494»

Even Slutty College Women Reject Sluts For Friendship

enjoy being a slutA new study at Cornell University finds that college women judge promiscuous women peers harshly, and prefer friendships with less sexually active women. Surprisingly, this opinion is held even by fellow promiscuous women!

Up until now, research has focused on the fact that many women express liberal attitudes towards promiscuity in others, and generally decline to judge other women for having casual sex. However, in this study, participants of both sexes were asked to rank both a promiscuous target (20 sexual partners) and a non-promiscuous target (2 partners) on 32 different personality attributes as being desirable for same-sex friendship. 

(Note: “Two was chosen for the typical target as it is slightly below the median number of lifetime  partners for men and women in this age group in the U.S. Twenty was chosen for the highly permissive target based on data that 7% of women and 16% of men in this age group report 15 or more lifetime partners.”)

The study begins by summarizing previous research on the undesirability of sexual permissiveness in both sexes:

Sexual permissiveness can be defined as attitudes or behaviors that are more liberal or extensive than what is normative in a social group. It can include actual or desired frequent, premarital, casual, group, or extradyadic sex, sex with many partners, early sexual debut, or even nonverbal cues signalizing availability (e.g., provocative clothing).

There are evolutionary and sociocultural reasons for the undesirability of permissiveness across interpersonal contexts, including same-sex friendships. Permissive people are more likely to be sexually unfaithful to a mate (Bailey, Kirk, Zhu, Dunne, & Martin, 2000) and to poach someone else’s mate (Schmitt, 2004). This is costly for both sexes: It threatens paternity certainty for men, and continued provision of partner resources for women (Buss & Schmitt, 1993)

This renders permissive individuals undesirable as partners as well as close same-sex friends, and distancing oneself from permissive friends could be an effective mate guarding strategy (Bleske & Shackelford, 2001). 

Sexual promiscuity among the 758 subjects was measured using the SOI – R, the standard sociosexuality inventory. On a 9 point scale, the male mean was 4.26 and the female mean was 3.16. 

Both unrestricted and restricted women rated unrestricted women negatively, though the nonpermissive women judged them more harshly than the permissive women. However, even extremely promiscuous women (2 SDs above the mean), rated the permissive targets as undesirable for friendship. Among men, restricted men strongly preferred friendship with fellow restricted men, while unrestricted men had no preference, except on the question of mate guarding. The authors write:

No moderation of participant permissiveness was detected regarding mate guarding, with the heightened need to mate guard from permissive compared to nonpermissive targets equally pronounced in all participants. [This confirms] evolutionary expectations that mate poaching is considered universally undesirable, even by those who are most likely to attempt it themselves, and that permissive friends pose the same level of risk for everyone.

Here’s a summary of friendship preferences among subjects:

Personality Trait Female Preference Male Preference
Competence Restricted Unrestricted
Warmth Restricted None
Dominance Restricted None
Morality Restricted

Restricted men prefer restricted

Unrestricted men have no preference

Extraversion* Unrestricted Unrestricted

*The authors note that subjects may prefer extroverted individuals as entertaining acquaintances rather than close friends.

Significantly, in open-ended statements, 81% of females and 65% of males referred to lower levels of sexual involvement as positive. In contrast, 56% of all subjects made statements judging the target’s sexuality as being among their least likable attributes. Of these, 96% of males and 98% of females referred to high levels of sexual involvement  as a negative. 

The study’s authors bemoan this new evidence of a sexual double standard and worry about the loss of social support systems for promiscuous women. I welcome it as a positive development that builds on previous research in this area. In fact, what has been happening is the emergence of a single standard, just not the one feminists hoped for. Increasingly, both sexes are judging their peers harshly for promiscuous behavior, as illustrated in this graphic from a previous study:

Single Standard

 

It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, this preference has on the behavior of sexually promiscuous women. If they are ostracized by other women, will they voluntarily restrain their sexual activity in order to gain acceptance and friendship? Or will they value the temporary male validation that they derive from casual encounters above female friendship, and operate as loners, bypassing other women altogether?

To the extent that promiscuous women do forge friendships with one another, this must be a case of “keep your enemies close, but your friends closer” as mate guarding becomes a real concern. Or perhaps few of these women are in relationships, and therefore may join forces as potential poachers of the mates of more restricted women. 

