20 Years Later, Men and Women Are Still From Different Planets

November 30, 2012

One of the most troubling effects of applied feminist theology has been the demonization of sex differences. Naturally, this denial of biological reality didn’t make sex differences disappear, it just made them off limits for discussion. That’s ironic, because some of the most pronounced differences between men and women may be seen in the way they engage in discussion. It’s very clear here at HUS that men and women communicate very differently. 

Recently I reread one of my favorite books about cross-sex communication, and despite the fact that it was written in the early 90s, I haven’t found anything that tops it. Even after four years of blogging about dating and relationships, I find John Gray’s Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus enlightening. 

I’m not sure if there ever was a time when the sexes understood one another better, but most of the questions I get from female readers are an attempt to figure out what’s going on in a guy’s mind. 

The best advice about men usually comes from men, but I’m happy to pass it along when it’s really good. John Gray is really good. Some of the insights seem a bit dated for today’s culture – that is, the nature of men and women has not really changed in twenty years, but some of our behaviors have. You may need to adjust here and there, but most of this is gold.

When men feel good about themselves, they are most motivated to please a woman.

The more a man’s life is in order, the more he hungers for a woman to share it with.

When a man does something to make a woman feel special, he becomes more attracted to her.

Men are attracted to women who clearly can be pleased. A man does not want to hear a woman dwell on negative feelings or problems. Women should initially share their most positive, autonomous side.

Not to be needed is a slow death for a man. He needs to feel appreciated, trusted and accepted.

Men are motivated and empowered when they feel needed. Given the opportunity to prove his potential, a man expresses his best self. Only when he feels he cannot succeed does he regress back to his old selfish ways.

But: Too much intimacy, too quickly, can cause women to become needy and men to pull away.

When a man is attracted, he gets excited because he anticipates that he can make her happy and that makes him feel really good; it brings the best of him out. The anticipation of more is very important to keep him interested. If he feels completely satisfied, then there is no distance for him to continue traveling to pursue her. Distance not only makes the heart grow fonder but gives the man the opportunity to pursue. Men always need the opportunity for more.

When women “overgive” it compromises their position, and it prevents the excitement of anticipation and romance from building.

While a man tends to question whether he wants to pursue a relationship, the woman tends to question where the relationship is going.

This may make her insecure and she will begin to pursue him. When a man stops pursuing, a woman’s task is to resist the enormous urge to find out what has happened or to do something about it. In this instance, she should stay open to his future advances, but fill her life up with friends.

The male intimacy cycle is like a rubber band. It involves getting close, pulling away, and then getting close again.

A man pulls away to fulfill his need for independence or autonomy. When he has fully separated, suddenly he will feel his need for love and intimacy again. A man automatically alternates between needing intimacy and autonomy.

When a man springs back, he picks up the relationship at whatever degree of intimacy it was when he stretched away. He doesn’t feel any need for a period of getting reacquainted again.

If a man does not have the opportunity to pull away, he never gets a chance to feel his strong desire to be close. If women insist on continuous intimacy then he will almost always be trying to escape and distance himself. He will never get a chance to feel his own passionate longing for love.

When a woman chases a man or punishes him for withdrawing, he feels incapable of fulfilling her and gives up. His fear of her anger or rejection might cause him to give up entirely.

Women need:

  • caring
  • understanding
  • respect
  • devotion
  • validation
  • reassurance

Men need:

  • trust
  • acceptance
  • appreciation
  • admiration
  • approval
  • encouragement

A man’s interest should be active. 

If a man detects that a woman’s mission is to please him, he will also focus on how she can please him. If she wants to pursue him, he will happily sit back and passively receive what she wants to give. This will not make her happy. When he senses that she is unhappy, she becomes less interesting to him and the attraction lessens. A woman who is eager to please a man will find that he is pleased, but not necessarily interested.

Active interest motivates the man to action to achieve a goal, thrives on achievement and comes from a place of desire and confidence.  The more risks he takes, the more invested he becomes.

The way a woman makes him feel good, (and more interested) is by creating opportunities for him to succeed in truly fulfilling her needs. Without her to please, he is a man out of work. He needs a job, needs the opportunity to succeed in a relationship with a woman. This is an enormous boost to his fulfillment in life.

 A female’s interest should be receptive.

Receptive interest is motivated to create opportunities to receive, thrives in response to support, and comes from a place of preference and worthiness. A woman’s receptive interest in a man generates his active interest in her. When she reacts to his advances, he feels more connected to her. Then he is automatically more interested and motivated to get to know her.

A man gets turned on when a woman’s radiance makes him feel more like a man.

 Feminine radiance embodies the three characteristics of femininity:

1. Self-assurance: An air of grace and trust, self-respect. 

2. Receptivity:  The ability to receive what is given and not resent getting less; ability to benefit or find good in every situation.

3. Responsiveness: A man loves a woman with a smile. He loves to feel that he can make a difference, that he can make her happy.

The wisdom of waiting to be sexually intimate is that a man’s desire has a chance to grow into the higher levels of expression. 

His physical desire expands into the emotional desire to please the woman.

Having an exclusive relationship provides the foundation for lasting intimacy. A woman creates intimacy by honestly sharing more of who she is, and a man experiences increased intimacy by successfully supporting and nurturing more of who she is. As she discloses herself more, he can gradually get to know her. If he continues to be supportive as he gets to know her better, then the love he feels in his heart has a chance to grow.

When a woman becomes sexual before she is ready, she has stopped being receptive and becomes accommodating. She compromises her position. When she gives more in the relationship, she begins to expect more from the man, which makes her very unattractive. Female expectations are a turnoff for men.

 

The thing that surprises me most, though it makes a lot of sense, is the value to a man of pursuing and winning a woman. And the value to a woman of giving him the opportunity to do that.

We can either return to a way of relating that respects sex differences, or we can continue to ignore sex roles, asking women to be aggressors and men to be passive recipients.  While I think that it’s important and helpful for women to offer encouragement and show interest to men they find attractive, both sexes will realize the greatest benefit if women do this in response to male initiative.

  • Bob

    First!

  • pvw

    Second:

    applied feminist theology has been the demonization of sex differences.

    Me: Hmm…I read this and I thought, that sounds like it would be an interesting class at a seminary somewhere in New England, ie., ultra liberal Episcopal Divinity School in the “People’s Republic of Cambridge,” Mass.

    On the other hand, I realize what you are getting at, those who use feminism as a secular religion, and women’s studies departments might as well be seminaries for this type of secular theology….

    I can always tell when I have to get my female graduate students to broaden their perspectives on feminist theory, ie., when they have spent too much time in the “seminary.” A common trait of tunnel vision; I’m seeing it right now with two students as they work on their research papers.

    I had the Mars/Venus book back then; not sure where I put it, though….

  • INTJ

    Nice post.

  • JP

    @pvw:

    “A common trait of tunnel vision; I’m seeing it right now with two students as they work on their research papers.”

    Don’t leave us in suspense.

    Why don’t you explain this a little further…

  • I can’t get behind the idea that relationships are best with the woman being pursued. My best relationships would have never happened if I hadn’t made a move, and I think that has to do with the fact that men do not pick up on subtle hints of interest. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard “I had no idea you liked me” even after I tried to show my interest, all but spelling it out for them.

    And the idea that men are on a mission to please her and fulfill her needs…could this dynamic possibly lead to why men feel many women are vain, entitled, and selfish?

    Side thought: Are men actually threatened by women who are attractive, rich, powerful, and self sufficient because they feel they have nothing to offer (since you suggest that a man needs to feed needed). I wonder if this is why so many men are trying to keep women at home and married with kids by 25. I wonder if this is simply what the backlash against feminism is all about.

    • The conversation here got off to a good start without me, thanks everyone!

      @Ashley

      I can’t tell you how many times I have heard “I had no idea you liked me” even after I tried to show my interest, all but spelling it out for them.

      This is what I was thinking of when I said that some of the advice doesn’t fit the current SMP perfectly. Men definitely approach less than they did 20 years ago. In addition to the understandable fear of rejection, I think that feminism has made it much more difficult for men to get a read on what women want. Is she DTF or someone looking for a relationship? I’ve heard quite a few stories from men who were literally dragged into bedrooms by women at parties. They feel torn – penis says yes, brain says no. Several of these episodes have been aborted by guys midway, I might add. In one case, the guy felt really defensive and said he felt like he was being raped! He finally said no and got the hell out of there.

      The problem is that for people who are not looking for casual, the traditional model of male pursuit is far more effective. Many times a guy does appreciate being singled out for special treatment, and he may happily go along for the ride, but he is likely to invest less because he didn’t have to work for it.

      I’m all for women indicating interest as clearly as they can. That’s what flirting is for. Making actual moves, though – that robs the guy of the opportunity to be the male.

    • Are men actually threatened by women who are attractive, rich, powerful, and self sufficient because they feel they have nothing to offer (since you suggest that a man needs to feed needed)

      There is no question that men feel less needed today, and they are less needed, financially speaking. However, there are many ways in which most women do need men in order to fulfill their life’s purpose, and to find happiness.

      Political messages that men and women are the same obscure the real needs the sexes have for one another and make it much harder for people to vocalize them without being shamed. As I covered in a recent post, young men grow up with cultural messages that promiscuity is the goal, and they are made to feel ashamed for wanting connection and intimacy in addition to sex.

      Finally, I will agree with others that the word threatened does not apply here. The man who is secure in his own skin is not threatened by a woman’s achievements. If she adopts an alpha male persona, though, it’s unlikely men are going to find her attractive. This is a serious problem for many high achieving professional women – they have had to behave in very male ways to succeed in a male world. I can recall feeling that way myself when I worked in corporate America and consulting. (In fact, acting female in those environments leads to being harrassed sexually, but that’s another story.)

      So it’s not that female achievement threatens men, it’s that most high achieving females become ball busters on their way up, losing their femininity completely.

  • Lokland

    “I wonder if this is why so many men are trying to keep women at home and married with kids by 25. ”

    *Raises eyebrow*

  • Richard Aubrey

    The pieces of Gray’s work that Susan cites are expanded upon in Crabb’s
    “Men, Women, Enjoying the Difference”.
    There’s a profound, absorbing review of the book on Amazon.

  • “*Raises eyebrow*”

    Hey don’t look at me. The “manosphere” is consumed with preaching to women to not wait until it’s too late (their idea of too late if about after 25 when a woman’s appearance starts to diminish).

  • doomwolf

    @Ashley

    “Side thought: Are men actually threatened by women who are attractive, rich, powerful, and self sufficient because they feel they have nothing to offer (since you suggest that a man needs to feed needed). I wonder if this is why so many men are trying to keep women at home and married with kids by 25. I wonder if this is simply what the backlash against feminism is all about.”

    To your first thought, I would say yes, atleast as far as I am concerned. If a woman can look after herself and makes significantly more money than me, what would I have to offer in the mix? This is basically why I have no interest in pursuing a couple women I know going into law & medicine respectively.

    As to the second thought, I haven’t seen or heard anything like that around here, but Ottawa is a government town, so politically correct civil servants abound here, the type that wouldn’t say sh*t if their mouth was full of it. People here can be pretty boring sometimes.

  • *Grabs popcorn*
    I’m getting the feeling this is going to be one of those posts

  • JP

    @doomwolf:

    “This is basically why I have no interest in pursuing a couple women I know going into law & medicine respectively.”

    Law.

    Uh, not a money/prestige profession.

    More like a “help me escape this career trap” profession.

  • Sassy6519

    *Pulls up a chair next to Anacaona with a package of Twizzler’s pull-and-peel*

    Girl, me too!

  • Passer_By

    @doomwolf

    “If a woman can look after herself and makes significantly more money than me, what would I have to offer in the mix?”

    But does that mean you are “threatened” by her? Or just making a rational assessment of the likelihood of a successful approach and subsequent relationship? I don’t the female obsession with characterizing men as “threatened”, as though the problem is some phobia or psychological inadequacy, when in reality that are just correctly diagnosing a situation (on a statistical basis).

    @ashley

    “I wonder if this is why so many men are trying to keep women at home and married with kids by 25. ”

    That’s a wild overstatement and sounds like that silly “barefoot and pregnant” meme.”

    “I wonder if this is simply what the backlash against feminism is all about.””

    Right, because only psychological inadequacy could possibly make men react negatively to a political movement whose goals (at the top) are to systematically strip them of rights and resources.

  • pvw

    @JP November 30, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    @pvw:

    “A common trait of tunnel vision; I’m seeing it right now with two students as they work on their research papers.”

    Don’t leave us in suspense.

    Why don’t you explain this a little further…

    Me: Applied feminist theology, where each student adheres to some form of liberal feminist theory, ie., finding anti-feminists or even conservative feminists shocking because they are incapable of critiquing liberal feminism, ie., that absolute equality forces women to meet a standard of equality that views equality through men’s eyes–they have to be equal on men’s terms, to be exactly like men–maleness is the standard.

  • JP

    ” I wonder if this is why so many men are trying to keep women at home and married with kids by 25.”

    I’m fairly certain that the children before 25 idea was originally my wife’s idea, not mine.

  • pvw

    @JP: Or lots of victimology…not being able to see that women can be dangerous to themselves or other people, ie., when they decided to associate with unsavory men….

  • JP

    “ie., that absolute equality forces women to meet a standard of equality that views equality through men’s eyes–they have to be equal on men’s terms, to be exactly like men–maleness is the standard.”

    Taken to the logical extreme, that would result in a lot of women losing a lot of fist fights.

  • Lokland

    @Ashly

    How do you define “many men”?

    Personally, I would not define “many woman” as cuckolders though they represent 1-2 of every 100 women. A significantly higher frequency than men who are even aware of the manosphere.

    It’s like wondering onto an NBA court and concluding many men are 6′ tall.
    or
    Walking into a mental hospital and concluding many people are crazy.

    If you go to somewhere that aggregates a certain type and then draw a conclusion and apply it across the general populace your bound to be mistaken.

    In my first example, if I watched jerry Springer I could probably conclude many women are cuckolder’s but I would be incorrect to apply it across the pollution.

  • JP

    “@JP: Or lots of victimology…not being able to see that women can be dangerous to themselves or other people, ie., when they decided to associate with unsavory men….”

    This one sounds more amusing.

    What’s the academic logic behind this one and what real world changes are proposed?

  • pvw

    @JP:

    Taken to the logical extreme, that would result in a lot of women losing a lot of fist fights.

    Me: Or the recent lawsuit I heard about regarding servicewomen wanting to go into combat. They want combat roles in order to rise through the ranks, etc. I would have thought those absolute equality chicks would have gotten a clue when Rostker v. Goldberg established that women didn’t have to register for the draft, the ERA failed and, and EEOC v. Sears indicated the rise of cultural/difference feminism….

  • My fault, I should have clarified I was referring to red pill men.

  • Lokland

    “rrect to apply it across the pollution.”

    Hmmm.
    That must have been a mental slip on what I think of Jerry Springer.

    *population

  • pvw

    @JP:

    victimology…..This one sounds more amusing.

    What’s the academic logic behind this one and what real world changes are proposed?

    Me: Criminology type stuff…women as girlfriends of alpha gang bangers in places like LA where they can be caught up in the system, an interest in using protectionist policies, ie., they are not the ones involved primarily in the gang bangers, but they are vulnerable merely because of who their partners are–don’t charge them with crimes, ie., as accessories, etc.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    Nice post.

    I do disagree on receptiveness.
    Being only receptive is the equivalent of doing nothing and expecting everything.

    Nurturing is feminine, it is an active state, not receptive.

    A balance of the two is better.

    • Being only receptive is the equivalent of doing nothing and expecting everything.

      Nurturing is feminine, it is an active state, not receptive.

      There’s already been some good conversation about receptivity vs. responsiveness. I don’t think Gray means to say that women “do nothing.” They must actively create opportunities to invite a man in. They must welcome him and encourage his approach. Then when he takes action, they should reward it with responsiveness.

      Nurturing is feminine, and obviously crucial in a relationship, but it’s not quite what women should be going for in the initial stage before she knows him. In fact, I think women who presume too much in this regard are guilty of “overgiving” in a way that makes men pull away.

