newly married. Status was derived in that era from having a “steady” mate of high value. When men felt they had achieved that, they were happy to commit.

  • Sai

    @Susan
    “Actually, that reminds me of a scene in True Blood, where a community of feral females holds Jason prisoner so they can have sex with him and get his genes. He writhes in agony and begs for mercy even as his penis cooperates.”
    One woman does this to the protagonist of Peter Benchley’s “The Island.” I liked “Jaws” and “White Shark” and expected to like that one too, but I didn’t like it at all and didn’t even have the guts to tell anybody exactly why not.

    @JP
    “I recommend dealing with social anxiety/depression issues rather than ignoring them and having a horrible college experience.”
    +100
    It’s not a mosquito bite, it won’t go away by itself.

    @mr. wavevector
    “and even when you’ve made a deal to provide childcare and emotional support in return for financial support, you never know when you might suddenly need to be self-supporting.”
    I’m guilty of this… Sometimes there’s a voice asking “what if he dies?” Thank goodness for HUS, because it used to be “what if he leaves you or dies?” but people here have explained that most men won’t leave a non-lousy wife.

    @Just1Z
    “I believe that most MRAs state that men ought to weigh up the pros and cons of relationships (all types) in the full knowledge of the facts.”
    +1
    Everybody should do this about any big decision, especially the men because they will be blamed (unfairly) if it goes pear-shaped.

  • Maggie

    @Mr. Wavevector
    “even when you’ve made a deal to provide childcare and emotional support in return for financial support, you never know when you might suddenly need to be self-supporting”

    This is prudent. Both men and women need to be self-supporting because you don’t know what curves will be thrown at you: layoffs, illness, death, etc. My sister had to become the main support for her family when he husband became disabled at a young age. She doesn’t have a college degree and it’s been a real struggle for her just to get by.

    I’m insisting that my daughter get a minimum of a college degree, and even that’s no guarantee she’ll get a job where she’ll be self-supporting. This has nothing to do with a feminist agenda, it’s because I don’t want to see her barely making it paycheck to paycheck.

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

    @SW

    I realized in thinking about it, though, that Smiler is also saying something the manosphere also says, which is that men have been shamed for their sexuality to the point where they are always under suspicion as potential rapists.

    How so? Just curious, having not read the book. Olive made an excellent point earlier, but it sounds like they’re being shamed (by society? by other men?) for wanting sex in a monogamous, committed context. Essentially, the hookup scene shames everybody, women too, who express a preference for that…

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

      @Megaman

      How so? Just curious, having not read the book. Olive made an excellent point earlier, but it sounds like they’re being shamed (by society? by other men?) for wanting sex in a monogamous, committed context.

      Sorry, I worded that poorly earlier. What we’ve done is promote the Casanova or Player type as a male ideal in the culture. The guy who wants sex and nothing but sex with as many women as possible, he discards women like condoms and never settles down. The nature of his sexuality is such that it is his life’s purpose. This has led to a widespread belief that male sexuality is barely controlled at all times. The popular meme that guys think about sex every 7 seconds or whatever is just one example. Even women who feel pretty sexual themselves might find this level of sexuality in the male both alarming and disappointing, as she feels both threatened now, and doubtful about monogamy in future.

      The natural outgrowth of this perception is great foreboding on college campuses about rape and other forms of sexual assault. Feminists view all men as potential rapists. Male students are considered guilty until proven innocent. IOW, when we sexualize males to this degree, there are unintended consequences – women fear men. I mentioned yesterday that I believe this is one reason why women are quick to claim men are “creepy.” We see someone staring at us, and in our minds we imagine them ready to pounce on us for sex. It’s intensely discomfiting!

      So the Player, who is also the guy most likely to actually commit sexual assault, winds up tainting the way that all men are perceived. And because the Player has high status, men who are not focused exclusively on casual sex are regarded as perhaps less virile, less sexual, or possibly gay.*

      *The theme of male promiscuity as a homosocial phenomenon comes up again and again in research. Smiler found that the aspiring Casanovas are very eager to prove they are straight.

  • Escoffier

    Well, not to mininize the war dead but we lost 400,000 in ww2. For a nation of 140 million, that’s not going to skew the sex ratio the way that (say) losing 20 million in Russia did.

    But in 1945, 12 million men were in uniform, most overseas and nearly all of them were between the ages of 18 and 40. That’s nearly 10% of the entire population. THAT will surely skew the sex ratio!

    Regarding the post-war society, we’ve been through this before. For so many reasons, it was a golden age for beta males. There was an economic boom, so nearly anyone who wanted to work could find work. The rest of the world’s economy was in ruins and Bretton Woods make the dollar the reserve currency. So, ordinary US workers were rich in ways that was simply unprecedented, their dollar could buy a lot. It was not yet a “knowledge economy” so ordinary blue collar guys could earn enough to raise a family in relative comfort.

    Women were encouraged to get out of the workforce to make way for returning soldiers. So we didn’t have the hypergamy/status problem we have today with women in the workforce looking down on huge numbers of men because their jobs weren’t prestigious/renumerative enough. The average Joe could earn enough to keep a SAHM, which made him, in her eyes, superior enough in status to satisfy her hypergamy.

    And the whole tenor of society was encouraging people to get together, stay together and have babies. None of this “Your 20s are for finding yourself.”

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Sai & Maggie,

    Sure. No one is arguing against prudence and being prepared for contingencies. But it’s a problem when the fear inhibits forming relationships. You always have to be willing to take prudent risks to be successful.

  • Just1Z

    @TedD

    I don’t think that we disagree about much to be honest. Since my divorce, I have actually stated that marriage would be on the table with regard to one specific woman. I don’t know whether she or I was the most surprised (she knew my general views on the subject). That was clearly a very special woman with a very special set of circumstances (and it wasn’t a proposal, I just said that it wasn’t impossible with her). I’m not saying that marriage is never worth it, but I do not expect to meet another woman that I would even consider it with.

    Just1Z November 20, 2012 at 5:37 pm

    @Susan
    Smiler’s point (I don’t have one of my own) is that the average male is a lot more LTR-oriented than the culture would have us believe, and that that information is not reaching either young males, i.e. “You’re not alone” or young females, “Most guys do want more than hit-it-and-quit-it sex .”

    That point seems reasonable to me FWIW.

  • Just1Z

    My WV
    “prudent”

    indeedily-doodily

  • Just1Z

    ‘nother typo Mr Wavevector – sorry

  • mr. wavevector

    @Escoffier,

    Women were encouraged to get out of the workforce to make way for returning soldiers.

    I agree with your historical description. I’m pointing out the inconsistency of those facts with the classical sex ratio theory, which would predict the opposite behavior – men tom-catting around and a trend towards fewer and later marriages – when, as you described, the exact opposite happened. And why were women so willing to leave the workforce, with all the advantages that gave them?

    That could be because the classical sex ratio theory is wrong about what most men want, as suggested by the OP. Perhaps they really want relationships, and their long separation from women and their new-found prosperity motivated them to get married ASAP.

    It could also be wrong about how women behave, as the article I linked to suggests – that women respond to a shortage of men by doubling down on their relationship standards. The post-war conditions made it easier for men to meet those standards.

    And I am positing one additional hypothesis – that post-war women were so motivated to marry that they offered marriage on very favorable terms. They assumed the persona of the “1950′s housewife” to attract mates; an exaggerated femininity that emphasized their nurturing, domestic, supportive, and submissive tendencies.

    Susan has speculated that in the next 10 years, young women will start to “give up” some of their feminist liberties to assume a more domestic and nurturing role. If this happens, it would be another example of this latter hypothesis.

  • Just1Z

    @Mr WV
    “Susan has speculated that in the next 10 years, young women will start to “give up” some of their feminist liberties to assume a more domestic and nurturing role. If this happens, it would be another example of this latter hypothesis.”

    this is going to be a very interesting thing to see (genuinely), can fifty years of ‘you go grrrl’ and ‘all men are rapists’ really be reversed in ten years?

    can guys who are the product of two generations of broken homes (or have friends that are) really be brought round on the subject of domestic, wedded bliss?

    The UMC doesn’t have as much history, perhaps, but you do share the same cities as the products of that environment. gonna be interesting

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

      this is going to be a very interesting thing to see (genuinely), can fifty years of ‘you go grrrl’ and ‘all men are rapists’ really be reversed in ten years?

      Millennial women and men are both very vocal on prioritizing marriage and children. The pendulum is swinging back on this because they do not want what their parents had.

  • Just1Z

    On the lighter side.

    The latest look for men who like pussy.

    http://menandcats.tumblr.com/post/33250951274/pieceandquiet-cat-beard

    I doubt that this is Roissy approved.

    BTW definitely Safe For Work

  • Ted D

    Just1Z – “I’m not saying that marriage is never worth it, but I do not expect to meet another woman that I would even consider it with.”

    Brother, I said SO many times during the separation from my first wife that I would NEVER marry again that I can’t even begin to count. I was trying to talk myself into a life of single fatherhood peppered with visits to “professionals” and my efforts put into raising my kids and enjoying my interests. I had NO intention of dating or finding another wife. But, life happens, and when I was not looking in any way, I found a woman that changed everything. Maybe I was and still am a fool for it, but to me she was worth trying it one more time. After all, my ex didn’t financially rape me in court. She didn’t take my children from me, and to this day we get along better than when we were married. Do I believe the horror stories? No doubt. I know men that are still living them. But, that wasn’t me. And perhaps it means that despite my many flaws and failures in my first marriage, what it really means is I chose wisely but lacked the skills to take advantage of that wise choice.

    I don’t know honestly, but I won’t live my life guided by fear. I want a wife and family, and when the opportunity presented itself, I chose to do it again. And you know what? Not only was it good for me, but it was good for my children as well. My wife has a way of interacting with my son that I lack. She can get him to focus and listen, and she has the patience of a saint with him. My daughter confides in her often, and I truly believe that my wife’s presence in her life made “losing” her mother easier to withstand. With my wife’s help, I am able to provide a safe, secure, and relatively happy environment for them to live in. And I do the same for her children as well. It isn’t perfect, but it is far better than what I see many of our children’s friends living in. Even if things don’t work out and we aren’t together in 20 years, right now things are good. My goal in learning all this is to keep it that way. I feel very much like I had no chance with my first marriage because I was so clueless. I failed, but I don’t feel like I had the information to succeed in the first place. And by damn I’m going to sink or swim this time by my own hand. Best part? She feels exactly the same way because of her failed marriage. We are both stubbornly determined to make this one work, which might be half the battle already won.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Esc: “BB, it can’t simply be the lopsided ratios.”

    The Pill (meaning, any sort of long-term reversible birth control, which can be applied proactively, rather than in-situ) plus abortion as retroactive birth control has to have an effect here.

  • Just1Z

    @TedD
    “I won’t live my life guided by fear”

    fair enough, I can understand your circumstances and you (as far as is possible over teh web) but I wouldn’t see it as an issue of fear. to me it’s just a balancing of pros and cons. I’m glad that you have some pros, but I don’t share them (no kids) and I think that I probably find general socialising easier than you do, plus me-time is a desirable thing to me, I can do alone very easily for long periods if required (it’s not a requirement).

    And…for the record…my sense of humour does even better in real life than it does here…
    (yeah, yeah, that was a joke)

  • mr. wavevector

    @Just1Z;

    this is going to be a very interesting thing to see (genuinely), can fifty years of ‘you go grrrl’ and ‘all men are rapists’ really be reversed in ten years?

    Surely not. I think Susan is suggesting that we will see the process start in the next decade. If it does, it will take decades to run to completion.

    can guys who are the product of two generations of broken homes (or have friends that are) really be brought round on the subject of domestic, wedded bliss?

    It will take a couple generations of concerted effort to undo. It may not be possible.

    I agree with the basic claim of the OP, which is that most men are inclined to like women, to fall in love with women, and want a long term relationship with a good woman. But men want to be needed as much as women want to be desired, and men want security in the same way women do. Men have been denied these things by the values adopted by contemporary women.

    The idea I’m playing with is that women have the power to dramatically change the dating and marriage market. To a large extent, women broke these markets, but they can fix them by offering men a sense of being needed and a greater security in marriage than men now enjoy.

  • Kirk

    @Susan

    F*uck CBT. I tried that for 2 years but had to stop because my therapist deemed me “hopeless”. As for the picture, my mormon parents have prohibited me from getting corrective surgery (religious/financial reasons), so until I can get out of the house, I’m screwed. I chose it because all of my other pics make me look like Gary Numan’s retarded half-brother (that’s what my cousins used to call me).

  • Ted D

    Just1Z – “fair enough, I can understand your circumstances and you (as far as is possible over teh web) but I wouldn’t see it as an issue of fear.”

    Listen. I don’t look down on any guy that views the current environment and decides it isn’t for him. I’ve said that even though I’d like my boys to marry and have kids that I will NOT push that agenda on them at this point. But yeah, my situation is complicated with kids.

    As far as socializing goes, I’m working on it. I have the capacity to be charming and charismatic, I simply lacked the will do use it. To be honest, I’m enjoying the efforts, but not so much because of the added human interaction I’m getting. At this point, I see it as a challenge to be bested. I don’t get much out of talking to “people”, and it still drains me when I must, but I am more than able to manage. I don’t intend to become a social butterfly, but I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to at least look like one if the necessity should arise.

    If I had found myself single without kids, I might have taken a different path. I can’t say for sure, but like I said I wasn’t looking to take the plunge again. And truth be told, had I gone long enough without meeting my wife, I might have reached the point of no return and not done it again. But I honestly think it IS in my nature to want and desire this type of relationship. Perhaps not marriage, but a marriage-like state all the same.

    For me things haven’t changed much other than having a more realistic outlook on women and relationships. But I wouldn’t push my views on other men simply because it’s “right” for me. I’ll tell them my POV, but I also respect their choice to do something completely different. I’m working on accepting the same from my children, because as much as I might want something specific for them, it is THEIR life to live. Instead of pushing a marriage agenda, I’m just doing my best to HAVE a good marriage so they have something to judge against when it comes time for them to make choices.

    Don’t feel like I’m on some high horse here. In all honesty I’m fully aware that I might be the dumb ass, and guys like you might have it right. I just want the chance to do it again now that I have the info to give it a solid shot. If you’re happy, then I’m happy for you. On an individual level, that’s about as hard core as I’ll get. On a macro level? LOL, that is a totally different story. :P

  • Just1Z

    @mr. wavevector

    “a greater security in marriage”

    I could see that the following might help:
    cast-iron pre-nups (not currently considered reliable), certainly thrown aside if kids are involved.
    male hormone-free birth control. his wallet, his choice as well.

    I don’t see how kids can be fairly handled in divorce. while there are many stories of women taking the kids thousands of miles away out of spite, there are also legitimate reasons for doing that. Can’t see a clean way to legislate that stuff. Many single-moms want the ex out of their life as it eases their ability to search for the next guy.

    But really, women nowadays swear “till death us do part” in front of whatever gods they might believe in. just how do they convince men that, “we really mean it now”? that’s going to be a tough sell if you saw what mommy did to daddy.

  • Just1Z

    @TedD
    dammit Ted, we’re not going to have am argument! we agree on practically everything…it’s hopeless, man

    would love to have a beer with you at a BBQ sometime…we could set things straight – you and me against the world Ted.

  • J

    J, college is the pulling away phase. Let them separate a bit and continue to be there, but start to develop that adult-adult respect relationship. They’ll come back if you were at all good parents. My husband did the same thing in his late teens and early 20s. But now we even see his dad once a week, and he was the “bad” parent.

    Oh, I know. It’s just hard and painful for all involved. It goes in spurts. Sometimes thngs are lovely; other times we all get on each others nerves. My older son is applying to colleges. My younger son is asserting his independence. A few months from now, we’ll be cool again.

    Aidan is doing great. He caught up to 50th percentile for weight, height and head, and smiles several times a day.

    Aww. Enjoy the smiles.

    The 50th percentile is pretty big, I think, for a half-Asian baby.

    When I was active in La Leche League, the majority of the group was Northern European, with kids being typically around the 80th %ile. Some of the moms acted like there was a competition, as though the kid in the highest percentile was the winner. The two consistently smallest kids in the group were my older son and a half-Asian child. Both of us had pediatricians who worried that the 50th %ile was too small. Between the group and the docs, the other mom and I were worried too. At one point I realized that the kids, while smaller then Nrthern European babies, were probably just representative of their own genetic heritages. I asked the pediatrician about where DH and I stood percentile-wise in terms of adult heights and never heard another word of “concern” again.

    I don’t know if people are still as hung up on the numbers as they once were, but, if so, don’t let them make you crazy.

  • JP

    “When I was active in La Leche League, the majority of the group was Northern European, with kids being typically around the 80th %ile.”

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…..the LEAGUE……..

    Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo….

  • J

    I’m insisting that my daughter get a minimum of a college degree, and even that’s no guarantee she’ll get a job where she’ll be self-supporting. This has nothing to do with a feminist agenda, it’s because I don’t want to see her barely making it paycheck to paycheck.

    And this is exactly what I mean when I say that it’s the economy, not feminism, that drives social change. A college degree is not a “feminist merit badge,” as some in the ‘sphere say. It’s a necessity in an economy which is rapidly towards a two-class society.

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    “nd Lokland is probably somewhere between beta/alpha mix.”

    Under every conceivable metric I am delta if not gamma. I don’t even scrape beta let alone alpha in terms of dominance.

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

      @Lokland

      Under every conceivable metric I am delta if not gamma. I don’t even scrape beta let alone alpha in terms of dominance.

      I do not see how you can say this. You’re totally badass in the threads with occasional glimpses of sweetie pie (a great combo, BTW). Unless you are very different IRL I’d say you have to be in the delta-beta range.

  • J

    For example, I’ve had men place their faces just 2 or 3 inches from mine during conversation. This is intensely uncomfortable. I’ve also had men stand next to me so closely that we were touching at several points. This is also inappropriate. I believe some people just don’t have a good sense of the physical space people like to have around them in social settings. It doesn’t sound like you have that problem at all.

    You are correct in believing that “some people just don’t have a good sense of the physical space people like to have around them in social settings. ” There’s a clinical term, proximal something or another (Damn these menopausal memory glitches!), that encompasses this. It can be a symptom of a number issues that disproportionately affect males. Remedial social skills training for kids with learning and emotional disabilities, ADHD and Asperger’s generally includes teaching that people are made uncomfortable by breaches of personal space and learning how to maintain appropriate personal space in varying situations. It’s tricky because it can also vary by culture. Nothern European intimate is Mediterrean cold, for example.

    An intense stare and standing too close is sexual intimidating to women and physically intimidating to men. Women will call a guy “creepy,” but men will occasionally lash out physically over this. A lot of boys are bullied over this issue.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Overall, I agree with the main point of this post, that most men would prefer a good relationship and sex in that relationship over casual sex. I think this holds eventually for even more unrestricted men, as Zach has described. I’m pretty unrestricted, more than I realized, after having taken that test on the 1-9 scale in behavior, attitudes and desires and I still totally want to marry and have kids and be faithful.

    The other big point is the script that everyone is doing it. I really believed this and spent many a night feeling like a loser because I wasn’t getting laid on any given weekend in spite of the fact of racking up a fairly high N in the last several years since leaving the virgin club. I guess I’m a bit of a sheep by letting the pop culture message affect my self esteem and occasionally drive me to do casual.

    I want to thank you for this blog and for putting out the information that most people aren’t racking up huge N’s. It has helped me to not focus so much on that anymore.

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

      @HanSolo

      I really believed this and spent many a night feeling like a loser because I wasn’t getting laid on any given weekend in spite of the fact of racking up a fairly high N in the last several years since leaving the virgin club.

      This broke my heart a little – I can only say that I am relieved you are looking back on this as something you’ve put behind you. You are a great role model for some of the other guys here!

  • Just1Z

    Body space

    I was glad of the legendary British Reserve when I was in the South of France – I had only one instance of NAT* from a guy. The guys were very keen on giving and receiving a good morning kiss with other men and women. Being British I got a pass with the guys. I just stuck to les bissous avec les femmes francaises

    *Jeff Murdoch’s term ‘Nose Avoidance Tilting’ from Coupling . When one, or both, potential kissers tilts their head to avoid nose bumping.

  • J

    F*uck CBT. I tried that for 2 years but had to stop because my therapist deemed me “hopeless”. As for the picture, my mormon parents have prohibited me from getting corrective surgery (religious/financial reasons), so until I can get out of the house, I’m screwed

    I’m assuming that the lack of a big smile in the picture hides some sort of facial problem then. I’m afraid that people respond to that sort of thing viscerally. You’re correct. No amount of learning to compensate for proximal issues is going to solve that problem. You should have whatever surgery is needed before worrying about CBT.

    It’s hard for me to grok “religious” reasons for not having surgery.

  • Sassy6519

    I could see that the following might help:
    cast-iron pre-nups (not currently considered reliable), certainly thrown aside if kids are involved.
    male hormone-free birth control. his wallet, his choice as well.

    I honestly don’t know why more marrying couples don’t have prenups. I would be totally okay if my future husband wanted us to draft up one and agree on it together. It makes sense to me.

  • JP

    “projected 2019: 59F, 41M”

    So, as college costs increase exponentially while the economic value of college continues to degrade, women will end up being the ones larding up on all the debt with the lack of benefit.

  • JP

    “I honestly don’t know why more marrying couples don’t have prenups. I would be totally okay if my future husband wanted us to draft up one and agree on it together. It makes sense to me.”

    Because it goes against the concept that two people merge to become one legal, social, and economic entity.

  • J

    @JP

    LOL. Yeah, League can get sort of cult-like and IMO gets too deep into side issues that are alienating, but it really did help me to breastfed my sons in spite of some rough starts. At one point, I wanted to become a LLL leader as a pathway to becoming a lactation consultant. (The one other pathway is to be a nurse.) I essentially was rejected for not being crazy and crunchy enough.

  • Just1Z

    @Sassy
    “I honestly don’t know why more marrying couples don’t have prenups”

    they don’t work very well in practice.

    I gather that if they deviate too far from what the state says the marriage contract is, the pre-nup is ignored. Don’t know if they work for the mega wealthy, but they don’t for the average Joe (according to manosphere lore). If a kid is involved then the pre-nup cannot override the interests of the kid whoever did, or did not, want them.

  • JP

    @J: “It’s hard for me to grok “religious” reasons for not having surgery.”

    You’ve never heard of Christian Scientists?

  • J

    Because it goes against the concept that two people merge to become one legal, social, and economic entity.

    Yes, exactly. I feel like people who do that are betting on failure. It’s a bad attitiude to go in with.

    Counting down to debate on validity of 50% divorce stat…….

  • Just1Z

    I guess that if you’re going to be on the winning side in a divorce, why worry about divorce stats…?

    empathy, shempathy

  • Cooper

    @Sassy
    “I honestly don’t know why more marrying couples don’t have prenups. I would be totally okay if my future husband wanted us to draft up one and agree on it together. It makes sense to me.”

    I don’t really see much wrong with them either. Besides the potential to feel that the prenups represents a doubt in the relationships longevity.

    I tend to have the feeling that if two people can are determined enough to make a relationship work, then how’s agreeing on the terms much different?
    Saying they’re bad for a relationship is kinda like saying a rock shouldn’t be turned over. If both parties were invested in having a relationship, and mutually wanted it to last as long as possible, should agreeing on a 50/50 split be a a piece of cake? A-no-brianer?
    I tend to think this way because my 50 would be much more than I’d be contributing. (Save marrying a more wealthier girl)

  • J

    Oh, I’ve heard of them, JP. I just think their whole anti-transfusion stance is based on a bizarre misinterpretation of Jewish dietary law. Still not grokking…

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    That list doesn’t give a good idea of what men or women value most, only what they value, because there’s no trade-offs enforced. Someone could rate each of the 18 a 3. Obviously not all do. A 3 given to one attribute doesn’t mean it’s of the same importance as a 3 to another attribute. Now, it gives us some idea since some people will not give a 3 to every category. A better method in ferreting out what is most important would be to only give someone 20 points to spend amongst all 18 attributes or to have them list their top 5 with a score and a % weighting of how important they are.

  • Kirk

    “I’m assuming that the lack of a big smile in the picture hides some sort of facial problem then.”

    @J
    I have deformed cheek muscles that give me a very grotesque looking smile. I also have ptosis of the right eye (“lazy eye” syndrome) and a severely deformed left nostril that becomes apparent when I hold my head up. Plus, people have always told me that I have an overall ugly face.
    Add that to my diagnoses of Aspergers syndrome and I have what amounts to a very frigid social life.

    I desperately need plastic surgery but my LDS parents keep hitting me with the “God made you the way you are” line. They almost didn’t let me seek CBT because of this bs.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    Han described how the ‘#9′ list was arrived at, I absolutely do have grounds for saying that they are extracting information in an indirect, and therefore suspect, way. I suggested a much more direct method.

    I don’t know how the lists that you provide there were compiled, perhaps they are drawing clear conclusions from clear data with a clear method – IDK, do you? i.e. did they state all of the conditions of the surveys?

    I have stated before that without precise knowledge of what questions were asked and in what environment, all surveys are suspect.

    The obvious example in the UK would be the advertisement;
    “Eight out of ten cat owners said their cat preferred kanga-chunks”.

    Okay, maybe it’s true, but what question was asked?

    ‘does your cat prefer kanga-chunks to all other foods?’
    ‘does your cat prefer kanga-chunks to a range of budget catfoods?’
    ‘does your cat prefer kanga-chunks to a diet of broken glass?’

    Wow, what a difference it makes when you know ‘to what do 8 out of 10 cats prefer kanga-chunks to’, doesn’t it?

    I gave a link to a Derren Brown show where he influenced advertising execs subliminally to give the results that he wanted. I can only guess how many readers here flocked to watch this relevant, short video on subliminal influence. (I’ll have a check in a minute at the view count)

    I gave an example of how a craply designed survey might produce crap results.

    I understand that there are good, as well as bad, social scientists. Scepticism about science is healthy, credentialism is not. Me engineer me want know truth – me picky about evidence.

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

      @Just1Z

      I don’t know how the lists that you provide there were compiled, perhaps they are drawing clear conclusions from clear data with a clear method – IDK, do you? i.e. did they state all of the conditions of the surveys?

      The survey is regarded as highly legit, as it has been used extensively in David Buss’ research, and has been given to many thousands of people over a period of 70 years.

      In my view, what’s most interesting is to see changes in the survey results over time. Apples to apples. I don’t actually think it’s helpful or possible to pick nits on whether men want ambitious women, or whether women value dependability as much as they say they do.

  • Just1Z

    I was referring to Han’s older post.

  • Just1Z

    wow 660 ish views on that old, obscure clip on youtube since I gave the link

    subliminal influence in action
    Derren Brown Mind Control | Animal Heaven | Channel 4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UpUcgPP-YY

    Derren turns the tables on a pair of advertising creatives… |

    and that is why you cannot dismiss the environment, and why social scientists are regarded with a jaundiced eye so often.

    265951

    266619 vs 265951

    I’m not claiming that they all went from HUS, but that’s impressive. people checking facts maybe?

    cool stuff, respect to the HUS readers that contributed to the jump.

  • JP

    “I desperately need plastic surgery but my LDS parents keep hitting me with the “God made you the way you are” line. They almost didn’t let me seek CBT because of this bs.”

    You, unfortunately, have two problems that are intersecting here.

    I wonder if CBT doesn’t work well with Aspbergers. Have you spoken to other people with Aspbergers to find out what they found helpful?

    At least some of your problem can be corrected with plastic surgery. You just need to save up money to get it (and ignore your parents).

  • HanSolo

    @Kirk

    I don’t discount what you say but I don’t see an ugly face in your picture.

    As a former LDS, I know there are some people there that don’t believe in taking medication for psychological problems or issues. Luckily my parents weren’t in that mindset. I don’t doubt that your parents believe in remaining as God created you. That’s less of a thing I saw at church but there are obviously people that feel that way.

    I hope you feel welcome here.

  • SayWhaat

    It could also be wrong about how women behave, as the article I linked to suggests – that women respond to a shortage of men by doubling down on their relationship standards. The post-war conditions made it easier for men to meet those standards.

    IMO this crystallizes Hook-Up culture. Women are told/perceive that there are few good men available, increase their standards for such men to avoid getting played (cue ‘sphere cries of rampant hypergamy), and believe that the pre-requisite to getting in a relationship, even with a “good guy”, requires her to put out (or else lose out to the tons of other women willing to do more for less).

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    a couple more things
    1) I’m not being snarky
    2) I’m British, I’m an engineer, we don’t throw words like ‘awesome’ around as much (ever, personally) as other cultures with which you may be more accustomed. So, when I say that the main point of the book (men wanting relationships more than commonly thought) was plausible you should take that as awesome dood, you totally nailed it. It was meant as a postive statement…FML

  • Ted D

    Just1Z – LOL man, what makes you think I’m looking for a fight? I’m getting ready for a four day weekend, and I’m in a stellar mood. (although I’m bored to death at the office today. Working on getting out early in fact…)

    All this marriage stuff is my deal, I don’t expect it to be anyone else’s. I’ve changed a lot in the last few years, and there are more changes to come. But my views on the benefits of being married are and will be the same. The difference is now I have a much better understanding of the pitfalls as well. But perhaps knowing the bottom can drop out from under me any time will give me the motivation to get it right this time? *shrug*

    I’m in no way interested in picking a fight with anyone, just tossing my .02 into the fray with everyone else.

    “would love to have a beer with you at a BBQ sometime…we could set things straight – you and me against the world Ted.”

    I’d fear for the world if WE were the ones tasked with setting things straight. Shit would run like clockwork, but I imagine there’d be some pissed off people looking to string me up. :P

    Lokland – “Under every conceivable metric I am delta if not gamma. I don’t even scrape beta let alone alpha in terms of dominance.”

    You would know better than I for sure. I’m not convinced being a gamma is such a bad deal, especially for introverted guys. Truth be told, if I’m shooting for any specific title, Gamma is probably it. But I wasn’t talking in terms of “sexual alpha/beta” at all, I’m thinking more along the lines of general attitude.

    Besides I’m starting to agree with Jesus M. that these labels are fine for macro discussions, but pointless at an individual level. When you see guys that are all “alpha” at work, but kiss their wives asses at home, the allure of a title just slips away for me. I am what I am, and what is important is that I am that person for ME above all else. Call that beta/alpha/delta or whatever you want, doesn’t change a thing.

  • J

    @Kirk

    Are your parents talking about the same God who creates people who become doctors? If you were my kid, you’d have had that surgery as soon as possible. I’ve already spent a small fortune on orthodontia for my sons because I know that a nice smile is social gold.

    Not to compare retardation to Asperger’s, but years ago there was a study in Israel comparing the IQs of Down Syndrome children who looked more “mongoloid” with the IQs of those who looked less mongoloid due to having had surgical repairs. They found that those who had surgery had higher IQs. Obviously, plastic surgery did not directly improve IQ. It did however foster less patronizing behavior in those who interacted with the kids. When people treated them more normally, it allowed the kids to reach their maximum potential intellectually.

    I’m not sure why, but people react very vicerally to facial problems. On some instinctual level, it must signal something to be avoided. Perhaps our guts don’t discriminate between accidents and injuries and Down’s physiognomy. I personally am really upset by burn scars for no discernable, rational reason. My point though in bringing up the study is that it shows that even something as intractable as Down’s improves with better socialization and better social treatment. I think that some of your social stuff would improve as well if people became more receptive to you after surgery.

    I don’t recall if you are a college student or a high school student, but if you are over 18 I would suggest you find a surgeon who does an occasional freebie as an act of charity. There are organizations that connect doctors and patients who can’t afford their services. If you have insurance, there may be a doctor who would settle for whatever your insurance would pay. It pays to investigate your options as having surgery would really improve your life.

  • Just1Z

    @Ted
    “what makes you think I’m looking for a fight? ”
    I don’t…just joking

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Doubling down on “relationship standards” is silly without *also* increasing the standards for sex.

    It’s a tough road as you know, since you did it right by doing both. But you had to deal with a lengthy time without intimacy, as I did when I was a teen. That’s something most people aren’t willing to do, and women who choose this situation have it slightly tougher than men, since they have to deal with being hit on all the time. As much as you try to needle me, I respect you for sticking to your guns.

    Doubling down on relationship standards, but not sex, just motivates men to avoid relationships. While we do desire relationships, it’s just a preference – a casual arrangement is far preferable to celibacy.

