744»

How the Ascendancy of the Alpha Female Will Impact Marriage

It’s pretty clear that the ascendancy of  the alpha female comes at the direct expense of males. When women flooded the workforce, the number of jobs did not magically increase to accomodate us. We displaced men. Regardless of how you feel about women’s rights, they changed society’s landscape dramatically and those repercussions are strongly felt today, including in the area of mating.

Look at these graphs recently published in The Atlantic:

Why_College_Guys_Can_Date_Around_Part_I-thumb-615x432-110643

 

Why_College_Guys_Can_Date_Around_Part_II-thumb-615x408-110646

Those numbers will continue to climb. These estimates are very much in line with my own observation that one-third of today’s female college graduates will not have the opportunity to marry a man of similar education. 

(Fun fact: Portland is in green because it is thought to explain the reason that Schlubby Jacob (the author’s characterization, not mine), from a recent post on online dating, has any options at all.)

In 1983, Marcia Guttentag and Robert Secord posited the theory that in female-heavy populations, men would become more promiscuous, and that in male-heavy populations, they’d become more faithful. Much of their thinking seemed to be confirmed in an analysis of 117 countries by Scott South and Katherine Trent. The pair found that, in developed countries, having a higher ratio of men led to more marriage for women, less divorce, and fewer illegitimate children. Other studies have had similar findings across cultures and time.

In the contemporary U.S., academics have found that female college students are less likely to have a boyfriend or go on traditional dates, and are more likely to have bad feelings about the men on campus, at schools that enroll disproportionate number of women.

What we do not know is whether significant numbers of women will marry men with less formal education than themselves. 

The 2001 study Education, Hypergamy and the “Success Gap” tests this claim by Maureen Dowd:

“Women moving up still strive to marry up. Men moving up still tend to marry down. The two sexes’ going in opposite directions has led to an epidemic of professional women missing out on husbands and kids.”

From the study’s introduction: 

In general, hypergamy with respect to say, income or social status is a common finding across societies and over time. For instance, anthropologist Barbara Miller (1981) studied areas of rural north India and found that strong pressures for hypergamy implied a lack of suitable husbands for high caste girls. This created a disequilibrium that wasresolved through female infanticide. In another context, the Talmud (a set of ancient writings outlining Jewish laws and practices) advises men to “go down a step to take a wife,” (Yevamot 63a) , and states that “a woman from a more distinguished family than her husband may consider herself superior and act haughtily toward him” (Rashi). 

Mare (1991) and Pencavel (1998) find that there has been an increase in positive assortative mating with respect to education; i.e., spouses’ education has become increasingly similar. Schwartz and Mare (2005) study marriages among younger couples and report a decline in hypergamy over time in this age group.

If hypergamy remains constant, a greater concentration of women at the top and men at the bottom of the education distribution will lead to a decline in marriage rates for these two groups.

Using census data, the study found that hypergamy has decreased over time for women with more education:

The results for men are consistent with this prediction; however, those for women are not. In fact, the data suggest that for women, education was substantially less of an impediment for marriage in 2000 than in 1980. The marriage market accommodated the shift in part through a decline in hypergamy at the upper end of the education distribution.

 

% 1980 1990 2000
Hypogamous 26.3 25.2 27.4
Same 36.1 38.8 41.7
Hypergamous 37.6 35.9 30.9
Net Hypergamy (all) 11.3 10.7 3.5
Net Hypergamy (Ed. <12) 27.2 40.2 45.4
Net Hypergamy (Ed. > 12) 4.5 -4.1 -18.6

 

However, while the marriage rate for women peaks at four years of college, it begins to decline after that point. 

Years Education

Women 40-44

Ever Married

8 83%
9 86%
10 87%
11 85%
12 91%
13 90%
14 90%
15 89%
16 88%
17 87%
18 85%
19 86%

 

If we do witness a sharp increase in hypogamy, or women “marrying down,” what is the likely effect on marital relationships? A very recent study, Gender identity and relative income within households produced four key findings, quoted here:

1. Within marriage markets, when a randomly chosen woman becomes more likely to earn more than a randomly chosen man, marriage rates decline. 

Across all census years and marriage markets, the likelihood that a randomly chosen woman earns more than a randomly chosen man is about 0.25 (using either measure of income). This likelihood has increased steadily over time, going from 11-14% in 1970 to about 31-32% in 2010. 

[Our] results highlight the importance of relative income considerations for marriage formation. The secular increase in the aggregate likelihood that a woman earns more than a man from 1970 to 2010 can explain up to 29 percent of the decline in the rates of marriage during that period.

2. Within couples, if the wife’s potential income (based on her demographics) is likely to exceed the husband’s, the wife is less likely to be in the labor force and earns less than her potential if she does work. 

Having the wife leave the labor force is a very costly way to restore traditional gender roles. It is less costly for the wife to simply reduce her earnings to a level that does not threaten the husband’s status as the primary breadwinner. [We found] evidence for such behavior.

3. Couples where wife earns more than the husband are less satis ed with their marriage and are more likely to divorce.

We fi nd that if the wife earns more than the husband, both spouses are 6 percentage points (12%) less likely to report that their marriage is very happy, 8 percentage points (33%) more likely to report marital troubles in the past year and 6 percentage points (46%) more likely to have discussed separating in the past year.

4. The gender gap in non-market work is larger if the wife earns more than the husband.

Our analysis of the time use data suggests that gender identity considerations may lead to women that might appear threatening to their husbands because they earn more than they do to engage in a larger share of home production activities, particularly household chores.

Across all census years and marriage markets, the likelihood that a randomly chosen woman earns more than a randomly chosen man is about 0.25 (using either measure of income). This likelihood has increased steadily over time, going from 11-14% in 1970 to about 31-32% in 2010.

The bottom line: Even if you are willing to marry a man with less education than yourself, you should choose a man who outearns you. The male instinct for dominance in provisioning is strong and has not been affected by shifting gender roles. 

If you are determined not to be in that one-third of hypogamous marriages, and wish to marry someone of similar or higher education, your best strategy is to focus on dating for marriage as soon as possible after college. If you do decide to go to graduate or professional school, you should select a program with a good sex ratio. 

If you hope to stay home with children, then you must marry a good breadwinner.

 

One Pingback/Trackback

  • Zach

    Honestly my first reaction is “laughing all the way to the bank”. Then I shared this with my friend who went to Columbia and is marrying a Harvard-educated girl now in med school, and he reminded me that even he is technically “marrying up”. Maybe not so good….

  • Ion

    “Having the wife leave the labor force is a very costly way to restore traditional gender roles. It is less costly for the wife to simply reduce her earnings to a level that does not threaten the husband’s status as the primary breadwinner. ”

    So a really good strategy for women is to move to places where the cost of living isn’t high so that they can live on a 1 income salary, and pick up sewing skills, and especially homesteading skills, something we’ve been steered away from to make good consumers (even though we could save thousands, if not ten thousands a year with these two skill combined).

    “The bottom line: Even if you are willing to marry a man with less education than yourself, you should choose a man who outearns you. The male instinct for dominance in provisioning is strong and has not been affected by shifting gender roles. ”

    Just have to be cautious about letting men know that you’re purposely selecting for those who outearn you.

  • http://www.christianfreethought.com/ IrishFarmer

    The reason men’s instinct to provision for a woman hasn’t diminished is because the male role, for some reason, never actually transitioned.

    While it’s impossible to say how much of this is inborn, and how much of of it is socialization, one of the key problems in this imbalance is that feminism has been very good at encouraging the male role to stay the same while women explore the boundaries of their own.

    For instance, feminism’s insistence that women are hypoagents, and victims, and need special favors and so on in order to operate on the same level as men can actually stimulate the protector instinct in men and reinforce gender roles, at least from a male perspective, for both men and women.

    Feminism also strongly discourages men from viewing themselves as anything other than “traditional” men. When men identify a real problem they’re experiencing, feminists downplay it and try and sweep it under the rug.

    The point isn’t to rag on feminism, because feminism isn’t directly the problem. Since we’re still stuck in survival mode, as a society, the problem is that everyone, regardless of their stance on social issues, still thinks of men as those tools of the past.

    It would be interesting to see how these perspectives on earnings and so on would change, if only we could change the way we view these roles.

    For instance, men might not mind being pushed out of the workforce and making less if it meant they could spend more time with their family. More importantly, if women didn’t look down on them for it. However, so long as these men are viewed negatively as “layabouts” and man-childs, and so on, that won’t happen and men will continue to miss out….And so will women for that matter.

    I honestly can’t think of any men except the most “macho” of men (that is men still stuck in a frame of mind that just isn’t relevant anymore) who wouldn’t want to be able to have more time to play with the kids and work on his car or whatever his hobbies are, and pursue things that bring him fulfillment rather than bringing the family money.

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

      @Irish Farmer

      For instance, feminism’s insistence that women are hypoagents, and victims, and need special favors and so on in order to operate on the same level as men can actually stimulate the protector instinct in men and reinforce gender roles, at least from a male perspective, for both men and women.

      Whoa, I never thought of that. That’s either brilliant on the part of feminists, or more likely, a lucky break.

  • Bully

    I’ll bite and ask this very naive question.

    In an age of supposed equality, why are women so concerned with marrying someone that makes more than they do?

    Isn’t equality what they strove for?

  • http://loveashley.net Ashley

    What if we are an alpha female that has a man that doesn’t want or care much about out-earning us?

  • maven11

    how about those 25yrs women, instead of focusing on career, would look at +5-10 years older guy, who will surely outearn them?

    simple solution, right?

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

      @maven11

      how about those 25yrs women, instead of focusing on career, would look at +5-10 years older guy, who will surely outearn them?

      simple solution, right?

      Yes, and a very good one! That guy will be happy to get a younger woman, she will be pleased to have more than just “potential” to go on.

  • tito

    @Ashley
    “What if we are an alpha female that has a man that doesn’t want or care much about out-earning us?”

    then do something to stop the rapacity of the others Ashley.

    “alpha” females as well as the others have been artificially propped up with the acquiescence of men. do these girls put civilization first??? no. they’re going to have to have their goodies taken away and begin their descent. civilization comes first.

  • Bully

    Money is not the only metric one should consider when it comes to a relationship or marriage; you have to consider the entire package. If a low earning man is able to perform tasks that a high earning woman is not able to (heavy lifting, plumbing, auto maintenance, whatever it may be) then they very well might be an excellent fit despite the income disparity.

    No one person can do everything. It’s all about what is brought to the table as a whole and looking solely at bank account numbers is short sighted.

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

      @Bully

      No one person can do everything. It’s all about what is brought to the table as a whole and looking solely at bank account numbers is short sighted.

      I agree completely. But do you think men are really OK with earning less?

  • Bully

    Using myself as an example: I’m not completely rich but fairly affluent (think in the top 5-10% of personal income). Therefore, I am more or less unconcerned with how much or little a potential mate makes, so I am going to look for other qualities. As I avoid pointless, transient status-mongering and continue my path to early retirement, my desire for a potential mate’s income will decrease even further. I’m looking for someone to complement me, not compete with me.

    I think alpha females would do well to follow a similar mindset.

  • INTJ

    Notice where Austin and SF are? FML.

  • SayWhaat

    Notice where Austin and SF are? FML.

    That’s interesting to me. I had thought the men were greatly outnumbered in SF.

    Also, why is the United States listed with all these other US cities? Is that bar for the national average or something?

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

      Also, why is the United States listed with all these other US cities? Is that bar for the national average or something?

      Yeah.

  • Abbot

    It seems that college degreed men have far more variety of women than ever before. There is the vast pool of college women and the always massive pool of non college women.

  • Lokland

    I feel the need to point out that education, though an excellent predictor, is by no means the only factor involved in income.

    Nor is it any real demonstration of intelligence.

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

      I feel the need to point out that education, though an excellent predictor, is by no means the only factor involved in income.

      Nor is it any real demonstration of intelligence.

      Very true. I tried to leave that option open in my remarks at the end. I think the takeaway is that education matters less than resources. In the college educated crowd, there is negative net hypergamy.

  • Lokland

    WTF?!?!?!!?!?!!?!?!

    Abbot!!!!!!

    Where is the multi-penis slut shaming.

    Mind blown.

  • Abbot

    Ah, but can it be a slut marker?

  • Abbot

    “Where is the multi-penis slut shaming.”

    define “slut shaming”

  • Tilikum

    What it really comes down to is that the best guys (top 10%) are NOT going to marry Alpha chicks (i don’t think the term is even right, women really don’t seem to have the hierarchy that men do) but the attractive, feminine girl that works at Costco.

    Once again for the cheap seats:

    High Value Men don’t date masculine traits like MBA’s because they are not high value to rearing adjusted, quality, nurtured kids NO MATTER WHAT YOU THINK AS A WOMAN, and

    High Value (top 10%, the guys most in demand) doesn’t “marry down” when you ladies are all turning yourselves into hyper-masculine men. The baseline shifts and now you are Low Value, get it? He is marrying up!

    For emphasis: You degree’s and ability to exist in “a mans world” (really? look around) makes you irrelevant. You just lost to the girl who says “do you want fries with that”.

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

      @Tillkum

      For emphasis: You degree’s and ability to exist in “a mans world” (really? look around) makes you irrelevant. You just lost to the girl who says “do you want fries with that”.

      The big problem with this strategy is that you will have stupid sons.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    That’s interesting to me. I had thought the men were greatly outnumbered in SF.

    The men greatly outnumber them, but whatever women there are are much more likely to be educated, so the college-educated numbers still end up leaning towards the women. Also, I’ve heard anecdotes that the City is different from the rest of the Bay Area in that many of the SF men are gay so hetero-women actually outnumber hetero men. I don’t know if there’s any truth to this or it’s an overestimate of the size of the gay community, as I don’t really spend any time in SF. Also, being a hip city, it’s the kind of place where young women tend to congregate, in contrast to Silicon Valley, where young STEM guys congregate.

    Also, why is the United States listed with all these other US cities? Is that bar for the national average or something?

    I presume it’s the national average.

  • http://en.gravatar.com/marellus Marellus

    “Reality can destroy the dream; why shouldn’t the dream destroy reality ?”

    – George Moore

    There are so many tears in this arid existence; that for once … that for this moment … that for this instance … what might be labeled as a foolishness in this quote … should truly be seen as a call to faith.

    Fuck ‘em all.

  • Lokland

    “Ah, but can it be a slut marker?”

    Nvm all is right with the world.
    Apocalypse aborted.

    “define “slut shaming””

    What you normally do.

  • Abbot

    “You just lost to the girl who says “do you want fries with that”

    and the dark long-haired captivating girl pushing the towel cart down the hotel corridor

    .

  • Abbot

    “define “slut shaming””

    What you normally do.”

    details please

  • CrisisEraDynamo

    All this, of course, is irrelevant in a country full of no-fault divorce. The male provider role is still expected, without any of the authority. Also, he may still be punished at will.

    Doing all the work expected to maintain a family, then not getting the family. Modern marriage in a nutshell.

  • CrisisEraDynamo
  • Abbot

    “High Value (top 10%, the guys most in demand) doesn’t “marry down” when you ladies are all turning yourselves into hyper-masculine men.”

    Thats “slut shaming!”

    Whatever that is

    .

  • jeff

    I am not too concerned. I think men will be at the front of a changing educational shift (online learning, etc.). Many young college women are heading down a path they will likely regret. Getting yourself in lots of debt and graduating with a degree with little job prospects is not appealing as a partner. Sure they may out earn you at some point in the future, but they are debt slaves until those massive loans are paid off.

  • Jedi Geek

    My first wife was 17 years my junior and had only two years of high school. Yet, to my surprise, the first time I showed up in a social gathering of my Jedi peers, I realized that she was not “Mrs. Jedi Geek”, I was “Mr. “!

    Still, she did take a college-degreed man out of the mating pool until she realized that she really *didn’t* want to give up her super-high-social-status career to be “just” a mother after all.

    “Education” is not the only new “one-way assortative hypergynous mating criteria” western societies introduced in the 20th Century to further skew their effective sex ratios. The other was “GIB”. (“good in bed”) The real problem with a woman having a high “N” is that if she runs into one of the rare men who are really fun that way, she won’t marry one who isn’t.

  • Tasmin

    @IrishFarmer
    +1

    @Ashley
    “What if we are an alpha female that has a man that doesn’t want or care much about out-earning us?”

    I think part of the point is that it isn’t just the men who care. Dissatisfaction was reported by both men and women in those marriages. But it also doesn’t get into the root of that dissatisfaction, i.e. what is the origin? Is the man less satisfied because he is not the lead economic provider and thus his instinct is impinged or is he less satisfied because he is picking up signals from her that are indicative of hypergamy remorse; that she does not respect him because of this and/or is resentful of HAVING to work or not having the optionality she wants/deserves/is entitled to.

    Going against hypergamy doesn’t just present unrest in his desire/ability to provision it also presents unrest in her desire to be provisioned for and the extent to which her career and earning power have *optionality*. Which is really the leavening that is baked into the message that “you can do anything”; “have it all”. If she doesn’t acquire and retain her access to that optionality, things tend to fall flat.

    Women who have advanced degrees and good careers/income still desire a mate who will give them the option to scale back the work or stay home for a period altogether. They may not say this, even realize this, but at some point most will *feel* something like this.

    Part of why men struggle with the provisioning and status aspect is not because they want to pound their chest and bring home the bacon, but because their role and the societal expectations have remained static while women’s have become much more dynamic. They don’t just need to provision, they need the respect.

    “The male instinct for dominance in provisioning is strong and has not been affected by shifting gender roles.”

    Which basically means that women have been granted increasing optionality in their gender role while men have not. There is much more to this than instinct. It isn’t so much that the instinct has not been affected, but rather that the “shifting” has not included anything nearly as accretive, positive, or expansive to a man’s choices as those shifts have afforded women. And further, those expansions and positives have too often come at the expense of men, further reducing an already competitive yet constrained playing field. How often do we hear that men are “falling behind” or “not manning up”? Behind what, manning up to what? Women Expectations (whose)? or one in the same?

    The idea of a stay-at-home dad may seem modern and sweet, but while there is now the Modern Woman, there is no such equivalent Modern Man. He can assume some “modern” role, but unless he has already locked in the status and income potential its a low probability arrangement. And no man can plan for that role; not even the *option* for that role without significant risk, if not outright cost, to his ability to attract and marry in the first place. Its a limiting, self-defeating path. Men go get skills, go get jobs, build status, marry, procreate, and provision. The options come after the status, even after the marrying point for most. And hypergamy doesn’t die, in fact the bar often continues to raise. His “job” is to continue to kindle his relative status. Opting out, scaling back from those expectations will always carry significant downside.

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

      @Tasmin

      It isn’t so much that the instinct has not been affected, but rather that the “shifting” has not included anything nearly as accretive, positive, or expansive to a man’s choices as those shifts have afforded women. And further, those expansions and positives have too often come at the expense of men, further reducing an already competitive yet constrained playing field

      Well put. I’m glad you expanded on that point. If it’s true that men would be open to more flexible arrangements – and accepting of a wife who makes more $, then that bodes well for educated women hoping to marry.

      I’m certain that I would be happy married to a man who made less than I did if he were motivated and productive. But it sounds, at least from the study, that this is difficult for men, and that women feel compelled to make up for it somehow by adding “housewife” to whatever job they have.

      Would a male nurse be happy to marry a female doctor?

  • joemomma35

    “The bottom line: Even if you are willing to marry a man with less education than yourself, you should choose a man who outearns you. The male instinct for dominance in provisioning is strong and has not been affected by shifting gender roles.

    If you are determined not to be in that one-third of hypogamous marriages, and wish to marry someone of similar or higher education, your best strategy is to focus on dating for marriage as soon as possible after college. If you do decide to go to graduate or professional school, you should select a program with a good sex ratio.

    If you hope to stay home with children, then you must marry a good breadwinner.”

    This is legitimately good advice for women. But, again, because of feminism and its effects on our slutty culture, it’s harder and harder for women to do this. Really, for girls who are very educated, only the absolute hottest girls are going to be able to pull this off, and even a lot of them will get played if they aren’t careful.

    For your average girl (6-8 range) who takes care of herself who maybe just goes to college to get a bachelor’s degree, I’d say a big part of it is staying in shape and not coming across as a cheap slut. Don’t fuck around with too many guys like me when you’re young. We’ll ruin you for your future marriage even if you have good intentions down the road. Learn to love exercise because guys don’t care about your career, they care most about your naked ass looks bouncing up and down on their penis. Again, that’s not to say that personality doesn’t matter for girls, but what determines a girl’s core value is always going to be her looks and feminine value, not her MBA.

    Sometimes I feel a lot of empathy for your every day American girl. With so much shitty advice out there from hardcore feminists, slutty friends, single moms, etc it’s easy to see why they make such bad choices with the men they bang. But I usually lose my empathy for them later because it does little good for me unless I’m forming an emotional connection with a girl I really like.

  • Just1Z

    I think that this issue will go away when society starts assigning the correct value to degrees (according to subject).

    Seriously, just what value should be place on a “master’s” degree in women’s studies…? just south of sweet F.A.?

    You paid a six figure sum for an ‘advanced’ degree in ‘being a victim’?
    when women are 60% of the graduates, but are still, mysteriously, victims of teh patriarchy? seriously? go flip burgers / pour coffees because that is all the degree is worth…good luck paying off the debt (see Cappy Cap’s book ‘Worthless’ (Aaron Clarey))

    so then the trillion dollar student debt bubble bursts…national governmant follows state which follow cities into bankruptcy…government jobs collapse, releasing innumerable women into unemployment (because (in the UK) 2 out of 3 state employees are women)…

    Enjoy the decline…it’s gonna be a hell of a ride ladies and gents.

    As well as that issue – i.e. in addition to that

    Check out Japan where adult nappies are out selling baby ones (demographic collapse) and 40%+ of men under 35/40 are checking out from women, because working their arse off to directly support a woman’s lifestyle choices is not worth it…but then they don’t earn enough to tax to support the state either, so the state collapses that way as well…so Daddy state is gone for women.

    WE are in for one hell of a ride…enjoy the decline, it’s gonna be epic!

  • Just1Z

    And happy Friday night peeps! I know that I had one… :)

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    The problem with earning less, from my POV, is that it really becomes more difficult to become the “captain” in the captain/FO relationship. Like, you get to make the chances…but you don’t make the money? Yeah….I think I would be a bit uncomfortable with that, and I think most men would probably be a bit uncomfortable with that.

    Sorta like the janitor busting into the Board Room and telling the CEO “how its gonna be”

    FWIW, I dunno….I guess I better work on improving my salary, because right now it isn’t impressive. Unfortunately, I really do not have a strong idea of how to do that, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of upward progression at my current department. One of my resolutions this year is to try to figure out way to lift my career into the stratosphere.

    Or possibly low six figures by the time I am 40 :/

  • joemomma35

    ^^ Good post Tasmin (29). It’s insane what kind of standards feminism has imposed on men. Hypergamy never rests.

    One of the easier fixes, if you ask me, is to start by making the marriage laws more fair. This would be benefiting both men and women on the macro scale. Stable marriages are good for society. It’s amazing that there hasn’t been any kind of political push for this yet.

    I’m a male nurse. It’s great for meeting women, but holy hell, to function in a work environment that is 80% female (80% refers to my hospital in general. The males are mostly doctors, security guards, and janitors that come by on my unit) you have to be fully aware of feminism’s principles, parry shit tests, and just pretend to play along. If I take what they say 100% seriously and don’t establish my own boundaries, they will not find me very attractive as a man. Shit tests happen in the work place a lot, particularly when you first meet your female co-workers. I still have to show some degree of respect or else the feminocracy will eventually stab me behind my back and get me fired. Still, my career works well for me. If I never discovered the manosphere I’d have a lot more trouble.

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    @ Ion #2

    Summation. Most men need to feel ‘needed’ in order to maintain the dominance to play captain.

    Female out-earning male spouse is emasculating no matter how you spin it.

  • Just1Z

    @Ashley
    “What if we are an alpha female that has a man that doesn’t want or care much about out-earning us?”

    But women do care about this…hypergamy. That’s not a dirty word, women have been bred by evolution to look for a provider for when they are incapacitated by pregnancy (NAWALT etc blah blah). It’s deeper than the human frontal lobes, not easily overridden by feminist ‘philosophy’ (I’m being charitable). There are societies around the world where men are supported by women to pursue economically worthless lives, because the women want men even if they have to pay for them…many men in these societies enjoy life very much, the women? nah, not so much…

    You don’t get to crap on half of society without there being a bill to pay…BOGAHIC

    Best take the bill up with the feminists that sold you this bill of goods. It wasn’t the men. Men’s happiness ratings have been climbing in the decades since feminism, the women’s have been declining…please don’t make me search for the stats, I’m off to bed because it’s veery early here, but they exist and they are official…

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    Whoa, I never thought of that. That’s either brilliant on the part of feminists, or more likely, a lucky break.

    I dunno, i think that theory’s got traction. Feminists could not have gotten the gains they did without men on board, and on board they jumped.

    Sure the lure of free sex for all helped, but at it’s core was the idea that all women were being simultaneously raped, beaten, and held back by patriarchy, so all men collectively prostrated themselves to protect women.

    They turned our nobility against us. Classic asymmetric warfare, find an exploitable weakness in the enemy to use against itself.

    Men couldn’t fuck themselves over fast enough it would seem…

  • Just1Z

    http://no-maam.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/zenpriest-44-box-feminism-builds-for.html

    and Abbot, thanks for “Multi-penis”! I have been jonesing for it – cheers man! :)

  • Just1Z

    I know that Lokland started the ‘multi-penis’ conversation, but it needs to be from Abbot for me to get a nostalgic smile of epic proportions… g’night y’all

  • Yeah_No

    “It’s pretty clear that the ascendancy of the alpha female comes at the direct expense of males. When women flooded the workforce, the number of jobs did not magically increase to accomodate us. We displaced men. Regardless of how you feel about women’s rights, they changed society’s landscape dramatically and those repercussions are strongly felt today, including in the area of mating.”

    This is the lump of labor fallacy.

    The problem isn’t that women stole men’s jobs and wages but that men stole other men’s jobs and wages. Income/wealth divergence is a male intra-sexual phenomenon that feminists and end-of-men-ers couldn’t care less about.

    As for education, the looks deceive. You can’t usually get a high-paying job without a college degree, but getting one doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll out-earn a police officer or a nurse. Women want men who have an education and a well-compensated career, but if they’re given the choice of one over the other, they’ll choose the career.

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    Tasmin.

    Bravo. Awesome summation.

    Hypergamy cannot co-exist with the current model of society.

    Hypergamy was evolved specifically because the female was biologically at a disadvantage due to physical strength, ability to procure food, resources without a man’s help. All those disadvantages have been artificially removed.. yet instead of adjusting to it and picking low status men, women now use the current state of life as the benchmark AND STILL AIM HIGHER AND SHOOT FOR MORE even when hypergamy’s needs were sated.

    This would be as if society suddenly found a way to surgically alter all men to become really hot bodied, tall and sculpted, and programmed with computer chips in the brain to spit out flawless game and perfect dominance, and calibration.. so that no woman could resist and they could get any mate they want.. and instead of being happy with that.. they start demanding of all the hot women they sleep with be ok with having 3some sex with other women living the Heff lifestyle as the starting point before committing to any relationship.

    Biologically, you’ve overcome an obstacle or natural limitation in fulfilling your imperative.. but that’s not enough.. now you want MOAAAAR!

    Seriously.

  • Abbot

    ” women now use the current state of life as the benchmark ”

    Thus the continuation and exacerbation of the man shortage

    .

  • OffTheCuff

    Multipenis is a good word, but Abbot, gotta take it to the next level. Maybe “pluripenality”?

  • tsimmons

    Wow, Boston and DC are that high?

    That just makes it that much more embarrassing that I pounded the pavement in both of those towns scrounging for a date for YEARS when I lived there.

    These statistics really bring home to you the fact that if you are a college-educated male in the US who can’t get a date, it’s not just self-pity or your imagination – you really are an incredible failure.

  • JP

    “Would a male nurse be happy to marry a female doctor?”

    No.

  • JP

    @ADBG:

    “FWIW, I dunno….I guess I better work on improving my salary, because right now it isn’t impressive. Unfortunately, I really do not have a strong idea of how to do that, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of upward progression at my current department. One of my resolutions this year is to try to figure out way to lift my career into the stratosphere.”

    You could go to PA school.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Would a male nurse be happy to marry a female doctor?”

    My brother is a male nurse.
    Personal anecdote, no.

  • Abbot

    Interesting comment from the Atlantic article –

    “Most teachers are feminist women, and they enforce a feminized teaching environment that favors women (e.g. sit still in your seat, play nice, use your words, don’t be competitive because everybody’s a winner, and especially repressing their tendency toward activity instead of sedentary learning).

    Basically boys today view academic success as “women’s work” and therefore they will not invest in it. Boys want male status, and since they can’t get it through academic success, they have to achieve that status through sports, getting the cute girl, and often times drug dealing and gang-banging (inner cities) culture.

    If you want to engage boys in school, then the first thing you need to do is give them good male role model teachers. Then let them innovate. Half the reason there are no male teachers in the first place is that they have this standardized bureaucracy that stifles their ability to actually do their jobs. No wonder the boys aren’t doing well (or kids in general vs. the rest of the world).

    We tried to industrialize, standardize, and streamline education as if kids are sheep, but what we are finding out is that boys won’t learn in an environment like this, and it is time for something new.”

    .

  • joemomma35

    “Would a male nurse be happy to marry a female doctor?”

    No.

    I’ve had a fling with a girl in med school, her being fully aware that I was a nursing student. The dynamics are very different for students, though, and it really didn’t get in the way much because I never took anything she said about school seriously. But even if the marriage laws were fixed and I was inspired to get married, I seriously doubt I’d be as happy as possible marrying and having kids with a woman who makes way more than me, and with hypergamy being what it is, I doubt she would either. Though with the institution of the kind of game that you see pushed on MMSL, things would probably play better into my favor.

    But again, I go back to the point only the absolute hottest girls who went to med school, law school, etc are likely to be the ones happy with their husband. There are just less and less choices for women the higher they climb the ladder of society.

  • JP

    Re:Doctors/nurses

    I think that a male nurse anesthetist could marry a female GP.

  • Ion

    M3

    “Female out-earning male spouse is emasculating no matter how you spin it.”

    I definitely get that. Its just that you’re hypergamous if he earns more, and more likely to be doomed to divorce if he doesn’t.

    Good news is that you can be non-profit drone (like me) who suckered themselves into “the greater good” and earn less than almost everyone, male and female, and works with 100% women. The bad news is that the girls in the profession with the highest sex ratio (say STEM) are more likely to outearn anyone outside of the workplace, and be pretty close to asexual at work. Impossible choices.

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

      @Ion

      I definitely get that. Its just that you’re hypergamous if he earns more, and more likely to be doomed to divorce if he doesn’t.

      Good news is that you can be non-profit drone (like me) who suckered themselves into “the greater good” and earn less than almost everyone, male and female, and works with 100% women. The bad news is that the girls in the profession with the highest sex ratio (say STEM) are more likely to outearn anyone outside of the workplace, and be pretty close to asexual at work. Impossible choices.

      It is quite the conundrum. Furthermore, a new college graduate has no idea whether she will be successful in finding a mate – it seems a highly risky strategy to bet on social services to be more marketable to men, only to wind up eeking out a living as a single woman forever.

      It is really a bit like asking women to be fried ice.

      If it were me – if I were 22 today, I’d do the work I enjoy the most without regard to what men want. Then I’d seek a mate like it was my job. There will always be plenty of assortative mating among the educated, and I’d determinedly work to be in the 2/3 of women who do succeed. Just being aware and avoiding bad choices, which waste time – that’s half the battle.

  • Abbot

    ““Female out-earning male spouse is emasculating no matter how you spin it.”

    Outearning. Outscrewing. Outsmarting themselves. The rejection of feminism is ripe…

    .

  • Bells

    @Ion,
    “The bad news is that the girls in the profession with the highest sex ratio (say STEM) are more likely to outearn anyone outside of the workplace, and be pretty close to asexual at work. Impossible choices.”

    Ha. This is so true. The trouble with most STEM girls is that we tend to have male-orientated brains. And yes we also lean towards asexuality, lol! Fortunately, I’ve been lucky to have close relationships with female mentors that were more feminine in dress and habit so I’ve been surrounded by positive role models so far.

    Gosh, I have so much to say and think about on this subject. I feel like this post is directly related to my situation– even though I wouldn’t necessarily say that I’m an alpha female!

  • Ion

    “(e.g. sit still in your seat, play nice, use your words, don’t be competitive because everybody’s a winner, and especially repressing their tendency toward activity instead of sedentary learning).”

    I think a bigger problem is that education prepares the average C or B lackadaisical student for “liberal arts” which = WOMEN’S jobs. So women can wander into a mirage of career paths because they do/are hired in the unskilled labor “office” environment AND in traditionally male jobs. I was able to work as a secretary as a fresh graduate, and then as an entry level editor, and in special events, and many straight men wouldn’t be able to, not even in NYC. I think education is a small problem compared to the whole workforce being accommodating to unskilled women as laborers, but not unskilled men, while women can do both.

    “Boys want male status”

    Sometimes becoming a bus boy will get them laid plenty, but being a bus boy won’t get them respect from other “superior” males. FEAR/RESPECT from other males is important, sometimes that respect comes from a gun. If you have always had total access to the pool of low value women you want, so how can a need to compete for these same women be the thing that caused your need for dominance?

    Feminism supports hip hop because it’s “cool”, it offers a pat on the back and “fuck the cops” signs to violence in inner cities, it encourages guys to “man up” with swagger and muscles, while giving a pass to men in the inner city for being victims of “evil patriarchy” and oppression. To understand feminism look at its direct target:who does it blames for “female oppression”, and oppression as a whole? Heterosexually-oriented-middle-class-privileged-cisgendered-able-bodied-white-male-patriarchy-with-infinite-adjectives.

  • Ian

    Cool post, almost reads like an SAT question.

    Given the following four conditions:

    1) Women earning 60% of college degrees.
    2) 78% of Americans 25 or older making less than $50,000 annual income.
    3) Median income peaks in the 35-55 age bracket.
    4) Median male age of first marriage is 28.

    For a woman of median income and attractiveness and earnings. What is the Probability that she:

    A) Court and marry a satisfactory husband.

    B) Reduce female income to zero. What is the new probability?

    Given hypergamy, assortative monogamous mating doesn’t function without some sort of status car-boot on women. Polygamy seems the next viable option, with top earners pooling multiple times median income.

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

      Given hypergamy, assortative monogamous mating doesn’t function without some sort of status car-boot on women.

      What did people think of the drastic difference in “net hypergamy” between those with less than 12 years of education and those with more than 12? (Hypergamy here referring only to the level of education of both parties in marriages.)

      It’s clear and perhaps not surprising that most college graduates marry fellow college graduates (I think around 75% of marriages.) But a pretty significant number of women with degrees already marry men with less education.

  • Ion

    Bells

    “Ha. This is so true. The trouble with most STEM girls is that we tend to have male-orientated brains.”

    I think I can relate, though I’m not STEM. Sometimes I feel like a woman on the outside and an overly analytical middle aged male on the inside. :-)
    Though I definitely approach life and relationships with the mentality of a typical woman.

  • Mike M.

    @Just1Z (33)

    Bingo! Someone finally figured it out! There are degrees they hand out for having tuition money and enough sense to not burn the schoolhouse down…and degrees that demand hard work and sacrifice. Guess which ones pay well.

    As Susan has said, “STEM is the new black”.

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

      As Susan has said, “STEM is the new black”.

      I continue to predict a sharp rise in status among STEM professionals. There are some natural impediments to that for mating purposes, as we have discussed here at length. But tech is going to dominate the economy and produce most of the innovation for the foreseeable future. At some point, STEMmies are going to figure out they deserve all the status and grab it.

  • Esau

    ADBG at 35: The problem with earning less, from my POV, is that it really becomes more difficult to become the “captain” in the captain/FO relationship.

    I think ADBG may be getting much closer to the heart of the issue here, which is not so much money as authority. If I understand the conventional ‘spheric and HUS wisdom — which, if I might mention, is contrary to how I was brought up — then women will generally (NAWALT) only feel happy and secure in a marriage where the husband is legitimately felt, by both parties, to be “the one in charge”. In order for his leadership position to be sensible and credible, he has to “outrank” his wife in some characteristic that justifies the leader role. Many such qualities could be imagined. The classic is (1) He earns more, which by the American “golden rule” give him a kind of default authority. But alternatives might include: (2) He’s smarter/savvier/more clever, (3) He has better judgement or better temperament, (4) He has more life experience or higher standing in the community (both of these might come naturally if he’s noticeably older), or (5) He’s physically braver and stronger. (The list could be extended.)

    Which qualities a particular woman finds she can look up to in a mate, and so agree that they qualify him as the natural leader of the pair, will vary with the individual of course. The key to happiness, then, will be for a woman who out-earns all her contemporaries to find some other dimension, other than money provision, in which she can honestly look up to a man and see him as legitimately above her; then, she at least has a chance of finding such a specimen.

    (As I implied above, I myself do not subscribe to this “just-so” story; but I can see that it is the logical outcome of the HUS conventional wisdom.)

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

      @Esau

      The classic is (1) He earns more, which by the American “golden rule” give him a kind of default authority. But alternatives might include: (2) He’s smarter/savvier/more clever, (3) He has better judgement or better temperament, (4) He has more life experience or higher standing in the community (both of these might come naturally if he’s noticeably older), or (5) He’s physically braver and stronger. (The list could be extended.)

      I think this is essentially the formula for assortative mating among the educated. I think women do seek a man they can “look up to.” In my case, 2 and to some extent 3 apply. 3 in particular is key for many couples I think – the man is less likely to be emotional in decision making, and more easily navigates crises with equanimity.

      I know a lot of couples who met in trade school – business, medicine, law, etc. But the men generally have more gravitas – or something – that makes the pairing look almost but not quite equal.

  • Mike M.

    I’ll add something else…I think it’s possible for a oman to outearn her husband IF he has higher status in other areas. Think political power couples – I can name several where the woman is making the big money, but the man holds the high office.

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

      @Mike M

      I’ll add something else…I think it’s possible for a oman to outearn her husband IF he has higher status in other areas.

      I know one couple like this – the woman is a powerful lawyer and rainmaker in DC, the man teaches at Georgetown. He does more of the childcare. But she definitely is quite masculine in her demeanor. I’m not sure how well this formula works in general. I just don’t know enough couples like this personally. Also, I think in a lot of these couples the man and woman were on the same path at one point, and for whatever reason the man stepped off into a high status but lower paying role. Public service or teaching are probably the best examples.

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

    I think that fewer and fewer college-educated women are going to have the SAHM option. Anecdotal evidence here, but the male undergrads most impressed with female academic qualifications as a mate selection motivator are looking at a highly educated female as a co-breadwinner; several male students who have entrepreneurial ambitions have cited the idea of marrying professional women as part of their capitalization planning.

    Few men are outright saying, “I just want to marry a highly educated professional woman so that I can give her the option to be an SAHM.” Of course this will happen, but I think that this phenomenon is traditionally a product of people pursuing professional degrees and falling in love while in school. If the gender ratios in professional track programs like business school, law, and med simply go the way that undergrad has gone, the problems that young women are facing will simply infiltrate other areas of
    academia.

    I will speculate that many women will respond by at least trying to view marriage as one of several equally valid lifestyle options, rather than as the dominant path to a satisfying, secure life. There just won’t be enough provisioning-capable, hypergamy-acceptable men around to satisfy the demand, and economic logic suggests that those increasingly scarce men who can successfully pass these filters are going to charge an exorbitantly high price for their commitment.

    We of course have a few controversial examples of how things have gone down in various ethnic cohorts when the supply of “eligible” men has been constricted; on balance, male mating activity becomes more feral and opportunistic and females who want relationships often have to accept
    minimalist behavioral standards that they otherwise would not.

    I also believe that the feminist attack on the traditional patriarchy archetype of the male head-of-household has been by and large quite successful and left young men with the need to create their own concepts of manhood and respect. The meme that seems to be emerging depicts an independent, self-contained “sovereign individual” who enjoys a number of hobbies and interests and who sees his tribal group of close male friends as extended family members. He views his relationships with women in a more objectified, compartmentalized way than perhaps previous generations of
    men have, and he feels far more entitled to immediate gratification (notably including matters of sex).

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

      @BB

      several male students who have entrepreneurial ambitions have cited the idea of marrying professional women as part of their capitalization planning.

      If I were a male, that’s what I’d do too. That’s an excellent strategy – especially if you live on one income and invest the other.

      Few men are outright saying, “I just want to marry a highly educated professional woman so that I can give her the option to be an SAHM.

      I doubt most men ever thought that way. My husband sure didn’t. I think the women in the UMC will continue to step off the career track and spend time at home, but I think we’ll also see more part-time work or home-based revenue generation. The number of female entrepreneurs working on a small scale is increasing rapidly. The goal is not VC funding or rapid expansion – these are “mom and pop” businesses without the “pop,” often online.

      I will speculate that many women will respond by at least trying to view marriage as one of several equally valid lifestyle options, rather than as the dominant path to a satisfying, secure life.

      Yes, that is already happening among 30 somethings, e.g. Kate Bolick, but the model for that will increase as more women enter that cohort of “never marrieds.” When Kate Bolick is 50 and still single, there’ll be a whole new crop now 40 and single.

      The meme that seems to be emerging depicts an independent, self-contained “sovereign individual” who enjoys a number of hobbies and interests and who sees his tribal group of close male friends as extended family members.

      Yes, for all the talk of extended male adolescence and men not thriving, there are two distinct populations of men. There are those who didn’t make it to college and live in their parents’ basement, but there are the men you describe – they’re thriving either via education or self-starting and making their dreams happen, though not necessarily the same dreams that their fathers and grandfathers had.

  • Bells

    So, this is part one of my thoughts. Sorry that it’s so long!

    My parents’ marriage is an example of an intelligent woman married to a “lower” intelligent man (I felt so awkward writing out that statement. if my dad were to read this, he would smack me so bad!). Anyways, my mom has an MBA and a PhD in a STEM field. My dad has a Bachelors and a couple of certificates relating to his field of work. Point blank: my mom outearns my dad; and my dad makes a decent amount of money.

    The way that my parents circumnavigated any issues of jealousy and instability was to hold up their side of the deal. My mom is very humble about her accomplishments. She never ever responds to my dad in a belittling higher-authority tone just because she had more degrees. And my dad never tolerated disrespect or any form of emasculation. Any important decisions were discussed together with both opinions holding equal weight. And in the end— my mom would leave the decisions to my dad to have the final say because he was the head of the household. No marriage is perfect and I’m sure plenty of mistakes were made. But, I don’t think he’d go on an ego-trip with his final say.. unless they’d be divorced by now.

    Additionally my mom met my dad when she was doing her studies and my dad was working. From what I understand he was there to be a form of emotional stability while she strived to achieve her degrees. Till this day, my mom credits my dad for a large part of her accomplishments.

    As for daily living, I guess you could say that my dad maintains a strong alpha frame around her. My mom can sometimes get easily upset or worried. In response, my dad will calm her down by lightly teasing her and just having a laidback attitude in contrast to her emotions. All this was accomplished with his 5’5 statue. That’s why I think it’s silly when I see girls writing about how they desire a tall 6’0 man in order to feel little. My dad has high respectin his manhood. And my mom naturally responded by following his directions. They are each other’s best friends and they still love each other deeply. I really appreciate the example of a good marriage that they set for me to this day.

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

      @Bells

      Thank you for sharing that lovely story about your parents! What a great model you grew up with!

  • Abbot

    “who does it blames for “female oppression”, and oppression as a whole? Heterosexually-oriented-middle-class-privileged-cisgendered-able-bodied-white-male-patriarchy-with-infinite-adjectives.”

    IOW we blame because we can’t compete

    .

  • J

    and pick up sewing skills, and especially homesteading skills, something we’ve been steered away from to make good consumers (even though we could save thousands, if not ten thousands a year with these two skill combined).

    Despite actually being a knitter, sewer and canner, I’m always sort of amazed by the idea that these skills have real economic value in this day and age. Sure the family may enjoy that homemade strawberry jam, but by the time you’ve driven out to the country to pick the berries, bought the jars, bought the sugar and pectin, and used gas or electricity to cook the berries for hours and sterilize the jars, you’ve spent twice as much as you would just buying a bottle of Smuckers as the store. Same with that children’s sweater. A nice quality yarn, worth the effort of hand knitting, will cost more than a sale sweater.

    I do all these things, but they hobbies that cost, not save, money.

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

      @J

      I agree with you re the expense of crafts today. Knitting in natural fibers is extremely expensive! I like to needlepoint, and it’s easy to spend a couple of hundred dollars on canvas and threads, and then to find it will cost $250 to have it made into a pillow! It’s the hobby equivalent of “artisanal.” Very expensive.

  • OffTheCuff

    Asexual? I used to work for a huge engineering department with the typical M/F ratios. There were very few single women, most married to other engineers. Even the girl with the beard. For what it’s worth, very few single men, too. The college kids would come in, either already paired off, or find someone in a few months.

    My officemate was a very attractive blonde who was nicknamed “The Dana-Go-Round”. (No, I never took a ride.)

  • Ion

    “I’m always sort of amazed by the idea that these skills have real economic value in this day and age.”

    Because this was my experience. Mom was a seamstress at one point, made all our clothes (me and my bro were the same height for many years, so she just did patterns for both of us, and we split clothes), and saved lots of money being thrifty, not spending on endless supplies of toys, clothes, new appliances and electronics, new couches and furniture over the years, etc., granted, she was creative so she didn’t have to spend money on us, but it was definitely doable to raise us on a very low salary. She did spend some money on shoes for us, because, well, we constantly grew.

    Homesteading in NYC is almost a movement at this point. People save money because everything is convenient. I still think a homesteading book is a must have, though it’s not the answer for everything. There’s a million ways to live on a low salary, if we have to (not to sound preachy). People have been doing it for thousands of years.

  • Ion

    “Homesteading in NYC is almost a movement at this point. People save money because everything is convenient.”

    Grr, sorry J. I meant to say homesteading is a movement in NYC, granted it’s successful there because everything is convenient, BUT I still think a homesteading book is a must have.

  • pvw

    @Ion and Bells, I hear you about having male-oriented thinking patterns…I feel the same way sometimes as an INTJ.

    Bells, I think your parents’ example is a good model of how couples of the future with an alpha wife can avoid the pitfalls that Susan talks about: Couples where the wife earns more than the husband are less satisfied with their marriage and are more likely to divorce.

    I don’t know whether they purse the other course she addresses, of higher earning women doing more of the housewifery chores. Returning to her discussion, that strategy makes sense. If the woman earns more but also does the traditional thing at home, she will appear to be “less threatening”.

    In addition, since more women are raised to fulfill the traditional female role, it might make sense as a matter of specialization–competence on multiple fronts: bread-winning as well as homemaking.

    Bells, I wanted to highlight some of what you said, because it ties into an argument I believe Susan has made periodically, that happiness is a choice. Yes, there might be traditional pushes towards hypergamy which might make more women unhappy, but individual women have a choice to be happy (I’m drawing upon a totally INTJ logic–feelings are grounded upon one’s thinking patterns–feelings are the result of deliberate choices).

    Highlighting Bells’s comments:

    My parents’ marriage is an example of an intelligent woman married to a “lower” intelligent man….Point blank: my mom outearns my dad; and my dad makes a decent amount of money.

    The way that my parents circumnavigated any issues of jealousy and instability was to hold up their side of the deal. My mom is very humble about her accomplishments. She never ever responds to my dad in a belittling higher-authority tone just because she had more degrees (me: and money, I would guess). And my dad never tolerated disrespect or any form of emasculation. Any important decisions were discussed together with both opinions holding equal weight. And in the end, my mom would leave the decisions to my dad to have the final say because he was the head of the household.

    Additionally my mom met my dad when she was doing her studies and my dad was working. From what I understand he was there to be a form of emotional stability while she strived to achieve her degrees. Till this day, my mom credits my dad for a large part of her accomplishments…..As for daily living, I guess you could say that my dad maintains a strong alpha frame around her….My mom can sometimes get easily upset or worried. In response, my dad will calm her down by lightly teasing her and just having a laid back attitude in contrast to her emotions….My dad has high respect in his manhood. And my mom naturally responded by following his directions. They are each other’s best friends and they still love each other deeply. I really appreciate the example of a good marriage that they set for me to this day.

    My comments: This works because your dad is competent as an “alpha” and in his role as the “head” of the household. Problems would have ensued if your mother found that she could not respect his competence as a “head,” ie., because he was less intelligent and thus did not have as good judgment as she.

    This would have been especially problematic if they did not have equal share in the decision-making, but if he presumed that merely because he is the man that he should make all the decisions, forgetting that his wife might very well have steel-trap mind and is thus more than competent at decision making (I’m presuming here, based upon her MBA and Ph.D. in an STEM field).

    Your parents’ marriage is grounded upon mutual respect, and that is important.

    It seems too that this kind of marriage might work if a man is a sigma type who has very strong self confidence and who is more independent minded as a result, ie., he isn’t dedicated to traditional hierarchical patterns as an alpha might be.

  • Tilikum

    @Susan (45)

    But at least I get to have them, and possibly even stay in the home and co-parent them.

  • Just1Z

    “who does it blames for “female oppression”, and oppression as a whole? Heterosexually-oriented-middle-class-privileged-cisgendered-able-bodied-white-male-patriarchy-with-infinite-adjectives.”

    Yeah, that’s easy for you to say…

  • Jeanie

    What makes a woman alpha is not the same thing as what makes a man alpha. An alpha male epitomizes what women look for in a man – confidence, being able to provide, being able to dominate other men, etc. An alpha female epitomizes what men look for in a woman – physical beauty, non-bitchiness, nurturing instincts, etc.

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

      An alpha female epitomizes what men look for in a woman – physical beauty, non-bitchiness, nurturing instincts, etc.

      @Jeanie

      This is perhaps what you would like to see, but certainly in the literature and discussions around female advancement alpha female means high achieving and socially dominant.

      At least in this particular study of teenagers, those girls were the ones who socialized with the alpha boys. And those girls are often who the alpha males socialize with in college as well. One thing I wondered was whether this is a pairing of the promiscuous – I strongly suspect that it is.

  • Tilikum

    ^^^^^^^Jeanie should teach a class^^^^^

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

    ***Handling power gracefully*** is a skill that must be learned. This is what the idea of chivalry, the code of the gentleman, etc, were all about.

    Much of the propaganda directed at young women today seems not only to omit teaching such grace, but to explicitly point in the opposite direction. For example, there’s a book titled “Nice girls don’t get the corner office.” I haven’t read it, and probably won’t, but the very title is malevolent. For one thing, it’s not true–I know some very nice women who have done very, very well in business–but more generally, it is part of the “you-go-girl-get-yours-to-hell-with-everybody-else” syndrome.

    I’m not sure it is so much better career success on the woman’s part that threatens relationships, but more the clawing attitude that has been encouraged.

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

      @david foster

      For example, there’s a book titled “Nice girls don’t get the corner office.” I haven’t read it, and probably won’t, but the very title is malevolent.

      It sure is! Unfortunately, every female boss I ever had could have written that book. I didn’t have it in me, and they hated me for it. What I found, though, was that some of the most senior males were happy to mentor me. I think they wanted to give positive reinforcement to someone who wasn’t hyper aggressive.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “At some point, STEMmies are going to figure out they deserve all the status and grab it.”

    Why do you think this? I think the opposite.

    As the jobs become more commonplace, the glut means being in engineering is just a step or two over working at Walmart, status-wise. (There are some who say that when women come to dominate a field, the men leave and any status with it, like teachers.)

    A few will rise to the top, but there really never will be any sort of large-scale status upgrades, unless the specific job has some other status-generating factor that we about (risk, power, or shitloads o’ money).

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

      As the jobs become more commonplace, the glut means being in engineering is just a step or two over working at Walmart, status-wise

      But there is a limited supply of talented techies. Most college students couldn’t hope to hack the engineering or CS programs. I’m not saying that all STEM people will be successful or high status. That requires more than just smarts. But I do think we’ll see a bigger and bigger piece of the status pie going to tech types.

  • Jeanie

    Your article may be better titled as “How the acendancy of the female will impact marriage”. And the answer is that it lowers the marriage rate. This harms everyone who benefits from marriage – beta males (who can get more sex in marriage), and all women (who can get more commitment in marriage). It benefits those who are least interested in marriage – alpha males (who can get more sex outside of marriage).

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

      @Jeanie

      Virtually all males get more sex in marriage. The number of unattached men who have sex even once a week is miniscule by comparison. Obviously, single men do get more variety.

  • Mike M.

    @OffTheCuff:
    I’m not so sure.

    Engineering is a brutally hard field. My freshman class at Virginia Tech started with 4,000. Five years later, we graduated 1,400 engineers. I don’t see a glut – there are too few people who can handle the material.

    Other STEM fields might have issues, particularly the entry-level tech jobs.

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

      Oops, cross posted with Mike M. Cosign.

  • Susie

    If beta and omega men increasingly in the USA rejecting are marriage, and choosing to cohabitate with beta females and have bastard (illegitimate) children with her, rather than marry an alpha female and have legitimate children with her, what does that say about the state of marriage in the USA?

    The only thing that the marriage rates are showing that there’s a huge decline in legal marriage for the USA. Legal marriage is starting to become something that only upper class liberal people do.

    Ceremonies still exist (e.g. wedding ceremonies, parties, etc.) but the only thing that is for sure is that legal marriage has become a catastrophe in the USA since it has become tailored for “egalitarian power couple” dynamics in its core, yet somehow retaining a strange appearance of “tradition”.

    Who cares if alpha men (1-10% of the population) don’t like beta women. They are not the ones who are not marrying and having unwed mothers.

    America is defaulting towards cohabitation and, to a lesser extent, single motherhood. This entire post don’t analyze general trends.

    The general trends are that American men and women are opting out of legal marriage.

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

      @Susie

      America is defaulting towards cohabitation and, to a lesser extent, single motherhood. This entire post don’t analyze general trends

      That is true. My blog is specifically aimed at those in college or recently graduated. There are some who wish I would analyze general trends. In truth, there are really two vastly different populations. You can see that in the table that splits education by <12 and >12. Analyzing them as one big group masks what’s really going on, as they behave very differently and make very different choices. I focus on the >12 group almost exclusively, the exception being when the data is not available.