In any case, there is a clear trend toward harsher judgment by women towards other women who indulge in casual sex. And it’s not just in college. Writing in HuffPo, Susan Rosenzweig, who’s twice that age, writes Please Stop Hooking Up With My Future Husband

But, what about the long-term damage that hookups could be doing to the dating world? What if this hookup culture is inadvertently changing the dynamics between men and women? And, not for the better?

I asked Holly, thinking out loud, “What if the fact the you’re sleeping with some guy is squashing his motivation and desire to go out and find the true love of his life, because his immediate sexual needs are being met. And meanwhile, some other girl is doing the same with the guy you’re supposed to be with?”

If there is truly a lid for every pot, then there’s a good man for every woman out there who wants one. I just don’t want to waste time with your lid and I’d really appreciate it if you’d stop distracting mine…why not consider “paying it forward” sexually? If we’re truly all connected, and what you do with the guy you don’t really like could be numbing him to go after his true love, why not set him free? Make room for the right guy to come in. And believe that in return, perhaps you’ll empower someone else to do the same.

The ostracization of promiscuous women is a sensible female response to market conditions. When the sex ratio favors men, and the culture favors delaying or avoiding commitment, female instrasexual competition increases. Women are finally waking up to the fact that there’s something they can do about rogue female operators in the SMP. 

 

One Pingback/Trackback

  • mr. wavevector

    The study’s authors bemoan this new evidence of a sexual double standard and worry about the loss of social support systems for promiscuous women.

    Clearly universities need to redouble their efforts on slut-acceptance programs! Perhaps mandatory slut-walks should be required to indoctrinate incoming freshmen.

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

    Susan, is the chart suggesting that men generally (both restricted and unrestricted) find unrestricted men to be more “competent”?

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

      Susan, is the chart suggesting that men generally (both restricted and unrestricted) find unrestricted men to be more “competent”?

      LOL, as I was reading that I thought, “BB is going to like this.”

      The answer is yes. Men also found permissive men more stable. Here’s how the study defined competence:

      hardworking, responsible, intelligent, sophisticated, ambitious, mature, self-confident, and independent

      “Competence and emotional stability were valued in a friend by both sexes; the sex difference in preferences was due to opposing perceptions of permissive men (more competent and stable) versus women (less competent and stable). This is consistent with sexual strategies theory that men benefit from many partners and are less selective than women, for whom the advantage of many partners is limited and the cost can be substantial (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). Thus, a man who has managed to attract many partners is particularly successful, and assumed to be confident and emotionally secure. The acquisition of many sexual partners by a woman, on the other hand, is not a difficult achievement, and is therefore interpreted as an act of low self-esteem.”

      I could only find a bootleg copy of the study, but it’s here if you care to have a look:

      http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/31108666/Vrangalova_et_al_2ndResubmissionJSPR.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIR6FSIMDFXPEERSA&Expires=1370351887&Signature=Cr2SKgabDcKCsD2ydp%2FMpaNLLo0%3D

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    At this point, I almost feel sorry for the promiscuous girls… :(

  • Abbot

    Well, the obviously angry batshit crazy Jezebel asshats didn’t bother to read the study carefully or just wrote this out of anger:

    “Nine out of ten women surveyed listed promiscuity as a negative trait in another woman, while men were more lax about this attribute in the female profile.”

    FACT: the men were not even asked to review female profiles. If they did, one could assume that men would be lax about female promiscuity only if getting laid was the sole objective.

    http://jezebel.com/study-makes-a-case-for-national-befriend-a-slut-day-510834761

    .

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

      @Abbot

      That’s hilarious – you’re right, the study was only about same-sex friendships.

  • Abbot

    “Sexually permissive women are ostracised for being ‘easy,’ whereas men with a high number of sexual partners are viewed with a sense of accomplishment” –lead author Zhana Vrangalova.”

    That is the only statement needed for this study’s conclusion. It has probably been stated thousands of times in various versions during the past 100 years. The only reason men are viewed that way is because, in varying degrees, they have to really work at it. If sex came as easy to them as it does to women then they too would be viewed as gluttons and mocked if they overdid it.

    Given all the cheap and abundant food available, no one gets a high five for eating and especially not for over-eating. The only difference between sex and food for women is that food promiscuity reveals itself in a more obvious way.