  • J

    I don’t discount what you say but I don’t see an ugly face in your picture.

    Me neither. I believe your description of the problem, but it is not at all apparent in the pic. You are quite cute, though I feel weird saying that to someone who is young enough to be my son.

  • Just1Z

    @TedD

    I am what I am, and what is important is that I am that person for ME above all else. Call that beta/alpha/delta or whatever you want, doesn’t change a thing.

    yep, I’ll sign up for this. any philosophy good enough for Popeye, is good enough for me too, I reckon.

    alpha/beta etc are all useful at times as vague, short-hand indications of clusters of attitudes and behaviours, not something air tight that people should feel locked into.

  • Kirk

    “At least some of your problem can be corrected with plastic surgery. You just need to save up money to get it (and ignore your parents).”

    @JP
    This is easier said than done. All of the surgeries would cost $30,000+.
    Our insurance will not cover it and financing options aren’t available. I’m in a catch 22 here. I have just earned a B.A. in psychology and want to pursue a career as a clinical psychologist who specializes in autism disorders. However, my deformities and social abnormalities prohibit me from getting into grad school (ableism is rampant in the supposedly pc world of academia.) In order to fix these issues, I need lots of money. In order to accrue said money, I need a graduate degree. See my problem here?

    “I wonder if CBT doesn’t work well with Aspbergers. Have you spoken to other people with Aspbergers to find out what they found helpful?”

    CBT is considered the gold standard for treating autism disorders. What I received was little more than a gold piece of sh*t.

    @HanSolo
    Thanks for the kind words. Though I love them dearly, my parents are Mormon fundies to the nth degree. They literally thought that Romney was a traitor to the faith.

  • HanSolo

    @Kirk

    My niece married a guy who has very strict parents. My parents are very active but are also quite tolerant and loving.

    If you need money, have you ever thought of going to work in the oil fields of North Dakota or similar? The pay is good for unskilled workers. The life sucks but you can earn $100K in a year. Then get your surgery and go on with whatever you want to after.

  • J

    I see your situation more clearly having need your last post. Call or write whatever local organization certifies plastic surgeons in your state. Tell them your story and that you are looking for a doctor with whom you can work out some sort of payment arrangement. My guess is that they will come back with a doctor who will heavily discount his services and/or work out a very long term payment plan.

  • Kirk

    “I don’t recall if you are a college student or a high school student, but if you are over 18 I would suggest you find a surgeon who does an occasional freebie as an act of charity. There are organizations that connect doctors and patients who can’t afford their services. If you have insurance, there may be a doctor who would settle for whatever your insurance would pay. It pays to investigate your options as having surgery would really improve your life.”

    @J
    Thanks for the tip. I am 23 and have just finished my B.A.
    Unfortunately, our insurance will not cover the surgery (see my previous post) and even if it did, I still have to contend with my parents.

  • Joe

    SayWhaat, over the months I’ve agreed with you on almost nothing. But this:

    Women are told/perceive that there are few good men available, increase their standards for such men to avoid getting played (cue ‘sphere cries of rampant hypergamy), and believe that the pre-requisite to getting in a relationship, even with a “good guy”, requires her to put out (or else lose out to the tons of other women willing to do more for less).

    …well, the quote Dylan, every one of those words rang true.

  • J

    Whoops!

    I see your situation more clearly having read your last post.

    @Han

    $100K in a year! Wow! Way to graduate college debt-free!

    @Kirk

    I think the CBT might have been more effective had the facial thing not prevented others from giving you positive social feedback.

  • Just1Z

    @Kirk
    I tripped when you said Gary Numan…Tubeway Army / Friends Electric…took me back a ways. Not a great fan, but certainly heard his stuff, back in ‘the day’. He was a bit of a sex symbol with my sisters iirc. his nickname was pretty positive too (obligatory wiki quote)

    Gary Numan (also known as “Valerian”; birth name Gary Anthony James Webb) – vocals, guitar, keyboards/synthesizers

    —–

    on a more serious note, if I were you, I’d avoid hanging around beta females who have little social power beyond kicking your self-esteem to boost theirs. it’s not healthy for you to let them set your frame. maybe picture them with their forty cats in twenty years? should take the sting out of what they think of anything. and if they see that reaction (without you saying anything – that would not help) it should give them something to think about (re-evaluate you).

    Have you visited Chateau Roissy / Heartiste in order to get a feel for social dynamics. You can read about Game without becoming a PUA. It can be very positive for your self-confidence.
    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/

    also, have you considered NLP to improve your self-image and edit your memories (or their lingering effects)? It can be used in conjunction with CBT, but maybe given what you say, instead of, for you?
    http://www.amazon.com/Neuro-linguistic-Programming-Dummies-Psychology-Self
    I’ve read this book and learnt some interesting stuff (‘be positive’, memory enhancement / defocusing). Might help? pretty cheap. I have sent copies to people that I think could benefit – and was thanked for it.

    Best of luck
    (I guess that ‘cheers’ is out of the question though?)

  • J

    Why does a 23 year old have to contend with his parents?

  • Kirk

    “If you need money, have you ever thought of going to work in the oil fields of North Dakota or similar? The pay is good for unskilled workers. The life sucks but you can earn $100K in a year.”

    @HanSolo
    I’m 5’10 and weigh 150lbs. It would be akin to mini-me trying out for the NBA.

  • JP

    “Not to compare retardation to Asperger’s, but years ago there was a study in Israel comparing the IQs of Down Syndrome children who looked more “mongoloid” with the IQs of those who looked less mongoloid due to having had surgical repairs.”

    The funny thing is that Asperger”s means that you cannot have a delay in normal cognitive development (with the exception of social interaction).

    What this means in practice is that people with Aspeberger’s have above-average IQ as part of the diagnosis.

  • Kirk

    “Have you visited Chateau Roissy / Heartiste in order to get a feel for social dynamics. You can read about Game without becoming a PUA. It can be very positive for your self-confidence.
    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/

    @Just1Z
    That site turned me into a depressed, cynical SOB and lost me several close male friends. I am not going back there. With that said, game has had a positive impact on my life as well. I no longer “suck up” to people (especially women) and I have learned to identify when others are trying to take advantage of me.

    “on a more serious note, if I were you, I’d avoid hanging around beta females who have little social power beyond kicking your self-esteem to boost theirs. it’s not healthy for you to let them set your frame.”

    I don’t hang around women much, so this isn’t a problem.

    “also, have you considered NLP to improve your self-image and edit your memories (or their lingering effects)? It can be used in conjunction with CBT, but maybe given what you say, instead of, for you?”

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t NLP pure pseudoscience?

    “Why does a 23 year old have to contend with his parents?”

    @J
    Because I live in their house and accept their hospitality. I would love to move out, but no one will hire me because of my condition(s).

  • JP

    “That site turned me into a depressed, cynical SOB and lost me several close male friends.”

    Perhaps because it’s full of depressed, cynical advice and depressed, cynical people.

    It’s a toxic sludge kind of place.

  • J

    @JP

    What this means in practice is that people with Aspeberger’s have above-average IQ as part of the diagnosis.

    I know that. I hope people don’t equate social and learning disabilities with retardation. My point was that if you change your looks, it changes how people respond to you ..and ultimate how you respond to the world. The Israeli study is a powerful example of how much looks matter to people because it shows that drastic changes in behavior can be made when looks are improved.

  • J

    Because I live in their house and accept their hospitality. I would love to move out, but no one will hire me because of my condition(s).

    This is rough. OTOH, if you don’t get the surgery, you’ll be dependent on your folks forever. You’ll have to find some option that works.

    I would also suggest, as a parent myself, that all but the nuttiest of parents eventually have to accept the choices of their adult children. Most parents won’t abandon even an ax murderer. No matter how much your parents disapproved initially, sooner or later they’d come around.

    I’m going to have to start preparing Thanksgiving dinner. If you post a repsonse to me, I’ll get to it later. Sorry to ditch in the middle of things.

    @ALL

    Happy Thanksgiving!!

  • Just1Z

    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t NLP pure pseudoscience?”

    I would guess that that would depend on whether you thought it worked for you… A lot of politicians (Blair, Clinton, Cameron etc) appear to use concepts from NLP (notice their speech patterns). I mean these cretins got elected…how else do you explain Blair’s success? it certainly wasn’t actually ability. c.f. Obama if you wish. Hopey, changy? no deliveryey.

    $13.91 including delivery…what have you got to lose? But if you are so dead set against it, clearly you will not get anything from it.

    Whatever, but positivity is required, I don’t see that you have a lot of that (right here, right now anyway. IRL? IDK). If you can’t achieve positivity, at least cultivate outcome independance.

    “With that said, game has had a positive impact on my life as well. I no longer “suck up” to people (especially women) and I have learned to identify when others are trying to take advantage of me.”

    Take what you want, leave what you don’t. I’m no fan of PUAs, but Game is based on a lot of real-world practical experimentation by objectively focussed horny men – does it work? They have no agenda beyond getting laid. ‘normal’ social science is arse deep in political agenda, there is no comparison in their objectivity.

    Whatever you do, do something because clearly things aren’t making you happy right now. I’m not here to sell you a dream, tell you how attractive you are, whatever…I am just trying to give you some suggestions and a kick to try something / anything

    best of luck, and I mean it

  • SayWhaat

    Doubling down on relationship standards, but not sex, just motivates men to avoid relationships. While we do desire relationships, it’s just a preference – a casual arrangement is far preferable to celibacy.

    Actually, the standards for sex *have* been raised. All those 80% guys with the occasional hookup/FWB? They’ve met the standards for relationship sex.

    What we’re seeing in Hook-Up culture is the loss of bargaining power. Women are making shitty deals and are afraid to ask for more because to her, what she’s getting may already be the best deal she can get given current market conditions.

  • Just1Z

    and J,
    “The Israeli study is a powerful example of how much looks matter to people because it shows that drastic changes in behavior can be made when looks are improved.”
    looks to be making sense too (not a surprise).

    You have options to consider.

    p.s.
    The oil fields pay well and not all jobs are physically demanding (though the environment may be unpleasant), but according to Matt Forney it is very expensive to live there, and winter is coming. And so is Obama and his eco-agenda.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    I can’t follow your train of thought, SW.

  • SayWhaat

    Okay, let me try again:

    First, humor me by accepting the following premise: the 80% college students that are not engaged in the bacchanal Greek culture still have occasional hook ups/FWB arrangements within and around their coed social circles. No one wants to be lonely, so they attempt to “date” the only way they know how — hang out as a group, then attempt to isolate.

    The guys and girls hooking up know their partners (these are not random encounters). However, neither partner knows where to go from that point. Her putting out has inexplicably caused him to lose interest, she is well aware of his options given the lopsided sex ratio, and is afraid to rock the boat by asking to DTR, knowing that will scare him off and leave her with nothing. At least by hooking up, she and him are still in a dating orbit that she hopes will fully materialize over time — because growing feelings over time is how girls operate, and she projects this into him. He has met her standards and she communicates this the only way she knows how (sexually), he wants a relationship but is no longer sure about her because of how easily she put out for him. After a long period of awkwardness, they part ways.

    That’s just one scenario, but I think it’s the most common one. The others involve elements of “I don’t have time for a relationship but I don’t want to be alone”, “I can have sex like a man”, “I like having options”, etc.

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

      First, humor me by accepting the following premise: the 80% college students that are not engaged in the bacchanal Greek culture still have occasional hook ups/FWB arrangements within and around their coed social circles. No one wants to be lonely, so they attempt to “date” the only way they know how — hang out as a group, then attempt to isolate.

      You nailed it, SayWhaat.

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

    Kirk….I wonder if there might be some options available in India or other country with a lower cost structure. (The term being used is “medical tourism.”) For some kinds of surgery, India has very good hospitals that specialize in that field and do some much of it that the physicians develop a high degree of expertise. Costs are typically a lot lower than the U.S., even given the air fare and living expenses…plus, you get to visit India!

    Don’t know if any relevant plastic surgery is going on under this umbrella, but might be worth checking it out.

  • JP

    “Her putting out has inexplicably caused him to lose interest, she is well aware of his options given the lopsided sex ratio, and is afraid to rock the boat by asking to DTR, knowing that will scare him off and leave her with nothing.”

    Looking back on it, I think I never understood that relationships could be defined or even what one was.

    In hindsight, this caused me a lot of problems. Moreso for the women as they emotionally melted down without me understanding that I was the cause for this.

    There needs to be a guy class on relationships.

    First Lesson: “Relationships and how to recognize that you are in one.”

    Second Lesson: “How to say “No” to a relationship when you don’t want to be in one.”

    Third Lesson: “Defining Relationships – Using words to clear up emotional confusion before things implode around you.”

    Looking back into my memories, I believe that I was pretty much a wandering relationship catastrophe. Meaning that I randomly caused a great deal of collateral damages given my complete cluelessness as to relationships in general.

    I was passive, so I would simply find myself in a relationship without understanding how I got there and not really having any interest in being in one.

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

    Kirk,

    The main problem that you have that I can observe through the prism of my own life experience is that your attitude sucks donkey balls. As long as you continue to have a ‘can’t do’ attitude, you’re going to be stuck in one place, wheels madly turning, engine red-lining, but achieving nothing but the stench of burning rubber. Honestly, your demeanour and not your face is what’s causing people to not offer you a job. If you think it doesn’t show through in inter-personal interactions, I am extremely doubtful.

    Here’s my prescription:

    1.) If you have Asperger’s you’re almost certainly sensitive to certain foodstuffs: i.e. wheat protein, dairy protein, legume protein, egg protein, etc. You have to do elimination diets to find what’s a problem as what’s not. Look up paleo-diets and get reading.

    2.) Once you identify your food sensitivities, a lot of your neurotic anxiety will subside. If and ONLY if you remove the foods that cause you anxiety will CBT be truly effective. You must learn to control your amygdala. If you do have Asperger’s , then you have above average neuroplasticity which means you can remodel your brain to do whatever you want. CBT will work, but you need the right psychologist. Find and download Dr. Thomas Richards audio series, it’s easy enough to find on the Internet, and it will let you work on CBT by yourself without some dipshit psychologist interfering.

    3.) Exercise. You are bigger than me, but I can clean and jerk two 28 kg kettlebells above my head. I would stay away from bro-culture, but you can find some ectomorph suitable fitness literature out there. I.e. Pavel Tsatsouline (Pavel has an awesome attitude), Steve Cotter (Steve is more technical), P90-X, Crossfit, Bryan Keast’s power yoga (Bryan has an awesome attitude). Dabble in sports until you find something that addicts you, then you will have the motivation

    4.) Ignore the effeminate libertarian bloggers. You are autistic, you crave order, which means you are authoritarian, _not_ an anarchist. Always remember that you embody the part of humanity that fights entropy.

    5.) Do whatever you have to move out and get away from your parent’s influence. If they don’t have Asperger’s, they don’t understand you and they never will, so they will only hinder the experimentation that you’ll have to do to heal yourself. You do not need a job in your field, in fact I would encourage you to get out of the intellectual cesspool that is psychology.

  • Cooper

    @Saywhaat
    “Women are told/perceive that there are few good men available, increase their standards for such men to avoid getting played, and believe that the pre-requisite to getting in a relationship, even with a “good guy”, requires her to put out (or else lose out to the tons of other women willing to do more for less).” -#346
    “What we’re seeing in Hook-Up culture is the loss of bargaining power. Women are making shitty deals and are afraid to ask for more because to her, that she’s getting may already be the best deal she can get given current market conditions.” -#369

    This is interesting. Even in the roll of a token traditional guy, I have learned that I must expect certain rate of physical escalation. And any less would have me invest less, and adjust accordingly. And if we’re both playing that game – the result is a impending ceases if contact.
    And at the same time, if both good and bad guys are going to expect physical escalation, practically immediately, then what can girls do to weed out players?

    I’m thinking of this because of the girl that has been flaky with me.
    To give her some credit, (which I probably should NOT be doing) she knows little about me. And to be honest, I could complete see her thinking I might not be looking for something serious, or, you know, just looking to score. Cause the only thing she really knows is I live “Downtown” *spooky wave* and that, I seemingly, have a fulfilling social life. (Something I sometime put on, more than actuality) And that I come from a wealthier family, in comparison. (Something she only is privy to because she already knew family of mine)
    She could very well be going “K, hold on. Why is this guy wanting *me*?”

    To bring it back to what you were saying, if girls are going to loose both good and bad guys for not putting out, then it kinda makes date/hangout/makeout/ect, or whatever, a one shot deal, doesn’t it?

    So, I get thinking that this girl is flaking just to weed out the players that wouldn’t put so much time into their pursuits.

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

      @Cooper

      So, I get thinking that this girl is flaking just to weed out the players that wouldn’t put so much time into their pursuits.

      Interesting, that’s entirely possible. A very good reason to be authentic when you see her this weekend. Authentic, but not eager.

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

    @David Foster

    I would love to move to a place like India and be able to absorb its culture and many amenities. However, my parents are my sole source of income at the moment and they would strictly forbid such an endeavor. I would take just about any job if someone would hire me.

    Unlike most disabilities, autism is sorely underrepresented in the workplace. Most people are ignorant about autism disorders and tend view our social difficulties as a sign of poor character. The military won’t take us, the peace corps won’t take us, hell we even have difficulty finding work at the shittiest of taco stands.

    I wonder why there isn’t more progressive/swpl outrage over this?

  • Kirk

    …”your attitude sucks donkey balls. ”

    @Mr.NervousToes
    Sorry about that mate. I have been in a really pissy mood as of late due to this chick stealing my iphone.

    “If you have Asperger’s you’re almost certainly sensitive to certain foodstuffs”

    I do not have any food allergies that I am aware of. However, my mother and siblings all have food allergies. I will be sure to look into this.

    3.) Exercise.

    Though very ecto, I am quite fit. I have been lifting for about a year now (3 days a week), and can bench about 200lbs. I agree, though, lifting is great.

    “You do not need a job in your field, in fact I would encourage you to get out of the intellectual cesspool that is psychology.”

    I have to disagree with you there. I have long dreamt of being able to mentor adolescents with Aspergers. If I had an adult with AS to look up to during my darkest years as a teen, I probably wouldn’t be having this conversation.

  • http://bradtalk.blogspot.com BradA

    Watch that you don’t equate your mission with what you do for money Kirk. We raised at least one child diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome and he did get in the Army (though he claimed not to have it at the time). He definitely fit the profile and did fine.

    I have many of the same traits and have done well in my career, so it is quite possible to have Aspy traits and still do well. You have to go a bit outside the box though and make your own way. I would guess that is a lot harder to do in the psychology field than in IT-related stuff.

    I doubt the mythical mentor you wished for would have solved all your problems. Life is a mess no matter what we have. The culture pushes against that in my view. I am not sure I would trust an older man who wanted to be with my teen son a lot (if I had any more teen sons that is).

    ====

    Susan, the results of the studies noted in this book sound a lot like your post a while back on those in sororities saying they wanted one thing when their actions indicated they really wanted another.

    You also cite the number of references in this book as if that proves something. Will you take my word on something because I include lots of footnotes? Flawed methodology can be quite repetitive.

    (I know I am new posting here, but I have read here for a little while.)

  • http://bradtalk.blogspot.com BradA

    I will note that I have read that Bill Gates is quite likely an Aspy, so it is fully possible to do very well in life if that is true.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “referring specifically to education/status.”

    well, I guess that we’re going to find out just how high the status of an unemployed person with a social sciences masters degree is. Or a phd working as a barrista. Does credentialism still apply post zombie apocalypse (code for financial collapse)? especially if you have $100k undiscargeable student debt…not that marrying that debt is any kind of good idea.

    Cappy Cap’s book ‘Worthless’ talks about the financial value of various degrees, how bad do things have to get before the social value collapses to match financial viability? As Captain Capitalism says, “Enjoy the decine”.

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

    Susan…marriage & status….how does this play out in a dynamic society where status levels are in flux? For example…

    It’s 1870. Jonathan is the blacksmith’s son; his father is respected in the community, but not on a level with Susannah’s father, who is the local agent for the railroad and is a factor in local politics. Jonathan, who is very intelligent and ambitious, falls in love with Susannah…asks her to marry him and go West with him to claim a homestead.

    Unlikely that she’ll say yes? To what degree can talent and ambition substitute for lower status?

  • Just1Z

    “Millennial women and men are both very vocal on prioritizing marriage and children. The pendulum is swinging back on this because they do not want what their parents had.”

    this is encouraging for society I reckon, whether it is good for men depends on whether any of these purported marriages last (which will take another decade). do we know what they are doing, rather than saying yet? or is it too early? are we seeing a reduction in first marriage age yet?

  • JP

    Under every conceivable metric, I’m definitely enigma.

    I think that’s kind of like being sigma, only much more confusing.

  • JP

    @David Foster: “Unlikely that she’ll say yes? To what degree can talent and ambition substitute for lower status?”

    I recently read Blood and Roses (1400′s – whenever).

    Apparently people out of status would fall in love and get married anyway, meaning that the woman married down and got tossed out of her position in the social world because she fell in love.

    I don’t know how common this was, but it happened with one of the Paston daughters.

  • VD

    You are correct in believing that “some people just don’t have a good sense of the physical space people like to have around them in social settings. ” There’s a clinical term, proximal something or another (Damn these menopausal memory glitches!), that encompasses this.

    I need more space than most and my boss had that habit/condition, so at my first job, the secretaries used to sit and laugh as he would unconsciously chase me all the way across an open area. One girl actually measured it once and he covered more than 40 feet as I repeatedly retreated. Good guy, but he was very tall and would lean down so that his nose almost touched yours. I would stand it as long as I could, then finally take a step or two back when the urge to throw an uppercut started to become irresistible.

    I’m 5’10 and weigh 150lbs. It would be akin to mini-me trying out for the NBA.

    You could be at 170 within 18 months. And look at the pictures of the old oil workers. Most of them were skinny and looked a lot more like you than a football player. You’re 23. Children obey their parents. Men respect them. The decision is yours, if you believe you need it, then go do it. Yes, the hand you were dealt sucks, but your attitude is far more crippling than the strikes against you.

    Read Johnny Tremaine and pay particular attention to what Rab tells him about his crippled hand.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    if there is consistancy in the method of data acquisition, that at least has to be helpful to drawing conclusions…

    You and Obs seem to value Buss, so he does have some currency with me…FWTIW :)

  • JP

    @Just1Z:

    “Does credentialism still apply post zombie apocalypse (code for financial collapse)?”

    The financial system already collapsed and was put on life support back in 2008.

    However, the system is still chock full of cheap energy, so nothing has really changed, it’s just that economic growth has been sliced.

  • VD

    Millennial women and men are both very vocal on prioritizing marriage and children. The pendulum is swinging back on this because they do not want what their parents had.

    Sounds good, but I’ll believe it when the women stop putting their academic credentials and jobs first. The age of first marriage is still rising. If we see it start falling, then I’ll give the notion credence.

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

      @VD

      Sounds good, but I’ll believe it when the women stop putting their academic credentials and jobs first. The age of first marriage is still rising. If we see it start falling, then I’ll give the notion credence.

      I don’t think we’ll see the first age at marriage drop, or see women stop going for careers. What I do think, though, is that women will hop onto the mommy track earlier, indefinitely, and without misgivings.

  • JP

    The millennials aren’t getting jobs. Or jobs with advancement. That’s part of the problem.

    See newly minted lawyers for details.

  • Cooper

    ” I’m pretty unrestricted, more than I realized, after having taken that test on the 1-9 scale in behavior, attitudes and desires and I still totally want to marry and have kids and be faithful.”

    There’s a test!?

  • JP

    The actual coming of age of the millenials just started in 2008 when the credit bubble imploded.

    The generations are tied to the credit system, which only recently went into reverse.

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

    JP….re love & status…very interesting comment by the Frenchman Michael Chevalier, who visited the US circa 1833. He observed that Americans were the most money-obsessed people he had ever met…BUT:

    “I ought to do the Americans justice on another point. I have said that with them everything was an affair of money; yet there is one thing which among us, a people of lively affections, prone to love and generous by nature, takes the mercantile character very decidedly and which among them has nothing of this character; I mean marriage. We buy a woman with our fortune or we sell ourselves to her for her dowry. The American chooses her, or rather offers himself to her, for her beauty, her intelligence, or her amiable qualities and asks no other portion. Thus, while we make a traffic of what is most sacred, these shopkeepers exhibit a delicacy and loftiness of feeling which would have done honor to the most perfect models of chivalry.”

    I wonder if the perception of hardening class boundaries in the U.S. (which, IMO are largely a function of credentialism) has led to changes in the SMP which make it less like the America of 1833 and more like the France of that same year?

  • JP

    @Cooper: “There’s a test!?”

    Don’t worry.

    There’s no chance that you will fail.

  • Jackie

    @SayWhaat

    “What we’re seeing in Hook-Up culture is the loss of bargaining power. Women are making shitty deals and are afraid to ask for more because to her, what she’s getting may already be the best deal she can get given current market conditions.”
    =====
    SW, I don’t disagree with anything you wrote. In my 0.02, though, the best way a chick can look at this is to re-frame your statement:

    If every other girl is hooking up (cheap, disposable, treating themselves like the equivalent of WalMart)…

    Imagine the value of the girl who sees hooking up for the scam it is and refuses to cave to crappy conditions. (Views her worth as the equivalent of Tiffany Co. or Saks). She’s not worrying about mass appeal: she is targeting a singular, highly-specialized niche and then working at being the best she can be.

    In a “recession,” luxury goods will not cheapen themselves or have fire sales; it would do damage associated with the company’s name/branding. I would suggest that there is a lesson that can be learned here.

    None of us needs to have cheap, disposable sex (women OR men, in my opinion). Or act out of a place of fear or desperation! That way only leads to more heartache.

    I would ultimately like everyone to view themselves as so valuable they wouldn’t even consider for SECOND they are the sexual equivalent of WalMarts (ick ick ick!). :(

    (That is probably the weirdest and most disturbing analogy I have made in quite some time! :shock:)

  • JP

    @David: “I wonder if the perception of hardening class boundaries in the U.S. (which, IMO are largely a function of credentialism) has led to changes in the SMP which make it less like the America of 1833 and more like the France of that same year?”

    France in 1833 was a weird place.

    Too many different groups floating around to make much of a comparison to anything I can think of.

  • Just1Z

    @VD
    I’ll take that as my answer then. ah well.

    Do enough QE and the Dollar will no longer be acceptable as a reserve currency. One of the nails in the British Empire was when the Dollar took over from the Pound as the world’s reserve currency…enough said?

    Do too much QE and the Chinese that own a huge amount of the dollar debt are going to be pissed at the resultant devaluation of their investments.

    These are not just abstract facts…they are real.

    and have no illusion that I am laughing about this, Europe is in the shit too (yes, including the UK). Kill the western economy and the BRICs are in the shit, as the markets for their raw materials evaporates.

    You did get that the ‘Zombie Apocalypse’ was code for financial and societal collapse, didn’t you?

    BOGAHIC

  • Jackie

    @Kirk

    Hey Kirk,
    I’m really sorry to hear what you’ve been going through. :( BTW, your pic looks cute to me! I wouldn’t have noticed anything out of the ordinary, if you hadn’t mentioned it.

    I think a lot of the advice given has been really good. I will only add that no matter what happens, time is going to pass. Where do you want to be, this time next Thanksgiving? In 2 years, 5 years, 10 years?

    For me, sometime’s the thought of remaining stagnant in a situation is far worse than the condition itself.

    I hope you will stick around, Kirk. Peace and best wishes– :)

  • Cooper

    “Don’t worry.
    There’s no chance that you will fail.”

    LMAO. *sigh* Wooo

  • Just1Z

    Good to see you Jackie, shame the thread just took an optimism nose-dive. don’t take it personally.

    ————

    Just watching Hara-Kiri a rather down-beat (sod it, it’s flat-out depressing) film from Japan (duh). Going to watch the Hangover next,that should make me laugh and barf

  • JP

    “Do enough QE and the Dollar will no longer be acceptable as a reserve currency. One of the nails in the British Empire was when the Dollar took over from the Pound as the world’s reserve currency…enough said?”

    The United States has been in relative decline for several years now.

    That always happens with empires.

  • HanSolo

    @Cooper

    Yes, there is a test. Maybe someone remembers what thread it was on. I imagine you’ll get pretty low in behavior and probably on the low side of average or maybe low in attitude and desire (or whatever the names of the 3 categories are). INTJ got very low scores in all three.

    Before leaving the virgin club I would have still gotten high levels in attitude and desire but very low in behavior.

  • Jackie

    @JP
    “Under every conceivable metric, I’m definitely enigma.”
    ===
    You are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma! (To quote Churchill :) )

  • Cooper

    “Imagine the value of the girl who sees hooking up for the scam it is and refuses to cave to crappy conditions. (Views her worth as the equivalent of Tiffany Co. or Saks). She’s not worrying about mass appeal: she is targeting a singular, highly-specialized niche and then working at being the best she can be.”

    Maybe tell this to the girl who posted today in the “20 reasons why I don’t have a boyfriend” thread.

  • HanSolo

    @Cooper

    In spite of being quite unrestricted that desire for flings and variety is really more superficial and what I really want is a committed, loving relationship with children. I’ve been faithful in my relationships and will be in the future.

  • Joe

    @Jackie

    Imagine the value of the girl who sees hooking up for the scam it is and refuses to cave to crappy conditions. (Views her worth as the equivalent of Tiffany Co. or Saks). She’s not worrying about mass appeal: she is targeting a singular, highly-specialized niche and then working at being the best she can be.

    Be a little careful with the analogy, though. Earlier in this thread people were wondering why anyone would “double down” on the hypergamy in these conditions. Why would anyone think to become more selective and restrictive right now? You put your finger on the answer – don’t sell yourself on the cheap.

    But there’s a problem. The message being heard isn’t “I’m better than that.” The message being heard is “YOU can’t meet my price. You have nothing to offer and YOU aren’t good enough.”

  • JP

    @Jackie: “You are a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma! (To quote Churchill )”

    According to a partner with whom I used to work, sadly I’m just an enigma.

    So yes, I’ve actually had this label applied to me in a corporate context.

    I didn’t just pull it out of the ether.

  • Jackie

    @Joe

    “But there’s a problem. The message being heard isn’t “I’m better than that.” The message being heard is “YOU can’t meet my price. You have nothing to offer and YOU aren’t good enough.”

    Joe, can you elaborate on this– the “nothing to offer” and “aren’t good enough”– how is this message being transmitted?

    Thanks for considering my request :)

  • Jackie

    @Coop

    “Maybe tell this to the girl who posted today in the “20 reasons why I don’t have a boyfriend” thread.”

    :(
    Have a link to this thread, Coop? Or any idea where it is in the archives?

    BTW, how did your date go last Sunday? I hope it was fantastic. :)

  • Zach

    @lokland (from way back)

    I think a large part of men wanting connection has to do with a grass-is-greener effect, or in economics terms what is scarce becomes valuable, and what is plentiful becomes cheap. I started on this thread with a post about how I know a lot of men who have been very successful with women and have a high SMV who are in LTRs and have no intention of leaving them, nor any regrets about them. Now I posited this may be due to my socio-economic stratum, but I think a large part of it is that after enough sex, the sex becomes cheap. Since college, my longest dry spell (prior to the current no-casual-sex self-enforced one) was 6 weeks. I have a few other friends who have similar access to women. As my friend Dan said recently “this is New York. Sex isn’t that hard to find”. So what I hear is generally the guys who get no sex (the betas) are bemoaning the unavailability of sex, and so they fantasize about sexual access to women and sexual variety. Meanwhile the guys who can get sex fairly regularly place a low value on it. What is common becomes cheap. What is uncommon, which is a smart, fun, funny, caring girl, becomes much more valuable.

    An interesting question I’d like to see answered is how men view sexual variety and frequency vs. female attractiveness. IE if a man has constant access (in an LTR) to an attractive woman, how much does he still want variety? I’d personally rather be sleeping with an 8.5-9 (my ex) 6-7 times a week for 2 months than with 5 different 5.5-6′s over the same time period. What is not revealed by many of these studies is that the vast majority of players, whatever their boasts, are sleeping with at best slightly above average-looking girls. No one except for movie stars, models, and super-rich men are taking down 9′s on a regular basis. A large part of that is because 9s can use their SMV to demand relationships. Just look at the various hot actresses and female models around. Most of them are always dating some guy or another, or are married. Very attractive women don’t have to trade sex for a relationship.