  • Susie

    Sorry, I meant “If beta and omega men are increasingly in the USA rejecting marriage”

  • Ion

    “IOW we blame because we can’t compete”

    We don’t blame career women because we can’t compete with their unmatched brilliance.

    Sometimes people get the blamed because the current situation in worked in their favor, regardless of their actual talents, other times we blame them because they’re the easiest target.

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

    STEM is a type of degree; it is not necessarily a lifetime profession. For example, former GE CEO Jack Welch has both a BS and a PhD in chemical engineering, and actually practiced as an engineer at GE for a couple of years, but he spent the vast bulk of his career managing large organizations. (Of course, some would say that Jack is enough of a jerk to add considerable Alpha…)

    Similarly, there are a lot of venture capitalists who got their start with STEM degrees and jobs, but who now spend most of their time evaluating people and financials, rather than doing anything that could be called technical work.

    Humans are flexible creatures…or at least should be…and one of the many malign effects of credentials-worship is to cause people to lose sight of that fact.

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

      Similarly, there are a lot of venture capitalists who got their start with STEM degrees and jobs, but who now spend most of their time evaluating people and financials, rather than doing anything that could be called technical work.

      In finance, firms go bananas to hire guys with advanced degrees in physics and the like. My husband has actually had challenges managing some of these folks, not all of whom transition to finance very well.

      My b-school class of 650 was fully one-third engineering majors. Almost all of the IB types and sexy startup hires came from this cohort. It’s a filter for IQ, at the very least.

  • pvw

    @Susan: Furthermore, a new college graduate has no idea whether she will be successful in finding a mate – it seems a highly risky strategy to bet on social services to be more marketable to men, only to wind up eeking out a living as a single woman forever.

    It is really a bit like asking women to be fried ice.

    Me: At the same time, if the prevailing wisdom is for the low status woman to seek alpha men, she had better make sure she has the looks to land men like that and put herself in the right kind of environment to do so. She will also have to put everything into getting men like that amongst the serious competition. All too often what seems to happen is that the low status woman is in an environment where she is primarily among low status men, good looks or not, and assortive mating follows. But the assortive mating there might not look pretty–single motherhood prevails more often than not in that cohort, as Susie was getting at.

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

      @pvw

      All too often what seems to happen is that the low status woman is in an environment where she is primarily among low status men, good looks or not, and assortive mating follows. But the assortive mating there might not look pretty–single motherhood prevails more often than not in that cohort, as Susie was getting at.

      I think that happens most of the time, unfortunately. Despite the comment above that men choose their wives from girls who ask if you want fries with that, assortative mating does prevail, whether it ends in marriage or not.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    Out of curiosity 12 years of education is the end of high school-beginning uni split correct?

    “Obviously, single men do get more variety.”

    And thats why God invented lingerie.

    “I think they wanted to give positive reinforcement to someone who wasn’t hyper aggressive.”

    Personal anecdote,

    Hyperagressive women tend to cause an eye roll and future avoidance. Feminine women tend to encourage that protector/teacher instinct in me.
    (This of course assumes they are talented.)

    I don’t have the same problem with male students. They can be very, very non-dominant and talented and I still want to guide them. Same with aggressive except they have to be able to accept authority and be able to channel that competitiveness into something productive.

    Conclusion: I think if you were to overlay the distributions of aggressiveness for men and women there would be an optimal range which extends from low to high. The tails on each end tend to be unacceptable (too weak or too strong) except women tend to get more of a pass for non-agressive whereas men tend to get more of a pass on aggressiveness (with talent, without its just a headache).

    The really unaggressive men (think the guy who you want to yell at in a RomCom to get his ass up and do something) and highly aggressive women tend to be annoyances.

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

      @Lokland

      Out of curiosity 12 years of education is the end of high school-beginning uni split correct?

      Yes.

      The really unaggressive men (think the guy who you want to yell at in a RomCom to get his ass up and do something) and highly aggressive women tend to be annoyances.

      Agreed, because those are the two groups most closely adopting the norms of the opposite gender. We find it repellent. At least I do.

  • Ion

    “Then I’d seek a mate like it was my job.”

    Not sure if I ever shared this here, but I used to apply for around 35 jobs a day when unemployed with personalized cover letters/ resumes, it would take about 6 hours a day. When I got an interview, I studied all the most common interview questions, memorized important dates off of the company website, found all employers on linkedin or facebook looking for possible affiliations (and in non-profit its easy to see what ones “causes” are), studied what they majored in to see if there was mutual interest, found guides of tough interview questions online, wrote out my responses, and studied my responses so I wouldn’t freeze up when nervous the night before (it’d be about 6 pages of information, I’d memorize each answer). I used my old Kodak camera to answer interview questions and study my body language/responses to mimic a more extroverted person, wrote each and every person who interviewed me a 1 page long thank you letter emphasizing my skills I had in common with them, and what we discussed in the interview to show off my writing abilities, etc.,

    What if I put such intense focus into finding a guy during this time? We approach jobs more realistically than relationships, i.e., we don’t rely on the universe to bring a job when the time is right. Wish 22 year old self knew that. grrrr.

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

      @Ion

      What if I put such intense focus into finding a guy during this time? We approach jobs more realistically than relationships, i.e., we don’t rely on the universe to bring a job when the time is right.

      That’s about the best job search strategy I’ve ever heard!

      You’re so right about relationships – this is where women actually put their hope in the “law of attraction.” At least the guys would like to know where the factory making girls is located. They’re willing to take it from there. We tend to want it delivered to our front doorstep. As Mrs. Bennet knew in the early 19th c. women need to put themselves in the path of eligible men.

  • Lokland

    @david foster

    My personal favourites are STEMs who went into research said fuck it wrt trying to get grants, went into wall street, made a couple billion and then go back into research and can do whatever they want.

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

    Susan…”I think we’ll also see more part-time work or home-based revenue generation. The number of female entrepreneurs working on a small scale is increasing rapidly.”

    This makes a lot of sense…there are some obstacles, though. For one thing, excessive government regulation is far more burdensome to a very small business than to a larger one. The ill-thought-out “Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act” has been harmful and even crippling to many small businesses, including home businesses, doing such things as making children’s clothing, books for kids, science kits, etc.

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

      @david foster

      I wasn’t aware of the unfavorable regulatory environment, that stinks. I do recall putting my kids in cotton pajamas, which came in packages saying, “These are not pajamas!”

  • JP

    @Ion:

    “What if I put such intense focus into finding a guy during this time? We approach jobs more realistically than relationships, i.e., we don’t rely on the universe to bring a job when the time is right. ”

    No, this is pretty much how I get jobs and relationships.

    At this point, I’m pretty much convinced that the universe is conspiring to help me.

    The first job I got, they specifically reopened the summer associate hiring system for me.

    I thought that was nice of them.

  • JP

    @MikeM:

    “Engineering is a brutally hard field. My freshman class at Virginia Tech started with 4,000. Five years later, we graduated 1,400 engineers. I don’t see a glut – there are too few people who can handle the material.”

    Plus, you have people like me who have to major in engineering to keep their scholarships and then go and do something else because they have no actual interest in engineering.

    I have a chemical engineering degree that has precisely zero value to me or anyone else, since I never intended to use it.

  • Jeanie

    Susan, that’s what I said. Virtually all men are beta males, and get more sex in marriage, which is why a decline in marriage hurts them. The alpha males are far fewer in number, and they get more sex without marriage. My point stands that the alpha males benefit from the decline of marriage.

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

      @Jeanie

      Virtually all men are beta males, and get more sex in marriage, which is why a decline in marriage hurts them. The alpha males are far fewer in number, and they get more sex without marriage. My point stands that the alpha males benefit from the decline of marriage. My point stands that the alpha males benefit from the decline of marriage.

      I think “virtually all” is an exaggeration. When the National Marriage Project at UVA researched why men were delaying or avoiding marriage, the number one reason given was that sex is more readily available before marriage than it used to be. The respondents would certainly have been mostly beta males, so they expect more sex than you’re implying.

      I do not believe that alpha males get more sex without marriage, as most alphas are STR oriented, moving from fling to fling or ONS to ONS. Even alphas must make considerable effort to secure sex partners: they must approach, face rejection (alphas often report a success rate of 10% or so), and then convince the female to have no-strings sex immediately, something most women are unwilling to do. I believe married betas have more sex than unmarried alphas, assuming those marriages are working.

      In short, alpha males cause or exacerbate the decline in marriage, whether others marry generally doesn’t concern them. Betas benefit from the alpha-induced decline, because women who want to marry are generally selecting from a beta pool of men. IOW, a less competitive marriage market for men who wish to marry.

  • Jeanie

    @susan

    Well, I suppose I can accept that we are using different definitions of what an alpha female means, as long as we’re clear we aren’t speaking the same language. However, considering the nature of genetic imperatives, your definition, as well as that of the literature you speak of, make little sense.

    Think about what the “ideal woman” is for a man, and what the “ideal man” is for a woman. Very different. Heck just look at men’s porn vs women’s romance novels or even the whole 50 shades phenomenon.

  • JP

    “My b-school class of 650 was fully one-third engineering majors. Almost all of the IB types and sexy startup hires came from this cohort. It’s a filter for IQ, at the very least.”

    The GMAT is a proxy for IQ tests.

    You can use its results to get into high-IQ societies.

    This is the exciting information that I discovered when I was trying to research low IQs for my clients.

    That also led me to the discovery of the entire HBD thingy.

  • pvw

    @Susan:

    You’re so right about relationships – this is where women actually put their hope in the “law of attraction.” At least the guys would like to know where the factory making girls is located. They’re willing to take it from there. We tend to want it delivered to our front doorstep. As Mrs. Bennet knew in the early 19th c. women need to put themselves in the path of eligible men.

    Me: And there is something else; many young women are led to believe that the job search is a more efficient use of their time, ie., because of frustrations regarding the dating and the SMP, which we have talked about so much here–combat dating, etc.

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

    Susan…CPSIA has been a disaster for many small businesses. I’ve written about it several times…see the posts in this search thread.

    I haven’t researched this in a couple of years so there may have been some changes since then making things slightly less painful. A good source on CPSIA, and indeed for anyone interested in starting a small apparel business, is Kathleen Fasanella’s Fashion Incubator blog.

  • pvw

    Further thoughts, it seems to me that some of the most conservative parents ie., religious conservatives with parents fulfilling the traditional roles, are raising their daughters to become accomplished alpha girls, ie., the types of young women who will get those college degrees and so forth.

    At the same time, they use the language of “intimidation” (just like any feminist) in describing why older accomplished women are unmarried, that men just can’t handle accomplished women.

    Here is the thing, I don’t even think this is about “go girl feminism.” They really ascribe to concerns that young women have no guarantees and can’t depend upon anyone but themselves for their future economic well-being.

    They really don’t see security for young women in marriage because of divorce. Now, do they think women are to blame for divorce or the men are to blame? It is a good question. Regardless of who is to blame, they want economic protection for their daughters. Some of them would actually urge their daughters to be the high earning alpha wife with the stay-at-home husband.

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

      @pvw

      They really ascribe to concerns that young women have no guarantees and can’t depend upon anyone but themselves for their future economic well-being.

      I hear a lot of young women saying this very thing, so it must be coming from their parents. They want very much to be able to support themselves, not knowing what the future may bring. Given the average age at marriage, it makes sense – a woman has to support herself after college for an average of 6 years. She might as well do something lucrative and succeed at it. If she does marry, great, there’s now a hefty double income, no downside. If not, she’ll be OK.

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

    (continuing on CPSIA)

    One of the most disturbing things about the whole CPSIA saga has been the unbelievably arrogant tone of the letter sent by Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky in response to Kathleen Fasanella’s entirely rational and courteous letter re the damage this misbegotten legislation was doing. Thoughts and links here.

    Schakowsky is IMO a horrible person, even by the standards of politicians, but this response does suggest the level of vulnerability that exists for any small business in the current political environment.

  • INTJ

    @ Jeanie

    What makes a woman alpha is not the same thing as what makes a man alpha. An alpha male epitomizes what women look for in a man – confidence, being able to provide, being able to dominate other men, etc. An alpha female epitomizes what men look for in a woman – physical beauty, non-bitchiness, nurturing instincts, etc.

    While I agree with your distinction about what men and women want, I think “alpha” is most useful as a social term rather than a measure of desirability. Thus, “alpha” should describe the archtype of a Type A personality that is socially dominant and aggressive.

  • Ion

    No, this is pretty much how I get jobs and relationships.”

    JP, women take this to the extreme though, even the most religious of men will at least “meet god half way” by looking for a mate while waiting on gods direction. Young women seem to wait on god/fate/”timing” to drop someone in their lap, which takes them off the market. They will not expect fate to get them into a school without an application, or for God to hand them keys to an apartment without looking, or “timing” to get them a job without interviewing.

    “The first job I got, they specifically reopened the summer associate hiring system for me. ”

    First off, that’s awesome :-), I had a similar situation where college admissions was closed, but I wrote this killer essay and spoke to the advisor several times, and got in. I only applied to one school, and that’s where I went. I think in my case (and yours) some of it was fate/luck whatever you want to call it, but we also got their by qualifying ourselves, and actively seeking out the opportunity. Women need to apply a similar mindset to relationships.

  • J

    Grr, sorry J. I meant to say homesteading is a movement in NYC, granted it’s successful there because everything is convenient, BUT I still think a homesteading book is a must have.

    No need to apologize, but I must admit I’ve never heard of this. Must google.

  • Mike M.

    OK…Where IS this girl factory, anywhere?

  • J

    Dear Abbott,

    I couldn’t find you any multi-penis, but I got you the next best thing:
    http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/diphallia

    Consider this a belated Christamas or early Valentine’s present.

    NSFW

    Love,

    J

  • J

    My b-school class of 650 was fully one-third engineering majors. Almost all of the IB types and sexy startup hires came from this cohort. It’s a filter for IQ, at the very least.

    My older son is planing a business/comp sci or engineering double major.

  • J

    FWIW, I know of two 25+ year marriages where the wife is an MD and the husband is a househusband. In both cases the woman is greatful to have been given the opportunity to practice medicine AND have a family. I know some two MD families too. The househusband families have nicer kids.

  • J

    @SW

    A friend of mine and I were browsing a yarn shop last weekend. I saws this really great scarf made in merino wool/silk blend yarn priced at $17.50/skein. The scarf needed two skeins. They wanted $6.oo for the instructions. That’s $41.00. No cheaper than buying off the rack, proably more expensive

    I went to Michael’s and got a nice washable wool for 7.00 per skein, and think I can make the scarf without the instructions as I’ve been knitting since I was 12. That brings my cost down to $14.oo which is probably the sale price of a nice enough scarf though I’m sacrificing the silk blend yarn.

    This is a nice creative outlet, not a money saver.

    Same with growing your own food. DH and I once had an organic garden. We had fun, but we also put a lot of money into tools, seeds, peat moss to inprove our soil, etc. Again, not a money saver.

    http://www.knittingtree.com/shop/Patternology-Project-Kits/Linton-BobbleEdged-Shawl.htm

  • pvw

    I haven’t knitted in a while…most recently some great winter scarves, grat for felting, good quality yarn. The Michaels type yarn, not as good quality–made Afghans.

  • OffTheCuff

    Double majors are a really good idea. While its not exactly the same, I have two separate bachelors in comp sci and music. It’s a lot of added benefit for not that much extra work or money, since the requirements for one often count as electives to the other.

  • J

    @pvw

    I just took another look. It’s Caron Simpy Soft in harlequin (http://www.caron.com/color_cards/cc_sspaints.html) actually which is acrylic. I was looking for something washable in self striping yarn, and this fits the bill. I would never do an adult sweater in a synthetic though. I have done kid’s stuff in synthetics becuse they take a beating and are quickly outgrown anyway. I used to be fussier until I started knitting for kids.

  • J

    @OTC

    Yeah. He figures that this particular combo will almost guarantee him a job or a platform for starting a business. He will continue to pursue his music as well, with his dream job being the production of electronic music. If none of that works out, he’ll end up an IT project manager. He can’t lose.

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

    Re double majors: the late management consultant Michael Hammer argued that the best preparation for a business career would be an undergraduate double major: one STEM subject and one rigorous humanities program. LINK

    I think Dr Hammer’s argument has much merit; however, employers have no good way to distinguish a truly rigorous humanities program from the proliferation of mush that is out there.

  • J

    @david

    I read your link and agree with this: “I think Dr Hammer’s argument has much merit; however, employers have no good way to distinguish a truly rigorous humanities program from the proliferation of mush that is out there.”

  • J

    Mom was a seamstress at one point, made all our clothes (me and my bro were the same height for many years, so she just did patterns for both of us, and we split clothes), and saved lots of money being thrifty, not spending on endless supplies of toys, clothes, new appliances and electronics, new couches and furniture over the years, etc., granted, she was creative so she didn’t have to spend money on us, but it was definitely doable to raise us on a very low salary.

    I’m impressed. Did she make her own patterns? I’ve seen patterns for kid’s clothes that cost more than clothes off the clearance rack.

  • Underdog

    @IrishFarmer

    “For instance, feminism’s insistence that women are hypoagents, and victims, and need special favors and so on in order to operate on the same level as men can actually stimulate the protector instinct in men and reinforce gender roles, at least from a male perspective, for both men and women.”

    Good observation. And the thing is, women’s innate hypergamy and solipsism lead them to their apex fallacy — meaning they only want to operate on the same level as highest status males. It worked for a while, but now we’re starting to see the lower status males going “wtf??!!!”

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

    I have a couple physics degrees, an engineering degree, and a comp. sci. degree. I have to say, engineering and computer science, both pretty easy-peasy. A fair number of hours in computer science, just because coding takes time. I think my GPA in both those disciples is just a shade below 4.0. I know I have one more A- than A+ in the engineering degree, and nothing below that.

    Physics, not so capable of getting by on my native wit. I had one third year class where 40 % of the class (all physics majors) failed. Now, that professor got canned a couple years later, but still… I suppose it makes sense to filter hard in physics though, because if you can’t compete on the world stage you’re pretty much a useless tit. With engineering, there’s always value in local knowledge.

    I do know some combo physicist/musician types too. There’s something to be said for being a ‘Renaissance Man’ with a classical education. I already am double Susan’s cut-off of twelve years of education, however, and I need every year of my education to do my job. I’ve had a grand total of one elective in all of my degrees. I think I took macro-economics, which was ridiculously stupid and useless. Economists are such a pack of posers.

    In my Bachelor’s program, one of the thing the physics professors discussed was how much easier it was when they were in university, because there was so much less to learn. The internet helps with learning things faster, compared to pre-internet, but the amount of information out there keeps growing exponentially.

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

    I got a ‘D’ in the 3rd year class, FYI. First and only time. I’d like to say it was humbling, but I was mostly just annoyed with the professor.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Betas benefit from the alpha-induced decline, because women who want to marry are generally selecting from a beta pool of men. IOW, a less competitive marriage market for men who wish to marry.

    Only problem is the rising percentage of ascendant alpha females, which makes the pool of women to marry smaller.

  • J

    Cute stuff. Hearn is certainly into textures, and the Berocco vintage sweaters are adorable.

  • Bells

    @PVW
    Re: Housewifely chores
    Yes it is true. Initially my mom did a large part of the housewifery duties. I’m not sure if she did this purposefully as a strategy to be “less threatening” to my dad. But I do know that she was also raised in a very traditional household where the women were expected to do all the housework and the men brought home the bread. But over time, managing work and doing the housework became too stressful. Of course I was made to chip in with the chores as a kid but I couldn’t say that I made a huge dent in the chores.

    Over time, I think she had a lot of discussions with my dad about housework. He probably initially resisted because he also grew up in a very traditional family. But eventually he complied because he realized that she was too physically tired to do her best in both areas. Now he also does a good share of the work. I even think he enjoys doing it because he’s a neat freak.

  • Joe

    @Mr. Nervous Toes

    I do know some combo physicist/musician types too. There’s something to be said for being a ‘Renaissance Man’ with a classical education.

    Yeah. Former guitarist for Queen, Brian May is a successful PhD astrophysicist.

    I’ve got two degrees in Astronomy myself, one in Comp. Sci., and was in a decent band for about 8 years. Much fun. I did alright with the ladies, considering. But I must admit that it was a little easier when I was in the band. ;-)

  • Bells

    I gave the example of my parents’ marriage to show that it is possible for a very intelligent woman to be happily married to a man who she outearns. For that to happen, both sides have to be willing to meet the needs of the other’s. My dad desired respect and femininity and my mom gave it to him. My mom primarily desired stability and a compatible partner—and that is what my dad offered.

    As for me, if need be, I think I’ll be fine marrying someone who’s not equal to me in education or finance. I do have certain qualities that I desire in a man. But, I also realized that I had to seriously work on my physical appearance and my mentality in order to attract the right men… And that’s why I’m here on HUS.

  • pvw

    @J: I just took another look. It’s Caron Simpy Soft in harlequin (http://www.caron.com/color_cards/cc_sspaints.html) actually which is acrylic. I was looking for something washable in self striping yarn, and this fits the bill. I would never do an adult sweater in a synthetic though. I have done kid’s stuff in synthetics becuse they take a beating and are quickly outgrown anyway. I used to be fussier until I started knitting for kids.

    Me: I love that harlequin. Funny, it is an acrylic that looks very much like one I used a number of years ago when I was crocheting outfits for some decorative dolls I have in the living room. As for the knitting tree ones, the pink pattern reminds me of something I used for a baby blanket….

    @Susan: http://www.ravelry.com/designers/lorraine-hearnLorraine Hern’s stuff looks great–think grandbabies! As the vintage stuff, http://www.berroco.com/patterns/pattern-booklets/302-vintage-vintage-chunky, I know my mom and aunts had some patterns from the 1960s I used to drool over–hot looking crochet/knit dresses…

    J and Susan, you’re inspiring me! I just ran to get the knitting basket…

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

      @pvw

      I found some vintage pattern books at the library, and there are also some vintage patterns online. Patterns going as far back as the 30s. Some of them are really great. Here’s an example of a swimsuit I love – not at all practical for someone my age, but perhaps I can convince my daughter to wear it as a coverup or sundress!

      ss

      I also love this cardigan (I have a thing for cherry motifs.)

      vk

  • pvw

    @Bells:

    Over time, I think she had a lot of discussions with my dad about housework. He probably initially resisted because he also grew up in a very traditional family. But eventually he complied because he realized that she was too physically tired to do her best in both areas. Now he also does a good share of the work. I even think he enjoys doing it because he’s a neat freak.

    Me: That is so key! That they can compromise and undertake whatever roles are necessary to keep the household running and without anyone feeling as though dignity has been compromised. That is the problem with the information Susan presented here; an inability to do what some of our elders found it easier to do?

  • Bells

    @PVW
    “Here is the thing, I don’t even think this is about “go girl feminism.” They really ascribe to concerns that young women have no guarantees and can’t depend upon anyone but themselves for their future economic well-being.
    They really don’t see security for young women in marriage because of divorce…”

    That’s exactly the same reason why my parents emphasized the importance of a career. Also, I’m an only child so the need was greatly compounded. If anything ever happened because of economic, death, or divorce issues; I should be able to adequately take care of myself.

  • HanSolo

    @Bells

    You sound outright sensible. :)

  • HanSolo

    That was referring to #144

  • Bells

    @J
    “Dear Abbott,

    I couldn’t find you any multi-penis, but I got you the next best thing:
    http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/diphallia

    Consider this a belated Christamas or early Valentine’s present.”

    That link was disgusting. I spent a good 4 minutes trying to figure out how the guy would be to have sex because the penises seem to be located at the same level. So DP is not even possible, lol! Poor guy is probably not getting any.

  • Bells

    @Hansolo,
    Thank you :)

  • Iggles

    @ Ion:

    What if I put such intense focus into finding a guy during this time? We approach jobs more realistically than relationships, i.e., we don’t rely on the universe to bring a job when the time is right. Wish 22 year old self knew that. grrrr.

    +1000

    It’s not enough to say “someday my prince will come”. You have to show up to be in the running because positioning matters, Actively putting yourself out there increases your chances of finding someone exponentially!

    Btw, you put in excellent dedication and focus in regards to jobhunting! That no doubt has and will continue to pay off in spades :D

  • Iggles

    @ SW:

    @Bells

    Thank you for sharing that lovely story about your parents! What a great model you grew up with!

    I second this!

    Bells, the insight you provided is invaluable. I work in STEM and make more than everyone in my social circle (barring current and former coworkers!), so seeing how your parents successfully managed having the woman be a higher earner gives me hope!

    Not sure if you’re familiar with Married Man Sex Life (Athol’s blog) but the captain/first officer model of marriage is the one that would work best for me. I don’t want to lead (been there, done that and it sucked) and the egalitarian model also doesn’t appeal (50/50 split where neither party leads!)

  • Iggles

    J – Gah! I wish I had never clicked that link… for my sanity I’m going to pretend that was the work of Photoshop :(

  • pvw

    @Iggles and Bells:

    Not sure if you’re familiar with Married Man Sex Life (Athol’s blog) but the captain/first officer model of marriage is the one that would work best for me. I don’t want to lead (been there, done that and it sucked) and the egalitarian model also doesn’t appeal (50/50 split where neither party leads!)

    Me: I find that with Mr. PVW and me, we have something that might be a hybrid? I think of it as the “co-chairs” model, where there is no “captain/first officer” model, but also not absolutely egalitarian with no leadership. When we got married, we just naturally divided up responsibilities based upon our strengths and abilities, but in consultation with each other to make sure we are on the same page and are working within the same vision. If there is disagreement, we have to be able to persuade the other to the point of agreement (grounded upon discussion of all the benefits and detriments). Once we decide, the other is free to take over whatever it is. The important point is that we understand and trust each other’s judgment, so there is no conflict.

  • http://happycrow.wordpress.com Russ in Texas

    One cost-effective route for clothes when build changes rapidly is cheap needle felt. It wears like iron and stretches-to-fit like real felt does, but because of the alignment of the fibers, it sews almost-literally like you’re sewing air, and cute appliques are therefore a complete breeze.

  • pvw

    should read: grounded upon discussion of all the benefits, detriments and each of our own preferences. If one of us has an absolute preference and an investment in that preference, the other might defer–that is the one place where emotion might have a key role, but again, that is always subject to logic and reason, ie., I might question him on something, or he might question me.

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

    There are some useful tactical applications of Guttentag-Secord and sex ratio. I co-designed a jury selection model once that sought to deliberately engineer a high-sex ratio (i.e., more M than F) group and to seek the most attractive female candidates to boot. This was based on some findings that males in high sex ratio closed environments become more competitive and will “vie for status by intentionally disagreeing with other men” (exacerbated if the few women are also very attractive). The idea was clearly to create an indecisive and chaotic internal jury dynamic, one that would fail to reach a consensus.

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

      @BB

      This was based on some findings that males in high sex ratio closed environments become more competitive and will “vie for status by intentionally disagreeing with other men” (exacerbated if the few women are also very attractive).

      I believe this is the same dynamic at work in polygynous societies. Ultimately, the men rise up and kill one another, and no work gets done. That is why monogamy is the bedrock of civilization.

  • INTJ

    @ pvw

    I find that with Mr. PVW and me, we have something that might be a hybrid? I think of it as the “co-chairs” model, where there is no “captain/first officer” model, but also not absolutely egalitarian with no leadership. When we got married, we just naturally divided up responsibilities based upon our strengths and abilities, but in consultation with each other to make sure we are on the same page and are working within the same vision. If there is disagreement, we have to be able to persuade the other to the point of agreement (grounded upon discussion of all the benefits and detriments). Once we decide, the other is free to take over whatever it is. The important point is that we understand and trust each other’s judgment, so there is no conflict.

    That’s the kind of egalitarian marriage I’d like to have.

  • http://happycrow.wordpress.com Russ in Texas

    Different dynamic around here; I’m definitely the boss. And I’m bossy as hell about making sure she gets what she actually WANTS rather than merely what she’s willing to live with.

  • Ion

    “I’m impressed. Did she make her own patterns? I’ve seen patterns for kid’s clothes that cost more than clothes off the clearance rack.”

    Really? That must’ve been Vogue Patterns! :-p

    Mom bought patterns only for more complicated stuff, but once she learned basic designs, she memorized. I.E. she could measure us and create pants or a skirt in a snap, but an easter dress required a pattern, and she’d pick a cheap one. I recently picked up sewing as a hobby, and for someone with no experience, spent more messing up fabric “practicing” than if I had gone out and bought a $75 dress. So yea, as a hobby these things can be rather expensive, you’re absolutely right.

    I think my mom saved so much because she 1. Knew really knew how to sew, and fast and also bought cheap clothes for us and fabric in addition to sewing (novices can save a ton sewing) 2. Me and my brother sometimes split clothes, so, basically, that’s only 50% less cost than if under different circumstances, I didn’t even think of that. Sometimes she’d find a particularly cheap fabric at around 70 cents a yard, and dress us like twins…we looked like dorks of course.

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

    @Bells
    My parents had a similar dynamic when my mother finally graduated and ended up earning more. I think another thing that helped is that my parents were committed to their marriage and that my mother was grateful for all the support (economical, emotional) my father offered when he was the top earner.

    What if I put such intense focus into finding a guy during this time?
    You end up married. This was my plan when I decided that it was time to find the father of my children. I seriously doubt that level of work can’t produce results in enough time. Hence why I keep telling the women that are lonely to devout their efforts to getting the man 24/7 and they will get their man. Sadly I don’t think none of them wants to stop being single that badly. *lesigh*

    As Mrs. Bennet knew in the early 19th c. women need to put themselves in the path of eligible men.

    For all the flak poor Mrs Bennet get even if she was blind to bad suitors (Wickham and no don’t add poor Mr Collins into the bad ones :p) she seriously knew how to get their daughters the best chance at marriage and ended up with four of them married after all. No a small feat.

    They really don’t see security for young women in marriage because of divorce. Now, do they think women are to blame for divorce or the men are to blame?

    I think all started with the idea that marriage 1.0 was easily dissolved by a man seeking to change his wife by a new model and/or all the cheating their mothers had to tolerate because they had no other options. That is at least the philosophy back at home where girls are taught from early age to get education so “they don’t have to put up with any crap from a man” of course in my culture the crap is real. Not sure if is so in here.

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

      @Anacaona

      This was my plan when I decided that it was time to find the father of my children. I seriously doubt that level of work can’t produce results in enough time

      I agree. When my kids were growing up I would encourage them to take responsibility and be proactive by saying “Once you know what you want, go get it.” My own mother’s version was “God helps those who help themselves.”

      Taking action always feels better than hanging around waiting for Fate to take a role.

      I think all started with the idea that marriage 1.0 was easily dissolved by a man seeking to change his wife by a new model and/or all the cheating their mothers had to tolerate because they had no other options.

      I just read an interesting article about divorce, without the usual hysteria. The writer pointed out that because men are able to separate sex and emotion, they are happy to cheat and maintain their marriage at the same time. IOW, they don’t replace their wives, they just violate the marriage agreement without dissolving it. Because women cannot separate sex and emotion, they cheat once the emotional tie to the husband is already dead. Or as the guy put it, “They replace their zero with a hero.”

      This alone explains why more divorces would be initiated by women. If the husband cheats, she wants a divorce. If she wants a divorce, she gets one or cheats and then gets one. If the husband cheats, he has no wish to divorce. If his wife cheats, he wants a divorce.

      In short, adultery is a dealbreaker for women but not for men, unless it’s hers.

  • Mike C

    FWIW, I dunno….I guess I better work on improving my salary, because right now it isn’t impressive. Unfortunately, I really do not have a strong idea of how to do that, and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of upward progression at my current department. One of my resolutions this year is to try to figure out way to lift my career into the stratosphere.

    Or possibly low six figures by the time I am 40 :/

    ADBG,

    Not sure how old you are, and if you have just a bachelors and how long you’ve been working.

    FWIW, I’m going to be 39 soon and I finished getting my MBA at 27, and presently I have a senior analyst level position so I’ve “underachieved” but climbing the ladder was never my thing. That said, I’ve observed those who do. Here would be my advice to you if you want to climb the corporate hierarchy and make the 6-figure salary+.

    1. If you don’t have a MBA, in my view, you still want to get it. It has lessened in value, but it is still the “union card” for any sort of upper management. The value of going full-time is down and unless you can get into a top 5 school and tap those alumni networks such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford, I’d say going part-time is much better because of the opportunity cost and additional debt. You are out 2 years salary + borrowing for 2 years. I enjoyed going back and living the college lifestyle but financially it was a loser.

    2. Switch companies every 3-4 years. One thing I’ve observed quite clearly is it is much easier to get promoted externally then via internal promotion. I don’t know exactly why that is, but it just seems to work that way. You might start as analyst, work your way to senior, and then finally get a shot at manager in 10 years at the same company. If you jump ship to another company and then a manager job opens up, you could get it and maybe it only took 4 years. At my company, a number of people started at the company, left, and then came back at much higher position levels.

    3. Network, network, schmooze, play the political game. Climbing the ladder is all about managing perceptions and boosting “your brand”. You have to make friends with the important people. Since I’m a natural introvert, this part is just too much damn work in addition to the basics of just doing the job. I prefer spending a lot of time in my cubicle, and I don’t create much opportunities for “face time” with the right people, but if you want to climb you absolutely MUST do this.

  • Mike C

    Which basically means that women have been granted increasing optionality in their gender role while men have not. There is much more to this than instinct. It isn’t so much that the instinct has not been affected, but rather that the “shifting” has not included anything nearly as accretive, positive, or expansive to a man’s choices as those shifts have afforded women. And further, those expansions and positives have too often come at the expense of men, further reducing an already competitive yet constrained playing field. How often do we hear that men are “falling behind” or “not manning up”? Behind what, manning up to what? Women Expectations (whose)? or one in the same?

    Tasmin,

    I am going to somewhat disagree. Although what you say is basically true at the “societal mainstream message” level, there really isn’t anything that makes it true at the individual “enlightened” man level.

    What I mean by that is a man’s optionality is only constrained to the extent that he actually buys into that notion that his provisioning ability is still connected to his “manhood”. I would argue that one component of taking the Red Pill for a man is realizing that today probably provides more optionality for a man then any other time in human history if a man can only think “what do I want” rather then what does society tell me “I am supposed to want”.

    Sure, there is still the thorny issue potentially about female expectations particularly of the man as a mate candidate, but I would argue that if a man spends plenty of time working on the areas that are of self-interest plus are connected to attraction, then provisioning ability in isolation starts to take on much decreased importance.

    FWIW, I outearn my fiancee by about 15K annually. I really wouldn’t care in the slightest if she outearned me AS LONG AS it didn’t disturb the captain-first officer dynamic. I think it was ADBG and Esau who both pointed out the real issue with the woman outearning is the “authority” issues it creates. I think it was Bells??? who talked about her parent’s marriage works well with the woman outearning because she is still feminine and her Dad still has the right frame in the marriage.

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

      @Mike C

      What I mean by that is a man’s optionality is only constrained to the extent that he actually buys into that notion that his provisioning ability is still connected to his “manhood”.

      I believe this is hardwired instinct. Even the confirmed bachelor is often invested in displaying his theoretical ability to provide. Bastiat Blogger is a good example of this – he talks of lavish gifts, including cosmetics and fashion, expensive weekends away, etc.

      And virtually all surveys of men show a high percentage of men preferring to pay on a date. In fact, more women indicate willingness to pay than men indicate willingness to accept.

      Obviously, it’s very possible for a man to override that instinct and refuse to pay – lots of men in the sphere have done just that.

      The question then becomes, what price do you pay in attracting women, given that we are still very much hardwired to identify and measure a man’s ability to provide. That is really what the attraction to social dominance is about – access to resources.

  • http://happycrow.wordpress.com Russ in Texas

    I agree with MikeC: to me, one of the fundamental things dividing men from boys is whether they define themselves and act according to their needs/dreams/wishes, or let “society” tell them who they should be and what they should do.

    “Society” is just a weasel-word for “peer pressure delivered by television.” It’s a master that gives you no reward for obeying it.

  • pvw

    @INTJ: That’s the kind of egalitarian marriage I’d like to have.

    Me: The interesting thing, is that can result in fulfulling the traditional roles, ie., in that we both came from traditional backgrounds, and so that is where our strengths lie. I take care of the domestic stuff where he has no strengths; he takes care of the guy stuff where he has his strengths. Yet, there is a blend. I started off doing the budget and paying the household bills because I was the one around more often during the day when the bills came in and because I had the time to take care of those types of transactions. Yet, he does the laundry, only because when we first got married, we lived in an apartment building that had a laundry room in the basement, not scary, perfectly safe, but he wanted to be the one to take care of it.

  • OffTheCuff

    Pvw, Bb said the exact same thing a few years ago, until we asked “Who breaks the ties? Who wins, where there is no consensus?”

    On reflection, she realize she was in a C/FO relationship, and while they split up duties according to ability like you, that’s mostly irrelevant – she realized that she willingly deferred to him in the major decisions, like where to live for job. C/FO isn’t captain/slave, and it’s not captain-does-100%-traditionally-male-stuff.

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

      she realized that she willingly deferred to him in the major decisions, like where to live for job. C/FO isn’t captain/slave, and it’s not captain-does-100%-traditionally-male-stuff.

      From reading Athol, and comparing that to how others define C/FO, it’s pretty clear there is a wide range of options and preferences. Athol and Jennifer seem to have a very slight power differential – he behaves in a dominant way, but clearly does not dictate family decisions. You can bet she was integrally involved in approving his decision to quit nursing, for example. One does not get the sense that he tells her what to do on a day to day basis, and she is quite independent in her demeanor. IMO, she very much knows how to keep Athol on his toes. His N is one, after all. :P

      That’s a very, very different model from the one some of the bloggers writing about female submission describe. C/FO can be very nearly egalitarian or focus much more on keeping the woman “below.” (I’ve noticed the words “below” or “under” are often used – something to do with Adam and Eve, and Eve’s being more to blame – a “fallen” woman. I’m not sure how this creationist view sidles up to evolutionary theory, though some spout both simultaneously.)

  • http://happycrow.wordpress.com Russ in Texas

    Definitely not. I CAN cook; she enjoys it. Guess who winds up doing more dishes? Otoh, I fold the laundry in my house, because it’s our mutually least-favorite chore, and I hate it marginally less than she does.

    I think what a lot of people miss is something my Dad (who actually did captain two warships) said: you don’t get to slack off or relax. The higher up the chain you go, the more people you work FOR.

    My marriage is built around me carefully watching out for the care and happiness of my wife – if it weren’t, why on earth would she have married me?

  • Abbot

    “How often do we hear that men are “falling behind” or “not manning up”?

    From feminists, the former is never uttered and the latter often is.

    .

  • http://happycrow.wordpress.com Russ in Texas

    Susan,

    Those are great. I’ve GOT to get better at messing with bobbins (I’m mostly a hand-sewer due to years of leatherworking).

    In my family, back before the dinosaurs, spinning and weaving was woman’s work, but knitting and tailoring was something the MEN did. My twin still knits up a storm, and I make vests and jackets for the most part.

  • Maggie

    @susan:

    I love that black sweater. It’s too bad I find black too hard to see to knit! I’m making this now:

    http://tahkistacycharles.cust.firepoppy.com/dyn_prod.php?p=CCSS10&k=75888&pb=CCSS10-004

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

      @Maggie

      That’s beautiful! Perfect for spring. It’s also very feminine – it would make a great sweater for Easter.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    That’s a very, very different model from the one some of the bloggers writing about female submission describe. C/FO can be very nearly egalitarian or focus much more on keeping the woman “below.” (I’ve noticed the words “below” or “under” are often used – something to do with Adam and Eve, and Eve’s being more to blame – a “fallen” woman. I’m not sure how this creationist view sidles up to evolutionary theory, though some spout both simultaneously.)

    I suspect it has something to do with missionaries.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “That’s a very, very different model from the one some of the bloggers writing about female submission describe. C/FO can be very nearly egalitarian or focus much more on keeping the woman “below.”

    Oh ,for sure. That doesn’t strike me as C/FO, but much higher degree of D/S behavior.

    I think these alt-right folks get it mostly correct that the model most *likely* to work and stand the test of time is a male-led family, whether it is a C/FO type thing, or some stronger D/S dynamic. Where they start looking like they’re on the wacky tobacky to me, is when they insist all women must be submissive to a great degree. I do think a female Captain can work in some special rare cases, but most times, women will just lose all attraction for their men.

    Bells described an excellent situation where her father, despite not having the most education, but excelled in other areas enough to be entrusted as the leader. That’s great testament to inner game and having the self-assurance as a valuable person, independent of your income.

    My wife is trained K12 in music, but has only worked part time since our first baby, and due hearing loss. Now, she is going back to school for nursing, possibly med school (a childhood dream, since her aunt is a wealthy doctor). I’m thrilled to fund it, but the reality is that it makes no difference on my attraction to her. A man really can’t get away with that sort of thing in general.

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

      Bells described an excellent situation where her father, despite not having the most education, but excelled in other areas enough to be entrusted as the leader. That’s great testament to inner game and having the self-assurance as a valuable person, independent of your income.

      Agreed. I also think Bastiat Blogger hit on some other ways women look up to their husbands in assortative marriages or even hypogamous ones.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “The question then becomes, what price do you pay in attracting women, given that we are still very much hardwired to identify and measure a man’s ability to provide.”

    Just a hypothetical that usually gets ignored but going overboard on the paying for a date thing (especially early on) is typically an instant tingle killer.

    Much like emotional commitment, if a man goes all in too early on with resources with girl A, girl A has every reason to suspect he will do it again with girl B. (Much like the complaint about commitment and over eagerness.)

    This probably explains why manosphere advice is coffee date first then escalate in resource provision. Keeps investment low which is actually something both parties want, man to gauge interest, women to ensure interest specifically in her.

    So ‘men must provide’ would be better said with the caveat
    ‘men must continually increase provision contingent upon a woman’s emotional escalation and acceptance of sexual escalation.’

    Not sure if this is novel but I haven’t seen it before.

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

      @Lokland

      So ‘men must provide’ would be better said with the caveat
      ‘men must continually increase provision contingent upon a woman’s emotional escalation and acceptance of sexual escalation.’

      That makes sense – at least I find no objection to it, for reasons we’ve discussed at length in the recent online dating thread.

      I don’t think the man’s actually dispensing those resources increases attraction. They key thing is that he has them, and that the female is aware of this. (That’s what status tells us.)

      Then it’s the woman’s job to “earn” them. Resource commitment is like any other kind – women want to earn this, not just be another girl who gets the same lavish treatment as everyone else. In the same way that women will penalize men who are emotionally promiscuous, I think they will do the same if a man is eager to spend, provided that spending appears calculated to win her attraction. If he’s just a rich guy who throws money around, she won’t feel repelled in the same way, obvs.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    The problem with men being displaced by women, and pushed out of the labor market completely at the low end is this:

    At some level men do everything they do to get laid. It may be multiple levels deep, but that is the motivation. Parents teach their sons to study and work to make them suitable candidates for marriage.

    Women may have invented gardening and agriculture. Iroquois women tended the crops. Farming in early societies tends to be left to subordinates of both sexes. Farm work seems to be generally regarded as low status even today.

    I suspect that few men got involved with farming, and through that other work*, until it was made a criterion for marriage, and marriage a requirement for sex. This required certain restrictions on girls. Girls have never liked that. Parents became the gatekeepers for sex.

    Susan might have been attracted to a shiftless no good, but I suspect she wouldn’t have stayed with him. She was growing up when she met her husband. She is on record as condemning lazy men. Mothers do that. Girls under a certain level of maturity have other priorities.

    It is often said that a society that ignores the talents of half its population, meaning women, is at a disadvantage. That stick points both ways.

    The very lowest classes of men have never worked more than they had to. That behavior is spreading.

    We have broken the old contract.

    *Hunting is not work.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-i

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

      @Dinkney

      It is often said that a society that ignores the talents of half its population, meaning women, is at a disadvantage. That stick points both ways.

      The very lowest classes of men have never worked more than they had to. That behavior is spreading.

      We have broken the old contract.

      +1

      I know it’s fashionable to say “enjoy the decline,” but I’m more optimistic than that. I really believe that women are already concluding that “this sucks,” and change has begun. What I don’t know is the timeline.

  • INTJ

    @ Iggles, J

    J – Gah! I wish I had never clicked that link… for my sanity I’m going to pretend that was the work of Photoshop

    Cosigned.

  • Abbot

    “women are already concluding that “this sucks,” and change has begun.”

    But its the feminist mouthpieces who keep spouting everything is fine and men will adjust because they have to. Its a runaway train about to run off the rails…

    .

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Interesting article I found from that, which, with small adaptations can easily explain how an 80-20-like situation can arise even through serial monogamy: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/the-paradox-polygamy-i-why-most-americans-are-polygamous

  • INTJ
  • http://happycrow.wordpress.com Russ in Texas

    @Abbot#186,

    One thing you might notice is that the feminist mouthpieces are getting a LOT more pushback than they used to. I’m not a big am-radio guy, but I’ve had friends who were, and I remember when Limbaugh’s epithet “feminazis” was scandalous and resulted in froth-and-spittle from the usual suspects and “whoooooa, hardcore” from others.

    Nowadays, when even the Jezebel crowd gets pushback, from their own readership, not so much. I think The Futurist was entirely correct when he referred to PC misandry and “here are your freedom chains, wear them or be shamed”-style feminism is simply a cultural bubble that will do a hard fade along with a bunch of other boomer fads.

  • Esau

    “In the same way that women will penalize men who are emotionally promiscuous, I think they will do the same if a man is eager to spend, provided that spending appears calculated to win her attraction.

    As opposed to, if his restraint on spending is actually calculated to win her attraction?

    If he’s just a rich guy who throws money around, she won’t feel repelled in the same way, obvs.

    A favorite joke of my wife’s reads, “A fool and his money can be fun to go out with.” (The “money” part, at least, never applied to me BTW.)

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

      As opposed to, if his restraint on spending is actually calculated to win her attraction?

      Good point. I strongly advise men not to disclose any calculations whatsoever. A man will do well to view commitment as his to dispense, and that includes the commitment of resources. However, as I noted before, many women will form a negative impression of a man who clings tightly to his resources without being willing into invest anything at all on a promising prospect. (I bolded that to indicate that it is the woman’s responsibility to earn that designation.)

  • Dinkney Pawson

    I know it’s fashionable to say “enjoy the decline,” but I’m more optimistic than that. I really believe that women are already concluding that “this sucks,” and change has begun. What I don’t know is the timeline.

    I anticipate quite a bit of social stratification instead. The U and UM classes will still form families. The underclass will grow. It will be easier to slip into the underclass. It will be harder to climb out. The upper classes will respond by rigging the game in less meritocratic ways.

    See the stories of Augie Busch I, II, III, IV, & V. Do any old money families last? How do they do it? Do any continue to contribute to society?

    Scary reading:

    http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Apart-America-1960-2010-ebook/dp/B00540PAXS/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1359917365&sr=8-1

    http://www.aei.org/scholar/charles-murray/

    The real reason The Bell Curve got vilified was its assertion that the modern bureaucratic state is part of the process that rigs the game against people on the left side of the bell curve. Too many are emotionally invested in “Social Justice”.

    If you make gaming the system important you distract people from other things. The only real scarce resource is human attention, and we’re wasting it.

    I don’t think it is stable. TANSTAAFL.

    Enough automation might make everything really cheap. First world poverty may be an oxymoron now.

    The upper classes will still get all the best toys.

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

    My own mother’s version was “God helps those who help themselves.”
    “A Dios rezando y con el mazo dando.” Very catholic ;)

    In short, adultery is a dealbreaker for women but not for men, unless it’s hers.

    In theory yes. But given that I had seen cheating culture for decades this is not how it works in the real life. As Helen Fisher shows. A third of people will bond strongly from a sexual encounter so a third of men will want to leave their wives or at the very least neglect them in favor of the new punani.
    Then there is the other ‘unplanned’ bond, like pregnancies and if the guy has a strong paternal instinct and the kids of the primary partner are older they will favor the new and younger offspring. Thus this only works if the man is really careful and really lucky. Hard to happen at the same time in real life.

    Just a hypothetical that usually gets ignored but going overboard on the paying for a date thing (especially early on) is typically an instant tingle killer.

    You need to consider the narcissism factor. In the past formal dates were qualifiers for both genders. In our hair conversation Just was surprised how much time and money is spent on looking feminine. That was an unspoken part of how the lady invested on the little money she had access to. To look nice and impress the man as well, then she was supposed to show a ‘good head’ by ordering items that were nice but not too taxing on the guy from the menu and not drinking enough to get drunk so as to cause a nice impression. All this effort prevented many women from going out with a man just for the LOLZ or accept more dates when she was sure the relationship was going nowhere. Both as consideration from man’s time and money as to make sure she will be available for other suitors ASAP. All this script doesn’t work if a woman is going out to fancy places just for the food or to post in facebook how much men invest on her. Hence the ‘tingle killer’, YMMV.

    shows why men – not women – chose monogamy.

    In theory again. Look up a woman might think Mel Gibson will invest equally on her but find herself treated as a sex slave with little to no chances for her offspring to make it. You should read the levels of insecurity, backstabbing and intrigue in memoirs of harems around the world, really if you think The herd is bad when men are supposedly to be won at some point imagine if you have to share a man and his resources with other women and kids for the rest of your life, it was possible the closest thing to hell, hence why women in most cultures respond to cheating strongly and do their darn best to diminish their rivals, YMMV.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Thanks for the solid advice, Mike C. Pretty much my thought process. For me that means making sure my resume is solid and how to actually network. I didn’t do much stuff at college, graduated in the middle of the recession, and took quite a while to get something decent.

    I ended up doing contract work at a big company for 18 months and finally got hired just recently. The idea of going back on the job market seems, I am going to be honest, terrifying. Something I’ll need to get over, I suppose.

    On the plus side, I am only turning 26 this month, so still quite young…but need to get moving on this wonderful “career” stuff.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    “A Dios rezando y con el mazo dando.” Very catholic

    It’s at least as old as Aesop.

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

    For me that means making sure my resume is solid and how to actually network.
    I’m curious about something. How would an introvert network?

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

    It’s at least as old as Aesop.
    Catholic had been “borrowing’ from other sources for thousands of years. Good advice, is good advice. ;)

  • INTJ

    @ Dinkney Pawson

    Enough automation might make everything really cheap. First world poverty may be an oxymoron now.

    It’ll make it easier to produce goods. But that won’t mean people can afford them. Automation means goods can be produced without workers, which means workers get unemployed and can’t afford to buy the goods. It’s a basic problem with capitalism – and the main reason socialism might actually be necessary (Marx et. al. predicted totally different reasons). Once production becomes capital intensive but not labor intensive, i.e. the limiting factor in production is the amount of physical infrastructure, the only way to distribute the goods that are being produced is for everybody to have a share in the profits – i.e. physical infrastructure is publicly owned, not privately owned. Hopefully, we’d still be able to keep things efficient and well managed by allowing people at the high end of the bell curve to manage things and get to afford extra luxuries as the fruits of their labor.

  • Dinkney Pawson
    For me that means making sure my resume is solid and how to actually network.

    I’m curious about something. How would an introvert network?

    From ambush has had mixed results for me.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    If it doesn’t get them laid the producers will eventually stop.

    One way or another.

    I don’t think it’s stable.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    @Anacaona

    I can’t quarrel with borrowing. Pot, kettle, and all that.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Ana, being introverted doesn’t necessarily mean not being able to talk to people. It just means that it is an exhausting enterprise.

    I’m a borderline extrovert, though :P

  • pvw

    @Susan re. 1930s bathing suits…it is interesting that today we might see that as appropriate for casual street wear and as a beach cover up as you suggested, not the bathing suit itself.

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

      @pvw

      re. 1930s bathing suits…it is interesting that today we might see that as appropriate for casual street wear and as a beach cover up as you suggested, not the bathing suit itself.

      Haha, yes. Can you imagine how heavy a wet knitted suit would be though? And how long that would take to dry? There has been a comeback of one-piece suits that have 40s-era glamour. I think SayWhaat posted a photo of a very cute one a while back.

  • Iggles

    @ Ana:

    Then there is the other ‘unplanned’ bond, like pregnancies and if the guy has a strong paternal instinct and the kids of the primary partner are older they will favor the new and younger offspring. Thus this only works if the man is really careful and really lucky. Hard to happen at the same time in real life.

    Yikes! That’s terrifying. Would be devastating for the wife and their children (i.e., worst fear of children of divorce is being replaced by their dad’s “new” family!).

    All the more reason not to tolerate cheating. It undermines the marriage at BEST (without trust the relationship slowly dies) and completely breaks the family apart at worst…

  • Bells


    I believe this is hardwired instinct. Even the confirmed bachelor is often invested in displaying his theoretical ability to provide.

    The question then becomes, what price do you pay in attracting women, given that we are still very much hardwired to identify and measure a man’s ability to provide. That is really what the attraction to social dominance is about – access to resources

    I’m still struggling with this aspect. To be clear, I’m still very much hypergamous. At the age of 21, I’m not certain about the future and my financial potential. Especially because I’ve recently changed my career path since I determined that its rigor would not allow me to invest as much time as I would like into my future children. The ability for the man to provide resources for my family is a very high priority.

    I’m conflicted. Basically my reasoning for now comes down to: if I am able to make a good amount of money, then I don’t care if my husband makes less. However, if I am not as financially secure— then yes the amount of resources that a man has is very important.

    There’s no way to determine this at 21, so I’ve been using ambition level as a tool of measurement.

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

      @Bells

      There’s no way to determine this at 21, so I’ve been using ambition level as a tool of measurement.

      Good, that’s exactly what you should be doing! Men in their early to mid 20s are more about potential than anything, so your job is to select a man who has that in spades. As you suggest, ambition is a strong female attraction trigger, as are industriousness and intelligence. Odds are that a man with all three will be a high achiever and good provider.

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

    Re: provisioning. I read a paper in the last year or so (think it was by an influence psychologist named Griskevicius, but I’m not sure) that examined how sex ratios impact financial decisions. One finding is that men intuitively apply a high discount rate when sex ratios are high; when male intrasexual competition is fierce, men will opt for smaller, more immediate gains and will make comparatively rash decisions in order to try to secure sexual/reproductive access to a woman. When sex ratios are low, men show more patience and act more systematically and slowly.

