Girl Game Today, Same As It Ever Was

December 11, 2012 651 Comments

Louise Brooks

“The Technique of the Love Affair makes, I am bitterly afraid, considerable sense. If only it had been placed in my hands years ago, maybe I could have been successful instead of just successive.” 

Dorothy Parker

In 1928 Doris Langley Moore wrote The Technique of the Love Affair at the age of 23. Langley Moore was a Byron scholar, a costume designer, a novelist, a friend of George Bernard Shaw’s and a a newlywed when she penned the tongue-in-cheek guide to making men fall in love with you. Modeled after Plato’s Symposium, it was an immediate sensation and scandal in England.

Long out of print, the book was rereleased ten years ago, and received a positive reception from critics. Reviewing it for the New York Times, Liesl Schillinger wrote:

If enough women read it, there may yet be time for the Irresistible Woman to avoid going the way of the dodo.

The book…is a virtual cocktail shaker on paper, written by a young woman who styles herself ”A Gentlewoman,” and it could very possibly undo the years of damage that earnest flocks of pastel volumes have worked on formerly swashbuckling female psyches. 

Reading about the SMP of the 1920s, I was immediately struck by the similarities to our own era. From the book’s jacket:

Its readers were the so-called New Women who emerged during World War I. The subject of cartoons in The New Yorker and Punch, the typical modern woman lived in a bachelor flat in the city; she earned her own living and believed in “sexual freedom” (although she might not have known exactly what that meant). She smoked cigarettes, drank cocktails, and swore in public. She even looked different: Slim and uncorseted, she wore her skirts short and her hair bobbed. To all appearances, she was physically, legally, and emotionally emancipated. The generation gap between the woman of the 1920s and her Victorian mother was all but unbridgeable, and a girl could no longer look to her elders for advice.

Langley Moore understood the sexual economy of the time – a male shortage after WWI resulted in a sex ratio that increased female intrasexual competition. Her book was meant to give women an edge over their less prepared flapper sisters. Technique offers specific guidelines for the newfangled practice called “dating.”

In one generation the Byzantine rituals of Victorian courtship had undergone a revolution: single women no longer extended invitations to suitors to “call” or held “at homes.” Now even respectable women went unchaperoned to nightclubs, restaurants, and movies. The modern date was born, and the once neutral telephone became an instrument of both despair and bliss.

…It was a time when men and women had dalliances or affairs, not relationships…This was an age in which it was important not to be earnest; flippancy and cynicism were sane responses to an insane war.

Schilllinger:

Where the Rules girl seeks a clothesline of her own, the Technique woman wants frolic, Champagne, banter and devotion, although she knows that ”it is generally only in the course of a light affair that the serious one springs up.”

Sounds like hookup culture, no?

Still, she is a sensualist who courts experience to perfect her craft, as well as a realist who knows that ”it is useless to tell men we are independent, and then beg them to come and dance with us,” so one might as well admit the need to scheme all along.

This is the refreshingly honest dissimilarity – the acknowledgement of sex differences allows the open sharing of the secrets to tripping a man’s switches, which can not really have changed much in just 80 years. Keep in mind that this guide is about sexual attraction, not finding a husband. It assumes that men are in a position of strategic advantage – no assumption of apex fallacy here. 

Here is a summary of Langley Moore’s strategy – all written by her or paraphrased.

Ten General Principles

1. We dare not give reign to our generosity, because men soon tire of what is soon obtained. 

2. A woman has not made a conquest until she finds herself pursued. Her conquest and the pursuit are synonymous; there cannot be one without the other.

3. Your surest weapon and most powerful spell lie in his own hunger for possession of you. Until you fulfill your ambition, you must always remain unattainable.

4. A man does not often want what nobody else would have. He covets what others have already found desirable. The more proof he has that you are sought after, the more convinced he will be that you are worth seeking.

5. You must not let his love stagnate the moment he has obtained you, but subtly rouse him to fresh pursuit whenever he shows apathy.

6. The most certain way of losing prestige is to let a man see that he occupies a more important place in your mind than you in his, but a woman who is infatuated will find it difficult to conceal her feelings.

7. The knowledge that there is a soul desperate with devotion before them can only excite pity or amusement, not love. In her abjectness and anxiety she ceases even to be congenial company. Her unhappiness is tedious, and he begins to chafe under his responsibility.

8. Never remonstrate with a man whose desire is flagging. Cease to see him, cease to communicate with him, let him hear rumours of others’ interest in you. If he has any lingering residue of possessive passion for you, these measures will bring him back to your side, and if not, you are acquitted without indignity.

9. It is not just physical desire that he seeks. He also wants intimacy. When he cherishes and protects you, enjoy it. Draw him into slight intimacies that seem charming, he will want more.

10. Do not give a man an idea which may prove disadvantageous to you. E.g., that he finds a certain other woman more fascinating that yourself, that he will cheat on you, etc. If you show that you expect infidelity, you will get it.

The Fundamental Principle of Femininity

1. Contrast is the keynote. Be different from the man in female ways.

2. Avoid being nasty about other females or blabbing their secrets.

3. If a man is able, he enjoys the burden of providing for you, and enjoys the feeling that you are dependent, his dependent. Be dependent materially and independent spiritually.

4. To sustain admiration for an indefinite period, display good nature, a sense of honor and a capacity for friendship. But never show yourself to be completely unselfish in your devotion to him.

5. Refinement of taste is an important virtue. Avoid indelicate conversation and coarse language.

Men to Avoid

1. Men whose prestige is much greater than your own. You need to feel at ease, even a little superior, to enjoy yourself.

2. Men with whom you would always have to make the first move.

3. Men who must conceal you

4. Men who are dissolute

Tactics

1. Be interesting

  • Have poise of manner (free from self-consciousness or arrogance)
  • Don’t laugh with abandon, becoming ungainly
  • Don’t become vehement in discussion
  • Be lively without being obstreperous.
  • Be spirited but never carried away.

2. Display accomplishments and allurements without calling attention to them.

  • Be cheerful, free from hint of grief or dejection. Misery long sustained begets pity without sexual love. 

3. Dress well.

  • The less women’s clothing resembles their own, the more men like it.

“Whether is was the first cause or not, from the earliest times one impt. Function of clothing was to promote erotic activity: to attract men and women to one another, thus ensuring the survival of the species. One basic purpose of costume, therefore, is to distinguish men from women.

Alison Lurie, The Language of Clothes, 1981

  • Dress like the women around you, only more sumptuously. Originality and distinction makes men uncomfortable.
  • If a woman is not groomed to perfection from head to foot, she will lack the necessary self-confidence.

4. Display a talent for flattery.

  • Seem attentive to his conversation; conceal signs of boredom, but don’t look too eagerly engrossed.
  • Draw a man out to speak about himself, but never attempt to probe him for secrets. This will make him think of you as more of a friend.
  • Don’t tell him secrets of yours until you are sure he likes you.

5. Be more generous with words than actions.

  • Actions should seem more indifferent than infatuated. If you are always flattering a man, he will see that you want him badly, and stop pursuing.
  • If you are always cold and casual, he will think you don’t want him at all, and a passion cannot flourish when rebuffed at every turn.
  • Many women [are] rude in their speech but complacent in every act. Better to spare no kindness that the tongue can utter.
  • Express gladness to see him, but show no desire for his company in any of your actions, i.e. pursuit.
  • When he is with you, let him feel strong, courageous, generous. 
  • If you signal to him that you expect to be treated poorly, he will comply. Men will give you whatever you seem to ask of them, so ask much. 

Methods of Approach

1. Don’t approach a man who is engrossed in another woman.

2. Any appearance of haste is unseemly and may defeat the purpose.

3. Don’t single a man out for special glances or flattery, unless you know you will have no opportunity later. Be encouraging at the second or third meeting, giving a hint of sexual interest.

4. Being good at flirting lets him know that you are used to the attentions of men.

5. Do not respond as much as he would like; make a little show of surrender. Always give a little less of yourself than is wanted, a little less than satisfies.

6. If he is indifferent, give it up immediately. An unattached man who is indifferent to your flattery is indifferent to you.

7. In a group of men, be delightful and personal with each of them. Don’t single any one man out for particular attention unless you can do it without being observed. Be so kind to the women that your attention to the men does not stand out. If there is a woman likely to resent you, be extremely amiable to her, and distinguish her by all the courtesy you can show.

Errors Common to Love Affairs

1. Allowing yourself to be won without adequate preparation, or taken unaware. The occasion of your surrender should be prearranged and have the ideal background. Do not let him think his victory an easy one. What he wins, or thinks he wins, easily, he will not esteem.

2. Attempting to arouse a fatigued or worried man to demonstrations of emotion. By taking the role of supplicant you make him feel that the right order of things has been upset, and give him a mortifying memory of yourself. Before a man has declared himself, make no concessions of any importance, but once he has done so, it is very unwise to demand repetitions and confirmations, for it will indicate over-anxiety.

“It is proverbial that after a woman tells a man she loves him, he assumes she’ll continue to do so until she says otherwise. In contrast, women seem to require periodic updates on a man’s emotional temperature. Fear and anxiety, and the behavior they engender, are lethal to love and well-being.”

3. Calling attention to one’s own defects. Conceal flaws if possible and do not apologize for them. In a love affair, you should display your assurance and conceal your humility.

Langley Moore’s only nod to marriage:

“Even those who would reform or abolish matrimony are prone to forsake their principles when they are seized with a passion for one who cannot be otherwise obtained.”

There is much wisdom here, and little I would disagree with. I have used many of these suggestions to great effect myself. Unfortunately, feminine and masculine roles have largely been lost since DLM wrote her book. Women are not practiced at communicating interest and attraction, and men are not practiced at reading those cues. Much of what DLM recommends will be most effective with men displaying a high degree of self-confidence. Then again, self-confidence is a strong female attractor, and she provides an excellent roadmap for engaging those men. It is interesting to note that Langley Moore speaks of the benefits of preselection, playful teasing, and a bit of push pull as important tools.

Finally, as noted above, Langley Moore has written a how-to for passionate love affairs. I see no reason why one’s approach to relationships should not be the same, as exciting a man’s sexual interest is crucial for both. The key is to follow her 1920’s guidelines for when to have sex, not contemporary ones.

About the Author:

  • http://asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com Mule Chewing Briars

    Even though I am first, I doubt I will be the last to realize that Miss Moore’s advice to the lassies sounds eerily similar to Roissy’s and Rooosh’s advice to the lads.

    See esp. the Ten Principles – all social proofing, DHV, and dread.

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

      @Mule

      Even though I am first, I doubt I will be the last to realize that Miss Moore’s advice to the lassies sounds eerily similar to Roissy’s and Rooosh’s advice to the lads.

      See esp. the Ten Principles – all social proofing, DHV, and dread.

      Yes, hence the title of the post. I wondered whether Erik von Markovik might have cribbed some of her advice.

  • Lokland

    Quite a few things on this list are very good.

    ——————–

    Quite a few others could be considered the equivalent of Roissy’s Rule of Three which you expressly view as a dark game tactic.

    Though obviously effective the argument is typically that the women obtained using this strategy are of lower quality.

    Should we assume the same of men obtained in a similar way?

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

      @Lokland

      Quite a few others could be considered the equivalent of Roissy’s Rule of Three which you expressly view as a dark game tactic.

      What is the rule of three? It’s not obvious to me from the Commandments of Poon. I would note that Roissy’s commandment refer to a relationship, not just seduction. He believes in going Dark from the get go and staying Dark throughout.

      Here, Langley Moore is strictly discussing seduction, not commitment.

      Which things on DLM’s list do you think are unethical?

  • http://asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com Mule Chewing Briars

    @Lokland

    Strangely, I have the intuition that the men obtain in this manner would actually be of higher value, but don’t ask me why. Women have a strange valuation system for men.

    Nevertheless, I’m reminded of the saying – “what it took to hook ‘em is what it’ll take to keep ‘em”.

  • Lokland

    @mule

    I suspect your right.
    Your are 100% correct though, I thought I was reading a mixture of Roissy and Susan for a minute.

    Some of these points are really good. Others are dark.

  • maven

    holy shit, its like PUA manual… gender reversed

    it looks like guys are in the same situation like women were after 2WW

  • JP

    Meanwhile, back in the science labs…

    “Scientists may have finally solved the puzzle of what makes a person gay, and how it is passed from parents to their children.

    A group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuals get that trait from their opposite-sex parents: A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother…

    …Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn’t be expected to reproduce. But because these epi-marks provide an evolutionary advantage for the parents of homosexuals: They protect fathers of homosexuals from underexposure to testosterone and mothers of homosexuals from overexposure to testosterone while they are in gestation.”

    http://www-origin.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/11/scientists-may-have-finally-unlocked-puzzle-of-why-people-are-gay

  • LJ

    I’m curious as to what tactics people find dark? To me I read this advice as, “Be cute, be friendly and pleasant, play a little coy/hard to get.”

    How is that like PUA tactics?

    The only thing I maybe find a little disagreeable is the “Rules” advice of acting like you’re not interested instead of being straightforward.

  • Cooper

    I’m really not liking this post… :(

    It’s all Principle of Least Interest – a concept that relies heavily on the idea that we don’t value what we don’t have to work for.

    It’s stupid, IMO. Unattainable=/=desirable.

    It seems to imply that men are barely aware of whom they want to pursue, rather more of what other men are chasing. Like we’d fight over a boar (literally) if enough other guys were, rather than notice a nice girl.

    “4. Being good at flirting lets him know that you are used to the attentions of men.”
    You really think a guy needs a girl to demonstrate she’s experienced in flirting to know she’s worth pursuing?
    If we’re already flirting, it’s cause I’m interested, and if she starts to try to ‘prove’ how flirty she can be, I’ll think she’s too much into games.

    “The more proof he has that you are sought after, the more convinced he will be that you are worth seeking.”

    Again, pass. I’m don’t interested in joining a line of suitors. Nor am I going to pursue a girl who holds one either.

    “subtly rouse him to fresh pursuit whenever he shows apathy.”

    If he becomes indifferent – do the same. (Indifference is about the opposite of interst)
    So, IOW, if he becomes “less intereted” rouse him to fresh pursuit by seeming less interested. (See #3)

    #6 is straight up the “2/3rds” rule – or PLI.

    A girl playing #3 would have me drop her.

    “If you are always flattering a man, he will see that you want him badly, and stop pursuing”

    Yeah…I don’t like this one either.

    Maybe I just don’t know the difference between a hopeless pursuit and one being layed out for me. When I start to have my interest stretched, and see a general waning in interest on her part, I don’t see that as an invitation to pursue.
    For example, if I’m meeting a girl halfway, in order for her to implement this “pursuit” is she’d had to withdraw to make me, essentially, “catch” her. Well, if I think we’re supposed to be meeting half way, 1. I wouldn’t feel comfortable extending past half way (for numerous reasons) and 2. I’d feel that she is undervaluing me in thinking she doesn’t have to do her half, or at she is truly uninterested.

    I’m dealing with this with Ms. Flakey still. To be honest, you’d sware she’s doing all this stuff – in that she’s making me work for her attention. My initially thoughts are it sucks, it’s stupid, and it’s a waste of time. But having said that, she hasn’t lost my interest (as she very well could have if she’d gone about it differently)

    So, is that the part of the success of instilling-pursuit? (Hehe)
    Driving men crazy?

    Cause it’s a thin line, I feel. It’s kinda like getting a man to be patient, it works on different guy (good and bad) differently.
    Many nince guys have been crippled by their patience, in their past. As well as, toyed-with with for freely giving out their validation. (Not to mention orbiting)
    So, a girl attempting to generate a pursuit (via PLI tactics) could very well come off as an uninterested, AW.

  • Just1Z

    I wonder if the gender war has gone too far for this?

    how much feminine mystique can exist if the other half of women are running around on slut walks and high fiving each other with ‘you go girl’? tattoos up the wazoo (literally sometimes) and facial piercings. and starring in amateur on-line porn of course.

    I’m also not sure that men enjoy the chase as much as women enjoy being chased.

    I can see this approach tying into the SAHM mommy path that Susan claimed was the new target for women. Is providing for a SAHM the new target for men? maybe, if they want kids as much as the women, I guess. but I’m not sure that I’d work 60+ hour weeks in a stressful job so that my little woman could stay home. by downsizing the (woman’s) lifestyle aspirations to match an acceptable (to the man) worklife…maybe. sounds a little like settling though, rather than living the dream…I guess we’ll see.

    interesting seeing a flashback to earlier attitudes though

  • INTJ

    @ Just1Z

    I’m also not sure that men enjoy the chase as much as women enjoy being chased.

    This is the big glaring disagreement I had with her advice.

  • INTJ

    @ Cooper

    Cosign your entire post (#8).

    It seems to imply that men are barely aware of whom they want to pursue, rather more of what other men are chasing. Like we’d fight over a boar (literally) if enough other guys were, rather than notice a nice girl.

    This is very important. Men don’t view heuristics such as preselection and least interest to determine a girl’s value.

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

      @INTJ

      Men don’t view heuristics such as preselection and least interest to determine a girl’s value.

      They do, though. Men want the highest SMV female they can get, and the way they feel confident in her SMV is the response of other males to her.

      I have often heard men say that they were proud to be with the girl “that all the guys want.” I’ve also heard reports from many women who have been told that is a key part of their attractiveness.

      WRT PLI, all human beings are susceptible to that.

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan

    First of all, shaking my head the at the ten principles because they are guy game. Women trying this stuff will probably fail to snag any guy of substance that they would want to keep (read: man just higher than her on the totem pole) using these tactics. These are pretty much a fail for a girl unless you want to look like a game player, or attract a player who will do the dance right back at you.

    The rest is good, with a few caveats:

    “1. Men whose prestige is much greater than your own. You need to feel at ease, even a little superior, to enjoy yourself.”

    NO. Hypergamy anyone? LOL. The minute a woman starts feeling superior to her man is the minute she starts feeling dissatisfied. The whole “feeling superior” thing is the entire problem. You know more about women than to say this.

    “2. Men with whom you would always have to make the first move.”

    This needs more nuance. Game is roughly equivalent to walking a line, that line being too interested, and not enough. A girl should not pursue a guy who is continuously disinterested, but a lot of times to get the attention man worth having, she WILL have to make the first move. By first move, I mean she will have to be in his space or somehow make it possible for them to talk. Susan, you are fond of saying something to the effect of “men display, women select”. This doesn’t mean what you think it does. Women select, but that doesn’t mean a man worth having should leave his sphere just for her. These types of men have plenty of female attention that is the side effect of their lifestyle, not the focus of it. So no, you can’t sit back and dangle your hand out to be kissed. You’ll have to select and then go after him in a somewhat indirect, feminine way.

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

      @Bro Hamlet

      NO. Hypergamy anyone? LOL. The minute a woman starts feeling superior to her man is the minute she starts feeling dissatisfied. The whole “feeling superior” thing is the entire problem. You know more about women than to say this.

      Whoops, that’s not me talking, that’s Langley Moore. I guess I’d better go back and make that clear. All of the principles and suggestions are hers.

      I agree with you about hypergamy, but I think she’s correct in saying that women should avoid men with higher SMV than their own. Research clearly shows that the most successful couples are ones where the woman is more attractive than the man. Also, a woman with lower SMV than a man cannot keep him – as we see with the unleashed hypergamy evident in casual sex.

      Langley Moores advice to avoid men with considerably higher SMV is sound.

      You’ll have to select and then go after him in a somewhat indirect, feminine way.

      That is Langley Moore’s point. Women need to be indirect and maneuver to get the guy to make the first move. He must initiate and pursue or he will not value the “catch,” according to her.

  • JP

    “I can see this approach tying into the SAHM mommy path that Susan claimed was the new target for women. Is providing for a SAHM the new target for men? maybe, if they want kids as much as the women, I guess. but I’m not sure that I’d work 60+ hour weeks in a stressful job so that my little woman could stay home.”

    Again, I though that the point was to have a SAHM because that’s best for the children.

    Somebody has to work unless you have a trust fund.

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

      Again, I though that the point was to have a SAHM because that’s best for the children.

      Agreed. Women who think SAHM is a day at the beach have a rude awakening coming. For me the hours were longer, much more physically taxing and less intellectually stimulating than working 80 hour weeks in consulting. Hardest job I’ve ever done by a mile.

      Men who think they’re doing women a favor by funding SAHM are also deluded. I’ve shared that my husband is the one who proposed it. He viewed it as something with a high ROI, and he was correct, at least in our case.

      The fact that women are willing or eager to stay at home with their children does not mean that they are entitled. It means they have realized they can’t have a family and a career, and they choose family.

  • Cooper

    I thought #8 was real good.

    “8. Never remonstrate with a man whose desire is flagging. Cease to see him, cease to communicate with him, let him hear rumours of others’ interest in you. If he has any lingering residue of possessive passion for you, these measures will bring him back to your side, and if not, you are acquitted without indignity.”

  • deti

    Susan, I think this misses the broad side of the barn by a country mile. This is play hard to get, Principle of Least Interest, and “The Rules”.

    If a girl does any of this stuff in this SMP, most men will just walk away because it — and she — is not worth the effort.

  • Pixie

    @INTJ

    For clarification, lets just say there are two girls in a class of yours. One of them, you think is hot, and all your guy friends agree. The second girl, you also think is hot, but all your guy friends think she’s gross. Your guy friends opinions wouldn’t make the unanimously hot girl slightly more appealing to you, or the hot/not hot girl maybe slightly less appealing now?

  • JP

    ““8. Never remonstrate with a man whose desire is flagging. Cease to see him, cease to communicate with him, let him hear rumours of others’ interest in you. If he has any lingering residue of possessive passion for you, these measures will bring him back to your side, and if not, you are acquitted without indignity.””

    Yes.

    In my case, when the women did this, since I didn’t have any lingering residue, I could simply never talk to them again.

    Problem solved for everybody.

  • deti

    Pixie 16:

    Not really. It might influence my view of the two girls a little, but in no way are my friends’ opinions going to influence a decision on which to pursue, or when.

  • INTJ

    @ Pixie

    For clarification, lets just say there are two girls in a class of yours. One of them, you think is hot, and all your guy friends agree. The second girl, you also think is hot, but all your guy friends think she’s gross. Your guy friends opinions wouldn’t make the unanimously hot girl slightly more appealing to you, or the hot/not hot girl maybe slightly less appealing now?

    I think the average guy would be swayed a little bit by his friends’ opinions, but the difference won’t be much compared to the typical variation in hotness.

    I personally would actually find the second girl more appealing. But I wouldn’t generalize from myself to other men.

  • Pixie

    @INTJ, deti:

    From my personal experience, it doesn’t seem like either situation as a stand alone would influence the average guy too much, but if it was an either-or situation, then guys would typically go for the girl their friends agree with, ymmv.

  • BroHamlet

    @Cooper

    “I thought #8 was real good.”

    It’s fine to leave a guy who’s not interested enough, and I highly recommend that, but this part is lame and shows a weak position:

    ” …let him hear rumours of others’ interest in you.”

    Really? Or you could go about your life and be a person of ACTUAL value. This sounds like a jealousy ploy, and anyone who would use it on you isn’t really that high on the pyramid. A good product sells itself without the need for rumor.

    Susan, maybe instead of teaching girls to game from the outside in, you could teach them to do so from the inside out. Then there’s no need for checklists. Essentially a lot of these things are elementary pick up tactics, the type that are naturally embodied by desirable people. You can fake it till you make it, or you can change your mind and let the outer stuff follow as a result.

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

      @Bro Hamlet

      Susan, maybe instead of teaching girls to game from the outside in, you could teach them to do so from the inside out.

      I think that there are many women of high value who do not know how to inspire sexual interest in males. It’s a skill set we removed from the culture long ago. Langley Moore’s advice is exactly what grandmothers used to tell their granddaughters. Women counseling women on how to be attractive to men. Today women rely on showing cleavage or most of their legs. We no longer know how to intrigue men – we’re too much like them.

      The fact is, men respond to female traits, including coyness. They enjoy feminine wiles, which are a key component of femininity. Langley Moore is right – the woman who is nurturing and compliant with no commitment is supplicating, and will not appear high value to a man, or not for long.

  • Ted D

    Pixie – I’d actually tend to go for the hot/not girl myself. If less of my friends are “interested” in her, my chances of having to fight off other guys is smaller, so easier overall situation.

    I could give a rats ass what my friends think of how “hot” or not my GF/Wife is. I’m the one that sleeps with her, so the only opinion that matters is mine.

  • deti

    @ Pixie:

    It’s not just the appeal the girls have; it’s also the work of the pursuit and the relative degree of difficulty involved as well.

    The first girl might be more appealing to the eye but the task of pursuing her will be less appealing. If other men think she is hot, she is pursued frequently and she will be more of a challenge.

    The second girl is hot to me and less so to others. She’ll probably be easier to pursue and thus less of a challenge. Second girl isn’t the hottest, but she is hot enough, and that is sufficient.

  • Pixie

    @deti

    In your scenario in 23, assuming everything is going well, would you (either you you, or as a generalization) say most guys would be content with that outcome, or to a certain degree would they think they settled?

  • INTJ

    @ Pixie

    I also don’t find most celebrities particularly attractive. Except Zooey Deschanel.

  • http://blog.illusionofsanity.com Dr. Illusion

    I prefer the cute girl who doesn’t realize how hot she is. It’s even better when other men don’t realize how hot she is. Because once you start dating her and she becomes more confident in herself, all the other guys will realize she exists and be jealous. Win-win.

  • Just1Z

    @Intj
    I’m not surprised that you agree with me, you’re clearly a smart guy!

    At the end of the day though, women are free to pursue whatever strategy they like, but whether men fall for it may be another thing.

    Also this attempt to raise the price of a woman’s interest (lack of haste in being caught, getting him to provide etc) has the usual reality gap issue for women; what the rest of the women are doing.

    Women always used to have to worry about the actions of the village bike lowering the cost of sex, now it’s how much the other half of the female population is selling sex for.

    Very few men enjoy the chase, this is why women read Mills and Boon / twilight / emo-porn as emo-porn. If true-romance really happened like that, this ‘literature’ would be seen as fact not fiction.

    Some of the steps might improve things for some of the women, but we are not going back to prolonged, chaste romance. which used to be the only game in town for men not wanting to marry the town bike. nowadays there’s a market cap price set by porn, x-box and unrestricted women. it isn’t very high.

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

      @Just1Z

      Also this attempt to raise the price of a woman’s interest (lack of haste in being caught, getting him to provide etc) has the usual reality gap issue for women; what the rest of the women are doing.

      One of the reasons I found Langley Moore’s book so interesting is that hers is a guide for promiscuous women. This is most certainly not about commitment, it’s about attracting a high value male for a passionate love affair. (Though DLM notes that these may lead to more.)

      In her world, the woman is willing to have sex, at a timing of her choosing, in a premeditated way that gives her the best outcome.

      DLM’s strategy is economics, which you rightly point out is affected by the “supply.” I suppose the comparison might be between a fat old hooker and a pricey escort. DLM is advocating a luxury pricing strategy. Obviously, you need to have the SMV for it. Or at least the SMV that will entice your target market.

  • Pixie

    @INTJ

    Are they legitimately not your type physically, or do you think the presumed characteristics of being a celebrity impacts your perception of them?

  • Ted D

    Cooper – +1 on your comments. I see a lot of female “dark game” in this, and as others have pointed out I’m not sure much of it is even useful.

    Seems like any woman that plays “hard to get” is going to only catch guys that “like the challenge”. I don’t know exactly what type of man goes for such a woman, but most guys I know (my age and younger) would see a woman like that as “high maintenance” or something similar. Not exactly the vibe I’d be throwing out there myself.

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

      @Ted

      Seems like any woman that plays “hard to get” is going to only catch guys that “like the challenge”.

      Men with options do like a challenge, in my experience. It’s one of the reasons cads invest weeks in trying to bed freshmen. :( And the highest SMV guys who are committed inevitably go for a very high SMV woman who brings a lot of sex appeal.

      How many times have we heard guys admit that they will date “psycho bitches” because they’re hot? Guys will do all kinds of jumping through hoops for hot, sexy girls. Every girl here knows that is true, we’ve all seen it a hundred times.

  • Just1Z

    @Mules
    “what it took to hook ‘em is what it’ll take to keep ‘em”.

    yeah, but there’s also, “familiarity breeds contempt”. and this one is supported by the divorce stats. :)

  • LJ

    I wonder if ya’ll are reading a different thing from “play hard to get” than I am. I didn’t read it like she’s telling women to be like,

    “Hmm.. let’s see Saturday won’t wont because I’m going to the movies with Tom and Sunday I’m getting my nails done and then meeting up with Sam… and next weeks is pretty booked… are you free 2 weeks from Tuesday?”

    But to just NOT be like (after a first date), “I had a great time! When can I see you again? I’m free all week!”

    Believe it or not, I think there are girls who can swing too far to the latter end of the spectrum and this advice is aimed for them.

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

      @LJ

      But to just NOT be like (after a first date), “I had a great time! When can I see you again? I’m free all week!”

      Believe it or not, I think there are girls who can swing too far to the latter end of the spectrum and this advice is aimed for them.

      Correct. She is telling women not to be supplicating, which lowers their value.

      Interestingly, reviewers specifically mentioned that the book is 1,000 times better than the crappy Rules. Not at all the same thing.

  • deti

    Pixie 24:

    I’ve been in exactly this situation. I learned the hard way, more than once, that Second Hot Girl Who Friends Think Is Gross isn’t “settling”.

    Every time I went for First Hot Girl, I regretted it or it didn’t work out so well.

    Every time I went for Second Hot Girl. it worked out OK.

    I’ve also been in the situation where you ditch Second Hot Girl to pursue a First Hot Girl. Bad, bad idea. If you’ve got a good thing going with a girl who’s hot enough, you don’t torpedo it in hopes of getting something better.

  • HanSolo

    @LJ

    I don’t know who these totally available girls are. Most I meet are on the play hard to get side of things. In fact someone on the other side, telling me they had a great time and want to see me again (assuming I like her) will be a fresh relief and bump up her attractiveness in my mind because I don’t want a girl who plays all kinds of games.

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

      @HanSolo

      I don’t want a girl who plays all kinds of games.

      Which of Langley Moore’s suggestions do you believe are manipulative or dishonest, i.e. playing games?

  • INTJ

    @ Pixie

    Are they legitimately not your type physically, or do you think the presumed characteristics of being a celebrity impacts your perception of them?

    I’d say there are two categories.

    The first is where celebrities slap on a bunch of makeup and stuff to try to look good looking, but speaking in terms of natural looks, they’re either really old, or young but average looking. In this case, most men seem to see through the makeup and have the same perception of looks as me, but women seem to have the misconception that they’re pretty. Jennifer Aniston is an example of this.

    The second is one of “not my type”. I think there’s a divide between guys who prefer the “hot” look, and guys who prefer the “cute” look. For example, I can agree that, objectively, Megan Fox was hot (prior to her plastic surgery). But she’s not really my type.

  • LJ

    @ HanSolo… Hmm, another example maybe that’s maybe more common is responding to a 10pm booty call/text after a few weeks of dating.

  • Pixie

    @deti

    Do you think these are scenarios/lessons that need to be learned? I’m in college, and everything you described on the “do not do” list seems to very often be exactly what I see friends and peers do. For guys and girls alike.

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

      @Pixie

      I’m in college, and everything you described on the “do not do” list seems to very often be exactly what I see friends and peers do. For guys and girls alike.

      Full disclosure: Deti is a 40+ dad of two. Different generation entirely.

  • Ramble

    Reading about the SMP of the 1920s, I was immediately struck by the similarities to our own era.

    Susan, there is a reason why I often reference the early (i.e. pre-War) 1900s when I say that this is what we will ultimately return to.

    While Modernism had started in many areas before the 1920s, it was the 1920s where is exploded. My guess is that this had as much to do with the aftermath of The Great War as it did with the economic policies (The Federal Reserve had been created not long before the 20s and had started to have a major impact on our economy by the early to mid 20s) and increasing amount of industrial “luxuries” (wealthy people could now more easily afford to live outside of urban areas with the proliferation of the automobile) that were available to the upper class.

    And Modernism, in general, meant subverting all that was traditional. Stark architecture with lots of smooth lines, flat roofs, lots of glass…and the same deal with female fashion.

    Shorter hair, the “Bob” (it literally has a masculine name), flat breasts and straight hips were now in vogue, and “bawdy” behaviour, speech and humor.

    Now, it should be said that this was really only happening in the largest and wealthiest areas. Very little of this was happening in Kansas.

    And, once that economic bubble popped in the late 20’s and early 30s, so much of Modernism went away and would not make a real comeback until well after WWII and, more specifically, after the economy started humming again.

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

      @Ramble

      I do find the history of courtship fascinating, as it reflects the economy, world politics, local politics (Prohibition), immigration, etc. Once the era of the gentleman caller ended, and girls managed their own lives via telephone, parents lost most of their influence. They tried to be strict, but they couldn’t keep their Italian son from meeting and falling for an Irish girl, and they couldn’t keep that Irish girl at home and virginal.

      As you may recall, premarital sex rates have always been high – even the Pilgrims are estimated to have had it at a rate of 50%, based on marriage and birth records.

  • Pixie

    @Ramble

    So do you think the current economic down turn will help to encourage more traditional life styles again?

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    Seems like any woman that plays “hard to get” is going to only catch guys that “like the challenge”. I don’t know exactly what type of man goes for such a woman, but most guys I know (my age and younger) would see a woman like that as “high maintenance” or something similar. Not exactly the vibe I’d be throwing out there myself.

    Extreme pedestalizing lesser Deltas.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I am HanSolo and I cannot endorse most of the “girl game” in this post (unless a woman is just looking to get laid but then they don’t need much game for that really unless they’re shooting way above their own SMV).

    However, I heartily endorse your post on “25 Politically Incorrect But Effective Ways to Make Him Your Boyfriend”:

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/08/09/relationshipstrategies/25-politically-incorrect-but-effective-ways-to-make-him-your-boyfriend/

    When I saw the current post I was so excited to read it but quickly became disappointed as so many of the points were to implement the principle of least interest. You do say “keep in mind that this guide is about sexual attraction, not finding a husband” and you are pointing out the similarities in the SMP between the 1920’s and today, not necessarily endorsing these tactics. However, this seems to be using the term “girl game” in a different way than previously–with quite different goals in mind.

    Many of the points seem like “girl game” to get players who love a challenge. Basically tease and be hard to get so that he wants to fuck you. But then, women have never had a very hard time in finding hotter men than themselves to fuck them. Basically, be as hot as you can, flirt, and be a cock tease and you’ll get many men excited and pursuing for a romp in the hay. But I think most women know that.

    I really would love another post on girl game for acquiring and maintaining long term relationships (aka, femininity and being nice and removing entitled, bitch anti-game).

    Cheers.

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

      @Han Solo

      Many of the points seem like “girl game” to get players who love a challenge. Basically tease and be hard to get so that he wants to fuck you.

      I think that Langley Moore aims to instruct women how to be irresistible – essentially have to inspire obsession, a key element of limerence, and precursor to falling in love. History is rife with examples of precisely this dynamic between the sexes.

      Langley Moore recommends strong and stark contrast between the sexes.

      I really would love another post on girl game for acquiring and maintaining long term relationships (aka, femininity and being nice and removing entitled, bitch anti-game).

      Which of her ideas do you feel amount to entitlement? It seems to me that she is advising women to be the opposite of bitchy – why do you disagree?

      Aside from that question, do you feel that any are effective in sparking male interest?

  • deti

    Pixie 36:

    I don’t understand your questions.

    Do I think WHAT are scenarios/lessons that need to be learned?

    What did I describe on the “do not do” list? Not sure what you mean.

  • JP

    @Ramble:

    “Susan, there is a reason why I often reference the early (i.e. pre-War) 1900s when I say that this is what we will ultimately return to.

    While Modernism had started in many areas before the 1920s, it was the 1920s where is exploded. My guess is that this had as much to do with the aftermath of The Great War as it did with the economic policies (The Federal Reserve had been created not long before the 20s and had started to have a major impact on our economy by the early to mid 20s) and increasing amount of industrial “luxuries” (wealthy people could now more easily afford to live outside of urban areas with the proliferation of the automobile) that were available to the upper class.”

    The problem is that we’re not going back there.

    We’re going somewhere else.

    I don’t know where, but it’s not to the early 1900’s…or 1800’s….etc.

  • Just1Z

    @Intj
    “Extreme pedestalizing lesser Deltas.”

    and how do things work out for these guys, generally speaking? ;)

    I can’t see a self-preceived prize of a woman being happy when that gang came a-sniffing…the horror!

  • HanSolo

    @LJ

    I agree that the responding to the 10pm booty call and hoping that will turn into a relationship is not a wise strategy. But that’s trying to get a guy to fall in love with you through sex.

    The other example, of saying that you enjoyed being with him and want to see him again speaks to more emotional investment and doing some activities beyond only sex (though maybe they did have sex as well).

    Showing interest in seeing a man again who has gone out with her on one or more dates and shown interest (beyond just sex) in her is a good idea for a woman.

  • Pixie

    @deti

    Sorry, I’m typing on a phone so I was trying to keep my questions short. In your answer you said that typically going for Girl 2 worked out fine and didn’t feel like settling, whereas dropping Girl 2 for Girl 1, or only going for Girl 1, typically didn’t pan out so well. Since you had been through the various permutations of the either/or scenario, you say you’d probably go straight for Girl 2 because itd be less of a hassle. My question is, do you think people need to learn that Girl 1 is probably a more stressful situation, before they’d begin choosing Girl 2 in the first place?

  • Abbot

    “He covets what others have already found desirable.”

    So long as it was limited to desire, for the most part

  • Just1Z

    “My question is, do you think people need to learn that Girl 1 is probably a more stressful situation, before they’d begin choosing Girl 2 in the first place?”

    Yes, but the result of chasing girl#2 instead, because you believe her to be equally attractive, regardless of your friends’ opinions, is an easier lesson for men to learn than for women. We do not put as high a value on other people’s opinions as women do.

    It should not be a hard lesson to learn that you can join the queue of men competing to prove their betadom in a fight to the bottom for girl#1 – OR – get girl#2 without competition (and you find her equally attractive anyway).

    That’s not a tough lesson…

  • Abbot

    “how much feminine mystique can exist if the other half of women are running around on slut walks and high fiving each other with ‘you go girl’? tattoos up the wazoo (literally sometimes) and facial piercings. and starring in amateur on-line porn ”

    Wife worthiness has been completely purged form the system. Thus the willing-man shortage

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    This was what I did/do:

    – Work out. Eat well. Have healthy habits. Don’t be overweight or obese.

    – Keep hair long. No perfume, jewelry or makeup. Clothing that is girly but modest enough for work.

    – Smile. Be sweet, friendly, kind, and feminine. Don’t be loud, obnoxious, attention-seeking or profane.

    – Have an interest in typically masculine pursuits like video games, guns, or martial arts, where the gender ratio is very favorable.

    – Be generally helpful and easygoing, not overly flirtatious but friendly. Get to know a few guys and talk to them on a regular basis, but not in a dating context.

    – Eventually one of those guys would get more interested in me…

    And this is how I sidestepped the whole dating scene altogether. Every one of the guys who fell in love with me was my friend first. I have the opposite of the LJBF thing, whatever that would be called. IOLF, I only love friends?

  • deti

    “My question is, do you think people need to learn that Girl 1 is probably a more stressful situation, before they’d begin choosing Girl 2 in the first place?”

    Girl 1 is hot, she knows she’s hot, and other men besides me know she’s hot. Men in general already know chasing, getting and keeping Girl 1 is going to be stressful and a challenge. That’s probably good info for women in general to have also. Generally, men will take the path of least resistance when pursuing.

    Men should probably also know that being with a 5 or a 6 who is into him is probably going to be better in the long run than an 8 or a 9 who is not into him.

    It’s probably a good idea for women to internalize that they will NOT always lose out because they are not as hot as other girls they know. All she has to be is hot enough and available for approaching.

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

      Girl 1 is hot, she knows she’s hot, and other men besides me know she’s hot. Men in general already know chasing, getting and keeping Girl 1 is going to be stressful and a challenge.

      …Men should probably also know that being with a 5 or a 6 who is into him is probably going to be better in the long run than an 8 or a 9 who is not into him.

      Most of this is taken care of via realistic self-assessment re SMV.

  • Ramble

    A man does not often want what nobody else would have. He covets what others have already found desirable. The more proof he has that you are sought after, the more convinced he will be that you are worth seeking.

    IOW, be physically attractive, be charming, and don’t be a bitch.

    Refinement of taste is an important virtue. Avoid indelicate conversation and coarse language.

    To me, this is hugely lacking today, and, as far as I can tell, it has been missing for a while.

    Girls, IME, tend to have awful taste in music, movies and TV (and the guys are not doing that much better). (With clothing, I find that most girls do not have horrible taste, but what they tend to where on a daily basis is not particularly good.) And, I think, one major example of how different we are today then how it was from yesteryear is how few girls can play a music instrument.

    There is a great scene from Mad Men where the tall, buxom secretary pulls out her accordion to play for guests at a dinner party. I am confident that Matt Wiener was sending a message with that scene that basically went like this, “Could you imagine a girl, today, learning to play the accordion and then playing it, for guests, in such a feminine manner?!”

  • Ramble

    …No perfume…

    Hope, no perfume. Do you use shampoo with a really nice aroma?

    There are few things as intoxicating as getting close to a girl who is wearing just the slightest amount of perfume that you can only detect when you get really close to her.

    She, almost literally, draws you in.

  • Ramble

    So do you think the current economic down turn will help to encourage more traditional life styles again?

    Actually, no. The Upper Class and much of the Upper Middle Class were not that affected by these things.

  • SayWhaat

    Don’t become vehement in discussion.

    …. o__o

  • Joe

    @Cooper, et. al.
    I can see your point about this resembling guy-game and about the down-side (for men) of this “chase me until I catch you” idea. For 20 somethings, it does seem a bit ridiculous.

    But in your 30s? Not so much. It becomes more subtle. When I read this, the mental image I had was very much Merna Loy in “The Thin Man” series of movies, circa mid-’30s to early ’40s. The Nora Charles character demonstrated pretty clearly that it works, rather nicely, in fact.

  • Pixie

    @Hope

    LOL at your use of “IOLF”

  • Abbot

    “one major example of how different we are today then how it was from yesteryear is how few girls can play a music instrument.”

    Because they used to spend less time drinking and falling on multi penises thus leaving more time to learn such things

  • Just1Z

    @Abbot
    “Wife worthiness has been completely purged form the system. Thus the willing-man shortage”

    Oh, I do believe that there are marriage worthy women out there, but there are issues for both sides:
    *marriage is a terrible risk for the man – divorce / FDV / incarceration for inability to pay child support whatever (I wouldn’t do it except in very exceptional circumstances)
    *how does a woman price herself appropriately? too high and the men won’t pay. too low and the men won’t see the value of marriage. The pool of men being chased is smaller than the herd hunting it, and they may not even care to be caught at all.

    I’d say that the pool of women worth risking marriage for as shrinking (risks vs rewards – I don’t require that women are changing) and the pool of men wanting to marry is shrinking too. I know what Susan’s numbers say about wanting,/i> to marry, BUT the national stats show that the age of first marriage is increasing and that first marriage for women over 35 has stopped (statistically speaking)*. So, if we’re noting what people do, rather than say then it doesn’t look good. whether the upcoming generation will deliver a change to that? I’m not betting on it, but YMMV.

    *The place to see the numbers is ‘the other place’ nudge-nudge wink-wink. But they are national stats from the US updated for 2012.

  • Pixie

    @deti

    Your last point in 50 is good advice. I think a lot of women forget that at times.

  • Ramble

    lets just say there are two girls in a class of yours. One of them, you think is hot, and all your guy friends agree. The second girl, you also think is hot, but all your guy friends think she’s gross.

    Pixie, in my experience, this is really rare. While there are many different types of female attractiveness, it is rare for some guy to think that an unattractive girl is attractive.

    It’s also telling that you used the word, “gross”. That comes from a female perspective.

  • Ramble

    BTW, my comments are getting stuck in moderation on multiple threads. I may be posting too much in too short a time period.

  • http://friedlzita.webs.com/ Zita

    Call me a jerk but I haven’t heard about Dorothy Parker before, but now I totally feel assured about that book… I cannot wait to have a lok at it as soon as possible!

  • HanSolo

    @Hope 49

    Good advice.

    (A minor difference would be I don’t see any problem with a bit of perfume, makeup and jewelry but I realize that is what you did and a girl can customize this to her own personality and style.)

  • Mireille

    Ramble and Abbott make quite the pair.

  • J

    Even though I am first, I doubt I will be the last to realize that Miss Moore’s advice to the lassies sounds eerily similar to Roissy’s and Rooosh’s advice to the lads.

    LOL. I believe I still have a 3 year old comment in mod at CH that is similar to the above.

    Game is pretty girly.

  • Ramble

    Ramble and Abbott make quite the pair.

    Wow!

  • Just1Z

    Can’t remember the cat vs dog thread but

    cat-friend vs dog-friend
    http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/i-know-these-people.html

  • Cooper

    “What is the rule of three?”

    Rule of three = two third rule? (Maybe)

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com/ Marellus

    Suzan

    Consider this :

    What is the destiny of women? What is their role on earth? It is to please. Now, a charming figure, personal graces, in a word, all the
    amiable and brilliant qualities are the only means of succeeding in
    that role. Women possess them to a superlative degree, and it is in
    these qualities that they wish men to resemble them.

    It will be vain for you to accuse them of frivolity, for they are playing the beauty role, since they are destined to make you happy. Is it not, indeed,
    due to the charm of our companionship, to the gentleness of our
    manners, that you owe your most satisfying pleasures, your social
    virtues, in fact, your whole happiness?

    Have some good faith in this matter. Is it possible for the sciences of themselves, the love of glory, valor, nay, even that friendship of which you boast so much, to make you perfectly happy?

    The pleasure you draw from any of them, can it be keen enough to make you feel happy? Certainly not. None of them have the power to relieve you from a wearisome monotony which crushes you and makes you an object of pity.

    It is women who have taken upon themselves to dissipate these mortal
    languors by the vivacious gayety they inject into their society; by
    the charms they know so well how to lavish where they will prove
    effectual.

    A reckless joy, an agreeable delirium, a delicious
    intoxication, are alone capable of awakening your attention, and
    making you understand that you are really happy, for, Marquis, there
    is a vast difference between merely enjoying happiness and relishing
    the sensation of enjoying it.

    The possession of necessary things does not make a man comfortable, it is the superfluous which makes him rich, and which makes him feel that he is rich.

    – Ninon de L’ Enclos

    She’s right Suzan. By heaven she’s right.

  • Just1Z

    @Marellus

    I hope that she’s dead, she wouldn’t be very happy in the modern feminist world…

  • J

    Strangely, I have the intuition that the men obtain in this manner would actually be of higher value, but don’t ask me why. Women have a strange valuation system for men

    To me , both Game and it’s older girly equivalent include a large measure of manipulation and attract the more or less easily manipulated. I personally tend not to respect men or women who chronically fall for either version.

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

    Hope, no perfume. Do you use shampoo with a really nice aroma?

    There are few things as intoxicating as getting close to a girl who is wearing just the slightest amount of perfume that you can only detect when you get really close to her.

    She, almost literally, draws you in.

    Is better if she draws you in with the smell of her own skin…I cosign the no perfume advice for both genders actually. Genetic compatibility FTW! :)

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

    For the readers, much of this is practised by the women of France. Cultures, they be different.

  • INTJ

    @ Hope

    And this is how I sidestepped the whole dating scene altogether. Every one of the guys who fell in love with me was my friend first. I have the opposite of the LJBF thing, whatever that would be called. IOLF, I only love friends?

    You’re a nice girl ™.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com/ Marellus

    @Just1Z

    She died in 1805

  • JP

    “They do, though. Men want the highest SMV female they can get, and the way they feel confident in her SMV is the response of other males to her.

    I have often heard men say that they were proud to be with the girl “that all the guys want.” I’ve also heard reports from many women who have been told that is a key part of their attractiveness.”

    Isn’t this missing the entire “are we compatible” issue?

    This seems to be the road to getting a very high SMV person who’s quite incompatible.

  • HanSolo

    @Just1Z

    That cat-friend vs dog-friend video is hilarious!

    Finding more doglike people for relationships is a good idea. Or for Jackie, beta cats work too! ;)

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Ana and Ramble, my husband likes my shampoo and lotion, which is the consistently cheap stuff I get for under $2 at the grocery store, and has become my “scent” I guess since I don’t really change brands.

    By the way, about the clothes on that modest Pinterest, Mikarose makes a few of the designs on there, and they’re a Provo, Utah company (Mormon women want dresses that are below the knee, cover the upper arms and no cleavage). I had a dress from them, too, bought on a whim from the local Costco. They’re usually more expensive than what I get, since I prefer clothing under $35 or so, but they do have nice stuff.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    That is Langley Moore’s point. Women need to be indirect and maneuver to get the guy to make the first move. He must initiate and pursue or he will not value the “catch,” according to her.