      Gray does not use the words dominant and submissive, but we can think of this as a mating dance where the male leads.

  • HanSolo

    Men are motivated and empowered when they feel needed.

    Most men do need to be needed–with some narcissists and similar excluded. I think that’s why a lot of young men are checking out. They didn’t feel welcomed or needed in the more girl-friendly school system growing up. They don’t feel needed by women (and in some ways they aren’t needed, or as much).

    Women may not need men as much financially anymore so women interested in having a good relationship should communicate they ways they do need and appreciate men in general and the specific man they are with or trying to be with.

    • They didn’t feel welcomed or needed in the more girl-friendly school system growing up.

      This is a good point. When we teach males from birth that their exuberant physicality, for example, is bad and detrimental to the well-being of the group, we create a shame cycle that is bound to reveal itself in mating later on. How could it not?

  • JP

    @PVW:

    “Or the recent lawsuit I heard about regarding servicewomen wanting to go into combat. They want combat roles in order to rise through the ranks, etc.”

    As long as they are using a gun, they are evenly matched against the enemy.

    Unarmed…eh, not so evenly matched against the enemy.

  • Passer_By

    @jp
    “As long as they are using a gun, they are evenly matched against the enemy.”

    Even if not hand to hand, combat involves more than just shooting. For one thing, it involves carrying a lot of heavy shit through difficult terrain.

  • HanSolo

    Female expectations are a turnoff for men.

    I am a very giving person and love to do thoughtful and special things for a woman I love. I love her to be grateful and let me know how much she loves that I do those things for her, whether it’s a gift or great sex or holding her when she’s sad or just lifting a box.

    If she reinforces my giving with gratitude and some giving of her own then I will continue to give. She can even in a non-demanding way let me know something she would love for me to do for her within the context of me being free to do it or not and that she’ll love me anyway and I will likely do it.

    However, if all I am feeling is that she is demanding everything and never grateful for it because I’m just barely meeting or not even meeting her demands then I’ll withdraw, at first temporarily and eventually permanently if things don’t change. This is where nagging and entitled attitudes really turn me off and I believe a lot of other men.

    “I loved being with you in Tahiti. I’ll never forget it!” will motivate me to plan the next romantic trip much more than hearing, “We never go anywhere anymore. You’re so cheap!”

    Or, “It’s not where we go but being together” will make me more likely to want to go for the more expensive vacation, knowing that even if we did the cheaper one that that would be wonderful too.

  • HanSolo

    @Ashley

    In this environment of men being seen as potential rapists, creeps and stalkers, combined with nuclear rejections and having been rejected many times in the past, the woman showing more interest is important to put him at ease that she will not categorize him as that. So, good job in showing more interest than you thought might have been needed.

    Men do need to feel needed. I think that being needed emotionally and sexually can make up a huge part of the not being needed financially (as much) anymore.

  • HanSolo

    @Ashley

    Also, there’s a difference between you making enough of a move to give him the green light to pursue and you doing all the pursuing. I think giving him the green light and then letting him do a lot of the pursuing (though not necessarily all) can be good.

    How did things work with you after you made the initial efforts?

  • Tom.s

    “If a man does not have the opportunity to pull away, he never gets a chance to feel his strong desire to be close. If women insist on continuous intimacy then he will almost always be trying to escape and distance himself. He will never get a chance to feel his own passionate longing for love.”

    This sums up my last relationship. I tried telling this to her for over a year. She literally could not understand what I was talking about and always took it as a ‘step backward’.

    Well, I finally gave up after the nagging of continued intimacy took its toll on me. What a shame, she was almost perfect outside of this particular problem… 🙁

  • HanSolo

    @Tom.s

    You should have played her this song:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0McfH-hweQ

    😀

  • doomwolf

    @ Passer By

    “Even if not hand to hand, combat involves more than just shooting. For one thing, it involves carrying a lot of heavy shit through difficult terrain.”

    100% correct. I’m in the Canadian military, I’ve seen female infanteers in the reserves. With a couple of notable exceptions, they’re not as good as the guys-don’t have the same muscle mass, statistically speaking a higher percentage of them injure themselves. Also, having them around changes the group dynamics among the guys, especially if they sleep around. Given the macho (for lack of a better word) culture of the combat arms, this is a guaranteed way for everyone to lose respect for you. Whether or not that is “fair” is irrelevant, it’s what happens.

    Also, they aren’t treated equally – they have their own (substantially easier) PT test. I have to do a minimum of 19 pushups (which isn’t even that many), a woman my age doing the same job only has to do 9. Relative grip-strength scores are 75 and 50.

  • doomwolf

    @Passer By cont’d

    “But does that mean you are “threatened” by her? Or just making a rational assessment of the likelihood of a successful approach and subsequent relationship? I don’t the female obsession with characterizing men as “threatened”, as though the problem is some phobia or psychological inadequacy, when in reality that are just correctly diagnosing a situation (on a statistical basis).”

    It’s always been more of a feeling with me rather than something I went an analysed, but possibly/probably. I supposed “threatened” would be better meant as “do not forsee realistic chance of success”.

  • Mike M.

    @Ashley:

    There’s a difference between a woman actively pursuing a man, and tactfully inviting him to pursue her.

  • BroHamlet

    @Ashley

    Side thought: Are men actually threatened by women who are attractive, rich, powerful, and self sufficient because they feel they have nothing to offer (since you suggest that a man needs to feed needed).

    Personally, no. I have plenty to offer, even to a woman who makes more than me. I think a lot of people don’t consider that there are other sources of value, and many, many other things that make a person interesting. Anyone who thinks that money or credentials can be used as the sole classification of people has too much faith in the system and the pieces of paper it stamps to give people a place in it. I don’t make a habit of being threatened by any person, mostly for that reason. Wealth, power and social cache, etc. are defined by the prevailing society, but how much bearing should keeping up with the joneses have on your life and your aspirations? My answer: not too much, and you should probably think about where you stand on this and live your life accordingly.

    @doomwolf

    To your first thought, I would say yes, atleast as far as I am concerned.

    So, your only value is a paycheck? Come now. There are people who toil in obscurity doing humanitarian work in third world countries, and I would count those people MORE important to the world than a corporate lawyer busting their ass to make partner and the high six figure income it promises.

    I wonder if this is why so many men are trying to keep women at home and married with kids by 25. I wonder if this is simply what the backlash against feminism is all about.

    Who is trying to do this? The <1% of the total population of men that make up commenters on "manosphere" blogs? No disrespect, but this is such an overplayed and unfounded meme that it can't even be taken seriously anymore. Men (and women too) are actually less interested in marriage and kids these days until much later in life, and men don't want to keep women from doing anything. Many of us are too busy building our own futures to worry about a woman's. Feminism has run it's course, and largely isn't about equality, or even about the interests of the average woman anymore, and that much has been explored in depth on this blog if you read back in the archives.

  • Ashley:

    Best way to encourage a man, hands-down: make eye contact, look away FIRST, then smile demurely. Super easy for the woman because you don’t have to smile and give eye contact simultaneously; gives the man confidence by putting him in the dominate frame. If you make a man break eye contact first, you fail.

    When women do this to me the first thing I do is look at their ring finger. Then I say hi if I like what I see.

  • Clarence

    BroHamlet:

    “Feminism has run its course…”

    Yeah, why don’t you tell our politicians that as the feminists are more plugged into the political process than ever, esp. when it comes to laws involving marriage/divorce and family formation. I see someone sticking their head into the sand and at the same time throwing a few million men and women whose lives or families or both have been ruined under the bus…

    As far as women pursuing men, I’m all for it. I think every woman should do an “active pursuit” at least once just to get a freaking idea of what it is like and I fully encourage the woman who like gentler or shyer (or awkward) men to at least try approaching those men, and by “approach” I don’t mean send a hairflip signal or something I mean actively chat up or even ask out.

    I will never shame a sexually aggressive woman, nor will I ever shame a woman for approaching me, and while I don’t mind other men’s preferences in pursuit/pursuing if I ever see some guy shaming a gal for an approach I’ll treat him just as I would a rude woman and show my disapproval in very vocal and cutting terms.

  • JP

    “As far as women pursuing men, I’m all for it. I think every woman should do an “active pursuit” at least once just to get a freaking idea of what it is like and I fully encourage the woman who like gentler or shyer (or awkward) men to at least try approaching those men, and by “approach” I don’t mean send a hairflip signal or something I mean actively chat up or even ask out.”

    I grew up thinking that this is how life worked.

    Meaning the woman pursuing you part of things.

    It never occurred to me that I should be going out of my way to meet women, so to speak.

    Number of times I asked out a woman with any chance that I would be recjected? Zero. Nada. Zilch. That’s right. Zero.

    How does this not happen to Cooper?

  • JP

    “Yeah, why don’t you tell our politicians that as the feminists are more plugged into the political process than ever, esp. when it comes to laws involving marriage/divorce and family formation. I see someone sticking their head into the sand and at the same time throwing a few million men and women whose lives or families or both have been ruined under the bus…”

    Hey, this is one of those comments that says “delete me”.

    I think I’m getting the hang of this comments section.

  • Clarence

    JP:
    I have no idea what you are babbling about.

    Who is Cooper?

  • Lokland

    @Clarence

    “Who is Cooper?”

    We all felt a distinct lack of figure-headed-ness.
    Susan is the creator of this fine blog but we all needed someone to worship.
    Susan subsequently created Cooper.

    Cooper now serves an all-purpose representative of HUS.

    However, you can’t look him in the eye or directly speak to him or you burst into flames.

    Susan said so.

  • Joe

    Girl, me too!

    Sassy & Ana, forget that nonsense. You two are in the middle of this discussion whether you know it or not! 😉

  • INTJ

    Are men actually threatened by women who are attractive, rich, powerful, and self sufficient because they feel they have nothing to offer (since you suggest that a man needs to feed needed).

    Only if she has the attitude that she doesn’t need a man. An attitude which such women usually do have.

  • INTJ

    On another note, I was curious about what Mr. Nervous Toes said about attractiveness on PoF and OKC. So I created a male and a female profile on OKC, and looked at the selection of matches. No comparison. The male profiles were way better, both in terms of photo attractiveness and profile content.

  • Sai

    …I didn’t realize men wanted/needed so badly to do things this way.
    I guess I need to be really grateful if somebody holds another door for me. (I do that for people too, though.)

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Hello Ashley,

    It is a nice to hear from a new person 🙂

    Successful women are not intimidating to me, personally. I am used to successful women. My mother is a high-ranking accountant at a Fortune 50 Company and my sister is a doctor. On the other hand, my father is a college dropout and my brother-in-law is a stay at home dad.

    I also am a child of the UMC, and am quite familiar with women who have a lot of successes. National champion debaters, etc…

    Your successes aren’t really that intimidating. If anything, on their own, they are a plus. I like successful women, as I would also like successful daughters.

    The intimidating part about women is quite different!

    -I could cry at my grandfather’s funeral, and get dumped for not being manly enough
    -I could commit myself fully to a woman, and she could drop me at a moment’s notice for the new hot model
    -I might try to be nice to my girlfriend, and then get dumped because it turns out I failed a shit test
    – I could try to be nice to a girl I am dating, but she stops because it is “too nice too soon.”
    -I could invest a lot into a girl, and delay sex, only to realize she’s been regularly banging dudes within hours of meeting them (very painful for a guy)

    And worst of all…

    I know this can happen, but it seems the culture I am living in is now designed in a way where women view me as the enemy. That my feelings don’t count for anything. That, even being nice, I am viewed as an oppressor, or creepy, or a potential rapist. That I am nothing more than a plaything or an emotional tampon. That I am disposable and girls do not really want to commit to me. That I could be openly mocked for even THINKING of getting with certain girls.

    For me, career success has absolutely nothing to do, at all, with my disdain for feminism or my former fear of women.

  • Sassy & Ana, forget that nonsense. You two are in the middle of this discussion whether you know it or not

    Lo siento no hablo ingles 😉

  • Sassy6519

    @ Joe

    Sassy & Ana, forget that nonsense. You two are in the middle of this discussion whether you know it or not!

    *Throws twizzler at Joe’s head*

    Shhhhhhhhh! I can’t enjoy this thread with you distracting me. 😛

  • Susan!

    Susan, I don’t get it. Why am I banned yet again? By the way you said you deleted the posts on the previous thread last night of me and Just1z having a pissing contest, but we didn’t, and you didn’t.

    You deleted my posts about precocious puberty in boys and its possible links to porn, which I was curious to get your opinion on . Then Just1z chimed in with his thoughts on the matter. There was no “pissing contest”.

    What gives Aunt Sue?

  • doomwolf

    @INTJ

    ‘Are men actually threatened by women who are attractive, rich, powerful, and self sufficient because they feel they have nothing to offer (since you suggest that a man needs to feed needed).’

    “Only if she has the attitude that she doesn’t need a man. An attitude which such women usually do have.”

    That’s what I was trying to convey earlier.

  • Joe

    [Ducks, affixes thumb firmly to nose and says…]
    PPPTHTHTHTHPPPPP!!!!!

    What? You think this thread isn’t about you two too???
    BTW, Thank you; I love twizzlers!

  • Susan!

    “Best way to encourage a man, hands-down: make eye contact, look away FIRST, then smile demurely. ”

    Doesn’t work on extremely shy or introverted guys. They might like it, sure. But they won’t approach, or very rarely so. We must approach them. Ashley knows what she’s talking about.

    I never bought into this pop culture conspiratorial “war of the sexes” meme. I’ve never felt myself separate from my husband or any of the men I dated and became close to. We were as one.

    All the other propaganda is meant to alienate men and women from one another.

  • Susan!

    Its similar propaganda to the bizarre American concept of new fathers being “jealous” of their brand new infant babies. Don’t wanna sound prejudice against my fellow citizens but I’ve honestly NEVER heard such nonsense being spread in any other country. Obviously there was a profit to be made somewhere out of couples believing that.

  • Susan!

    Mr. Nervous Toes, I left a comment a week or two ago aimed at you and your universalization of British Victorian values when it came to female sexuality and “hysteria”. In other words, that fraud was propagated by Victorian British “doctors” and and others trying to make money off of the demonization of masturbation and other forms of sexuality beyond repressed Victorian “missionary” position. Create the problem – provide the solution = profit for oppurtunistic scam artists.

    It was by no means universal.

    Many of the rest of the world had figured by puberty how to produce orgasm through masturbation WITHOUT having to pay some dude to use “appliances” on us.

    Really, its not rocket science. Trust me on that.

  • jlw

    “Most men do need to be needed–with some narcissists and similar excluded.”

    I struggle with this comment. Don’t most classic narcissists drink in being the needed and important guy?

  • HanSolo

    @jlw

    Yes, they need the adulation.

    I meant to say that most men need to be needed and will respond fairly positively when they are needed.

  • HanSolo

    The narcissists and manipulators and attention vampires will be the ones that take and take and don’t give anything or much in return to the giver. These are then the men that some women complain about in saying that you shouldn’t give to men.

    Related to this is women who give a lot to men who are out of their league and don’t get much in return and wonder why. The classic example of this is the woman who gives sex to the man who is 2+ points higher in value and “needs/wants” him for a relationship and doesn’t get it.

  • Susan!

    “Related to this is women who give a lot to men who are out of their league and don’t get much in return and wonder why. The classic example of this is the woman who gives sex to the man who is 2+ points higher in value and “needs/wants” him for a relationship and doesn’t get it.”

    I married and always dated at least 2 points higher in looks than myself and always got what I wanted from the relationships. No complaints really, except from, ironically, the guys who were only 1 point higher or my equals.

    Great looking guys often get a bad rap and I chalk that up to sheer jealousy. They are often the sweetest and kindest guys around.

  • JuTR

    Man’s role has traditionally been that of protector and provider, but today, you’d better find some way to provide utility in some other fashion, or you won’t fare well in today’s SMP.

    The government provides all the protection women need today. Men are dangerous, and government appointed authority figures are trustworthy, as all children are taught in school.

    Provisioning as an masculine asset is minimal in this society. We live in a land of plenty, where 80% of our folks in poverty sport air conditioning, and even the 20% without still have cellphones and TVs. Wealth transfers through government coffers ensure a minimal degree of stigma and a great degree of privacy.