    IIRC, there was no real evidence that female time value of money calibration changed with different sex ratios.

    The same paper examined how sex ratios affect career choices. The author(s) found that high sex ratios compelled men to invest more in their careers and women to invest less in their own, while low sex ratios compelled women to invest more in their careers and men to invest less.

    What migh be more surprising is the pattern of career investment in response to mating competition: in high sex ratio environments, men with high mate value (SMV in HUSspeak) will invest in riskier, more demanding, and potentially lucrative careers, while lower SMV men will choose more secure and stable “work-life balance” careers. In contrast, women dealing with low sex ratio (high female intrasexual comp) environments revealed the opposite pattern (high SMV women chose stability; lower SMV took more risks to go afte the $$$).

    I don’t remember what happened to male risk-taking when sex ratios were low and favorable to men, but I think that the high SMV men begin to behave more like high SMV women and look for security and balance, while the lower SMV men start becomn aggressive about risk.

    There was another telling comment about “unfair” or discriminatory pricing strategies: men were more willing to tolerate discriminatory “variable pricing” approaches when sex ratios were high, but wanted to see more equitable fixed pricing being used when sex ratios were low. This does seem to be supported by anecdotal experience.

  • Bells

    woohoo, first time success at trying blockquote!

    @Iggles and PVW,

    yeah I’ve read a lot of the Married Man Sex Life. He’s definitely a much saner voice in comparison to the manosphere.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    @Bells

    Make that demonstrated productive ambition. Speaking as a guy, many talk a good game. As a father this bothers me.

  • Lokland

    @Susan, Ana

    “You need to consider the narcissism factor. In the past formal dates were qualifiers for both genders”

    True. Keyword being past.

    +1 to both of your comments Susan
    You got what I was trying to say.

    Also, the good prospect, very important.

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

    All the more reason not to tolerate cheating. It undermines the marriage at BEST (without trust the relationship slowly dies) and completely breaks the family apart at worst…

    And this comes from someone that was taught since birth that “men cheat, women betray” same principle. But I’m not an idiot in practice just because the man just wants ‘to wet his dick’ without intentions of leaving his wife it doesn’t mean is less of a threat to the marriage. A good way to put cheating is that is like planning to rob someone a gun point without the intention to kill. Risky, risky, risky. Both genders shouldn’t even think about cheating.

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

      @Anacaona

      just because the man just wants ‘to wet his dick’ without intentions of leaving his wife it doesn’t mean is less of a threat to the marriage.

      I’ve read a lot of comments about this that amount to moral equivalency, i.e. male cheating is less damaging than female cheating. The problem is, that is a thoroughly selfish perspective. How “bad” or damaging adultery is depends entirely on the experience of the victim. If a male’s cheating is devastating to the female, it’s bad in the sense that it destroys trust and kills the relationship. It doesn’t matter how the perp feels about cheating, only how the victim feels.

  • Ion

    “The very lowest classes of men have never worked more than they had to. That behavior is spreading. ”

    The feminist SMP started benefiting them, giving them no incentive to work hard. They aren’t normally competing for the highest SMV women, therefore they can totally set the tone for their environment, which is: nothing ever gets done. You cannot simultaneously be a low SMV woman AND set the tone for your environment. “What you value in a mate” is irrelevant compared to the choices you have.

    Not just lower class men aren’t working hard, the bratty playboy rich men I’ve met rarely amounted to much either, preferring part-time “gigs”, nonstop traveling, sports, eccentric hobbies, etc., instead of working hard.

    This is harder to reverse than it is to create, because people will always find a way to excuse privileges they have gained over others (whether earned or unearned). They’ll blame whomever they must; blaming the market while benefiting from the market, and having no real interest in changing anything. When it comes to sustaining civilization, you can usually expect alphas and men with an abundance of options to be non-contributing princesses.

  • Charlotte

    None of this shocks me whatsoever. I do think men often feel that the breadwinning is their main contribution to the family and without being able to provide a larger income, they may feel inadequate and like they are not masculine enough.

    I plan on working after having children but hopefully my career is at the point where I can make my own hours to a certain extent so that I do get to spend a lot of time with my kids. I’m lucky to be planning to go into a creative industry where that is possible.

    On another note, I have an update on my situation from the last post, and of course, I need advice again.

    The guy that I went out with on Wednesday did indeed text me at Friday at 6PM, inviting me on his trip to Atlantic City that night. I’m not really sure if he was serious about it, I already plans plus I wouldn’t have gone even if I didn’t. I do like him and feel a connection, but I have known him for not so long. How does he know I’m NOT crazy myself and will murder him? I just found it interesting. The next morning (Saturday AM) he texted me a photo of his cash winnings and then proceeded to invite me to come down to the school he is an alumni of where he was staying with a friend ((his friend that he visited ATlantic City with) because they have a short break (nobody is at school) as a way out of the city (and to study for his CFA) for the day and night and hang out and go around town to dinner and a karaoke bar. The school is two hours away plus I also had plans Sunday morning. I told him that and he said “if you change your mind, let me know, it would be really fun!” I find it interesting that he would want to spend that much time with me, and I would have essentially been stuck there sort of. I’m not really sure what these sudden invitations mean – does he just want to sleep with me? Or is he just trying to use every hour of his limited free time on weekends to his advantage and spend time with people to start up something? He’s a very handsome guy and I’m sure that if he wanted to sleep with a girl randomly, he could easily enough find one at a bar for the night and not spend tons of time with her on a mini trip like that. He isn’t a big drinker anymore since he finished college, he said he will have a beer but he is training for a marathon in March and also is like “college was fun, but now its time to work hard” which I find admirable. But who knows, sometimes men jump through hoops to just get sex. I don’t think I give off a vibe that I am “dtf”, I need you to make plans with me in advance as I do typically have many things to do on the weekends. I really need some insight on what he is doing as I am still very interested him because I did feel such a spark with him and would like to get to know him in a slower, more normal pace if he does indeed like me for a potential relationship.
    I texted him a few hours ago “hey how was your weekend i’m headed to some friends for a superbowl and thought of you” (he played football in college but he told me he would not be watching as he would be studying) he replied “my weekend was good, and yours?” almost immediately and I told him mine was nice and he said “yeah cool” so I stopped texting him. He may in fact be studying and just not feel like texting but of course I feel weird about the yeah cool response which didn’t invite more conversation. This was the first time I’ve ever texted him first but I felt like I should so that he knows I wasn’t totally creeped out by his invitations. I guess we’ll find out if he tries to make plans with me for the week (as he had mentioned several times on our drinks date the other night) if he is interested in more, but again, I’d like to see what you wise ladies and men think of the situation.

  • http://happycrow.wordpress.com Russ in Texas

    I think you’re right to be on guard; my personal instincts would be to drop this dude like a hot rock.

  • Ion

    Charlotte

    “The guy that I went out with on Wednesday did indeed text me at Friday at 6PM, inviting me on his trip to Atlantic City that night.”

    How far away from Atlantic City are you? If more than 20 miles, it just sounds odd to me. From your description he seems like a thrill seeker, and they can be kind of unsuitable for LTRs I’ve heard.

    Even if he responds, I would not go to Atlantic City and share a hotel with some strange guy, I don’t really care what he says. Be cautious about this guy, and keep looking.

  • Charlotte

    Yeah I would never go to Atlantic City unless it was as a joke with girlfriends for a bachelorette party or something. Not really a place on my destinations to visit list. And I ESPECIALLY would never go anywhere with someone I just met.
    I live in NYC, so Atlantic City is a bit of a hike. He was going because he was planning to go before Hurricane Sandy and obviously the trip got cancelled so they comped the room and his college friend was in town for the weekend who he went with I guess.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    @Charlotte

    Last minute invitations can be disrespectful. If you are walking together on campus and he asks you to stop for coffee, that’s one thing. Asking you to drive two hours is quite another. That was a particularly nasty bootie call; where would you have slept?

  • Ion

    Dinkney:

    “Last minute invitations can be disrespectful. If you are walking together on campus and he asks you to stop for coffee, that’s one thing. Asking you to drive two hours is quite another. That was a particularly nasty bootie call; where would you have slept?”

    Amazing! I agree.

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

    @SW

    What we do not know is whether significant numbers of women will marry men with less formal education than themselves.

    True, though if past behavior predicts future behavior, we have some idea. Pew Research has been tracking this trend for awhile:

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/01/19/women-men-and-the-new-economics-of-marriage/

    The income gap between wives and husbands appears to have gone up by a factor of 5x, so there’s bound to be some marital effects of that change. But even back in 1970, 20% of wives were more educated than their husbands. That hasn’t even doubled, yet… though it’ll probably get there soon.

    I can’t dispute the Atlantic article WRT the gap in degreed men in major cities. What’s interesting about that is, and I think this has come up before, single men outnumber single women in all those major cities, and every medium-sized city too, by far. And the gay male population can’t account for the discrepancy (only 3-4% of the population).

    The college-educated population still has the highest marriage rate and the lowest divorce rate… I suppose some kind of reasonable trade-off is taking place if a young woman can’t find an equally-educated mate.

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

      @Megaman

      The college-educated population still has the highest marriage rate and the lowest divorce rate… I suppose some kind of reasonable trade-off is taking place if a young woman can’t find an equally-educated mate.

      For me, the most interesting data in the post is the difference between net hypergamy, high for <12 years education, and negative for >12 years. It appears that females are adapting, and have been for some time. I was surprised by the number of hypogamous marriages in the 2001 study. I’d like to see more data, but I find this quite intriguing.

  • Mike C

    I believe this is hardwired instinct. Even the confirmed bachelor is often invested in displaying his theoretical ability to provide. Bastiat Blogger is a good example of this – he talks of lavish gifts, including cosmetics and fashion, expensive weekends away, etc.

    Perhaps….to some extent…IDK. Being a guy myself :) I can tell you this is NOT as powerful a hardwired instinct as some other items. I think Bastiat and I are similar ages perhaps he is 5-10 years older..but we grew up in a different time. I’d be interested to see what the typical teenage guy or even early twenty-something thinks about this since they grew up in the era of women as fully independent, autonomous economic actors. I can say I felt this much more strongly in my early to mid 20s than now which suggests it is more cultural programming and learned behavior then code sitting inside male genes.

    And virtually all surveys of men show a high percentage of men preferring to pay on a date. In fact, more women indicate willingness to pay than men indicate willingness to accept.

    Would be interesting to see this broken out by age cohorts. In any case, that doesn’t answer whether it is cultural influence or biological hardwiring.

    The question then becomes, what price do you pay in attracting women, given that we are still very much hardwired to identify and measure a man’s ability to provide. That is really what the attraction to social dominance is about – access to resources.

    I’d argue from a male POV, this is more feature than bug. I’d say you want to filter out any woman who puts too much value on the “access to resources” part of LTR attraction. I hope Tasmin isn’t offended by me mentioning this, but best I can recall his marriage fell apart partially because he lost part of his ability to be super high provisioning. In my view, that ability is not intrinsic to the man himself but extrinsic to some degree. That provisioning ability can be taken away by bad luck or cruel twists of fate. Then what? You’ve got a woman who may leave you, at the very least may be resentful or disappointed. Frankly, the guy probably pays a much lower price upfront losing the interest of a woman heavily focused on access to resources compared to the price he may pay later if he ever loses that ability.

    Ted D has mentioned previously how his current wife had an almost instantaneous visceral attraction to him. I know my fiancee has the same feeling towards me. My advice to any guy would always be to NEXT the woman who doesn’t feel something immediately powerfully visceral but who instead needs a lot of time for attraction “to grow” based on more extrinsic things like provisioning ability.

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

      @Mike C

      I’d be interested to see what the typical teenage guy or even early twenty-something thinks about this since they grew up in the era of women as fully independent, autonomous economic actors.

      I agree that culture can be quite pervasive. Hence the death of the beta provider marriage…

      I’d say you want to filter out any woman who puts too much value on the “access to resources” part of LTR attraction.

      I agree – I would caution any man to be wary of women who prioritize assets or resources to the exclusion of other aspects of character. At the same time, a woman who ignores a man’s ability to provide is a fool. It is the male’s willingness to commit resources to the family that ensures survival of offspring.

      In my view, that ability is not intrinsic to the man himself but extrinsic to some degree. That provisioning ability can be taken away by bad luck or cruel twists of fate. Then what? You’ve got a woman who may leave you, at the very least may be resentful or disappointed

      This is unfortunate. That sounds patronizing, but I do not mean for it to…However, Tasmin went from being a super high flyer – 1/10 of 1% – to being a man who has chosen to pursue a career as an artist. His wife basically cheated and there were no children – and IIRC her leaving occurred before his crisis at work. The cause and effect here is not so clear, as Tasmin has suggested himself.

      But I agree with you that women feel extremely vulnerable and threatened when their mates lose their jobs. That can lead to both resentment and disappointment. More than 50% of primary breadwinners in America today are female – and that is bound to have some significant impacts on marriage and relationships.

      My advice to any guy would always be to NEXT the woman who doesn’t feel something immediately powerfully visceral but who instead needs a lot of time for attraction “to grow” based on more extrinsic things like provisioning ability.

      At the risk of repeating myself, occupational status, or economic capacity, is the most influential female attraction cue. That means that the status derived from good career achievement or prospects = attraction early on. Women generally suss this out at first meeting.

  • Mike C

    I’m curious about something. How would an introvert network?

    Same way an extrovert would. :) Which means it would be tiresome, hard work.

    I’d bet my last dollar that the very upper echelon of corporate hierarchies are almost exclusively populated by extroverts, especially the CEO position. You might have some introverts as CFOs, or even chief technology officers, but I think moving up through the managerial ranks basically mandates being an extrovert.

  • Mike C

    On the plus side, I am only turning 26 this month, so still quite young…but need to get moving on this wonderful “career” stuff.

    If you want it, yes you do. FWIW, you aren’t that young.

    I’d argue that the ages of 25-40 for a man career wise are very similar to a woman’s SMP positioning for marriage prospects from 25-40. You’ve got a limited window of opportunity to really start climbing and make it.

    By 35ish, and certainly 40ish, if you haven’t already started to move up the ranks, then you most likely will not because the assumption will be “something is wrong”. If you haven’t progressed upward much, then the default assumption will be there must be some reasons why you haven’t and therefore this person won’t give you a shot either. In a way, it is kind of like preselection.

    In my department, there is one “rising star” manager who just turned 30. All the other managers are 50+. He came into the company from the outside from a top accounting firm, and quickly made friends with the CFO. Top level management identifies the “chosen ones” early. These are the people that are marked for moving up. You have to get on that list early. The key is visibility. You have to get a position where you can be visible to top management and get your chance in the spotlight. And if you get that shot, you must perform brilliantly. One right move on the center stage can set you on the right path.

    My main advice would be to think carefully if you really want this and for what reasons, and then if so pursue with 110% effort. If Tasmin is around, he may have some more pointed specific advice better than I can give. My sense is he was a very high corporate achiever at a very young age, but it looks like he stepped off that path. Keep in mind that yellow brick road might be fool’s gold.

  • Richard Aubrey

    About four decades ago, three things happened within the same, say, six months. My wife and I bought our first house. I went into commission sales. I read Ardrey’s “Territorial Imperative”.
    The latter uses ethology–insights into human behavior gained from watching animal behavior, which is different from ev psych in that the animals in question are not extinct–to see what the idea of territory, which is property, the gaining of it and the losing of it has to do with animal behavior. Turns out the birds do it, the bees do it and I can’t recall the next bunch who do it. But they seem to think it’s important.
    So, I was raking the back yard that first autumn, looked up at MY house, and rejoiced. Also, the fun in bringing home the bacon from commission sales is far more intense than in bringing home a salary. Closer to the hunt/kill/bring dynamic, I suppose.
    From which I presume that the interest in owning stuff, gaining stuff through effort, etc, is at least marginally present in all men. And, further, more than marginal if it’s important as opposed to being of marginal importance.
    Formal education could be a problem if it’s a matter of parchment rather than skills. Somebody asked what you’re going to do with a degree in Women’s Victimization through All The Ages. Or Art History. Compare that to a skilled worker in the Bakken or Eagle Ford fields.
    Can other issues make up for an income disparity favoring the woman?
    See Noonan’s post 9-11 “Welcome Back, Duke”. Probably.

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

      @Richard Aubrey

      So, I was raking the back yard that first autumn, looked up at MY house, and rejoiced. Also, the fun in bringing home the bacon from commission sales is far more intense than in bringing home a salary. Closer to the hunt/kill/bring dynamic, I suppose.

      I adore this visual. And yet it is a throwback – the post WWII hungry and able man who made his own opportunities.

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

    Ted D has mentioned previously how his current wife had an almost instantaneous visceral attraction to him. I know my fiancee has the same feeling towards me. My advice to any guy would always be to NEXT the woman who doesn’t feel something immediately powerfully visceral but who instead needs a lot of time for attraction “to grow” based on more extrinsic things like provisioning ability.

    I don’t mean this will happen to Ted and/or you or that your women are the type. But you are thinking that this guarantees that the woman will be unwavering attracted to you and will stay loyal and supportive if she has her guts pointing out to you, probably based on “player stories’. That might be true for certain women but also this women might be willing to cheat on a “It felt right” moment in the presence of a man they feel more gut attraction or just a strong as your attraction while you are not physically present.
    While the woman that grew to like you and fall in love later will take at least the same amount of time to dislike you or/and to like someone else enough to go to bed with him.
    Female loyalty is more complex than “Of I wet her panties it doesn’t matter if I lose every other attractive trait I have she will stay with me or/and not cheat” and even though we all know crazy women that endure a lot of crap from a man we (at least I) know women loyal to men in their worst moments, losing their jobs, family, status and feeling like crap. You need a woman who has more reasons to stick with you than reasons to leave you and this varies among women as well, just my two cents.

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

    Mike, not sure how old you are, but I’ll be 41 in less than a week (!).

    Adding to Mike’s comments about provisioning signals, I would simply caution men that once you get on this particular train, it can be hard to ever get off. You can suffer from two related kinds of insecurity: 1) that you are essentially paying for sex, and therefore may feel that your physical attractiveness is never really being validated in the same way that, say, Magic Mike feels validated; 2) that the woman will abandon you if you ever run into a rough patch of really bad luck (i.e., you may fear that her true love
    is for resource access; you are a functional intermediary and thus her
    professed feelings for you are in fact conditional on SES).

    I make this mistake all the time and it has insidious long-term effects because it can attract the wrong type of mercenary SMP operator, who then goes on to confirm my most cynical suspicions and then the cycle begins anew.

    As Mike said, it may be useful to try to deliberately filter out the singularly resource-obsessed before getting emotionally and even legally entangled
    with someone who views you as a kind of working farm animal. Whatever sex you get will probably not be worth the ulcers, sleepless nights, hypertension, and early grave. I personally don’t practice what I preach,
    but that may be because I have become overly reliant on blatant displays and lifestyle marketing gimmicks.

    I do think that men should pay for dates and that some tasteful, understated signals of competence in a few key areas will go a long way. The flashy stuff can end up attracting the sharks—fine for STRs but not so good for an LTR-seeking man who wants a woman who will stick with him through thick and thin.

  • Richard Aubrey

    “I do think that men should pay for dates and that some tasteful, understated signals of competence in a few key areas will go a long way.”

    Bastiat. Agree. Back in the day, it didn’t seem to matter what your competence was. Talked to a girl I knew, a senior in college, who was absolutely floored that a guy she knew and was dating–not sure about the bf sitch–had arranged to have lunch with an ag implement dealer to learn about the biz so as to use it in a novel he was writing. He was in the GROWNUP world, the BUSINESS world, and he got there, off campus, by having the guts to ASK for the dealer’s time. !!! I hadn’t heard the term “tingle” at the time, but I think I was witnessing it.
    Today, seeming competent at one’s employment without providing numbers is probably good enough and will help avoid the mercenaries. And anything else; serious first aid, martial arts, mechanical hobbies, skill at a musical instrument [different from being in a band], active hobbies seem to do it amongst the youngsters I know. Funny. I think I was doing it, but didn’t have a clue.
    If we’re going to go with ev psych, I suppose the subconscious idea that the world might bust through the cocoon never goes away and somebody who indicates he can deal with it would have an advantage. And practically any activity can indicate abilities to deal with the real world outside the cocoon. You may not know X, but you’ve obviously learned to handle Y and Z, so if X comes along, you can manage that, too.
    What still surprises me, in my “world damn’well ought to be rational” moments, is the number of women who showed up at night, in the cold, to watch their boyfriends–of any degree of commitment, low to high–play intramural football when I was in college. Sure, you had a chance to show off, but also to look like a fool. So maybe it wasn’t the guys’ idea. Maybe the women wanted to see their prospects functioning outside the classroom/dating worlds.
    Still kills me: After I’d caught a couple of passes, the guy supposed to be covering me said to his teammates, “I can’t stay with the big guy.” And not a womanI knew, didn’t know, any kind of woman, was within earshot. You can’t buy that stuff. You have to perform, or be at the business of performing. Whatever it may be. Unfortunately, as I say, no woman heard it. Damn.

  • Richard Aubrey

    “I adore this visual. And yet it is a throwback – the post WWII hungry and able man who made his own opportunities.”

    Susan. And it was a midwest autumn, clear sky, maples turning. Couldn’t have done better. But it was post-Vietnam. My son is doing the same thing: Had to make 250 cold calls to qualify to go with his current employer. Does Bible study, coaches ridiculously young soccer, plays tennis before dawn, or goes to the gym, raises two perfect girls, has a terrific wife. But I should stop. (damn’ straight. ed.)
    Point is, the man may feel, see Ardrey and others, a visceral, hard-wired need to provide and if the provision isn’t important, he may not feel important. Question is whether anything else he is or does makes up for that in the woman’s view and whether he gets that it is made up for. Simple enough for a woman to show appreciation for primary provision. The other stuff could be complicated.

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

    @SW

    In short, adultery is a dealbreaker for women but not for men, unless it’s hers.

    Heh, just add that to the list of acceptable double standards around here. That’s sounds like an interesting article on divorce/infidelity, maybe worth a post?

    I know from researching the period before the 1970, where divorce was only permitted on an “at-fault” basis, there were only a handful of reasons one could petition the court to dissolve a marriage: abandonment/desertion, abuse/cruelty, alienation of affection, adultery, and maybe a couple of others. Beyond the first, the rest were quite hard to actually *prove* in court, particularly for women. Hence the very low divorce rates in the 1960s and prior, though they’d been on the rise relatively-speaking since the late 1940s. Contested divorce back then involved he said/she said situations just like today.

    I fully recognize the damage no-fault has done to the institution of marriage, but I’m wondering what alternate remedy could have been taken to get to a place where a woman could easily get out when her husband was a filanderer, or a batterer? Food for thought, I guess…

    P.S. Feelin’ a bit cheated by that Superbowl…

  • Joe

    Charlotte, this is perhaps a bit too late to help you, but what do you think would have happened if you had texted back “Hey you jerk! Why not ask me out on a proper date first? Hum?”

    From what you’ve said, I’m guessing that he’d do just that, if his intentions are at all honorable. He also wouldn’t mind you standing up to him.

    There’s a chance that his intentions are not. But if that is so, he wouldn’t agree to a proper date to begin with.

  • Mike C

    At the risk of repeating myself, occupational status, or economic capacity, is the most influential female attraction cue.

    Heh…maybe you are right after all

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P71RU3IMRF0

    Haha…I thought my fiancee was going to throw watching her reaction.

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

      @Mike C

      He’s about as ugly as Mark Zuckerberg.

  • J

    @Iggles, INTJ and whoever else I freaked out

    Sorry….

    It’s real though. It’s a birth defect that affects 1 in 5.5 million men. And, yes, function is compromised.

  • Mike C

    But you are thinking that this guarantees that the woman will be unwavering attracted to you and will stay loyal and supportive if she has her guts pointing out to you, probably based on “player stories’. That might be true for certain women but also this women might be willing to cheat on a “It felt right” moment in the presence of a man they feel more gut attraction or just a strong as your attraction while you are not physically present.

    Fair enough…and you are partially correct in what my thought process is. To the bolded part, my thought would be that is where N comes into play in that it might be a good heuristic for the impulse control for the hypothetical woman you are describing.

    While the woman that grew to like you and fall in love later will take at least the same amount of time to dislike you or/and to like someone else enough to go to bed with him.

    I hear you…but I think this is tough for us guys because it seems so foreign to us. Again, we are pretty much attracted or not immediately…there really isn’t some drawn out process like waiting for water to boil or paint dry. The difficulty lies in that the longer it takes the more it resonates like the woman is trying to rationalize or convince herself of the attraction instead of it being something genuine, organic, and authentic because if it was the latter it shouldn’t take that long or really much time at all. Admittedly, I understand there is probably some element of male projection taking place on my part, but that is further complicated by the fact that it seems this is the case for some women. Like I said, Ted D described it with his now wife, and I have experienced that with a few women to know that type of powerful immediate attraction can happen. So when comparing that type of attraction to something that takes weeks of slow building, unfortunately it seems like the gradual slow build seems like it is an inferior type of attraction. That may not be entirely accurate, but that is the way it feels.

    Female loyalty is more complex than “Of I wet her panties it doesn’t matter if I lose every other attractive trait I have she will stay with me or/and not cheat” and even though we all know crazy women that endure a lot of crap from a man we (at least I) know women loyal to men in their worst moments, losing their jobs, family, status and feeling like crap. You need a woman who has more reasons to stick with you than reasons to leave you and this varies among women as well, just my two cents.

    And this is the million dollar question/conundrum. That is what all us guys really have as the foremost concern in our minds when it comes to marriage, especially any guy who has been burned once. Do I have this woman’s unquestionable loyalty regardless of anything (exceptions being things like you turn out to be a serial killer or child molester). But I think most guys want to know they have the EXACT SAME LEVEL OF LOVE, COMMITMENT, DEVOTION, irrespective of whether they are CFO or wake up one day and decide to be a janitor.

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

      But I think most guys want to know they have the EXACT SAME LEVEL OF LOVE, COMMITMENT, DEVOTION, irrespective of whether they are CFO or wake up one day and decide to be a janitor.

      The answer will be no in 99.9% of cases. Or at least, the love, commitment and devotion will now be threatened by a loss of respect and resentment at the “bait and switch.” It’s the equivalent of this:

      ka

  • Mike C

    BTW…..Ana…I didn’t understand your “player story” reference in the point you were making. Could you clarify what you meant here?

  • Mike C

    Mike, not sure how old you are, but I’ll be 41 in less than a week (!).

    I’ll be 39 in just under a month.

    I do think that men should pay for dates and that some tasteful, understated signals of competence in a few key areas will go a long way. The flashy stuff can end up attracting the sharks—fine for STRs but not so good for an LTR-seeking man who wants a woman who will stick with him through thick and thin.

    Yeah, I would agree for STRs especially the mercenary types you describe you should really ramp up that displaying resources stuff without tapping yourself too much if you have it. If you want to catch those sharks inside a trap, the best move would be to put a giant piece of bloody meat you know it cannot resist. You just can’t forget you are dealing with sharks and never mistake them for a dolphin.

  • J

    Ted D has mentioned previously how his current wife had an almost instantaneous visceral attraction to him. I know my fiancee has the same feeling towards me. My advice to any guy would always be to NEXT the woman who doesn’t feel something immediately powerfully visceral but who instead needs a lot of time for attraction “to grow” based on more extrinsic things like provisioning ability.

    I too had an almost instantaneous visceral attraction to my husband. I literally saw his “across a crowded room” like in the old song, “Some Enchanted Evening.” It took me another six months to trust that attraction, however. I’d had that “head over heels” feeling blow up in my face before. Conversely, I’ve really grown to love and appreciate some men after spending some time getting to know them. If DH were to leave me, I would probably pull a guy like that out of my friend pool. And that has far less to do with provisioning than it has to do with valueing male friendship. (Note that there is a difference between “friends first” and LJBF.)

    In DH, I was very lucky to find both “chemistry” and someone with common goals and values. Who knows if I could find that again.

  • J

    I was surprised by the number of hypogamous marriages in the 2001 study. I’d like to see more data, but I find this quite intriguing.

    Don’t be. We are going to see it more and more–particularly among women who are the first in their families to go to college. Teachers and nurses especially tend to “marry down” as they often come from lower SES groups and are taking that first step up.

  • J

    Haha, yes. Can you imagine how heavy a wet knitted suit would be though? And how long that would take to dry?

    I was once forced to jump from a boat while wearing a ragg wool sweater. I sunk like rock. I supect that no one really swam in those swimsuits; they sunned themselves and waded.

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

    And this is the million dollar question/conundrum. That is what all us guys really have as the foremost concern in our minds when it comes to marriage, especially any guy who has been burned once. Do I have this woman’s unquestionable loyalty regardless of anything (exceptions being things like you turn out to be a serial killer or child molester). But I think most guys want to know they have the EXACT SAME LEVEL OF LOVE, COMMITMENT, DEVOTION, irrespective of whether they are CFO or wake up one day and decide to be a janitor.

    This is the conundrum of everyone. For women is will this guy leave me for a hotter woman if we win the lotto tomorrow or if I grow fat/disfigured/sick or old? Is he just settling for me because he doesn’t have the status to pull something hotter and if that were the change will he trade me for a younger/better model?
    I believe that we should filter our future spouses within an inch of our lives but in the end is a leap of faith. You can’t read a person’s mind or see the future after you do everything within your power to avoid ending up in a bad relationship you should surrender yourself to the idea that there are no 100% guarantees.

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

      @Anacaona

      I believe that we should filter our future spouses within an inch of our lives but in the end is a leap of faith. You can’t read a person’s mind or see the future after you do everything within your power to avoid ending up in a bad relationship you should surrender yourself to the idea that there are no 100% guarantees.

      I agree, and once you take that leap, you can’t keep looking behind you, you have to fall all the way into it. Commit fully. If you can’t, the relationship will lack trust and the dynamic will be one of waiting for the other shoe to drop. That sounds like a recipe for a very high stress way of life.

  • J

    I find that with Mr. PVW and me, we have something that might be a hybrid? I think of it as the “co-chairs” model, where there is no “captain/first officer” model, but also not absolutely egalitarian with no leadership. When we got married, we just naturally divided up responsibilities based upon our strengths and abilities, but in consultation with each other to make sure we are on the same page and are working within the same vision. If there is disagreement, we have to be able to persuade the other to the point of agreement (grounded upon discussion of all the benefits and detriments). Once we decide, the other is free to take over whatever it is. The important point is that we understand and trust each other’s judgment, so there is no conflict.

    Sounds a lot like my marriage.

  • J

    @Bells

    Sorry, I grossed you out. You’re new here, so you haven’t yet heard Abbott go on and on about multi-penis. I thought he’d like to see one.

  • J

    Really? That must’ve been Vogue Patterns! :-p

    Nope. Check out these prices:

    http://www.simplicity.com/c-1070-simplicity-early-spring-2013-pattern-collection.aspx Scroll down.

    Nearly ten bucks for a toddler dress pattern, plus the cost of fabric and notions. If you shop the clearance racks at the end of the season for clothes that are one size up from your kid’s currrent size, you can end up with the basics of a very nce wardrobe for less than you can make clothes.

    Mom bought patterns only for more complicated stuff, but once she learned basic designs, she memorized. </i<

    THAT is a talent!

  • J

    I’m not really sure what these sudden invitations mean – does he just want to sleep with me?

    Any guy who invites you to go somewhere out of town expects to sleep with you.

    He’s a very handsome guy and I’m sure that if he wanted to sleep with a girl randomly, he could easily enough find one at a bar for the night and not spend tons of time with her on a mini trip like that.

    That’s true, buthow do you now that you are not “some random Girl:” to him as well.

    And I really don’t like the “Yeah, cool.” It’s a blow off because you didn’t come running when called. Be honest with him and tell him that you aren’t intersted in boooty calls. See if that dissuades him. If it does, no loss.

  • J

    Sue: “That’s a very, very different model from the one some of the bloggers writing about female submission describe. C/FO can be very nearly egalitarian or focus much more on keeping the woman “below.”

    OTC: Oh ,for sure. That doesn’t strike me as C/FO, but much higher degree of D/S behavior.

    Gosh, ya think?

    BTW, have you visited any of blogs written by the Christian submissive women who hang around the ‘sphere? Many have a bit of a BDSM vibe.

    Good luck to your wife!

  • J

    In theory again. Look up a woman might think Mel Gibson will invest equally on her but find herself treated as a sex slave with little to no chances for her offspring to make it. You should read the levels of insecurity, backstabbing and intrigue in memoirs of harems around the world,

    There’s a balance. I think that the more primitive a society is, the more benefit there is to the women in a polygynous marriage, especially where the male death rate is high. However, while women may adapt to polygyny because a shared husband is better than no husband, sister wives live lives of jealousy and intrigue, not just competeing against each other for love and affection but also to promote the interests of their children versus the other wives’ kids. It’s a hard way to live, but in some environments, it’s the only way.

    Take the case of Middle-Easterners. Biblical Jews live much as the Bedouin do, but by the time of Christ, they were settled and monogamous. Arabs still lived like Bedouin during Mohammed’s time and really did not become settled until after the British carved up the Middle East into modern countries. I think that will be the death-knell of polygyny in a generation or two. Arab Spring, after all, was initiated by young men with no access to women. You’ve already got guys willing to die for the promise of sex in the next life.

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

    BTW…..Ana…I didn’t understand your “player story” reference in the point you were making. Could you clarify what you meant here?

    A good chunk of the tales of the guys is the “I never did this before’ with any other man that sells game as an universal panty dropper but also creates this concept that most women are whores who are just waiting for the right guy to push the right set of buttons to make her drop her panties, who creates the “I need to be that man for a woman” complex. That I think is part of the not believing that unrestricted women actually exist. The case for the slow burners is that they are not real they just haven’t met their gamer. All BS IMO to sell game.
    I’m strongly attracted to my hubby because I knew him before we were in close proximity and once in his arms I was melting. I don’t know any woman who had told me that they felt that with a complete stranger and even gamers say that they need 7 hours to get the close. I mean would you need seven hours to get laid with a willing woman? same principle, YMMV.

    I was once forced to jump from a boat while wearing a ragg wool sweater. I sunk like rock. I supect that no one really swam in those swimsuits; they sunned themselves and waded.

    Had you noticed that swimsuit models are never seen swimming either? We freaking sunk like a rock as well. Hubby tried to teach me how to float and I could had drowned him if we wouldn’t had been on a pool. Skinny women are not good floating devices. Point for the voluptuous women :p

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

    There’s a balance. I think that the more primitive a society is, the more benefit there is to the women in a polygynous marriage, especially where the male death rate is high.

    Thank you for mentioning this point. In the violent past men were encouraged to take the widows as wives and it looks like they weren’t that happy about it look what Onan did and she was his brother’s widow! And then men inherited possession through male heirs relying on one wife that had 50% of dying in childbirth was a losing proposition. Even in those cases there was always a favorite wife and a chief wife. I can’t imagine the kind of Herd from Hell this meant. Mean Girls on Stereoids if I try to be optimist.

  • Charlotte

    Yes, he texted me last night again and clearly was a little drunk or something from the superbowl. He invited me to his apartment at 11:35 ON A SUNDAY NIGHT. seriously? I did respond that “no, sorry its a sunday night and I’m not into booty calls.” We’ll see what he does tomorrow. From what he was saying on our initial meeting, he did want to hang out this week and if thst happened in a public setting on a proper date, okay. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and see if he realizes that I just don’t do shit like that (meeting guys randomly and sleep with them ASAP on out of town trips) and if I’m worth dating or if he would rather just sleep with random hoes for longer. If not, whatever, I’m also seeing another guy who is a total gentleman and has never pulled any of this crap. Normally I would totally cast him aside with all of this ridiculous invitation shit, but I was attracted to him and perhaps he is just really eager. He doesn’t seem like mr. PAtient, I think he’s used to getting what he wants right now in all areas of his like. Maybe he will like working for me. If not, sorry bye!

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

      @Charlotte

      He invited me to his apartment at 11:35 ON A SUNDAY NIGHT.

      Very, very bad sign. I would next him. Not because he doesn’t like you, but because he’s a guy whose default approach is STR, and that’s true even after meeting you and enjoying your date. Surely he knows that a LTR-worthy woman would resent being booty called after one date. His default strategy is to filter out that woman. Even if he does a 180 now that you expressed annoyance, you’re still dealing with a player. Tiger, stripes.

  • Abbot

    Without Harem Culture ascendancy of the alpha female would be very difficult. In five years, will men wife up the sheik and sultan pummeled, prickly attitudes notwithstanding?

    http://uploads1.wikipaintings.org/images/francesco-hayez/the-new-favorite-harem-scene-1866.jpg

    .

  • Lokland

    @Mike C

    On visceral attraction.

    Some subset of men are incapable of inspiring visceral attraction. I know I am one of them.
    Your advice would leave me with hookers as STRs aren’t possible and LTRs are not viable.

    @J, Ana

    On polygyny vs. monogamy

    Actually monogamy would be most favourable in the middle of the curve (developed but not to developed) and polygyny would be beneficial to women on the outer curve.

    The lower end of development is obvious, few resources with danger = go for the man capable of defending/feeding an army.

    The middle is one where resources are still limited enough to require male provisioning but theres enough resources that each man can provide for an individual women which becomes mutually beneficial for most people.

    At the top end resources become virtually unlimited.
    At this point women do not require male provisioning and can then join a harem with top quality males to ensure good genes and provide for their own offspring with help. (The other option is that they take the genes once and then leave.)

    Monogamy doesn’t make much sense for a woman in the developed world, she has to sacrifice genetic quality for…nothing she couldn’t get elsewhere. The only drive for monogamy is the one that evolved to favour it in the middle set of conditions. Her emotions, in this case, are actually doing her harm rather than good.

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

    Charlotte, I think this is a guy who has been conditioned to view things from the perspective of “I don’t really ‘date’, I ‘hang out’ with girls.”. This policy has been dissected at HUS in the past, but it basically comes down to the man goes out and does activities that he wants to do, anyway, and invites the girl to come along. If she can’t or won’t that’s ok.

    It is probably nothing personal and not meant to be disrespectful. He’s not necessarily a bad guy; he’s responding to the signals being sent to him by the
    SMP price system and to the advantages that he now commands as a good-
    looking, college-educated ex-jock who works in finance. You might say that this male scarcity process gives greater efficiency and flexibility to the man
    but simultaneously shifts new costs and risks to the woman.

    Ironically, him being very busy with job and study activities means that he’s going to be more inclined towards wanting high-octane, intense bursts of fun when he does have downtime, and this may mean trying to combine activities so that he can see you, see his friends, party, etc. in that small window of time that he has available.

    Susan has written about this a length, but it may be the case that you have to meet him halfway with some relatively safe, easy, inexpensive “day date” suggestions (lunch, coffee, brunch, etc). If he continually avoids these and counters with the booty call stuff, then he’s probably an inveterate hook-up operator who really isn’t interested in an LTR right now.

    Just my $.02!

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

      It is probably nothing personal and not meant to be disrespectful.

      This was my view until he texted that she should come over at 11:30 p.m. That can only mean one thing. Sex now. It is disrespectful, but I doubt he cares. The “all women are sluts” approach probably works well enough for him.

      I’m pretty sure Zach will confirm (if he sees) that this guy is strictly DTF.

  • Maggie

    “It is probably nothing personal and not meant to be disrespectful.”

    I agree with Susan, this was very disrespectful. The Superbowl was just over (yeah, Ravens!), the party was winding down and he decides to text her now? Inviting Charlotte a Superbowl party beforehand would have been an easy, casual way for him to get to know her better.

    Charlotte, you sound so sweet and trusting, you deserve better treatment then this!

  • J

    @Ana #252

    Yeah, it was a tough life and people were tossed together for less than romantic reasons.

  • J

    It is probably nothing personal and not meant to be disrespectful. He’s not necessarily a bad guy;

    Perhaps not, but he’s not offering what Charlotte is looking for either. He’s offering a booty call. She doesn’t have to be upset by that, but she doesn’t have to put up with it either.

    Ironically, him being very busy with job and study activities means that he’s going to be more inclined towards wanting high-octane, intense bursts of fun when he does have downtime,

    Which probably means no time for a real relationship with Charlotte.

    Susan has written about this a length, but it may be the case that you have to meet him halfway with some relatively safe, easy, inexpensive “day date” suggestions (lunch, coffee, brunch, etc). If he continually avoids these and counters with the booty call stuff, then he’s probably an inveterate hook-up operator who really isn’t interested in an LTR right now.

    That he hasn’t offered that suggests to me that he is isn’t interested in an LTR right now.

    Walk away, Charlotte. At best, this guy will be a waste of your time.

  • Sassy6519

    Yeah Charlotte, I would walk away as well. He could have easily invited you to the Super Bowl party, but he didn’t. Instead, he waited until the game/party was finished to text you to come over. You are a convenience to him. The only time that I think spur of the moment plans are somewhat acceptable is when two people are already in a relationship (as long as such plans don’t occur often). With his actions, he’s basically trying to see how easy it will be for him to get sex from you with the minimal amount of effort.

  • J

    Mike C: But I think most guys want to know they have the EXACT SAME LEVEL OF LOVE, COMMITMENT, DEVOTION, irrespective of whether they are CFO or wake up one day and decide to be a janitor.

    SW: The answer will be no in 99.9% of cases.

    Me: I think the key word is “decide.” I’ve seen women stick with men through thick and thin, including a friend of mine who encourged her husband to take early retirement after a heart attack. My mother was the sole support of or family for three years when my dad had cancer. On a less dramatic level, I know women who have supported men through school or in the midst of a career change.

    It’s just quitting that’s problematic.

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

      @J

      I think the key word is “decide.”

      +1

      It’s about making a voluntary switch without consulting one’s partner or understanding that your decision affects them very much too. Is that an example of “Captain” behavior?

      There’s also something rather tragic about a man capable of doing a CFO job wasting his abilities, IMO.

  • J

    Monogamy doesn’t make much sense for a woman in the developed world, she has to sacrifice genetic quality for…nothing she couldn’t get elsewhere. The only drive for monogamy is the one that evolved to favour it in the middle set of conditions. Her emotions, in this case, are actually doing her harm rather than good.

    Meh. I think there’s a wide variety for genetic propensities toward various strategies that enable us to adapt to various conditions. I think some of us are wired for monogamy, some of us not.

  • JP

    @Lokland

    “Monogamy doesn’t make much sense for a woman in the developed world, she has to sacrifice genetic quality for…nothing she couldn’t get elsewhere. The only drive for monogamy is the one that evolved to favour it in the middle set of conditions. Her emotions, in this case, are actually doing her harm rather than good.”

    Except for the fact that the difference between people and other mammals is the existence of neoteny.

    And the way this works in people is that you only get fully working people if you have…mother-father-baby……, preferably with a solid primal bond between mother and father.

    In any event, what this means is that if you don’t have this, you eventually lose the game of life thanks to the magic of developmental psychology.

    “Childhood came into existence as the result of a peculiar evolutionary phenomenon known generally as neoteny. The term comes from two Greek words, neos meaning “new” (in the sense of “juvenile”) and teinein meaning to “extend,” and it means the retention of youthful traits. In the case of humans, it meant that our ancestors passed along to us a way to stretch youth farther into life.

    More than a million years ago, our direct ancestors found themselves in a real evolutionary pickle. One the one hand, their brains were growing larger than those of their rain forest cousins, and on the other, they had taken to walking upright because they spent most of their time in Africa’s expanding savannas. Both features would seem to have substantially increased the likelihood of their survival, and they did, except for one problem: Standing upright favors the evolution of narrow hips and therefore narrows the birth canal. And that made bringing larger-headed infants to full term before birth increasingly difficult.

    If we were born as physically mature as, say, an infant gorilla, our mothers would be forced to carry us for 20 months! But if they did carry us that long, our larger heads wouldn’t make it through the birth canal. We would be, literally, unbearable. The solution: Our forerunners, as their brains expanded, began to arrive in the world sooner, essentially as fetuses, far less developed than other newborn primates, and considerably more helpless.”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/01/evolution_of_childhood_prolonged_development_helped_homo_sapiens_succeed.html

  • Lokland

    @J

    You misinterpret my point.
    Of course variety exists. Thats what makes biology biology.

    In the developed world the harem/single mom route is the more effective strategy.

  • Lokland

    @JP

    I agree.
    I have not recently seen a baby eaten by a lion however nor go starving because daddy didn’t kill the wooly mammoth.

    As for psychology, how we feel about being alive/reproducing is irrelevant so long as we live to reproduce.

  • Charlotte

    Ugh ugh ugh. This whole situation is just making me angry. I was at a superbowl party of my own so I wouldn’t have gone to see him even if I was invited. If he does invite me on an actual, public place date during the day, I will give him one more shot. I know I probably shouldn’t, but I really felt a spark with him when I met him. We’ll see. If he totally fucks up, it will officially be done.

    I know he is looking for a relationship but he just graduated college last year. He told me he was looking for a relationship. But sir, this is not how you behave when you want a girlfriend. What girl of any quality is going to come fuck you several days after meeting you? Absolutely not this one. You need to prove to me that you like me for more than just sex before I even consider sleeping with you. He really wanted to talk about my business expansion ideas and was impressed by all I knew about foreign markets so I know we get along on an intellectual level as well, which is also why I am like wtf with this random booty call crap. I’m sure that this was his technique because at college, it works that way. Especially if you are on the football team and girls just throw themselves at you to be with afootball player…I saw it happen at my school all of the time. I actually know a girl that is good friends with his group of friends and she said he is a very nice gentlemanly guy but a bit inexperienced. With his job and lack of social life, it seems like he has no idea how rerlationships even work. I think he is young enough to “condition” into realizing how to treat women…I mean maybe that is wishful thinking, but again, I’ll just give him one more chance on this due to what I’m thinking is inexperience.

    I honestly don’t have too much time for a super serious relationship right now, someone to go out to dinner with a few nights a week and go to a museum on a Saturday afternoon would be enough. If it escalated to something more and I really liked them, obviously I would consider making it more serious. I’m enjoying my personal time now and unless I really feel like someone is going to improve my quality of life, it’s just not worth it. This guy has really struck out at this point, so unless he proves himself that he is just unsure of how to work with real-life girls (not college girls) he is absolutely nexted.

    I am also seeing another super nice guy. Another Ivy league educated football player….why they seem to flock to me, I don’t know. This guy is an absolute sweetheart and has not made one blunder thus far. We went out for drinks last week and on Saturday we met for coffee and took a nice long walk around the West Village and just chatted. He is very adorable and really not a jerk, as far as I can tell. He is very motivated and has many entrepreneurial ideas which I appreciate. The only thing is that I’m not as sexually attracted to him as I am to the other guy. He is super handsome, don’t get me wrong, but I just didn’t see him and feel that “woosh”. I really enjoy his company though and would absolutely go out with him again.

    It’s good I think that I’m seeing a couple guys now that way I don’t over-focus on one and be neurotic…which as you guys see, I still naturally tend to do. I’m so sick of these guys just sucking totally. I want someone that I am unbelievably attracted to AND treats me right. I am so impatient…

  • Sassy6519

    @ Charlotte

    I’m so sick of these guys just sucking totally. I want someone that I am unbelievably attracted to AND treats me right. I am so impatient…

    Join the club girl. Join the club.

    I recently broke up with a guy who is a catch by probably any woman’s standards (Susan can attest to this. I sent her a few pics) simply because we have mismatched sex drives. He is still contacting me and wanting to see me, however, and I am hurting a lot because of it. I still like who he is as a person, but I know that getting back with him will only cause more frustration on my end. Still, I’m finding it increasingly difficult to resist him.

    Dating isn’t easy. Love sure as heck isn’t easy. It’s a war out there, and you and I are right on the front lines.

  • Charlotte

    Just received a text from the cray cray dude begging for forgiveness as he was uncharacteristically drunk last night and has no idea what he said to anyone since he drunkenly deleted his text threads…OK, at least he apologized, I guess. We’ll see if he asks me on a legit date for this week and I’ll be okay with his blunder if he treats me right.

    Dating is so so hard. But can’t live with it, can’t live without it? Having a crush on someone is one of the best feelings in the world.

  • J

    You misinterpret my point. Of course variety exists. Thats what makes biology biology.

    Sorry.

    In the developed world the harem/single mom route is the more effective strategy.

    Quantity vs quality. I think that k-selected kids are better off than R-selected.

  • Ion

    “There’s a balance. I think that the more primitive a society is, the more benefit there is to the women in a polygynous marriage, especially where the male death rate is high.”

    Exactly, it was so everyone could get married. It proves how important marriage is to humans across cultures, it does not prove that men need sexual access to a variety of women.

    “You’ve already got guys willing to die for the promise of sex in the next life.”

    You have Christians waiting to go to heaven to get a mansion and streets paved of gold, proving that materialism and carnal desires of humans transfer to our feelings about the afterlife. When you look at it like that, it’s no wonder ancient tombs had items from this world people wanted to bring with them to the next. As far as a mansion in heaven, would it have a bathroom? A kitchen?

  • Lokland

    “Dating isn’t easy. Love sure as heck isn’t easy. It’s a war out there, and you and I are right on the front lines.”

    Actually they are.
    Pretty much everything is easy once you stop focusing on how difficult it is.

    Love should most definitely be simple. If its not its not love.

    @Charlotte

    It was the Super Bowl. Finding someone who was not smashed is probably going to be a challenge.

    Finding someone who was smashed and did not try to booty call the girl they just met shouldn’t be difficult.

    Personally, I think booty calls/last minute plans tend to be quite a bit of fun with someone whom you have already established a relationship with. Not so much when first dating, disrespectful.

    Best just not to let it go anywhere. Its far better to not have to accept someones apology than giving them another chance because they did.

    Lots of men on the man tree. Like literally 1/2 the population.

  • Lokland

    @J

    “Quantity vs quality. I think that k-selected kids are better off than R-selected.”

    In civilized terms, yes. Better school, housing and general levels of well being.
    In biological terms, no. Less offspring, higher chance of never reproducing (voluntarily).

  • Ion

    “instead of focusing on career, would look at +5-10 years older guy,”

    Neither here nor there, but I’ve recently increased my dating profile age limit to 10 years older than me. Will see how it works out.

  • J

    Just received a text from the cray cray dude begging for forgiveness as he was uncharacteristically drunk last night and has no idea what he said to anyone since he drunkenly deleted his text threads…OK, at least he apologized, I guess. We’ll see if he asks me on a legit date for this week and I’ll be okay with his blunder if he treats me right.

    Attracted or not, I would take a pass on this guy. I don’t like the drunkeness, and he did proposition you with the out of town invites when he was sober. I think you are rationalizing his good qualities because you find him attractive. Your judgment is becoming clouded, and you are looking for reasons to believe that he wants more than he wants. At this point, getting you into bed probably represents a challenge. There are men out there who are both attractive and good. It sounds like you attract enough high quality men that sooner or later you’ll meet one.

  • J

    In biological terms, no. Less offspring, higher chance of never reproducing (voluntarily).

    OTOH, I feel relatively sure my sons will survive their youth. The r-selected sometimes don’t make it to adulthood due to drugs, shootings, illnesses, etc.

    I think the real winners in reproductive sweepstakes are folks like the Duggars, the Amish and Hasidic Jews–big broods of kids that get r-selected levels of care in monogamous homes.

  • J

    Love should most definitely be simple. If its not its not love.

    True dat. I knew DH was the one because there were NO games. I didn’t spend a lot of time trying to figure out is he was using me or not. I knew he wasn’t.

  • OffTheCuff

    Char: “I know he is looking for a relationship but he just graduated college last year. He told me he was looking for a relationship. But sir, this is not how you behave when you want a girlfriend.”

    To you. He probably *is* looking for a girlfriend – but it might or might not be you.

    “I honestly don’t have too much time for a super serious relationship right now … I am also seeing another super nice guy…. The only thing is that I’m not as sexually attracted to him as I am to the other guy. He is super handsome, don’t get me wrong, but I just didn’t see him and feel that “woosh”. I really enjoy his company though and would absolutely go out with him again.”

    I feel little sympathy for you now, since you divulged you are seeing someone else. You want the ability to go maximize your chances and go parallel, but deny him the ability to maximize his.

    You get what you give.

    Bravo for turning down the booty call, but you still really don’t get it just yet.

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

      I feel little sympathy for you now, since you divulged you are seeing someone else. You want the ability to go maximize your chances and go parallel, but deny him the ability to maximize his.

      Did I miss something? Did Charlotte say Cray Cray is not allowed to be going on dates with other people?

  • Russ in Texas

    This dude gets worse and worse. Advise “delete number, do not return calls.” Dudes who are great at weaselling into just-another-chance are almost always disasters on two feet.

  • J

    Best just not to let it go anywhere. Its far better to not have to accept someones apology than giving them another chance because they did

    She can graciously accept the guy’s apology and still back away. In fact, she should. This isn’t about her being pissed off and having a hissy fit that he can placate. It’s about her rationally doing what’s best for her and not allowing herself to be played. Knowing that some women do that is a good object lesson for the guy.

    She should accept his apology and then matter of factly turn him down.

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

      Online dating is meant to be parallel until you meet someone you’d like to be exclusive with.

  • J

    You get what you give.

    She had two low investment day dates with one other guy. That hardly makes her a playerette.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Lokland

    Actually they are.
    Pretty much everything is easy once you stop focusing on how difficult it is.

    Love should most definitely be simple. If its not its not love.

    Yeah, I guess. I can’t say that I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but I can respect it.

    @ J

    True dat. I knew DH was the one because there were NO games. I didn’t spend a lot of time trying to figure out is he was using me or not. I knew he wasn’t.

    I agree. Game-playing is a definite indicator that I need to not engage in a situation. I have a very low tolerance for game-playing in relationships.

  • Lokland

    @J

    “She should accept his apology and then matter of factly turn him down.”

    +1

    My tidbit may not have included the politeness bit but every interaction should be handled with great civility until given a reason not to be.

    “OTOH, I feel relatively sure my sons will survive their youth. The r-selected sometimes don’t make it to adulthood due to drugs, shootings, illnesses, etc.”

    Three of the guys I went to high school with killed themselves before they finished uni. All well off UMC-Rich families.

    I suspect two of the cases were girl problems (as in gamma/omega with no hope).