    That is simply not true today, though it may have been true in the 20s. This advice is the reason that girls always see guys going for the sluts instead of the good girls. A lot of guys will choose the slut who shows clear interest over the good girl who doesn’t.

    Personally, I think the female initiates, male pursues paradigm is a much more effective script, which gets both parties invested in the relationship.

  • Emily

    Re: Pixie’s two girls,

    IME, the younger the guy is, the more likely he is to be swayed by what his friends think. And this is just as true for girls. Teenagers especially are VERY concerned with what their peers think and seeming “cool”. As people get older, they’re more willing to stand apart from the crowd.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    They do, though. Men want the highest SMV female they can get, and the way they feel confident in her SMV is the response of other males to her.

    I have often heard men say that they were proud to be with the girl “that all the guys want.” I’ve also heard reports from many women who have been told that is a key part of their attractiveness.

    Well here’s the thing. I want a girl that I find attractive. It would also be a nice ego-stroke if all the other guys find her attractive and I know I’ve beaten all the competition. That’s the sigma-male fantasy. But it’s a fantasy. Sure, guys who pull that off are going to boast about it. But it doesn’t mean guys are actively seeking girls that others find attractive.

    For example, if I found Megan Fox really attractive (which I don’t), and I landed her, I’d be proud about beating out all the other guys who were after her. That doesn’t mean I pursued her because other guys found her attractive. I pursued her because I found her attractive.

    WRT PLI, all human beings are susceptible to that.

    Demonstrably false. NAHBALT. Most INTJs are clear-cut counterexamples.

  • INTJ

    @ Just1Z, HanSolo

    I’ve always believed it’s quite meaningful that women tend to be cat people while men tend to be dog people. Guy game quite closely resembles acting like a cat. Similarly, girl game should closely resemble acting like a dog.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Men want the highest SMV female they can get, and the way they feel confident in her SMV is the response of other males to her.”

    You have cause and effect backwards and your mixing in affirmation, which everyone wants.

    A woman is beautiful because she is physically beautiful. Not because other men find her beautiful.

    The reason men enjoy getting the high-five for landing the HB is that it feels good to receive praise for a job well done.

    We also high five a guy who picks up a woman on a night out because the task is hard to accomplish.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    They do, though. Men want the highest SMV female they can get, and the way they feel confident in her SMV is the response of other males to her.

    I have often heard men say that they were proud to be with the girl “that all the guys want.” I’ve also heard reports from many women who have been told that is a key part of their attractiveness.

    This is mistaking cause and effect. The guys want the girl mostly because they each individually find her attractive, whether or not anyone else does. Granted, there is a secondary effect of wanting the ego boost of having the men’s approval. For example, if all of a sudden every other guy wanted a looks=4 girl I would shout hallelujah because they’d be distracted from the hotter girls that I want to pursue. I would never start pursuing that 4 even if Brad Pitt were kneeling at her feet with his tongue out.

    For two looks=8 girls, I might find a bit of vain satisfaction in getting the 8 that everyone wants but only if it weren’t too much of an effort. If it were then I would rather have the less-effort-to-get 8.

    So, I do believe the guys saying they’re proud to be with such a woman but the other guys wouldn’t want her if she wasn’t “objectively” reasonably or highly attractive to them and if she suddenly became ugly in his eyes but not in the others–reverse Shallow Hal effect–then he would not be feeling very happy and no amount of outside wanting her would make up for that.

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

    Susan wrote:

    They do, though. Men want the highest SMV female they can get, and the way they feel confident in her SMV is the response of other males to her.

    I have often heard men say that they were proud to be with the girl “that all the guys want.” I’ve also heard reports from many women who have been told that is a key part of their attractiveness.

    Men want the woman who was easy for them to get but too hard to get for other men. And yes, this implies that the woman chose the man through the fog of the song and dance of the chase and conquest. In the end, the woman has to pick the winner.

    Unlike a lot of the male commentators here, I don’t have a problem with most of this advice. There’s a lot of nuance here that people are missing. There may be some weaknesses in this advice thanks to social media and other new-school methods of information gathering.

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

      Men want the woman who was easy for them to get but too hard to get for other men. And yes, this implies that the woman chose the man through the fog of the song and dance of the chase and conquest. In the end, the woman has to pick the winner.

      Exactly, and he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?

  • JP

    I’m a 40- dad of two.

    I did hang out with some undergrads 12 years ago in law school, though.

    My 40th b-day’s going to be sad. :(

  • J

    Is better if she draws you in with the smell of her own skin…I cosign the no perfume advice for both genders actually. Genetic compatibility FTW!

    This is probably very true.

    I love perfume; it’s my one really girly indulgence. I’ll do hair and make-up if I’m in a nice dress, but I’ll wear purfume with jeans. The funny thing is no matter what perfume I wear DH hates it. Based on your post, I’d guess that he wants me to smell more like me and less like lilies of the valley.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Men with options do like a challenge, in my experience. It’s one of the reasons cads invest weeks in trying to bed freshmen. And the highest SMV guys who are committed inevitably go for a very high SMV woman who brings a lot of sex appeal.

    Maybe that’s because they like deflowering freshmen? As for going for very high SMV women, it’s not because they’re hard to get, but high value. The hard-to-get part tends to be an unfortunate side-effect of being high value.

    How many times have we heard guys admit that they will date “psycho bitches” because they’re hot? Guys will do all kinds of jumping through hoops for hot, sexy girls. Every girl here knows that is true, we’ve all seen it a hundred times.

    First, psycho bitches are not hard to get. Quite the opposite They tend show a lot of interest and be clingy. That’s easy to get. Second, you’re proving the point. The guys go for hot, sexy girls because they’re, well, hot.

    The order of preference for guys is like this: easy to get 10 > hard to get 10 > easy to get 4 > hard to get 4. Of course, the easy to get 10s are usually already “gotten”. Nearly all the single 10s are hard to get. Thus, it would seem that hard to get girls are at the top of the hierarchy, but that is a false observation.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    1. and 6. of the Ten General Principles are clear cut game playing. All of the Ten General Principles are a manifestation of the Principle of Least Interest and are pretty bad advice. The rest of her advice is good.

  • SayWhaat

    I’ve always believed it’s quite meaningful that women tend to be cat people while men tend to be dog people.

    Ehh, that’s BS. You could just as easily say introverts tend to be cat people, while extroverts prefer dogs.

  • SayWhaat

    Aside from that question, do you feel that any are effective in sparking male interest?

    I think they probably all do, the guys are just loathe to admit it. Cooper basically denounced the whole post, but then admitted that Ms. Flake is using these “ploys” and still has him hooked!

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

      I think they probably all do, the guys are just loathe to admit it.

      It’s funny, they resent Girl Game because it gives women more control. Everyone wants control, which is natural enough. I say we’re all better off when everyone brings their best game.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    The fact is, men respond to female traits, including coyness. They enjoy feminine wiles, which are a key component of femininity. Langley Moore is right – the woman who is nurturing and compliant with no commitment is supplicating, and will not appear high value to a man, or not for long.

    I agree with this. Basically a gradual sensual tease, followed by a partial sexual/sensual reward, followed by further tease or withholding, followed by further reward (allowing the longing to build but not just causing pure frustration) seems like a great way for a woman to seduce me and get me worked up about her.

    Giving neither pure reward nor pure withdrawal is effective.

    One foreign guy wrote into David DeAngelo saying, “Why me feel like hating girl after sex?” That exemplifies the giving up sex too easily.

    Blue balls is the other end of the spectrum.

    A dance of tease and reward is probably best for seducing men into having longer-term sexual interest.

    Then combine that with emotional escalation, a la your 25 steps post, and he will really be loving things (assuming he’s into you).

  • deti

    Deti is a 40+ dad of two. Different generation entirely.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    The SMP changes. Human nature does not.

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

      The more things change, the more they stay the same.

      The SMP changes. Human nature does not.

      It is malleable, though. Sorry, but here’s Buss again:

      “It’s not just about DNA – environment matters. Every strand of DNA unfolds within a particular environmental and cultural context. All behavioral patterns can in principle be altered by environmental intervention.”

      One example is assortative mating 50 years ago. The 5 females and 5 males who married were genuinely attracted to each other. Average looking women did not demand hotties or feel that they were settling for men who had similar SMV. Restraining hypergamy isn’t just telling women they have to settle, they can’t have what they want. It’s a whole cultural context where people are pleased with a mate of equal value.

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

    Susan…”they couldn’t keep their Italian son from meeting and falling for an Irish girl, and they couldn’t keep that Irish girl at home and virginal”

    …which gives me another opportunity to promote the awesomeness of Tom Russell and Delores Keane

    When Irish Girls Grow Up

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    “Guy game quite closely resembles acting like a cat. Similarly, girl game should closely resemble acting like a dog.”

    I agree with that, at the 80/20 level and all the obvious caveats about choosing wisely and making sure they’re making an effort.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    And that guys need to have more cat qualities at first and gradually show the dog side so that she can be tantalized into wanting to discover more about him, not feel smothered, and thus feel subconsciously that he is good enough for her and not too needy.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com/ Marellus

    XXIII

    Two Irreconcilable Passions in Women

    Will you pardon me, Marquis, for laughing at your afflictions? You
    take things too much to heart. Some imprudences, you say, have drawn
    upon you the anger of the Countess, and your anxiety is extreme. You
    kissed her hand with an ecstasy that attracted the attention of
    everybody present. She publicly reprimanded you for your indiscretion,
    and your marked preference for her, always offensive to other women,
    has exposed you to the railleries of the Marquise, her sister-in-law.
    Dear me, these are without contradiction terrible calamities! What,
    are you simple enough to believe that you are lost beyond salvation
    because of an outward manifestation of anger, and you do not even
    suspect that inwardly you are justified? You impose upon me the burden
    of convincing you of the fact, and in doing so I am forced to reveal
    some strange mysteries concerning women. But, I do not intend, in
    writing you, to be always apologizing for my sex. I owe you frankness,
    however, and having promised it I acquit myself of the promise.

    A woman is always balancing between two irreconcilable passions which
    continually agitate her mind: the desire to please, and the fear of
    dishonor. You can judge of our embarrassment. On the one hand, we are
    consumed with the desire to have an audience to notice the effect of
    our charms. Ever engaged in schemes to bring us into notoriety;
    ravished whenever we are fortunate enough to humiliate other women, we
    would make the whole world witness of the preferences we encounter,
    and the homage bestowed upon us. Do you know the measure of our
    satisfaction in such cases? The despair of our rivals, the
    indiscretions that betray the sentiments we inspire, this enchants us
    proportionately to the misery they suffer. Similar imprudences
    persuade us much more that we are loved, than that our charms are
    incapable of giving us a reputation.

    But what bitterness poisons such sweet pleasures! Beside so many
    advantages marches the malignity of rival competitors, and sometimes
    your disdain. A fatality which is mournful. The world makes no
    distinction between women who permit you to love them, and those whom
    you compensate for so doing. Uninfluenced, and sober-minded, a
    reasonable woman always prefers a good reputation to celebrity. Put
    her beside her rivals who contest with her the prize for beauty, and
    though she may lose that reputation of which she appears so jealous,
    though she compromise herself a thousand times, nothing is equal in
    her opinion to see herself preferred to others. By and by, she will
    recompense you by preferences; she will at first fancy that she grants
    them out of gratitude, but they will be proofs of her attachment. In
    her fear of appearing ungrateful, she becomes tender.

    Can you not draw from this that it is not your indiscretions which vex
    us? If they wound us, we must pay tribute to appearances, and you
    would be the first to censure an excessive indulgence.

    See that you do not misunderstand us. Not to vex us on such occasions
    would be really to offend. We recommend you to practice discretion and
    prudence, that is the role we enact, is it not? Is it necessary for me
    to tell you the part you are to play? I am often reminded that
    accepting the letter of the law, is to fail to understand it. You may
    be sure that you will be in accord with our intentions as soon as you
    are able to interpret them properly.

    – Ninon de L’ Enclos

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

      @Marellus

      You are the most romantic guy. You would be awesome material for a passionate love affair!

  • deti

    “he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?”

    Sure, on the battlefield, in the office, and in the athletic arena.

    In love and sex, not so much.

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

      Sure, on the battlefield, in the office, and in the athletic arena.

      In love and sex, not so much.

      I don’t understand. If men are wired with a competitive instinct, why would that not apply to mating? Why would every guy not want to get the highest SMV woman? In his chapter What Men Want in The Evolution of Desire, David Buss attempts to explain why men marry:

      “One possibility is that men who refused to commit would have had trouble attracting the most desirable mating partners. Women did not consent to sex without the commitment. Women desire a lasting commitment, and the most desirable women are in the best position to get what they want.”

      Clearly the drive to beat out other men for the most desirable women is key, to the point where men who have options will offer commitment in order to do so.

      Buss continues on the status granted to men with the most attractive partners:

      “Beauty is not just important for reproductive value. It also affects a man’s social status. An attractive woman is a signal of status to same-sex competitors and to other potential mates.”

      Additionally, occupational status, gained via competition, is a strong predictor of mate attractiveness:

      Marriage patterns in America confirm that men with the most resources can most easily actualize their preferences. Men with high occupational status marry more attractive women than those who are low in occupational status. Occupational status is the BEST predictor of the attractiveness a man can get.

      So there are three strong areas of competition as men attempt to win the most desirable mates.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com/ Marellus

    Well, Marquis, in love as in war, the
    pleasure of obtaining a victory is measured according to the obstacles
    in the way of it. Shall I say it? I am tempted to push the parallel
    farther. See what it is to take a first step. The true glory of a
    woman consists less, perhaps, in yielding, than in putting in a good
    defense, so that she will merit the honors of war.

    I shall go still farther. Let a woman become feeble enough to be at
    the point of yielding, what is left her to retain a satisfactory
    lover, if her intelligence and talents do not come to her aid? I am
    well aware that they do not give themselves these advantages, but if
    we investigate the matter, we shall find that there are very few women
    who may not acquire a few accomplishments if they really set about it;
    the difference would only be the more, at least. But women are
    generally born too indolent to be able to make such an effort. They
    have discovered that there is nothing so convenient as being pretty.
    This manner of pleasing does not require any labor; they would be glad
    not to have any other. Blind that they are, they do not see that
    beauty and talents equally attract the attention of men, but, beauty
    merely exposes her who possesses it, whereas talents furnish her with
    the means of defending it.

    In a word, to appreciate it at its full value, beauty stores up
    regrets and a mortal weariness for the day when it shall cease to
    exist. Would you know the reason? It is because it drowns out all
    other resources. As long as beauty lasts, a woman is regarded as
    something, she is celebrated, a crowd sighs at her feet. She flatters
    herself that this will go on forever. What a desolate solitude when
    age comes to ravish her of the only merit she possesses? I would like,
    therefore (my expression is not elevated, but it interprets my
    thought), I would like that in a woman, beauty could be a sign of
    other advantages.

    – Ninon de L’ Enclos

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

    SayWhaat said something like:

    I think they probably all do, the guys are just loathe to admit it. Cooper basically denounced the whole post, but then admitted that Ms. Flake is using these “ploys” and still has him hooked!

    It’s the same as male game, as long as you don’t take it to excess, it works just fine. The danger of male game is that if you push it too hard you come across as an arrogant asshole. The degree of cockiness that women find attractive varies but generally the more confident the woman the more cockiness she appreciates. It’s a delicate act, however, balancing on that knife-edge while you try to discover just what she appreciates, and I recall cases where I pushed too hard and came away with nothing. The same is true of this advice for women here, you just can’t take it literally. It’s also an ephemeral draw, in that it has to be practised daily or the illusion is shattered.

    Oh yes, and this cat and dog show thing is ridiculous. Please stop.

  • Abbot

    “A dance of tease and reward is probably best for seducing men into having longer-term sexual interest.”

    Then how does a multi-penis-empowered woman coming off of say a 10 year bender shift down into that TnR groove, assuming the man finds her worthy enough to be given a chance?

  • Mike C

    It’s not just the appeal the girls have; it’s also the work of the pursuit and the relative degree of difficulty involved as well.

    I think one of the biggest myths/misconceptions that exist are that men enjoy the chase, the challenge, the work of the pursuit. It really is just projection. The reality is most men really don’t. The more a man enjoys that part, the more likely you are dealing with someone who is viewing you as a conquest/notch and not a person to have a relationship with. It is the more caddish types that actually thrive on the chase, challenge, and ultimate conquest.

    Some good things on these lists above, some is massive projection, and some is at odds with the notion of emotional escalation.

  • Dawin

    ”Exactly, and he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?”

    Only when the reward is worth it. Think of it this way. Super Mario spends the entirety of the Super Mario gaming series fighting bad guys to save the Princess.

    The Princess. Not the ordinary woman that might be higher than most women in terms of beauty, but is still rather prone to hypergamy, alpha-penis endeavours in her youth and so forth.

    Besides, life is already pretty competitive. Why would I want to compete with other men for a woman? She’s either interested in the guy or she’s not. Reminds me of one girl who had her eyes on me when I was in college, first year. She was 6 feet tall. Cute, but very conservative. She’d blush from just mentioning she had had found her father’s condoms while she was looking in her parent’s room for her wallet.

    She tried to use those neat little ”game” tricks on me. I shrugged it off and went for the girl with the pierced nose, huge tattoo on her back, and she was also far more feminine and far better-looking than conservative girl.

    Do I compete to become a better man? Do I compete to become better in what I do? Do I compete to win at marbles? You betcha. Do I compete for women? Not in this lifetime.

  • J

    I’ve always believed it’s quite meaningful that women tend to be cat people while men tend to be dog people….Ehh, that’s BS. You could just as easily say introverts tend to be cat people, while extroverts prefer dogs.

    Me–female, INTP, dog lover

    DH–male, INTJ, cat lover

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

    Susan wrote:

    Exactly, and he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?

    Hmm… no, that’s not quite what I meant. The man wants to see other suitors spurned while she carefully lays him a trail of bread crumbs to follow. She’s impeccably chaste, except for him. Competition can be implied, but it cannot be overt, as that would ruin the fantasy.

    Consider the modest Pinterest site, but with just a dash of sex appeal thrown in. It’s like dark chocolate with a dash of chili pepper.

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

      Mr. Nervous Toes

      The man wants to see other suitors spurned while she carefully lays him a trail of bread crumbs to follow. She’s impeccably chaste, except for him. Competition can be implied, but it cannot be overt, as that would ruin the fantasy.

      OK, I think I understand – so the man has competed with other men prior to the seduction, which is what gives him the confidence to aim high? He doesn’t want to cross swords over the female once he has reached that point?

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Exactly, and he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?”

    When I win I want to do it as a blowout, not a skin of your teeth marginal victory.

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan
    “I agree with you about hypergamy, but I think she’s correct in saying that women should avoid men with higher SMV than their own. Research clearly shows that the most successful couples are ones where the woman is more attractive than the man. Also, a woman with lower SMV than a man cannot keep him – as we see with the unleashed hypergamy evident in casual sex.”

    You mean the best arrangement is where the woman is more physically attractive, and the man is more valuable in other areas. That would suggest that they go for men that are close to their own cumulative SMV, which makes sense. They should consider the whole package though if their goal is to find a match like that. Obviously, part of the problem here is that since many women view themselves as independent, the long term part of the SMV inventory has far less value than the short term up front.

  • deti

    “I think one of the biggest myths/misconceptions that exist are that men enjoy the chase, the challenge, the work of the pursuit.”

    Indeed. One can be 40+ or even 50+ and know this.

    The SMP changes. Human nature does not.

  • Mike C

    I’ve always believed it’s quite meaningful that women tend to be cat people while men tend to be dog people….Ehh, that’s BS. You could just as easily say introverts tend to be cat people, while extroverts prefer dogs.

    Me–female, INTP, dog lover

    DH–male, INTJ, cat lover

    http://www.fanciers.com/npa/sdresults.html

    Gender distribution of pets

    The dog population was found to be 51.4% female and 48.6% male. The cat population, however, changed dramatically over the age of the animals. The gender ratio starts out equally, but by the time the cats are in the five-year-old age group, 60% are female. By the age of ten years, 70% of the owned cats are female.

    God forbid anyone post accurate generalizations.

  • Cooper

    @Saywhaat

    Yeah, I have utmost mixed feelings about tactics like “hard to get” or “dark game.”
    While there’s a part of me that wants to take stand against acting so self serving in SMP, there’s also a very strong INTJ-side that simply can not refute results.

    “Cooper basically denounced the whole post, but then admitted that Ms. Flake is using these “ploys” and still has him hooked!”

    I denounce dark game, while admitting it works.

    What I don’t like about PLI tactics is it shows the person is still wresling for upper-hand. Which indicates the person is still “shopping” for their best deal, and IOW hasn’t ‘chose’ you yet.
    Using PLI, or hard to get tactics while might work to convince some guys that your ‘worth chasing,’ (aka ‘better than him) to me it signals a level of discontent. And ime, (kinda like “beauty being in the eye of the beholder”) someones’ discontent in their SMP/SMV isn’t something that you can change. (Cause it usually stems from a inflated self worth or entitlement – so best stay clear)

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

      @Cooper

      You are equating “hard to get,” Dark Game and refraining from supplication. These are not the same things.

  • Dawin

    @BroHamlet,

    So you’re saying that men should modify the purchase of temporary beauty(escorts) to relatively permanent consumption of the higher SMP value of the woman by providing his assets and financial support via marriage?

    Didn’t we ban prostitution for a reason?

  • Mike C

    Obviously, part of the problem here is that since many women view themselves as independent, the long term part of the SMV inventory has far less value than the short term up front.

    Excellent point. I believe Bastiat has made this same point previously in different words.

  • Sai

    …I would have to take acting classes to get all this right. But it was still very interesting to read.
    “Dress like the women around you, only more sumptuously. Originality and distinction makes men uncomfortable.”
    :(
    It’s good to know guys don’t like the chase as much as I was told they do. Some of it always seemed like trolling to me.

  • INTJ

    Also, Cooper, you should move on from that flaky girl.

  • Ramble

    I have often heard men say that they were proud to be with the girl “that all the guys want.” I’ve also heard reports from many women who have been told that is a key part of their attractiveness.

    While I think that this is true, I also think it is very different than the kind of status seeking and pre-selection that girls use and employ.

  • Dawin

    ”Obviously, part of the problem here is that since many women view themselves as independent, the long term part of the SMV inventory has far less value than the short term up front.”

    I don’t see where the problem is. The woman sees herself as having more value than the man, which will result in her seeking men who are higher than her in how the man’s SMP value is, leaving the average man free from the financial ruin that will come from marrying a woman who is higher in SMP points than him(of course he’s still going to get crushed by marrying an average woman, but you know what I mean).

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan & Lokland

    “Exactly, and he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?”

    “When I win I want to do it as a blowout, not a skin of your teeth marginal victory.”

    Lokland gets at the truth, which is that guys who are good with women don’t chase, or respond to jealousy ploys or attempts to get them to “square off” against other guys. Interestingly enough, there’s an easy solution to a woman who tries to “harness” male psychology in this way. It’s called “spinning plates”. Where have we seen that before?

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

      @BroHamlet

      Interestingly enough, there’s an easy solution to a woman who tries to “harness” male psychology in this way. It’s called “spinning plates”. Where have we seen that before?

      Spinning plates isn’t mind games. It’s having sex with multiple people concurrently. In no way does Langley Moore propose that.

  • Ramble

    IME, the younger the guy is, the more likely he is to be swayed by what his friends think.

    Emily, I think this has a lot more to do with looks (and non-bitchyness) than status. For instance, if some guy is getting with some girl that does not “party”, and does not hang with the popular girls, but all of his friends think that she is f*cking smoking hot, then, he is unlikely to be swayed by the fact that they do not think she is “cool” (doesn’t drink much, doesn’t smoke weed, prefers to read, etc.)

    However, if they think some girl is funny and fun but, you know, she is not easy to look at, and they voice this to him (via ribbing) in the locker room and dorm room, then, yeah, he could definitely be swayed by it.

  • Mike C

    That is simply not true today, though it may have been true in the 20s. This advice is the reason that girls always see guys going for the sluts instead of the good girls. A lot of guys will choose the slut who shows clear interest over the good girl who doesn’t.

    Yup. The answer to the question that women ask…”Why is he with that….crazy….bitchy….fill in the blank girl” is because she didn’t make it an arduous task to get with her. She wasn’t a challenge and made things easy.

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

      she didn’t make it an arduous task to get with her. She wasn’t a challenge and made things easy.

      Right, but she makes it really, really hard to stay with her. She’s super high maintenance, demanding, making constant drama. And the high SMV guys eat it up. I’ve seen it firsthand. Why? Because they haven’t “tamed” her. And her psycho-ness generally means highly unrestricted sex. They live for the challenge of the psycho girl.

  • Ramble

    Men who think they’re doing women a favor by funding SAHM are also deluded.

    Susan, this sounds incongruent with what you had been saying about how many girls see the possibility of being a SAHM as the ultimate goal, even if it is not that realistic for many in the middle class (and lower).

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

      Susan, this sounds incongruent with what you had been saying about how many girls see the possibility of being a SAHM as the ultimate goal, even if it is not that realistic for many in the middle class (and lower).

      I believe women want to be SAHMs to be with their kids, not to read Russian novels and eat bonbons all day. It is a luxury, because it cuts household income in half. But it is also very hard work, presumably done with a level of attention and care no outsider can give.

      What I’m hearing from some of the men is that a woman’s desire to be a SAHM is selfish, or presumptuous, in that they expect a male to provide. My answer to that is that no male is forced to agree to such an arrangement. In cases where I have seen it work, parents have decided together that the benefits outweigh the costs. That calculation will be different for different families.

      In short, men should not do it if they view it as a sacrifice. They should only agree to finance this if they feel it is in the best interest of their children, and that the benefits trump the costs. It’s a net positive to every member of the family. My husband feels strongly about this – I sometimes apologize for having looked like a rainmaker in the early days, only to become a SAHM. He won’t hear it – and FWIW he would never, ever have wanted to be at home full time. In fact, he’s 58 and says he wants to work until he’s at least 70, maybe 75.

  • Mike C

    Lokland gets at the truth, which is that guys who are good with women don’t chase, or respond to jealousy ploys or attempts to get them to “square off” against other guys.

    Right. They NEXT them.

  • Mike C

    I think that there are many women of high value who do not know how to inspire sexual interest in males.

    Really? I’m perplexed by this statement. Inspiring “sexual interest” aka triggering the “I’d like to fuck you instinct” isn’t that hard since sexual interest pretty much overlaps 90-95% with simply being physically attractive.

    If inspiring sexual interest is the goal, then going to the gym and doing squats and building an ass that looks great in jeans will inspire 10x the sexual interest than any behavioral gimmicks.

    I don’t think many women have a problem inspiring sexual interest, at least not the ones decently attractive. Where they are deficient is in the behaviors to inspire commitment and emotional devotion.

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

      Inspiring “sexual interest” aka triggering the “I’d like to fuck you instinct” isn’t that hard since sexual interest pretty much overlaps 90-95% with simply being physically attractive.

      Sorry, I meant sexual interest in the way Langley Moore uses it – the passionate love affair characterized by obsessive preoccupation with the desired object and a perception that she is highly desirable over a period of time. I suppose “inspire passion” is a better phrase. It’s really limerence.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Which of Langley Moore’s suggestions do you believe are manipulative or dishonest, i.e. playing games?

    The following of the Ten General Principles seem like playing games to me (though perhaps in moderation they are fine, until the man shows more interest too):

    1. Not being generous.

    3. Until you fulfill your ambition, you must always remain unattainable.

    6. The most certain way of losing prestige is to let a man see that he occupies a more important place in your mind than you in his

    And from the Methods of Approach

    3. Don’t single a man out for special glances

  • Mike C

    A woman is beautiful because she is physically beautiful. Not because other men find her beautiful.

    The reason men enjoy getting the high-five for landing the HB is that it feels good to receive praise for a job well done.

    We also high five a guy who picks up a woman on a night out because the task is hard to accomplish.

    Lokland, you are absolutely correct.

  • SayWhaat

    Lokland gets at the truth, which is that guys who are good with women don’t chase, or respond to jealousy ploys or attempts to get them to “square off” against other guys.

    Right. They NEXT them.

    That’s probably a good thing, since most women don’t want a guy who is *too* good with women. ;)

  • Mike C

    Correct. She is telling women not to be supplicating, which lowers their value.

    And I’ll say this is projection. It is possible to go overboard….sure, and even men are going to respond negatively to someone who presents themselves as a doormat to walk over….BUT…men are generally going to appreciate a woman who does nice things for them/tries to please them.

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

      BUT…men are generally going to appreciate a woman who does nice things for them/tries to please them.

      Men are so quick to play the Stage 5 Clinger card it’s incredible. One text asking what he’s up to can trigger it. Sure, men will happily let women clean their apartments, but do they keep them around? Apparently not.

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    I finished Game of Thrones Season 2.

    Thoughts:

    I have to disagree with Olive’s boyfriend about Catlin Stark being the best looking woman in GoT. That wildling girl that John Snow was supposed to kill is the best looking.

    Rob Stark is such a selfish prick. His mother dealt a severe blow to their tactical position by releasing Jamie Lannister. But she can be forgiven for that given the circumstances of her children being captured. On the other hand, Rob Stark marrying that nurse was unforgivable. He was engaged to be married, and yet he deliberately put himself in a position where he would fall in love with someone else. Apparently he’s never watched When Harry Met Sally and doesn’t know that cross-sex friendships never work. Also, it took me a while to realize that Winterfell was burnt down by their own people. I confirmed my interpretation by Googling “who burnt down Winterfell”, and interestingly enough, Google autocompleted the search at “who burnt down”. :D The North really needed a good strategic position considering that they don’t have any supernatural powers on their side (dire wolves don’t count). They’re going to have to be very resourceful to survive the coming wars.

    Also, it was obvious from the start that the Khalisee had a very bad temper and was quite megalomaniacal. Unfortunately, it turns out that as the Mother of Dragons, she has the power to back up her megalomania. Hopefully Westeros can play her off against the white walkers. Let the fire and ice clash with each other. I’m worried that the people of Westoros are not going to take her seriously as a threat, with disastrous consequences. She’s basically the Genghiz Khan of GoT.

    I’m also pretty worried about that red chick. It’s unclear what all powers she has, and how to fight her magic. That makes her very dangerous.

    Finally, I wonder why Tyrion’s grandfather took him out of the loop of governing Westoros. He seemed like an intelligent person who would be able to recognize how competent Tyrion had been. I suppose he realized that Tyrion is too good a person. Tyrion cares about the people of Westoros and King’s Landing, which could put him at odds with the goals of the Lannisters.

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    Also, the whole Wall at the North seems to be very reminiscent of the Israel-Palestine conflict, except they aren’t building any settlements in Wildling lands.

  • INTJ

    @ Mike C

    And I’ll say this is projection. It is possible to go overboard….sure, and even men are going to respond negatively to someone who presents themselves as a doormat to walk over….BUT…men are generally going to appreciate a woman who does nice things for them/tries to please them.

    I’d also say that even with the extreme doormat behavior, it depends on SMV. If a 4 acted like a total doormat, I’d be somewhat put off because she would come off as desperate. If an 8 acted like a total doormat, I’d be rather confused, but counting my blessings that I was able to lock her down before someone else did. :D

  • SayWhaat

    And I’ll say this is projection. It is possible to go overboard….sure, and even men are going to respond negatively to someone who presents themselves as a doormat to walk over….BUT…men are generally going to appreciate a woman who does nice things for them/tries to please them.

    You’re mincing words, putting them back together, and calling them your own.

    Supplicating = doormat. And as you said (lol), “men are going to respond negatively to someone who presents themselves as a doormat to walk over”.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    That’s probably a good thing, since most women don’t want a guy who is *too* good with women.

    And she’ll also be nexted by all the gamma males who aren’t *too* good with women.

  • Lokland

    @INTJ

    “I have to disagree with Olive’s boyfriend about Catlin Stark being the best looking woman in GoT. That wildling girl that John Snow was supposed to kill is the best looking.”

    Tyrions whore or Rob Starks nurse.
    Flaming fire chick.

    Whats wrong with you? :p

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I think that Langley Moore aims to instruct women how to be irresistible – essentially have to inspire obsession, a key element of limerence, and precursor to falling in love. History is rife with examples of precisely this dynamic between the sexes.

    Langley Moore recommends strong and stark contrast between the sexes.

    “I really would love another post on girl game for acquiring and maintaining long term relationships (aka, femininity and being nice and removing entitled, bitch anti-game).”

    Which of her ideas do you feel amount to entitlement? It seems to me that she is advising women to be the opposite of bitchy – why do you disagree?

    Aside from that question, do you feel that any are effective in sparking male interest?

    My response to the 10 general principles and whether it makes her seem irrestible or entitled:

    1. Not being generous is a way to make a good man feel unappreciated. Think of Jason’s roommate on the other thread.
    Generosity to a good man is like water in the desert. At first, the woman can do a very small act of kindness or show some interest as a way to test the waters. Then if he pursues and shows interest and good character she should up the generosity.

    2. Agree that the man needs to be pursuing but she should be reciprocating things that are of value to him along the way. Women can initiate the introduction to overcome the bias towards men approaching and being called creepers, however, and then let him pursue.

    3. Depends on how unattainable you’re remaining. Rather, the dance of seduction (tease and reward) that I described in 106 is probably better where you remain unattainable in a small way and for a brief moment or time to entice him and long for you and then give him a taste, and sometimes a healthy taste. Otherwise you just starve him and he’ll eventually move on.

    4. This is just wrong. Men feel physically attracted to a woman primarily on how she looks and how sensual and seductive she acts around him. He’s not going to find an ugly women attractive no matter how many other men say she’s hot. As a secondary factor he may like that other men find her attractive.

    5. As long as this isn’t full of unreasonable demands or aloofness then keeping the pursuit alive (his part of the ongoing dance of seduction) is good.

    6. This can work to get the player to want to conquer you but will not work for a goodhearted man. Seems like good advice for men up front, but not women who want a non-player.

    7. If he’s not that into her then yes a desperate woman will be a turn off but for a man who loves her then this intense love and devotion on her part will be awesome. I want someone like that, that I love.

    8. Agree

    9. Agree and recommend.

    10. Agree but don’t think that makes a woman irresistible.

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

      @HanSolo

      Thanks very much for responding to my question about the principles. Let’s take them one by one.

      Not being generous is a way to make a good man feel unappreciated.

      Agreed, but that is not what Langley says. She says “do not give reign to your generosity.” IOW, do not let it rule you. Do not give that which is in fact not appreciated. Do not give so much that your giving becomes devalued by virtue of its constant delivery. Do not give, give, give, because in doing so you allow no opportunity to receive. And of course, those who give constantly without reciprocation are martyrs, and are quickly taken for granted.

      Agree that the man needs to be pursuing but she should be reciprocating things that are of value to him along the way.

      Nowhere does Langley Moore rule this out. She simply states that if a man has never pursued you, you have not won him. I believe this is true. Men value the win, and they cannot experience that if they make no effort. None of us can appreciate what is won without effort.

      Rather, the dance of seduction (tease and reward) that I described in 106 is probably better where you remain unattainable in a small way and for a brief moment or time to entice him and long for you and then give him a taste, and sometimes a healthy taste.

      Agreed, and I believe this is what she is saying. Robbing any budding interest of anticipation kills passion. Anticipation is one of the best reasons for the slow dance to sex. Sex is always, always better when two people have spent time craving it.

      He’s not going to find an ugly women attractive no matter how many other men say she’s hot.

      How often do many men say an ugly woman is hot? My sense is that there is generally solid consensus around who is hot. Sure, men may have their own types, but society deems certain women great beauties. There are women who turn many heads, and other women who turn the occasional head. It seems reasonable that most men would prefer a woman who turns many heads over a woman who turns few heads, based on what I quoted from Buss above. Of course, if his head is one of the few, he is in the fortunate position of being a buyer of something with low demand.

      As long as this isn’t full of unreasonable demands or aloofness then keeping the pursuit alive (his part of the ongoing dance of seduction) is good.

      We agree. Keep in mind that a woman’s job is to rouse a man to passion, which is enjoyable for the man. The last thing he wants is to suddenly find that the woman he thought was incredibly sexy is now meh. If his interest wanes, and she can rekindle it, that’s a win win.

      This can work to get the player to want to conquer you but will not work for a goodhearted man. Seems like good advice for men up front, but not women who want a non-player.

      Agreed. This is the Principle of Least Interest in action. It’s a short-term gambit, and has no place in a love relationship.

      for a man who loves her then this intense love and devotion on her part will be awesome. I want someone like that, that I love.

      Look at Langley’s descriptors again: desperate, abject, anxiety, unhappy, uncongenial. Is this really the kind of devotion you want from a woman?

      In summary, I think we’re pretty close on most of this.

  • Mike C

    Supplicating = doormat. And as you said (lol), “men are going to respond negatively to someone who presents themselves as a doormat to walk over”.

    This is probably semantics, but I don’t consider them equivalent. If a woman asked a guy on a date to hold her purse while she does X and he says “sure thing” that is supplicating behavior, but NOT doormat behavior. If a guys does that with many women, it is a DLV. The proper male response is some cocky/funny response, not doing the nice thing and holding the purse. In contrast, most men don’t penalize or see a woman as lower value just because she does something nice. In many cases, it will be endearing.

    The difference between supplicating and doormat is the difference between a light drizzle and Hurricane Sandy.

  • SayWhaat

    And she’ll also be nexted by all the gamma males who aren’t *too* good with women.

    I doubt gamma males have that sort of capability.

  • HanSolo

    My take on the 5 Fundamental Principles of Femininity:

    1. Contrast is the keynote. Be different from the man in female ways.

    2. Avoid being nasty about other females or blabbing their secrets.

    3. If a man is able, he enjoys the burden of providing for you, and enjoys the feeling that you are dependent, his dependent. Be dependent materially and independent spiritually.

    4. To sustain admiration for an indefinite period, display good nature, a sense of honor and a capacity for friendship. But never show yourself to be completely unselfish in your devotion to him.

    5. Refinement of taste is an important virtue. Avoid indelicate conversation and coarse language.

    1. Agree, be feminine.

    2. Agree, though an occasional rip on some deserving girl is enjoyable.

    3. I think the bigger point is that men need to feel needed in some way and in today’s society they just aren’t needed as much as providers and protectors. In today’s age, if you are going to be a SAHM then really let him know you appreciate him “busting his ass” to support the family. (He should also appreciate what you do to take care of the kids and home.) So, find other ways in which you really need him and let him know you need him and appreciate him. Also, if he does provide or protect then appreciate that too.

    4. Agree that a woman should display good nature, honor and friendship but not be a doormat.

    5. Refinement of taste can be good as long as that taste is not too fine and expensive and demanding, unless you’re paying for it. ;) Too much coarse language and indelicate conversation is bad but an occasional swear word out of a delicate mouth is very endearing and hilarious.

  • Sassy6519

    “Exactly, and he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?”

    This definitely depends on the man.

    I’ve been in situations where a few guys have competed, in obvious and subtle ways, to win my affections. Some men like that sort of situation.

  • SayWhaat

    In contrast, most men don’t penalize or see a woman as lower value just because she does something nice. In many cases, it will be endearing.

    Right, but it doesn’t gain her points, either. It’s value-neutral.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Agree on the Men to Avoid

    Now, my take on Tactics:

    I generally agree with 1-4 but disagree on 5. I think you should be generous with words and actions–but not too much until he has shown himself worthy (meaning, do something(s) nice but if he never does anything don’t stay with a taker). But maybe to just have a fling with a higher SMV male you shouldn’t be generous with actions.

    My take on Methods of Approach:

    1-2) Agree

    3) Disagree…do give glances and sincere compliments to get him to approach or ask you out.

    4-6) Agree

    7) This is good to get to know him but at some point you may need to give him some extra attention so he will approach you or realize you have some level of interest.

  • INTJ

    @ Lokland

    Tyrions whore or Rob Starks nurse.
    Flaming fire chick.

    Whats wrong with you? :p

    Okay yeah Shae is probably better looking than Catelyn, but can’t compete with the wildling girl. Rob Stark’s nurse was rather good looking too, but somewhat child-like (kinda like Shoshanna in Girls). Flaming red chick didn’t seem particularly good looking.

    I’m probably very biased towards Catelyn because of her character and personality.

  • Mike C

    This definitely depends on the man.

    I’ve been in situations where a few guys have competed, in obvious and subtle ways, to win my affections. ***Some men like that sort of situation.***

    Again, not many. Sassy, I might be misremembering but wasn’t it one of your ex-boyfriends or a guy you were dating who got quite upset when he learned he was choice #2 to get your phone number versus his buddy, and this was months after you had already been dating and had an established relationship? Would you say he handled the notion of competing with equanimity?

  • Abbot

    “Where they are deficient is in the behaviors to inspire commitment and emotional devotion.”

    To varying degrees, by virtue of being a woman, she has that ability. That gloss gets dulled as she goes from penis to penis while taking in the fumes of feminism and sucking down spoon after spoon of that unrealistic expectations elixir.

  • INTJ

    Now watching the movie, “Your Highness”. Natlie Portman and Zooey Deschanel. Talk about eye candy. :)

  • Ramble

    Women counseling women on how to be attractive to men. Today women rely on showing cleavage or most of their legs.

    And constantly telling each other how beautiful they look.

  • Ted D

    On competition: no go. The fastest way to sour my opinion of you as a mate prospect is to play this card in any way.

    This is partly why I have always only dated one girl at a time. (No spinning plates). I expect her undivided attention if we are dating, and that means no current “competition” allowed. I make this clear on date 2 or 3, because if we’ve made it that far I’m already starting to qualify you as keeper material. If exclusive dating (not necessarily an official LTR) isn’t an option she is willing to offer, then date 2 or 3 will be the last.

    I didn’t date much, but of those dates four women agreed and became LTR mates/wives. I probably dated 10 – 12 women in total, so statistically not too shabby.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    So I guess for the most part my disagreement was with the Ten General Principles.

    As far as being irresistible, being as physically beautiful as you reasonably can be, being in touch with and radiating sensuality, being charmingly feminine and positive, engaging in playful and or interesting conversation that stimulates his mind, finding his humor funny, and showing a certain amount of non-needy interest in a man but not needing him at the initial stages will do the trick. (This will do the trick for either short-term irresistibility or opening the door for long-term irresistibility.)

    Once he starts to show interest then you can gradually emotionally escalate (25 steps) and you will be even more irrestible (in a long-term kind of way).

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

      Once he starts to show interest then you can gradually emotionally escalate (25 steps) and you will be even more irrestible (in a long-term kind of way).

      Yes, this is the ideal strategy, IMO. FWIW, I do not think the Technique is appropriate for LTRs, nor was it intended to be. I do think Langley Moore does women a service in explaining some things that men do and do not respond favorably to. It’s a set of instructions for capturing a man’s attention and interest, and getting him to single you out. It is definitely strategic – some might say manipulative. But then, so is Game.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Mike C

    Again, not many. Sassy, I might be misremembering but wasn’t it one of your ex-boyfriends or a guy you were dating who got quite upset when he learned he was choice #2 to get your phone number versus his buddy, and this was months after you had already been dating and had an established relationship? Would you say he handled the notion of competing with equanimity?

    You remembered correctly. It was my ex of one year, and he didn’t take it well. I was not referring to him when I made my previous statement.

    A few of the men I dated in the past knew that I was seeing other people, meaning going on dates with others. I found that once they knew that they were not the only people I was seeing, they tried even harder to catch me.

    I definitely believe that a minority of men operate this way though.

  • SayWhaat

    Again, not many. Sassy, I might be misremembering but wasn’t it one of your ex-boyfriends or a guy you were dating who got quite upset when he learned he was choice #2 to get your phone number versus his buddy, and this was months after you had already been dating and had an established relationship? Would you say he handled the notion of competing with equanimity?

    Obviously not, because he was #2. I bet he would have felt differently were he #1.

  • Society’s Disposable Son

    So now we have two sets of rules in which people are supposed to artificially inflate their own value… it goes around and around until some people get sick of the spinning circles and choose to drop out. When you put in double the effort for a prize that wasn’t exactly what you thought it was then what?

    Apparently expressing any honesty re feelings displays that you are low value with no options, so where does not playing games or honesty fit into this anywhere ever!?

    /rant

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

      So now we have two sets of rules in which people are supposed to artificially inflate their own value

      Hmmm, maybe not artificially inflate, but just play your hand well?

  • Ramble

    even the Pilgrims are estimated to have had it at a rate of 50%, based on marriage and birth records.

    Susan, I would be careful in quoting that statistic too often. it may very well NOT illustrate what you think it does.

    Understanding sex and marriage in early and Colonial America can be difficult because of how disperse many things were.

    For instance, there are many stories of “married couples” walking down the street, running into a minister who asks them if they are married (that is, really, really married in the eyes of the Church) to which they say, “No” and he marries them right then and there.

    Because of things like this, which would have been extreme in the days of the pilgrims (which so many things were), it is difficult to extrapolate from early “stats”.

  • HanSolo

    @Mike C

    I don’t think many women have a problem inspiring sexual interest, at least not the ones decently attractive. Where they are deficient is in the behaviors to inspire commitment and emotional devotion.

    Agree.

    Now, a woman should try to get in shape and look as good as she can (with reasonable effort) plus add the feminine and other good personality traits to move from some guy’s casual ladder (if he is into casual) to the marriage ladder.

  • SayWhaat

    Now, a woman should try to get in shape and look as good as she can (with reasonable effort) plus add the feminine and other good personality traits to move from some guy’s casual ladder (if he is into casual) to the marriage ladder.

    It’s not as simple as that. A girl can do all of what you just stated, but still lack that spark, that je ne sais quoi that generates that frisson of chemistry.

    Previously that sort of thing could be chalked up to mere compatibility, but I suspect it’s more complicated than that.

  • SayWhaat

    Ugh, italics fail.

  • BroHamlet

    @SayWhaat

    “That’s probably a good thing, since most women don’t want a guy who is *too* good with women. ”

    Yeah, they have it so hard…In fact, they’re so good that they must all be fighting over the slim minority of women that doesn’t fall in your “most” category :P Now, back to reality. A quality guy will be good with women by default, because he has what they want. He won’t chase or play reindeer games either, which doesn’t make him *too* good with women.

    @Sassy
    “I’ve been in situations where a few guys have competed, in obvious and subtle ways, to win my affections. Some men like that sort of situation.”

    True. Some men chase women, in the same way some men run races for medals. You already know to watch out for the ones for whom the medal is only an object, and the race is just for sport.

  • Sassy6519

    I’m also reminded about a situation I was in about 3 years ago.

    I used to work with a guy. Let’s call him *Sam*. I considered Sam and I friends, and I wasn’t interested in him romantically. I wasn’t sexually attracted to him, and he also had a girlfriend at the time. I thought that he wouldn’t press for more than friendship.

    One day, he introduced me to his roommate. Let’s call his roommate *Tom*. I was instantly attracted to Tom, and focused my attention on him. We all hung out that night, and eventually went our separate ways. Tom ended up getting my contact info, and we met up with each other again a few days later. He and I got to know each other over a few drinks, and eventually decided it would be fun to invite Sam and his girlfriend to join us.

    Sam showed up with his girlfriend, saw me with Tom, and was visibly upset. He hid it well, for the most part, but I could tell that he was upset. Eventually he pulled me aside and asked me why I was out with Tom. I told him that he seemed like a great guy, and I wanted to get to know him better. He blew that statement off, and pretended to be okay with everything.

    Later on in the night, after he had a few drinks, Sam’s demeanor changed. He became super competitive with Tom. I watched with embarrassment as he challenged Tom repeatedly at darts. At one point, Sam’s girlfriend went to the bathroom, and Sam grabbed me around the waist and tried to pull me onto his lap. I protested, and Tom intervened. They exchanged a few harsh words, and Sam left soon after with his girlfriend.

    Tom and I did date for awhile, but things eventually ended. After things ended between Tom and I, Sam asked me whether or not I would be interested in having a threesome with he and his girlfriend. I naturally declined the offer, and made myself scare around Sam after that.

    That’s just one example that I have personally experienced.

  • Society’s Disposable Son

    @ Sassy 172

    That sounds less like friendly competition and more like compensating for insecurities… that sort of competition shouldn’t really strike anyone that isn’t damaged as fun or something to look forward too during any type of courtship….

    If this is normal and I’m wrong let me know so I can dip out.

  • SayWhaat

    “Yeah, they have it so hard…In fact, they’re so good that they must all be fighting over the slim minority of women that doesn’t fall in your “most” category.”

    Maybe that’s your scene, bro, but I’ve known plenty of girls who have DQ’d a guy for just that.

  • Mike C

    Tom and I did date for awhile, but things eventually ended. After things ended between Tom and I, Sam asked me whether or not I would be interested in having a threesome with he and his girlfriend.

    Was Sam’s girlfriend aware that he had propositioned you?

    I’m probably stating the obvious, but I’d bet Sam was sexually attracted to you from the get go.

  • Lokland

    Personal opinion.