  • Cooper

    @Jackie
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2009/09/28/relationshipstrategies/20-reasons-you-dont-have-a-boyfriend/comment-page-2/#comment-167650

    I didn’t know what to say without sounding corny, like “keep it up, your not doing anything wrong.”

    Actually, after some thought I might come up with a post. I think her being “hurt” (see: “cheated on”) while maintaining her chasity, speaks to her level of investment she requires. Obviously, she wants high-investment. And the fact that she hasn’t given herself up in pursuit of that only speaks positive about her.
    I’m still resistant cause it sounds like “keep doing what your doing” which is rarely received as good advice.

  • Cooper

    “BTW, how did your date go last Sunday? I hope it was fantastic.”

    This weekend.

  • Just1Z

    “Hara-Kiri – Death of a Samurai” (2011)

    cool film for da menz. honour, humanity and…hara kiri

    recommended (lovefilm streaming in the UK) but not a happy film. Deffo not written by a sheila, as our Aussie cousins might put it.

  • Just1Z

    and it’s a remake of a 1962 film “Harakiri”

    wish me luck, I am going in, armed only with a bottle of blood red wine to stiffen my resolve

  • Just1Z

    on second thoughts, I’ll get the DVD for another day. comedy now

  • Lokland

    @Zach

    “@lokland (from way back)”

    Your gonna have to give me a post number. I agree with pretty much everything you said.

    I’m personally experiencing ‘grass is greener’ right now and it is an absolute hell.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    In a “recession,” luxury goods will not cheapen themselves or have fire sales; it would do damage associated with the company’s name/branding. I would suggest that there is a lesson that can be learned here.

    This, this, this.

    If I am going to commit my whole life to a single woman, you need to be Tiffany and Co.

    I do not want to spend the rest of my life with Wal-Mart.

  • Just1Z

    so yeah, a comedy it is.

    ‘a boy and his dog’ is a sci fi comedy set in 2024.

    “Politicians had finally solved the problem of urban blight”

    World War IV…

    http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0072730/
    With Don Miami Vice Johnson

    cool…IGI

    what happened to all the upbeat films?

  • Joe

    @Jackie

    Joe, can you elaborate on this– the “nothing to offer” and “aren’t good enough”– how is this message being transmitted?

    I’m not sure how to answer the question “how.” But maybe the best answer is “unintentionally.”

    Imagine you’re the one who in interested in some person, Jackie. And then imagine you’ve decided to approach them to gauge their level of interest, or maybe even just to find out who they are. Let’s say you’re not particularly experienced at this, so it doesn’t go particularly smoothly, and nothing comes of it. That’s one.

    Now rinse, and repeat the following week – same result. That’s two. Rinse and repeat again. (Hey! Maybe it’s an epidemic of people “not selling themselves on the cheap!”, or maybe it’s just an innate tendency to double down on the hypergamy in a buyer’s market.) How many times will it take before you start saying to yourself “It’s not them, it’s me.”

    I suspect the honest answer for most people is not too many times (and YMMV, of course). That’s how “not selling yourself on the cheap” or, as you put it, not being Wal-mart but Tiffany’s, becomes “You aren’t good enough.”

    It may not be such a bad thing when one person does it. But when a whole society or culture does it, then, you know, it foments things like PUA blogs and stuff.

  • HanSolo

    @Zach and Lokland

    I’ve definitely experienced the grass-is-greener phenomenon from both sides. When in a decent relationship I think I have been too picky and not given it enough of a chance and since I was getting sex I started to think, “ah, sex is great but I can live without it so frequently being single again so that I can find an even more perfect unicorn.” (And some girls have been too picky and broken up with me too, IMO) Then when I’m single and not getting sex as much or with as hot of a girl then I miss the former gf and think, “What a dumb ass I was! I should have at least given it more of a try.”

    I think my latest mindset is to find someone that meets enough of what I’m looking for and then be patient to see if that deeper connection and love I’m looking for can develop.

  • Just1Z

    @ Joe

    taking the middle road here.

    Anyone is worth what the market will pay, whether you are on sale in Walmart or Harrods.

    But you don’t need everyone to say that you’re worth top dollar, just one. It’s just a matter of finding the right one, if you can.

  • Jackie

    @Coop

    Hey Cooper,

    I think it is *awesome* that you are encouraging her and giving support! *high five* Hearing it from a guy will have a totally different kind of impact, in my opine. Especially a high-value guy like yourself! :)

    Honestly, I think if you would follow a Tiffany strategy, the trade-off is you are going to have to learn to get *really* familiar with rejection and the old brush-off. Sheerly by nature of the market: Luxury brands have been in business forever, but they don’t move nearly the volume that the cheap crud does.

    I think, also, adopting a friendly response to rejection –in addition to a friendly tone overall– is only going to help. I mean, if you are going to have high standards when everyone else around you is hooking up, the rejection is NOT personal. Most of these guys would reject *anyone* — a supermodel, you name it–who adopted such a standard. De-personalize the rejection and rejoice that you dodged a bullet! :)

    Additionally, finding support wherever you can as you will be swimming against the stream. I think your post to her will be very helpful, Coop. :-)

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Joe:

    It may not be such a bad thing when one person does it. But when a whole society or culture does it, then, you know, it foments things like PUA blogs and stuff.

    The PUA blogs and male resentment comes from more than that. I think most guys could grok not being the most handsome or suave guy in the world , and being on a learning curve.

    What we don’t like are the stories we hear and the traits that women find attractive, particularly when we were told the opposite and tried damn hard to be Knights in Shining Armor.

    @Thread in general, just realized how relevant this story is

    File this under “Reports from Front-Line.”

    My best friend recently drunkenly sex’d a Hooters girl. And he desperately wants a girlfriend, too.

    Background: he’s a first generation immigrant from Eastern Europe. We met in college, freshman orientation, actually. We started out as outcasts, pretty much, but we’ve both worked on our social standings a lot. Neither of us was very lucky with the girls…he looked so damn FOB, and I shot myself in the foot with anti-game.

    Now, after years of gym work and a lot of style sense, he’s damn high SMV. But he’s also heavily involved in the Club Scene. He’s not experienced: he had one girlfriend before he met me, and none after. Doesn’t want a GF, too much work, he thinks. He hooked up with exactly one girl from a club before Hooter girl.

    I know this because he went on and on about her, and clearly had an emotional connection, because he followed up with her to hang out. Didn’t even sleep with her: Just a blowjob.

    He stopped when he found out she had a kid. Surprise, surprise, club slut was also a single mom.

    When he saw me being ridiculously happy in my relationship, he decided he wanted one. He went on to eHarmony (where another mutual friend recently found a GF after deciding hook-ups weren’t for him).

    He ran into one girl that texted him non-stop, and one girl that would play the flaky routine and not respond to emails for days. He eventually got a date from the flake, but he bailed on the date early because she wouldn’t talk: too nervous.

    As for hooking up, I can definitely tell you he doesn’t do it “often” and his technical N is ONE. He is sexually inexperienced and knows it: one of his life goals is to give a girl an orgasm, just so he knows he can do it.

    These girls that he hooked up with, were definitely sexually aggressive. He can’t initiate otherwise. Outside his comfort zone.

    And he would rather have a girlfriend, but he doesn’t see any good prospects. Admittedly because he runs in social circles where restricted girls don’t go.

    But he still occasionally hooks up, with Casanova women.

    “What a damn shame,” I think.

  • Just1Z

    @ADBG
    “one of his life goals is to give a girl an orgasm, just so he knows he can do it.”

    her having an orgasm is far more in her head than in his ‘ability’ imho.

    he just needs to chill and not get a complex about it.

    these things work themselves out on both sides…

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Say/Sue: “First, humor me by accepting the following premise: the 80% college students that are not engaged in the bacchanal Greek culture still have occasional hook ups/FWB arrangements within and around their coed social circles.”

    That’s a huge premise, that 80% people have repeating, regular hookups… regular enough for the poor girl (and always the girl, never the guy) to want more, as opposed to nothing or one-offs.

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

      That’s a huge premise, that 80% people have repeating, regular hookups

      Why did you change Say Whaat’s word “occasional” to “repeating and regular?” We know that a quarter of men and women graduate college as virgins. Still, it is estimated that 80-90% of college students will hook up at least once. Note: hook up does not mean sex.

  • Joe

    Jackie, am I reading you wrong?

    Or are you saying that the person getting rejected is the person who raises their standards in the SMP?

    That’s the only way I can interpret “I think if you would follow a Tiffany strategy, the trade-off is you are going to have to learn to get *really* familiar with rejection and the old brush-off.”

    Just1Z, it’s true that it only takes one person to change everything (I’ll testify to that personally). That’s exactly why patience, a bit of persistence and a lot of not giving up hope are required. It’s the getting there that’s hard. I question that “raising your standards” is really the answer. I think changing them is.

    ADBG, I agree. I was being slightly sarcastic.

  • Just1Z

    @Joe
    “Just1Z, it’s true that it only takes one person to change everything (I’ll testify to that personally). That’s exactly why patience, a bit of persistence and a lot of not giving up hope are required.”

    yeah, it’s a huge gamble. getting your best possible price, but getting the sale above all (if you can’t handle the single life). that’s always been the horror of the MMP, that bit is nothing new.

  • Just1Z

    Going back to an old comment about male rape…yep, ‘a boy and his dog’ has it too…weird coincidence

  • JP

    I’ve never seen on-line dating support services quite like this blog.

  • Pumpkin Spice Latte

    “The PUA blogs and male resentment comes from more than that. I think most guys could grok not being the most handsome or suave guy in the world , and being on a learning curve.

    What we don’t like are the stories we hear and the traits that women find attractive, particularly when we were told the opposite and tried damn hard to be Knights in Shining Armor.”

    We love Knights in Shining Armor provided they are handsome. Suave doesn’t hurt either. Male resentment comes from realizing that not all Knights in Shining Armor are created equal.

  • JP

    “The hallmark of hooking up is the clear understanding between both parties that the encounter will be free from any expectations for further contact.”

    I know that this wasn’t true for me.

    I had no idea what hooking up was when it was inflicted upon me, so I didn’t have clear expectations of anything (1993/1998).

    It was quite confusing and bizarre.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Why did you change Say Whaat’s word “occasional” to “repeating and regular?” ”

    Occasional is loaded. Anything other than an exact measurement (of the average) time between hook ups is going to be loaded based upon a persons own perception. In most cases societal influence occasional probably could be more readily interpreted is every other weekend, every weekend etc.

    I’ll be honest, occasional to me, means at least once a week in the context it was used.

    @Han

    “I’ve definitely experienced the grass-is-greener phenomenon from both sides. When in a decent relationship I think I have been too picky and not given it enough of a chance and since I was getting sex I started to think, “ah, sex is great but I can live without it so frequently being single again so that I can find an even more perfect unicorn.”

    I’m the opposite. I’m very touch oriented.
    Even when I want my wife to shut the hell up so I can work I still want her on my lap or head on my knee etc.

    Its when I get a lack of touching that I start going grass is greener.

    She is back home visiting family atm.

    Woman at gym initiates kino, I found myself having a very vivid daydream about what it would be like to start a new relationship.

    Insta-guilt.

    I need my kino, don’t think I could handle a relationship where the primary type of affection was not kino based.

    Pulling my damn hair out with a migraine and I feel like a wolf in a sheep pen at work.

    Need kino…

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

      @Lokland

      I’ll be honest, occasional to me, means at least once a week in the context it was used.

      Wow, I’m glad you clarified. When I think of a college student who has hooked up occasionally, I think of a couple of partners per year, not necessarily P in V. In fact, it could be just making out, that’s probably the most common form of hookup.

      The percentage of men who hook up weekly in college (with high partner turnover) is probably <1%.

  • Cooper

    Well. Surprise, surprise. Ms. Flake flaked. (She works all weekend)

    Cookie goes to Emily. (She called it)

  • JP

    Cooper, you need a different social network.

    (And now, I need to sue the government again. I need a good draft complaint. It’s around here somewhere.)

  • HanSolo

    Good luck Lokland with the kino withdrawal.

  • Zach

    @Cooper

    If its been more than one flake, kick her to the curb. Lots of other fish out there. Only real way to recover now is to say shes paying for the next date, or else its at your apt at 2 am. Otherwise your hanging up the “doormat” sign in neon lights.

  • Kathy

    @Just1Z

    “her having an orgasm is far more in her head than in his ‘ability’ imho.”

    Yep, that’s what I have always said as well,.

    “he just needs to chill and not get a complex about it.”

    That’s very good advice. Ultimately, a woman is responsible for her own orgasm. Very often what is going on in her head at the time will determine the outcome, not his technique. Also a woman needs to tell her man what feels good for her. Where and how to stimulate her. He’s not a mind reader.

    “these things work themselves out on both sides…”

    That, they do. :)

  • Kathy

    BTW, Just1Z.
    Avatar suits you to a tee, mate.
    John Wayne was a straight shooter too! :D

  • SayWhaat

    “Why did you change Say Whaat’s word “occasional” to “repeating and regular?” ”

    Occasional is loaded. Anything other than an exact measurement (of the average) time between hook ups is going to be loaded based upon a persons own perception. In most cases societal influence occasional probably could be more readily interpreted is every other weekend, every weekend etc.

    You’re guilty of Pluralistic Ignorance here, again. “Occasional” means “happens”, and debating exact measurements of time is semantics. The point was that 80% of girls and guys aren’t sitting out the mating game entirely, they are dipping their toes in every once in a while. My previous comments were offering explanations as to why those encounters rarely progressed into actual relationships.

  • SayWhaat

    Cooper,

    Yeah, just do what Zach says. Say “next time’s on you” and write her off. If she’s genuinely interested, she’ll reach out. But don’t waste any more time on this one. Every time I flaked on my now-boyfriend due to work, I planned a specific time to reschedule so that he wouldn’t think I was uninterested. If she’s not doing the same, FIDO.

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

    @SW

    So the Player, who is also the guy most likely to actually commit sexual assault, winds up tainting the way that all men are perceived. And because the Player has high status, men who are not focused exclusively on casual sex are regarded as perhaps less virile, less sexual, or possibly gay.

    Got it, that basically sums up my thinking on the issue. This incorrect perception of guys’ sexuality by girls is cemented at the high school level, probably coinciding with sex education and middle puberty. It also explains some of my experiences growing up restricted and not wanting to sleep around. Though I occasionally got a nasty comment from the female gender (i.e. “you only want one woman because you can only get one woman”), most of the flack came from other guys while growing up. Young women are probably shamed to some degree for wanting a BF, especially in college. Maybe by other women?

    Back to the main point, most guys preferring a GF: the missing piece of this puzzle has to be the significant % of college guys who actually have relationships (still unsure exactly how many), even if they only last 1-4 years. Clearly some regulars doubt that they survey research is true, with guys giving “expected” answers and not being candid. One bit of circumstantial evidence that men are living out their preference: 25% of currently married men report 1 or 2 lifetime partners (including their wife), per the CDC/Census…

    Which kind of segues back to something you’ve mentioned before. I have to agree with Mr. OTC, these attractive, pleasant, well-adjusted “beta” guys you know in their mid-20s, who’ll make great husbands/dads someday? If they’ve already got N = 25 to 50, I’m not sure you can call that “normal” statistically speaking, because it really isn’t, by Smiler’s definition or any other reasonable comparison. So unless they’re embellishing their N up by quite a bit, they’re already well on their way to “Casanova/Player” class before they’re even 30. Giacomo chocked up 122 affairs according to his own memoirs, and he lived to age 73!

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

      @Megaman

      these attractive, pleasant, well-adjusted “beta” guys you know in their mid-20s, who’ll make great husbands/dads someday? If they’ve already got N = 25 to 50, I’m not sure you can call that “normal” statistically speaking,

      No, my guys have N of 5-10, just a guess, they’re 24.

  • Lokland

    @Cooper

    +1 to others, drop her and don’t do something stupid and try and set up another date.

    @Saywhaat

    ““Occasional” means “happens”, and debating exact measurements of time is semantics. ”

    You still run into the problem of a non-concreate time frame. Happens could be everyday, every week, every month.

    My personal inclination is wrong, looking at the numbers its easy to see. I think Sue said 45% don’t hook up at all during one semester.

    Without a time frame its a rather useless point. Banks get robbed occasionally, suns explode occasionally, women get raped occasionally etc.

    Without the proper timeframe people will draw their own inferences about the frequency of occurrence.

    @Susan

    I had to think about how to respond to this.

    “I do not see how you can say this. You’re totally badass in the threads with occasional glimpses of sweetie pie (a great combo, BTW). Unless you are very different IRL I’d say you have to be in the delta-beta range.”

    I have little to no social dominance. I’m able to dominate my wife (in fun ways obvs.) but in terms of social interaction with other men I have literally 0 dominance. When speaking people either listen and hear what they need to know or don’t and fail miserably. Their choice.

    I have no interest nor ability to dominate others while at the same time having an absolute and utter hatred of following which has pretty much always led to abuse by others directed towards me. I either get to sit and do my own thing while being part of the group or I’m not joining the group.

    Another way to put it, I have no problem being led as long as the leader leaves me the fuck alone and lets me do what needs to be done in the way I see fit. This obviously requires a large degree of trust that I won’t light the rest of the pack on fire or betray it (which I never have).

    Thats a rather gamma social stance.

    There are quite a few other characteristics I share with Vox’s delta description which are related to interactions with woman. I have absolutely no beta or alpha traits on that list.

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

      @Lokland

      Hmmm, that sounds like sigma to me.

  • Lokland

    @Mega

    “One bit of circumstantial evidence that men are living out their preference: 25% of currently married men report 1 or 2 lifetime partners (including their wife), per the CDC/Census…”

    What is the corresponding number for women?

  • tito

    happy thanksgiving Susan.

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

    @Loks
    I rounded down a bit, it’s actually closer to 27% for married men. For women, it’s about 45%, with close to 1/3 being “1″ (husband only). I think that includes your lovely wife? Happy Thanksgiving to you!

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

    Susan: re women going to college, going for careers, and then jumping on the mommy track. If the 60/40 continues for much longer, I don’t know that many of them will have this choice. We are all essentially betting that they will be the breadwinners of tomorrow—I don’t think that the majority of the ladies can exercise career call options and opt out after having absorbed the bulk of our higher education emphasis.

    It would be different if we were talking about 10 or 15 out of every 100 college students deciding to leave the rat race and build the nests. That could probably be absorbed without significant friction. But we’re not—we’re talking about approx. 60 out of 100 college students. This is possibly the great tragedy of the whole feminist experiment.

    After another decade of these ratios (i.e, when they are fully baked in at all relevant age cohorts), approx. 1/3 of college women will either have to marry a non-college-educated man, not get married at all, or push to legalize polygamy, yet there is almost no mainstream discussion of this mathematical reality.

    For women, the race for a hypergamy-compatible mate is possibly going to take intrasexual competition to the level of Devil Take the Hindmost, and the tactics/enticements/etc. that are authorized in such conditions may become quite ruthless. If 12 out of every 60 women are “unrestricted” and those 60 women are competing for 40 men of whom 8 are unrestricted…well, we all get the idea…

    I know someone who is trying to run the numbers on the student loans vs. gender ratios vs. shifting breadwinner mandates thing and it apparently makes for a potential financial picture worse than the apocalyptic public pension benefits situation facing California. He thinks the female breadwinner/co-breadwinner thing is just assumed at this point; there just aren’t enough college men available to safely support the mountain of student debt that both genders have run up.

    The feminists clearly do not want to give up that 60/40 and I can understand that they are proud of such a hard-won victory, but there are unavoidable consequences to this situation and they probably should be articulated more than they currently are.

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

      @BB

      re women going to college, going for careers, and then jumping on the mommy track. If the 60/40 continues for much longer, I don’t know that many of them will have this choice.

      Good point. So a lot of the women who say that is what they hope to do are not going to get what they want, and they’ll likely focus more on career. That will most likely lead to an even more stark divide between SAHMs and career women.

      After another decade of these ratios (i.e, when they are fully baked in at all relevant age cohorts), approx. 1/3 of college women will either have to marry a non-college-educated man, not get married at all, or push to legalize polygamy, yet there is almost no mainstream discussion of this mathematical reality.

      I think we’re there now! It will take a few years for the pyramid scheme of dating older guys to dry up, though. I don’t think you’ll ever hear a convo about polygamy, but I am very surprised no one is talking about women marrying down or having to forego marriage. Introducing that topic has become my favorite dinner party trick, especially if there are parents of daughters present. I think people understand that we are perhaps entering an era of “musical chairs mating,” but naturally everyone assumes their own daughter will get a seat. But yes, I agree, female intrasexual competition is about to get very ugly.

  • http://bradtalk.blogspot.com BradA

    “The survey is regarded as highly legit, as it has been used extensively in David Buss’ research, and has been given to many thousands of people over a period of 70 years. ”

    That still doesn’t validate it. Many things that are “commonly accepted” have been wrong for quite some time.

    I tend to think that the understood minimum standard of looks was a given in the minds of those who answered. Otherwise, why would so many funny unattractive women not have LTRs? Are all of them incapable of that? (Not likely.)

    I suppose I should try to find the survey because the context may explain the answers more. Hot women draw male attention and focus. You and others seem to be saying that is not true which doesn’t fit reality.

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

      Hot women draw male attention and focus. You and others seem to be saying that is not true which doesn’t fit reality.

      The survey is about what men want in prospective wives. It is not about what men find arousing.

  • Pingback: The Desire for Casual Sex and Relationships are not Incongruent « Free Northerner

  • Madelena

    @VD
    Sounds good, but I’ll believe it when the women stop putting their academic credentials and jobs first. The age of first marriage is still rising. If we see it start falling, then I’ll give the notion credence

    My response:

    Like Susan, I don’t see that happening for a long time, if ever. How many men do you know are willing to marry women straight out of college, and start having children?. The education conveyer belt and economic structure prevents such an early start to building families for both men and women.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Cooper

    Well. Surprise, surprise. Ms. Flake flaked. (She works all weekend)

    Cookie goes to Emily. (She called it)

    I’m sorry Cooper. :(

  • OlioOx

    Just started looking at this blog — here’s a bit of science stuff which everyone should know: Endocrinologist Dr. Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University, summarizing research in the second lecture of his course “Human Behavioral Biology” (available online, just google), describes pair-bonding, or monogamous species versus ‘tournament’ species in which the most alpha males sire the offspring but do not help care for them. These two varieties of behavior are found across many, many species, not just monkeys and primates and humans. (And it should be borne in mind that females of each variety behave accordingly; for example, pair-bonding females try to choose the males who demonstrate the best ability and motivation to care for offspring, while the tournament females compete for the attention of the most dominant, aggressive, swaggering males, you know the drill.)

    As you all know, many (perhaps most?) species of animals are purely one or the other, and you may even have your favorite examples. But here is the crucial point for human ethology: Humans are somewhere in between. As a species, ON AVERAGE, we are neither fully monogamous nor fully ‘alpha-takes-all’-oriented.

    Now add the range of individual differences, plus the influence of education, training and environment, and the result is observed human sexual behavior in all its variety throughout the ages. Extreme alpha-takes-all-style males — and the females who prefer them — can be found, and totally monogamous people can be found, plus everything in between.

    What this suggests is that the genetic code for our pair-bonding vs. tournament behavior is…what? Confused? Indecisive? Composed of both patterns? As far as I can tell from my reading, it’s too soon to know for sure. But one of the great unanswered questions at this point is, was this ‘half-and-half’ configuration genetically selected for? In other words, did being halfway along the monogamy-tournament spectrum confer a survival advantage upon proto-humans? It seems logical enough to say, “it must be so, for that’s the way we are made, and here we are in our billions.” But the whole picture, obviously, is fiendishly complex.

    I suggest all this as a way of forming the right perspective and framework for consideration of such issues as are discussed in this blog. Nobody who dismisses, or is ignorant of, either aspect (the genetic or the environmental, the nature vs. the nurture) is worth consideration. The behavior-is-determined-by-DNA fanatics must the environment into their ruminations, and the DNA-allergic crowd must force themselves to keep up with what the human-behavioral-biologists are finding (and they’re finding more and more).

    Another great perspective-forming concept from Sapolsky and other modern ethologists (that’s another hat he wears): The right question to ask is not, “What does this gene do?” but rather, “What does this gene do in this particular environment?” (and that requires a full understanding of the word ‘environment’ which means much much more than just “it’s a cloudy day today.” Watch the lectures!)

    An illustration: Our genes code for much higher testosterone levels in males than in females. Testosterone is linked with aggression. Yet we all know that different cultures raise males to actually express, even feel, very different levels of aggression; same gene, different environments, resulting in very different patterns of behavior.

    It’s a simple enough question when you are dealing with a simple enough gene, such as the one that determines eye color. But what about our case of this mysterious gene, or set of genes, that seem to code for this here, erm, ‘half-assed monogamy’? Gets complicated, doesn’t it?

  • Cooper

    “+1 to others, drop her and don’t do something stupid and try and set up another date.”

    Yeah, yeah, I know. It’s a shame.

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

    @BB

    After another decade of these ratios, approx. 1/3 of college women will either have to marry a non-college-educated man, not get married at all, or push to legalize polygamy, yet there is almost no mainstream discussion of this mathematical reality.

    This appears to already be a reality:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/marriage-suits-educated-women.html?pagewanted=all

    If the New York Times article is correct:
    Almost 30 percent of wives today have more education than their husbands, while less than 20 percent of husbands have more education than their wives, almost the exact reverse of the percentages in 1970.

    But there is not a shred of evidence that such marriages are any less satisfying than marriages in which men have equal or higher education than their wives.

    North of the border, as well:
    http://www.working.com/victoria/resources/story.html?id=31dd0fa0-ba35-419a-b2f6-a58643ce09fa

    Like the U.S., Canada’s divorce rate peaked around 1980, and has dropped steadily by about 30% since then. That puts them approximately where they were in 1970, virtually identical to the United States. Marriage rates are down, too, but that’s the case everywhere in the industrialized world (I think). Canada makes for a good comparative case study on a variety of topics.

    Susan’s often pointed out the statistic that college-educated married couples have an extremely low divorce rate (~15%). I wonder if it changes all that much if only one partner has a degree? And if the college-graduate’s gender matters?

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

    I wonder if it changes all that much if only one partner has a degree? And if the college-graduate’s gender matters?

    This is only anecdotal advice, and I know how much that doesn’t really count for anything in Megaman’s Land of Statistics ( :-P ) but my mom has a higher degree than my dad (master’s, while my dad has a bachelor’s) and I think it’s put a significant strain on their marriage… she only got her master’s when I was in high school, and they almost got divorced in my senior year.

    In general, Susan has pointed to prestige as an important component of attraction when it comes to female attraction triggers. I’m not sure that more divorces will happen as a result of the lopsided sex ratio in college, but I do think marriage will continue to decline, perhaps because women wouldn’t be interested in uneducated men. For some reason I recall SayWhaat saying she wouldn’t consider a guy who didn’t have a degree (SW, feel free to call me out on that if I remembered wrong). As for me, I have a degree and my BF does not. I’m willing to deal with that for now and realize he’s working to finish his bachelor’s, but, erm, let’s just say that he works two jobs for very low wages, and that’s not something I could handle long term.

    Finally I would just note that the degree doesn’t always count for everything. My uncle never graduated from college, but he has a very successful retail business, and I’m pretty sure his wife is happy as a SAHM (she’s also 25-30 years younger than him!).

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

    (by “advice” I meant “evidence” in the first sentence. oops.)

  • Lamia

    @Coops
    She’s a fool. Come hang out with me on the other side of the world… I’ll find you a non-flaky McHottie.

    @BB
    “After another decade of these ratios… approx. 1/3 of college women will either have to marry a non-college-educated man, not get married at all, or push to legalize polygamy, yet there is almost no mainstream discussion of this mathematical reality.”
    I would be down for marrying a non-college educated man in a second.. if he’s manly and has a good work ethic (i.e not lazy) I couldn’t care less if he puts on a suit and tie or a flanny and his workman boots. I have heard college-educated women question whether the latter will be “intellectually-stimulating” but you don’t need a 30K university degree to be intelligent. It’s a narrow-minded individual who measures someone on what level of education they have been able to obtain. Does college degree = good provider in the US? Here in Australia its not always the case.

    @SayWhaat
    You are nailing it with your analysis today. Particularly this:

    “The guys and girls hooking up know their partners (these are not random encounters). However, neither partner knows where to go from that point. Her putting out has inexplicably caused him to lose interest, she is well aware of his options given the lopsided sex ratio, and is afraid to rock the boat by asking to DTR, knowing that will scare him off and leave her with nothing. At least by hooking up, she and him are still in a dating orbit that she hopes will fully materialize over time — because growing feelings over time is how girls operate, and she projects this into him. He has met her standards and she communicates this the only way she knows how (sexually), he wants a relationship but is no longer sure about her because of how easily she put out for him. After a long period of awkwardness, they part ways.”

    I have just come out the other side of the college hook-up culture (so still fresh in my mind) and this situation is exceedingly common.

  • VD

    I’ll take that as my answer then. ah well.

    Ah, what? I must have missed something. Drop the number and I’ll look it up.

    I don’t think we’ll see the first age at marriage drop, or see women stop going for careers. What I do think, though, is that women will hop onto the mommy track earlier, indefinitely, and without misgivings.

    That sounds more credible. Unfortunately, it won’t be enough. If you do the math, we need lower first marriage, more children, and about half as many career-oriented women. That will all happen eventually, it’s just a question of whether it is voluntary or involuntary.

  • Just1Z

    @VD
    no, you didn’t miss anything. I had previously asked if the mean age of first marriage was dropping. You said it wasn’t. I took this as my answer.

    “That will all happen eventually, it’s just a question of whether it is voluntary or involuntary.”

    yes, this is the money shot, as it were.

    In times of a harsh economy it looks like there’s going to be an intended life track for women of ‘education’ until late twenties then straight into SAHM. Assuming that you can find an attractive guy who can afford to pay off both sets of loans and run a house and family on his income alone (and wants to do it, and more specifically wants to do it for ‘you’). The princess lifestyle dream come true.

    we’ll see…

    just how much money can the state afford to invest in multiple degrees for women that don’t intend on repaying that investment. I’m assuming that student fees don’t cover the entire cost of the course (they don’t in the UK).

    There are a lot of cost implications for this new lifestyle, individually and societally, are they truly realistic?

  • Just1Z

    @Kathy

    my favourite avatar is the zombie t-shirt one (with airsoft ‘gun’), but I like to keep it fresh and rotate them a little.

    had you ever thought of getting an avatar?

    it’s very easy:
    just go to http://www.gravatar.com and sign up using the same email as you post under here (entirely free, no other info need be given).
    then upload an image, it helps you crop it and that’s it. you can upload multiple images and swap between them easily.

    when you come back here (or any other blog that you have used that email address), your avatar should be present. you may need to flush your cache, but if you don’t it will sort itself out sooner or later.

    go on…it’s free and easy…

  • VD

    Like Susan, I don’t see that happening for a long time, if ever. How many men do you know are willing to marry women straight out of college, and start having children?. The education conveyer belt and economic structure prevents such an early start to building families for both men and women.

    I don’t disagree. Which means, of course, our society would be screwed even if the Four Horsemen of the Financial Apocalypse don’t show up first.

    no, you didn’t miss anything. I had previously asked if the mean age of first marriage was dropping. You said it wasn’t. I took this as my answer.

    No, at the moment it is rising very fast, I believe faster than ever before in the history of Man. I tend to suspect the Millennials’ professions of what is important to their generation remaining so are about as likely to be credible as the Baby Boomers vanished claims of the unreliability of anyone over 30. If marriage and children are a priority to a young woman, she will not go into massive debt to obtain an academic credential. And likewise, if they are important to a young man, he will not spend many hours daily playing COD:MW3.

  • Just1Z

    @OlioOx
    thanks for the google suggestion…interesting.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sue: “Why did you change Say Whaat’s word “occasional” to “repeating and regular”

    Her position is that a hookup almost always results in the woman wanting a relationship, but afraid to ask out of fear of having “nothing” (what nothing means, I’m not sure. I think it means “no monogamy with this person” but it certainly can’t mean nobody will ever approach her again).

