The One and Only Way to Avoid Being F*cked Over

“You must delay sex until you are clear on what he wants.”

A blast wave just rippled through the feminist political machine.

.

I think that, like many guys, the cycle shop owner does not filter for relationship compatibility with sex, but only filters for SMV. The girl comes into this naturally assuming that the physical intimacy of sex is linked to emotional intimacy (which is often defined as the ability of the relationship to support one person’s emotional needs), because that’s how it is for her. But for him these could easily be two different entities and they don’t necessarily need to overlap.

By texting him when she was having a bad day, she *possibly* expressed emotional neediness that he legitimately does not have the “mental space” to process; he may want regular sex and fun with a very independent woman who has a blunted, more masculine emotional range (and it is not his fault to assume that this is normal).

The traditional exchange would be for a girl to be able to do this and have the man provide some kind of calm, stoic, nonjudgmental response to reassure her that things were going to be ok. But in this combat dating environment, people are supposed to be emotionally self-contained and to edit the bad stuff out (both on FB and in real life), and even an innocent “bad day” text can risk making the other party wonder if you are neurotic, have emotional baggage, etc. People are very quick to judge/next others.

I agree with Susan’s assessment with the single caveat that the girl may want to bring this up with the guy directly in a logical, dispassionate format. Her texting him about her bad day was not indicative of her being a psychologically demanding, needy “emotional vampire” who failed to appreciate the stress of his life as an entrepreneur in a competitive market in a very competitive city. She is not looking for a psychotherapist and is not the archetypal NYC neurotic, but at the same time she does not want to feel disrespected and confused. Maybe he can open up and give a good answer about his concerns and issues with “relationships” and it will turn out that his definition is not what she has in mind at this point, so they might be talking past one another.

It’s a long-shot, perhaps, but she’s got 4 months in and he sounds like he is otherwise a very attractive and successful catch… Might be worth a try to confront him about it and see if there is any common ground there after all.

Another casualty of the sexual revolution. In real war, we look at the generals to see if they could have kept the body count down. My dad’s division did that so well in WW II that the Infantry school was still using it for lessons learned in the mid-late Sixties. So it matters.
Do we look at the folks who started the sexual revolution when the body count gets right up there?
Do we, hell.
OTOH, for guys this is very heaven.

@Alexis

I do wish you the best. I’m going to probably sound a bit blunt but don’t get offended. It’s intended with the best of intentions.

My short take on things:

It’s clear as day that this guy ONLY wants sex from you. He made that clear by not contacting you for two weeks after first sex.

I heartily endorse Tasmin’s comment above.

Also, read or re-read this HUS post:

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/05/16/hookinguprealities/tough-talk-about-sexual-market-value/

You keep going for guys that only want sex from you. Most men will have sex with someone they don’t find attractive enough to commit to but that do pass the boner test. So you need to do some combination of:

1) Raise your value, mostly looks but possibly personality aspects as well

2) Lower or change your expectations for what kind of guy will commit to you. The hottest/best guy you can get to have sex with WILL nearly ALWAYS be hotter/better-in-some-way than the guy you can get to commit.

My longer take:

He is either not interested in any relationship or is but doesn’t see you as high enough value for him to commit to you. At any rate, the practical effect for you is that he doesn’t see you as good enough to commit to. That’s a harsh truth but it’s true nonetheless. It hurts and I’m sorry that you’ve felt that pain but it’s best to realize the truth now and act accordingly.

If he were looking for a relationship then he’s obviously not acting like that with you so he doesn’t see you as the one. If he is not looking for a relationship then he is basically saying that he’s setting the price at which he would enter a relationship at infinity, or in more tangible terms, she’d have to be much hotter and compatible than anyone he’s able to get now.

The more important matter is how you say that:

“This also happens every time I am falling for a guy…every time…they just want sex.”

It seems like you’re going for guys that will only accept relationships with women of higher value to them than you offer (either because they’re not really looking for an LTR or they are but you don’t push their buttons enough).

This is one of the hardest truths for many women to deal with, that they can get sex from these attractive men (which for most women would mean they were interested in an LTR and so it’s hard to understand that male psychology doesn’t work that way) but they can’t get commitment.

The most simple explanation is that these men are of higher value than the women, especially if they are seeking an LTR with the “right” woman. That’s why these men aren’t trying to lock down commitment with these women and why these women are trying to lock down commitment with them.

Since this keeps recurring, you need to either just accept a life of casual sex with out of your league guys or you need to get more realistic about who you can attract (or possibly raise your value but I get the sense that you may already be near the top of your potential looks attractiveness so only small improvement could be done there, unless you have 10+ lbs to lose or bad fashion, and you don’t seem mean or unpleasant so not sure how much you can improve your personality).

Finally, one other point is that many women can get swept away in the passion of the moment with the right guy and just feel so attracted to the guy that reason gets thrown out for the moment and they’ll basically sleep with the guy even though in a calmer, less passionate state they would swear up and down that they wouldn’t. I don’t think most women do this very often or meet such men that totally push their buttons but I have been with a few of these cases (and low-N or virgins to boot) that got carried away in the moment but later would feel guilty or say that they never do that. And in their cases I actually believed them.

There was one Mormon virgin who I had incredible chemistry with but felt guilty but it seemed like we would hook up (not sex but there was a lot of other heavy make-out and boob and hand stuff going on) about once a month and then she wouldn’t return my texts the rest of the month. I often wondered if she responded to me and met up to make out with me while ovulating and hornier. lol

@HS

“to quote R2D2″

*high fives*

@ Tasmin and HanSolo,

I’ll endorse your comments too. The problem is that Alexis is under the powerful attraction of a man who is out of her league.

The only hope in such a situation is if she gains in status or he loses it. It’s unlikely that Alexis is going to gain – at 29 she’s at the peak of her SMV.

Perhaps her BF will fall in status. In Jane Eyre, the heroine finally gets her man at the end after Mr. Rochester has been brought low by an accident that left him blind. Maybe BF’s business will fail and he won’t feel so cocky. But as Han says, that’s a long shot.

@ Hope,

she is trying to barter with sex by putting the goods out there first, and thinking that she can “buy” his affection with sex

That’s like software the vendor lets you download for free and hopes you like it enough to make a donation. If that’s “bartering”, it’s the weakest form of bartering possible.

Mr. Wavevector, actually a lot of programmers do that nowadays and get money on donations and premium services. Free to pay MMOs are all the rage. But they do have a better hook.

A few comments from a male:

a. There’s no such thing as an emotional connection leading to an LTR if either party goes radio silent for two weeks following initial sex. The sex lacked intimacy. It did not manifest incipient intimacy. It was sex. It was sport. Had it been expressive of emotional intimacy — the foundation of an LTR — two weeks radio silence is unthinkable.

b. Texting reduces emotional engagement to telegraphic shorthand about wants and logistics. It takes no effort whatsoever to maintain casual ‘the door is still sorta open, you project the rest’ connections with a lover using a smartphone. A man who is engaged emotionally will answer a real live phone call and information flow — in real-time with a real voice responding to real dialogue — increases 10x. (If texting is X, email is 10x, conversation is 100x, and human interaction is 1000x.) There is no information in texting. Texting men and women are using texting to create ambiguity, space, control, and options. There are no booty calls in telephone conversation or even email. There’s a reason for that.

A man with his heart in the game will always answer his phone, in any meeting short of an interrogation or a board meeting, and say, “I’m sorry honey, in a meeting, call you back in three hours.” Time consumed: 10 seconds. Value: someone who is my friend knows that she is my friend. I did this exact thing this morning while with my attorneys (both men). No one blinked. We all manage our emotional relationships while working 12 or 14 hours a day, and we all support each other for doing same. Running a bike shop is not like landing an A6 on a boat at night — and almost nothing is. BFD he has his own business. BFD! If anything that makes him more available, and more flexible, to support his emotional relationships.

Ditch the texting if the objective is meaningful information about the emotional conditions of the liason.

c. This man’s behavior is consistent with the management of a ‘soft harem.’ See b) above, as to why texting is optimal for managing multiple simultaneous paramours. There’s nothing immoral about that, unless exclusivity is on the table and agreed to by both parties.

d. Women use men for sex too. Objectively, both people here were using each other for casual sex. I say objectively, because that is the only conclusion an uninvolved observer could draw by looking at the behavior alone.

It turns out that one of the two preferred it otherwise. There is no basis, however, for the man to feel compelled to be involved emotionally with someone with whom he has casual sex once or twice a month, followed by weeklong silences.

e. Using sex to achieve emotional ends WILL NEVER WORK. The two elements are integral, or they are isolated. Basically, the woman here is in the guy’s version of a Friendzone. To reuse the aviation metaphor, when you are in the Friendzone, you are spinning in. Punch out now.

f. The man is probably a sigma: he’s a kind of boho entrepreneur, so he’s a rulebreaker, happily divergent socially and professionally, and *exceedingly wary* of women. A woman (seeking an LTR) dating a sigma will not be happy unless she knows if/why he’s wary of women. Sigmas trump alphas (and certainly betas) in many ways, but skepticism about women is typical of sigmas.

g. I think the guy has been extremely honest, and his behavior matches his desires. The error was not in discovering what he wanted before going all bouncy-bounce — again, if the woman’s desire is for an LTR.

In general, I would advise any woman friend not to have sex with any man she desires to have an LTR with unless the exclusivity discussion has been broached and satisfactorily resolved first. There is no way to explore an emotionally rich relationship with anyone who reserves the right to sleep with multiple people. It is

Alexis, I’m sorry for your frustration and disappointment. But to five nines of confidence, you want something from this man that you are not going to get. There is a tiny finite probablity that if you cut off all contact he will wake up in a few months and realize he wants what you want. If that happens, demand courtship, conversation, discussion, and *fun interactions without the bouncy-bounce* before you even think about schtupping him again.

And if by some miracle he texts you to say he misses you, politely txt back: “Promises promises. If you want to get a coffee, call me.” If he can’t make that investment, he’s just reminiscing fondly on your sexual interludes.

Punch out now.

Problem for Alexis and about a bazillion other women is the Gresham’s Law of giving it up immediately. Bad money–behavior–crowds out good money–behavior.
A really, really good guy who, in other eras would be willing to wait, has been trained to think three dates and he’s in, so to speak. If he’s not, not only is he not getting laid, there must be something wrong somewhere–probably with her–and off he goes.
The time and opportunities to filter in three dates are insufficient to tell the butthead/cad from the good guy. Time, watching the other, thinking about it, are all too compressed.
Hence my advice, or at least my history, of being in situations with women with no relationship issue going on. Get to know each other without pressure or fakery or any other issues. After a while, filtering is more accurate.
But, hell, not my idea.
And, you know, it’s fun to hang around a couple of shifts a week at the bookstore with three or four attractive women doing our bookstore thing, or our community center thing, or our educational project thing.
Then you can decide whom to approach after figuring out her likely response.

@57. “The moral of my story is that mating value is dynamic ….”

It sounds harsh, but Alexis needs to contemplate this.

I have a woman friend whom I’ve known since she was 19. She’s 37 now. She’s always been a tier-one female: 5’10”, great athlete, jet pilot, now 767 captain and exec. Unbelievable sexual skills and appetites. If I told you where we’ve had sex, someone would call the FAA. She has been the hottest thing going, and she has used the hotness to great effect. We dated off and on for the past 13 years, and we discussed getting married a few times. (Whew.)

Her SMV is currently plummeting. She is using sex (nudey pictures, texted of course) to attempt to restart our relationship, and in my view, turn my mind back to marriage. She has used threats of suicide and threats of harm against me (blackmail of different forms). I will not even take her calls. I suspect others won’t either. What worked for 15 years is broken. Her rakish past and brazen polyamorous living comprise now a primary bug, rather than a yo-fun rulebreaking feature.

Her SMV is not plummeting because she has had sex like George Clooney for 15 years; it’s because there is now an air of desperation in everything she does. Desperation is the enemy of sincerity and believability. The music is slowing and there aren’t enough chairs. No one would take George Clooney seriously if he said he had “changed.” Likewise.

So Alexis might consider rebooting her approach, in the context of an inevitable decline in SMV, exactly as Susan suggests. I’m told that sex toys serve a necessary function for certain ends, while in the meantime conversation replaces hookups with sigmas, in the search for a quality male.

Alexis –

Ugh, this sounds familiar! I am also 29 (and live in Brooklyn! and have had a similar experience. It’s a really rough but valuable lesson to learn. I know it’s really difficult especially when you can point to reasons, like common interests and great conversations you’ve had, that make it seem like the two of you make sense together – but cutting off contact is absolutely the best thing you can do right now. At the very least it will show him you know you’re worth more than a “Let’s agree that we won’t develop feelings even though we’re having sex” BS arrangement.

When I was in your shoes, I told myself, “This guy, as smart and funny and talented as he is, sees me as not being worth all that much, and by maintaining contact with him and proceeding with him on his terms, all I’m doing is proving him right.” Prove him wrong and live your life. You feel connected with him, but he did not treat you well – two weeks of no contact after your first time sleeping together is bad news. Unless you really believe that’s what you’re worth, you must move on and make yourself available for a guy who wants what you want. I’m sorry this happened!

@Susan
I got the sense a while back that the male commentary had reached its saturation point and I have no desire to be part of (apparently) why young women are not commenting more (or at all). Though I think there are additional reasons they don’t, but no need to get into that.

In any case, based on recent threads it seems that women here are kind of ‘over’ the over-35/40 male married, divorced, etc. commentary so I have bowed out, rightfully knowing that the regular male contributors in my demographic continue to do a brilliant job of represent most of my views/perspectives. Capable hands and all.

So I check in sometimes, but have actually been one of those busy men myself (though FTR, never too busy to spend time with a fine lady, should she present herself) and have fallen way behind on my reading in all categories. This post struck me because it seemed like a culmination of a lot of HUS (and SMP) principles at work. But also because while I hesitate to give the man any undue credit, I have been in his shoes (though not quite so casually).