    A lot of things on this list are very good and will spark chemistry if done correctly. They will also put it out instantly if overdone. Too much will verge of dark style game, too little will end a woman in the boring, sex is gonna suck zone.

    A balance of coyness and virtue is far superior to pure coyness or pure virtue.

    I like for the competition to exist yet I also like to realize I’m the favourite. (note: competition does not equal spinning plates)

    I’m quite happy my wife has a coy smile, touch of feistiness etc. Keeps me interested and I enjoy the mock chase in which I already know I’m going to win.

    At the same time, spinning plates/ rumours about other guys or faking interest in others would never fly.

    I broke up with my 3rd girlfriend because in the span of a few days I found out she was
    a) not most interested in me on first site, though after opening my mouth a few times that changed
    b) she called one of my friends hot (NEVER cool)

    Admittedly this made me want to earn her sexual affection more.
    It made me devalue her commitment completely.

    One has to maintain the balance of both.

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

      @Lokland

      A lot of things on this list are very good and will spark chemistry if done correctly. They will also put it out instantly if overdone. Too much will verge of dark style game, too little will end a woman in the boring, sex is gonna suck zone.

      A balance of coyness and virtue is far superior to pure coyness or pure virtue.

      I like for the competition to exist yet I also like to realize I’m the favourite. (note: competition does not equal spinning plates)

      +1

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    Maybe you need to find a redheaded wildling girl! lol

    I have no idea how anyone could think Catelyn Stark (the mother) is the best looking?

    Khalisee is entitled but not as bad as her brother. She does have a certain compassion for the regular people like when she (unwisely) made the raping horsemen stop, which led to her husband’s death.

    I read a different take on why and who Winterfell was burned.

    http://www.quora.com/Game-of-Thrones-TV-series/Why-was-Winterfell-burned-in-the-second-season-finale

    The Boltons did it, according to this, so that they could weaken the Starks and maybe take control of the north.

    I was pissed at Catelyn. She never should have captured Tyrion and never released Jamie. Pure fuck-ups and that contributed to Ned’s death. Ned was an idiot too though I really liked him and was pissed he was killed. He selfishly put his honor above the good of the kingdom and by not allying with Renly Barratheon to take over the kingdom, the broader war was unleashed. Sometimes a little dark triad Machiavellianism is needed to fight even darker types.

  • Mike C

    I’m quite happy my wife has a coy smile, touch of feistiness etc. Keeps me interested and I enjoy the mock chase in which I already know I’m going to win.

    Lokland, I agree with you here. I’m going to add something on the touch of feistiness because I get the distinct sense some women are inclined to overdo it. Feistiness is like spice or salt in a meal. Just the right amount, a pinch here, and a pinch there really improves the taste of the meal. However, too much and the meal is ruined and you just want to throw it in the trash.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Mike C

    Was Sam’s girlfriend aware that he had propositioned you?

    I’m probably stating the obvious, but I’d bet Sam was sexually attracted to you from the get go.

    I think he was sexually attracted to me from the start, but I didn’t think he would attempt to act on it while he was in a relationship.

    I’m not sure whether or not the girlfriend knew about the proposition. My guess is that she didn’t, considering that he often tried to make passes at me when she wasn’t nearby. When she was in his presence, he appeared to focus his attentions on her.

  • Jackie

    Game of Thrones! Game of Thrones! :mrgreen:

    I, too, was all *facepalm* at Catelynn. But imagine how desperate she is to get Sansa and Arya back. Her husband has been set-up and decapitated, attempted murder on her son left him crippled, their ward Theon has turned on them and she never liked Jon Snow to begin with (aww! :( Quit being mean to him! ) They had to give Robb to one of scary Walder Frey’s daughters to cross the bridge…

    I mean, there has been so much hardship and difficulty. She probably just wants to get back the children she has left.

    I love the incongruous pairings:
    Arya & Tywin (I would watch a spinoff with just them!), Jaime & Brienne of Tarth, Arya & Jaqen H’hagar.

    If there are any girls GoT fans: Who do you think is the cutest: Robb Stark or Jon Snow?

    Question: Do the guys here think Danaerys is pretty? Also I don’t see why people are hating on her. :( I have a “In Defense of the Khaleesi” — much like my passionate defense of and unquenchable admiration for Colonel Brandon. (Plus, I like just saying, WHERE ARE MY DRAGONS? from time to time.)

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

      Who do you think is the cutest: Robb Stark or Jon Snow?

      Jon Snow by a mile. He has the outsider thing going for him that makes a woman want to comfort him and sex him up, lol. Robb Stark is just a rich pretty boy.

  • Jackie

    PS to Han Solo:

    Sam + Gilly 4-evah!

    I *love* that guy– especially when they were trekking through the icy wilderness and he was all, I wonder if Gilly would like it here. (And all the other Crows were rolling their eyes and like, PLEASE shut up!)

    My hope is that he rescues Gilly (and all the other daughter/wives) and she has kept the thimble the whole time, feeds Abusey McCreeperson to the White Walkers, burns down that horrible place and they all escape and live happily ever after. :)

  • SayWhaat

    “If there are any girls GoT fans: Who do you think is the cutest: Robb Stark or Jon Snow?”

    Not yet a GoT fan, but about to be! Internet is being slow and the Season One disc that’s been sitting here for months is starting to look tempting…

  • Sassy6519

    “If there are any girls GoT fans: Who do you think is the cutest: Robb Stark or Jon Snow?”

    Robb Stark all the way!

  • Jackie

    @SayWhaat
    Yay! I am almost done with Season 2. Let me know what you think! :D

  • Jackie

    Last GoT post

    Game of Thrones re-cut as romantic comedy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-w98pNAi9A

    (Look away, SW, look away! Here be spoilers. :) )

  • Jackie

    @Sassy

    I would have thought you’d like Jon Snow– he’s like the most emo dude in Westeros. ;)
    ===
    Other incongruous pairings:

    Tyrion & Bronn (we need to find him a GF)
    Sansa & The Hound (platonic on her side, obvs)
    ===
    DEATH TO JOFFREY
    (Sorry to be negative, but I really hate him!)

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    Maybe you need to find a redheaded wildling girl! lol

    Haha yup. I almost jumped outta my seat when Jon Snow pulled back her hood.

    I have no idea how anyone could think Catelyn Stark (the mother) is the best looking?

    I did just realize that there’s a strong correlation between whether i’ve seen the character naked and whether I think she’s good looking. The whole modesty thing does seem to work on me.

    Khalisee is entitled but not as bad as her brother. She does have a certain compassion for the regular people like when she (unwisely) made the raping horsemen stop, which led to her husband’s death.

    She isn’t pure evil like her brother. I still hate her though.

    I read a different take on why and who Winterfell was burned.

    http://www.quora.com/Game-of-Thrones-TV-series/Why-was-Winterfell-burned-in-the-second-season-finale

    The Boltons did it, according to this, so that they could weaken the Starks and maybe take control of the north.

    Oh that was the conclusion I came to when I saw the episode. At first I was confused, since it seemed like the greyjoy soldiers were about to capitulate, so it was unlikely they would burn the city down, and even if they did burn it down, it was odd that there weren’t any friendly soldiers in the city afterwards. Then I realize that it was the friendly soldiers that burnt it down. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why, so I googled, and found out what that link says, which was that it was a power grab.

    I was pissed at Catelyn. She never should have captured Tyrion and never released Jamie. Pure fuck-ups and that contributed to Ned’s death. Ned was an idiot too though I really liked him and was pissed he was killed. He selfishly put his honor above the good of the kingdom and by not allying with Renly Barratheon to take over the kingdom, the broader war was unleashed. Sometimes a little dark triad Machiavellianism is needed to fight even darker types.

    I can understand Catelyn’s actions given that she was just trying to protect her children, and mothers tend to be irrational when protecting their children. But yeah, Ned was way too honorable. That’s why I love Tyrion.

  • J

    the whole Wall at the North seems to be very reminiscent of the Israel-Palestine conflict

    Not Hadrian’s wall?

  • INTJ

    @ Jackie

    Sam + Gilly 4-evah!

    I *love* that guy– especially when they were trekking through the icy wilderness and he was all, I wonder if Gilly would like it here. (And all the other Crows were rolling their eyes and like, PLEASE shut up!)

    My hope is that he rescues Gilly (and all the other daughter/wives) and she has kept the thimble the whole time, feeds Abusey McCreeperson to the White Walkers, burns down that horrible place and they all escape and live happily ever after.

    Haha yeah Sam is adorable. It would be nice if Gilly and Sam ended up together. I doubt it’ll happen in the highly cynical world of GoT though.

  • INTJ

    @ Jackie

    They had to give Robb to one of scary Walder Frey’s daughters to cross the bridge…

    See that was the thing. I considered it a good deed to marry one of Frey’s daughters and rescue her from that awful place. Instead Robb Stark decided to go romance that nurse… Grrr.

    Question: Do the guys here think Danaerys is pretty? Also I don’t see why people are hating on her. I have a “In Defense of the Khaleesi” — much like my passionate defense of and unquenchable admiration for Colonel Brandon. (Plus, I like just saying, WHERE ARE MY DRAGONS? from time to time.)

    She ain’t bad looking. I don’t know to what extent it’s the immature character that is causing me to be biased, but she looks somewhat child-like. Rather off-putting.

    As for hating on her? Of course I hate her. She has an almost sociopathic temper, she loved the barbarian Khal Drogo, and had him destroy a city so they could obtain a fleet for her. Then she stopped the rapes and expected everyone to be grateful to her? I was so happy to see that witch play her for a fool.

  • Sparrow

    Daenerys is a perfect example of too much inbreeding.

  • SayWhaat

    lmao, looks like GoT is an instant thread-derailer! :P

  • Pixie

    @ Jackie

    In response to 180: Jon Snow, without a doubt.

  • Jackie

    @INTJ

    “Haha yeah Sam is adorable. It would be nice if Gilly and Sam ended up together. I doubt it’ll happen in the highly cynical world of GoT though.”

    Hope springs eternal. :)

  • Lokland

    I like Danaerys the character.
    (Not attracted.)

    I can’t wait for her and Mormont to reign fire on the seven kingdoms.

  • HanSolo

    @Jackie

    Yes, she was distraught but she just fucked everything up by her actions.

    I love Sam. He’s such a good-hearted, clumsy and romantic nerd, and former coward. I hope Sam does rescue Gilly and the other daughters. That made me think of your involvement in rescuing abused pets.

    Danaerys is very pretty, probably a 9 but not a 10 (and I know you hate numbers but whatever, it’s a rough world ;) ) If I were being hard on her I would give her an 8.5 but 9 is probably more accurate.

    And noooo! You cannot equate Danaerys and Colonel Brandon! Never. lol

  • Jackie

    @INTJ
    “As for hating on her? Of course I hate her. She has an almost sociopathic temper, she loved the barbarian Khal Drogo, and had him destroy a city so they could obtain a fleet for her. Then she stopped the rapes and expected everyone to be grateful to her? I was so happy to see that witch play her for a fool.”
    ====
    INTJ! :(

    I see Danearys as making the best of her situation: Her brother said he would let the ENTIRE Dothraki horde of 40,000 rape her if it would get him the throne. How is that not evil of him?

    And it looked like her life with Khal Drogo was scary and sucked at first. She could have given up, but instead she learned to speak Dothraki and made the Khal fall in love with her, instead of just seeing her as a sex toy. :)

    She won the hearts of the Dothraki when she ate the horse heart (GROSS) and was about to have the baby. When she lost all those things– can you imagine?

    She is the Mother of Dragons because “those are the only children I’ll ever have.” Her entire family is dead, and the last living Targaryen was her sociopathic brother who sold her to a scary warlord for an army.

    She’s got Ser Jorah in the friend zone, plus that Ducksauce guy proposing marriage. But I think she is still missing the Khal and is searching something to make life worth living for, in seeking the Iron Throne.

  • Jackie

    @Pixie

    Pixie, come on over and fangirl by me! :D

  • HanSolo

    @Joffrey

    I think that Arya should have killed Joffrey right at the start. Would have solved some problems. There really is only one word that describes him and it starts with a C.

  • Jackie

    @HanSolo

    “I hope Sam does rescue Gilly and the other daughters. That made me think of your involvement in rescuing abused pets.”
    ===
    Aww! :oops: Thanks, Captain S! A kind word from you means quite a bit.

    Re: Danaerys vs Col. Brandon ;)

    I just like people who make the best of their situation. I think the Mother of Dragons is probably crazed with grief right now. I bet our esteemed Colonel probably was beside himself, as well, after losing his first true love.

  • JP

    “Additionally, occupational status, gained via competition, is a strong predictor of mate attractiveness:”

    True.

    Law = high status.

    Law school will take anyone and lawyers are a dime a dozen. You also marry six figures of debt.

    So, the status is misplaced.

    Which is really, really funny.

    Note: I went to Duke because I underachieved.

  • Lokland

    GoT

    I want the good guys to win (Rob Stark), I hold nothing against him for breaking a marriage vow to a women he cared nothing about.

    I want Jon Snow to go all 007 and kill Mance Rayder, take over and set up his own kingdom (allied with his bro). Where they go on to end the threat of the zombie army thingy.

    I think Tywin Lannister is bad ass, still think he will lose.

    Tyrion is by far the most interesting character on the show. I’m just starting into the third book, I’m very curious as to what he will do now that he is no longer the hand.
    (Also, huge fan of his SO. Hot accent.)

    The Hound. I feel a strange amount of connection with this character though I have no clue why.

    Catelyn is an idiot who got her husband killed.

    Arya is an interesting character. Her connection to the faceless men is interesting. I wonder where it will lead.

    Sansa, meh.

    Brann/Ricon. Meh.

    Tankasaurous (Diana or Diane). Not sure yet.

    Cersei/Joffrey- OMG please someone end the madness. Kids a nut case little twerp.

  • Jackie

    @Han

    AGREED. He must be stopped! I think even Cersei knows he is out of control.
    :(

    Did you notice that Sansa contemplated pushing him from off the high wall when he made her look at her dad’s head (on a pike :( ).

    Usually I dream of characters’ redemption. (I watched the Grinch Who Stole Xmas after seeing you guys talk about it here! I loved the heart growing three sizes and bringing back all the presents– and even carving THE ROAST BEEST!)

    But, man… wow…. can’t muster even a flicker of hope for Jerkfrey’s soul.

  • Jackie

    @Han
    Re: GoT & Animals

    You will like this, I hope: At the Humane Society, the vet techs who prepare the animals to go on the Adoption Floor name all the animals. There must be a George RR Martin fan in there, because they names a bunch of animals after all these GoT characters.

    Example: Enormous 22lb big black kitty = Khal Drogo, tiny little thing with ‘tude was named Tyrion. The yappiest, most annoyingest Siamese was named Joffrey– ha ha!

    (This Joffrey I don’t wish ill upon, obviously! Just a loving home and without the constant yowling!)

  • Lokland

    GoT

    Sam,

    +1 to what everyone else has said.
    If he succeeds the innocent kid I was 10 years ago can be happy that it does work sometimes.

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland

    The Hound is interesting.

    I think Brienne is basically a very loyal but dumb jock.

    @Jackie

    The de facto ruler is Tywin Lannister since he commands the army with Robb Stark and Stannis Baratheon still possible threats to taking over the 7 kingdoms. Most people know that Joffrey is not a Baratheon anymore. It will be interesting to see if Joffrey tries to supplant Tywin and what would happen.

    North of the Wall the white walkers are coming. Not sure if Mance Rayder’s group will move south or if they know how to defend themselves against the white walkers.

    Longer term the dragons are lurking to the east.

  • Pixie

    @Jackie,

    Is Jon Snow your favorite solely based on looks, or do you have a soft spot for the brooding emo boys? ;)

  • HanSolo

    @Jackie

    That’s funny about the 22lb Khal Drogo.

  • Jackie

    @Pixie

    I just think he’s super cute! But Robb Stark is cute, too. They will simply have to duel for me. ;)

    (Actually, there are some GoT crushes that I am not proud of: Jaime is super-cute! Evil, incestuous kingslayer Jaime. :( Brienne, reform him and make him good, please!)

  • Jackie

    @Han

    I keep hoping they will go through a Star Wars phase soon. (There’s already been a “Star Trek” and STNG phase– the cat named Worf was super-cute! The dog named Data was awesome!)

    If there is another “Han Solo” I will definitely find the deets and keep you posted. ;) It would have to be a pretty spectacular cat (or dog)!

  • INTJ

    @ Jackie

    I see Danearys as making the best of her situation: Her brother said he would let the ENTIRE Dothraki horde of 40,000 rape her if it would get him the throne. How is that not evil of him?

    Oh I certainly hated his brother. Almost as much as I hate Joffrey.

    And it looked like her life with Khal Drogo was scary and sucked at first. She could have given up, but instead she learned to speak Dothraki and made the Khal fall in love with her, instead of just seeing her as a sex toy.

    That was perfectly fine. But she also went all Stockholm in the process and fell in love with the same guy who would have used her as a sex toy.

    She won the hearts of the Dothraki when she ate the horse heart (GROSS) and was about to have the baby. When she lost all those things– can you imagine?

    She did that because she wanted to win the iron throne. I’m not particularly sympathetic.

    She is the Mother of Dragons because “those are the only children I’ll ever have.” Her entire family is dead, and the last living Targaryen was her sociopathic brother who sold her to a scary warlord for an army.

    She’s got Ser Jorah in the friend zone, plus that Ducksauce guy proposing marriage. But I think she is still missing the Khal and is searching something to make life worth living for, in seeking the Iron Throne.

    And this is what makes her so dangerous. Her biography is nearly identical to that of Genghis Khan. He lost everything, and came back with purpose. He also had the anger and attitude for vengeance that we’ve witnessed with Daenerys.

  • Lokland

    @HS

    I suspect The Hound is going to have a major role later on in the series.
    Brienne (with did I think Diane?), loyalty is actually quite endearing.

    Also, there is no de facto ruler atm.
    Joffrey has 0 power with each individual army holding its own scrap of land.

    I expect further fracturing of the kingdoms leading to more war.

    I also expect the white walkers are gonna pretty much sweep straight down to the neck (or somehow be magically held at the wall). Leading to a united front of armies (or not).

    At this point Mance Rayder’s army will pursue (with the help of the elves- Children of the Forest, from Old Naans story (book 1)). Its the only way they could still be alive up there.

  • HanSolo

    @Jackie

    Jaime is evil and arrogant, but I think he did a good thing by slaying the king.

  • HanSolo

    @Jackie

    It better be a dog for Han Solo because you well know that cats are pure eeeeeeeeeeeevil! ;) lol

  • INTJ

    @ Lokland, HanSolo

    Catelyn is an idiot who got her husband killed.

    No, he did that himself by not backing Renly’s bid for the throne.

    Tankasaurous (Diana or Diane). Not sure yet.

    I think Brienne is basically a very loyal but dumb jock.

    Haha love the nickname. She’s a relatively flat character. It’s interesting just how silly knights and their chivalry, honor, loyalty, etc. seem when it’s done by a woman.

  • Lokland

    @INTJ

    Your probably right.
    In the books however, he actually did try and back Stannis for the throne.
    Something happened because Stannis was out at Dragonstone.

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland

    Within the 7 Kingdoms, I would say Tiwin+Joffrey’s army is the strongest right now while Stannis is back in his castle after his defeat and Robb Stark now has disension within his kingdom.

  • Sparrow

    I think, with the guy, it’s kind of like slaying dragons in order to win your lady fair.
    Who wants to fight dragons and the lady fair too?
    Shrek?
    How many women are dreaming of a strapping young ogre as their knight?

  • INTJ

    @ Jackie

    (Actually, there are some GoT crushes that I am not proud of: Jaime is super-cute! Evil, incestuous kingslayer Jaime. Brienne, reform him and make him good, please!)

    I don’t want him to get reformed. I want his head on a spike. The callous manner in which he tried to kill Bran causes me to have no sympathy for him whatsoever.

  • Lokland

    @HS

    Yeah but that had to retreat to hold Kings Landing.
    With Rob having to move North again it leaves a massive bit of land open for the taking.

    Which is right in between Casterly Rock and River Run (and presumably The Vale allied).

    Its up for grabs and whoever comes out on top will be the one holding the most power.

  • grace

    How would you reconcile the following from this post:

    “4. To sustain admiration for an indefinite period, display good nature, a sense of honor and a capacity for friendship. But never show yourself to be completely unselfish in your devotion to him.”

    And…

    the following point from the post titled “25 Politically Incorrect But Effective Ways to Make Him Your Boyfriend”

    “5. Have eyes for no one but him.
    Actively discourage attention from other men. Avoid eye contact with other men. Ignore other men who stare at you or seek to engage you in conversation. Never, ever try to increase a guy’s interest by trying to make him jealous. Any success will be temporary, guaranteed.”

    thanks,

  • Jackie

    @INTJ, Capt Solo

    I have just started reading the books, so by only seeing the series I have missed substantial backstory. I will catch up on the reading and maybe change my opinions of the characters.

    You have definitely given me a lot to think about. Hopefully we can be united in appreciating Tyrion’s quick wit and general awesomeness in the meanwhile? :)

  • Jackie

    @INTJ

    “(Actually, there are some GoT crushes that I am not proud of: Jaime is super-cute! Evil, incestuous kingslayer Jaime. Brienne, reform him and make him good, please!)

    I don’t want him to get reformed. I want his head on a spike. The callous manner in which he tried to kill Bran causes me to have no sympathy for him whatsoever.”
    ===
    Dang, T-Paine, you are hard core! No mercy for anyone, then?

  • Mike C

    Right, but she makes it really, really hard to stay with her. She’s super high maintenance, demanding, making constant drama. And the high SMV guys eat it up. I’ve seen it firsthand. Why? Because they haven’t “tamed” her. And her psycho-ness generally means highly unrestricted sex. They live for the challenge of the psycho girl.

    I don’t think this is quite right. Being honest, I’m speaking from personal experience here. I don’t think a high SMV guy, at least not one who is fully self-aware of his SMV stays in these situations for the “challenge”. It’s more of a choice of do I stick with the bird in hand, or go for the ones out in the bush that may or may not be obtainable.

    One of the things I think you tend to overestimate is the number of guys who have both the actual value and self-awareness of their value such as a Jason or Zach to essentially know they can walk away from any sub-par relationship situation. Take Jason’s roommate. He describes him as tall, a good job, etc. probably overall a guy with decent SMV value….but I’d bet that guy contemplates if I walk away from this girl who doesn’t do shit compared to what girls do for Jason can I easily and quickly replace her?

    It is less about “eating up any challenge” and more about weighing the cost/benefit of staying in the relationship with the drama and maintenance versus returning to a very uncertain market where you may or may not be empty handed. Consider the job market. If you are stuck in a crappy job, but the job market has a dearth of opportunities are you going to quit? What if the job market is full of opportunities? Most guys are acutely aware that in the SMP they essentially face an ongoing dearth of opportunities. I hate to drag Cooper into this but he serves as a good example sometimes. I know he has mentioned essentially being rejected by girls equally in looks and having to go 2-3 points below to be “considered for the job”.

    Bottom line, you are mistaking and misunderstanding the primary reasons why guys stay with certain women. It isn’t about eating up/thriving on the drama, but being very uncertain and not confident about viable alternatives.

  • Jackie

    @Susan

    “I believe women want to be SAHMs to be with their kids, not to read Russian novels and eat bonbons all day. It is a luxury, because it cuts household income in half. But it is also very hard work, presumably done with a level of attention and care no outsider can give.”
    ===
    My mom was SAHM, too, and I now see that it wasn’t for her benefit but for mine. (And many of the other neighbor kids as well.)

    It was really, really wonderful to always have someone to call if I got sick, or needed a ride, or just to have someone there. I never felt like I was competing with an outside agency (work, boss, clients, $$) for her attention.

    I will remember it the rest of my life. And, still, I know that she had a LOT of talents that must have been frustrating to set aside in order to SAHM. I think, too, that she might have been happier if she had some more adults in her life (since we kids took up all her time).

    You’ve definitely given me something to appreciate and reflect upon, Susan. Thanks :)

  • INTJ

    @ Jackie

    Dang, T-Paine, you are hard core! No mercy for anyone, then?

    I have mercy for Sansa. I think she has paid the price for her sins.

  • Lokland

    @Mike C

    “I’m going to add something on the touch of feistiness because I get the distinct sense some women are inclined to overdo it. Feistiness is like spice or salt in a meal. Just the right amount, a pinch here, and a pinch there really improves the taste of the meal. However, too much and the meal is ruined and you just want to throw it in the trash.”

    +1

    Theres also a certain level of feistiness in each women from which they can reduce or increase comfortably.

    The goal would be to reach a level of feistiness that is attractive to the highest number of men whilst remaining within the woman’s comfort zone.
    Thats going to involve stepping on some guys toes however.

  • Lokland

    @Mike C

    Forgot this, as written.

    Some of this advice sounds very dark.
    A more moderate form of some items would probably increase the number of men interested in the product while retaining the limerance like effects.

    @Susan

    I realize the creation of limerance is important but by encourage an affair?

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Men are so quick to play the Stage 5 Clinger card it’s incredible. One text asking what he’s up to can trigger it. Sure, men will happily let women clean their apartments, but do they keep them around? Apparently not.

    Unrestricted men who only want to be fuckbuddies are going to react like that. Restricted men don’t go nuclear about clinginess like that.

  • Joe

    Susan, those are some interesting comments about male competition. If I could put in my own two cents…

    You used “crossing swords” in a metaphorically sense (comment #211). If you are asking if men actually enjoy or relish competing like that, you have to understand that for men, the idea of “crossing swords” becomes a little more real than a metaphor. When sex is involved, men know instinctively that there’s always a potential for violence. It’s in the genes even if we don’t sharpen swords anymore.

    Most men I know are not violent by nature and tend to avoid confrontation when it’s not beneficial to them. And when they compete they don’t necessarily like it, even if they are good at it. For many, competition, even for females, is like driving a fast car. It starts out as a rush. But after years of putting up with rush hour traffic and breakdowns, not so much.

  • Iggles

    @ Sassy:

    Robb Stark all the way!

    Haha. I’ll second that :D

    Full disclosure: The actor who plays Jon is beautiful, but the character annoyed me in thd books. Can’t get past that, lol.

    INTJ – You hate the Khaleesi?! Those are fighting words ;-)

  • Mike C

    Susan, those are some interesting comments about male competition. If I could put in my own two cents…

    Regarding competition, there is a big difference between competing on the basketball court, or Madden football, or in the gym on bench press, and competing over a woman. With the latter, competition triggers jealousy which is very unpleasant. I think most men when they really like a girl tend to have some feelings of possessiveness whether justified or not (very often not as the guy tends to get more invested then he should). Guys who don’t mind competing essentially have mastered subduing their jealousy instinct. Usually, that also means they are not very invested. You get invested in someone you think is special not fungible….and you don’t want to compete over someone you think is special

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Men are so quick to play the Stage 5 Clinger card it’s incredible. One text asking what he’s up to can trigger it. Sure, men will happily let women clean their apartments, but do they keep them around? Apparently not.

    No they aren’t, at least not with women they like. Maybe with women that they’re not interested in. Women need to avoid the guys that aren’t into them and go for the guys that are. But then that would ruin that whole falling in love feeling for the guy that just reveals his interest at the perfect moment, not too soon and not too late.

    And men do not want apartment cleaners–is that some great revelation? They want women that love them that they are attracted to, can respect, trust and love. They want women who will do thoughtful things for them and show they’re not entitled by helping out in ways that are not obligations but show she is willing to pull her fair share.

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

      @HanSolo

      And men do not want apartment cleaners–is that some great revelation? They want women that love them that they are attracted to, can respect, trust and love. They want women who will do thoughtful things for them and show they’re not entitled by helping out in ways that are not obligations but show she is willing to pull her fair share.

      But Jason did not want her. He could not respect, trust or love her. But he did like the fact that she cleaned his apartment.

      Why is it “fair” that she clean his apartment while he is at work, or do his laundry? What is the fair exchange? What was she getting in return for those chores? Clearly she was investing in a future with Jason, but he dumped her, clean bathroom notwithstanding. From a strategic perspective, she bought high and sold low.

  • SayWhaat

    You get invested in someone you think is special not fungible….and you don’t want to compete over someone you think is special

    I am having difficulty squaring this with the situations I have witnessed of men chasing a woman who is already in a relationship. IIRC, this was how Athol managed to get with Jennifer, his now-wife.

  • SayWhaat

    Er, that should read, “then someone else’s gf, now his wife”.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan

    Exactly, and he can’t be the winner if there are no other competitors. Men thrive on competition, right?

    I think this is one of the biggest myths out there. It really speaks more to players & guys looking for notches rather than average guys.

    I’ve noticed a lot of beta friends through the years get extremely attached to the first girl to show any significant interest in them, even if everyone else questions if they could do better.

    @Mike C

    I don’t think many women have a problem inspiring sexual interest, at least not the ones decently attractive. Where they are deficient is in the behaviors to inspire commitment and emotional devotion.

    Couldn’t agree more. I know that’s definitely true for me.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    Even unrestricted men (like myself) don’t necessarily go labelling girls stage 5 clingers. But I am a romantic unrestricted man who is capable of being faithful and wants a wife and family.

  • Mike C

    I’ve noticed a lot of beta friends through the years get extremely attached to the first girl to show any significant interest in them, even if everyone else questions if they could do better.

    Jimmy,

    You just said much more efficiently and concisely what I was trying to get at in comment 231

  • Joe

    @SayWhaat

    I am having difficulty squaring this with the situations I have witnessed of men chasing a woman who is already in a relationship.

    I would guess that you’ve seen much more of that behavior on tv then in real life.

    But insofar as it does happen IRL, it seems to be stereotypical Alpha behavior. What they don’t tell you, is that this is exactly the kind of Alpha behavior that causes men to think twice about the whole idea.

    Whether it’s an unfair characterization or not, men don’t like that kind of poaching. Men viscerally dislike men who do that, or even try.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    How often do many men say an ugly woman is hot? My sense is that there is generally solid consensus around who is hot. Sure, men may have their own types, but society deems certain women great beauties. There are women who turn many heads, and other women who turn the occasional head. It seems reasonable that most men would prefer a woman who turns many heads over a woman who turns few heads, based on what I quoted from Buss above. Of course, if his head is one of the few, he is in the fortunate position of being a buyer of something with low demand.

    You’re missing the point again. My original point was that preselection does not significantly help women. If you’re hot, men will find you attractive, because you’re hot. Not because other men find you attractive.

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

      If you’re hot, men will find you attractive, because you’re hot. Not because other men find you attractive.

      The Power of Social Proof in Dating

      “In truth, however, there’s no evidence to suggest that social proof can’t work for women too. In fact, a recent study at Indiana University has demonstrated that men are affected by social proof too. It’s understandable that the approval of friends and family is important and influential when selecting a potential mate. However, this study shows that strangers play an important role as well.

      “The men’s interest in the women was generally positive after watching the videos but it increased significantly if the male peer in the video appeared to be interested in that woman and if the online men were considered as attractive or more so than the study participant. When the men in the video seemed uninterested, however, the male participants’ interest didn’t change much.

      An intriguing finding involved the sway men had on each other. Place found that the interest of male study participants in the women in the videos increased in relation to the good looks of the men in the video.

      “For men, relative attractiveness of the people they’re watching matters — not just anyone can influence their behavior, just other men they think are at least as attractive as they are,” Place said.”

      Clearly, men take their cues from dominant men. They determine who’s hot according to what the most socially dominant males find attractive.”

  • SayWhaat

    I would guess that you’ve seen much more of that behavior on tv then in real life.

    Nope! I listed a real-life anecdote and I’ve seen this play out repeatedly with one of my best friends in college. We were roommates, it was kind of hard to avoid, lol.

  • SayWhaat

    But insofar as it does happen IRL, it seems to be stereotypical Alpha behavior.

    Wrong again — it was mostly her beta orbiters.

  • INTJ

    @ Iggles

    INTJ – You hate the Khaleesi?! Those are fighting words ;)

    Haha. I wouldn’t say that to the Khaleesi’s face. I value my own life. :D

    As for Robb Stark, I had a lot of respect for him, until he decided to go chasing that stupid nurse. This pic says it all: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m54p5pVZse1r8yaog.gif

  • HanSolo

    @Susan 241

    Yes, I think we are in close agreement.

    I think there is still some confusion on this point though. You write:

    “How often do many men say an ugly woman is hot? My sense is that there is generally solid consensus around who is hot. Sure, men may have their own types, but society deems certain women great beauties. There are women who turn many heads, and other women who turn the occasional head. It seems reasonable that most men would prefer a woman who turns many heads over a woman who turns few heads.”

    A man prefers a woman that he finds attractive. He finds that woman attractive mostly because he finds her attractive, not because society deemed her a great beauty. Most men will likewise find that same woman attractive because there is fairly high correlation between what men find physically attractive, not because his own eyes didn’t find her attractive at first but then he suddenly realized that other men find her attractive.

    This is very different from many women’s attraction mechanisms where one of them is what other women (and men) think of him. Think of the average-looking or ugly rock star. A certain woman (NAWALT) sees him and doesn’t even notice him because she doesn’t know it’s him. Then she finds out he’s famous and now feels attraction. Why? Because 10 or 100 million other people love his music and gave him status.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Susan Walsh:
    Well, another list, this time more refreshingly psychological than statistical, obviously written by a real woman who knew the rope, so to speak…:-)
    Some striking quotes:
    “6. The most certain way of losing prestige is to let a man see that he occupies a more important place in your mind than you in his, but a woman who is infatuated will find it difficult to conceal her feelings.”
    That is all there… and the last part of the quote shows that she knew what falling in love meant.
    However, this (although this is within the context of seducing men) sounds like a slightly hypocritical preaching:
    “2. Avoid being nasty about other females or blabbing their secrets.”
    As of today, I have never seen any woman being able to contain their animosity toward another one when they are competing for the same “target”, nor disclosing to the same target their disgust about the “other girl” with exhuberant glee…
    Watching two women in that situation, exercising their tongues like daggers, and using their glassy eyes like bullets against one another in one of those female squaring of accounts, even in a quiet voice during a social event, should be one of the best forewarning lessons for the young guys who think they can dominate women at will, only to find themselves later spilling out a bitter pill. I guess this is what fou call there the “red pill”.

  • SayWhaat

    He finds that woman attractive mostly because he finds her attractive, not because society deemed her a great beauty.

    Han Solo, how does this square with the stories (mentioned in the other thread) of women of other ethnicities bleaching and dying themselves to emulate the beauty standards of the dominant ethnic group, just to attract the men within their own ethnic groups?

    Also, fun fact: did you know that during the Renaissance, women plucked their foreheads in order to achieve a high hairline that was considered an essential trait of beauty? <a href="http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx2xrcSJ4v1qzy8r9.jpg"Here's a portrait from that era.

    Do you think that Renaissance men were like, “ugh, I don’t understand why all these dudes are into ten-heads, I prefer tiny foreheads, myself!” The women still got married…perhaps Renaissance men didn’t find plucked foreheads too grotesque? :P

  • SayWhaat

    Oh, shoot. Link messed up.

    Here it is again: http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lx2xrcSJ4v1qzy8r9.jpg

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan

    Men are so quick to play the Stage 5 Clinger card it’s incredible. One text asking what he’s up to can trigger it. Sure, men will happily let women clean their apartments, but do they keep them around? Apparently not.

    The only guys I’ve ever heard actually use “Stage 5 Clinger” in real life are douchey alpha types.

    @SW

    Wrong again — it was mostly her beta orbiters.

    I obviously don’t know the specifics of the situation… but my guess is that something about her behavior toward them gave them some idea that she was interested and gave them some kind of hope. Probably would’ve worked out just the same if she was single.

  • SayWhaat

    Joe & Co., I am not letting this go!

    If men are so competition-averse in matters of the heart, why do some men pursue women who are already spoken for? I have witnessed beta orbiters do it, so it cannot be a purely unrestricted-alpha phenomenon.

    Can anybody provide an answer for why beta orbiters pursue girls who are already in relationships?

    I am not looking to chastise male sexuality here, I would really just like to understand the possible reasoning behind this motivation, and how it squares with the unwillingness to compete.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Jon Snow by a mile. He has the outsider thing going for him that makes a woman want to comfort him and sex him up, lol. Robb Stark is just a rich pretty boy.

    I’ve only watched the show, but Jon Snow seems like an idiot while Robb Stark seems like a military master-mind, if a bit brutal at times.

    Not that I don’t like both of them, but if I HAD to choose, I would pick Stark!

  • SayWhaat

    I obviously don’t know the specifics of the situation… but my guess is that something about her behavior toward them gave them some idea that she was interested and gave them some kind of hope. Probably would’ve worked out just the same if she was single.

    Okay, this makes sense, as she was sort of a tease.

    But even with hints of interest, given the supposed male proclivity to avoid competing over a woman, why did they still compete?

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    Haven’t you seen it all? Joffrey ends up not marrying her and decide to marry the ambitious chick who was going to marry Renly.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    I think there are always going to be some cultural standards of beauty that vary from era to era that will shift how men as a whole think…

    But I absolutely don’t think most guys gain any attraction to a girl when they see she has other options. That’s really limited to guys who are motivated by hyper-competitiveness and jealousy. Basically, the alphas.

    For average guys, it’s neutral at best.

  • SayWhaat

    What I am not understanding is:

    Girl who is a tease and has multiple beta orbiters, and is single => not worth the competition.

    Girl who is a tease and has multiple beta orbiters, and is in a relationship => “Shall we joust?”

  • SayWhaat

    But I absolutely don’t think most guys gain any attraction to a girl when they see she has other options.

    Strawman! ;)

    We are not discussing “gaining attraction”, we are discussing what makes one girl more “competition-worthy” to beta orbiters over another, holding everything constant save for relationship availability.

  • Lokland

    @SW

    I think your conflating the attractions of a relatively small subset of men and applying it to the whole.

    Do most relationships form by men mate poaching girlfriends?

    No. It might make for a fun female fantasy land where one is that heavily desired but most people are single, date and then become exclusive.

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    Han Solo, how does this square with the stories (mentioned in the other thread) of women of other ethnicities bleaching and dying themselves to emulate the beauty standards of the dominant ethnic group, just to attract the men within their own ethnic groups?

    Also, fun fact: did you know that during the Renaissance, women plucked their foreheads in order to achieve a high hairline that was considered an essential trait of beauty?

    I think there is a slight societal influence on what men find beautiful but not much…maybe like 10-20% society and the rest is just them. I am very white but personally prefer a woman with olive or dark olive colored skin and brown or black hair. I also don’t find the super skinny runway models with masculine faces highly beautiful (though admittedly they’re still pretty often). The example is Gisele. She’s like a 7.5 to me no matter how many magazines she’s been on. OTOH, Alessandra Ambrosia is a 9.8 to me. lol

    By dominant I take it you mean white or whiter? I could be wrong but I would venture to say that those men in the ethnic groups just flat out find those features more attractive. I could see a little of it due to status effects of the dominant thing but you have to understand that most of what a man thinks about a woman’s appearance is just an involuntary response to what he sees before him. But why not ask them? I can tell you that there are certain features in woman I like and don’t like. Some of them are part of the dominant group and some aren’t.

    As to plucking the hairline, do you have a record that most men found that attractive? Or was that simply the style, propagated by influential women and their tailors?

    I stand by my statement: “He finds that woman attractive mostly because he finds her attractive, not because society deemed her a great beauty.”

    What do other guys on here think about this?

  • SayWhaat

    As to plucking the hairline, do you have a record that most men found that attractive?

    I don’t, as I mainly introduced the subject as an aside. But I don’t think it’s a leap of faith to assume that they would! If I stopped threading my eyebrows, I doubt I would receive as much male attraction than if I didn’t. I woul posit that on a micro level, women follow beauty trends as part of intrasexual competition, but on a macro level they follow beauty trends in order to be more attractive to the larger male population, or at least the particular demographic that they are targeting.

    This would make a fascinating research topic!

  • Mike C

    I stand by my statement: “He finds that woman attractive mostly because he finds her attractive, not because society deemed her a great beauty.”

    What do other guys on here think about this?

    I agree.

    I do think there is some overall societal effects on what men perceive as beautiful, but that doesn’t translate down to an individual women being viewed as not attractive and then just because 10 guys say she is attractive the guy changes his mind.

    I think at one time very porcelain skin was viewed as the ideal, and then at other times more of a tan so different standards could hold at different times although I have a hard time imagining society influencing me to view a giant forehead as attractive.

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

      I have a hard time imagining society influencing me to view a giant forehead as attractive.

      This cracked me up. It’s so late, I’m getting punchy. Time to sleep.

  • Iggles

    INTJ,

    It would be wise to show deference to the Mother of Dragons.. ;)

    As for Robb Stark, I had a lot of respect for him, until he decided to go chasing that stupid nurse. This pic says it all: 

    http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m54p5pVZse1r8yaog.gif257

    Lol! Good point. FWIW, it didn’t happen that way in the books. The nurse from the show version is terribly annoying!

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    But even with hints of interest, given the supposed male proclivity to avoid competing over a woman, why did they still compete?

    Again, I don’t know the situation, so I can’t say for sure…. but if they viewed her bf as a douchebag, it could’ve inspired white-knighting protective instincts. I’ve certainly seen that situation play out many times.

  • SayWhaat

    I think your conflating the attractions of a relatively small subset of men and applying it to the whole.

    But isn’t that par the course here? ;)

    I’m not trying to apply it to the whole population of men. I just want to understand what might be the reasoning behind it.

  • SayWhaat

    Again, I don’t know the situation, so I can’t say for sure…. but if they viewed her bf as a douchebag, it could’ve inspired white-knighting protective instincts.

    Unfortunately, he was as beta as they came. She cheated on him a few times. :(

  • SayWhaat

    Hmm, I don’t think I am explaining this situation as clearly as I should be.

    Okay, so there is this girlfriend of mine. She had a boyfriend who doted on her. She is flirty and very pretty. One guy in her class brought her a cookie every day. Another guy gave her a big gift before she left for a weeklong trip (it was a stuffed lion or something…I think he said it was to “keep her safe”).

    So, here is a girl who was 1) clearly in a relationship with a guy who loved her, 2) a flirt, and 3) had beta orbiters who knew her boyfriend.

    Why would the beta orbiters still compete for her affection when she was already unavailable? Shouldn’t they have known that it was an exercise in futility?

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Think of it this way:

    Let’s say you find an opening for your dream job, and they bring you in for an interview.

    Are you going to feel better if you go in for the interview, they pay special attention to you, and act extremely interested?

    Or if you go in, wait in a waiting room with 20 other similarly and better-qualified candidates, and your interviewer is aloof ?

    Personally, I wouldn’t get any extra satisfaction out of the second situation. I’d probably be a lot more self-conscious and nervous. I’d be a lot more confident and excited to go forward with the process in the first situation.

    And if it’s your dream job, are you really going to be upset if you’re the only candidate? Hell no. You’ll be excited about your odds.

  • SayWhaat

    I should note that the first time she cheated on her bf was *after* these beta orbiters had left her orbit, so they couldn’t have known about any possibility of her cheating on her bf with them beforehand. (Not that she would have with them, anyway.)

  • SayWhaat

    Are you going to feel better if you go in for the interview, they pay special attention to you, and act extremely interested?

    Or if you go in, wait in a waiting room with 20 other similarly and better-qualified candidates, and your interviewer is aloof ?

    Okay, that’s almost close to what I am asking, but not entirely similar.

    Let’s change it to this:

    You go in for the interview and they inform you that the slot is already filled. But they would like to interview you anyway.

    Knowing that in advance, how would you feel if you go in for the interview, they pay special attention to you, and act extremely interested? How would you feel if there were 20 other candidates and the interviewer is aloof?

  • Lokland

    @SW

    She was a cheater and your asking why guys were hanging around to potentially get laid?

    Personally, a woman in a relationship has always been a bit of a let down.
    Kinda like “well that sucks” then move on.
    Never pursued another guys woman, that is not cool.

  • SayWhaat

    So what I think you are trying to tell me, Jimmy, is that men generally do not want to compete over a woman, but they will compete as long as they think that they have a viable chance at winning her?

  • Damien Vulaume

    “He finds that woman attractive mostly because he finds her attractive, not because society deemed her a great beauty.”

    Of course. Yet some do not follow their own choices, but rather what they perceive is the preferable choice by, say, their entourage.

  • SayWhaat

    LL, please see my comment at #281. They did not know of the possibility of her cheating prior to entering her orbit.

  • Lokland

    @SW

    Sticking to my original point in that she probably gave off an infidelity vibe.
    Think about it, most people drop orbiters and friends alike after getting serious.

    @HS

    “I stand by my statement: “He finds that woman attractive mostly because he finds her attractive, not because society deemed her a great beauty.”

    What do other guys on here think about this?”

    I think certain traits are malleable by society.
    Others are fairly hardwired ex. WHR.

    I think having to explain how preselection doesn’t make a woman more attractive is like trying to explain that the sky is blue. Not even why, just explaining that it is.

    Nearly impossible task as women don’t think or feel attraction like men.

  • Lokland

    @SW, 284

    Yes. If a viable chance has been offered and the man finds her attractive, I suspect competition will be considered.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Why would the beta orbiters still compete for her affection when she was already unavailable? Shouldn’t they have known that it was an exercise in futility?

    My guess is in their mind, she wasn’t unavailable (actually, that sounds like the reality). She probably gave them more attention and hope than any other girl did at the time, or she was probably significantly hotter than any girl they had attention from at the time. Or maybe they’re just idiots. Probably a combo of the three.

    Point is, I highly doubt it was competition that drove them to do what they did. My guess is she had them emotionally hooked. That’s a much bigger motivator than competition for most guys.

  • SayWhaat

    If a viable chance has been offered and the man finds her attractive, I suspect competition will be considered.

    Okay, so there is some sort of “system override” setting on this thing. That is what I wanted to know.

    Thank you. :)

  • SayWhaat

    Point is, I highly doubt it was competition that drove them to do what they did. My guess is she had them emotionally hooked. That’s a much bigger motivator than competition for most guys.

    This makes sense. Thank you. :)

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    So what I think you are trying to tell me, Jimmy, is that men generally do not want to compete over a woman, but they will compete as long as they think that they have a viable chance at winning her?

    Yep. Emotionally hooked + good odds will make guys do all kinds of stuff.

  • SayWhaat

    I think certain traits are malleable by society.
    Others are fairly hardwired ex. WHR.

    Yes, I agree with this. FWIW, this point is what I was trying to get at.

  • SayWhaat

    In sum, the following theories are not wholly correct:

    1. Men do not want to participate in competitions of the heart, and

    2. Men are not subject to the changes to the definition of beauty, as set by society.

    As always, YMMV.

  • Damien Vulaume

    “If you’re hot, men will find you attractive, because you’re hot. Not because other men find you attractive. ”
    Sorry but, rubbish. What’s the universal definition of “hot”?

  • SayWhaat

    I think I am starting to finally grok some of this Girl Game stuff as outlined in this post. I think it would be helpful if each point was illustrated in a situation, e.g.:

    A man does not often want what nobody else would have. He covets what others have already found desirable. The more proof he has that you are sought after, the more convinced he will be that you are worth seeking.

    Kaley has a crush on Matt. Kaley flirts with Matt during class. When he suggests the two study together, Kaley should casually mention that she needs to study for some other class with her friend. She should not specify the sex of the friend. If Matt is interested in Kaley, he will want to know who that friend is and how close of a friend he is to Kaley. (Matt has already assumed that “friend” is a male.) Matt’s intrigue for Kaley is heightened. +1 Kaley.

    Something along those lines…the above situation is actually advice my girlfriend gave me (the same one with the galaxy of beta orbiters). Maybe the other girls can paint similar scenarios to illustrate the post’s tenets?

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    Haven’t you seen it all? Joffrey ends up not marrying her and decide to marry the ambitious chick who was going to marry Renly.

    Yes but he had the sanction of the gods because Sansa was the daughter of a traitor and her brother was in open rebellion. He had an excuse to break the vow. Robb Stark didn’t have any such reason to break off the engagement. His excuse was “I’m in love”.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    You go in for the interview and they inform you that the slot is already filled. But they would like to interview you anyway.

    Knowing that in advance, how would you feel if you go in for the interview, they pay special attention to you, and act extremely interested? How would you feel if there were 20 other candidates and the interviewer is aloof?

    Regardless of either situation, if the position was already filled, at best I’d just go through the motions to be polite and keep myself on their radar for the distant future. But I wouldn’t follow up, offer ideas, have references call, etc. I wouldn’t have even applied if I knew they had already filled position in advance.

    Since there’s no job to be had, I don’t think it would matter if I was by myself or one of 20. I wouldn’t be nearly as motivated in either case.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    Girl who is a tease and has multiple beta orbiters, and is single => not worth the competition.

    Girl who is a tease and has multiple beta orbiters, and is in a relationship => “Shall we joust?”