    Are you saying that after a *single* hookup, even if it’s just kissing, women want some sort of exclusivity? I figured that it would take some amount repetition for her to be put in the position, of feeling that she was had to ask, and that anything “occasional” could be chalked up to beer goggles.

  • mr. wavevector

    I tend to think that the understood minimum standard of looks was a given in the minds of those who answered.

    I agree. That’s what I did when I tried rating my preferences. People respond to their LTR partner preferences relative to someone they consider acceptable, so some initial preference bias is built in.

    Factors like “attractiveness” are rated on the incremental value an increase in that quality adds. So if I’ve been happy dating 6′s and 7′s, “attractive” to me connotes 8′s and 9′s. I would consider the incremental gain of 2 points in attractiveness to be a relatively minor benefit compared to other qualities. On the other hand, I probably wouldn’t date 3′s and 4′s at all.

    Mathematically speaking, there is a step function at a minimum threshold, and a fairly weak positive gradient above that threshold.

    You see a similar response of women regarding men’s height. Women rarely list height as a factor in choosing a partner. But as any short man can tell you, many women won’t even consider them as a possibility.

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

    The assumption that “college degree” or “advanced degree” means “more money” and “more status” is going to be increasingly challenged. There are too many people struggling with heavy loan repayments for degrees that are of questionable economic value, often questionable intellectual value as well. Meanwhile, there are important, highly-skilled, and highly-paid noncollege jobs that are going unfilled…for example, the co-CEO of a company called Wyoming Metals recently spoke of the difficulty she’s had in finding people who can not only weld, but understand enough of the science of welding to read the drawings and plan the weld. 4-year universities, at least in America, aren’t interested in training welders, of whatever level; there are ethnic and women’s studies courses to be taught.

    This can’t go on forever, and it won’t.

  • mr. wavevector

    He has met her standards and she communicates this the only way she knows how (sexually)

    This comment is very telling. It shows that women have lost the art of feminine psychological appeal and have bought into the myth that all men want is sex. This not only sells men short; it reduces the value of the woman in a relationship to a provider of sex.

    Here’s another comment from a discussion on another forum that illustrates the same point.

    Um, okay, so what is it that you want in return for your emotional investment? Because most sources women have tell us that what you want is sex. And now you are demanding that for free. So forgive us for being a little bit at a loss.

    What’s astonishing is the absence of understanding of the opposite sex that these comments reveal. The grand sociological experiment to create a gender neutral society has left a confused population in its wake. No wonder the inter-sexual relationship skills of both women and men are so lacking.

  • mr. wavevector

    After WWII, tons of men went to college on the GI bill, met their wives there, and sailed into an era of prosperity newly married.

    This suggests that financial economics trumps sexual economics; unexpected prosperity and security results in greater commitment, regardless of gender ratios. By this premise, can we conclude that today’s hookup culture is a result of declining economic prosperity and security?

    This is consistent with the current results for women, as although previous research indicates that men and women engage in more short-term mating behavior in lower sex ratio societies (Schmitt, 2005), women do not decrease, but rather increase, their mate preference standards in this context.

    This is hypergamy in its purest form – women will not marry men with lower status than themselves.

    If women really do react to a shortage of eligible men by increasing both their sexual behavior and standards for commitment at the same time, it explains all the complaining about the SMP. “There are no good men”, “all men want is sex”, “man up and marry those sluts”, “riding the cock carousel while looking for the beta provider” – it all falls into place.

    The solution: get serious about educating boys to reduce the gender gap, or have an unexpected economic boom. Not much chance of either I’m afraid.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Mega: “Though I occasionally got a nasty comment from the female gender (i.e. “you only want one woman because you can only get one woman”), most of the flack came from other guys while growing up. ”

    Definitely the opposite for me. Women were, and are, way meaner. Being in the delta/gamma crowd as a kid, I think my peers knew they’re in the same boat, and are kind.

    Mega: ” I have to agree with Mr. OTC, these attractive, pleasant, well-adjusted “beta” guys you know in their mid-20s, who’ll make great husbands/dads someday? If they’ve already got N = 25 to 50, I’m not sure you can call that “normal” statistically speaking, because it really isn’t”

    Hence my recent conclusion that we mostly talk about UMC-to-elite first world problems here. I’m just a kid who went to a state school, and my employer paid for my masters at BU. Same school, with none of the elite connections.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “That will most likely lead to an even more stark divide between SAHMs and career women.”

    and that is going to be interesting as the career women will be helping to pick up the bill for single moms and SAHMs etc. they will have a more male experience of paying more than they receive (not as bad as the men, but closer). what happens to voting patterns among the career women then?

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “The survey is about what men want in prospective wives. It is not about what men find arousing.”

    who would dream of marrying a non-arousing wife? things rarely get better after marriage in that regard. they may well stay the same, but get better? not anecdotally anyway.

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

      @Just1X

      who would dream of marrying a non-arousing wife? things rarely get better after marriage in that regard. they may well stay the same, but get better? not anecdotally anyway.

      The point is that men select more for character when they’re qualifying a wife for marriage than they do for a ONS.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “I think of a couple of partners per year, not necessarily P in V. In fact, it could be just making out, that’s probably the most common form of hookup.”

    Yeah. Occasional is very open to interpretation as is hooking up.
    Hooking up to me implies PinV only.

    I need to remind myself that you ppl’s use weird definitions.

    “Hmmm, that sounds like sigma to me.”

    Nah, lack the sex appeal. Views on women are delta.

    Just been burned so many times during social interaction that I stopped playing. Sigmas don’t want to win, I simply can’t take the competition.

    note: My past (that I told you) lead to a rather harsh spiral that lasted until I was 17. I was everyones doormat until I learned to tell people to fuck off.

    @Mega

    Thanks but I’m Canadian. Thanks giving was last month.
    And my wife only became a citizen a couple months ago, she probably shouldn’t be included in a survey of north American women.

  • VD

    Hmmm, that sounds like sigma to me.

    No, there is little sexual and no social dominance. Lokland is correct to identify as gamma with a dash or two of delta. Remember, sigma is a form of ALPHA that rejects the crowd; gamma is a form of BETA that is rejected by the crowd.

    Notice how he says he never betrayed the pack. The sigma will betray a pack in a heartbeat because he has no loyalty to something he believes has no claim on him.

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

    @SW

    No, my guys have N of 5-10, just a guess, they’re 24.

    O.K. I guess I was under some other impression. Assuming they got started in late HS or early college, that would be 1 new girl every year or two. Pretty close to the median, actually, unless they don’t settle down and continue the trend into their late 20s and beyond. Your UMC environment isn’t as skewed as some would suggest. :wink:

    Happy Thanks!

  • Lokland

    @VD

    “No, there is little sexual and no social dominance. Lokland is correct to identify as gamma with a dash or two of delta. Remember, sigma is a form of ALPHA that rejects the crowd; gamma is a form of BETA that is rejected by the crowd”

    You got it backwards.
    Delta with some gamma bits.
    Accepted into crowds quite readily, now. As I was before. Just had the problem of crowds starting to kick me and not defending myself.

    I keep an arms length more out of wariness than not being allowed in.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Susan:

    But yes, I agree, female intrasexual competition is about to get very ugly.

    This is going to be funny, because as far as I can see, most women have no idea how to compete for a guy’s attention.

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

      This is going to be funny, because as far as I can see, most women have no idea how to compete for a guy’s attention.

      The unrestricted women have definitely figured out how to get a guy’s sexual attention. The restricted women are going to have to figure out a whole new way of competing for the marriageable men.

  • Cooper

    @Lamia

    Australia, eh?

    Though, I don’t think I need to travel a hemisphere to find a wing.

  • Emily

    >> “Well. Surprise, surprise. Ms. Flake flaked. (She works all weekend). Cookie goes to Emily. (She called it)”

    That sucks. :( But at least now you know not to waste any more time on this one.

  • Emily

    >> “I think people understand that we are perhaps entering an era of “musical chairs mating,” but naturally everyone assumes their own daughter will get a seat. But yes, I agree, female intrasexual competition is about to get very ugly.”

    Yikes! I’d better make sure that I’m reeeeeeeeeeally nice to my boyfriend! I try to anyways, but this is a good reminder. :P I agree that things are going to get really interesting in the next generation or so.

    (…my boyfriend doesn’t need to “instill dread”. He already has Susan Walsh to do it for him! ;) )

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

      (…my boyfriend doesn’t need to “instill dread”. He already has Susan Walsh to do it for him! )

      LOL, I’ll take that as a compliment! That is definitely better for your relationship!

  • SayWhaat

    For some reason I recall SayWhaat saying she wouldn’t consider a guy who didn’t have a degree (SW, feel free to call me out on that if I remembered wrong)

    Sounds about right. Going further than that, the vast majority of the guys I dated had Ivy League degrees (including BF). I did go out with one guy who had no college degree whatsoever, but he was the exception (he was intelligent, owned his own record company, and is currently playing bass in a relatively popular band. Susan can attest that his hipster-score was off the charts :P).

  • SayWhaat

    Her position is that a hookup almost always results in the woman wanting a relationship, but afraid to ask out of fear of having “nothing” (what nothing means, I’m not sure. I think it means “no monogamy with this person” but it certainly can’t mean nobody will ever approach her again).

    That wasn’t my position, I was simply illustrating the most common scenario. Yes, there are guys who want a relationship, but they are relatively less common.

    “Nothing” = nothing, no dating relationship or physical contact whatsoever with the guy she really, really likes. It’s painful when someone you care about intensely completely disappears from your life.

    Are you saying that after a *single* hookup, even if it’s just kissing, women want some sort of exclusivity? I figured that it would take some amount repetition for her to be put in the position, of feeling that she was had to ask, and that anything “occasional” could be chalked up to beer goggles.

    Depends on the woman. I know I did, but I usually only kissed guys I was already somewhat interested in. It usually takes multiple hookups/makeout sessions before the average girl will start wondering when it’s time to DTR without coming across as super-clingy.

  • SayWhaat

    Wow, I’m glad you clarified. When I think of a college student who has hooked up occasionally, I think of a couple of partners per year, not necessarily P in V. In fact, it could be just making out, that’s probably the most common form of hookup.

    Yes, this is what I think of as well. I think that’s the most common “definition”.

    FWIW, I had zero hookups* my freshman year, two hookups my sophomore year (first one was my first kiss with the dorm neighbor, 2 months later was the friend I orbited for the rest of the year), another weird hookup/date thing in the summer, one hookup a year later with a guy I was crushing on in my Econ class, followed by a random makeout with a British guy in a bar 2 months later, and another year later I had a repeated hookup/nebulous dating thing with Ex-Fake BF. I think there was one other guy I made out with after him (the evening ended with me drunkenly crying over ex-Fake BF — LOL). Oh, and I went on a few dates with that hipster band guy months later so I guess we can add him in as well.

    So that’s 8 guys I’ve “hooked up” with over a period of 4 years. On average that was 2 guys/year. That is really not a lot.

    *In this context, “hookup” mostly means “make-out”.

  • SayWhaat

    This comment is very telling. It shows that women have lost the art of feminine psychological appeal and have bought into the myth that all men want is sex. This not only sells men short; it reduces the value of the woman in a relationship to a provider of sex.

    Yep. That’s why Susan’s post on Girl Game was so useful. BTW, Susan, do we have a sequel to that post yet?? :P

  • SayWhaat

    Oh and Happy Thanksgiving, y’all!

  • Emily

    >> “That’s why Susan’s post on Girl Game was so useful. BTW, Susan, do we have a sequel to that post yet?”

    YES!!!! Less Manosphere, more Girl Game!!!!!!!

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

      YES!!!! Less Manosphere, more Girl Game!!!!!!!

      I hear you loud and clear! Working on it.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Happy Thanksgiving! :)

  • Sassy6519

    Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!

  • Sai

    @Just1Z
    “I could see that the following might help:
    cast-iron pre-nups (not currently considered reliable), certainly thrown aside if kids are involved.
    male hormone-free birth control. his wallet, his choice as well.”
    I’ve fallen and cracked my head open before.
    I was lucky in that there was no permanent damage. But it could happen again. I might stop being the person he wanted to love and be with. If I go from his wife to somebody who he doesn’t know and who doesn’t know him…

    “As Captain Capitalism says, “Enjoy the decine”.”
    I’ve always wondered -is he serious when he says that? The enjoyment part, I mean.

    “Going to watch the Hangover next,that should make me laugh and barf”
    Good idea, I should find something silly to look at.

    @J
    “Are your parents talking about the same God who creates people who become doctors?”
    +10

    Sometimes I hear, “people are starving in such-and-such a place, how dare you spend so much on a procedure!”

    “Kirk….I wonder if there might be some options available in India or other country with a lower cost structure.”
    I’ve read Puerto Rico, Korea and Thailand are good places too.
    I’ve had similar disagreements with my parents. Try telling them it’s not God, it’s from Satan.

    @ADBG
    Which Eastern European country is your friend from?

    ENJOY YOUR FOOD, EVERYONE.

  • Just1Z

    ‘enjoy the decline’ because whether you enjoy it or not, it is happening

    bleak humour…

    Happy Thanksgiving Sai

    In the end I watched ‘a boy and his dog’ rather than Hangover. Loyalty, survival and a dark, dark ending…

  • Madelena

    @Emily
    YES!!!! Less Manosphere, more Girl Game!!!!!!!

    My response:
    Yes please.

  • JP

    Jeremy Grantham: “Female labor force participation has peaked.”

    Exhibit 3, Page 5.

    Enjoy.

    http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JG_LetterALL_11-12.pdf

  • INTJ

    @ Madelena

    Like Susan, I don’t see that happening for a long time, if ever. How many men do you know are willing to marry women straight out of college, and start having children?. The education conveyer belt and economic structure prevents such an early start to building families for both men and women.

    About half my friends would. Granted, my friends are a very odd sample, but it isn’t as rare as you think. IIRC, there was a poll (was it Time magazine?) that showed that men in their 20s were more interested in having children then than women in their 20.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Hmmm, that sounds like sigma to me.

    That’s the problem with the Vox hierarchy. There’s a missing slot between Sigma and Gamma.

  • INTJ

    @ ADBG

    This is going to be funny, because as far as I can see, most women have no idea how to compete for a guy’s attention.

    They’ll try more of the same: putting out for jerks.

  • INTJ

    YES!!!! Less Manosphere, more Girl Game!!!!!!!

    Definitely cosigned.

  • Ian

    @topic.

    I’m not sure that more divorces will happen as a result of the lopsided sex ratio in college, but I do think marriage will continue to decline, perhaps because women wouldn’t be interested in uneducated men… As for me, I have a degree and my BF does not. I’m willing to deal with that for now and realize he’s working to finish his bachelor’s, but, erm, let’s just say that he works two jobs for very low wages, and that’s not something I could handle long term.

    Female education, in every country I’ve read (with the exception of one of the Scandanavian countries, I forget which) is the most effective form of birth control. So much that population groups like the Gates foundation have taken notice. One quick, credentialed example.

    I’m not sure that anybody ever chose the social systems people inherit, I think they come about through biological math. If female education and labor participation drive down birthrates, the future becomes less and less influenced by those habits.

    Things like foresight and delay also go against that math, having the forsight to delay birth can only reduce birthrates. One exception, if those children are faces with environments harsh enough to reduce the birthrate of the next generation below the birthrate of the delayers.

    In the Western world, the only environment “harsh enough to affect birthrate” seems to be a university. The mating habits of college-educated women are interesting on an individual level, but, macro, I don’t know where the story is.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    I read somewhere that the best way to reduce population growth in poor countries was to educate women (at least there was high correlation). I’m simply pointing this out, not saying anything good or bad about it. The school-career-til-30 script is strong in enough women in “advanced” countries and increasingly in developing countries that it effects birth rates because it keeps them out of the reproductive market during their most fertile years. It will be interesting to see if the millenials reverse this trend.

  • HanSolo

    @JP

    Interesting article. Without technological innovation the finite resources as currently understood will likely increase in price and slow worldwide economic growth. However, if new technology can find ways to extract energy and resources better or replace them in some way then productivity can continue to increase.

  • SayWhaat

    @ INTJ:

    They’ll try more of the same: putting out for jerks.

    If that’s true, then why haven’t you gotten laid yet? ;)

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

    @Olive

    I’m not sure that more divorces will happen as a result of the lopsided sex ratio in college, but I do think marriage will continue to decline, perhaps because women wouldn’t be interested in uneducated men.

    I’m sure Susan will report on it should things turn out that way. Though women have outnumbered men in college for 30 years, divorce rates have fallen and marriage rates have risen for them. Education, career achievement, and maturity are the main variables that can explain that pattern. Age of first marriage has increased, though, but I don’t agree that’s necessarily a big problem. There are mitigating circumstances, after all.

    You parents’ story is interesting… I have nothing against anecdotes. :wink:
    Case in point: my wife is technically more educated than I am. Got her master’s degree a couple of years ago. I wouldn’t say it’s caused friction in the marriage, though the expense and time she was in the program certainly did (we’re debt averse). But I supported her because it meant future career advancement. That hasn’t completely panned out yet, the economy being the primary reason. I on the other hand have a modest BA in the social sciences and have been working for the same mid-sized company for almost a decade. Our thrifty habits were the reason we were able to eventually buy a home, in California of all places.

    I’m sure prestige in a mate is important to women to some degree, though I’m not sure it carries as much weight for folks in the middle class. That’s where I’d put myself, and most of my coupled friends. One pal of mine, who’s been married for almost 10 years, also has a bachelor’s degree, and his wife’s currently in a PhD program. But even there, I haven’t detected any strain on the marriage, except for the fact that she’s spending a lot of time in class, commuting, doing homework, etc. They don’t get to spend as much time together as they’d like. I guess that’s where commitment acts like a marital glue…

    I have no problem with a woman DQing a guy who hasn’t graduated from college. But that will certainly limit her choices. Even an AA/AS certificate, or just some college experience, can be sufficient to get one’s foot in the door and become gainfully employed. I wouldn’t consider guys who’ve gone that route uneducated.

  • Emily

    >> “I read somewhere that the best way to reduce population growth in poor countries was to educate women (at least there was high correlation). I’m simply pointing this out, not saying anything good or bad about it. The school-career-til-30 script is strong in enough women in “advanced” countries and increasingly in developing countries that it effects birth rates because it keeps them out of the reproductive market during their most fertile years. It will be interesting to see if the millenials reverse this trend.”

    It would definitely be WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to risky for women to give up college entirely. For starters, what if, despite honest efforts, she never ends up finding somebody? Like J said, we’re increasingly moving towards a “two-class” society. Even if they never end up using it, I still think that it’s very important for them to have the tools/skills to support themselves.

    Also: IME, most college-educated guys want to end up with somebody who has at least some sort of post-secondary education. (It’s that “two class” system again.) With the 60/40 ratio, it’s not exactly an unreasonable criteria for them. Maybe they’d make an exception for an 8+ waitress, but even from a marriage standpoint, not going to college will limit your options.

    That being said, I completely agree with Susan’s advice that girls should be proactively searching for a life partner the second that they get out of college. And if they find someone before then, then they shouldn’t be afraid of settling down.

  • OlioOx

    [As a newcomer to this blog, I am sure I will unwittingly bore you all by referring to well-discussed things as though they are new, and make other little such errors. I expect you will forgive me as you do all newcomers -- at least, I have already forgiven myself.

    [I would also like to say that my impression of HUS so far is that Susan seems willing to admit and debate even those points of view which she must find obnoxious in the extreme, as long as the rules of appropriate behavior are adhered to. I hope I'm not wrong.]

    Smiler:

    If Casonova-style promiscuity is men’s naturally evolved state, then why do most men want no more than one partner?

    Most men are not capable of getting more than one partner. That’s a fact which does not need verification by surveys or demographic data. Hence, a certain proportion of the men saying they want only one partner are sour-grapesters. How much confidence can we have in researchers’ ability to accurately determine margins of error in such surveys? Perhaps one of you can give me an authoritative answer to this question.

    There are also a certain number of men who are potentially capable of being Casanovas, but do not believe it of themselves; for whatever reason they may be likely to say that they don’t actually like the idea of being a Casanova. But we’ve all heard of men who married young, started to do well in life, and soon found themselves the object of more female attention than they’d ever dreamed of. For the first time in their lives, the prizes are actually being dangled in front of their eyes; are ALL of such men going to continue to sneer at the Casanova idea? What if the wife is getting fat or has lost interest in sex, both extremely (and increasingly) common occurrences nowadays? In other words, what if a man’s SMV goes up during the course of a marriage or LTR, bringing the Casanova lifestyle within his grasp as a genuine option?

    As for what women say about such personal issues as sex and relationships, all bets are off. I assume you’ve all heard and debated the assertion that what women say, and think they believe, does not correspond to their actions; but I’m surprised that there has been so little discussion on this blog of the sex research of Meredith Chivers. Susan mentioned it a while back, but there was no serious attempt to come to grips with the most spectacular part of Chivers’ findings — that women often don’t even know what turns them on, and are thus incapable of telling the truth about it, even if they are trying to. Read it for yourself:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=all

    (Capsule summary: Chivers obtained a short movie of bonobo chimpanzees having sex, and spiced it up with some regular chimp hooting and screeching because bonobos are silent during sex; “She showed the short movie to men and women, straight and gay. To the same subjects, she also showed clips of heterosexual sex, male and female homosexual sex, a man masturbating, a woman masturbating, a chiseled man walking naked on a beach and a well-toned woman doing calisthenics in the nude.” She had the subjects wear genital-arousal detectors and gave them a keypad so that they could rate their arousal by different clips. The men’s subjective ratings (their consciously chosen keypad entries rating their arousal) matched their physiological response — but “with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord.”)

    This behavior of women’s brains makes mere surveys purporting to get honest answers from them even more suspect than surveys of men, doesn’t it?

    Another quote from the Salon interview with Smiler:

    The evolutionary argument basically goes that guys have the ability, theoretically, to produce hundreds of children per year, and they can never quite be 100 percent sure that any child is theirs, so they should spread their seed widely. But what gets left out of that is the fact that if you want your genes to go beyond that next generation — beyond your children to your grandchildren, then your odds are better if you actually stick around and help raise that kid until that kid is old enough to pass on his or her genes.

    Suppose you spread your seed widely, but choose to invest in only certain preferred offspring? The more genes you spread around, the better, and investing time and resources in some offspring raises your chances in the pass-on-my-DNA lottery even more. (One criterion for offspring choice might be, those which are most likely to be really yours.)

    As I mentioned in my last comment (which was my first here on HUS), it’s been pretty conclusively determined that homo sapiens is neither a fully monogamous pair-bonding species in which both parents participate in care of offspring, nor a fully ‘tournament’-style species wherein alpha males get to do the most mating but spend no energy on care of offspring. We are somewhere in between.

    That is the conclusion reached by ethology (ethology is the study of animal behavior under natural conditions). Compare all known human cultures and lifestyles from past to present, and they will spread over a great range, from rigidly monogamous marriage-for-life societies with tight strictures on both sexes against infidelity, all the way to Genghis Khan-style households (warlords with huge harems); with every combination and permutation in between. So if that is the sum-total of the observations, what is the genetic picture? Is this ambivalence (or flexibility) orderly and selected-for, or chaotic and the result of some kind of interrupted or incomplete selection process? Does anyone have a good answer yet? Not as far as I know, perhaps one of you has heard differently.

    But we can firmly conclude one thing: The influence of the environment — a part of which is, education, training, culture — is decisive.

    Smiler doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about at times:

    Guys get something out of relationships; they like relationships. If you add in the fact that average age of first marriage is something like 28 for guys, a lot of guys have the sense that this girl they’re starting to date at 17 or 19 or 21 probably isn’t going to be the one — and yet they are choosing to date. They could easily choose to just hook up — or instead of spending that money in a bar you could get a prostitute — but they’re consistently choosing to be in relationships.

    Newsflash to Smiler: It is only that small fraction of Casanovas that can “easily choose to just hook up.” You don’t hook up like you order pizza. Hooking up with any girl who makes your penis hard — which is to say, any girl that makes most men’s penises hard — means successfully seducing them — and we all know how successful average men are at that.

    As for blithely choosing to get a paid whore, Smiler is almost certainly just pulling assumptions out of thin air. Has anyone ever done any believable research into what percentage of men — especially the target group of Smiler’s interest, unmarried men of 28 and under — actually make prostitutes into a regular alternative, no matter how infrequent? Good-looking prostitutes cost serious cash, which unmarried men under 28 tend not to have. For most self-respecting young unmarried men, I suspect, a relationship with even the most borderline-attractive woman is the lesser of two evils where indulgence in prostitution is concerned. Hook me up with the correct data if it exists, please.

    More Smiley rubbish:

    [Girls are] told that most guys, if not all guys, just want sex, that they don’t want relationships. So we have a lot of stories and evidence that girls are putting their bodies out there and doing things sexually in order to entice guys into relationships.

    But Smiler is convinced that most guys (and girls) in fact want relationships; so then they both must be getting what they want, right? Everyone’s a winner! Oh no, because he also believes that girls are in fact virtuous little princesses who are being pressured by the evil ‘Casanova myth’ and ‘Pluralistic ignorance’ into having sex when the truth is that — they don’t actually want to have sex? Who can swallow that kind of rubbish any more, especially since we now know that women don’t even KNOW what they want, and the only way to tell for sure is to hook them up to genital-arousal detectors?

    Again, the way to sort out this kind of confusion, which Smiler is doing little but add to, is most certainly not to listen to what women have to say about it all, for the reasons explained above. The best route is simply to continue on the ethological path, which is to say, continue to observe what women and men are actually doing in any given environment.

    Now, to Susan Walsh’s blog entry “Men Want Sex with Girlfriends, Not Randoms”, just a couple of comments: SW, you’re probably right in your guess that “80% of both young men and women are unhappy with hookup culture”, but I begin with my general theory that 80% of people are basically unhappy for most or all of their lives, and that’s always been true and always will be in any conceivable culture; however, about that I’ll say no more.

    SW: “[Smiler] notes that the media enthusiastically promotes male promiscuity, which confuses guys.”

    It only confuses abnormal guys. Normal, healthy men and boys see a lifestyle which they would like to emulate, and it’s not confusing at all. To say that it’s ‘confusing’ to males indicates the presence of an all-knowing authority which claims to have the correct values: “The player lifestyle is bad, even if it’s carried out in the context of a society where women are sexually and economically equal to and increasingly SUPERIOR to men.” I’ll decide for myself what I think is confusing, thank you very much.

    What can be done about this wackness?

    SW: “Smiler believes that we can change the culture by changing how we raise and talk to kids….”

    Seems to me that when feminism was just getting going, there were metric tonnes of ink being spilled over “what can we do about the wackness of patriarchy?” and bloviators believing we could and should change the culture by [insert preferred methods]. Same goes for every period of civilization for which we have extensive social documentation or evidence. Was there EVER an advanced society without articulate malcontents who believed it was ‘wacked’ and had be changed? Ever heard of Pythagoras, Orpheus, Socrates, Plato, the Cynics, the Stoics, the Epicureans, the Prophets, Buddha, Jesus, Martin Luther, Rousseau, Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, just to name a small fraction of this dangerous and troublesome class of person? Isn’t it all getting a bit boring, this ‘society is wacked and must be changed’ bit? Remember people, once you’ve ‘repaired’ society, your children are going to come along and turn into teenagers, which means they will turn into citizens who will dedicate their lives to doing everything differently from their parents. If you fix it, the next generation, desirous of making its mark and of lording it over its parents, will break it.

  • Lokland

    @Emily

    “Even if they never end up using it, I still think that it’s very important for them to have the tools/skills to support themselves.”

    The problem is that uni is heavily subsidized by the government. You cannot have someone go to school for four years, kill $120k in government money and pay only a fraction of it back. The rest would be paid back in taxes, if she goes the SAHM (or a guy the SAHD) route they’re essentially robbing everyone else.

    The only realistic long-term option is to have people who do not work over a lifetime pay ALL of it back. Or keep track of tax rates then drop those taxes off someones income tax when its paid back fully.

  • Just1Z

    things to consider about college, it is not a ticket to guaranteed riches, though the debt is pretty much guaranteed YMMV.

    Peter Schiff Show! (whoever that is)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXpwAOHJsxg

    via
    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/what-did-you-major-in.html

    also check out his book ‘Worthless’ by Aaron Clarey
    http://www.amazon.com/Worthless-ebook/dp/B006N0THIM

    though if you notice those interviewed on the show were NOT just liberal arts grads…

  • Just1Z

    @Sai
    “I might stop being the person he wanted to love and be with. If I go from his wife to somebody who he doesn’t know and who doesn’t know him…”

    now what did I say about keeping positive? you need to work on that :)
    (and the fact that you’re imagining the end of your marriage (i.e. being married in the first place) doesn’t really count as positivity!)

    pre-nups don’t tend to be punitive, they’re more an attempt (an unreliable one) to avoid getting scalped in the divorce. but as I said, no man should rely on one actually working.

    hope you had a nice turkey dinner

  • Just1Z

    A few jokes for you colonials, to help with your hangovers.

    The Two Ronnies

    Ronnie Corbett: “Do you think marriage is a lottery?”
    Ronnie Barker: “No. With a lottery you do have a slight chance.”

    Milton Jones

    “I was walking along today, and on the road I saw a small, dead baby ghost. Although thinking about it, it might have been a handkerchief.”

    “I supplied Filofaxes to the Mafia – yeah, I was involved in very organised crime.”

    “Militant feminists, I take my hat off to them. They don’t like that.”

    “The pollen count, now that’s a difficult job. Especially if you’ve got hay fever.”

    “I lost my job as a cricket commentator for saying, ‘I don’t want to bore you with the details.’”

    Tommy Cooper

    “I went to buy some camouflage trousers the other day, but I couldn’t find any.”

    “Police arrested two kids yesterday. One was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off.”

    “A woman told her doctor, ‘I’ve got a bad back.’ The doctor said, ‘It’s old age.’ The woman said, ‘I want a second opinion. ‘The doctor says, ‘OK, you’re ugly as well.’”

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    If that’s true, then why haven’t you gotten laid yet?

    Dunno but thanks for the compliment. ;)

  • Just1Z

    A woman gets on a bus with her baby. The bus driver says: “Ugh, that’s the ugliest baby I’ve ever seen!” The woman walks to the rear of the bus and sits down, fuming. She says to a man next to her: “The driver just insulted me!” The man says: “You go up there and tell him off. Go on, I’ll hold your monkey for you.”

    “I went to the zoo the other day, there was only one dog in it, it was a shitzu.”

    Doc, I can’t stop singing the ‘Green Green Grass of Home’. He said: ‘That sounds like Tom Jones syndrome’. ‘Is it common?’I asked. ‘It’s not unusual’ he replied.

    I’m on a whiskey diet. I’ve lost three days already.

    My mother-in-law fell down a wishing well, I was amazed, I never knew they worked.

    “My therapist says I have a preoccupation with vengeance. We’ll see about that.”

    I’m in great mood tonight because the other day I entered a competition and I won a years supply of Marmite……… one jar.

    A lorry-load of tortoises crashed into a trainload of terrapins, What a turtle disaster

    Two Eskimos sitting in a kayak were chilly. But when they lit a fire in the craft, it sank, proving once and for all that you can’t have your kayak and heat it.

    Sorry, having a good day…mea culpa

  • Just1Z

    Last one, sorry

    David Cameron always makes me think of a Slinky; basically useless, but he brings a smile to your face when you push him down the stairs…

  • INTJ

    @ Just1Z

    Lol those are hilarious.

    “I supplied Filofaxes to the Mafia – yeah, I was involved in very organised crime.”

    Had to google this one though. We don’t have Filofaxes this side of the Atlantic.

  • INTJ

    I don’t get the Marmite one even after Googling.

  • Just1Z

    @INTJ

    it’s a UK thing (the Aussies have vegemite, which is pretty similar), it’s made from the toxic (imho) waste of the brewing (beer) process (iirc).

    the marmite company advertises it as, “you either love it, or hate it”

    this is VERY true.

    you might be able to guess which way I fall…?

    my mum loves that muck.

  • Just1Z

    http://www.filofaxusa.com/

    it’s a personal organiser -> very organised crime

    *tumbleweeds* ? FML

  • Just1Z
  • Escoffier

    “David Cameron always makes me think of a Slinky; basically useless, but he brings a smile to your face when you push him down the stairs…”

    Now that is truly excellent.