    So yeah, with all these strong, independent women, some men will struggle to find some way to feel like they are adding value and will avoid relationships which will leave them feeling inadequate.

  • INTJ
  • Cooper

    “all but spelling it out for them.”
    *chuckles*

    @Ashley
    I definitely think you do the “approaching” and still allow a guy to pursue. A shy guy may require spelling it out for them…
    Like how Susan related it to a rubber band – girls can initiate the back and forth.

    @Lokland
    Drinking and blogging, this evening? (Wtf? Lmao)

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ Watching more Game of Thrones? I want the new season!

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    Good article about the pushover husbands thinking they’re pleasing their wives by doing that. My dad is definitely that way. I’m not sure what % of husbands are that way but there is a certain “wisdom” amongst many married guys that you have to just not argue too much and really pick your battles to keep harmony in the home. This phenomenon is real. I wonder how widespread it is amongst different SES and racial demographics. (And there are women who are in similar situations as well.)

    I don’t put up with nonsense from my mom and so she rarely tries it with me (and she is a good woman so not trying to rag on her). I just think she would be happier in the long run if my dad was a bit more assertive, though she’d argue and not like it in the short term, once she got used to that things would be better. Not sure how to get my dad to realize it since he’s so bought into his identity as the sacrificing pleaser. The plus side is he is a very kind, good guy.

  • Susan!

    Susan, I thought you’d be interested in this;

    http://postmasculine.com/does-promiscuity-ruin-you-as-a-potential-husband

    Read the comments. Athol Kay leaves a comment and the reaction of the other, young men reflects perfectly the difference between the younger (hotter, tighter), more liberal PUA mindset and the Manosphere’s often stuffy conservativism which borders on bitter revenge. Athol doesn’t strike me as bitter per se but Dalrock and the other conservative MRA guys certainly do.

    I’m socially and sexually conservative too (by choice, not by force, hence I’m not bitter), but I’d take a laid back, chilled out PUA over them any day. Of course they would cry, “see! even plain janes want ‘alpha assholes’ ” but those guys are neither alphas nor assholes.

    They are just young, happy liberals.

    And that right there is the huge gaping chasm between the PUAs and the angry MRA right wingers who want to control women and return to some fictional 1950s fantasy. Its also the reason why “game” will never work for the old MRAs. Game denotes play. Playfulness requires some level of joy.

    You don’t get a sense of joy out of the MRAs. None whatsoever. And that lack of a genuine love of life is a major lady boner killer.

  • Society’s Disposable Son

    Simply put this is why most of us menz are frustrated with teh wimminz. This one made me think about my past relationships and puts things into perspective. The whole needing to feel needed is big for me when it comes to dating.

    I know people have been championing online dating but I’ve had pretty fail results but wanted to toss Susan an idea. Make a fake male profile and just browse and read women’s profiles. I see a few decent ones but you might be surprised how many profiles pretty much as state “I don’t need a man for anything” (then why are you on a goddamn dating site!?) to having bullet point lists of requirements to bother sending them a message, It really ties in the whole needing to needed sentiment and giving up trying fulfill endless demands and outrageous expectations. If nothing else it’ll be a good way to help any HUS girls stand out big online….

    That Good Man Project article….My family life is a good example of this… My mom (bless her heart) wanted the stereotypical white picket fence American family. My dad was never a pushover but she was always telling him how selfish he was no matter how out of his way he went for her. To make her dream scenario fall further from her grasp, she gave birth to a introvert who nearly failed high school and decided not to bother with college. Things were not very smooth in my MS-HS years. Lots of family shouting matches and my mom harping on us because we never met her demands. She more or less forced church activities and volunteering on me and my dad, which was a big source of familial discourse. She always used to try and shame my dad by frantically exclaiming “what will people think!?” if he tried to ditch out on church to go fishing.

    It wasn’t until I turned 25 and moved back home after my failed LTR that she told for the first time she was proud of me. To put it in to context though, most of her friends children that did decent in school later became drug addicts and alcoholics. So I guess that put things into perspective for her… that college isn’t everything in the world.

    • @Society’s Disposable Son

      I see a few decent ones but you might be surprised how many profiles pretty much as state “I don’t need a man for anything” (then why are you on a goddamn dating site!?) to having bullet point lists of requirements to bother sending them a message, It really ties in the whole needing to needed sentiment and giving up trying fulfill endless demands and outrageous expectations. If nothing else it’ll be a good way to help any HUS girls stand out big online….

      I hear you, and those women should get exactly what they deserve – guys as selfish and unempathic as they are. However, incentives drive behavior and those women are being rewarded for profiles like that!

      Check out this story, it’s hilarious:

      OK CUPID: AN EXPLORATION INTO JUST HOW LOW SOME GUYS WILL GO

  • Just1Z

    @Plain Jane

    Susan, I don’t get it. Why am I banned yet again? By the way you said you deleted the posts on the previous thread last night of me and Just1z having a pissing contest, but we didn’t, and you didn’t.

    You deleted my posts about precocious puberty in boys and its possible links to porn, which I was curious to get your opinion on . Then Just1z chimed in with his thoughts on the matter. There was no “pissing contest”.

    What gives Aunt Sue?

    You may not believe this PJ, but I agree with you!

    We had some cordial (bit rocky at the start, but we put that aside) conversation.

    The youtube links I put up were initially unrelated to our conversation, they were just fun.

    I think that Susan saw our names in a sequence of comments and for some reason (can’t imagine what reason *blatant smirk* okay maybe I can think of a couple) assumed we were at it again.

    we were playing quite nicely – oh the injustice!

    (maybe Susan just went into shock over that? 🙂 )

  • Just1Z

    @Sai
    “I guess I need to be really grateful if somebody holds another door for me.”

    nah.

    1) look like you won’t rip the head off of any man doing something simply polite for you – i.e. not like a feminist. so, a slight smile?
    2) really grateful is overegging the pudding. a nod and small smile? say hello?

    hope things are going well, take care

  • Just1Z

    @PJ
    “Really, its not rocket science. Trust me on that.”
    lmao

    I think that the circumcision thing on boys (MGM) is an American sourced anti-masturbation thing, don’t have that anywhere else to the same degree. Kellogg was a proponent wasn’t he? he had plenty of wacky ideas.

    see the movie ‘the road to Wellville’, it’s pretty funny at times
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111001/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
    “A madcap portrayal of William Lightbody’s stay at the health farm run by cereal king Dr. John Harvey Kellogg. William’s wife, Eleanor, has persuaded him to go to Kellogg to have his system cleaned of impurities. Kellogg is very unconventional, and almost barbaric in his treatments.”

    William Lightbody: Oh, no, no, I can’t eat fifteen gallons of yoghurt.
    Dr. John Harvey Kellogg: Oh, it’s not going in that end, Mr. Lightbody.

    Endymion Hart-Jones: The enemas take some getting used to, but, in time, you’ll learn to look forward to them like an old friend with a cold nose.

    Interviewer: Sir, how often should one evacuate one’s bowels?
    Dr. John Harvey Kellogg: One should never, ever, interrupt one’s desire to defecate. I have inquired at the Bronx and London Zoos as to the daily bowel evacuations of primates. It is not once, twice, or three times, sir, but four. At the end of an average day, their cages are filled with a veritable mountain of natural health.
    Interviewer: And, sex?
    Dr. John Harvey Kellogg: Sex is the sewer drain of a healthy body, sir! Any use of the sexual act other than procreation is a waste of vital energy! Wasted seeds are wasted lives!
    Interviewer: Uh, eating meat?
    Dr. John Harvey Kellogg: “He that killeth the ox is as if he slew a man.” Each juicy morsel of meat is alive, and swarming with the same filth as found in the carcass of a dead rat. Meat eaters, sir, are drowning in a tide of gore. What is a sausage? A sausage is an indigestible balloon of decayed beef, riddled with tuberculosis. Eat and die! For I have seen many a repentant meat glutton his body full of uric acid and remorse, his soul adrift on the raft in the ocean of poisonous slime, sloshin’ against the walls of the body’s kitchen.
    Interviewer: Smoking?
    Dr. John Harvey Kellogg: The liver is the only thing standing between the smoker and death! Also certain other things have to be avoided… like, uh, feather beds, and romantic novels… and the, uh, touching of one’s organs. Masturbation is the silent killer of the night! The vilest sin of self-pollution! It is the sin of Onan!

    Virginia Cranehill: The fresh air, the exercise, and the pleasure of a leather saddle between one’s thighs.
    Eleanor Lightbody: Why, Virginia, what do you mean?
    Virginia Cranehill: Bicycle smile, I believe they call it.

  • Just1Z

    Men need:
    ■trust
    ■acceptance
    ■appreciation
    ■admiration
    ■approval
    ■encouragement

    GirlWritesWhat has (another) cool video / transcript here
    http://owningyourshit.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/transcript-of-men-not-marrying-how-deep.html

    it’s generally a cool video (as per usual) but part of it addresses how men need to feel they are seen in society (or relationships) i.e. relevant to the post

    And one thing the apexuals at the top, like Bill Bennett and Obama, feminists like Kaye Hymowitz and Katie Roiphe, and traditionalists like Suzanne Venker, will never realize is that using shame to try to coerce men to do what is expected of them isn’t going to work this time, because while it’s possible to shame a man into giving his life for his country if there’s a promise of respect in it, it’s impossible to shame someone into working his ass off and risking his future just for the joy of looking in the mirror and seeing Homer Simpson or Ray Barone looking back at him.

    When the cost of society’s approval is the self-respect you derive from a positive identity, it ceases to be worth it to a lot of men.

    it’s the same thing within a marriage. if you treat your hubbie as not-yet-adult who needs to be managed as a child…well, he’ll either fold (blue pill) or walk away (red pill). Portrayal of men in the media is poisonous in most sitcoms etc.

    Clearly if you are looking for a relationship, you need to bear in mind what signals you send him regarding his worth. I can see that PLI reflects reality somewhat in starting out or STR but it’s not a great way to get to an LTR – why would he commit to someone who shows / feigns indifference?

  • Just1Z

    @Han
    “Not sure how to get my dad to realize it since he’s so bought into his identity as the sacrificing pleaser. The plus side is he is a very kind, good guy.”

    Athol Kaye (married man sex life) has written books, how about a secret early xmas present for Dad? (if it’s secret he can choose to ignore it with no harm done). Maybe Dad can take a MAP (Male Action Plan) out for a spin, see what happens?
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Married-Life-Primer-2011/dp/1460981731

  • Damien Vulaume

    “When men feel good about themselves, they are most motivated to please a woman.
    The more a man’s life is in order, the more he hungers for a woman to share it with.”

    Of course. I’m surprised this should even need to be explained at all.

    “A man automatically alternates between needing intimacy and autonomy.”

    Yes. Gold observation. This I find to be at the core of misunderstanding in younger couples. Some girls tend to be “attention seekers”, and view those moments of male autonomy as a decreasing sign of interest for them.

    “But: Too much intimacy, too quickly, can cause women to become needy and men to pull away.
    When women “overgive” it compromises their position, and it prevents the excitement of anticipation and romance from building.”

    That’s what many young girls should keep in mind when they step into the mating dance hall. And I haven’t met many men who, deep inside, keep the same level of respect for women they’ve slept with too early on or too easily with.
    On the other hand, that doesn’t make a promiscuous girl necessarily an easy lay or
    or “slutty” female. I wish some guys could understand that.

    #24 “Lokland: I do disagree on receptiveness.
    Being only receptive is the equivalent of doing nothing and expecting everything.
    Nurturing is feminine, it is an active state, not receptive.
    A balance of the two is better.”

    That’s exactly what went through my mind when I read the post. Passive receptiveness is pretty much just that, nothing. Female nurturing is best when actively given in a balanced way. No overbearing nannies, please, but a minimum of active nurturing.

    • @Damien

      “A man automatically alternates between needing intimacy and autonomy.”

      Yes. Gold observation. This I find to be at the core of misunderstanding in younger couples. Some girls tend to be “attention seekers”, and view those moments of male autonomy as a decreasing sign of interest for them.

      The biggest challenge for women is knowing when to go silent. In this era of social media, constant texting, etc. it’s become much harder. When I was young if a guy didn’t call you, he didn’t call. We rarely got closure, and short of confronting him directly at a social event, we were forced to go about our daily lives. If he came back into your life at some future point, well then you’d have some control over your response.

      Today women usually make the mistake of reaching out when they shouldn’t. That is why there are phone apps that allow you to block all outgoing communication to a specific number while you’re still sober, preventing the always inadvisable drunk dialing fiasco.

      Silence not only gives the guy an opportunity to reflect and miss you if he’s ever going to, it is also dignified. I know I lose respect for people who act foolish or set themselves up for humiliation. As Gray says, self-assurance, including self-respect, is a key part of femininity. That means no chasing guys, ever.

  • Damien Vulaume

    Actually, the exact quote is: ” 2. Receptivity: The ability to receive what is given and not resent getting less; ability to benefit or find good in every situation.”
    Now I realize that’s this is not related to “nurturing”.
    In fact, “the ability to receive what is given and not resent getting less.”
    is one of the more “generous” side of women that men often tread upon or take for granted.
    If this can be considered as something more, in terms of generosity, then i’d say that women are often capable of something more in relationships. If a woman truly loves you, she will fight to her last breath with utmost courage, for you. A woman who behaves in a cruel bitchy way with a man is ALWAYS simply because she has no respect for him. She should move on to somebody else instead of toying with her pray. An overdominating man shouting down his wife or, the other way around, complaining about her bitchy behaviour should move on as well. But I’m opening doors already open here, don’t I?

  • INTJ

    @ doomwolf

    I have to do a minimum of 19 pushups (which isn’t even that many), a woman my age doing the same job only has to do 9.

    Dude that is freaking pathetic. But then again most women can’t even do a pull-up…

  • INTJ

    @ Ana

    Lo siento no hablo ingles 😉

    Google Translate. 😉

  • Richard Aubrey

    Ref women and combat:
    Let’s presume that, for this op, everybody is supposed to ruck up with two-thirds of body-weight. Figure that a man’s personal gear; weapon, armor, water, commo gear, etc is 40 lbs, and a woman’s is 35 lbs, smaller people getting smaller armor.
    A woman weighs, say, 130, a man 180. The man has eighty pounds of carrying capacity left over, a woman has about fifty. That remaining carrying capacity is expendables, mostly ammunition of various kinds.
    So for every woman we substitute for a man, we lose at least thirty pounds of ammo. And that presumes she can keep up with the guys in the first place.
    And if we don’t gender-norm physical requirements, we’ll break, orthopedically speaking, probably six women trying to get one to qualify. But we will gender-norm requirements to satisfy tne feminists. Hell, any additional casualties can be blamed on the generals. So it’s all good.

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    Watching more Game of Thrones? I want the new season!

    I’ll get started on the second season now that my bandwidth has reset. I finished the first season day before yesterday. 🙂

    Some thoughts: That healer woman sure tricked the Khalisee. Sweet revenge. 🙂 Now I really hope Arya can avenge the butcher’s boy, Lord Stark, and everyone else by killing that prince. And rescue her stupid sister while she’s at it. The scene where Catelyn brokered a marriage alliance between the Stark kids and the Frey kids was hilarious. Poor Arya. I hope her future husband is a beta pedestalizer who will let her do what she wants. Also, now that it looks like Tyrion is going to be going steady with Shay, I hope she actually likes him and they can be a couple.

    So, most attractive women in Game of Thrones season 1:
    1) Shay
    2) Catelyn
    3) The Khalisee’s Darthrakee handmaiden

  • INTJ

    @ Richard Aubrey

    A woman weighs, say, 130, a man 180.

    Unless he’s Asian. 😛

  • “Receptiveness” seems closely related to “responsiveness,” as the latter term is sometimes used in sales training classes. The responsive person is attuned to the emotions of others, and prefers conversations which have emotional content to a “just-the-fact-ma’am” approach.