    I also know one girl who got herself killed while riding a snowmobile drunk. The guy who was driving is still in prison. They were 19-20 respectively.

    Being UMC is in no way protection from death/detention. My class had like 150 kids in it btw.

  • J

    but I’ve recently increased my dating profile age limit to 10 years older than me. Will see how it works out.

    I think 10 years is the outer limit of the optimal age range. After that, it’s hard to relate.

  • Ion

    “I think the real winners in reproductive sweepstakes are folks like the Duggars, the Amish and Hasidic Jews–big broods of kids that get r-selected levels of care in monogamous homes.”

    Maybe, but we can’t forget that Orthodox Jews make up a HUGE percent of section 8 housing and welfare. Proving of course that regardless of your work ethic, or spiritual background, supporting a large or even medium-sized family when only one parent works is not that sustainable anymore.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/21/nyregion/religion-and-welfare-shape-economics-for-the-hasidim.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/13/welfare-reform-not-for-the-orthodox.html

  • Lokland

    @J

    “I didn’t spend a lot of time trying to figure out is he was using me or not. I knew he wasn’t.”

    +1

    The only time I played any type of game with my wife was when I sent her the email after I got her address. 5:13 pm. Habit more than pre-planned game at that point.

    Other than that is was simple, straight forward with no drama/deceit or hidden details.

  • Lokland

    @Sassy

    “I can’t say that I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment, but I can respect it.”

    3 months (maybe weeks) before I met my wife I made the declarative statement that I would never get married and love was not real.

    Shit happens.

  • J

    Being UMC is in no way protection from death/detention. My class had like 150 kids in it btw.

    Oh, it’s not. In my neighborhood, some kid’ll warp an expensive car areound a tree every few years, but the survival rate is still higher. Even infant morality rates are lower.

  • J

    Maybe, but we can’t forget that Orthodox Jews make up a HUGE percent of section 8 housing and welfare. Proving of course that regardless of your work ethic, or spiritual background, supporting a large or even medium-sized family when only one parent works is not that sustainable anymore.

    Where I live most of the Orthodox Jewish women have some sort of “ladies’ profession”–teacher, speech therapist, etc. Still its not hard to understand how staying home with kids is much more economical than paying for day care for multiple kids or how these families end up on some sort of public assistance or another.

  • J

    3 months (maybe weeks) before I met my wife I made the declarative statement that I would never get married and love was not real.

    LOL. I had abandoned the idea of marriage about 6 weeks before I met DH. There’s something about losing the air of desperation that’s attractive. ;-)

  • Cooper

    ” Normally I would totally cast him aside with all of this ridiculous invitation shit, but I was attracted to him and perhaps he is just really eager.”

    Woot. There’s a knee-slapper! Lmao.

    I am totally astonished, each separate time, how a girl will give a pass for late night booty calls, with all sorts of justification in name of being attracted to him.

    Maybe I should start spicing my strategies with late booty calls.
    (Interesting male insight, if I did it would NOT be to the girls I really liked (gf-ladder) it would be to the ones I could do without, and don’t mind risking with distasteful late-calls)

    This might be a good strategy. Cause I want a girl who’s really, really attracted to me. So, if they don’t like late night booty calls, they’ll have to be attracted enough to move pass it. (Filter?)

    But, then it dawns on me. I wouldn’t want a girl who responds to booty calls!

  • Ion

    “I think 10 years is the outer limit of the optimal age range. After that, it’s hard to relate.”

    Exactly. There are of course exceptions. For example, I had three dates this weekend I had to cancel :-(, but one was actually CFO for a small research institution, I could see endless hours of hot convos. He’s 38, and I’m 28. The other guy was a 34 year old attorney whom I had less in common with. Third guy was a way-out-of-my-league in terms of looks 31 year old between jobs.

    I thrive and am attracted to extremely intelligent people as you can of course relate being INTP, so I increased the age limit for that reason. Plus I seriously saw wayyy to many 30 year olds with backwards caps drinking jello shots in their profile pics looking for “friends” and casual dating. I can’t.

    I prefer someone around 8 years older, anything over 10 years would be excessive, but as I get older the differences would probably go away. I.e. a 30 year old might have more in common with a 40 year old than a 22 year old would have with a 32 year old, etc.,

  • J

    Sounds like you have some good prospects, Ion.

    I’m going to sign-off, guys. Things to do….

  • Lokland

    @Cooper

    “This might be a good strategy. Cause I want a girl who’s really, really attracted to me. So, if they don’t like late night booty calls, they’ll have to be attracted enough to move pass it. (Filter?)”

    If you want a filter for attraction its pretty simple. When your making out undo the button on her pants. Then go for the underwear. Then…I’ll let you figure out the rest.

    Cross reference the times these are unaccepted/accepted to your personal too slutty list until you find a match.

    If she has a sly smile with a no it means she wants to but she is restricted (good) or a price discriminating slut (easy to suss out later on). If its the first date and you go for the button and she pulls one of these

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0OFM-a2TC0

    You might want to find a new prospect.

  • Cooper

    @Lokland

    I was just referring to late night booty calls.

    Is there a downside for guys to go for them?

    According to Charlotte’s anecdote, if the girl is attracted enough, there isn’t. (So, IOW, if they don’t work – win – if they do – win)

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Sassy, sorry to hear about the different sex drives issue. Are you on birth control pills? As odd as this sounds, going on them would probably calm down your sex drive.

    I went on them for two months after having Aidan. I stopped yesterday because they were making me miserable. They definitely decreased my sex drive.

    But, it’s not a great solution.

  • Tasmin

    @Charlotte
    Drop. Delete. Don’t look back. Sounds like you’ve got a couple of irons in the fire and from the last time you were on here a while back seem to be doing fine in generating some “leads”. Don’t let this situation distract/discourage you. He’s done you a favor by showing you his true colors early on.

    You are, however, operating in the former football player, good looking guy space, thus you can expect to filter hard and still be disappointed often. But it seems that you are doing ok with meeting, attracting and finding some attractive men to engage with. The rest of your challenges are first-world problems. IOW, everyone has to work to make the real connections but only the exceedingly good looking and extro/aggressive men have the options that you have. Do your part: venue, screen, clear communication, filter, next. You may have to do some approaching too.

    You acknowledge that you seem to be attracting a certain type, ponder that. But don’t sweat the guys who take a good connection and try to monetize that immediately (repeatedly) with minimal investment or deviation from their course. If he was any less attractive I believe he would fall squarely in the “creepy” camp. I’m with Cooper on that. He takes this tack because (a) he is attractive enough and knows it; and (b) he knows it because it has worked and will continue to work – that is the SMP right there.

    He may have thought you were all that, but he was willing to risk all that for a series of booty calls. He’s either already got 2 or 3 of you in the bank, is only looking for sex, or is socially inept when it comes to forming real relationships (he’s still in college hooking-up mode). Two of those possibilities imply your value is low in his eyes, the third implies his words are not aligned with his actions. I honestly don’t see anything good coming out of this (for you).

    One more thing: scale back on your texting early on. There is too much room for misinterpretation and projection and it favors the player script. Texts can be nice, but they are not a real conversation. And ignore drunk texts entirely unless you want to be “that” girl. Keep fighting the good fight, you will surprise yourself. But once you start lowering your bar to accommodate, rationalize, excuse, you are on the slippery slope to hookupsville.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Cooper, thing is, Charlotte did NOT respond to the booty call. So you’d put her in the “not attracted” category, or what?

    The deal is, contrast game CAN work if you were “just kidding.” My husband acted like a typical dudebro at first. Then he turned into this thoughtful, deep, wise and amazing conversationalist with sky-high IQ and a hot voice.

    Beisdes that, his initial response to me was because of what I said. I jokingly asked a bunch of strange guys to pay for my gaming hobby (so he said, “That depends… are you hot?”). I guess I accidentally presented myself at first as an attention whore, but then was quiet and non-flirty the rest of the way.

    Don’t be seriously turning into a douche thinking that’ll get you the good girls. Likewise for girls. Don’t turn into a douchette and think that’ll get you quality men.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Hope

    Sassy, sorry to hear about the different sex drives issue. Are you on birth control pills? As odd as this sounds, going on them would probably calm down your sex drive.

    I went on them for two months after having Aidan. I stopped yesterday because they were making me miserable. They definitely decreased my sex drive.

    But, it’s not a great solution.

    I’m not on any form of hormonal birth control. I tried it once, and I suffered mild depression as a side effect. I’m too apprehensive to try another form of hormonal birth control now.

    When I was on it, I had absolutely 0 sex drive. It was scary.

  • JP

    @SW:

    “Online dating is meant to be parallel until you meet someone you’d like to be exclusive with.”

    I think that my approach to dating was first to determine whether exclusivity was possible and *then* date to test for actual compatibility.

    Some people have to be like me, because I certainly didn’t consciously pursue this strategy.

    In fact, the one time in life that I encountered two girls (in college) who I was interested in, it basically caused a complete catastrophic system failure with respect to my emotions.

    Generally, it’s not a good idea to be anywhere near dating me when that happens.

    That was fun.

  • Ted D

    Mike C – “Ted D has mentioned previously how his current wife had an almost instantaneous visceral attraction to him. I know my fiancee has the same feeling towards me. My advice to any guy would always be to NEXT the woman who doesn’t feel something immediately powerfully visceral but who instead needs a lot of time for attraction “to grow” based on more extrinsic things like provisioning ability.”

    I tend to agree, but I suspect we’ll get a TON of pushback on the whole “but attraction takes time to build for most women” line of thinking. I can see that it takes time for attraction to grow, but if there isn’t a decent bit from the gate, I’m with you and would NEXT. In my limited experience, it is a FAR different dynamic to the relationships if you can start it with a good bit of attraction already in place.

    Ana – “But you are thinking that this guarantees that the woman will be unwavering attracted to you and will stay loyal and supportive if she has her guts pointing out to you”

    I think I see where you are going with this, and if so I agree. You can’t rely on that initial attraction to keep her “loyal” long term. However, and this is key for me, having that high level of initial attraction from my wife gives me a LOT of room to make mistakes. By that I mean, even if I slip and beta up badly (like fail a huge shit test for instance) her strong physical attraction to me is enough to get me by until I can recover the ground I lost. In short, having her that strongly attracted to me on a physical level means I have a large base of attraction to pull from at all times, and I don’t have to “game” her nearly as hard as perhaps a woman that had to “grow” to be attracted. Why? Because that grown attraction is based on things like character and status, and those are areas that tend to take the biggest hits when it comes to beta failings.

    I’ve been in LTRs with women that “grew” to find me attractive, and they were mostly good relationships while they lasted. However the dynamic of my current relationship is far different, and I believe that some of that difference is rooted in her strong physical attraction to me. I’m sure it helps that since we’ve met I’ve also continued to lose weight and get in better shape, which means I have even MORE room to screw up elsewhere.

    “You need a woman who has more reasons to stick with you than reasons to leave you and this varies among women as well, just my two cents.”

    I fully agree, and if I came to the conclusion that my wife was easily attracted to lots of guys and/or didn’t have deeper and more meaningful reasons to be with me, I would have moved on. ALL the relationship stuff still comes into play for me, it’s just that I don’t feel the need to worry much about raw attraction from her. I would have to slip pretty far back down before it started to greatly affect our relationship, and although I’m constantly watching for mistakes, I very much enjoy that bit of breathing room just in case I totally miss a shit test and go down in a ball of fire.

    Lokland – “Some subset of men are incapable of inspiring visceral attraction. I know I am one of them.
    Your advice would leave me with hookers as STRs aren’t possible and LTRs are not viable.”

    I call BS. When I met my wife, I was wearing a pair of too big athletic shorts (tied tight around my smaller waste), a ratty old T-shirt (Disturbed concert T in fact) and a pair of leather sandals WITH socks on. (I was over at a friend’s house to drink and hang outside, and figured the evening might get cold. LOL) I was also about 50 pounds heavier than I am today. Oh, and badly needed a haircut. Even though I looked like total shit, she told me that I immediately tripped her trigger. Now I’d love to say it is because I’m just a hunk of burnin love, but it really does seem to be almost chemical in nature. We both like the “smell” of each other. I love when she falls asleep with her face close to mine so I can smell her breath. And she claims that sometimes I just “smell like a man” and she finds it very attractive.

    In short: it isn’t my six pack abs or bulging muscles that she is so viscerally attracted to, I’m pretty sure it is simply that our chemistry is very compatible.

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

      There’s a saying: How you get him is how you lose him.

      It works for women too. This is what Ana describes so well.

      Cheated with you? That’s how she’ll get her next bf too.

      Impulsively fell for you at first sight? She probably falls fast early and often.

      Had sex with you the first night? Probably not just “unrestricted” with you and you alone.

      Took her time and thought about it carefully before committing? Reliable and steadfast.

      Think about which type of woman you want to be married to when you have a huge fight. Because you will have one. What will your woman do when she’s extremely angry with you?

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    For me, the most interesting data in the post is the difference between net hypergamy, high for 12 years.

    How is this so surprising? It’s quite clear that given the high marriage rates amongst the college educated, this has to be happening.

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

      How is this so surprising? It’s quite clear that given the high marriage rates amongst the college educated, this has to be happening.

      The net difference of -18.6 means that the number of hypogamous marriages is a full 18.6 percentage points higher than the number of hypergamous marriages. We don’t have the breakdown by education, but an example might be 30% hypergamous marriages compared with 48.6% hypogamous marriages. That’s a lot more hypogamous marriages than I would have predicted. I would have guessed many more “same” and very few hypogamous.

  • INTJ

    @ Anacaona

    Had you noticed that swimsuit models are never seen swimming either? We freaking sunk like a rock as well. Hubby tried to teach me how to float and I could had drowned him if we wouldn’t had been on a pool. Skinny women are not good floating devices. Point for the voluptuous women :p

    Well, muscular men don’t have it much better either. Bone/organs and muscle are very dense. Fat is not. :(

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    The answer will be no in 99.9% of cases. Or at least, the love, commitment and devotion will now be threatened by a loss of respect and resentment at the “bait and switch.” It’s the equivalent of this:

    Apples and oranges, given that looks are intrinsic while earning power is somewhat extrinsic.

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

      Apples and oranges, given that looks are intrinsic while earning power is somewhat extrinsic.

      I disagree. How many guys here have offered their advice on how a woman can boost her SMV by a solid two points by getting fit, wearing makeup and dressing well? Looks are definitely significantly extrinsic.

      Earning power is significantly intrinsic, as it is highly correlated to education, which is highly correlated to intelligence.

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

    Susan…”There’s also something rather tragic about a man capable of doing a CFO job wasting his abilities, IMO.”

    True…but what if he has *other* abilities, in addition to CFO-ing, and wants to develop and exercise those? Say he has a long-time interest in cooking and the restaurant biz, and wants to combine those interests with his business skills to open the restaurant of which he has long dreamed?

    Odds are that income will drop–a lot at first and even on a sustained basis compared to what he was getting before, IF he was a Fortune 100 CFO.

    Peter Drucker wrote about the psychological dangers of staying too long in one field and the benefits of serious second careers. (Fortunately, I excerpted his comments somewhere else, so can just copy & paste here)

    “…the great many members of the educated middle class are only too susceptible to a modern version of the affliction known to the Middle Ages as accidie: the emotional malaise and subacute despair that was the typical disease of the clerc who realized, around age thirty or so, that he would be neither saint nor abbot.

    Similarly, knowledge workers who, while successful, remain within a specific function or specific discipline until around forty-five or so, often become tired, dispirited, and bored with themselves and the job. There is, for example, the director of market research in a business or the head of quality control; the comproller of a navy yard or a training officer in the army with the rank of lieutenant colonel…even the good “sound” professor on the university faculty.”

    On the subject of second careers, Prof Drucker continues:

    “It is difficult to exaggerate the extent of this need. I touched upon this need for second knowledge careers in an interview which appeared in the May 1968 issue of Psychology Today (a magazine which then had only limited circulation). This provoked an outpouring of letters and telephone calls from all over the United States–I received at least seven hundred personal letters and hundreds of telephone calls–from ministers of all faiths, university professors, military offices, school principals, accountants, middle managers, civil servants, and so on. Yet all asked: “Now that I am forty-seven, how can I start doing something new and challenging?”

    The accomplished knowledge journeyman, at forty-five or fifty is in his physical and mental prime. If he is tired and bored, it is because he has reached the limit of contribution and growth in his first career–and he knows it. he is likely to deteriorate rapidly if left doing what no longer truly challenges him. It is of little use to look to “hobbies” or to “cultural interests” to keep him alive. Being an amateur does not satisfy a man who has learned to be a professional….To be a dilettante has to be learned in childhood as all aristocraties have known.”

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

      @david foster

      True…but what if he has *other* abilities, in addition to CFO-ing, and wants to develop and exercise those? Say he has a long-time interest in cooking and the restaurant biz, and wants to combine those interests with his business skills to open the restaurant of which he has long dreamed?

      That’s completely different. Mike C offered a scenario where the CFO decided to become a janitor. A puzzling choice that would no doubt be difficult for his wife to understand.

      Actually, this reminds me of the film American Beauty, where Kevin Spacey decided to work in the drive thru window of a fast food chain.

      What you’re describing is a man’s following his dream and working hard with his abilities to make that happen. (There is probably a good overlap of skills in CFO and restauranteur.)

      At one point my husband thought about going back to school to earn a PhD in American History. I fully supported that idea, though he ultimately decided against it.

  • JP

    “Being an amateur does not satisfy a man who has learned to be a professional….To be a dilettante has to be learned in childhood as all aristocraties have known.”

    Good thing I learned how to be a dilettante in childhood.

    Seriously, though, isn’t that what childhood is about in the United States these days?

    You don’t have any actual responsibilities, other than taking tests.

    The first time I ever had to work hard, in terms of actually having to *do* something in a productive capacity during a work day was when I got an actual job as an attorney.

    Prior to that, I was pretty much entirely reliant on my intelligence, not my effort.

  • http://www.rosehope.com Hope

    Sassy, that sucks, but that’s also basically how I reacted to the pill, with moodiness/irritability/depression. I was on the mini, progesterone-only version. My husband commented that I didn’t act like myself, and I was definitely under a fog of sorts.

    Different women react differently to it though, and some say they are absolutely fine side from lower sex drive. That’s why I suggested it.

  • Ted D

    JP – “The first time I ever had to work hard, in terms of actually having to *do* something in a productive capacity during a work day was when I got an actual job as an attorney.

    Prior to that, I was pretty much entirely reliant on my intelligence, not my effort.”

    I put my kids to work on a regular basis. They all have chores, and I make sure to draft them as my slave labor every chance I get. I’m all about them getting a good education, but they’ll learn to work with their hands as well. After all, after Western civilization collapses, those college degrees won’t keep you warm of put food in your stomach.

    Besides, there is something to be said for accomplishing things with your hands and feet. And I say that having spent the better part of 18 years in IT, and most of that sitting behind a desk. I feel more accomplished hanging a new light outside our garage than I do finishing a six month IT project on time and under budget.

  • JP

    “After all, after Western civilization collapses, those college degrees won’t keep you warm of put food in your stomach.”

    Yes, it would be so hard to walk out to the end of the dock and catch crabs.

    Alternately, it would take an overwhelming amount of effort to shoot and kill small game. The kind that hops around my yard.

    And I’d have to kill two deer that have completely overrun the local gated community (yes, they have that problem) a year to just survive!

    And the pine trees. I might have to cut down the pine trees.

    How will I ever survive here in the subtropics?

  • Tasmin

    @MikeC
    I’m playing catch up, so bear with any oversights or cross post.
    Re: provisioning.

    I agree that the drive to provision can vary quite a bit among men and develop at different points. Regardless it is still a significant portion of the male “identity”. Personally I’ve always had a strong sense of this since I was a kid. My upbringing instilled in me a desire (need) to feel safe and secure. The straight line is economic – earning power. My desire to engage in wanderlust, soul-searching, living in an art colony for a while, whatever, was overruled by my overarching desire/need to take care of my family, both present and more importantly, future.

    Some people are blessed with an unwavering sense of direction and purpose from an early age. They are rare. The rest of us have to make decisions along the way that in varying degrees measure the downside risk, opportunity cost, and passing of time with our desire to fulfill our dreams – that is if we have even developed our dreams to an actionable point.

    The option isn’t just whether or not to “buy into” societal wishes or not; it is about how, when, and where we buy in. Nearly everyone buys in at some point; the difference is some (few) men are able to accomplish that on their terms while most men incrementally buy in over time in a series of decisions designed to establish, build, and/or maintain their provisioning and status – most often at the expense of something else they value (free time, hobbies, health, sleep, social life, travel). Few men want to become middle-management, playing defense from a cube.

    The decision to honor their dreams at any point along the way is much more costly/risky for men, and whether it is “society” or our own sense of duty or responsibility or desire to provide or some combination is part of the point as well: men’s real options relative to these things have remained largely the same over time. Some men feel more societal pressure, for others it comes more from within. Either way, “it” is there at some level and it influences our decisions.

    We know that the difference between a basement-dwelling artist and an artist opening at the hottest gallery in town are a grand canyon apart in terms of status and thus provisioning. In the middle is the risk; it is where we risk serious SMV deficit as well as future MMV should we not make it to that gallery and we also know that hiking to the bottom and (hopefully) back up the other side will probably be a lonely trek. Hell, even just the “mainstream” trek of college is lonely enough to inspire all kinds of decisions re: status seeking for most men. Given, if we take the desire to marry and kids out of the process, the decision is often markedly different – which proves the point. But most men want those things and so they will start building bridges and save the painting for the weekends.

    Men’s decisions aren’t simply framed as the Dream vs “societal” paths either – and should not be viewed from the apex. And of course its not always as diametric as Artist vs Banker. The fact is, the SMP/MMV is rather unforgiving; it does not give extra-credit for trying hard or almost making our dreams a reality. Most men have a sense for this.

    Men who are unable to convert their dreams into reality are unlikely to “marry up” to regain the standard of living of a path they chose not to take. In fact, they are even less likely to be able to attract women in the first place. Fringe and fleeting sex appeal for the bad-boy artsy and/or going his own way types aside, the majority of women are “uncomfortable” with men who are difficult to underwrite. The further his dream path is from what is “normal” the more difficult it is for women to translate his passion and ambition into something tangible down the line.

    And it is this underwriting that has (arguably) not changed or become more accommodating with the expansion of HER options. Just because she is granted flexibility or more options that may not be a risk to her SMV or MMV, does not mean that she is granting men the same benefits. That is the optionality embedded within female path vs the expectations embedded within the male path.

    Sure, a man can chase his dreams from an early age but to the extent those dreams deviate from those cultural (or hypergamy-inspired) expectations relating to provisioning, *earning power*, “responsibility”, etc. he is taking on significantly more risk and opportunity cost than his female counterparts who are choosing the creative path, the leveraged masters degree, the non-profit, the teaching, social work, nursing, etc.

    Sure she has some MMV risk if she ignores what is really attractive to men, but the dual path remains an option as does retreating or dropping a path entirely. She may have a hard-stop relative to fertility, but for most men there is no dual path, there is no retreat, and there is a lot more risk in incorporating a dream that involves significant financial/earning downside risk.

    Going and borrowing $50k for an MFA is an entirely different decision for a man. The advanced degree gender gap isn’t just because men would rather play video games. Men are more likely to do the math and factor in the fact that they are not absolved of the provisioning and status expectations simply because they are passionate about it.

  • Ted D

    CNN has a timely article up today about marriage in the middle class:

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/opinion/frum-marriage/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

    Not a very positive outlook at the moment…

    JP – well those of us in the frozen north aren’t so lucky. The only small game around here is squirrel and possum, unless you count the wild domestic cats roaming around as well. And deer? Not anywhere within walking distance of my house. I’d have to drive out into the boonies for that. No crab, but we could always pull some fish out of the Allegheny, but only if we were REALLY desparate. The river isn’t the cleanest in the world. LOL

    But seriously, I’m a firm believer in good old fashioned hands-on work to build character and confidence. The one thing my grandfather did to fill that male rolemodel for me is teach me how to use tools, and how to fix things with what you have handy. (we call it ghetto engineering around these parts…) I was drafted to be his slave labor whenever he had to fix the car, or the house, or anything that ran on some form of power, and it was what got me interested in computers. He also used to give me all his old electronics (think console stereo’s and TV’s) and I would take them apart to see how they worked, and possibly to get them working again. (more often than not I simply made a pile of smaller parts.)

    Nothing made me prouder than fixing one of those gadgets though, and I owe much of my interest in machines to him. To this day I feel good walking into the house with greasy hands and a job well done.

  • JP

    @Ted:

    You’re in western Pennsylvania.

    Pittsburgh is an urban island surrounded by fields of deer as far as the eye can see.

  • Ted D

    JP – problem is I live closer to the city than those fields of deer. To be sure they are all around, but not so close that I can shoot one and drag it home. Again, I’d have to drive to where the deer mostly are, and certainly I’d need some way to drag it back home.

    But we’re seriously dwelling on a tangent I meant in jest anyway. If shit gets that bad, I won’t be anywhere near the city for long.

  • Lokland

    @Cooper

    “According to Charlotte’s anecdote, if the girl is attracted enough, there isn’t. (So, IOW, if they don’t work – win – if they do – win)”

    Are you interested in dating Charlotte?
    Or women like Charlotte?

    What percentage of the female population is like Charlotte do you suppose? I have honestly no idea but as a simple rule if your heuristic measure cuts out a large swath of the population who would be acceptable you need a better measure. (And frankly there are significantly better measures.)

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    “I call BS. When I met my wife, I was wearing a pair of too big athletic shorts (tied tight around my smaller waste), a ratty old T-shirt (Disturbed concert T in fact) and a pair of leather sandals WITH socks on. ”

    I believe you and your wife were also friends for months before getting together, correct?

    If so, yours and my definition of visceral attraction share absolutely nothing in common.

    Other than that, how your one personal anecdote suddenly means all man are now able to do the same is lost on me. I’m not getting the connection from point A to point B, connect them for me.

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    “We both like the “smell” of each other. I love when she falls asleep with her face close to mine so I can smell her breath. And she claims that sometimes I just “smell like a man” and she finds it very attractive.”

    I agree. I enjoy the smell of my wife’s breath. She likes to smell me after I come home from the gym.

    Neither of us wear perfume/cologne.

    Of course, I wasn’t anywhere near close enough to her upon first meeting to trigger visceral attraction based upon smell. Sight was pretty much the extent of who she knew before she danced with me.

  • Cooper

    @Lokland

    I was attempting to poke fun. Her story just seems like an example of how guys stand much more to gain, than to lose, with implementing douchey mo

  • Mike C

    The option isn’t just whether or not to “buy into” societal wishes or not; it is about how, when, and where we buy in. Nearly everyone buys in at some point; the difference is some (few) men are able to accomplish that on their terms while most men incrementally buy in over time in a series of decisions designed to establish, build, and/or maintain their provisioning and status – most often at the expense of something else they value (free time, hobbies, health, sleep, social life, travel). Few men want to become middle-management, playing defense from a cube.

    The decision to honor their dreams at any point along the way is much more costly/risky for men, and whether it is “society” or our own sense of duty or responsibility or desire to provide or some combination is part of the point as well: men’s real options relative to these things have remained largely the same over time. Some men feel more societal pressure, for others it comes more from within. Either way, “it” is there at some level and it influences our decisions.

    We know that the difference between a basement-dwelling artist and an artist opening at the hottest gallery in town are a grand canyon apart in terms of status and thus provisioning. In the middle is the risk; it is where we risk serious SMV deficit as well as future MMV should we not make it to that gallery and we also know that hiking to the bottom and (hopefully) back up the other side will probably be a lonely trek. Hell, even just the “mainstream” trek of college is lonely enough to inspire all kinds of decisions re: status seeking for most men. Given, if we take the desire to marry and kids out of the process, the decision is often markedly different – which proves the point. But most men want those things and so they will start building bridges and save the painting for the weekends.

    Men’s decisions aren’t simply framed as the Dream vs “societal” paths either – and should not be viewed from the apex. And of course its not always as diametric as Artist vs Banker. The fact is, the SMP/MMV is rather unforgiving; it does not give extra-credit for trying hard or almost making our dreams a reality. Most men have a sense for this.

    + 1,000. I hear you. FWIW, I first read this book in my early 20s….it had a pretty big impact on the way I thought:

    http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0143115766/ref=pd_sim_b_1

    Off the top of my head, I seem to recall the co-authors were husband and wife so it probably isn’t an impossible task to find women who share a particular vision.

    For sure, the choices a man makes in his life will impact his mating opportunities. Just as for women, you really cannot have it all, where all just means a different set of things. Whereas for a woman the trade-off is about motherhood and children versus career “success”, I’d say the trade-off for men is more about those “expectations” versus following his “dream”

    Henry David Thoreau – “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.”

    Ultimately, we make our choices and live with the consequences. As you point out, women have their own fork in the road to think about. The reality is women have a window of opportunity from 25 to really 35ish at the latest to be able to exercise certain options. And I think they can also face certain “expectations”.

    One of my favorite investment bloggers has something he says about investment/financial plans that I think also applies to life plans:

    “you can figure it out now or you can figure it out later but if you can figure it now you’ll be much better off.”

  • Mike C

    Tasmin,

    Just wanted to mention my last comment wasn’t intended to sound “preachy”. Just laying out my thought process

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    At the risk of repeating myself, occupational status, or economic capacity, is the most influential female attraction cue. That means that the status derived from good career achievement or prospects = attraction early on. Women generally suss this out at first meeting.

    Obviously that’s the case for the high achievers of the world. But I think it really varies by personality type, social circles, and region.

    Outside of the high achieving group (which is pretty small by percentage) I think career achievement is a lot farther down the list of attraction cues.

    I agree with Mike’s perspective, and have taken to being vague or downplaying my career and prospects. It’s probably cost me some opportunities, but that’s a feature, not a bug.

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

    In biological terms, no. Less offspring, higher chance of never reproducing (voluntarily).

    I think you romanticize ancient life thinking that the Alpha seeder is the best strategy for both men and women. Coming from an island with a high percentage of Alphas I can see why the restricted type won over in numbers in the long run. Here is some food for tough.
    Alphas tend to engage in risky behaviour that ends up getting them killed in high numbers. Hubby and I had a dark sense of humor and we made a bet of how many people we know that died by way of dying. I won on everything: car accidents, suicides, deaths during a fight. My sociopath of a brother started to be stupid enough to get scares off with death since he was 8. He also ended up in several machete fights over stupid shit anyone smarter and/or with less testosterone would had walked out. And my most Alpha step uncle (his gang name was Culebra) was living in a cave before he hit 40 do to his stupid idiotic choices and he was murdered and chopped into pieces by a rival gang leader. He had sired around 12 kids, six of them are already death with no descendants and the only reason the other ones are alive is a combo of family protection and medical technology. Alphas need to fuck and go because they have to. I would estimate that 60% of those risky kids died before they reached adulthood and many of the others died in fights with men from their own family killing cousins and sometimes brothers and their own fathers. Any environment with an overabundance of Alphas will collapse for the inner fights because they fight for the top stop and for access to all women, all the time. Wake up and smell testosterone if this was the winning situation you would have a minority of Betas and a lot more unrestricted women hoping for their chance to get the perfect genes.
    This is not how it works even if civilization was not a stake, YMMV.

  • Emily

    >> “Well, muscular men don’t have it much better either. Bone/organs and muscle are very dense. Fat is not. :(”

    …I don’t think you’re going to get much sympathy for this. ;)

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    I disagree. How many guys here have offered their advice on how a woman can boost her SMV by a solid two points by getting fit, wearing makeup and dressing well? Looks are definitely significantly extrinsic.

    Earning power is significantly intrinsic, as it is highly correlated to education, which is highly correlated to intelligence.

    Whoops I misused the word “intrinsic” (Escoffier is going to kill me!). What I meant is that looks – barring freak accidents – are not under the control of environmental factors. How good a woman looks are based solely on how good her genes are and the effort she puts into getting fit, wearing makeup, and dressing well. In contrast, a person’s earning power is partly determined by circumstances. I simply cannot guarantee that I’ll be able to earn a steady and large income a few decades down the road because while I can improve my chances of being able to earn an income like that, it simply isn’t fully under my control.

    P.S., I’d estimate the SMV boost is more like 3-4 points than just two points, but YMMV.

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

      How good a woman looks are based solely on how good her genes are and the effort she puts into getting fit, wearing makeup, and dressing well.

      She may become ill or scarred in an accident. She may get alopecia. She may get stuck walking in a blizzard and get a frostbitten nose. There are many ways that circumstances can have a negative effect on a person’s appearance.

      In contrast, a person’s earning power is partly determined by circumstances. I simply cannot guarantee that I’ll be able to earn a steady and large income a few decades down the road

      Sure, the world could end. There are no guarantees. As in the example above, you can only work your hardest to improve and apply yourself.

      As a rule, people who do this are higher earners than those who do not.

  • INTJ

    @ Emily

    …I don’t think you’re going to get much sympathy for this. ;)

    Lol I’m more on the skin and bones than muscle side though. But my only chance at becoming less thin is to build muscle, as my body simply cannot hold fat.

    One of the Boy Scout rank requirements included demonstrating a back float. I barely passed. It’s an insanely discriminatory requirement.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    To clarify.

    Your saying that looking pretty is more difficult and based on far more external effort than earning a salary?

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

      Your saying that looking pretty is more difficult and based on far more external effort than earning a salary?

      No, I am saying that both have elements within our control and elements outside of our control. I would suspect that either spouse would resent the other “letting themselves go” after making a lifelong commitment. The male version of this is arguably refusing to provide, while the female version is arguably refusing to be remain sexually attractive and active. IOW, the idea that either party would sustain the same level of love, commitment and devotion after a permanent, deliberate change does not seem likely or reasonable.

  • Lokland

    So then you are saying that there are more factors beyond control involved in looks than those of salary.

    You do need to account for likelihood, disfiguring accidents are rare, lay offs are quite common.

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

      You do need to account for likelihood, disfiguring accidents are rare, lay offs are quite common.

      Again, the example given by Mike C was of a CFO deciding to become a janitor instead. I likened that move to a “bait and switch,” a material changing of the (at least verbal) contract made at marriage.

      Illness is not rare. Perhaps even more common than layoffs. But the point is not about sticking by someone when misfortune strikes – it’s about whether women should be expected to maintain the same level of love and attraction for a man who voluntarily moves from CFO to janitor. It’s a pretty silly example – has this ever happened in the history of the world?

  • Cooper

    I can not believe how common I’m starting to see OKC profiles that identify as polygamous!

    I almost want to say it’s 5-10%. (Along with the lines “fyi, I don’t really believe in monogamy”)

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

    I can not believe how common I’m starting to see OKC profiles that identify as polygamous!

    I almost want to say it’s 5-10%. (Along with the lines “fyi, I don’t really believe in monogamy”)

    Choice addiction on steroids. If they can date more than one man they can have more chances of picking “a real winner”. #Signsofthetimes

  • Lokland

    @Ana

    “I think you romanticize ancient life thinking that the Alpha seeder is the best strategy for both men and women.”

    Actually I think its best for some women and a few men. Some women being those in the 4-7(8-ish) category.
    Few men being the 10s and occasional 9.

    And I’m merely suggesting the route with the highest potential gain for those two parties. Especially given certain factors in our cultured environment.

    “Coming from an island with a high percentage of Alphas I can see why the restricted type won over in numbers in the long run.”

    I disagree with this statement for two reasons
    a) there is nothing really different in terms of behaviour between restricted and unrestricted, beliefs maybe but words and ideals are an irrelevant matter. I’d much rather a woman show me she loves me one time rather than say it every day forever.
    b) more likely that people were people and adapted to their surroundings with the genes for alpha going undercover while beta was tops. That trend seems to be reversing now (more OOW births, less marriage etc.)

    “Wake up and smell testosterone if this was the winning situation you would have a minority of ”

    My testosterone levels are pretty low. My fathers are actually considered below the level that are considered ‘normal’ for his age cohort.

  • JP

    @SW:

    “It’s a pretty silly example – has this ever happened in the history of the world?”

    In attorneyworld, you generally have a smattering of suicides or nervous breakdowns instead of bailing on your career.

    I can think of one suicide (associate) and one nervous breakdown (partner) at the firm I was with.

  • Mike C

    Again, the example given by Mike C was of a CFO deciding to become a janitor instead. I likened that move to a “bait and switch,” a material changing of the (at least verbal) contract made at marriage.

    Illness is not rare. Perhaps even more common than layoffs. But the point is not about sticking by someone when misfortunte strikes – it’s about whether women should be expected to maintain the same level of love and attraction for a man who voluntarily moves from CFO to janitor. It’s a pretty silly example – has this ever happened in the history of the world?

    FWIW, it was an extreme hypothetical simply for illustrative purposes. Generally speaking, extreme examples are sometimes useful to point out a principle. Obviously, a man who is a CFO can do and provide ALOT MORE for a woman than a man who is janitor. It begs the question of whether the love is for the man himself or what he can provide. I actually agree that there is a certain “bait and switch” aspect to it. Should a woman who gains a lot of weight or fails to maintain close to her original physical attractiveness level be held to the same standard? Things can happen…sure….but to some extent women who let themselves go are making a voluntary choice.

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

    Jimmy, I think it can be smart to downplay certain aspects as you are doing. You will lose a few prospects who are filtering very hard for the cash, of course, but a least you can have more confidence that the woman who sticks around finds you interesting and physically attractive. Because female sexuality is complex, adding heavy signals of “resource command” to the mix right from the beginning may make it difficult to tease out what she really likes.

    I do notice a difference between the young woman who bets on a man when he’s a struggling student with great potential and those who want to wait until the horse has already won before placing their bets. The first one wants security and resources, yes, but she is sharing in the risks, believes in and supports her mate even before he’s killed the mastodon. The second type—very common in my social demographic—is frequently a cynical social climber who lacks any of that old fashioned “stand by your man”appeal, and she often is operating with a lot of baggage from previous relationships.

  • Sai

    @Bully
    “In an age of supposed equality, why are women so concerned with marrying someone that makes more than they do?”

    I honestly don’t know. At the risk of sounding like the S-word, when I questioned myself about the point/necessity of height and dominance I listed “higher income than mine” as the next thing to question myself about. (As long as we aren’t starving to death, because then things will become unpleasant. I’d prefer loneliness to that.) I think everybody could do with more introspection.

    Maybe it’s just hypocrisy and/or greed.

    @maven11
    “how about those 25yrs women, instead of focusing on career, would look at +5-10 years older guy, who will surely outearn them?”

    If I fail at analyzing myself out of this issue, I will consider this.

    @Charlotte
    Just say no.

  • Lokland

    @Mike C

    I think the most important aspect to consider wrt the bait and switch on a woman’s weight is to ask yourself this simple question

    Would I screw my future MIL?

    Eerily accurate in its predictive capacity.
    I knew this one girl who was 5′, great body. Mom was closer to 300 pds.

    She got married, had one kid and now wobbles into WalMart. Her husband left her a few months back come to think of it.

    Can’t say I blame him.

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

      Would I screw my future MIL?

      Eerily accurate in its predictive capacity.

      Not really. She has another parent as well.

  • Bells

    @J

    Sorry, I grossed you out. You’re new here, so you haven’t yet heard Abbott go on and on about multi-penis. I thought he’d like to see one

    No problem! Though I recently started commenting, I’ve been reading HUS for about a year now. I just didn’t feel comfortable enough to comment because I felt like my place was to listen more than to talk. Now that I’ve developed my thoughts and experience, I feel much better about chipping in.
    So yeah, I’ve read a lot of Abbot’s speeches imploring men to move to different countries and condemning slutty feminists. But this multi-penis highlight is really funny!

  • Lokland

    “It’s a pretty silly example – has this ever happened in the history of the world?”

    Big world with a long history. A conservative estimate would be once or twice minimum :P

    I agree the example itself is ridiculous but what is it that makes it different than a horribly disfiguring accident (that I assume most people would say its right, but not necessary or demanded, that the spouse stick it out).

    The obvious difference is that one is voluntary and the other is not.

    So what would be quibbled about is what we talked about, whether or not changes in looks or employment status is more prone to external factors.

    I disagree with you. I think its far easier/more common to lose salary then it is to disfigure oneself.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Mike C,

    One more thing Re: career position

    Yeah, I do know that I am not young. But, as long as I do something to improve my position, I think I’ll be better off than most of my peer group, which is doing….nothing at all to improve careers.

  • SayWhaat

    Eerily accurate in its predictive capacity.
    I knew this one girl who was 5′, great body. Mom was closer to 300 pds.

    My dad gave me this advice wrt men as well, lol. Look at the parents to get an idea of what their child might look like.

    My mom let herself go, but then it’s almost expected of Indian families to do that. Once you’ve popped out the kids, they become the #1 priority at the expense of everything else. Parents sleep in separate bedrooms until kids move out.

    YMMV. I see myself following in my dad’s footsteps more so than my mother’s, because he works out regularly and is in great shape for his age. I guess what I’m trying to say is, look at both parents, not just one. :)

  • SayWhaat

    I think its far easier/more common to lose salary then it is to disfigure oneself.

    I think it’s less common to lose a salary than it is to gain weight.

  • Lokland

    @SW

    “I think it’s less common to lose a salary than it is to gain weight.”

    I think gaining weight is entirely and 100% controllable whereas losing ones salary is not.

  • SayWhaat

    There has been a comeback of one-piece suits that have 40s-era glamour. I think SayWhaat posted a photo of a very cute one a while back.

    What, this old thing*? :P

    I think there’s been a resurgence of vintage in general. Hipsterism has gone mainstream now, but I do think that more and more women are opting for “classic” pieces that are much more flattering for particular body types.

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

      @SayWhaat

      Yes, that’s the one. I think it’s really cute. Not sure why on earth the model has a Leaning Tower of Pisa tattoo though.

  • SayWhaat

    I think gaining weight is entirely and 100% controllable whereas losing ones salary is not.

    Not if you’ve got a thyroid problem.

  • SayWhaat

    I suppose I should make it clear that I don’t disagree that losing a job is outside of one’s control. On the other hand, there are ways to develop skillsets that make one indispensable to an organization in the event of layoffs.

  • Mike C

    On the other hand, there are ways to develop skillsets that make one indispensable to an organization in the event of layoffs.

    LOL….I can tell you haven’t been in the workforce very long :) One of the things you’ll find out is maybe .0000000001% are indispensable. Most people are replaceable/fungible. Any large corporate organization is essentially structured that way…you are a cog in the machine that can be replaced with another cog.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Again, the example given by Mike C was of a CFO deciding to become a janitor instead. I likened that move to a “bait and switch,” a material changing of the (at least verbal) contract made at marriage.

    Oh my bad. Yes, it is reasonable to equate the two bait and switches.

  • Charlotte

    Hmm so I called the dude out on his bullshit and he is like “I am so embarrased, I feel awful, it will never happen ever again, what did you think of me when I did that?” blah blah several times today. So I don’t know, maybe he did just make a dumbass mistake. He’s young, so am I. I can’t say I’ve never sent a stupid drunk text message.

    It was not only his looks, he is very intelligent and I clicked with him intellectually. Trust me, if I just thought he was handsome, it would have been over long long before it started. Smarts are a MUST for me, and drive and determination. However, until he steps up and actually proves to me that that isn’t typical behavior of his, sorry bud.

    While I am probably being a total softie on this situation, my girlfriends told me to give him another shot. They don’t know what he looks like or anything but I told them the whole story and they all agree that a lot of that is how guys communicate these days. That absolutely doesn’t make it okay, but as far as I know, NYC isn’t exactly the hotbed for gentlemen with old-fashioned manners.

    I’m growing more and more interested in the other guy with his lack of blunders and his sweet demeanor. He texted me today. We’ll see how this all pans out.

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

      @Charlotte

      I don’t think there’s any harm in giving Cray Cray another shot. You’re a pretty tough customer, I don’t think you’re likely to wind up having sex with a cad.

      But personally I’m voting for the good guy who has been reliable.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    LOL….I can tell you haven’t been in the workforce very long One of the things you’ll find out is maybe .0000000001% are indispensable. Most people are replaceable/fungible. Any large corporate organization is essentially structured that way…you are a cog in the machine that can be replaced with another cog.

    And let’s not forget about mergers and “redundancies”

  • Iggles

    @ Charlotte:

    So I don’t know, maybe he did just make a dumbass mistake. He’s young, so am I. I can’t say I’ve never sent a stupid drunk text message.

    What about his other booty call? He was sober when he invited you to stay overnight with him in Atlantic City, right?

    I say, when people show you who they are – believe them.

    As for your friends, ask yourself if their relationships are the kind that you want for yourself. Put more weight into the opinion of friends in happy, loving, healthy official relationships; less into the opinions of friends with unhappy hook ups/FWBs and otherwise undefined sex buddies with guys who do not respect them.

  • Bells

    @Mike C

    Do I have this woman’s unquestionable loyalty regardless of anything (exceptions being things like you turn out to be a serial killer or child molester). But I think most guys want to know they have the EXACT SAME LEVEL OF LOVE, COMMITMENT, DEVOTION, irrespective of whether they are CFO or wake up one day and decide to be a janitor

    This might be immaturity speaking.. but I had a really negative reaction when you mentioned a man dropping out from a CFO in favor of being a janitor. Especially If I had kids, I would be furious and concerned with this decision. I think it would be a really selfish act that would put the stability of the kids at risk.

    However if a man lost his job because of external reasons, that would not create as much strife. I accept that plenty of bad situations happen to everyone. I think it’d be terrible to abandon someone at their low points because one day the scenario might be reversed and I would be in their same shoes.

    I think Susan, J, and Anacaona covered this point. But I have to agree with them that nothing is 100% certain in marriage. Rather it is an individual choice to remain within it.

    Tip for parents: My mom has started threatening me by constantly repeating that she better never see divorce within my family unit. Her early parental pressure is actually making me more liable to screen correctly for men rather than settling for fun flings!

  • Dinkney Pawson

    @Charlotte

    My brother was a BMOC in high school. He learned to charm girls’ panties off. He never gave it up. Four marriages. As he aged he fished lower in the SMP. He didn’t torpedo his fourth marriage only because he got stomach cancer.

    Once they learn to like it, they don’t give it up.

    Your,hindbrain wants his babies. Would that be smart? No?

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

    I fully agree, and if I came to the conclusion that my wife was easily attracted to lots of guys and/or didn’t have deeper and more meaningful reasons to be with me, I would have moved on.

    Disclaimer:
    I’m using this as a way to discuss this issue further I’m sure your wife is a lovely woman worth the ring you recently placed on her finger. Don’t take it personally.
    Well you don’t need someone attracted to a lot of guys but the right guy at the right moment triggering her guts for you to get cheated on or abandoned and if she is quick to get turn on who is to say she is not quick to get turn off. She can just stop feeling it for you at the first offense since she fell for first sight too.
    The slow burner is more likely to need years of neglect for her to emotionally extinguish this attraction and probably some time to totally give up IME with other friends. There is a lot of male projection (or hopes) in this idea that the restricted 80% is the one cheating on and leaving their husbands. When all seems to indicate that the ones that get their hot right away are also getting the cold right away, YMMV.

    a) there is nothing really different in terms of behaviour between restricted and unrestricted, beliefs maybe but words and ideals are an irrelevant matter. I’d much rather a woman show me she loves me one time rather than say it every day forever.

    If they behave the same then what is the point of the difference?

    b) more likely that people were people and adapted to their surroundings with the genes for alpha going undercover while beta was tops. That trend seems to be reversing now (more OOW births, less marriage etc.)
    If the genes went undercover then they weren’t the winners where they?

    Eerily accurate in its predictive capacity.
    I knew this one girl who was 5′, great body. Mom was closer to 300 pds.

    That is my mom. I’m already wearing my pre-pregnancy clothes (baby was born in October). I have my dad’s skinny genes. But then asking if you will screw your FIL seems even worse. :p

    Tip for parents: My mom has started threatening me by constantly repeating that she better never see divorce within my family unit. Her early parental pressure is actually making me more liable to screen correctly for men rather than settling for fun flings!

    If I got a good yell at just out of my hair I can’t even imagine what level of crap I will get if I get an unjustified divorce. My dad told me at my first anniversary “I hope you beat us” him and mom had been married for almost 36 years.

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

      b) more likely that people were people and adapted to their surroundings with the genes for alpha going undercover while beta was tops. That trend seems to be reversing now (more OOW births, less marriage etc.)
      If the genes went undercover then they weren’t the winners where they?

      I think the big problem with this argument is that it assumes that the default for lower SES males is alpha. All these OOW baby daddies are alpha? Alphas should be rare, it should not equal “thug.”

      Behaving in a criminal or irresponsible manner seems an odd metric for conferring “good genes” status.

  • Cooper

    @Mike C
    “you are a cog in the machine that can be replaced with another cog.”

    Bu.. bu.. but I thought we’re all snow-flakes!

  • Roosh Retires!

    Susan, I think you’re going to love this;

    http://www.rooshv.com/the-beginning-of-the-end

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

      @Roosh Retires

      Wow, some excerpts:

      I wanted to hit a high number so that I could feel like a man.

      I know my role as the monkey who must keep dancing. I pursued interactions I normally wouldn’t so that I could write something for you.

      The second one is eerily reminiscent of Hannah seducing a junkie she’s not attracted to just so she can write about it.

      Like a sour bar towel, Roosh finally got used up. What next? Is there a woman alive who wants to sniff that?

  • Iggles

    @ Ana:

    There is a lot of male projection (or hopes) in this idea that the restricted 80% is the one cheating on and leaving their husbands. When all seems to indicate that the ones that get their hot right away are also getting the cold right away, YMMV.

    + 1

    Men want to believe the woman who came on strong, escalated quickly both physically (such as pulling them into a coat room the first night they met to round third base or sleeping with them after knowing them for a few days) and emotionally (quick to unofficially “move in” by spending most nights at his place and leaving clothes + toiletries behind) only did so for them. That their instantaneous connection was so strong because they are the exception – that special guy who makes her break all of her rules.

    However, more often than not the type of girl who jumps into sex & insta-relationships have done this before with other guys! They’re likely the types who follow “chemistry” and “sparks” instead of filtering for compatibility. I have a friend like this. Her intentions are genuine but she’s addicted to the dopamine rush. When she’s with a guy she’s into him fully, but her relationships rarely last past 3-5 months (average ones last maybe a month). She’s a good person, but if she was married and the chemistry fizzled I could see her ending the marriage to pursue a new guy in her orbit who she has “sparks” with. On the otherhand, if she met a guy who was right for her and did not let the attraction slip she would definitely remain committed. As far as I see, her main issue is that her current strategy is a crapshoot because she doesn’t filter enough before jumping headfirst into the next relationship. *shrugs*

    My dad told me at my first anniversary “I hope you beat us” him and mom had been married for almost 36 years.

    Aww, so sweet. That made me smile.

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

      @Iggles

      That their instantaneous connection was so strong because they are the exception – that special guy who makes her break all of her rules.

      It’s funny – that is precisely the inverse of the most popular female fantasy. A slow burn that eventually yields emotional vulnerability and connection from a man who does not emote as a rule.

      Perhaps it is human nature to want to be the exception.

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

    Here is how I would describe it: imagine that you are a man living in NYC. You want to get to San Francisco. There are no direct flights to speak of— your travel agent tells you that you must take a long, circuitous path by flying to Atlanta, then to Chicago, then to Dallas, then to Phoenix, then to San Diego, and finally to S.F.

    In this metaphor, NYC is “involuntary celibacy”, San Francisco represents “regular sex”, the travel agent is “Society”, and these regional hops represent stages of courtship.

    …and something funny happens along the way. There is a well-researched persuasion/social dynamics phenomenon called “irrational escalation of commitment.”. Simply put, a person who agrees to a chain of smaller commitments will tend to internalize these as core behaviors, representative of self-concept, and then will be more inclined to continue to invest even if the initial, extrinsic reward motivator is removed. This has been documented again and again, and social engineers attempt to manipulate people by it, as it becomes more and more difficult t walk away from a cascading series of prior investments.

    So continuing with our cross-country travel example, the older mating system which made (most) men jump through various hoops to get where they originally wanted to go was a form of gradual, escalating commitment
    generation.

    The new system is very different. A brash new airline has appeared which specializes in inexpensive direct and one-stop flights from NYC to SF. What will the consequences be? How much did the old system evoke a mechanical “commitment and consistency” algorithm, in which men pursuing sex through a serpentine and expensive courtship process would “build new struts to undergird choices that they had previously committed themselves to.”

    I think that a lot of good material has been put forth about how the traditional courtship system screened out men who lacked commitment-friendly qualities, but this approach more or less assumes that some guys naturally “have commitment” in them and other guys do not. A question which should be studied more, IMHO, is how the old process actually served to induce total relationship commitment through a prolonged and involved
    chain of smaller commitments and investments that gradually “grew legs” (to use Cialdini’s term).

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

      @BB

      A question which should be studied more, IMHO, is how the old process actually served to induce total relationship commitment through a prolonged and involved
      chain of smaller commitments and investments that gradually “grew legs”

      A young woman asked me how it worked when traditional dating was the norm – wouldn’t the alphas with options refuse to commit then as well? There were greater incentives to be married then – an unmarried man was suspect in his career and often presumed to be in the closet. The top male in college would marry the top female right after graduation, and so on down the line. Having a family was a high priority, and couples who didn’t have children were generally presumed to have failed to conceive rather than have remained childless by choice. A single woman in her 30s was an object of pity and often ridicule.

      Of course, not all of those marriages were happy, even if the divorce rate was lower.

  • Iggles

    Now that was an interesting link, anonymous.

    Today when I see a pretty girl with a great ass, I can’t help but be reminded of another girl I fucked who looks similar to her

    That reminds me of what John Mayer once said about having a “greatest hits” tape of his past sexual exploits running through his head which are better than his current conquests…

  • SayWhaat

    you are a cog in the machine that can be replaced with another cog.

    I was simply trying to illustrate another possible situation where one had agency in their outcome. I’m well aware the odds are slim.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    @Anacaona

    I too was skinny as a rail. Being male I had even less subcutaneous fat. I sank like a rock.

    Here’s the secret: The air in your lungs keeps you up, not your fat.

    Fill your lungs and then breathe little sips. Don’t breathe deeply. Empty your lungs and take a quick not-so-deep breath when you want to dive.

