Doing An End Run Around Hookup Culture

Correct SpooningThis post is my Christmas present to Megaman, who has patiently asked all the right questions and provided much of the data. 

Reading the anecdotal reports of hookup culture on college campuses, one hears that very few committed relationships may be observed on campus. My own research efforts have turned up similar reports. In addition, the academic research about hookup culture, which began around 2000, consistently indicates that while 70% of students want relationships, and 50% of them hook up to get relationships, only 12% of hookups lead to relationships. Those are pretty grim odds for a hooking up strategy. In Kathleen Bogle’s groundbreaking 2008 book on hooking up, she suggests that there simply is no real alternative – hookups are the pathway to relationships. Lisa Wade, an Occidental College professor and expert on hookup culture found in her small study of 44 students that only 1% maintained a committed relationship. (Don’t ask me how that math works.)

While these numbers appear to be accurate, they do not tell the whole story. Are there students who hook up rarely or not at all and still wind up in relationships? We know that the traditional dating paradigm is dead. Men do not generally pursue women by asking them to dinner and a movie. But if a large number of students are indeed in relationships, there has to be another script for creating them. Culturally, it may be hidden – students do not perceive that it is at all easy to secure relationships. But there is some evidence that Hookup Culture and Pluralistic Evidence notwithstanding, significant percentages of college students are forming monogamous relationships.

“College Marrieds”

One form of college relationship is what is known as the College Marrieds. These are often students who meet at Freshmen Orientation or soon thereafter, join at the hip and hang on for dear life. They share all their meals, study together, and sleep together in one twin bed or the other every night (to the annoyance of many a roommate).

It is not known what percentage of students are in these relationships, which typically last the whole four years. But the phenomenon has been observed across many kinds of campuses.

Real Marrieds

At four-year colleges in the U.S., 12% of undergraduates are married.

Long Distance Relationships

The Center for the Study of Long Distance Relationships has reported that 8-9 million college students are in non-marital LDRs at any one time. Out of a total of 21 million American college students, that represents 38-43% of students.

In the study Absence Makes the Heart Grow Fonder?, it was reported that 20% of students were currently in LDRs, and 37% have been in an LDR.

Exclusive Dating Relationships

On the National College Health Assessment, a survey of over 30,000 students, 47% reported being in a relationship, and a quarter of those are living together.

In the study Casual Sex and Psychological Health Among Young Adults: Is Having “Friends with Benefits” Emotionally Damaging?55% of respondents said that their most recent sex was with an exclusive dating partner, and 25% said it was with a fiance, spouse or spousal equivalent. Only 12% reported a non-exclusive partner, and just 8% reported sex with a casual acquaintance.

Clearly, there is more to the story – significant percentages of students are voluntarily committing to exclusive romantic relationships while in college. In view of the college sex ratio, which is 53% Female, 47% Male, this is an impressive finding. The study  BARE MARKET: Campus Sex Ratios, Romantic Relationships, and Sexual Behavior looked specifically at this effect. They found that the odds of a woman having had a boyfriend in college ranged from 87% with a 60% female population to 92% with a 47% female population. However, they also found that women’s perceptions of male behavior were significantly worse the higher the percentage of women:

As the dyadic power thesis predicts, women who attend college on campuses where they are more numerous tend to view men as less interested in commitment and less trustworthy. They are less likely to expect much from men, find it more difficult to locate the right kind of men, and are more likely to report that their relationships don’t work out and that a woman can’t have a boyfriend if she won’t have sex. If demographic opportunity were the only explanation for why campus sex ratios affect relationships, we would not expect to find these clear associations between the campus sex ratio and women’s assessments of men and relationships. It appears men behave differently in different relationship markets (or at least women perceive their behavior differently).

Such is the power of hookup culture, which in part reflects the gender imbalance in college.

 Are Hookups Replacing Romantic Relationships?

 

 

 

A study of 483 female freshmen revealed that relationship sex was twice as common as hookup sex, even during the first year:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Hookup Relationship
Sex before college 34% 58%
Sex first year 40% 56%
Sex prior month 7-18% 25-38%

Note: I assume that many of these relationships are LDRs held over from high school.

Another study found that 63% of college women hope to meet their spouse in college. 

Students in Relationships Are Happier and Healthier

In a sample of 1,621 college students, individuals in committed relationships experienced fewer mental health problems and were less likely to be overweight/obese. 

Being in a committed romantic relationship decreases problematic outcomes largely through a reduction in sexual partners, which in turn decreases both risky behaviors and problematic outcomes. 

The study also looked at the quality of college relationships:

The vast majority of college dating relationships are satisfying. Unlike marriage, college daters have few if any institutional or legal barriers that mitigate against relationship dissolution. Consequently, if a college dating relationship is no longer satisfying, or if it is inconsistently satisfying, it dissolves (Arriaga, 2001).

Research has demonstrated that college students in committed relationships idealize their romantic partners and ascribe characteristics to them that are more positive than is truly warranted (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996). These positive illusions maintain satisfaction in college dating relationships even when there are threats to the quality of the relationship that might bring about its dissolution.

Participants identified their current relationship status as “engaged or committed dating relationship.” As such, this group could have included individuals who had been dating for a week and individuals who were engaged to be married in a week. It is quite unlikely, in fact, that many individuals in the sample were engaged. An estimate based on a separate sample drawn from the same population (n = 660) suggests that only 4% of students in this population are engaged to be married (Braithwaite, 2006).

If this is an accurate estimate, then the observed beneficial effect was observed in a sample with an overwhelming majority of individuals in self-defined “committed” relationships.

Clearly, while hooking up is often perceived as the primary script and only route to a long-term relationship, many students are finding ways to connect and commit using an alternative approach. It’s not really clear just how this is happening, but it’s encouraging to learn that many students have been doing an end run around a culture that offers so little benefit. 

As proof that terms can be confusing, though, it’s worth noting that in a study of the sexual behavior of Harvard students, 24% reported that they were uncertain whether they were in a romantic relationship. 

  • Abbot

    “the traditional dating paradigm is dead. Men do not generally pursue women by asking them to dinner and a movie”

    If they were certain she was not the type to hook up, they most certainly would find value in waiting

  • Abbot

    From this study cited above

    http://www.iwf.org/files/0e6f3afa4c1421150084e5a26a54a64d.pdf

    “the ambiguity of the phrase ‘hooking up’ is part of the reason for its popularity”

    Plus a read of that study really reveals why years later it would be good idea to avoid these women if what you want is a sexually bonded relationship

  • SayWhaat

    This post is encouraging!