    In addition to the “receptiveness” dimension, there is the “assertiveness” dimension…these are separate dimensions, not opposites; a person can be both highly assertive and highly responsive (such people are often quite charismatic)…or both low assertiveness and low responsiveness.

    Don’t know if anyone has formally studied this model from a gender communications and mate-selection standpoint, but it may have potential.

    One source on the model is here:

    http://changingminds.org/explanations/preferences/social_styles.htm

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Nine pushups?

    You have to be fucking kidding me. Who would put national security in the hands of people who can barely do 9 pushups? It’s mind boggling-ly stupid.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    The problem is that for people who are not looking for casual, the traditional model of male pursuit is far more effective. Many times a guy does appreciate being singled out for special treatment, and he may happily go along for the ride, but he is likely to invest less because he didn’t have to work for it.

    Oh come on. There’s a difference between dragging a guy into a bedroom and giving him your phone number. The former is not effective for people who are not looking for casual. The latter is. It’s as simple as that.

    • There’s a difference between dragging a guy into a bedroom and giving him your phone number. The former is not effective for people who are not looking for casual. The latter is.

      I don’t know. I mean that literally – I really do not know. I’m going on what Gray says. Also, a blog I like a lot for women is Rules Revisited (which I link to in this post). Two great posts that are relevant here:

      How to Make Yourself More Approachable

      Bottom line:

      If you get disheartened because men are not approaching you, or if you have an initial interaction with a guy you like and then he leaves or doesn’t take your number – tough luck. This is part of female game, just like approaching, being rejected and humiliated is part of a man’s. When a guy gets rejected, he doesn’t blame the girl; he blames himself. When I get turned down, I know that if I had been more confident or smarter, or otherwise a man of higher value, she would have been attracted to me. I make it my goal to always improve, so that next time I will walk away with her number. The same should go for you: when a guy walks away without your contact information, suck it up, figure out other ways to make yourself more attractive or personable (the other posts in this blog should help), then get back out there.

      Also:

      Don’t Initiate Contact

      A man might make eye contact with you from across the bar, but unless he overcomes his fear or leaves his buddies in order to approach you, he isn’t into you enough. Don’t approach him. A man might say he wants to see you, but unless he calls to set up a date, he doesn’t care enough. Don’t call or text him. A man might tell you to come and visit him, but if he cares enough, he will come to you if you suggest it.

      I could give all kinds of examples, but you get the point. By making it easy for a man, you risk wasting your time and energy on someone who is only interested in having sex with you, or maybe worse, someone who will actually agree to a relationship or even marriage, only to change his mind months or years later when he realizes he wants someone he considers better. Taking the initiative is not a right that men have over women; it is (or should be) a hurdle that women place in front of men to make them prove their interest.

      …Later in a relationship a girl can start to initiate, but this should wait until she has a good gauge of his interest and commitment to her.

      Shy men are like women that don’t dress well or take care of themselves physically: they need to change. Confidence is the most important male attribute for attracting women. The situation you described will hopefully be a learning experience for the guy who had a crush on you. And while it is somewhat regrettable that the relationship never happened, think about how much better of a man he will be once he learns from his mistake. If you’d initiated, he wouldn’t have learned and you’d be stuck dating a guy with no balls.

      That sounds a bit harsh, I know, but if he’s right, then the woman initiating with a number close just isn’t going to work.

  • GudEnuf

    ” It’s very clear here at HUS that men and women communicate very differently. ”

    British and Australians communicate differently, but that doesn’t mean there’s a biological explanation.

    If anything, the past two decades have shown that women are *not* aliens. Iran and Sweden have shown that women can do STEM as well as men. The sex positive movement has shown that women can enjoy sex as long as they are in a safe environment. More and more women are dating men who make less money, so the “hypergamy” theory hold less water every day. I know we’ve had this conversation a million times but men and women have far more common than the manosphere presumes.

    • @Gud Enuf

      If anything, the past two decades have shown that women are *not* aliens.

      The point of the title is not that women are aliens, it is that men and women do not speak the same language. Perhaps the best book on the differences in communication styles outside of mating is You Just Don’t Understand by Deborah Tannen. It was a NYXs bestseller for a full four years because it made so much sense and helped so many couples to improve their communication.

      that doesn’t mean there’s a biological explanation.

      Men’s and women’s brains do indeed look quite different – certain sections are larger in one sex or the other. However, you are correct that culture can play a large role. Is the typical nursery school scene of girls playing house and boys playing Ninja Turtles entirely cultural? No, I don’t think so. My son was eagerly pointing at fire trucks before he turned one, and my daughter was pretending to feed her stuffed animals before her first birthday.

      ran and Sweden have shown that women can do STEM as well as men.

      I’m not familiar with this – can you explain a bit more?

      The sex positive movement has shown that women can enjoy sex as long as they are in a safe environment

      It has proven that is true for 12% of women, max. And FTR, sex pozzies are not so concerned about safety. Recall Jaclyn Friedman’s trolling for partners on Craigslist and Tracy Clark-Flory’s taking a stranger (and porn star!) home to her apartment for sex.

      More and more women are dating men who make less money, so the “hypergamy” theory hold less water every day.

      Do you have some data to back up this claim? It wouldn’t surprise me if it were true, because more men are making less money. However, we don’t have a good sense of the quality of those relationships do we? It’s well understood that hypergamy declines when there is a shortage of men. That reflects an adjustment to market conditions, doesn’t it?

  • INT: “But then again most women can’t even do a pull-up…”

    I’d bet most adult men can’t either, unless they specifically train to do it. It took me a solid two months of daily effort to get that first one. Most guys I see are far too fat, or very obviously untrained.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Lol the thumb wrestling guy realized she was a troll and counter-trolled her.

    His thumb-wrestling comment was so obnoxious that I had to bail. He even grossed out a fake girl. Wow, good job.

  • Richard Aubrey

    INTJ
    True, about Asian men. However, a small man can be cut for not making requirements. A woman, not. It would be disparate impact, see.
    Anyway, a man is generally stronger or can condition to a stronger state than a woman of the same height and weight.
    There. I said it.
    But figure swapping a squad of ten men for ten women. Lose three hundred pounds of killing stuff. Only the feminists would think this is a good idea.

    • But figure swapping a squad of ten men for ten women. Lose three hundred pounds of killing stuff. Only the feminists would think this is a good idea.

      Agreed. What I can’t figure out is why women would be so eager to step up to a more dangerous job. I don’t see the incentive for that increased risk.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    That link about OkCupid………..smh.

    There is a reason that I deleted my OkCupid account, and that article has reminded me why.

  • doomwolf

    @Richard Aubrey

    Exactly.

    Thought to be perfectly honest there aren’t *that* many women who volunteer for the combat arms compared to, say, RMS Clerk (http://www.forces.ca/en/job/resourcemanagementsupportclerk-78#video-0) which is what I am. I presume most women don’t jump at the chance to do a physically hard, dangerous job that involves carrying heavy loads, handling weapons, being bored a lot, in a culture that would resemble your high school boys’ locker room.

  • INTJ

    @ OTC

    I’d bet most adult men can’t either, unless they specifically train to do it. It took me a solid two months of daily effort to get that first one. Most guys I see are far too fat, or very obviously untrained.

    Yeah for some stupid reason I used to be insecure about being able to do *only* about 10 pull-ups in a row. Then I tried Googling to find out how many the average guy can do, and found people estimating that the vast majority of adult men can’t do pull-ups. 😀

    I still need to learn to do a muscle-up though. I can do one-handed push-ups, and I can do a single handstand push-up, but not yet any muscle-ups.

  • GudEnuf

    “The biggest challenge for women is knowing when to go silent.”

    Au contraire, it’s the men who need to learn to shut and let women speak! Men are more likely to speak in a mixed group and when a woman does speak up, men are more likely to interrupt. It is dangerous to tell women that to be MORE quiet, especially in a relationship. If men can’t handle an articulate women, they’re just going to have to change.

    (And yes, I am aware of this comment’s irony.)

    • @Gud Enuf

      It is dangerous to tell women that to be MORE quiet, especially in a relationship. If men can’t handle an articulate women, they’re just going to have to change.

      I’m not sure if you misunderstood my comment or this was deliberate. I was referring to silence as a strategy when two people are apart, not group conversational dynamics. When a woman is not hearing from a man, the smartest thing she can do is wait it out. Chasing him is no bueno.

      As for boys interrupting girls, we had that experiment in the schools, and we succeeded in shaming boys into silence in math class. See lopsided college ratio for real-life long-term effect.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Let me try to critique his post:

    A man might make eye contact with you from across the bar, but unless he overcomes his fear or leaves his buddies in order to approach you, he isn’t into you enough. Don’t approach him.

    Bullshit. Restricted guys are less likely to approach you than unrestricted guys. That doesn’t mean they aren’t into you enough.

    A man might say he wants to see you, but unless he calls to set up a date, he doesn’t care enough. Don’t call or text him. A man might tell you to come and visit him, but if he cares enough, he will come to you if you suggest it.

    This is definitely true. Once the approach has been made and he is no longer held back by shyness, he should be willing to actively put in effort. Otherwise he’s a cad.

    I could give all kinds of examples, but you get the point. By making it easy for a man, you risk wasting your time and energy on someone who is only interested in having sex with you, or maybe worse, someone who will actually agree to a relationship or even marriage, only to change his mind months or years later when he realizes he wants someone he considers better. Taking the initiative is not a right that men have over women; it is (or should be) a hurdle that women place in front of men to make them prove their interest.

    By creating the hurdle of requiring a man to take the initiative, you’re filtering for cads. Unless cads are your thing, that’s not a very good strategy.

    …Later in a relationship a girl can start to initiate, but this should wait until she has a good gauge of his interest and commitment to her.

    Yes, but he won’t get a chance to demonstrate his interest and commitment if they don’t approach each other.

    Shy men are like women that don’t dress well or take care of themselves physically: they need to change. Confidence is the most important male attribute for attracting women. The situation you described will hopefully be a learning experience for the guy who had a crush on you. And while it is somewhat regrettable that the relationship never happened, think about how much better of a man he will be once he learns from his mistake. If you’d initiated, he wouldn’t have learned and you’d be stuck dating a guy with no balls.

    This is good advice, but it should be conditional. If you’re attracted to confidence, you won’t be attracted to guys you have to approach. And it’s true that perhaps the majority of women are attracted to confidence. But there are people like Ashley who don’t require that confidence. For them, approaching men is a sound strategy.

    By giving a guy your phone number, you’re giving him a clear signal that you’re interested in him. However, you’re also putting the ball in his court, thus forcing him to take initiative and demonstrate that he is truly interested in you.

    • @INTJ

      By giving a guy your phone number, you’re giving him a clear signal that you’re interested in him. However, you’re also putting the ball in his court, thus forcing him to take initiative and demonstrate that he is truly interested in you.

      OK, let me play devil’s advocate here. (FTR, for years I have been advising women to give out their phone number when they like a guy.)

      If you give a guy your phone number, he has not risked anything at all. He calls it knowing that he will not be rejected. For that reason, he will not attach as much value to it as a “win.” If he would not have pursued you on his own, but is amenable to having the date anyway, already the woman is starting out with a risk of “He’s just not that into you.”

      This is a costly strategy because a woman can spend months or even years with a guy who ultimately confesses he never totally fell for her. By ignoring the role of men “displaying” and women “selecting” you have set up a situation where male investment does not develop to the same degree.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Agreed. What I can’t figure out is why women would be so eager to step up to a more dangerous job. I don’t see the incentive for that increased risk.

    They don’t. They don’t want to step up to jobs in the hard sciences either. Instead, they all go into liberal arts fields like women’s studies and then complain about the gender gap in the hard sciences.

  • I haven’t looked at the data, INTJ. At my best, I could only manage a few sets of six in a row, so ten sounds exceptionally good. Heck, at my huge gym, there are tons of men in great shape, but there are only a tiny handful of ones that actually do them. I’ve seen zero, my friend who is there 2 hours a day has seen a total of one. (I actually am too bashful to work out there, I just take the kids to the pool. Prefer to use my own stuff at home.)

  • How does this post square with “men escalate physically, women escalate emotionally?” I have done mostly “pursuit” in terms of initiating increasingly more personal and emotional questions and conversations, which have worked to draw in men who are on the same wavelength. But according to this post, that is a no-no.

    I was the one who asked for my husband’s email and private im information first, because he was going to just leave it as is and not actively pursue me. Incidentally every one of his ex’s had also pursued him. Lots of good guys don’t approach strangers and are not very forward. Taking initiative emotionally seems to yield better outcomes than merely being receptive.

    • @Hope

      How does this post square with “men escalate physically, women escalate emotionally?” I have done mostly “pursuit” in terms of initiating increasingly more personal and emotional questions and conversations, which have worked to draw in men who are on the same wavelength. But according to this post, that is a no-no.

      That is an awesome question, I had to give it some thought. From my post on emotional escalation:

      “The problem with this sense of entitlement is that it creates total passivity on the girl’s part. You don’t have very good control of your dating life if you are always waiting for a call or hoping the perfect guy is going to see you from across the room and say to his buddy, “See that girl in the red dress? I’m going to marry her.”

      Usually this dilemma is addressed by encouraging women to make the first move or ask a guy out. In other words, we encourage the female to usurp the male role in hopes of nudging the process along. It seems only fair in the post-feminism era. This can certainly work, and in surveys a large majority of guys say they would love to be asked out by a woman. On the other hand, there are limitations to this approach, which runs counter to the natural order of things.

      A much better approach is for the woman to do her job, which is to escalate emotionally. Women want emotional intimacy during sex, but they have sex before creating a foundation of emotional connection. Doing that work is your job, not his. If you hope for commitment, it makes no sense to leave it to chance, dreaming that a guy will fall for you based on your looks alone, or because you’re good in bed. A man will offer commitment when he is sufficiently emotionally invested to make the tradeoff to forfeit sexual variety. Women are the ones who have the power to create that investment.”

      So the question is how do women create that investment? Here are the steps I recommended in that post:

      1. Focus 100% of your sexual attraction on him to avoid making him jealous.
      2. Be consistently curious and interested to learn more about him.
      3. Ask for his advice, support or help.
      4. Be generous and appreciative.
      5. Share a lust for life.
      6. Let him know how much you like him, and how sexually attracted you are to him.

      “Each sex has a job to do in finding the balance between sex and commitment. Embrace your role and your responsibility from the start. Nurture the emotional connection from the moment you meet someone. ”

      I think this list is compatible with Gray’s recommendations. All 6 of them are more receptive or responsive than dominant or leading, IMO.

      What do you think?

  • Richard Aubrey

    Agreed. What I can’t figure out is why women would be so eager to step up to a more dangerous job. I don’t see the incentive for that increased risk.

    Susan. For the most part, it’s civilian feminists who want other women to do it. If there is an incentive, it’s for promotion. Combat arms service, and combat action, are considered good things to have, if you’re on the outside.
    But officers and senior noncoms are promoted within their branch. Infantry guys are promoted, or not, as against other Infantry guys. The Adjutant General branch (Star, star upon my shield. Keep me from the battlefield) for example promotes or not within AG. You’re not competing with combat arms guys until, maybe, general.

    • @Richard Aubrey

      For the most part, it’s civilian feminists who want other women to do it.

      Why don’t the women serving stand up and say no way? Surely they know better than anyone that they can’t carry the same weight in adverse conditions? I would also think that to the extent the army can target anyone specific, they’ll go after females first.

      Is there no one who will stand up to this PC nonsense?

  • INTJ: “By creating the hurdle of requiring a man to take the initiative, you’re filtering for cads. Unless cads are your thing, that’s not a very good strategy.”

    I disagree. Non-cads can approach and take initiative just fine. It may increase the likelihood of cads, but it greatly decreases the likelihood of wimps – and women greatly prefer the former to the latter. Hope’s strategy is great for women, and it worked for her because she filtered like crazy and did it in a safe way (you can break any rule you want if you thoroughly understand why the rule exists) — but as a man you can’t wait around hoping for a Hope.

  • As for the risk of “he’s just not that into you,” this is where the girl should assess how receptive he is to emotional probing. If a guy doesn’t care to reveal to you his innermost feelings and thoughts, then he’s not interested. That is how I filtered and sussed out the guys whose hearts were just not warmed up by me.