    But that isn’t what happens. In the example of your girlfriend, those beta orbiters were interested in her in spite of her being in a relationship, not because she was in a relationship.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    Regarding cultural standards of beauty, once again you’re missing the point. Yes, on the macro level culture can influence attraction triggers. But on the individual level, preselection isn’t going to have that big an effect. Thus, a guy might know other guys like big boobs and thus conclude when he sees a girl with big boobs that she’s attractive. That’s a cultural effect. But that isn’t preselection. Preselection would be where his friends say “hey look, that girl is ugly”, and then the guy thinks she is ugly despite having big boobs, which he knows are attractive.

  • SayWhaat

    INTJ, Susan just posted about a study re: social proof working for women. I know you’ll find a ton of ways to discredit the study without actually reading it, but it holds more credibility than your opinions. No offense meant, just stating it as it is.

  • Society’s Disposable Son

    SayWhaat @ 279

    I think it’s just simply a naturally flirty girl gave some beta types attention that they rarely get from any other woman. It’s not to compete for mates because of a perceived inflation of SMV, it’s begging for table scraps.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Kaley has a crush on Matt. Kaley flirts with Matt during class. When he suggests the two study together, Kaley should casually mention that she needs to study for some other class with her friend. She should not specify the sex of the friend. If Matt is interested in Kaley, he will want to know who that friend is and how close of a friend he is to Kaley. (Matt has already assumed that “friend” is a male.) Matt’s intrigue for Kaley is heightened. +1 Kaley.

    There’s no doubt that can and does work, but he’s also just as likely to take that comment at face value (neutral), or back away in the face of implied competition (negative).

    I honestly think the highest percentage strategy to inspire guys* is: Physical Attraction + Emotional Escalation + Good Odds of Winning.

    * non-alpha guys

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

      @Jimmy

      I honestly think the highest percentage strategy to inspire guys* is: Physical Attraction + Emotional Escalation + Good Odds of Winning.

      * non-alpha guys

      I think this is right. I have no idea how social dominance was distributed among males in the 1920s – as I pointed out in the post there is clearly no attention to apex fallacy. Either DLM only knew alphas, or, more likely, there was less bifurcation and a more level playing field.

      I also think, as I wrote, that this approach will be effective on guys with strong self-confidence. Not cocky guys, and not douches, but guys who, at the very least, are not anxious around women.

      Most of this is better handled in a subtle way. It’s not the Rules – where you pretend you’re busy even though you’re dying to see him – it’s about not being too eager, keeping a cool head, having some outcome independence, etc.

  • SayWhaat

    But that isn’t what happens. In the example of your girlfriend, those beta orbiters were interested in her in spite of her being in a relationship, not because she was in a relationship.

    And you missed the point here, again. I wasn’t questioning their interest in her, I was questioning their motives in pursuing that interest.

  • SayWhaat

    There’s no doubt that can and does work, but he’s also just as likely to take that comment at face value (neutral), or back away in the face of implied competition (negative).

    Right, which is why I added the caveat that he is already interested in her. If not, she should be able to suss that out and know when to stop escalating emotionally.

  • SayWhaat

    “added the caveat, *if* he is already interested in her.” (fixed)

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    INTJ, Susan just posted about a study re: social proof working for women. I know you’ll find a ton of ways to discredit the study without actually reading it, but it holds more credibility than your opinions. No offense meant, just stating it as it is.

    Quite the contrary. This experiment seems well designed and valid. I’ll take a look at it tomorrow to see what the magnitude of social proofing demonstrated in the video is, and take back my statement about men being much less susceptible to social proofing if necessary.

  • SayWhaat

    I honestly think the highest percentage strategy to inspire guys* is: Physical Attraction + Emotional Escalation + Good Odds of Winning.

    I agree, the key here being “good odds of winning”. He should have odds of winning between 50% (arbitrary number, YMMV) but less than 100% (i.e. no real certainty of a win).

  • SayWhaat

    Quite the contrary. This experiment seems well designed and valid. I’ll take a look at it tomorrow to see what the magnitude of social proofing demonstrated in the video is, and take back my statement about men being much less susceptible to social proofing if necessary.

    Well, color me floored!

    I look forward to hearing your review, and don’t be surprised if I hold you to it! :)

    Alright, it’s late. G’nite, y’all.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    I don’t think guys are immune to pre-selection. But I think it works a lot differently.

    In terms of attraction, I think guys have already made up their mind on “yes/no”, and that won’t change. But added pre-selction can possibly give a slight bump or tiebreaker (i.e. picking the more popular 8 over the less popular 8 if all else is equal).

    With girls, I think pre-selection has a big enough impact to change her original “yes/no” assessment, either positively or negatively.

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

    SayWhaat said:

    I am having difficulty squaring this with the situations I have witnessed of men chasing a woman who is already in a relationship. IIRC, this was how Athol managed to get with Jennifer, his now-wife.

    This one is really straightforward. Whenever a women opens on me, the first thing I do is glance at her hands. 50/50 split she’s got a big sparkly rock on her finger. Women are more happy and more confident when they’re in a relationship. This makes them massively more approachable. In turn, women in relationships still enjoy flirting for fun. To the woman, she’s just being friendly. Men, on the other hand, can’t tell the difference. The body of research in psychology says there is no discernible difference between flirting for fun and flirting for romance, and men are predisposed to infer interest from a woman anyway, so… drama.

    At first when I realized this was happening, I was like, ok, flirting practice. Now it’s just annoying since it wastes my time and energy and discourages any single girl in the room.

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

    Let’s put it this way:

    Women A starts a conversation with me. 80 % chance she’s in a relationship.

    Woman B won’t make eye contact. 80 % chance she’s single.

    I’m being a little facetious but you get the gist.

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

    I’m getting the feeling that this advice was written by a woman that looked and acted like Nefertiri in the 10th commandments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXjOOS4zAq4&list=PLDAF3D3C423008654&index=4
    YMMV

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

      @Anacaona

      Haha, Yul Brynner had some tight Game! Here’s a pic of Langley Moore when she was in her 40s:

      dlm

      She looks like a cross between Wallace Simpson and Charlotte Gainsbourg – two women who are not beautiful, but have/had a lot of power over men.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @mr nervous toes
    “Women A starts a conversation with me. 80 % chance she’s in a relationship.”
    Yes but if she likes you, then the boyfriend disapears in the background. And if you bundle in your speech, then YOU disapear in the background. Altough I’m not advocating a player’s game here, just natural instinct. What I’m saying is that in the end, women always make the call.

    “Woman B won’t make eye contact. 80 % chance she’s single.”
    Or rahter 100% chances she’s not interested.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Anacoana:
    “a woman that looked and acted like Nefertiti”.
    There is a long list of those women who where from the white anglo-saxon upper middle class and who jumped into the artsty liberal band wagon of the 20’s, bound to Montparnasse/Montmartre. Anais Nin, Doris Moore, Zelda Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein…the list is very long.
    I guess that was their way of getting “liberated” and seeing exotic and “thrilling” new horizons, yet within a “civilized” enough environement as they perceived it at the time.

  • Just1Z

    @Sai
    “It’s good to know guys don’t like the chase as much as I was told they do”

    (N.B. I’m smiling as I write this, and it isn’t aimed at you Sai)

    trust the men here on this; We don’t like games and drawing a line between games (cock-tease) and what you see above is a ticklish task – as far as many men are concerned anyway. we saw the girls practice these skills at school (or I did in the olden days), things may have reversed these days (anecdotal tales of BJs behind the bike shed)*. by the time men get to uni, they’ve usually woken up to issue. We don’t like drama – that’s why we don’t watch soaps and read emo-porn…why is it so hard for you ladies to work this out? lmao

    even most of the guys here saying that a little mystique is attractive, well yes it is, ‘a little mystique’. They still have a very low threshold for what is acceptable, at least they do as soon as they catch on to the fact that games are being played (we can be slow here, I’m the first to admit that, but once we do…).

    I love femininity, but I love honesty too, in fact if ‘you’ want commitment from ‘me’ then I require honesty above femininity. Communication between the sexes is already fraught with difficulty, but ‘you’ want to add games back in like some princess emo-porn fantasy? not the best advice that I’ve seen here TBH.

    So Sai, you can take it easy on that one :)

    “Dress like the women around you, only more sumptuously. Originality and distinction makes men uncomfortable.”
    errr, we need to define terms (so huge tatts and facial piercing vs unconventional dress or hat), but…no, no it doesn’t. Men aren’t herd oriented to the same extent as women. We’ve already said above that many of ‘us’ would choose the equally attractive to us girl#2 over the much chased girl#1, despite what other people thought.

    Weird is bad, but just standing out from the flock isn’t. And if you don’t stand out from the flock, how are you going to get noticed?

    Despite what the emo-porn tells you ladies, most men don’t enjoy the chase / getting jerked around (it’s a fine line between those). Ones that do are probably spinning multiple plates – they’re spreading the risk of being played by reduced investment in any woman, but multiple women at the same time. They’re more likely on the PUA end of the spectrum, does that decrease the romance of the chase for the ladies? lmao

    @Susan
    luxury pricing can work when the alternative is a pinto, when the market has plenty of reasonably priced Lexii available, not so much.

    *UK TV ‘news’ ( http://www.channel4.com/news/generation-sex-is-sexting-the-norm ) stumbled on to sexting between school kids last night. Their lead story! It’s not even news to anyone with an IQ over room temperature (in celcius ~22). Just how lame can the lamestream media get?

  • Just1Z

    @Marellus
    she dead? I’m not surprised given what she wrote. (I couldn’t check the link at the time)

  • Just1Z

    @Han
    yeah, I did like that video

    I’m a cat lover, but given a more settled life I would consider a dog. it would have to be a smart breed though and well trained. toy, yappy dogs need not apply, alsations or other shepherd type dogs, yeah.

  • HanSolo

    @Damien

    It’s not rubbish. Many men and women have told me someone is hot or not and it doesn’t change my opinion. What each man finds hot or beautiful will vary somewhat but there is fairly high correlation. Of course there will be some outlier guys like INTJ that thinks Catelyn Stark is hot and that other women aren’t.

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

      Many men and women have told me someone is hot or not and it doesn’t change my opinion. What each man finds hot or beautiful will vary somewhat but there is fairly high correlation.

      But this is true for women as well. It’s not as if some random low quality guy is identified as “hot” by a woman with social dominance and then everyone is crazy about him. I think the dynamic of popularity among adolescents is instructive.

      The boys all gravitate to the hottest girls, which resets the girl social hierarchy completely, promoting the girls popular with boys and demoting the Queen Bees who the boys don’t find attractive. This happens around 7th grade.

      The girls all gravitate to the boys who are at the top of the male pecking order. This is usually determined via athletics.

      So in a real way, men determine the popularity of both sexes.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    I think his excuse of being in love is better than Joffrey’s excuse that her father was loyal to the true laws of the land–namely Stannis should be the next king as Robert’s brother.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “I don’t understand. If men are wired with a competitive instinct, why would that not apply to mating? Why would every guy not want to get the highest SMV woman?”

    They / We do want the best woman that we can get.

    But chasing / competition is expensive (time, money and emotions). We only get to pursue so many women.

    Now, in the olden days, the men of the village were competing for the women in the village. Their status hierarchy was probably pretty much established by the time that they reach manhood, and it was clearly available for the women to see. The next village required half a day walking, so what you see is what you get basically. Maybe a few men competed over a few women. Expenses were acceptable. Men had to play this game to get a woman. Cue the Brontes etc old style emo-porn. The market was limited for both men and women.

    Nowadays? well men are asked to compete with every other man on her facebook, twitter etc and celebs on TV, lifestyles of the rich and famous…this isn’t promising for the man. Beyond the financial ramping up of the costs of car, apartment and ‘fine’ dining, it’s the size of the competition in her subconcious mind. This isn’t old style competition with a few guys for a woman very well aware of what her options actually are. This issue over the size of the perceived marketplace often leads to what is often termed ‘choice addiction’ – why should she actually settle for an even slightly less than perfect guy, when she could meet mr perfect tomorrow? and all those guys on facebook etc keep telling her how fabulous she is (not that she wants those losers, but the attention! *swoons*). Choice addiction wasn’t a huge issue in the Bronte era, but it damn well is now. The 300 point list of must haves on a woman’s list is a sure sign that she thinks that she can insist on her perfect prince.

    This is a common complaint (by men) about dating sites; there are women getting so much attention from drive by emails from plate spinners, and the women mistake this for real attention from guys truly interested in her (not guys just spamming the list playing the numbers game). her self-image balloons, she’s happy for a few years until she finally works out that none of this attention is about her actually getting the marriage proposal. She can’t filter out the genuine guys, even if she wanted to, in the meantime…the attention! *swoon again*

    So men might ‘enjoy’ the chase if it has reasonable odds and reasonable costs, but the price of chasing a princess-fantasist who sees him as just another guy in the huge pack chasing her, one to be played with? nope.

    Men here are saying that they have adapted to the market place. That market place heavily favours low investment (skittles man), reasonably quick delivery of reward (sex on the third date) and playing the numbers game (spin those plates). Clearly not all men like that, but that’s what the men getting sex say works. Roissy may not be seen favourably around here, but I am damn sure that he knows what he’s talking about regarding getting sex. Sex being seen as a step towards a relationship nowadays (shakes head)…oh how far things have fallen

    I see your advice to woman showing interest (not saying sex immediately) in a guy is the smart advice. It’s saying to him that he is not wasting his time, money and effort – that’s good thinking (as long as she isn’t playing games). Playing hard to get, coquettish…no, not so much. The price is too high and the odds too low in the modern world for many men to bother with your luxury priced models, and the ones that do are probably PUAs / plate spinners / pedestalising deltas – so bon appetit

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Do you have the actual study?

    But some thoughts based on a couple of internet articles reporting on it.

    http://www.livescience.com/6538-strangers-influence-dating-choices-study-reveals.html

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100607142221.htm

    First of all that experiment did not ask the men how beautiful or hot they rated the women. The women were not rated as an 8 or 4 or whatever. Rather, it asked them a yes/no question as to whether they wanted to see or get romantically involved with the woman.

    An uncertainty about the experimental setup is how detailed a view of the woman was available in each speed-dating video?

    The less detailed the video of her (e.g. not a clear close up, no view of her figure, etc.) then the less information that the man watching the video has to put through his own mind and attraction triggers and the more he would have to rely on the man talking with her.

    If he doesn’t have as good of a view as he’d like then he will subconsciouly infer from the attractiveness of the man and how enthusiastic he is to try and fill in some of the gaps on the information he is missing.

    So, the experiment only tangentially answers the question of whether and how much male social proof adds to another male’s perception of her beauty. To really answer it you should ask them to rate her beauty with and without the social proof of the men and after giving him really good photos of her or meet her in person so he can really tell for himself.

    I think that other men’s favorable opinion could bump his perception of his looks by maybe half a point.

    The interesting thing mentioned in these articles is that a lack of interest on the part of the men speed dating the girl didn’t make the guys less interested in romancing them. Only when the hottest guys showed interest did the guys show more interest in romancing her.

    For the women being studied, it showed that they are more influenced by social proof. The women were likewise positively influenced by the women showing interest in the man they were speed dating but they were actually less likely to want to meet/romance the guy when the women didn’t show interest–that result was different from the men’s case.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Another part of this is that I think many men, especially unrestricted men, don’t want to miss out on a hot woman and so they give her looks the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong.

    Within the first 10 minutes of meeting a girl the most beautiful she looks is nearly always in the first second that I see her. My mind fills in the blanks I haven’t seen as if they were beautiful and then as I can look at her for a bit longer and start to process the information and see things that detract from that initial perception of beauty.

    I think I’ve heard other men mention this though I have no idea how widespread it is. But it makes sense if men want to impregnate as many women as possible and are actively looking to include women, different from the female tendency to want to disqualify guys up front unless they somehow stand out.

    What can I say, men are democratic and inclusive, at least up front! ;)

    So, relating that idea to the video, by seeing that the attractive men (or equally or more attractive than themselves) is showing interest in the woman then it could make him change his mind and think, hey, maybe there’s something I’m missing and I need to include her in my potential mating pool and meet her and give her a closer inspection.

    I think that if a better experiment were performed where the men could fully see her up close and in person and rate her looks from 1-10 and then later see her interacting with interested attractive guys speed dating that they might raise her rating by 0.5 or so but no huge change like +3.

  • HanSolo

    @Just1Z 324

    Great post about attention and choice addiction with the huge numbers of people that can be interacted with.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I would say I’m pretty impervious to social proof. Look at one of the most successful and famous athletes ever, Michael Jordan.

    I don’t find his first wife highly attractive and my opinion of her beauty is not swayed at all by her then marriage to Jordan.

    http://www.judiciaryreport.com/images/michael-jordan-juanita-jordan.jpg

    http://cdn103.iofferphoto.com/img3/item/150/644/641/1991-november-ebony-issue-michael-and-juanita-jordan-ad9f.jpg

    Another example is Lamar Odom and Khloe Kardashian. Don’t find Khloe hot at all.

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

      @Han Solo

      I would say I’m pretty impervious to social proof. Look at one of the most successful and famous athletes ever, Michael Jordan.

      I think most women have the same experiences. Do you recall when Julia Roberts married Lyle Lovett?

      Among the women in my focus groups, there is a lot of divergence around which males are physically attractive. One thing girls frequently say in support of their friends is, “I don’t find him at all attractive, but she does, so good for her! That’s all that counts.” etc.

      I think it’s fair to say that most women find aspects of social dominance attractive, notably status and prestige. A lot of guys who are observably physically unattractive do very well because of status alone, as we have explored. A movie star marrying an ugly rich guy will not effect other women’s judgment of him in the least.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    A final note about social proof and then off to bed. I mentioned thin runway models already. On the flipside, I don’t like porn boobs (the fake, volleyball looking ones) and in spite of seeing many of them and knowing that a lot of men must like them my opinion on them has not changes and they are actually a turn off for me and I avoid them for more natural looking ones.

  • Sai

    @INTJ
    “All you girls that liked the modesty pinterest page, you should post positive comments there. It’s up to you to counterbalance the jezebel trolling.”
    If I can figure out how to post on this site I’ll defend Abbot’s right to point out things he likes.

    @HanSolo
    “So why can’t any women here just state that the roommate’s girlfriend should do some kind of nice gestures for him and recognize that he seems starved for some genuine affection? He’s not jealous of the positive attention he sees others getting because he’s a bastard, it’s because he’s a human being who wants to be treated nicely and isn’t getting much.”
    She should give him food.
    I used to have (somebody else’s) killer recipe for Mexican cheese cookies so easy a cavewoman could make them, but I left it with my dad and he misplaced it.

    @Just1Z
    “luxury pricing can work when the alternative is a pinto, when the market has plenty of reasonably priced Lexii available, not so much.”
    No worries.
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EveryCarIsAPinto

  • Iggles

    @ SW:

    “For men, relative attractiveness of the people they’re watching matters — not just anyone can influence their behavior, just other men they think are at least as attractive as they are,” Place said.”

    Clearly, men take their cues from dominant men. They determine who’s hot according to what the most socially dominant males find attractive.”

    This confirms what a friend of mine has been arguing for years. Specifically in the case of some minority men who view landing any woman from the dominant culture as a “win” regardless of her objective level of attractiveness.. She will be regarded as a greater catch than women from their own background.

  • Kathy

    @ Just1Z

    “I love femininity, but I love honesty too, in fact if ‘you’ want commitment from ‘me’ then I require honesty above femininity.”

    And this is why I have a deep respect for you Jus..
    No pussy footing around.. You lay your cards on the table.

    I value honesty and integrity very much.

    I have never played games.. Nor has my husband.

  • Just1Z

    @Han re 324
    thanks, feedback appreciated.

    stuff like the concept of choice addiction is what I get from reading the manosphere (I know it originated outside the manosphere, but I found it there), it helps men understand what is going on in the world. men like understanding that stuff. that’s what gets men beyond the angry / annoyed stage of taking the red-pill, once they understand how things do work, they can accept the rules and adapt to them (or GTOW).

    I know that the manosphere gets a bad rep around here, but there is far more to it than ‘AWALT’ / sluts / gold-diggers etc etc. I must admit that the good stuff tends to be intertwined with the bad, so those of a delicate disposition aren’t going to look very far into the ‘sphere. Susan works very hard to keep this place accessible to both men and women. Most of the ‘sphere just lays it out for da menz and the women can take it or leave it – man style debate.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com/ Marellus

    Suzan

    @Marellus

    You are the most romantic guy. You would be awesome material for a passionate love affair!

    … I dunno Suzan, I got myself banned from a Christian forum yet again, for telling its female moderator, that I wanted to spoon-feed her some bean-soup fortified with whiskey and laxatives, so that I may record her noises in the toilet, as meditation music for some Hindu-sect, who worships a god that wears a broomstick on its head …

    Then we met on another religious forum, where she took some pot shots at me yet again. And this time I wrote her this :

    Madeleine, my sexy ditzy glitzy ole sour-grapey roaring crawly lavender coloured vapour streaming out of a witchdoctor’s brewpot:

    Thou hast attracted mine attention like that big bad flying bug, that came a-roarin right at me, when I was in second grade.

    And thine personality hast struck me as emphatically, as that big bad flying bug, which struck me in second grade.

    And thou doth make me smile as broadly, as that big bad flying bug in second grade, whose remains I had to remove from my teeth …

    So you see Suzan, I can be a real scoundrel too …

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

      @Marellus

      I really think you were born in the wrong century. You would have made an excellent pal for Byron.

  • Just1Z

    @Sai
    cool, thanks for confirming the Pinto thing. We never had them over here, so as usual it was a bit of a guess at a cultural reference. Lexii (Lexussessessesse) could probably be improved though.

    Might one recommend ‘Top Secret’ to all those not having already partaken of this comedy gem of yesteryear?

    Pinto
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT0J0rcJTLo

    Omar Shariff(!) and the novelty guy (pre car crusher)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPB2g1y2VFk

    Omar Shariff(!) after being in a car that went through a crusher
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61AWnIZrT5g

  • Just1Z

    @Kathy
    no games? yeah, I get that from you.

    loved the coat story too :)

    men love that stuff, but you knew that already!

  • Just1Z

    “Clearly, men take their cues from dominant men. They determine who’s hot according to what the most socially dominant males find attractive.”

    really not, really, really, fifty times really not

    you don’t believe it when feminist ‘academics’ spout out on how women should have sex like men, so why believe this quack?

    the men here are telling you what they feel, honestly, up front. why would you rather believe dr numbnuts?

    don’t confuse your seeing beta-orbiters following around their target with what the men that you probably prefer anyway want.

    do you see men religiously reading society pages to see what women the celebs are picking? no, that’s because we don’t, and we don’t because we don’t care.

    regarding ‘the chasing of women’
    if you look at typical man-fiction (war / sci-fi / thriller whatever) where is the chasing after the woman? there isn’t any. we don’t want to see it any more than we want to do it (naWKalt).
    the gorgeous woman just falls into his arms when he has done the important stuff (saves the world blah blah) – there is no chase. she recognises him for the worthy man that he is due to him being extra-ordinary – not for buying her choccies and giving her a foot rub.

  • Just1Z

    possible signal being mis-read

    we might look at pictures of celebrity women, but not to learn what to aim for…basically we’re probably speculating on the hand shandy potential of the woman dressed up to look her best.

  • Just1Z

    @Marellus
    “I wanted to spoon-feed her some bean-soup fortified with whiskey and laxatives, so that I may record her noises in the toilet, as meditation music for some Hindu-sect, who worships a god that wears a broomstick on its head”

    that old story!

    jeez the number of times that I have had exactly the same thing happen to me…one day our dreams may come true brother – cheers

  • Just1Z

    @Sai
    your asian dad meme is really cool. my pity for any victims of this. but it is laugh out loud funny

  • Kathy

    @ Just1Z

    “regarding ‘the chasing of women’
    if you look at typical man-fiction (war / sci-fi / thriller whatever) where is the chasing after the woman? there isn’t any. we don’t want to see it any more than we want to do it (naWKalt).”

    Ha! Come to think of it, you are dead right Just1Z.
    Never ever thought of it before.

    Which brings me to another point.. I too am an avid Sc-fi reader, like you.

    I was reading sci-fi novels from the time I was twelve. (My dad was a sci-fi fan as well) Thank goodness. I missed out on all that Harlequin- Mills and Boon romance junk. ;)

    Ray Bradbury and Brian Aldiss were favourites.

    Did you ever read Hothouse? Great stuff.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com/ Marellus

    @Just1Z

    :-D

  • deti

    Susan 194:

    “If men are wired with a competitive instinct, why would that not apply to mating? Why would every guy not want to get the highest SMV woman? In his chapter What Men Want in The Evolution of Desire, David Buss attempts to explain why men marry:”

    Well, Buss is wrong. Maybe he should have polled the male readership of this site before publishing his conclusions.

    Sure, men compete for things like jobs and status. That’s indirect competition. But when we are talking about “competition” for the best female mating partners, I consider this to be DIRECT competition where two or more men are literally jousting for a woman. This is Ug going over to Og’s cave and trying to take Og’s woman. I realize this is a panty-wetter and a dream for women and that’s the appeal of it. That being said, there are a couple of problems with it from the male side:

    1. Most women, even the most desirable ones, are not worth direct competition. It’s simply too difficult and the potential reward just isn’t worth the risk.

    2. Whenever there is direct competition for a woman involving two or more men literally facing off toward each other, the threat of physical violence is involved. A woman is not worth this unless she is married to me. This is doubly true in the SMP we’re in now.

    3. Part of the “bro code” is that if your male frien is interested in a woman and he saw her first or has her, you don’t pursue her. Period. Full stop. Also, you don’t pursue your bro’s girlfriend or try to battle him for her. Reasons 1 and 2 are precisely why these portions of the bro code exist — because the woman isn’t worth it; and because the possibility of physical harm and busting up a friendship isn’t worth it.

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

      @deti

      Well, Buss is wrong. Maybe he should have polled the male readership of this site before publishing his conclusions.

      This is a hilarious and ironic statement, as it is his work that is the entire foundation of Game. Discredit Buss and it all goes down the toilet (which Jason’s ex will clean).

      Sure, men compete for things like jobs and status. That’s indirect competition. But when we are talking about “competition” for the best female mating partners, I consider this to be DIRECT competition where two or more men are literally jousting for a woman.

      I don’t understand. Why would mating competition be more direct than other kinds of male competition? Why wouldn’t men compete the same way across the board?

  • Dawin

    ”“Clearly, men take their cues from dominant men. They determine who’s hot according to what the most socially dominant males find attractive.”’

    Say what? How would a guy telling me that natural double D’s on a 6 feet tall woman is not attractive make her look unattractive? Because he’s ”social dominant”?

    Since when do men care about what other guys think? Each one of the guys I interact with has his own set of what makes a woman attractive. I enjoy the sight of Asian women and Middle-Eastern women. Most of the guys aren’t into what I am into, and some of those guys are pretty ”socially dominant.” Am I defected?

    A couple of hours ago I was spending time with a 5’6” Jewish girl. She’s pretty darn average when compared with all of the other girls, but I think she’s attractive enough to warrant my attentions. Of course she thinks she’s unworthy of my presence because I displayed too much prestige/asshole game, but that’s beyond the point.

  • Dawin

    ”Part of the “bro code” is that if your male frien is interested in a woman and he saw her first or has her, you don’t pursue her. Period. Full stop. Also, you don’t pursue your bro’s girlfriend or try to battle him for her. Reasons 1 and 2 are precisely why these portions of the bro code exist — because the woman isn’t worth it; and because the possibility of physical harm and busting up a friendship isn’t worth it.”

    True. A friend of mine thinks this sluttish little thing is hot. I look at her and I see a dandy time, no effort necessary to bang her. But I won’t do it because he’s crushing on her, and there are so many women in the world, it doesn’t matter that one or another, or a hundred can’t be reached. The funny part is that he’s slightly autistic and he even knows you don’t mess with a girl your bro is interested in, even if the guy has feelings for her and all you want to do is smash her(bang her).

  • deti

    “Also, you don’t pursue your bro’s girlfriend or try to battle him for her.”

    You don’t go after your bro’s GF even if she is coming on to you. In fact, the code demands that you report the GF’s actions to your bro. In this case, and in this case only, you risk inciting your bro’s anger. Your bro deserves to know.

  • Just1Z

    @Kathy
    me heap big sci-fi fan too.

    Niven and Pournelle – Ringworld / Mote in God’s Eye / Man Kzin wars / Tales of Known Space
    They were great stories. I would love to see some movies made of them. In fact the technology to make Ringworld as a series would not be expensive, and what a world to make stories of! These are big-concept stories, so far above the banal dreck of what makes it to TV. Continuum was the only recent TV series with an interesting concept – just who is the terrorist, who are the bad guys? I didn’t love it, but at least it had an underlying concept that was interesting.
    I like Dune, but never got swept away as a fan.

    For a while the SF went to high math concepts but little story, but for the last decade the story is back. Iain M Banks / Peter Hamilton / Neal Asher / Paul McAuley / Richard Morgan. I knid of got burnt out reading in France (no TV), but I’m getting back to it now.

    I re-re-re-read “Who goes here” by Bob Shaw recently – the story of space trooper ‘Warren Peace’. If you aren’t laughing after the first two pages, you’ve had a serious sense-of-humour-ectomy. It’s kind of Harry Harrison in its comedy (another great writer of scifi).

  • SayWhaat

    “as meditation music for some Hindu-sect, who worships a god that wears a broomstick on its head”

    Hmm, I suppose racism makes you feel like a big man…

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I don’t understand. Why would mating competition be more direct than other kinds of male competition? Why wouldn’t men compete the same way across the board?”

    Because in a ‘polite society’ men compete for jobs and status indirectly. We DO NOT condone violence so guys don’t start throwing punches over a job. However, when it comes to women, men WILL throw punches or worse. And as a society, we expect this behavior even if we claim it is improper.

    Guys won’t risk getting arrested or killed over a job. (most of the time.) But over a woman? I’ve seen guys hauled away by police because he got in a scrap with the interloper, and I’ve seen a few interlopers get their asses beaten badly for their attempt. Most men don’t want things to get physical, because when they do, someone will get hurt/killed/arrested.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Why would mating competition be more direct than other kinds of male competition? Why wouldn’t men compete the same way across the board?”

    Because if we’ve already gone and beaten all of our components in terms of prestige/status and social dominance and she still expects us to compete with a gaggle of orbiters for attention she’s probably nuts or values you so little that the chance of a relationship is nil.

    Or the provision/prestige is actually valueless.

    An analogous question would be to ask why women don’t compete directly like men do in jobs/academics?

  • Sassy6519

    1. Most women, even the most desirable ones, are not worth direct competition. It’s simply too difficult and the potential reward just isn’t worth the risk.

    2. Whenever there is direct competition for a woman involving two or more men literally facing off toward each other, the threat of physical violence is involved. A woman is not worth this unless she is married to me. This is doubly true in the SMP we’re in now.

    3. Part of the “bro code” is that if your male frien is interested in a woman and he saw her first or has her, you don’t pursue her. Period. Full stop. Also, you don’t pursue your bro’s girlfriend or try to battle him for her. Reasons 1 and 2 are precisely why these portions of the bro code exist — because the woman isn’t worth it; and because the possibility of physical harm and busting up a friendship isn’t worth it.

    Despite this, you would be surprised just how often I have been in situations where men have competed for me. The example I gave was just 1. There are a few other examples I could give.

    I think this is an example of women seeing some men behave in certain ways, in the SMP, and some men are reluctant to admit that such behavior exists among their sex.

    I’ve said it before, and I will say it again.

    Some men do compete over women. I’ve been involved with 2-3 situations where the men who competed for me were friends. They broke the supposed “bro code” and competed for me anyway. I’m not saying that all men act this way, but I’ve seen enough men compete for women to know that it does happen.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “This is a hilarious and ironic statement, as it is his work that is the entire foundation of Game. Discredit Buss and it all goes down the toilet (which Jason’s ex will clean).”

    so, this is looks like credentialism.

    Any belief in Game is righteous because Buss described its basis? To doubt Buss is to doubt Game? WTF?

    No, I feel utterly free to doubt or discard what isn’t true in my experience. Now, given that he has said a great deal which is correct, I will apply a heavier weighting to what I hear from him. But no way does he get any kind of pass on things on which I have experience.

    Einstein is considered pretty smart, but he hated Quantum Mechanics. That didn’t make any difference to the correctness of QM. (note to geeks, I’m not saying QM is correct or not, just that its correctness isn’t and wasn’t dependant on who believed it).

    Science is not a popularity contest, it isn’t a democracy and past performance is not a guarantee of future correctness.

    Now social ‘science’ operates in the muddiest of waters, where poor data is likely the best you’ll get, political agendas abound and an inability to operate under logic and mathematical correctness is seen as no bar whatsoever to having a fabulous career.

    Having said that, I will reiterate that Buss appears to be among the best in the field, but that doesn’t mean that he’s right.

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

      Any belief in Game is righteous because Buss described its basis? To doubt Buss is to doubt Game? WTF?

      Buss is the godfather of Evolutionary Psychology. Game cannot be true without Evolutionary Psychology. Ergo.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “Why would mating competition be more direct than other kinds of male competition?”

    fisticuffs

  • Richard Aubrey

    The Brits had a million guys killed in WW I, and probably the same number crippled into economic or social uselessness.
    Given the resulting ratio–worse than college today–women would have to do some work.
    But playing hard to get? Hell, the guys had all the choice in the world.
    After the War of The Triple Alliance, one of the combatants–I think it was Paraguay–had lost something like 90% of its men from age 15-55. Or perhaps even higher on the old guy end. Imagine that social scene.

  • Ted D

    Sassy – “I think this is an example of women seeing some men behave in certain ways, in the SMP, and some men are reluctant to admit that such behavior exists among their sex.”

    I said there ARE men that will compete for a woman. For me the larger point is: exactly WHAT type of men are those, and do women really want them for LTR/Husband roles?

    Guys that will literally fight for a woman, and certainly guys that make it a habit, tend to be the VERY aggressive VERY ‘alpha’ type men. Now, I would fight for my wife IF she was threatened by a man, but to keep her affections? Hell no! You want him that badly, go get him. I don’t feel the need to qualify myself to her or him by “fighting” over her. I don’t play the “lets see you and him fight” game. Either you pick me, or you move on.

    That being said, I’m not a very competitive person anyway, and certainly pretty low on that drive in comparison to most men. I am generally confident in things I’m good at, and know I suck at things I’m not. I don’t see the point in trying to “prove” it in either case. I much prefer an objective assessment of my abilities based on what I’ve accomplished myself.

  • Just1Z

    @Sassy
    ‘some’? yeah, I’m okay with ‘some’.

    I happen to think that they’re dumb

    N.B I am not making a comment about you or your behaviour in your scenarios.

    Any man that falls for the old ‘let’s you and him fight’ for the amusement / sexual excitement of a woman needs to learn a lesson pronto. Women encouraging this are the absolute lowest of the low as far as I am concerned. Men’s lives get changed so that she gets a little emo-porn drama…quality nice /sarc

  • Lokland

    Let me expand on my last comment.

    Most forms of conflict in nature are indirect.
    You stare the guy down, physical violence is a last resort. Intimidation is the preferred form of dominance. (Ex. Dog growling down another dog in the pack.)
    Or in the job market which is relatively indirect and mating market which is determined by looks/prestige/provisioning capacity. Being the guy who killed all the other guys and is now the de facto alpha male is rare.

    Thats true across most animal species (especially social group ones).

    When a woman is trying to select from multiple males and pit them into direct competition with one another the end result will be physical violence which is only really effective is your likely to win which applies to a small group of individuals. Most animals prefer flight over fight because the ancestors who fought died (or were the rare ones who won EVERY time without ever suffering a mortal wound in their entire ancestry before reproducing, which is extremely unlikely.)

    Indirect competition —-> I’m better looking, more charming, higher status and able to socially dominate (indirectly) is the preferred form of mate attainment merely from a C-B standpoint.

    If a woman wants to guys to fight over her non-physically there is a chance it can escalate to physical violence which most would lose.

    wrt, Sassy @ 357

    How many men would you say compete directly vs. indirectly vs. give up?

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

      Indirect competition —-> I’m better looking, more charming, higher status and able to socially dominate (indirectly) is the preferred form of mate attainment merely from a C-B standpoint.

      Exactly, this is what I meant. Men do compete indirectly for women all the time. This may be observed in all social settings.

  • Just1Z

    @TedD
    “but to keep her affections? Hell no!”
    “Either you pick me, or you move on”

    aced it, congrats

    any woman trying the white feather thing on me would be unwise. it was a favourite ploy of the early feminists, I believe.

  • Joe

    @SW,

    Can anybody provide an answer for why beta orbiters pursue girls who are already in relationships?

    Apologies. I fell asleep on you last night. But in my quick reading over the rest of the posts this morning it seems you stumbled onto some truth.

    One thing I’m surprised about, though, is that no one mentioned an analogy to rutting bull moose.

    [Okay. Stop saying "Huh?". That's not out of left field.]

    Everyone’s seen the Nat. Geo. clips of moose in mating season. The alpha bull is always challenged for supremacy by the up and comers. When he wins, they become betas (or die). When he loses, they become the new alpha.

    Those beta orbiters you were talking about were still showing alpha tendencies because that’s what they have to do (and btw, I chose my words a little carefully last night – I didn’t say that they were alpha, just that they were trying to act alpha). The specific girl actually has very little to do with it. It’s one of the reasons that the competition itself is no fun, which was the real thrust of my statement.

    Girl who is a tease and has multiple beta orbiters, and is single => not worth the competition.

    Girl who is a tease and has multiple beta orbiters, and is in a relationship => “Shall we joust?”

    No. It’s “Girl who is (period, end of clause) => competition.”

    We’re thankful we’re not moose, or it would be more obvious and less subtle.

    Now I have to ask. You seem to be interesting in the dynamics of this competition, and how it comes about. At least, that’s how I interpret many of your comments since last night. You’re not interested in generating this dynamic yourself, are you? Please tell me you’re not.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com/ Marellus

    @SayWhaat

    “as meditation music for some Hindu-sect, who worships a god that wears a broomstick on its head”

    Hmm, I suppose racism makes you feel like a big man…

    Oh all right, I’m sorry … I’ll send that sect a Barbie-doll with a dustpan on her head …

  • SayWhaat

    No Joe, I am not interested in generating a competition for male suitors. :)

    What I *am* interested in is how women can figure out strategies for relationships. For me, learning about the “odds of winning” fit another piece into the puzzle. It’s akin to guys realizing that when a girl says she wants a nice guy, what she means is she wants a nice guy that she finds attractive. She assumes the attraction is a given, but that is not clear to the guys.

    Likewise, a girl who already has physical attraction and emotional escalation down, may still lose out to another girl who is similar in all aspects, save for popularity.

    In other environments, the “odds” of success may be assumed to already be less than say, 70% (high enough to motivate courtship, but not so high as to dissuade entirely). However, in environments where the population is heavily skewed female (like say, a college campus), the odds of successfully “winning” a woman go way up (more male choice).

    Therefore, it appears that it would be a good strategy for women in such environments to subtly drop clues about their “options” in order to increase a male’s interest. Because if she can afford to have options in an environment that clearly works against her, she must have some sort of status with males. And having that makes her worth further pursuit. :)

  • SayWhaat

    Marellus, nice try, but that’s still racist.

  • SayWhaat

    “Those beta orbiters you were talking about were still showing alpha tendencies because that’s what they have to do (and btw, I chose my words a little carefully last night – I didn’t say that they were alpha, just that they were trying to act alpha). ”

    I don’t think that was the case. One of these orbiters was a foreign student who gifted her a large stuffed animal for no real reason. He was very nebbish, I think that it was more a case of him being so besotted that he overstepped his bounds.

  • BroHamlet

    @Sassy

    “Some men do compete over women.”

    I’ve already stated that I agree. Some men will compete over women, and the reasons are varied- for some it’s not about the woman at all, it’s about winning. SayWhaat says she’s seen it too among “betas”. They’ll probably take a swing at a taken girl for lack of options. Not sure why that would be a revelation lol. Most men, and especially those with options, won’t, and the guys are telling you why: most don’t need a fight ruining their night, or worse, a friendship. Now, there are definitely cases where you’ve started talking to a girl and someone else steps up. You need to stand your ground. That is where competition most often happens, and often it’s really short lived and usually ends with one guy shutting the other down with something witty, or in the case of a guy who knows what he’s doing, pulling away a bit and disqualifying himself.

    So, Sassy, I ask you, what is your tale on the situations where you have seen guys compete over you. What type of men were they? Were they your type? And as a general observation did you end up favoring the victor? Or did you even find yourself interested in any of them at all?

    @Susan- I think you may have missed my comment to Cooper where I suggested you start to advocate that girls start playing the game from the inside out. If you look at the philosophy behind pickup and the community around it, the way they started off was with principles like those in the post (the book The Game was all about this approach). Now if you google some of the biggest sites, many of the most recognized ones are preaching building a life and an understanding of one’s ego that leads you to naturally embody a lot of the principles. I have a friend who got into pickup several years back (which is how I found out about it)- he got into the “tactical” side of things, and at about the same time I got into improving myself and my mindset. He and I are of the same mind today- it’s better to actually BE better, and to be effortless beyond just having an ego (because ego is more externally influenced). When I see lists like this, I see the same progression. In advocating these things You are starting where many have already been, and chances are you will end up coming to the same conclusion. This is just my general take on where your strategy could be more geared toward helping women become more self-aware and truly in control beyond a few tricks. Suggested reading might be helpful.

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

      @Bro Hamlet

      This is just my general take on where your strategy could be more geared toward helping women become more self-aware and truly in control beyond a few tricks.

      Well I aim to do that as well. HUS is by no means predicated on tricks. I didn’t miss your comment before, I replied that I think a lot of women have the Inner Game piece down, and what they lack is the understanding of feminine demeanor and its appeal to men. The “finishing school” aspect, if you will. Those finishing touches cannot take the place of internal value and integrity, but they may still be necessary to make a woman appealing to men.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    Marellus, nice try, but that’s still racist.

    Where is Plain Jane when you need her?

  • http://asinusspinasmasticans.wordpress.com Mule Chewing Briars

    Re; Game of Thrones

    Late to the party, buut nevertheless.

    I was astounded at the last scene of the first season.

    How else could you show the naked breasts of a young woman and make them the second most interesting thing in the shot without adding dragons?

  • SayWhaat

    ” SayWhaat says she’s seen it too among “betas”. They’ll probably take a swing at a taken girl for lack of options. Not sure why that would be a revelation lol”

    Not sure why understanding why girls like nice guys who are also attractive had to be such a revelation either, lol.

  • Sai

    @Iggles
    “Specifically in the case of some minority men who view landing any woman from the dominant culture as a “win” regardless of her objective level of attractiveness.. She will be regarded as a greater catch than women from their own background.”
    http://youtu.be/493pL_Vbtnc
    (I’M SORRY)

    @Just1Z
    “the gorgeous woman just falls into his arms when he has done the important stuff (saves the world blah blah) – there is no chase.”
    I guess that’s (one reason) why I like Leia, Valeria and Elizabeth. On the other hand, I thought Holly was very ungrateful for leaving John after he saved her TWICE.

    @Richard Aubrey
    Between WWII, Uncle Joe, Afghanistan and the alcoholism-inducing economy, the ratio in Russia is similar to what you described… but still not as bad as Paraguay. :shock: I learned something today.

  • Sassy6519

    @ BroHamlet

    So, Sassy, I ask you, what is your tale on the situations where you have seen guys compete over you. What type of men were they? Were they your type? And as a general observation did you end up favoring the victor? Or did you even find yourself interested in any of them at all?

    I would classify most of the men who competed for me as Alpha. A few of them were Beta though. Most of them were my type, but not all.

    I found myself interested in the men who were the victors most often.

    I do need to clarify that I never egged on any of the competitions I have witnessed. The men decided to compete against each other by themselves. I never pulled the “let’s you and him fight” routine. I usually just sat back in astonishment, praying that they wouldn’t try to physically harm each other. I’ve never witnessed such competitions come to blows before, but I have witnessed more than a few arguments/verbal battles.

    @ Lokland

    How many men would you say compete directly vs. indirectly vs. give up?

    Do you mean specifically over me, or men overall?

    I can’t speak for all men, but I can give a breakdown for the men I have encountered.

    I’d say that 50% of the men give up, 25% of the men compete directly, and 25% of the men compete indirectly.

    That has been my experience.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com/ Marellus

    @SayWhaat

    … weeeelll, I suppose I can send that sect a voodoo doll of Rush Limbaugh … but you’ve gotta ask me nicely … I mean, they’re gonna need hair and nail clippings to make the bloody thing … and that means I’ve surreptitiously gotta stand beneath his window holding up a bucket, while Hillary Clinton is making a speech on my car’s stereo …

  • Pixie

    @SayWhaat

    To go back to your initial comment, I’ve seen the phenomenon you describe (taken girl, orbiting interested suitors) multiple times. I have a friend in particular who has essentially not been single since age 14 due to this “method”. The reasons for it existing have been pretty much covered in all of the following commentary, but just saying, you’re not alone in witnessing this. Out of curiosity, are you still in college or are you a recent graduate?

  • http://triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

    There’s a lot of powerful advice in the original list: “Be dependent materially and independent spiritually”, ” Always give a little less of yourself than is wanted, a little less than satisfies”, “A woman has not made a conquest until she finds herself pursued”…. If you are really set on making a man obsess about you, I have to admit, much of this has (& would) work on me. And yes, the similarities between those advices & Game is striking.

    The one part I thought was a glaring piece of female projection, as the other male commenters have pointed out, is:

    4. A man does not often want what nobody else would have. He covets what others have already found desirable. The more proof he has that you are sought after, the more convinced he will be that you are worth seeking.

    As Just1Z said, “really not, really, really, fifty times really not”. The only word-of-mouth that markedly lowers female status for men is implications of many sexual partners, & so the “slut” label. There’s very little else that anyone could say to make a man change his initial desire for a woman he found attractive.

  • J

    Girl who is a tease and has multiple beta orbiters, and is in a relationship => “Shall we joust?”

    I do believe that’s called “pre-selection.” Oddly, I think the amount of attention that I get as a middle-aged married woman is way out of proportion to what I got when I was young and available. On some level, I think men think that if you have what it takes to make on man happy, you could make them happy too.

    If I stopped threading my eyebrows, I doubt I would receive as much male attraction than if I didn’t.

    Actually guys don’t care if you thread your brows, they just like anything that gives the illusion of big wide eyes. You might want to try plucking your hairline instead. ;-)

    I woul posit that on a micro level, women follow beauty trends as part of intrasexual competition, but on a macro level they follow beauty trends in order to be more attractive to the larger male population, or at least the particular demographic that they are targeting.

    Yeah.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    My husband did the orbiting girls in relationship thing, too. I think there’s an aspect of “relationship preselection” going on, as in “this girl must be girlfriend material if she’s taken.” Also proximity would be a factor, since they often belonged to the same social circle.

    I’ve never had guys compete directly for me, but when I’ve been in LTRs I’ve also had guys express interest in me. I agree with J that it’s probably the perception that the girl has more “relationship skills.” In my opinion, the danger is, if she can be mate poached once, she can be mate poached again.

    Re: the games outlined in this post, I think after a certain age and emotional maturity, these games should no longer be necessary. My husband and I didn’t play them and don’t play them, and our passion levels are still quite high.

  • SayWhaat

    Marellus,

    An idol, or Murti, has a very rich and deep meaning. In Hindu culture, we find divinity in all things. The Murti allows for the expression of the divine in a tangible form. The human form of the Murtis is designed to awaken the worshipper’s experience of their own body as an embodiment of spiritual truth. That is why murtis are crafted to represent gods in states of meditation — to represent human form in union with divinity, which cannot be captured or truly expressed in any material form.

    It has a very deep and beautiful meaning. It saddens me to see it reduced to Barbies and voodoo dolls. What a shame.

  • deti

    Ted D:

    “I said there ARE men that will compete for a woman. For me the larger point is: exactly WHAT type of men are those, and do women really want them for LTR/Husband roles?”

    They are not bros. Any friend who did this to me or tried to do it would be my friend no longer. They might be bull alphas with brass ones the size of grapefruits, but they can’t be trusted. You violate the code, you’re out.

    “Guys that will literally fight for a woman, and certainly guys that make it a habit, tend to be the VERY aggressive VERY ‘alpha’ type men. Now, I would fight for my wife IF she was threatened by a man, but to keep her affections? Hell no! You want him that badly, go get him. I don’t feel the need to qualify myself to her or him by “fighting” over her. I don’t play the “lets see you and him fight” game. Either you pick me, or you move on.”

    Yep. If a wife is telling me she expects me to beat down some other man she tingles for so she can tell me who tingles her more, we’re done. She’s off her rocker, and I’m not sticking around for it.

  • SayWhaat

    Pixie, I graduated college a year ago.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com/ Marellus

    Suzan

    @Marellus

    I really think you were born in the wrong century. You would have made an excellent pal for Byron.

    Saints and Ministers of Grace … I have been negged by a woman !

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com/ Marellus

    @SayWhaat

    … you must be one of the few women, whom I’d treat to a candle-lit dinner, out of sheer exasperation …

  • SayWhaat

    Actually guys don’t care if you thread your brows, they just like anything that gives the illusion of big wide eyes.