At 29, Alexis has the hard task of figuring out how much rope to give. At 33 he MAY not yet understand that he must also figure out how much rope to take. (Either that or he is of the “I have the power, the options, the time” camp in which case: run) Many men, particularly those in PUA/MRA/Blogosphere land will disagree, but I do think we (men) have a responsibility for our power in the SMP – regardless of how we attain and/or are attributed that power.

I think this goes to your point on empathy. It also has a lot to do with our own responsibility to live our own truths relative to what we really want. There are limits to washing our hands via the ‘consenting adults, eyes wide open’ attitude. Yes, it is a lot to ask of he who holds the power, but I firmly believe that accepting all that rope is not helping him achieve what he really wants in the end either.

In my case I thought I wanted a relationship. I thought I wanted it with her. I was afraid of admitting to myself that I did not yet want a relationship; I didn’t know what that really meant. Turns out that what I really wanted was the pieces of a relationship w/o the progression and equitable investment of a relationship. I wanted the rewards without the (emotional) risk. I wanted time to just ‘be’ to have fun; I wasn’t ready to do the work, the heavy lifting. She was.

I had yet to heal from the past and find my feet but I didn’t want to pass up such a wonderful woman. A woman who found me to be such a catch that she was more than willing to walk with me through that quagmire. The problem was that I really had no understanding of my power within the SMP, what I really wanted, or how to get it. And not just what my power may “get” me, but rather, how my power affects HER and what she is willing to give me because of that.

I just thought she was wonderful and loved that she saw me the same way. Eventually that little kernel of understanding of what she was risking (at 33) in terms of her time/investment burst and the mutual anxiety unraveled the whole thing. But not after much time and heartache. And to her, I am sure it seemed like she did everything “right”.

I wasn’t malicious or playing my options, but the result was almost the same. Its not just the time invested; the cost extends well beyond that, the emotional pain, time taken to heal from pain.

You see, some men will say they want the relationship – and they really do, but are bad at the execution. That’s a game for the young.

Some men will just lie to get what they want. That’s the screen, screen, screen and no sex until monogamy/relationship tack. Experience should sharpen those skills, if it isn’t, you just might not be ready for a relationship yourself.

And some men will tell you that they aren’t ready; that they don’t want it. That, for all of its pain, its futures lost, is a gift. Take him on his word. For those men are rare. But if those men are devilishly handsome. And tall. And “successful”. She will too often bring rope. Lots and lots of rope. Outcome: more often than not, hanged by your own rope.

Some men say they want it, but have not honored the truth in their own desires. The reckoning will come; it always does. Outcomes will vary. Sure, bring some rope. But for every year a woman is past 25, cut a few feet off the end. For every year past 35, cut a few feet off the end, but bring the trimming and leave the length in the barn. You’ll need that for your future husband. Trust me, he’ll appreciate every inch of it.

@Alexis. Bring your Banjo out to Colorado. You can jam on my porch anytime (beer included. or Blantons – just don’t ask for ice). I could introduce you to a pretty darn good fiddler and a harpsucker too. Besides, there’s half a woman for every man out here. And despite what people say out there on that grey little island and its surrounds: we’ve got indoor plumbing. And wide open skies to die for. Don’t even get me started on summer at 8,000′. Cheers.

Alexis….

Even if you COULD have a relationship with him, this really isn’t a quality guy. Owning your own business and playing the banjo does not make you boyfriend- or husband-material, it means you own your own business and play the banjo.

I am absolutely sure he will contact you at some point, because guys get horny and occasionally don’t have options on hand, and you have had sex with him. You’ll be hearing from him again.

Try the Girl Game challenges? They might open you up to some more conversations with other people, and help you find other people that you like.

Also, I would say we are equally attractive, but his social status is much, much higher than mine.

ADBG, the study was by Asendorpf, Penke, and Back. I think about 400 people were involved. It is profiled in that very cool book on “Mating Intelligence” that someone linked to earlier. The woman and most of the men claimed to be interested in finding LTR partners.

Here are the comments from that book—since one of the authors is a friend of Susan’s who posts here periodically, he may be able to provide more details, exciting anecdotes, and professional commentary:

“Who was the most popular? Popularity was heavily influenced by easily perceivable physical attributes such as facial and vocal attractiveness, height, and weight. Sex differences were also evident, with men mainly basing their decisions on physical attractiveness and women using more criteria, including high levels of sociosexuality (willingness and desire to engage in short-term sexual encounters), low levels of shyness, and cues of current or future resource-providing potential, such as education, income, and openness to experience.

“Interestingly, sociosexuality (the extent to which someone has a short-term mating orientation) was *the most important predictor of popularity* once physical attributes were already taken into account. Because most women expressed an interest in long-term mating, it is surprising that they would be attracted to men with short-term mating orientation…The researchers raised the possibility that a male’s sociosexuality may indicate his history of successful mating experiences or mating skills (i.e., high mating intelligence) and that this is attractive to women. It should also be noted that the relationship between shyness and popularity was negative…

“The researchers also found that the popularity of the speed-dater was positively correlated to the choosiness of that speed-dater—but this correlation only held for men…Interestingly, they found an age effect: the older the woman, the less choosy she was; and the older the man, the more choosy he was.”

If a casual girlfriend whom I had strung out in the manner that Alexis describes, contacted me, I would just assume sex is still on the table. Because, sadly, that’s all we ever had. Punch out, delete his contact info so you can’t drunk text him, save your heart for someone more deserving of it.

The objective function is to get on with your life, not educate Bike Dude. You will diminish yourself in his eyes if you contact him for any reason. Don’t be an alpha or sigma widow. Bail. There are an awful lot of SMV 6’s in NYC, and welding chromoly steel for a living is a lot less interesting after a few years than what a lot of them do. Hope is never a strategy.

@ Susan,

And would she want him if the only way she could get him was his status going south? I don’t think so.

It seems clear she will have to lower her sights one way or another if she wants a committed relationship.

@Bastiat 68

Insightful comment about many women in today’s sexual/marriage market.

@Susan
No worries at all. Just thought I would heed the feedback from your target audience. I still enjoy your posts and checking into the threads now and again. And thank you for the compliment. I value your work here. I will be checking in.

I really meant that the end result is the same in that if both parties are not true to themselves in what they want, true to the other party in that regard, and then hold their own – and other party’s actions accountable, things can drag on. Good intentions don’t guaranty good outcomes. We still have to do the homework. The falling for a cad, lier, etc. how not to, etc. themes are aplenty. I don’t think Alexis’ case is about dishonesty or getting screwed over; quite the opposite. He told her where he stood and from what it seems, his actions were consistent with his words. Hers, not as much.

As for getting screwed. I do think the title suggests a victim element that really isn’t at hand here. Thats part of why I called her out on the “[they] just want sex” comment. It is more like how to not f*ck yourself. Or better yet, ‘how not to f*ck in order to decrease the odds of f*cking yourself’. Getting f*cked would be when she finds out he is married to a Canadian woman he met on vacation at Niagra Falls who is a flight attendant and is thus conveniently 35,000′ over Kansas for stretches at a time. But I know there is a need for eye-catching titles. Caught my eye :-).

Here is my advice (coming from a man) to the question can you do anything to change his mind:

The answer: No

Alexis, that’s interesting. Do you know anything about his past relationships?

@BB
What are we trying to find and indicator for? A good LTR guy?

I would argue that this requires relational or life decision making expertise and to look to the naturalistic decision making field for perspective on how to develop better discernment in this area. A couple key points from this research: it’s based on pattern recognition, context matters a great deal (this is in direct opposition to your context-less 1 or 3 indicators), it can be developed, you have to strive to get good feedback and actively figure out what is really going on, etc.

Alexis’ age reminds me of how many MRA bloggers talk about how modern women waste their most valuable/marriageable years, being their twenties, on Alphas/Higher Education/Partying/etc., only to entrap a man who doesn’t give them “the tingles” after 30. The blogger Dalrock wrote a post on what this does to marriage here:

https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/debasing-marriage/

Oddly enough, these bloggers never seem to tackle the opposite issue, which Alexis has found herself in–the lack of marriage-worthy men for women in their twenties.

@Bastiat Blogger #68

Yes, I think it’s almost tragic how LTR-seeking women have a tendency to seek out the STR-seeking men. I hope Susan addresses how women can change their attraction factors if this becomes a problem.

@Susan #96

Wow, PUAs are actually expressing lack of gratification about their chosen lifestyle, after pontificating that “making women give up pussy is the best way to take back the sexual power they hold over men”? Do you have a link to this discussion here? Also, for some reason this entry, being the current entry of this blog, sometimes loads as the Mobile Edition even though I’m viewing it on a desktop computer. The “Exit the Mobile Edition” link doesn’t work either when this happens. Were some settings on the blog changed recently?

Aye, aye, aye!!!

Alexis,

We’re the same age so I’ll tell you to if possible take yourself out of that NYC cesspool. It is not the casual attitude about sex that is the most disturbing, it is the fact that a lot of people lack awareness, accountability and authenticity in this town; worse, it is encouraged by artificial value awarded to people who don’t deserve anything.

That guy is a douche, and a hipster on top; I’m sure that passes for super “down to earth” up there, but really that is the new Don Juan attire.
I really commend you for sharing your story because it is very heartbreaking and embarrassing (that texting exchange, eeshh!) in some points.

But this could have been prevented. As several have said before, BD showed you and told from the beginning he wasn’t interested but you kept engaging him until he lost respect for you. You can’t have some dude talk to you like you’re some drunk drama queen. NO!

I don’t think you should write him anything, no text, no email, no explanatory phone call.

Ctrl+alt+Del

Also that banjo thing? Drop that hipster shit ;P

@Alogon

You’ve hit on a very important thing. You get more supply of whatever is demanded, rewarded or chosen. Many women are choosing to date and even marry the assholes and very ever asshole they date there’s another guy that could have been chosen instead.

Women need to realize that they have tremendous power over the sexual and marriage market and produce more the traits of the kinds of guys they choose.

I’m sure there are things men are demanding too that are F-ing things up but I’m too tired to think of those right now. In a sexual “free market” women have much more sexual power, though, as the gate keepers and so they choose what makes it through their leggy gates or not.

@ Mireille,

We’re the same age so I’ll tell you to if possible take yourself out of that NYC cesspool. It is not the casual attitude about sex that is the most disturbing, it is the fact that a lot of people lack awareness, accountability and authenticity in this town; worse, it is encouraged by artificial value awarded to people who don’t deserve anything.

I was going to write the same thing after looking at that blog link Maggie posted comparing NYC to Burlington VT, but then I thought “what do I know about dating in NYC”. But there are a lot of people who like to write about dating in NYC and it all sounds horrible. The people writing about it sound horrible too for the most part. There’s so much status seeking, self centeredness, materialism or misplaced ambition on display. (I thought SATC was repulsive too for these reasons).

Burlington VT is a different story – I know the place well. It’s a good place to be in a relationship, get married, have a good family life, but it’s not the place to be if you want to be a big shot or rub elbows with them.

Ref your gut:
de Becker in “The Gift of Fear” tells us the gut is frequently right. Thing is, if we do the thinking thing, it’s like a math problem where we show the work, just like in the eighth grade. We can see why we came to the conclusion.
The gut does the work but we can’t see it. All we get is the conclusion. Just as likely to be right, with the added benefit that we’re not rationalizing away any unwelcome factors and perhaps we’re even more likely to be right.
And if we disregard the gut, it keeps bugging us, nagging us, which makes whatever we’re doing in opposition to the gut considerably less fun.
See “subliminal”. We take in more data than we know. That’s part of what the gut works on. And it’s not available to the thinking thing.
IOW, listen to your gut. Not, I suppose I should say, your “heart”, which is frequently mistaken for some other organ.

@Fifthseason
“Oddly enough, these bloggers never seem to tackle the opposite issue, which Alexis has found herself in–the lack of marriage-worthy men for women in their twenties.”

Um, perhaps because the “lack of marriage-worthy men” is just not true. Not even close. Or perhaps because a big part of why the bloggers are doing what they are doing is because 99% of the media-messages out there are full of false notions like this. In fact, many of those bloggers are working to counter dangerous lies like this.

The data alone suggests a whole lot of men are marriage worthy in the eyes of a whole lot of women in their 20’s. This “not enough good men” meme is part of the problem of how the whole SMP and modern take on marriage is consistently portrayed. E.g. Men are to blame for either not being good enough, not being willing, and/or (in the apex prone) “taking”/”getting”/”wanting” (just) sex but not delivering what women want, when and how they want it, be it BF or husband or FBuddy. As HanSolo states, women make the market.