    The study BARE MARKET: Campus Sex Ratios, Romantic Relationships, and Sexual Behavior looked specifically at this effect. They found that the odds of a woman having had a boyfriend in college ranged from 87% with a 60% female population to 92% with a 47% female population. However, they also found that women’s perceptions of male behavior were significantly worse the higher the percentage of women

    Although this is not… :-/

  • JP

    “Clearly, while hooking up is often perceived as the primary script and only route to a long-term relationship, many students are finding ways to connect and commit using an alternative approach. It’s not really clear just how this is happening, but it’s encouraging to learn that many students have been doing an end run around a culture that offers so little benefit.”

    You wander around until you find yourself in a relationship.

    It wasn’t clear to me how this was happening, either, although it happened to me twice in college.

  • tito

    yes, yes let’s do an end run around it, and also pop culture, and the anti-culture in general. hasten it’s demise for civilization comes first.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7XzcGnUCI0 OffTheCuff

    I’ve asked this many times, and never got an answer…

    Only 12% of hookups lead to relationships… compared to what??

    If that’s compared to 6% of traditional courtship-style dates (where, emotional intimacy and male investment precede physical) turning into relationships, then hooking up is awesome, since it doubles your chances!

    Then 12% really doesn’t make any sense standalone. Rejection rates are high, even if there is NO hookup. It’s better to hook up with no relationship, than to have neither.

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

      @OTC

      We know the number of hookups, more or less, so we know what 12% of them is. That number is dwarfed by the number of students in relationships. Rejection rates may be high, but if a third to half of college students are satisfied in LTRs, that’s huge!

      It’s better to hook up with no relationship, than to have neither.

      This is demonstrably false for most women and some men.

  • J

    Lisa Wade…found in her small study of 44 students that only 1% maintained a committed relationship. (Don’t ask me how that math works.)

    LOL. Rounding up?

    Clearly, there is more to the story – significant percentages of students are voluntarily committing to exclusive romantic relationships while in college.

    Great news for my family. I see my boys as future dads, not cads. I doubt they’ve going to have the stomachs for chasing carousellers.

    …many students are finding ways to connect and commit using an alternative approach. It’s not really clear just how this is happening, but it’s encouraging to learn that many students have been doing an end run around a culture that offers so little benefit.

    I’ve spoken to several college kids about how they connect with possible gfs/bfs. The consensus is that kids who have an interest end to form peer groups around that interest. While they don’t really date the way we did, they do tend to form pairs out of those peer groups. Once you get out of the Greek world, there are music cliques, art cliques, politcal cliques, religious organizations, etc.

  • HanSolo

    OT but since it was discussed on another thread about the mass killers being mostly white I did an analysis of this article regarding 62 mass killers over the last ~30 years.

    44 were white 71% of the total, in line with the roughly 70% white population over the last ~30 years. So, as a proportion of population it’s not just a white thing.

    10 were black 16% of the total, roughly in line with their % of the population (1 was Cuban born)

    6 were Asian 10%, double their 5% of the population. This was the most surprising thing to me.

    1 woman

    I saw 2 non-black latinos so 1 or both must have been classified as white.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-fulford-file-jezebel?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+vdareblog+(VDARE.com%3A+Blog+Articles)

  • Abbot

    ‘Why would a man wine and dine a woman when its out in the clear that most women are unrestricted for the right guy and will put out for free?”

    Overall, do women have any clue why men have recoiled from such methods during the past 40 years?

  • Iggles

    Interesting post, Susan!

    I had no idea so many college students were in relationships! (1/3 – 1/2 is a lot higher than I perceived at the time. I graduated 6 years ago.)

    Though, it makes sense that people are finding other ways to connect even though traditional dating is dead. I wasn’t a “college married” but I did have a )
    LTR that began my senior year in college and lasted three years after. My Ex and I didn’t hook up. We met on campus, had interests in common, and went from them. In fact, I avoided the hook up scene entirely at my school. It was gross, and given the choice between that and staying single I chose the latter for three years!

  • Abbot

    What are the 10 (or any number) ways for men to do an end run around feminism?

    .

  • tito

    stop believing in it. stop worshipping the snapper. ridicule those who do. if some fat slob is getting laid, do not praise him or be bemused by him. call him out and be ready to fight (and win). mock the enablers.

  • Erik L

    This sounds to me like college in the 1980s (or at least my perception of it). Is it possible that the hook up culture thing is exaggerated in the media because it plays well to our psychology? I mean, isn’t our obsession with this idea to some extent about us feeling a bit superior?

  • Just1Z

    I’m hoping that the underlying research was a little more nuanced than this quote suggests…

    In a sample of 1,621 college students, individuals in committed relationships experienced fewer mental health problems and were less likely to be overweight/obese.

    Being in a committed romantic relationship decreases problematic outcomes largely through a reduction in sexual partners, which in turn decreases both risky behaviors and problematic outcomes.

    OR

    gimps and blimps don’t have as many relationships in the first place. relationships fix f.a.…the old mistaking of correlation for causation. It’s not real science, that’s why they call it an ology.

    you get this crap analysis done on marriages too. “married men live longer” (or feel like they do?). But once again, healthier people are more likely to get married than unhealthy ones. In this case the other piece of information left out as inconvenient is that divorced men (~50% marriages fail, we are not talking a small minority of men that got married) have very much worse suicide rates and other life expectancy shortening issues (homeless, poor, imprisoned etc).

    So, ‘get married for a longer life’ is pretty worthless advice for a bloke.

  • Joe

    @Susan (from the Bare Market study):

    If demographic opportunity were the only explanation for why campus sex ratios affect relationships, we would not expect to find these clear associations between the campus sex ratio and women’s assessments of men and relationships. It appears men behave differently in different relationship markets (or at least women perceive their behavior differently).

    Susan, you said “[T]hey also found that women’s perceptions of male behavior were significantly worse the higher the percentage of women…”, which isn’t exactly right. That’s the parenthetical in their conclusion, not their primary conclusion. They’re saying first that men behave differently when they have the demographic advantage, which, despite the mollification, is a bit of a slur. At least, it’s enough to raise eyebrows and questions.

    Their conclusion rests on at least one big assumption, which is that all men are equally desirable to all women. The “all” is implicit in the way they’re handling the statistics – a big red flag. Mathematically, it’s possible they grouped all the participants into bins, where each bin consisted of participants of roughly equal desirability (Ha! They rated them on a scale of 1-to-10 and… sound familiar?) and derived their statistics from each bin. I don’t see the evidence they did that, but it’s possible.

    Their model totally ignores the common wisdom that only the top 20% are considered sufficiently desirable. When the demographics favor the men, as they do in most universities these days, the “desirable” men disappear first. They’re taken.