  • Just1Z

    @Escoffier

    yeah, I find that you can substitute any politician for the ‘buttered new potato’ and the joke works, pretty much any politician in the world…

  • INTJ

    yeah, I find that you can substitute any politician for the ‘buttered new potato’ and the joke works, pretty much any politician in the world…

    ‘Cept Putin. Whether you love him or hate him (he’s like Marmite), you have to respect him.

  • Just1Z

    @Intj
    you see? you got the hang of Marmite (yuck) already.

    Kathy might be able to share her views of vegemite when she turns up.

    As a non-’user’ I am only able to say that, anecdotally, marmite is a stronger flavour than vegemite, but the basic flavour, ‘beefy’ (but from yeast residue), is criminally similar.

    Going back to the dog-kissing comments (a few days ago?) – I’d rather deep tongue a dog than somebody who has just eaten marmite…

  • OlioOx

    Marmite and Vegemite (they both taste the same) is nature’s perfect food.

    And since you’re telling 100 year old wheeze jokes…

    A man hears some news from the doctor and says, “Will I be able to play the violin after the surgery, doc?”
    “Of course.”
    “Great! I’ve always wanted to play the violin.”

    A man asks a woman: “Do you smoke after having sex?” She replies, “I don’t know, I never looked.”

    “What do you think of sex in the movies?” “It’s fine as long as the seats don’t fold up.”

    Man to pharmacist: “Is this cream good for rashes?” Pharmacist: “That one gave me the best rash I ever had.”

    *I have bedded 1,000 women with those jokes, told in that exact sequence*

  • Just1Z

    It is true OlioOx, not all oldies are goodies…

  • JP

    @OlioOx:

    “That is the conclusion reached by ethology (ethology is the study of animal behavior under natural conditions). Compare all known human cultures and lifestyles from past to present, and they will spread over a great range, from rigidly monogamous marriage-for-life societies with tight strictures on both sexes against infidelity, all the way to Genghis Khan-style households (warlords with huge harems); with every combination and permutation in between. So if that is the sum-total of the observations, what is the genetic picture? Is this ambivalence (or flexibility) orderly and selected-for, or chaotic and the result of some kind of interrupted or incomplete selection process? Does anyone have a good answer yet?”

    Because we’re not prisoners of our own neurology like the animals.

    We’re much less bound by our genetic code than are animals.

    See history for details.

  • JP

    @OlioOx:

    “This behavior of women’s brains makes mere surveys purporting to get honest answers from them even more suspect than surveys of men, doesn’t it?”

    Isn’t one theory that this may be defensive in nature rather than erotic?

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

    Female education, in every country I’ve read (with the exception of one of the Scandanavian countries, I forget which) is the most effective form of birth control.

    Yes this is very true. I took an ecology class in college (environmentalists are quite concerned about population growth, primarily because the carrying capacity of the Earth is only so much…) and my professor argued in favor of female education as a way to curb growth rates.

    Weirdly enough, that argument only goes so far. Carrying capacity is a function of both the number of individuals in a population AND the amount of resources consumed by each individual. Once a country is industrially advanced to the point that women can utilize education as economic leverage (much like we do in the U.S.), you can bet that at least some people will consume goods at a much higher rate. Those who live in the desert and eat two cups of rice a day are hardly contributing to environmental degradation, unlike those of us who live in large air-conditioned/heated houses with five TVs, six computers, and three cars (extreme opposites, but you get my point). Believe it or not, this same professor argued that the U.S., of all countries, is actually the most over-populated, if you conceptualize overpopulation in terms of consumption.

    In any case, declining pop. growth rates are a mixed blessing. In the short term, the decline produces a struggle for countries that must support large elder populations. You see this in Japan, and China is quickly headed in that direction. On the other hand, population growth really is a serious global concern, especially when you consider the catastrophic consequences of climate change.

    /endnerdyenvironmentalistrant

  • http://Marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    @Just1Z

    I told my neighbour that I couldn’t make him coffee, coz I’m out of milk. He replied :

    “I ONLY DRINK COW MILK”

  • JP

    @Olive:

    “I took an ecology class in college (environmentalists are quite concerned about population growth, primarily because the carrying capacity of the Earth is only so much…) and my professor argued in favor of female education as a way to curb growth rates.”

    So we reduce the population growth of the intelligent females, which makes us less able to address future environmental problems because the people who are best able to solve these problems aren’t being born.

    Interesting.

    “There is always an easy solution to every human problem–neat,
    plausible, and wrong.” – H.L. Mencken, 1917.

  • JP

    @INTJ:

    “‘Cept Putin. Whether you love him or hate him (he’s like Marmite), you have to respect him.”

    He’s not even a real Tsar because he lacks the gravitas.

    He’s the Hollywood Tsar.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/09/vladimir-putin-action-man/100147/

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

    JP,

    So we reduce the population growth of the intelligent females, which makes us less able to address future environmental problems because the people who are best able to solve these problems aren’t being born.

    Well, not exactly. It’s more about the age at which a female starts reproducing. In any species, including homo sapiens, the earlier the starting age of reproduction, the more often a female will reproduce during her lifespan. So a woman who starts reproducing at age 16 could easily have 7 or 8 children (as demonstrated by my great-great-grandmother, who got started around 19 or 20 and had 10 kids). The idea behind educating women is to delay the age of first reproduction and therefore limit overall reproduction, to perhaps 1 or 2.

    So it’s not that educated women would not have children, it’s that they would have fewer children.

    And you’re assuming, of course, that it’s only the high IQ women who would be educated, while only the low IQ women would not. Of course, it does not work that way in real life, as is demonstrated by my extremely intelligent BF whose mother is a factory employee with no college education (and is about to be laid off… yay outsourcing!).

  • Just1Z

    @Marellus

    on the subject of milk, did you get Red Dwarf ‘where you are’?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=dhjGXCk-RVU

    for those who don’t do video, the same scene:
    Holly: We’re a bit short on a few supplies.
    Lister: Like what? (drinking tea)
    Holly: Cow’s milk. Ran out of that yonks ago. Fresh and dehydrated.
    Lister: What kind of milk are we using now?
    Holly: Emergency back-up supply. We’re on the dog’s milk.
    Lister: Dog’s milk?!
    Holly: Nothing wrong with dog’s milk. Full of goodness, full of vitamins, full of marrowbone jelly. Lasts longer than any other type of milk, dog’s milk.
    Lister: Why?
    Holly: No bugger’ll drink it. Plus, of course, the advantage of dog’s milk is that when it goes off, it tastes exactly the same as when it’s fresh.
    Lister: Why didn’t you tell me, Holly?
    Holly: What, and spoil your tea?

  • J

    After another decade of these ratios (i.e, when they are fully baked in at all relevant age cohorts), approx. 1/3 of college women will either have to marry a non-college-educated man, not get married at all, or push to legalize polygamy, yet there is almost no mainstream discussion of this mathematical reality.

    My money’s on the first choice, particularly where the woman is the first person in her family to attend college. My casual observation is that these women tend to go in traditionally female careers like teaching and nursing often simply because the majority of career women thy’ve seen are teachers and nurses and those jobs seem doable to them. IME, both teachers and nurses are typically married to men all over the educational spectrum.

  • JP

    “And you’re assuming, of course, that it’s only the high IQ women who would be educated, while only the low IQ women would not. Of course, it does not work that way in real life, as is demonstrated by my extremely intelligent BF whose mother is a factory employee with no college education (and is about to be laid off… yay outsourcing!).”

    My aunt is the same way. Her house is filled with books and she worked in a factory.

    The question isn’t about the prior generations; it’s about the current generation. Did your boyfriend attend college?

    I think that it will end once the college pyramid scheme starts to suck up more and more resources.

  • J

    @Just1Z

    LMAO.

    If I had to guess, dog’s milk is probably just as good for you, if not better than, cow’s milk. Bononbo’s milk would probably most similar to human in chemical composition, but no one will drink that either.

  • Just1Z

    What are the marriage rates for ‘uneducated’ men?
    what are they going to be? (I’m sure that they’re dropping)

    just how many are going to sign up for the new deal?
    ‘uneducated doesn’t mean dumb…

  • J

    So we reduce the population growth of the intelligent females, which makes us less able to address future environmental problems because the people who are best able to solve these problems aren’t being born.

    Terrifying. Add to that,the brain drain fom the lower SES groups as the bright are forced into college in order to find work while the less bright can’t find work at all, and welcome to Idiocracy.

  • JP

    @Just1Z:

    “just how many are going to sign up for the new deal?
    ‘uneducated doesn’t mean dumb…”

    Education and Name of School are the best proxies that we have for general intelligence in this society.

    When I am against another lawyer, I generally look up the name of their law school to gauge how intelligent they are as a first pass, assuming that they got into the best school they could get into based on their intelligence.

    I will reassess from there, but that’s my first impression.

  • Just1Z

    @J
    Red Dwarf has had some good scenes. you’d have to hope so after 10 series. you guys tried to remake it, as usual this did not go very well…

    glad that you enjoyed it

    off out for the evening, g’night for now

  • HanSolo

    @Just1Z

    Liked the shit-zoo joke! haha

  • JP

    “Terrifying. Add to that,the brain drain fom the lower SES groups as the bright are forced into college in order to find work while the less bright can’t find work at all, and welcome to Idiocracy.”

    I’m honestly more concerned at the moment that we are draining all of the cheap energy from the planet and have designed an entire infrastructure around this cheapness without any plan as to what we are going to do after it’s no longer cheap.

    Ergo, the end of (so-called economic) growth.

    Fortunately, we have generational feedback loops so we will hopefully eventually fix this.

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

    The question isn’t about the prior generations; it’s about the current generation. Did your boyfriend attend college?

    It’s taking him awhile to finish (money issues), but yes he’s got one semester left. Math major. Wants to take the actuary exam.

    I think that it will end once the college pyramid scheme starts to suck up more and more resources.

    I’m sorry, this is probably poor reading comprehension on my part, but what do you think will end? People from every socioeconomic class going to college? Job outsourcing?

  • JP

    “I’m sorry, this is probably poor reading comprehension on my part, but what do you think will end?”

    The United States college-debt complex.

    The one where tuition rises exponentially while incomes flatline.

    I don’t know when it will end, but it’s pretty funny to watch.

  • J

    Well. Surprise, surprise. Ms. Flake flaked. (She works all weekend).

    I’m confused. Did she bail because she had to work? If so, I wouldn’t call that flaking. Did she offer an alternative time for your date, as in “Sorry, I got called in to work. I’m free next Friday though”? If so, I’d give her another chance.

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

    JP…”When I am against another lawyer, I generally look up the name of their law school to gauge how intelligent they are as a first pass, assuming that they got into the best school they could get into based on their intelligence.”

    Might work for law, but not an approach to be recommended if you’re running a software company or a manufacturing company and you’re trying to assess the quality of management of a competitor…or if you’re a biz-to-biz sales rep working on a big deal and trying to figure out how good the competitive rep is likely to be.

  • J

    This can’t go on forever, and it won’t.

    Damn straight.

    Part of what DH does is manage other managers down a chain that leads to customer service reps. Generally, they high college graduates because they want to fill entry-level posoitions with the best people they can. These kids make about 35K/yr and have huge debts to pay off, most often for degrees in psychology, mass communications, or something similar. In terms of actually doing the job, all they really need is enough smarts to answer basic questions about accounts and very good people skills, which can be taught. Why incur 100K in debt to learn nothing pertinent to sitting at a phone desk?

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

    I don’t know when it will end, but it’s pretty funny to watch.

    Not too funny for those of us floundering under it, scrambling to find whatever job will help us pay loans back. :-/

    My friend is a waitress and pays $900 a month just in loans for her useless interior design degree.

    If there’s anything I’m angry about, more than the loans and outrageous price of tuition, it’s the message that you can “study your passion” and worry about the money later. That may look exciting when you’re 18, but when you’re 24 and still don’t have a job and finances are starting to look grim as you eat away the very last of your savings, it’s pretty frustrating. I wish I would’ve picked a major based on job prospects, not on my “intellectual passion.” But no one was having that conversation with me.

  • J

    I’m honestly more concerned at the moment that we are draining all of the cheap energy from the planet and have designed an entire infrastructure around this cheapness without any plan as to what we are going to do after it’s no longer cheap.

    I share that concern as well. I’d like to see America pour the same kind of resources toward that goal as it did the post-Sputnik race to space. In fact, I had high hopes that Obama would make that a priority, so I’m rather disappointed OTOH. We should have started that process back in the early ’70s after the Arab oil embargo, so I’m rather chronically disappointed.

  • JP

    @Olive: ” I wish I would’ve picked a major based on job prospects, not on my “intellectual passion.” But no one was having that conversation with me.”

    My parents tossed me into engineering. I had no interest in it, but ended up with a chemical engineering degree because that’s where the scholarship was.

    So, I said “hey, I’ll go to law school.” So, I racked up $120K for another career track in which I ended up having no interest.

    So “practical” doesn’t necessarily mean “tolerable”. I keep telling my legal assistant to avoid law school at all costs.

    It could be that I just despise work itself.

  • JP

    Here’s a nice graph showing household debt.

    Are women larding up on this more than men?

    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2012/11/irwin-five-economic-trends-to-be.html

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

    Olive…”I wish I would’ve picked a major based on job prospects, not on my “intellectual passion.” But no one was having that conversation with me.”

    I think there’s a real scarcity of realistic career advice/information for high-school and college-age people. TV programs portray (usually unrealistically) a very restricted set of careers: cops, criminals, lawyers, doctors. Counselors are typically pretty clueless about the actual world of work, and pretty bureaucratic to boot. Books and websites are either hyping some field unrealistically, or are mindless rehashes of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Parents may or may not have the perspective to help outside of their own fields. And colleges are looking for money, which means grabbing students..there don’t seem to be any penalties for them for overselling.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    This broke my heart a little – I can only say that I am relieved you are looking back on this as something you’ve put behind you. You are a great role model for some of the other guys here!

    Thanks. I hope that my comments are able to help some of the readers on here (both male and female) just as I have benefited by what I’ve learned hear.

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

    @OTC

    Definitely the opposite for me. Women were, and are, way meaner.

    Towards just guys, or to each other as well?

    Strange… if I understand correctly, you were raised in a relatively conservative and religious environment, where “feminism” shamed men, period. I was raised in a relatively liberal and secular environment (way out here in CA), and I never got that kind of messaging whatsoever. Guys from mid-teens onward were encouraged to “act” extroverted and promiscuous. This wasn’t shamed at all, except perhaps by traditional-style parenting. It was considered “the norm”, and girls seemed to accept it at face value. This all seems pretty counter-intuitive. California should be the hotbed of PC shaming of masculinity, but I’ve never known it to be…?

    I don’t agree with Susan when she says that men and women are at cross-purposes WRT mating. There’s too much overlap in the preferences of restricted folks. However, I do think young men and women growing up misunderstand each other to a considerable degree. No dating/sex/relationship standards to go by? That might explain prolonged periods of singlehood where a chunk of the 80% can’t “see” each other and don’t get together.

  • http://bradtalk.blogspot.com BradA


    who would dream of marrying a non-arousing wife? things rarely get better after marriage in that regard. they may well stay the same, but get better? not anecdotally anyway.

    The point is that men select more for character when they’re qualifying a wife for marriage than they do for a ONS.

    The qualifications are in addition, not instead of. You didn’t address the point. Are you really saying the other characteristics could outweigh looks for a marriage partner? We are talking about a marriage, not a mere business relationship.

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

      Are you really saying the other characteristics could outweigh looks for a marriage partner? We are talking about a marriage, not a mere business relationship.

      I have no knowledge or opinion of what men prefer in a marriage partner. I know that a lot of the research reveals that looks is not near the top of male requirements. I’m simply reporting that research from two different sources in this post. There are many others.

      One of the things that men often repeat here is that their threshold for what they find attractive is much lower than women’s, and that the vast majority of women pass the “boner test.” I have no idea how that relates to other preferences, but certainly the idea that looks does not top the list has been indicated by many guys here.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Mega: “Towards just guys, or to each other as well?”

    To me. The only virgin-shaming I ever got was from women. I have never experienced, not even once, the kind of machismo described by Smiler to be a “Casanova”. That must only exist in higher-level social circles (Vox beta and above) than mine at the time. Even in college, there was no peer pressure like that.

    As for my home environment, it was conservative (married parents), mildly religious but not Jesusy (they sent me to church as a way pf outsourcing mortality, but were not devout, so we never discussed religion at all), but I lived in a liberal environment of which I was extremely insulated against (Long Island; think “Jersey Shore” – that was my high school).

    It seems you were lucky enough to be raised secular, and fairly compatible with your local social environment.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “The point is that men select more for character when they’re qualifying a wife for marriage than they do for a ONS.”
    stop it, you’re hilarious….

  • Just1Z

    @Olive
    I may not come across as sympathetic about degree subject, but I actually am. Pointing at Captain Capitalism’s book is something that I do to help ‘youngsters’.

    That is actually what pisses me off about modern society; the lies that are told to people that hurt them. particularly young people.

    I studied in STEM because that is what interested me. I had female friends that studied sociology that were amazed that there were no jobs, in 1988. I was amazed that nobody told them that no-one was looking to employ people that wrote essays about medieval witchcraft…but no one did.

    enough BS – tell people the truth, trust them to make their own decisions.

  • INTJ

    @ J

    I share that concern as well. I’d like to see America pour the same kind of resources toward that goal as it did the post-Sputnik race to space. In fact, I had high hopes that Obama would make that a priority, so I’m rather disappointed OTOH. We should have started that process back in the early ’70s after the Arab oil embargo, so I’m rather chronically disappointed.

    The Californian electorate has gotten behind it. We’re pouring money into it, with pretty good results so far. The question is whether the rest of the U.S. is prepared to tag along or not.

  • Kathy

    @Just1Z

    “As a non-’user’ I am only able to say that, anecdotally, marmite is a stronger flavour than vegemite, but the basic flavour, ‘beefy’ (but from yeast residue), is criminally similar.”

    Not a big fan of vegemite myself, Just.

    Kids hate it. My husband will have a bit (heh heh heh) from time to time but only on a piece of my fresh baked bread.

    Of course we have a small jar in our fridge( for a whole year)

    I mean, it’s what all Aussies have in their fridges. Even if they hate the stuff. ;)
    Never ever had marmite. Doesn’t sound like I am missing out on anything, though.

    Thanks for the tip about the gravatar , mate. Will check it out. Making up my mind about what pic to use is the hard part. :)

  • Kathy

    How about this one, Just1Z.?

    http://nikkijones1991.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/medusa.html

    I’m blonde so maybe the second pic? :D

  • Just1Z

    @Kathy
    the second one cracks me up – go for it!
    N.B. not saying that it looks like you, but it’s a cool avatar

    “Of course we have a small jar in our fridge( for a whole year)”
    – yep, 1 jar is a lifetime supply for me….lmao

    have a great weekend.

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

    @OTC

    It seems you were lucky enough to be raised secular, and fairly compatible with your local social environment.

    That wasn’t a ringing endorsement of my social environment! :shock:

    It really stunk (junior high through college), from the standpoint of trying to find compatible girls for dating/sex/relationships… for some of the reasons Smiler’s pointed out. Lots of singles, some of whom got off the market and never went back. But many singles who just never dated much, and rarely had SOs until *after* college.

    Restricted girls’ (majority) perception: guys just want sex, and will disappear after getting it. This presumption of guilt probably filtered down to the average-looking guys like me. Having female friends (who weren’t available) and an expanded social network after college really helps break out of that vicious cycle.

    Had I been raised in the Midwest, or some other “traditional-lite” environment, I probably would’ve had more GFs growing up. That was my only claim to wanting “variety” of any kind. Water under the bridge, though… :neutral:

  • Cooper

    @Kathy

    Nice choice on Medusa.

  • doomwolf

    Looks like HUS isn’t the only place mentioning Smiler’s work.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/why-we-glorify-promiscuous-young-men-even-though-most-arent/article5569182/

    Incidentally, as a almost-25 year old male, the idea that men would rather sleep with girlfriends than some random chick at the bar makes perfect sense to me. I’ve never really tried to have a ONS because I find the whole idea uncomfortable.

  • doomwolf

    @david foster

    Going through high school, my sister and I (one grade different) decided that if your couldn’t teach, they put you in the english department. If you couldn’t teach english, you got moved to drama, and if you were too useless to teach drama, that was what qualified you to work in the guidance department. It had one good staff member, but she wasn’t a teacher. Her job was to co-ord class schedules, and was really good at explaining what you needed to take to get into different post-secondary programs.

    I don’t think anyone really talked to us about what to with said program once finished though. Fortunately I joined the army reserves when I was 17 and so now have a fulltime job, so the uselessness of my history degree (which was a lot of fun BTW) doesn’t matter quite so much.

  • JP

    @VD:

    “If marriage and children are a priority to a young woman, she will not go into massive debt to obtain an academic credential.”

    Young women tend to be functionally illiterate when it comes to both the nature of college debt and the nature of work.

    The academic credential is simply 13th through 16th grade these days. Except that it lards you up with debt.

  • http://bradtalk.blogspot.com BradA

    Incidentally, as a almost-25 year old male, the idea that men would rather sleep with girlfriends than some random chick at the bar makes perfect sense to me. I’ve never really tried to have a ONS because I find the whole idea uncomfortable.

    Another core issue here is what value is having a GF over a ONS if both are relatively short term? How will things really be better off if pump-and-dump takes 6 months instead of a night? Even stretching that out to 2 to 5 years still leaves a breakup in the future.

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

      How will things really be better off if pump-and-dump takes 6 months instead of a night?

      That’s a misuse of the terminology. P&D = one and done.

      Even stretching that out to 2 to 5 years still leaves a breakup in the future.

      I am extremely grateful for the relationship experiences I had before I turned 25 (3 LTRs, several ST periods of dating that didn’t get serious). Only by dating, which is essentially shopping for a life partner, did I learn what I wanted in a mate. I would certainly be divorced today from any of the men I dated before my husband.

      LTRs are the best way to develop relationship skills, including breakups!

  • Kathy

    “have a great weekend.”

    You too, Just1Z :)

  • Case

    Isn’t all of this just beating around the bush? Isn’t the real problem here that the majority of men simply are not attractive to the majority of women? So, one in six or seven college males is promiscuous and said promiscuity really only equates to 3-5 partners /year. Surprised anyone? I guess if the narrow and immediate objective is to attack the trope that men are shallow and women are romantics (see appropriate deconstructions at Rationalmale) then sure … that is a fine thesis as narrowly cut. The bigger problem, that’s both a reality and a problem even if one does not buy into the whole game/redpill frame, is: most men are sexually invisible to most women.

    As analysts of the zeitgeist we can all take that apart layer by layer and best i can tell thats really already been done, but solving the problem is something else. Outside certain parts of the manosphere where the answer seems to be “breed a better variety of woman” … i guess by boycotting the current revision on offer, it seems like almost everyone else coming at this appears engaged in a “balanced” approach, ahem, not unlike our federal deficit cutters who would both cut spending and raise revenue only here we seem to be trying to: (a) increase the attractiveness of men, on the whole, by teaching them what their families and culture taught them to be blind to and (b) putting some light and ideally too some breaks on hypergamy gone wild … a phenom where, if it were men and not women who had been so unleashed, would manifest as total across the board male disinterest, sexually or in the broader wellbeing, in or of any women who was not a 10.

    In broad strokes, precise philosophy and objectives may differ, but those two points seem to be a unifying theme all across the enterprise.

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

      @Case

      Isn’t the real problem here that the majority of men simply are not attractive to the majority of women? So, one in six or seven college males is promiscuous and said promiscuity really only equates to 3-5 partners /year.

      We’ve already driven a stake through the heart of the claim that most women are willing to have sex with these Casanovas. Even the most promiscuous men have relatively few sexual partners. Every study, every book, continues to confirm that there is a small percentage of promiscuous males and females.

      Now, it may be that among the remaining 85%, men and women do not find each other attractive, but that would be an incredible shift in sexuality for both sexes. It would mean that the marriage rate and birth rates are both headed quickly for zero. It’s an extreme assumption, ludicrous really, and I’m not inclined to give it any credit without evidence. To me, there are many other explanations that more readily describe the differences in behavior.

      we seem to be trying to: (a) increase the attractiveness of men, on the whole, by teaching them what their families and culture taught them to be blind to and (b) putting some light and ideally too some breaks on hypergamy gone wild

      Personally, I am trying to increase the “game,” or dating skills, of both women and men. Women were just as misled and “lied to” as men were, something that gets ignored everywhere in the sphere but here. As for hypergamy gone wild, that’s your 15% of sexually unrestricted females, who are now free to pursue “top males” for casual sex. 85% of women choose not to interact with those males, so I don’t understand why they’re included in charges of extreme hypergamy.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Mega: “That wasn’t a ringing endorsement of my social environment!”

    It was a compliment, what’s wrong with it?

    Mega: “It really stunk (junior high through college), from the standpoint of trying to find compatible girls for dating/sex/relationships… Restricted girls’ (majority) perception: guys just want sex, and will disappear after getting it. This presumption of guilt probably filtered down to the average-looking guys like me.”

    Now try doing that, that while believing sex (and by sex, I include “bases”, unlike the hypocrites) is the moral equivalent of robbing a liquor store. Like I said, you were lucky enough to be a good, if not exact, match to the local mileiu.

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

    @OTC

    It was a compliment, what’s wrong with it?

    No, I meant my original description of it (liberal/secular). It was neither a bachelor’s paradise for guys nor relationship easy street for anybody!

  • OlioOx

    I don’t see anyone leaping to deal with the research both Susan and I have cited showing that women literally don’t know what turns them on (google Meredith Chivers.) How can you all continue to believe that you can take what women say about sex and relationships at face value?

    Where sex and relationships are concerned, men tend to tell it like it is. Women tend towards a swamp of (unintentional) self-deception and confusion — not in their actions, but in their conscious minds.

    Is this so difficult to accept? (And please look up the word tend if you think I am making some kind of ‘sweeping generalization’)

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

      @OlioOx

      I don’t see anyone leaping to deal with the research both Susan and I have cited showing that women literally don’t know what turns them on (google Meredith Chivers.)

      Don’t take it personally, we’ve been over this terrain many times before. It is more accurate to say that women do indeed know what turns them on when they see it. You could give any woman a list of 50 behaviors or traits and she can reliably tell you whether each one turns her on. Including extreme dominance, arrogance, etc. I have heard women readily admit these turn them on, and others state they don’t. It’s simply not accurate to say that all women are turned on by the same degrees of behaviors. For example, women like dominance in males, but the degree of dominance may range from a thoughtful, introverted self-confidence to the sociopathy of a serial killer.

      Furthermore, because men are so visual, the “boner test” is basically a one-item checklist. Yes or no. It is very different for women, who count more than a dozen attractors in their sexuality. Ogi Ogas, author of A Billion Wicked Thoughts, explains it best:

      “Female desire is essentially different from male desire.

      Men are visual. They respond to a gender cue that is fundamental and fixed. They respond to visual cues that are flexible during adolescence, then very fixed…Any cue triggers an immediate, powerful reaction directed toward seduction and orgasm.

      Women are more focused on emotional and psychological cues, which generate erotic stories suited for satisfying female appetites. Women respond to a truly astonishing range of cues across many domains. The physical appearance of a man, his social status, personality, commitment, the authenticity of his emotions, his confidence, family, attitude toward children, kindness, height and smell are all important to women.

      Unlike men, who become aroused after being exposed to a single cue, women need to experience enough simultaneous cues to cross an ever-varying threshold. Sometimes, just a few overwhelming cues can take a woman there. Other times, it takes a very large number of moderate cutes. For a man, a single cue is often sufficient, and sometimes necessary. For women, no single cue is either necessary or sufficient.”

      In fact, attraction is not a conscious choice for either sex, it’s just that female attraction triggers are far more complex than male ones, which makes sense given the fact that women are gatekeepers to sex.

  • J

    The Californian electorate has gotten behind it. We’re pouring money into it, with pretty good results so far. The question is whether the rest of the U.S. is prepared to tag along or not.

    Good to hear. There’s lots to be gained and nothing to be lost from pursuing it. It can only create jobs and build the economy even if the new technologies take a while to emerge.

  • Sassy6519

    Isn’t all of this just beating around the bush? Isn’t the real problem here that the majority of men simply are not attractive to the majority of women? So, one in six or seven college males is promiscuous and said promiscuity really only equates to 3-5 partners /year. Surprised anyone? I guess if the narrow and immediate objective is to attack the trope that men are shallow and women are romantics (see appropriate deconstructions at Rationalmale) then sure … that is a fine thesis as narrowly cut. The bigger problem, that’s both a reality and a problem even if one does not buy into the whole game/redpill frame, is: most men are sexually invisible to most women.

    I’ve spoken a few times about the fact that I only find about 10-20% of men physically/sexually attractive. That’s a pretty small percentage of the entire American male population.

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

    @J

    There’s lots to be gained and nothing to be lost from pursuing it.

    Unfortunately, carbon trading and gas taxes merely increase the cost of doing business, which get passed along to the consumer, regressively in fact. I don’t see how either of those strategies actually address the issue, let alone grow the state economy. And all the revenue goes into the General Fund to fill the budget deficit, which is pretty much a giant black hole in Sacramento.

    At the same time Gov. Brown asked for more money to fill that hole, he reiterated his commitment to a bullet train that’s extremely expensive and unpopular. CA is as close to a one-party state as it’s ever been, having lived here for 30 years. I don’t think any taxpayer, no matter what his or her income level, is safe from now on.

    Exiting the free speech zone now! :mrgreen:

  • OlioOx

    @ Case & Sassy

    Case is correct — most men are not attractive to women; but it is also the case that most women are not attractive to men. But probably in each case there is a sort of sliding scale of attractiveness, because both sexes are capable of settling for something less than their ideal, as everyone knows.

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

    Unfortunately, carbon trading and gas taxes merely increase the cost of doing business, which get passed along to the consumer, regressively in fact.

    Random fun fact: did you know that the United States argued to include a cap and trade system as part of the Kyoto Protocol, managed to have it included, and then they refused to sign the Protocol? And you know why? Because China and India (countries that are still going through the development process) were not asked to sign it. “If they don’t have to, we shouldn’t either.”

    In any case, here’s the way I see it: carbon trading/gas taxes now, or devastating and extremely costly environmental consequences for my grandchildren. I’ve heard people say they don’t care about what will happen to the Earth when they’re gone because they won’t be here, but I care about my grandchildren.

    Side note: we should really consider nuclear energy. I know everyone hates it and freaks out about meltdowns (believe me I know, I grew up within a seven mile radius of Three Mile Island, the plant was basically in my great-grandparents’ backyard) but we need to wean ourselves off of coal and oil NOW, and we already have the technology/infrastructure for nuclear. It works for France, which derives nearly 80% of its energy from nuclear plants. Besides, solar and wind just aren’t viable yet on the scale at which we need them.

    /endsecondnerdyenvironmentalistrant

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

    Ack, didn’t mean to bold all that.

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

    @Olive
    I hear your concerns, and France has shown that NP is pretty viable. It’s ironic that some countries in the EU that loath anything “nuclear” actually import energy from France in times of need.

    As for other sources of energy for large-scale transportation, how about incentivizing one or more of the following: biodiesel, bioalcohol, hydrogen, non-fossil methane, non-fossil natural gas (especially)?

    Instead, the standard “energy policy” is to raise taxes, make things more expensive, and use the revenue to fill a budget deficit. Which just discourages people at lower income levels from owning or driving a vehicle. In the Bay Area and L.A., that certainly doesn’t work. I’m still not sure how it gets to the root of the problem…

  • Lokland

    @MM

    “hydrogen”

    Non of these are possible. Every time some dip shit starts telling you about his hydrogen fuel cell, smile and nod.

    Same for the morons with electric cars.

    “I’m still not sure how it gets to the root of the problem…”

    The root of the problem is simply this. We spend more energy then the planet is capable of producing.
    Same situation as food, eat less, grow more or theres a gonna be a crash.

    Most of these alternative fuels take more energy to create than they kick out (basic thermodynamics).

    The only real solution is renewables (limitless) and nuclear (massive amount of bang for buck with large quantity of buck remaining). The problem is creating the infrastrucutre necessary to utilize these energy sources which takes energy.

    We either do it before we run out (of fuel) or we set up wind turbines with hammers and ladders.