Some questions that should be asked in its place:
– what am I doing that does not seem to attract, keep, and/or escalate my relationships into the marriage that I supposedly want?
– Why do I seem to be continually attracted to men with little or no interest in real relationships, let alone a marriage path?
– What do I know about my own attraction triggers and how those things impact my decisions?
– Do I assume the men I’m attracted to represent all men, the “good” men, the marriage-worthy men?
– How do I know I am marriage-worthy myself, in the hearts and minds of men, not what TV tells me?
– What am I doing (or was I doing) in my 20’s to make myself more attractive to the men who are marriage minded?
– What was I doing to develop the qualities that men value in a wife?
– Do I even know what those are?
– What is happening in the SMP that may be working against my desire to find a marriage-minded man?
– What am I doing to support those counter-productive aspects?
– What am I doing to fight, counter, undermine those things that are supporting the counter-productive (relative to the marriage path) nature of the current SMP?
– Was I contributing to the current state of the SMP by engaging in a buffet of casual flings, no-strings sex/FWB, and other self-indulgent, hedonistic piecemeal approximations of “relationships” during my 20’s or was I intent on finding a marriage-minded man to form a LTR with the intent to progress that to marriage? What actions did I take in that regard?
– Assuming some men – or even an arguably an increasing %, are not interested in marriage, what is going on in the SMP, the marriage market, that might be behind those views? What might women’s role in that arguable trend be?
– Assuming some men are not marriage-worthy, how is this any different than any other time in history? Is it that enough men are not marriage-worthy or is it something else? Is it perhaps the men at the apex of man are not interested in dating/marrying me? Why could that be?
– Assuming an increasing % of men are not good-enough, could it be that this is merely in the eyes of women (what they deem worthy)? Has this changed? what could be behind this? Could it be a deeply entrenched anti-male, anti-masculine feminist society that elevates one gender at the expense of the other?
– What role does the increasing hedonism, narcism, and decline of empathy, particularly in young women play in how women participate in the SMP, how they view marriage, how they view men relative to marriage, how they view/value men in general? Could this be related to the above?
– Do I think it is women who are the only party to get to decide (judge) whether or not someone is worthy of marriage (anything)?
– Is it possible that an increasing % of men are judging an increasing % of women as not being marriage-worthy? Why might that be?
– How have I come to believe that there is a shortage of marriage-worthy men in their 20’s? Is it through my own experience, or a message from *somewhere else*?
– Were my actions that brought me these experiences aligned with a woman who was pursuing a marriage path herself?
– What do I consider marriage-worthy?
– Given my understanding of my own attraction, my own value (SMV AND MMV), what I bring to a relationship/marriage, what I want/expect from a man/relationship/marriage, what I am doing to employ those things – to prioritize my path toward marriage over immediate gratification, cake-eating, career and other private ambitions?
– Am I avoiding/declining attention, time, dates, sex, with men who are openly and decidedly relationship ambiguous at best, players, DBags, Assholes at worst? Or am I having fun, exploring, finding myself, etc.?
– Do I understand the concepts of prioritization, sacrifice, restraint, opportunity cost, sunk cost, strategy, self-awareness, and self-improvement as they relate to the SMP/Marriage Market?
– Am I doing the work?

I could go on. Not to pick in Alexis, but using her as an example – as you have – of a woman who can’t find “marriage-worthy” men is a microcosm for how too many women view the SMP, their role in how/why it is what it is, and what all that really means in terms of the prize of marriage.

And it is flat out wrong. Alexis was not on the marriage path herself, was not attracted to marriage-minded men (which is of course not the same thing as there aren’t “enough” marriage-minded men), and was not self-aware, nor self-improving, nor behaving, nor contemplating the depths of her thoughts and attractions and decisions and investments of her time, emotion, and body relative to her [Assumed] goal of marriage. She’s just starting that process now and that is a great thing, but her singleness at 29 is in no way related to some shortage of marriage-worthy men. Sheesh.

Maybe the sexual marketplace in Brooklyn is a lot tougher than elsewhere?
http://www.100fd.com/2013/05/okcupid-difference-between-brooklyn-and.html

@Maggie…

Having traveled a great deal I have a list of cities that are hell holes for the average single woman:

1. NYC metro… think of the chicest, most educated, sophisticated, funny and stunningly beautiful woman that you know (squared), then multiply her by a million and make her in every race, shape, size configuration you can imagine and know all that variety creates mass dating ADD amongst its male population

2. Miami (South Beach in particular)… can only be enjoyed by the true masochist, these women are born with natural airbrushed perfection that has been cosmetically enhanced, and they walk around nearly naked, like all the time… they grocery shop in what most women wear to the beach, and many of them have exotic accents… if this isn’t you, buy a cat and the full premium cable package, you will need them both

3. San Francisco… a beautiful city full of gorgeous, successful, educated men, few of whom are straight. The upside is you’ll always have a guy to do dinner, movies and get all the other benefits of dating, but it will be because of all the single gay guys who can’t find someone to commit because there are too many gay guys. You two can drink wine and complain about your lack of sex life… #empathy

4. L.A… so what’s wrong with living in a city where every woman is professionally pretty, young AND blond. Yeah, EVERYTHING

The bottom line… if you want a LTR, marriage, etc. and you live in one of these cities you probably need to move~JS

Here’s a novel idea…maybe stop picking f***ing douchebags. Man, I get so sick of it I want to shoot myself. Some women just have the worst character assessment skills and misapprehend the true nature of quality traits. They think arrogance, swagger and selfish behaviour are “confidence”. They somehow seem put off by someone treating them well, somehow that seems boring because it lacks rollercoaster drama.

@Alexis…

I would take the above advice to heart, I would just frame it differently.

I think that you have a script in your head about the guys you are attracted to and how things should go… around here we call that blue pill thinking.

The blue pill for women is all about how things should be, or would be if it were up to girls.

You would meet at a farmers market or your local indie coffee spot. He would say something witty and you would talk, he would blow off his day for you because you connected instantly.

The coffee would lead to dinner and then to drinks, a long walk home, and the evening would be filled with laughter, and easy, interesting conversation.

He would kiss you in such a way you had no choice but to let nature take its course and the sex would be this phenomenal combination of life changing, multiple orgasms and soul intermingling.

There would be more dates, hanging out, spending the night, texting and calling and you would never have to talk about the relationship or where it was going because it would just happen… classic blue pill happy ending ensues, cue music.

The red pill, is simply the truth. How things are not how we want them to be.

You meet, the guy thinks you are hot he wants to have sex with you… you think he is hot you want to have sex with him.

Now the woman has to delay sex, if she wants a LTR to make sure the guy wants more than just sex.

The girl then has to acknowledge that for some, maybe the majority of the guys she meets they may like her very much, but only for sex.

She must then decide what she wants more, sex that leads nowhere long term or she can decline and wait for mutual attraction with a guy who wants sex and LTR.

If she chooses the short term option, what the red pill will no longer allow is that she agrees with the secret hope of the sex turning into ‘more’… because she now knows the truth, the answer is no. Not now and not ever.

The red pill forces her to face the fact that if she spends her youth and beauty chasing multiple short term relationships she will miss all the opportunities for the long term… she will have spent when she should have invested.

The red pill for women is all about knowing your true value, doing thorough research of any and all prospects and then only making fully informed investments ~JS

Alexis, you’ve garnered a lot of sympathy here (mine too) so I hope you listen well to the advice.

But for the first time, you’ve said something that makes me want to scold you, or at least, grab you by the virtual shoulders and shake you up.

I would definitely say I have a type. For sure. Do I need to change my type and lower my standards…

Huh??? You admit to being attracted to guys that aren’t right for you, and people have been telling you left and right that THESE GUYS ARE JERKS! You wouldn’t be lowering your standards if you went for a different type of guy. You’d be raising your standards.

Yeah, I know, that’s not the emphases you meant when you typed those words, but let me tell you, it’s the way your subconscious is working. It’s the way ALL of us work at times.

There are a thousand guys you’re passing by every day without a second look. By anyone’s standards, most of them deserve that second look and a lot of them deserve a third. Don’t be blinded by the flash you see coming from those hipsters and biker-boyz. The flash always goes out quickly.

‘k?

@cee
I agree with you about casting a wide net, but I think what you’re missing is that you do have something to offer: YOU.

I dont mean in a sexual sense, everyone has different things they’re into & you just never know who you’ll click with. Just be yourself. I once dated a girl, we had seemingly nothing in common but got along great. Just be yourself and be a good communicator and even with slightly above average attractiveness you’ll be in the 75th percentile of women.

@Alexis
Self valuation is one of the hardest things to do. Especially in a dating context. Obviously there is more to it than cup size and how you fill out a pair of yoga pants. If you think you’re a 7.5 but you’re really a 6, that could be part of the problem. I am a firm believer that there is no such thing as too much information.

Alexis,
Dear, I know you WANT to think he is a nice guy.
You desperately want to believed that he truly is just not ready for a relationship.
I’ve seen this time and time again from friends who want the guy to turn around (and have been there myself). But it has NEVER happened.
In fact, mostly, it has been when players have had multiple women that they did not want to give up (but ALL of them wanted to portray themselves as nice guys, looking for nice girls, and never letting the girls know they had multiple women on the sly…)
The only result that needed to happen in all cases was to walk away…
Not one guy “changed”…
We women get so caught up in winning something, LET THIS ONE GO! We can’t win here… HE WINS… He says, “if you want to hang around on my terms, I’m here” (he gets sex while you keep trying and trying Tom”win” him…)
Find someone that is worthy of truly winning your affection. It isn’t him, honey!

“Time and again I’ve seen women find an attractive man who wants to be in a relationship once they started aggressively filtering out the players and commitment avoiders.”
—
I think that’s what lonely gals should remember.

@Richard Aubrey
Mad props to your dad and his unit.

@BuenaVista
“In general, I would advise any woman friend not to have sex with any man she desires to have an LTR with unless the exclusivity discussion has been broached and satisfactorily resolved first.”
+100

@ADBG
“As a general rule, a lot of us guys are relatively ugly f’ers”
—
Please don’t say that D:

@Tasmin
Your post about the worms and the awkward kid resonates with me… In my case it’s like a secret government installation that’s always ready to blow somebody sky-high, even though there’s been no attack for years.

@HanSolo
“Women need to realize that they have tremendous power over the sexual and marriage market and produce more the traits of the kinds of guys they choose.”
—
I understand the collective aspect of this, but how far does the power extend to each individual woman? A writer or actress can broadcast “say no to douchebags,” and a (good) teacher can instruct her students to not chase cads… What’s the next step?

@Alexis
Everybody else’s advice already sounds better than anything I could add at this point, but I would like to say… please don’t start to hate guys for wanting sex. Many of them do, unrestricted or not, just like many women do, but it’s only a problem when the two partners aren’t on the same wavelength. If both people really want a relationship, men wanting sex is GREAT (and this comes from somebody who used to be crazy scared of touching and penetration… please don’t think I’m a perv).

WV, #151:

The term “a good man” I use in its current social construct, which is a submissive man in a matriarchal society. I tried to be the good man for a long time. Got the t-shirt, it has bloodstains. I, and everyone around me, am/is happier now that I just focus on being good at being a man. Including my prog feminist women friends.

Scouts can be good, but the Scouting I did is probably extinct. We camped in -20 snowstorms, we rappelled using only friction techniques (no harness or carabiners) with NO belay line, we built cabins from old telephone poles and chain saws, we had hatchets and axes and bowie knives. At 12. I doubt any of that is going on these days. I do think the creed describes a good man or woman, but that is not how I use the term “a good man” in the text you reference.

@JS, #170.

I guess I don’t think cocky betas resemble sigmas at all.

Sigmas are rule-breakers, betas are rule-followers.

Sigmas are wary of women, maybe because they are concerned about being used. Betas have always been ‘joiners and doers’ and have always been comfortable with women, because they don’t mind being told what to do and they’ve always been in the ‘group’ that includes girls.

Sigmas were usually ostracized as kids for being different and/or traumatized at home. Betas have always been part of the group, betas performed the ostracizing under alpha direction, and their parents are solid. Betas are effective because they’re just so good at being … normal.

Sigmas design, betas execute the sigmas designs.

Sigmas take risk because their childhoods were dangerous and they need risk to feel alive, betas let sigmas take all the risk and manage the successful outcome. Risk-adjusted, a cocky beta on average always makes more money. But the sigma who makes it financially, probably makes it very big.

Sigmas think alphas are attention whores and blowhards, betas suck up to alphas because it is tactically smart to be useful to alphas.

Sigmas are great dads and lovers, if they feel safe. They’ll bond tighter than anyone because the risk of starting over in the void that is the social realm, and learning to trust again, is daunting. So can be betas (good dads or lovers), though they don’t see what the fuss is all about in meeting someone new. For a beta, monogamy is just a better deal than the alternative.

It does seem to be working better now.

@ Cee: So I have tried to find pictures of his exes, on his flickr account which has like 2,000 photos. Not one photo would indicate if this dude has ever been in a serious relationship…it really makes me wonder…like all his vacations and such are with his other dude friends and family.

@Alexis

Beyond the blindingly obvious, which has already been extensively covered (a man who doesn’t call you for 2 weeks after getting laid has NO interest in dating), you need to divorce the “checklist” of what this guy offers (success, looks, charm, etc) from what he offers YOU (no relationship). Let’s take me for example: I’m tall, fairly good-looking, in shape, successful, Ivy grad, about to be an Ivy MBA, from a “good family”, blah blah blah. What most (slightly older) women would term “a catch”. However, for girls that I show no signs of commitment towards, I’m anything but a catch. The reason is that while I may offer these things, I don’t offer these things TO THEM. I offer them only occasional booty calls, waning interest and eventually, disappointment. The same kind of disappointment you’re experiencing now. So to those girls, I’m not a catch, I’m poison. They should run as far away as possible from me (unless a booty call relationship interests them, but not many such girls exist). This guy was that same kind of poison. To be fair to him, it doesn’t sound like he intimated that he wanted a relationship. He did cut off contact after sex, which is not the greatest thing to do, but you were the one who went after him. Once you’ve done that, he’s won. There’s no bigger “doormat” sign than going back to a guy who’s treated you poorly. It’s simply an invitation for more poor treatment. You’re essentially saying “hey, you did something shitty, but it worked, so have at me again”. Beyond that, it’s very, very hard for a guy to date a girl he doesn’t respect. And honestly, we don’t really respect girls who allow themselves to be disrespected.

@Sai

Another part of redirecting your local female micro-herd is to realize that women are full of potentially conflicting desires. The example I gave above was how women want to be part of the herd (in that case the feminist herd of career success and postponing children) but that conflicted with most of the women’s desires to have children (now, most of them had suppressed that desire but by the author having the courage to state that she is happy she’s pregnant now, she was able to cut through the decision of many of the others to be 100% fine that they would have children later and got some of them thinking and all of them happily orbiting and caressing her belly).

So, tap into the parts of female nature that are aligned with how you want the herd to go.

mr. Weavevector,

”“trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, brave, clean and reverent” – those are all beta traits. Perhaps that was appropriate and sufficient at one time but boys are too beta-fied today. I think Susan was right – it needs to be supplemented with encouragement to be masculine and dominant as well.”

I would say all of those are admirable traits, but i would not say they are beta traits. Perhaps it would be the case if such traits as ”obedient” or ”reverent” would be one of individual’s dominant personality traits.