    I think emotional escalation is key. It doesn’t matter if she gives out her contact info and made it “easy” to communicate. It does matter whether or not he will communicate with her on an emotional level. Most guys are of course reluctant to “give it up” so to speak, protective of their inner feelings, similar to how most girls are (or should be) protective of their bodies.

    About “overgiving” — I think it really applies to the physical stuff. The guy should be pursuing increasing physical giving from the girl, while the girl “holds back” some to entice and reward him for giving up emotions to her. The girl has to assure him that she won’t hurt him emotionally (orbiting, LJBFing), while the guy has to assure her that he won’t hurt her physically (pump and dump, FWBing).

    In the end the “dance” is a mutual back-and-forth, not simply girl sitting back and choosing from male displays.

    • In the end the “dance” is a mutual back-and-forth, not simply girl sitting back and choosing from male displays.

      I agree, and the woman who puts in the effort and signals both interest and loyalty is way ahead of the game. I don’t think that’s what Gray means be overgiving. I can think of one example of overgiving off the top of my head.

      A young woman and guy got involved very suddenly and things escalated fast. It was the falling off a cliff kind of infatuation, and it was mutual. However, they hadn’t known one another long at all – there was no real foundation of intimacy as knowledge of the other person. Within a week or so she was essentially living at his place, shopping for groceries, making him fabulous meals, etc. She was a self-appointed helpmeet and sexual bombshell. He enjoyed all of this immensely for a time, naturally. He was crazy about her. After a couple of months, though, she began to grate on his nerves. He couldn’t grab a beer with his friends without her fussing – she wanted to come too. She was always around. She didn’t make many demands, but she wanted to be a part of his life every waking moment, and when he pulled away for some autonomy, she followed close behind to reestablish intimacy as fast as possible. No one but she was surprised when he ended things soon after.

  • Richard Aubrey

    IIRC, from 1970, in Jump School, the minimum requirement was six dead-hang pullups, palms forward. Tough.
    Tougher was the Airborne situp. Knees up, feet flat, nobody holding your feet down. Twenty-two of those.

  • Airborne situps are less difficult for me since I’m small. I do those all the time, could do 30 or so before I got pregnant. Pull-ups are also easier when you weigh less than 115lbs and have enough arm strength.

    But I would never want to do active duty combat. Robert Heinlein had some great thoughts on this subject:

    “Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick.”

  • Richard Aubrey

    Hope. We also had to do eighty squats, butt to boot, in two minutes. I think that’s out now, considering knee damage. Not sure.
    There’s a five-minute vid on youtube about how slick it is to go Airborne. Kind of overdone, but you get a look at the various exercises.
    The Airborne situp flustrated a lot of guys who were otherwise in good shape. I liked them so much I did sets of seventy or so for eight or ten years after I got out. Tried to stay in shape because I figured Brezhnev was going west at any time and somebody might call and ask if I still could hold a map right side up.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I can only do 3 pull-ups, and I feel pretty goddam pathetic.

    I’ve finally gotten back into actually doing some cardio almost everyday. Need to get back into weights. I hate gyms, so I have a home weight set and just do P90X.

    So sue me, I like pre-crafted exercise routines. At least I’m doing something 😉

    @ Susan, re: How Low Men Will Go
    Young men have extremely powerful sex drives and will do a lot to satiate them in any way they can.

    That being said.

    Holy shit, those guys are creeps. But I gotta respect the guy who was negotiating for the deluxe package!

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    1-507th Parachute Infantry Regiment

    “In order to enter the course, the prospective student MUST score a MINIMUM of 60% on the lowest age group scale. This equates to 42 push-ups, 53 sit-ups, and a 15:54 or faster on the 2-mile run for males and 19 push-ups, 53 sit-ups, and an 18:54 or faster on the 2-mile run for females.”

  • mr. wavevector

    Susan,

    I think this post is both valuable and misleading. Valuable because it contains real truths. Misleading because of what it omits.

    The valuable truth is this:

    The way a woman makes him feel good, (and more interested) is by creating opportunities for him to succeed in truly fulfilling her needs. Without her to please, he is a man out of work. He needs a job, needs the opportunity to succeed in a relationship with a woman. This is an enormous boost to his fulfillment in life.

    Men (at least those with strong pair bonding instincts, not the cads) do indeed want to be needed by a woman. They want to be able to do useful things like protect and provide. They want to take care of a woman. They get pleasure from making her happy.

    But this alone is inadequate to understand the motivation of these men. In fact, it is dangerously misleading. It looks like men just want to be the cheerful servants of women, to be subservient to them – that all men want is to please, get a pat on the head and a “good boy”. As such, this post runs the danger of incurring the wrath of the manosphere in the same way Susan Venker has for her “War on Men” and subsequent capitulation to pressure from feminists.

    The essential point that is missing is that men want something in return for all this that they give, and that thing is authority. They want a woman who will voluntarily grant him some authority over her in the relationship and accept him as her leader.

    I know you know this, Susan, as your comment #84 and many other comments and posts make clear. But someone reading this post in isolation might get the opinion that all men desire is to serve women from a subordinate position.

    The truth is just as women want a man they can look up to, men want a woman who looks up to him. This is hinted at by the 4th bullet point for what men need: admiration.

    Why do men have this need for authority, leadership, or to be looked up to and admired? Because of hypergamy!

    We know that many women want to “marry up” – to mate with a man of higher social status or prestige. Because men know this instinctively, they looks for signs that show that a woman considers them “up”: things like deference, accepting his authority, choosing him to be the leader.

    Male leadership is the correlate of female hypergamy.

    A woman who voluntarily chooses her man to lead her is signaling that she is attracted to him as a suitable mate – that her hypergamous desire is satisfied so she will be true to him. That is why men want to be “1 up” in the relationship. That is why so many women who are in love with a man will happily place him in the “1 up” position too. It is her sign of being invested in the relationship.

    As I said, a woman who accepts her man as the leader is doing so voluntarily and out of attraction to him. It isn’t forced on her. She can rescind his “1 up” status if she chooses. But to do so is to communicate that she is no longer attracted to him. Like denying sex, repealing the status she bestows on her man is a sign that she is leaving the relationship.

    Yes, I know, not all relationships are like that! I understand that the concept of 50-50 egalitarian relationship is the held up as the social ideal today. Certainly there are many couples who can make this work to varying degrees. I wish them all success.

    But I agree with Susan that respecting sex differences will yield the greatest benefit for most couples. And when it comes to men, we should remember the importance not only of their desire to serve and please women, but to be admired by and lead them too.

    • @mr. wavevector

      The essential point that is missing is that men want something in return for all this that they give, and that thing is authority. They want a woman who will voluntarily grant him some authority over her in the relationship and accept him as her leader.

      I know you know this, Susan, as your comment #84 and many other comments and posts make clear. But someone reading this post in isolation might get the opinion that all men desire is to serve women from a subordinate position.

      Hmmm, we may be about to get into a bit of an argument, partly semantic, but not entirely. Obviously, to the extent that you have an argument it is with John Gray rather than myself. Let me start by clarifying my position on male leadership.

      1. I reject any notion that my husband has God-given or other formal authority over me, or that I am required to accept him as my leader. I view my marriage as egalitarian, but counter to the claims of Dalrockolytes, who claim that women always dominate in egalitarian marriages, the edge goes to my husband in ours.

      2. I have described that I believe this is a natural outgrowth of our relationship and choices over the years, including his being the sole breadwinner. If I earned half the household income, I imagine that I would not just sit back and let him rule, even about financial decisions.

      3. I do not believe that our dynamic is the only one that happy couples have, or that he is entitled to make decisions without my input or agreement. I have also said that there are some areas where Mr. HUS defers to me – most notably in the area of parenting.

      4. I consider myself a strong and independent person, and therefore that is reflected in my marriage as well. These qualities are ones that my husband appreciates, and they do not mean that I am entitled or difficult to live with.

      If I led you to imagine that I was a female of the Mrs. Dalrock variety, I am eager to disabuse you of that notion immediately. I do not accept that a woman should “know her place.”

      Re John Gray’s analysis of the differences between the sexes, I don’t think he is saying that men live to serve women or be subordinate to them in any way. I think he is saying that relating to women is essential to man’s nature – indeed his reason for existing (and the same can be said of women – we exist to reproduce).

      Gray says that men need:

      trust
      acceptance
      appreciation
      admiration
      approval
      encouragement

      – and that women are in a position to amply provide these to the men they love. He does not say that men need to control women or even to lead them.

      We know that many women want to “marry up” – to mate with a man of higher social status or prestige. Because men know this instinctively, they looks for signs that show that a woman considers them “up”: things like deference, accepting his authority, choosing him to be the leader.

      I think you overreach here. The way a man knows that a woman considers him “up” is that she is receptive to his interest and potential commitment. The components of social status are dominance and prestige, and women value the latter more than the former. A man with prestige is well aware of his MV, and presumably uses it to attract a woman of even higher SMV than he could get without it.

      Of course, the female desire for male dominance is very real, though on a spectrum. I would venture to say that among happily married couples, the percentage of women who are deferential and submissive is quite low. Again, I would not describe myself as such, nor would Mr. HUS, nor would he wish me to be.

      Like I said, perhaps this is a matter of semantics, or perhaps it’s about the relative weight of power within relationships. I think that most successful relationships today are in the 40-60 egalitarian range. Obviously, relationships in the long tails – abusive wives on one end and abusive husbands on the other, produce very dysfunctional ways of relating.

  • Damien Vulaume

    “About “overgiving” — I think it really applies to the physical stuff. The guy should be pursuing increasing physical giving from the girl, while the girl “holds back” some to entice and reward him for giving up emotions to her. The girl has to assure him that she won’t hurt him emotionally (orbiting, LJBFing), while the guy has to assure her that he won’t hurt her physically (pump and dump, FWBing).
    In the end the “dance” is a mutual back-and-forth, not simply girl sitting back and choosing from male displays.”

    Thank you for those wise words. It is all here.
    I can’t understand the confusion I read in some comments here, from both genders.

  • INTJ

    @ Richard Aubrey

    IIRC, from 1970, in Jump School, the minimum requirement was six dead-hang pullups, palms forward. Tough.
    Tougher was the Airborne situp. Knees up, feet flat, nobody holding your feet down. Twenty-two of those.

    Piece of cake for ectomorphs. 😛

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    If you give a guy your phone number, he has not risked anything at all. He calls it knowing that he will not be rejected. For that reason, he will not attach as much value to it as a “win.” If he would not have pursued you on his own, but is amenable to having the date anyway, already the woman is starting out with a risk of “He’s just not that into you.”

    Take this idea to the logical extreme and women should be nuclearly rejecting every guy and making him stalk and chase her to make sure he’s into her. I.e. the Rules. Obviously, that doesn’t work out so well, which is why we need to find a balance somewhere. And in many cases the girl giving out her phone number is part of that balance.

    This is a costly strategy because a woman can spend months or even years with a guy who ultimately confesses he never totally fell for her. By ignoring the role of men “displaying” and women “selecting” you have set up a situation where male investment does not develop to the same degree.

    Let me make an analogy. As a student, I sometimes get contacted by employers or universities for job or grad school opportunities. But they still expect me to take the initiative, apply for the job or grad school, and sell myself to them. Thus, the men are still “displaying”, and the women still “selecting”, but the women are first communicating that they want to be “displayed” to.

    In addition, consider the equivalent risk to the guy. By expecting the guy to do the “displaying” and the woman to do the “selecting” without any initiative on the woman’s part, you’re creating a serious risk that the guy will be strung along by a woman who never fell for him. And the guys who’re averse to being strung along are the dads, not the cads. Which might help explain why guys are so reluctant to do the approaching.

  • JP

    @OTC:

    “I’d bet most adult men can’t either, unless they specifically train to do it. It took me a solid two months of daily effort to get that first one. Most guys I see are far too fat, or very obviously untrained.”

    I can’t do a pull up and I generally don’t have a significant amount of strength at all.

    The difference is that I have a significant endurance benefit, such that I’m a natural distance runner.

  • Escoffier

    Yeah, hmmmm, I can do eight pull ups and sit-ups, I have no idea what my limit is, but 22 is no sweat, 4x that at least … and I can assure you I ain’t qualified for the 82nd Airborne …

  • INTJ

    @ OTC

    I disagree. Non-cads can approach and take initiative just fine. It may increase the likelihood of cads, but it greatly decreases the likelihood of wimps – and women greatly prefer the former to the latter. Hope’s strategy is great for women, and it worked for her because she filtered like crazy and did it in a safe way (you can break any rule you want if you thoroughly understand why the rule exists) — but as a man you can’t wait around hoping for a Hope.

    What exactly do you disagree with?

  • JP

    “We live in a land of plenty, where 80% of our folks in poverty sport air conditioning, and even the 20% without still have cellphones and TVs. Wealth transfers through government coffers ensure a minimal degree of stigma and a great degree of privacy.”

    We live in an empire where there is significant risk that the wealth pumps will be turned off in the near future.

  • Susan!

    Just1z,
    “I think that the circumcision thing on boys (MGM) is an American sourced anti-masturbation thing, don’t have that anywhere else to the same degree. Kellogg was a proponent wasn’t he? he had plenty of wacky ideas.”

    Yes I mentioned that too a few weeks ago in my response to Mr. Nervous Toes comment on the matter of “hysteria”.

  • Damien Vulaume

    Mr wv: “A woman who voluntarily chooses her man to lead her is signaling that she is attracted to him as a suitable mate – that her hypergamous desire is satisfied so she will be true to him.”
    Or, in other words, that she’s truly in love with him.
    I think all this misleading gender equality talk is also too often equated to Mutual respect, which is a different thing (and of course step Number 1 in a relationship).

  • Just1Z

    @Susan!
    keep your head down!
    best of luck, I’m off out for the night

  • Susan!

    Just want to point out the chasm between the two mindsets;

    Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life says:
    “You’re also assuming that a woman of high quality is going to want to marry someone with a huge notch count. Most marriageble women are going to be repulsed by it.”

    Mark says:
    ” Disagree strongly. You’re making a lot of unproven assumptions in those statements.”

    Jon says:
    “It also depends on your definition of “high quality” and the fact that you can use such a term as though it applies to all men equally tells me a lot about where your issues are.”

    António says:
    ” Exactly. In my book, a judgemental woman is not quite “high quality”.

    Zen says:
    “Wait, back up. What do you mean “high quality” or “marriageble”?
    Those are for each man to decide for himself. There is no class of women who are “better” than others, there is simply the question of what kind of girl do YOU want to marry? What makes YOU happy?”

    _____

    Game simply does not mix with an older, conservative, right wing mindset. Not saying Athol is right wing, but he is conservative, sheltered and a bit naive and his previous religious conditioning still influences him, he’s admitted as much. Add that to his participation on MRA blogs where the default setting is bitter, angry 50+ year old right wing conservative borderline WN (or sometimes blatantly so), and its obvious that MRAs have tried to hi-jack “game” for their own purposes which are incompatible with a young, free, liberal and happy go lucky crowd.

  • Society’s Disposable Son

    @ Susan 86

    That doesn’t really shock me… Some guys will always low ball…. and other guys… well when if you were starving you might end up begging for table scraps eventually….

  • Cooper

    “I can only do 3 pull-ups, and I feel pretty goddam pathetic.

    I’ve finally gotten back into actually doing some cardio almost everyday. Need to get back into weights. I hate gyms, so I have a home weight set and just do P90X.”

    Yeah, I don’t like gyms. It’s something about paying a membership fee, for something I should be able to do myself. I know girl who pay for “bootcamps” and I tease them on how it’s compensating for their lack of motivation. Cause you shouldn’t have to enroll yourself into something you say your striving for – IDK. It’s certainly not the actually monetary value, cause I’ve spent probably x5 a gym membership on in-home equipment.
    I have a tremendously small apt, but I can set up a benchpress.