    Right. In this case, large eyes is a hard-wired attraction cue. But despite having large eyes, I doubt I would receive as much attention with a unibrow! :P

  • SayWhaat

    … you must be one of the few women, whom I’d treat to a candle-lit dinner, out of sheer exasperation …

    Not sure I follow…

  • Lokland

    @Susan, Susan

    “I’d say that 50% of the men give up, 25% of the men compete directly, and 25% of the men compete indirectly.”
    “Exactly, this is what I meant. Men do compete indirectly for women all the time. This may be observed in all social settings.”

    Yes. Direct competition is when you have two aggressive males or when to males have an equal-ish value and reason to believe they can win the competition will then escalate from indirect to direct (intimidation).

    Indirect is what I thought would be more common.

    The guys who give up are the ones who know their outmatched.

    I know I’ve done all three ranging from giving up and walking away to actual physical escalation (though in that case the woman was already mine, some guys just don’t get the meaning of fuck off).

    @Susan

    I am curious why your recommending techniques for an affair as relationship worthy.

    I’m sure a woman could get her husband to indirectly compete continuously and make him hyper-active in terms of sexuality but jealousy will kill the relationship anyway.

    I also mentioned earlier that competition is best when the winner is already aware that their highly favoured. (Think two knights jousting and one gets the ladies ribbon thing.)
    To think that guys will enjoy having to joust for their wife everyday (even with the ribbon) is a nice female fantasy, cause she is so valuable, but also highly unrealistic (ex. HBs have it worse).

    @Saywhaat

    honest question.

    Why are you so obsessed with increased perceived value in a relationship?
    The only real benefit it adds is the potentially to trade up/find another boyfriend more easily.

    Personally, I see no reason to even consider ones perceived value to others after entering a relationship unless your not really serious about that relationship.

    I’ll vouch for this as an effective technique for guys, one of my buddies considered trading up woman for slightly hotter models the most effective method of getting beautiful woman. Its advice he gave me back when we were in high school. It worked well for him.

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

      @Lokland

      I am curious why your recommending techniques for an affair as relationship worthy.

      I’m not, I specifically said they are techniques to arouse male interest, which may or may not lead to a relationship. Again, I’ll draw the similarity between this post and hookup culture. The attraction mechanism is the same for STR or LTR. Langley Moore’s advice makes you more likely to truly capture the male imagination, IMO. From there you can proceed to an LTR if that’s what you want.

      Obviously, this is all from the female POV.

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan

    Now I see your comments after having a chance to re-scan the thread. Here’s my thoughts.

    “I think that there are many women of high value who do not know how to inspire sexual interest in males.”

    Disagree totally. If a woman is attractive, she’s got 90% of the game played as far as sexual interest goes. What so many women are not doing, is inspiring feelings of trust and commitment, and the feeling that “this is someone I can live with long term”. And what is your definition of high value? I’ll get to why this is important in a sec.

    “The fact is, men respond to female traits, including coyness. They enjoy feminine wiles, which are a key component of femininity.”

    Yes. A dash of coyness. I think we agree.

    “I replied that I think a lot of women have the Inner Game piece down, and what they lack is the understanding of feminine demeanor and its appeal to men.”

    I agree with the second part- a lot of women don’t get what gets and keeps a man, but I completely disagree with the first part. In fact, I really can’t even see how you can say with a straight face that women have strong inner game in a culture where we have campaigns to bolster female self esteem and make sure “every woman feels beautiful”. That doesn’t speak to any ability to detach from the status quo.

    Most women are building a foundation on sand when it comes to inner game. I need not even go into how many women are insecure and seek validation through a number of means, mostly external, or how many women get out into the world and get hooked on that one guy who doesn’t pay enough attention, or want to get married because it’s the “right thing to do”, or follow the female social herd because they are afraid of being ostracized from it (just a few examples of a long, long list of tells to lack of centeredness). Why is their foundation unsteady? It’s really simple- so many women have internalized what society and their parents, friends, and male attentions have granted them for free since birth. But that’s all EXTERNAL. They have not sat down and detached themselves from the matrix of societal approval and asked themselves where they really stand (even though their stance may result in a complete revocation of approval) and truly believed from the inside out that “I am enough”, nor have many EARNED their confidence. Confidence that is unearned is just pumped up ego. And ego has it’s roots in meeting external approval. It is plainly obvious to me that most women have not even earned their OWN approval, which is really the only approval that matters, let alone managed to understand the ways in which their own approval has been shaped by the messages they have been fed. The fact that most girls will fold like a house of cards and become “beta” in the presence of a guy that is of higher station is a really obvious symptom. This is not the first time I have said exactly the above, and you have agreed with me before.

    Maybe I should ask you what you see as high value, because to me, high value doesn’t really correspond to just attractiveness or credentials. I have seen people with a healthy disregard for the “hierarchy” be the highest value person in the room.

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

      @BroHamlet

      In fact, I really can’t even see how you can say with a straight face that women have strong inner game in a culture where we have campaigns to bolster female self esteem and make sure “every woman feels beautiful”. That doesn’t speak to any ability to detach from the status quo.

      Yes, the culture is damaging, but not all women have been damaged by it, IMO. A girl’s family is in a strong position to influence her values, oversee her development and counteract the culture.

      I said that I think a lot of women have inner game in the sense that they are interested in real relationships, with the give and take that implies. The young women I know who are in relationships are extremely loyal and loving. I wouldn’t necessarily call them feminine, but their relationships are working. They are generous and do make a special effort to please and appreciate their boyfriends, though I would not describe any of them as subservient.

      I don’t disagree with your description of a lot of women today – the worst women. I believe we probably differ on what percentages we would assign to that group.

      I personally know a lot of really good young men and women. Earnest, genuine, humble, hard-working. If anything, what they lack is polish and the ability to do the superficial things that their “fake” peers are so good at.

  • deti

    Lok 363:

    You nailed it.

    “Indirect competition —-> I’m better looking, more charming, higher status and able to socially dominate (indirectly) is the preferred form of mate attainment merely from a C-B standpoint.”

    Yes. And in our culture, direct competition is too risky, physically, legally, socially, professionally, and otherwise.

    Direct competition: cutdown fights, talking shit, name-calling, flame wars, accusations of unsavory/illegal conduct; threats; facing off, actual fisticuffs, punches thrown, brawling.

    Most of the time it takes place in public, with a lot of spectators. There will be a winner and a loser. Somebody’s probably going to the hospital, and whoever doesn’t go to the hospital will be arrested, maybe prosecuted, and then sued. The loser will also go home with a bruised ego. The winner might get a woman, but also a rap sheet and the enmity and contempt of most other men. And for both men, their families, friends and employers will get wind of the incident — and why it happened. Most employers don’t want to employ men who get into brawls over women, or worse, have police rap sheets because of brawls over women.

    Like I said — is the woman worth that? Nope.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan

    “Buss is the godfather of Evolutionary Psychology. Game cannot be true without Evolutionary Psychology. Ergo.”

    It’s genuinely very interesting that you say that, because there’s no scientific basis for that statement. ‘Ergo’ is a particularly ironic word to use as well, as there is no logic involved in that statement.

    If we’re pretending to be scientific, we need to stop believing something is true just because a guy / gal described it in a paper. As I said there’s plenty of claptrap talked in feminist ‘literature’ and there were lots of papers written long, oh so long ago about the inherent inferiority of females to males – that kind of thing is quite controversial stuff nowadays, believe me…they were wrong.

    Evolutionary Psychology was just as true before Buss described it, as it was after. He gave it the name, he didn’t invent it or its veracity.

    Game (as in what PUAs practice) is either true or not. This is independant of EP for exactly the same reasons. EP may give a theoretical basis for why game works. But even if EP was debunked tomorrow, Game would carry on – because it works (YMMV on the working bit).

    PUAs verified game by intense, focussed, in-depth research…*ahem*

    When guys say they discover ‘game’, what they usually mean is that someone finally put a name to a lot of behaviours that they’ve seen work with women. It was true before they put that name to it, it’s not true just because Strauss wrote a book about it.

    Maybe this explains some of the gap in communication here between men and women, or more likely scientists vs social scientists. one set are looking for objective truth which can be proven, the other wading through very rough and ready data* trying to generalise a useful set of theories.

    *not a criticism per se, more an observation that the ‘truths’ are buried in very complex systems and so are very hard to isolate. Physics experiments (e.g. Michaelson-Morley’s experiment) are designed ideally to give a clear cut proof of something (not existing in M-M’s case) wherever you carry it out, whoever carries it out, you get the same result (I did iirc). MUCH harder to do something so unequivocal with human society.

  • LJ

    This is a common complaint (by men) about dating sites; there are women getting so much attention from drive by emails from plate spinners, and the women mistake this for real attention from guys truly interested in her (not guys just spamming the list playing the numbers game). her self-image balloons, she’s happy for a few years until she finally works out that none of this attention is about her actually getting the marriage proposal. She can’t filter out the genuine guys, even if she wanted to, in the meantime…the attention! *swoon again*

    You really think women are that stupid? No — the difference between drive-by dating site spammers and genuine guys is really very obvious.

  • Mireille

    @BroHamlet

    While I agree with your POV on the lack of self-awareness, I can say that as a foreigner living in the US, most Americans, men and women, seem to me to lack in that department. Perhaps the added sexual projections on women make them more visibly affected in a society that is always asking for more and puts people in boxes.
    But I also would like to point out that women are different of men in the fact they value relationships more; this is not a “birth defect”, it is what makes them great agents in society, that makes them care for their husbands and children. I would contend that if we seek approval, we mostly seek peace, as in the absence of conflict. It isn’t so much that we are eager to do what other wants so much as we don’t want to receive a hard time for our choices, and guess what, everybody has an opinion of what women should or shouldn’t do. Their choices are not as respected as men’s. Some give up fighting, some stay in the ring. In any case, you’ll always find someone to comment on SAHMs (“lazy”) or on career women (“ball busting feminist”).

  • mr. wavevector

    This is the refreshingly honest dissimilarity – the acknowledgement of sex differences allows the open sharing of the secrets to tripping a man’s switches, which can not really have changed much in just 80 years.

    Men’s sexual instincts haven’t changed, but the psychological climate has. I suspect that the men of 80 years ago held women in generally high regard, were confident in their masculinity, and expected to pursue women as their social role. In contrast, the men of today have a lot of negative sentiments towards women, are anxious or defensive in their masculinity, and are indifferent in pursuit.

    Doris Langley Moore’s girl game seems predicated on the availability of men motivated to pursue an elusive, high value prize. Does that condition even exist in today’s SMP?

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

      @Mr. Wavevector

      Doris Langley Moore’s girl game seems predicated on the availability of men motivated to pursue an elusive, high value prize. Does that condition even exist in today’s SMP?

      I agree with your take on it, and also with your question. It’s one of the reasons I suggested her methods will only work with confident men. As to whether high SMV men will pursue – the answer is yes, when they tire of staffing the carousel, or if they are not inclined to unrestricted sex. At that time they will pursue women of high SMV. In fact, they will not be satisfied with any woman they do not have to pursue – in this way, they will get the woman that inspired them to effort and tenacity after all those years of easy pickings.

      It’s probably fair to say that DLM’s book is a guide for people of high SMV.

  • Just1Z

    @LJ
    “the difference between drive-by dating site spammers and genuine guys is really very obvious.”

    it might be very obvious after she gets P&D, before? IDK

    I mean if she was just after an ONS, fair enough, no deception occurred, but I’m sure that there are women genuinely upset when they get played. PUAs exist and they do game women with some success.

    maybe we’re thinking of different levels of skills employed in the drive by…?

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Buss is the godfather of Evolutionary Psychology. Game cannot be true without Evolutionary Psychology. Ergo.

    You’re making an association fallacy there.

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

      Buss is the godfather of Evolutionary Psychology. Game cannot be true without Evolutionary Psychology. Ergo.

      You’re making an association fallacy there.

      I know, I was actually making a joke. Not a very good one, I admit.

      My point is that I find it amusing when men go around making broad claims about female nature, pretty much Buss’ book Chapters 1-3, without even knowing it, and then when someone cites Buss Chapter 4, they say Buss is full of shit.

      Cherry picking fallacy.

  • HanSolo

    @Sai

    Thanks for suggesting she bring food. Have you searched for that recipe on the internet? Or have you written it down as best you can and then experimented? Well, there I go as a guy, offering solutions that you may not want! ;) It does suck you lost your recipe. There, how’s that for trying to listen? :D

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

    I have to agree with what BroHamlet says above, I see precious little evidence that North American women have inner game of any sort. What I do see is women posting new pictures of themselves on Facebook all the time to elicit the reflexive, “Oh you’re so pretty!!!” comments from their friends. Or they are wasting time watching escapist entertainment such as Game Of Thrones instead of working on themselves (::cough:: as everyone suddenly glares at me).

    For example, in my yoga world I observe that its largely practiced as a form of therapy rather than its more intended purpose of opening oneself emotionally and releasing the creative juices. That message is unpalatable in our culture of shame. The result is you have the pretty yoga teacher, and her cluster of wanna-bes who desperately try to improve their physical bodies in the hope it will magically improve their mental state. The tantra girls, on the other hand, are plenty approachable.

    As much as we bemoan the unwillingness of beta males to approach, beta females are just as reluctant if not more to be approachable. Being approachable implies some degree of emotional openness or vulnerability. What I see instead is largely facades and emotional defenses to prevent any man from getting to know her. I see teaching women the game of flirting as defined in the post just so that they become more approachable.

    I’ve posted this lecture by Brene Brown before, and it’s probably time to post it again:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCvmsMzlF7o

    and similar talks:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4Qm9cGRub0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UoMXF73j0c

  • Lokland

    @deti

    “Yes. And in our culture, direct competition is too risky, physically, legally, socially, professionally, and otherwise.

    Direct competition: cutdown fights, talking shit, name-calling, flame wars, accusations of unsavory/illegal conduct; threats; facing off, actual fisticuffs, punches thrown, brawling.”

    This is crazy talk.
    Unless you live in some 3rd world ghetto maybe.

    Direct competition: Battle of wits, maybe a stare down where one person gives up and the other wins.

  • JP

    One of the summer associates at the firm I used to work at had 4 kids by the time he was finished with law school.

    I think he was 24, 25?

    This was 6 years ago.

    Well educated turbo-Catholic

  • JP

    I think some of this “wait for kids” stuff is Blue Area only.

    I’ve pretty much always lived in Redopolis, and people seem to have tons of kids pretty darn early.

    Although 5 kids by mid-30s seems to be the upper limit.

    Lots of 3/4 kids by mid-30s.

    We only have two, which is on the low side with respect to family/friends.

    We may have another, but I’m 38 and burnt out, generally.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Lyle Lovett is uglier than Juanita Jordan.

    I don’t know if you plan on responding but I showed some weaknesses and unknowns about the experiment you mentioned. Namely, that the women were not rated for their beauty, only a binary yes/no decision to want to romance/see them was asked. And second, that we don’t know if the men were able to glean as much information about the woman’s looks as he would have liked (maybe they did but I couldn’t tell based on the two articles I found) and that many men will act to include a woman until they have reason to disqualify her. I gave my example of seeing a woman and perceiving her as more beautiful–filling in that missing info about her looks as beautiful–until I can get a better look.

    At very least it did show that the women were more moved by social proof than the men were.

    Namely, the men were not negatively affected in their desire to romance/see the woman when the male in the video didn’t show interest whereas the women were when the women didn’t show interest. And on the positive side it was only when men of higher perceived attractiveness showed interest in the woman.

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

      @HanSolo

      Namely, the men were not negatively affected in their desire to romance/see the woman when the male in the video didn’t show interest whereas the women were when the women didn’t show interest. And on the positive side it was only when men of higher perceived attractiveness showed interest in the woman.

      Yes, I did see this. I am curious to learn more about the effects of social proof in general, and preselection in particular, for each sex. If I find anything interesting I will report back.

  • Ted D

    Lokland – “Direct competition: cutdown fights, talking shit, name-calling, flame wars, accusations of unsavory/illegal conduct; threats; facing off, actual fisticuffs, punches thrown, brawling.”

    This is crazy talk.
    Unless you live in some 3rd world ghetto maybe.”

    Doesn’t have to be the 3rd world. Just come to my town and hang out “below the tracks” and you’ll see this shit on a regular basis. Guys get shot around here for “hitting” on another guys woman at the bar. Last year there was a gun fight two miles from my house that happened in the early evening in shopping center because some guy “hit” on a woman in the liquor store, and her “man” started shouting. it escalated and someone pulled a gun.

    “Direct competition: Battle of wits, maybe a stare down where one person gives up and the other wins.”

    Sorry but no. IMO this is all still indirect. Direct competition begins when someone takes off their coat. that being said, if I’m already established with a woman and she promotes a situation where I need to have a “battle of wits” with a guy to “win” her affection, I’ll just NEXT her and move on. Once she chooses me, I don’t expect to continually need to qualify myself to her. If she has a doubt, she can move on.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    And my point was that men’s opinions about a woman’s beauty won’t change a man’s perception of her beauty (very much, maybe 0.5 points at most and even that’s dubious in my own eyes, at best hearing their favorable opinion would prompt me to give her another look and decide for myself if I missed something earlier).

    So far I haven’t heard any men on here say that other men’s opinion will sway his opinion of her beauty very much or at all. In a marginal way I could understand it swaying things a bit by pointing out real flaws or strong points that for some reason he wasn’t focused on before but that speaks to a lack of full awareness and information on his part.

    In terms of wanting to date a girl I could see maybe if everyone starts saying how she’s a slut or horrible or something that a man would feel less inclined to date her but I don’t think it would change how pretty he “objectively” thought she was.

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

      @HanSolo

      I understand what you are saying about men not being swayed by the opinions of other men. I’m not sure it’s very different for women. I’m also curious how preselection might affect different women differently – what is the correlation to various personality traits, self-esteem, SMV, etc?

      I think there’s also the question of the women who comprise the “selecting” group. A player with a roster of bedded 5s and 6s is not going to find that his “social proof” gets him anywhere with 7s and up.

      Then there are the guys who assume a cocky “women love me” attitude even when it’s not true, i.e. PUA tactics. As Game has gone mainstream, women have become increasingly aware of cocky funny, the neg, push pull, takeaway, Fake Asshole, etc.

      Most men who are truly preselected by high SMV women are very high SMV themselves – it’s a chicken and egg question. And I’m not sure it’s not quite similar for women. High SMV women get a lot of attention from males, it’s not a question of preselection, just that her SMV results in a crowd of suitors.

  • Just1Z

    “Sorry but no. IMO this is all still indirect. Direct competition begins when someone takes off their coat. that being said, if I’m already established with a woman and she promotes a situation where I need to have a “battle of wits” with a guy to “win” her affection, I’ll just NEXT her and move on. Once she chooses me, I don’t expect to continually need to qualify myself to her. If she has a doubt, she can move on.”

    yep. well said. direct competition means that claret* is evident or imminent.

    *blood. a ref to Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.
    Sorry but I’m currently watching ‘Cockneys vs Zombies’
    http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt1362058/
    it’s got Brick-top (“the ‘orrible c***” from Snatch), so far it’s the dog’s b******s

  • JP

    “And my point was that men’s opinions about a woman’s beauty won’t change a man’s perception of her beauty””

    That’s because lots of men listen to one opinion.

    Their own.

  • Just1Z

    I’ll translate a bit of the IMBD blurb

    A gang of inexperienced East End tea leaves pull off a daring bank job, half-inching two million quid with which they hope to save an old people’s home from demolition; but when a couple of berks on a nearby building site open a zombie infested 17th-century plague pit, the robbers’ plan all goes a bit Pete Tong, and they find themselves battling to save the coffin dodgers’ lives instead (whilst avoiding being bitten in the Gregory in the process).

    To be honest, I thought this was going to be a load of old pony, just another in a long line of cheapo ‘A vs B’ horror films, but would you Adam ‘n’ Eve it, it’s actually very entertaining, a brilliant combination of the obvious, the absurd and the surprisingly clever.

    Although much of the film’s humour is derived from the exaggerated Cockney mannerisms of its characters (Alan Ford, in particular, plays an absolute blinder as hard-as-nails grandfather Ray), there are plenty of inspired gags that don’t rely so heavily on stereotypes and clichés (best of all being Richard Brier’s protracted Zimmer frame escape from some equally slow undead—I haven’t had such a good bubble in ages!), plus some wonderfully silly moments of splat-stick in which heads are blown apart, limbs are sliced off, skulls are crushed, throats are torn out, and entrails are given a good airing. In short, it’s all a damn sight better than the dodgy title suggests.

    tea leaf -> thief
    half inching -> pinching -> stealing
    quid – pound
    berk – idiot
    Pete Tong -> wrong
    coffin dodger – old person
    Gregory (Peck) -> neck
    Pony (and Trap) -> crap
    Adam ‘n’ Eve it -> believe it
    Bubble (bath) -> laugh

    You guys just don’t know cultcha like this.

  • deti

    Lok:

    “Direct competition: Battle of wits, maybe a stare down where one person gives up and the other wins.”

    I don’t know. If it gets to this point where you have two men squaring off, staring each other down, talking trash, clearly trying to intimidate, that’s physical or the threat of physical violence. Where I come from, you don’t do any of that unless you’re clearly getting ready to deploy physical force. And if someone does it to me it clearly denotes the next step as someone putting their hands on me, and it will get there PDQ. And where I am now, that kind of conduct is plainly intended to provoke a physical confrontation.

  • LJ

    @Just1z:
    “maybe we’re thinking of different levels of skills employed in the drive by…?”

    Maybe. There are a lot of guys who seem to be cutting-and-pasting the same message to who knows how many women online. You should be annoyed that those guys are cluttering up the inboxes of the women you’re trying to reach, but I wouldn’t worry about those women getting “played” by them since I don’t know many who would even reply.

  • LJ

    As a funny example of the above, I once right after joining a site got a message that said, “hi! you have a really interesting profile” but I had just joined and hadn’t written a single thing yet – the profile was completely blank.

  • BroHamlet

    @Mireille

    “most Americans, men and women, seem to me to lack in that department.”

    Definitely.

    “But I also would like to point out that women are different of men in the fact they value relationships more; this is not a “birth defect”, it is what makes them great agents in society, that makes them care for their husbands and children. ”

    I would like to point out that valuing relationships is not the same as seeking to maintain validation that one has become used to. No one is saying the priority women place on relationships is a birth defect, what I am saying is that validation is something you become accustomed to. In that way, measuring yourself by the status quo is something you learn and reinforce.

    I would contend that if we seek approval, we mostly seek peace, as in the absence of conflict.

    Yes, and I am arguing that the way most women (and men) in the US are taught to seek that peace is not very thorough. Their desire for it is not wrong or flawed, but especially in the case of women, it is really important to understand the ways in which one gets “plugged in”. I am saying that Susan is overestimating how much control even high value women really have. This isn’t to kick dirt, it’s to call attention to the fact that there is a deeper level that has been explored by those who have come before her, one that I think this blog only scratches the surface of. The assumption here appeared to be that women have inner game, and I am saying that by and large they don’t, even if they have achieved superficially high value.

    “It isn’t so much that we are eager to do what other wants so much as we don’t want to receive a hard time for our choices, and guess what, everybody has an opinion of what women should or shouldn’t do. Their choices are not as respected as men’s. Some give up fighting, some stay in the ring. In any case, you’ll always find someone to comment on SAHMs (“lazy”) or on career women (“ball busting feminist”).”

    Oh I understand- I wouldn’t characterize it as eagerness, but as a desire for as smooth a sail as possible. But the truth is that society is much crueler to men who can’t or don’t want to “measure up”. The point of all of what I have been saying is that on this blog and others, there’s a lot of advice and not as much talk about the “matrix”. I am saying it is equally important for women to work on their inner game, if not more, because of their tendency, and that Susan can help.

  • Ted D

    “Where I come from, you don’t do any of that unless you’re clearly getting ready to deploy physical force. And if someone does it to me it clearly denotes the next step as someone putting their hands on me, and it will get there PDQ. And where I am now, that kind of conduct is plainly intended to provoke a physical confrontation.”

    Yeah this describes my locale as well. And I’ll tell you, I don’t believe in a “fair fight” or any such nonsense. If someone comes at me with intent to harm, I assume it is a direct threat to my life and act accordingly.

    It is no different than carrying a gun. IF I pull out a gun, I fully intend to use it. And, if I fully intend to use it, I DO NOT shoot to disable. A friend of mine is a police officer. He likes to say “dead men can’t be defendants.” Put another way, if you shoot someone and they live, you can be sued or jailed. So, if you are going to shoot, make it a fatal shot.

    I approach physical violence the same way. If I’m going to throw a punch, I’m going to keep throwing them until the aggressor is down for the count. I actually keep a piece of lead pipe under the driver seat of my car. Anyone trying to pull me out of the car over road rage or whatever is going to get a pipe to the head if I get a chance.

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

    I think that experiments have repeatedly demonstrated that men from various cultures routinely find the same women attractive, so the advantages of pre-selection or social proofing for women may be very straightforward in terms of application.

    We probably have all heard of the experiments in which a hot girl was placed in the equivalent of a Burger King uniform and a plain girl was placed in executive attire, and then men were asked which girl was more attractive (100% of male respondents found the BK employee to be more attractive). If the hot girl and the not-hot girl had switched clothing the results would have been the same—in other words, if I find a woman to be hot, I feel confident that other men would also find her to be hot (with some variation allowed for differing tastes if we stress guys a bit and make them choose between two very attractive women).

    In contrast, when women were asked about the hot stud guy in the BK uniform vs. the plain guy in Savile Row pinstripes, the plain guy actually did quite well. Because female attraction may have multiple dials and levers involved, it would seem that some desirable traits may not be immediately obvious and thus a woman could use a man’s social proofing as an indicator of his status, wealth, profession, and other “hidden” assets (and creating these indicator effects in contrived and theatrical ways is what gives some PUA types a chance).

    I wouldn’t go so far as to say that “Girl Game” consists solely of being hot, but that’s definitely a large piece of it. Another big piece is finding a differentiated “Blue Ocean” with relatively favorable gender ratios (in other words, a South Beach night club would be a poor choice for a woman who didn’t want to compete head-to-head with other women on the basis of pure physical attractiveness. South Beach would be a “Red Ocean”).

    A final piece may be the willingness to approach (perhaps indirectly, through a friend—that seems to be how I usually run into an interested party). I think that the high SMV girls need to be aware that those girls who are not as hot are trying to make up for it these days by being extremely aggressive, willing to approach favored men, willing to escalate physically, etc. The competition is intensifying. I think that these women realize that they have to be more entrepreneurial in this SMP.

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

      @BB

      Because female attraction may have multiple dials and levers involved, it would seem that some desirable traits may not be immediately obvious and thus a woman could use a man’s social proofing as an indicator of his status, wealth, profession, and other “hidden” assets (and creating these indicator effects in contrived and theatrical ways is what gives some PUA types a chance).

      Yes. A man’s occupational status predicts a wife’s attractiveness better than looks does, and there are many more attraction triggers for females as well. Instead of the “boner test,” we have a multifactorial weighted formula that spits out a cumulative value. What I don’t see is how another woman’s weighted score affects mine. For example, a woman may prioritize physical strength, size and dominance, while dependability has a negative value and intelligence is neutral. I may value the intelligence highly, find dependability neutral, and assign negative value to the high T unibrow. If her weighted score is 85 and mine is 65 her liking him is not going to affect me in the least.

      It seems to me that preselection, if real, would only last as long as a first impression. Once you take the measure of the man, you are going to assign him a weighted score independent of other women.

      That said, there are certain traits that all women give great weight to. Occupational status, good looks, quick wit, self-confidence/social dominance. The men with high marks for these traits will turn up again and again with high scores.

      I’m not sure of the cause and effect here.

  • Dawin

    ”were confident in their masculinity, and expected to pursue women as their social role. In contrast, the men of today have a lot of negative sentiments towards women, are anxious or defensive in their masculinity, and are indifferent in pursuit. ”

    A man doesn’t need to chase women to be masculine. Alexander The Great was homosexual and he was more Alpha than most men alive today. Men of today don’t have negative sentiments, trust me. Paying attention to the young men around me, lounging about in the cantina, I notice that they don’t pay much attention to the women who walk by them.

    These guys are either playing games with each other or are discussing class(who’d guess that young men care about school?).

    The young women walk around well-dressed and with their physical display on display despite the freezing cold. Every guy and older woman around here has a thick as bear’s fur coat on them, gloves, and the young women seem to be immune to the cold. I suspect they’re having their fertile period of the month and are ”inviting” suitors.

    Of course both you and I know most of the potential suitors will be rejected and these young men know it too, that the game is rigged against them, so they focus in what makes them feel good.

    I can relate to them. I could get it on with women who look naturally good but I subconsciously fck it up(like opening my mouth) when the chance shows up. Its my body’s method to protect me from stds, fatherhood and child-support.

  • Dawin

    ””In contrast, when women were asked about the hot stud guy in the BK uniform vs. the plain guy in Savile Row pinstripes, the plain guy actually did quite well. Because female attraction may have multiple dials and levers involved, it would seem that some desirable traits may not be immediately obvious and thus a woman could use a man’s social proofing as an indicator of his status, wealth, profession, and other “hidden” assets (and creating these indicator effects in contrived and theatrical ways is what gives some PUA types a chance). ”

    Doubtful. I see plenty of guys driving executive cars at the age of 20, dressed in power-suits and with other gadgets that signal high status and these guys don’t clean-up as much as the Alpha males. They tend to find a long-term girlfriend that is not bad-looking, but the Alpha guy gets all the women”

    A claim is not the same as a physical reaction. I doubt a woman gets her panties wet when she sees a rich average-looking guy, but put her next to Brad Pitt and she’s going to need a raincoat. What women are willing to do when they decide to get married is to forget their lack of attraction for the guy and to either sex-up some other guy on the side, or they divorce the man after securing alimony support and find the guys they’re interested in, sexually.

    On the other hand, go to your nearest college and see them panties flood when they look at poor, but good-looking guys.

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

      Dawin = feelist = Michael et al?

  • Drifting

    One of the old tropes was two men competing for a woman’s intention, and one with natural game advantages like attractiveness or wealth would win. However, he would be unmasked as a villain, using the woman for his own hidden purposes, and the real story would be how the other man, the rightful love interest, has to overcome this defeat and run back to save her.

    The point is that the one who displays good game and wins a competition is not always someone you want, because ruthlessness and skin-deep advantage can often be a better spur to winning than love. The qualities that the loser of the competition possessed can be good, yet work against him: his honor makes him lose, his respect for your well-being and your wishes makes him withdraw. Many times the woman would only realize this in the middle of being tied to the train tracks, when the villain twirls his mustache and suddenly reveals why he competed.

    It’s interesting and a little saddening to see this reversed. Now the man with the skin-deep advantages is seen as the rightful victor, and the others as orbiters or beta men who need to red pill up and emulate the villain more. Mixed messages and forcing competition can have powerful downsides, too, as they can select for the worst man as easily as the best one. Even an air of mystery can, because one of the biggest complaints of men to women is that we cannot read your encoded signals. She thinks “Now that I’m being chased, if he loves me he’ll double his actions,” while he thinks “she wants him more than me.” Trying to provoke the hero to interest or jealousy in those old melodramas winds up getting you in the arms of the villain more often than not.

    I don’t write this to give advice, as most of my interest in this is more from the outside looking in. I’ve just been lurking here and find the ideas fascinating. Take it as you will.

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan

    “I said that I think a lot of women have inner game in the sense that they are interested in real relationships, with the give and take that implies.”

    Wanting a real relationship, or not, doesn’t have anything to do with inner game. It’s about being confident in yourself in the absence of all of it. Then you are more likely to be able to maintain a good relationship with someone, because you have your relationship with yourself handled. But other people shouldn’t really be the goal anyway. The only person you are absolutely guaranteed to spend the rest of your life with is you.

    “I don’t disagree with your description of a lot of women today – the worst women. I believe we probably differ on what percentages we would assign to that group.”

    No. You have to understand that I am making no value judgement about people here. There are as many men trapped in the game of achieving approval. I am saying that what I, or anyone else thinks is not important, and that too many people are too attached to the concept. I am also saying that knowing your tendencies in a value-neutral way is important. Asking yourself “why do I want what I want” is important, and though most men have not asked themselves this, I would say even fewer women have. And if the answer is “because that’s how I was raised” or “that’s what my friends have”, to be honest with yourself about that (and that in itself, what you want is largely value-neutral).

    “I personally know a lot of really good young men and women. Earnest, genuine, humble, hard-working. If anything, what they lack is polish and the ability to do the superficial things that their “fake” peers are so good at.”

    The superficial flows from whatever’s inside, and people can smell it if they’re around you enough- a lot of why people respect you or not is based on whether you own your identity and are consistent with it. The list of principles we have been going back and forth over comes off as reading the baby steps leading to what lies beneath. Most of what’s on that list won’t be as convincing or respectable as when it is backed up by a real ownership of what’s you. The hard part, is that sometimes you have to come full circle.

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

      It’s about being confident in yourself in the absence of all of it.

      I thought the problem was inflated self-esteem. If this is your definition of Inner Game, don’t we have a surfeit among women?

  • mr. wavevector

    It’s probably fair to say that DLM’s book is a guide for people of high SMV.

    That makes sense. A man who truly has high SMV will likely have a healthy attitude towards women, confidence in his sexuality, and the motivation and assertiveness to pursue.

    As an aside, I wonder if the Roissys and the Rooshs really have the high SMV they claim. Their writings often betray a much more negative attitude towards women than the amused disinterest they aspire to. (I am occasionally guilty of that too, but I make no claim to super-alphadom!)

    But back to the girl game. I’m curious what your recommendations are for women who are dealing with the more conflicted, anxious and passive men who populate the middle rungs of today’s SMP.

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

      Mr. Wavevector

      I’m curious what your recommendations are for women who are dealing with the more conflicted, anxious and passive men who populate the middle rungs of today’s SMP.

      Ironically, the only solution to the problems that feminism has created in the SMP is more feminism. Let me explain. Women have lost the right to have any expectations of chivalrous behavior. It is now our right to share expenses and all other relationship responsibilities 50/50. Obviously, because of some hardwired sex differences, men still do pay most often, and women still like it. However, I feel strongly that women are not entitled to anything, even being asked out on dates or being the ones to get approached all the time.

      Because men today are less likely to approach and initiate, I believe that women will be most successful if they meet men halfway. 50/50. Express interest clearly. Make approach very low risk by signaling attraction with extended eye contact, a wave, or even crooking your finger if you like. Tell a guy you like him. This can all be done in a flirty and appealing way – and I think Langley Moore actually offers some good tips on intersex communication. My daughter has a friend who will likely be engaged soon. She met her bf in a bar in the summer of 2010. The girls were out to watch a basketball championship, and Sarah observed this guy from across the room. She made eye contact and he nervously looked away after a minute. She told my daughter, “I’m going to stare at him until he comes over here.” She literally looked at him hard for ten minutes. He finally walked over, lol, probably annoyed this was happening during an exciting game. The point is, she’s going to marry that guy because she made his risk zero. After the initial approach, he had no trouble taking the lead.

      Last night I was at dinner with my MBA women’s group. One woman is in her 40s and divorced (he left her seven years ago, in case you are wondering). Anyway, she has not been on a date in five years. Recently, she met a man at a conference and was told that he was divorced and not dating anyone. Both of them are full-time parents, as it happens. She introduced herself and asked where he lived. Flirtatiously she asked, “So what do divorced people do in Cohasset?” He was taken aback but mumbled something or other. At the end of the conference, she approached him again and said, “If you want the Divorced in Cambridge tour sometime, let me know.” Now, I wasn’t exactly bowled over by these lines, but he texted her two days later. They have been on four dates. He expressed his surprise and delight that she invited him to ask her out.

      I don’t think it works super well for women to ask men out – opinions vary on that. But I do think it works very well for women to make clear that the risk of asking them out is zero.

      I think women need a set of strategies depending on who they like and what their own personality is like. My husband liked my feistiness, which complements his own reserve. The more people one can read and communicate effectively with, the better odds of finding a great match, IMO.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    I didn’t want preselected males. If I saw a guy with tons of girls around him vs. a guy who’s a loner, I totally zeroed in on the loner. I’ve always been drawn to outcasts. Male celebrities are not interesting to me whatsoever. My husband had been single for years and had zero girls after him when I fell for him.

    Maybe in the same vein, there are guys who are also more swayed by preselection, though the guys posting here are not like that.

  • Just1Z

    @LJ
    I think the guy in your example was pretty early in the learning game process – the probably still has training wheels on and learner plates (driver’s ed(?))

    I was talking a little more advanced than that…promise :0

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Dawin,

    A man doesn’t need to chase women to be masculine. Alexander The Great was homosexual and he was more Alpha than most men alive today. Men of today don’t have negative sentiments, trust me. Paying attention to the young men around me, lounging about in the cantina, I notice that they don’t pay much attention to the women who walk by them.

    Well, in this context I was assuming heterosexuality. I’ve met some masculine and alpha gay men, but I have no idea what kind of “game” works with them.

    I’m glad the young men you observe don’t have negative sentiments. No doubt many are as you say, but many of the young men I observe are very confused about women. In some this confusion takes the form of resentment and hostility. Others go for obsequious and supplicating. Others decide women just aren’t worth the trouble and do their best to ignore them. None of these attitudes are optimal.

  • Just1Z

    Well, ‘Cockneys vs Zombies’ gets around a 7 out of 10, I think.

    Some genuine laugh out loud moments
    Real yuck factor at times – better than the walking dead
    Acting pretty good apart from the Bond-Girl (oh yes! Honor Blackman from Goldfinger 1964 – ‘Pussy Galore’ no less)
    Gets a bit soppy and mawkish now and again

    and a bit more translation
    (Having a) Giraffe – (having a) laugh
    Tin bath – laugh
    Raspberry ripple -> cripple

    I enjoyed it sober, but beer would have enhanced the experience (comme d’hab)

    go on, give a butcher’s
    (butcher’s hook -> look)

  • Dawin

    ”I’m glad the young men you observe don’t have negative sentiments. No doubt many are as you say, but many of the young men I observe are very confused about women. ”

    Unfortunately there are still young men like that, but like every child eventually grows out from stomping their feet on the ground as soon as their parents refuse to buy them whatever it is they want, so these guys will come to terms with the fact that effort does not necessarily result in rewards.

    Not only would they be wasting a lot of time, energy and resources in chasing women, but they’d be playing the fool’s role by chasing what was easy for a few to have(and there’s no guarantee the women wil be interested in the betas).

    The guys who have yet to accept their place in the sexual pyramid(they’re right on the bottom, not wanted) are indeed suffering but they’ll grow out of it and they’ll see they’re better off by being invisible to women.

    ” None of these attitudes are optimal.”

    Not for our current society. The law will probably be molded to suit women’s desires for Alpha males. One Alpha male per group. Groups of 10 women a piece, one Alpha in it. The women become sexually and emotionally satisfied and the Alpha males spread their superior genes.

    The betas adapt to the changing world by buying fleshlights and by coming up with real-life sex robots. Creating a boost in the developement of industry and technology. Everyone’s happy, and everyone’s sorted out.

    You know, I know this girl who loves Tolkien and all his works. You should have seen the gleam in her eyes when I showed to her a First Edition of The Hobbit in perfect conditions. Today I saw her and she was looking smoking hot. I was tempted to invite her to come with me to watch the Hobbit tomorrow, but then I took a good look at her and it hit me that she was in ”come at me Alphas” dress-mode.

    Her body is probably preparing for reproduction. I’d have to compete with other guys for her. Why? How do I know she’s not clingy? How do I know she’s not going to accuse me of false rape report when I tell her I’m not interested in a relationship? How do I know she doesn’t have a std? I trust condoms as much as I trust mouthwash.

    More importantly. Despite her good-looks and fertility: Am I even interested in sleeping with her?

    No. After seeing so many beautiful women on a daily basis my body sees her as yet another average girl – why would I work myself up for an average girl?

    Instead I’m going to call my high school friends, dress up as Gandalf and have a jolly good time tomorrow.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    My point is that I find it amusing when men go around making broad claims about female nature, pretty much Buss’ book Chapters 1-3, without even knowing it, and then when someone cites Buss Chapter 4, they say Buss is full of shit.

    Cherry picking fallacy.

    I don’t think it’s cherry picking to say “I agree with A, B, and C, but not D” of what an author writes. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing.

    The only person around here that I’ve seen completely trump up Buss is Obsidian. I think most of the other guys are on the “He makes a lot good points, but there’s some other stuff where he’s a little out there…” mindset.

    Personally, I think that’s how any source should be viewed. Nobody’s always right about everything.

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

      @Jimmy

      I don’t think it’s cherry picking to say “I agree with A, B, and C, but not D” of what an author writes. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing.

      Except that he’s right about women and wrong about men.

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

    Darwin wrote:

    Her body is probably preparing for reproduction. I’d have to compete with other guys for her. Why? How do I know she’s not clingy? How do I know she’s not going to accuse me of false rape report when I tell her I’m not interested in a relationship? How do I know she doesn’t have a std? I trust condoms as much as I trust mouthwash.

    You really need to watch the Youtube videos on vulnerability I posted above.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    The attraction mechanism is the same for STR or LTR. Langley Moore’s advice makes you more likely to truly capture the male imagination, IMO. From there you can proceed to an LTR if that’s what you want.

    As others have said, I think it’s the “proceeding to an LTR” part that most college-aged girls struggle with… not inspiring attraction. I think most of them have that part down pretty well.

    I think there are some good points above, but I don’t know if it really can be of that much help to a lot of your target audience.

    To use a basketball analogy, to me it’s like telling a great 3-point shooter to take an extra thousand 3-point shots at practice, when he/she could spend that time working on defense, rebounding, passing, etc. to become a better all around player. JMO.

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

      @Jimmy

      I think there are some good points above, but I don’t know if it really can be of that much help to a lot of your target audience.

      I agree with you. Mostly I found it an interesting read as it contained some “secrets” about femininity and feminine wiles that have largely been lost. Perhaps these approaches no longer work, but we may be certain they were effective at one point in the not-too-distant past. If I were young and single, there are probably half a dozen nuggets from this post I would commit to memory and try to keep in mind.

  • J

    Discredit Buss and it all goes down the toilet (which Jason’s ex will clean).

    LMAO. Will she clean the spit coffee off my keyboard when she finishes the toilet?

  • J

    “as meditation music for some Hindu-sect, who worships a god that wears a broomstick on its head”

    Doooode, srsly? Is this how grownups talk?

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com/ Marellus

    Yes

  • Dawin

    @ Susan Walsh,

    Your posts seem to reflect Hope’s posts. Kathy’s posts. Mirelle’s posts.

    Are you all of those posters? Interaction with young women nowadays does not seem worth it. I have several young women as friends but I wouldn’t touch them. They’re attractive and have great personalities but free sex is too expensive, especially in the context of a relationship.

    ”You really need to watch the Youtube videos on vulnerability I posted above”

    Sure, I’ll take a look.

  • J

    3. Men who must conceal you…[Possessive Betas with no other actionable options andfearful of your hypergamous impulses]…..
    Did I miss anything?

    Yes, you missed the reality that lies outside of your narrow frame of reference. A woman should avoid a man who must conceal her because he is most likely concealing her from his wife. It has nothing to do with hypergamy; a man who won’t take woman out in public in either ashamed of her or has a big something else to hide.

    An example: A divorced friend of mine was given what she thought was a cell number by a new man. It turned out to be an office number. That raises a big red flag. It says that he only wants to be reached when he is at work, away from his wife. It’s likely that he is married or otherwise attached and doesn’t want random phone calls from my friend to be intercepted by whomever.

  • Dawin

    ”As others have said, I think it’s the “proceeding to an LTR” part that most college-aged girls struggle with… not inspiring attraction. I think most of them have that part down pretty well.”

    Ain’t that odd. They have perfect bodies and vivacious personalities but young men are looking at them and thinking the women who’re moving about dressed in yoga pants and mini-skirts are nothing special. What is average now in terms of female beauty and what is considered beautiful when many young men who, themselves, are nothing special to write home about, are shrugging it off?

    Is this a self-defense mechanism? They’re trying to trick themselves into believing that the women aren’t worth the effort because they have no shot at them, or are they decisively turning away from the Path of Testosterone to live comfortable lives behind their iphones, ipods, and xbox360?

    What about the young women? Are they asexual beings? I know women love to feel sexy, but I very doubtful believe young women are nearly naked for the pleasure of getting hit in the face with the freezing wind.

    Lesbianism?

  • Iggles

    @ SW:

    Dawin = feelist = Michael et al?

    Sounds like Michael alright.. and also Piper, Lowland!

    Notice how feelist used a smidge of righteous indignation before disappearing. It has become part of his MO before he switches to another handle…

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

    Susan…”if (another woman’s) weighted score is 85 and mine is 65 her liking him is not going to affect me in the least.”

    One theory holds that it might not affect *you* directly, but if you mate with someone who is considered unattractive by most women, then (to the extent that the unattractiveness factors are genetic), any sons you have are also likely to be considered unattractive by most women (to the extent that the attractiveness/unattractiveness metric is also inherited)…hence, nonconformity of attractiveness factors is a big Darwinian FAIL.

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

      @david foster

      That makes sense, but wouldn’t that apply equally to men as well?

      Also, I can see having second thoughts if everyone says the guy I like is gross, but preselection generally refers to women liking men only because he is liked by other women. Which would really be the inverse of what you said, right? That you might like a guy more based on others’ perception that he can give you sexy sons?

  • Dawin

    @ Iggles,

    You ok, love? You seem a little bit paranoid. You might want to check that out. Remember, guys, if you say something that is not pleasant you might just some previous poster that is more in the scene of what is happening in the college world, than the accuser, but beware!

    Still funny.

  • Dawin

    ”Also, I can see having second thoughts if everyone says the guy I like is gross, but preselection generally refers to women liking men only because he is liked by other women. Which would really be the inverse of what you said, right? That you might like a guy more based on others’ perception that he can give you sexy sons?”

    For a woman to have sex with a man he has to be pre-selected. He’s pre-selected based on his looks. After the age of 25 most women don’t really care much about pre-selection because they’re working on a tight schedule and they can’t be fussy with the guy who is open to marriage and children.

    Its the women below the age of 25 who I see discussing wether a guy is hot or not. They literally have this sort of all-girls council where they discuss who is good enough to date, who is good enough to have a FWB etc.

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

    Susan…the evolutionary argument would apply to men to a lesser degree because they have higher reproductive capacity (in the sense of # of children fathered or mothered) than women, so hence the stakes in any one sexual encounter are lower. Also, IF infertility is more common among women than men (don’t know that that’s true…just hypothesizing), then it would make sense to rely more on direct visual impressions of probable fertility.

    C S Lewis apparently believed that male views of female attractiveness are indeed culturally-influenced: in The Screwtape Letters, he has his devil applauding the cultural preference for very thin women, arguing that this kind of attractiveness has the diabolical benefit of being very transient and hence promoting human unhappiness.

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

      I just spent some time researching preselection, social proof and herd behavior. Once you weed out the PUA hits, there isn’t much left. Preselection is strictly a PUA term.

      Social proof was a concept coined by Cialdini, in the context of marketing and advertising consumer goods. It is demonstrated by things like testimonials, and is an important element of persuasion.

      Herd behavior, aka group think has been widely studied, but I could not find any references indicating that women are more prone than men to it. It refers generally to circumstances that arise suddenly requiring a decision. Studies show that people are most likely to follow what others appear to be doing with conviction. For example, in a fire or emergency, nearly everyone runs in a pack in the same direction.

      The idea of preselection, then, means that if a guy is physically surrounded by beautiful women in a nightspot, other women will accept the judgment of those women as valuing this male highly. They make a quick first impression that tells them he must have more going on than meets the eye, for example. This is possible because women value more than looks, so a guy surrounded by women who is not good looking may assumed to be famous or rich. Perhaps he is hosting an awesome party up the road.

      In a situation where a woman does have time to evaluate a man and determine an independent assessment of his attractiveness, there is no indication that the previous sighting of him with other women will take precedence over her own perceptions.

      Preselection is strictly a “first impression” gambit. It should not work in social circles or situations where parties may be acquainted or see one another more than once.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Because men today are less likely to approach and initiate, I believe that women will be most successful if they meet men halfway. 50/50. Express interest clearly. Make approach very low risk by signaling attraction with extended eye contact, a wave, or even crooking your finger if you like. Tell a guy you like him. This can all be done in a flirty and appealing way – and I think Langley Moore actually offers some good tips on intersex communication. My daughter has a friend who will likely be engaged soon. She met her bf in a bar in the summer of 2010. The girls were out to watch a basketball championship, and Sarah observed this guy from across the room. She made eye contact and he nervously looked away after a minute. She told my daughter, “I’m going to stare at him until he comes over here.” She literally looked at him hard for ten minutes. He finally walked over, lol, probably annoyed this was happening during an exciting game. The point is, she’s going to marry that guy because she made his risk zero. After the initial approach, he had no trouble taking the lead.