    If *that* model is true, then the statistical results have nothing to do with male behavior. In other words, when they say “If demographic opportunity were the only explanation for why campus sex ratios affect relationships, we would not expect to find these clear associations between the campus sex ratio and women’s assessments of men and relationships.” I think they are mistaken. If another model is used (like *cough*Roissy’s*cough*) demographics alone would be a mathematically sufficient explanation.

    I’m not saying I agree (I don’t, in fact). But the “Bare Market” study supports Roissy’s paradigm more than it refutes it.

  • Tasmin

    @Iggles
    “In fact, I avoided the hook up scene entirely at my school. It was gross, and given the choice between that and staying single I chose the latter for three years!”
    +1
    A couple of things stand out to me. Most of hooking up is within a “scene”‘; it is visible and recognizable in terms of the typical conditions and perhaps regular participants and is not much of a mystery in terms of what it entails – so much so that it can be assessed from the outside looking in, re: “gross”. If it is visible, it is avoidable.

    Hooking up is a choice, a choice where other alternatives can be considered. This fact needs to be pounded home. While the visibility or identifiable traits or conditions of those other paths may be less advertised (we should be asking why), they can and do result in successful relationships. But the choice must be made – and made more than once to avoid the hookup “culture”. The tough part may very well mean 3 years alone, which can be a hard sell with the siren song of hooking up ringing out from every bell-tower and every basement on greek row. But who is playing that song? Did someone mention enabling?

    Even if the instant gratification and sense of entitlement can be headed off, hookup culture still manages to retain its position as the “only” way in the minds of far too many. I believe it holds this position because the kids in college have been stripped of their responsibility, both in terms of how they evaluate their options and in terms of their subsequent decisions, their actions, “…there simply is no real alternative” (Bogle). The culture at large enables them to play w/o taking responsibility for the fact that (a) they always have a choice; (b) there are consequences of every choice; and (c) those consequences are theirs to evaluate and theirs to own. Every time.

    The college kids have been made out to be victims of some kind of social paradox created by forces beyond their control, thus their actions are merely attempts to navigate this complex environment forced upon them. As long the SMP is viewed in this regard, the majority of college students will continue to make decisions w/o owning up to both the pretext and the outcomes of those decisions. They have been relieved of any responsibility for both ends. We hear time and again about how there is just no other way, you either play or sit out and gosh sitting out is just not an option. And this thinking is allowed to go unchecked.

    It is refreshing to see it stated as a choice – even more so with 3 years of celibacy as a possible outcome. Yeah, it can be tough to find a BF/GF/LTR, you may not. You may be *gasp*, alone for a while. To me these choices go to character. But these days if we associate character with past decisions we are judgmental and/or closed-minded throwbacks.

    These days character judgement can only be viewed relative to intent, the actual choices, behaviors are whitewashed, e.g. “I want(ed) a LTR” is what counts, not the three years spent hooking-up. Three years hooking up in search of, is still viewed as more acceptable than three years of opting out or pursuing other methods. And if they are preemptively relieved of the responsibility of their actions so long as their intent was something greater, the other possible choices suddenly seem much more risky, if those options even make it to the table. Hookup culture survives on more than just the naiveté of frosh-soph women in the crosshairs of frat boys.

  • Abbot

    ‘your body is a wonderland’ but you know what, it’s your choice if you want wonderland to be an exclusive club . . . or if you want wonderland to be a theme park where kids get in free on Saturdays with a canned good,”

    “The idea behind monogamy is that it is almost a state of higher evolution, anyone can be a slut, but it takes some logic and reasoning to say ‘I think I am going to be with one person and not sleep with the world’,”

    “So girls, out there, please respect yourselves, respect your body and make good life decisions.”
    —Jenna Marbles

    Now, why do you think the above statements BLEW A MAJOR FUCKING CORK OUT OF THE SLUT-O-SPHERE last week?

    Because folks, these twisted cock addicts DO NOT WANT MEN TO MAKE AN END RUN AROUND LOVING THEM LATER! Period. All this talk about victim blaming/rape is just a cover to get MEN and the public to shoot down Jenna’s video

  • Todd

    I like the stats. FWIW, it seems to jive with my general experience. While there are scenes where there is a lot of humping around, it’s a distinct minority.

    Allow me to play Devil’s Advocate for a minute though. I’m wondering if the percentage of college students who hook up are generally the students who came in with issues (e.g. mental illnesses of varying degrees, history of childhood abuse, unstable environments, etc.). It may be that the issues are causing the hooking up, not the other way around. Of course, there may be some self-reinforcing effects, but I wonder if the issues were there first, and that having them makes hook up culture that much more attractive.

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

    @SW
    My intent wasn’t to suggest that the hookup scene was rare, or that all these college relationships are rock solid and ready to marry. Just that the numbers don’t add up.

    Even with the crap success rate of “hooking up”, I suspect that most relationships that do start out that way are the result of making out in the dorm common area, not sex with a complete stranger.

    I recall from my college days that there was quite a bit of self-segregation going on. Folks who opted out or were in relationships tended not to hang out with the singles who were hooking up. This was probably due to a lack of compatibility.

    Grazie, and Merry Christmas!

  • Jesse

    I would absolutely court a woman the old-fashioned way if I were serious about her. I would do all the driving, pay for everything, open doors for her, walk on the curb side, the whole nine yards. And I think it would be good not to try to seduce her on the first date, as a way of showing that I’m serious about her. If things progress there will be lots of sex later.

    I also agree with what Russ said somewhere about who controls access to sex in the relationship. I will be in charge of that. Using sex as a weapon against me would be absolutely outrageous and not tolerated.

    (Me controlling access to sex depends on me not being a jerk, of course.)

  • Abbot

    “I would absolutely court a woman the old-fashioned way if I were serious about her”

    That implies she is court-worthy and that further implies confirmation of historical consistency on her part…

  • tito

    it implies much that is not there. old-style courting can only be for those who deserve it, not foe the carousel riders, who start ever so young.

  • SayWhaat

    Tasmin (#17),

    Brilliant comment. All of it.

  • Jesse

    If you guys are talking about promiscuity, I don’t think that’s an automatic disqualifier. It depends on how she went about it. If she were a confident woman who enjoyed sex, went out and got what she wanted, and felt no shame about it, then I can respect that and perhaps even be excited by it. What’s not to like about a confident woman? I can’t say timid virgins are very appealing in contrast, relationship-wise.

    If we were talking about promiscuity of the sort that involved desperately seeking male approval and validation, and being taken advantage of, then I might find some less-than-savory words coming out of my mouth. Not that that’s good, but it is what it is.

  • Russ in Texas

    @Abbot#18,

    Got the link? I seem to be having a bit of a brain fart.
    Never been a fan of ONS, though I’ll do FWB if the friendship is real and good.