    The best pieces of equipment: a (mounted! Not removable!) pull-up bar ($80), and a Body Fat % scale (which water % too – $60)

    Since injuring my right-index in August I haven’t been able to exercise nearly as effectively. Gripping with my right is still at 50%. (And my second surgery is schedule to be the new year – my tendon is stuck down, so I necessitate a Tenolysis.).
    Two months ago, I’d easily do 20+ pull-ups while talking. 🙂 (sorry to brag)
    I’m probably not small fraction of that now, since I haven’t been doing much lately.

  • HanSolo

    @Just1Z

    Thanks for the book suggestion.

    On another subject, US birth rates have hit their lowest level since reliable records started in 1920:

    The overall birthrate decreased by 8 percent between 2007 and 2010, with a much bigger drop of 14 percent among foreign-born women. The overall birthrate is at its lowest since 1920, the earliest year with reliable records. The 2011 figures don’t have breakdowns for immigrants yet, but the preliminary findings indicate that they will follow the same trend.

    The decline could have far-reaching implications for U.S. economic and social policy. A continuing decrease could challenge long-held assumptions that births to immigrants will help maintain the U.S. population and create the taxpaying workforce needed to support the aging baby-boom generation.

    The U.S. birthrate — 63.2 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age — has fallen to a little more than half of its peak, which was in 1957. The rate among foreign-born women, who have tended to have bigger families, has also been declining in recent decades, although more slowly, according to the report.

  • HanSolo
  • Cooper

    @Hope 104, 107
    +1

    @INTJ 116
    Well said.

    @Susan
    I still think it is possible for a girl to give her number, or approach, without denying the male his pursuit. An approach simply gets the ball rolling, it doesn’t have to remove the entire possibility of rejection for the guy.

    Excellent post, btw!!

    • I still think it is possible for a girl to give her number, or approach, without denying the male his pursuit. An approach simply gets the ball rolling, it doesn’t have to remove the entire possibility of rejection for the guy.

      Well, I know some happy couples that started out this way. One woman I know who just got engaged basically stared at her husband in a bar for 10 minutes without blinking until he came over. He may have approached, but she was reeling him in.

      The way it can work really well is if the guy is super attracted but intimidated. Then he’ll be overjoyed to get the number and they’re off to a great start. I think that women will have to judge this based on individual circumstances, and look for signs in the relationship that he is quite invested. In this SMP, I do think that more female initiative is a good thing.

  • JP

    @Han Solo:

    “On another subject, US birth rates have hit their lowest level since reliable records started in 1920:”

    That’s because of the severe recession/economic strain since 2008.

    It’s not that much of a surprise.

    Demographics is another one of my hobbies.

    This is pretty much a non-story at this point.

  • JP

    @Cooper:

    “Since injuring my right-index in August I haven’t been able to exercise nearly as effectively. Gripping with my right is still at 50%. (And my second surgery is schedule to be the new year – my tendon is stuck down, so I necessitate a Tenolysis.).”

    Sorry to hear that.

    Hand injuries like that are a real pain to deal with because they just get so annoying.

  • Richard Aubrey

    IMO, you can start a relationship by meeting somebody in a joint activity such as a club, service project, etc. No young guy is a hundred percent at talking to the eyes.
    Just a matter of taking one’s time and getting to know one another without pressure.
    But it’s unlikely the woman in question doesn’t know what’s going on. A negative response is likely a matter of not wanting a relationship with the guy in question and pretending it was an underhanded tactic just adds some vinegar

  • HanSolo

    @JP

    Disagree. It is a big story. And it’s unlikely going back up.

  • HanSolo

    Here’s a longer article on demographics and how the singles demographic is growing a lot and how the hispanic birthrate is dropping a lot faster than had been thought and Mexican illegal immigration is at a net zero right now so there will likely be less of the new-immigrant and higher-birthrates-of-immigrants effects to keep America at the replacement level of fertility.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/nation-singles_664275.html?page=3

    Related to men being needed, it mentions how w/o marriage men are less likely to work.

    Fagan and Potrykus were able to identify a clear statistical effect of marriage on men’s labor participation. What they found is that without the responsibility of families to provide for, unmarried American males have historically tended to drop out of the labor force, exacerbating recessionary tendencies in the economy.

  • HanSolo

    And from that weekly standard article some trends in the developed world and that it is thought that it will happen in the US too:

    In Europe, Asia, and most advanced countries, people are running away from marriage, children, and family life at an amazing rate. To pick just a smattering of data points from the highlight reel: Thirty percent of German women today say that they do not intend to have children. In Japan in 1960, 20 percent of women between 25 and 29 had never married. Today the number is more than 60 percent. Gavin Jones of the National University of Singapore estimates that “up to a quarter of all East Asian women will remain single by age 50, and up to a third will remain childless.”

    The question, then, is whether America will continue following its glidepath to the destination the rest of the First World is already nearing. Most experts believe that it will. As the Austrian demographer Wolfgang Lutz puts it, once a society begins veering away from marriage and childbearing, it becomes a “self-reinforcing mechanism” in which the cult of the individual holds greater and greater allure.

    • As the Austrian demographer Wolfgang Lutz puts it, once a society begins veering away from marriage and childbearing, it becomes a “self-reinforcing mechanism” in which the cult of the individual holds greater and greater allure.

      This has to be the most individualistic time in history – does any other time come close?

  • Damien Vulaume

    @hs: “Once a society begins veering away from marriage and childbearing, it becomes a “self-reinforcing mechanism” in which the cult of the individual holds greater and greater allure.”

    Yes, more than hardcore feminism, the cult of the individual is the primary problem. Given the orientation taken by our neoliberal based societies (western) and its pop culture that invariably hammers the same message, I don’t see a reversal on the trend in the near future.

  • Susan!

    Damien Vulaume December 1, 2012 at 3:29 pm

    @hs: “Once a society begins veering away from marriage and childbearing, it becomes a “self-reinforcing mechanism” in which the cult of the individual holds greater and greater allure.”

    Yes, more than hardcore feminism, the cult of the individual is the primary problem. Given the orientation taken by our neoliberal based societies (western) and its pop culture that invariably hammers the same message, I don’t see a reversal on the trend in the near future.
    ___

    The Manosphere lays the blame for everything solely on Feminism. Ironically enough “rugged individualism” and “capitalism” are sacred cows to them.

  • Susan!

    Hansolo,
    Did you see Erika’s latest reply to you? Did you know she is “timeless”?

  • Susan!

    “Usually this dilemma is addressed by encouraging women to make the first move or ask a guy out. In other words, we encourage the female to usurp the male role in hopes of nudging the process along. It seems only fair in the post-feminism era. This can certainly work, and in surveys a large majority of guys say they would love to be asked out by a woman. On the other hand, there are limitations to this approach, which runs counter to the natural order of things.”

    * I don’t think it runs counter to the natural order of things at all. In the animal kingdom males display and females choose.

    “A much better approach is for the woman to do her job, which is to escalate emotionally. ”

    * There is no question of escalating emotionally unless someone initiates the first conversation and gets the ball rolling with the first date. First things first.

    “Women are the ones who have the power to create that investment.

    So the question is how do women create that investment? Here are the steps I recommended in that post:

    1. Focus 100% of your sexual attraction on him to avoid making him jealous.
    2. Be consistently curious and interested to learn more about him.
    3. Ask for his advice, support or help.
    4. Be generous and appreciative.
    5. Share a lust for life.
    6. Let him know how much you like him, and how sexually attracted you are to him.”

    These are things that people do AFTER a good while of dating or some sort of “understanding” has been reached, a type of commitment or exclusivity.

    100% of nothing, and certainly not sexual attraction, should be focused on someone you are just getting to know.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “Why don’t the women serving stand up and say no way? Surely they know better than anyone that they can’t carry the same weight in adverse conditions? I would also think that to the extent the army can target anyone specific, they’ll go after females first.

    Is there no one who will stand up to this PC nonsense?”

    Not anyone who has the power to change anything.

    It funny in a “people are really stupid” sort of way.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “She was always around. She didn’t make many demands, but she wanted to be a part of his life every waking moment, and when he pulled away for some autonomy, she followed close behind to reestablish intimacy as fast as possible. No one but she was surprised when he ended things soon after.”

    OMFG this drives me crazy.
    When we were in an LDR we tried to talk every morning and night (thank you 14 hour time difference). Most of the time that was good, after 6 months of it though I needed time off.
    At first she didn’t get it but like FUCK I don’t want to see you all the damn time. Solution, don’t talk for two or three days (one time a week).
    Miss her again and come back, much better.

    @GudNuf, Susan

    On woman in science.

    I don’t think theres any partial barrier to women entering science.
    Much like theres no barriers for straight guys entering fashion.

    Purely on an interest level your going to have more men in STEM, analytical/methodical step by step analysis is a guy thing.

    I don’t particularly care who has the good idea, the state of their genitals is irrelevant.

    However its more likely to be a man, not so much because woman can’t have a great scientific idea but because they simply wouldn’t even think about it. (Much like I wouldn’t think to much about matching a purse and shoes. Or what the best pleats are on a dress.)

    The only way for 50-50 split in science is if we force women who don’t want to be scientists to become scientists. That ought to end well.

    Part of why feminism/manosphere are nuts. They work of the assumption that an even number of people want the same things.
    A better system would be to allow people to pursue what they want (including hypergamy) but NOT having everyone else be responsible for the bad outcomes.

  • SayWhaat

    The male intimacy cycle is like a rubber band. It involves getting close, pulling away, and then getting close again.

    I’d heard of this before, but didn’t really understand it until recently. When Hurricane Sandy hit, I took shelter with my boyfriend for about a week while the power was out at my place. Being cooped up for days during a storm made him a bit irritable, and my being underfoot seemed to make him more cranky. I got out and went back home as soon as I could!

    He seemed to spring back almost immediately. Spent every day with me before he had to leave for a 2-week long gig. When I visited him for a weekend, he was very happy to see me. I was just a bit flummoxed by the turnaround, lol. I think it’s important for girls to recognize when a guy is pulling away, and then take advantage of that to take time off *for themselves*. That way they both can realize a little more autonomy over themselves, and she can bask in his affection when he springs back. 🙂

    • @SayWhaat

      I think it’s important for girls to recognize when a guy is pulling away, and then take advantage of that to take time off *for themselves*. That way they both can realize a little more autonomy over themselves, and she can bask in his affection when he springs back.

      That’s a great suggestion. Women need to be able to enjoy that time off too – or they’re going to be unhappy every time a guy does it. My husband doesn’t do a lot of traveling, but when he does he’s usually gone for 4 nights or so. I hate the thought of that, but then I line up things that are harder to do when he’s home. I have my focus groups over, go out to dinner with friends, have girl time with my daughter, etc. It makes the time go much faster. I also stay up a lot later and let the dog sleep in the bed, my favorite.

  • Lokland

    @Coops

    Lol, it seemed funny last night.
    I think ‘The’ Cooper would have been an improvement.
    Damn the lack of an edit function!!!!

    • Damn the lack of an edit function!!!!

      I sympathize, but no one has cracked the code on this for WordPress! Blogs on Blogger offer a preview function, but every plugin I’ve tried to use slows down the site noticeably. To be fair, the comment load here is heavy, and that’s a factor.

  • HanSolo

    @Damien

    In some ways it was very much a masculine urge to achieve independence from nature (to the extent of inventing technology to dominate the earth by growing crops, domesticating animals, and build tools and machines), to extricate humanity from the womb of mother nature. Richard Tarnas expresses this idea in his book Passion of the Western Mind, though I’m sure many others have too. This is seen especially in the mindset of modernism of thinking that the subjects, people, as objective observers can coldly analyze and manipulate the disanimated object, earth and nature, for their benefit.

    The interesting thing is that in striving for equality, feminists wanted to be equal in masculine ways probably much more than they wanted to turn men into feminine women. So more of a shift in women to be masculine with a lesser shift in men to be feminine. A striving for greater independence from nature, especially from their reproductive “shackles” via birth control and abortion, and independence from men via technology that allowed them to contribute economically without needing physical strength.

    In the current age, we realize that there are environmental repurcussions to our dominating the earth and we need to move back to being in sustainable harmony with the earth while maintaining our more advanced technological advantages. Also, the idea of man as completely rational subject, completely separated from inanimate nature, has been weakened as people realized you can never fully extricate the observer from the observed, and humanity from nature.

    Where we head from here is the interesting question.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Susan:
    “1. Focus 100% of your sexual attraction on him to avoid making him jealous.
    2. Be consistently curious and interested to learn more about him.
    3. Ask for his advice, support or help.
    4. Be generous and appreciative.
    5. Share a lust for life.
    6. Let him know how much you like him, and how sexually attracted you are to him.

    Those look like excellent steps from my point of view. 🙂 . But the reality is less rational than those proposed premises.
    #1 comes naturally to a woman only if she’s truly emotionally involved.
    #2- Or his fields of interests and his take on it.
    #4-Yes, and it works both ways.
    5- Oh yes, both ways. But this happens when love kicks in for both.
    6- Well, that obviously comes spontaneously, or not. If it doesn’t….Au revoir.

    • @Damien

      It’s true, those steps really apply when a woman wants to make a man “hers.” If she does, she needs to let him know. That feels very risky for women, because if the guy doesn’t feel the same way, they get the rejection. My argument has been that it’s only fair, since men must escalate sexually and also risk rejection. And of course, most of the time, men must risk rejection to even approach a woman.

      I have advised women that if they find a guy attractive and want him to approach, the go-to move is a minimum of 3 seconds of eye contact with a smile. Look away, then repeat. If he doesn’t approach after two-four cycles of this, he is not attracted (or available).

  • JP

    “Here’s a longer article on demographics and how the singles demographic is growing a lot and how the hispanic birthrate is dropping a lot faster than had been thought and Mexican illegal immigration is at a net zero right now so there will likely be less of the new-immigrant and higher-birthrates-of-immigrants effects to keep America at the replacement level of fertility.”

    You do realize that there are a lot of legal immigrants every year, right?

    Also, France seems to be doing just fine.

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

    The countries that aren’t doing fine demographically are Italy, Germany, and Japan, to name three big ones.

  • Susan!

    “Much like I wouldn’t think to much about matching a purse and shoes.”

    How about matching a tie and shoes?

    😉

    SayWhaat December 1, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    The male intimacy cycle is like a rubber band. It involves getting close, pulling away, and then getting close again.

    I’d heard of this before, but didn’t really understand it until recently. When Hurricane Sandy hit, I took shelter with my boyfriend for about a week while the power was out at my place. Being cooped up for days during a storm made him a bit irritable, and my being underfoot seemed to make him more cranky. I got out and went back home as soon as I could!

    He seemed to spring back almost immediately. Spent every day with me before he had to leave for a 2-week long gig. When I visited him for a weekend, he was very happy to see me. I was just a bit flummoxed by the turnaround, lol. I think it’s important for girls to recognize when a guy is pulling away, and then take advantage of that to take time off *for themselves*. That way they both can realize a little more autonomy over themselves, and she can bask in his affection when he springs back.

    —–

    The only problem with this, and its a big one, is that one partner molds her availability and emotional needs around the other partner’s, exclusively on his terms.

  • HanSolo

    @SusanPJ

    Yes, I did see that. Her soul may be timeless but her body isn’t. But I wished her the best of luck.

  • Susan!

    “Here’s a longer article on demographics and how the singles demographic is growing a lot and how the hispanic birthrate is dropping a lot faster than had been thought and Mexican illegal immigration is at a net zero right now so there will likely be less of the new-immigrant and higher-birthrates-of-immigrants effects to keep America at the replacement level of fertility.”

    And this is a bad thing……………. how?

    Why would anyone be worried about low birth rates? The planets got too many people now as it is.

    • Plain Jane, stop using my name, it’s confusing me in the replies.

  • JP

    “In the current age, we realize that there are environmental repurcussions to our dominating the earth and we need to move back to being in sustainable harmony with the earth while maintaining our more advanced technological advantages.”

    We aren’t going to maintain our more advanced technological advantages because they are dependent on certain conditions, one of which is really cheap, concentrated energy.

    Are we going to get all our power from nuclear reactors safely? Can that even be done?

    The U.S. doesn’t even seem to be able to sustain its infrastructure at the moment.