I have known a few man who exhibited most of the traits and yet they were utmost alpha. But i do agree that masculinity should be nurtured and encouraged. What a rueful situation – there is so much potential, yet so few reach it.

@Hope

I think more guys than women are willing to just do their own thing, though many guys want to fit in too.

I don’t think most guys in society have much of a pack mentality when it comes to mating. I think they’re more in the herd-pedastalizing mindset and act like followers to what women demand when they’re around them.

I think the (wolf) pack mentality emerges more when you get a group of guys together to go play sports or hunting or whatever. But back at the ranch, the release that nature to some extent (except for the more alpha and sigma guys that have more control).

I do think you’re over-reading about her. The fact that she liked the attention isn’t a bad thing. Most people like some positive attention. At any rate, that’s not the main point.

The main point is that she went against the grain of her micro-herd and they even all started whinnying about how they weren’t ready yet and had so much to do. She had courage in standing firm and saying she was ready. She risked being ostracized but won her in kind of swinging the herd a bit more her way.

All: What is a “sigma”? How does this one differ from the conventional alpha-beta distinction? It sounds like it is an introverted, intense, lone-wolf subspecies of alpha, perhaps like a star athlete who is drawn to individual sports like tennis or boxing but who avoids more gregarious team sports like football and basketball, but is that being simplistic?

BuenaVista, MWV: The most physically dangerous men that I have personally interacted with in my life were members of the Joint Special Operations Command special mission units and their British equivalents, some of the CIA’s paramilitary officers (who for the most part were former members of the JSOC units), and of course the top MMA fighters, K-1 and Muay Thai fighters, boxers, and grappling competitors of the elite gyms.

These were almost all *extremely* nice guys outside of a fight. The swagger, menace, and supreme self-confidence that this type of man projects are in his physical condition, body language, and some of the “tells” rather than in any obvious verbalization or qualifying.

These men were not always successful with women, so they could lack confidence in the SMP arena. They probably would do well under normal circumstances if you split them up and sent them out as individuals—each was a natural big man on campus. However, when you put them in peer groups, a new alpha/beta hierarchy could spontaneously emerge (alpha in the SMP sense now). You would often find that the very good-looking ones would do *extremely* well in the bar scene, but the others would sometimes be somewhat shy and lacking in a sophisticated understanding of male-female social dynamics.

An issue that some of these guys could face is how to monetize their conventional alpha qualities in a mating ecosystem that gave credit to the loud and aggressive self-promoter. The single best thing for them, in my opinion, is to have access to a dependable and highly social wingman who can sing their praises during introductions, allowing them to remain stoic and humble while simultaneously enjoying the promotion opportunity.

Han solo, I never had a herd, so maybe I just don’t appreciate how much courage it takes to risk being ostracized. I prefer to appeal to practicality and rationality, such as age-related health and fertility issues. That’s what actually got me to be determined to have a baby in my 20s, not anything peer related.

I think her case for having a baby younger would be a lot stronger if she told her friends why, the research behind it, the statistics, etc. Then she wouldn’t have to just be “nervous” but be confident she’s making a good decision for her own health and that of her baby.

I think her case for having a baby younger would be a lot stronger if she told her friends why, the research behind it, the statistics, etc. Then she wouldn’t have to just be “nervous” but be confident she’s making a good decision for her own health and that of her baby.
It would had been appealing to rational logical women, like yourself. Had you seen the female/feminists comments in all the advice sites about fertility and age? She was right to be nervous and I think she did right using emotions (or like VD says rhetoric). Now problems will start if the resident Queen Bee is single or doesn’t plan to get pregnant really soon. She will go to extreme lengths to get her power back or destroy their herd. Time will tell.

@Bastiat

The way I see it is that the alpha seeks to dominate the social hierarchy whereas the sigma has many of the charismatic and dominant traits of the alpha but is more of the lone wolf type. In the tribal days, it would be the type who could go off by himself and bring back a massive deer with no one’s help and surviving on his own amidst the bear and wolf infested highlands that most wouldn’t dare tread. That would show his capability and survival fitness–very good genes that women would lust after–and as long as he comes and shares with the tribe the alpha(s) will grudgingly accept him but always with a wary eye to him trying to exercise his ample capability to take over, even though he often doesn’t have the disposition to do so.

The alphas are more dependent on their being a social structure and need the rest of the tribe to rule over. Alphas may appear somewhat outcome independent–and are relative to the (roissy) betas but at a deeper level are very (ego?) invested in the outcome since they have to care about whether they are actually ruling over the tribe or not. The sigma is much more outcome independent because he just doesn’t care as much.

Then the betas are the cogs in the social wheel. They take a lower risk strategy of getting along and following the riskier role of the alpha leader.

Thoughts?

@Hope

I like your approach and I wish there were more women like you. However, most women aren’t so independent and the presence of the ring herd is always calling to them to some not insignificant degree.

Yes, she would have been more effective by using facts and so on but once again, I’m simply trying to highlight the effect of the herd and how she had the courage to stand up for herself. That was probably more effective, really, than quoting a bunch of facts (though that would have made her presentation even more effective). She stood up for what she wanted and was able to strike that present but repressed note within many of them as well.

Anacaona, I wasn’t fond of the attention I got when I was pregnant. But I do like that people tell us that Aidan is cute. It will make his life easier if he’s good looking.
Heh I’m the other way around everyone calling William cute make me scare “A cute baby!? Someone might want to steal him!” and also I rather have him to be a late bloomer. Most early bloomers I know end up very messed up and with a string of broken hearts. I know I’m paranoid. I’m counting with our example and our genes making sure he doesn’t turn into an player.

But when it comes to persuasion I tend to more about facts and figures, but using them in a particular way. Like, you would want your baby to be as healthy as possible, right? The chances are much better if you’re younger. It’s not that older moms are dooming their babies, but why take the extra risk?
Me too, but that is not like the majority of women work. There is a reason SCIAM sold 476,867 sold in 2012 while People magazine sold 3,563,035 in the same year. I’m not a Sigma so I need to navigate the herd and understand their dynamics. The author would had been accused of sexism, scare statics and annoying know it all if she were to use your arguments, YMMV.

@BV

That’s a good point you raise about creation vs ruling. And in both the alpha and the sigma cases, there are a lot of wannabe’s trying to achieve success. Both are high-risk/high-reward and a lot who attempt it fail.

Han, thank you very much. I think that can be a particularly useful concept for people who feel that the traditional “alpha” definition is too dependent on swashbuckling showmanship and extroversion as markers of social success.

Without knowing much about it, I’d venture the guess that more cerebral and introspective alphas could well end up in that “sigma” camp because they might not feel at home in any particular group. Perhaps they don’t fit into any one category to an exclusive enough degree.

IME, a niche specialist may be more prone to jealously seek and guard political outcomes because he is dependent on that one performance domain for his entire reputation/self-esteem support system.

In contrast, a guy who can jump from domain to domain with relatively impunity is less invested in the politics or social hierarchy maneuvering of any one group; he is a “sovereign individual” with credible exit options. He in some ways exists outside of these social subsystems.

Whenever you mix physical and intellectual capacities, you can end up with this “multi-classed character” who either A) becomes a social chameleon and fits in well with both backslapping, locker-room-antics jocks and more bookish and nerdy types (becoming highly socialized; I know a distinguished scientist-athlete and raconteur named Read Montague who fits this description), or B) who doesn’t fit in well with either (perhaps becoming more and more solitary and eccentric and prone to stalking the antiquarian bookstores and cafe culture).

What do you think?

@Zach 211

I didn’t go after him before sex. He pursued me. Texted me saying he had a good time after each date. and asked me out again. That was until I slept with him on the third date. I didn’t hear anything from him after the third date so i texted him saying I had a good time and sent him some silly youtube vid we talked about. Nothing. That’s when I got upset and texted him like 2 days later saying that if he didn’t want to see me anymore he could just tell me and that I wasn’t looking for a hookup and that’s when he gave me his first I’m really busy I’ll text you soon. and then I waited like two weeks and texted him and he was like “sorry been crazy busy”.

I’m wondering if he is out of my league which is likely, besides asking flat out if he is looking for a relationship, what else can I do? Not date guys that I have a great time with at first. I mean besides the whole hissy fit about not being sexually receptive on the 2nd date, we did have fun together. But I should have never called him after the 3rd date. But by then my emotions were really involved.

@Hope
Celebrities are our modern Greek Gods even if they do crappy stuff people are going to look up to them. For average Jane struggling with infertility is a shameful secret that no one wants to talk about. http://lifewithoutbaby.com/2013/05/27/books-that-heal/
Thus they get isolated and lonely and trust me in female forums is taboo to even admit to feeling sorry or even desiring babies as an important part of your life. You are lucky you live in Utah, the big liberal counties are pretty much like that writer say. Shaming young mothers as much as possible, YMMV.

OT for Susan:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/what-do-wives-find-hot-hint-its-not-folding-laundry/article12277999/

Bergner said that while infusing your marriage with some distance and uncertainty can sound “tricky and paradoxical” – if not daunting – “that path is what we’re going to see more of as therapists talk more and more honestly.”

Distance and uncertainty reinvigorating marriage? Where did I just read something like that? Oh, here:

A Thrill pill that tricks wives into perceiving their beta husbands as sexy romance novel stranger-from-afar badboy alphas may or may not work to strengthen the institution of marriage, but I can tell you one intervention that is GUARANTEED to help your marriage: Game. Specifically, dread game.

Alexis, I’m sorry that happened to you.

All I have to say is, the idea that men only commit in order to get sex is complete nonsense. Men enjoy emotional intimacy too, as any glance away from EvPsych theory and into real life can confirm.

@ Susan,

I don’t think “dread game” is going to re-awaken desire in a woman who feels no desire at all. But the question is whether the lack of desire is intrinsic or situational? The following quote from the Bergner article suggests the latter, at least for this woman:

There was a divorced mother of three who sensed herself slipping into the same sexual disinterest with her current partner that she recognized from the slow death of her marriage. “When we split up,” she said about her ex-husband, “it was like going through a second puberty.”

Can excessive familiarity deaden libido? Hormones are responsive to social cues and behavior. Men’s testosterone declines when they marry, and again when they have children. It makes sense biologically. Perhaps something similar happens in at least some women. If so, perhaps changing social cues and behavior can have some benefit.

@Susan,

In any case, I think dread game is a last ditch effort. It’s the equivalent of paddles being used to restart a failing heart. It may get things moving again, but the patient is very sick.

I’m not supporting ‘dread game’ at all. But some of the other aspects of the article, like observing your spouse from a distance and seeing how other people would view him/her are interesting. I think that might awaken a bit of a competitive / mate guarding instinct in a healthy sort of way. Appreciating what you’ve got and not taking someone for granted is a good thing.

@Jack “he is able to have a selection of women to sate his desire for variety.”

Ok, but isn’t this related to maybe the fact that he truly does not want a relationship?

“There are women who will pursue tingle until there is nothing left in them except the shell of a disappointed woman, and there are the women who wise up while they still have something to offer and either learn to grimly endure marriage to a man of their equivalent MMV, or they *gasp* actually learn to find things to be attracted to in such a man.

I’m sorry but I need to be attracted to someone sexually to want to be with them in a LTR. Having that tingle factor is not a bad thing. But I think what I did wrong is not filter better and was honestly confused by his signals but won’t be in the future.

““No one in the world ever gets what they want and that is beautiful.
Everybody dies frustrated and sad, and that is beautiful.”

This is SO pessimistic.Do you honestly believe this? I feel sorry for you. It sucks that you have this worldview. I am going to opt to be hopeful but realistic. Though I agree there is beauty in pain and sadness.

“A very average looking girl who I tried to date at 20 is still stuck up and single. And fat. With a terrible complexion.
I am a very bad man for gleefully enjoying this, of course. I love to see the hearts of the proud get broken. I would drink her tears, except I would be concerned that I might catch her fatness from them.”

If she is STILL stuck up and single and fat meaning she was before, why did you try to date her in the first place? And why do you care now? Oh because she rejected you and you are not able to let go and heal from rejection. So you can not get someone that is fat, has a bad personality, and a terrible complexion, but you relish in the fact that she is still single? Maybe YOU should try being empathetic towards people and a little more positive. Also maybe she was just stuck up towards YOU because you seem like you may have a negative personality and outlook on life.

Also regarding the WALL that women hit, I take care of myself and I know ALOT of women who do as well. People often tell me I look 24 when I am 29. So does your real age actually make a difference? You just have to take care of yourself.

Also, since there is a lot of talk of boyscouts, my boyfriend in college who I consider a true love was an eagle scout. I loved that about him. I am attracted to outdoorsy, handy men….which bike guy is too. But this guy was very respectful and he is also the LTR type of guy.

Alexis…in case you don’t know this great song:

Patty Smyth, Goodbye to You!

@ J,

Yes and no. Sigmas are reluctant leaders.

There’s no disagreement there. I said ” sigmas do it by individual intellectual or creative influence”. They don’t want to lead explicitly, but they set a standard that others can follow if they want to. They are the writers, the artists, the composers, the scientists, the inventors, the philosophers – all who tend to work alone but may have great influence on the society at large.

Your husband sounds similar to me – a sigma type who has reconciled himself to a beta role in order to support his family. Living as a true sigma is a very high risk endeavor, and it’s only for the truly dedicated or truly mad. Most of us get some job in a hierarchical organization where we have to reluctantly lead and reluctantly follow others. It’s a safer path for those whose priority is providing for a family. I think of it as the “Daddy track”. When it was just me I took bigger risks.

“I think working on myself is my best bet, honestly.”

Good for you. Put this maxim all over your apartment.

Your eagle scout exists in NYC.

Mr. Wavevector

I said ” sigmas do it by individual intellectual or creative influence”. They don’t want to lead explicitly, but they set a standard that others can follow if they want to. They are the writers, the artists, the composers, the scientists, the inventors, the philosophers – all who tend to work alone but may have great influence on the society at large.