  • Russ in Texas

    @Jesse#25,

    Speaking as a guy who walked away from a promiscuous 10 who was begging me to screw her, to marry a timid virgin 8 with a humongous forebrain….I’ll take the timid virgin. Her entire experiene has been about the two of us together, and “training” jokes aside, that’s been a very pleasant thing.

  • Abbot

    “talking about promiscuity, I don’t think that’s an automatic disqualifier. It depends on how she went about it.”

    If you’re just screwing her and taking fun trips together to beach resorts she could have had trains run her. Mom aint meeting her in any event…

  • Jesse

    Perhaps it’s the digit ratio talking.

  • Abbot

    Here is just one “reaction” to Jenna Marbles and some of the commentary out there even claims that it sets feminism back 50 years. So, now they are actually admitting that JACKING MULTI PENIS IS CENTRAL TO FEMINISM. This is one majorly FUCKED UP society!!!!

    http://womensenews.org/story/cultural-trendspopular-culture/121221/youtube-stars-video-ignites-slut-shaming-reaction#.UNZA3VGmDdk

    .

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Wow, this doesn’t jive with my experience at all. I didn’t know ANYONE in a LDR in college. ANYONE. The guys were mostly single and the girls were actually somewhat hypogamous, dating guys that were not in 4 year unis.

    That one stat sort of blows me out of the water.

  • Underdog

    Yeah I didn’t know anyone in an LDR in college either. And I graduated only 2 years ago.

  • Tasmin

    Must be the holidays. Took 30 posts to get to MULTI-PENIS.

    @Russ #27
    +1
    My experience has been the same. “Confidence” in the context of Jesse’s comment is exactly how feminists want it to be. I’ve had two long relationships with women, one was a virgin, the other N<3. Both were quite confident and quite attractive. As much as feminists deny it, a woman can be confident in many facets of life and still manage to avoid Abbot's MULTI-PENIS school of hard notches. In fact, they both took great pride in their selectivity and restraint and felt no need to derive confidence from their ability to have sex with many or random men, but rather chose to explore the much greater depths of intimacy with men they found to be of marriage-quality and of similar values.

    Yet somehow they both happened to enjoy sex tremendously. Our shared experience is something that a sex-as-sport, confident, high N woman couldn't replicate no matter how taught the bungee cords or hot the candle wax. And while I haven't amassed an extensive sample set, having been single at 35 I've dated a few women with a lot of experience behind them and can tell you that you most certainly are not missing a thing. In addition to the fact that there are costs – conveniently overlooked by the sex-poz crowd – that accompany past experience, all that business about sexual "experience" vs timid virgins is similar feminist fodder.

    This: "Her entire experiene has been about the two of us together, and “training” jokes aside, that’s been a very pleasant thing." is a rare treasure that has been traded for immediacy, endless variety, and many other fleeting things. It is interesting how quickly (and often unknowingly) people are to shame those who desire an experience more similar to yours in favor of the more *valuable* experience; the sex as sport perspective.

    And if it is a sport it is competitive and if it is competitive it is adversarial. I've played sports at high levels, I have no desire to turn my intimacy into a sport in which I pick a partner based on her CV of semi-professional cock-hopping or compete for who can be most/more sexualized. Sexual chemistry is important in a relationship no doubt, but the notion that the (our) chemistry happens as a result of numerous other men preceding me is just kind of gross, aside from being just not true IME.

  • Jesse

    Perhaps I haven’t explained myself very well. I don’t really like feminists, certainly not the more extreme ones, and I don’t really want anything to do with them. If my thoughts are interpreted as being in line with feminist ideology then I must not be expressing them clearly.

    I can perhaps express two things with more confidence. First, I’m more interested in the ‘high dominance’ type of woman who is excited by sex and masculinity, than the ‘low dominance’ type who ‘finds the male organ ugly, doesn’t much like sex and shows a preference for feminized men,’ to paraphrase something I once read.

    The second thing is that a high N-count, if I understand that term to mean what I think it does around here, is not an -automatic- disqualifier. There are simply too many other facets to the situation, and nature and makeup of the woman, to say any more.

  • Abbot

    “In addition to the fact that there are costs – conveniently overlooked by the sex-poz crowd – that accompany past experience, all that business about sexual “experience” vs timid virgins is similar feminist fodder.”

    Its getting to the point where one can conclude that feminists are at the end of their rope regarding getting men to embrace a woman’s multitudinous sexual past. Notwithstanding the fact that they are never clear about why they even bother trying.

  • Abbot

    “The second thing is that a high N-count, if I understand that term to mean what I think it does around here, is not an -automatic- disqualified.”

    If you ask and she is honest and you’re still good to go then its good. Of course, promiscuous women and feminists are fuming mad that its even considered.

  • Russ in Texas

    Tasmin,

    I’m not much concerned with N on its own, but sex-as-sport depresses me, and I’d really rather read a book than work a ONS. I’m not even a little bit traditionalist — I believe in figuring out what makes you happy and diving on it (and if that means saving yourself for who you think may be the love of your life, then score).

    Also, as a general habit, I consider compromise to be shit; why compromise when one can expend a little effort and find a win-win?

  • JQ

    @ Joe in re 16:

    The authors of the BARE MARKET study explicitly acknowledge they did not control for attractiveness in the “Limitations and Qualifications” section of their paper.

    There are several limitations to this study. First, although we believe that it is appropriate to treat college campuses as relationship markets, every student on campus is not a potential partner for every other one. Relationship markets are bounded by many things, including race, religion, socioeconomic status, and certainly physical attractiveness, that we have not accounted for here.

    Their model does incorporate the availability the good men. They report a statistically significant relationship between the percentage of women on campus and agreement with the statements (Table 3):
    –Hard to meet the right kind of men
    –Doesn’t find many attractive potential partners.
    These trends are very visibly shown in Figure 1 as well.

    The authors use the following definitions:
    –The Dyadic Power Thesis:

    “The dyadic power thesis argues that the gender in the numerical minority in a population gains dyadic power within their heterosexual relationships because of their gender’s relative scarcity . . . Furthermore, individuals in markets are interconnected and are subject to processes of supply and demand within the market (Becker 1976). Therefore, dyadic power within relationships is determined not only by intra-relationship factors, such as the relative social status and physical attractiveness of partners, but also by market characteristics.

    –The Demographic Opportunity Thesis:

    But sex ratios’ effect on romantic and sexual relationships may also be a function of what some scholars call demographic opportunity (Trent and South 2008; South and Trent 2010). Because relationships are by definition paired, an imbalanced sex ratio may hinder relationship formation by reducing the number of potential partners in the market that an individual may encounter during a search for a relationship.