  • Damien Vulaume

    #137 “Susan!”
    “Ironically enough “rugged individualism” and “capitalism” are sacred cows to them.”

    I don’t know anything about the manosphere but can only guess based on some of the comments here. You are absolutely right.

  • INTJ

    @ JP

    The countries that aren’t doing fine demographically are Italy, Germany, and Japan, to name three big ones.

    Gee, wonder what they have in common. 😉 Perhaps it’s karma that’s causing the low birth rates.

  • Susan!

    Susan: 1. Focus 100% of your sexual attraction on him to avoid making him jealous.

    Damien: #1 comes naturally to a woman only if she’s truly emotionally involved.

    >>>
    Yes, I addressed that in my comment # 142. Its not wise to invest 100% focus on someone who is not 100% focused on you simultaneously.

    Also wrt asking for his advice, support or help. There are many men who would not want to give any of that to a woman unless they are already at the exclusive relationship level. They feel burdened and bothered by it.

  • Are we going to get all our power from nuclear reactors safely? Can that even be done?

    Now it’s mine turn to say: France is doing just fine.

  • Susan!

    Hans,
    “This is seen especially in the mindset of modernism of thinking that the subjects, people, as objective observers can coldly analyze and manipulate the disanimated object, earth and nature, for their benefit.”

    Nature is not disanimate.

  • INTJ

    @ JP

    Are we going to get all our power from nuclear reactors safely? Can that even be done?

    No we aren’t and yes it can.

  • Esc, I can do 22 situps without a problem, but can’t do a single one as RA described without my feet anchored… I just roll back. Likewise, I can do a bunch of pull ups, but only a few with proper form (full extension, dead hang, palms forward, wide-grip).

    • Esc, I can do 22 situps without a problem, but can’t do a single one as RA described without my feet anchored… I just roll back.

      One word: Pilates.

  • Lokland

    @Olive

    “Now it’s mine turn to say: France is doing just fine.”

    +1

    @JP

    “The U.S. doesn’t even seem to be able to sustain its infrastructure at the moment.”

    After the fall of the US (and Western civilization), I know its hard to comprehend but the rest of the world will shoulder on.

    Loss of Western civ. will not send our species back to the dark ages. Even here it’ll just be shitty living.

  • Iggles

    Re: OKCupid article

    Holy heck! I feel like I lost several brain cells reading that fake profile and the ensuing pathetic responses…

    Reading that makes me question having any faith in humanity!

  • Feelist

    I tend to agree with the topic. There is one girl I am particularly attracted to because she’s from an under-developed Euro Country. When I first saw her I didn’t pay much attention to her. She’s cute and all, but my college has far moe attractive women. But she asked me a question, wasn’t familiar with English, and we had to speak in German(she’s not German).

    For the next two weeks to come she relied on me to get her school situation worked out. And when I see her she brightens up and lets me open the door for her etc. Yeah, it makes me feel good about myself and I do see her as more attractive than what she really is.

    My socio-economical power is higher than hers. That oddly makes me feel more masculine. Can’t really feel the same about the other girls. They’re from European and Asian Powerhouses. She’s going to return home for Christmas holidays. I think I’m gonna miss her more than I’ll miss the 10 perfect German girl I’ve been spending a lot of time with lately.

  • Susan!

    “Loss of Western civ. will not send our species back to the dark ages. Even here it’ll just be shitty living.”

    Doomsday.

    The future will be better. We’ll be physically and mentally healthier.

  • doomwolf

    @Lokland
    “Part of why feminism/manosphere are nuts. They work of the assumption that an even number of people want the same things.
    A better system would be to allow people to pursue what they want (including hypergamy) but NOT having everyone else be responsible for the bad outcomes.”

    +1

  • Lokland

    @PJ

    I don’t think its gonna be some kinda catastrophic fall, just the loss of economic superiority resulting in relatively poor living conditions and life quality (which in comparison to cave men, will still be golden).

  • Susan!

    Iggles,
    “Holy heck! I feel like I lost several brain cells reading that fake profile and the ensuing pathetic responses…”

    Link? I’m feeling particularly masochistic today.

    “Reading that makes me question having any faith in humanity!”

    I’ve been nurturing suicidal ideation ever since I saw this video;

    http://jezebel.com/5964440/what-do-you-do-when-a-childs-flirting-goes-from-cute-to-full+on-sexual-harassment?post=54731503

    ^^^One of the many reasons I’m totally ok with humans not replacing their populations over the next several decades.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Jp.
    Yes, from a demographic point of view, France is doing better than some other western European cultures or Japan (which doesn’t face the same level of immigration from other continents). That in turn however creates many other head scratching social problems. See the worrying level of the Ultra-right in the voting polls.
    @Olive: France is a bit like a drug addict with the way it relies on its nuclear energy. Three mile island and Tchernobyl (and now Fukushima) were big enough eye openers for the population, who regularly protests against “more of the all nuclear” but apparently not for some of our leaders (Sarkozy was the latest best well known example ).

  • Lokland

    @Damien

    “France is a bit like a drug addict with the way it relies on its nuclear energy. Three mile island and Tchernobyl (and now Fukushima)”

    Three incidents over a span of 70ish (not sure on the exact history) is hardly cause for concern.

    Assuming we can just make sure that the tech. is not used by idiots and isn’t built in dangerous places theres no real need for concern.
    Three mile and Fuk. were scary but so is Paranormal Activity. Maybe a tad more expensive.

    Beyond that, Fuk. has spurred on new guidelines for reactors which are actually safer than the previous versions. (Which were already pretty damn safe.)

  • Iggles

    @ SayWhaat:

    He seemed to spring back almost immediately. Spent every day with me before he had to leave for a 2-week long gig. When I visited him for a weekend, he was very happy to see me. I was just a bit flummoxed by the turnaround, lol. I think it’s important for girls to recognize when a guy is pulling away, and then take advantage of that to take time off *for themselves*. That way they both can realize a little more autonomy over themselves, and she can bask in his affection when he springs back. 

    +1

    I’ve noticed this dynamic with my boyfriend as well. When we spend *too* many days together (say a week or week and a half) continuously it throws us off.

    This article shed some light on this and helped me not to take him need time apart personally:

    http://www.thefemininewoman.com/2011/10/why-men-pull-away-and-how-to-deal-with-it/

  • HanSolo

    @JP

    Yes, I realize that there are legal immigrants, so you could try to have more young people immigrate legally. But these people are not going to have as high of fertility as previous immigrants did.

    That is interesting that France has a slight uptick in fertility rates, starting in the mid 90’s, likely due to higher-fertility-rate immigrants. The US also had an uptick in the mid 80s that lasted until the great Recession, partly helped by the influx of higher-fertilility-rate immigrants. http://www.prb.org/images12/us-fertility-figure1.gif

    It will be interesting to see if birth rates continue to fall in Asia and Africa as is expected. Already it has fallen to 2.27 in Latin America as of this article a year ago.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/fertility-rates-plunging-across-latin-america/2011/12/29/gIQAmRWQPP_graphic.html

  • HanSolo

    @JP

    We aren’t going to maintain our more advanced technological advantages because they are dependent on certain conditions, one of which is really cheap, concentrated energy.

    Are we going to get all our power from nuclear reactors safely? Can that even be done?

    I agree that cheap energy is required for modernity (and the economic equality for women that depends on machines/technology to remove the physical strength divide).

    I am optimistic that we will continue to have relatively cheap energy. The shale oil and gas revolution have and will provide enough fuel until we can invent cheaper solar and storage and also build much more nuclear.

    Thorium reactors are being slowly developed. There is 3x as much thorium as uranium and it doesn’t make much waste, is not really weaponizable, and is not subject too meltdowns:

    http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/

    Overseas, the nuclear power establishment is getting the message. In France, which already generates more than 75 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, the Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie has been building models of variations of Weinberg’s design for molten salt reactors to see if they can be made to work efficiently. The real action, though, is in India and China, both of which need to satisfy an immense and growing demand for electricity. The world’s largest source of thorium, India, doesn’t have any commercial thorium reactors yet. But it has announced plans to increase its nuclear power capacity: Nuclear energy now accounts for 9 percent of India’s total energy; the government expects that by 2050 it will be 25 percent, with thorium generating a large part of that. China plans to build dozens of nuclear reactors in the coming decade, and it hosted a major thorium conference last October. The People’s Republic recently ordered mineral refiners to reserve the thorium they produce so it can be used to generate nuclear power.

  • Susan, I was thinking of your post on emotional escalation and how it somewhat contradicts this post, at least on the surface. Maybe you could link to that post at the end of this one so people don’t get the idea that you’re advocating total passivity.

    It’s also worth noting that both the man and the woman should have the maturity and healthy mental outlook to sustain a healthy, respectful and good relationship. If the woman does too much for a man who is not ready, he’s going to be overwhelmed. Thus his desire for autonomy.

    Also, in your story, moving in together after a week is a bit much! When I look back at the beginning with my husband, I was actually very reluctant to move in with him, and it took a lot of persuasion on his part. I am not advocating the “overly eager” tactic for the woman. She should negotiate her desires as well.

  • Joe

    Sigh. I’m going to be verbally accosted for this, but I must caution everyone who thinks that there are too many people that they should reconsider.

    Seriously.

    First of all, you have no idea what the carrying capacity of the earth is. No one does. Check the numbers – most of the planet – BY FAR – is sparsely populated. If you live anywhere on the east coast of the the US or in most of the west coast, you should think that most of the inhabitable part of the world has a population density much more like Arizona or New Mexico, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It’s not like NYC, LA, or anywhere close to that.

    Second, most of our economic structures have as an unspoken assumption the necessity of a stable or increasing population. Think Social Security. What you don’t want to know is that so does much of culture and civilization. On every scale at every time in history, a decreasing population is a sign of death and decay, not a sign of life and prosperity.

    I can’t emphasize enough that the “Population Bomb” ideas of the ’60s were nothing more than Malthusian propaganda. It always was bogus and it always was propaganda at the service of the few who thought of themselves as the enlightened elite.

    There are far bigger things to worry about than over population.

  • JP

    “It will be interesting to see if birth rates continue to fall in Asia and Africa as is expected. Already it has fallen to 2.27 in Latin America as of this article a year ago.”

    What about India?

    “India is projected to overtake China as the world’s most populous nation by 2030. India’s population growth has raised concerns that it would lead to widespread unemployment and political instability.[57][58] Note that these projections make assumptions about future fertility and death rates which may not turn out to be correct in the event.
    Source:[59]
    2020: 1,326,093,000
    2030: 1,460,743,000
    2040: 1,571,715,000
    2050: 1,656,554,000”

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

  • JP

    The entire population issue is tied into agriculture which it tied into cheap energy/pollution.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Susan:
    “I view my marriage as egalitarian, but counter to the claims of Dalrockolytes, who claim that women always dominate in egalitarian marriages, the edge goes to my husband in ours. ”

    If I follow Mr wv train of thoughts correctly, then you essentially agree with him.

    • If I follow Mr wv train of thoughts correctly, then you essentially agree with him.

      I don’t think we’re far apart, but his constant linking to Dalrock has me a bit worried…

  • HanSolo

    @Susan!PJ

    Perceived as inanimate.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “This has to be the most individualistic time in history – does any other time come close?”

    Individualism is one of the primary cultural products of Western civilization.

    The point is that cultures/civilizations ossify, slowly decline, and are ultimately overrun by warbands/migrations.

    You can use the population of Rome, the city, as a proxy for the rise and fall of Classical Civilization.

    Note that the population peaks then falls during the imperial period.

    350 BC 30,000.
    270 BC 100,000.
    100 BC >500,000.
    44 BC 1,000,000.
    100 1,650,000.
    300 1,200,000.
    400 1,100,000.
    450 80,000.
    500 50,000.
    752 40,000.

  • Abbot

    “When a man does something to make a woman feel special, he becomes more attracted to her.”

    There has to be a starting feeling. That is, he needs to feel that she is special from the start or what is the point of using his efforts to build on that?

    “When women “overgive” it compromises their position, and it prevents the excitement of anticipation and romance from building.”

    When a woman “overgives” over and over to prior men that’s a near sure fire way for a man to torpedo his desire to make her feel “special.” What is there to salvage? Certainly, John Gray never mentioned that. Imagine if he did?

    • @Abbot

      There has to be a starting feeling. That is, he needs to feel that she is special from the start or what is the point of using his efforts to build on that?

      Agreed, if he’s not attracted to begin with she’s just a PITA, lol.

      When a woman “overgives” over and over to prior men that’s a near sure fire way for a man to torpedo his desire to make her feel “special.”

      You have an amazing ability to turn every comment to the topic of female promiscuity!

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “Should we blame Ayn Rand?”

    For being a third-rate novelist pretending to be a first-rate philosopher?

    The most recent iteration of individualism (generally the stupid kind) is mostly a product of consumer capitalism (there’s no human problem that can’t be solved by buying lots of electronics and tanzanite jewelry from QVC) coupled with a massive financial bubble (a house is an asset, particularly when you only make $30,000 a year, but have a $700,000 liar loan).

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Susan:
    Forgive my ignorance, but who is Dalrock? Some kind of polished modern days male supremacist?

    “I have advised women that if they find a guy attractive and want him to approach, the go-to move is a minimum of 3 seconds of eye contact with a smile. Look away, then repeat. If he doesn’t approach after two-four cycles of this, he is not attracted.”

    You know it’s funny. I’ve talked to many women about that. And their answer varies as much as their personalities, but in essence most of them told me they were doing it that way. And that is what I more or less always experienced in public places with women who showed interest. Although 3 seconds already seems to be a long time, at least at the beginning. As for the smile……..Nobody can teach that. In the end, even with two complete strangers, it’s always about natural, sensuouslly instinctive reaction to one another without yet knowing each other. And of course, real women always know better than men on that one.

    • @Damien

      Forgive my ignorance, but who is Dalrock? Some kind of polished modern days male supremacist?

      More like a disgruntled, disheveled holdover from the old days. 🙂

      You’re right, 3 seconds is a long time! But that’s why it’s effective – no confusion about intent with that long a gaze. I actually read somewhere that 3 seconds is the threshold for sexual attraction.

      I think you make a good point about the natural chemistry that happens between strangers. It isn’t common, but when it happens across a room it’s powerful.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Hhmmmmm. I’ve read Atlas Shrugged 3 times cover to cover, and saw both of the movies.

    Maybe Ayn Rand isn’t the problem 😉

  • Abbot

    “You have an amazing ability to turn every comment to the topic of female promiscuity!”

    Prior to 40 years ago, the dynamic between women and men as later described by Gray worked as he states. Where and how does the hook up culture fit in? The dynamic is contaminated. Its compromised. How can a man’s feeling’s in 2012 be like the much luckier man of say 1967?

  • Damien,
    What Lokland said. Also, I’ve said this already, but I’ll say it again: I grew up within a 7 mile radius of Three Mile Island. I hadn’t been born when the scare happened, but my dad was living with my great grandparents, who literally lived in TMI’s backyard, and he’d decided to go for a run lol. The man is still living.

    I’m too lazy to find the stats, but I once learned that far more people die in coal plant accidents than they do in nuclear accidents. Just a thought.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Abbot’s railing about female promiscuity is great because all of these arguments can be so easily applied to promiscuity.

    It’s an important part of arguing, IMO, that people automatically try to dismiss because “they aren’t the same.” Without bothering to say why they aren’t the same.

    Related to this:

    One of my friends had to take a sexual harassment course for his college. The college made damn sure that VERBAL and SPECIFIC consent must be required before EVERY sex act, or else the guy is a rapist.
    And I mean the guy, because in every situation the aggressor was a guy.
    With hilarious consequences.
    In one example, Fred was pressuring Sue into sex. Sue didn’t want to have actual sex, so she just started blowing him instead. Fred then decided to take Sue and put her on the bed, take off her panties, and have sex with her. At no point did Sue say no, at all, or indicate in any other she didn’t want to have sex.

    Fred absolutely is a rapist, because agreeing to one sex act does not mean agreeing to another sex act. Fred should have asked Sue if she wanted to have sex first, because just because she was giving him a blowjob doesn’t mean she wanted to have sex with him.