  • Abbot

    “Thus, a man who has managed to attract many partners is particularly successful, and assumed to be confident and emotionally secure. The acquisition of many sexual partners by a woman, on the other hand, is not a difficult achievement, and is therefore interpreted as an act of low self-esteem.”

    FEMINISTS ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS TRUTH REVEALED IN RESPECTED MAINSTREAM STUDIES!

    It may not be a matter of self esteem as some women just want cheap intense thrills. But no promiscuous woman wants to hear that her “getting men” is not an achievement as that must maker her feel used and betrayed by feminism. For that reason alone, this is a very cool study and should be be mandatory reading in every high school sex ed class.

  • http://metatalkingpoints.blogspot.com Jay

    Thus, a man who has managed to attract many partners is particularly successful, and assumed to be confident and emotionally secure. The acquisition of many sexual partners by a woman, on the other hand, is not a difficult achievement, and is therefore interpreted as an act of low self-esteem.

    Reminds me of a quote on Bash (slightly paraphrased): If a key can open up a bunch of locks, it’s a master key. But if a lock can get opened by a bunch of keys, it’s a crappy key.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    The highly promiscuous men of the manosphere do not seem at all happier than the promiscuous women.

    In the end you have a girl fucking Tucker Max so she can write a blog post and so he can write a story about her in his books.

    The key is worn down to a file.

  • Hamster Tamer

    I think Jay meant to say “a crappy LOCK”…

    I just need one good woman, under 100 lbs., and under 20 yrs. old. From there I can train her to be a great lock… Ultimate Life Game. ;^)

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

      under 100 lbs.,

      I hope you want her to be less than 5 feet tall as well, then.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Sexually permissive women are ostracised for being ‘easy,’ whereas men with a high number of sexual partners are viewed with a sense of accomplishment”

    I think it depends on the man. A good looking and charming man with a lot of sexual partners is not viewed with a since of accomplishment because he didn’t really have to go out of his way to get them.

    An average looking, socially awkward guy? Now it would be a true accomplishment for him because women would not naturally be flocking to him.

    Same with females.

    Good looking and charming females are flirted with, often by good looking and charming men. Having those men sexually attracted to her is no real “accomplishment” since she didn’t have to step out of her comfort zone.

    An average looking, fat, socially awkard woman is another matter.

    Men will not be flirting with her, hitting on her, hollerin’ at her, or giving her attention normally. So if she somehow manages to bed some hunks, then of course its an esteem boost and even an accomplishment of sorts.

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

      A good looking and charming man with a lot of sexual partners is not viewed with a since of accomplishment because he didn’t really have to go out of his way to get them.

      He is viewed that way by other men.

  • Josie

    @SHS

    I thought that Susan did a post a few weeks back about how average girls (6s, i.e. Karen Owens) has a higher number compare to beautiful girls, since average girls gets used for sex whereas pretty girls are often in relationships?

    Therefore an average girl having a higher count would be of no surprise since she gets used more.

  • Anacaona

    Therefore an average girl having a higher count would be of no surprise since she gets used more.
    The average girl that marries the hunk millionaire would be the real winner…Wait isn’t that the theme of most romance novels? No wonder :P

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “I think it depends on the man. A good looking and charming man with a lot of sexual partners is not viewed with a since of accomplishment because he didn’t really have to go out of his way to get them. ”

    “Yes he did. In fact, he has to put in A LOT more effort than the average-looking aka do-able woman who just has to shower and show up. ”

    Because you are an average Joe you think this.

    Hot guys lives are totally different. They don’t even have to shower.

  • Josie

    I notice that the majority of alpha males are conservatives, who willingly uses girls for sex while reserving relationship status for restricted, hot girls.

    The more conservative the guy, the more likely he is to use an unrestricted girl for sex because he has no respects for her due to his beliefs about gender roles.

    This is why about 30%? of married men cheats on their wives, because they marries restricted girls, who assets depreciate after 35. Except for restricted, conservative christian guys who dates conservative christian girls, conservative men are usually the alphas dogs.

    This makes me thinks about how 40% of children are now born to single moms, who children are father by married men. Never married an alpha guy.