    For the authors to say that demographics alone cannot account for the shift in female attitudes is certainly correct as their definition of what might be called the “demographic argument” considers female behavior constant. As the authors put it, “The demographic opportunity thesis is ungendered and unconcerned with power dynamics.” As soon as we posit that a woman in a female-skewed college environment will consider men with lower SMV/MMV than she would have otherwise we have made a dyadic argument (to use the language of the authors) because men get an automatic scarcity bonus.

    The authors are very explicit that the dyadic and demographic models are not mutually exclusive. They even list having a harder time finding suitable partners as predicted outcomes of both models in female-skewed college environments. As a result the perceived availability of suitable partners (or lack thereof) does not distinguish these two models.

    Finally, all models are wrong; some models are useful. I find it very suspect that the real work lacks complex feed-forward and -back mechanisms between demographics, dyadic power, male behavior, female behavior, and female perceptions of the men with whom they interact.

  • Just1Z

    @Tasmin
    “Must be the holidays. Took 30 posts to get to MULTI-PENIS.”

    you’re damn right, I always get a smile out seeing ‘multi-penis’ used. in fact it’s making me laugh right now.

    come on people, we can do better, holidaze or no

  • Paul Rivers

    “We know that the traditional dating paradigm is dead. Men do not generally pursue women by asking them to dinner and a movie.”

    I just wanted to say that as a guy, there is a large perception – from both personal experience and online advice – that not only will taking a woman on a date not improve your chances, it actually reduces them.

    Back in the day, going on a date instilled an environment of romance with the girl. Obviously there were lots of bad dates, or boring dates – etc. But in general, girls grew up with the idea of dating being romantic like guys grow up with an idea of going on an adventure and it being exciting – just being in that environment makes you think about romance/adventure.

    But nowadays, going on dates is something that girls have heard about, but never really had that sense of excitement about. The idea of sitting across from each other in a restaurant – just the two of you – is not a novelty. And all the excitement now seems to girls talking about how they “got a free meal”. Like a while back there was an article about a woman who was low on cash, so through match.com she arranged to have guys pay for her for dinner by setting up most dinners as “dates” the guy would then pay for – often at expensive restaurant. That it happened isn’t important – the fact that half the female responses were “You go girl!” is how women view going on dates nowadays – any romantic emotional weight is almost entirely gone, and the remaining emotional weight is on how awesome she is for suckering a guy into this.

    I’m just saying – when I really like a girl, because I like her I will not take her on a dinner and a movie “date”. I don’t want to be labelled one of those “ahahaha what a sucker!” (and thus undesirable) guys.

  • Paul Rivers

    “In addition, the academic research about hookup culture, which began around 2000, consistently indicates that while 70% of students want relationships, and 50% of them hook up to get relationships, only 12% of hookups lead to relationships. Those are pretty grim odds for a hooking up strategy. In Kathleen Bogle’s groundbreaking 2008 book on hooking up, she suggests that there simply is no real alternative – hookups are the pathway to relationships. Lisa Wade, an Occidental College professor and expert on hookup culture found in her small study of 44 students that only 1% maintained a committed relationship. (Don’t ask me how that math works.)”

    I wrote about this before, and didn’t get much of a response, but this is even more of the point that I made earlier…

    I don’t think women have realized how much their sources for relationship advice has become corrupted by slutty behavior masquerading as relationship advice.

    The problem isn’t that there’s slutty advice around. There are some girls who want to sleep with a lot of guys, and as a guy at least I don’t have a problem with that.

    It’s the sluttiest girls *NEED* to get social approval. A while back there was a discussion in the comments about how girls in a group tend to go along with the values of the group – a socially restricted girl in a group of more promiscous girls feels pressure to be more promiscous like the rest of the group is. If she doesn’t, she ends up feeling shamed and ostrasized from the group.

    On a larger scale, the sluttier girls crave getting respect for their behavior from both groups –
    1. Restricted girls
    2. Other sluttier girls

    It appears to me that they have succeeded in doing this – by masking what they do under the banner of “this is what I need to do to get a relationship, and what you need to do to”.

    What was quote – telling girls that hookup culture is the “only way” to get a relationship – when 1% or less of hookups leads to a relationship – is **EXACTLY** what I mean here. By masking what is really about sleeping with a whole bunch of different people while avoiding commitment to any of them – as “trying to find a relationship” – the girls who are more promiscous get a free pass from both the other promiscous girls – and the restricted girls who can’t shame them for “just trying to find a relationship”.

    While in reality – the vast majority of people who remain in long term relationships were *never* part of hookup culture.

    It’s “corruption” – not that there’s advice about there about being promiscous, or advice about not being promiscous, but that promiscous advice **masquerades** as “trying to find a relationship” advice.

    Leaving girls who are trying to find a relationship – extremely confused, even rejected “good’ guys for a relationship because they don’t meet the criteria they’ve been told is required for an attractive guy – criteria that’s really about getting with the bed hopping stud.

  • Abbot

    “It’s “corruption” – not that there’s advice about there about being promiscous, or advice about not being promiscous, but that promiscous advice **masquerades** as “trying to find a relationship” advice.”

    There are MANY new masquerades that act to cover and mislead the actual intention – satisfying a harem cock habit.

    “trying to find a relationship”
    “expressing my sexuality”
    “hooking up”

    Mask away, but the word is out. Foreign men at least have a back up plan – their own women-

    “the image of American women in the countries where I grew up and visited is not flattering. I would blame Hollywood and the popularity of American movies abroad. What is portrayed in movies gets further exaggerated by rumors about promiscuous American women. I don’t think language is as important as cultural (mis)perceptions. … Where I lived there was a saying that American girls were for fun and local girls were for marrying.”

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/12/19/study-finds-increased-risk-sexual-assault-study-abroad#ixzz2FtwMkdRc

    Its NOT about movies. American women are promiscuous and American men are the ones stuck with having to deal with it without the benefit of a readily accessible alternative.

    .

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Seriously? Sexual assault is okay because “American women are promiscuous”? How would the shoe fit on the other foot when the movies portray some American men as promiscuous/gay, and then an American was sexually assaulted by foreign men?

    http://m.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/sep/13/picket-report-murdered-us-ambassador-libya-reporte/

  • Russ in Texas

    “Like a while back there was an article about a woman who was low on cash, so through match.com she arranged to have guys pay for her for dinner by setting up most dinners as “dates” the guy would then pay for – often at expensive restaurant.”

    I once trained with a woman who did this. When asked why she went out with so many men, her response was “girl’s gotta eat.” She was not an impressive figure — less so the more free meals she indulged in. Made life a bit less than pleasant.

  • Russ in Texas

    @Hope#43,

    Of course it’s not. But many feminists forget that when they leave their home cultures which hold women in high regard, they frequently enter societies which regard “loose women” as whores — targets with no social standing, who are fit only to be victimized.