Your husband sounds similar to me – a sigma type who has reconciled himself to a beta role in order to support his family. Living as a true sigma is a very high risk endeavor, and it’s only for the truly dedicated or truly mad. Most of us get some job in a hierarchical organization where we have to reluctantly lead and reluctantly follow others. It’s a safer path for those whose priority is providing for a family. I think of it as the “Daddy track”. When it was just me I took bigger risks.

This is dead on, and I agree. When I met my husband, we were both 25, and he was probably more “sigma” or whatever you want to describe it than he is now. He took plenty of risks, including going to Peace Corps and living in Africa, and then he was on his way to becoming a professor in a STEM field (applied mathematics/math bio). He was content just being a sort of floater/outsider and not caring if girls found him attractive.

I think perhaps because I was a female “sigma” of sorts (who isn’t in a typical female herd), I instantly recognized his greatness. Other girls might have looked at him and saw someone who wasn’t traditionally successful (i.e. no salaried job, no pedigree, not alpha male of a social group, etc.), but I knew that he was an amazing man.

I think after we got married (at 26), and I got pregnant almost immediately, he definitely felt the urge to become more of a “provider,” and he cut short his PhD studies to a Master’s. Unfortunately our firstborn son Liam was stillborn, but my husband really started preparing himself to be a father more in the “traditional track” when that happened.

“The most simple explanation is that these men are of higher value than the women, especially if they are seeking an LTR with the “right” woman. That’s why these men aren’t trying to lock down commitment with these women and why these women are trying to lock down commitment with them.”

I think that half the problem here is that the term “higher value/lower value” is being used here, when it’s not an economic arms length transaction.

It’s a relatively complex emotionally issue with some economic components.

Talking about higher value/lower value SMV/SMP, etc., results in a hypertrophied focus on factors that, while relevant, are not necessarily useful.

Ana,
Ref de Becker:

I read it as saying, in effect, if the guy looks creepy–you need no reason to justify the feeling–don’t get on the elevator. It’s also some game theory. If you’re wrong about the guy on the elevator, you cost yourself 47 seconds until the next one comes along. If you get on the elevator, your time is spent with a guy who gives you creepy vibes–whether or not he’s creepy and threatening–at best, or you are victimized.
If you’re wrong about the guy and obviously are waiting for the next elevator, a gentleman will understand and, if he feels bad, will feel bad about the necessity.
Metaphor alert: Let’s not get hung up on the mechanics of getting on elevators. It’s a metaphor. An example.

Hope, “Machiavelli” is (was) a person, not a word (and Italian, not English, but that aside …)

He wrote books from which the meaning of “Machiavellian” is supposed to be derived and there are some good reasons for that, viz., he did recommend in his own name a policy of blood, iron and poison (though carefully qualified and hedged). However, there are two problems with the way the sphere uses his name.

1) They don’t see past the surface of his sensational remarks.

2) They apply his worst lessons to love, which he did not do. For instance, the woman at the center of his play Mandragola, Lucrezia (now, that’s a good joke!) is actually virtuous and loyal to her husband. Her husband, her mother and her priest all have to unite to persuade her to go along with their scheme. The husband in fact is the ringleader.

Now, what they would say in response, I suppose, is that they are talking about attraction triggers. I.e., that women are attracted to the worst traits of “Machiavellianism,” as exemplified in (say) Cesare Borgia. Maybe. The point is, Machiavelli himself does not speak to that.

I say that as someone who hates his mother who was utterly atrocious to me most of my life.
What about women? I mean a woman with a bad mother or that hates his mother would have similar issues? I don’t ask on my behalf in spite that mom and me had a turbulent relationship during my teens before and after she was my sunshine and now that we are both mothers we get along a lot better too. Just curious.

@Alexis

I said you went after him *after* you had sex, which you did say you did. That’s what I meant in my post.

My point is it doesn’t matter if he’s in your league or not. Your “league” in this case is “guys who are interested in a relationship”. So in that sense, he’s absolutely out of your league. Nothing else really matters all that much. Now I’m only speaking about this specific case. In general, you want to be realistic about your expectations. But honestly you really bought the “crazy busy”?? NO ONE is so crazy busy that they can’t text back if they want to. Texting takes literally 20 seconds. I have friends in banking who work 36 hours straight on occasion and I don’t think I’ve ever waited more than 12 hours or so to hear back from. The key there is that they WANTED to get back to me. “I’m too busy” is one of the oldest cliches around.

Also, how were your emotions so involved after 2-3 dates? You barely know someone after that long. How can you be that into them so as to be unable to judge it from a rational perspective?? You realize you’ve spent ~6 hours with that person. There are acquaintances I’ve spent 10 times as much time with that I would never claim to say I know well.

@Buena Vista, 301 Thank you! That made me tear up a little. I hope

@ Susan: Ahh you guys caught me. I have an issue where I idealize men that I am really into right away. I have to say with both men (I know it is so corny) but it was a like love at first sight kinda thing. This is the second time its happened so its not like I feel this way all the time. But right when I saw both of them (Artist Guy and Bike Dude) I literally jumped back a little.

Anyways, I’m going to work on this in CBT. I did it with Artist Guy and now Bike Dude so its an issue.

@Jyo I will read those links. Thank you!

“The wall” is overstated to a rather silly degree.

In fact, we need a new metaphor. Or, better, a return to an old one: the hill.

There is a downslope. Your descent starts slow and picks up speed as you go. Plus, everyone’s hill is different. When you start your descent and how fast you go varies for everyone based on inherent traits and how they deal with it.

29 is an age to be concerned about many things but not, except in very rare cases, about being unattractive owing to age.

Re the Wall, or the Downslope, or whatever you call it…

Samuel Johnson was quoted by his friend Hester Thrale as follows:

“And yet says Johnson a Woman has such power between the Ages of twenty five and forty five, that she may tye a Man to a post and whip him if She will. I thought they must begin earlier & leave off sooner, but he says that ‘tis not Girls but women who inspire violent and lasting passions—Cleopatra was Forty three Years old when Anthony lost the World for her.”

(This conversation would have been circa the 1770s)

Only one man’s opinion, and Johnson was a very weird duck in some ways (I’m not sure the tying up and whipping was purely metaphorical), but still interesting, I think.

@Jyo
“How is a girl supposed to filter if it looks like she is using you if she hasn’t had sex w/ you by date 5, but if she is looking for something serious? I’m confused!”

There are different levels of commitment. Looking for something serious is potentially in and of itself a problem. I think looking for monogamy before or shortly after sex is reasonable. Looking to be in a relationship that could lead to marriage before sex is not.

Its all about options and the market. If my RMV is a 7 and you’re a 9 (what are you doing with me, but go with it), you get more slack than a 6. If my track record is that RMV 7’s will have slept with me by date 3 and you haven’t, if you’re above a 7, you might get more leeway, if you are 7 or less, you’re gone because in the current market, I can replace you. If you wanted to wait until say date 6, I could have found a new girl AND slept with her before you decided to sleep with me.

Yes, women bring more to the table than their naughty bits. But chemistry, sexual and otherwise, is extremely important and artificially delaying it is not in my best interest as a guy. “A woman can and should make it very clear how turned on and tempted she is, how sexually attracted she is to the man.” doing this at date 2-3, totally fine, but if a chick kept doing this to me for more than 2 dates, i would doubt her willingness to follow through.

Again, I’m all for filtering, but holding out when the rest of the market is not, I do not believe is in a woman’s best interest.

Sigmas take risk because their childhoods were dangerous and they need risk to feel alive,

Not necessarily. First, I take issue with the idea that sigmas are produced by risky or unhappy childhoods though I believe they are more likely than most to survive a bad childhood with minimal damage. My husband came out of a horrible enviornment relatively unscathed. I used to think that his childhood made the way he is until my son hit puberty. He then went from sweet angel boy to super-sigma despite having had a very easy, stable childhood. I think it’s in the genes.

I’m also not sure sigmas are huge risktakers. IME, they assess risk quite carefully before acting.

Also, I wanted to tell everyone that I spent most of yesterday alone. Plus, I broke the speed limit on the way to a show. This means I’m Sigma now, too, like everyone else.

@GM
I too have all my hair, but I dye it, does that count? I often joke that its time for a touch up when my daddy issue magnets are showing. . .

I think “the wall” is a ridiculous concept. I have numberous female friends who are my age (33) and most of them look just as good now as they did at 23. I can understand them wanting to get into a relationship to have kids (i’ve heard after 35, the odds of defects goes up), but from a physical standpoint, they’re all just as attractive.

To get “push back” you have to “come back.” Lt. Uhura explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CJdFppsHeo

This is how it’s done girls!

@Alexis @Susan et al

Umm, yeah he def tried getting in my pants that night and threw a little tantrum when I backed away… I just did not want to believe that this guy who seemed really nice and sweet at first was just another asshole…

He was oh-so-close, and then denied. Guys go right from horny to angry, then back again. Heat of passion, OK understandable. He should have apologized, however. Personally, tantrum would creep me out.

Susan, how about a post on helpful ways to get out of a jam? I’ve found certain stock phrases to be very helpful. Something happening too soon? “Maybe later.”

In fact, let’s take a page out of their playbook! (I love these sports metaphors) Guy pushes for sex on the second date?
[Sigh] You know, I really like you, and I had a great time, I just don’t think I’m ready for a relationship.

“Jeez, everyone’s a “sigma” now.

How enlightened that we’ve all been reduced to a number or Greek letter.”

I’ve been reduced to “an enigma” before, as part of a professional review process.

That’s almost a sigma.

However, in a professional context, it’s actually not a good thing.

@Mireille
I get what you’re saying, although i disagree on a few points. First of all, number of people you have had sex with, provided you didn’t get an STD or pregnant, is nobody’s business but yours and has no bearing on anything. Raising the count from N to N+1 is just that in and of itself. It comes with age. Even if you only slept with 2 people a year, starting at 18, at my age, you’d be close to 30. Its just a number that has no bearing on anything.

If you want to take longer than 3 dates, that is completely fine. But the marketplace dictates that you’re charging a premium and at that point you will have to either sacrifice quality of product or market share. dating has never and will never be 100% successful, it just doesn’t work that way. My point is that you are prioritizing a number over finding a potential life partner. If that number is more important to you, that is your choice.

@Liz
You can definitely deflect for a date or 2. “I’m just not ready” or the like will work. However, after a while, the guy will most likely lose interest. I’m not just talking about guys just looking for sex. Any guy who is continually rebuffed will lose interest after a while. It just varies by guy.

I’m really not trying to be shallow or offensive. I just look at things from a more pragmatic guy POV. I think women need to define what their goal is. Is it possible to “keep your number down” and find an acceptable guy? I believe so. Is it possibly to bang everyone whose SMV you find acceptable and not find a relationship? I believe so there as well. My point is: If you are trying to maximize your options with the best partners possible, delaying sex past a certain point is a bad idea.

I was engaged, I just prefer to be single than divorced. I don’t date several women at a time, I just never found anyone I considered “worth it” for the long haul. I have commitment issues, I am upfront about it. That doesn’t make what I have to say any less valid.
You prefer dating and don’t have to wait for sex, than dating and waiting for sex. That is a loser strategy for any woman. The numbers piling up is an issue for most men. Is not for you because you are not filtering for a wife. The moment you change your mind, if you ever do. The number will become important. We have had countless of men expressing this switch even when they though they were not that type.

I’m happy you and your husband met on the internet and lived happily ever after. That isn’t the situation for the majority of people.
I assure you that “Oh maybe I will be the one that will change his heart but I need to put out while he thinks about it” is part of the problem not the solution. What do you have as a proof that your advice works for a girl? Nice memories of wonderful girls that were not worth it? Had you considered how many of this women are like Alexis now thinking back on those times?

Here’s the survey:
http://www.esquire.com/women/women-issue/survey-of-american-women-0510

42% by date 3
70% by date 4-5
Average age 27.6

Speaking for myself: if I have 3-4 dates with someone during “prime” SMP hours (Friday and Saturday nights, Sunday brunch) and in high-visibility locations, I am generally showing more interest and commitment than in a scenario in which I have, say, 9 dates with someone during non-prime hours (Tuesday afternoon coffee, etc.).

If a girl thought that avoiding sex for 9 dates was filtering out an undesirable STR type, she might well be incorrect. I would be able to hold out because the opportunity costs were low and I was having sex with other women during that period.

I sincerely doubt that I am the only guy out there who views things this way.

@Cee
Thank you!!
I am in favor of exclusivity before sex. You can have a “where are we going with this?” conversation when you think it might be heading that way. I think most women are smart enough to tell the difference between “I’m open to an exclusive relationship and I want to see where it goes” and “I will say what I think you want to hear to sleep with you”

BTW, send Susan something or post here when you find a guy worth keeping. I’m sure you will and I am rooting for you!!

@WV
“Guys like Fish have never been in that position of knowing that “I want to make this woman my wife”. Take their advice with that in mind.”

I was engaged. We had a wedding planned. We were together almost 3 years total. Would it be different if I was married than divorced?

I do think there are guys who are actively wife shopping, but I think it is more common to be open to it but looking to date first.

@ Ana,

If you happily married men say that delaying sex doesn’t filter for LTR I will shut my pie hole.

I have been in relationships where I got sex on the first night to never got sex at all. I was willing to wait for sex if I really liked the girl. (How soon I got sex was not necessarily correlated to the quality of the subsequent relationship, however.) As a man who was looking for a whole lot of other things in a woman besides sex, I actually preferred to have the sexual part of the relationship develop more slowly.

“If a girl thought that avoiding sex for 9 dates was filtering out an undesirable STR type, she might well be incorrect. I would be able to hold out because the opportunity costs were low and I was having sex with other women during that period.

I sincerely doubt that I am the only guy out there who views things this way.”

Yes, but you are an outlier.

The exception that proves the existence of the general rule.

@SW

Leave it to Ana to cut straight to the chase, she’s always brilliant!

– “Open to exclusivity”, but never exclusive for very long.
– “Open to monogamy”, but never objectively monogamous.
– “Open to a LTR”, but never actually in one.