    @Olive

    +1 for nuclear energy. People hear radiation and instantly start having fits. If only they knew that radiation was not the only form of damage the body (dna) endures (though admittedly one of the worst).

  • http://bradtalk.blogspot.com BradA

    Talk about hijacking a thread….

    Olive, that assumes that the steps will work and are even necessary. How about the massive debt to do all these “good things” that you will leave your grandchildren? That is a bit more definite?

    Though I think this is the wrong blog for that discussion.

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

    @Loks

    Most of these alternative fuels take more energy to create than they kick out.

    Including natural gas? I thought it was an economical alternative, provided vehicles were built (or rebuilt) with higher compression engines. And I actually use biodiesel in my older model VW, though if BART was all over I’d certainly use it.

    I’ll defer to you on the large-scale feasibility of this stuff. I’m just parroting what I’ve read in Popular Mechanics and Scientific American… :???:

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

    Megaman,
    The problem with biofuels is that they utilize plant or animal matter as fuel, which means those plants/animals must have a production process that usually requires, um, oil. Take ethanol, which is derived from corn. Factory farming methods are generally used to grow corn (at this point, they are necessary for mass production), which require tons of chemical inputs (herbicides, pesticides) that cannot be produced without oil. The other issue with ethanol is that corn is used in many foods and animal feed, so taking it out of food production causes a spike in food prices. I think it was George W. Bush who experimented with ethanol incentives and did not foresee this consequence. I’ve heard about some interesting smaller biofuel projects involving various grasses and algae. Those seem promising, but again, can they get us to where we need to be quickly?

    I’m not sure what you mean by “non-fossil natural gas and methane” (by the way, natural gas IS mostly methane, so that’s essentially redundant). One interesting harvesting method I’ve seen is manure burning (via underground incinerators). The problem is twofold here: methane itself is a greenhouse gas (stronger greenhouse effect than CO2, actually) and it’s still not clean-burning. I know you said non-fossil, but fracking is really big where I’m from (weird they didn’t talk about it in the election!) and that has some pretty dire consequences for the water supply.

    Honestly, when it comes to transportation, my money is on electric cars. A friend of my family’s actually built his own electric car, and drives it around everywhere. My parents own a hybrid and it’s more than paid for itself in saved gas money. Fully electric cars are coming.

    Instead, the standard “energy policy” is to raise taxes, make things more expensive, and use the revenue to fill a budget deficit.

    I will say that I do support cap and trade, which is not a tax (“cap and tax” is how it was marketed by the media). Cap and trade was going to be a really great bi-partisan effort; John McCain and Lindsey Graham were both behind it, but once cap and tax came out, they both walked away because they didn’t want to anger their constituents. Good article here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza

    The reality is that all of these energy incentives will cost money, and you will see that reflected in the taxes, or in cut programs elsewhere. We don’t just use energy in transportation, and cap and trade/new fuel incentives don’t have to be mutually exclusive (indeed, they probably shouldn’t).

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

    Brad,
    Welcome to HUS, where we hijack threads all the time.

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

    Also, I really don’t feel like starting that debate here, but feel free to start a thread in the forum and I’ll argue with you about climate change until the cows come home (or drown first :-( ).

  • HanSolo

    @Olive

    Like it or not, CO2 levels are going to rise and so we will see if global warming will happen as predicted. One should note that temperatures haven’t risen over the last 14 years, in spite of the models’ predictions that they should, due to the increase in CO2.

    Here’s a blog post that shows the amount of CO2 emissions. Notice how China is already 1.5x the US and 2x Europe. From another source that projects future grow of CO2 emissions, China will emit more than the US and Europe, by maybe 2025 (don’t remember off the top of my head). Plus, the rest of the developing world will increase. So, we will see. Geoengineering, like having ships travel the oceans and shoot water droplets up into the air to reflect sunlight are actually much cheaper than drastically reducing CO2 emissions.

    Also, there is the little matter that the global warming models aren’t that solid or validated. So, why spend trillions of dollars for something that may not be a problem when you can geoengineer away the effects for 1/10 the cost later, if it turns out to be a problem.

    Doubling CO2 should raise the temperate about 1 degree celsius. It’s also thought that the raised temperature will increase the amount of water vapor, which will act as an additional greenhouse gas and add another 2-3 degrees celsius. However, one of the biggest problems with the global warming models is that this additional feedback isn’t well understood and there’s good reason to believe that with increased water vapor that more clouds will form which will reflect more incoming sunlight and so you won’t get the 2-3 degrees celsius from the extra water vapor. You may only get a little and maybe not even anything.

    So, the science isn’t settled (in spite of the claims of some) and even if it were there are better ways to adapt and combat it than destroying the world economy. About 87% of the world’s total energy is fossil fuels. Going to renewables cannot work right now–Germany has gone hog wild with wind but it only generates half of what they expected it to because the wind doesn’t blow as much as they thought. I do agree that we should build lots of nuclear (and develop thorium reactors too) but Germany and Japan are set on shutting all of theirs down (though I think they’ll eventually change their minds).

    Based on my reading, I don’t think global warming will be the grave problem that some say. However, if the positive feedback of the water vapor turns out to be this big amount that they’re saying then I will agree that it will be a problem. But then I think it is better to adapt with geoengineering instead of CO2 reduction because CO2 reduction is not going to happen due to the developing world. Also, I think renewables (mainly solar) may be cheap enough in 20 years and there will be good enough storage by then (if technological breakthroughs occur). And, fracking doesn’t contaminate ground water and most companies are or will be gradually moving towards recycling their fracking water so they don’t have to bury it deep in the ground (and far below water tables where it is not in contact with them).

    Just a few thoughts from someone who doesn’t see as much reason for alarm as you do. Time will tell since the horse is leaving the barn and likely no turning back.

  • HanSolo
  • Just1Z

    @Kathy
    yay on the avatar!

  • Lokland

    @Olive

    “Honestly, when it comes to transportation, my money is on electric cars. A friend of my family’s actually built his own electric car, and drives it around everywhere. My parents own a hybrid and it’s more than paid for itself in saved gas money. Fully electric cars are coming.”

    You missed my post.

    Electric cars are good for the individual but worse for the environment than normal petrol cars.

    You take car home and what do you do with it?
    Plug it in, right?

    Where does that electricity come from?
    If its coal (45% of US power supply), thats worse for the environment than petrol.
    You lose electricity to resistance as it travels the line, coal is less efficient than a combustion engine.

    It might let you feel good at the time and you personally don’t produce any CO2 on the spot. Still the power has to come from somewhere.

    If you already produce electricity from clean energy (wind/solar/nuclear) than your right its good. in most cases its far from the truth that electric cars are a good thing.

    Kinda like vegans saving the planets food supply.

  • Lokland

    @MM

    “Including natural gas? ”

    No. I was speaking strictly about hydrogen. You have to produce the hydrogen by breaking apart water. That takes, you guessed it, energy. More energy than the hydrogen fuel cell is capable of producing.

    Burning pig shit, great idea. Assuming global warming isn’t an issue (which I honestly neither know the answer too or care about).

    I’m mostly interested in fuels in a cost based approach, as oil runs oit prices will spike. Coal is readily available but is uber bad for both health reasons and global warming.

    I’m a fan of renewables not to save the whales. I’m more interested in preventing a drastic rise in cancers, specifically of the lung. (So CO2 is not my main worry.)

  • Lokland

    Should say: I’m mostly interested in fuels for health and cost based reasons,

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

    Obviously the electricity for an electric car has to be produced somewhere, and that usually means that the source will be coal, natural gas, or nuclear. But the efficiency of burning fuel in a large centralized power plant is much greater than burning it in a car engine with tight size & weight constraints, and this factor greatly outweighs the electrical transmission losses. The current generation of combined-cycle systems (natural-gas-fired) uses a combination of gas turbine and steam turbine to minimize waste heat in electricity generation.

    The real problem with electric cars is the limitations of battery technology. After 100 years of development, storage batteries still pretty much suck as an energy-storage medium…and they’re expensive and pose environmental issues with their manufacturing and disposal. There are a lot of people/companies with very strong financial incentive to create battery breakthroughs, but they’re just not there as a general competitor to a tank of gasoline or diesel fuel.

    Here’s a post I put up last year on the electric car industry circa 1897…interesting link on the gender-specific marketing of electric vs gasoline cars:

    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/24252.html

  • JP

    @BradA:

    “. How about the massive debt to do all these “good things” that you will leave your grandchildren?”

    The debt isn’t going to be paid back, so that part is kind of a moot point.

  • JP

    Also, we’ve apparently already decided to burn every last ounce of fossil fuel that we have, so that’s pretty much a moot point, too.

  • epoche*

    Susan the hookup culture exists because of sexual economics not because men or women prefer it. Men cannot obtain the clearly defined status over women to signal to women that it is time to start a family and its unrealistic for adults to not have sex.

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

      Susan the hookup culture exists because of sexual economics not because men or women prefer it.

      Hmmm, not sure what this means. Sexual economics is about preference, in the context of supply and demand.

      Men cannot obtain the clearly defined status over women to signal to women that it is time to start a family and its unrealistic for adults to not have sex.

      True enough – men will not be telling women when to start a family anytime soon.

      Re the realism of abstinence I couldn’t agree more. Today there is a 17 year period between menarche and marriage for females, the longest period in history, and it’s increasing at both ends.

  • Case

    OlioOx,
    I’m liking your posts.
    re: tournament v monogamous – with 7 billion of us I think there’s no reason for evolution to run the same algorithm on everyone, doesn’t seem like evolution’s MO does it? Plus, even when you have ethnologists thinking intraspecies behavior is homogenuous when examined from a human perspective, throw up a dam, make a river into a lake, and suddenly the same species on either side of the lake take on more distinct hues don’t they?
    re: the programming … we are distinguished in having culture and recognizing morality. Culture can restict tendencies and exacerbate them. Arguably we are in an era where hypergamy is being exacerbated … only a matter of time before the male specimens catch on and get all tournamenty on each other.
    re: the 80% of men being largely constituted of those who could have no option to be players in any world … exactly. I personally find very little cause for celebration or relief in these findings. So long as we prime the women to lock onto players and filter out the most minor social shortcoming while failing to teach men to be men, understood as the male of the species sexually attractive to its counterpart, this is all just a prescription for 80% of men to be lonely.
    re: 80% of people are always unhappy for any reason … totally man, totally.
    Re: society fixers … moses, jesus, buddha, adams, lincoln, luther, mlk, etc … yeah I get your point but thank god for all of them
    re: yyes 80% of men are unattractive to women but 80% of women are unattractive to men but on “sliding scale” … yeah, here is my operating theory to guide my own decisions until science proves otherwise … 1) 80% of women 20-25 are attractive to most mean, sliding scale starts after that 2) 80% of slide for the next 15 years is self inflicted acceleration 3) 20% of men are attractive to most women from ages 18-45, maybe higher 4) that 20% isn’t the same men from year to year, men move in and out all the time 5) since men do move in and out, we could increase that # to 60% of men if we really got the word out 6) women would be better behaved if most men were attractive.

  • Case

    @Susan #612, thanks. I suspect you may be reading me as disagreeing where we aren’t necessarily. This point of your is important, I think it’s key:
    “Personally, I am trying to increase the “game,” or dating skills, of both women and men. Women were just as misled and “lied to” as men were, something that gets ignored everywhere in the sphere but here.”

    On finding each other unattractive … that I’ll go to the mat on. The “sliding scale” OlioOx mentions conceals this, plus many other things conceal it, but its concealed, not untrue. When women trade up say by propounding 70% of divorces, many if not most are tacitly indicating a lack of attraction. Men are basically settling for 4s and 5s everywhere you see monogamy holding on. But men are the shallow ones of course. By all means though, keep up the good fight to make men more attractive though, these are minor quibbles.
    I also disagree though that the top 15% of women are the only hypergamy gone wild set. Hypergamy is a ghetto full of single mothers making babies with thugs. Hypergamy is a 32 yo mother of 2 or 3 living comfortably with a small nest egg, getting bored splitting the family destroying what little wealth exists and knocking her children two rungs down the economic ladder so she can play out S&TC one more time. But at least she’s “happy”. Hypergamy is a woman I know, between her and her years long live in boyfriend they clear $200k, doesn’t stop her from collecting $1000/mo in child support from her ex who, with children by two mothers, does more parenting himself than either one. Hypergamy is another woman I know, but… I made my point.

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

      @Case

      When women trade up say by propounding 70% of divorces, many if not most are tacitly indicating a lack of attraction.

      Who says that women filing for divorce are trading up? What percentage? I suspect it’s small. I think mostly they’re exiting unfulfilling marriages.

      Men are basically settling for 4s and 5s everywhere you see monogamy holding on.

      It’s currently estimated that 90% of men will marry at some point in their lives. Monogamy is thriving among the college educated – at all levels of attractiveness. The data makes this very clear. Assortative mating is alive and well among those folks.

      Hypergamy is a ghetto full of single mothers making babies with thugs.

      Eh, I don’t think it’s that simple. Single motherhood in the LC is a huge problem, but I don’t think hypergamy explains it.

      Hypergamy is a woman I know, between her and her years long live in boyfriend they clear $200k, doesn’t stop her from collecting $1000/mo in child support from her ex who, with children by two mothers, does more parenting himself than either one.

      I don’t think you know what hypergamy is. Unless we can compare the ex and the BF, along with the circumstances that led to the divorce, we have no idea if this is hypergamy. And child support has nothing to do with it. Sounds like the ex has made the worst choices of all, by going for the female cads.

  • INTJ

    @ OlioOx

    I don’t see anyone leaping to deal with the research both Susan and I have cited showing that women literally don’t know what turns them on (google Meredith Chivers.) How can you all continue to believe that you can take what women say about sex and relationships at face value?

    Where sex and relationships are concerned, men tend to tell it like it is. Women tend towards a swamp of (unintentional) self-deception and confusion — not in their actions, but in their conscious minds.

    Is this so difficult to accept? (And please look up the word tend if you think I am making some kind of ‘sweeping generalization’)

    Dead horse man. I, Escoffier, and others have gone round and round about this with Susan and Megaman. Not worth bringing it up again.

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

      I, Escoffier, and others have gone round and round about this with Susan and Megaman.

      INTJ and Escoffier: Team No Data

      Susan and Megaman: Team Data

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    As for other sources of energy for large-scale transportation, how about incentivizing one or more of the following: biodiesel, bioalcohol, hydrogen, non-fossil methane, non-fossil natural gas (especially)?

    All of those are pretty bad from an environmental perspective (though admittedly anything is better than coal).

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    Electric cars are good for the individual but worse for the environment than normal petrol cars.

    You take car home and what do you do with it?
    Plug it in, right?

    Where does that electricity come from?
    If its coal (45% of US power supply), thats worse for the environment than petrol.
    You lose electricity to resistance as it travels the line, coal is less efficient than a combustion engine.

    The big market for electric cars is California. Our electricity is almost exclusively natural gas and oil (with some renewables thrown in for good measure). Using power plant->battery->electric motor is much more efficient than refinery->internal combustion engine. Thus, electric cars are far more efficient. The real wildcard with electric cars is how much energy goes into making the battery. But this process is becoming more and more efficient as battery technology gets improved.

    Of course, the nice thing about electric cars is that we already setup the infrastructure to make use of renewable energy down the road (no pun intended). When we change the electric production source, electric cars are already ready to use this new energy source.

  • Case

    Hypergamy is not gold digging, though gold digging is hypergamy.

    Your counters to my assertions only work if you hold a much more narrow view of hypergamy than I’d of credited to you.

    To pick one, 70% of women propounding divorce (same crowd as the assortive maters in college just 4-8 years later), one very much doubts so many would feel unfulfilled had a significant difference in the perceived status of their mates been maintained.

    Tell the men on the other side of each of those cases that perceived drop in relative status … or in the ghetto, that perceived apportionment of status, … has nothing to do with it.

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

      @Case

      Hypergamy is not gold digging, though gold digging is hypergamy.

      A woman’s getting child support from an ex is not gold digging, as it is awarded by the state based on a weighted formula. Ex-wives can be guilty of other kinds of gold digging, but that is not hypergamy.

      Hypergamy specifically relates to women selecting men whose status is higher than theirs, and wealth is certainly an indicator of status.

      To pick one, 70% of women propounding divorce (same crowd as the assortive maters in college just 4-8 years later), one very much doubts so many would feel unfulfilled had a significant difference in the perceived status of their mates been maintained.

      The rate of divorce among college graduates is only 17% – even if most of those are initiated by women, they represent just a small fraction of the female population, so cannot be used as examples of the norm. These women are the exception.

      As for the reasons people divorce, there is only one study I have ever found on that topic, here are the key findings. Items with an asterisk are potentially related to status differential, though not necessarily:

      http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/harvey/People's%20Reasons%20for%20Divorcing.pdf

      Infidelity 25%

      Alcohol or drug abuse 14%

      Mental or physical abuse 9%

      *Financial or employment problems 7%

      Physical or mental illness 3%

      Failure to meet family obligations 5%

      *Incompatible 19%

      *Grew apart 10%

      Personality 8%

      *Unhappy/loss of love 6%

      Lack of communication 6%

      That’s about 40% of divorces initiated by women from the general population that may be related to hypergamy.

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

    @Olive
    Last point, promise: WRT “non-fossil” fuels, this is what I meant:
    http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html

    They’re also called “carbon neutral” (or “negative”) fuels, I think. Of course, the Germans are wild about trying different things, engineering-wise. There’s something the be learned from that, as well as the French nuclear energy industry, which is state-run. As a relatively conservative guy, if I have to swallow my medicine on some issues (like health care), I’ll do it.

    If companies have to pay to pollute, which is what cap and trade is from what I understand, and that’s an increased cost of doing business, which they’ll pass along to me and you to pay, it’s a tax in my book. You’d be amazed at all the little things they’ve slipped in at the state and local level these days in CA: fees, costs, charges, surcharges, fines, duties, tolls, etc. Death by a thousand papercuts, is more like it. Give me a simple and straightforward tax system for collecting the revenues needed, and make sure they’re spent as needed, and I wouldn’t mind paying a little more for gov’t services…

  • Case

    “And child support has nothing to do with it. Sounds like the ex has made the worst choices of all, by going for the female cads.”

    Child support has everything to do with it. She can leave with his resources once his (relative lack of) status leaves her bored.
    And this is not having it both ways? My.
    So we agree that female cads abuse a legal system that encourages hypergamy and at children’s fathers’ expense … but we’ll blame the victim for his poor mate choice not the system that rewards cads when they lack penises. Nice how that works.

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

      @Case

      Child support has everything to do with it. She can leave with his resources once his (relative lack of) status leaves her bored.

      She doesn’t get his resources, they are for the child. Women divorcing usually experience a decrease in standard of living. How is her divorcing then living with a BF having it both ways, assuming she is not receiving alimony?

      So we agree that female cads abuse a legal system that encourages hypergamy and at children’s fathers’ expense … but we’ll blame the victim for his poor mate choice not the system that rewards cads when they lack penises.

      I blame both sexes who choose unsuitable partners for marriage. I agree that the system is unfair to men, but that’s all the more reason for men to qualify a woman extremely carefully before marrying. What I see in the sphere is a lot of men who were not careful, but who are now completely opposed to marriage because it turned out poorly for them. Meanwhile, most educated couples stay together, and a high percentage of those rate their marriages as happy or extremely happy. Marriage is not a crap shoot. It’s only as good as the raw material that goes into it – and I rarely see men take responsibility for that. Most of these women were waving enough red flags for a Communist parade. I view them in exactly the same way that I view women who spend their lives having sex with cads and hoping for happy ever after. They are equivalents.

  • mr. wavevector

    Furthermore, because men are so visual, the “boner test” is basically a one-item checklist. Yes or no. It is very different for women, who count more than a dozen attractors in their sexuality.

    In fact, attraction is not a conscious choice for either sex, it’s just that female attraction triggers are far more complex than male ones, which makes sense given the fact that women are gatekeepers to sex.

    Oh Susan. I’m disappointed! Old habits die hard, don’t they?

    You’ve just reviewed a book that shows that most men want relationships and are not primarily motivated by sex. And here you go repeating the myth that all men need is a boner. The majority of men who are interested in relationships are evaluating women on so much more than physical appearance. Yes, physical attraction is necessary, but it is by no means sufficient.

    In fact, male relationship triggers are at least as complex as female ones, because men are the gatekeepers of commitment. If you are going to present a coherent theory of “girl game”, you need to understand the complexity of those male relational triggers. You are selling both women and men short if you don’t.

    Here’s some quotes from quotes from Chapter 3 of Smiler to make the case:

    Companionship is consistently identified as one of the most important aspects of dating. As you might expect, boys “like the person” they’re dating and enjoy spending time with that person.

    But dating isn’t just about having someone to spend time with; it’s also about intense feelings. Teenage boys and young men repeatedly identify this as a major component of dating.

    Support and general friendship are also common reasons to date.

    The specialness of the relationship provides guys with someone who will share their most private thoughts, feelings, and dreams.

    But most boys do not date based on the “boner test”:

    But when asked why they’re dating, only a minority of boys tell us that physical intimacy is a factor in their decision, making this a secondary reason to date. To put it differently, most guys may see sexual behavior as a result of dating and not the reason to date.

    Smiler, Andrew P. (2012-10-10). Challenging Casanova: Beyond the Stereotype of the Promiscuous Young Male (Kindle Locations 1506-1537). John Wiley and Sons. Kindle Edition.
    </blockquote

    I'll also give a personal anecdote from a couple of days ago when I took my sick son to the pediatrician's office. The first nurse we encountered led us to the examination room. I could not help appreciate her amazing ass – the perfect curvature of waist, hips, and buttocks. And her face was nice too. Definitely high on the boner test. When she talked, however, her words were terse and emotionally neutral. Not much emotional appeal there.

    The nurse who examined my son was plainer – average face and narrow hipped, with not much ass at all. She was marginal on the "boner test". But her personality was wonderful. The way she spoke to my son was caring and empathetic, and her touch was so soft and gentle. Her whole demeanor was so feminine that it made my heart skip a beat.

    If I were a single man and could invite either of these women on a date, I would choose Miss Caring over Miss Tush in a second.

    TLDR: the "boner test" is a minimum requirement. It is not the sole nor even the dominant factor in determining male relationship attraction. Men's relationship triggers are emotional, psychological, and just as complex as women's. Women with "girl game" who understand this will do well in relationships with men.

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

      @mr. wavevector

      You’ve just reviewed a book that shows that most men want relationships and are not primarily motivated by sex. And here you go repeating the myth that all men need is a boner.

      Let me clarify – I am talking here strictly about physical attraction, not qualifying for a relationship. IOW, what produces the boner or tingle. I was responding to the claim that women don’t know what turns them on. We do, although it’s much harder for us to look at a guy we’re attracted to and tell you the exactly weighting we gave to each of the 12 or so factors.

      Second, I am only repeated what I’ve learned here from men. This has been a constant refrain at HUS from the males:

      1. We are very visual, so you’d better look hot and stay in shape.
      2. We are very visual, we fantasize about sex when we see female strangers.
      3. We are willing to have sex with all but the most heinous women.
      4. We think 80% of women are attractive, or attractive enough to get the job done.

      I agree that male relationship triggers are complex in the way that female attraction triggers are. We do our heavy qualifying up front, you do it later. I suspect, though have never seen this discussed, that if you asked a man exactly why he was willing to commit to a woman, he might also have a hard time saying what percentage of his desire came from individual factors such as dependable, good cook, right religion, etc. He’s likely to sense that it’s a match, it feels right, she makes him feel good, etc. I doubt most men make a list of pros and cons before proposing. Perhaps both sexes should do more objective analysis!

  • Ion

    “Hypergamy is a ghetto full of single mothers making babies with thugs.”

    Only because our culture has a tendency to make UMC women are inherently innocent, more virginal, and the “girl next door” in comparison to lower class women. So, if women in the UMC are being hypergamous and participating in hookup culture, then the assumption is that lower class women must be behaving much worse. When the reality is that lower class women select from a limited pool and are less hypergamous in general. If one woman has all the options marriage and the resources that come with marriage, alimony, can marry into more privileges, can postpone marriage until 35 if she’s blond and thin enough, can rack up student loan debt and have a 35,000 New York wedding, etc., it benefits her to be hypergamous.

    On the other hand, low SES MEN have tremendous benefits to maintaining things as they currently are, because low SES women assess their value realistically and settle for LSES men. If the man doesn’t want to marry because of his unlimited options, the women settle for it. If quitting school, and setting your own terms through selling drugs is a glamorous option compared to 9-5 cubicle hell, women will settle for it. Postal worker? Women will settle for it. With limited options, restricted women in low SES often take themselves off the market, get fat, complain that there’s no men etc., obviously thugs choose teens for a reason (teens are less likely to be intelligent which is why they generally need more protection from parents).

    Thugs have a choice of 20 women per 1 man because of the shortage of men in their age group. So it is completely unrealistic and unfair to compare them to men who are say, 5′ tall lower middle class betas, who have way less options because the women have MORE options in their group. Just as much, it is unfair to assume MC women who have options/privileges in choosing above their weight, are equally hypergamous as women who don’t have these options. Think about it as personal benefit. When women have more options (to both marry into wealth and obtain wealth through education), have qualities projected onto them like innocence and values, they have more freedom and can dictate the market. Women who don’t have these freedoms and positive assumptions can’t.

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

      @Ion

      I remember in the discussion about Jessica Shairer, a single unwed mother of three who dropped out of college to live with her bf, it seemed that her number of past sexual partners was 2. Yet she is exactly the kind of woman Case is describing. Furthermore, she did not leave either partner – both were abusive and deserted her. I don’t know what that is called, but it is not hypergamy.

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

    @IntJ

    Dead horse man. I, Escoffier, and others have gone round and round about this with Susan and Megaman.

    *Snort*

    You’ve certainly gone round and round demonstrating the backfire effect. And the bandwagon effect. And inconsistent use of dubious research. And willful ignorance. And pretty much every other fallacy in the book.

    Your objections are always non-specific. But never brass tacks. I’m reminded of an Ouroboros, for some reason. :???:

  • mr. wavevector

    @Susan 615

    Sexual economics is about preference, in the context of supply and demand.

    “Preference” is key. The simple sexual economic models that posit women as the suppliers of sex and men as the demand (or men as the suppliers of commitment and women the demand) is flawed. Today’s SMP does not fit a simple supply/demand model; women have responded to low demand by giving away a lot of free samples, while actually increasing the price by raising commitment expectations.

    And here’s why: sex and commitment are not commodities. Preferences for quality and style matter.

    Most men are not simple buyers of sex. They also want a quality relationship that gives them a meaningful role to play.

    Women are fussy buyers of commitment. They reject the low-quality or fraudulent offers of commitment by game-spitting PUAs. They want high quality commitment that gives them a sense of security.

    Women are not offering what men want. They are projecting autonomy and independence and are not communicating that they need men.

    Men are not offering what women want. Few are offering high quality commitment combined with the assurance of economic security.

    I think fixing the SMP will entail more than a numerical balance of supply and demand. Cultural and economic changes will also be needed to balance the mate preferences of men and women.

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

      Women are not offering what men want. They are projecting autonomy and independence and are not communicating that they need men.

      Men are not offering what women want. Few are offering high quality commitment combined with the assurance of economic security.

      I think fixing the SMP will entail more than a numerical balance of supply and demand. Cultural and economic changes will also be needed to balance the mate preferences of men and women.

      +1

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    *Snip*

    Do I hear static?

  • Iggles

    @ Ion:

    So, if women in the UMC are being hypergamous and participating in hookup culture, then the assumption is that lower class women must be behaving much worse. When the reality is that lower class women select from a limited pool and are less hypergamous in general.

    +1

    Pookie the thug “ain’t got no job”. He’s sleeping on her couch all day then standing on the street corner boys selling dime bags. He is not a breadwinner. Any money he makes, he keeps for himself. His babies’ mommas (there’s always one of more) settle for sharing him because they got knocked up in their teens and feel that they can’t do better. In their minds having a “piece” of man is better than being totally alone..

    This is the antithesis of hypergamous! It’s hypogamous because by having paying jobs and/or a college degree these girls are of higher status then the men they mess with.

    If one woman has all the options marriage and the resources that come with marriage, alimony, can marry into more privileges, can postpone marriage until 35 if she’s blond and thin enough, can rack up student loan debt and have a 35,000 New York wedding, etc., it benefits her to be hypergamous.

    +1

    Their situations are not the same. Most lower SES women, black or white, are struggling to make ends meet for themselves and their children. The men are rarely equally involved or invested — most don’t marry the mothers and are around sporadically.

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

      @Iggles

      This is the antithesis of hypergamous! It’s hypogamous because by having paying jobs and/or a college degree these girls are of higher status then the men they mess with.

      Agreed, the term hypergamy makes no sense when applied to men of high dominance with low status. Hypergamy is about status, not dominance. The term has been so man-handled it’s just about meaningless at this point.

      Hypergamy is about bucks and prestige – it is related to provisioning.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    INTJ and Escoffier: Team No Data

    Susan and Megaman: Team Data

    Pro-lifers refer to pro-choicers as pro-murder, while pro-choicers refer to pro-lifers as anti-women. Do you really want to play the same game here?

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

      Pro-lifers refer to pro-choicers as pro-murder, while pro-choicers refer to pro-lifers as anti-women. Do you really want to play the same game here?

      The presence or absence of data is not a moral quandary or histrionic labeling system. That analogy makes no sense.

      Besides, you threw the first punch, take responsibility for it.

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

    Do you really want to play the same game here?

    The shoe fits perfectly. Is there and Indian equivalent of Cinderella? :wink:

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Sometimes your conclusions do not exactly match your data.

    For example, take the experiment where a woman got a 75% yes when proposing random men for sex. Is this data?

    Does this support this article summary: “Men want sex with girlfriends, *not* randoms?” not to me. This shows 75% of men gladly accept sex from the Randomest Random possible. This isn’t some hypothetical Playboy Mansion fantasy, the woman actually asked and they said yes!

    The proper conclusion would be more like “men prefer sex with girlfriends, over ransoms” because once you take the RISK (rejection) out of the equation (the woman proposing = zero rejection risk), the actual desires stand out more clearly.

    The next question in my mind is… well, how many of those 75% would say, when asked, they wouldn’t accept a casual sex offer? What’s the expcted gap between what they SAID they’d do, versus what they DID? Because how you ask the question matters.

    Hope you all had a great Thanksigiving! There a turkey farm a few blocks away from here, and the Mrs. cooked a freshly-killed bird for our family. Add in lots of freshly brewed beer and it was amazing.

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

      @OTC

      Sometimes your conclusions do not exactly match your data.

      Please feel free to debate my conclusions and they arise. Also feel free to provide data in support of your own argument. :)

      For example, take the experiment where a woman got a 75% yes when proposing random men for sex. Is this data?

      Of course it is data, though we may argue about the quality of that data. There have in fact, been criticisms of the original study:

      http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf

      Specifically, when the experiment was replicated, 6% of women said yes to the proposal, and in a Canadian survey 13% of women indicated having had sex at least once with a man they had just met.

      http://www.academia.edu/410715/Clark_and_Hatfields_Evidence_of_Womens_Low_Receptivity_to_Male_Strangers_Sexual_Offers_Revisited

      Re the male acceptance rate, there were two studies, and the rates were 69% and 75%, respectively. Also interesting was that 50% of the men expressed interest in going on a date with the woman, and 69% were interested in visiting her apartment. In contrast, while no women agreed to sex in those studies, 50% said yes to a date.

      The sample sizes were quite small (around 100), and further research has demonstrated great intrasexual variance (in keeping with SOI scores), and other studies have produced different results. What is clear is that men are more open to casual sexual offers than women are, which is not surprising.

      Re the difference between these two phrases:

      Men want sex with girlfriends, *not* randoms

      men prefer sex with girlfriends, over ransoms

      Here’s an even better title:

      Most Men Prefer Girlfriends to Randoms

  • mr. wavevector

    And in other news:


    Young Men and Women Differ on the Importance of a Successful Marriage

    The share of young men (ages 18 to 34) who say that having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives has dropped six percentage points since 1997, from 35% to 29%. For women, the opposite effect occurred, as the share voicing this opinion rose from 28% to 37%.

    This gender gap is a new development, as men and women were statistically equal on this measure in 1997.

    Girls that want to get married will have some convincing to do.