    Great story. Women should include extended eye contact, smiling and even approaching guys in their repertoire.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7XzcGnUCI0 OffTheCuff

    Yeah, way too late: GOT Margaery Tyrell. Holy hot.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7XzcGnUCI0 OffTheCuff

    Sue: “I don’t think it works super well for women to ask men out – opinions vary on that. But I do think it works very well for women to make clear that the risk of asking them out is zero.”

    I can’t agree with this enough.

    What women often think of disinterest is usually just a risk calculation, deemed to be too high. Metaphorically club men over the head with nuclear IOIs.

  • INTJ

    @ OTC

    Yeah, way too late: GOT Margaery Tyrell. Holy hot.

    Oh yeah she was rather hot. Creepy, but hot.

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan

    It’s about being confident in yourself in the absence of all of it.

    “I thought the problem was inflated self-esteem. If this is your definition of Inner Game, don’t we have a surfeit among women?”

    No, because a great many aren’t confident without reassurance that they are attractive, or without validation in the form of friends and family cheering on their choices (no matter how good or bad those might be), or in the face of hard questions about their choices, or in the face of potential rejection. These are all things that are externally delivered. Take all the validation away and see what happens. As Mireille aluded to, the tendency to feel torn in two by feminist narratives (and hookup culture) and traditionalist ones, isn’t an issue if you have made your peace. How confident can you really be, if you feel like you should try to “have it all” because you can’t decide who to believe? It should be plainly obvious that a lot of the problems we’ve talked about at this blog are due in no small part to women accepting the status quo at face value- if you aren’t confident enough in your own self worth regardless of what the result of your choice, you will feel you have no other option but to accept what you’re told is the “right” way.

  • Just1Z

    @Susan
    “I know, I was actually making a joke. Not a very good one, I admit. ”

    Don’t feel bad, this can happen to just about anyone.

    I mean, it never happened to me, obviously, but to many other’s…yeah, all the time (so I hear)

    good night :)

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Here’s a study by Buss with which shows just how brutal female preselection (or rather the lack thereof) is, and the fact that men prefer not to have competition.

    http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/busslab/pdffiles/mere%20presence.pdf

    I’m going through Skyler Place’s studies (which referenced the Buss study) though, and will see why they came up with the opposite conclusions. The fact that they used videos instead of images suggest that they might be better designed than the Buss study.

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

      @INTJ

      Bless your heart! I really appreciate that! I have to run out, but will view the Buss study later. I look forward to seeing if you come up with anything interesting.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Read through the first Skyler Place study. I think it provides strong evidence that being sociable is very important. But I don’t think it’s necessarily directly measuring pre-selection. It used speed dating videos from Germany, where the couples were either mutually interested in each other or mutually disinterested in each other. When the same person was in an interaction of mutual interest, the viewer would rate that person higher than when that person was in an interaction of mutual disinterest. The thing here of course is that mutual disinterest can change the person’s body language and make the person seem less sociable.

    https://www.psychologie.hu-berlin.de/prof/per/pdf/2010/PlaceEHB2010.pdf

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

    The Buss study INTJ linked to actually also tells us about the benefit of being accompanied by same-sex friends as well. See the histogram in Figure 1. For women, being out with male friends is bad but there’s no significant difference between a lone female and a female in a gaggle of women.

    In comparison, a lone guy is shit-city but even male friends provides a significant advantage in desirability. There’s a good lesson here for men: male friends are your wingmen. It makes sense, a man has the most pre-selection if he’s with attractive women, but attractive female friends or male friends still provides a filter for assholes and jerks.

  • INTJ

    One thing I noted from the Buss study is the “there are no good men” effect. The average rating of men and women by men was about the same. But whereas women rated other women as 6s, they rated men as 4s. No wonder I’ve noticed such a big entitlement mentality in UT Austin women.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    HanSolo

    Great story. Women should include extended eye contact, smiling and even approaching guys in their repertoire.

    Lol, the way this registered in my head was just too funny not to mention:

    “If women wish to meet men, they should include talking to men in the range of their skills”

  • Sassy6519

    I gave a guy my phone number yesterday, so I’m all about women being more proactive in showing interest in men. I practically melted when he smiled at me, so I knew I had to make a move on him.

  • HanSolo

    @A Definite Beta Guy

    That is so obvious it is funny.

    @Sassy

    You do like to share! ;) Good job.

  • Sai

    @J
    “My then 2 yo son once said to me as he peered over the rim of the bassinet at his sleeping brother, “I hate him because he’s boring. Everyone said he’d play with me, but he’s stupid and stuck-up. It was better before he came. Let’s take him back.”
    WIN

    @HanSolo
    Thanks, I’m glad you ‘tried to listen.’ It WAS online – I can’t believe I didn’t think to look there earlier. DERP
    (But at this stage, you want me to experiment the way you want a North Korean boom-stick in one if your eye cavities. My guinea pigdad and I agree I should have gone for more flour instead of being cheap and using the wrong sort last time, so I’m building my confidence/skill back up before anybody else has to choke down more “lime biscuits.”)

    “This is crazy talk.
    Unless you live in some 3rd world ghetto maybe.”
    … *looks for a related post from Ted D*
    *found it!*
    My mother the English teacher has stories of kids fighting over stupid stuff -and parents supporting the nonsense.

    @Ted D
    “I actually keep a piece of lead pipe under the driver seat of my car. Anyone trying to pull me out of the car over road rage or whatever is going to get a pipe to the head if I get a chance.”
    +1
    My (great?)grandmother had a huge stick. I used to not know why it was there.

    @Susan Walsh
    “She told my daughter, “I’m going to stare at him until he comes over here.” She literally looked at him hard for ten minutes.”
    OK, I can get that much right.

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

    My then 2 yo son once said to me as he peered over the rim of the bassinet at his sleeping brother, “I hate him because he’s boring. Everyone said he’d play with me, but he’s stupid and stuck-up. It was better before he came. Let’s take him back.

    LOL! I asked my mom if we could throw my brother in the garbage and get a new one.

    I also stood on him, with all of my three-year-old weight, when he was a week old. My mom doesn’t even believe in spanking, but you can bet I got spanked for that. She said she didn’t even think, it was just a knee-jerk reaction.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ and Susan

    Looking at the Skyler Place article, it’s interesting that the do rate their desire to meet the person in the video on a 1-9 scale for both a ONS/STR and exclusive-LTR and the men increased their rating of the women where mutual interest/attraction was perceived by about 0.4 points relative to the ones where not mutual int/attraction was perceived.

    Going back to the original question about how much preselection or other mens’ opinions of a woman’s beauty can affect another man’s rating of her, it is hard to say since they don’t explicitly ask for the participants to rank beauty, only desirability of STR and LTR. Looks are certainly a big factor in desiring an STR but so is the perceived willingness and sensualness of the woman in question. So, by the men upping their desire for an STR (and LTR) by about 0.4 when interest/attraction is present it is hard to say whether it is due to his perceiving her beauty as higher due to interest from other men or whether seeing her have mutual interest/attraction with men is a signal that she would be enjoyable and willing company.

    I think that the fact that it only increases by about 0.4 (on a 1-9 scale) and a good portion of that could be due to perceiving her as willing and fun company is in agreement with my assertion that men have at most only a very minimal increase at most in the perception of her looks due to what other men think.

    This is all speculation and inference though because this study did not explicitly ask for the speed dating women to be rated for their looks by the study participants.

    It is interesting that they found that the men were more likely to change their rating of wanting an S/LTR with the woman when males and females more attractive than themselves were involved in the interaction.

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

      @Han Solo, @INTJ

      Skyler Place expanded and repeated his study this year:

      http://www.skylerplace.com/pdfs/bowers.be.2012.pdf

      The subjects rated physical attractiveness (rather than STR attractiveness) and LTR attractiveness. From the study:

      What is the value of mate copying?

      Time for mate choice may be heavily constrained, putting pressure on quicker decisions (Ho¨glund et al. 1995). These considerations lead to the expectation that animals may come to exploit social information as a quick, low cost indication of mate quality (Pomiankowski 1990; Wade and Pruett-Jones 1990; Ho¨glund et al. 1995), either as an alternative to assessing mates independently (Briggs et al. 1996), or as a source of additional information (Gibson and Bachman 1992; Mery et al. 2009).

      What is the risk of mate copying?

      Individual-based mate-choice copying carries a possibly costly consequence: It places mate seekers especially in the thick of competition (Brennan et al. 2008), specifically leading them to choose mates that have already been chosen by others. Whether this imparts a substantial cost, and to what extent, depends on many factors of the mate-choice environment. In many species, competition often leads to intrasexual conflict, which can have serious survival costs. Furthermore, particularly among monogamous species, the taken mate may often be content with the current situation and resist the new suitor, leading to wasted mating effort.


      Why are people who are taken perceived as more attractive?

      …Relationship status provides mate quality information that is not fully captured by outward indicators. This may be because outward indicators of mate quality are lacking, unreliable or difficult to discern, or because the information gained concerns qualities of the candidate not readily apparent in physical characteristics, such as parenting ability, sociability, attachment style, fidelity, supportiveness, or intelligence. Such behavioral characteristics are important to mate choice in many animals and specifically in humans (Buss and Barnes 1986; Howard et al. 1987; Penke et al. 2007).

      If perceptible cues exist that are good indicators of mate quality, the information is public, and social information about others’ mate choices will be superfluous. If mate-choice copying is to give mate seekers information about traits that otherwise require extended interaction to assess, such as behavioral or personality characteristics, then, although individual-based mate-choice copying makes good functional sense, generalizing to others
      on the basis of perceptible traits may mislead.


      Conclusion:

      For both sexes, the faces associated directly with mating success information showed individual-based mate-choice copying, replicating Place et al. (2010) That is, for both male and female observers, ratings of the 12 target faces shown in positive speed-dating interactions (i.e. videos in which the same-sex target dater was perceived as showing interest in the opposite-sex stimulus) increased more than did ratings of the 12 shown in negative interactions. This was true for both dependent measures, ratings of long-term romantic interest and attractiveness. Similar results were obtained when analyzed in terms of the model daters’ actual, reported interest (as opposed to the subject’s perception of this interest).

      Interesting tidbit:

      Age is an especially relevant factor to consider in the context of copying. This is because copying is potentially useful as a way for younger individuals to learn socially from more experienced individuals who themselves have the benefit of hindsight, having learned through a combination of experience and social learning (Pomiankowski 1990). Some decisions improve with experience and so with age. In such cases, younger individuals are expected to discriminately copy older, whereas the converse is not necessarily good policy and potentially misleading

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    I think that’s why the Buss study is much more relevant to preselection. And it shows female preselection occurring, but not male preselection.

  • JP

    Hey guys, want to increase your SMV without effort?

    Grab some meggings…new leggings for men. Let the world know that you, uh….

    I’m not exactly sure what these things are supposed to do for you. The leisure suits of whatever decade we’re in?

    http://living.msn.com/style-beauty/simply-chic-blog-post/?post=da8b0fd9-6f1b-43c9-aefd-d548ed717b0d

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

    Well, ‘Cockneys vs Zombies’ gets around a 7 out of 10, I think.

    I will rent this based on your knowledge.:D
    I’m still trying to find a good movie to recommend you, that you might like to compensate you for Big Man Japan, although I still can’t tell if the movie was good or bad it just was for me at least

  • HanSolo

    @Sai

    Well, glad my Martian* tendencies came in useful and helped you find the recipe. I’m sure you will perfect it soon.

    *Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus

  • HanSolo

    @OTC and INTJ

    Too many Tyr and Tir names in Game of Thrones. I still have to look up the dad’s name. lol

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

    @Susan
    By the way she poses she actually has the “air” of Nefertiti. Some women just have this trait I think is called Glamour because it feels like an spell they cast on men (0r women) even if objectively speaking they are not beauties…

  • SayWhaat

    I also stood on him, with all of my three-year-old weight, when he was a week old. My mom doesn’t even believe in spanking, but you can bet I got spanked for that. She said she didn’t even think, it was just a knee-jerk reaction.

    LOL, yeah. I terrorized my sister when she was a baby. Having a younger sibling is tough for kids, their throne is ripped out from underneath them and they’re expected to serve the new overlord. :P

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

    Hey guys, want to increase your SMV without effort?

    Grab some meggings…new leggings for men. Let the world know that you, uh….

    I’m not exactly sure what these things are supposed to do for you. The leisure suits of whatever decade we’re in?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtmbZnXSQ7k

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

    I’m the only older sibling that adored his siblings? :/
    I liked them as babies because they were cute to stare at, I could do that for hours, their cries sounded cute to me and I loved helping to soothe them , even my colic little brother who used to spent hours crying for no reason at all, in fact I used to resent my mother when she wouldn’t let me help her more when they were too tiny for my toddlers hands. I used to think that every two years I will get a new brother and sister and consider them “my presents” and when mom had the last one and two years passed (I was 9) “where is my new baby” she told me, “You will have them”

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    Too many Tyr and Tir names in Game of Thrones. I still have to look up the dad’s name. lol

    I think the author got “tired” of coming up with unique names. ;)

  • JP

    My daughter wants a baby…I’m not sure that I can handle a baby…My wife may or may not want a baby…my son does not want a baby.

  • JuTR

    I think I would take Kaley’s statement at face value. In my view, it would place the ball in her court if she was interested in studying with me at some point. Flirting is easy. Lots of women do it. It’s not a sign of ‘I like you’. It’s a sign of ‘I want your attention’.

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

    My daughter wants a baby…I’m not sure that I can handle a baby…My wife may or may not want a baby…my son does not want a baby.

    I recently read that most people regret the kids they didn’t had, than the other way around, think about it.

  • JP

    Yes, but there is a different dynamic when you have three kids…one is left out.

    So, you really want to shoot for four if you are going to have three.

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

    So, you really want to shoot for four if you are going to have three.
    Heh that is what I told my husband “2 or 4 I don’t want uneven numbers in my family” his answer is that his best friend has 2 siblings and there was a lot of manipulation,backstabbing and last minutes bribes and it was very fun for all involved…so there is upsides to every situation I guess.

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    INTJ, Susan just posted about a study re: social proof working for women. I know you’ll find a ton of ways to discredit the study without actually reading it, but it holds more credibility than your opinions. No offense meant, just stating it as it is.

    I’m not INTJ but he did provide the actual paper in 465 that Susan referenced about social proof making women more attractive for STR and LTR. I provided an analysis of it 473. Of course, you are free to analyze it too. Upping the woman’s attractiveness for an S/LTR (not looks) by 0.4 on a 1-9 scale isn’t much and it doesn’t even address the original topic that was thrown out that men aren’t affected much or at all by what other men think of a woman’s looks. Plus, there is the other factor of her seeming interested and thus more enjoyable and willing to enter into an S/LTR (as opposed to the interest of the men being shown) that also may be contributing to that increase in attractiveness.

    Since you are into “stating it as it is” will you now acknowledge that this study at most says that there is a very minor effect on the perceived attractiveness of a woman for a relationship (short and long) due to men’s interest in her?

    Thanks in advance.

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

      @HanSolo, @INTJ

      I’m available this morning to take a look at the preselection stuff. Sorry for the delay, busy time of year and all that.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Please see my comment 473 and respond. I think that my analysis of it showed that the following statement is not an accurate interpretation of the study, that only gave 0.4 extra points of desirability for S/LTR (not looks btw) on 1-9 scale and much of that may be attributable in part to other reasons I mentioned besides the interest of the men:

    “Clearly, men take their cues from dominant men. They determine who’s hot according to what the most socially dominant males find attractive.”

    It will be interesting to see INTJ’s or anyone else’s analysis of the Buss paper.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Preselection is strictly a “first impression” gambit. It should not work in social circles or situations where parties may be acquainted or see one another more than once.”

    This would fit well with the observation that most guys are unnoticeable upon entering a room yet have the ability to get laid given enough time to charm.

    I’ve heard quite a few women express “i didn’t notice my SO until after he started talking to me”.

  • INTJ

    Here’s another paper on preselection. The sample size is too small to conclusively rule out male preselection, but it shows clear cut female preselection.

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103109001048

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

      @INTJ, Han Solo

      I’ve just reviewed the Buss paper on the presence of opposite-sex others in mate selection.

      The current study, however, is the first study to predict and demonstrate that men find potentially mated females – as indicated by the woman being surrounded by other men — to be less desirable.

      This is an interesting study, because it does not speak to the question of whether dominant male opinions affect other males’, but only about how men feel when they observe a woman surrounded by males in a social setting.

      It’s a very different design than the speed dating study, and it seems to me would create significant disincentives in that moment for the man to approach or feel the desire to approach.

      I had wondered how Buss could write what I included in an earlier comment, and also confirm that men are not affected by preselection in a study. But I don’t see this study as being in conflict with his writings in The Evolution of Desire.

      The other study is about mate poaching – and why “taken” people are attractive. Place addressed that in his study – I believe that the shortcut of knowing the person has been found worthy by a high value mate applied to both sexes there. This study provides only an abstract, so it’s hard to know much.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    That’s probably a good thing, since most women don’t want a guy who is *too* good with women.

    And she’ll also be nexted by all the gamma males who aren’t *too* good with women.

    I doubt gamma males have that sort of capability.

    Just noticed this statement I had overlooked earlier. Most gamma males are natural nexters. MGTOW is the default state for many gamma males.

  • SayWhaat

    Just noticed this statement I had overlooked earlier. Most gamma males are natural nexters. MGTOW is the default state for many gamma males.

    You can’t “next” a girl if you’re not in the game. MGTOW is just nexting the game.

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

    @Susan
    Sex Ed 101, 1920s style, courtesy of the Surgeon General of the U.S. Public Health Service, and the Library of Congress:
    http://www.missabigail.com/advice/petting-sex-advice/2011/09/personal-hygiene-for-young-women-and-men-1920s/

    For the boys:
    Men who indulge in loose sexual conduct, not only dissipate their splendid energies, but expose themselves to disease and suffering. (6:46)
    Carelessness and promiscuousness in sex habits disseminate gonorrhea and so cause many serious operations and endless misery among innocent women. (7:14)
    Have you the right to demand honor and purity of the girl you ask in marriage unless YOU are willing to offer HER a clean life? (9:22)

    For the girls:
    Promiscuous sexual relations often result in the spread of two diseases, gonorrhea and syphilis. (7:06)
    Before you marry, be sure that both you and your mate are clean and healthy in body and mind. (8:14)
    The happiest homes result from wise mating, healthy thinking and healthy living. (8:38)

    Interesting stuff, from a pre-feminist era to boot! Single standard, anyone? The emphasis for boys was strength and manhood, but very different from what’s promoted today. The girls seemed to get all of the technical aspects of reproduction (and rightly so), as well as the importance of motherhood and childrearing.

    I’ve heard the 1920s described as the 1st Sexual Revolution, but promiscuity back then was nothing like it was in the 1970s or 1990s. These kinds of newsreels would’ve been aimed at urban young people. I think the U.S. was still ~50% rural back in those days.

    Also:
    http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/womenofthecentury/decadebydecade/1920s.html

    I don’t know if Dorothy Parker attended college, but apparently women were earning 39% of college degrees even back in 1928! Not sure if they could do much with them in the working world, though… :shock:

  • SayWhaat

    Han Solo, right now it is 11:10 PM and I am sitting in a company car, heading home from work and typing this on my phone. To be frank, the onus is not on me to pick apart the study, but I’ll look it over and your response as well. I can’t promise I’ll get back to you tomorrow either but I’ll see if I can by this weekend.

    I’m a busy girl, so no promises! But I will try. :)

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

    @Mr. Solo #489
    Agreed, and very diplomatic of you. A study should be evaluated on the merits and quality of the research that went into it. Provided the data was gathered properly, reasonable people can disagree on the interpretation of the results.

    That being said, the right honorable Mr. INTJ does not extend that same courtesy to Susan or anyone else around here, nor does he have a consistent or logical approach whatsoever to statistical data. Confirmation bias, par excellence IMO.

    Ms. SayWhaat was wrong about one thing, though. He never has discredited any research presented at HUS by Susan, period. That requires reading and asking questions! :wink:

  • Society’s Disposable Son

    Susan I think you should check this out as he makes a great point that I haven’t seen brought up around here before. And since we already treat the SMP like it’s own economy anyways it all makes great sense.

    http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2012/12/how-women-deny-women-market-price.html

    This has happened to me more than once or twice and because of it I probably passed on numerous interested women that I thought were attractive but got exhausted trying to decipher real IOI’s and BS. I think this also explains the beta guys want the slutty girls meme. The sluts reassure the beta guys every step of the way….

  • J

    @Sai

    He was a very funny kid; still is.

    @Olive

    OMG, I’ll bet that was a reflexive action! I don’t believe in spanking either, but when my younger son squirmed out of my grip in a parking lot and almost got hit by a car, I swept him up into my arms and immediately cracked his ass for him. Sometimes, it just happens.

  • J

    Also, IF infertility is more common among women than men ….

    It’s not. It’s a female issue about 40% of the time, male another 40% of the time and a shared issue 20% of the time.

  • Dawin

    @ INTJ, mgtw’s aren’t all gammas. I’ve met hardcore US marines living as mgtw’s. Most of the other mgtw’s i’ve met so far are good-looking betas. Also met former PUA’s.

  • Just1Z

    @Ana
    Cockneys vs Zombies is definitely worth watching when in a good mood for some really good laughs. I believe that I have provided all the vocabulary that you will need. There’s a fair amount of effin’ ‘n’ blindin’ but it’s a Cockney* film, if you’ve watched Lock-Stock or Snatch, it’s in that ball-park / on that cricket-pitch.

    *a Cockney geezer is a man from the east end of London, born within the sound of Bow Bells. Hence the name of the retirement home for coffin dodgers. Strong loyalty to the community, but little to the law. Kind of like Scousers, the Liverpudlian version (from Liverpool).

    Speaking of Bow Bells
    Have you heard the nursery rhyme ‘Oranges and Lemons’? It puts words to the rhytms of the peals of old London churches. Your son might like it as it is usually performed with a play chop to the neck at the end – cue squeals of laughter:

    Oranges and lemons,
    Say the bells of St. Clement’s.
    You owe me five farthings,
    Say the bells of St. Martin’s.

    When will you pay me?
    Say the bells of Old Bailey.

    When I grow rich,
    Say the bells of Shoreditch.

    When will that be?
    Say the bells of Stepney.

    I do not know,
    Says the great bell of Bow.

    Here comes a candle to light you to bed,
    And here comes a chopper to chop off your head!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oranges_and_Lemons

    in all it’s nuclear sweetness (not for da menz) but lacking ‘the chop’ at the end
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azAZoF0rxe4

  • Sai

    @JP
    “Grab some meggings…new leggings for men. Let the world know that you, uh….

    I’m not exactly sure what these things are supposed to do for you. The leisure suits of whatever decade we’re in?”

    I don’t like any fashions nowadays anyway, but… I just what.

  • LJ

    You can’t “next” a girl if you’re not in the game. MGTOW is just nexting the game.

    Haha, yeah, that’s really just like saying, “Next!” and then returning to your video game. Or if you’re a woman, your knitting and cats (which doesn’t sound so bad…)

    Actually, I think the principle of feeling like, “Being alone is MUCH preferable to being with someone who I don’t find attractive/doesn’t treat me well” is a good one for both men and women.

  • tom.s

    May I suggest that not all men are like that?

    I believe these tactics would work well on a man who has high self confidence with women. It would show that she is worthy of his high status.

    For those less confident, I believe this will cause intimidation. The principle of least interest is the main factor I consider.

    I would relate this to alpha vs. beta. with these tactics working well on alpha. Of course everyone will be somewhere along the spectrum.

  • http://marellus.wordpress.com/ Marellus

    In 1882, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche was wandering around Italy alone. In Genoa he received a letter from his friend Paul Rée, a Prussian philosopher whom he admired, recounting his discussions with a remarkable young Russian woman, Lou von Salomé, in Rome. Salomé was there on holiday with her mother; Rée had managed to accompany her on long walks through the city, unchaperoned, and they had had many conversations. Her ideas on God and Christianity were quite similar to Nietzsche’s, and when Rée had told her that the famous philosopher was a friend of his, she had insisted that he invite Nietzsche to join them. In subsequent letters Rée described how mysteriously captivating Salomé was, and how anxious she was to meet Nietzsche. The philosopher soon went to Rome.

    When Nietzsche finally met Salomé, he was overwhelmed. She had the most beautiful eyes he had ever seen, and during their first long talk those eyes lit up so intensely that he could not help feeling there was something erotic about her excitement. Yet he was also confused : Salomé kept her distance, and did not respond to his compliments. What a devilish young woman. A few days later she read him a poem of hers, and he cried : her ideas about life were so like his own. Deciding to seize the moment, Nietzsche proposed marriage. (He did not know that Rée had done so as well.) Salomé declined. She was interested in philosophy, life, adventure, not marriage. Undaunted, Nietzsche continued to court her.

    (later)

    Yet when he again proposed marriage, she scolded him as conventional: it was Nietzsche, after all, who had who had developed a philosophical defense of the superman, the man above everyday morality, yet Salomé was was by nature far less conventional than she was. Her firm, uncompromising manner only deepened the spell she cast over him, as did her hint of cruelty. When she finally left him, making it clear that she had no intention of marrying him, Nietzsche was devastated. As an antidote to his pain, he wrote ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’, a book full of subliminal eroticism and deeply inspired by his talks with her. From then on, Salomé was known throughout Europe as the woman who had broken Nietzsche’s heart.

    (later)

    One man wrote of Salomé, “There was something terrifying about her embrace. Looking at you with her radiant blue eyes, she would say, ‘The reception of semen is for me the height of ecstasy’. And she had an insatiable appetite for it. She was completely amoral … a vampire.” The Swedish psychotherapist Paul Bjerre, one of her later conquests, wrote, “I think Nietzsche was right when he said that Lou was a thoroughly evil woman. Evil however in the Goethean sense: evil that produces good …. She may have destroyed lives and marriages, but her presence was exciting.”

    The two emotions that almost every male felt in the presence of Lou Andreas-Salomé were confusion and excitement. People were intoxicated by her strange mix of the masculine and the feminine; she was beautiful, with a radiant smile and a graceful, flirtatious manner, but her independence and her intensely analytical nature made her seem oddly male. This ambiguity was expressed in her eyes, which were both coquettish and probing. It was confusion that kept men curious and interested: no other woman was like this. They wanted to know more. The excitement stemmed from her ability to stir up repressed desires. She was a complete nonconformist, and to be involved with her was to break all kinds of taboos. Her masculinity made the relationship seem vaguely homosexual; her slightly cruel, slightly domineering streak could stir up masochistic yearnings, as it did in Nietzsche. Salomé radiated forbidden sexuality. Her powerful effect on men – the lifelong infatuations, the suicides (there were several), the periods of intense creativity, the descriptions of her as a vampire or a devil – attest to the obscure depths of the psyche that she was able to reach and disturb.

    The Masculine Dandy succeeds by reversing the normal pattern of male superiority in matters of love and seduction. A man’s apparent independence, his capacity for detachment, often seems to give him the upper hand in the dynamic between men and women. A purely feminine woman will arouse desire, but is always vulnerable to the man’s capricious loss of interest; a purely masculine woman, on the other hand, will not arouse that interest at all. Follow the path of the Masculine Dandy, however, and you neutralize all a man’s powers. Never give completely of yourself; while you are passionate and sexual, always retain an air of independence and self-possession. You might move on to the next man, or so he will think. You have other, more important matters to concern yourself with, such as your work. Men do not how to fight women who use their own weapons against them; they are intrigued, aroused, and disarmed. Few men can resist the taboo pleasures offered up to them by the Masculine Dandy.
    – The Art of Seduction by Robert Greene

    So how can one summarize all of this for a woman?

    Tone down the solipsism.

    What?! Oh?! … my darling … shhhhhhhhhh … in that sentence that you were about to write, there’s a bad word … yes, it’s a very very bad word … yes, it’s even worse than what your kindergarten teacher said, when you copied the number 69 from her blackboard, and livened it up with your crayons … yes, I know … so where did you get the idea for that drawing anyway? Oh? …. And you told her this ?! …. shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh … your kindergarten teacher might be reading this!

    Now my darling, “I” is a very bad word to use, when men think you’re solipsistic … yes … I know … there are indeed many other people that make use of the word “I” on HUS … but Ted D lives in Pittsburgh … and now you demand special consideration since you flew over Pittsburgh a few times ?!

    And yet quite a few Pittsburghers mentioned a witch on her broomstick terrorising their night skies … Care to comment? … but off course they were drunk … wouldn’t you be?!

    I’m gonna report you to the NSA you little witch.

    So we’re agreed then my darling … “I” is a very bad word to use when men think you’re solipsistic. Same thing with the word “my”, my darling.

    *Sigh*

    Now my darling, you’ve gotta learn a bit about talking like a man … no you’re not … what’s that word you’re not supposed to say? … Good girl … you’re doing fine …

  • Ted D

    Merellus – I have no idea what you are implying, but if I were to speak in a real ‘Burgh dialect it would be something like:

    Yunz ladies gotta stop all dat crap wit da word “I” n’at! It makes yunz all sahnd like yur stupid er suhem. Try thinkin baht other people and wursh yur mind of dat “I” stuff or I’m gonna take ya dahntahn and drop ya in the Hill to get ruffed up and have yur pants n’at stolen.

  • Bully

    @LJ

    “Actually, I think the principle of feeling like, “Being alone is MUCH preferable to being with someone who I don’t find attractive/doesn’t treat me well” is a good one for both men and women.”

    Speaking as a man, I find this to be the case.

    It makes more sense to me to adopt a high-risk strategy to focus on myself entirely in my youth and continue to build wealth/accomplishments/status at the risk of aging out of the demographic of the women I find the most attractive. In my youngest days, I was in a relationship with a woman that I didn’t find attractive. I felt completely imprisoned. I can only imagine what my friends felt when they married young to women they weren’t attracted to. “It’s not satisfying now, and this is the best it’s going to get.”

    Far better to be alone and free than with someone you’re not into.

  • Bully

    I should add that I also agree with the premise of the original post – my feeling is that “girl game” adds a point or two, max, but since I believe the scale of attraction is exponential (e.g. a 5 is the threshold of legitimate attraction, a 6 is ten times as attractive as a 5, a 7 is ten times as attractive as a 6, etc.).. adding those one or two points becomes incredibly important for the health of a relationship.

    It won’t do much if anything for the 1-4s, but IME women are 1-4s almost entirely through sheer physical neglect and not anything they’re born with so they’d be better served to shore up those areas first.

  • http://Marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    @Ted D

    Hahahahaha !!! This reminds me of Terry Pratchett !

  • LJ

    “In my youngest days, I was in a relationship with a woman that I didn’t find attractive. I felt completely imprisoned. I can only imagine what my friends felt when they married young to women they weren’t attracted to.”

    Yes, and terrible for the women in those situations as well.

  • Bully

    Terrible for the women, yes, but since divorce has such perverse incentives, the men are in an even worse position. They cannot leave.

  • OffTheCuff

    INTJ: “Oh yeah she was rather hot. Creepy, but hot.”

    I think you’ve found the male equivalent to “sexy ugly”.

  • Just1Z

    “Yunz ladies gotta stop all dat crap wit da word “I” n’at! It makes yunz all sahnd like yur stupid er suhem. Try thinkin baht other people and wursh yur mind of dat “I” stuff or I’m gonna take ya dahntahn and drop ya in the Hill to get ruffed up and have yur pants n’at stolen.”

    bleedin’ ‘ell guv, wot the ruddy ‘ell are you garhn on abaht? stap me thasz gobbledy gook that is

    Makes Cockneys vs Zombies look normal(!)

    Have you seen Lock, Stock’s bar scene? (subtitled)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu7aj1SCE8k
    top line from Rory Breaker
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QRVbEQogDk

    Or Snatch (starring Brad Pitt as a pikey). This clip is about Brick Top played by the guy who does lovable Granddad in C vs Z
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuCT45SnO1E

  • LJ

    “Terrible for the women, yes, but since divorce has such perverse incentives, the men are in an even worse position. They cannot leave.”

    I don’t understand this. Why can’t they leave? And sorry, but I can’t feel sympathy for someone “trapped” in a marriage or relationship with someone they feel no attraction toward. THEY are the ones who got themselves into that situation, while deceiving their partner and wasting her time.

  • Bully

    In my case, it was because I was young, sheltered, stupid, and bought in completely to the “true beauty is on the inside” brainwashing from my other female friends. I know better now, of course.

  • Just1Z

    “THEY are the ones who got themselves into that situation, while deceiving their partner and wasting his time.”

    this as well, yeah LJ?

    being a feminist, I believe in equality and all that good stuff.

  • LJ

    Yes, his or her time. I never said it was OK when women do it, Bully was just talking about instances where it was the man.

  • Sai

    @Marellus
    This woman expected somebody to invoke Salomé, and this woman knows exactly what book that story is from. (This woman was curious.) Glad to hear that tactic can still be put to work today.

  • Lokland

    @INTJ, Han, Susan

    I have a buddy whose theory with women was essentially this,

    Every time your with one your value is raised.
    Therefore if you start low and trade up in incremental stages you can land a hottie.

    He tried it. It worked.

  • Bully

    @Lokland

    That’s more or less my strategy, though I don’t really care to get serious with women at this time for that reason. I hate the idea of using women as stepping stones.

  • http://Marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    @Sai

    Ahhhh, those hints of crockeries ben-a-throwin, in those feints and mockeries of a woman … kudos.

  • Emily

    >> “I have a buddy whose theory with women was essentially this,
    Every time your with one your value is raised.
    Therefore if you start low and trade up in incremental stages you can land a hottie.”

    Sounds a lot like hypergamy…

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

      >> “I have a buddy whose theory with women was essentially this,
      Every time your with one your value is raised.
      Therefore if you start low and trade up in incremental stages you can land a hottie.”

      Sounds a lot like hypergamy…

      Haha! All Game is gender neutral!

  • HanSolo

    @Susan (and Ion, SayWhaat and INTJ)

    Thanks for providing the Skyler Place paper where attractiveness was rated via the question, “How attractive do you find this person?”

    It is interesting to look at Table 1 and see that the attractiveness (1-9 scale) of the females in question were higher when the males were perceived as showing or did show interest by the following amounts in the experiments:

    ____________Perceived Interest_____Actual Interest
    Experiment 1_______+0.25____________+0.20

    Experiment 2_______+0.32____________+0.13

    This averages out to +0.225 based on males showing interest in the women vs not.

    Translating to a 1-10 scale this would be roughly a bump in female attractiveness by 0.25 points.

    I think this is consistent with my assertion that most men’s judgements of a woman’s looks isn’t (very) dependent on what other men think if only about 0.25 points is added by seeing men intersted in a girl. Now, if it was shown that the women’s looks went up by 1 or 2 points then that would be a different matter.

    Now to one of your conclusions from your post on this from 2010, I believe:

    “Clearly, men take their cues from dominant men. They determine who’s hot according to what the most socially dominant males find attractive.”

    This updated study didn’t seem to address this and the original Skyler Place article didn’t point out the numerical change in desire for a STR when more attractive men and women than the subject were perceived as showing interest. Rather, it just said that there was a greater effect when there was interest shown between more attractive men and women.

    I don’t see that as being consistent with your statement that dominant men determine who is considered hot and attractive. In my own experience (and nearly every other man I know), the perception of other men about her hotness/beauty at most affects my perception of her beauty by maybe 0.5 at most and usually not even that–I think I could agree that having other men think a woman is hot would cause me to maybe focus more on her positive qualities to the extent of raising her 0.25 but often as not just not change my opinion at all. Hardly enough to say that men are looking to other men to determine who is hot.

    For men, when it comes to beauty, no one needs to tell us, we just know.

    I would be interested in your specific thoughts on this and the small magnitude of increase in the woman’s attractiveness (about 0.25).

    Thanks.

  • Lokland

    @Bully

    I don’t agree with it but it did work.

    @Emily

    Hypergamy is attraction to a higher quality mate.

    This was actually a conscious thought out plan. He’s a 6 say with no game.
    Date a 5, SMV 6 women get interested, choose one date her, SMV 7 women get interested etc. until you reach a max out point.

  • Lokland

    @Emily

    Key difference.

    Hypergamy prevents you from starting lower than yourself.
    He intentionally started lower with the intent of working up.

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

      Hypergamy prevents you from starting lower than yourself.
      He intentionally started lower with the intent of working up.

      Hypergamy does not prevent anything. It is a desire to mate with someone of higher status than yourself. No more no less. PUAs are hypergamous.

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland

    Every time your with one your value is raised.
    Therefore if you start low and trade up in incremental stages you can land a hottie.

    He tried it. It worked.

    I went salsa dancing with a female friend, about a 6. We were going to dance but also dance with others, so it wasn’t a date.

    There were a lot of extra girls and many of them were actually friendly–what a change from clubs and to a lesser extent bars.

    We talked with some of the women. My friend and I danced and had a great time for a few songs. Then we split up for a while and I danced with some other girls while she danced with the male instructor who seemed pretty hot.

    I danced with this one girl who was an 8.5 in looks and she was really into me and the dancing and we even hugged while dancing. I think that she would have responded favorably if I’d kissed her even but I didn’t. I told her about my travels and she mentioned she’d lived in Milan and I asked why. She had been a model before she was married and had a kid! Ohhh! Damn!

    I think that even though my friend was only a 6 in looks that my being seen with a girl and having fun helped make this other woman, sitting on the side, see me in a higher light. Now, I think it was probably more that I was having fun and dancing reasonably well that was a significant part of it and not just being with a girl, though that helped too and definitely allowed me to more easily be seen having fun.

    I went alone another time and things didn’t seem to go as well, though I think a big part of that was that I was seen as a hungry lone wolf on the outside wanting to rob a sheep from the flock. lol

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland

    I’ll add, I don’t think it went as well when I went alone because I tend to feel much more relaxed and happy and give off a better and less needy vibe when I’m with someone I enjoy being with (friend or otherwise).

    For me the moral of the story is that my inner game is still too dependent on outside factors. If I went alone and acted with the same ease, confidence and happiness that I did when with my female friend then I don’t think I’d have much problem.

    And the social proof of being with a girl (the more attractive the better) is real too. I suppose the point of your friend’s and my stories is that guys should just start dating, even if it’s not quite at the attractiveness level you’d really like, and gain confidence. As long as you’re not leading someone on or making false promises then I don’t see this as manipulative or unfair.

  • HanSolo

    @Emily and Lokland

    The key point about hypergamy is the lowest level you will accept to be with, not that you would love the best possible in an ideal world. If that lower limit is higher than what you can attract then you’re screwed (or not! ;) ), for both STR or LTR.

    I see the too-high lower acceptable limit more in women (but maybe only in 25% is it really strong and 25% somewhat there) but it does exist in men too.

  • http://Marellus.wordpress.com Marellus

    @Ted D @Just1Z

    Howziiiit mah chinas. I’m smarking that lingo sommer lots. Now don’t go all marabbastad on me for saying this. You’re definitely not two mamparrahs. Now mah brahs, lets roll a zol, drink a Zama Lake and go patla-patla !!!

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

    Every time your with one your value is raised.
    Therefore if you start low and trade up in incremental stages you can land a hottie.

    Well Eva Peron ended up first lady of Argentina doing exactly that. Not sure how she could pull as a woman but maybe she read this book and took the best out of it? ;)

    And the social proof of being with a girl (the more attractive the better) is real too. I suppose the point of your friend’s and my stories is that guys should just start dating, even if it’s not quite at the attractiveness level you’d really like, and gain confidence. As long as you’re not leading someone on or making false promises then I don’t see this as manipulative or unfair.

    Males in my country never go out in public without a female in their side, that is why is sort of safe to cultivate friendships with the opposite gender he might find you totally unattractive but he knows that the social proof is important also only gay men are alone or always with another male, I know retrograde but culture is culture.

  • Lokland

    @Han

    I’ve had similar experiences.
    Its kind of chicken and egg though,
    am I more attractive because of the woman or because I’m with the woman and more outcome independent?

    Btw, you never want to become completely outcome independent (as you mentioned inner game) trying to get them closer together is good but the only way to truly not care is total outcome independence which is not healthy.

    “I suppose the point of your friend’s and my stories is that guys should just start dating, even if it’s not quite at the attractiveness level you’d really like, and gain confidence.”

    +1

    I disagree with my friends strategy, too manipulative/using, even for me.
    But it does work, in a more mild dose its probably quite healthy.

  • HanSolo

    @Lokland

    Well, I would encourage your friend’s strategy, with the clarification that a guy should just tell the girl upfront he’s not looking for anything serious but wants to enjoy time with her. Then she can decide if she’s up for that or not and it may do her some good to be going out too and feel better about herself and have fun and learn more about men and what she likes.

  • Emily

    >> “Well Eva Peron ended up first lady of Argentina doing exactly that. Not sure how she could pull as a woman but maybe she read this book and took the best out of it? ;)

    I love that show!!! (I’m not going to lie, everything I know about Eva Peron, I learned from the musical.)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIQIQAAieGE

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

      @Emily

      Evita is my favorite Broadway show of all time. Mandy Patinkin was awesome in the original, and it’s wild to see him as Saul in Homeland!

  • BroHamlet

    @Anacaona

    Many people have done this type of thing, though not that successfully, haha. I think you’d call them “social climbers”.

    @Lokland and HanSolo

    I don’t see anything wrong with this at all, and I don’t think so much talk about it is really necessary. Just because someone likes you enough to date you, doesn’t mean that they want to marry you and have kids. Susan even recommends shopping around. Now, I’m not sure how I feel about dating with the express intention of moving up, but then doesn’t everyone enter most relationships knowing that “this probably won’t be the one”, and just enjoys it while it lasts? What Lokland described usually happens anyway- people date, and then one or both of them leaves the relationship when they aren’t feeling it anymore.

  • Bully

    I get curious whenever someone describes someone as a “SMV 7″ man or whatever. I think rating women on a 1-10 scale is a bit easier since there’s really not much leeway and all men are interested in the same thing, besides the -/+ 1 for girl game.

    What makes a man a 5 as opposed to a 7? Is it something that can be even articulated, since male SMV is a sum of so many different factors?

  • HanSolo

    @BroHamlet

    I agree that explicitly saying you’re not interested in an LTR is not necessary for casual dating but it may not be a bad idea either. Where I think it could be more called for is if you start to sense her interest is getting a lot higher than yours. I don’t like to hurt girls and so I usually let them know sooner or later if I’m not feeling it.

    One interesting case was on a first date and I described the two ladders theory–attractive enough to consider for LTR, attractive enough for casual but not LTR, not attractive enough for either so not on a ladder. I was escalating very mildly physically, slight cuddling and flirting at a café. She said she didn’t like to get too physical too soon and so I stopped cuddling and touching her and said that was fine. She asked if I saw her as a potential gf–LTR ladder–and I told her that I didn’t. She asked if I saw her as attractive enough to be on the casual ladder and I said yes. She went from not wanting any cuddling to asking me to go over to her apartment and spend the night.

    Interesting how when she was hoping for being on the LTR ladder that she was being quite demure but then totally invited me over for sex when she discovered that the LTR ladder was not a possibility.

  • HanSolo

    @Bully

    In terms of providing an SMV rating, it is quite difficult to assign to men.

    I think that one way to approach it is to basically see what is the 95th* percentile of looks/hotness in girls that he can get for casual, allowing for the occasional outlier to not skew his SMV upwards too much. A similar thing would be to take the 95th percentile wife looks he can get and then subtract a point.

    This approach is pretty consistent with my own experience. The girls that I got for casual I feel like were usually less than my looks and about a 3rd of the time equal, whereas the looks of the girls in my LTRs or trying to get an LTR (I don’t want to date anyone lower than a certain looks level, TBH) were about equal or higher than me.

    This is based on the idea that men can pretty readily assign a looks value to women and there will be high correlation, and that looks is the dominate factor in a woman’s SMV. Since women have more varied sexual attraction triggers that vary in greater degree than men do (looks, status, charisma, game, dominance, humor, etc.) then it would be harder to come up with a formula to calculate the man’s SMV from first principles.

    This makes the other approach of seeing what kind of women the man can get (or hypothetically could if he doesn’t interact with women) as a better metric for his SMV.

    Thoughts?

    *You can replace 95 with some other number that seems more reasonable

  • HanSolo

    @Bully

    On further thought, I’ll downgrade the number of casual partners (casual for one or both of us though one of us might have had relationship hopes) of equal or slightly better looks to about 20%. And with some of these prettier ones, I was hoping for more and they weren’t.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Anacaona, I keep visiting your site and keep being disappointed that there are no photos of William! :P

    Re: Salome, she is what would be called a “femme fatale.” I would rather not emulate a woman who drove men to suicide.

  • BroHamlet

    @HanSolo

    “Interesting how when she was hoping for being on the LTR ladder that she was being quite demure but then totally invited me over for sex when she discovered that the LTR ladder was not a possibility.”

    Apparently you should be careful saying that around here. You have no idea how many times I have said this is true, and it’s been waved away with the “she was unrestricted” theory. I have been saying since minute one that the line between “good girl” and “bad girl” is a really thin one, so to get into who’s restricted and who’s unrestricted is kind of missing the point- the reality is more complex, and not as comforting as many here would like to think.

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

      “Interesting how when she was hoping for being on the LTR ladder that she was being quite demure but then totally invited me over for sex when she discovered that the LTR ladder was not a possibility.”

      Apparently you should be careful saying that around here. You have no idea how many times I have said this is true, and it’s been waved away with the “she was unrestricted” theory.

      But she was clearly unrestricted, and just pretending to be relationship material. A slut in good girl clothing?

  • HanSolo

    @Bully

    The reason I picked the 95th percentile instead of 50th is because it is usually easier for a man to get casual with women of lower SMV than himself.

  • Bully

    @HanSolo

    I tend to agree, except for the fact that women’s attraction is clustered around the top tier of men, whereas men’s attraction for women is far more expansive, which would skew the scale.

    The way I see it, a graph plotted by men for their attraction of women would look like a bell curve (most are average, with fewer amounts of extremely attractive or extremely ugly women), while a graph plotted by women would probably look more asymptotic (80% of all men are below the attraction threshold and those at the very top are ridiculously, unbelievably attractive)

    As long as it’s understood there’s not going to be a 1:1 relationship between populations of the same SMV, with there being many more men than women at the lower SMV ranks and many more women than men at the higher ranks, I think I could get behind that.

  • HanSolo

    @Bully

    I agree that once men are above a certain SMV that the floodgates open.

    Another possible model would just take all the men and rank them on their ability to get women to be sexually attracted to them (a combination of who they have dated, who they could or do get for casual, etc.) and then do a percentile cutoff with discrete binning into 10, 9, 8, 7, etc. Ten’s might be deemed 99.7th percentile and higher, 9’s as 97th to 99.7th percentile, 8’s as 90th to 97th, etc. (I’m just making these numbers up.)

  • HanSolo

    @Bully

    But I think that I like my first model more of what value of woman you could get a certain percentage of the time or with a certain amount of effort because that is more tied into the tangible looks (and maybe give her a sexiness/sensuality component as part of her SMV too) of the woman.

    Tying it to the women he DOES get is hard because it doesn’t really differentiate between what kind of girls the man is targeting. If he’s a beer-goggles guy who sings a variation of Garth Brooks song, “I’ve got skanks in lowly places where the whisky drowns and the beer chases my standards away” then he might have a higher SMV than the women he’s pulling. On the other hand you could have a guy that holds out and gets lucky once in a blue moon with only girls who are 9’s.

    In the end we would need an accurate model that could find what women he could attract sexually under reasonable assumptions.

    I do like pegging his SMV towards the higher range of who he could get in a reasonable time frame if he were to try.

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

    Re: pre-selection. Some of my most cynical associates work in a field called “neuromarketing”. One of them was commissioned by a music industry entity; the researcher found highly developed lemming behavior among young girls.

    At the risk of oversimplifying things, the story goes something like this: if you take a relatively average-looking boy and have him croon on stage, you can create herding effects by goosing the female audience with a few strategically-placed, paid screamers. The screams of the stooges will apparently trigger an emotive cascade among other girls, and soon you have a wild mob screaming for the boy.

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

      @BB

      That doesn’t surprise me – adolescent girls in hypergamic mode. Fame is a powerful aphrodisiac. Check out this video about a hoax designed to demonstrate the power of celebrity:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9Ko6Xfa84w

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    Apparently you should be careful saying that around here. You have no idea how many times I have said this is true, and it’s been waved away with the “she was unrestricted” theory. I have been saying since minute one that the line between “good girl” and “bad girl” is a really thin one, so to get into who’s restricted and who’s unrestricted is kind of missing the point- the reality is more complex, and not as comforting as many here would like to think.

    +1

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Hypergamy does not prevent anything. It is a desire to mate with someone of higher status than yourself. No more no less. PUAs are hypergamous.”

    No its not. Hypergamy is the desire to mate with someone of higher status AND the refusal to mate with someone of lower status (equal is up for grabs).

    Thats why men seek variety, we will dip down the latter for a fling. Women will not.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Haha! All Game is gender neutral!”