Yes, the ladies might call that a series of red flags. From my perspective, it’s just a very obvious and suggestive incongruity…

“Any actually married man can chime in this?”

I never pressed hard. In fact, I posted something along these lines once, and the female reaction here was “You probably came off as uninterested or gay.” Maybe, but it worked out for me in the long run.

That said, I think that I was not involved with women who expected to be pressed for 3rd date sex. So I was not penalized for not pressing. Also, it was a different time, with different expectations. I did get my bones jumped once or twice but that always freaked me out.

Had I been the type to press, I would not have filtered out women who resisted. Then again, had I been the type to press, maybe I would have had a different attitude about that?

@Susan
“Do you feel comfortable sharing your story? I’m quite curious – was it your commitment issues that made you fear divorce, or something about your fiancee?”

I am fine with it. My parents divorced when I was 6. It financially destroyed my dad. It literally took him a decade to recover from. My parents both remarried, my mom re-divorced. I was a “late bloomer”, i didn’t date at all in HS, dated a girl kind of long distance for 2 years in college and I think thats where some of my commitment issues came from. I think I was always looking for MMV like 8+. When I was dorky and bad with women, it was like a pipe dream. When i started sleeping with women who were SMV 8+, I started to realize it was attainable.

My ex fiance, Im not really comfortable getting into that, but that was the only relationship I’ve ever been in where I never questioned things, it was just right. Since things ended with her I have been looking for similar, but without the areas we struggled in (which was not sex). That was about 5 years ago.

My hesitancy for marriage, well, I don’t want to be financially destroyed and I am maybe a little sexually entitled where I don’t want someone holding it over my head. I know thats partially irrational, but thats an issue from first gf, 2 years of inadequate sex because she was like my best friend and I didn’t know how to break up with her.

I might be drastically mis-valuing myself. Maybe MMV 8+ is outside of my grasp. I do want a LTR eventually. but I’m still looking for that special something, otherwise I’m ok concentrating on my career.

@Fish

Ha, I think I’m a female version of you. Late bloomer, zero high school dates, one LTR in college, few after. I think you’re smarter than I, however.

“@ J,

Right. My caveat is that the influence on others is a by-product, not a goal.

I very much disagree with that. Do you know any Nobel laureates? MacArthur genius award winners? Artists you read about in New York Times? I do.”

You actually read the New York Times?

I didn’t realize that there were still people who paid attention to mainstream media.

Sigmas are lone wolf winners.

This is true. I would give Frank Zappa as a classic example of a “lone wolf winner.” He was highly influential among other musicians, but really did not give a damn if people liked his music or not or if he changed the world. His non-musician fandom tended to be very sophisticated and musically knowledgeable even when composed (ha-ha) of non-musicians. The audience had to come up to his standared as opposed to his coming down to theirs. He wrote what he wanted and played what he wanted without regard for what was commercial or popular. He just wanted to make enough money to earn a living. He was also a touring musician who lived aloof from the rocker lifestyle. While surrounded by drugs and groupies, he was a sober man who was faithful to his wife and his values. To me, that’s sigma.

And he would have been constitutionally unable to kiss the sort of ass one needs to kiss to get a Genius grant.

@Susan: From what I read in the comments Mireille (see no. 351) definitely seems to fit the criteria of a woman/girl who is genuinely interested in a long term relationship. I think that guys who are looking for a long term relationship also need guidance. They are not likely to escalate sexually as soon as most women nowadays expect, because they might have more or less, e.g., the same expectations as a girl like Mireille.

So I think they need guidance to implement a dating strategy such as I outlined in comment no. 82 and is sort of confirmed by the expectations of Mireille on no. 140 and 351. Sort of: how can LTR guys best approach and filter in LTR girls while minimizing the emotional cost of rejections in the pursuit? Well, actually I do not really know if there are any easy answers to this. That’s why I say that a guy who is looking for a LTR will need nerves of steel and patience of Job to withstand a lot of rejections until he finds a girl (or she finds him) who considers him to be a high value guy. In the process he might also develop his abilities to identify whether a girl is genuinely interested in him or not. Perhaps the best strategy ever is just to take things slow and develop familiarity first? Then indications of interest (or lack thereof) will be quite clear.

Susan, re: lukewarm situations. I can’t describe it other than to say that the physical attraction is there, but at the same time the person just doesn’t *seem* very intellectual or interesting to talk to. It would normally be classical ONS material, but sometimes the girl will say upfront that she isn’t into that. So we reach an impasse.

I am left in a purgatory state where I just don’t really know quite how to proceed because of the mixed positive and negative elements. Low-cost, convenient, low-pressure “hang out” type dates, especially during the day, become the way to preserve the optionality and to buy time for more info.

I suppose that it is win-win in the sense that neither party really commits anything or takes any risks, but I would argue that the danger for a girl to be aware of is that a guy who does this low-$ casual hang out stuff can easily spin plates and manage a series of projects at different stages of sexual fruition. If I am really enthused about a prospect, I will want to impress her, and this will show up in my aggressiveness and signal displays.

On a related topic: one of the key ethical dilemmas that an unrestricted guy may face is that he may have a girl pass the physical/sex filter, have sex with her, realize over a little bit of time that she does not pass the LTR filter, and then be left with the question of what to do with the relationship. From a male perspective, this could mean staying back at the “sex” level. But I think that most men do realize that women tend to want to see forward progress in the relationship, so perhaps a relationship that does not get past the LTR filter needs to end to prevent emotional backlash. It’s a tricky situation in some ways.

Hopefully, it won’t bring all my haters out of the woodwork. :-/

Haha… As long as you write having in mind only LTR guys and girls, who are genuinely looking for commitment, they are not likely to come out. I think most of the friction comes from trying to make LTR guys attractive to STR girls, and trying to make STR girls attractive to LTR guys. Anyway I am looking forward to it. Good luck!

@Liz
I’m not that smart, promise. I’ve just made enough mistakes that I’m leery of the ones I see coming and was fortunate enough not to make any permanent ones (no marriages or babies. But i do have cats. Very cute affectionate cats)

@Susan
Its weird, I have no issues with getting into relationships. I will meet someone, usually end up in bed at some point then about 3 months in think “long term potential?” If no, break up, start over. If yes, I usually am the one broken up with, start over. i have a couple outliers but thats how it goes. I feel like I am completely 100% fine with monogamous relationships, I just havent lasted with any marriage worthy candidates.

I still don’t understand the stigma of PV sex. My ex I dated long distance went to college with a girl who was a “virgin”. Pretty much did everything except PV sex with a different dude every weekend for 4 years. Are we really saying that a woman who sleeps with a different guy maybe 1-2x a year in search of a relationship is more promiscuous than that?

i just don’t think a woman’s number has any bearing on anything. Is she disease free? Does everything work right? Does she have skills? I definitely want N > 0, but apart from that, I could really care less as long as the skills are there. And from personal experience higher numbers of N does not necessarily correlate to higher skill. I’m not saying I want to know what N equals. I don’t want to know. . .

As a last note, I am not shy to the point of not being able to approach women. What I am trying to point out is that there is a pervasive cultural assumption that all women want commitment, when in fact to my mind only women/girls who are genuinely interested in a long term relationship want commitment. I’ve used Mireille in the comments of this post as an example who does stand out of a woman/girl who is genuinely interested in a long term relationship (comments no. 140 and 351). So LTR would better, if possible, approach and filter in girls like that. Hence the challenge about the best way to implement a dating strategy like that I outlined in comment no 82. To my mind LTR guys are also pretty clueless nowadays and need guidance about how to properly do that, while minimizing the emotional cost of repeated rejection. For me it seems that the best way to develop familiarity first when indications of interest and attractiveness (or lack thereof) will be quite clear. But that’s what I am suggesting Susan to sum up in a separate post. It’s not about the old story of all women want commitment and LTR guys need to develop player skills to be attractive to STR girls (and fix them or give them what they deserve, even though they were never committed to achieve it in the first place). To my mind this pervasive culture does work to the best interests of commitment worthy women.

@ADBG: I hope this clarifies your question as well, meaning that LTR guys are more likely to face rejection, especially as he develops his skills to know whether a girl is genuinely interested in him, needing then nerves of steel to face a lot of rejections and/or develop a better strategy along the process to minimize the emotional cost of these repeated rejections.

I can’t imagine him kissing anyone’s ass. People want to give him money just to see what happens next.

Then he is the sigma of all sigmas. I’ve been a grant recipient. Once you take the money, you take on the responsibility of making the grantor happy. TANSTAAFL

I’d call your husband alpha with a side of sigma.

I get your point, but here is why I disagree. A sigma has at his core an inviolable and inviolate sense of self that is untouched by whatever indignities he is put through. That is what allows sigmas to come through horrible childhoods and other obstacles unscathed. A sigma may have to bend to practicality due to circumstances like supporting a family, but those circumstances never dictate who the sigma is internally. A sigma may rise in the corporate hierarchy, but he never becomes a corporate man.

That’s a big accommodation for an almost-sigma to make – he has to play the hierarchy game every day, reluctantly or not.

He definitely does, but it doesn’t define him. If he were to lose his job tomorrow, he would not suffer the lose of identity that a lot of men suffer. He would just coldly start a search for another source of income and benefits.

I made the accommodation that many STEM type almost-sigmas make – which is to find a lead technical role with a great deal of autonomy in a position where one is working for others.

Sigma or not, that’s an INTJ choice. INTx types love autonomy even when they dislike risk.

I made two abortive attempts to found high-tech startups and discovered I lacked sufficient appetite for risk and the monomaniacal drive needed to succeed.

But you took two big risks. Most people will take one risk, and many who take one risk will not take a second. Had one of those risks panned out, you’d probably view yourself differently.

So now I work as a lead designer / engineer, where I have control over my project from inception to marketing and design everything the way I want it.,/i>

But in the end I’m still making widgets for someone else. So I consider myself beta with a side of sigma.

I think that’s because you are defining sigma by occupation as opposed to character traits.

Here’s Vox’s definition of alpha, along him how DH compares: The tall (n0), good-looking guy (yeah) who is the center of male and female attention. (often) The classic star of the football team (No, swam briefly, quit to participate in school play) who is dating the prettiest cheerleader (never). The successful business executive with the beautiful, stylish wife. (Well, duh! Especially the wife part. ) All the women are attracted to him, all the men want to be him or at least his friend. (Yep.) At a social gathering like a party, he’s usually the loud guy telling self-flattering stories (Absolutely never!!) to whom several attractive women are listening with big, interested eyes. Alphas are only interested in women to the extent that they exist for the alpha’s gratification, physical and psychological. (No. He’s loyal as a puppy, though he sometimes bites.)

Now here’s Sigma: The outsiders who don’t play the social game and manage to win at it anyhow. (Yep.) The alphas hate sigmas because they are the only men who don’t accept or at least acknowledge their social dominance. (DH acknowledges rank and defers to it hypocritically when not doing so has practical consequences. He considers hypocritical fakery a valuable social skill. I’ve seen him butter people up and then walk away laughing.) [NB: Alphas absolutely hate to be laughed at and a sigma can enrage an alpha by simply smiling at him] ( I love to watch DH give alpha blowhards that withering smile. My younger son can do it as well. Makes a mother proud.) Everyone else is vaguely confused by them. (LOL, yeah.) At the party, it’s the guy who stops by to say hello to a few friends accompanied by a tier one girl that no one has ever seen before. (Yes, though I wouldn’t call myself tier one. I don’t play that.) Sigmas often like women, but also tend to be contemptuous of them. (Aw, sigmas are contemptuous of everyone, not just women.)

I see my husband as a sigma because he has that sort of character.

Just a small correction: To my mind this pervasive culture does NOT work to the best interests of commitment worthy women.

BB,

A good friend of mine is a sort of paradox: seriously devout Catholic (at least now and since I knew him) but also a real player in his youth (N>40). He married a Catholic girl whose N was not 0 but very low. He specifically said that his non-breakable criteria was “no oral.” How he knows that, you might ask. Well, I suppose he can’t be sure but he says that he could tell from her reluctance and bad technique.

Funny thing, in the “be careful what you wished for category,” years later he had to have a “woman up” conversation with her about getting over her aversion to oral. I think it all worked out, though.

In the process he might also develop his abilities to identify whether a girl is genuinely interested in him or not. Perhaps the best strategy ever is just to take things slow and develop familiarity first? Then indications of interest (or lack thereof) will be quite clear.

I’ll give this some thought and write a post this week.

The “take things slow” strategy is risky for the man. Women expect men to initiate sexually and many will judge a man negatively if he doesn’t. They will think he’s not interested or not masculine or has sexual performance issues or maybe he’s gay.

However, initiating assertively is likely to end up with PIV too soon, because women fear they don’t have the bargaining position to refuse. But accepting this course is risky for women, because many men judge them negatively for being too easy.

The difficulty is establishing trust and appraising the character of a stranger. This is so much easier when people date within a social group, where they may already know the other person and have connections through mutual friends. This means you have some assurance of the character of the other person before starting a relationship. My wife and I proceeded to PIV in our first week of whirlwind dating, but we had romantic intentions for each other and mutual trust for some time prior.

Can any of the benefits of pre-selection and familiarity be transferred to stranger-dating? Does anyone park a relationship in a quasi-platonic low investment mode for a period of time to get to know someone as a friend before proceeding to a real sexual & romantic dating relationship? I’ve had casual friendships with women that were supposed to be entirely platonic that I had to end because the platonic part was fast becoming fiction. The feelings I was developing and the expressions of interest I was getting felt the same as the early stage of a real relationship. If I had been single I would have thought I had a shot with those women. While that’s an example of accidental romance, I’m wondering if it could be utilized as a real dating strategy.

@ BB and Fish,

IM is out because it is a superficial way to assess anybody. Sure, you want somebody who knows their grammar (special exemption for us foreigners though ;P ), beyond that I don’t see the point. I put it in the same category as texting. Unless there is already a relationship going under that, useless waste of time. My experience with men who prioritize passive communication has always been short. I don’t need to be entertained on that level.