    I taught my daughter. I’m trying to teach my son.

  • Dinkney Pawson

    @Bastiat Blogger

    That series of commitments reminds me of a certain hard sell technique.

  • Bells

    @Anacaona,
    Re: dad’s congrats on first anniversary
    :)

    @Roosh Retires,
    Wow, I didn’t expect to see Roosh quit. This must be a heavy hit for the hardcore manosphere fans. This particular sentence was a very ironic..

    I was a banging machine, totally mindless about why I was doing something that was giving me decreasing pleasure. I like making fun of American women for having the mentality of a hamster, but I was the epitome of a hamster, spinning around, working hard to fuck when it has long stopped moving me forward

    It’s sad that he lived out a great portion of his life mindlessly. And even though he’s a manipulative douchebag, his one post on The Girl Score made a lot of sense.

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

    Roosh retiring:
    Don’t chant victory if the comments are any true he is just going to move on to a different type of soul eating endeavor (hookers, banging only the top hotties…) and if you’ll excuse me I need to throw up now

  • Roosh Retires!

    Iggles February 4, 2013 at 11:16 pm

    @ Ana:

    There is a lot of male projection (or hopes) in this idea that the restricted 80% is the one cheating on and leaving their husbands. When all seems to indicate that the ones that get their hot right away are also getting the cold right away, YMMV.

    + 1

    Men want to believe the woman who came on strong, escalated quickly both physically (such as pulling them into a coat room the first night they met to round third base or sleeping with them after knowing them for a few days) and emotionally (quick to unofficially “move in” by spending most nights at his place and leaving clothes + toiletries behind) only did so for them. That their instantaneous connection was so strong because they are the exception – that special guy who makes her break all of her rules.

    BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    On Roosh blogs they argue that American women are unfeminine sluts while foreign women are “high quality feminine women with values” who will have sex with you sooner because they are feminine and appreciate foreign men for who they are.

    What?

  • J

    Roosh retiring:
    Don’t chant victory if the comments are any true he is just going to move on to a different type of soul eating endeavor (hookers, banging only the top hotties…) and if you’ll excuse me I need to throw up now

    Sounds rewarding. My dear old alpha thug daddy had friends who were like that in their middle years. He would visit them in the nursing home when they were old and alone.

  • J

    @Charlotte

    Charlotte: So I don’t know, maybe he did just make a dumbass mistake. He’s young, so am I. I can’t say I’ve never sent a stupid drunk text message.

    Iggles: What about his other booty call? He was sober when he invited you to stay overnight with him in Atlantic City, right? I say, when people show you who they are – believe them.

    I’m with Iggles on this one. If you continue on with him, proceed with VERY EXTREME caution. He sounds like a guy whose used to getting what he wants from women.

  • J

    But this multi-penis highlight is really funny!

    Thanks, Bells. And welcome from out of lurkdom!

  • J

    Parents sleep in separate bedrooms until kids move out.

    Really? Why?

  • Ted D

    Ana – to be sure you are correct, and as far as it goes every relationship is a gamble. But, I’ve had my share of “grow to be attracted” relationships, and so far the change has been good. I agree with you that there may be an increased risk with a woman that becomes attracted easily, which is where character and morality come into play.

    All that being said, my wife also didn’t go from first meet to “jump my bones” on our first meeting. She was intensely attracted, but did NOT act on it for various reasons. (I was only separated and at the time we met was fully trying to get my ex-wife to come back home and reconcile. She was going through the second separation of her first marriage after they tried a reconciliation.)

    I’m not suggested men should immediately marry any woman that drags him into the coat room here. I’m suggesting that she should at least have some strong feelings for you pretty early on, something perhaps not based on what a great guy you are and how charming and charismatic you appear to be. I truly get the concept of a woman coming to be attracted to a man based on character traits and common interests, but I still believe that there should be a decent bit of baseline attraction before words are exchanged.

    I’ve experienced similar reactions on occasion from other women (rare to be sure, but a few at least) but in each case I was in a relationship and did not pursue. But I have to wonder if those relationships would have been easier, or if the differences in my current relationship are due to finding MMSL. If I’d known what I was getting into before I started, I might have been able to come up with some kind of experiment for it. LOL. It would be very interesting to see if this is based on basic biological chemistry. All I can say is I see plenty of women that pass the “boner test” every day of my life. Very, VERY few women illicit the kind of response from me my wife does, and she claims the same for me. *shrug*

    Lokland – Man, I’m just saying that you don’t have to be an underwear model to illicit strong physical attraction from a woman. If I knew the secret I’d be a rich man, but I can tell you I was NOT trying.

    Yes we were friends for a few months, BUT the attraction hit us both the first day we met. I pushed it aside because at the time I wanted to reconcile with my ex, and she was separated pending divorce. She figured getting involved with me would make her a possible home wrecker, and I was so in the dumps about my crumbling marriage that I only barely acknowledged what I felt at the time. In the month to follow it became clear my ex was not coming back to work things out, and as I began to disengage from her the attraction I felt for my current wife became impossible to ignore.

    Anyway my point being that the friendship certainly helped the relationship move along quickly once we got started, but it had nothing to do with that initial attraction we felt. I don’t want to sound all Blue Pill here, but it really did strike me like a bolt of lighting the first time my friend introduced us and we shook hands. Dunno. If I could only bottle it…

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I think the big problem with this argument is that it assumes that the default for lower SES males is alpha. All these OOW baby daddies are alpha? Alphas should be rare, it should not equal “thug.””

    I’d say your average “thug” is a situational alpha. They can’t hold a candle to the real deal, but in their own environment they ARE the king of the hill, and will fight (sometimes to the death) to protect their hill full of crap. They also tend to have a LOT of bravado and won’t normally back down from a confrontation, which at least presents as alpha.

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

      @Ted D

      But so many guys are fathering OOW children, they can’t all be top thug. Some of them must be lower down the chain. In any situation, there’s an AMOG. Just because the teenage runner gets some girl preggers, that does not (or should not) mean he’s alpha.

  • SayWhaat

    Parents sleep in separate bedrooms until kids move out.

    Really? Why?

    Dunno. Various reasons.

    1) Didn’t grow to really like each other in the period between the arranged marriage and childbirth

    2) Baby of the family continues to sleep with Mom throughout (and a little past) toddler phase

    3) Hate each other.

    That’s just what I can speculate. There are probably a myriad of other reasons.

  • Ted D

    “Perhaps it is human nature to want to be the exception.”

    We all want to be special snowflakes.

    It is a huge hit to the ego to find out it isn’t so.

  • JP

    @Bells:

    “Though I recently started commenting, I’ve been reading HUS for about a year now. I just didn’t feel comfortable enough to comment because I felt like my place was to listen more than to talk.”

    Kind of the opposite of my approach.

    Comment first, figure out what the blog is actually about later.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “Behaving in a criminal or irresponsible manner seems an odd metric for conferring “good genes” status.”

    Well, there is the “warrior gene”.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090121093343.htm

    Their results demonstrate that:

    Low-activity MAOA subjects displayed slightly higher levels of aggression overall than high-activity MAOA subjects.

    There was strong evidence for a gene-by-environment interaction, such that MAOA is less associated with the occurrence of aggression in the low-provocation condition (when the amount of money taken was low), but significantly predicted aggression in a high-provocation situation (when the amount of money taken was high).

  • J

    That’s really interesting, Say Whaat. Thanks for answering.

    1) Didn’t grow to really like each other in the period between the arranged marriage and childbirth

    You know, I think those of us who are intrigued with the idea of arranged marriage forget this happens too.

    2) Baby of the family continues to sleep with Mom throughout (and a little past) toddler phase

    Makes sense. I think that’s sort of natural in societies that have prolonged breastfeeding.

  • J

    I wanted to hit a high number so that I could feel like a man.

    Both telling and sad. What’s next? A similar admission from Roissy? The entire ‘sphere will collapse if that happens.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “But so many guys are fathering OOW children, they can’t all be top thug. Some of them must be lower down the chain. In any situation, there’s an AMOG. Just because the teenage runner gets some girl preggers, that does not (or should not) mean he’s alpha.”

    Of course not. They were top thug (at least to that particular woman) in that moment, and when they get knocked off the hill she will end up having the new thug king’s baby. That is what I meant be situational alpha. IN THE MOMENT the woman sees him as the biggest, baddest thug she can grab. As soon as he gets knocked down, she will look for the next big dawg to hook up with.

    how exactly do you think some of these women end up with 5 kids to 5 different men? At some point, they were all her best choice, (or so she thought) but most of them don’t stay in that position for long.

  • SayWhaat

    2) Baby of the family continues to sleep with Mom throughout (and a little past) toddler phase

    Makes sense. I think that’s sort of natural in societies that have prolonged breastfeeding.

    No, I don’t think it had anything to do with breast feeding. I think it was just pampering and catering to the youngest child’s every whim. :P

  • J

    No, I don’t think it had anything to do with breast feeding. I think it was just pampering and catering to the youngest child’s every whim.

    That can cause a lot of tension.

  • Ion

    Ted D

    “They also tend to have a LOT of bravado and won’t normally back down from a confrontation,”

    They DO back down from confrontation. Just not when it comes to women, and other men just as weak as they are. Not hard to back down considering who they’re up against.

    “They can’t hold a candle to the real deal, but in their own environment they ARE the king of the hill, and will fight (sometimes to the death) to protect their hill full of crap.”

    Any gamma can (and has) picked up a gun, at some point in history, and has, overnight, become an alpha capable of dominating other men who couldn’t compete with firearms. SMP has made men who would’ve been regular ol’ farmers and low value betas under normal circumstances, masculine alphas. Roosh proves that a low value gamma male can become an alpha under ideal circumstances (like traveling abroad with American money that he himself had no hand in creating). School shooters prove that gammas can get violent by picking up a gun they had no hand in inventing. Low SES men prove that they can be “alpha” when sex ratio and media benefits them, when they had no hand in being masculine. I wouldn’t call a guy whose scenery increased his value, an alpha. As with anything, it depends on the environment and who you are competing against.

    I agree that a good term is “situational alphas”. I.e. A 35 year old woman might be a 10 if she were in a military town in South Dakota with 90% of the women being elderly, or army wives. Even if she’s lazy, unattractive and showers once every 3 days, she lucked out because there are tons of guys around her trying to get out of the barracks. But once she joins society, and competes with all women for a spot in the SMP? She might go from a 10 to a 2. Forgive that awful analogy, but that’s basically the reality of the “situational alphas” you’re referring to.

  • Ion

    “Though I recently started commenting, I’ve been reading HUS for about a year now. I just didn’t feel comfortable enough to comment because I felt like my place was to listen more than to talk.”

    I can definitely relate :-). For me it was around 4 months of reading before I felt comfortable enough to start commenting.

  • Ted D

    Ion – spot on! That was exactly why I said these “alphas” couldn’t compete with the real deal. They are basically the big fish in a very small (and dirty) pond.

    Thing is, for people living in that pond they might as well be the real deal. And for women that never get to leave the pond or see that other ponds exist? Thugs are what they have to choose from.

    But I’m interested in something you pointed out: to you believe that these thug types are Gamma? I find that VERY interesting because it explains a lot of their behavior (posturing, ridiculously inflated ego, grand displays of aggression). It implies they are particularly violent NOT because they are alpha, but because they are overly concerned with protecting their “turf” since it is what gives them their “alpha cred”, so to speak.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    I hesitate to do this, because I don’t want to restart an age old debate…

    But Susan, you’re using “alpha ” in the social or status sense… But when most in this sphere use it, they mean it in the sexual sense. I.e. attractive girls want to fuck him.

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

      But Susan, you’re using “alpha ” in the social or status sense… But when most in this sphere use it, they mean it in the sexual sense. I.e. attractive girls want to fuck him.

      But Game says that social dominance is what makes girls want to fuck a man. That’s what Game does, right? Enables guys to project social dominance with women?

      So if a man has none, and he still gets laid, how does that happen?

      Also, since when do girls have to be attractive to “make” an alpha? We’ve had many guys on here admit that they or their player friends with very high N mostly have ONSs with less attractive girls.

      Based on the pics of some baby mamas I’ve seen, physical attractiveness has nothing to do with it. A lot of these OOW births are to ugly people.

      Is an ugly guy who impregnates an ugly teenager an alpha? You’d think so to read some of the commentary here.

  • Sassy6519

    A lot of people in the baby-mama/baby-daddy situations, especially in the lower SES ranks, are not attractive. The men and women are both in the lower SMV ranks, which makes them the best matches for each other.

  • Ion

    1000% Ted D!

    I think what you said is basically what I would’ve said almost word-for-word. It’s not a natural inclination towards violence of gamma-alphas, it’s needing to compete for their spot as men as a result of being socially gamma. It’s not that hard to buy an illegal firearm for what? $200? All you have to do is be desperate enough to command respect.

    I agree that gamma-alphas have a female temperament, and I disagree with the manosphere that violence/guns is a “natural alpha” tell. Widespread gun use happens in the ghettos of Thailand and the Philippines as it does in Mexico and the inner city here. Are all these men alphas?

    Inner city “Alpha cred” is basically a butch feminist proving she’s “alllll woman” by posturing, and sleeping with as many drunk low value men as possible. It doesn’t mean she’s a 10 because a bunch of drunk low value men will sleep with her. It might mean she’s acting out of desperation to feel feminine, when she’s the total opposite of that. Same is true of gamma-alphas.

    I personally view alpha as a mastermind of sorts (like Steve Jobs, Peter Norton, Bill Clinton or historically Frederick Jones, Einstein, etc), and women come with the territory for obvious reasons.

  • Ion

    “A lot of people in the baby-mama/baby-daddy situations, especially in the lower SES ranks, are not attractive.”

    Yep, that was usually the case, and now the problem is knocking on everyone’s door.

    It’s a sad thing to watch when “beta becomes the new player”. When betas start refusing to marry because the steaks are too high, have unlimited options, etc., more attractive middle/low SES women will settle to become baby mamas or just opt out off the market. Those will become the choices. I’d argue that plenty of women already opt out, only statistics fail to suss out women who’ve voluntarily said “NO!” to baby mama drama/ harem culture with “it’s because you’re not attractive”. That can’t be the full story… I’ve seen plenty of unattractive Shreks pushing strollers with no wedding ring.

    The betas are now players because the demand for them is/has always been higher, especially since the pool of wanna be alphas have increased. So they have some options with both ugly/attractive low SES women, and the pool of women they have options with is increasing.

  • Ted D

    ““A lot of people in the baby-mama/baby-daddy situations, especially in the lower SES ranks, are not attractive.”

    Yep, that was usually the case, and now the problem is knocking on everyone’s door.”

    There are plenty of reason why lower SES folks tend to be on the ugly side. For one they usually eat badly. They often don’t have medical or dental insurance. Many are on some form of illegal drugs. Plus, we’ve had a few decades of inbreeding (not incest, but just limited gene selection because of limited opportunities to get out of the ghetto).

    You can see the same things in the south in poor communities.

    That being said, this problem is creeping up the SES ladder and is now firmly taking hold in the LMC areas around me. Any school district that mixes lots of public assistance families with LMC families are going to see it first hand. Just look for towns that used to be firmly MC after the financial crises where public housing moved in. Here in the ‘Burgh it has been a growing trend since the 80’s when the steel mills moved out and manufacturing jobs dried up. At this point downtown is well on its way to recovery, but many of the suburbs are still not so fortunate.

  • pennies

    Susan, I know you hate Jezebel, but have you seen the two articles there about SF PUA Jeff Allen? Ugh. Disgusting! (Sorry I didn’t come up with a graceful way to tie this in with the above conversation, but it tangentially relates…)

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

    This doesn’t reflect how I personally like to use the term, but it appears that the general definition of an “alpha male” is becoming a man who can dominate sexual resources in his immediate area (how he does this may depend on the particular scorecard system and valued traits used in that culture).

    Under the old patriarchy, alpha males were placed under de facto salary caps: to harness the efforts of the greatest number of men to the plow, a sort of egalitarian “one man, one sexual resource” became the culturally enforced norm. The male’s ultimate goal of sexual release was tempered by a set of proximate goals that favored monogamous commitment. The implicit promise seemed to be, “if you work hard and play the game right, you will be ‘issued’ a loving wife.”

    I suppose the problem with this system was that women in it were
    objectified as a form of private property. No doubt many women justifiably
    found this system to be oppressive and dehumanizing, and they can now rejoice that it has been killed. But there are consequences…

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

    Sounds rewarding. My dear old alpha thug daddy had friends who were like that in their middle years. He would visit them in the nursing home when they were old and alone.

    This is probably the best kept secret on those sides of the manosphere. They end up pathetic covered in their own poo. But it seems that no one wants to talk about it. All the irresponsible man that got laid a lot but left a trail of broken hearts in their wake (women and children) end up really lonely and hated. I don’t know if there is an afterlife but having no one shedding a tear when you leave this world and some even happy that you did seems like a very bad way to go, YMMV.

    Both telling and sad. What’s next? A similar admission from Roissy? The entire ‘sphere will collapse if that happens.

    Had you seen a group of drug addicts changing their ways because their pimp repented? They will rationalize it as they are doing with Roosh and/or someone else will take his place. Misery loves company and has a mean PR team, YMMV.

    No, I don’t think it had anything to do with breast feeding. I think it was just pampering and catering to the youngest child’s every whim.

    If you ask me I think it might be an excuse. I slept in the family bed till I was a toddler with mom and dad and baby brother and we all did. If she is not missing her husband at night or he doesn’t like to sleep with his kids there most be something else going on. It can be something as innocent as light sleeper, kicking, not used to sleep in a bed with many people (probably upper class issues) or snoring or just they don’t like each other that much, YMMV.

    Thing is, for people living in that pond they might as well be the real deal. And for women that never get to leave the pond or see that other ponds exist? Thugs are what they have to choose from.

    They probably had seen this same behaviour for generations in their own homes and it takes a lot of imagination and education to aspire to more and resist the pull of your peers.

    I’d argue that plenty of women already opt out, only statistics fail to suss out women who’ve voluntarily said “NO!” to baby mama drama/ harem culture with “it’s because you’re not attractive”.

    Heh very true. I got a lot of “shame” for not being into the thugs and many “You are just too ugly” or “you are ugly who do you think you are you are lucky for me to pay attention to you” and my personal favorite “You cannot get a man interested that is why you are alone” Good thing I don’t fucking care what men think of me, except daddy and hubby of course.

    That can’t be the full story… I’ve seen plenty of unattractive Shreks pushing strollers with no wedding ring.

    Honey Boo Boo mom what? Sorry this is the most recent example of how you can look like a human thumb and get four kids of four different men and a boyfriend that proposes. And no I don’t watch the show, everyone on Facebook does sadly.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    But Game says that social dominance is what makes girls want to fuck a man. That’s what Game does, right? Enables guys to project social dominance with women?

    So if a man has none, and he still gets laid, how does that happen?

    That was the whole point of our previous debate – that the sexual “alpha” is not about the male status hierarchy – but rather about a set of attraction triggers that women have for various personality traits and preferred occupation/status.

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

      That was the whole point of our previous debate – that the sexual “alpha” is not about the male status hierarchy – but rather about a set of attraction triggers that women have for various personality traits and preferred occupation/status.

      That’s not what I’m discussing. I believe Lokland suggested that low SES “alphas” are breeding like mad and high SES betas or not. Or at least that’s what I took away from his comment. Alphas are reproductively successful and betas are not, according to this theory. I suspect that in fact there are a lot of betas among those baby daddies. It does not seem reasonable to me to claim that alphas are taking over the population. That makes a mockery of the concept.

  • Ion

    “Heh very true. I got a lot of “shame” for not being into the thugs and many “You are just too ugly” or “you are ugly who do you think you are you are lucky for me to pay attention to you””

    +1 Ana. My favorite is “you’re just stuck up!”. Nope, just don’t like gamma thugs, their worshippers and lapdog sympathizers, or the beta-to-player converts. Be a stuck up bitch without an STD or a “supporter” with one and several kids oow, I chose option 1.

    Ted

    “Many are on some form of illegal drugs. Plus, we’ve had a few decades of inbreeding (not incest, but just limited gene selection because of limited opportunities to get out of the ghetto).”

    Bwahaha. Limited gene pool is worse in any small country, some have less fuglies than here. I think for low SES it’s a combo of things like corner store frankenfoods, too much alcohol, drugs, stress of poverty, and no real need to give a damn about how you look or what you do, because everyone around you is in your selection pool.

    Lower class people were way more attractive in the 50s even when women had a reason to compete [for beta providers], and men needed to prove they were betas ["strong men"] in order to compete. Now all you have is a bunch of people with no real incentive to give a damn, and it shows.

    This behavior is spreading to the middle class too….it’s always “the innate dysfunction/depravity of the ‘under class'”, til it hits the suburbs.

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

    but I still believe that there should be a decent bit of baseline attraction before words are exchanged.

    The restricted has this baseline attraction is just come in a different order. First character and morality then “wow that guy looks hot!” the order of the factors doesn’t alter the attraction. It just means that you have to show you are worth the wet panties before such panties are in sight.
    Is funny I remember that Tom mentioned that he lives in world well he considers the sexuality for every woman that he crosses paths with even imagining how do they look orgasming. I don’t think on anyone as a sexual beings like never. For all I know all my friends babies came from baby planet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t535BjVmXq8
    Hence the fact that my husband is the only sexual being in the world for me makes him a special, unique and my soulmate (as silly that concept is for many here) and he won that with enough time for me to get to know him. Of course any man might desire the opposite just saying that if your other relationships failed there might be more to it than just if they were wetting their panties on first sight or not, YMMV.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    No one making the connection between the Roosh case and the “male fantasy” of a girl who puts out easy, but only for him?

    Well, okay, whatever.

    Guys like to feel sexy.

    Guys will invest a ton of effort into being sexy and hot and irresistble. Or at least tingle-inducing, in short order.

    Some guys will seek to prove their irrestiability through N. This almost always gets boring.

    Note that the “instant chemistry” Mike C and Ted are alluding to doesn’t mean “OH MY GOD SEX WITH YOU NOW,” it means “I like you and some physical play with you actually excites me.”

  • Ted D

    ADBG – +1

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

    “I like you and some physical play with you actually excites me.”

    The unrestricted sure can get that in seconds, the restricted type need more time and of course this make us less desirable it seems like *lesigh*

  • Tom.s

    @ Anacaona

    “The unrestricted sure can get that in seconds, the restricted type need more time and of course this make us less desirable it seems like *lesigh”

    Well if it helps, I think that is why a lot of people are here. To get rid of their perceptions and projections. For example, now I know that restricted more stable girls are going to purposefully take their time to establish their attraction… perhaps, the “total” attraction?

    What I would like to know, is if their is a way to filter before approach and rejection. I have posted in the forum for advice should you have an opinion.

  • JP

    “For example, now I know that restricted more stable girls are going to purposefully take their time to establish their attraction… perhaps, the “total” attraction?

    What I would like to know, is if their is a way to filter before approach and rejection.”

    Become friends with them first and move very slowly until they decide that they like you?

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

    What I would like to know, is if their is a way to filter before approach and rejection. I have posted in the forum for advice should you have an opinion.

    Hard to advice on that. I grew up in a different culture and in a time where traditional dating still worked. The dates were a way to allow a man to enter our “emotional threshold’ at certain pace and stop him before things get serious enough for him to be entitled to more physically escalation. There was a sense of good will you trusted the man will not push you further than a “good girl” should go and the guy trusted that you were not “playing him for a chump” and really were accepting the dates because you were becoming more attracted the more time you spent with him.
    I think some of the American born girls here, should chime in.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Anacoana;
    Dating in the early and mid-Sixties, it seemed so from my side. But I never heard a woman explain it like that, or any other way. It was just the way things were. Be nice to have some feed-in from the women of that era.

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

    Become friends with them first and move very slowly until they decide that they like you?

    Bad idea. For restricted (I’m going to presume this is how we all operate feel free to correct me) the default choice when someone wants to spent time with us is friend as in no sexual friend. If you don’t establish that you are spending time because you like us as more than a friend then you might end up in the friendzone. Better to say or hint that you find us attractive. In my times a man used to ask “do you have a boyfriend?” as way to establish that he was romantically interested. It was a polite way to save face for both and she knew what was going on without having to decide right away, not sure the equivalent will be in this modern times.

  • JP

    @Anacaona:

    “Bad idea. For restricted (I’m going to presume this is how we all operate feel free to correct me) the default choice when someone wants to spent time with us is friend as in no sexual friend.”

    This is basically how I ended up with girlfriends I didn’t want, so I figured it was a good idea to try if you wanted that person as a girlfriend.

  • JP

    I think that what I’m saying is that I wanted to be in the friend zone.

    There was one girl I was friends with where it worked and she never wanted to date me and I could spend all the time I wanted in the friend zone.

    Normally trying to put myself into the friend zone failed.

    It would have been useful to know that there was such a thing.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “I believe Lokland suggested that low SES “alphas” are breeding like mad and high SES betas or not. ”

    I did just that.
    Since by definition alpha here essentially means cad I was equating alpha with cad.

    As for them being beta, no. I have three baby mommas who I don’t see does not equate to provisioning/fathering/comfort traits which signify the beta reproductive strategy.

    Call them whatever you want. I’m going to go with quizzles from now on.

    Whatever you call them, they (the quizzles) are winning the reproductive game. Quizzles are taking over the population instead of provisioning betas.

    Happy now?

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

      @Lokland

      LOL re quizzles. Sounds like something from Harry Potter.

      You’ve hit on the crux of the problem. In a manosphere sense, alpha = SMP Winner = high number of lays. Period. That’s it. No other criteria apply. Similarly, beta = SMP loser = low number of lays or low sexual variety.

      Personally, I do not find that metric useful for discussion. It’s not really relevant to what I do here. I am more interested in discussing males in terms of traits, as you suggest.

      The problem is these definition often overlap and become conflated. Example: If a man does not provide for his offspring is he an alpha, simply by virtue of his poor character?

      I agree with you that people of low character – both men and women – are having OOW children, and those children face slim odds of ever developing good character themselves. There is a large environmental component, so it’s hard to say what is happening genetically. Still, I agree with your point that quizzles are reproducing irresponsibly and that is not a good thing.

  • Lokland

    @Ted D

    “Man, I’m just saying that you don’t have to be an underwear model to illicit strong physical attraction from a woman. If I knew the secret I’d be a rich man, but I can tell you I was NOT trying.”

    Two things.

    I said some subset of men were incapable of eliciting visceral attraction.
    I did not set that bar to include a majority (using under wear model as standard) or even a large minority. Just some, not sure how many.

    There is no secret. Being hot based purely on looks is relatively simple and a person either has it (or the potential to be it) or they don’t.

    Also,
    Personal anecdote, never had a woman admit to visceral attraction ever. Not once. Quite the opposite in most cases.

    I’m not stupid enough to apply that standard to all men but I highly doubt I’m the only one chilling in this pond. (Or maybe I am a unique butterfly.)

  • JP

    @Lokland:

    “Personal anecdote, never had a woman admit to visceral attraction ever. Not once. Quite the opposite in most cases.

    I’m not stupid enough to apply that standard to all men but I highly doubt I’m the only one chilling in this pond. (Or maybe I am a unique butterfly.)”

    The magical power of visceral attraction doesn’t do you any good if you have the ability to attract women to whom you are not, and to whom you are never going to be, attracted to.

    In fact, it makes life worse.

  • JP

    Did the HUS troll get herself banned again?

  • Bells

    @Tom.s

    What I would like to know, is if their is a way to filter before approach and rejection. I have posted in the forum for advice should you have an opinion

    This is my opinion as a shy restricted girl.
    A factor to take into consideration is your personality. If you look and behave like the average nice guy— push your attraction to her more overtly so she doesn’t get a chance to friendzone you. Then just hang back and be friendly towards her. Allow her to become more comfortable in your presence. After a short while, you should make a blatant move. Example: asking for a date. Then go from there.

    If you’re the guy that’s outgoing and sexually experienced, you should tone down aggressive flirtations so that she doesn’t get overwhelmed and immediately cancel you out. Then do the same suggestions: hang back, allow her to build comfort, ask for a date. And go from there.

  • Lokland

    @Ana

    “If they behave the same then what is the point of the difference?”

    This was wrt to restricted and unrestricted.

    It offers neither an explanation of past behaviour nor does it have any predictive capacity.

    So the theory does not match the observations and cannot correctly predict the outcome. In terms of hypotheses its a bad one.

  • Lokland

    “All these OOW baby daddies are alpha? Alphas should be rare, it should not equal “thug.””

    Let me explain my POV on this matter.
    Winning the evolutionary race is based upon the successfulness of reproducing.

    Those OOW daddies are winning, if they can manage 3 or more kids they are already above the mean number of children for a married man.

    Apply that standard over an extended period of time and you will see a shift in the representative set of genes within the population.

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

    @SW

    In a manosphere sense, alpha = SMP Winner = high number of lays. Period. That’s it. No other criteria apply. Similarly, beta = SMP loser = low number of lays or low sexual variety.

    That’s the sense around here, too. N = success, period. If reproduction matter, it’s hard to reconcile that view with the some basic facts of life: Men with lower N report more children. Physically attractive men with higher N produce less sperm. Also, the higher one’s N, the greater the chances of contracting some STD like chlamydia that will impact fertility.

    Alpha/beta, winner/loser may sound objective, but you might as well ask the questions “who do you admire and why”. That’s really the crux of the matter, IMO…

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

      @Megaman

      Alpha/beta, winner/loser may sound objective, but you might as well ask the questions “who do you admire and why”. That’s really the crux of the matter, IMO…

      I’m with you. People are free to define those terms however they wish. For guys focusing on increasing N (like Roosh saying he needed to do so to feel like a man), then alpha = lays sounds like a good metric.

      For my purposes, it’s woefully insufficient and even counterproductive, because it results in labeling high risk men with a favorable sounding name. When I say beta males make good relationship prospects, and that women have evolved to prefer them for pair bonding, I am not saying that women like SMP losers. I’ve always been surprised at how strongly and negatively self-described betas react to my appreciation for beta traits. They resentfully state that those traits don’t get them laid. They are operating strictly in the beta = loser paradigm, so my words sound like heresy. The problem is, that is a strictly short-term view that’s useful only to men who aspire to a large number of sexual partners.

  • Ted D

    Lokland – “There is no secret. Being hot based purely on looks is relatively simple and a person either has it (or the potential to be it) or they don’t.”

    I agree. My point is that a man does NOT have to be “hot” to illicit a strong physical attraction from a woman. Surely the hotter a guy is the easier getting that response becomes, but I’m no underwear model, and was even LESS so when my wife and I first met.

    “Personal anecdote, never had a woman admit to visceral attraction ever. Not once. Quite the opposite in most cases.”

    This is my first. The previous closest was my ex-wife who had a pretty strong initial reaction to me as well, but she literally walked into a rehearsal while I was wailing out a song we were working on. She heard me before she saw me, and told me later that she was attracted to my voice strongly enough to feel attraction for me without even seeing me. *shrug* I found it amusing, mostly because back then I didn’t believe such attraction cues existed. I figured she was a snowflake, or I was simply misunderstanding her.

    Ana – Interesting conversation. So I think you are implying that restricted folks by and large MUST create an emotional bond of some type before physical escalation, and unrestricted folks can easily act on physical attraction but often take time to form emotional bonds?

    So, restricted people have to concentrate most of their “faithfulness” energy on NOT forming emotional affairs, while unrestricted folks have to concentrate that effort on not acting on the physical desires and starting a PA? VERY, very interesting… It implies that both restricted and unrestricted people have their cross to bare, but they are made of different materials, so to speak.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “I’ve always been surprised at how strongly and negatively self-described betas react to my appreciation for beta traits. They resentfully state that those traits don’t get them laid. They are operating strictly in the beta = loser paradigm, so my words sound like heresy. The problem is, that is a strictly short-term view that’s useful only to men who aspire to a large number of sexual partners.”

    It is NOT a short-term view only. I had to come to the realization that IF I wanted to be happy long-term in a relationship, I might have to adopt some short-term strategies to be used in the long term. Let me explain. (I’ll try to be short, but you know…)

    Beta traits are without a doubt what keeps a relationship going. Without them, the lack of security and sense of safety would drive most women away. However, ONLY providing that sense of security will not make your GF/Wife attracted to you, no matter how much you wish it were so.

    The question is: what makes your GF/Wife physically attracted to you enough to want to sex you up often? Well, generally those are alpha traits. So, for guys with few real alpha traits to offer, the best solution in many cases is for them to pick up a few short-term “tricks” that PUAs would use to get higher N, but instead use it on your GF/wife only.

    Example: My wife loves that I cook sometimes, and I know beyond all doubt that on nights that she rolls in after 6pm she very much appriciates that I have dinner going. It makes her feel good that I took the initiative, good that she knows I can take care of basic needs of our kids, and that she can relax instead of rushing to make something. However, the one thing she does NOT feel at that moment? Like she wants to jump me for being a good househusband. But now that she is in a good mood, I can quickly escalate with a few drive-by swats to the ass or some cocky/funny, and we are clear to launch.

    My beta traits (making dinner) allowed her to be in the right frame of mind to feel attraction, but in and of itself my cooking does not MAKE her attracted. To do that, I have to deploy other tactics, and sometimes I use what you label as “short-term traits” to do it. So, are they still short-term if I’m using them to maintain my long-term relationship? IMO it is short-sighted to simply label something short or long term, when they can often be mixed and matched for a specific relationship.

    So yes. I still maintain that my beta traits DO NOT get my laid. They allow my wife to feel comfort, love, and affection for me though, and that is indeed an important part of the long-term plan. When it comes to getting sex, the beta traits lay the groundwork (by making her feel safe and secure) and the alpha traits get her motor running. The alpha wouldn’t work as well without the beta, but it is NOT the beta that is the star of the sex show. Beta is the supporting actor, and nothing more.

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

      @Ted D

      When it comes to getting sex, the beta traits lay the groundwork (by making her feel safe and secure) and the alpha traits get her motor running. The alpha wouldn’t work as well without the beta, but it is NOT the beta that is the star of the sex show. Beta is the supporting actor, and nothing more.

      For most women, beta is the foundation of the relationship, and that extends to sex. Without it there can be no relationship. Dominance (I assume you means this when you say alpha traits) is absolutely necessary as part of the mix. There must be a mix. But dominance is like salt – it enhances flavor but can easily ruin a dish. A little goes a long way, and test carefully before adding more. YMMV according to the woman.

      Personally, I think the answer is achieving a dominant mindset, not deploying tricks.

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

    I know that some of my more ferocious friends feel that the alpha and the beta achieve sexual success through different “value propositions” made to women. The alpha basically sells a rockstar, low-commitment product and if a woman buys it she is confirming his raw attractiveness (since that is all he is ostensibly offering). The beta strategy of selling Nice Guy commitment and provisioning resources looks superficially like a $$$-for-sex exchange which does little for the man’s self-esteem but is probably quite nice from the female POV, as well as for the Manosphere’s most hated foil, the sociopathic divorce industry.

    In the ‘phere, the alpha has become a sort of dark avenger, Batman type figure, the vigilante who punishes feminism and it’s allies by refusing, like John Galt, to play a rigged game. When a hot, educated, affluent man goes
    alpha, that’s one less pillar supporting the current system which many men have come to hate.

    I’m not saying that this is always reasonable or even sane, but I think that women can benefit from understanding the nature of the male emotional backlash that has been triggered.

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

      @BB

      In the ‘phere, the alpha has become a sort of dark avenger, Batman type figure, the vigilante who punishes feminism and it’s allies by refusing, like John Galt, to play a rigged game. When a hot, educated, affluent man goes
      alpha, that’s one less pillar supporting the current system which many men have come to hate.

      It’s funny, I have a very different perception. That is, the sphere actually loathes the hot, educated, affluent man, who probably does quite well with women already, even if he didn’t always enjoy that level of success. Women are not distinguishing between alpha and beta when they look at that man – he’s attractive.

      What I see in the sphere is a punitive approach of demanding that women dispense with prioritizing “hot” and select men based on traits that really matter. In this way, unattractive men who succeed as PUAs, e.g. Roosh, provide the most positive reinforcement.

  • Sai

    @Bells
    +1

  • Lokland

    @Mega

    “N = success, period. If reproduction matter, it’s hard to reconcile that view with the some basic facts of life:”

    This is the view I hold. Number of children >>> than number of lays.
    Alpha and beta become irrelevant terms if they are not connected to reproduction.

    “Men with lower N report more children.”

    Not really. The average number of children is 2.7. A man with 6 babies to one or more women that he does not care for is worth 2 beta dads (at least in the evolutionary sense). And those who get just to three are already moving the odds in favour of quizzles instead of beta dads.

    “Physically attractive men with higher N produce less sperm.”

    Did not know that.

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

      @Lokland

      A man with 6 babies to one or more women that he does not care for is worth 2 beta dads (at least in the evolutionary sense). And those who get just to three are already moving the odds in favour of quizzles instead of beta dads.

      Do you have any data on the average number of offspring to quizzle males?

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “The problem is, that is a strictly short-term view that’s useful only to men who aspire to a large number of sexual partners.”

    No. The problem is that its coming from someone who has participated in the STM game and the LTM game.

    Being told that it’ll all be okay eventually is significantly better coming from
    a) someone who is in the same boat (or was in the same boat) as you and
    b) the prize at the end is someone who would not have rejected you prior

    My wife prides my kindness (the first thing she noticed about me was my kind face, not sure wth she was smoking but sure lets go with that).

    Having my kindness prided by a bitch would in no way be a compliment.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “In a manosphere sense, alpha = SMP Winner = high number of lays. Period. That’s it. No other criteria apply. Similarly, beta = SMP loser = low number of lays or low sexual variety.”

    This is overreaching. No doubt some people think that way, but I doubt you’ll see anyone state it like this.

    I’ve repeatedly said that a SMPW is enough *options* to leverage that into what a man personally wants, and not what other people want him to want. He might want a high N, or just a few excellent women.

    A high N is generally indicative of such options, but, a low N does not always mean you don’t.

    Having a low N because you have no other options is VERY different than having a low N because you are picky, and like your wife the best.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    That I do not. Will look later tonight.
    Average will be less helpful than median in this case however.
    (Since the numbers with 0 is hypothetically quite high it will depend upon the number with higher numbers and if they are capable of offsetting the failures.)

    The beta dad strategy is the low risk strategy for a male but low payouts.
    The quizzle is a higher risk, higher payout strategy.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Personally, I think the answer is achieving a dominant mindset, not deploying tricks.”

    Absolutely! that is a work in progress for me. So in many ways, I’m still in the “fake it til you make it” stage. Becoming a “dominant” person isn’t all that easy, especially when there is a LOT of old programming to overcome that was practically designed to KEEP you from being dominant. Sometimes I literally feel like I’m somehow letting my grandmother down by trying to be more alpha. Of everyone in my family, she was the one that stressed the importance of being humble, and not having an inflated ego. Logically I know being more assertive does not equal “bigger ego”, but I’ll tell you they feel awfully similar to me. Exerting dominance IS a display of ego in a sense, and I spent most of my life believing I should ALWAYS do my best to underplay my abilities as to not “show off” or something.

  • JP

    “Do you have any data on the average number of offspring to quizzle males?”

    Generally my quizzle clients are between 3 and 8.

    And they always end up in jail because of unpaid child support.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    I’m actually going to agree with BB on #438.

    There is some sort of male emotional backlash of the type he is speaking about.

  • Cooper

    “Beta is the supporting actor, and nothing more.”

    Hmmm, more like key grip.

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    Men with lower N report more children.

    Are the low SES men with higher N really aware of all the children they have fathered?

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    There must be a mix. But dominance is like salt – it enhances flavor but can easily ruin a dish.

    A very good analogy given the current success of junk food over healthy food.

  • INTJ

    @ JP

    Generally my quizzle clients are between 3 and 8.

    And they always end up in jail because of unpaid child support.

    How does that compare with your married beta clients?

  • SayWhaat

    Not really. The average number of children is 2.7. A man with 6 babies to one or more women that he does not care for is worth 2 beta dads (at least in the evolutionary sense). And those who get just to three are already moving the odds in favour of quizzles instead of beta dads.

    I think you have to measure reproductive success by the success of your offspring. IOW, the quizzle with 6 bastard children is ultimately going to lose out in the reproductive sweepstakes if the majority of those kids are shot/drugged/locked up during their prime reproductive years. On the other hand, Mr. UMC with two kids may end up with 4 grandchildren, who grow up well and produce 8 more children.

    Meanwhile, one of the quizzle kids is lucky to have a child that doesn’t have Hep C.

  • JP

    @INTJ

    “How does that compare with your married beta clients?”

    2-4 kids seems to be the target number around here.

  • OffTheCuff

    Lok: “This is the view I hold. Number of children >>> than number of lays.
    Alpha and beta become irrelevant terms if they are not connected to reproduction.”

    Speaking as one of the lowest SMV man who regularly contributes here… I disagree. It’s reproduction potential, not necessarily actualized.

    By this metric I am the “more alpha” here with three kids, and BB is not, which is clearly ridiculous. But the reality is BB *could* have 50 kids if he wanted to, and probably get other men to pay for them to boot, whereas I never could pull that off.

    Now, I do better than omega men who can’t even sire their own children (eg, my n=2 best man raising someone else kids), but not by a lot.

  • J

    If you ask me I think it might be an excuse. I slept in the family bed till I was a toddler with mom and dad and baby brother and we all did.

    I did family bed for a while. You’d be surprised at how many other places in the house you can have sex in. It’s an adventure. ;-)

  • J

    Funny story re raising some other guy’s kids:

    I once datged a man who might be construed by some as alpha. He was adamant that he’d never raise some other guy’s kids; that was for losers. He had never dated a single or divorced mother and was very nasty and critical towards a male acquaintance of mine who had married a divorcee and adopted her son (whose father wouldn’t pay child support and happily gave up custody. They went on to have a couple of other kids as well.).

    Recently a mutual friend sent me the “alpha’s” father’s obit. Listed as only grandchildren were two young adults with a different last name. It was apparent that he had married a woman with kids and had never had kids of his own. Wow!

  • J

    Speaking as one of the lowest SMV man who regularly contributes here

    How do you figure that?

  • Ted D

    Susan – “For most women, beta is the foundation of the relationship, and that extends to sex. Without it there can be no relationship.”

    I also wanted to point out that although I agree with your statement above, keep in mind there CAN be sex without relationship, which implies that if sex is the primary goal, beta isn’t very necessary.

    So IMO if a guy mixes beta and alpha for the long term success of his marriage AND a robust sex life, he is NOT using a short-term strategy, although he may be using some short-term tricks to get his mix right. YMMV

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

      @Ted

      I also wanted to point out that although I agree with your statement above, keep in mind there CAN be sex without relationship, which implies that if sex is the primary goal, beta isn’t very necessary.

      Right, which is why women choose cads for ONSs or STRs and dads for LTRs. If you’re only going to be with the guy for one night, character is irrelevant. Might as well go for the hot specimen.

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

    Susan, I see your point. It’s true; the Manosphere seems to be polarized between a camp that celebrates low-investment/high-sex “alpha” traits and one that regularly ridicules women for falling for men in the first camp.

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

      the Manosphere seems to be polarized between a camp that celebrates low-investment/high-sex “alpha” traits and one that regularly ridicules women for falling for men in the first camp.

      Oddly, I find both sentiments expressed all within one camp. I regularly observe that if a certain commenter has all his dreams come true, he will have the benefit of spending his nights with a series of women he deplores.

  • Lokland

    @OTC

    “It’s reproduction potential, not necessarily actualized.”

    I disagree. Evolution doesn’t give a flying fuck how awesome you are.
    Either have kids or fail. That is the how it works.

    Regardless of how much of anything else you attain all other things are irrelevant to biology/evolution.

    Note:
    Not having kids makes someone an evolutionary dead end that doesn’t mean they have to care. However redefining well defined terms to suit ones emotional needs is unacceptable.

  • Lokland

    @Saywhaat

    “Meanwhile, one of the quizzle kids is lucky to have a child that doesn’t have Hep C.”

    Mortality rates are fairly low across all incomes/races (though not equal).
    I’ll wed this to my research for release later tonight.

  • Ted D

    Lokland – “Mortality rates are fairly low across all incomes/races (though not equal).
    I’ll wed this to my research for release later tonight.”

    Good luck on your research. I did a little quick searching over lunch, and although I can find lots of data about OOW births and single mothers, there really isn’t much regarding “baby daddy’s” as far as I could find in an hour. Some data about cohabitating but unmarried fathers, but I guess no one cares about the “thugs” leaving children all over the place.

    Of course, in some cases the woman isn’t even sure who the baby daddy is, so I’m not sure how good any gathered data would be anyway.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    I think you have to measure reproductive success by the success of your offspring. IOW, the quizzle with 6 bastard children is ultimately going to lose out in the reproductive sweepstakes if the majority of those kids are shot/drugged/locked up during their prime reproductive years. On the other hand, Mr. UMC with two kids may end up with 4 grandchildren, who grow up well and produce 8 more children.

    Meanwhile, one of the quizzle kids is lucky to have a child that doesn’t have Hep C.

    That won’t stop them from managing to do quizzling in the process. Even if three only of them successfully quizzle, that’s a 50% growth with each generation. Combine that with the fact that quizzles tend to make younger women pregnant, i.e. the average size of each generation is smaller, and you have a highly successful reproductive strategy in comparison to the betas.

  • OffTheCuff

    Lok, I don’t diagree, but I think the topic is drifting and you’re just describing an entirely different a thing than me.

  • INTJ

    @ OTC

    Speaking as one of the lowest SMV man who regularly contributes here.

    I highly doubt that.

  • INTJ

    39% of children in grades 1-12 live without their biological father. I’d say the majority of these had quizzle fathers.

    http://www.fathers.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=336

  • Cooper

    “This is the view I hold. Number of children >>> than number of lays.
    Alpha and beta become irrelevant terms if they are not connected to reproduction.”

    The terminology does become irrelevant. Evolutionary, the man with more children has done better than the man with more lays. But it doesn’t make him more alpha, than the guy accumulating lays.

  • JP

    “Evolutionary, the man with more children has done better than the man with more lays. But it doesn’t make him more alpha, than the guy accumulating lays.”

    Yeah, but with people, culture is the driver, not normal evolution.

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

    So the theory does not match the observations and cannot correctly predict the outcome. In terms of hypotheses its a bad one.

    I will give you that, but then I’m confused of what are we discussing here.

    So, restricted people have to concentrate most of their “faithfulness” energy on NOT forming emotional affairs, while unrestricted folks have to concentrate that effort on not acting on the physical desires and starting a PA?

    Hope mentioned that she easy can catch feelings on friends so she keeps herself distanced from male friends now that she is married. I particularly don’t catch feelings easy neither I feel strong attraction easier so I’m probably extremely monogamous. But I do think more normal girls are probably like that. Hence the emotional affairs or why men don’t like their women having Beta orbiters even if the chances are low there is still the chance.

    I’m not saying that this is always reasonable or even sane, but I think that women can benefit from understanding the nature of the male emotional backlash that has been triggered.

    Keyword emotional. I totally sympathize but in the end some of them need to admit the facts and try to understand a lot more than just the rage. Not for the sake of women but for their own sake, YMMV.

    The beta dad strategy is the low risk strategy for a male but low payouts.
    The quizzle is a higher risk, higher payout strategy.

    Do you know how many millionaires exist from the Lotto or Gambling compared to the ones that got there by having their own business and/or ideas they developed and sold?

    I did family bed for a while. You’d be surprised at how many other places in the house you can have sex in. It’s an adventure.

    Hubby pointed it out when we were choosing the sleeping arrangements “Do you get that your parents conceived two children while you were sleeping in the same bed, how do you…” “Stop that I don’t want to think about it Ewwww” :p

    Mortality rates are fairly low across all incomes/races (though not equal).
    I’ll wed this to my research for release later tonight.

    If you are taking in account modern times only. You need to factor the pill and abortion. If you are making a comparison from the past you need to factor high levels of violence, child and post partum mortality and STD’s that affect the fertility and the survival till adulthood rate.
    Gengis Khan won the evolutionary race but I’m pretty sure millions of Mongolian men lost it big time and many of them were racing to be the next Gengis Khan the modest scribe that got the homely wife and 8 kids probably did a lot better than any of the millions wannabes.
    And given that our species needs a lot of caring in the first four years at least and genetic diversity, it seems that the modest gamblers might be make the majority of our ancestors and will be the majority of out descendants more than the big BAD ones, YMMV.

  • Ted D

    Ana – “And given that our species needs a lot of caring in the first four years at least and genetic diversity, it seems that the modest gamblers might be make the majority of our ancestors and will be the majority of out descendants more than the big BAD ones, YMMV.”

    I’d love to believe this, but at least in the areas around me that doesn’t seem to be true. Sure, gangbangers are killing each other in the streets, but just like cockroaches, there are probably 50 survivors to the 2 you just stepped on.

    Basically the modern West is too safe a place for nature to take its course and weed out the undesirables. We don’t let survival of the fittest occur because it is inhumane, but the flip side is it means we are promoting the worst of humanity to breed like rabbits.

    And to be clear, I’m not saying they are the “worst” because they are poor. They are the worst because they have VERY piss poor attitudes regarding respect for law, respect for other people, and respect for themselves. They mostly only value society in terms of what they can get from it, and how they can use it to get more.

  • INTJ

    @ Anacaona

    If you are taking in account modern times only. You need to factor the pill and abortion. If you are making a comparison from the past you need to factor high levels of violence, child and post partum mortality and STD’s that affect the fertility and the survival till adulthood rate.
    Gengis Khan won the evolutionary race but I’m pretty sure millions of Mongolian men lost it big time and many of them were racing to be the next Gengis Khan the modest scribe that got the homely wife and 8 kids probably did a lot better than any of the millions wannabes.
    And given that our species needs a lot of caring in the first four years at least and genetic diversity, it seems that the modest gamblers might be make the majority of our ancestors and will be the majority of out descendants more than the big BAD ones, YMMV.

    There is a problem with this line of thinking though. Evolution is not driven by who is unsuccessful in reproducing. It’s driven by who is successful in reproducing. The point isn’t that a lot of guys try (and usually fail) to act like Genghiz Khan and replicate his reproductive success. The point is that Genghiz Khan was extremely reproductively successful and has passed on his violent genes to millions of his descendants. In other words, he has created millions of “thugspawn”. This goes back to the second part of the article that Dinkney Pawsom posted (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200807/men-do-everything-they-do-in-order-get-laid-ii):

    Now, given that human society has always been mildly polygynous, there were always many men who did not succeed at securing mates and reproducing. These men had everything to gain and nothing to lose by remaining competitive and violent for their entire lives. However, we are not descended from these men.

    By definition, we are all descended from men (and women) who attained some reproductive success. None of us are descended from total reproductive losers who left no offspring. And we are disproportionately descended from those who attained great reproductive success. Twelve children carry the genes of a man who had twelve children, but only one child carries the genes of a man who had only one child. And, of course, no children carry the genes of a man who had no children. (Yes, childlessness is perfectly heritable!) Contemporary men did not inherit from reproductive losers psychological mechanisms that force them to stay competitive and keep trying to secure mates for their entire lives. We all act as if we have children by the time we reach early adulthood, whether we do or not, because we are descended, and inherited our psychological mechanisms, from our ancestors who did.

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

      And we are disproportionately descended from those who attained great reproductive success.

      I read an article that suggested all men today are alpha by ancestral standards, for this very reason. In which case we’re just splitting hairs and gazing at our navels.

  • J

    Hubby pointed it out when we were choosing the sleeping arrangements “Do you get that your parents conceived two children while you were sleeping in the same bed, how do you…” “Stop that I don’t want to think about it Ewwww” :p

    And that’s precisely why you want to screw on your kitchen table instead. ;-)

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    And to be clear, I’m not saying they are the “worst” because they are poor. They are the worst because they have VERY piss poor attitudes regarding respect for law, respect for other people, and respect for themselves. They mostly only value society in terms of what they can get from it, and how they can use it to get more

    Exactly. And poor society is especially tragic because it rewards exactly these “worst” people, whereas the good people get pushed aside.

  • SayWhaat

    That won’t stop them from managing to do quizzling in the process. Even if three only of them successfully quizzle, that’s a 50% growth with each generation. Combine that with the fact that quizzles tend to make younger women pregnant, i.e. the average size of each generation is smaller, and you have a highly successful reproductive strategy in comparison to the betas.

    Sure, some quizzles might still reproduce, but what quality of lives will they lead? 50% is hardly successful in comparison. At most it is on par with Mr. UMC if 100% of his children reproduce. For those 3 kids that quizzled, three more died along the way, and that is the *best case* scenario.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    Sure, some quizzles might still reproduce, but what quality of lives will they lead? 50% is hardly successful in comparison. At most it is on par with Mr. UMC if 100% of his children reproduce. For those 3 kids that quizzled, three more died along the way, and that is the *best case* scenario.

    So? Evolution cares about quantity, not quality.

    Also, I hardly see three kids dying along the way for the quizzle to be a *best case* scenario.

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

    I’d love to believe this, but at least in the areas around me that doesn’t seem to be true. Sure, gangbangers are killing each other in the streets, but just like cockroaches, there are probably 50 survivors to the 2 you just stepped on.

    You need to take in account how many of their kids will survive to adulthood and reproduce as well and the psychological aspect plays a big part too. This is one is an accumulative effect.

    Now, given that human society has always been mildly polygynous, there were always many men who did not succeed at securing mates and reproducing. These men had everything to gain and nothing to lose by remaining competitive and violent for their entire lives. However, we are not descended from these men.

    The disagreement is in How are we competing to secure a mate and reproduce. We have both strategies the thugs and the nice guys one. Manosphere affirms that nice guys lose in the end when statistically speaking the numbers don’t match.
    It seems that the unrestricted top is more likely to live violent short lives and mate with their female counterparts that are more likely to also live short lives and use birth control and abortion to keep banging their way in life.
    Hence us restricted are going to win in the long run.
    Think about it you have 100 unrestricted males if Only 10% manage to father 5 kids you will have 50 unrestricted kids. Then only 10% of those will reproduce as well then you have 25 and so on.
    100 restricted males with 80% having 2.5…well do the math and calculate 5 generations in the future. Thing long term and large numbers, YMMV.

  • SayWhaat

    So? Evolution cares about quantity, not quality.