  • Abbot

    Assault is never justified. There are plenty of foreign countries where this does not happen to American women. However, foreign men have the impression that American men are idiots for putting up with this crap and foreign women have pity on them. Its truly a global embarrassment.

  • JQ

    @ Susan in re the BARE MARKET study:

    I would have four questions for the authors:
    1) If the same man takes a woman on two dates, does that count as one or two in the study date count? Clearly a woman who goes on six dates with the same man is exhibiting different behavior than a woman who goes on six dates each with a different man.
    2) Why six dates as the cutoff point? I did not find a discussion of this in the paper.
    3) How sensitive are the dating results to sliding the cutoff to five or four? Again, no discussion presented in the paper.
    4) Why not center the percentage of women on campus at 50% (e.g. a campus with 52% women would be recoded as 2, etc.)? The idea is to assess behavior and attitudes when the ratio is out of balance, so this is intuitively appealing even if it wouldn’t change the results in a substantive way.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Abbot, sexual assault happens in every country, perpetrated by men against their “local” women.

    When I was a kid in Asia, my relatives told me stories about kids being kidnapped and sold into the sex trade. Yeah that happens, too.

    Believe me, foreign women do not “pity” American women. Their lives are not all sunshine and fruitcakes. I am speaking as an immigrant woman and now American citizen.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Russ in Texas, I don’t disagree, but Abbot has a history of insinuating that all American women are promiscuous “whores” and that only foreign women are wife material. Sometimes I call out the most egregious of his comments, though I shouldn’t bother.

  • SayWhaat

    Abbot, sexual assault happens in every country, perpetrated by men against their “local” women.

    Yeah. Given what just happened in India, that comment was especially misguided.

  • Damien Vulaume

    @Hope
    “Believe me, foreign women do not “pity” American women. Their lives are not all sunshine and fruitcakes.”

    I don’t know about Asia, and the word “pity” is of course not adequate, but I have yet to meet a European woman (save for some eastern parts where American women rarely venture) who would seriously take advice from an American counterpart about strategies on looks and pre nuptial dances, dating, etc. (Same for A-men/E-men, by the way).
    The American mating dance is the most “out of the rythm” of all dances I’ve seen in the western world. The orchestra is too loud, and the dancers more than confused in their steps.
    Although, I agree that some guys here seem to be more often than not very eager at jumping at their keyboard to type the word “slut” whenever it comes to a topic approaching promiscuity, or something they perceive as such.

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

      @Damien

      The American mating dance is the most “out of the rythm” of all dances I’ve seen in the western world. The orchestra is too loud, and the dancers more than confused in their steps.

      Yes, I think of our SMP as broken. IMO, that’s is directly correlated to the degree to which the U.S. championed, embraced and grew feminism.

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

    Abbot,
    It’s fine for men to have preferences when it comes to the opposite sex, to be wary of women who has had alot of sexual partners because the sex is something to compare you to, not to mention the whole fidelity issue. But I also agree with Jesse, in that it’s ok for other guys to look past a girl’s sexual past if she’s a good person and a great match. I kind of have this “radical” viewpoint of some females having a category of men that they will only have sex with. Basically a type of guy you will marry, and a type of guy that’s only good for a f*ck. To me, if she waits to have sex with you, that doesn’t automatically mean something bad. She may think that you’re worth getting to know. But that’s just me.

    Besides, I’m aware of how the more sex partners a person has had in their history, the more they are likely to cheat, but too often the focus is on females and their likelihood, and I never understood that. As if it’s exclusive to them (unless I’m missing something).

    About that Jenna video. Sometimes, it’s not always about men. Her video is problematic for many reasons, one of which is victim-blaming (which does exist). Not that I’m against discussing percautions, but she went about it the wrong way. Not to mention that she never mentions men in regards to promiscuity/monogamy. Like are men not using logic (in her own words) in instances of casual sex, or does it not come into play with them for some reason? I could go into ALOT more detail (which I most likely will on my own blog), but I don’t want to derail this post.

    Sidenote, and a little OT.
    Too often I hear of how if a female is promiscuous, then there MUST be something wrong with her. While to me promiscuity in general – for male and females – is wrong from a religious viewpoint, I think that to insinuate that mainly “damaged” women are promiscuious, or that there HAS to be some type of issue or psychological cause behind it is problematic. I acknowledge that there are men and women out there feel that they have an itch to scratch, nothing more. They enjoy sex, that’s it.

  • Abbot

    They pity American men. Not women (or maybe so)

    “The American mating dance is the most “out of the rythm” of all dances I’ve seen in the western world. The orchestra is too loud, and the dancers more than confused in their steps.”

    It comes very close to two different sexual cultures. The harem women (most women including feminists who share and service a few men who represent the casual sex pre marriage penis supply) and all other men. The latter per feminist jargon are known as the creeps. When the sluts and creeps eventually butt heads, the dance steps are quite awkward indeed. This system cannot last. It simply cannot.

  • Abbot

    “because the sex is something to compare you to”

    Why does this always come up as some sort of studied fact when it absolutely is not? How about just gut wrenching disgust? Is that remotely possible?

    “Like are men not using logic (in her own words) in instances of casual sex, or does it not come into play with them for some reason? ”

    The only logic for men is waiting for a woman to be willing. Women get to pick and choose therefore there is a MUCH greater opportunity to apply logic to selection. If they choose not to, well that is what Jenna was getting at. That video was a long time coming. The fact that many women said it set feminism back 50 years is very very telling. Sometimes the current version of feminism needs a good bitch slap. That was one of them. High fucking five.

    “to insinuate that mainly “damaged” women are promiscuous”

    A woman who does not hold intercourse in any higher regard than say kissing often engages in promiscuous behavior. Such behavior also leads to a disconnect from value of sex. There is NOTHING wrong with that. If a man is not comfortable with her value of it or he prefers a doe eyed ga ga type woman who has not jaded her sexuality, then he walks. Simple. No harm done. Plenty of men to go around.

  • Abbot

    “some females having a category of men that they will only have sex with. Basically a type of guy you will marry, and a type of guy that’s only good for a f*ck…. if she waits to have sex with you, that doesn’t automatically mean something bad. She may think that you’re worth getting to know.”

    Awww, how sweet. She can “get to know” post sex, yes? But they do that to dupe. Plain and simple. NO doubt about it. No thanks. Its not anything bad….except the vast majority of women don’t engage in such behavior. So whatever these women do is completely irrelevant. They will eventually find someone so everybody gets what they want. No?

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Foreigners don’t pity American men or women. First world problems. Most of the world have problems of their own.