Regarding dating and marriage worthiness, one date is enough to assess that. At least IMO. Body language, tone of voice, manners, decisiveness regarding the date activity, all that informs you on a guy’s leadership style. If you can work with what you see, then it’s all good.

I spend a lot of time not dating because in my mind, dating should lead to marriage, and if you’re not ready for that why bother? So now when I go on dates, I do ask these general questions such as whether they want to get married, have children, where they think they want to live, etc… In general, you can see who is a “Decide and Filter” Vs a “WhateverComes”.

‘He specifically said that his non-breakable criteria was “no oral.” How he knows that, you might ask. Well, I suppose he can’t be sure but he says that he could tell from her reluctance and bad technique.’

If I were a woman, and I heard this from a man, I would head for the hills. Because the man with that criterium is a man with harmful double standards — as he himself found out when he later told his girlfriend that it was now “okay” for her to get sufficiently skilled in the Happy Ending department.

I think Michael Douglas is all over the internet telling us about it since yesterday!

At the risk of summoning some anti-vac trolls, I am SOOOOO glad I had my boys vaccinated for HPV.
I am also wondering what sort of dirty birdy Catherine Zeta-Jones is.

I’m sure he was correct, and reluctance is no doubt a good indicator. Some women just hate giving blowjobs.

I have never understood this. I just can’t wrap my head around the idea of not liking the act of giving a blowjob. It’s one of my favorite things to do with a man that I’m involved with. Maybe it’s just my sadistic side, but I’ve enjoyed tying up a man and having my way with is package for 1-3 hours at a time.

As a general update, my self-imposed celibacy is starting to take a huge toll on my sanity. Trying to keep my libido in check is proving to be quite difficult. The more days that pass, the more tempted I am to run like a madwoman through the streets, attacking men on sight.

I know I’m doing the right thing by abstaining from relationships for a while, and sex as a result of that, but I might lose it eventually and I’m not sure what I will do at that point.

“I don’t see why any woman who got to 35 or so would restrict her sexual behavior”

I can think of plenty.

BTW, point of clarification, I thought what you had said in the past was that you would be upset simply by the FACT of husband (or anyone you were with) having fantasies, however fleeting, about others. But now you seem to be acknowleding that such fantasies may be present (and inevitable), you just don’t want to know about them. Which seems entirely reasonable to me, whereas a wish that such fantasies always be absent strikes me as unreasonable (and probably impossible).

@ ADBG

If your libido is presenting such a challenge, and you cannot sleep with men, perhaps you should try women?

Haha! I think I’ll pass.

@Susan
“I think guys with a high N are less likely to ask, mostly because for a lot of them even a girl with 20 is rounding error. I recall that you really minded, but a lot of guys with a high N marry women with a similar background, or don’t commit to anyone.”

Guilty.

My response when asked is that I don’t give out that information. In reality, I have a hard time keeping track of it. I told my most recent ex when drunk once, only because I knew she wouldn’t remember. In my defense, i have had some concussions so my memory isn’t very good in general, 18-22 is easy to remember, 22-26 not so much at all and 28 till now, easier.

This is the only time I will ever advocate this, only because it is a worthless, ridiculous value judgement: Lie. Lie and don’t really talk about your sexual history. I don’t do this myself as if a woman would rather not see me than not know my number, I will let her go. But for women interested in LTR, if its that big a deal, lie. It really isn’t any of the guy’s business.

Swimming butterfly requires serious technique. So does cutting root veg into tourne. Sex? Not really.

And this is why I fantasize about eating a meal you’ve cooked…and then going home.

j/k

“One of the girls in my focus group read about a trick in Cosmo “guaranteed to drive him into ecstasy.”

Well. I remember exactly the first time I experienced that, and thank god for Cosmo. I’ve been teaching it, and variations upon it, ever since. I had an MD girlfriend ask me about my butt once, and whether or not I liked having it fooled with, and I said, “All men like it, it’s just that a lot of them are insecure about it or think it means they’re gay.” She laughed pretty hard at that. MDs have no illusions about private parts. Perhaps a few men consider it out of bounds, as a lot of women consider anal out of bounds. I’m too shy to go into more detail.

@Susan
LMAO

I’ve never been surprised at the back door but yanking at the boys while on top does not sound like a fun end to an evening.

I maintain that the best talent a guy can have is adapting to what his woman likes.

@Vitor
I have a friend, also N > 30 who is desperately searching for a LTR. But she keeps finding bike guy(not exactly bike guy, but random attractive DB who looks like he has $$) & expecting to settle him down. I don’t think this behavior makes her any less WORTHY of a LTR. She’s sweet, attractive and an absolute blast to spend time with. She just happens to be uninhibited sexually and make poor relationship choices. I really don’t think penalizing women like that is the way to go. My hope is that, like Alexis, she will learn to filter better and end up happy.

@Sassy
Well apparently you’re not just a tease with others but yourself as well. I could never handle that level of temptation and stick to my guns. On one hand you have my admiration, but on the other hand I wonder if you really want to hold out. Of course, those are isolated incidences over a span, its not like you were nightly salsa dancing.

@J & Escoffier
Thats funny, I almost went to culinary school. I decided business was a better way to go (thank god!). Much like massage, I prefer it as a hobby than as a profession.

I still say to this day, I caught my ex fiance with chicken alfredo & a massage.

“That’s a great and original insight! I’ve never thought of that.”

Wow. Walsh is really bringing the snark today.

I think I’ve given more information on my past history here in 4 days, than I have to any girl I’ve ever dated. Oh the power of the internet. . .

@ Anacaona,

Trust me third world countries are poor because all the energy is spent on securing the next laid or getting resources to support, wife, mistress and the occasional pump and dump and all the resulting children (or spending money abandoning them or in jail for a period of time for not paying child support). Is appalling as it comes.

Interesting point. It does seem that many of the most prosperous and stable societies had restrictive sexual codes that applied to men as well as women. It harnesses all that energy that is otherwise wasted fucking around.

If having power over men is your thing maybe you should get in contact with men that get off on being dominated, just a suggestion.

Apparently submissive men greatly outnumber dominant women. But I’m wondering if Sassy would find such men attractive.

@Vitor (546)
I get what you’re saying but it works. I can’t really call her my ex gf because that diminishes her impact. I can’t call her my ex-wife (although thats closer) because we were never married. . .

Agreed. Escof should start a cooking blog.
Cosign this.

@ Jason

FTR, I am not disagreeing with you on the girl’s reasoning. I am just saying that the “second-level” thinking requires a LOT of intuition and guess-work. If 90% of the guys you are dating aren’t asking about your number, it is not unreasonable to conclude that guys don’t care.

The fact that it so difficult to DO this kind of reasoning, especially when you are a hormonal young person with no clue about anything, is why social customs are elder influence are so important.

Susan,

I’m sure you’re right about women getting the wrong impression from their own experiences. Do guys ask when things are just casual? IIRC you asked your ex the morning after a ONS, which turned into a relationship later.

I actually didn’t ask my ex the morning after, but the convo did happen a little less than a month in when we were just ‘dating’ and I thought there was real potential. IME, when guys know that it’s casual, and only going to stay casual, they don’t ask but they don’t really care either way, and if it gets brought up because the girl has a little too much to drink, wants to ‘be cool’ or is just a chatty Kathy, it doesn’t bother them one bit (at least it didn’t for me in those situations).

Interesting point. It does seem that many of the most prosperous and stable societies had restrictive sexual codes that applied to men as well as women. It harnesses all that energy that is otherwise wasted fucking around.
We had discussed it here several times. Monogamy = breeds civilization. Everything else undermines it with various degrees. More or less in this order Monogamy > poligamy > poliandry > polyamory > promiscuity. If our species would had been made for arrangements we would had evolved different, sporting multiple genitalia, shorter pregnancies, or the possibility of getting pregnant by multiple partners at the same time and populations with significantly more members than the other. As we can see in different environments. More men than women or more women than men brings disaster all the time, YMMV.

Apparently submissive men greatly outnumber dominant women. But I’m wondering if Sassy would find such men attractive.
Herb has more experience in this but I think if the guy is assertive about how he wants to be dominated that might bring enough Alpha for her to get off in her endeavor. Also if she can use his submissiveness to dominate her when she feels like. Just guessing only know what I heard.

I don’t really have any secrets. I learned the classics and varying levels of technique. I cook a lot of warhorses with no changes and then I also like to make stuff up, especially with seasonal ingredients. Going crazy with asparagus, morels and ramps for the past six weeks or so.

Susan, my wife much prefers the bistro warhorses to the haute cuisine or whatever you want to call it. The Bouchon book is her fave.

The long meals kind of drive her nuts so I don’t do them that often. Although I am doing one Saturday. I would say for her they are more to be endured than enjoyed, though she does like (most of) the food. But it takes a long time, plus she does not drink and she has to listen to half a dozen people speak very pretentiously about wine, which is fun to make fun of for a while but gets old fast. I do try to squelch such conversations. The last time we had people over, we talked about wine almost not at all. I mean, a little, they were nice bottles, so some commentary was necessary …

I expressed sympathy and my friend said, “I believe that if you want a life partner, you find a life partner.” I had never thought of it that way, but no doubt Ruth did have opportunities for commitment. She rejected them all.
Cosign that. You probably remember I keep telling that but yeah if you really want a life partner you would get it. The truth is that no one is that awesome that after dozens and dozens of dates no one is ‘good enough for them’ Even Superman ended up marrying Lois Lane and he is a God among humans and the last son of Krypton (more like the only kryptonian raised on Earth in the new continuity).
If someone can’t hold down job, after job and say is all of their employer’s fault people rarely ever take it seriously. The same apply to romantic relationships, YMMV.

“The truth is that no one is that awesome that after dozens and dozens of dates no one is ‘good enough for them’ ”

Dozens of dates sounds absolutely exhausting.

I can count on one hand the number of women who I’ve gone on dates with.

Viagra in that case sounds rather dangerous and just forcing the physical. There’s so much pressure to perform, and people have all these expectations and misconceptions about sex, that dysfunction becomes the result.
That reminds me of this Oglaf comic. NSFW http://oglaf.com/performance-anxiety/

Fish: “… and i’d assume most guys partake.”

They do. Also, one of the feminist double standards is that it’s “empowering” for women to go the toy route and read 50 Shades, but debauched for a man to do same using different media.

About the time I was managing a parental kidnapping, I stopped dating (for some odd reason, I had no interest in live females). But the alternative disabled me with live humans. I found that it takes about two weeks of abstinence to get back to normal. I don’t think this is a very big deal. I don’t know any highly-sexual women who do not use fantasy and toys to fill the void during their quiet periods. Also, women could learn an awful lot if they watched the right porn. It’s no different, in instructional value, than what we used to watch in driver’s ed. And safer, and more efficient, than riding the carousel and being abused by attention-whore faux-alpha PUAs. I’m too shy to go into more detail.

He said that whenever he’s tried to quit, he hasn’t been able to go more than a few days without watching again.

He’s going to have to do a lot better than that.

It’s a pretty simple formula. Stop watching porn, stop thinking about porn, stop searching for any kind of arousing material, stop masturbating, and slowly acclimatize to flesh-and-blood girls. Start by being in the same room as them, then make eye contact, then talk to them, and slowly – slowly progress towards sex. He’ll need a lot of time in the flirting/touching/making out stage in order for his brain to re-wire. It’s nothing to do with love, and he doesn’t need a girlfriend to do it. It has no bearing on casual versus committed sex either. He needs to make a decision that going back to pornography is Not An Option and have an attractive enough girl available as a makeout partner, who could be a girlfriend or one or more casual partners.

Within three to six months it is very likely he will be better. It’s not easy but it is richly rewarding, at least if he harbors any fantasies of having intimate relationships of his own.

Even if he got into a girl’s vagina his penis is likely so numb he wouldn’t feel much of anything. Poor guy.

@BV
i agree that its hypocritical for women to have mechanical friends & complain about porn. I get part of it, in most cases they’re not as hot or talented as the women in porn (I tend to avoid silicone enhance porn and women, i like to delude myself into at least thinking these women could occur naturally in the wild).

@Liz
I’m a him, some of my analogies are less successful than others. Hopefully no one was offended. . .

@J

” First, I take issue with the idea that sigmas are produced by risky or unhappy childhoods though I believe they are more likely than most to survive a bad childhood with minimal damage.”

Thats the definition of sigma.
Not caring about what other people think because of troubled child hood.

A troubled child hood where the person cares is either a gamma/omega.

A person from a nice child hood who doesn’t care is an alpha.

So in your day it doesn’t count, and today it doesn’t, but in mine it did? Skipped a generation? Maybe it’s a culture or class thing, than age thing?

I’m sure there some kids out there, even today, who consider oral or orgasms as a partner. Probably lots; maybe those boring low-count restricted people?

I wonder if there’s a survey. After all, you posted an infidelity survey where something like 5% didn’t consider PV sex as cheating!

@ Fish

Jealousy. She’s a keeper. . .

Many positive aspects she has indeed, but there was a time when I (and pretty much everyone else at HUS) had rather significant doubts about her…

@Ana

Me too. But I grew tired of it myself. I can handle a type of porn for a few months but the repetition bores me so I move on to something new and then go back to the old stuff and found it new again. Of course that was a substitution when I was single now that I’m married I don’t think I had checked it more than a handful time and is mostly to see what is the most popular nowadays (there are trends in this things) but I think it has to do with personality. As mentioned before I smoked and drank alcohol and coffee regularly for long periods of time, but I never got addicted to any of them either.

What do you mean by personality?
Though I see what you mean, for the most part. It can get old fast and you need new stuff to have fun with. Though with a partner, yeah, it’s more fun to play around with the partner.