    Also, I hardly see three kids dying along the way for the quizzle to be a *best case* scenario.

    Look. All we’re doing is changing the same hypothetical example to suit our arguments. You’re arguing that if 3/6 quizzle kids reproduce, it’s superior to 2/2 UMC kids reproducing. I’m arguing that 0/6 quizzles reproducing is obviously inferior. Obviously.

    I’m on my phone otherwise I’d do this myself, but google “infant mortality rate by socioeconomic status” and click on the first PDF link. It should be a study by the Center for Family and Demographic Research. What it found is that though infant mortality levels have declined since 1960, there is still a very clear inverse association between income status and infant mortality, and this relationship has become *stronger* over the years.

    I’m interested in Lokland’s take on this paper, but it illustrates that the quizzles who manage to reproduce are reproductive “winners” by the skin of their teeth — if at all.

  • SayWhaat

    It seems that the unrestricted top is more likely to live violent short lives and mate with their female counterparts that are more likely to also live short lives and use birth control and abortion to keep banging their way in life.
    Hence us restricted are going to win in the long run.
    Think about it you have 100 unrestricted males if Only 10% manage to father 5 kids you will have 50 unrestricted kids. Then only 10% of those will reproduce as well then you have 25 and so on.
    100 restricted males with 80% having 2.5…well do the math and calculate 5 generations in the future. Thing long term and large numbers, YMMV.

    Yup. What Ana said. :)

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

    I’m on my phone otherwise I’d do this myself, but google “infant mortality rate by socioeconomic status” and click on the first PDF link. It should be a study by the Center for Family and Demographic Research. What it found is that though infant mortality levels have declined since 1960, there is still a very clear inverse association between income status and infant mortality, and this relationship has become *stronger* over the years.

    Yup what SayWhaat said . ;)

  • OffTheCuff

    J/INTJ: “How do you figure that?”

    Carefully deduced over time, from a variety of factors – mostly attitude towards opposite sex, pics, backstory, worldview, other people’s reactions to them, etc.

    As (I think?) Zach so eloquently put it: “who the hell are all these people?” Uh, me.

  • INTJ

    @ SayWhaat

    I’m on my phone otherwise I’d do this myself, but google “infant mortality rate by socioeconomic status” and click on the first PDF link. It should be a study by the Center for Family and Demographic Research. What it found is that though infant mortality levels have declined since 1960, there is still a very clear inverse association between income status and infant mortality, and this relationship has become *stronger* over the years.

    I’m interested in Lokland’s take on this paper, but it illustrates that the quizzles who manage to reproduce are reproductive “winners” by the skin of their teeth — if at all.

    The paper that shows that infant mortality rate for low income people is ~2% instead of ~1% for high income people? Wow, those quizzles are sure going to have to worry about their progeny dying during birth… :D

  • Jimmy Hensricks

    Think long term and large numbers, YMMV.

    I support delayed gratification and long term rewards as much as anyone…

    But there comes a point where the reward is so far off in the distance that it doesn’t feel like much of a reward compared to the effort and struggle it took to get there.

    When you get to that point, a lot of people will decide its just not worth that effort. And that’s definitely not good for society as a whole.

  • Lokland

    @Saywhaat

    “What it found is that though infant mortality levels have declined since 1960, there is still a very clear inverse association between income status and infant mortality, and this relationship has become *stronger* over the years.”

    I haven’t looked yet but I suspect the difference will be quite large in a proportional sense (say twice as many deaths for the quizzles vs. betas) but that leads to the same problem people run into when debating genetics.

    A gene set is 75x as likely to result in death at 35 over another gene set. Ohh no’s.

    The proper question to ask is “What is the original chance of death?”
    If its .000001% then thats not a big deal .000001%x75 is still not even worth counting.

    I suspect this pattern will be the same.

    “50% is hardly successful in comparison. At most it is on par with Mr. UMC if 100% of his children reproduce. For those 3 kids that quizzled, three more died along the way, and that is the *best case* scenario.”

    I’ll just say it right now. Your off your rocker if you think a large subset of families experience the death of 1 in 2 children, even the poor. Their poor not fighting of a genocidal army.

    Actually I’d say families experiencing the death of one child are the outlier not a commonality.

  • Lokland

    Also, Canadian. Our results are different, if someone wouldn’t mind linking the paper it’d be appreciated.

  • J

    @OTC

    You’re a married guy with an interesting sexual history. I’m not sure I’d describe you as low SMV.

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

    When you get to that point, a lot of people will decide its just not worth that effort. And that’s definitely not good for society as a whole.

    If you ask me few people nowadays give a shit about society. So yeah individually it depends. Some people might think that me only have had sex with one man in my whole life means that I’m a loser and I missed out all the fun. But since the idea of a variety of penis or the penis of an asshle inside me grosses me out and I never saw sex as some sort of Guinness record breaking event from my POV I did well, so well that I don’t regret all those lonely years where I felt like an ugly loser that no one will ever love or/and marry and who will never bring life to this world. And this is taking in account that my husband is one of the few but not only men I wanted I do have some men in my past that I never got what I wanted from them. It might narcissistic on my part but is their lost. With my literary award I tried five times to get it before I actually won.
    What would be the point of me to concentrate on my loses, loneliness instead of winning or preparing myself to win like I did?
    I just want everyone to stop measuring themselves with the rule the unrestricted are giving us. They won’t matter in the long run, and they only matter now because we choose they do. Turn your back on those and concentrate on becoming a winner in your own and your own terms. Is it hard but not impossible and my guess is a lot better for your health and sanity and eventually society, YMMV.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I like the term “quizzles,” but I prefer the term “thug.” Our culture is “thuggifying.”

    Ana, there are some people that care about society, they just disagree on what steps to take to counter this thugi-fication. If I propose a modest increase on upper income taxes and moving funds away from healthcare, especially on old people, to pay for a variety of policies aimed at moving marginal people into stable middle class situations….

    Well, I would be demonized as a socialist by one side and evil heartless by the other.

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

    Ana, there are some people that care about society, they just disagree on what steps to take to counter this thugi-fication. If I propose a modest increase on upper income taxes and moving funds away from healthcare, especially on old people, to pay for a variety of policies aimed at moving marginal people into stable middle class situations….

    Big societal trends are tricky to start. I support Susan’s mission because I think her strategy work best for the moment once enough eyes are opened it will probably be the right time to fight at the top. Trying to get policies and politicians behind certain needed change.
    So this is another one that is a slow process meanwhile the best we can do is to marry well, have as many children as we can afford and raise them well so they also choose right and transmit the values we want to proliferate in the future. Then when the right set of circumstances come together for a leader to rise they will be enough supporting those changes.
    If I remember my history right this is more or less the way big changes have happened. Even feminism started with a few discontent housewives and became the big change we all know, YMMV.

  • SayWhaat

    The proper question to ask is “What is the original chance of death?”
    If its .000001% then thats not a big deal .000001%x75 is still not even worth counting.

    I suspect this pattern will be the same.

    I was unaware of that, thank you for helping me to understand.

    I’ll just say it right now. Your off your rocker if you think a large subset of families experience the death of 1 in 2 children, even the poor. Their poor not fighting of a genocidal army.

    It was obviously hyperbole. The overall point (which Ana articulated much better than I did) was that the reproductive fitness of the alpha/quizzle/thugspawn type was far exceeded by that of the beta/non-quizzle type.

  • INTJ

    @ ADBG

    Ana, there are some people that care about society, they just disagree on what steps to take to counter this thugi-fication. If I propose a modest increase on upper income taxes and moving funds away from healthcare, especially on old people, to pay for a variety of policies aimed at moving marginal people into stable middle class situations….

    Well, I would be demonized as a socialist by one side and evil heartless by the other.

    LOL yup. I have zero sympathy for the boomer generation as a whole after all they’ve done to our infrastructure and culture. As a relatively liberal person, I’ll easily sign up for spending that stuff elsewhere.

    However, this variety of policies would have to be something that encourages responsibility rather than just creating welfare support for them.

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

    @Loks

    The average number of children is 2.7.

    Where is this the case? Can’t be in the U.S. (where I was referring to). I’ve cited data from the GSS on low N/more kids before.

    BTW I caught an interesting convo. on the radio this morning, which led me to a great article on this very topic. I’ll wait to share…

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

      @Megaman

      BTW I caught an interesting convo. on the radio this morning, which led me to a great article on this very topic. I’ll wait to share…

      Stop being a tease!

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

    @intj

    Are the low SES men with higher N really aware of all the children they have fathered?

    My recommendation is to go find out for yourself, rather than asking bonehead questions. :neutral:

  • OffTheCuff

    J, I said I’m near lowest in *this* crowd here, which is not necessarily the same as low overall. I think I’m average overall, or a bit below.

    HUS serves the mid-to-high strata of the SMP – the more urban, wealthier, smarter, extroverted, more competitive part. I’m not sure why people don’t see this…?

  • J

    @ Ana

    With my literary award I tried five times to get it before I actually won.

    I’m not surprised; you’re tenacious and a fighter. I admire that in you.

  • J

    J, I said I’m near lowest in *this* crowd here, which is not necessarily the same as low overall. I think I’m average overall, or a bit below.

    I’ll have to take your word for that.

    HUS serves the mid-to-high strata of the SMP – the more urban, wealthier, smarter, extroverted, more competitive part. I’m not sure why people don’t see this…?

    I agree with “more urban, wealthier, smarter;” Some of that comes from the blog being aimed at collegiates. Some that comes from just being on the net; liking to “hang out” on the net having these sorts of conversation is a proxy for IQ. The dummies are all on Facebook.

    As to “extroverted, more competitive part,” aren’t most of us here Is?

    BTW, I’ve been working class and I’ve been UMC. The UMC puts its collective pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else.

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

    I’m not surprised; you’re tenacious and a fighter. I admire that in you.

    Thank you. :)
    You only say that because you never see me crawl under the bed or pig myself out in sugary items when I get a rejection letter from a publishing house. I do get better and keep trying but in those moments I feel like I should quit writing and clean other people houses for a living.
    Disclaimer: I hate cleaning, so no discrimination just imaginary self-flagellation.

  • Mike C

    The UMC puts its collective pants on one leg at a time, just like everyone else.

    You are absolutely 110% right about that.

    BTW, the mobile phone settings appear very different. Anyone else notice that on their phone. Used to display 150 comments per page, but now all the comments are on a single page which makes loading on a non wi-fi connection take forever and scrolling down takes forever if you are going from comment 1 to 1000.

  • Mike C

    Right, which is why women choose cads for ONSs or STRs and dads for LTRs.

    Different women, right?

    If you’re only going to be with the guy for one night, character is irrelevant. Might as well go for the hot specimen.

    Cads are hot? Dads are not?

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

      @Mike C, @Lokland

      Right, which is why women choose cads for ONSs or STRs and dads for LTRs.

      Different women, right?

      Yup. Yesterday while waiting for a prescription I read an interesting article in Men’s Health of all places – Why She Wants a Jerk.

      When observing the bad boy in his habitat, it’s easy to see what attracts the female. Off-the-charts testosterone, social dominance, risk taking—all indicate a healthy immune system. “In evolutionary terms, women on the savanna desperately wanted to mate with healthy specimens for the sake of passing on their genes,” says Durante. A weaker man may not have been able to secure resources as readily, “so he had lower mate value.” Nice guys died first.

      Remember those Dark Triad guys reeling in scores of chicks? Research by Peter Jonason, Ph.D., of the University of Western Sydney, demonstrated that women with “avoidant attachment” strategies (right, she wasn’t loved enough as a child) are the likeliest to fall for that type. If you let your jerk flag fly, you’ll nab ladies, but they’ll likely be of the needing-years-of-therapy camp.

      Cads are hot? Dads are not?

      Not necessarily, though highly attractive men have more options. Of course, bad character doesn’t necessarily follow, though I’d say there are definitely more cads today than there were 25 years ago.

      In any case, what changes is the relative weighting of factors. Here’s an example, let’s call him James:

      ONS: Looks 8, Size and Strength 7, Social Dominance 9. Mean score: 8.

      LTR: Looks 8, Size and Strength 7, Social Dominance 9, Ambition & Industriousness 3, Intelligence 5, Compatibility 2, Stability & Dependability 0, Willingness to demonstrate love and commitment 0. Mean score: 4.25

      See how that works? This is the key to understanding female attraction.

      The woman who has a ONS with James: Head case.

      The woman who takes a pass: Emotionally healthy and most likely to wind up happily married with children.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “I read an article that suggested all men today are alpha by ancestral standards, for this very reason. In which case we’re just splitting hairs and gazing at our navels.”

    No.
    Red queen.
    Unless you have a time machine for me to go compete against men from 10,000 years ago my competition is with those around me. There has always been and always will be a pecking order.

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

      There has always been and always will be a pecking order.

      Fair enough, but what happens to a society where all the men are competing to out-alpha the alpha who slew the mastodon? Quizzling?

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “If you’re only going to be with the guy for one night, character is irrelevant. Might as well go for the hot specimen.”

    Interesting, so Dads are inherently uglier than STM material?

  • Mike C

    In any case, what changes is the relative weighting of factors. Here’s an example, let’s call him James:

    ONS: Looks 8, Size and Strength 7, Social Dominance 9. Mean score: 8.

    LTR: Looks 8, Size and Strength 7, Social Dominance 9, Ambition & Industriousness 3, Intelligence 5, Compatibility 2, Stability & Dependability 0, Willingness to demonstrate love and commitment 0. Mean score: 4.25

    See how that works? This is the key to understanding female attraction.

    Yup….I see how that works. FWIW, what you need to understand from the male POV that I’m not entirely sure you do is that for many guys being found “more attractive” from that LTR weighting perspective feels somewhat inferior and kind of like a consolation prize relative to being found “more attractive” from the STR/ONS weighting perspective/formula.

    That *fact* is what lies at the heart of what you’ve observed in self-professed betas often exhibiting some degree of self-criticism for beta traits and also lies at the heart of the emotional backlash that Bastiat alluded to. Most every guy wants to be that STR/ONS attractive guy EVEN IF THEY DON’T NECESSARILY want to act on it, and they are going to feel some degree of inferiority to that guy even if their LTR attraction traits boost their overall score.

    In fact, much of what many guys complain about, high Ns, price discrimination, etc. has what I am describing above as its core driver. A woman thinks she is paying a man some tremendous compliment if she tells him how much more attractive he is for a LTR versus James. Most guys don’t take it that way. This is a key part of understanding the male psyche.

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

      @Mike C

      for many guys being found “more attractive” from that LTR weighting perspective feels somewhat inferior and kind of like a consolation prize relative to being found “more attractive” from the STR/ONS weighting perspective/formula.

      Not sure what to tell you, that’s unfortunate for them. That fear comes from a place of ignorance. Keep in mind that the LTR formula is not “settling.” These LTR traits are components of sexual attraction. When women are asked to look at photos and pick husbands, they rank the less dominant and agressive males as the most attractive. They don’t say, “This guy’s hot, but I would marry the less hot guy.” They say, “This handsome guy with the nice gentle smile is super hot.” I think this is where you have trouble understanding female sexuality.

      Most every guy wants to be that STR/ONS attractive guy EVEN IF THEY DON’T NECESSARILY want to act on it, and they are going to feel some degree of inferiority to that guy even if their LTR attraction traits boost their overall score.

      Cry me a river. Most women want to be a Victoria’s Secret model and feel inferior if a guy chooses them for a “nice personality” or “loyalty” instead of looks.

  • Mike C

    Keep in mind that the LTR formula is not “settling.” These LTR traits are components of sexual attraction. When women are asked to look at photos and pick husbands, they rank the less dominant and agressive males as the most attractive. They don’t say, “This guy’s hot, but I would marry the less hot guy.” They say, “This handsome guy with the nice gentle smile is super hot.” I think this is where you have trouble understanding female sexuality.

    Assuming the 100% truth of this (I’ve got zero interest in debating any of it) I’m simply telling you many guys are viscerally skeptical. Make of that what you will, but I would think if you want women to pair up with good guy betas you might be interested in some of their internal thought process.

    Cry me a river. Most women want to be a Victoria’s Secret model and feel inferior if a guy chooses them for a “nice personality” or “loyalty” instead of looks.

    Just explaining to you the part of the male psyche that you apparently find puzzling given your stated admission that you can’t grok why some beta guys attack beta traits. As a side point, I’m not sure the analogy holds, at least definitely not for any physically attractive woman. In fact, most will remark they want to be appreciated for MORE than their physical beauty which is really the parallel to a beta being attractive because of his ambition, dependability, stability, occupational status. The great irony is just as many women want more than being sexual objects, many men want more to be thought of as sexual objects as OPPOSED to status objects. I’m giving you perspective into the male mind here, not looking to argue, do with that what you will.

    BTW, did you see my comment about the mobile settings.

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

      Just explaining to you the part of the male psyche that you apparently find puzzling given your stated admission that you can’t grok why some beta guys attack beta traits.

      Frankly, I see that as a maturity issue. You’re not all that, get over it. Why should every guy be a special snowflake? The vast majority of people are unimpressive on most fronts.

      Game offers men a way to bump up a point or two. That’s significant. It’s not going to make a 4 an 8. I think men who resent the ladykillers can wallow in that insecurity or get on with their lives.

      Seriously, I have zero sympathy for a man wanting to be STR material. Sorry not sorry.

      BTW, did you see my comment about the mobile settings.

      Yes, I’m not sure what to do about this. I’ve gotten a lot of emails asking for a more mobile-friendly app, rather than tiny, tiny print. I installed one, and I know it’s not your favorite. It sounds like there’s a definite tradeoff – perhaps others will weigh in. I’m more than happy to do whatever works for the majority. Personally, I find the mobile app preferable when I’m out with my phone.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Fair enough, but what happens to a society where all the men are competing to out-alpha the alpha who slew the mastodon? Quizzling?”

    It would appear to me at least, that it goes to hell in a hand basket. Your mileage may vary.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Right, which is why women choose cads for ONSs or STRs and dads for LTRs. If you’re only going to be with the guy for one night, character is irrelevant. Might as well go for the hot specimen.”

    And what if a husband wants that kind of hot, physical ONS sex in his marriage? Does it not make sense to deploy some of those “cad” behaviors to get her to respond in kind? Do you truly believe that without some of that most women would remain engaged and involved in a healthy sex life? Some for sure, but most?

    What I’m trying to say (and it seems terribly) is that for some marriages, a little CAD behavior is what the doctor ordered. Not necessarily dread or the worst of the Dark Triad stuff, but IMO even things like cocky-funny fall more into the CAD side of the equation than the Dad side. Just because the power is used for good (to keep a marriage strong) doesn’t change the source of that power. A guy can use it to trick women into sex, or to keep his wife happy and interested for decades. It is the intent that decides the morality of it IMO.

    “I regularly observe that if a certain commenter has all his dreams come true, he will have the benefit of spending his nights with a series of women he deplores.”

    I’ll admit I’ve seen this and I’m at a loss to explain it. I’m not looking to vilify women, I’m simply trying to understand them. Some men of the ‘sphere seem to want to prove beyond all doubt that women suck, and yet they are more than willing to have sex with them. Seems like a recipe for a damaged psyche. But what do I know about milking ducks?

    “In which case we’re just splitting hairs and gazing at our navels.”

    I’ve done more of this lately than usual. But in my defense, I’ve not seen my naval from this angle in years. ;-)

    “LTR: Looks 8, Size and Strength 7, Social Dominance 9, Ambition & Industriousness 3, Intelligence 5, Compatibility 2, Stability & Dependability 0, Willingness to demonstrate love and commitment 0. Mean score: 4.25
    See how that works? This is the key to understanding female attraction.”

    Sure, I see exactly how this works. Women take the hot guy for fun, and will “settle” for the uglier dude with a good job and morals to hitch her wagon to. Classic price discrimination scenario…

    “The woman who has a ONS with James: Head case.
    The woman who takes a pass: Emotionally healthy and most likely to wind up happily married with children.”

    Oh but Susan, there is a problem here. That “head case” will likely be the “emotionally healthy” woman in her late 20’s and early 30’s. Or at least she will appear to be… How is a guy interested in marriage and family supposed to know for sure that she is truly “emotionally stable” now?“

    Mike C – @503 – Exactly. I don’t understand why its so difficult to understand that sometimes a married guy might use CAD tactics to get a little rise out of the wife. I’d even say that I personally know married woman that LIKE this behavior a great deal, to varying extents of course. (YMMV and all that.)

    “Yup….I see how that works. FWIW, what you need to understand from the male POV that I’m not entirely sure you do is that for many guys being found “more attractive” from that LTR weighting perspective feels somewhat inferior and kind of like a consolation prize relative to being found “more attractive” from the STR/ONS weighting perspective/formula.”

    BOOM headshot. This exactly. Most guys, (myself included) DO NOT WANT to only be attractive for relationships. We ALL want to feel like the hot STR guy, if only for the woman we marry. Hard to do if she spent time with much hotter guys in her youth though.

    “Most every guy wants to be that STR/ONS attractive guy EVEN IF THEY DON’T NECESSARILY want to act on it, and they are going to feel some degree of inferiority to that guy even if their LTR attraction traits boost their overall score.”

    And that is salt in the wound from the headshot.

    “In fact, much of what many guys complain about, high Ns, price discrimination, etc. has what I am describing above as its core driver. A woman thinks she is paying a man some tremendous compliment if she tells him how much more attractive he is for a LTR versus James. Most guys don’t take it that way. This is a key part of understanding the male psyche.”

    Nail in the coffin. Yes, most guys DO NOT feel good about being the best LTR man. They want to be able to compete in the STR race, even if they won’t/don’t actually participate. I DO NOT feel better that a woman wants to be with me because I have great character and am trustworthy. I want her to be with me because she thinks I’m hot AND can manage a relationship to boot. Winning because I’m a good guy sucks.

    Susan – “Cry me a river. Most women want to be a Victoria’s Secret model and feel inferior if a guy chooses them for a “nice personality” or “loyalty” instead of looks.”

    All Mike is attempting to do is give you some perspective, and yet again you are getting kinda snarky. Look, it doesn’t matter how much women think guys SHOULD be happy being picked for “nice guy” traits, they don’t. Guys want to be their woman’s stud, and if she likes his personality all the better. And I don’t know of a single man that chose his GF/Wife based on personality alone. For most men the physical part MUST be met first. Thing is, guys aren’t nearly as picky about the physical side as women, so by and large most women will pass that “boner test” and that is as far as men bother to rank it.

    You want to know why price discrimination is a big deal to most guys? Here is your answer. I am firmly in this camp to be honest. And the reason I don’t’ feel this angst in my current marriage? My wife was more than interested in me physically BEFORE she knew me as a person. I can check the box for “hot enough to fuck” and move on. And this is why my suggestion to men is DO NOT get serious about a woman that hasn’t at least shown a decent bit of physical interest first. That way there is no angst about being the “relationship” guy at the end of the day.

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

      @Ted

      And what if a husband wants that kind of hot, physical ONS sex in his marriage?

      My husband has always found hot, physical LTR sex preferable. Our first time (a ONS) was the worst sex we ever had.

      Yay, a new study for you!

      http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/study-romance-trumps-friends-with-benefits/265796/

      RESULTS: Those in FWB relationships had a lot more sex — an average of 6.37 lifetime sex partners to date, over the others’ 1.9. To a lesser degree, those in traditional relationships had more frequent sex with their significant other, and they also spent more non-sex time together — and they reported having greater satisfaction with both. Everyone was more or less having the same kind of sex (lots of kissing, not much anal).

      Although both groups discussed condom use equally, people in FWBRs reported higher levels of condom or other barrier use both during intercourse and oral sex.

      But for the most part, people in romantic relationships were more open with one another about sex, including their needs, desires, and boundaries, but also STIs, contraception, and rules about having sex outside of the relationship. FWB relationships scored higher only in their discussions of the details of outside-the-relationship sex, and of their condom use therein.

      Sure, I see exactly how this works. Women take the hot guy for fun, and will “settle” for the uglier dude with a good job and morals to hitch her wagon to. Classic price discrimination scenario…

      No you don’t see. The woman who is LTR-oriented actually tingles for those beta traits, in combination with the other traits. We don’t say YES to looks, MEH to intelligence. We tingle for the whole package. That’s what the weighted formula is.

      Men cannot grok this, and there is a lot of misinformation around. Think about it. If women were not attracted to beta males, we’d see a lot fewer marrying them, and few remaining married to them, and few being born. They would have died out long ago. We’d be rutting with alphas and avoiding commitment. The world as you portray it does not make any sense. Pair-bonding evolved. Pair-bonding is women tingling for beta traits. Deal with it.

      Oh but Susan, there is a problem here. That “head case” will likely be the “emotionally healthy” woman in her late 20’s and early 30’s.

      False. I’ve written so much about this I won’t bother to repeat myself again here. You clutch that red pill and don’t you let it go!

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

        @Ted

        Yes, most guys DO NOT feel good about being the best LTR man. They want to be able to compete in the STR race, even if they won’t/don’t actually participate.

        We can’t have everything we want. There are very few men who can pull hot and sane women, either for STRs or LTRs. If you can get the LTR and find a woman who thinks you’re hot enough to reproduce with, you’ve won the mating game. No one ever promised us even that much.

        Also, you’re drawing too stark a line between alpha and beta traits. The LTR candidate may be just as alpha, but have additional beta traits. Or the STR candidate may get ruled out for LTR because he doesn’t have enough of them. Women don’t require beta traits for STRs, but they do require alpha traits for LTRs. The LTR guy is the whole package. Until you can grok this, you won’t understand how women operate.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “That fear comes from a place of ignorance. Keep in mind that the LTR formula is not “settling.” ”

    By definition an LTR is settling for a guy unless he has
    a) already spread his seed
    b) will be doing it while in that relationship

    Thats kind of how quantity works.

    ——-

    Also on an interesting note.

    Women can go up in SMV for STM and have to go down for LTR.
    Men can go up in SMV for LTR and have to dive down for STM.

    Men tend to become resentful of the lower quality women available for STM and eventually go higher quality for LTR.

    It would not be far fetched to draw a parallel in which women become resentful of their lower quality husbands.

    “Frankly, I see that as a maturity issue. You’re not all that, get over it. Why should every guy be a special snowflake? The vast majority of people are unimpressive on most fronts.”

    Yes. I agree. But wanting to be with someone who does think you are all that is neither immature nor likely.

    This goes back to the restricted vs. unrestricted (and why I think its useless). Since by definition a restricted women can (and some do) have ST flings the value of her husband in the important categories will be lower than those in the beta categories.

    She cannot think he is all that without pulling off massive amounts of cognitive dissonance.

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

      But wanting to be with someone who does think you are all that is neither immature nor likely.

      That’s perfectly reasonable, I wouldn’t advise anyone to settle for less. That doesn’t mean you’re going to be everybody’s choice for STRs. This is where I think guys have lost perspective. Instead of wanting to be “all that” for a quality LTR with a quality woman, they aspire to player status. It’s not my job or inclination to support those men. Heartiste describes his blog as learning how to run Cad Game. I’m not about helping guys rack up bodies. To be honest, I find it pathetic.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Frankly, I see that as a maturity issue. You’re not all that, get over it. Why should every guy be a special snowflake? The vast majority of people are unimpressive on most fronts.”

    Well OK then. I see that we’ve gone from being sympathetic to beta men on over to loathing and shaming. Immaturity simply because he wants to be the hottest guy in his woman’s life? Yeah, chalk me up as an immature boy then.

    “Game offers men a way to bump up a point or two. That’s significant. It’s not going to make a 4 an 8. I think men who resent the ladykillers can wallow in that insecurity or get on with their lives”

    Susan, we don’t resent lady killers. We resent our woman having lady killers in their past. Simple enough, but for some reason you don’t see it. I could give a rats ass if Mike C spends the next 5 years scoring tail like its his job, as long as one of those scores isn’t my future wife. Is that immature enough?

    “Seriously, I have zero sympathy for a man wanting to be STR material. Sorry not sorry.”

    WTF Susan? NO ONE has said they want to be STR material. We want to be able to hold our own AGAINST the STR guys with our women. And not to win by “character and good work ethic”, but by a direct comparison to every/any man she has had sex with. I’ll assume its my immaturity showing again…

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

      @Ted

      Immaturity simply because he wants to be the hottest guy in his woman’s life?

      No. That is not what I said. That’s a good goal to have for your relationship. But do you want to be the hottest guy in other women’s lives? That’s the difference between the LTR and STR packages.

      Look, Ted, I’m telling you how women are wired. Nearly every woman who has ever commented at HUS has knowingly sought and selected a beta male to mate with. We’re happy with our men and our sex lives. I know how our brains work and how our equipment works. We can think you’re extremely sexy without needing to know you can pull strange tail anytime you want it. In fact, for most of us that thought is repellent.

      I’m sick of arguing against Manosphere Woman. Take it elsewhere.

      vg

  • Lokland

    Also, would someone link the study Saywhaat mentioned. Google spits out results in a different order and I can’t seem to find a paper that matches intjS description.

  • SayWhaat

    Lokland, I’ve emailed the paper to Susan. If she can post it here that would be great, if not, I’ve asked that she email it to you.

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

    @OTC

    I’m near lowest in *this* crowd here, which is not necessarily the same as low overall. I think I’m average overall, or a bit below.

    Given the fact that you’ve stated in the past that for men, N = success, period (not SES), I’d say there are a fair number of subhuman beta regulars far below you on the totem pole, myself included…

  • Sassy6519

    WTF Susan? NO ONE has said they want to be STR material. We want to be able to hold our own AGAINST the STR guys with our women. And not to win by “character and good work ethic”, but by a direct comparison to every/any man she has had sex with. I’ll assume its my immaturity showing again…

    I’m not sure that it’s even possible for the average man to compete with the STR guys, simply by virtue that they are considered attractive by different metrics.

    I explained in a few threads back that some men are able to create attraction in the majority of women (very attractive women included) on first sight. Other men are considered attractive after getting to know them over time.

    Some men may be able to create STR interest in lower SMV women (2s-5s) because they are not that high on the SMV totem pole themselves. Other men are able to create STR interest in higher SMV women (6s-9s, 10s) because they are high on the SMV totem pole themselves. The problem arises when men who are lower on the SMV totem pole want/expect to illicit STR interest/attraction in women high on the SMV totem pole. They fail because they have to directly compete with men higher on the SMV totem pole than themselves for attractive women. It’s a fool’s errand, mostly.

    I think this is one reason why I have such strict physical/sexual requirements of the men I date. There is no price discrimination if each guy has the same value with the same metric criteria.

  • JP

    @Lokland:

    “@Susan

    “If you’re only going to be with the guy for one night, character is irrelevant. Might as well go for the hot specimen.”

    Interesting, so Dads are inherently uglier than STM material?”

    YES.

  • Emily

    Re: the mobile app.

    My cheap phone can’t handle the super-long uber pages that come up in the new settings. I prefer the old way.

  • OffTheCuff

    J: “Given the fact that you’ve stated in the past that for men, N = success, period (not SES), I’d say there are a fair number of subhuman beta regulars far below you on the totem pole, myself included…”

    Whoa, whoa, whoa. I have not said that.

    First, *life* success is accomplishing what you want.

    Being on the top end of the SMP (e.g., “alpha”, or objectively high SMV, or SMP success) is having conscious options with multiple women, whether they are exercised or not. It’s when women say things like “my husband can have any woman he wants, they throw themselves at him all the time” even if his N=1.

    Sassy, 520, I think you nailed it. Not all STRs/casual happen between a woman and a very-high-SMV “cad” (which Sue has a defined as a liar). Too reductionist and elitist. Average people get laid too, they’re just on a lower stratum.

  • JP

    @OTC:

    “First, *life* success is accomplishing what you want.”

    I don’t know what I want.

    I’m not even sure that I don’t want to be homeless and/or unemployed.

    You know, I could become a petty thief.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    That graphic is more aesthetically displeasing to me than what happened to me this morning when my client lifted up his shirt so that I could see his unique dermatological condition on his back.

    This is really not a day where I get to witness beautiful things…

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

    YES.
    NO
    The guy looks hot a unrestricted woman will go for it no questions asked. He could be Gandhi or Jefrey Dahmer for all she cares. She just want to get it done and go so that info is relevant.
    The restricted woman will think that guy is hot too but she will ask for more information because she plans to take him home and introduce him to her parents. You wouldn’t want your parents to meet a serial killer, right?
    It doesn’t mean the guy cannot have morals is just that the matter depending in the woman’s intentions.
    And for the guys
    Loved because of my body= booty call.
    Loved because of my= BFF
    Loved because of my soul = Brother in Christ/spaghetti monster/Buda/ Allah/Wicca
    Loved because of all three? = I, (Bride/Groom), take you (Groom/Bride), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, to love and to cherish; from this day forward for as long as we both shall live.
    And this works regardless if she got wet for you at first sight or after getting to know you, you need all three or it won’t work out regardless how good the sex is, just FYI.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “No you don’t see. The woman who is LTR-oriented actually tingles for those beta traits, in combination with the other traits. We don’t say YES to looks, MEH to intelligence. We tingle for the whole package. That’s what the weighted formula is.”

    Yes I DO see. The woman “tingling” for beta traits at 28 was probably hooking up with STR guys in her early 20’s. Great, so she “grew up” and now is more interested in my earning ability and provider traits.

    Awesome! But, does that automatically mean I am less attractive than those guys she slept with? Maybe? Yes?! So, I’m supposed to be happy that she finally realized a hot body isn’t the end all be all? Well damn, why would I be less than happy about taking that deal?

    “Also, you’re drawing too stark a line between alpha and beta traits. The LTR candidate may be just as alpha, but have additional beta traits. Or the STR candidate may get ruled out for LTR because he doesn’t have enough of them. Women don’t require beta traits for STRs, but they do require alpha traits for LTRs. The LTR guy is the whole package. Until you can grok this, you won’t understand how women operate.”

    No I get it. If a woman just wants to fuck me, all I have to do is be hot and available. But, if I want her to actually be involved with me, I have to be at least close to fuckable AND have a host of great traits. No, I get it clearly. Women want a higher value man to marry, but don’t have a problem slumming with low value guys until then. Again, why would that be a good deal for me? The problem here is simple: women are not holding all men to the same standards when they know there is no future in it. IMO they should be holding ALL men to the standard they intend to use for a husband.

    “That doesn’t mean you’re going to be everybody’s choice for STRs. This is where I think guys have lost perspective. Instead of wanting to be “all that” for a quality LTR with a quality woman, they aspire to player status.”

    Maybe some guys, but I’ve never suggested it at all. Truth be told, all I’m shooting for is a woman that found me hot enough to fuck early on AND also like me enough to want to stick around. What I don’t want is a woman that thinks I’m OK physically but just loves how I cook and clean. I have NO DESIRE whatsoever to become a player or increase my N. Getting a high score on the “great for relationship” status means very little to me, because I’ve always known I’d be a good husband. I’ve been hearing “you’ll make some women a GREAT husband someday” since I was a teen. I’m not even sure I consider it an asset at this point. Sure, I want to be a great husband. But, I also want to inspire lust and attraction from a woman and feel like it is for something more than my great domestic skills.

    In fact, if you want to know the truth, the way I see it now is I do that DESPITE my great domestic skills. Because frankly, the domestic stuff just doesn’t add much to raw attraction.

    “I’m not about helping guys rack up bodies. To be honest, I find it pathetic.”

    When have you ever seen me supporting anyone with the task of “racking up bodies”? If anything I’d say I’m pretty firmly against it. But, I AM interested in figuring out how men can be happily married AND still feel like they are “all that”, because to me a guy that believes he is “all that” is probably a long way towards inspiring the kind of sexual response I’m talking about from his wife. In fact, she will respond to the fact that he is “all that” far better than the fact that he can clean a house in terms of sexual response.

    And I’ll add that if a woman wants her husband to really put in the extra effort to keep things working, do what you can to make him feel like “all that”, and you will be rewarded with massive amounts of loyalty and affection. Call it the need for “weak male ego” to be stroked if you want, or immaturity if that suits you. It will work regardless of what you call it.

    And frankly, why would any man want to marry a woman that doesn’t believe he is “all that” in the first place?

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

      @Ted

      No, I get it clearly. Women want a higher value man to marry, but don’t have a problem slumming with low value guys until then. Again, why would that be a good deal for me?

      Ah, but other guys are arguing that it’s the STR guy who is the high value guy. If not, why would you want to be that low value guy?

      I’m not suggesting it would be a good deal for you. I would advise any and all men to avoid women who slummed it up with low value guys in their youth. That’s still just a small percentage of women, based on what we know about partner count.

      When have you ever seen me supporting anyone with the task of “racking up bodies”? If anything I’d say I’m pretty firmly against it. But, I AM interested in figuring out how men can be happily married AND still feel like they are “all that”, because to me a guy that believes he is “all that” is probably a long way towards inspiring the kind of sexual response I’m talking about from his wife.

      I think there’s a disconnect here. You joined Mike C’s argument, but you’re arguing from very different sets of priorities. He’s much more focused on N in general as a metric of male attractiveness.

      I totally understand that you want to be the hottest for your wife, and you want your sex life to reflect that. Of course that is admirable within the context of monogamy. I don’t know her, so I don’t know to what extent she values beta traits. The more unrestricted or STR oriented a woman is, the less she will value them, obviously.

  • JP

    @Anacaona:

    “The guy looks hot a unrestricted woman will go for it no questions asked.”

    For this reason, the answer is, on average, YES.

    I took it as a question about the average cad vs. the average dad.

    The unrestricted cohort bumps up the average.

    You are arguing for a bimodal distribution that separates restricted vs. unrestricted women, which is also true, but I didn’t take it as the point of the question/answer.

  • OffTheCuff

    JP, maybe what you want is freedom from responsibility.

  • JP

    @OTC:

    “JP, maybe what you want is freedom from responsibility.”

    Yes!

    Nothing makes me unhappier than having responsibilities.

    Well, that and being bored.

    Which is why being a petty thief would be a great vocation.

    I could live with no responsibilities and, since the police would constantly be trying to catch me, I would not be bored.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “No. That is not what I said. That’s a good goal to have for your relationship. But do you want to be the hottest guy in other women’s lives? That’s the difference between the LTR and STR packages.”

    I don’t see where I said that I ever wanted to be the “STR” guy for lots of women. I want to be BOTH to my wife. I want to know I could have competed without the need to toss in my charming whit and personality. If I have to resort to my beta traits to get her attention, I’ve already lost to all the other guys that didn’t. Yeah great, she loves me for me and that makes her horny. Is that the door or consolation prize?

    Like extroversion/introversion, I’m beginning to think that restricted/unrestricted sexuality is not evenly distributed in the population. If most people were truly restricted, none of this would be an issue. The problem is many people are unrestricted, and if that’s the case then the few restricted folks around will not all be able to pair up with another restricted. And from what I can tell, my personal issues largely stem from that mismatch. Yes, I know my wife loves me and wants to be with me because of ME, not my ass. However, knowing that some other guys ass was enough in her past makes me want to be able to compete in that arena, where I have no practical experience to pull from. I don’t want to just win the marriage game with her, I want to win them all. I’m not in the least concerned about all the other women in the world past perhaps a little preselection from time to time.

    Looking back I’d guess my other LTR mates were all restricted, but to varying degrees. (The first two were really young when we were together so I’m speculating based only on what I know of them while we were together. They could both be raging nymphos now for all I know…)

    Pairing up with someone less restricted has been a real challenge. It is difficult for me to understand what her challenges to being faithful are, because my challenges are completely different. I’d never have an affair because some woman in my office is hot and comes on to me. However, if said woman was intent on catching me and waged a shrewd emotional gambit on me? Yeah, that would be MY weak spot. If I let an EA form, I would be hard pressed to stop it from escalating.

    I have no idea what unrestricted folks fight against. Since much of their triggering seems to be physical, I’d imagine it has more to do with the hot guy/gal hitting on them much less than trying to emotionally connect. And I have no idea how hard it is to fight that urge when it happens, because I’ve never experienced it. Lack of understanding how the other half lives is the issue.

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

      Like extroversion/introversion, I’m beginning to think that restricted/unrestricted sexuality is not evenly distributed in the population. If most people were truly restricted, none of this would be an issue. The problem is many people are unrestricted, and if that’s the case then the few restricted folks around will not all be able to pair up with another restricted.

      The distribution is approximately 80% restricted, 20% unrestricted, IIRC.

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

    The problem is many people are unrestricted, and if that’s the case then the few restricted folks around will not all be able to pair up with another restricted.

    Ted most women don’t even have orgasms when hooking up with those
    ‘hot cads’. That means that they are imitating the unrestricted because that is what everybody is doing/daddy issues/feminism/too much alcohol/drugs…you name it.

  • Ted D

    Ana – “Ted most women don’t even have orgasms when hooking up with those ‘hot cads’. That means that they are imitating the unrestricted because that is what everybody is doing/daddy issues/feminism/too much alcohol/drugs…you name it.”

    The motivation for the behavior is largely irrelevant to the outcome. I’m well aware of many studies that show women by and large don’t enjoy casual sex as much as sex within a LTR. I’m sure most women know this as well from trial and error. It doesn’t change the fact that they are still doing it.

    Now are you implying that many so called unrestricted women are actually restricted and pretending otherwise? I might agree with that, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

    If a restricted woman behaves in unrestricted ways, what point is there to even identifying her as restricted? This goes directly back to the “wedding scenario” that caused a bunch of chaos before. I don’t care if the women identifies as restricted if she is behaving like an unrestricted. Action, not words.

    Susan – ROFLMFAO! Where the hell did you find that graphic? It looks like it would be a great logo for a new ‘sphere site, but definitely NSFW.

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

      Susan – ROFLMFAO! Where the hell did you find that graphic? It looks like it would be a great logo for a new ‘sphere site, but definitely NSFW.

      I googled “Rollo’s perfect woman” and that’s what came up.

  • J

    I do get better and keep trying but in those moments I feel like I should quit writing and clean other people houses for a living.

    But that’s the key to success. Everyone has setbacks. Winners keep plugging; losers quit.

  • J

    Cads are hot? Dads are not?

    It’s a balance. A woman wants a guy with good genes to mix with hers, but if the guy doesn’t stick around, she’s still screwed. The ideal guy has both good genes and good character. That’s why Athol’s strategy of mixing alpha and beta characteristics works. It’s a way of faking the good genes and developing character.

    I’ve noticed something intersting in myself since menopause–I have a greater appreciation of less handsome men IF they have good character. I think this is because I can’t have kids anymore. Looks are a proxy for healthy and genetic fitness. A man’s genes are now pretty irrelevant to me, so character has become more important. I can imagine myself married to a man who’s HB number was less than mine if he brought other good stuff to the table.

    I was very lucky in finding DH. I had turned down some good-looking pricks because I knew they’d be horrid husbands and fathers. I had also turned down some nice guys because I couldn’t muster any attraction. A happy medium was hard to find.

  • J

    How come the walking vagina has manhands?

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

      How come the walking vagina has manhands?

      Two reasons: So she can strangle any woman who comes near her alpha. And so we can clearly see her 2D:4D ratio. Slut!

  • Ted D

    Susan – I won’t speak for Mike C about his motivations, but I’m OK arguing the same point from another persepctive.

    “I don’t know her, so I don’t know to what extent she values beta traits. The more unrestricted or STR oriented a woman is, the less she will value them, obviously.”

    I know she values them immensely, especially since her ex was (and continues to be) seriously lacking in that department. Again though, her ‘value’ of my beta traits has very little to do with how much they do or do not cause sexual attraction. I can see that some women may put enough importance on beta traits that the alpha doesn’t matter much, but I’d question if that is a majority or minority of women. (and for that matter by what age bracket since we all know that when young men and women tend not to look long term.)

    You acknowledge that alpha traits are essential for a long and happy marriage, but IMO you tend to downplay them far too much. Again, I’m certain that someone like Ana probably doesn’t want or need anyone even close to resembling a ‘thug’ type based on her history and what she has posted here. I’m sure on the other end there are woman that need a man to “keep her in her place” or something like that. Between those two extremes is a lot of grey area, and in a general sense the important question is: where do the vast majority of women fall on that spectrum.

    Since it is also pretty common knowledge that most guys in the U.S. are far too beta, I’d suggest that for the vast majority of men looking for marital success, highlighting the alpha and downplaying the beta is probably a better bet. (ala Athol and MMSL)

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

      Since it is also pretty common knowledge that most guys in the U.S. are far too beta, I’d suggest that for the vast majority of men looking for marital success, highlighting the alpha and downplaying the beta is probably a better bet. (ala Athol and MMSL)

      Is it common knowledge? I’d wager that I could ask 50 passers by right now and 49 would look at me like I had lost my mind. Aren’t you always claiming that far too many men in the U.S. are alpha thugs? Which is it?

      Or do you mean it is accepted in this corner of the sphere were Disgruntleds congregate?

      Fact: 80% of American men were married by age 40 in 2010. Almost 90% of college graduate males are married by that age.

      Assumption: More than 80% of those men are beta.

      Fact: The divorce rate for college grads is 17%.

      Conclusion: The vast majority of men are betas in intact marriages.

  • Ted D

    Susan – For real? I’ll save that search until I get home. After that pic, I’m afraid of what might show up!

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “The distribution is approximately 80% restricted, 20% unrestricted, IIRC.”

    What’s the cutoff for “restricted” vs. “un”?

    I’m careful to say “mid-stricted” because, as dumb as that term sounds, I found myself wound up square in the middle. I think it’s misleading to put me and, say, HanSolo in the same “unrestricted” block, when I’m like 5.1/9 and he admits to closer to 9/9.

  • Ted D

    “I’m careful to say “mid-stricted” because, as dumb as that term sounds, I found myself wound up square in the middle. I think it’s misleading to put me and, say, HanSolo in the same “unrestricted” block, when I’m like 5.1/9 and he admits to closer to 9/9.”

    This. I’m sorry, but if any of those 80% :restricteds: ever had a ONS, then by my standards they are NOT restricted. And from the number of folks that have participated in casual sex, I’d say 80% is a VERY generous number.

    There is far too much leeway in the restricted vs unrestricted categorization. Again, I don’t care what is said, I’m looking at what people are doing. If you are participating in the casual sex buffet, what difference does it make how you fall on the scale? you are behaving unrestricted, and that duck is quacking.

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

      I’m sorry, but if any of those 80% :restricteds: ever had a ONS, then by my standards they are NOT restricted. And from the number of folks that have participated in casual sex, I’d say 80% is a VERY generous number.

      By your standards, that is true. According to a survey called Singles in America:

      58 percent of singles have had a one-night stand (65 percent of men and 51 percent of women).

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

    @SW

    Stop being a tease!

    Very well:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html
    The author had a great sense of humor when I heard him. I think he did a segment on CSPAN’s Book Notes. Learned quite a bit, including the fact that the U.S. fertility rate has been on the decline since 1850, well before the pill and the 1st and 2nd Sexual Revolutions.

    He sees this phenomenon as a “mid-term” problem for societies around the world. Interesting takeaway:
    By 1973, the U.S. was below the replacement rate, as was nearly every other Western country. Since then, the phenomenon of fertility collapse has spread around the globe: 97% of the world’s population now lives in countries where the fertility rate is falling.

    Back to the issue of who’s have how many kids, sorry to link to another blogger again, but he knows what he’s talking about:
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/10/fewer-sexual-partners-means-more-babies.html

    I’ve been to the GSS website, and checked the figures for average number of kids reported (random sampling, 50,000+ responses). It’s 1.95 (slightly above the 1.98 fertility rate cited in the WSJ article), so I don’t know where Mr. LL is getting his number from.

    On the correlation between N and number of kids:
    Nearly two-thirds of men who are committed to a single woman have popped out two or more children. For the contemporary Genghis Khans, fewer than half have pulled it off. While only one-quarter of committed men have not bore a child, one-third of the Khan’s have failed to do so. Lifelong monogamy may have been ‘selected’ against in the past, but it is being selected for today.

    On the question of thugs having kids:
    The GSS asks respondents if they have ever been picked up or charged by police. According to the GSS, those who answer ‘yes’ average 1.73 kids, those who answer ‘no’ average 2.20 kids. Law-abiding men leave more children.

    I’m sure interpretations around here will vary, but it is what it is…

  • JP

    @Megaman:

    As the resident meta-historian/demographer, I’ll explain why both you and Lokland may be right (My current hobby is watching Japan and Korea experiment with having a total fertility rate of about 1.2, which means that they are now tending toward ultimate oblivion).

    Modernity and post-modernism are currently shredding what was formerly known as the Orient, demographically speaking.

    First, as an aside, I want to note that it is not entirely clear what the actual human carrying capacity of earth is. We may find out that it’s about 2 billion. Which would be really bad for us.

    Second, there is nothing wrong with a culture floating around the replacement rate for total fertility.

    The average number of children per couple is *not* the total fertility rate.

    The average number of children in a family *must* be higher than the total fertility rate because some women don’t have kids.

    The U.S. does not have a demographic problem.

    We could end up with 500 million people by 2050.

    See:

    http://www.economist.com/node/1291056

    Also, total fertility rate can do really weird things, like when Russia declined 1.16 and has now bounced back to 1.6.

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

  • OffTheCuff

    So, you’re saying that it’s one-strike. Any sex that’s not inside an LTR (of some indeterminate length, what if I’m serial-monogamous for 1 month? 1 week?), and you’re unrestricted for life?

    I had a single ONS at 19, wracked by horrible guilt, then followed by 20 years of monogamy = unrestricted? That’s lower N than than you, my friend, recent dalliances aside.

    Not that I care, I know I’m unrestricted now, but I am curious how many people really attain that standard. It can’t be anywhere close to 80%.

  • JP

    @OTC:

    I’m impressed that you got to the one night stand.

    I managed to avoid actual sex, including oral sex of any kind, until age 25 (I think).

    In hindsight, I may have considered doing things differently.

  • J

    I googled “Rollo’s perfect woman” and that’s what came up.

    I literally spat coffee on that one.

    Two reasons: So she can strangle any woman who comes near her alpha. And so we can clearly see her 2D:4D ratio. Slut!

    Her cowboy boots indicate a love of horses and travel–two other slut tells.

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

      Her cowboy boots indicate a love of horses and travel–two other slut tells.

      Ha! You can’t accuse her of having a thousand cock stare, though!

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Right, which is why women choose cads for ONSs or STRs and dads for LTRs. If you’re only going to be with the guy for one night, character is irrelevant. Might as well go for the hot specimen.

    Kinda interesting though. Personally, if I wanted casual sex and had a choice, I’d prefer more feminine girls (whereas for LTRs, I have to go for a balance of femininity and intelligence).

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

      Personally, if I wanted casual sex and had a choice, I’d prefer more feminine girls (whereas for LTRs, I have to go for a balance of femininity and intelligence).

      That makes total sense, right? Men would also have different standards (or ladders) for STRs and LTRs.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    The vast majority of men are betas in intact marriages.

    Not supported by your data, considering that the vast majority of men do not graduate from college.

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

      @INTJ

      Not supported by your data, considering that the vast majority of men do not graduate from college.

      Eh, I think it’s pretty clearly implied. 80% of all men are married by 40, as of 2010. Since alphas are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce, it’s pretty safe to assume that most married men are betas.

  • INTJ

    @ OTC

    HUS serves the mid-to-high strata of the SMP – the more urban, wealthier, smarter, extroverted, more competitive part. I’m not sure why people don’t see this…?

    More urban, wealthier, and smarter? Yes. More competitive? Debatable. More extroverted? Absolutely not. The HUS commenters are far more introverted than the general population.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Fair enough, but what happens to a society where all the men are competing to out-alpha the alpha who slew the mastodon? Quizzling?

    Yup. That’s what we’re seeing today. The quizzles are out-alphaing the alphas who slew the mastodon.

  • Ted D

    Susan – well you have been arguing that thugs are NOT alpha, and I agreed that they are at best situational alpha. So if we are going by the traditional concepts of alpha/beta, then no thugs aren’t alpha.

    I’m actually on board with viewing them as gammas with alpha free in the hood.

    OTC – I would say that your 20 years of fidelity probably puts you in the restricted camp. But more importantly the fact that you were “racked with guilt” over your ONS is more telling, is it not? So if someone has one ONS and feels as you did AND never participates in casual again, I’d be willing to chalk it up to lack of experience. But for me, the guilt you felt is an essential component. No guilt? Unrestricted.

    How many people do you think feel guilty about having casual sex today?

    INTJ – “Not supported by your data, considering that the vast majority of men do not graduate from college.”

    You beat me to it. :-p the data also doesn’t show how many men are STILL married. How many of those married men in the 80% stayed that way? I know lots of married people on thier 2nd, 3rd, or more marriages too. Do they count as the 80%? As well?

  • JP

    @INTJ:

    “Not supported by your data, considering that the vast majority of men do not graduate from college.”

    She’s saying that college graduates stay married and that most college graduates are beta.

    She’s not dealing with the non-college educated crowd and it’s not her audience.

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

    Now are you implying that many so called unrestricted women are actually restricted and pretending otherwise? I might agree with that, but if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…

    I’m not talking about serial offenders. In here some guys had mentioned that 1 or 2 mistakes not a slut make. And according to numbers this seems to be the case. So if a woman is doing it for a good period of time she might be restricted but she is also masochist not a good bet. But we are discussing the once or twice this might happen or not, capisce?

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

    @JP

    The average number of children per couple is *not* the total fertility rate.
    The average number of children in a family *must* be higher than the total fertility rate because some women don’t have kids.

    Got it, thanks. That makes quite a difference, the ~27% of respondents who reported never having any kids. I played around with the data set a little bit. Average # of kids, including those with none: 1.95. Average # of kids, excluding those with none: 2.68.

    I appreciate your brain, believe me. It’s extremely rare around here when a fellow male actually shows knowledge, instead of just flushing the data… :idea:

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

      @Megaman

      From the Audacious link, I thought this might be worth sharing:

      Nearly two-thirds of men who are committed to a single woman have popped out two or more children. For the contemporary Genghis Khans, fewer than half have pulled it off. While only one-quarter of committed men have not bore a child, one-third of the Khan’s have failed to do so. Lifelong monogamy may have been ‘selected’ against in the past, but it is being selected for today.

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

    @SW

    Eh, I think it’s pretty clearly implied. 80% of all men are married by 40, as of 2010.

    Right, considering only ~20% of men have ever been divorced. Even most men who never attended college who marry never get divorced.