  • Travis

    @Josie,
    I’m assuming English isn’t your native tongue. Due to the language barrier I’m having some trouble understanding what you’re trying to get across. But from what I can piece together, you seem to be saying, “I’m a feminist troll. Avoid interacting with me at all costs.” Is that correct?

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “The more conservative the guy, the more likely he is to use an unrestricted girl for sex ”

    Genuinely conservative men do not have casual sex.

  • Travis

    Re-reading your post, maybe I was being a bit harsh. But your insistence on painting women as helpless victims of the evil conservative men who just want to “use” them, due to their lack of respect for women and their “beliefs about gender roles” is pretty ridiculous.

    Also, can you tell me where you got the stat that 30% of married men cheat on their wives?

  • Abbot

    “Hot guys lives are totally different. They don’t even have to shower.”

    Your daddy must be proud. Do you at least carry a pack of moist towelettes?

  • Abbot

    “The more conservative the guy, the more likely he is to use an unrestricted girl for sex because he has no respects for her due to his beliefs about gender roles.”

    Then a woman who repeatedly hops on all manner of penis is more likely to emerge from the whole mess as someone who demands an equal sharing of household chores? Assuming of course someone will commit to her and live with her shit past and his shit future.

  • Abbot

    “restricted girls, who assets depreciate after 35.”

    Versus an unrestricted girl whose assets depreciated and were raked out by a dozen or more penises before she was 30.

  • Abbot

    “Genuinely conservative men do not have casual sex.”

    Per your experience, you wouldn’t know as they tend to shower between girls and immediately following the rugby match. Not your type.

  • JP

    “In the end you have a girl fucking Tucker Max so she can write a blog post and so he can write a story about her in his books.”

    He nearly attracted my attention.

    Tucker Max that is.

    I considered dealing with him when I had the opportunity, but I could not be bothered.

  • JP

    “An average looking, fat, socially awkard woman is another matter.

    Men will not be flirting with her, hitting on her, hollerin’ at her, or giving her attention normally.”

    Unless you are me.

    Since I would have been completely uninterested in dating her, I would not be shy toward her and could have therefore strike up an actual conversation, since there was no anxiety involved.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    And who are you
    The proud whore said
    That I must feel so judged?
    Only a prude who won’t get laid
    That’s all the truth I know
    With a N of 2
    Or a N of 20
    A woman still has breasts
    And mine are large and round my dear
    As large and round as yours
    And so she spoke
    And so she spoke
    That whore who spread her legs
    But now her tears
    Fall down her face
    And not a soul to care

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

      @ADBG

      Wow, that poem is very Marcellus-like.

  • Abbot

    The takeaway: don’t be that UnRestrictedWoman™

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

      The takeaway: don’t be that UnRestrictedWoman™

      LOL, love the TM.

  • Abbot

    “if she somehow manages to bed some hunks, then of course its an esteem boost and even an accomplishment of sorts.”

    She “manages” by merely showing up and making it obvious she wants to extract ejaculate. Any feeling of accomplishment is false and is what feminists call “expressing her sexuality.” It really is quite a pathetic mess that no man with standards would voluntarily dedicate himself to.

  • Abbot

    Aside from Jezebel, feminists like Marcotte are staying clear of commenting on this study. Its really quite stifling aka sock-rammed-down-throat. Where would they start? The author is respected and unbiased and was surprised at the results too. The study paves the way for more studies and the next one should ask men how they think about promiscuous women in terms of sex and commitment. The results will drive a blast wave right through the feminist community and they will be on their knees doubled over and struggling to get up for years after.

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

      The author is respected and unbiased and was surprised at the results too.

      Yes, Vrangalova is clearly a feminist. There’s not much Valenti and Marcotte can say, really, though I’m sure they blame the residual patriarchy for perpetrating the double standard.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Wow, that poem is very Marcellus-like.

    Thank you very much, but it was shamelessly plagiarized :P

    The takeaway: don’t be that UnRestrictedWoman™

    Very much so.
    Are there ANY benefits to being a slut?

  • Abbot

    “Are there ANY benefits to being a slut?”