    Promiscuity happens everywhere, but in different forms. Is it better that some foreign women in poorer countries sell their bodies to have the chance to eat (which does happen)? Is it better that some foreign women are under strict family or religious control and get stoned to death if they disobey (and it does happen)? Is it better Is it better that some foreign women undergo hymen reconstruction surgery to maintain the appearance of chastity (this is becoming more popular, too)?

    It’s just different.

  • Damien Vulaume

    “Most of the world have problems of their own (…)”

    Yes…and it is important to send that message to the people from the “spoiled” yet disturbed western countries, without them having this usual “higher or smarter” moral ground posturing. What you describe about some women’s fate is happening in Europe right now, aka Innocent Moldavian village girls being sent to Rome based on the promises of a good job only to find themselves stripped of their passport, gang-raped, nearly beaten to death and forced into street-walking by vicious Albanian pimps. It’s not just in the so called third world.

  • Russ in Texas

    @Damien,

    It’s not unknown in the US, either.

  • Abbot

    “Promiscuity happens everywhere”

    and happened throughout history. What glaringly stands out today is the mass production of female promiscuous behavior in America. That has taken the wind out of the sails of commitment for nearly all men. Other reactions include turning to Latin countries as they have a much closer sexual culture to that of most American men. Bursts of protest from the likes of Jenna Marbles will become much more common as the putrid disgust of it all finally gets into the mainstream media.

  • Abbot

    You’re going to see A LOT more of this type of commentary. The “situation” is now bursting at the seams

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZARusVGIDA&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpZARusVGIDA&has_verified=1

    .

  • Abbot

    “our SMP as broken. IMO, that’s is directly correlated to the degree to which the U.S. championed, embraced and grew feminism.”

    Since the feminists did not predict this outcome (the hypergamy-driven harem and slutism) did they fabricate the “pro sex positive” shaming tactic so women would not run from feminism by making it seem like they planned it all along? Whats next? Calling all men-creeps slutists?

  • J

    It’s not unknown in the US, either.

    About a decade ago, crime rings that supposedly recruited American girls to teach English or work as interpreters or entertainers in Asia were big news. The girls of course were sold into sex slavery.

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

    Abbot,
    Why does this always come up as some sort of studied fact when it absolutely is not? How about just gut wrenching disgust? Is that remotely possible?

    Because I seen it mentioned by other guys in the “sphere”.

    Awww, how sweet. She can “get to know” post sex, yes? But they do that to dupe.

    To dupe??? If she has sex with you on the first date, or very soon after meeting you, then she’s considered a slut right? But if she waits, then she’s tricking you? I don’t get it. I understand the whole cow/milk analogy, but if a guy likes a girl and potentially want to be with her as a LTR, then wouldn’t he WANT her to wait in a way? And maybe she sees him as more than just someone to have sex with. Just a consideration….

    The only logic for men is waiting for a woman to be willing.

    So that’s it….seriously? When you put it that way, a guy can “sleep with the world” if if the world was willing, and that ain’t cute.

  • Abbot

    “But if she waits, then she’s tricking you? ”

    Only if she did not make every other guy wait. Its not a trick. She knows full well how men think and wants to placate. Therefore, perhaps women will adjust their “sex lives” so as to not have to do that in the first place. Be consistent. Its simple. Men appreciate the simple.

    “If she has sex with you on the first date, or very soon after meeting you, then she’s considered a slut right? ”

    No. If she has often screwed day one with others then she is being consistent and the man can decide for himself (aka agency in femspeak) how he feels about that in terms of committing to her or not. Its HIGHLY unlikely that you’re the first to get that insta-vag.

    “if a guy likes a girl and potentially want to be with her as a LTR, then wouldn’t he WANT her to wait in a way?”
    “maybe she sees him as more than just someone to have sex with.”

    If she is court worthy then the guy will do that. If not, and he finds himself doing that then he is going to feel burned. Women are far better off doing what they have always done, aka being their natural selves. If the man can’t take it, just move on. Why is this so hard?

    ” a guy can “sleep with the world” if if the world was willing”

    No. Nearly all guys want one woman. But they fear, and rightfully so in the US, getting stuck with one from a vastly different sexual culture, despite her growing up in the same town.

    Here is the hard problem for women – there are men who are fully on board with the very recent twisted sexual logic that women and their feminists friends have painted themselves into a corner with. Fact is, there are not enough of those men to go around. Its merely a quantity problem. Now, how does that change? Since women have done all the changing, they can change again. It was a fun experiment. Just like Russia had a fun experiment with communism.

  • Abbot

    Note the consist reaction from feminists about how men think and how they desperately want to pawn it off on “how we’re taught” total bullshit –

    Marisa Rei • 7 days ago
    OK, just because girls call each other sluts/whores doesn’t mean the guys will stop. Trust me, it’s going to happen anyway. Guys innately like the chase. They really do respect the ladies more than the whores. They may still be friends with sluts, fall in love with sluts and appreciate them as human beings. But they still don’t want to marry a slut. And their guy friends will never let it go if they do. It’s a fact. And I don’t care how you want to sugar coat it with your gender studies crap. This is the real world. Not the kind you write idealistic essays about.
    3 •Reply•Share ›

    elizabeth Marisa Rei • 7 days ago
    oh my god. this is awful. my boyfriend is awesome and chill and doesn’t care that i had a past of sleeping around. BECAUSE I ENJOYED SEX + he respects that i think for myself. maybe girls can think for themselves and not have to conform to the ridiculous notion that those who like a variety in their sexual partners are cretins
    2 1 •Reply•Share ›

    Marisa Rei Marisa Rei • 7 days ago
    Side note: I’m friends with almost all dudes. I know how they talk and think. Some guys are chauvinistic, some guys are absolute sweethearts. But they all have this in common. They would never want to bring home a slut to their mother.
    0 1 •Reply•Share ›

    Roya D Marisa Rei • 7 days ago
    Is this a joke? I have to assume you either didn’t read the article or are trolling to post this dumbass comment thread on an article that is dedicated to showing you how backwards this way of thinking is.
    7 •Reply•Share ›

    vvdesigns Marisa Rei • 7 days ago −
    That’s because society has taught that they shouldn’t want to bring home ‘a slut’ to their mother. And that’s the problem. We’re raised up with this strict of understanding of how women need to a certain way as far as sexual activity even though it shouldn’t matter.

    http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/jenna-marbles-victim-blaming-and-the-problem-with-the-word-slut/

    .

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7XzcGnUCI0 OffTheCuff

    Ab: “Its HIGHLY unlikely that you’re the first to get that insta-vag.”

    Bwahahahahaaaaa. Instavag.

  • Infantry

    @ Abbott

    Feminists can complain all they want about how men should want to commit to promiscuous women, but its not and never will be something they can influence.