    News to me: “the vast majority of men do not graduate from college.” It therefore logically follows that the 40% who do represent a “vast minority” of the population. Throw in those who have some college experience (but no degree), and we’re up to 56%. Who’s smoking what now?

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

      @Megaman

      It therefore logically follows that the 40% who do represent a “vast minority” of the population.

      This really tickled my funny bone, good way to start Blizzard Day!

  • Sai

    Re: hot husband vs. relationship-quality husband
    I am still trying to figure out how a woman would be happy with a man whose face/body she wouldn’t like or want near her… uh, face.
    Could there be other personality traits that might indicate more visually-oriented women?
    (For my part, I promise never to marry a man whose bones I don’t genuinely want to jump. I’ve even started fighting with family members about this.)

    “And to be clear, I’m not saying they are the “worst” because they are poor. They are the worst because they have VERY piss poor attitudes regarding respect for law, respect for other people, and respect for themselves. They mostly only value society in terms of what they can get from it, and how they can use it to get more.”

    http://youtu.be/tPiRdJYpJPo
    http://youtu.be/M5FR1LGsT7E
    NSFW

  • J

    Nope, no 1000 cock stare! LMAO

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan
    I completely get and understand what you’re saying re: female sexuality. Makes perfect sense. No debate at all from me.

    But I still agree with what Mike C & Ted are saying.

    It might be completely irrational, but I think a lot of guys’ egos are invested in being attractive beyond their status, dependability, job, ability to provide, etc. I know mine is. That’s not to say I don’t take pride in those things, but if those qualities are what’s carrying the weight in my “total package” score, it really feels like a hollow victory. Similar to how the thought of being a trophy wife who’s only appreciated for her looks would feel like a hollow victory to most girls.

    I’m realistic, I know I’m not going to be the best looking guy everywhere I go. I know I’m not always going to be the funniest, wittiest, or most intelligent. And I’m perfectly cool with that. But at the end of the day, I want to know I’m attractive because of who I am, not what I can give or provide.

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

      @Jimmy

      But at the end of the day, I want to know I’m attractive because of who I am, not what I can give or provide.

      Of course! And there will be (and have been) women who found you to be the whole package. We all want that, and I would caution anyone against marriage without that sense of certainty that you really rock that person’s world in every way.

      Where I draw the line is in a man’s needing to feel that he’s one of the prime-time STR players. Sassy is right, a very few males are in that position. What it requires is Looks 10, Dominance 10. Not even the tightest Game is going to provide every guy with that. Of course, one way of racking up ONSs is to target those women with “avoidant attachment styles,” a common strategy. But guys here bristle at that suggestion – they want it all – to be the hottest male in the eyes of the hottest, most selective females.

      It really is analogous to women whining about not being Candice Swanepoel, or worse, demanding the same response from males even though their SMV is in 4 points below hers, and blaming men if they don’t get it.

      Women select men based on physical, personality and character traits. They want to be selected the same way by men, but it doesn’t really work that way. For STRs men focus on looks, and give bonus points for sexual experience. They’ll don beer goggles, but they certainly don’t care about personality.

      Men are more visual, so they want women to select them with more attention to looks, and they want the bar set low enough so that they meet the criteria for most women, i.e. the ladyboner test.

      Both are examples of projection. Both sexes need a serious reality check.

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

    I want to know I’m attractive because of who I am, not what I can give or provide.

    Fair enough…Who are you?

  • Ted D

    The only way only 20% of men have ever divorced is if only a max of 40% ever marry. Since the overall divorce rate still hovers around 50%. (Not limiting it to college educated folks that is)

    From a quick Google search:

    “50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri.

    According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:

    The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
    The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
    The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%”

    Source: http://www.divorcerate.org/

    I guess I should feel lucky since I have a college degree. Unfortunately I’m also on my second marriage, and as seen above that stat isn’t nearly as great as the divorce stat for college grads. Of course, being that I got divorced after getting a college degree makes me a unicorn around these parts, right?

    I’m no statistician, and truth be told I really hate math. (Which is why I went IT instead of a real engineering degree. Lol) but I can tell you that of the people I know, there are far more than 20% with at least one divorce under their belt. If you want to limit your view to life behind the ivory walls and towers be my guest. But there are far more poor/LMC/MC folks than UMC and up.

    As long as things look good on your block though life is peachy. ;-)

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Where I draw the line is in a man’s needing to feel that he’s one of the prime-time STR players. Sassy is right, a very few males are in that position. What it requires is Looks 10, Dominance 10. Not even the tightest Game is going to provide every guy with that. Of course, one way of racking up ONSs is to target those women with “avoidant attachment styles,” a common strategy. ”

    I have no desire to be a PUA or a “lady killer”. I have no desire for looks 10/ dominance 10 either. I also don’t want to be the next act for my wife after she’s been with such a man.

    I don’t want to be in the top tier at all. I simply don’t like the idea that my wife may have sampled those goods and for whatever reason didn’t make it last.

    Again, I only want/need to be the best man (in all categories) that my GF/wife has been with. I wouldn’t even attempt a relationship with someone at Sassy’s SMV because I know beyond all doubt she has been with hotter guys than me. The problem is, players are more than happy to sex up lower ranking women, and then those same women start looking in their own “bracket” for a husband, who has no chance of competing physically with the guy she hooked up on spring break with. Sure he may have LTR traits in spade, but he will never be as hot as that ONS she had. And it makes no difference if she didn’t really enjoy the sex. In fact, that might be a little worse because I would then question what she even got out of the deal to make it worth her while to slum it up.

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

      @Ted

      Again, I only want/need to be the best man (in all categories) that my GF/wife has been with.

      And I support that 100%. That is the pair-bonding at work.

      The problem is, players are more than happy to sex up lower ranking women, and then those same women start looking in their own “bracket” for a husband, who has no chance of competing physically with the guy she hooked up on spring break with.

      Too bad some sort of player-shaming by men wouldn’t work. Non-players have every reason to resent those guys.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    Eh, I think it’s pretty clearly implied. 80% of all men are married by 40, as of 2010. Since alphas are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce, it’s pretty safe to assume that most married men are betas.

    I’m objecting more to your assertion that most beta marriages are “stable”. You used the divorce rate for college graduates, and then made a statement about the entire population. I should also note that college graduates have even fewer kids than the rest of the population.

  • JP

    @IN TJ:

    Her target audience is the college-educated crowd.

    For those people, beta marriages are stable.

  • INTJ

    @ Megaman

    Right, considering only ~20% of men have ever been divorced. Even most men who never attended college who marry never get divorced.

    The probability that a first marriage for the first marriage of a man aged 15-44 will last uninterrupted for 20 years is 56% (this number rises to 65% for men with at least a bachelors degree):

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf

    News to me: “the vast majority of men do not graduate from college.” It therefore logically follows that the 40% who do represent a “vast minority” of the population. Throw in those who have some college experience (but no degree), and we’re up to 56%. Who’s smoking what now?

    You’re talking out of your ass, as the number for men is 30%, and Susan’s source specifically used “college graduates” (not those with some college experience).

    Also, the opposite of a “vast majority” is not a “vast minority”, so your logic is bunk.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57545427/record-numbers-earning-college-degree/

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

      @INTJ

      It’s interesting that while 65% of degreed men age 22-44 remain married for 20 years, 78% of women do. The lesson might be: if you have a college education, your risk of divorce is higher if you marry a woman without one.

  • INTJ

    @ Jimmy Hendricks

    It might be completely irrational, but I think a lot of guys’ egos are invested in being attractive beyond their status, dependability, job, ability to provide, etc. I know mine is. That’s not to say I don’t take pride in those things, but if those qualities are what’s carrying the weight in my “total package” score, it really feels like a hollow victory. Similar to how the thought of being a trophy wife who’s only appreciated for her looks would feel like a hollow victory to most girls.

    Honestly, I’m not. I don’t care why she chooses me, as long as she chooses me, and doesn’t choose someone else. That last part is key. If, in the past, she has chosen some hot cad (either for a fling or a shot at an ltr), then I’m not going to be happy, as she has clearly demonstrated that she is attracted to certain traits that I don’t have.

  • INTJ

    @ Ted D

    The only way only 20% of men have ever divorced is if only a max of 40% ever marry.

    No, it’s just a case of Megaman using red herring data. It’s probably true that 80% of men haven’t been divorced – yet. The problem is many of these men not married yet or have only just been married. This is why the correct statistic to use is the divorce rate of first marriage.

    It’s similar to how total fertility rate is a rough measure of how many children a woman will have over her lifetime – if one instead simply reported the average number of children each woman has, one would find a number too low, because many of the women surveyed will not have finished having all their children yet.

  • INTJ

    @ Susan

    This really tickled my funny bone, good way to start Blizzard Day!

    In my observations, faulty logic does have a tendency to resonate with women. YMMV.

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

      In my observations, faulty logic does have a tendency to resonate with women. YMMV.

      Wit resonates with women, and arrogance does not.

  • Lokland

    @Mega

    “Average # of kids, excluding those with none: 2.68.”

    Very busy trying to build an igloo but I do intend to respond.
    I would like to point out however that the average number of children I gave above was 2.7.

    As for data on the quizzle reproductive rate, have none. I did not suggest it as a truth but a theory that I must back up with sufficient data. Whether or not I am able to do is is yet to be determined.

    As for flushing data, I’m not INTJ.

  • Lokland

    @Ted

    “The only way only 20% of men have ever divorced is if only a max of 40% ever marry. Since the overall divorce rate still hovers around 50%. (Not limiting it to college educated folks that is)”

    Divorce rate is not the same as percentage of couples divorced. If someone has not already I’ll provide an example after I finish my igloo.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Of course! And there will be (and have been) women who found you to be the whole package. We all want that, and I would caution anyone against marriage without that sense of certainty that you really rock that person’s world in every way.”

    This is not possible for some people.

    “Where I draw the line is in a man’s needing to feel that he’s one of the prime-time STR players. ”

    I would like to point out that I do not require this in the eyes of my wife but thats only because she has no bets on the STR table.

    For another woman, it would be the most important detail.

    Beyond that, its kinda like telling woman to not value being perceived as having low MMV and being happy with only high SMV (which isn’t really possible).

    I’m hooking up with you cause your hot but I would never date you is = I married you because your safe but I would never just fuck you.

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

      I’m hooking up with you cause your hot but I would never date you is = I married you because your safe but I would never just fuck you.

      No those are the inverse of each other.

      I’m hooking up with you cause your hot but I would never date you = Male STR standard

      I married you because your safe but I would never just fuck you /= Female LTR standard

      In the second case, the lack of attraction would have given the male zeros for alpha traits, which cannot be overcome enough by beta traits to lead to an LTR choice.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    ““Of course! And there will be (and have been) women who found you to be the whole package. We all want that, and I would caution anyone against marriage without that sense of certainty that you really rock that person’s world in every way.”

    This is not possible for some people.”

    Clarification.

    If a women values X then a man must be X to be the full package.
    We determine X by looking at past behaviour.

    I satisfy my wife’s X in every conceivable way. Therefore I must be total package X.

    If my wife had done STR (something I had not done until after meeting her) I would not have been X because she demonstrated placing value in X by doing it.

    In that case the only way I could have been the full package X is if the relationship had started off as a hookup.

    For another guy this would be a non-issue as long as he had done STR he would be X whereas I would not.

    ———-

    This is entirely separate from an innate male drive to achieve high N which I am not capable of and subsequently find incredibly depressing.

    ———-

    I think there is a conflation occurring in which your taking the innate male drive for high N and applying it to personal relationship standards which does not make sense.

    Its very possible to be a failure at STR and feel depressed about it yet content with LTRs as long as your with someone who has done the same.

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

      Its very possible to be a failure at STR and feel depressed about it yet content with LTRs as long as your with someone who has done the same.

      Sure, just like it’s very possible to be a woman who has received scant attention from men, but finally found someone she really loves and who truly loves her too, and to still feel down about being unattractive.

      To both of these people, I say: Get over it. Live your life. Be grateful for what you have. Stop whining.

      The benefit is that doing those things will make either or both of them more attractive.

  • JP

    “No, it’s just a case of Megaman using red herring data. It’s probably true that 80% of men haven’t been divorced – yet. The problem is many of these men not married yet or have only just been married. This is why the correct statistic to use is the divorce rate of first marriage.”

    I’m with INTJ on this one.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “Where I draw the line is in a man’s needing to feel that he’s one of the prime-time STR players. Sassy is right, a very few males are in that position. What it requires is Looks 10, Dominance 10. Not even the tightest Game is going to provide every guy with that. Of course, one way of racking up ONSs is to target those women with “avoidant attachment styles,” a common strategy. ”

    I’m trying to think of a single poster who prefers ONS and notch-maximizing here, and further, expects that to happen with modelesque women. Drawing a blank.

    One or two FWB’s is infintiely better than a pile of one-nighters.

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

      I’m trying to think of a single poster who prefers ONS and notch-maximizing here, and further, expects that to happen with modelesque women. Drawing a blank.

      There are some men who are in LTRs or even married who seem to obsess about who they could pull for ONSs if they were available. One or two may have indicated this at HUS…

      From my perspective, what’s unrealistic is the idea that there is anything most men can do to score lots of ST mating opportunities. For most men, this just isn’t in the cards.

  • Ted D

    “The lesson might be: if you have a college education, your risk of divorce is higher if you marry a woman without one.”

    This would have been great info to have before my first marriage. Lol.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “To both of these people, I say: Get over it. Live your life. Be grateful for what you have. Stop whining.”

    Would you say the same thing to those poor anorexic women who have low-self esteem, but are actually objectively very attractive and have a healthy bodyweight, but think they are still fat, and are trying to become underweight? Get over it?

    They are likely both manifestations of similar issues.

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

      @OTC

      Would you say the same thing to those poor anorexic women who have low-self esteem, but are actually objectively very attractive and have a healthy bodyweight, but think they are still fat, and are trying to become underweight? Get over it?

      They are likely both manifestations of similar issues.

      Actually, I’d add “get some therapy now” to both cases and yes, the message would be identical.

      Anorexia is a form of narcissism, and so is losing sleep at night because you’re a 6.

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

    LOL. The two basic, primal male rivalry benchmarks:

    1). “Could I beat this guy in a fight?”

    2). “Could I pull a hotter girl for a ONS?”

    So much of male psychology boils down to what happens when a man looks around his extended social circle and starts asking these types of questions.

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

      @BB

      So much of male psychology boils down to what happens when a man looks around his extended social circle and starts asking these types of questions.

      Interesting, we’re back to male rivalry!

      I’m interested to know if you think this is related to maturity.

  • Pingback: theCL Report: Supermen, We Think Not

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “From my perspective, what’s unrealistic is the idea that there is anything most men can do to score lots of ST mating opportunities. For most men, this just isn’t in the cards.”

    Lots, as in 100? Probably not.
    Modelesque women? Probably not, again.

    But who is saying they really need that many? I’m trying to figure out who you are disagreeing with here.

    ST, or more accurately, nonexclusive/nonmonogamous/low-investment mating, is easy enough to come by for a man if you just fix your head, drop the anti-game, raise your situational awareness, and little else. There seems to be a myth you have to go out and pound pavement collecting numbers, garnering a zillion rejections or something.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “just like it’s very possible to be a woman who has received scant attention from men, but finally found someone she really loves and who truly loves her too, and to still feel down about being unattractive.”

    Though I find this scenario interesting I can in no way relate. Never had a problem with LTR game and my N is approx. double median (after dalliances).

    Me + LTR = Boss.

    What a woman who can’t even get a ONS feels like is totally irrelevant and frankly not worth discussing.

    A better analogy would be a woman who constantly gets put in FWB situations and can never swing a relationship.

    “To both of these people, I say: Get over it. Live your life. Be grateful for what you have. Stop whining.”

    Depression and whining are not the same.
    Also, having a pile of trash does not mean a person should value it. We value things that are valuable that we do or do not have. Just placing value on any old trait is worthless.

    “There are some men who are in LTRs or even married who seem to obsess about who they could pull for ONSs if they were available. One or two may have indicated this at HUS…”

    I believe this is directed at me.You have made an error.
    I obsess with who I could pull before I got married (now that I’m married its significantly easier due to the inherent preselection of marriage and as such holds no value) and realize that it translates to 0 value.

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

      @Lokland

      I believe this is directed at me.You have made an error.

      Nope, it wasn’t. If you obsessed about who you could pull, you haven’t shared it here.

      What a woman who can’t even get a ONS feels like is totally irrelevant and frankly not worth discussing.

      Believe it or not, most women don’t feel validated and flattered by an offer for a ONS. I was thinking more about women who don’t get men pursuing them out of romantic interest. I would estimate that at least 50% of women feel this way at age 21.

  • Lokland

    @OTC

    “There seems to be a myth you have to go out and pound pavement collecting numbers, garnering a zillion rejections or something.”

    It would appear so to me.
    I think before marriage I’d kissed two women whom I hadn’t been dating (in the coffee/walk in the park sense).

    I literally couldn’t get anything else without flashing the commitment card. Whether or not they earned it was another matter.

  • OffTheCuff

    You’re confusing me, Lok. Two kisses before marriage, but your N is 12-ish, and you just got married? Second marriage?

  • INTJ

    @ OTC

    You’re confusing me, Lok. Two kisses before marriage, but your N is 12-ish, and you just got married? Second marriage?

    He means two kisses from outside the dating script.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Whether or not being a 6 is something to cry over depends entirely on what kind of society you are living in and what it rewards.

    If you were living in a society as dark as what the manosphere implies, well…

  • Cooper

    Ok. Coop needs a thread to hijack. (And this is the oldest active one)

    I just finished read a bit of TheRuleRevisted, gotta say, pretty good site.

    http://www.therulesrevisited.com/2011/09/dont-initiate-contact.html?m=1

    This post, Don’t Initiate Contact, seems to suggest that women ignore men, as a filter in order to suss out the one interested in only-sex.

    This seems counter-productive, to me at least. Cause isn’t it the guys who AREN’T only interest in sex that need the reciprocating-interest?

    I’m trying to relate this to the flaky friend of mine. How is a guy supposed to know when a girl isn’t into him, or wasting his time? (..If she’s “supposed to be” ignoring him)

    Thoughts anyone?

  • Cooper

    From my link:
    “Taking the initiative is not a right that men have over women; it is (or should be) a hurdle that women place in front of men to make them prove their interest”

    So, this means that me not hearing from this girl, means I am the one ‘not into’ her enough, and I haven’t taken enough initiative??

  • SayWhaat

    ST, or more accurately, nonexclusive/nonmonogamous/low-investment mating, is easy enough to come by for a man if you just fix your head, drop the anti-game, raise your situational awareness, and little else. There seems to be a myth you have to go out and pound pavement collecting numbers, garnering a zillion rejections or something.

    Agreed, this is basically what I’ve been saying since Day 1. Outside of these threads, I’ve only met one guy who I would describe as having “anti-game.” All other men seem to have had no trouble getting laid and/or girlfriends.

  • SayWhaat

    Cooper, a number of us have already told you to move on from Ms. Flake. She is not into you.

    At this point you are only looking for an answer you want to hear.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Cooper, if we could turn your practical tactics with girls into economic policies, we would call you North Korea. :p

    You’re too emotionally invested in the girl, just go play video games for a few hours!

  • Cooper

    Well, beleive it or not, but it’s because a third girl has now entered the picture..

    I’m really having issues with understanding my attractions.

    I’m so eager to take the firs thing that comes my wa, that I don’t think really even take into consideration who I like more, or whether or not I’m attracted enough long term. I seriously fear/feel I’m teatering …

  • OffTheCuff

    Don’t agree too fast, SW. :) that’s a big IF, and I didn’t say all men ARE doing that, only most are capable of it, if they fix their heads. IF.

    That’s your purview as an attractive younng woman. You don’t see all us invisible slobs who sat in a dorm night after night, year after year, playing cards, with only a tiny fraction of the guys getting laid. In other words, your friends are “cool”. Remember Sue’s statistic of something like 9% of college students getting any action?

    Cooper, flakey girl goes into sex-only pile. Either block her, or text her a penis pic.

  • Cooper

    @OTC

    I typically don’t have a sex-only like, or never have before.

    I don’t know what it is, I must be coming into my own or something, cause my online dating experience has drastically changed in the last two months.

    Mind you, the 1% response rate hasn’t changed much, but I’ve been getting contacted like crazy with varrying levels of interest. (Some casual)

  • JP

    @Cooper:

    “Well, beleive it or not, but it’s because a third girl has now entered the picture..”

    Cooper, flaky girl isn’t actually in the picture.

  • JP

    @Cooper:

    “I don’t know what it is, I must be coming into my own or something, cause my online dating experience has drastically changed in the last two months.”

    Have you actually seen one of these experiences in person?

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

    @intj

    The probability that a first marriage for the first marriage of a man aged 15-44 will last uninterrupted for 20 years is 56%.

    I’ve always wondered how the probability a marriage will end in divorce (in the future) can be estimated. Could you explain that one in some detail? Also, when the CDC says “uninterrupted”, are they assuming that divorce is the only way a marriage can be “interrupted”? Because I checked at the Census Bureau, and they report that 4% of people in their 40s have “ever been” widowed.

    You’re talking out of your ass, as the number for men is 30%, and Susan’s source specifically used “college graduates” (not those with some college experience).

    I’d never stoop so low as to steal your MO. But the Census Bureau (again) says 40% (associates to doctoral), so you can put that in your uninformed pipe and smoke it:
    http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2012/tables.html

    It’s very interesting that you don’t think guys with “some college, no degree” count around here… Susan’s been accused of UMC elitism before, but she pales in comparison to your contempt for the common man, not to mention women who attend community colleges.

    Also, the opposite of a “vast majority” is not a “vast minority”, so your logic is bunk.

    Well, considering your original comment was both factually and grammatically incorrect… whoop-de-fuckin’-do.

    No, it’s just a case of Megaman using red herring data. It’s probably true that 80% of men haven’t been divorced – yet. The problem is many of these men not married yet or have only just been married. This is why the correct statistic to use is the divorce rate of first marriage.

    I’d say the Ultimate Red Herring @ HUS is most certainly “The Boy Who Cried Crap Statistics”. Why he should be taken seriously at all on such matters is a question that has no good answer.

    Just curious though, what is the divorce rate of first marriages, exactly? I gave a good idea of what it is, I’m but you seem to be dancing around the subject. And since you think it doesn’t matter, I’d like you to explain why the % of men “ever divorced” has remained ~20% since the mid-1990s, and probably wasn’t much higher when divorce rate started falling in the mid-1980s.

    In my observations, faulty logic does have a tendency to resonate with women.

    Given your stunted view of the opposite sex, I can’t understand why you aren’t rolling in women by now. :twisted:

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Believe it or not, most women don’t feel validated and flattered by an offer for a ONS.”

    Believe it or not, most men don’t feel validated and flattered by an offer for a LTR.

    @OTC

    “Two kisses before marriage, but your N is 12-ish, and you just got married? Second marriage?”

    No. Many kisses prior to marriage. Only two of which did not involve me having to invest something in time/effort/commitment.

    PinV only N, my wife was number 9. All of those were again within the bounds of pre-dating for a LTR.

    I’ve never had the experience of a woman feeling such visceral attraction as to not require commitment (or the possibility thereof) for sex. I see it as very transactional in a way.

    Which leads to this,
    “So much of male psychology boils down to what happens when a man looks around his extended social circle and starts asking these types of questions.”

    Status in the male hierarchy is conferred by the ability to attain ONSs. More, better. Higher quality, better.

    I have 0 ability to attain ONSs and therefore in the hierarchy am literally only slightly above the losers who can’t get a girlfriend.

    Now admittedly I’m very good at getting girlfriends. Far better than upwards of 90% of other guys (by my own estimation) but thats kind of like a women saying she is very good at attaining ONSs.

    It means absolutely nothing.

    Put simply, I’ve never received any form of validation wrt attraction but literally tons into my work mule dad potential. Yeah…

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

      “Believe it or not, most women don’t feel validated and flattered by an offer for a ONS.”

      Believe it or not, most men don’t feel validated and flattered by an offer for a LTR.

      Exactly.

      Women want men to weigh their attractiveness of all fronts – looks, character, intelligence. Your saying we’re hot and you don’t care about anything else gives us a frowny face. :( We hate it that you decide in 5 seconds whether you like us or not. Why can’t you approach attraction like we do?

      Men want women to think they’re super hot looking, period. Our saying you’re funny, or smart, or a good man instead of focusing on your body bums you out. If we don’t want to rip your clothes off in the first two minutes, it’s a fail. Why can’t we approach attraction like you do?

  • Lokland

    @Cooper

    +1 to what JP said.

    Flaky girl isn’t even in the picture anymore.
    When was the last time you saw/spoke to her?
    Do you enjoy being used for attention?

  • Cooper

    not exactly what I was looking for

  • HanSolo

    http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/22/10799069-cdc-only-half-of-first-marriages-last-20-years?lite

    “Among women there was just a 52 percent chance that a first marriage would survive for 20 years, according to the report from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics. Men appeared to be slightly more successful, with a 56 percent chance of a first marriage surviving for two decades.”

  • HanSolo

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr049.pdf

    In 2006–2010, the probability of a first marriage lasting at least 10 years was 68% for women and 70% for men. Looking at 20 years, the probability that the first marriages of women and men will survive was 52% for women and 56% for men in 2006–2010. These levels are virtually identical to estimates based on vital statistics from the early 1970s (24). For women, there was no significant change in the probability of a first marriage lasting 20 years between the 1995 NSFG (50%) and the 2006– 2010 NSFG (52%) (Table 5). The remainder of first marriages that ended within a 20-year period were dissolved by divorce, separation, or rarely, by death. The remainder of first marriages that ended within a 20-year period were dissolved by divorce, separation, or rarely, by death.

    Apparently there’s some number of separation without divorce. The separations that never get back together may not technically count as divorce but would be qualitatively similar in the sense that the couple didn’t continue “together.”

  • HanSolo

    @INTJ and Megaman

    This link provides some interesting estimates on the percentage of all men that had divorced by a certain age.

    So, by age 55, 33.8% of men born between 1940-44 had been divorced at least once and 36.8% born btw 1945-49 had ever been divorced.

    All three groupings of men were over 30% by age 50.

    All four groupings of men were over 29% by age 45.

    All five groupings of men were over 25% by age 40.

    All six groupings were over 18% by age 35.

    So, although it may be true that ~20% of men are divorced at any given time, many of the younger men haven’t had time to get divorced yet. The findings here suggest that the odds of a man every getting divorced lie somewhere above 30%, though with less and less people marrying it could be possible for that to slip into the 20’s due to less married people to draw from.

    See Table 3.

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf

    _____________Born during these five year periods
    Percent ever 1940- 1945- 1950- 1955- 1960- 1965-
    divorced 1944 1949 1954 1959 1964 1969
    by age:
    35 years . . . . . . . . . . 18.7_22.1_22.8_21.2_20.3_18.3
    40 years . . . . . . . . . . 25.2_28.0_28.0_25.9_26.2
    45 years . . . . . . . . . . 29.1_31.7_31.8_31.2
    50 years . . . . . . . . . . 31.9_34.7_34.5
    55 years . . . . . . . . . . .33.8_36.8

  • HanSolo

    I’ll emphasize that these numbers were the percentage of ALL men (including never marrieds) that had ever divorced, NOT the percentage of men that had married.

  • HanSolo

    Those columns are for 5 year periods: 1940-44, 1945-49, 1950-54, etc.

    I should have put in some underlines to push the numbers over above their columns.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Fact: 80% of American men were married by age 40 in 2010. Almost 90% of college graduate males are married by that age.

    Assumption: More than 80% of those men are beta.

    Fact: The divorce rate for college grads is 17%.

    Conclusion: The vast majority of men are betas in intact marriages.

    When you take divorce into account then the conclusion would be safer to say around half of men are betas in intact marriages.

    Calculations:

    When you include the fact that about 25% of men have been divorced by age 40, that would take you from 80% down to 55% of men in first marriages.

    Then factor in how many men are in 2nd or third marriages–about 15% of men at 40 have been married at least 2x but these 2nd marriages have a 2/3 chance of divorce and 3rd marriages about 3/4 so it’s pretty safe to say about 5% would be in stable marriages (1/3 of the 15%).

    So that gets us up to 60% of men at 40 are married.

    Now, let’s assume that 5/6ths of men are beta. 83%, in agreement with what you assumed (>80%).

    60% * 5/6 = 50%

    See these links for my stats:

    http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-intelligent-divorce/201202/the-high-failure-rate-second-and-third-marriages

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

      @HanSolo

      When you take divorce into account then the conclusion would be safer to say around half of men are betas in intact marriages.

      Thanks for figuring that out. I love it when readers do the heavy lifting. :)

      OK, so half the male population is married betas. Can you now walk me through the proof that women don’t want betas?

  • HanSolo

    @JP

    “No, it’s just a case of Megaman using red herring data. It’s probably true that 80% of men haven’t been divorced – yet. The problem is many of these men not married yet or have only just been married. This is why the correct statistic to use is the divorce rate of first marriage.”

    I’m with INTJ on this one.

    Me too.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan, INTJ and Megaman

    I believe the term “college graduate” is usually used to refer to those with at least a bachelor’s degree. Is that how you understand the term?

    Wikipedia does.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor's_degree_or_higher

    In that, case about 30% of the US population are college graduates.

  • HanSolo

    @Megaman

    I’d like you to explain why the % of men “ever divorced” has remained ~20% since the mid-1990s, and probably wasn’t much higher when divorce rate started falling in the mid-1980s.

    Simple math. The numerator only contains those who were ever divorced while the denominator contains all men, including those who will someday divorce but haven’t yet. That is how the rate of first divorce can be much higher than the rate of ever divorced.

  • SayWhaat

    @ OTC:

    That’s your purview as an attractive younng woman. You don’t see all us invisible slobs who sat in a dorm night after night, year after year, playing cards, with only a tiny fraction of the guys getting laid. In other words, your friends are “cool”. Remember Sue’s statistic of something like 9% of college students getting any action?

    I’ll accept that my perception is biased from my experiences, but you don’t know just how many weirdos there are at NYU, and these same slobby, unattractive weirdos would regularly talk of ex-girlfriends and their hookups. If they could get sexual success, any guy can, as long as he’s in the right place. (NYU: Where Omegas Get Laid.)

    Also, I observed this dynamic in high school. If the guys didn’t get girlfriends, it was because they were following the faulty strategy of all competing for the highest-status girl. :P Seriously, me and the girlfriends who didn’t have boyfriends didn’t have Prom dates. We just went with the boys who didn’t ask us out as one big group of friends in a limo. Lame. -__-

  • SayWhaat

    @ Cooper:

    I’m so eager to take the firs thing that comes my wa, that I don’t think really even take into consideration who I like more, or whether or not I’m attracted enough long term. I seriously fear/feel I’m teatering …

    Cooper, I know it’s difficult, but believe me when I say that those girls are going to sniff this out and run away (unless they are interested in casual). You have options now, pursue them and then make an informed choice.

    If it helps, keep in mind that Sassy mooned over her Alpha ex-boyfriend for so long, and he was also a virgin when they got together.

    Above all, just don’t stick your dick in crazy.

  • OffTheCuff

    say: “and these same slobby, unattractive weirdos would regularly talk of ex-girlfriends and their hookups. If they could get sexual success, any guy can, as long as he’s in the right place. (NYU: Where Omegas Get Laid.)”

    I think you are witnessing either liars/exaggerators, people wallowing in their last success, or, maybe the type of guy who does have his head set properly.

    Maybe the freak is banging a fellow ugly freak, while you seem think this is a horrible crime and shouldn’t even happen (implied: even ugly people get laid!! Ewwwww!!!)? I think it’s a big stretch, though, to go from “some freaks get laid” to “all men easily get laid, including freaks”.

    But the topic is drifting. My point was about uncommitted relationships as being straightforward, if you understand game.

    Say: “Also, I observed this dynamic in high school. If the guys didn’t get girlfriends, it was because they were following the faulty strategy of all competing for the highest-status girl. Seriously, me and the girlfriends who didn’t have boyfriends didn’t have Prom dates. We just went with the boys who didn’t ask us out as one big group of friends in a limo. Lame. -__-

    I still think you have the blinders on and are just extrapolating from a small set of people. What about the people who didn’t go, and didn’t have big groups of friends?

    Theres lots of reasons for a man to be single, it’s silly to reduce them all down to “shooting out of your own league”. The reason is more often not taking risks, a large enough social circle, freedom from sexual shame, and having the balls to do it.

    It’s a bit cruel to say this, a bit like men saying “well, all the girls don’t have boyfriends because they’re such dirty sluts”. No, definitely untrue.

  • Bells

    @OTC, Saywhaat

    That’s your purview as an attractive younng woman. You don’t see all us invisible slobs who sat in a dorm night after night, year after year, playing cards, with only a tiny fraction of the guys getting laid. In other words, your friends are “cool”. Remember Sue’s statistic of something like 9% of college students getting any action?</blockquote

    This is so true. I remember one time my geekiest girlfriend took me to go play Dungeons and Dragons because I had always been curious about the game. And it was whole ‘nother level of nerdy geekiness that fully surpassed mine. It was mostly guys and a very small mix of girls. They were all really nice people. But I couldn’t say that they were getting a lot of action

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I wasn’t intending on offering proof about women not wanting betas. I just have a penchant for pointing out things that were overlooked.

    As long as we accept that ~83% of the males are betas and we know that most men marry by age 40 then most men who have ever married will have been betas.

    Now, that doesn’t mean that women want betas more than alphas, just that that’s who was available (since that’s >80% of men by our assumption) to them and who they chose.

    My guess is that women want to marry a man who is a mix of alpha and beta, likely with a higher portion of beta than guys they might consider for a fling or ONS if they were into considering casual.

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

      @HanSolo

      Now, that doesn’t mean that women want betas more than alphas, just that that’s who was available (since that’s >80% of men by our assumption) to them and who they chose.

      I knew you weren’t trying to prove a point, but that’s how the stats came up in the first place. My reasoning is that if women were not attracted to betas, they wouldn’t be reproducing with them. I don’t think it’s credible to suggest that women are “settling” with men they’re not in love with when they marry. If that were true, I would expect the divorce rate to be much higher and for female infidelity to be much higher as well.

      Also, alphas are available to the majority of women, at least on a short-term basis. And yet the majority of women do not pursue those ST mating opportunities.

      What I’m trying to get at here is that women are attracted to beta males. As you say:

      My guess is that women want to marry a man who is a mix of alpha and beta, likely with a higher portion of beta than guys they might consider for a fling or ONS if they were into considering casual.

      Few alphas are a mix of alpha and beta, so to get that mix, you must go for the beta.

  • JP

    @Cooper:

    “not exactly what I was looking for”

    We can help you more if you provide more information.

    Also, we can’t give you a high-five if we don’t know precisely what it is that you’ve accomplished.

    I recommend getting advice from Han Solo and then doing precisely what he tells you to do.

  • SayWhaat

    OTC,

    Maybe the freak is banging a fellow ugly freak, while you seem think this is a horrible crime and shouldn’t even happen (implied: even ugly people get laid!! Ewwwww!!!)? I think it’s a big stretch, though, to go from “some freaks get laid” to “all men easily get laid, including freaks”.

    You have a terrible tendency to put unkind words in my mouth, and then argue against points I never made. I am asking you to stop.

    I have NEVER held any attitude or made any comment regarding “freaks” banging other freaks. I am happy when people of any SMV find love.

    All I noted was the SMV of these boys, and their self-reported sexual success. Their stories go against the grain from what is reported here, but I have only offered them as anecdotal evidence, which is easily disproven by the statistics.

    Again, please stop mischaracterizing my comments for your own agenda.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Bells:

    My impression of the geek/nerd culture at my high school was that they got plenty of play, just within their own circles.

    The only kids not getting laid were probably the repressed Asian kids, of which I was a part, lol.

  • SayWhaat

    I have NEVER held any attitude or made any comment regarding “freaks” banging other freaks. I am happy when people of any SMV find love.

    To be clear, what I meant was that I have never thought unattractive people shouldn’t get laid. If unattractive people get laid with each other, well good for them. Assortive mating is good for a lot of reasons.

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

    @HS

    So, although it may be true that ~20% of men are divorced at any given time, many of the younger men haven’t had time to get divorced yet. The findings here suggest that the odds of a man every getting divorced lie somewhere above 30%…

    No, the statistic is ~20% of men have “ever been” divorced at least once, which hasn’t changed since the mid-1990s. Men who report being divorced and not currently married at any one time is ~10%, also stable over time. I think that’s relevant given that divorce rates have continued to decline during the last 20 years, and as Susan’s pointed out, “alpha” divorces are probably disproportionately represented.

    But you’re on the right track: I came up with ~39% for first marriages (61% success rate), which suggests that the projections are a bit off. That’s for the “average male”, and does not control for variables like age, race, SES, education, geography, religiosity, etc. The results do vary widely when those are taken into account, particularly since the divorce rate shot up from 1970-1980, and has been dropping since then.

    By mixing into the same pool those age cohorts that went through the divorce “apocalypse” period along with younger folks, I’m not sure how a divorce “projection” that seems skewed can be meaningful. We already know that Gen X had lower divorce rate than the Boomers. Who’s the say that Gen Y (and beyond) won’t have an even lower divorce rate? That certainly appears to be the long-term trend.

    In that, case about 30% of the US population are college graduates.

    Well, disregarding those who’ve earned 2-year associates degrees is a bit arbitrary IMO. The Census lists them separately, and those men undoubtedly have their own marital and SES outcomes. But my original point was that there is no “vast majority” of either college-graduates or non-college graduates (however defined). 40/60 is a pretty modest split, but even limiting it to bachelor’s degrees, the % of men who have one doubled from 15% in 1970 to 30% today. My guess is that kind of trend relates directly to the high marriage rate/low divorce rate combo Susan’s pointed out before.

  • OffTheCuff

    SayWhaat, it’s hard to hear “happiness” when you call people “slobby, unattractive weirdos”. It comes off as bitchy and contemptuous of people less fortunate than yourself. You may have not said exactly what I responded with, but it sure feels like you did… you know, speaking as one of those former slobby unattractive weirdos.

  • JP

    @OTC:

    “SayWhaat, it’s hard to hear “happiness” when you call people “slobby, unattractive weirdos”. It comes off as bitchy and contemptuous of people less fortunate than yourself. You may have not said exactly what I responded with, but it sure feels like you did… you know, speaking as one of those former slobby unattractive weirdos.”

    But nobody wants to be a slobby unattractive weirdo, even the slobby unattractive weirdos!

  • SayWhaat

    SayWhaat, it’s hard to hear “happiness” when you call people “slobby, unattractive weirdos”. It comes off as bitchy and contemptuous of people less fortunate than yourself. You may have not said exactly what I responded with, but it sure feels like you did… you know, speaking as one of those former slobby unattractive weirdos.

    The only reason I said that was to make the point that these were your under-average joes who were experiencing outsized sexual success, contrary to the many assertions made on this blog. What, is it suddenly un-PC to say someone is unattractive now?

    I was formerly an unattractive person too, and I have no qualms admitting it, either.

  • JP

    @SayWhaat:

    “The only reason I said that was to make the point that these were your under-average joes who were experiencing outsized sexual success, contrary to the many assertions made on this blog.”

    Yes, because they were having sex with unattractive people.

    Which gets back to my question as to how unattractive people can tolerate being in relationships with people as unattractive as they are.

  • SayWhaat

    Yes, because they were having sex with unattractive people.

    Which gets back to my question as to how unattractive people can tolerate being in relationships with people as unattractive as they are.

    Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. Point is, it’s easy for any guy to get laid these days as long as his head’s not up his ass.

    As for your question, the answer is most likely that they find each other attractive, despite what others think.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    I don’t disagree that women find the beta men attractive enough and some or many of them are even madly in love with them.

    Probably in the same way that most men do not marry highly beautiful women (not an exact parallel btw beta/alpha and beauty, I know) but still love their wives.

    For both, there might be some mixture of attributes that are more attractive or loveable than who they married but people can rarely get everything on a wish list they might want if there were an infinite supply of MMV=10 people.

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

      @HanSolo

      Probably in the same way that most men do not marry highly beautiful women (not an exact parallel btw beta/alpha and beauty, I know) but still love their wives.

      Yes, and are still highly attracted to them.

      For both, there might be some mixture of attributes that are more attractive or loveable than who they married but people can rarely get everything on a wish list they might want if there were an infinite supply of MMV=10 people.

      Exactly. There are no perfect mates. We all compromise. The question is whether we do so happily or resentfully.

  • HanSolo

    @Megaman

    No, the statistic is ~20% of men have “ever been” divorced at least once, which hasn’t changed since the mid-1990s. Men who report being divorced and not currently married at any one time is ~10%, also stable over time. I think that’s relevant given that divorce rates have continued to decline during the last 20 years, and as Susan’s pointed out, “alpha” divorces are probably disproportionately represented.

    I understand that the ~20% means ever divorced at that moment divided by the whole population. However, since men that have not yet had the “chance” to get divorced are part of the denominator it lowers the snap-shot number much lower than the the “eventual” divorce rate. And the eventual divorce rate is the more meaningful statistic (IMO) to look at (or project as accurately as possible) in terms of predicting eventual outcomes.

    But you’re on the right track: I came up with ~39% for first marriages (61% success rate), which suggests that the projections are a bit off. That’s for the “average male”, and does not control for variables like age, race, SES, education, geography, religiosity, etc. The results do vary widely when those are taken into account, particularly since the divorce rate shot up from 1970-1980, and has been dropping since then.

    Yes, that rate seems in agreement with the little bit of sleuthing I have done on it. Even in this paper that breaks it down by divorce by a certain age and 5-year bunching of birth year, you can see in Table 3 that about 40% of the ever-marrieds by age 50 were also ever-divorced by 55 for those men born in 1945-1949 (and, yes, 1.2 % of the men of that birth age got married for the first time btw 50 and 55). However, that rate may change as time goes forward and different generations reach that age.

    By mixing into the same pool those age cohorts that went through the divorce “apocalypse” period along with younger folks, I’m not sure how a divorce “projection” that seems skewed can be meaningful. We already know that Gen X had lower divorce rate than the Boomers. Who’s the say that Gen Y (and beyond) won’t have an even lower divorce rate? That certainly appears to be the long-term trend.

    I disagree that it’s skewed. For men it says 56% of their marriages will reach the 20-year mark without divorce, separation or, in rare cases, death. That means 44% are projected to end due to death, separation or divorce. Since some will die and separate but not divorce then that doesn’t seem too far off from a 39% or even slightly lower divorce rate. For women it’s 52% will reach 20 years, or 48% ending. The higher number ending for women is likely due to the fact that men die younger than women.

    Table 8 of http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf says that 86% of women and 87% of men from the 2006-10 period are likely to have divorced by 5 years after separation. Not sure what the number would be by 20 years but this study focused on people aged 15-44.

    Anyway, my point is that you take off a few percent from the 44% of men that won’t reach 20 years of marriage due to their wife dying or due to them separating but not ever divorcing and you’re down into the high 30’s range which seems pretty much in line with the number you found and the numbers I found in several articles. (I don’t buy the 50% divorce rate numbers since those seem to have been derived just by dividing the number of divorces by the number of marriages in a year or 5-year period.)

    One last point. Divorce rates seem to be holding steady, not necessarily continuing to go down.

    The National Marriage Project has recently published “The State of Our Unions Marriage in America 2012″ and it shows in
    Figure 5 on page 70 that their estimate of the divorce rate for 2011 was 20.9 amongst 1000 women, breaking the downward trend seen in the previous two decades (though the numbers up to 2000 didn’t
    include California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, and Minnesota so not strictly comparable but likely close enough to representative of the whole country). So, not enough to say an upward trend is emerging but more consistent with the rate being flat at around 20 per 1000 women over the last roughly 4 decades.

    http://www.stateofourunions.org/2012/SOOU2012.pdf

  • Iggles

    @ OTC:

    You may have not said exactly what I responded with, but it sure feels like you did… you know, speaking as one of those former slobby unattractive weirdos.

    You’re reading in this too much. SayWhaat’s comments were not a personal dig on you.

    @ SayWhaat:

    Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. Point is, it’s easy for any guy to get laid these days as long as his head’s not up his ass.

    I agree. If a guy relaxes his standards enough he find a willing sex partner.

    The same logic works in reverse for women. If she lowers her standard enough she will find a guy for a relationship. The problem is, neither of these scenarios are satisfying for the person who brings down their standards to what’s below their baseline standards for a partner.

    Sometimes the issue really is that a person’s standards are unrealistic (ex. An SMV 5 male whining that he can’t pull an SMV 8 woman for a ONS). Other times the person isn’t swimming in the right pond and may need to bother improve themselves and expand their dating strategy before gaining success with the type of men or women they want.

  • JP

    @SayWhaat:

    “I was formerly an unattractive person too, and I have no qualms admitting it, either.”

    Uh, you don’t just un-unatractivify unless plastic surgery is involved.

  • HanSolo

    @Megaman

    “No, the statistic is ~20% of men have “ever been” divorced at least once”

    In my original response to you, I said 20% divorced at any given time but I did have in mind the meaning ever divorced, even though some of those ever divorced are remarried and might not be counted as divorced-at-that-moment, though they do carry the “ever had a divorce” attribute.

    So, we were on the same page though I didn’t communicate that point clearly.

  • JP

    @Iggles:

    ” If she lowers her standard enough she will find a guy for a relationship. The problem is, neither of these scenarios are satisfying for the person who brings down their standards to what’s below their baseline standards for a partner.”

    And this is pretty much my point.

    When I was younger, I had the opportunity for plenty of relationships with people who I didn’t want to be in a relationship with.

    I had virtually no opportunity to be in a relationship with people I actually wanted to date, given that I only met about one such person a year, on average.

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

    @HS
    Thanks for the input. I looked more closely at that Census report (specifically, Table 6, Page 16):
    http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-125.pdf

    I broke out age cohort, % of men ever married once, and % of men ever divorced. This is a good illustration of how different generations have skewed that 39% crude divorce rate:

    As of 2009
    15-19: 2% ever married once, 15% ever divorced
    20-29: 26% ever married once, 11% ever divorced
    30-39: 63% ever married once, 23% ever divorced
    40-49: 66% ever married once, 43% ever divorced
    50-59: 63% ever married once, 56% ever divorced
    60-69: 65% ever married once, 56% ever divorced
    70+: 72% ever married once, 32% ever divorced

    intj said (paraphrasing): “There are some % of men who are married and haven’t divorced YET. They will, at the similar rates as older men have. That’s what the projections say.” I think your and Mr. JP agreed with that.

    Beyond the irony of taking that fellow seriously (i.e. preference surveys are all crap), I think projections can be useful. But they didn’t predict the divorce spike in the ’70s nor the divorce slump in the ’80s and ’90s.

    Bottom line question, I suppose: How do you know what % of currently married men *will* divorce in the future, and at what rate? Past behavior (i.e. the Boomers) doesn’t appear to be predictive of future behavior (of other generations). Given the way divorce rates have bounced around (and marriage rates have dropped in general), stating with certainty what the future probability of something is seems rather dicey…

  • HanSolo

    @Megaman

    Also, to be clearer it should read:

    around 20 divorces per 1000 MARRIED women (not all women)

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

    @HS

    One last point. Divorce rates seem to be holding steady, not necessarily continuing to go down.

    Right, I did see the lates SOOU report from the National Marriage Project. They also published a special report about the Great Recession, and how it’s discouraged younger people from marrying, divorcing, and starting a family:
    http://marriagewebinar.org/nmwdocs/NMP-GreatRecession_Final.pdf

    However, methinks this is another case of the Boomers mucking up the statistics. The divorce rate could remain relatively steady if it was going up for some folks and down for others. Case in point:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203753704577255230471480276.html

    I’ve pointed out the phenomenon of “grey divorce” in other discussions. The divorce rate for those 50+ appears to have doubled over the last 20 years, at the same time the overall divorce rate was falling…

  • HanSolo

    @Megaman

    It’s interesting to see the divorce rate so high for the 50-69 y/o cohort.

    Bottom line question, I suppose: How do you know what % of currently married men *will* divorce in the future, and at what rate? Past behavior (i.e. the Boomers) doesn’t appear to be predictive of future behavior (of other generations). Given the way divorce rates have bounced around (and marriage rates have dropped in general), stating with certainty what the future probability of something is seems rather dicey…

    Obviously, I don’t know, and projections are just that, the estimate based on some model that uses some data and it may or may not be good at predicting the future.

    However, I don’t think the predictions of 44% of male marriages resulting in divorce, separation or death of the spouse by the 20-year mark is unreasonable. Even there that is lower than the 40-69 y/o divorce rates you get from the link in your comment (and I’m assuming more than 2% of the 44% I’m talking about will be due to death or separation and not outright divorce).

    Given the 20.9 divorces per 1000 married women (http://www.stateofourunions.org/2012/SOOU2012.pdf), and that being pretty flat over the last four decades (though lower than in 1970, and not all the states being included up to 2000), I don’t think it unreasonable to project a mid-to-high 30’s % first-marriage-will-end-in-divorce rate going forward. Note, I’m not saying it’s certain, of course it could rise or fall beyond this range.

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

    @HS

    However, I don’t think the predictions of 44% of male marriages resulting in divorce, separation or death of the spouse by the 20-year mark is unreasonable. Even there that is lower than the 40-69 y/o divorce rates you get from the link in your comment.

    Honestly, beyond what we know about current divorcees, I have no idea if the 44% “breakup” prediction is all that accurate. Once the Boomers all pass away, maybe we’ll have some normalized data to work with (when I’m an old guy in 2050).

    My guess is the U.S. may have entered from 1990 of a period of lower marriage and divorce rates overall. Perhaps ~60% of the population will continue to marry, instead of 80-90% in the old days. Permanent cohabitation has been on the rise, though the breakup rates for that aren’t any better than marriage proper. And the arguments over money and custody of the kids make such arrangements “de facto” marriages anyway, especially in common law states…

  • SayWhaat

    @ JP:

    “I was formerly an unattractive person too, and I have no qualms admitting it, either.”

    Uh, you don’t just un-unatractivify unless plastic surgery is involved.

    How about some really serious dental work? Haha, when I was watching some old home videos with my family and we caught a glimpse of my train-wide gap-toothed smile, my dad joked that he should have paid my orthodontist even more money.

    I also have some unusual features that I didn’t grow into until I was basically an adult.

    I had virtually no opportunity to be in a relationship with people I actually wanted to date, given that I only met about one such person a year, on average.

    Haha, that’s actually really similar to myself! And same for another one of my (male) friends. I wonder how many others only go through one crush/year…

  • HanSolo

    @Megaman

    Yeah, it will be interesting to see what happens in another 10 or 15 years as the baby boomers will have largely moved out of the age range where divorces happen at a high % and what the gen-x and y’s will be doing as more time will have accumulated to see more fully what their divorce patterns are.

  • JP

    @SayWhaat:

    “Haha, that’s actually really similar to myself! And same for another one of my (male) friends. I wonder how many others only go through one crush/year…”

    Well, I’m certain that half of my problem was my initial requirement that the girl essentially had to be intelligent, preferably in the top 1% of human intelligence.

    So 99% of the public got thrown out immediately.

    When you start with that requirement, and then require a certain level of attractiveness, emotional stability, morality etc., you are looking at a very small population.

    So, there were a total of about 3 to 5 people who I was willing to actually date in high school/college, if memory serves.

  • JP

    @Megaman/Han Solo:

    Isn’t the problem that the wrong people are getting married to each other for the wrong reasons most of the time?

    There are a number of examples that I’ve seen, including my own father, which was fun (there’s a boomer 3-year marriage and auto-divorce to add).

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

    @JP

    Isn’t the problem that the wrong people are getting married to each other for the wrong reasons most of the time?

    It’s funny, but when I hit adulthood (don’t remember when), I observed that some people who aren’t very good at marriage will often try it out and consequently give it a very bad name. It’s very easy to tie the knot, and almost as easy to cut it.

    I also met quite a few folks back in college who damned the institution merely because of it’s worst offenders. They were typically on the Left, but I’ve not heard much from them since the Gay Marriage movement really took off. Anyway, that’s probably why a lot of younger couples prefer permanent cohabitation. Kind of like curing the disease by killing the patient, even though the risk of breakup is really no different.

    For all the bellyaching @ HUS about how many men are divorced and how often, it’s really a moot point. Statistics don’t apply to individuals, and nobody *has* to get married. Just make that clear to anybody you’re seriously dating. Common courtesy…

  • SayWhaat

    The same logic works in reverse for women. If she lowers her standard enough she will find a guy for a relationship. The problem is, neither of these scenarios are satisfying for the person who brings down their standards to what’s below their baseline standards for a partner.

    Sometimes the issue really is that a person’s standards are unrealistic (ex. An SMV 5 male whining that he can’t pull an SMV 8 woman for a ONS). Other times the person isn’t swimming in the right pond and may need to bother improve themselves and expand their dating strategy before gaining success with the type of men or women they want.

    +1, Iggles! :)

  • HanSolo

    @JP

    Yes, that is a problem. A possible explantion could be that in the assortive days of yesteryear people got married sooner and just found someone good enough but often times not ideal. Due to lower expectations, lower life expectancies and greater belief in and need to stay married, they did.

    Then once divorce became easier and less stigmatized many of these marriages that would have lasted before ended in divorce.

    Not sure if people are choosing better today but I suspect they are to some degree, though it’s likely that lower class people are choosing more poorly and less well suited to avoiding divorce for a variety of reasons.

    Also, perhaps some of the people that would have gotten divorced had they married are simply cohabiting these days so that lowers the divorce rate.

  • Abbot
  • Ted D

    I’m fairly certain the declining divorce rate (if it is declining) can easily be attributed to the decline of marriage and increase in cohabitation. I personally know of two couples together for years (one with children) that are not and will not be getting married. They firmly believe in monogamy and the concept of marriage like relationships, but also firmly believe the government has no business being involved in thier personal lives,

    I also imagine they make out in taxes by filing separate, and I know the couple with kids always cleans up because she claims them, and isn’t making enough on her own to worry about not getting a good return anyway. We just filed our taxes, and its seems my wife and I make too much money for Uncle Sam to leave it in our care. Funny, we make just about the same as that unmarked couple with kids, but because we have a piece of paper from the Fed saying we are married, we don’t get to keep as much of it…

    And we wonder why people aren’t getting married.