    These have been bantered around the feminist think-cave :

    Intense discovery of your sexuality.
    Downside: nobody knows what the fuck that means

    Getting even with men by being like them.
    Downside: getting even by pleasing the very men you’re getting even with

    Avoiding commitment while working on the “career.”
    Downside: severe depletion of options available for commitment later

    Boosting your ego.
    Downside: crushing your soul

    Disconnecting your self worth from your vagina.
    Downside: that is the downside

  • Abbot

    “I’m sure they blame the residual patriarchy for perpetrating the double standard”

    Being a promiscuous woman who is repulsed by other promiscuous women is not exactly a double standard. Its more like avoiding being seen as promiscuous by hanging out with the wrong crowd or not wanting to own up to your own gluttony. This puts feminists into mental flip flop mode and its back to the rhetoric table where they will come up with some more gems that make them look even more stupid (if thats possible). One such new age term might be “internalized patriarchy.”

    Of course, going out and banging the patriarchy to show em whose boss is one way to get those internalized ya-yas out. Yeah, its that sick…

    .

  • Fish

    I think this can be summed up by saying that women generally are more critical and competitive with each other. In groups of women I friends with, there is always a “slutty” friend. They usually acknowledge her as the slutty friend, but there is generally only one.

    Guys on the other hand usually have one alpha in the group (if any) but his sexual conquests are a side effect of being the good looking, charismatic, leadership type. Guys may be jealous of the fact that he “gets all the girls” but are less likely to ostracize him for it.

    Bottom line, I think women are more competitive with each other for perspective men (hence the incentive to hook up early to secure said guy), guys seem to be more accepting of their place in the hierarchy(which explains the difficulty of hot women, the guys on their level are picking the low hanging fruit and the guys bellow the top tier are out of her league).

  • Abbot

    “women generally are more critical and competitive with each other”

    Feminist will still say that its the “patriarchy” thingy that makes them behave that way.

  • Josie

    Yes, English is my second language but I refused to tell you which country I am from.

    I find it sad and unfortunate that you accused me of being a feminist troll. I agree with some aspect of feminism, in that being educated and financially independent is a good thing. Even Susan and others on here agrees that being educated is a good thing.

    At the same time, I agree with Susan about being sexually restricted. I was very ignorant about the hook up culture when I went to college because my parents were uneducated, immigrants.

    I enjoy reading this blog because it teaches me about how young American men and American culture treats women and sex. I love to learn. In fact, I had become more sexually selective after reading this blog. I had also came to value and prefers to date Beta guys. (Although being smart was always sexy).

    I also enjoys being feminine, and being treated like a lady. Instead of accusing me things, you can simply asked and educate me.

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

      @Josie

      Thank you for sharing a bit about your background and why you’re here. I think (hope) the guys will cut you some slack now. There are plenty of other women here who believe in equality.

  • Abbot

    These types of “feed the feminist beast” propaganda articles are all going to have to be revised now.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/casual-sex-hookups-aren-emotionally-damaging-study-finds-article-1.433176

    .

  • Josie

    @ Travis and SHS

    So do you want to began a dialogue? Let me explained:

    I came to the conclusion that men will used a girl for sex unless if she withheld sex until she gets a commitment or if she sleeps with him early on, she must be extremely hot to get girlfriend status.

    Given my ignorance about the hook up culture, I notice that the very few men that I hook up will used me, but they immediately or willing makes a hot girl their girlfriend. Most of these men are willing to engaged in casual sex, but they prefer sexually restricted girls to settled down with.

    Thus, they still subscribe to the conservative notion about women sexuality. Even Roosy (? that is his name right?) tells women that she should remain a virgin until she marry.

    Have you ever read those blogs written by “alpha” males who engaged in casual sex while putting down feminism and telling women to withheld sex until commitment?

    It is like in my culture, where young men have premarital sex with women but prefer to marry virgins only. I decided to be more educated and independent after I was disqualified as “wife material” by the guy that I thought I was going elope with when I was 15 because he wanted to marry a virgin, even though he took my virginity.

    I became “damage goods” to young men from my culture, and only middle age men were willing to date me but I have no desires to be a step mom/grandmother anything time soon, so I choose education.

    When I went to college, I dated young men of different race but I had little to no understanding of the hook up culture until I started feeling used. So, I started reading more blogs like this one to understand my role as a nonwhite woman in American culture.

    I discovered that hot girls gets treated better, but an average girl that is restricted and withheld sex does have a higher chance at relationships.