Or it usually is

What do you mean by personality?
Like addictive types will get addicted to porn while the non addictive type won’t.
Though with a partner, yeah, it’s more fun to play around with the partner.
Of course with a partner every time has something different because the human factor makes it so. I had never gotten bored with my husband. I doubt I ever will

So… three of the last four nights I have gone to:

-an Argentine tango lesson and dance downtown
-a Jane Austen ball Saturday night
-a swing dance party this past night

I can’t say I’ve seen anything terribly interesting thus far. I don’t know if I’m a picky son of a bitch or what. I’ve danced with most or all of the better-looking women who were not clearly attached, and some of the ones who were, but I haven’t seen a single woman I’d deem exciting. There was one girl at the tango lesson whose number I would have gotten had she not disappeared, but I was really only interested in her body. As it was I don’t lose any sleep over missing her.

I don’t think I’ll ever understand the guys who drool slack-jawed over all the “pretty girls” who are supposedly milling about everywhere. I ain’t seeing what they’re seeing.

Makes me wonder if I’m going to have to go somewhere else in order to find appealing women. I still have a feeling I should continue learning to dance even if it doesn’t bear fruit though, because it’s a valuable skill to have and may well pay dividends down the line.

(I don’t go to dance hell-bent on meeting girls anyway. I’ll ask a nearby woman to dance irrespective of what she looks like – you can’t go around the room three times searching madly for an aesthetically pleasing partner and ignore the others. That’s ridiculous.)

Basically, I want a committed relationship, but the girl’s gotta be worth it. I’m not going to jump into a relationship with the first halfway-decent looking girl I see just so I can be a good little boy and toe the line, and celibacy isn’t an option either. As long as I keep looking for the right girl in reasonable places (e.g. Jane Austen ball instead of bars and clubs) then I figure I’ll do what’s necessary to be sated until she arrives.

At least, that’s how I see things at the moment.

@Jesse

I don’t think I’d escalate early with a serious relationship prospect only to hope to be rebuffed in order to verify her purity. Sorry, I wouldn’t want to put a woman I care about in a position like that…

Excellent point! Isn’t this a person who deserves your highest level of kindness and consideration?

If I felt really good about the girl, we’d just spend time talking, getting comfortable with each other and developing a bond. Time together should be pleasant and romantic but not sexual.

Well THANK YOU for being the first to say this. I was trying to find a way to express something like this myself, after all the talk about how many dates / how much money/effort a guy should “waste” before getting his reward. Dating as a means to an end…
Call me old fashioned, but isn’t female companionship something to value? What about sharing a nice evening with someone?
(I’m sure I’ll get some yadda yadda about “bitches” now)

I know entertainment is cheap and easy to find nowadays, but it’s sad how we’ve devalued people.

Jesse, you sound like someone who genuinely likes women, and that’s a very big plus.

@WV

I meant “kindness and considerations” as in, not pushing them past their comfort zone, like Jesse was alluding to.

Liz: “Call me old fashioned, but isn’t female companionship something to value? What about sharing a nice evening with someone?”

Then it’s not a date. I can be asexual with everyone else that I’m not dating. This idea of asexual dating is pointless to me.

If you’re going on a date, it needs to be tinged with sexuality at all times. There must be sexual tension, and a little goes a long way. As a man, you assert that your interest is sexual and never let her forget it.

That doesn’t mean you should always be doing something sexual at all times, but it has to be on the table, otherwise, you run the risk of delaying it too much, and then shocking her pulling out some clumsy move when she thinks of you as “just a friend”. That’s a huge error of having the wrong frame or not being able to escalate gradually.

From a man’s perspective, letting her control the sexual frame means a certain of failure and friend zoning?

But what do I know? I have multiple women hitting on me. The frame alone, with nothing else, is catnip.

@Susan

The incentives and standards are currently set by promiscuous women…

Not really. The standards are largely set by the middle of the bell curve, because that’s what most guys are exposed to. When you have lots of guys who have a story about missing the boat with a girl because they didn’t make a move, and meet lots of girls who complain about guys not talking to or escalating with them, can one conclude that most women are promiscuous and “just want to be taken” by just any guy? No, you can’t. Fact of the matter is that fortune favors the bold, especially when it comes to women, and there’s a shortage of boldness if you ask most girls. The average of women’s behavior has totally shifted relative to what my parents would describe- and I’m not talking about the “slutty 10%” or whatever you would call them here at HUS, I’m talking about the women most guys I know are dating, that are very average in how they view and deal with men.

I’m not saying a guy should push, but it’s plain to me and most of my female friends who complain about this, that many if not most guys are not even giving girls the escalation they want. They’ll complain that guys are jerks, but they’ll complain a whole lot more if guys are too nice.

BroHamlet: “…They’ll complain that guys are jerks, but they’ll complain a whole lot more if guys are too nice.”

Our matriarchal culture (schools, media, university, the corporate cubical hive) demands that we be “A Good Man.” But women prefer “a man who is good at being a man.” Except when they don’t, and No means No. I think there’s a solution, but I’m too shy to explain. Think Gregory Peck by day, Cool Hand Luke by night. If a guy can manage to properly time the transitions without devolving into a schizophrenic fugal state, occasional happiness for all. It’s a bit like being asked to deliver a little soft-porn slapping and tossing. No problem: just develop advanced mind-reading skills and keep a criminal defense lawyer on retainer.

The standards are largely set by the middle of the bell curve, because that’s what most guys are exposed to.
I have to agree with Susan. The standards are set by the ones that are having the most sex. The average people are not getting laid in great numbers but they don’t register on the regular radar of most people. Specially in the microclimate of college.

do the HUS women feel that the level of financial investment (or other costly considerations) that the man makes in the date is correlated with his level of interest in an exclusive relationship with the girl in question? Why or why not?

Possibly. If I were dating a wealthy man and he was taking me to McDonald’s on a regular basis, I’d certainly wonder what was up. OTOH, if a broke guy shares his apple with you, he’s giving you a lot.

Also, there are men who will really show a woman a good time on a first date because they assume that the woman will put out in return. That is… what’s the expression? Oh yeah, creepy.

The sweet spot is a willingness to share what one has without trying to buy affection.

Susan, what Woody did is quite close to the bottom of the moral barrel.
I have a list of people I don’t pay my money to watch. The idea that I’m financing people that will use my hard earned money to continuing doing certain acts I deeply disagree with doesn’t sit with me. Sadly, stupid list keep growing

, the “whole point” of such novels would have to include that women are attracted to the beast over the housepet in the first place, no?

No. It’s more like turning a wolf into one’s own personal German Shepherd by the power of one’s irresistibleness. It’s a metaphor for turning unbridled male sexuality and power into protectiveness, loyalty and goodness with children. It’s a magic trick that a woman can do with her vagina. Civilization is built on that one trick.

As was previously described at the top of one of the posts, alpha crunch and beta goodness, and the fantasy is that the leading lady is the only one with teeth sharp enough to get through that alpha crunch to taste the sweet gooey Beta center.

Most men think “oh, hey, I am just going to put Beta gooey on the outside because that’s what women really want!”

Most men need more Alpha Crunch.

Most men focus on the Alpha Crunch when they hear about these novels because, hey, we were advertising the Beta Goo, why isn’t that working? These guys are all Alpha Crunch!

I have read Fifty Shades. Or parts of it. It was terrible. You are forgetting that the leading lady has more than her fair share of guys displaying Beta Gooey to go for, and she goes straight for Alpha Crunch.

Fun story, because it was a large group of middle-age, Jewish, suburban women telling me to read Fifty Shades. It will make everything so much better! I was thinking, christ, this book isn’t telling me anything I don’t already know.

Then I remember, most guys are pretty dumb, so…maybe they need to read 50 shades XD

Fun story, because it was a large group of middle-age, Jewish, suburban women telling me to read Fifty Shades

Really? That sounds like half my neighborhood, and no one admits to reading it or saying that they fantasize about dominant men. They’re pretty open about sex, but they’re also a pretty egalitarian bunch.

I would have expected that the audience for that book would have been same sort of women who form the ‘sphere’s ladies auxilliary, many of whom are non-denominational Christians. They are always on about how much they like male dominance, which the church has killed. Many of them actually blog about spanking as foreplay, and at least one gal is into bondage.

All I mean is this. If someone actually wrote a romance novel about a romance with a good man who’s already trained, in love, has no rough edges, and is ready for domesticity, it would sell zero copies. I totally get the point that the fantasy embedded in the genre is that the good girl tames the bad boy through love, i.e., the “happy ending” is that he does not remain an alpha roughneck forever. What I am saying is that the other indispensable key to the genre is that the man must AT FIRST be baaaaad in some way. And then she makes him good.

Re: GWTW, I have not read the book in years but here is what I remember.

Ashley is a pansy but he is wise. He loves Scarlett for the same reason all the men do: because she “vivacious” as Melanie says. (Mitchell make clear that Scarlett is not beautiful but that she has mad “girl game”). However, Ashley in his wisdom knows that Scarlett is not right for him by temperament and Melanie is so he chooses her. His problem is that he has a hard time accepting that and getting past it. He cannot get over his adolescent crush on Scarlett until very late in the game.

Scarlett is fixated on Ashley for the simple reason that he is the numero uno male in her field of vision. Remember, her “stock” is not quite so elevated. Her father is an Irish adventurer who wins Tara in a card game (none of this is in the movie). He marries a very proper Southern lady who brings class to the household. But she alone cannot elevate them to the true level of the real leaders of society. Scarlett wants Ashley because he is handsome, yes, but also because by marrying him she will have married the heir apparent to their milieu, which will make her the undisputed queen bee and sanctify their family once and for all as been real, honest Southern aristocrats.

Rhett plays it very cool with Scarlett. He is not in love with her until well after he marries her. He games are all the way through the book until Bonnie is born, at which point he really does love her. Then he finally gets pissed that she still loves Ashley and he has a tantrum, the first time we see him lose his cool. This leads to the famous “marital rape” scene, which leaves Scarlett rather “satisfied and stupefied” but Rhett doesn’t see that her attitude has changed and he goes to London.

I do think you are right that Scarlett only switches back to Rhett once she sees Ashley blubbering about Melanie’s death. She spins that to herself as “Oh, he really was in love with her” but really what she is thinking is “what a beta patsy, and I’ve had this real alpha at home all along, and now that he’s ignoring me again, I can love him!!”

Thinking about this a little, however, there is another layer.

At the beginning of the book, Ashley and Scarlett are at the top of the status heap while Rhett is a disreputable outsider. This gives him a certain rogue status, plus his physique and manner, which immediately attract Scarlett on a visceral level. But she is still very wrapped up in her “statusphere,” wants to be queen of it, and sees Ashley as they way to accomplish that.

Ashley gains some alpha cred by becoming a high ranking officer in the war. Rhett, the scoundrel, avoids service but runs guns and makes money, the money gives him a certain cred. Scarlett is very happy to dance and flirt with him but she is calculating enough to know that he can’t give her what she really wants.

As the book progresses, Ashley’s stock declines while Rhett’s rises. Ashley’s moment of alpha glory ends with the war. After that, he is Scarlett’s creature. She runs Tara, he works for her. She runs the lumber business, he works for her. It takes a while, but she does start to hold him in contempt. The one thing he never loses is his social status.

Rhett, on the other hand, abandons his business to fight. Then the Yankees take his fortune. Then he builds another one. Then he ingratiates himself with society.

Scarlett’s stock also rises. The turning point is delivering Melanie’s baby. But then she has to get to Tara on her own, get her family back on its feel, kills the soldier, pay the taxes, and so on. She becomes an archetypally “strong woman.” As a result, her hypergamy goes through the roof. She marries Frank for the tax money and hates him. She married Rhett because she can’t have Ashley, she likes Rhett, and he’s rich.

Rhett goes wrong with her, ironically, when fatherhood domesticizes him overmuch.

Her V triumphs over the wolf; the wolf is qualified by his bestial nature; his nastiness is therefore the source of his appeal (as a dramatic device).

It could have been anything else. A disfiguration like in the Phantom of the Opera or Beauty and the beast, being an wheelchair…the fact that nobody had tried the S&M scenario in a way that newbies could read it is what sets apart 50 from any other romance of the last decade, YMMV.

Are there any romance novels where the hero is, for lack of a better term, a Roissy beta at the BEGINNING? As opposed to at the end, when they are all expected to show their beta side.
Did you read the trope link? Many of this leads, start beta and usually friends. Gilbert had to be on his dying bed for Anne to understand that she loved him. Mr Knightley doesn’t even register in Emma’s radar until Harriet decides she wants him is quite common. Although most sphere men do a lot of mental gymnastics to make the Beta into “Alpha all along” but yeah it does exist and is quite common.

I do think you are right that Scarlett only switches back to Rhett once she sees Ashley blubbering about Melanie’s death. She spins that to herself as “Oh, he really was in love with her” but really what she is thinking is “what a beta patsy, and I’ve had this real alpha at home all along, and now that he’s ignoring me again, I can love him!!”
I know reading is very subjective but I disagree. This a less violent version of Wuthering Heights. Rhett becomes interested in Scarlet after he hears she loves Ashley. Scarlett was ready to drop her panties to Ashley if he ever said the word once Melanie was still alive. Is like an affair most people that thing they fall in love while cheating on their spouses break up like 80% of the times once they get rid of the only thing that made their lives passionate: the obstacle.
Rhett and Scarlet are both incapable of receiving love for someone that actually loves them. They rather developed passion for people that they cannot have. That is why Margaret choose to not let them end up together. She knew once both of them professed their love they will stop loving each other at once. The only true love in the story was Melanie and Ashley. But that makes for boring romance right? YMMV as usual.

My take on GWTW is quite different.

Rhett is attracted to Scarlett because A) he is a wolf who likes to collect women; and B) once he realizes that she is, in his words, “no lady.” But he does not love her until very late in the story. His initial attraction has nothing to do with him being jealous because she’s into Ashley. However, he does allow himself feelings of competition with Ashley.

You may be right that Scarlett never does love him, but I think he does love her. However, he is a jaded enough player that when he concludes that she won’t love him, he is able to “get over” her instantly and walk out. that wasn’t a ploy, he was really gone after that.

Which is why “sequels” have always been a terrible idea, not that I have read any of them.