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

      @Mr. Wavevector

      One thing I found interesting was that 47% of young men and 59% of young women felt that being a good parent was one of the most important things in their lives. This must reflect the growing trend of cohabitation.

      From a post I wrote on Millennials and Marriage (all data are active links in the original post):

      Here are some findings about the women of Generation Y, born between 1985 and 2004:

      “Personal” goals of getting married, having children or owning a home trump “professional” goals of becoming a manager, earning a certain salary or starting a business. (63% vs. 23%).

      81% of Gen Y women plan to return to work after having children.

      Research by the Families and Work Institute found that 50% of Gen Y (men and women) place higher priority on family than work, 37% place the same priority on their work and family, and only 13% place higher priority on work than their family.

      A 2010 Pew Research Center study found that 52% of Gen Y polled thought being a good parent was of the utmost importance in life.
      68% say becoming a mom is on their priority list.

      A large number of Gen Y women are burning out on their careers by age 30. While 53% of corporate entry-level jobs are held by women, that number drops to 37% for middle-management.

      70% of Millennials (men and women) want to marry, and 74% want children.

      A survey of Gen Y women revealed that 59% feel that “living together” is a legitimate lifestyle and a majority said it is okay to remain unmarried even if they have children.

      Demographer Kenneth Gronbach believes that Generation Y will begin to “marry with a vengeance” as they hit the average age at first marriage.

      The body of research is all about predicting what Millennials will do. They actually haven’t gotten there yet. The oldest Gen Y’ers are just 27 today, still below the average marriage age.

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/02/17/relationshipstrategies/millennials-and-marriage/

  • INTJ

    @ mr. wavevector

    I’m not sure what the difference between men and women is there (for example, a higher portion of the remaining 63% of women might be averse to marriage than for the remaining 71% of men).

    But the change from 1997 to 2012 is definitely very stark.

  • Iggles

    @ mr. wavevector:

    TLDR: the “boner test” is a minimum requirement. It is not the sole nor even the dominant factor in determining male relationship attraction.

    Susan has mentioned this plenty of times before, with the understanding that men have a minimum theshold for looks similar to women’s minimum threshold for dominance.

    Also, it has been acknowledged here in the comments with a study where “looks” isn’t #1 on the list of what men look for in a spouse!

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

    @OTC

    For example, take the experiment where a woman got a 75% yes when proposing random men for sex. Is this data?

    Are you referring to the Clark/Hatfield study from 1989? Which itself referenced 2 experiments, one from 1978 and 1982? The sample size was 48 students who happened to be on campus at Florida State University, in both cases. 5 women and 4 men from the professors’ social psychology classes volunteered to go out and ask the questions. They were 22, of “average” attractiveness, and dressed in “casual” attire. And that’s it.

    It sounds like you and Mr. IntJ are volunteering to replicate the research. The authors actually suggested that be done, given the large increase in AIDS awareness and the prevalence of other STDs. To my knowledge, nobody ever has re-run the experiment, and that’s all it was.

    I’m not sure what conclusions you can even draw from it. Being asked in the harsh light of day, sober, to potentially have sex with a complete stranger isn’t an everyday occurance. It’s fair to say some guys might legitimitately jump at such a perceived opportunity, or could be calling the bluff of the interviewer. In fact, that’s exactly what most did, since nobody asking the questions did have sex.

  • mr. wavevector

    Susan,

    Let me clarify – I am talking here strictly about physical attraction, not qualifying for a relationship.

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Second, I am only repeated what I’ve learned here from men. This has been a constant refrain at HUS from the males:

    1. We are very visual, so you’d better look hot and stay in shape.
    2. We are very visual, we fantasize about sex when we see female strangers.
    3. We are willing to have sex with all but the most heinous women.
    4. We think 80% of women are attractive, or attractive enough to get the job done.

    All of that is true. But I don’t think most men understand what turns them on any better than women do. Sure, they can tell you very accurately what gives them an erection. But what makes them motivated enough to actually act on that attractions and initiate with a particular woman? Not so much!

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    The presence or absence of data is not a moral quandary or histrionic labeling system. That analogy makes no sense.

    Those who disagree with pro-lifers are not anti-life. Similarly, that I disagree with Team data does not make me Team no data.

    Besides, you threw the first punch, take responsibility for it.

    Take responsibility for what? The following?

    Dead horse man. I, Escoffier, and others have gone round and round about this with Susan and Megaman. Not worth bringing it up again.

    I think your ENFJness is seeing an attack on you where none was intended.

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

      @INTJ

      Similarly, that I disagree with Team data does not make me Team no data.

      It does if you don’t produce data to support your rebuttal.

      Dead horse man. I, Escoffier, and others have gone round and round about this with Susan and Megaman. Not worth bringing it up again.

      I think your ENFJness is seeing an attack on you where none was intended.

      So the implication that you and Escoffier are correct, but can’t get me or Megaman to see reason is in my imagination? You are not implying that you know the “truth” and that I’m refusing to acknowledge it? If I was wrong, good! Because that’s just incredibly obnoxious based on your No Data approach to debate.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Iggles,

    Susan has mentioned this plenty of times before, with the understanding that men have a minimum theshold for looks similar to women’s minimum threshold for dominance.

    Also, it has been acknowledged here in the comments with a study where “looks” isn’t #1 on the list of what men look for in a spouse!

    Yes, I agree with all that. I’ve been arguing against the guys who think that the mate preference ranking must be wrong because it places good looks at #9. I think that’s because when a man imagines his future wife, he’s already imagining a woman who meets his minimum threshold. Any extra good looks on this is a bonus, but it’s only #9 in importance.

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

    @SW

    Besides, you threw the first punch, take responsibility for it.

    Heh, I wouldn’t worry too much. Even online, he’s got a glass jaw. :wink:
    Anybody who calls the CDC/Census biased crap for no good reason certainly isn’t pro-data.

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

    Re: complexity of male commitment thresholds. The strategically-trained man has, among many other tasks, the issue of determining two SMV trajectories—his own and that of a potential mate—starting at the time of the proposed union and extending into the indefinite future. It’s certainly not a trivial undertaking, and I think that men as a whole are only now beginning to think strategically about mating, SMV optimization, cost-benefit, etc. Women have quite a head-start.

    I encourage my students to use abstraction, model-building, dispassionate analytical frameworks, and economic thinking in matters of romance. I’ve found that for both male and female students these frequently are reduced to quality-weighted cost-per-lay calculations with various idiosyncratic modifications (the costs are not necessarily monetary because so few are going on dates: the men tend to express cost in terms of time taken away from Bro Code-authorized activities like sports and drinking and the women tend to express cost in terms of being wary of emotionally-needy, dependent males who interfere with career and resume-building plans. This is interesting because there actually is a win-win solution for what both groups claim that they want, and this solution would seem to look a lot like current campus hook-up culture).

    The women are actually the more cold-blooded about these calculations, and as a rule appear to be more relationship-averse, because they see relationships in terms of opportunity costs and career-threats far more than the men tend to (i.e., the men perceive less of a trade-off between career and LTR). They tell me about very high rates of Adderall use and the like (apparently these rates are very, very high at places like NYU), which may ultimately be something that parents should be a lot more concerned about.

    I’m not sure how much of this ruthless pragmatism is bravado and/or pandering to the perceived sociopolitical preferences of their professor: the girls could well be telling me one thing and then telling something completely different to a female gender studies sociologist type.

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

      @BB

      I don’t get the sense of pandering – rather that you have quite the group of ball-busting alpha females in your class who thrive on casual sex and eschew emotional intimacy of any kind.

      Professor Steven Rhoads at UVA says the following:

      For the past 12 years, I have taught a course on sex differences to college juniors and seniors. When we talk about relationships and sex itself, most of the men, sometimes sheepishly, indicate that they enjoy hookups—but the vast majority of the women are unhappy with them. Time and again, women see their girlfriends’ post-hookup traumas, even if they themselves manage to avoid such outcomes. If the men call again, it’s often just for another hookup. But as soon as the women push for a real relationship, the men break it off.

      Women don’t want sex for long without an emotional connection, a sense of caring, if not real commitment, from their partners. As one student wrote in a paper for my class, “We are told not to be sexual prudes, but to enjoy casual sex, we have to be emotional prudes.”

      The Emotional Costs of Hooking Up

      I don’t know what might explain this difference – the school you teach at, who takes your class, who speaks up in class, etc. But Rhoads’ report is very much in keeping with Paula England’s research of more than 20,000 undergraduates.

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    Anybody who calls the CDC/Census biased crap for no good reason certainly isn’t pro-data.

    I see that straw man gets bigger and bigger each day. Keep at it.

    http://www.yellowriverfarms.com/Resources/img0374.jpeg

  • mr. wavevector

    @Susan,

    From a post I wrote on Millennials and Marriage (all data are active links in the original post):

    Thanks for that link. Very informative. +10 for citing James Taranto!

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

      +10 for citing James Taranto!

      I love him. His recent article on Lysistrata views the strategy in the context of collective bargaining. Very interesting, as he concludes that shaming “scabs,” i.e. sluts is the answer.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    It does if you don’t produce data to support your rebuttal.

    Just as a pro-choicer is pro-murder if she doesn’t oppose abortion.

    Dead horse man. I, Escoffier, and others have gone round and round about this with Susan and Megaman. Not worth bringing it up again.

    I think your ENFJness is seeing an attack on you where none was intended.

    So the implication that you and Escoffier are correct, but can’t get me or Megaman to see reason is in my imagination? You are not implying that you know the “truth” and that I’m refusing to acknowledge it? If I was wrong, good! Because that’s just incredibly obnoxious based on your No Data approach to debate.

    Oh that makes sense. Yeah it does sound like that. No, my implication was more that neither side can convince the other side to change its opinion w.r.t. the importance of surveys and that it’s not worth bringing up that whole can of worms.

    I’d much rather that the discussion focus on Girl Game. ;)

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Who says that women filing for divorce are trading up? What percentage? I suspect it’s small. I think mostly they’re exiting unfulfilling marriages.”

    Susan, you must ask the question, why were those marriages not fulfilling?
    Hypergamy is an excellent explanation of that phenomenon. Not in the trade up sense of the word but in the needs a mate of higher value than themselves, which is of course delusional, no happy relationship can exist long term where partners do not equilibrate in value.

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

      @Lokland

      Susan, you must ask the question, why were those marriages not fulfilling?

      Hypergamy is an excellent explanation of that phenomenon. Not in the trade up sense of the word but in the needs a mate of higher value than themselves, which is of course delusional, no happy relationship can exist long term where partners do not equilibrate in value.

      I also provided percentages from the only source I know of on Reasons for Divorce. In no way is the claim of hypergamy justified, and that is not even for the educated population, but the population as a whole. At most, 40% of female initiated divorces, or 26% of all divorces that may be related to hypergamy.

      I do not doubt that women do divorce men whose status falls off permanently to a level lower than their own. And many more who don’t divorce will lose attraction. I just don’t know what percentage of marriages are represented by that dynamic.

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

    Similarly, that I disagree with Team data does not make me Team no data.

    Well, you’ve never really shown a consistent approach to data. In our original brouhaha, I predicted the following pattern: criticize the methodology generally, not the data specifically, because the conclusion isn’t one you like. Pretense, that’s it, in a nutshell.

    At least have a good reason for disagreeing.

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    Well, you’ve never really shown a consistent approach to data.

    I already addressed this a while ago. I disagree with religious literalism, but I’ll still quote scripture when dealing with those that insist on it.

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

      @INTJ

      It’s very simple, really. If you dismiss data, you should provide an alternative explanation with data of your own. You should not debate without support for your arguments, it just wastes time and makes the discussion unnecessarily heated. Nearly all of the rather unpleasant debates here have occurred at the hands of people who are either way too invested in the Red Pill to accept any other information or whose debate is emotionally driven in some other way.

  • mr. wavevector

    @Bastiat Blogger;

    The women are actually the more cold-blooded about these calculations, and as a rule appear to be more relationship-averse, because they see relationships in terms of opportunity costs and career-threats far more than the men tend to

    That’s what I was thinking of when I said women project autonomy and independence and are not communicating that they need men.

    Despite the lamentations over hookup culture by female writers, I suspect that women are the true driving force behind the hookup culture for this very reason. Women have been trained to view their autonomy as the primary good. Relationships, and behaviors conducive to relationships, are seen as “big liabilities”.

    I encourage my students to use abstraction, model-building, dispassionate analytical frameworks, and economic thinking in matters of romance.

    Fascinating. What subject do you teach?

  • INTJ

    @ mr. wavevector

    That’s what I was thinking of when I said women project autonomy and independence and are not communicating that they need men.

    Despite the lamentations over hookup culture by female writers, I suspect that women are the true driving force behind the hookup culture for this very reason. Women have been trained to view their autonomy as the primary good. Relationships, and behaviors conducive to relationships, are seen as “big liabilities”.

    Hmm. I always witnessed this script with STEM students, but I always figured STEM females were a very unusual group. But from whatever dealings I’ve had with non-STEM girls, that view about autonomy has been surprisingly pervasive, though they aren’t as open about it as STEM girls.

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

      I think most young women want autonomy even in a relationship. They enjoy LTRs with like-minded men, knowing that graduation looms as an expiration date. Their education, achievements and ambitions come first. What women absolutely do not want to hear, and I don’t blame them, is that they should be finding a husband while in college, that the clock is ticking, and that women are marrying way too late. While there are elements of truth in these statements, I think many men come across as controlling and too traditional when they state this is the kind of girl they’re looking for.

      I’ve said before that I would never want my own daughter marrying at college graduation and getting pregnant within a year. If a woman detects even a whiff of this from a college male, she’ll run. I broke up with my first bf, a BMOC alpha, for precisely this kind of thinking. He was talking about marriage and how many kids he wanted when I was 19! I couldn’t get out of that relationship fast enough once that started.

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

    @IntJ

    I see that straw man gets bigger and bigger each day. Keep at it.

    Hmmm, definition:
    tag!A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted.
    Had I actually been guilty of this, I’d be wrong and would admit it. However, you’ve literally called all of the data Susan’s cited “crap”. And then denied doing so. I quoted you once before, shall I do it again? Being on the record is certainly a bitch. IMO you set your own “Wicker Man” on fire!

    If you have an ideological problem with how data is collected, I don’t think this is the place to constantly argue about it. It’s akin to the Flat Earth Society trying to waste NASA’s valuable time. :shock:

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “At most, 40% of female initiated divorces, or 26% of all divorces that may be related to hypergamy.”

    I disagree with you here.
    How you cannot include at least partial amounts from some of the other categories is mind blowing.

    Examples:

    Infidelity 25% (hotter man)
    *Financial or employment problems 7%
    Physical or mental illness 3% (higher quality man not prone to disease)
    *Incompatible 19%
    *Grew apart 10%
    Personality 8% (I assume you assume these dudes are assholes, also possible they’ve schlubbed out)
    *Unhappy/loss of love 6%

    I think your views were a little narrow, unless of course you’ve dropped back to the position of hypergamy = money only not genetic quality etc.

    “Second, I am only repeated what I’ve learned here from men. This has been a constant refrain at HUS from the males:

    1. We are very visual, so you’d better look hot and stay in shape.
    2. We are very visual, we fantasize about sex when we see female strangers.
    3. We are willing to have sex with all but the most heinous women.
    4. We think 80% of women are attractive, or attractive enough to get the job done.”

    1. Yup, thats merely common courtesy. I’ll be a good husband, you be a good wife.
    2. Check out and fantasize/mind fuck are very different. I look at a pretty woman and forget she exists before my head is back to facing forward.

    It takes a very rare woman to encourage sexual fantasy, an even rare women can encourage fantasies of relationships.

    3. Yup. As long as it ain’t fat, its good.
    4. See above. Getting the job done is nowhere near the same as getting married. I can tell you right now, my requirements for any type of casual are really low. My PHYSICAL requirements for a relationship are quite high, plus all the extras.

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

      @Lokland

      The infidelity statistic is women divorcing men for reasons of infidelity (by men).

      Re the other categories, the ones with asterisks are ones I did include. I’m not sure what point you are making here.

      I can tell you right now, my requirements for any type of casual are really low. My PHYSICAL requirements for a relationship are quite high, plus all the extras.

      I was simply referring to what men have said their threshold for attractiveness is. I have no problem with men and women both setting very high standards for marriage. Re physical attractiveness, the market will control success rates, bringing people of similar SMV together for commitment.

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

    “Women have been trained to view their autonomy as the primary good.”

    I suspect this applies only to certain types of autonomy…NOT to autonomy vis-a-vis the popular culture, or their crew of friends (especially female friends), or the promulgations of their professors…rather, the autonomy being asserted here is specifically autonomy vis-a-vis (a)romantic/sexual partners, and (b)parents.

  • Sassy6519

    I think most young women want autonomy even in a relationship. They enjoy LTRs with like-minded men, knowing that graduation looms as an expiration date. Their education, achievements and ambitions come first. What women absolutely do not want to hear, and I don’t blame them, is that they should be finding a husband while in college, that the clock is ticking, and that women are marrying way too late. While there are elements of truth in these statements, I think many men come across as controlling and too traditional when they state this is the kind of girl they’re looking for.

    I’ve said before that I would never want my own daughter marrying at college graduation and getting pregnant within a year. If a woman detects even a whiff of this from a college male, she’ll run. I broke up with my first bf, a BMOC alpha, for precisely this kind of thinking. He was talking about marriage and how many kids he wanted when I was 19! I couldn’t get out of that relationship fast enough once that started.

    Yeah, pretty much this.

    I value my autonomy a great deal. I have no desire to be in a relationship just to be in one. I have a fun life and a great group of friends. I only get in a relationship, and stay in a relationship, if I think the man is worth the time and effort.

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

    Mr. WaveVector: thank you very much. I’m apparently a “strategy professor” now, which may be another way of saying that I don’t have a proper home (officially under International Affairs department but cross-listed under Econ and Anthropology). My classes tend to be grab-bags that consist of techniques from a handful of disciplines.

    Susan: I’m not sure what’s going on. I’ve been around the social sciences long enough to know that only a small % of studies are every successfully replicated. My guess is that my particular subject matter attracts very ambitious alpha female students in disproportionate numbers and so they perceive an ill-considered LTR as more potentially career-damaging than another female student might.

    In a macro sense, I have basically concluded that they are under near-constant stress and internal conflict from being asked to hold two incompatible belief systems in their heads at the same time:

    1) Regime 1-take over the world, beat the guys, work your ass off, be independent, be hot, buy your own BMW and breast augmentation and high-end wardrobe, be a Rhodes Scholar, go to a prestigious graduate school, realize that men AND OTHER ALPHA WOMEN expect you to be emotionally hysterical so prove them all wrong, gold diggers are the real whores and trading sex for a relationship means being a prostitute with a contract, enjoy sex with a really hot guy, outsource domestic skills;

    2) Regime 2-goal is to be a great mom and build a luxurious nest, find a good guy who can and will take care of you, overtly seeking a provisioning male is ok (i.e., not gold-digging), sex is a barter item (male porn viewing is dangerous/threatening; destroy sluts because they undercut your pricing scheme ), avoid really hot guys (too many options/too competitive to land one), develop domestic skills.

    This would appear to be the classic double-bind theory of schizophrenia in the making, and both positions have ethical pros and cons (I’m probably more sympathetic to the female alphas than most here are). Perhaps the cognitive dissonance is mediated in part by the creation of this crazily disjointed two-track life path in which the bulk of the 20s are spent in feminist appeasement on Regime 1′s track and then some violent switch occurs around age 28 that re-routes the train to Regime 2′s track. Sure, a few individuals will pull this off nicely, but I don’t think the whole program is sustainable for many reasons, not least of which because Regime 1 is betting society’s future resources on current educational consumption—via debt—for an investment outcome that requires young women to be economic providers for it all to work. Imagine the fiscal fate of a military that sent people to train as fighter pilots and then allowed them to switch to clerical jobs after qualifying.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    If you dismiss data, you should provide an alternative explanation with data of your own

    I tried that once with the alpha-genes, beta-provider dual strategy, and you dismissed my data.

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

      @INTJ

      I tried that once with the alpha-genes, beta-provider dual strategy, and you dismissed my data.

      Well, that data was problematic – IIRC I stated that was not a study that would have passed muster for posting here. Among other things, it was not US focused. I generally try to stick to studies done in the U.S. because hookup culture is an American college phenomenon, and reflects both our university system and our feminist history. It is unique.

      Believe it or not, I only post on 25-35% of relevant studies here, because I can’t vet them in any way or the data seems dubious. As it is, I am sure I have posted on studies that were not very well done. The alternative is to ignore all data and argue from that emotional perspective that is often so detrimental to understanding.

      But please try again :)

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    I think most young women want autonomy even in a relationship. They enjoy LTRs with like-minded men, knowing that graduation looms as an expiration date. Their education, achievements and ambitions come first. What women absolutely do not want to hear, and I don’t blame them, is that they should be finding a husband while in college, that the clock is ticking, and that women are marrying way too late. While there are elements of truth in these statements, I think many men come across as controlling and too traditional when they state this is the kind of girl they’re looking for.

    I’ve said before that I would never want my own daughter marrying at college graduation and getting pregnant within a year. If a woman detects even a whiff of this from a college male, she’ll run. I broke up with my first bf, a BMOC alpha, for precisely this kind of thinking. He was talking about marriage and how many kids he wanted when I was 19! I couldn’t get out of that relationship fast enough once that started.

    And this is where the problem lies. The problem is that “restricted” men and “restricted” women don’t have the same type of restrictedness. When women say they want LTRs and when men say they want LTRs, different types of LTRs are being referred to.

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

      The problem is that “restricted” men and “restricted” women don’t have the same type of restrictedness.

      Restricted refers to sociosexuality only, not LTRs or marriage goals or anything like that. A woman can be highly restricted per the SOI and be totally focused on her pre-med studies and have zero time for men in college. In fact, I think a sizable number of women do just that. They get to college, get the lay of the land, see the hookup scene for what it is (heavy drinking, low focus on academics) and focus on what they came to college for.

      A recent survey found that a significant percentage of women would like to meet their spouse in college (1/3 to 1/2 IIRC) but when you ask them when they want to marry, women say 27. There’s a disconnect there, as few LTRs will go the distance for that many years.

  • Jackie

    @Coop

    “Well. Surprise, surprise. Ms. Flake flaked. (She works all weekend).

    I’m confused. Did she bail because she had to work? If so, I wouldn’t call that flaking. Did she offer an alternative time for your date, as in “Sorry, I got called in to work. I’m free next Friday though”? If so, I’d give her another chance.”
    =====
    I’m with J here: Cancelling does not necessarily a flake make, especially with work schedules around this time of the year. (And that goes double if she is in retail. :( )

    If she gave an apology and suggested another day/time/activity, I would give it consideration, Cooper. I mean, if you are genuinely enjoying your time with this girl.

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

    Oh no, looks like I missed the boat on the climate change/energy discussion! I have no time now to formulate coherent rebuttals and really won’t until late tomorrow evening. Rather than post it all here and hijack the thread again, I’m going to try to post one big rebuttal in the forum. Look for it in the next few days if you’re still interested in this discussion (and if not, well, it’ll be a good time to rehash everything I learned in college for myself :-) ).

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “The infidelity statistic is women divorcing men for reasons of infidelity (by men).

    Re the other categories, the ones with asterisks are ones I did include. I’m not sure what point you are making here.”

    My mistake.
    I realize that, I did add in others that you did not include before with further reasoning given.
    You’ve also failed to include divorces in which hypergamy has caused the man to divorce the woman (ie. infidelity).

    I’m not suggesting that hypergamy is a great ender of relationships. I have no reliable data for or against but merely from a hypothetical list of potential hypergamy caused end of relationships, your estimate is far too low.

    “I’ve said before that I would never want my own daughter marrying at college graduation and getting pregnant within a year. ”

    Theres a huge difference between finishing school and meeting someone and having kids right out of school (which is practically theft of government money for wall ornamentation, that goes for men and women who go the SAH route).

    At the same time when you delay kids, men absorb most of the cost in terms of life happiness, especially if mom goes the SAHM route.

    Every year a women delays children (while with the same man) is another year that man cannot retire. He has to currently support the useless blob. He then must support the kids for 20 years. You can imagine the difference between kids at 25 and 30 is another 5 years travelling around Italy in good health when walking all day is still a viable option.

    I plan to be retired by the time I’m 55 and sipping mojitos on a beach in the morning with my wife curled up next to me. At night….

    I want the kids to be self sufficient by the time I’m 50. If my wife said she wanted to wait X years, thats X years of more work I have to do so she can do whatever the fuck it is she thinks is important and X years less of enjoying my relative good health in my 50s sipping mojitos.

    Beyond that, your description sounds more like this:

    I want the option to fuck around and then have my cake and eat it to.

    The best compromise would be later kids (25-26) and not fucking around (ie. same guy from early 20s to dead).

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

      I’m not suggesting that hypergamy is a great ender of relationships. I have no reliable data for or against but merely from a hypothetical list of potential hypergamy caused end of relationships, your estimate is far too low.

      It may be, I really have no idea. As I said, I’ve got only one source of data, and it’s one that Divorce Dude Dalrock has not even written about AFAIK. It would be interesting to break out divorce by age, followed by years single vs. cohabitating vs. remarried, according to SES groups. That would probably give the best picture of the role hypergamy plays.

      Every year a women delays children (while with the same man) is another year that man cannot retire. He has to currently support the useless blob. He then must support the kids for 20 years. You can imagine the difference between kids at 25 and 30 is another 5 years travelling around Italy in good health when walking all day is still a viable option.

      Yes, this is a fair point for both men and women. The older you are when you have children, the less “empty nest” fun you’re going to have. OTOH, the woman’s significant career development during the six years after college may position her as someone capable of making a living on her own, which means she is in a real position to contribute to the family if necessary, or even to support herself and her family. I think the latest stats in the U.S. are that nearly half of American households contain a female primary breadwinner.

      I want the option to fuck around and then have my cake and eat it to.

      No, it has nothing to do with sex. I had my first kid at 30, four years after I got together with my husband. Those four years were a blast, I have no regrets about timing. Weekends spent entirely in bed, living in the greatest city in the world (NY), which we emerged to visit from time to time, sipping margaritas more than mojitos. If I can do that at 25 or 50, I’ll take 25.

  • HanSolo

    In terms of understanding the S/MMP it is useful to have a wider definition of hypergamy beyond just financial or SES standing. Bringing status into the definition is a step in the right direction, especially if we make status broad enough to include status due to things such as popularity, musical or other ability, etc. that don’t necessarily produce financial rewards but that make women feel attraction and love for the man.

    A better definition of hypergamy is the attraction or desire for someone of higher SMV for sex or MMV for marriage. We can call this something besides hypergamy if we want to maintain hypergamy as referring to more financial-related status but since gamy has to do with mating and hyper has to do with going up, there doesn’t seem any good reason for maintaining the more narrow definition of hypergamy, even if it has been used extensively in the literature. One of the points of scholastic pursuits is to arrive at a better understanding, not simply defer to the thoughts and definitions of the past.

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

      A better definition of hypergamy is the attraction or desire for someone of higher SMV for sex or MMV for marriage.

      That works for me, as long as we all agree on the components of high SMV or even high MMV. There is definitely not consensus on that at HUS. Generally, the term refers to status – that may be financial, social, career, etc. Personally, I can’t get behind any definition that has women trading up by having sex with criminals or blackout drunk unemployed slackers.

  • Jackie

    @Olive

    “If there’s anything I’m angry about, more than the loans and outrageous price of tuition, it’s the message that you can “study your passion” and worry about the money later. …I wish I would’ve picked a major based on job prospects, not on my “intellectual passion.” But no one was having that conversation with me.”
    ======
    Chiming in late in the convo here :) This came up over TG turkey, the education system in the US acting like the real estate market from a few years back. My brother and dad actually brought up the “work in the ND oil rigs for a year and save $, then attend school” as an idea to hack the system at present. Great minds think alike. ;)

    I’m not sure if this has been discussed: There is always talk about what fields will be great prospects and using that as a basis for your career. But what if you aren’t good at those areas? Engineering always seems to be a sure bet, but what if your test scores for spatial and mechanical reasoning are in the pig pit?

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to ask, What am I good at, that pays well? I think this would allow people to “think outside the box” and play to their strengths.

    For example, I know one woman and she is a GREAT salesperson on the side for MaryKay. She actually made more with that than from her regular job.

    It draws on her strengths: She is a super-extrovert, make-up and appearance is pretty much her life and she is really a fantastically gifted communicator with other women. Leaving aside the branding (which I admit I do not care for and would never use), she is SO much more successful with this than she would have been in any STEM profession, in my opinion.

    Also, it is my sincerest hope and wish that people will think of working for themselves in any capacity that they can. I believe this is key to defeating the “credentialism” mindset. So much of what is taught at school does not translate into the real world. I would much, MUCH rather have someone with “horse sense” than any kind of pretentiousness or condescension.

    (As a side note: I found a Dale Carnegie book in the basement– original price 95 cents!– whose principles helped SO much more in the “real world” than the expensive textbooks required for my classes. Maybe it is incredibly corny but I love keeping a list of b-days and client dossiers down to the smallest degree of their favorite kind of popsicle! 8-) )

  • Jackie

    @Lokland

    “He has to currently support the useless blob.”

    Lokland, who (or what) is “the useless blob”?

  • Lokland

    @Jackie

    “Lokland, who (or what) is “the useless blob”?”

    A woman who neither works nor takes care of kids.
    Or
    A woman who works a lil bit (both in terms of effort put in or amount of bacon) while hubby busts his ass and does not provide kids.

    I do not think a woman who busts her ass at work and doesn’t want kids is a useless blob. I wouldn’t marry her cause I want kids but she is far from useless.

  • Jackie

    @Lokland

    “I want the kids to be self sufficient by the time I’m 50. If my wife said she wanted to wait X years, thats X years of more work I have to do so she can do whatever the fuck it is she thinks is important and X years less of enjoying my relative good health in my 50s sipping mojitos.

    Hi again Lokland,
    Hypothetical question: What would you do if one (or more) of your children was born developmentally disabled? The kind of disability that would prohibit them ever reaching independence?
    ====
    Also, we had a really interesting discussion in my church book group– the ages range from 20s-mid 80s (:shock:) and the most vital members were the ones who are actually working, esp. work that had great meaning and purpose to them. One of them in her 60s was talking about how she initially thought she would want the life you are describing– one of an eternal vacation– but now she is fulfilling her calling, she wouldn’t choose that route for a million dollars.

    All I’m saying is, you may feel differently when you reach that stage in life. ;)

  • Jackie

    @Lokland

    Hey Lokland,
    Thanks for replying! :)

    “A woman who neither works nor takes care of kids.
    Or
    A woman who works a lil bit (both in terms of effort put in or amount of bacon) while hubby busts his ass and does not provide kids.”
    ======
    Lokland, I do not mean to stir the pot, but how do you know the dynamics of the relationship from outside? I ask because I have a friend who was diagnosed with MS at 27. She looks normal at this stage of the game, you would never guess it. But she can’t do much physically. She is not lazy, her system is just not capable.

    Conversely, I know a couple where the wife is super-energetic and gets up at 4am and does nearly everything, and the husband can’t do as much. She is busting her rear, much more than he, but happily so. (One of those people who MUST be continually busy.)

    All I mean is, there are all kinds of relationship dynamics out there. If people are happy, and there is more love in the world because of them, why call names?
    =====
    “I do not think a woman who busts her ass at work and doesn’t want kids is a useless blob. I wouldn’t marry her cause I want kids but she is far from useless.”
    Seeing as you’re already married, I would say that’s a good thing for all parties! ;)

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

    @IntJ

    I tried that once with the alpha-genes, beta-provider dual strategy, and you dismissed my data.

    No, she didn’t. Dismissing the data is your department. I think this is what you’re referring to?
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/10/15/relationshipstrategies/this-is-the-era-of-nuclear-rejections/comment-page-13/
    #1942, #1964

    Plenty of back and forth. You did try to shoehorn the study into a coherent argument, unsuccessfully IMO, and ended the discussion by saying:
    I’ll go through your critique and respond to it tomorrow.

    Never happened. Lazy guy! You’ve got a lot of incomplete homework assignments that are past due…

  • Lokland

    @Jackie

    “What would you do if one (or more) of your children was born developmentally disabled? The kind of disability that would prohibit them ever reaching independence?”