    No more like the exploitation of preselection and hypergamy.
    He started off LOWER than himself in terms of SMV. That is not hypergamy.

    Also, when I’m the only person who finds a tactic morally wrong I feel greatly concerned for our civilization.

  • Mike C

    This makes the other approach of seeing what kind of women the man can get (or hypothetically could if he doesn’t interact with women) as a better metric for his SMV.

    Thoughts?

    Han,

    Totally agree. Because there are so many factors driving what makes a man attractive, the only way to really judge his sexual attractiveness is by the SMV level of the women he can actually pull. As an aside point, I’ve found in discussions here that many of the women tend to be contradictory about male looks in that they will heavily emphasize it when it serves the purpose to reduce male SMV to physical looks, but emphasize all the other factors such as status, social dominance, prestige when it serves the purpose of the discussion. Many times someone has implied a man doing “better” than his rank when simply looking at physical appearance and not considering the other things he is bringing that raise his total SMV.

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

      As an aside point, I’ve found in discussions here that many of the women tend to be contradictory about male looks in that they will heavily emphasize it when it serves the purpose to reduce male SMV to physical looks, but emphasize all the other factors such as status, social dominance, prestige when it serves the purpose of the discussion

      This is a valid point. I find myself struggling to figure out male SMV vs. MMV or RMV. I knew something was way off when someone said that male SMV peaks in the early 40s. Um, no.

      I propose that male SMV is pure fuckability, who would you do. Peaks in the late 20s. Generally a combo of looks and status.

      RMV or MMV takes into account those female attraction cues that are relevant for LTRs. This tends to peak a bit later, obviously. I’d say in the 25-35 range.

  • Mike C

    She said she didn’t like to get too physical too soon and so I stopped cuddling and touching her and said that was fine. She asked if I saw her as a potential gf–LTR ladder–and I told her that I didn’t. She asked if I saw her as attractive enough to be on the casual ladder and I said yes. She went from not wanting any cuddling to asking me to go over to her apartment and spend the night.

    Interesting how when she was hoping for being on the LTR ladder that she was being quite demure but then totally invited me over for sex when she discovered that the LTR ladder was not a possibility.

    Han,

    I’m surprised you could be that blunt about it, and still get her to take that second option although like Jimmy and Bro, I’m not surprised by the change in behavior on her part.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    There’s the thing though. I don’t doubt that preselection has a net positive effect on men’s perceptions of female attractiveness. Nobody is going to think someone is ugly simply because he finds out other men find her attractive. But – and here’s the catch – any change in attractiveness is clearly outweighed by the male aversion to taken women. Thus, demonstrating preselection is a net negative strategy for women.

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

      @INTJ

      Taken /= preselected.

  • J

    Hypergamy does not prevent anything. It is a desire to mate with someone of higher status than yourself. No more no less. PUAs are hypergamous.

    Ha! Brilliant!

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan

    “But she was clearly unrestricted, and just pretending to be relationship material. A slut in good girl clothing?”

    No. This is where you are being way too black and white. Her behavior in large part depended on the guy and the situation. Han demonstrated that he knew the deal, and that he could take or leave it. Girls need to get laid too, and regardless of how “good” they might be, they realize a relationship is not always worth the time and effort just to scratch an itch. I have personally seen and had this happen to me multiple times, and there are mountains of anecdotal evidence from other guys out there to back it up- this is what starts to happen to you when you get momentum; it’s yours to fuck it up, or not. Your theory about restricted and unrestricted misses some of the most important nuances of these situations, and to be frank, it just seems like another line to be drawn in the sand. And, I get it. There’s no “good” without “bad”, but the world is rarely so simple that everyone fits into one of two boxes all (or even most) of the time.

    “Hypergamy does not prevent anything. It is a desire to mate with someone of higher status than yourself. No more no less. PUAs are hypergamous.”

    Lol. So clever. If you knew how many average to below girls these dudes were swinging at (and nailing) on their way to the “top”, you wouldn’t be saying this at all. Plus the fact that what many guys who have their shit together see as “hot” is actually at their level in terms of their objective value given a situation where the girl can see them for what they are, like social circles. How do you think you see regular-looking guys with cute girls? They were in the right place at the right time, i.e. not trying to drunkenly “holler” at a girl in a loud club with a bunch of rich douches spoon feeding her validation. Different venue, the girl didn’t feel like Nicole Richie in the VIP, and they got an honest look.

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

      Girls need to get laid too, and regardless of how “good” they might be, they realize a relationship is not always worth the time and effort just to scratch an itch.

      I actually don’t think this is true. I know that I have a very high sex drive, and I have never once in my life felt the “need” to get laid.

  • Damien Vulaume

    “regardless of how “good” they might be, they realize a relationship is not always worth the time and effort just to scratch an itch.”
    +1
    “Your theory about restricted and unrestricted misses some of the most important nuances of these situations, and to be frank, it just seems like another line to be drawn in the sand. And, I get it. There’s no “good” without “bad”, but the world is rarely so simple that everyone fits into one of two boxes all (or even most) of the time.”
    Yes, very true. And I guess this is an age gap as well as an “agenda” gap here.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Rollo: “1. Men whose prestige is much greater than your own”
    Rollo’s answer: “Alphas you can’t control”
    “2. Men with whom you would always have to make the first move.”
    “Answer: Betas…”……….
    I missed that quote earlier on. Yet another of those “fantastic” categorizing observations about the male/female dance.
    What kind of female have you been dating as of today, Mr Rollo, and in which society, and, maybe most importantly, where do you hang out?

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I actually don’t think this is true. I know that I have a very high sex drive, and I have never once in my life felt the “need” to get laid.”

    I’ve heard of this “need to get laid” from multiple women over the course of my entire life starting at around 16 or 17 years old. Not from every woman by any leap of the imagination, but enough. I used to chalk it up to them being in the “slut” pile, but time has proven that is NOT entirely true.

    I’m sure Sassy can tell you of this “need”, and she is hardly a slut.

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

      @Ted D

      What are the negative consequences to the female who does not get as much sex as she needs? If women truly need sex from the age of 16, no man should harbor resentment that they get those needs met.

  • Guavaberry

    I haven’t read the rest of the comments since I’m in finals and I really cannot keep up with the whole thread, but just by reading the first 50 comments or so made me angry already.

    I think this advice is not necessarily playing “hard-to-get”, it goes along the lines of “keep a femenine aura and some mystery”. Seriously, this is completely lost from the American culture, falling in love with someone involves a dance, involves a little bit of give and take. It involves only laying little pieces of your interest. Courtship is that and I feel that most people here don’t understand it.

    The only thing I can think while reading this comments is, what the hell do you guys want. A restricted girl will show you her interest in a reserved way anyhow.

    Maybe it’s because I’m a foreigner and I really appreciate the concept of courtship rather than: “Hey, you’re cute, let’s bang”. Apparently, expressing your interest in a delicate way is being a cock tease. Female coyness and flirting allows you to express your interest but taking things slow enough so that emotional intimacy can precede or go hand in hand with physical intimacy. Is not that you WANT to be a tease… It is simply that you’re not gonna go all in immediately, it’s part of the dance.

    Again, I don’t know what the hell you guys want.

    Also, where is this cock carrousel and endless supply of hot guys that I can fuck with the snap of my fingers? Not all girls spend their weekend drinking to death and hopping on whatever swinging penis is closer, not all girls engage on casual sex in college so for the love of all that is holy could you all just stop the butthurt and accept that the lotsa cocka feminist slut is a minority?

    It seems like every opportunity that a girl has to try to prove herself as restricted, femenine, flirty, coy, etc. will be dismissed by “oh but she’s still an inner slut that will cheat on me on any time”.

    You guys speak of female solipism, is there a term for males in the manosphere relating EVERY relationship advice to an absolute desire to declare it invaluable because ALL women are sluts?

    /endrant.

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

      @guavaberry

      Well said, I’m so glad you spoke up. We need a female quorum! Good luck in finals.

  • Ted D

    Guavaberry – “falling in love with someone involves a dance, involves a little bit of give and take. ”

    I agree. The problem is, most people aren’t too keen on the “giving” part, but are plenty fine with “taking”.

    “Again, I don’t know what the hell you guys want.”

    See Hope’s post earlier. Most of us don’t expect to get everything on her list, but we shoot for as much as we can get. ;-)

  • BroHamlet

    @Guavaberry

    “It seems like every opportunity that a girl has to try to prove herself as restricted, femenine, flirty, coy, etc. will be dismissed by “oh but she’s still an inner slut that will cheat on me on any time”.”

    You’re being as black and white as Susan is. She is the one pushing the idea that there is some clear cut line separating good girls and bad girls. I am saying that this dichotomy, within reason, is too hard and fast for the way people act in the real world, and it’s a bit too judgmental for my taste, because life is not simple. I am not here to pass judgement on anyone’s choices, male or female. I have been saying all along, that it’s fine to do the dance, but that dance is best coming from a place of actually being how you appear. If that is how you are approaching it, I don’t see a problem. But not everybody does that, and that’s why these lists always get called out. Keep in mind, I only have a problem with the “10 General Principles”. The rest is A-OK in my book.

    “Is not that you WANT to be a tease… It is simply that you’re not gonna go all in immediately, it’s part of the dance.”

    Definitely, but like I said above, you have to own it- and faking it isn’t going to work. My last few posts have been about why it’s important for this to come from the inside and not be faked. The list of 10 reads just like an old school pickup artist manual. It’s just as lame as it’s always been, and encourages people to look at every romantic interaction as a game. It should be plainly obvious where the arms race of gamesmanship has landed us in the USA, and encouraging more games is actually much worse FOR WOMEN, because men will figure out ways to counteract those games that will not be in female best interests long term. More games are not the answer, but developing actual confidence in your value, and thus the ability to handle these situations with mostly transparent intention, is.

    “You guys speak of female solipism, is there a term for males in the manosphere relating EVERY relationship advice to an absolute desire to declare it invaluable because ALL women are sluts?”

    Speaking as a non-manospherian, I think you need to stop and ask yourself why their opinions would even be important to you, and why you are personalizing this so much. They are obviously in left field on a lot of things concerning individual women.

    In short, I am telling you, that lists about what a girl should “do” are not nearly as important as what a girl should be, and exactly the same goes for men. Games are a slippery slope.

    @Susan

    “I actually don’t think this is true. I know that I have a very high sex drive, and I have never once in my life felt the “need” to get laid.”

    So, your experience invalidates what is going on in the real world? Didn’t you also participate in hooking up in your youth? When I say “need to get laid”, I don’t just mean dragging any lonesome schlub up to your room for a quickie, he’s going to be someone who meets a threshold of attractiveness and talks the right talk. Plus, women have sex for a variety of reasons- sometimes it’s not the physical part, it’s about status, or about exploring new terrain. The list goes on, and is far more nuanced than why most men want sex, but the end result is still there. Han brought it up due to an actual encounter, and he’s far from the first to notice this over the last decade.

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

      Plus, women have sex for a variety of reasons- sometimes it’s not the physical part, it’s about status, or about exploring new terrain. The list goes on, and is far more nuanced than why most men want sex, but the end result is still there.

      Even more common is the need for male validation to boost self-esteem. So yes, there is a need, but sex is not the need. It is important that men understand that women do not need sex in any physical way, barring addiction, if it exists.

      I don’t doubt Han’s report for a moment, I’m just suggesting he was dealing with a woman accustomed to promiscuous behavior, and when Plan A Girlfriend pile was not an option, she went for Plan B He Still Thinks I’m Hot pile. Something I suspect she has done many times before.

  • BroHamlet

    @Dawin

    “What’s funny is that the women don’t even register the existence of the guy. She can be hot, he can look like quasimodo, but if she needs to have sex and if there is no better guy around, she will sleep with him. For all the garbage the PUA’s eschew, most of them have yet to realize that a man only needs to hang out with women long enough for them to be sufficiently horny to bang these average/below average guys.”

    No dude. SMH. You are oversimplifying and your tone is what the women here (like Guavaberry) are reacting to. Girls will almost never dip down below their level. Most are not super indiscriminate like you describe. What you are missing, is that girls who date the so-called “average” guys in their circle, are operating on a more honest assessment of their own value relative to his. Because even most “hot” girls don’t have all of their shit together and they are aware of that when they’re not in a situation with tons of guys trying to get their attention. If a guy is boring and not attractive, he will still not get the most attractive girls in his circle interested. He still has to be at the top of the heap, it’s just much easier to do that naturally in a social circle versus with randoms at a club or bar.

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

      . You are oversimplifying and your tone is what the women here (like Guavaberry) are reacting to.

      Ha, don’t make Dawin the fall guy, the women don’t read him anyway. Guavaberry can clarify if she returns, but my impression was that she was speaking to the men in general, not an outlier.

  • Cooper

    @Gauvaberry

    *cheers rant*

    @HanSolo 530/540, Sassy 469
    I like the sharing!!

  • Feelist

    @ Brohamlet,

    You’re saying the hot woman will date the guy who isn’t hot because there are no other guys interested in her, or the few who are interested in her only want to jump her bones?

    I don’t quite understand what you mean by hot women being honest with their value in relation to the guy: doesn’t her good-looks already put her in higher ground?

  • INTJ

    @ guavaberry

    Maybe it’s because I’m a foreigner and I really appreciate the concept of courtship rather than: “Hey, you’re cute, let’s bang”. Apparently, expressing your interest in a delicate way is being a cock tease. Female coyness and flirting allows you to express your interest but taking things slow enough so that emotional intimacy can precede or go hand in hand with physical intimacy. Is not that you WANT to be a tease… It is simply that you’re not gonna go all in immediately, it’s part of the dance.

    You can hold off on sexual escalation and still escalate emotionally. If that’s what you’re suggesting, I’m on board. Instead, Dorothy Parker advocates withholding emotional investment. That may have been good advice then, but it certainly isn’t good advice now. Today’s young females already have enough trouble escalating emotionally.

  • Sai

    @Bastiat Blogger
    “At the risk of oversimplifying things, the story goes something like this: if you take a relatively average-looking boy and have him croon on stage, you can create herding effects by goosing the female audience with a few strategically-placed, paid screamers. The screams of the stooges will apparently trigger an emotive cascade among other girls, and soon you have a wild mob screaming for the boy.”
    I SO want to say something…
    baby baby baby OH

  • Just1Z

    @Sai
    you can sing? yay!

    According to Tom Jones (‘it’s not unusual’ etc etc) it’s not a pleasant experience to get ladies’ knickers thrown at you in such situations. While screaming their heads off women tend to leak urine, so the panties aren’t as fresh as one receiving them might prefer…

    girrrlzzz prepare to scream…
    ‘it’s not unusual’
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrwO8b9iq34

  • BroHamlet

    @Feelist

    “You’re saying the hot woman will date the guy who isn’t hot because there are no other guys interested in her, or the few who are interested in her only want to jump her bones?”

    No. Let’s step back. I put “average” in quotes because average is a relative term. People tend to run in circles of people that are of the same educational/financial/interests background, such that most everyone in a given circle is about at the same level status wise. So if you look at that hot girl in the club, there is a guy she hangs out with in a group every day that may have the qualifications to get her interest, based on familiarity and the fact that she can see the whole package he brings- he may look average to guys, but people who know him probably know otherwise. She can see due to close up experience that he’s on her level. But, if you took that same guy, and put him outside of her circle so he’s a random, take him to the club, and make him compete against a bunch of six-packed, sparkling-smiled guys that she thinks she can get and keep because they’re putting the moves on her, she won’t give that guy a second look. It’s a matter of perception.

    “I don’t quite understand what you mean by hot women being honest with their value in relation to the guy: doesn’t her good-looks already put her in higher ground?”

    What I am saying, is that from a day to day perspective there are guys in her circle, that although they aren’t as pretty as her, will still pique her interest, because she can see more clearly what they have to offer, and she doesn’t have external factors inflating her own perceived value, and because male attractiveness is not based definitively on looks from a female perspective.

    @Susan

    “…no man should harbor resentment that they get those needs met.”

    Totally agree, and I’ve said this much many times here. Some men eat sour grapes, and some do something about it.

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan

    “It is important that men understand that women do not need sex in any physical way, barring addiction, if it exists.”

    We’ll agree to disagree, then. However these situations happen, whether it’s about validation, or being horny, or exploring a man of high status, the end result is mostly the same, so we’re just splitting hairs. In my experience (and I’m sure many guys here will back me up) women don’t need sex from what they view as average (most) men, which is really how your statement plays out in practice. Hang with a bunch of guys who are clearly above average (or become one yourself), and you will not find this to be true.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “What are the negative consequences to the female who does not get as much sex as she needs?”

    I haven’t the slightest idea! I’m just reporting my experience on the matter. I’ve heard women say things like “I was so horny last night I was looking for ANYTHING to back into!” That is a direct quote (it was so shocking I can’t forget it. LOL)

    “If women truly need sex from the age of 16, no man should harbor resentment that they get those needs met”

    I could say the same thing for women: If men truly need sex from the age of 16 (although I started “rolling my own” at about 13), no woman should harbor resentment that they got those needs met. But guess what? Women here at HUS have said that high N men are not where they look for a future husband.

    I think the word “need” here is the issue. I’m a man, and I have sexual needs that must be met. However, I don’t necessarily NEED to have sex with lots of women to meet that “need”. Personally, I met the need by getting into LTRs and having sex. I would suggest others do the same. But, other people feel its perfectly fine to meet that need with casual sex, that may or may not mean lots of different partners.

    I’m not sure where I’m going with this so I’ll quit before it gets longer…

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Any thoughts on the Skyler Place study showing that men rate women’s attractiveness about 0.225* higher on a 1-9 scale (or 0.25 on a 1-10 scale) when other men show interest?

    *see my comment at 527 for analysis

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

      @HanSolo

      Any thoughts on the Skyler Place study showing that men rate women’s attractiveness about 0.225* higher on a 1-9 scale (or 0.25 on a 1-10 scale) when other men show interest?

      *see my comment at 527 for analysis

      I confess I didn’t understand it. If you don’t mind showing me how you got to that number, I’d be happy to take another look. It has been a very long time since I took statistics…

      I think what is most relevant is a comparison between the sexes. Though Place finds results for both sexes to be statistically significant, it may be that women are more vulnerable to mate copying. Certainly, older research appears to have assumed as much, and Place questions that. Since his recent study was just this year, I don’t imagine there is much research available yet.

      Looking at the study, it seemed that women’s opinions jumped more, and from a lower place. Men’s opinions jumped less, but were higher to begin with. Ultimately, they seemed to be around the same after mate copying. Not sure I understood that correctly, but if so that is pretty interesting.

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

        @Han Solo

        I don’t see that as being consistent with your statement that dominant men determine who is considered hot and attractive. In my own experience (and nearly every other man I know), the perception of other men about her hotness/beauty at most affects my perception of her beauty by maybe 0.5 at most and usually not even that

        I’m not sure if you knew the basis for that statement. It was this, from Buss’ The Evolution of Desire.

        “Beauty is not just important for reproductive value. It also affects a man’s social status. An attractive woman is a signal of status to same-sex competitors and to other potential mates.”

        This assumes a large degree of consensus among males regarding who is attractive. While there may be some individual variation, the female standards of beauty are common across all cultures. Buss:

        “Standards of Physical Beauty:
        Full lips
        Clear, smooth skin
        Clear eyes
        Lustrous hair
        Good muscle tone
        Behavior: bouncy, youthful gait; animated facial expression, high energy level.

        These are the physical cues to youth and health, and comprise the ingredients of male standards for female beauty.”

        If men did not share perceptions of female beauty, it would not be possible to even remotely rate women, yet we do see that certain women attract much more male attention than others.

        There’s a chicken and egg quality to this – are men mostly attracted to the same women because they reached that conclusion independently? Or does an awareness of a woman’s SMV among males confirm her status? The more attractive the woman, the more attractive her successful suitors, presumably. So a woman who used to date BMOC may have appeal over and above pure looks when she comes back on the market – she may also represent increased social status.

        In the same way, when men talk among themselves and all agree that Girl E is the hottest girl in the school, it is understood that whoever wins Girl E is going to have won the mating competition among those males.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I confess I didn’t understand it. If you don’t mind showing me how you got to that number, I’d be happy to take another look.

    Happy to explain.

    Executive summary: The woman’s attractiveness was rated before and after interest was either shown or not. You subtract the change in rating of the woman’s attractiveness where no interest was shown from the change in rating where interest was shown to see the effect of men showing interest in women. Averaged out, this gives a 0.20 rise on a 1-9 scale or 0.225 on a 1-10 scale or 0.25 on a 0-10 scale. I think this agrees with my observations and assertions that men’s opinions of female beauty is not affected very much by the opinion of other men. Thoughts? Below are the details of how I arrived at this.

    In table 1, you can look at experiment 1 and 2 for males subjects (the men watching videos and pictures) and look at the rows that say attractiveness for the Target (the target for the males would be the females in the speed dating videos that are having their attractiveness rated). The section to focus on is the Target section which reports the change in the rating of the woman’s attractiveness (after minus before). Maybe a 6 rating before and 6, 5 or 7 after viewing the video, depending on whether the man found her more, less or equally attractive. Averaged out and divided into the categories of whether the males were showing interest or not (and two categories of showing interest were tabulated–“Perceived” was if the man viewing thought the speed dating male was interested and “Actual” was based on the desire of the speed dating man to get the woman’s contact info and meet up.

    So for Experiment 1 and 2 on the male subjects we have the change in attractiveness of the speed-dating female after watching the video where there was no/negative interest shown by the speed-dating male and where there was positive interest shown:

    ___________________Perceived Interest by Males__Actual Interest
    ____________________Negative____Positive______Neg___Posit
    Exp1Attractiveness of females__0.29_____0.54_______0.34___0.54
    Exp2Attractiveness of females__0.27_____0.59_______0.40___0.53

    We see, that on average, even when the speed-dating males showed no interest (actual or perceived, negative columns) that by watching the video the woman’s attractiveness rose by 0.29, 0.27, 0.34 and 0.40 points on the 1-9 scale.

    The attractiveness rose even further when the speed-dating males showed interest: 0.54, 0.59, 0.54, 0.53.

    To get how much the showing interest affected the rating of the females’ looks then you subtract the not-interested from the interested values to get (e.g. 0.54 – 0.29 = 0.25 bump in attractiveness when the speed-dating male is perceived as showing interest in Exp 1):

    ___________________Perceived Interest by Males__Actual Interest
    ____________________Effect of interest______Effect of Interest
    Exp1Attractiveness of females____0.25_______________0.20
    Exp2Attractiveness of females____0.22_______________0.13

    Averaging these out gives 0.20 on the 1-9 scale and that would be about 0.22 on a 1-10 scale. (I messed up adding them in my head to average before when I got 0.225)

    So the conclusion is that the attractiveness of the females rose by about 0.2 points when the males showed interest.

    Further details:

    Experiment 1 and 2 only differed in what kind of Similar-to-target photo was rated: exp. 1 had a similar face and different hair and clothes while exp. 2 had the same clothes and hair but different face.

    The Similar-to-target and Control portions can be ignored for our purposes. Similar-to-target was a rating of someone that looked similar to the target and they wanted to see if the interactions could spill over to similar-looking people (females in the parts I’m focuing on). Also, the control can be ignored since that was just rating the same photo of someone totally different to use as a control to see that the rating of a random person (same before and after) changed.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Very last phrase of that long post should have read “to use as a control to see that the rating of a random person (same person before and after) didn’t change.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    There’s a chicken and egg quality to this – are men mostly attracted to the same women because they reached that conclusion independently? Or does an awareness of a woman’s SMV among males confirm her status? The more attractive the woman, the more attractive her successful suitors, presumably. So a woman who used to date BMOC may have appeal over and above pure looks when she comes back on the market – she may also represent increased social status.

    In the same way, when men talk among themselves and all agree that Girl E is the hottest girl in the school, it is understood that whoever wins Girl E is going to have won the mating competition among those males.

    I agree that the status that a man might acquire by dating/marrying a woman can factor into his decision. I don’t think it affects his perception of her attractiveness very much. I think Lamar Odom is an example of marrying Khloe Kardashian for reasons other than her looks. Her being part of an (in)famous family and leading to them having a reality show together gave her added value.

    I suppose we could do an experiment similar to the Skyler Place one and rate women who have dated high-status males. Show a picture of her alone, then pictures or videos of her with high-status males (showing interest, though it’s implied if he’s with her in real life) and rate her photo again afterwards to see.

    I think that most men will not change their ratings of the women very much, maybe 0.5 at most.

    I think another place to look would be in how small boys rate the attractiveness of small girls (though a lot changes by adulthood obviously). With some exceptions, most of the pretty girls I grew up with turned out quite pretty. I think the boys just find certain girls prettier than others and have had less time to be influenced by culture. Wasn’t there even a study where babies look at attractive faces more?

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    FWIW, doing the same analysis on the change in male attractiveness due to perceived and actual interest, we get 0.38 and 0.32 for perceived, and 0.23 and 0.25 for actual, averaging out to 0.295 on the 1-9 scale. This effect is about 50% higher than the 0.20 for how much the females’ attractiveness went up when interest was shown.

    I suspect that a more life-like experiment of actually sending men in with and without women and measuring the responses of women would show a more dramatic pre-selection effect on how women perceive men.

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

      @Han Solo

      Thanks very much for taking the time to lay it out for me in terms I could understand. :)

      I’m not surprised to see that the effect on women is indeed larger, but I’m a bit surprised both numbers are relatively low. This definitely calls into question prevailing ideas about the degree to which preselection helps men attract women, though as noted earlier, the research is just one study, and a very recent one at that.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I am not surprised that it’s low on men because I sincerely know that I am not affected much if at all on my opinion of a woman’s looks and believe that most men aren’t either. Maybe you should ask every man you know by how much their opinion of women’s looks is swayed by the opinion of other men.

    Now, in terms of wanting a relationship with her then I could see there that their opinions would matter more but that’s a different scenario. If everyone hates her or thinks she’s a slut or some thing I think it would make many guys think twice to see if they really knew here. I think a lot of men are independent enough to reanalyze the situation and still marry her if they conclude the other opinions are wrong while some would fall to the peer pressure.

    In terms of women, I think a more real-life experiment on having the man in her vicinity so that there would be the actual possibility that they could talk–basically being more real–is where the preselection would really make a woman amp up her attraction.

    Time might be another factor. Look at romance novels where it takes a good amount of time for the woman to fall for the man (and for the reader to read enough for her to perhaps get more emotionally hooked into the story to the point that she starts imagining it happening to her) as opposed to porn for men where the man knows if he finds her attractive sexually within about a second or three.

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

      @Han Solo

      Time might be another factor. Look at romance novels where it takes a good amount of time for the woman to fall for the man (and for the reader to read enough for her to perhaps get more emotionally hooked into the story to the point that she starts imagining it happening to her) as opposed to porn for men where the man knows if he finds her attractive sexually within about a second or three.

      Earlier I hypothesized that preselection is a “first impression” factor – it’s a shortcut for a quick assessment before a woman has had an opportunity to evaluate a male on the various attraction cues. Not sure if that’s what you’re saying – or the opposite – but I do think that the effect of preselection, whatever it may be, will decrease steadily and fairly quickly as women are able to make their independent assessments.

  • HanSolo

    Susan, by how much, I mean on a 1-10 scale. I would expect that the most likely answer you would get is in the range of 0 to 0.5.

  • HanSolo

    Susan,

    I agree that preselection works to fill in for a lack of information. Since women seem to care more about other information than just looks it would make sense that they are more susceptible to it since men can readily tell if he likes the woman’s looks.

    Regarding time, I am thinking more like on the order of a few minutes or even an hour of seeing him receiving the attention of beautiful women to make sure they really are into him and how much. I think seeing him simply walk in for 5 s with a beautiful woman is helpful but if she sees him interacting positively with her (or multiple women) for several minutes or an hour that it will both show that they really are into him and also give her enough time to process the info and get more attracted and possibly even aroused.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    So, this whole discussion got started by my observation that I, and most men I know, are not very affected by how attractive other men find a woman to be.

    You replied by posting the Skyler Place study (and then INTJ made the actual article available and you provided the follow-up study that gives a ranking on the women’s attractiveness) to suggest that men are *statistically significantly affected by other men’s opinion.

    I analyzed the two articles and found a minor bump in attractiveness in the 2nd article (0.2 on the 1-9 scale) that seems to be more in agreement with my personal and anecdotal experience.

    So, I am curious, if you will now agree that men’s opinion of a woman’s looks are not affected very much by other men’s opinion of said woman’s looks?

    I really do want you to say yes! :D And in spite of how I know I act and nearly all men I know and have spoken with about this, I am still open minded to the possibility that some men are affected by it and so I encourage more men to say if they’re affected or not, and for you to ask the men you interact with too.

    *statistically significant doesn’t mean large, only that it is very unlikely to be due to chance

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

      @HanSolo

      So, I am curious, if you will now agree that men’s opinion of a woman’s looks are not affected very much by other men’s opinion of said woman’s looks?

      Haha, yes I do concede that point! However, for me the discussion has only produced more questions!

      What is the effect if men are not influenced by other men’s perceptions of beauty, but they are influenced by the potential bump in social status of partnering with a woman that other men find extremely attractive? In a case where a man did not find a woman “hot” but was aware that all the other men considered her a “10,” how receptive would he be if she singled him out?

      Why is the effect on females so small? Even if your hypothesis that “in person” preselection is more powerful is correct, and we have no idea whether it is, the fact that female attraction went up only .3 is very surprising given the strength of the concept in Game/the manosphere.

      If mate copying is indeed a way of filling in information on female attraction traits, then they must be the ones not easily observable in a short time:

      Emotional intelligence
      Intelligence
      Ambition and industriousness
      Occupational status
      Reliability, dependability
      etc.

      IOW, the dad traits. The traits re looks: strength, symmetry, size, are all apparent. This suggests that preselection would be most useful in helping women understand a man’s dad traits. However, it is deployed in Game in precisely the opposite way, which makes me wonder – Why would preselection be useful in suggesting a man is “hot” when the woman can see with her own eyes whether he is or not?

  • Just1Z

    “Why would preselection be useful in suggesting a man is “hot” when the woman can see with her own eyes whether he is or not?”

    It’s you that keeps talking of the myriad of subtle attraction cues women see in men*, so perhaps women are herd influenced because they trust that the herd has picked up more clues than they have themselves…because he was pre-selected?

    another option is that if we look back to when the alpha male of the flange / whoop / troop did all the choosing (back on the plains / forests / jungles), the women had to adapt and accept what they were going to get as ‘partner’ whether they liked it or not. which might explain the elasticity of attraction in females, maybe meaning that they are still more open to persuasion by others in the modern era?

    whereas men are more content to know what they like when they see it? whether they can get may well be another issue.

    I mean, these sound plausible, but I can’t point at a paper. Being an intuitive type (INTj) I can live with that. Now I know that you are very well aware of the MBTI types, but Steve Sailer made a few comments of interest and suggested a competitor ‘OCEAN’

    http://isteve.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/personality-testing-myers-briggs-v-big-5.html
    http://isteve.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/myers-briggs-sensing-v-intuition.html

    Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible, and concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to distrust hunches, which seem to come “out of nowhere”.[1]:2 They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in future possibilities. For them, the meaning is in the underlying theory and principles which are manifested in the data.

    Congrats to Han for putting numbers to mere ancdotes from da boiz. it does add to the debate, but don’t really see why men aren’t allowed to own their views?

    *sounds better than hamsterbating that “he’s hawt!” and rationalising ‘reasons’ that he is hot post hoc

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

      @Just1Z

      It’s you that keeps talking of the myriad of subtle attraction cues women see in men*, so perhaps women are herd influenced because they trust that the herd has picked up more clues than they have themselves…because he was pre-selected?

      But that’s my point – preselection should work to display who the “dads” are. Unless perhaps it serves to “reassure” women that they are in fact dealing with a cad instead of a dad!

      It really doesn’t make sense to me.

      another option is that if we look back to when the alpha male of the flange / whoop / troop did all the choosing (back on the plains / forests / jungles), the women had to adapt and accept what they were going to get as ‘partner’ whether they liked it or not

      They never did all the choosing, women have always been the ones to select. Not only that, but it’s thought that a lot of cuckolding occurred with the beta males who stayed behind during hunts to guard the women and children.

      Congrats to Han for putting numbers to mere ancdotes from da boiz. it does add to the debate, but don’t really see why men aren’t allowed to own their views?

      Of course they can own their views! I have no problem with INTJ or Han saying they are not the least bit affected by what other men think. However, I’m not willing to concede that they are representative of the gender as a whole without some source of objective information. What’s the problem?

      BTW, I don’t know what is going on with your avatar but it’s really creeping me out in light of recent events. Please change it.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Why is the effect on females so small? Even if your hypothesis that “in person” preselection is more powerful is correct, and we have no idea whether it is, the fact that female attraction went up only .3 is very surprising given the strength of the concept in Game/the manosphere.

    Like with the other Skyler Place study, it wasn’t directly measuring social proofing. It was measuring whether sociable people were more attractive or not.

  • Just1Z

    it was a comedy character – Papa Lazarou from TLOG

    but whatever, back to Basil Brush

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Haha, yes I do concede that point! However, for me the discussion has only produced more questions!

    Thank you! :D

    And good, I like exploring questions.

    I think that the man would give the not-hot-in-his-eyes-but-10-in-other-eyes a second look. If he were the type of man not so concerned with looks (a minority but they do exist) or she were not very far below or he saw some status or career advantage by going for her then he might. But, I think such men are the minority and most men still wouldn’t go for her. They’d be thanking their lucky stars that the other men had such poor taste and were wasting their time on her. Finally, it depends on what you mean by not hot. If that means ugly in his eyes then it would be a no go.

    I think the example is a little unrealistic though since I doubt any woman that was considered an honest 10 by a group of several men would be considered any less than an 8 in looks by more than 1% of other men (not the bullshit 10 that PUA’s talk about when they go off the scale and start talking about 12’s–talk about babe inflation!).

  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    I think the example is a little unrealistic though since I doubt any woman that was considered an honest 10 by a group of several men would be considered any less than an 8 in looks by more than 1% of other men (not the bullshit 10 that PUA’s talk about when they go off the scale and start talking about 12′s–talk about babe inflation!).

    Perhaps. However, the “she’s not my type” thing does happen quite often for me, though it probably has more to do with how a woman dresses, wears makeup, carries herself, etc., than with what her natural looks are like.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Why would preselection be useful in suggesting a man is “hot” when the woman can see with her own eyes whether he is or not?

    As Just1Z said, there are many cues that cause women to feel attraction beyond just his looks. I simply think that some/many women are wired to find some men much more attractive when other women are with him (especially beautiful ones but also even average ones) and showing interest. I think this effect is stronger than simply hearing other women talk favorably about him though that will help too.

    I think that some women are more susceptible to this than others. And with certain girls (a minority IMO) there’s a point where too much preselection triggers manwhore alarm bells (Anacaona fits this category I think).

    But overall, I think it’s a very real effect on a certain large portion of females.

    Interesting Anecdote: I had a long-distance gf back in my Mormon days. I came back from a visit and was at church and showed this girl (an 8 in looks who I had asked out months before and she didn’t accept and wasn’t interested but we stayed mild friends) pics of my gf and she freaked out, “That’s Jane Doe that was my neighbor in college. She’s so cute and went on so many dates!” All of what she associated with Jane Doe and the guys she dated got transferred to me and I was now above her threshold of overall attraction (not referring to looks necessarily).

    So, fastforward a few months and things were going downhill with gf and we were allowed to see other people now. Church girl invites me over for dinner and makes me Mexican food because she knew I had lived in Mexico for 2 years. She knew that Jane Doe was still my gf but we could now date others and so she was flirting with me. She even said she was going to go lie down and take a nap. I was too dense to realize she wanted me to go lie down with her and cuddle and too wedded to extreme chastity back then to have done anything about it anyways.

    She kept showing interest for a while but I was so in love with going-downhill gf that I unfortunately didn’t act on it, something I now regret.

    Anyway, point is that preselection does work at times and I truly believe it’s a much stronger effect in women liking preselected men than vice versa. I’m sure there is a rich spectrum of conditions where it works and doesn’t and on whom but to first order it definitely is a plus.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    Congratulations on being part of the 1%! lol ;) But you would be a good example of men not being influenced by what the majority of men think. I think there is pretty good correlation on rating women’s attractiveness but certainly there are outliers.

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

    I think that some women are more susceptible to this than others. And with certain girls (a minority IMO) there’s a point where too much preselection triggers manwhore alarm bells (Anacaona fits this category I think).
    I will say that yes, but my manwhore bells are more than that. Even if he doesn’t has any woman around if he acts too confident when approaching, or has the I-Own-The-Room walk or posture I very likely assume he is a manwhore. I mentioned that I prefer the loner, shy type and that has been truth all my life even when the other girls have their “hot or not” list I never got interested on a guy because of it. I did lied a lot though because there was really no point on defying the queen bee but, I never trusted the herd tastes always used my own eyes, I’m weird like that. Even now if I like some celebrity is because I would like him anyway nothing to do with other girls.

  • INTJ
  • INTJ

    @ HanSolo

    Congratulations on being part of the 1%! lol But you would be a good example of men not being influenced by what the majority of men think. I think there is pretty good correlation on rating women’s attractiveness but certainly there are outliers.

    Hehe yup. Also, I can objectively agree that for example Megan Fox is hot. I just would have very little interest in pursuing her.

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ

    Ok, that’s interesting to hear then that your objective rating of a woman’s looks highly correlates with other men’s but your preferences for a relationship are more geared towards, I’m assuming, more restricted looking women.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    It seems like you still are not willing to accept that men’s rating of a woman’s attractiveness or looks is not affected much or at all by other men’s opinions. You conceded the point but then appear to going back to not believing it by saying that you are not willing to accept that INTJ or I (who are not affected much or at all in our opinion of women’s looks by other men’s opinions) are representative of the general male population.

    HanSolo: “So, I am curious, if you will now agree that men’s opinion of a woman’s looks are not affected very much by other men’s opinion of said woman’s looks?

    Susan in #598 : Haha, yes I do concede that point!

    But then in #601

    Susan: Of course they can own their views! I have no problem with INTJ or Han saying they are not the least bit affected by what other men think. However, I’m not willing to concede that they are representative of the gender as a whole without some source of objective information. What’s the problem?

    I just showed that the study you provided only bumps up the women’s attractiveness rating by 0.2 on a 1-9 scale when other men show interest.

    I think you should run a poll on here to ask by how much, if at all, other men’s opinions of a woman’s looks affects their opinion. I think you will find it to be very small or negligible.

    I’m going to turn the tables and put the onus on you to provide any prove at all that men’s ratings of women’s looks are affected by other men’s opinion. Even a 0.5 bump is still pretty small. If you could show a 1 or 2 point bump then I would give credence to the idea.

    However, all the evidence that I have confirms that men aren’t affected much in their ratings of women’s looks: my personal experience, other guys I know, the few guys who have opined on here, plus the study you provided that I analyzed.

    And why are you so resistant to the idea that most men like what they like and aren’t influenced much in what they find attractive?

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

      @HanSolo

      You misunderstand my comment to Just1Z. He was asking why it had even been necessary to look at studies – why couldn’t I just take your word for it? My reply was intended to say that I was not ready to concede the point on the basis on two testimonials alone, and that the study had been useful as a confirmation of your claim, or hypothesis.

      As I suggested in my reply about having more questions, I am convinced that men are not materially moved in their assessments of attractiveness by other men.

      It would appear that women aren’t much moved either, based on the study. That surprises me. I do believe that women are influenced by other women – though I don’t know whether the influence is in the perception of attractiveness, the awareness of intrasexual competition, or some other aspect.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Okay, thanks for clarifying. I did misunderstand. I had thought you weren’t counting the cited study as objective-enough information.

    I also wouldn’t generalize based off of two testimonies.

    If it came to 100 agreeing testimonies then I still wouldn’t necessarily generalize to the whole population unless I could determine they represented the overall population. However, I would take it as fairly representative of whatever population they were drawn from.

    As to the women part of the study, it doesn’t surprise me that the women only raised the attractiveness of the men by 0.3 when men showed interest.

    Also, the study showed only a small rise in desire to relationship the men but that doesn’t surprise me either since I think that women need more personal and lengthy exposure to a man to decide they want to LTR him.

    I think the dramatic-enough preselection effects claimed to happen in some/many women really does require that in-person and more realistic feeling for a woman to really experience it. So a study on females would require this to really answer the question.

    I will share an anecdote about myself that relates to the desire to take action. There was a cute girl at church. I was thinking of asking her out but I wasn’t sure if she was interested so I waited. Then she started dating someone else so I felt like I had missed out. Once she was single again, like 12 months later, I asked her out right away because I didn’t want to repeat the experience of missing the chance and her committing to someone else. I don’t think that her dating the guy made me think of her looks as being much better. I think it could have by maybe 0.25 or so, due to the fact that I was regretting missing out on her and so that made me focus on the good features of her looks. But I thought she was pretty before, during and after dating the guy.

    So, I think that seeing that a woman spends a small amount of time single could motivate men to take action quickly when the opportunity arises.

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

      @HanSolo

      So, I think that seeing that a woman spends a small amount of time single could motivate men to take action quickly when the opportunity arises.

      That makes sense. In short, we have a lot of correlations here but no causation – the man knows very quickly if he is attracted or not?

      How about instances where attraction grows? When I was single I had several suitors who stepped up after knowing me for a while – and I’m not at all sure the interest was there all along. It was the dynamic of our interaction that spurred interest. I guess I happened to tap into the small part of male attraction that is not visual? FML

  • HanSolo

    For better clarity I should have said sub-population instead of population:

    However, I would take it as fairly representative of whatever sub-population they were drawn from.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I think men know quickly if they are or are not physically attracted when the woman is say 0.5-1.0 pts above or below his looks threshold (be that the lower casual or higher LTR looks threshold). I think it could be in cases near the threshold where he needs more time to decide if he’s attracted enough, especially for LTR. If she’s right at that threshold then that is especially where the non-looks factors can really tip her into the LTR category.

    I also think that falling in love with a woman makes the man view the woman differently. I think he can still objectively rate her a 6 or whatever but she takes on a certain kind of personalized beauty to him that makes him feel likes she’s more beautiful. (I think this effect is even stronger in many woman. I know a lot of girls who thought the guy was average looking or even ugly and then became good looking to her as she fell in love. I don’t think this is so true of the really demanding-of-good-looks women.)

    I don’t know what your looks were like when single but I get the impression from your statements that you were on the cute side of average, or somewhat pretty (maybe a 7? I have no idea really, just guessing since you said you weren’t the pretty valley girl type–if you want to put up a picture or email me one of when you were younger I could give my opinion but I digress), and for a lot of guys that really is good enough or even more than good enough. Combine that with a personality they like and some sensuality and sassiness (but not outright bitchiness) and that is a great combo that most guys would fall in love with.

    I think that for marriage a typical man is probably basing his attraction and love 1/2 on looks and 1/2 on personality/compatibility whereas for casual/ONS it’s much more weighted to looks (with a lower threshold, just needs to pass the boner test instead of the faithful-to-her* boner test ;) ), willingness to have sex, and sexiness (partially an aspect of personality).

    The one caveat on the LTR formula is that most men are average and are happy enough with an average-looking woman and so that puts maybe 70% of the women at or above his threshold and so in practice he may not consciously have looks as such a deal-breaker. Of course he would like prettier, all else being equal. Men with higher looks thresholds will be pickier and it would seem like the looks would go into his equation more.

    There are also some men who just aren’t so concerned with looks. I know some where I thought they could have clearly done better but they were happy (enough) and are still married to this day.

    *giving up potentially bonering other women

  • Abbot

    Are media and marketing executives who target children as consumers unwittingly injecting fuck-positive feminist hopes on the little ones?

    http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/when-your-daughter-asks-for-a-victorias-secret-gift-card/266174/

    .

  • INTJ

    @ Abbot

    Are media and marketing executives who target children as consumers unwittingly injecting fuck-positive feminist hopes on the little ones?

    No. They are doing it purposely, not unwittingly.

  • SayWhaat

    (Pssst… Han Solo! Just wanted to let you know that I haven’t forgotten, I’ve just been super-busy as I told you! Reading the Skylar Place study in my spare moments. Hopefully will be able to get back to you soon!)

  • SayWhaat

    Skyler*

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    I don’t think you need to read it anymore though you are of course welcome to. You can see my summary of the effect back a page or two. The men upped their rating of the women’s attractiveness by 0.2 pts (1-9 scale) when other men showed interest.

    Seems pretty consistent with my experience of my rating of a woman’s looks not being affected much or at all by other men showing interest in women. For me, the more men focus on the women I am not attracted the better! Leaves the path open to me.

    Though not a direct experiment, I also stand by my point that the opinion of what other men find beautiful has very little or not effect on what I do, in terms of facial and bodily beauty.

    As to the passage of time, I still find the younger Cindy Crawford I lusted after as a lad as lustworthy now as then:

    http://www.jurgita.com/models-id10363.html

    Feel free to let me know what you think about whether men are affected or not by other men’s opinion of what’s beautiful.

  • SayWhaat

    Hi Han Solo! Apologies for the delayed response – I was hoping to get back to you on Sunday, but ended up getting called to work. I’ve been crazy busy, reading these links during my lunch breaks, but I am finally back with a response for you! :D

    Now, you and Susan have covered some ground since this discussion was last timely, so I’ve been catching up and reading the links posted since. To save you the trouble of scrolling back, I’ve saved some of your responses here:

    The Gauntlet is Thrown

    Since you are into “stating it as it is” will you now acknowledge that this study at most says that there is a very minor effect on the perceived attractiveness of a woman for a relationship (short and long) due to men’s interest in her?

    I’ll be honest – I felt like a real tool when I did all this legwork, only to go back to your original question and realize that you had moved the goalposts. How silly.

    I don’t recall debating the *extent* to which male preselection occurs, only the matter of whether it occurred *at all*. I think that the Skyler Place studies demonstrated that male mate copying is a real and observable phenomenon (i.e. IT HAPPENS), so I feel comfortable saying that male interest can increase with regards to a female of similar SMV, given that another male of similar SMV to the observing male is demonstrating said interest.

    Now, for your other claim, that there is there a minor effect on the perceived attractiveness of a woman for a relationship (short and long) due to men’s interest in her.

    I followed your discussion with Susan on this, and I confess that I had difficulty following your math, so please correct me if I am mistaken.

    So for Experiment 1 and 2 on the male subjects we have the change in attractiveness of the speed-dating female after watching the video where there was no/negative interest shown by the speed-dating male and where there was positive interest shown:

    ___________________Perceived Interest by Males__Actual Interest
    ____________________Negative____Positive______Neg___Posit
    Exp1Attractiveness of females__0.29_____0.54_______0.34___0.54
    Exp2Attractiveness of females__0.27_____0.59_______0.40___0.53

    We see, that on average, even when the speed-dating males showed no interest (actual or perceived, negative columns) that by watching the video the woman’s attractiveness rose by 0.29, 0.27, 0.34 and 0.40 points on the 1-9 scale.

    The attractiveness rose even further when the speed-dating males showed interest: 0.54, 0.59, 0.54, 0.53.

    I’m a Barbie and math is hard. :P

    Okay, going forward, please don’t assume any intended snark in my statements (unless it’s self-deprecating – there’s gonna be loads of that, haha) , because I really am trying to understand the results of these experiments and how you arrived at your conclusions.

    In this particular instance, what I don’t understand here is why you are comparing the results of two different experiments. Experiment 1 measured individual-based mate-choice copying for faces associated directly with mating success/lack of mating success by controlling for facial characteristics, whereas Experiment 2 demonstrated individual-based copying by controlling for styling (i.e. culturally acquired) similarities. Shouldn’t we be comparing the change in woman’s attractiveness to the control in each experiment?

    ___________________Perceived Interest by Males Actual Interest

    ____________________Negative____Positive Neg___Posit
    Exp1Attractiveness of females(Target)__0.29_____0.54 0.34___0.54

    Exp1Attractiveness of females(Control)__-0.21___-0.20 -0.23__-0.17

    So in Experiment 1, there was a net change of 0.5 in negative perceived interest, and a net change of 0.74 in positive perceived interest. There was a net change of 0.57 in negative actual interest, and a net change of 0.71 in positive actual interest.

    That may still not seem like much, but that is because you are saying that these numbers are reflected on a scale of 1-9. I can see how you may think that (and I thought so as well, which is why I was surprised that the numbers were so low), but on second review I am not so sure that we were using the correct scale.

    Bear with me here: if every guy rated attractiveness on a 9-pt scale, I don’t know if we can assume that they could give ratings in whole numbers (i.e. rating a girl as a 6, then a 7) or decimal values (i.e. rating a girl as a 6.342, then a 7.162). Let’s say each girl received an increase of 1 point and can only receive changes in increments of whole numbers. Averaging that out over a sample size of N = 40, the mean should still be 1.0 – so why are these numbers so low?