  • HanSolo

    @Susan

    Upon further reflection, the easiest way to calculate the % of men that are married betas is to just take the % of men that are married and multiply by the ratio of married men that are betas.

    married men 18+: 53%
    assumption of beta % of all men: 5/6 or 83.3%

    If betas and alphas are equally likely to be married then you have 53%*.833= 44% of adult men are married betas, or you could say, a vast minority of men. ;)

    (And yes, I’m going to tease you, INTJ and Megaman about the word ‘vast’)

    If you said no alphas are married (obviously wrong) you’d have 53% of adult men are married betas, a non-vast majority, or roughly a vast half.

    If you said betas were 2x as likely as alphas to be currently married (still too high IMO but who knows so let’s look at it for fun) you’d have 48% of adult men are married betas, definitely a vast minority.

    So, in any reasonable ratio of alpha to beta being married then only a vast minority of men are married betas.

    Of course you could put in more qualifiers to say men over 25 or something and the %’s would rise.

    Most married men are betas is true by simply assuming that most men are betas and that they marry at a sufficient rate.

    Most men are married betas is not a true statement. It really does appear to be a vast minority of men are married betas.

    Calculations to get 53%:

    In this link we find that 51% of all Americans 18+ were married in 2010.

    http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are-married-a-record-low/

    From another link we see that the % of women married is 2% less than the percentage of people

    http://www.prb.org/Articles/2010/usmarriagedecline.aspx

    Based on the numbers of adult men and women found here we find that the percentage of married men 18+ is 53%

    http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf Table 2

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

      @HanSolo

      Most men are married betas is not a true statement.

      How about most married men are betas?

      Or most married betas are men?

      Honestly, the only point I was trying to make is that women fall in love with and marry betas. It seems astoundingly obvious, and yet I get a lot of pushback here on that claim.

  • HanSolo

    Yes, I do agree with those formulations and that women do fall in love with and marry betas.

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

    @HS

    Of course you could put in more qualifiers to say men over 25 or something and the %’s would rise.

    Therein lies the rub. How about just ages 20+? Teenagers marry at an extremely low rate, and I really wouldn’t consider them adults. I found this breakdown by age groups, it’s pretty detailed:
    http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_3YR_S1201&prodType=table

    You might want to re-run your numbers a little. By my count, we’ve got 56.8% of men aged 20+ currently married. I can’t quibble much with your statement that most adult men aren’t “beta” and married at the same time. Susan may have literally overstated that, but I think that’s just splitting hairs. Considering cohabitation is replacing marriage to some degree, wouldn’t a better question be: what % of men are “beta” and in stable, intact, presumably good relationships?

    See Table 2, Page 26 for cohabitation rates:
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_028.pdf

    It might make sense to include these non-married guys in the equation. Also, let’s make a modest assumption that, in addition to those currently cohabitating, there is some % of men who are exclusively dating women they intend to move in with or marry. I can easily get to ~70% of men by taking those factors into account.

    Not suggesting your goal is to shrink the numbers, nor is mine to inflate them. Just trying to get to the heart of the matter. I wouldn’t put it past mr. intj, though, since he’s shown such a strong contempt for objective reality in the past.

  • HanSolo

    Yeah, I think throwing cohabiting into the numbers make sense.

    If you’re wanting to know stable relationships then you could throw in non-cohabiting reln.s that last over a year or two.

    I was mostly just being playfully sassy with Susan in pointing that out, and I have a bad habit of liking to point out things that have been misstated or overlooked.

    I consider people to be adults (men and women) once they’re 18, in spite of every sign of evidence they give to the contrary. I guess it’s just part of my attitude that society pampers teens and children way too much and doesn’t expect anything of them most of the time when they are actually much more capable. 100+ years ago people were largely expected to act like adults once they were ~18. I don’t see why they couldn’t today except that no on expects them too. I think children are so spoiled and coddled today (look at how many toys the typical child gets today compared to 100 years ago and how kids had to help out back then with chores and stuff to help the family farm or business). I’m not saying that children should be sent into the mines or similar. I just hate the assumption that they can’t or shouldn’t be responsible and contribute and so a lot don’t.

  • Ted D

    Sure they fall in love with betas. The question is, how many of them stay in love with those betas for a lifetime? No one doubts women do fall in love with betas, some of us just highly doubt that the attraction will last a lifetime since divorce is a readily available option.

    The problem is, falling in love with a beta is pretty easy. After all, they are nice, safe, dependable guys. But, how hot will you be for that dependable guy in 10 to 15 years when he doubles down on “nice” and gets a beer gut? That is the point when alpha traits are what pulls it through. A beta with a beer gut can do just fine IF he is still interesting enough. How that is accomplished is largely a matter of taste for a man. A little bit of asshole? Sure. A bit of cocky/funny and wise guy? Some women love it! Master of his craft and/or expert in his field? There are tons of women that claim to love intelligence.

    Notice most of those attributes would largely be considered alpha traits/behaviors. It is not the beta building raw attraction. And I think we can all agree that love and attraction do not necessarily match. Over time, love without attraction between a man and a woman will often dwindle, and resentment and bitterness come to overshadow what love is left. This is why I say that when it comes to attraction for the long haul, it is the alpha that keeps the spark alive. I fully believe that my ex loved me when she left, and I know she loves me now. (I am the father of her children and a fluffy bear…), but without attraction love just isn’t enough for many/most people.

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

      No one doubts women do fall in love with betas, some of us just highly doubt that the attraction will last a lifetime since divorce is a readily available option.

      But alphas have a much higher divorce rate.

      But, how hot will you be for that dependable guy in 10 to 15 years when he doubles down on “nice” and gets a beer gut? That is the point when alpha traits are what pulls it through. A beta with a beer gut can do just fine IF he is still interesting enough.

      Oof, I can see why this strategy may appeal to men, but I would much rather have my husband remain interesting and fit throughout, not adding in a beer gut and cocky behavior. Gross.

  • HanSolo

    @Megaman

    That cohabiting table is interesting. For men aged 25-44, 59.1% are married and 10.1% cohabiting for 69.1% total.

    Obviously, some of those 59.1% married haven’t yet had the “fortune” of getting divorced yet! ;) lol And some of the 40.9% haven’t yet married. Notice how many of the cohabits seem to turn into marriages as you go from 25-29 to 30-34 (not saying they all do) and then the marriage % drops after 40.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    Good to see you Ted.

    Yeah, the mix of alpha and beta is where it’s at. Most men have too much beta and a few too much alpha. So, balancing things out as much as possible where one is lacking is key.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted

    I should say, most American men have too much beta.

    In Latin America, I think there are too many wanna-be alphas or would be players/cheaters so they could use more beta to keep the marriage going (and not cheating would help!).

    I won’t call the wanna-be alphas outright alphas because part of being alpha is suceeding at it and having that dominant frame in whatever your social group is.

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

    @SW

    Honestly, the only point I was trying to make is that women fall in love with and marry betas. It seems astoundingly obvious, and yet I get a lot of pushback here on that claim.

    Arrogance and self-awareness seldom go hand in hand.

    Perhaps we could leave the subhuman betas alone for a change, and ask the obvious question: What’s the “alpha” divorce rate? Or rather, what % of divorces can be attributed to “alpha” type behavior? Would anybody here like to take up that homework assignment?

  • HanSolo

    But to even start on that you’d have to define alpha and beta and there never seems to be a good definition that is sufficiently agreed on. They’re more useful as broad categories.

    But, I suppose you could list some attributes that are different that seem to be beta and alpha, that have been measured or reported in people, and see what is found.

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

    @HS

    But to even start on that you’d have to define alpha and beta and there never seems to be a good definition that is sufficiently agreed on.

    That’s an excellent point. It begs the questions as to why the whole alpha/good vs. beta/bad playground mentality continues to persist around here. It isn’t because of the ladies, and you’d think their preferences would hold some weight, considering this is a female-oriented blog.

    Frankly, I don’t think some of the boys would particularly like the results of an inquiry into the nature and prevalence of “alpha” divorce, confirmation bias being what it is.

  • HanSolo

    Well, the truth is that most women like a mixture of alpha and beta traits. That’s what most romance fiction is about, the woman who can inspire the aloof and haughty “alpha” to become beta for her and thus have that perfect mix.

    I think that most of the men (myself included) have had pasts where they were too “beta” in the sense of pedestalizing women and being too needy or too pushover-y. Most of us say we were taught to be that way in one way or another and some aspect of it is also just innate.

    So, since most of the men have enough beta already they need to focus on bringing out their alpha traits more to achieve a better balance. That’s likely why you have a guy like Ted talking the way he does about being more alpha (though he fully acknowledges that beta is needed too).

    Of course, some ‘sphere types take that too far and try to kill the “beta” and become pure narcissistic alphas (as opposed to virtuous alphas).

    As to who comments here and whose ideas have more sway, well, it’s a semi-free market and for whatever reason Susan built this field of dreams for the female non-players and it has tended to attract more male commenters, of both the player and non-player persuasion.

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

      I think that most of the men (myself included) have had pasts where they were too “beta” in the sense of pedestalizing women and being too needy or too pushover-y. Most of us say we were taught to be that way in one way or another and some aspect of it is also just innate.

      I think it was Vox who said that most men can benefit most from getting rid of the anti-Game. Seriously, just losing the unattractive behavior will land most men in territory where they can get someone of similar SMV to their own. It isn’t necessary to go from supplicating to douchebag, and in fact that will filter out relationship-oriented women anyway.

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

    @HS

    I think that most of the men have had pasts where they were too “beta” in the sense of pedestalizing women and being too needy or too pushover-y.

    Yes, I’ve heard that story from a number of regulars. But those are personal problems, which required self-improvement of some kind.

    What doesn’t logically follow from that, is this generalized disdain for caricatured “beta” men and their characteristics. The need to believe that women treat them like garbage, take them for granted, don’t really want them, yet marry them anyway, and divorce them en mass, etc. It’s mostly a fairytale, with little evidence to support it; in fact, there’s a great deal of data to refute it, as Susan’s pointed out time and again.

    I don’t see what’s accomplished by putting down or dismissing millions of men who are doing just fine with their wives and GFs. They’ve balanced things quite well, whether they’ve consciously done so or not (I know I haven’t). If there really is a concern around here about men and divorce in general, then getting to the truth seems pretty straighforward: Is divorce being driven by too much “alpha” behavior, too much “beta” behavior, or by something else entirely? Some depersonalization on the issue might help, too.

  • Lokland

    @Mega

    I stand corrected. Betas are outbreeding quizzles.

    ——

    @Mega, HS

    The problem with the alpha/beta debate is that its being defined entirely differently by the woman vs. the men.

    If alpha is hot and beta is comfort traits, woman want a hot man who has comfort traits.
    The men here (myself included) who had problems prior had lots of comfort traits and not hot traits and upon subsequent addition of hot traits managed success. Its also obvious that hot traits alone can work on a short term frame.

    Beta traits are not able to stand alone and are only necessary in long term relationships.

    So when I use the term beta, I think of my pathetic teenage self, not the man I am now (which is also not alpha).

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “How about most married men are betas?”

    No. There is a major difference. One is a high percentage of marriage/children and happy life. The other is a less than 50% chance. Big difference.

    “Honestly, the only point I was trying to make is that women fall in love with and marry betas. It seems astoundingly obvious, and yet I get a lot of pushback here on that claim.”

    Yes but most betas are not married. So there must be something separating those who are married and those who are not (and its not beta traits which are shared).

    Note: I’m ussing Hans original analysis which I may have misinterpreted.

  • Ted D

    MM – “What doesn’t logically follow from that, is this generalized disdain for caricatured “beta” men and their characteristics. The need to believe that women treat them like garbage, take them for granted, don’t really want them, yet marry them anyway, and divorce them en mass, etc. It’s mostly a fairytale, with little evidence to support it; in fact, there’s a great deal of data to refute it, as Susan’s pointed out time and again.”

    What can I say. Stats are nice and all, but being on the receiving end of the scenario above, I find it hard to simply overlook it because it is statistically insignificant. Happened to me, and happened to scores of men I know through work and social circles. Maybe it isn’t the majority, but as we’ve pointed out the “vast minority” is still a lot of people.

    Susan – “Oof, I can see why this strategy may appeal to men, but I would much rather have my husband remain interesting and fit throughout, not adding in a beer gut and cocky behavior. Gross.”

    Ahh but Susan, here is the rub. I was told growing up that looks didn’t matter, because what was important was on the inside. After I married, I honestly figured I didn’t need to focus so much energy on “being attractive” because the only reason to BE attractive is IF you want to attract someone. Once I married, I figured my job was to NOT attract female attention as much as possible to minimize any temptation on my part, and because I believed only “bad” men enjoyed IOIs from women that weren’t their wives. So, I put full effort into work and family, and let go of all the “interesting” stuff in my life. Not all at once, but my ex chipped away at all of it little by little, until I found myself left with nothing other than her and my kids. No hobbies, no outside interested other than work, and few friends that I talked to. I believed I was supposed to give up my own life for the family, and I did it in stellar fashion.

    To be fair though, I intended to stick with my ex regardless of things like weight gain, which we were both very guilty of. I may not have been attracted to her near the end, but I would have stayed with her IF we could have found some agreement to work with, mostly because I didn’t want my children to be a divorce statistic. In the end, we both agreed we couldn’t stay together for another decade without some feeling of attraction, and neither of us were willing to “open up” the marriage to attempt some kind of fix. We were both repulsed by the idea actually.

    So I get that women want their men to remain “interesting”, but many men (at least from my age bracket?) were taught that their task in life was to sacrifice for their family, and at least some of them took that to mean cutting out anything from their lives that did not directly benefit the family as a group. I basically stopped living for me completely, and saw myself as the workhorse of my family, destined to be a paycheck and a presence in the household until the kids struck out on their own. After that? I wasn’t sure what my purpose would be, but now I’m pretty stoked that our children will be out of HS in 6 years. I feel like there is a light at the end of the tunnel finally, and Lord willing I’ll have a chance to live life for me a few years before I kick the bucket. I’ve already told the kids not to expect much inheritance (unless something drastically changes by the time I die) because I’m planning on spending everything I have before I go. Gotta get as much life in as I can with the remaining time left, and it’s now a bit of a race. LOL

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

    @HS

    100+ years ago people were largely expected to act like adults once they were ~18. I don’t see why they couldn’t today except that no on expects them too.

    Hey, I’m all for lowering the drinking age to 18 (to match voting rights) provided young people that age cease relying upon their parents for room, board, automobiles, and college tuition. Worked for me, for the most part, though my personal spending was quite limited. :shock:

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

    @Loks

    If alpha is hot and beta is comfort traits, woman want a hot man who has comfort traits. Beta traits are not able to stand alone and are only necessary in long term relationships.

    I’d only observe that, provided you want to remain married for life, those comfort traits all by themselves become infinitely more important in a marriage, say past the age of 60. “Hot” doesn’t seem to be at the top (or close to the top) of any married couples’ list later in life IMO…

  • Ted D

    MM – “I’d only observe that, provided you want to remain married for life, those comfort traits all by themselves become infinitely more important in a marriage, say past the age of 60. “Hot” doesn’t seem to be at the top (or close to the top) of any married couples’ list later in life IMO…”

    Surely. But the trick is staying married until then, as it seems in my circle the “sweet spot” for divorce is in the 30’s and 40’s, strangely enough when the kids tend to get to late gradeschool or further in age. I’d say “hot” is near the top of the list for couples well into the 40’s. Now I’m not suggesting everyone wants their husband/wife to be an underwear model, but I believe that being sexually attracted to your spouse IS an important facet for many couples well into the 40’s and 50’s.

    Beta guys can get married obviously. The question is, do they STAY that way, and exactly how happy ARE those marriages that last? Just like everyone likes to point out that the “good old days” probably weren’t so good for many couples, I highly doubt that all married couples today are doing well. I’d still be married to my ex if we could have come to an agreement of some sort, but I can say with all assurance it would NOT have been a “happy” marriage. One of the guys I directed to MMSL said that if the economy wasn’t so bad, he might have left his marriage already. Instead he intended to just stick it out until if/when things improved economically. I suggested that if he was staying anyway, he might want to attempt to improve things. *shrug*

    The primary point is simple: beta traits are not raw sexual attraction triggers. If a man is happy with a lukewarm or worse sex life, then he can try to skate by on beta all he wants. IF he is lucky, his wife won’t bail on him for wussing out. If a man wants a marriage with something more exciting in the bedroom, he will have to bring out the A-game (alpha traits) to some extent and drum up his wifes excitiment level. Reactive desire dictates that in most cases it is the man that sets the sexual pace in a relationship, and if all he is doing is tossing out beta comfort, there just isn’t anything for his wife to react to in order to get sexually charged and anxious to engage. I tried all beta all the time, and it was a HUGE failure. Just six months after we split, my ex came sniffing around for a reconciliation. Why? Because now that I was off my ass and working hard to be a better man, I became MUCH more interesting to her. She never stopped loving all that beta comfort, it just wasn’t enough to keep her interested in anything OTHER than comfort. And no matter how you slice it, comfort just isn’t sexy.

  • SayWhaat

    I stand corrected. Betas are outbreeding quizzles.

    Woo-hoo! :D

  • Ted D

    Lokland – “I stand corrected. Betas are outbreeding quizzles.”

    In specific geographic locations that is NOT the case. Not by a long shot. But I am glad to hear that outside my local and some other specific locations perhaps things aren’t looking so bad. I’m sure Detroit has more than its fair share of quizzle births.

  • Ted D

    ““Honestly, the only point I was trying to make is that women fall in love with and marry betas. It seems astoundingly obvious, and yet I get a lot of pushback here on that claim.”

    Yes but most betas are not married. So there must be something separating those who are married and those who are not (and its not beta traits which are shared). ”

    Susan – the problem is that you seem to be concluding that these women are falling in love based solely on the beta qualities of their mates. I think it is more likley that they do fall “in love” with those beta traits, but what really gets them interested and “on the hook” is whatever alpha trait(s) he has that she digs. Even the lowest beta/delta has it in him to act alpha, and many manage to BE alpha in their own environment (ala situational alpha thugs). I honestly believe that although beta traits may very will bring out a woman’s natural instinct to nurture and love a man, they WILL NOT make him sexually attractive to her, and if the balance swings too far into beta territory she will actually LOSE attraction for him because of it.

    Beta is simply not what stirs sexual attraction. Is there any woman here that can honestly say watching their husband do dishes turns them on? Does watching him sweep the carpet get you hot and bothered? Sure, I can concede that some beta traits are attractive: being good with kids comes to mind, but it makes perfect bioligcal sense IF a woman’s goal is to have and raise healthy kids to see a man with kids and think “that’s kinda hot”. But, is that even an indication of that man’s hotness? Often not, because what the woman sees in her minds eye is a man SHE FINDS ATTRACTIVE being good with kids, and she gets a little tingle. Attraction MUST be first, and contrary to your belief, I am fairely confident that love CAN exist without attraction in a marraige. Those folks live more like close room mates than lovers, and for some it is a good lifestyle. But not something I would be at all interested in, at least not for a few more decades…

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

      @Ted

      Susan – the problem is that you seem to be concluding that these women are falling in love based solely on the beta qualities of their mates.

      Au contraire, I have always been clear about the necessity of a mix of alpha and beta traits.

      I think it is more likley that they do fall “in love” with those beta traits, but what really gets them interested and “on the hook” is whatever alpha trait(s) he has that she digs.

      By “on the hook” I’m not sure if you mean anxious – if so, I agree. If you mean fully committed, then you are wrong – it’s the beta traits that qualify a man for LTR.

      if the balance swings too far into beta territory she will actually LOSE attraction for him because of it.

      True. But too far a swing into alpha territory will have the same effect. I suspect far more divorces are caused by this than the swing into beta territory. Infidelity, abuse, and failure to provide or behave responsibly are the most common causes of divorce, and those are alpha sins.

      Beta is simply not what stirs sexual attraction. Is there any woman here that can honestly say watching their husband do dishes turns them on?

      Enjoying housework is not a beta trait.

      Attraction MUST be first, and contrary to your belief, I am fairely confident that love CAN exist without attraction in a marraige.

      I never said otherwise. Helen Fisher describes the three stages of love: lust, attraction and attachment.

      Humans are capable of these three separately, or even concurrently with several people. (Though it is not possible to be in love with more than one person.) Being “in love” is impossible without attraction, though couples may love each other in an attachment way without it. However, Fisher has found in her research that many couples who have been together for many years still have an “in love” feeling for one another. My husband and I do – no reason to think you won’t also.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue: “I think it was Vox who said that most men can benefit most from getting rid of the anti-Game. Seriously, just losing the unattractive behavior will land most men in territory where they can get someone of similar SMV to their own.”

    It might have also been Vox, but I’m positive I’ve said that success is more like 80% dropping anti-game, 19% frame control and maybe 1% specific tactics… the latter of which women and asserted hater think comprise all of Game.

    Understand what the stupid things are, then, don’t do stupid things. Stand your ground. That’s really it.

    Sue: “It isn’t necessary to go from supplicating to douchebag, and in fact that will filter out relationship-oriented women anyway.”

    Yes and no. First, what one woman finds douchbaggy another will find asseritive, and what one find supplicating, another might find loving. Even relationship-oriented women. On top of that, merely being assertive often FEELS like being a douche to a man who has spent their entire life following authority. On top of that again, women are FAR more punishing for too much supplicaton than douchiness, despite their complaints, so if one is to err, it’s on the side of too assertive. Much easier recovery,.

    So, when you give this sort of advice to men in general, while it is *sorta* true, but it often comes across as only thinking about yourself or women like you, and are missing out on how the man feels about his own actions, and the calibration bit entirely.

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

      @OTC

      So, when you give this sort of advice to men in general, while it is *sorta* true, but it often comes across as only thinking about yourself or women like you, and are missing out on how the man feels about his own actions, and the calibration bit entirely.

      Do you mean me specifically? Because I don’t give advice to men in general. Men who come to HUS as a primary source of advice on Game are seeing it through my lens, which is pro-commitment and anti-promiscuity. I’ve been very open about that.

      I agree with you about people having the whole spectrum of preferences, but I do not believe, based on the emails and comments from women I receive, that my readership leans toward the aggressive or highly assertive dominant male. Aside from the occasional feminist drive-by, I can’t recall any female other than Plain Jane claiming to be unrestricted.

  • SayWhaat

    Susan – the problem is that you seem to be concluding that these women are falling in love based solely on the beta qualities of their mates. I think it is more likley that they do fall “in love” with those beta traits, but what really gets them interested and “on the hook” is whatever alpha trait(s) he has that she digs.

    How long have you been reading, exactly? Susan has stated this same exact thing over and over and over and over and over AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

    It’s like she’s discussing 18th century literature and you keep squalling about the importance of knowing that “cat” begins with the letter “C”. It’s tedious.

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

      Susan has stated this same exact thing over and over and over and over and over AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

      I’m beginning to take this personally. With some people, nothing I say sticks. The mind is closed and bolted to any new information, yet there is niggling doubt, so the same points are made, the same questions are repeated ad infinitum.

      It is beyond tedious – I have better things to do with my time. It’s one thing to clue a new reader into what HUS is about, but honestly, the willful ignorance is extremely aggravating.

  • SayWhaat

    I don’t mean to be harsh on you, Ted. It’s just annoying when someone keeps rehashing ground we’ve covered a million times before.

  • Ted D

    SayWhaat – “I don’t mean to be harsh on you, Ted. It’s just annoying when someone keeps rehashing ground we’ve covered a million times before.”

    LOL but the point is, its NOT THE BETA that keeps her interested. It doesn’t matter if you or any woman “falls in love” with a man’s beta traits, they will NOT maintain or keep attraction long term. Saying “woman fall in love with betas is all find and dandy, but they generally do not stay attracted to betas without some alpha in the mix, which says to me that for most beta schlubs like me, it is ALPHA that is most important after removing all the “anti-game” behavior. (as a side note Susan, would it be possible to post about these anti-game behaviors? I’ve seen lots of men mention it, but not a whole lot in terms of actual traits to squash other than supplication and pedestalization of women)

    The think for me is that we keep pushing the meme “beta is enough” and I’m sorry but in most cases that simply isn’t true. Other than cads and players, no man needs to hear “be nice, be yourself” anymore. It is BS proven over the course of time that it is a losing bet. Most men (being that most men are indeed beta to some extent) don’t need help being awesome BF/husband material from a security and safety standpoint. Most of us got that down a long time ago. We need to hear “women do marry betas, but ONLY betas with some proven alpha traits will make it long haul in most cases, so up your game!”

    And, I’d say if Susan is trying to target college women chasing cads/players because they are lost, trying to sell them on “beta all the time” is a REAL losing bet. These women obviously like at least some of those “bad boy” traits, and talking her into settling for a safe guy without those traits to me is just setting them both up for failure. And for the quiet guy that really wants to find himself a vixen to ring up, he will simply need to learn to present something that will attract and keep such a woman.

    I would say that most guys want a robust and interesting sex life. I’d wager that younger guys than myself (20’s on down) want a LOT more of an interesting sex life, and women generally don’t do acrobatics while wearing heels in bed for a beta schlub. For that kind of responsive desire, a guy needs to bring a good bit of excitement to the table somehow.

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

      @Ted

      The think for me is that we keep pushing the meme “beta is enough” and I’m sorry but in most cases that simply isn’t true.

      WHO IS PUSHING THIS MEME? I don’t know what you are talking about, you are not listening, Ted!

      And, I’d say if Susan is trying to target college women chasing cads/players because they are lost, trying to sell them on “beta all the time” is a REAL losing bet.

      I’m not targeting them. That’s the point. I’ve said many times that I wish all the sluts of both sexes would just rut in the gutter and leave everyone else alone. I’m not about to waste my time preaching to the unrestricted. That’s hardwired, remember?

      I write this blog as a source of support for people seeking relationships. Sometimes women do come by and share their promiscuous histories, usually to confess feeling like damaged goods.

      Sassy is our token alpha lover. Can you name a single other female commenter who has not expressed and demonstrated a strong preference for beta guys?

  • SayWhaat

    LOL but the point is, its NOT THE BETA that keeps her interested. It doesn’t matter if you or any woman “falls in love” with a man’s beta traits, they will NOT maintain or keep attraction long term. Saying “woman fall in love with betas is all find and dandy, but they generally do not stay attracted to betas without some alpha in the mix, which says to me that for most beta schlubs like me, it is ALPHA that is most important after removing all the “anti-game” behavior.

    You keep arguing points no one is arguing. You are just arguing against what you want to hear, not what is actually being said.

    I don’t know what else to do at this point except bang my head on my desk.

    (as a side note Susan, would it be possible to post about these anti-game behaviors? I’ve seen lots of men mention it, but not a whole lot in terms of actual traits to squash other than supplication and pedestalization of women)

    Just read all of Cooper’s comments re: Ms. Flake.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “By “on the hook” I’m not sure if you mean anxious – if so, I agree. If you mean fully committed, then you are wrong – it’s the beta traits that qualify a man for LTR.”

    To be clear, “on the hook” to me means physically and sexually attracted. The passionate stuff, not the love stuff. And I’m saying that beta traits do not generally keep a woman physically attracted to a man. Key word PHYSICAL. Not “I want to have sex with this man because I love him SOOOooooo much” but “I want to have sex with this man because I love him and he is safe AND I can’t get enough of him because he is really hot!”

    “True. But too far a swing into alpha territory will have the same effect. I suspect far more divorces are caused by this than the swing into beta territory. Infidelity, abuse, and failure to provide or behave responsibly are the most common causes of divorce, and those are alpha sins.”

    That may well be the case in your ‘hood. But like I said, in my circles the vast majority of divorced men beta’d out massively and their wives got bored/itchy/whatever and bailed. I’ll concede that this may very well be a SES trait where the lower classes simply bail a lot. I think the stats have shown this is true, and despite having a nice white collar job, I am very much still a lower SES person based on my upbringing. NO amount of money will change my outlook on life. More likely I’d just end up on some TV reality show like “RedNeck millionares” or some such thing.

    “However, Fisher has found in her research that many couples who have been together for many years still have an “in love” feeling for one another. My husband and I do – no reason to think you won’t also.”

    I certainly hope so! Truth be told, I’m not very worried about this marriage failing for many reasons. First, this time there will be no doubling down on beta for me. I realize it has value, but its value to me isn’t what I used to think it was. Now, I just see beta as the setting for the play that is our marriage. The actual play though? That will consist of any number of things from vacation adventures to maybe me getting back into doing live gigs. I don’t really care to see the world, but the excitement is good for our marriage. I love playing live, but truth be told it’s a ton of work that I’d rather not necessarily get into right now. But, seeing me perform live is a huge turn on for my wife, and it comes with some extra benefits such as a little public preselection and perhaps a little show of expert skills.

    And lastly, why do you think I worry that the ‘in love’ feelings will subside? I’ve told you before, I have total faith in my abilities to be a great beta husband and father. What I’m worried about is the passion dying, and I’ve lived that once before. In fact, I’d say that if one or the other must dwindle (and I’m not saying it must happen) I think a little less love from my wife would be preferable to a little less passion. If I had to choose, passion is more important to me at this point in my life. I’ve had lots of love, and I hope to continue having it until I’m gone from this world. But the continued passion from a woman is what really drives me to try harder, dig deeper, and improve myself. Of course I hope to have both love and passion from my wife, but at least for now passion is of prime importance to me. Perhaps when I’m in my 60’s + I’ll appreciate that love much more, since passion won’t be the drive it used to be. LOL maybe I’m just making up for lost time. :P

    “Enjoying housework is not a beta trait. ”

    … So doing dishes is alpha? If that were the case, my ex would have been laying my like tile (as Athol likes to say) and clearly that didn’t happen. Keeping a good house is important, but it rarely illicits a strong sexual response from a woman. Now that being said, doing housework because your wife is working late CAN get you laid later IF you can throw in some type of initiation to that direction BECAUSE she can relax knowing the work is done. But pointing to those clean dishes and claiming it got you laid is probably missing the side of the barn with a cannon. Those dish pan hands simply aren’t physically attractive.

    “Aside from the occasional feminist drive-by, I can’t recall any female other than Plain Jane claiming to be unrestricted.”

    It doesn’t matter what they claim. How do they behave? If they are hooking up and/or chasing cads/players, then for all intent and purpose they are acting unrestricted and should be viewed as such IMO. I still claim to be a Catholic, but I know beyond all doubt that it is in name only.

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

      “Enjoying housework is not a beta trait. ”

      … So doing dishes is alpha? If that were the case, my ex would have been laying my like tile (as Athol likes to say) and clearly that didn’t happen. Keeping a good house is important, but it rarely illicits a strong sexual response from a woman.

      Doing housework in hopes of getting laid is Omega. I’d rank it even lower if I could.

      The female equivalent might be belting back Maker’s Mark and smoking a cigar in hopes that you’ll find that sexy. Maybe even pissing against a telephone pole.

  • Ted D

    SayWhaat / Susan – OK I’m done. You are missing my point but I suppose it really doesn’t matter. Keep on pushing for those beta traits and we can all just sit back and hope it works out.

    I think the thing you are missing is for guys, getting a woman to “fall in love” isn’t the end of the race. In fact, I’d say that is truly the beginning of the hard work to come. yeah, woman fall in love with betas every day. They also divorce betas every day. Falling in love is the easiest part of a relationship, because it generally just progresses as long as both parties are into it. But, 15 years later all that excitement is gone, and if there is nothing else to replace it, things might not continue on in blissful happiness.

    I think it is a disservice to tell men “woman love betas” because love isn’t a problem for betas anyway. ATTRACTION is the betas real issue, and “love” just doesn’t always provide enough of it in a relationship.

    “Just read all of Cooper’s comments re: Ms. Flake.”

    OK, point taken. But really, that stuff is more about the early stages of dating. What are the long-term anti-game behaviors men have that we should focus on? Examples: being TOO honest about your feelings (often seen as weak, whiney, and supplicating). Apologizing for things even if they aren’t at fault. (This is one I’ve seen a lot myself. anytime a wife gets upset hubby chimes in with “I’m sorry” even if she isn’t mad at him! Once upon a time I did the same sad as that is to say…)

  • OffTheCuff

    Perhaps advice wasn’t the best word. But statements of “men should/shouldn’t do X”, as you note is your pro-monogamy lens, will be taken by male readers as advice, indirect as it may be.

    I stay away from the “shoulds” and think more of “if you want X, then Y is how you get there”. I do realize this fundamentally different than your mission, but it least is *compatible* with it, so long as we are talking about monogamous MTR/LTRs.

    I have no idea what the hell PJ is. She claims to be poly under one identity, yet when someone called her on having multiple affairs, she angrily said something “you silly oversexed Americans just ASSUME I was having sex” under another. Nobody has any idea what she is, and she refuses to go on the record about anything of consequence, which is why nobody can really take any good points she makes seriously.

    Few women really are restricted here, other than maybe Ana, who will go on the record say casual is uniformly bad, whereas everyone else wants to keep that option open, which to me, puts y’all in the middle. And I’m actually a lot more restricted than people think, it’s even puzzling to me at times.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “I’m not about to waste my time preaching to the unrestricted. That’s hardwired, remember?”

    It could also be the result of a psychological wound or that magic interplay of genetics and environment.

    And speaking of environment, when you add *baby* to the mix, *baby* serves to lower testosterone levels.

    Meaning *baby* is literally a psychoactive pharmaceutical.

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

      Meaning *baby* is literally a psychoactive pharmaceutical.

      I recall that oxytocin high my husband had when our babies were born. That was an amazing time.

  • SayWhaat

    Few women really are restricted here, other than maybe Ana, who will go on the record say casual is uniformly bad, whereas everyone else wants to keep that option open, which to me, puts y’all in the middle.

    The fuck? Who the hell here wants casual? I know I would only be happy if casual was off the table for everyone.

    This blatant mischaracterization of female commenters is profoundly irritating.

  • OffTheCuff

    Relax, SayWhaat, you’re included on that the end too – note I said “few”. You need some beer or something.

    Remember, my definition of restricted is “put a ring on it”. If you’re just dating, or cohabitating, that’s more towards the middle. Remember how I was raised.

  • HanSolo

    @Megaman

    We know the divorce rate has been about 40%. Probably the boomers have contributed more than their fair share. Going forward we don’t know what the rate will be but anywhere from 35-40% is likely a reasonable guess. So, though not as dire as the 50% that often gets quoted, it’s still a big problem, assuming one views long-lasting marriage as a goal.

    Now, of the roughly 40% rate (or whatever number you prefer) of the last few decades what percent is due to the man being too “beta” (whatever that means) or the woman getting Eat-Pray-Love syndrome or feeling hypergamous and mistakenly thinking she’ll likely find someone better at 40, who knows?

    We know roughly 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women. Some of these will be for morally “legitimate” reasons like abuse or cheating of the husband. But others will be due to losing attraction or bad behavior on her part. Same thing goes for divorce initiated by men. Some will be due to his “bad” behaviour or wanting someone better and others will be due to the wife. A lot of all divorces likely had bad behavior by both and some were due to marriages where the people’s only fault was being incompatible.

    What percentage of divorces would we require to be due to things the ‘sphere focuses on so that it would be considered a large phenomenon? I would posit that if 25% of divorces were being strongly influenced by these factors then that would be enough. 25% of 40% would then only be (roughly) 10% of all marriages so one could say they’re not a widespread phenomenon but in terms of what’s causing divorce I would say it is.

    So, I don’t buy into the idea that most women are highly hypergamous, looking to divorce rape their husbands, or lose enough attraction and commitment to their husbands–so I think the ‘sphere overestimates the extent that it happens due to the congregating of people that those things really did happen to. However, it is my opinion that you perhaps underestimate the frequency it occurs (but this is just speculation on my part) and also underestimate the impact on the marriage and divorce market that a small % phenomenon can have.

    Regardless, I think there is a large (minority?) contingent of men (though this may only be 20% of all married men) that are acting too much like pussies and a large contingent (again, maybe 20% of married women?) of women that are too ball busting and hypergamous–not necessarily married to each other–and both those things causes problems in marriages. Of course, there are many other troubled marriages due to men and women being too violent (though the men can usually absorb the female violence without much pain or they feel they can’t report it due to macho attitudes or fear of shaming) or cheating or whatever.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Doing housework in hopes of getting laid is Omega. I’d rank it even lower if I could.

    The female equivalent might be belting back Maker’s Mark and smoking a cigar in hopes that you’ll find that sexy. Maybe even pissing against a telephone pole.”

    Yet I’ve known many men, myself included, that believed/believes that doing dishes should get them sex from their wives. In fact, the guy I was talking about earlier went into a tirade with me saying things like:
    “I go to work every day and bring home a paycheck, and she claims I don’t do enough? I work on the house, the cars, take out the trash. I’m doing everything I should be and it gets me nothing but grief!” His complaint is he believes he is filling the role of father and husband, and truth be told I agree. However, he is in NO WAY filling the role of “alpha stud” for his wife, and by that I mean he is doing absolutely nothing that will actually build her attraction for him. Instead, he keeps doing things that raise her ire more, and I recognize that behavior from my first marriage. Call it omega, stupidity, or whatever you want, but there are plenty of men (at least in my age cohort +/- 10 years) that feel completely cheated because they ARE doing what they believed was their job in the family, and getting no appriciation for it. Why? Because beta is not as attractive as alpha, and in a total lack of alpha situation beta attraction simply isn’t enough to run on long term.

    I am listening Susan, and I would even counter that THIS is the closest we’ve been to an agreement on the balance required from a man for long term success. I still think you put far too much importance on the beta side of the equation though, perhaps because you seem to be dealing with young women with an abundance of cads in their lives. Beta is absolutely crucial for a LTR, but it really isn’t where the vast majority of men should be putting their effort. What they have naturally is probably more than enough beta for a marriage.

  • SayWhaat

    Remember, my definition of restricted is “put a ring on it”. If you’re just dating, or cohabitating, that’s more towards the middle. Remember how I was raised.

    That’s assigning your own arbitrary definition, then. So then do sluts with N>60 who get married suddenly become restricted?

    You have to take into account the prevailing cultural norms. By your definition, the majority of women tend toward unrestricted, when we know that isn’t the case.

    Plenty of girls would like to have a ring, instead of going through an exhausting process of dating and filtering over an extended period of time until men in their age group reach the point of “settling down”.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    Being the provider and dedicated beta (without enough alpha) used to be a perfectly fine strategy to get a devoted wife, when women needed a provider to a greater degree than today.

    But due to women having much greater financial power than 50 or 100 years ago (thank technology and cheap energy for that) the market has changed. The value of a male provider is much lower compared to 100 years ago. Women likely adjusted to this sooner in behavior (even if they continued to teach the boys around them that they just needed to be good providers) and many men were slow to realize that what they were taught wasn’t the best strategy, even when they could see some (not all) women around them picking other more douchey or exciting men for sex, dating or marriage. Back in my church days, my strategy was I was going to be the nicest guy she ever knew and treat her the best and love her the most! lol Well, it was not a complete fail because there were some girls that were really into me but I was too picky back then. But any time I really liked a girl I went overboard and smothered them and killed their attraction for me. My gf of a year was the classic case where she would pull away and so I would buy flowers. Also, I didn’t escalate physically enough because only pervs did that in my mind.

    I think men really do respond to what it takes to get sex or a relationship (some never do of course) but it takes time for the collective realization of what works to build when you’re in a changing culture like we are.

  • Lokland

    @INTJ

    “This blatant mischaracterization of female commenters is profoundly irritating.”

    INTJ trait, if you won’t give your opinion upon why we are wrong or you disagree it is silent acceptance that what we are saying is correct.

    I’ve specifically (and consciously) tried and do ignore this because I realize sometimes my argument for Y simply doesn’t want to be dealt with.

    But if I say ‘All women want ONSs’ and no one disagrees with me I assume I am correct simply cause someone did not show me why I am wrong.

  • Lokland

    That was for Saywhaat.

  • Lokland

    @SW

    “Plenty of girls would like to have a ring, instead of going through an exhausting process of dating and filtering over an extended period of time until men in their age group reach the point of “settling down”.”

    I would like to provide anecdotal evidence that this is inherently not true.
    I picked my wife when I was mid-22ish (I think).

    I was fully ready to settle down in a serious marriage leading to LTR.

    I still got rejected 95% of the time.

    If what you meant to say was that women would prefer that the men they are interested in in their age group get ready to settle down I would agree.

    As someone who was cool with settling down early but lacked a large amount of interest I can assure you far more women would rather date around than settle with what is available in their age range.

    Note: I was not specifically looking for a wife, just a girlfriend where marriage was a potential option. I got it right fairly early on in my number of tries.

  • SayWhaat

    But if I say ‘All women want ONSs’ and no one disagrees with me I assume I am correct simply cause someone did not show me why I am wrong.

    Right, which is why I and others have pushed back on this when we can.

    If what you meant to say was that women would prefer that the men they are interested in in their age group get ready to settle down I would agree.

    Yes, that is what I meant.

  • Ted D

    HanSolo – “I think men really do respond to what it takes to get sex or a relationship (some never do of course) but it takes time for the collective realization of what works to build when you’re in a changing culture like we are.”

    I’m starting to think that this won’t be much of an issue for my boys and younger men still in school today. I think that guys in their 40’s and on down into the 30’s are the worst off in terms of trying to deal with changing norms, and honestly I’m not sure if there is much to be done about it. Some of us were raised by older parents/grandparents with “old fashioned values” for lack of a better term, and some of us raised by younger parents seem to have started down the path towards chaning to fit the times.

    From what I can see, there isn’t a lot of pedestalization going on from my boys or their friends. In fact, I’d say they have a much harsher view of women than I did even into my 20’s. They expect “bad behavior” from them, almost as if dealing with a bratty princess is just par for the course. That being said, they also seem to be MUCH better at dealing with the bad behavior, because by and large they ignore it. I’ve heard my stepson tell his girlfriend to “settle down” on more than one occasion, and she tends to listen. At that age I would NEVER have presumed to tell a woman how to behave for fear of being called a sexist biggot. He does it without a thought, and of course it usually works BECAUSE he assumes it is the correct thing to do.

    So maybe I have much less to worry about with regard to my kids, as it seems they are much better prepaired to deal with today than I am. But, that leaves a whole lot of men in limbo between the “provider” role and the “alpha stud” role. Most of the guys in that stage of life simply aren’t prepared to “man up” because they spent a large part of their lives trying to steer clear of such behavior. I’ve got high hopes for one guy in particular. He was a Marine, is in great solid shape for a mid-30’s dude, and has an IT job paying decent money. But he supplicates, whines, complains, and betas out to the max every single chance he gets. He completely swallowed the idea that being a ‘provider’ was all he needed to do for wedded bliss, and he is just learning how much that is no longer the case. We stopped inviting them over, because they often got into pissing matches and it was painful to watch. My wife came to me and asked if I was bothered by how badly this man’s wife treated him, and my reply was if it was me, I’d tell her to shut the hell up and pack her shit. She was happy to know she wasn’t the only one uncomfortable, but she also seemed pleased to know I wouldn’t even consider tolerating the behavior. Thing is, once upon a time, I DID tolerate it.

    He’s been reading the MMSL primer since last week. And we are supposed to meet up for beers and chat in the not too distant future. His attitude is already improving, which to me is a sign that perhaps the lightbulb is on. Now to see just how much backlash he produces when it all sinks in…

  • Lokland

    @SW

    “Right, which is why I and others have pushed back on this when we can.”

    I’m aware, hypothetical example.

    @Susan

    The problem you and Ted are having is that you do not agree upon the definition of beta. Beyond that your definition seems out of reach for quite a few men (majority, large minority?).

    Thats entirely fine but if your encouraging a mix of alpha-beta traits without taking into account the percentage of men that encapsulate those things (note not those who have the potential, which is irrelevant unless they change themselves) you can’t really expect a bunch of men who are not included to jump up and down a cheer you on.

    To the guy who is still not good enough your going to appear no different than the women chasing ONSs with McStud case either way he is still left out.

  • JP

    @HanSolo:

    “We know roughly 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women. Some of these will be for morally “legitimate” reasons like abuse or cheating of the husband. But others will be due to losing attraction or bad behavior on her part. Same thing goes for divorce initiated by men. Some will be due to his “bad” behaviour or wanting someone better and others will be due to the wife. A lot of all divorces likely had bad behavior by both and some were due to marriages where the people’s only fault was being incompatible.”

    It could be that men don’t like divorcing and therefore be passive-aggressive until his wife files.

  • SayWhaat

    It could be that men don’t like divorcing and therefore be passive-aggressive until his wife files.

    Yeah, this happens in dating too. He doesn’t want to be the bad guy, so he passive-aggressively stagnates the relationship until she breaks up with him out of frustration, leaving him free to pursue other pastures.

  • JP

    @Lokland:

    “Note: I was not specifically looking for a wife, just a girlfriend where marriage was a potential option. I got it right fairly early on in my number of tries.”

    I was still using the old assembly line process model.

    Where girlfriend —–> marriage as a matter of function.

    Granted, I was never interested in casual dating; I was only ever looking for permanent relationships, even as early as 7th/8th grade.

    I think my first attempt at a relationship/crush was 1st grade.

  • OffTheCuff

    Say: “By your definition, the majority of women tend toward unrestricted, when we know that isn’t the case.”

    Nah, I think they are in the low-middle to middle, and that’s “tending towards” being restricted, without actually being restricted. I admittedly don’t think the SOI runs *conservative* enough to handle how people truly behave on the restricted end.

    Someone can have a N of 20 and still be “restricted”, because the max time span is one year. One year??? That’s not very restricted in my book, if you have a new lover every year, and isn’t a “long term committed realtionship” in any meanigful sense.

    say: “That’s assigning your own arbitrary definition, then. So then do sluts with N>60 who get married suddenly become restricted?”

    Nah, the ring is necessary to, but not sufficient. According to the SOI, yes; personally, no. Such a person could have a score of 0 on all the questions except one or two, and thus think they’re restricted. I see them as middle because actions count more than beliefs.

    Restricted = marriage only, or close as possible to it, liftetime N well below median
    Low-Middle = sex only in LTRs (whatever L means)
    High-Middle = casual and LTRs are both fine
    Unrestricted = pretty obvious.

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

    @Loks

    I stand corrected. Betas are outbreeding quizzles.

    An off-hand comment, a bolt of lightning, a change of mind. What brought this on? :shock:

  • Lokland

    “An off-hand comment, a bolt of lightning, a change of mind. What brought this on? ”

    Research and a lack of supporting evidence.

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

    @Mr. (Happily Married) Ted

    What can I say. Stats are nice and all, but…

    You know, sometimes I think guys around here would be happy if there was evidence that things have gotten demonstrably worse. I’m sure it would be shouted from the highest mountaintop all year. Nothing more satisfying than saying, “I told you so!”, whether good or bad…

    I recall a very similar discussion along these lines with good ‘ol Herb. Paraphrasing his position: The fact that 90%+ of currently married men report being “pretty happy” or “very happy” doesn’t matter. Those facts don’t matter in these discussions whatsoever. I recall being labeled a weasel for daring to even bring them up.

    Took me awhile, but I finally realized why happily married guys don’t matter around here: it’s because they’re not commenting en mass on the internet and completely drowning out all the cynics…

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

    @Loks

    Research and a lack of supporting evidence.

    Superlative. You’re speaking my language!
    With so many young men in jail for long periods of time (in the U.S.), you’d think conjugal visits would’ve created a kind of juvenile delinquent pipeline into society. But apparently not, as even convict GFs don’t seem to be that stupid…

  • SayWhaat

    I admittedly don’t think the SOI runs *conservative* enough to handle how people truly behave on the restricted end.

    True.

    Restricted = marriage only, or close as possible to it, liftetime N well below median
    Low-Middle = sex only in LTRs (whatever L means)
    High-Middle = casual and LTRs are both fine
    Unrestricted = pretty obvious.

    I’m having trouble understanding the difference between “Restricted” and “Low-Middle” (though there is probably a very stark difference in highly religious circles). Otherwise, this makes sense.

  • Ted D

    Megaman – “Took me awhile, but I finally realized why happily married guys don’t matter around here: it’s because they’re not commenting en mass on the internet and completely drowning out all the cynics…”

    FWIW I am pretty damn happy, and I’d like to see more men in the same position. But as it stands, I’ve got two friends who’s marriages are on the rocks, and I’ve about had it with people telling these guys to keep on beta-maxing to “fix” things. Happily married guys aren’t very represented here or anywhere in the sphere, because if they are even wasting time on the ‘net, it’s probably for fantasy football or something sports, car, electronics, or toy related.

    Put another way, generally speaking happy people don’t bitch. I’m not most people though, and truth be told I tend to bitch more when I’m happy, because being happy allows me the opportunity to look around and see what everyone else is dealing with. You see, I’m a very selfish depressed person. When I’m down it is ALL about me. However, when I’m on top of the world I find myself upset and angry for other people I know that aren’t up there with me.

    Make no mistake, I’m the happiest I’ve been in two decades right now. Being this happy makes it glaringly obvious just how screwed up I was before, and now I can see it in other men I know and it pisses me off. I feel sorry for them and at the same time I’m angry at and for them.

    I guess that means I’m upset that more men aren’t as happy as I am. I can’t help but see the irony in the fact that what makes me a bit of an asshole is actual concern for other humans. Me, the man that thinks people suck. LOL! And this is why I keep to a few select friends. It takes too much out of me to care about others people’s happiness this deeply.

  • HanSolo

    @Ted D

    Whatever you do don’t suggest they watch Fireproof.

    Terrible movie about trying to save a marriage.

  • Ted D

    Hansolo – would you believe the Christian marriage counselor my ex and I went to recommended it to us? Even in our bad mental state both of us agreed the movie was total bunk, we just couldn’t put our finger on exactly why. Now the thought of watching it again literally makes me cringe.

  • OffTheCuff

    Say: “I’m having trouble understanding the difference between “Restricted” and “Low-Middle” (though there is probably a very stark difference in highly religious circles). Otherwise, this makes sense.”

    Serial monogamy.

    A restricted person can act like a “highly religious” one in behavior, even if secular. My friend has n=1 and married his only girlfriend, a second friend who I believe is the case (the former big guy, now body builder), and myself (n=2, at the time, obviously not anymore). None of us “highly religious,” just *beta* from intact MC families with churchgoing parents.

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

    @Ted

    Make no mistake, I’m the happiest I’ve been in two decades right now.

    Glad to hear your optimism and pride for a change (I share it). I’ll admit your online demeanor is a bit difficult to gauge. Seems somewhat prone to mood swings (right word?).

    Since it sounds like your domestic life has improved, and I assume it wasn’t by “beta-maxing”, my suspicion is that it wasn’t by “alpha-maxing” either? IME, most problem-solving ever comes from swinging between extremes…

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

    It is beyond tedious – I have better things to do with my time. It’s one thing to clue a new reader into what HUS is about, but honestly, the willful ignorance is extremely aggravating.

    Maybe you should add a page and link to it everytime someone starts the same tedious discussion? Just an idea.

    Remember, my definition of restricted is “put a ring on it”.

    More Snowflaking for me?! Awwwww You shouldn’t have ;)

  • Lokland

    @Mega

    “Superlative. You’re speaking my language!
    With so many young men in jail for long periods of time (in the U.S.), you’d think conjugal visits would’ve created a kind of juvenile delinquent pipeline into society. But apparently not, as even convict GFs don’t seem to be that stupid…”

    Saying your being ridiculous beforehand doesn’t make your ridiculous caricature any more meaningful.

    This amounts to a wordy, overdone ‘ha, ha I told you so.’
    Without actually having told me so.

  • Ted D

    Megaman – “Since it sounds like your domestic life has improved, and I assume it wasn’t by “beta-maxing”, my suspicion is that it wasn’t by “alpha-maxing” either? IME, most problem-solving ever comes from swinging between extremes…”

    Its hard to say for sure since this is still a work in progress. I’m improving and then having to go back and figure out what I did right (or wrong) along the way. In many ways it was largely just getting rid of all the traps and damns I had built to control my inner alpha (that sounds stupid but whatever…) Basically it wasn’t a total lack of ability on my part, it was intentional and unintentional stifling of some traits I deemed to be un-PC or just “bad” that turned out to be very useful in a relationship. I’m still working on anti-game (mostly to figure out exactly what it is) and have no plans to “alpha-max” at all.

    That being said, again I believe most American men are far too beta and show very little alpha if at all, so it seems to me that those men need to hear the call of the alpha MUCH MORE than they need to know women love betas. Yeah, love is great, but love without something more often doesn’t cut it.

    As to mood swings? It’s been a hell of a new year. Overall I keep a pretty well balanced head. I occasionally go of on tangents in “real life” like I do here, but more often than not I don’t have much to say to anyone. These men I know that are currently struggling with their marriages just has me a bit upset. I want to see them succeed, and I want to see them happy, and it is frustrating to see many of the same problems playing out for them that I suffered through.

    Like I said, I don’t have many close friends because caring about other people really wears me out.

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

    @Loks

    This amounts to a wordy, overdone ‘ha, ha I told you so.’

    And here I thought we were in agreement for a change. “Quizzles” in the Big House certainly isn’t a joke. Honestly, I don’t tell anybody anything around here. The facts speak for themselves, I just point them out, that’s all…

  • SayWhaat

    FWIW, Megaman, I really appreciate your doggedness in doing so. In my mind, you keep good company with some other regular male commenters held in high esteem here. :)

  • SayWhaat

    This amounts to a wordy, overdone ‘ha, ha I told you so.’
    Without actually having told me so.

    Heh, if anyone deserves to do so, it’s Megaman. And he doesn’t do it nearly as often as he could.

  • Lokland

    @Mega

    “And here I thought we were in agreement for a change. “Quizzles” in the Big House certainly isn’t a joke. Honestly, I don’t tell anybody anything around here. The facts speak for themselves, ”

    We are, quizzles don’t outbreed betas. You have taken an extremely narrow definition of what I described to demonstrate my wrongness.

    Both wrong (caricature) and unnecessary as I had already admitted incorrectness.

    Rude.

    Seeing as I’m not INTJ, don’t argue like him and largely agree with Susan (and subsequently you) on the numbers I can’t understand the need for this snipe other than to try and piss me off.

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

    @SayWhaat (Damayanti)

    I really appreciate your doggedness in doing so.

    Grazie!