  • Abbot

    “Today, well-educated, professional women, who are embarrassed to defend the unsophisticated concepts of virginity and chastity, are less competent to control men’s sexual advances than high school girls in the 1940s.

    One result is the invention of concepts like “date rape” and an expansive law of sexual harassment in an attempt to provide the protection for women against seduction that unsophisticated high school girls once felt completely confident in securing for themselves with a graceful—and, we sometimes thought, even elegant—refusal. These concepts are simply desperate attempts to distort the criminal law in order to reassert some form of female control over ordinary dating relationships. The feminists’ new campaign demonstrates how vulnerably bereft of self-confidence women have become since feminist sexual revolutionaries convinced society that women share a male appetite for promiscuous sex.”

    http://howlandpowpak.neomin.org/powpak/cgi-bin/article_display_page.pl?id=thomas.williams&ar=45

    .

  • Russ in Texas

    Sex-as-sport leaves me feeling sad. Not my thing, not even vaguely. Not really into ONS, either, though they’ve happened, and a couple of them were neat gifts that still leave me with nice fuzzy feelings. But I don’t care a whole lot about N. What I do care quite a bit about is personality, and high N tends, in my experience to have a high correlation with “jaded, holds very poor opinion of the opposite sex.”

    I think most guys have met the “high-N-wondergirl” who knows who men are and how they work, and still loves them because they’re men and will in fact find some guy who’s just right for her and maybe or maybe not have a bajillion kids.

    But when I mention this gal, most of the guys I know respond the same way: they’ve either heard of her but not met her, or they’ve only met one of her. Among our various sexual dimorphisms is something psychological, and it seems to me that women in general have a much harder time than men in retaining their joi de vivre if their N gets too high. It’s something I definitely intend to counsel my daughter about when she gets a little older.

    I care, a LOT, whether women are happy….but I don’t really care what feminists think — because they’ DON’T care whether men are happy, they fail my fundamental litmus test, and I consider the majority of them simply malignant.

  • Abbot

    “Today’s feminists are not feminists for equality but crusaders for a cultural revolution, whether or not the people in our culture want those changes.
    Some women in America look at the goals of modern feminism and commend them. They wonder why any woman would object to those goals. These women, however, are a minority. The modern feminist movement is a revolution that the majority of women do not want.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/27/empowered-young-women-dont-want-to-be-called-femin/

    Part of that revolution is the ramming of free-range-pussy onto men’s commitment plate. Men are now saying “enough is enough.” Increasingly, women are siding with that male sentiment and this whole slut thing is merely a fad that will go the way of the hulla hoop

  • Tomato

    Oh lord. What is this obsession with N? Do you needle everyone you date to find out their N? Do you tell them your N? How do you know if anyone is telling the truth? Do you make them take a lie detector test? Ask around on the street? Absurd.

    I’ve never asked any of my boyfriends or my husband about their N and they’ve never asked me. I don’t give a shit. Neither did they. The only thing that mattered was their commitment to the relationship. One shining example couldn’t stop bringing up his previous girlfriends, even talking about their sexual encounters! He was tossed. I’m not going to waste my time on someone who was living in the past. If you are committed then you are committed, regardless of your history.

    If you have a N of 0 you will be condemned by some people. If you have a N of 1 or greater you will be condemned by other people. Who cares? Go find the people who won’t condemn you and enjoy your life!

  • Jesse

    That’s some good catsup right there.

  • Ceer

    @ Renee

    …but too often the focus is on females and their likelihood, and I never understood that. As if it’s exclusive to them (unless I’m missing something).

    The answer to that has to do with how men naturally view cheating. Imagine you’re a man. You don’t know if you can trust your partner. If she’s cheating on the side, she could wind up cuckolding you, leaving you on the hook financially for 18 years with children that aren’t yours.

    In case you aren’t aware, men don’t like that. One study found that men were more likely to choose being raped over being cuckolded. Imagine that, and you may have some idea of what’s going through a man’s mind when he’s trying to determine if a woman will be faithful.

  • Abbot

    An end run around this festering mess for men is paramount

    “why should a women limit her partners? According to the most recent Durex Sex Survey, achieving orgasm is the the key element in sexual satisfaction and 48% surveyed report usually orgasming when having sex. Globally, twice as many men (64%) as women regularly have orgasms. That proves that women need twice as many partners–rock on with the girl power, ladies!”

    http://nandoism.com/2010/10/28/3-things-women-lie-to-men-about/

    .

  • INTJ

    @ Abbot

    From your quoted thing:

    “Globally, twice as many men (64%) as women regularly have orgasms. That proves that women need twice as many partners–rock on with the girl power, ladies!”

    This, fellows, is an example of the conclusion not following from the premise.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    To dupe??? If she has sex with you on the first date, or very soon after meeting you, then she’s considered a slut right? But if she waits, then she’s tricking you? I don’t get it. I understand the whole cow/milk analogy, but if a guy likes a girl and potentially want to be with her as a LTR, then wouldn’t he WANT her to wait in a way? And maybe she sees him as more than just someone to have sex with. Just a consideration….

    No, not all men feel this way, and do not want to have to put in more work to have sex with a girl, after she put out easily for other men. This does not make the man feel more special, this makes him feel less special and less sexy.

    @Tomato

    . If you are committed then you are committed, regardless of your history.

    Ever heard of divorce? Cheating?
    You can be “committed” one minute and screwing up the next.

    Regardless, it is not your place to judge men-folk for setting their own standards for their own women. If I do not want to date a slut, that is not my choice, and it is up to me to decide what is too slutty for me.

    Learn and adapt, and do not attempt to shame men into changing.

  • Abbot

    “This does not make the man feel more special, this makes him feel less special and less sexy.”

    That is because he is less those things to her. If he is as sexy and special and she still wants to wait then she is a duper. Men are very and almost always consistent when it comes to women – the want to nail her right away whether he thinks of her just for sex or for long term. Why can’t women be consistent too? If the guy is not as sexy as all the other then what are you bothering with him at all?

  • Tomato

    I prefer salsa, actually!

    Ever heard of divorce? Cheating?
    You can be “committed” one minute and screwing up the next.

    Then there wasn’t really a commitment, was there?

    Regardless, it is not your place to judge men-folk for setting their own standards for their own women. If I do not want to date a slut, that is not my choice, and it is up to me to decide what is too slutty for me.
    Yes, it is your prerogative to pester every woman you date until she gives you her N. And then you can worry about whether she’s telling the truth. If her N is too high for your tastes you can dump her and pester someone else. Take care, though. Many women (and men) don’t take kindly to essentially being asked “are you a slut?”

    Learn and adapt, and do not attempt to shame men into changing
    My comment was not exclusively for men.