    Reading the study, I found that Skyler Place used two Likert scales. I looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likert_scale

    An important distinction must be made between a Likert scale and a Likert item. The Likert scale is the sum of responses on several Likert items. Because Likert items are often accompanied by a visual analog scale (e.g., a horizontal line, on which a subject indicates his or her response by circling or checking tick-marks), the items are sometimes called scales themselves. This is the source of much confusion; it is better, therefore, to reserve the term Likert scale to apply to the summed scale, and Likert item to refer to an individual item.

    Say Whaaaat?

    In other words, The subjects in this experiment weren’t assigning numerical values at all! They were rating the targets on a scale of something like “very unattracted” to “very attracted”, which then corresponded to values on two 9-point scales, which Skyler Place then interpreted!

    I found this nice article on how to calculate the mean on a Likert scale: http://www.ehow.com/how_6538076_calculate-mean-likert-scale.html

    This is my understanding: Skyler Place used two Likert scales to rate attractiveness of the targets, so he was using the SUM of responses on both scales, then averaging those responses over N = 40, then subtracting the average initial response rating from the average ultimate response rating in order to arrive at the means for negative and positive perceived/actual interest.

    In other words, we cannot assess the mean values obtained relative to the 1-9 scales that the study used. The scales are irrelevant in the context of the mean.

    Now, I’m not going to do the math to show you how these mean values are statistically significant, because I’m lazy and more importantly, Skyler did the work already for me. (:P) For Experiment 1, the change in perceived interest following positive interactions is significant (P<0.05) and super-significant for Experiment 2 (P<0.01). (These are denoted by * and ** respectively in Table 1.)

    From my understanding, this demonstrates that men *are* in fact affected by other men’s opinion, so long as/especially if that opinion comes from men of similar or higher SMV. That is the meaning of the statistically significant findings – the incidence of swaying men’s opinions did not occur by chance! Now, we’re not talking massive changes of approval here – fugly Bertha is still going to be fugly Bertha to all the guys, even if Studly Sam takes a shine to her after his traumatic head injury last football season. But an incremental change may be enough to bump Plain Julie to Pretty Julie! I do not think this is inconsistent with your personal experience.

    I *do* think that these studies could also be improved by taking socio-sexual orientation into account (i.e., a restricted man may not be swayed by the opinion of an unrestricted man, but would his opinion be affected by the opinions of similarly restricted males?) I think that answering that question requires a different study. Maybe one specifically designed to measure arousal? Hmm…

    I’d be interested in your response, though I may not be alive to read it as I am sure VD will find something in my analysis to justify my murder on account of stupidity. :P

    Thanks in advance!

  • SayWhaat

    Oh and Susan, feel free to opine as well. :)

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    I’ll be honest – I felt like a real tool when I did all this legwork, only to go back to your original question and realize that you had moved the goalposts. How silly.

    I don’t recall debating the *extent* to which male preselection occurs, only the matter of whether it occurred *at all*

    I haven’t moved any goalposts that I’m aware of. Feel free to clarify.

    My response to you was generated by INTJ addressing you and your response:

    INTJ 303:

    @ SayWhaat

    Regarding cultural standards of beauty, once again you’re missing the point. Yes, on the macro level culture can influence attraction triggers. But on the individual level, preselection isn’t going to have that big an effect. Thus, a guy might know other guys like big boobs and thus conclude when he sees a girl with big boobs that she’s attractive. That’s a cultural effect. But that isn’t preselection. Preselection would be where his friends say “hey look, that girl is ugly”, and then the guy thinks she is ugly despite having big boobs, which he knows are attractive.

    SayWhaat 304:

    INTJ, Susan just posted about a study re: social proof working for women. I know you’ll find a ton of ways to discredit the study without actually reading it, but it holds more credibility than your opinions. No offense meant, just stating it as it is.

    So INTJ was saying that “on the individual level, preselection isn’t going to have that big an effect.” And that seems to be what the study shows, that cases where the speed-dating men showed interest caused the attraction to rise by about 0.225 more than where the speed-dating men didn’t show interest. So, I felt that you were unfairly unloading on INTJ when what he was saying was consistent with the original and follow-up studies Susan mentioned.

    I will look at the Likert-like scale to see if that changes things and will fully admit if they do.

    The key point is we compare the values where interest to shown to the values where no interest was shown to isolate the effect of interest on how them men rated the women’s attractivess. That’s why I subtracted 0.54-0.29=0.25 in Exp 1, perceived interest, and similarly for the other 3 cases.

    These numbers are from the follow-up study that actually rates the attractiveness,

    http://www.skylerplace.com/pdfs/bowers.be.2012.pdf ,

    Now, we could subtract the difference between interest and no-interest, adjusted by the change in the control but that won’t have a big effect since the control doesn’t change much but here goes:

    Exp 1 PerceivedInt____________Exp 1 ActInt
    [0.54-(-0.20)]-[0.29-(-0.21)] =0.24 [0.54-(-0.17)] – [0.34-(-0.23)] =0.14

    Exp 2 PerceivedInt____________Exp 2 ActInt
    [0.59-0.04] – [0.27-0.07] = 0.35 __ [0.53-0.00] – [0.40-0.10] =0.23

    So, this gives 0.24, 0.14, 0.35 and 0.23 (and an average of 0.24), quite close to the 0.25, 0.20, 0.32 and 0.13 (avg of 0.225) when not subtracting the control so it doesn’t really matter which you do.

    I wasn’t comparing experiment 1 and 2. I was saying they give relevant info and can be combined because they both involve rating the women’s photo before, then watching the video and then rating her photo again, after. The only difference was seeing a photo of another person (that was also rated) with the same face but different clothes and hair in exp 1 and same clothes/hair but diff face in exp 2, to see if the effects of preselection could apply to similarly looking or dressed individuals.

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    I can see the difficulty in only having 9 discrete things to choose from so in cases where your rating goes up by 0.4 the person might stick with their original number but on the flips side if it goes up by 0.6 then they would choose the original number plus one. A ranking scale that allowed 0.5 increments would help alleviate this problem. But I would argue that since the shows-interest values went up by about 0.5 that there were probably about half that were in the +0.5 to +1.49 range and added one to their original score while the other half were in the -0.49 to +0.49 and thus didn’t change their original score and so I think it balances out. For the no-interest categories that only changed by about 0.3 there would be about 30% that went up by 1 and 70% that changed. If the 0.5 increment was allowed then presumably some of the no-change votes would have been closer to 0.5 than 0 and have chosen +0.5. This may have given a higher no-interest change in rating.

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    I never said they weren’t statistically significantly changed by the opinion of other men. Rather, I said they weren’t changed much or at all. Most of the changes in comparing interest vs no-interest were statistically significant but they weren’t very large.

    I have always held that men could have their opinion of a woman’s looks changed by a small amount, somewhere in the 0 to 0.5 amount. So my original assertion was consistent with what the study found.

    Statistically significant does NOT mean large. It only means that is very unlikely to have been from chance.

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    Re changing goal posts:

    Perhaps you mean that in the first thing I said to you was related to the man’s interest in a ONS/STR (the question asked in the original study Susan mentioned). And then later, Susan gave a follow-up Skyler Place study that asked a different question, having the men rate the speed-dating women.

    I analyzed both studies and showed the magnitude of the effect was small in both cases. And this is consistent with what I said, that men aren’t affected very much or at all. On average (in the studies, they appear to be affected by a small amount, though there are other things that could have caused them to up their rating like seeing her body language and her showing interest as well that would make her seem more approachable and potentially likely to show interest in the viewer).

    So, no changing goal posts as far as I can tell (clarify if you feel I have).

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    I read the Likert scale Wikipedia link and the other one on how to calculate the mean.

    Let’s say each girl received an increase of 1 point and can only receive changes in increments of whole numbers. Averaging that out over a sample size of N = 40, the mean should still be 1.0 – so why are these numbers so low?

    Let’s assume that people either change their rating up 1 or not at all, to keep things simple. So, if the change is 0.5 then that means half kept the same and half upped it by 1. More granularity would DEFINITELY improve this experiment because the mean of the responses is much less than the granularity of the choices.

    The subjects in this experiment weren’t assigning numerical values at all! They were rating the targets on a scale of something like “very unattracted” to “very attracted”, which then corresponded to values on two 9-point scales, which Skyler Place then interpreted!

    The question asked was not “do you find this person attractive?” Rather it was ‘‘How attractive do you find this person?’’ (See p. 115, 2nd column) Because of this I think that the 1-9 scale is still highly applicable. After all, what do we mean when we say a woman is a 10 in looks (or 9 in the study being the highest possible)? We mean, extremely awesomely attractive. So just because there were 9 gradations of attractivness likely used in the question, probably ranging from extremely unattractive to average to extremely attractive does not mean that the 0.225 mean result doesn’t correspond to how we think of things.

    The second question was ‘‘How interested would you be in this person for a committed, long-term relationship?” The two questions were the two “scales” you are referring to and he did most definitely not combine them. That would make no sense since they’re completely different questions.

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    From my understanding, this demonstrates that men *are* in fact affected by other men’s opinion, so long as/especially if that opinion comes from men of similar or higher SMV. That is the meaning of the statistically significant findings – the incidence of swaying men’s opinions did not occur by chance! Now, we’re not talking massive changes of approval here – fugly Bertha is still going to be fugly Bertha to all the guys, even if Studly Sam takes a shine to her after his traumatic head injury last football season. But an incremental change may be enough to bump Plain Julie to Pretty Julie! I do not think this is inconsistent with your personal experience.

    I agree but you’re arguing against something I never said. I never said 100% no effect, just that most men are not affected much or at all. So I always allowed for a small effect.

    Feel free to respond to my many comments responding to you.

  • SayWhaat

    So INTJ was saying that “on the individual level, preselection isn’t going to have that big an effect.” And that seems to be what the study shows, that cases where the speed-dating men showed interest caused the attraction to rise by about 0.225 more than where the speed-dating men didn’t show interest. So, I felt that you were unfairly unloading on INTJ when what he was saying was consistent with the original and follow-up studies Susan mentioned.

    Actually, the study showed that attraction rose when the speed-dating men showed interest, and *fell* when the speed-dating men didn’t show interest. So there was an effect in both directions.

    Regarding INTJ’s initial comment:

    Preselection would be where his friends say “hey look, that girl is ugly”, and then the guy thinks she is ugly despite having big boobs, which he knows are attractive.

    And I think we have a misunderstanding here. I don’t mean to argue that pre-selection is going to cause you to find someone unattractive when previously you found that person attractive. INTJ has it backwards. What I am saying is that the social proofing effect is going to give a “halo” effect. Let’s say you have two solid 8s, A and B. Steve is more interested in B for whatever reason (they’re in the same class), but all the guys are ga-ga over A. Steve isn’t going to think, “well I was wrong, I guess B is unattractive now”, he is going to think, “what’s special about A? Am I missing something?” and then Steve is going to go with the crowd and think A is special too and fantasize about threesomes with A and B. The tendency for Steve to give extra consideration to A is a phenomenon known as groupthink, and I am highly skeptical of the claim that any single person is above it.

    The key point is we compare the values where interest to shown to the values where no interest was shown to isolate the effect of interest on how them men rated the women’s attractivess.

    Wrong. You need to compare the values where interest is shown to the values where there was a baseline of interest. In other words, you compare the values where interest is shown to the control in each experiment.

    Now, we could subtract the difference between interest and no-interest, adjusted by the change in the control but that won’t have a big effect since the control doesn’t change much but here goes:

    Exp 1 PerceivedInt____________Exp 1 ActInt

    [0.54-(-0.20)]-[0.29-(-0.21)] =0.24 [0.54-(-0.17)] – [0.34-(-0.23)] =0.14

    Exp 2 PerceivedInt____________Exp 2 ActInt

    [0.59-0.04] – [0.27-0.07] = 0.35 __ [0.53-0.00] – [0.40-0.10] =0.23

    I think you are correct here, and this is actually the math that I should have performed.

    So, this gives 0.24, 0.14, 0.35 and 0.23 (and an average of 0.24), quite close to the 0.25, 0.20, 0.32 and 0.13 (avg of 0.225) when not subtracting the control so it doesn’t really matter which you do.

    We can’t say that it “doesn’t matter” when it comes to figuring out what is statistically significant.

    I can see the difficulty in only having 9 discrete things to choose from so in cases where your rating goes up by 0.4 the person might stick with their original number but on the flips side if it goes up by 0.6 then they would choose the original number plus one.

    Rounding error, haha! Though with all due respect, Han Solo, I believe you are in a very small minority of guys who actually “rate” women down to the tenths or hundredths of a decimal point. :) I don’t think this distinction would really matter much in terms of experimental results, though it would definitely allow for more accuracy.

    I never said they weren’t statistically significantly changed by the opinion of other men. Rather, I said they weren’t changed much or at all. Most of the changes in comparing interest vs no-interest were statistically significant but they weren’t very large.

    Hmm, okay. Thank you for clarifying your comments — I think that we are saying the same thing. I am saying that it is statistically significant in the sense that social proof can and does work on men, and you are saying yes, it does, but not by much. I think I can agree with that – I don’t believe it is much different from female behavior.

    Re: the Likert scale.

    So just because there were 9 gradations of attractivness likely used in the question, probably ranging from extremely unattractive to average to extremely attractive does not mean that the 0.225 mean result doesn’t correspond to how we think of things.

    The second question was ‘‘How interested would you be in this person for a committed, long-term relationship?” The two questions were the two “scales” you are referring to and he did most definitely not combine them. That would make no sense since they’re completely different questions.

    Ah, I see – I had thought that the Likert scale for attractiveness was factored in with the Likert scale for self-assessment for each trial, but I realize now that was a separate distinction made within each experiment. I’m still not convinced we can use the 1-9 scale to analyze the mean results, however. The 1-9 scale measures discrete variables, and the mean results are those variables chopped up and spit out to depict a net change. Maybe you or someone else can explain to me why the 1-9 scale is applicable in that context.

    I do think that we have been talking past each other, for the most part. Like I said before, the studies demonstrate that social proofing can and does work on men. I think I misunderstood your position for saying that it doesn’t work – thank you for clarifying on that point. Likewise, I think you misunderstood my position for saying that it will cause people to lose interest when previously there was interest – I am not saying that at all, only that social proof will extend more interest for those who are the recipients of that social proof, or will confirm negative interest for those who were already deemed uninteresting/unattractive. I hope I have sufficiently explained my point.

    And again, I am still puzzled as to why we should use the 1-9 scale to assess the means, so if you (or anyone else) could clarify that, I would really appreciate it.

    Thanks, Han Solo! :)

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    Actually, the study showed that attraction rose when the speed-dating men showed interest, and *fell* when the speed-dating men didn’t show interest. So there was an effect in both directions.

    No, it didn’t show decreased attractivess rating for the women when the speed-dating men didn’t show interest. It actually increased. I am referring to Table 1 in http://www.skylerplace.com/pdfs/bowers.be.2012.pdf

    Look at the parts under male subjects, Target, attractiveness, negative (meaning no interest). The changed by 0.29, 0.34, 0.27, and 0.40.

    So, what are you basing your statement on? (Even the attractiveness for LTR rose in 3/4 cases and was zero in the other so you couldn’t be referring to that either.)

    Let’s say you have two solid 8s, A and B. Steve is more interested in B for whatever reason (they’re in the same class), but all the guys are ga-ga over A. Steve isn’t going to think, “well I was wrong, I guess B is unattractive now”, he is going to think, “what’s special about A? Am I missing something?”

    I agree but I actually said something along these lines, that all else being equal the guy might go for the one that will also give him more validation as long as it’s not too hard to get her. However, if she is a pain in the ass then he would rather go for the easier-to-get-8. However, in your example, if he really likes B better (say due to personality or whatever) then he will be glad the others are focused on A.

    FWIW, I think INTJ’s example of saying that the guy liked big boobs because society says he should is way off. Guys don’t like big boobs because anyone tells them to, they like (or don’t like) them because it’s mostly hardwired into them. As to being affected by porn, I think it does have an effect but no matter how many volleyball-esque fake porn boobs I see I don’t like them and it’s gotten to a point where it’s actually a turn off. I do like large natural breasts but no amount of seeing porn (apparently a large number of guys do like them) has changed my opinion.

    Wrong. You need to compare the values where interest is shown to the values where there was a baseline of interest. In other words, you compare the values where interest is shown to the control in each experiment.

    Sorry, SayWhaat, you are wrong. The control was a photo of a completely different person, and rated before and after to show any underlying change in the rating metric of the person doing the rating. This makes two big errors you are making in reading the paper. The 1st was the one above where you said that the rating went down when no interest was shown. It is becoming frustrating to have to point out these things. But I will carry on because I believe you are acting in good faith. Remember the big picture question for measuring the change in attractiveness when interest is and isn’t shown–it’s to compare the two cases.

    I don’t think it matters much and arguments could be made as to whether or not the control photo rating really should be subtracted but since it’s a small effect (as you see in the calculations I did) it doesn’t matter.

    We can’t say that it “doesn’t matter” when it comes to figuring out what is statistically significant.

    Here you go off on this again but I have never been focused on that. I have always said the results were fairly stat. significant. (The women subjects’ results were much more stat significant, though I digress). Rather, I’m focused on the size of the jump.

    I don’t rate to the hundredths or usually the tenths. Usually it’s to the nearest 0.5 though sometimes it could be more precise if I am trying to compare btw two virtually equal women, say two 8’s (since the whole rating scale is a difficult thing to really define in a rigorous way–but it is still useful–to me personally it basically has to do with the relative attractiveness of women and how I feel towards them).

    Hmm, okay. Thank you for clarifying your comments — I think that we are saying the same thing. I am saying that it is statistically significant in the sense that social proof can and does work on men, and you are saying yes, it does, but not by much. I think I can agree with that – I don’t believe it is much different from female behavior.

    Finally! :D Yes, we do agree. I also agree that women probably don’t change their views of men’s looks very much either–this study showed it at about 0.295 (vs 0.225 for men) after averaging the 4 things. The women’s statistics were more stat. significant, fwiw. Moving beyond this article, as I said to Susan, I think that preselection working on (many though not all) women comes into play more in real life where there is more the real potential for a fling (if they’re looking) or a relationship to happen.

    Will continue about the Likert scale….

  • HanSolo

    Now, to the Likert scale:

    Ah, I see – I had thought that the Likert scale for attractiveness was factored in with the Likert scale for self-assessment for each trial, but I realize now that was a separate distinction made within each experiment. I’m still not convinced we can use the 1-9 scale to analyze the mean results, however. The 1-9 scale measures discrete variables, and the mean results are those variables chopped up and spit out to depict a net change. Maybe you or someone else can explain to me why the 1-9 scale is applicable in that context.

    I appreciate that you are sincerely trying to understand and are open to changing your understanding based on facts or reasonable arguments. I too read over many parts of the paper yesterday to see if I had misunderstood anything.

    How the 1-9 thing works (as I understand it). They provide 9 qualitative answers to the question “How attractive do you find this person?” along the lines of what we talked about yesterday, something like:

    extremely unattractive; very unattractive; unattractive; just under average; average; just above average; attractive, very attractive; extremely attractive

    Then, the authors convert these into numerical values: 1 for extremely unattractive, 2 for very unattractive…and 9 for extremely attractive.

    Now, I will argue that this is really what we mean when we talk about the looks rating of women (though we usually talk on a 1-10 scale, so the 9 in the study would be the 10 IRL). Using the 1-9 scale, if we give someone a 5 we mean a woman of average looks. I think we agree there, right? And so doing it in the reverse direction and saying average and then assigning that a 5 is legitimate. Are we in agreement? I think we would also be in agreement with assigning the highest value (9) to the qualitative judgement of extremely attractive.

    Now, I will fully grant that we need to know exactly what nine options were given (and I actually wrote the author to ask that and a couple other questions–I’ll let you know if he replies). Also, the 1-9 (or 1-10 IRL) looks scale is somewhat hard to define and varies somewhat from man to man but in principle it wouldn’t be hard (though it would be very time intensive) to have every man rate every woman on earth :D in terms of looks and then define the female looks scale based on something like every +1 (or -1) in the scale from the average corresponds to, say, another half standard deviation or something. I digress.

    So, in spite of these limitations, I still think that the qualitative options correspond quite well with the 1-9 scale (assuming they’re somewhat like I listed above).

    In terms of finding the mean, then you simply take the rating before and after and associate their numerical equivalents (the changes will be 0 or some positive or negative integer) and average them out. That is what was done to create table 1. Due to only having 9 options it’s not very granular but I understand it since having a 19-point Likert scale would be rather unwieldy.

    So, with better granularity, more at the 0.5 level we could have a better answer but the answers provided by this study are still interesting.

    I do think that we have been talking past each other, for the most part. Like I said before, the studies demonstrate that social proofing can and does work on men. I think I misunderstood your position for saying that it doesn’t work – thank you for clarifying on that point. Likewise, I think you misunderstood my position for saying that it will cause people to lose interest when previously there was interest – I am not saying that at all, only that social proof will extend more interest for those who are the recipients of that social proof, or will confirm negative interest for those who were already deemed uninteresting/unattractive. I hope I have sufficiently explained my point.

    And again, I am still puzzled as to why we should use the 1-9 scale to assess the means, so if you (or anyone else) could clarify that, I would really appreciate it.

    Thanks, Han Solo!

    I don’t think I misunderstood you but maybe I did.

    Let me know if you now understand why the 1-9 scale was used to calculate the means, as I explained above, or if you have further questions.

    A question for you…if the 1-9 scale was not used then where did the means come from? However, after reading about Likert scales and assigning numbers to them I am confident that that is what was done.

    A final caveat is that this study only had 40 men (and 40 women) participating and so that is a rather small sample. Also, they were psych students at Indiana University. The speed daters were in Germany.

    More ideally, this experiment would have 1000’s of participants from all over the world and view speed daters from all over the world.

    That said, the experiment is definitely interesting and tells us something about human nature. However, with such a small sample size we should be careful in generalizing to the whole of humanity off of it.

    Please let me know your further thoughts. As of now, I believe we are in agreement on everything except, possibly, how the means were calculated, though hopefully with my explanation that is now clear too, and if I am missing something about the calculation please let me know.

    Cheers! :)

  • SayWhaat

    Put another way:

    The incremental change *along* a scale may not seem like much at face value, but the *effect* may be large. I know you don’t believe in global warming (btw, in your debate with Olive, I noticed you conveniently ignored my link re: evidence that temperatures forecasted from the 90s occurred almost exactly as modeled), but a small difference in degrees may very well mean the difference between freezing point and a melting ice cap!

    Likewise, an incremental change may not mean much for an 8, but would be *huge* for a 5! That is why I disagree with your assertion that the “small” change may not mean much. The small change could very well be huge for an otherwise plain girl. Therefore it’s not a bad strategy for girls to attempt to cultivate social proof.

  • SayWhaat

    Argh, I see you responded to my other post but I don’t have time right now. Will get back to you later. >__<

  • Mike C

    Likewise, an incremental change may not mean much for an 8, but would be *huge* for a 5! That is why I disagree with your assertion that the “small” change may not mean much. The small change could very well be huge for an otherwise plain girl. Therefore it’s not a bad strategy for girls to attempt to cultivate social proof.

    It may not be a bad strategy if she doesn’t reallocate to much time and effort to cultivating social proof instead of working on her appearance. The best payoff for a “plain girl” is going to be making herself not plain. Just about every girl can boost her looks 2 points with the right combination of working out, right hairstyle, and right makeup. Going from a 5 to a 7 in looks is going to be 100x more impactful on men than any increase from social proof.

    Han, I’ll admit I rapidly skimmed much of the detailed quantitative analysis as I don’t have the time to analyze it. Suffice it to say, I have no doubt social proof and preselection works for men. The year I spent bouncing confirmed that. Honestly, I was literally astounded just how important it is for a guy to be seen and surrounded by the “right people” including other attractive women. Now sure, a woman may alter her initial judgement once she interacts with the guy, but that initial impression is huge. Heck, there are guys who know this instinctually. They walked in with entourages, made sure on their entrance to demonstrate their social network, etc. I saw guys who did better than I would expect based solely on their physical looks because of preselection and social status.

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    The incremental change will open more options, yes. The question is, how much? So, we see that the change when interest is shown is about 0.225 (1-9 scale) greater than when no interest is shown (or 0.24 if you subtract off the control changes). So, to the nearest 1/4 point, you get 0.25 added onto your looks ranking when men show interest.

    If a woman has a 6 looks rating to a man and his threshold is 7 then her rating going to a 6.25 will not make him want to be with her.

    However, if his minimum acceptable level were a 6.25 then she would suddenly go from getting some of his attention but him always feeling like she was just not quite pretty enough to suddenly (barely) being pretty enough and he would likely proceed. Also, if his threshold were 6 then by upping to a 6.25 she would be safely over his threshold.

    So, with that slice of men that have their threshold for acceptable minimal looks right near where her looks are then, yes, that 0.25 bump can have a huge effect. However, in cases where she is either 0.5+ above or 0.5+ below his threshold then that extra 0.25 won’t make much difference: either she was already pretty/hot enough that then character and personality and so on will be bigger factors for an LTR (or how DTF and kinky and sensual she is for casual) or she was not nearly pretty/hot enough so she has no hope.

    For an 8 going to an 8.25 is less of a relative jump than a 5 going to a 5.25 but still neither are that big, except in terms of the men that have minimum thresholds near her looks. Also, since there are likely more men with min. thresholds near the center of the bell curve then the woman going from 5 to 5.25 will open up to herself more men than the woman going from 8 to 8.25.

    Also, in terms of actionable advice (what SHE can do), going about getting other men to show interest by flirting with them or being slutty may get you that 0.25 bump but it may also trigger the reactions of men that she is too flirty and has too many guys and so he may decide it’s better to look elsewhere. Definitely a catch-22 there.

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    I know you don’t believe in global warming (btw, in your debate with Olive, I noticed you conveniently ignored my link re: evidence that temperatures forecasted from the 90s occurred almost exactly as modeled), but a small difference in degrees may very well mean the difference between freezing point and a melting ice cap!

    Not sure why you brought this in, except to highlight that small changes can have big effects. I didn’t ignore your link but I “love” how you ascribe to me things that you have no basis for saying. I looked at it. I just didn’t reply to your comment. Also, I actually DO believe in global warming due to CO2. However, I am unconvinced that the positive feedback from water vapor actually exists that would create the larger warming. The global warmists have no proof that it actually does exist and simply assume it. That is not science. That is faith-based. So, I believe that temperatures will rise 1C based on a doubling of CO2 and am unsure as to what else will happen. Because of the lack of proof that the water vapor feedback acts as they assume I am skeptical of it though willing to be convinced. So I believe in global warming to the 1C level and am skeptical of it at the more catastrophic 3-4C level.

    Also, global warming models predict that the lower troposphere of the atmosphere should warm but this warming has not been found. If direct physical predictions of your model are not observed then something about them must be wrong or not understood.

    As to how the warming predictions have done, here is a graph just released in the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change, the group awarded the Noble Peace prize in 2007) draft version of their report they will release next year. It shows the various IPCC predictions released in 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 and the actual observed temperatures being lower than what was observed.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

    Notice how the more recent projections are always lower than the original ones but they are still higher than the predicted temperatures (meaning after the predictions were released…the later models are fit to the prior years’ data…you can see the tick marks on the x-axis as to when each model/prediction was released).

    So, this is one example of why I think the global warming models are not that accurate and why I think there is more to the story (such as natural ocean cycles that may have released lots of heat in the late nineties that caused the temperature to rise, possibility of no or little positive feedback from increased water vapor due to more cloud cover, and others).

    If there case was as solid as they think then they should be able to more accurately predict future temperatures–note, none of them predicted the current 14 years of no rise in temperature. They should be able to explain their models and methodology without hiding them from the public and attacking skeptics ad hominem by calling them “deniers,” trying to make people with reasonable questions in the face of data that doesn’t match the models seem like holocaust deniers and haters of the earth. They should be able to explain why their models predict a heating of the troposphere but none is found in the measurements.

    As I said to Olive, I will be happy to debate this via email but don’t want to derail here too much.

    Anyway, not sure why you brought it up since it has nothing to do with the study or topic we’re debating.

  • HanSolo

    @Mike C

    Han, I’ll admit I rapidly skimmed much of the detailed quantitative analysis as I don’t have the time to analyze it. Suffice it to say, I have no doubt social proof and preselection works for men. The year I spent bouncing confirmed that. Honestly, I was literally astounded just how important it is for a guy to be seen and surrounded by the “right people” including other attractive women. Now sure, a woman may alter her initial judgement once she interacts with the guy, but that initial impression is huge. Heck, there are guys who know this instinctually. They walked in with entourages, made sure on their entrance to demonstrate their social network, etc. I saw guys who did better than I would expect based solely on their physical looks because of preselection and social status.

    I totally agree with you. I wonder what % of women are susceptible to this. I would think that the more hypergamous ones are. Then we have women like Anacaona that finds it a negative. I went on a date with a girl that was like that and she didn’t want to date me more because I had a photo with me and a hot girl up on facebook. I would guess that about 10% are like Anacaona (negative preselection effect), probably 20% aren’t affected either way, probably 20% are mildly positively affected, 30-40% are positively affected and 10-20% (the most hypergamous) really eat that stuff up.

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    Should read:

    Notice how the more recent projections are always lower than the PREVIOUS ones but they are still higher than the OBSERVED temperatures (meaning after the predictions were released…the later models are fit to the prior years’ data…you can see the tick marks on the x-axis as to when each model/prediction was released).

  • Mike C

    I wonder what % of women are susceptible to this. I would think that the more hypergamous ones are.

    I agree. I’m sure there is a high correlation between level of hypergamy and how much a woman is impacted by preselection/social status. I think different women have a different desire to “win the prize” so to speak, and their tolerance of competing with other women to “win a particular man”.

    I went on a date with a girl that was like that and she didn’t want to date me more because I had a photo with me and a hot girl up on facebook.

    Just curious, how would you rate this particular girl’s physical attractiveness, both absolute, and relative to your own, and the other hot girl?

    I would guess that about 10% are like Anacaona (negative preselection effect), probably 20% aren’t affected either way, probably 20% are mildly positively affected, 30-40% are positively affected and 10-20% (the most hypergamous) really eat that stuff up.

    FWIW, I think your percentage distribution is probably spot on. As a side point, I’d bet my last dollar that how a girl is impacted by preselection and social status is highly correlated with how much priority she places on things like designer clothing, the right shoes, being seen at the right places, etc. To cherrypick two examples, I believe both Hope and Anacoana have mentioned a number of times shopping for clothes at the thrift store, and also kind of walking off the beaten path in terms of movies, media, and TV shows, etc. And to my recollection, both selected men who had little to no preselection at all. So I think you can tell a lot about how much status and preselection matters to a woman from her other lifestyle choices.

  • HanSolo

    I would rate both of the women as 8’s. But the one that didn’t want to date me anymore was very restricted (N=2) (though she still liked me a lot). The other one, in the picture with me, was a low-level model who actually did a semi-nude shoot in a nationally-distributed magazine in Brazil (at every little newstand basically). I find that I tend to rate women about 0.5 lower than most other guys I talk with so maybe they were both 8.5’s. Anyway, they were both solidly pretty but not gorgeous 9’s or 10’s. I kissed both girls, the restricted one for about 2 hours straight and the model for not very long. After a few months the restricted one came around and wanted to see me again.

    As to how they compare with my attractiveness, not sure, but you can see my photo. If any women want to give me a rating from 1-10 go for it.

  • SayWhaat

    No, it didn’t show decreased attractivess rating for the women when the speed-dating men didn’t show interest. It actually increased. I am referring to Table 1 inhttp://www.skylerplace.com/pdfs/bowers.be.2012.pdf

    Oops, you’re right! I was looking at Figure 3 on page 118, but mixed up the upper panel for females with the lower panel for males. (The similar-to-target bars for females confused me though, because they do go in opposite directions. Perhaps I am not interpreting that Figure correctly.) Although, the ratings for the controls did decrease, despite no social information. More on that later.

    I do like large natural breasts but no amount of seeing porn (apparently a large number of guys do like them) has changed my opinion.

    Okay this is neither here nor there, but I just had to mention that not too long ago on Reddit, there was a plaintive post from a guy about how he seriously did not want to view any more gaping assholes in porn. Somehow, anal became a status quo and he hated to keep getting confronted with that view. Okay sorry that was really off-topic and gross but your comment reminded me of it and I thought it was hilarious. XD

    Sorry, SayWhaat, you are wrong. The control was a photo of a completely different person, and rated before and after to show any underlying change in the rating metric of the person doing the rating. This makes two big errors you are making in reading the paper. The 1st was the one above where you said that the rating went down when no interest was shown. It is becoming frustrating to have to point out these things. But I will carry on because I believe you are acting in good faith. Remember the big picture question for measuring the change in attractiveness when interest is and isn’t shown–it’s to compare the two cases.

    First off I appreciate your continuing to explain this to me because I really am trying to debate in good faith. :) I did warn you about this in advance!

    I did know that the control was a photo of a completely different person. The reason I think it is important to include in the assessments is because the controls also experienced a change in ratings, which is important to factor in.

    Re-reading the results (page 118), Skyler says the following:

    …the ratings for the control faces, which appear in no videos, tend to decrease (equally after both positive and negative interactions), despite no negative (nor positive) social information. The increase in the target ratings appears to be due to exposure to the behaving person in the video; negative change may occur for stimuli that appear only in a single, repeated photograph. The appropriate comparison when assessing mate-choice copying, thus, is between positive and negative interactions of a given stimulus type, not how either of these relate to the zero line, which cannot be interpreted as no effect. The control faces, therefore, are an important inclusion, putting into perspective the changes of ratings of the similar-to-target faces, which also do not appear in the videos.

    Okay, now please tell me if I am wrong again in my interpretation (because it is definitely possible!), but my understanding of this paragraph is that the ratings for the controls decreased. Since there was a definite change of rating for the controls, that change needed to be factored in for the ratings of the other faces. However, the only valid comparison is with the similar-to-target faces, since they did not appear in the videos (and hence the subjects would not be able to gather any other cues in order to make their assessments). So I think that I was mistaken before with regards to the actual targets, but for the similar-to-target pictures (which were photo manipulations), it is necessary to include the changes from the controls.

    I don’t rate to the hundredths or usually the tenths. Usually it’s to the nearest 0.5 though sometimes it could be more precise if I am trying to compare btw two virtually equal women, say two 8′s (since the whole rating scale is a difficult thing to really define in a rigorous way–but it is still useful–to me personally it basically has to do with the relative attractiveness of women and how I feel towards them).

    Sorry to pick on you about this further, but I’m just finding it very difficult to grok how one can “rate” someone as an 8.5 and another as an 8.0. I thought the boner test was very simple (hard or not), so I’m getting very confused about this intricate splicing of ratings…

    Now on to the Likert Scale:

    Using the 1-9 scale, if we give someone a 5 we mean a woman of average looks. I think we agree there, right? And so doing it in the reverse direction and saying average and then assigning that a 5 is legitimate. Are we in agreement? I think we would also be in agreement with assigning the highest value (9) to the qualitative judgement of extremely attractive.

    Yes, we are in agreement.

    Now, I will fully grant that we need to know exactly what nine options were given (and I actually wrote the author to ask that and a couple other questions–I’ll let you know if he replies).blockquote>

    Haha, you beat me to the punch! Thank you for doing that, and please let us know what he says! :)

    In terms of finding the mean, then you simply take the rating before and after and associate their numerical equivalents (the changes will be 0 or some positive or negative integer) and average them out. That is what was done to create table 1.

    Okay, I promise that I am sincerely trying to understand. And I am probably not explaining myself well here. Yes, I understood that this was how to arrive at the mean results. However, what I do not understand is this: basically, you are saying that a change of 0.29 is “not that big”. But it doesn’t matter if it’s big or not, because the point is that there was an observable change – and the magnitude of that change will depend on the initial point along the scale, but not with regards to the scale itself.

    So if someone moves from a 5.0 to a 5.5, that person basically moved up to a 6 (rounding error – humor me), which is a definite increase in SMV. The magnitude of the effect (for the 5) is huge, but, you disagree with this, saying that 0.5 is not a big change. The 8 will agree, but to the 5.0, it is the difference between going out on a date, and buying a cat – and I don’t think you disagreed with me there. That is the root of my confusion, does that make sense? (Have we been disagreeing on a matter of semantics? If so, shoot me.)

    A question for you…if the 1-9 scale was not used then where did the means come from? However, after reading about Likert scales and assigning numbers to them I am confident that that is what was done.

    I wasn’t debating whether or not the means came from the 1-9 scale, I know that they did, what I am confused about is our differing interpretations (outlined above).

    A final caveat is that this study only had 40 men (and 40 women) participating and so that is a rather small sample. Also, they were psych students at Indiana University. The speed daters were in Germany.

    N = 40 is a stable sample size in statistics. The fact that the speed-daters were German is actually a strength of the study – the subjects had to rely on body language and multiple cues in order to make their assessments and influence their interest judgments (and hence, any mate copying).

    More ideally, this experiment would have 1000′s of participants from all over the world and view speed daters from all over the world.

    Sure. Though I suspect that would only narrow and hone in on the trends already reported in this study.

    I do think that we are basically in agreement now.

    Also, in terms of actionable advice (what SHE can do), going about getting other men to show interest by flirting with them or being slutty may get you that 0.25 bump but it may also trigger the reactions of men that she is too flirty and has too many guys and so he may decide it’s better to look elsewhere. Definitely a catch-22 there.

    Agreed – that will depend on what kind of social proof she wants/is receiving (long-term or ONS).

    Lastly, re: the spiel on global warming. I didn’t mean to bring it up as a point of conversation, only as an aside to illustrate my point and an admittedly passive-aggressive way of questioning why you didn’t address it, because I did feel slighted that you didn’t, bahaha. :P I’m really not interested in debating global warming because (as you said), it’s irrelevant to the blog.

    Cheers, Han Solo! :)

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    I just heard back from the author and he said that “Only the extremes were labelled (1 = very unattractive; 9 = very attractive). People answered by entering a number from 1 to 9.”

    I will respond to your comment in a bit. I’m going to eat right now.

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    Responding point-by-point but too lazy to quote you:

    The similar-to-target is the photo of the same face but different hair/clothes in exp 1 and different face but same hair/clothes in exp 2.

    I agree with that guy about porn–I’m not into that stuff–but I guess some guys really like it–probably they intrinsically like it to some extent and to a lesser extent have become conditioned to “softer” things and need that extra oomph to get aroused.

    Well, we’re both coming at this in good faith and we basically agree on everything, I think.

    The controls didn’t change much though but that’s fine if you want to include them and I agree that the article says you should incluce them. But look at how they change roughly the same amount, giving differences in changes of nearly zero:

    exp1-perceived__-0.21 and -0.20 diff=0.01
    exp2 perceived__0.07 and 0.04 diff=-0.03
    exp1-actual_____-0.23 and -0.17 diff=0.06
    exp2 actual_____0.10 and 0.00 diff=-0.10

    Rating the similar-to-targets face (i.e. same face diff clothing/hair and vice versa) is not something I have been focusing on and has nothing directly to do with with rating the specific woman receiving the attention. Rather, it was to see how much the attraction increase could transfer to other somewhat similar “people”.

    I personally can very definitely rate a 8.0 vs an 8.5. For me, an 8 is a woman who is solidly pretty but has some features that could be better whereas an 8.5 has a bit more beauty or less flaws than the 8. I can also tell between an 8.5 and a 9. Note, these are my personal ratings. For simplicity let’s say there are 3 women: A, B, C. I give A a 7, B a 7.5 and C an 8. If another man gave them an 8, 8.5 and 9 then that would mean we had a systematic offset of 1. OTOH if he gave them a 7.5, 7 and 8, respectively, then we wouldn’t have a systematic offset but a difference of relative beauty on A and B but agree on C.

    The boner test is just that. Do you get hard? But within the realm of the hard there are various gradations of how much you want to have sex and how much you want to marry them (and of course for both casual and, to a greater extent, LTR you take into account various and different personality traits). In terms of the casual ladder and marriage ladder, and assuming a guy that is open to both under the right circumstances, getting a boner puts her on the casual ladder. But usually she will need to be prettier to get on the marriage ladder, assuming he plans to be faithful and is thus giving up other women. So, for an average guy, on just looks alone, his casual minimum might be a 4 and his marriage minimum a 5. Now the 5 looks girl would have to have a great personality for him to prefer her over a 6 looks girl with average personality.

    See my comments in 636 that I do agree that a bump of 0.25 to a 5 is a bigger deal than a 0.25 bump in looks to an 8:

    So, with that slice of men that have their threshold for acceptable minimal looks right near where her looks are then, yes, that 0.25 bump can have a huge effect. However, in cases where she is either 0.5+ above or 0.5+ below his threshold then that extra 0.25 won’t make much difference: either she was already pretty/hot enough that then character and personality and so on will be bigger factors for an LTR (or how DTF and kinky and sensual she is for casual) or she was not nearly pretty/hot enough so she has no hope.

    For an 8 going to an 8.25 is less of a relative jump than a 5 going to a 5.25 but still neither are that big, except in terms of the men that have minimum thresholds near her looks. Also, since there are likely more men with min. thresholds near the center of the bell curve then the woman going from 5 to 5.25 will open up to herself more men than the woman going from 8 to 8.25.

    So, a small bump in looks is important to that woman and to any man where she is near his minimum threshold. But in terms of practical advice, as Mike C said just above, the typical woman probably has a few pounds that she can easily part with and perhaps improve her clothes or hair or something and go up even more (like 0.5 or 1 pts–I think his 1-2 points potential is not so accurate for the typical woman but rather for more overweight or frumpy women who are really underachieving). So, in terms of practical advice, I think women can up their SMV most by improving their looks and sensuality and ability to flirt. But having a social life and having some high-quality men can also provide a smaller boost (about 0.25 as we saw in the study) but they shouldn’t overdo it and get seen as sluts or too much hassle to pursue. Also, making themselves seem approachable or actually doing a bit of approaching won’t up their MMV per se (maybe a little on the SMV because they seem DTF) but basically it will just result in more of the guys who are interested interacting with her.

    You might have felt slighted that I didn’t respond to the link about global warming but my length of response in these comments now have definitely dwarfed any left over “resentment” from that and I am sure you have the hugest platonic blog “crush” ever known to sometimes snarky women!!!! :D

    And on that note, I think we basically agree on everything (except for some minor quibbles). I never said that the small effect wasn’t possible or real, just that it was small. However in opening up maybe another few percent of men to being interested in her by going from a 5 to a 5.25 or 5.5 then that may indeed be the difference between no acceptable men being interested and one or two acceptable men being interested…and you only need one.

    Feel free to respond further but I really hope your only response will be that we are in sufficient agreement (and probably were all along) to stop arguing!!! :D

    Peace

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    I failed to say that if the woman has already maxed out her looks by being a good weight and having a good hairstyle and clothes for her look then obviously she can’t up her looks anymore and should then work on a feminine and flirty personality and going out with guys. A girl should be careful because if she’s going out with guys +2 higher in S/MMV than herself in order to get that 0.25 bounce based on guys seeing her with other guys then she needs to be more proactive in showing interest, and that she’s not just being a slut with the hotter guys, to her more realistic LTR candidate males.

  • HanSolo

    Oh, and the second article is first-authored by Robert Bowers. My mistake in calling it the Skyler Place article, though he was a co-author also.

  • Mike C

    But in terms of practical advice, as Mike C said just above, the typical woman probably has a few pounds that she can easily part with and perhaps improve her clothes or hair or something and go up even more (like 0.5 or 1 pts–I think his 1-2 points potential is not so accurate for the typical woman but rather for more overweight or frumpy women who are really underachieving).

    Han,

    I’m going to channel Ramble here, and basically say the typical woman is overweight. There are actually very few women (and men) who are not overweight. I work at large Fortune 500 company with thousands of employees, and let’s just say half are women. Just observing, I can maybe count on two hands the number I have seen who are not overweight, and by overweight I’d say 10-15 pounds over the weight where you are talking basically flat stomach and legs and ass where you can’t grab a handful of fatty tissue. Basically 15-18% bodyfat….maybe 20% tops. To me, the effects of that extra poundage are just huge. A girl who could be a 7 at say 18% bodyfat might look like a 2-3 if she is 50-75 pounds overweight. Even a girl who is 10-15 pounds overweight in my view gains one point simply for dropping that 10-15 pounds. It may not matter much clothed but naked in light that 10 pounds is a huge difference.

    I’m curious how you would rate these 2 women, and I’ll admit I have a strong preference for fitness type looking women so it won’t surprise me if I am higher than you. First, Marzia Prince

    https://www.google.com/search? q=marzia+prince&hl=en&tbo=d& source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei= 9YvSUPGnFcekqAGD24HoAw&sqi=2& ved=0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1280&bih=673

    Next, Jamie Eason

    https://www.google.com/search? q=jamie+eason&hl=en&tbo=d& source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei= kYzSULzEJ8fqqQGY74GQBQ&ved= 0CAcQ_AUoAA&biw=1280&bih=673

    Incidentally, Jamie Eason in my opinion, is one of the few women who can really rock the short hair look. There is a very small minority of women where the short hair really does look better than long hair.

    Now if you add 30-50 pounds to either of those two, you are subtracting major SMV points.

    My fiancee is a professional make-up artist and she has worked a bunch of model shoots, so I’ve really had the opportunity to see before and after pictures when the pros get done working their magic on hair and makeup. Most guys either see the befores of women who don’t put any effort into those two items or the afters of the women who know what they are doing. Believe me, you would be astounded. The right lipstick with the lips done just right to make them look fuller, the right eye makeup, just the right shading on the cheekbones. A lot of times, flaws can be minimized with the right hairstyle. I’ll use myself as an example. I have a fairly big nose and more prominent features, so I look better if I let my hair grow out longer and thicker rather than a really short haircut (which sucks because I’d prefer to have my hair short). Women have even more options to play with haircuts to really suit their particular eyes, nose, and facial shape.

    So…yeah…I think 1-2 points is quite achievable for really the typical woman who probably is 15 pounds overweight at least, and really doesn’t know how to do hair and makeup right.

  • HanSolo

    @Mike

    They really vary a lot depending on which photo of them I look at.

    Marzia. I like her body except for her fake big tits and would probably rate her body a bit higher if she had a little more fat actually. I usually give about 1/3 to the body and 2/3 to the face. I would give her body about a 9.5 w/o the fake tits and a little more fat so a 9 with fakes and less fat. Her face varies from photo to photo but is about a 7 (though in some of them with the right angle and makeup it’s as high as an 8). So putting those into my formula gives her about a 7.67 in overall looks. Because she seems sensual and slutty in her pics I would give her a higher SMV than just her looks. Her SMV in my eyes would be about an 8.5.

    Jamie Eason is getting into the muscular arms territory where I don’t like it so much. I would give her body an 8.5 (it would be a 9 or 9.5 if she lost the arm muscle) and her face a 7 (though I think there are some pics like this with “deceptive” angles and makeup where her face looks more like an 8.5 http://kdmag.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/jamie-eason-33.jpg; in this one I think her face is more of a 6.5 http://www.angrytrainerfitness.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/jamie-eason.jpg). That would give her a looks of 7.5.

    I agree that the right clothes, hair and makeup and losing weight can help a lot. Also, smiling opens womens eyes more (it seems) and makes them look more radiant and beautiful. I think I don’t mind fat on women as much as you might so while I agree with you overall, I think that the looks for the typical woman (who I already assume does some amount of positive things with their hair, clothes, makeup, etc.) would be more able to go up about 0.5 points for that and 0.5 points by losing 15 lbs. Now, if the woman isn’t doing much of anything about makeup and hair and looks frumpy then I agree that she could go up 2 pts by rectifying that and losing 15 lbs.

  • HanSolo

    By going up 2 points though I mean (in addition to losing 15 lbs for the median woman) have optimal makeup and hair and fashion, not just decent. I think the 15 lbs will up her looks by 0.5. And going from absolutely terrible, frumpy style and makeup and hair, she could go up by another 1.5 with optimal styling, 1 with good styling and 0.5 with decent but kind of half-ass effort.

  • HanSolo

    Finally, I have to add I’m more into brunettes than blondes.

  • SayWhaat

    Haha, alright Han Solo, I’m going to respond to your laziness with my laziness and say that we’ve appeared to finally reach consensus.

    Save for the blog “crush” quip — I should probably warn you that what you call “snarkiness” has stirred sufficient interest on the blogosphere before. May not pan out the way you hope it to, just sayin’. ;)

    Happy Holidays!

  • HanSolo

    @SayWhaat

    I’m glad you finally agree with me. ;) For the record, I haven’t changed my position at all and I really don’t know where you got the idea that I said there was absolutely NO effect on men from. So by reaching consensus we are agreeing that there is a small but real effect. I really don’t know why you doubted my analysis or comments to begin with.

    And I’m not sure what the warning is about. I was saying you have a blog crush on me, not vice versa! :D And I wasn’t hoping for anything. But I appreciate your spunkiness.

    Merry Christmas!

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

    Men who are dissolute

    [Alphas with enough preselection cred]

    And that is why alphas make terrible mates.