    My thought is, just because Fred was asking Sue for sex, does not mean he consented to Sue giving him a blowjob. Agreeing to one sex act does not mean agreeing to another sex act, after all.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Lokland: “Assuming we can just make sure that the tech. is not used by idiots and isn’t built in dangerous places theres no real need for concern.”
    Assuming, yes, but the reality is otherwise. TEPCO are no fools, but irresponsible people. The problem is not “the span of time”. When one accident happens, its side effects lasts many more years than that “span of time”. There have been many nuclear incidents in France kept under the rug, guess why? But anyway, let’s not start into an ecological debate. The focus here is on men/women approaches, differences, etc.

  • JP

    @Olive:

    “I grew up within a 7 mile radius of Three Mile Island. I hadn’t been born when the scare happened, but my dad was living with my great grandparents, who literally lived in TMI’s backyard, and he’d decided to go for a run lol. The man is still living.”

    West Shore or East Shore?

  • JP,
    How do you mean?

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Olive: “I’m too lazy to find the stats, but I once learned that far more people die in coal plant accidents than they do in nuclear accidents. Just a thought.”
    Agreed, but you could also say that more people die from car crashes than from smoking. It goes round and round that way.
    Anyway, a thought on men/women?

  • JP

    @Olive:

    “I grew up within a 7 mile radius of Three Mile Island.”

    West Shore or East Shore (of the Susquehanna River).

  • Damien,

    Agreed, but you could also say that more people die from car crashes than from smoking.

    Not a good comparison. We’re not discussing whether smoking is a suitable substitute for driving. This is a discussion about finding energy sources, and there are a lot of really great benefits to nuclear (uranium is plentiful–by the way, HanSolo, interesting stuff on thorium!–and nuclear plants don’t release greenhouse gases). Your argument is that nuclear is dangerous; I’m saying that, relatively speaking, it’s not as dangerous as it’s made out to be by the media (I once had to explain to some fairly ignorant environmentalists that the smoke stuff coming out of nuclear plants is, in fact, steam!).

    Anyway, a thought on men/women?

    ? Something specific you’d like to discuss?

  • If France continues to avoid panic and use nuclear power on a large scale, they are going to have a real advantage over other European countries. Germany, in particular, is not going to find it very feasible to run an advanced industrial economy on wind and solar, nor are they going to be very happy being dependent on natural gas imports from Russia and other points East. I expect that they will be a major destination for U.S. exports of liquified natural gas; however, the liquification & transportation process adds **a lot** of cost to the U.S. price.

  • JP,
    Oh, sorry. East.

  • One more point on energy: if today’s social/political climate had existed when electricity was introduced, we probably never would have had widespread electrification.

    Indeed, Thomas Edison used extremely sleazy tactics attempting to inspire public fear of alternating current to protect his direct-current investments, even going so far as to sponsor the electric chair as a replacement for hanging and suggesting that the process should be called “Westinghousing” in “honor” of his AC-based competitor, George Westinghouse.

    If today’s fearful climate had existed then, he probably would have gotten away with it.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Olive:
    “Something specific you’d like to discuss?”
    Something related to the original post, and sticking with the general disscussion on the issue. Not more.

  • JP

    I actually got to experience Three Mile Island, since I was alive and living in South Central PA at the time (West Shore). I think it was a little more than 10 miles away.

    I wasn’t allowed to go play outside for a few days.

    It wasn’t a particularly bad nuclear accident, all things considered. Mostly just scared a lot of people who thought they were all going to die.

  • BroHamlet

    @Clarence

    “Feminism has run its course…”

    Yeah, why don’t you tell our politicians that as the feminists are more plugged into the political process than ever, esp. when it comes to laws involving marriage/divorce and family formation. I see someone sticking their head into the sand and at the same time throwing a few million men and women whose lives or families or both have been ruined under the bus…

    Now, I thought I was very clear about what I said, which goes beyond the snippet you seem to be misinterpreting as a lack of awareness:

    Feminism has run it’s course, and largely isn’t about equality, or even about the interests of the average woman anymore, and that much has been explored in depth on this blog if you read back in the archives.

    If it wasn’t clear, the point is that feminism has ceased to be useful for wider society in many ways, and is now extremely counterproductive for both genders (yes, that’s a huge understatement, but do we really need to get into that?). One might even argue that what many feminists are pushing for in the political arenas isn’t feminism as it was originally intended at all, because it’s not about equality for women, it’s about privileges for women at the expense of everyone else. I didn’t see the need to get into detail about all of that because it’s been discussed by our host at really great length already.

  • Just1Z

    @pj
    teh manosphere isn’t so much about individualism, as saying that if the deal is crap walk away from it.

    also, if a man isn’t working for his own interests (wife’n’kidz) then why should he work beyond what he needs? to pay tax to support single moms?

    that is where the man-boys are coming from…why man up just to be taxed to pay for a society that has treated them as crap since starting kindergarten?

    for every action there is a reaction. for every change in the incentives there is a change in the efforts made. misandry isn’t unfortunate, it’s going to be catastrophic, start looking after da menz, or tgey won’t be there to look after you…

    happy days, we thrashed the kiwis at rugby and I saw it in the pub. in more ways than one, good night y’all

  • INTJ

    @ ADBG

    My thought is, just because Fred was asking Sue for sex, does not mean he consented to Sue giving him a blowjob. Agreeing to one sex act does not mean agreeing to another sex act, after all.

    Yup. They raped each other.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Susan
    “Why don’t the women serving stand up and say no way? Surely they know better than anyone that they can’t carry the same weight in adverse conditions? I would also think that to the extent the army can target anyone specific, they’ll go after females first.

    Is there no one who will stand up to this PC nonsense”

    The powers that be have decreed. It’s a career-killer to mention difficulties such as ten percent of women aboard ship get pregnant and have to be pulled out, to be replaced by some guy jerked out of his other assignment and shoved in without having a chance to meld with the team. You can’t say the reason the platoon didn’t make its objective in a manuver is because the women couldn’t keep up.

    You will recall that, after the Ft. Hood shooting, Gen. Casey said that he hoped this wouldn’t damage diversity “which is our strength”. Means if you see some guy with appalling professional performance and demonstrated Islamic nutcasery, the general doesn’t want to hear about it. Message received, general, sir.
    There was a report that nine officers were going to be investigated–certain career killer and possible judicial action–for failing to stop Hasan’s greased slide through the Army to Ft. Hood. Those claiming to be connected say the reason they didn’t downcheck the guy on efficiency reports or put letters in his file or reprimand him or whatever their position would suggest say that the officers were convinced they’d be accused of Islamophobia. It’s one thing to show the moral courage to get something done, but in this case, it would mean they get accused and Hasan is forever Tefloned because of having been persecuted due to his religion. IOW, sacrifice for nothing.

  • HanSolo
  • Damien Vulaume

    “Why don’t the women serving stand up and say no way? Surely they know better than anyone that they can’t carry the same weight in adverse conditions? I would also think that to the extent the army can target anyone specific, they’ll go after females first.”

    Why would any woman want to serve in the army in the first place? I don’t think this is “natural”. In my view, those who serve in there are quite confused or have a personally troubled psychological agenda. My own experience of the army was the most extreme real life example of what machism and or male bonding looks like at its worst when all put together: Schoolboys doing fart contests and calling women “pussies and whores”. Good luck for her if that’s the environement she wants to work in…

  • JP,
    Interesting! My great-grandparents lived on a farm in Dauphin County, probably less than half a mile away from TMI. I remember going to their house as a little kid and marveling at those lovely towers.

    Damien,

    Something related to the original post, and sticking with the general disscussion on the issue. Not more.

    *Shrugs* okay. I haven’t felt a burning desire to comment on the post but if I do I’ll let ya know.

  • Richard Aubrey

    I recall a Senate hearing about TMI. Turns out that, in the following forty years, in the fallout pattern, 40,000 cancers were expected. Adding in the TMI radiation, there was a fifty percent chance of one more.
    But there was plenty of room for panic and posturing.

  • Hari Christmas

    Joe, re: population

    Its not so much population that is the sole problem, but the ever increasing consumption needs of the population. Finite resources!

    Just1z,
    “also, if a man isn’t working for his own interests (wife’n’kidz) then why should he work beyond what he needs? to pay tax to support single moms?
    …that is where the man-boys are coming from…why man up just to be taxed to pay for a society that has treated them as crap since starting kindergarten?”

    We ALL pay taxes, unless we are part of the elite 1%.

    “a society that has treated them as crap since starting kindergarten”

    Bullshit. They don’t know how good they got it here. Spoiled brats.

    [Susan, I changed my moniker for you]

  • Hari Christmas

    Mr. Wavevector,
    “The essential point that is missing is that men want something in return for all this that they give, and that thing is authority. They want a woman who will voluntarily grant him some authority over her in the relationship and accept him as her leader.”

    It would be more accurate to say that this is what YOU want out of a woman in a relationship, not all men or men in general.

    Susan Walsh December 1, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    @SayWhaat

    I think it’s important for girls to recognize when a guy is pulling away, and then take advantage of that to take time off *for themselves*. That way they both can realize a little more autonomy over themselves, and she can bask in his affection when he springs back.

    That’s a great suggestion. Women need to be able to enjoy that time off too – or they’re going to be unhappy every time a guy does it.

    —–

    One has to be careful though that the availability isn’t exclusively on his terms just when its convenient for him and the relationship becomes all about him and his mood swings.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Susan: “A disgruntled, disheveled holdover from the old days.”
    Ha ha, Looks like it’s an international phenomenom then…

    “I actually read somewhere that 3 seconds is the threshold for sexual attraction.”

    Well I don’t know about numbers. All I know is that the “quality” and the “intensity” of the sparkling light that shines in a woman’s eye in a public place is all that matters. She can do it in the glimpse of an eye, pretending not to be looking at all or gazing for 5 seconds. A woman is always magical when her intent is coloured with natural infatuation. We all should instinctively sense this (men women).

  • Hari Christmas

    Damien,
    “Well I don’t know about numbers. All I know is that the “quality” and the “intensity” of the sparkling light that shines in a woman’s eye in a public place is all that matters. She can do it in the glimpse of an eye, pretending not to be looking at all or gazing for 5 seconds. A woman is always magical when her intent is coloured with natural infatuation. We all should instinctively sense this (men women).”

    An ATTRACTIVE woman is always magical……

    We all know that men don’t find women they are not attracted to as “magical” no matter how intentful her natural infatuation.

  • Google Translate.

    My religion forbids me from googling :p

  • Damien Vulaume

    @PJ
    “An ATTRACTIVE woman is always magical……”
    Absolutely not. It’s all about charm. Beauty doesn’t necessarily comes along with charm. Period.

  • Lokland

    @PJ

    “An ATTRACTIVE woman is always magical……”

    I know a 60 year old woman. Her presence is enchanting.
    Would not bang.

    Femininity makes any woman’s presence far more enjoyable. Even if they’re not on the menu.

    Ie. Theres more to being magical than tits. Thats kinda the difference actually. a hot girl is tits without magic, a magical girl is feminine. A girl who strikes me as GF potential has both (and I think upwards of 80% of women are hot).

    • I know a 60 year old woman. Her presence is enchanting.
      Would not bang.

      Haha, that’s a relief. One of the things I enjoy a lot about being in my 50s is that I am now free to be as outgoing and friendly as I please with men of all ages without worrying about sexual undercurrents.

  • Hari Christmas

    Damien Vulaume December 1, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    @PJ
    “An ATTRACTIVE woman is always magical……”
    Absolutely not. It’s all about charm. Beauty doesn’t necessarily comes along with charm. Period.
    ———————

    Damien, bless your sweet little heart. However that flies in the face of EVERYTHING men on this blog and others have tried to drill into our heads for, like, ever.

    Case in point…..

    “I know a 60 year old woman. Her presence is enchanting.
    Would not bang. ”

    Exactly.

    Now let’s get back to the regularly scheduled program of you guys telling us how important youth and physical fitness are.

  • J

    @Susan

    Post #169 is terrific!

  • Sue: “One word: Pilates.”

    Forget that, all I need is youtube videos on form. I thought my core was good, as I can do a 3 minute plank, but this is news to me. I didn’t even know they were possible! Well, I have a new project.

  • Hari Christmas

    Regarding comment #169

    “2. I have described that I believe this is a natural outgrowth of our relationship and choices over the years, including his being the sole breadwinner. If I earned half the household income, I imagine that I would not just sit back and let him rule, even about financial decisions.”

    Susan, whether s/he earns half, whole, or not a single cent, a spouse, either spouse, should not let the other “rule” in any area – particularly not the financial one when not only BOTH spouses are dependent on it, but their children as well.

    A partnership means just that – a partnership.

    “If I led you to imagine that I was a female of the Mrs. Dalrock variety, I am eager to disabuse you of that notion immediately. I do not accept that a woman should “know her place.” ”

    Mr. Wavevector thinks this is a “dominionist” type conservative Christian blog?! Entitled “Hooking Up Smart” – really?!?! LOL!

    “Re John Gray’s analysis of the differences between the sexes, I don’t think he is saying that men live to serve women or be subordinate to them in any way.”

    Service does not mean subordination. Of course partners are supposed to serve each other.

    There is one very happily married man with several children on youtube who gives out marriage and relationship advice and he says the purpose of “manhood” is in fact to serve “womanhood” because women bring forth humans and its mens’ duty to serve women in that function.

    I’m sure the Manosphere would call this (very handsome in fact) man a pussy whipped beta who is setting himself up for cuckholdry but he claims he and his wife have never had an argument in all of their 11 years of marriage.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @PJ:
    “Damien, bless your sweet little heart. However that flies in the face of EVERYTHING men on this blog and others have tried to drill into our heads for, like, ever.”
    And bless your “sweet little heart” as well.
    Although I don’t think mine is. I’m not in the naive sphere of love anymore, but into reality.
    Forget about the “men on this blog and others have tried to drill into our heads..”. Those same guys you’re talking about are reasoning like you…
    Why don’t you try another culture, as long as you don’t carry your own problems with yourself along the way?… I’m saying this gently.

  • Joe

    @Hari

    Joe, re: population

    Its not so much population that is the sole problem, but the ever increasing consumption needs of the population. Finite resources!

    Yes, but nothing on this planet is so finite that we’re in danger of running out.

    Nothing. Paul Erlich’s bet was no gamble for Julian Simon for one reason – Erlich never misunderstood that the amount of any resource is independent of availability. He did not account for the fact that availability of resources always grows, because of (ta – da!) people. We will leave this planet long before we run out of whatever it is you think you need.

    However, the only truly limited resource is human brains. We need more, not less. In a civilized universe, attempts to decrease the population would be considered a crime against humanity.

    AND (to bring this back to the topic at hand) we would be very alarmed at the idea that men and women are getting married later and having children later still, if only because of the associated lower fertility rates. That’s already wreaking havoc in Europe and Japan.

    I am NOT saying every teenage girl should go out there and have a kid ASAP. No one is. We don’t encourage having children too early primarily because it’s not good for the children and the family unit. Society considers the needs of the mother, but only secondarily.

    As a society we should still encourage having children and not encourage putting family creation off indefinitely.

  • mr. wavevector

    @Damien 122

    I think all this misleading gender equality talk is also too often equated to Mutual respect, which is a different thing (and of course step Number 1 in a relationship).

    I too believe that mutual respect and an equal commitment to the relationship is the type of equality required in a relationship. Everything else is negotiable.

  • Hari Christmas

    ” I’m not in the naive sphere of love anymore, but into reality.”

    The reality is that if a man is not attracted to a woman, her “intent coloured with natural infatuation” will not inspire him to pursue her.

    See Lokland’s comment at 224 regarding the “charming and feminine” 60 year old woman.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Mr wv:
    “I too believe that mutual respect and an equal commitment to the relationship is the type of equality required in a relationship. Everything else is negotiable.”

    I don’t know if ‘negotiable” is the right word, but I know what you mean.

  • Damien Vulaume

    #234. PJ or whatever you want to be called: “The reality is that if a man is not attracted to a woman, her “intent coloured with natural infatuation” will not inspire him to pursue her.”
    And the same the other way around. It’s in the end a ch