    We’ve already discussed and decided.
    If the two tests come back positive for any type of disability we will terminate the pregnancy. The answer is, they would never be born in the first place.

    Also, if the choice between the baby or her ever comes up. My reaction was instantaneous, her. I can make new children whom I’ve never met. I can’t make a new her.

  • Just1Z

    @Lokland
    I’m with you man – no working till you die in harness.

  • Jackie

    @Lokland

    Thanks for responding again, L. I appreciate it, and truly hope you never find yourself in that situation.

    Does that mean that all birth defects can be tested in utero? I truly did not know this.

  • Lokland

    @Jackie

    “Lokland, I do not mean to stir the pot, but how do you know the dynamics of the relationship from outside? ”

    I wasn’t commenting on anyone specifically.
    I merely suggested that a dynamic in which this occurs makes the person a useless blob (man or woman).

    No kids, no work = useless blob.

    MS is a horrible disease, seen it up close a few too many times. That is not encompassed by laziness. I wouldn’t blame her husband for leaving her. At the same time it would be an incredible mark of goodness that he does. Either way he loses.

    Essentially, the effort put into both parties should be equal (though not identical). If I didn’t want kids I would not marry a waitress, thats called charity which I’m not a fan of. I’d want a woman who can provide as much into the relationship as I do, since I have someone to clean my house, that means child care, cash or bust.

    I want kids therefore child care is equal in input to my work.
    I consider that fair.

  • Lokland

    @Jackie

    “Does that mean that all birth defects can be tested in utero? I truly did not know this.”

    No, but theres also a chance the sun could go boom tomorrow and it all will be for not and I should take the night off.

    Bad things happen. Smart people mitigate the odds of bad things happening.

  • Lokland

    @Just1z

    “I’m with you man – no working till you die in harness.”

    I’m fully willing to work in the harness till the day I die on the things I enjoy (which happens to be my job so I’m good). What I refuse to do is drag along someone else providing them everything whilst receiving a pittance in return.

    My wife firmly believes that after the kids start school she is going to become my secretary. I think I’d shoot myself if I was with anybody 24/7.
    Though I do appreciate that she wants to help, just do it over there.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    BB: “I think that men as a whole are only now beginning to think strategically about mating, SMV optimization, cost-benefit, etc. Women have quite a head-start.”

    I agree completely. My thoughts for a girlfriend were: is she pretty and kind? To be a wife, it was “will she make a good mother, and be loyal to me”? That’/ it. I certainly never thought of SMV optimization and local maxima and demand curves. I had zero idea that my SMV might go up, I just assumed ours would both go down equally as we aged.

    The whole idea of being “strategic” in love, always seemed selfish and narcissistic to me, concerned more with what you get, than with what you give.

    Yeah, näive. I’m totally over that now. :)

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    I don’t think that you can dismiss hypergamy as a trigger for divorce just because average income declines after divorce for women.

    You are requiring that the woman is making a realistic judgement of what her life will be like post divorce. If she thinks that it will be better and therefore divorces, but then it all goes pete tong (no secret millionaire handyman sweeps her off her feet), that doesn’t mean that the reason for divorce wasn’t hypergamy.

    That’s the real hilarity of Eat, Pray, Love and How Stella got her groove back. In real life both next husbands were objectively less attractive than the first. One was gay, there was a greencard issue as well.

    But as I say, the fact that hypergamy didn’t work out, does not mean that it wasn’t the reason to divorce.

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

      @Just1Z

      You are requiring that the woman is making a realistic judgement of what her life will be like post divorce. If she thinks that it will be better and therefore divorces, but then it all goes pete tong (no secret millionaire handyman sweeps her off her feet), that doesn’t mean that the reason for divorce wasn’t hypergamy.

      Perhaps, but how sheltered can women possibly be from this information? A lawyer will lay out the facts at a first meeting. Any women she’s known who have divorced will have shared their experiences.

      The women I know who have divorced have gone on to date men of lower status than their husbands, or to not date at all. I really haven’t gotten the sense that they expected to have a wild and crazy dating life post divorce.

      I don’t see how you can attribute divorce to hypergamy (rather than just frivolity) when there’s no other guy in the picture. If there is, and he represents an uptick in status, that’s different.

  • Jackie

    @Susan

    “It would be interesting to break out divorce by age, followed by years single vs. cohabitating vs. remarried, according to SES groups. That would probably give the best picture of the role hypergamy plays.”
    ====
    Would it be hypergamy, though? A think a HUGE percentage of really young divorce (under 25) is because they got married before they were ready, for whatever reason.

    Sometimes it’s because they are hardcore evangelical and it’s the only way they can have sex; sometimes it’s because they have been with the HS-college BF/GF so long, that it’s “supposed” to happen. Or they got married because they are expecting a baby, though that happens way less frequently than 50 years ago.

    I know some religious people who got married too young to the wrong person, based on a fear mindset. (I.e. if you don’t get married ASAP you will be a spinster, snap some guy up NOW!) He was negative and really mean to her. (We couldn’t call her by her nickname even, it had to be her formal name.) She was my best friend from high school and in her culture –Mormon– that is a really tough row to hoe. :(

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

      Would it be hypergamy, though? A think a HUGE percentage of really young divorce (under 25) is because they got married before they were ready, for whatever reason.

      Good point. I recently wrote about a study that tracked couples from before marriage 5 years in, and the ones who had doubts about marriage beforehand were far more likely to divorce. I think a lot of divorces occur when there’s no one else, but one person is miserable and believes that the best shot at future happiness is divorce. No doubt there is the hope of a better match next time, but it wouldn’t be right to say that this is the catalyst for divorce, I don’t think.

      If women can afford to walk when they’re unhappy, they’re going to do so. A lot of opinion in the sphere assumes that women who are unhaaaaaaaaapy have ridiculous expectations and entitlement. That may be true, I don’t know. I know it’s also possible to be unhappy because your spouse has changed in ways that make you question why you ever married them. I have seen divorces that are frivolous, hypergamous, and neither. I really have no good sense of the numbers – I’m not arguing that point.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “If I can do that at 25 or 50, I’ll take 25.”

    Yes but wouldn’t it have been better to sip mojitos (personally I prefer wine when not on vacation, rye and coke is also classic but I’m Canadian so rye is pretty much a given) from 19-24 then pick it up again at 46. (Assuming a 25 year addition to the start point.)

    Which btw happens to the age my wife was when meeting her and the time our first child will be popping out.

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

      Yes but wouldn’t it have been better to sip mojitos (personally I prefer wine when not on vacation, rye and coke is also classic but I’m Canadian so rye is pretty much a given) from 19-24 then pick it up again at 46.

      Yes, that would be pretty sweet, if it happened that way. At 19, I found myself with someone I knew I did not want to marry. I didn’t meet the man I would marry (and I wanted it at first sight) until I was 25. So there’s a lot of luck involved.

      I would recommend some time alone without kids for every couple, but sure, younger is better.

  • Jackie

    @OTC

    “The whole idea of being strategic” in love, always seemed selfish and narcissistic to me, concerned more with what you get, than with what you give.”
    ====
    That’s because it is.

    Trying to use marriage as some kind of rigged roulette wheel or vending machine, where it’s about you “getting” — what kind of relationship dynamic does that create? And is it sustainable over the long-term?

    Look, OTC, you got exactly what you wanted by looking for someone who was a good match. That’s awesome! Instead of trying to exploit another person based on a perceived value (which may or not be true), you looked for someone you could be happy with, who would be a good parent.

    You now have a happy, successful open marriage. Do you really think you would have “done better” by being craven and narcissistic?

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

    You now have a happy, successful open marriage.

    Uh, oh… here we go again. :wink:

  • Jackie

    @Megaman
    “You now have a happy, successful open marriage.

    Uh, oh… here we go again”
    =====
    Oops, did I just fire a shot between the Hatfields and the McCoys? :(

    OTC has written multiple times about threesome in his marriage, if I recall correctly. (AndSayWhaat, I think, has used the descriptor as well.) It’s no skin off my teeth if people want to open up their marriage. If they’re happy, what’s there to fight about?

  • mr. wavevector

    @INTJ;

    But from whatever dealings I’ve had with non-STEM girls, that view about autonomy has been surprisingly pervasive, though they aren’t as open about it as STEM girls.

    I’ve heard this from a bunch of artists I hung out with too. The 20-30 something females would go on about not limiting their options, being independent, had so much they wanted to achieve, yada yada. Most girls who have been through college in the last 40 years have this attitude imprinted on their brains.

    Of course, most of them want a man who will take care of them too. That female instinct has been harder than expected to stamp out.

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

      The 20-30 something females would go on about not limiting their options, being independent, had so much they wanted to achieve, yada yada. Most girls who have been through college in the last 40 years have this attitude imprinted on their brains.

      This reminds me of two things:

      1. The recent story Nathan Harden told about overhearing Yale female undergrads talking about “playing” the school’s football players for casual sex.

      Laughable.

      2. My declaration at age 24 that I had no intention of ever marrying or having children. I had never met a man who inspired me to want those things, and crafted an identity around going to b-school and having a brilliant career. This played very well to the crowd, the schools, and even to my father. Later I would admit what a fraud I’d been in adopting this position, though I was truly passionate about it for a time.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “Perhaps, but how sheltered can women possibly be from this information? A lawyer will lay out the facts at a first meeting”

    lawyers turning away business…ORLY?

    “I don’t see how you can attribute divorce to hypergamy ”
    I didn’t, I just pointed out that your argument didn’t hold water. I do believe that some women divorce imagining a glorious future of being free to find themselves, but not all, and that wasn’t what I said.

    there’s a whole industry feeding off of divorce, there’s another spinning divorce fantasies; EPL, Groove etc.

    Also, I have read that when one woman gets divorced the probability that her social group’s divorce rate rises is high. it’s like divorce is an infectious thing… when a woman finds that she’s made a mistake, does she tell her friends to stay married? the evidence says that she doesn’t, it says that more often than not she gets her friends to buy into the fable too. her pride (I guess) makes her spin some BS about how great it is – misery loves company.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “though I was truly passionate about it for a time.”

    hmm, passion can be a wild ride. good and/or bad.

  • JP

    “If women can afford to walk when they’re unhappy, they’re going to do so.”

    Using the same logic they used when taking out their $100,000 school loans.

    Because you can always get 15% returns on the 10% of your salary that you are saving.

  • mr. wavevector

    Susan;

    I think most young women want autonomy even in a relationship. They enjoy LTRs with like-minded men, knowing that graduation looms as an expiration date. Their education, achievements and ambitions come first. What women absolutely do not want to hear, and I don’t blame them, is that they should be finding a husband while in college, that the clock is ticking, and that women are marrying way too late.

    Men are understandably reluctant to get emotionally involved in these LTR pseudo-marriages, where they make the emotional & financial investments in a relationship without receiving the long term benefits of a wife and a mother of their children. I think these mini-marriages are actually a way that women play men, just as men play women in the short term game. When romantic men commit, they want to go all in.

    I think what Bastiat Blogger suggests may be true: “there actually is a win-win solution for what both groups claim that they want, and this solution would seem to look a lot like current campus hook-up culture”. Given the constraints that young women put on relationships, the hookup culture may be the best achievable solution.

  • Just1Z

    Just watched a pretty decent thriller ‘The Prey’ (2011), subtitled, unfortunately, but a good film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1726861/

    The question that arose for me though was how accurate was the description of the main guy; ‘darkly handsome Frank’?

    Can the ladies check out ‘Albert Dupontel’? what do you reckon? is he handsome? To me he looks like Alain Prost’s older brother after a hard life.
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0243355/

    The lead detective kick-arse chick was hot, that is undeniable. ‘Alice Taglioni’
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0998117/

    Sometimes it’s worth putting up with subtitles just to get unfamiliar faces that you don’t immediately know are goodies or baddies.

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

      @Just1Z

      Albert Dupontel is not handsome, IMO, but he has a great deal of presence, and I’m sure he scores way above his SMV.

  • Just1Z

    @JP
    “Because you can always get 15% returns on the 10% of your salary that you are saving.”

    you don’t need that.

    you just discover that the guy who cuts your lawns, mutual deep attraction, is actually a secret millionaire masquerading as a handyman – happens all the time.

    like the guy from 50 shades of brown, billionaire tech magnate that falls for the easy-to-identify-with non-descript woman who wraps him around her finger.

    emo-porn is no better than pink-bits porn

  • Marie

    Susan – you put “funny” on the top for what men want in a woman’s personality.
    I can be funny when I’m comfortable with someone, but I shut down a bit in larger groups. The guy I’m seeing is a typical extrovert and I’m an introvert, so I guess we’re that ‘opposites attract’ situation.
    Thing is, our first date was probably the best one. He was telling hilarious stories and I was laughing my ass off all night. At the end of the night I wasn’t sure if I’d been entertaining enough, but he texted me later saying he had an amazing time.
    My impression is that when men talk about chemistry and a funny girl, they basically want someone who laughs at their jokes – especially if they’re funny themselves. Or do they expect women to be the ‘funny’, outgoing ones?
    I can make clever, funny remarks when I’m spoken to. God I sound lame.
    I guess I’m just wondering whether ‘funny’ means actually extroverted and bubbly or if it can just mean “I feel good around her”?

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

      @Marie

      My impression is that when men talk about chemistry and a funny girl, they basically want someone who laughs at their jokes – especially if they’re funny themselves. Or do they expect women to be the ‘funny’, outgoing ones?
      I can make clever, funny remarks when I’m spoken to. God I sound lame.
      I guess I’m just wondering whether ‘funny’ means actually extroverted and bubbly or if it can just mean “I feel good around her”?

      That’s a good question, and I’m not sure I have a good answer. I think men do like to be appreciated, and a woman who loves their humor gets a ton of cred. I also believe men are not looking for funny in the sense of a stand-up comedian. I have found personally that men love witty banter, flirting, teasing, joking etc. It needs to be feminine, though, to work. No in your face humor.

  • Just1Z
  • damien Vulaume

    “Unlike men, who become aroused after being exposed to a single cue, women need to experience enough simultaneous cues to cross an ever-varying threshold. Sometimes, just a few overwhelming cues can take a woman there. Other times, it takes a very large number of moderate cutes. For a man, a single cue is often sufficient, and sometimes necessary. For women, no single cue is either necessary or sufficient.”

    Gold observation. This perfectly matches my own experiences with women.
    Instead of focusing on what women want, I would rather go around that head scratching question this way:
    Unlike men, women perfectly know what they do NOT want.

  • damien Vulaume

    @Marie
    “My impression is that when men talk about chemistry and a funny girl, they basically want someone who laughs at their jokes.”
    Yes, that’s it. Go no further. We feel more confident that way. Also, I would take that particular study with a grain of salt, (especially when put in an international context): Men saying they put “funny girls” on top of the list and put looks at #9 seem to have been groomed into answering that way.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Lokland

    Can the ladies check out ‘Albert Dupontel’? what do you reckon? is he handsome? To me he looks like Alain Prost’s older brother after a hard life.

    He isn’t handsome at all, in my opinion.

  • Kathy

    “Can the ladies check out ‘Albert Dupontel’? what do you reckon? is he handsome? ”

    Definitely does nothing for me, Just1Z. To make a fair assesment, however I googled him and checked out a few of his pics. Some were when he was a bit younger.. Nope, still didn’t do it for me.. He looks like he’s been “ridden hard and put away wet” ;)
    In other words he looks much older than his 48 years.

    Now here’s a guy who has a smouldering sexy look IMO.. :)
    Even in his early fifties, he still looks good.. Absolutely gorgeous when he was younger.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antonio_Banderas.jpg

    Alice Taglioni, I agree, is hot. :D

    My husband used to have the hots for Aussie model Elle McPherson.. Said she looked like the cute girl next door type, when she was young.

    http://www.howcelebritiesloseweight.com/elle-macpherson-celebrity-diet-workout-and-weight-loss-secrets/

  • Lokland

    @Sassy

    “He isn’t handsome at all, in my opinion.”

    Thats cool. Chocolate chip muffins don’t stir anything within me either. Raspberry though…O…M…G!

  • Kathy

    This: “Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.”

    And this:
    “Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.”

    I do think many women have changed Just1Z. No man wants a know all ball busting virago for a wife.

    I am probably going to cop a lot of flak for saying this, but I believe that women getting college degrees is mostly a waste of time. Too many degrees are useless degrees. (I think you mentioned something about this a few comments back Just1Z..) Fair enough, if a woman really wants to be a Doctor or an Engineer.. A nurse or a teacher.. But an English degree, for example? Totally useless. Might as well go out and get a job and earn some money and save it for for when she marries and has kids. (I am old fashioned like that. ;) )
    Then there is all that student debt that may take years to repay. That places a huge burden on the couple!

    Inevitably most women WILL still want to marry and have kids.
    They just can’t have it all, really. But they think they can,.
    Then they are disappointed when they can’t find a “good ” man to marry.

    “Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.”

    I agree with that.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan

    Personally, I can’t get behind any definition that has women trading up by having sex with criminals or blackout drunk unemployed slackers.

    I don’t agree with it, but I think it’s pretty clear that a lot of criminals and drunk slackers have higher social status than your average guy with no edge in most under 25 social circles.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    And that’s because in the under 25 crowd, career, money, etc… really mean little… it’s all about popularity, coolness, fame, etc.

    And in general I’d say criminals and drunk slackers are perceived to have that in spades over average guys.

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

      @Jimmy

      And that’s because in the under 25 crowd, career, money, etc… really mean little… it’s all about popularity, coolness, fame, etc.

      And in general I’d say criminals and drunk slackers are perceived to have that in spades over average guys.

      We know that some women are rewarding these guys with sex, but I’m curious to know what you think about how they’re viewed by other guys. Zach has made it clear he and his friends have no use for guys like this, so where do they get their coolness/social status from?

  • Damien Vulaume

    “Inevitably most women WILL still want to marry and have kids.
    They just can’t have it all, really. But they think they can,.
    Then they are disappointed when they can’t find a “good ” man to marry.”

    I agree, but you could also say the same thing about men. They can’t have it all either. That’s to me one of the dark sides of human nature. We always want more than we have. The worst is when this applies to money. Greed is everywhere.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Mr. Wavevector

    I’ve heard this from a bunch of artists I hung out with too. The 20-30 something females would go on about not limiting their options, being independent, had so much they wanted to achieve, yada yada. Most girls who have been through college in the last 40 years have this attitude imprinted on their brains.

    I’d say I’ve definitely seen this attitude more prevalent in my female peers than my male peers.

    Men are understandably reluctant to get emotionally involved in these LTR pseudo-marriages, where they make the emotional & financial investments in a relationship without receiving the long term benefits of a wife and a mother of their children. I think these mini-marriages are actually a way that women play men, just as men play women in the short term game. When romantic men commit, they want to go all in.

    Couldn’t agree more. I never have, and never will date any girl that I don’t see a very serious possibility of marrying.

    I think what Bastiat Blogger suggests may be true: “there actually is a win-win solution for what both groups claim that they want, and this solution would seem to look a lot like current campus hook-up culture”. Given the constraints that young women put on relationships, the hookup culture may be the best achievable solution.

    Agreed again. Traditional relationships are being priced out of the market.

  • OlioOx

    Susan #613 says

    It is more accurate to say that women do indeed know what turns them on when they see it. You could give any woman a list of 50 behaviors or traits and she can reliably tell you whether each one turns her on.

    Chivers’ study flatly contradicts both those assertions.

    Did any of you beside Susan read it? And Susan, you may have read it, but you’re clearly in disagreement with it. Could you point out how it is mistaken? The blog search engine uncovers no discussion of this actual study.

    (You and) Ogi Ogas are correct: “Women respond to a truly astonishing range of cues across many domains.” But Chivers proves that women’s physical responses (or lack of), and their conscious evaluation of those responses, do not match.

    Example: Females see film clip of two women kissing. They are asked to key in a response from 1 to 5, no arousal to high arousal. Whatever they key in does not correspond to their actual physical arousal response as measured by the genital gizmo. Whereas with men, it does. That’s all there is to it.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

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

      @OlioOx

      Re Chivers’ study, I’m not sure what it demonstrates. Women experience increased bloodflow to the vagina watching apes mate. Yet I think it’s fair to say that women are not attracted to male apes. We do find sex arousing, though. A couple of years ago, I wrote a post on gay porn and I was astounded to find that while I feel absolutely zero arousal while watching straight porn, the gay porn sent me into a complete tizzy. Am I attracted to gay males? No. However, I am clearly aroused at the sight of two penises ejaculating simultaneously.

      In summary, measuring bloodflow to the vagina measures arousal, but not attraction.

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

    Damien…”We always want more than we have. The worst is when this applies to money.”

    Worse than when it applies to power?

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    We know that some women are rewarding these guys with sex, but I’m curious to know what you think about how they’re viewed by other guys. Zach has made it clear he and his friends have no use for guys like this, so where do they get their coolness/social status from?

    All it takes is a little social proof to start a ripple effect… especially when the competition is spinning its wheels and not getting anywhere.

    You don’t have to be well-liked to be cool, popular, or have social proof. Just look at frats.

    I’d also point out that Zach & Jason have been in academically and socially elite environments. That’s far different than the average college social scene.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @david Foster
    “Worse than when it applies to power?”
    It depends which power you’re talking about. The political one, or the one exercised within social interactions?

  • JP

    “But Chivers proves that women’s physical responses (or lack of), and their conscious evaluation of those responses, do not match.”

    Because it’s subconscious.

    And somewhat irrelevant to the issue here.

    It seems to be an evolutionary defense mechanism.

  • JP

    “Men are understandably reluctant to get emotionally involved in these LTR pseudo-marriages, where they make the emotional & financial investments in a relationship without receiving the long term benefits of a wife and a mother of their children. ”

    I was fine with my LTR pseudo-marriage in college. Gave me someone interesting to talk to and kept me semi-functional, rather than being completely depressed and withdrawn. So, it provided me with a limited amount of emotional stability.

    She got her heart broken. And that definitely made me feel guilty.

  • J

    Can the ladies check out ‘Albert Dupontel’? what do you reckon? is he handsome?

    I wouldn’t call him ugly, but he certainly looks dissolute. I’ve seen men age in a healthier looking way. Not attractive to me.

  • http://x OffTheCuff

    Jack: “OTC has written multiple times about threesome in his marriage, if I recall correctly”

    Er, I admitted to it once when someone else asked about what the appeal was, you guys keep bringing it up. My marriage is not “open”, sorry to disappoint.

    Jack: “Do you really think you would have “done better” by being craven and narcissistic?”

    Probably. I think the destination would be the same, but the journey would have been quite a bit better without the intervening years of solitude, self-hate, untreated depression, and wondering if I ever meant anything to anyone at all.

  • J

    Hi Kathy,

    Here is your flak as ordered.;-)

    I graduated college Phi Beta Kappa with one of those useless liberal arts degress. I later returned to grad school and acquired a professional license that enabled me to earn a living. I’m not sure that in this economy I would advocate that anyone pursue a liberal arts degree because I don’t think that there are jobs out there and because I don’t believe in building up useless debt, but I will tell you that I enjoyed college immensely and I’m thrilled I had the opportunity to go. When I say I enjoyed college, I am not talking about the party scene; I was a very serious student and too introverted to be out partying all the time anyway. I mean that I had an opportunity to expand myself in a way that I never would have had otherwise. I’m a happier, more interesting person with broader horizons as as result, and that can only benefit my kids.

  • HanSolo

    @Just1Z 713

    Good article. Bring on the feminine women!

  • JP

    Whereas I hated college immensely. I basically ended up worse off than when I started, emotionally and socially.

    Worst five years of my life.

    Law school was meh. I wasn’t interested in being there, but it did get me a job as a lawyer, a career in which I have no interest.

    Yes, I would have lived my life completely differently if knew then what I know now.

  • Kathy

    @ J

    “Hi Kathy,

    Here is your flak as ordered.;-)”

    Ha ha ha ha! Happy to cop flak from you anytime J. You do it with such panache. :)
    You’re a smart lady. Switched on.

    I guess I was really targeting the women who get these degrees because they are told that they should go to college and get one..Even when they have no specific aspirations toward a particular career that requires a degree…

    As you say:
    “I’m not sure that in this economy I would advocate that anyone pursue a liberal arts degree because I don’t think that there are jobs out there and because I don’t believe in building up useless debt.”

    Indeed, times are tougher now, and a woman should think hard and fast about what she really wants out of life. If she wants to marry and have kids, and does not have a career in mind, then obtaining a degree that won’t lead to any sort of a job is a waste of time and money.. Better for her to get a job and earn some money.

    Glad you enjoyed your time at college J. And you DID end up with making a good living for yourself, too..:D

    I was always fooling around at school. The class clown. I loved to read, though.. Was a voracious reader.. But didn’t like studying. I was a crammer.

    I never knew what I wanted to do. I applied for college and got accepted. But after much thought,I dropped out because, well, I just don’t think that I WOULD have made a good teacher, somehow.. Not enough patience..(I picked that course because a couple of friends wanted to be teachers, so I thought, hey why not?)

    I then got a job, and worked my way up to a high management position. I was on a good salary with bonuses.. Received on the job training and attended courses paid for by the company. I had no debt as a result, and saved quite a bit.

    In my case it would have been a waste of time and money had I obtained a college degree. ;)

  • Just1Z

    @Marie
    “I guess I’m just wondering whether ‘funny’ means actually extroverted and bubbly or if it can just mean “I feel good around her”?”

    my take on it is that the woman reacts well to the guy’s stories with smiles and laughs – that’s good, it’s a sign of compatibility in itself. if she joins in by adding stuff – that’s serious bonus points.

    maybe just me though, I love humour.

  • Just1Z

    @Kathy
    “My husband used to have the hots for Aussie model Elle McPherson.. Said she looked like the cute girl next door type, when she was young.”

    yeah, I think that that is part of the charm of Kylie when she was young and full of spunk (US & Aussie meaning there). she was plausibly someone that you could meet IRL and be able to talk to. and she was (and is) hot.

    @Others too
    re ‘Bert
    thanks for the feedback. men aren’t usually aware of how attractive other men are to women (outside the 9s and 10s). I just couldn’t see him as good looking. He’s an actor that I’d be happy to watch again. It was a good thriller movie set in PACA / les Alpes Maritime so the locations were cool even if everyone was driving on the wrong side of the road (accidents get caused by that kind of thing).

  • Just1Z

    @Kathy
    “Too many degrees are useless degrees. (I think you mentioned something about this a few comments back Just1Z..)”

    yes, but my point was not about just women getting such degrees, men too.

    Captain Capitalism’s book ‘Worthless’ (as I understand it) analyses a lot of degrees to see how much bang you get for your student loan buck, or not. All degrees are NOT equal. That’s the individual’s decision to take – is it worth it to me.

    There’s another issue at the societal level though. Someone said above that society pays $120k towards a degree too (his numbers, but there must be an additional cost beyond the student’s contributions). Demanding that society coughs up that cash, or more for a subsequent degree as well, when society sees no repayment…because it’s a degree of dubious value, or doesn’t get used…how long can society be expected to do that (zombie apocalypse / financial meltdown etc).

    I think that the key is to get people to stop treating a degree in wimminz studies as equal to one in STEM. they might be (uh huh) in academic interest, but when the country needs to pay its bills by exporting stuff? no comparison. subsidise the degrees that you need more of, let the others pay their own way (all of it).

    Of course many administrators have such degrees, so best not say anything at work – HR would call it hate-speech…

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “Albert Dupontel is not handsome, IMO, but he has a great deal of presence, and I’m sure he scores way above his SMV.”

    well, he kicks serious arse in the movie, maybe his face is a legacy of all the training required…?

    He plays a man out to rescue his daughter, he looks pretty normal, perhaps he is easier to identify with for men?

    You’ve said before that UK dramas have more ‘normal’ looking people than US ones. The French do the same, I think.

  • Just1Z

    @OlioOx
    “Chivers’ study flatly contradicts both those assertions.
    Did any of you beside Susan read it?”

    saw articles about it ages ago. other people have mentioned it, I have several times – it’s fascinating to me that there is such a difference between the sexes. it didn’t lead to any discussions here when I brought it up either – HTH

  • Just1Z

    Someone up thread (Jackie, iirc) mentioned horse-sense as an attractive thing in a man.

    Do the gang here reckon that horse-sense is a trait / feature commonly seen as a desirable male attribute?

    I’d see it as more of a STEM oriented thing, but anecdotally at least, engineers don’t do as well in the SMP as the less prosaic types…

    (I ask as I want to know if, how and where to advertise my horse sense, even if it is actually a more fake-it-till-you-make-it phenomenum)

  • Just1Z

    For the laughs, via Cappy Cap

    Straight Men Respond to: “Gay Men Will Marry Your Girlfriends”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tSX0vGnjkws

    (less funny, ‘The Dread blogger D’ has a post up about the new stats on marriage rates.)

  • Kathy

    “I’d see it as more of a STEM oriented thing, but anecdotally at least, engineers don’t do as well in the SMP as the less prosaic types…”

    Well, FWIW, I think you have a lot of common sense, Just1X..
    But, what really impresses me, just between you and me.. ;)
    is your fair and balanced views, your great sense of humour, your honesty and your joie de vivre.

    A girl would be mad to pass up a guy like you.

    IMO your great sense of humour is one of your biggest assests.
    Women like a confident guy with a sense of humour. :)

  • Just1Z

    @Kathy
    spread the word!
    do not keep this to yourself…
    (there’s money in it, if required).

    IRL, women do select on looks and I don’t do ‘tall, dark and handsome’…two of them are arguable (I’d like to think), but ‘tall’ is beyond question.

    p.s.
    the medusa look suits you, good choice.

    just settling in for the Brazilian Grand-Prix – the title decider – woo hoo. Just opened the wine, dinner is in the oven doing a slow cook – gonna be a good afternoon and evening. may not be so many comments from now on.

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

    Me: “Damien…(greed) Worse than when it applies to power?”

    Damien:”It depends which power you’re talking about. The political one, or the one exercised within social interactions?”

    I was referring specifically to the lust for political power in the service of ego.

    Surely the world would have been a better place had Stalin, Hitler, and Tojo all focused on maximizing their individual wealth.

  • Kathy

    Sounds great to me, Just1z. :D

    As for being tall dark and handsome?
    Don’t sell yourself short, man. ;)

    My husband has a great body is fit and is 5′ 6″ (I’m 2 inches shorter) and I love him to bits. Height was never an issue for me.

    And it won’t be a problem for you!

    Have a wonderful evening, mate.

  • Just1Z

    @Kathy
    I’ve been in a good mood for a few weeks now, which is cool. I feel like I’m back to being the me that I prefer to be (hopefully that makes sense). No particular reason that I’m aware of, so no reason to see an end to it, which is cool. No alcohol was involved in the writing of this message…at least yet.

    You also seem to be pretty positive lately – which is great, I enjoy the banter. Life doesn’t objectively change much, but keeping things positive makes a hell of a difference to the subjective experience. And makes finding a partner *cough* Sai *cough* easier too.

    Of course it’s getting into summer where you are. ‘here’ we have a lot of flooding (a few people killed), glad that I live on a hill.

  • Just1Z

    @Kathy
    “Don’t sell yourself short, man”

    Oh ho, now with the jokes!

    lmao

    (same ballpark, glad to hear it)

    wonderful evening? you too, but I still have an afternoon to go first
    ttfn

  • Kathy

    “I’ve been in a good mood for a few weeks now, which is cool. I feel like I’m back to being the me that I prefer to be (hopefully that makes sense). ”

    Yeah, it does, Just.

    I am mostly a positive person.. But hey, I have my moments.. Just like anyone else, too. ;)

    “Of course it’s getting into summer where you are. ‘here’ we have a lot of flooding (a few people killed), glad that I live on a hill.”

    Ha ha ha ha ha.. Indeed a a stroke of good luck there.

  • INTJ

    @ mr. wavevector

    Men are understandably reluctant to get emotionally involved in these LTR pseudo-marriages, where they make the emotional & financial investments in a relationship without receiving the long term benefits of a wife and a mother of their children. I think these mini-marriages are actually a way that women play men, just as men play women in the short term game. When romantic men commit, they want to go all in.

    I think what Bastiat Blogger suggests may be true: “there actually is a win-win solution for what both groups claim that they want, and this solution would seem to look a lot like current campus hook-up culture”. Given the constraints that young women put on relationships, the hookup culture may be the best achievable solution.

    Yup. If I have to choose between hook-ups and LTR pseudo-marriages,