    Moreover, one can be conservative while engaging in casual sex just like one can be a christian and be a liberal.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    Abbot:
    “She “manages” by merely showing up and making it obvious she wants to extract ejaculate. ”

    This only happens in your imagination, not in real life. In real life we mate with people that we interact with in an organic way. Women don’t see an attractive stranger, stalk him and follow his car to his home and then “show up” at the door offering sex.

    In the normal course of going about life average and below looking fat and/or socially awkward women do not normally get flirted with by men, asked out, hit on, pursued, etc. If by chance through her limited social circle or somehow an attractive man shows her attention and does flirt with, it feels blissful to her and it can work to improve her own self image as a woman.

    That’s basic human psychology.

    “Any feeling of accomplishment is false and is what feminists call “expressing her sexuality.”

    I don’t know about “accomplishment” but it of course it feels good to be validated, noticed, talked to, flirted wtih, if that is something that rarely if ever happens to one. It can give one a confidence boost.

    Josie, only ever enter a relationship with a man who shares the same values, ethics and standards that you do. If he’s a hypocrite and you are not, and you do not value hypocrisy, then move on.

    “Moreover, one can be conservative while engaging in casual sex just like one can be a christian and be a liberal.”

    One cannot be sexually conservative while engaging in casual sex, though they may be fiscally conservative or perhaps even socially conservative.

    Regarding 30% infidelity rate, I believe Josie is specifically referring to men in her country of origin. Correct me if I’m wrong, Josie.

  • Fish

    @Josie
    “I came to the conclusion that men will used a girl for sex unless if she withheld sex until she gets a commitment or if she sleeps with him early on, she must be extremely hot to get girlfriend status. ”

    I think you are half right. There are multiple “types” of guys in the marketplace. Some guys are definitely the type above. Some guys genuinely want a relationship. I believe the challenge for women is one of correctly filtering out the guys who just want sex, leaving the guys with whom a long term relationship is possible.

    Guys do generally want to maximize appearance for girlfriend status. But that’s not all guys and not the hottest girls. I would agree with a point that has been brought up here before in that the hottest girls have a problem achieving girlfriend status because the guys “on their level” don’t want girlfriends, they would rather sleep around with less hot girls who are more willing to sleep with them. My understanding is that you best bet as a woman, to find a long term relationship, is to be 1-2 points higher in sexual market value than the guy you want a LTR with, make sure he possesses the qualities you want and make sure that he is indeed looking for a relationship and not just sex. How you do all that is open to discussion. . .

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Per your experience, you wouldn’t know as they tend to shower between girls and immediately following the rugby match. Not your type.”

    I’ll say! I had to google “rugby”.

  • Fish

    @Abbott
    “Rarely is being a virgin a requirement since, given the sorry state of affairs, it would be absurd to expect that in the US.”

    Its hard to imagine a woman with SMV 6+ not tripping and falling on a penis at least once on the way through college. I did date a girl where this was allegedly the case, but neither i nor any of my friends actually believed she was a virgin. Even “good girls” are in the low single digits after college.

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

      Even “good girls” are in the low single digits after college.

      Well, 25% of females at college graduation are virgins, but in my experience, if a girl gets to 24 or so, she gets extremely anxious about this.

  • Jason773

    Hot Sauce,

    In the normal course of going about life average and below looking fat and/or socially awkward women do not normally get flirted with by men, asked out, hit on, pursued, etc. If by chance through her limited social circle or somehow an attractive man shows her attention and does flirt with, it feels blissful to her and it can work to improve her own self image as a woman.

    While Abbott is the grumpy old guy of HUS saying “get off my lawn”, he is correct here. Have you ever actually gone out to a college/young professional type of meat market bar? Beyond being a grotesque creature, even fat and plain looking women have zero problem getting laid if they choose to. There are plenty of desperate decent looking guys out there who have no problem bedding these chicks for a night and then disregarding.

    If a woman really wants to have sex there isn’t much standing in her way.

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

      If a woman really wants to have sex there isn’t much standing in her way.

      There are very few women (thankfully) who head out for the evening in the hopes of getting laid. For those that do, the need is more likely psychological than physical.

  • Josie

    Wait first of all,

    I do agree with Susan that having “slutty” girlfriends is of great concern since she would probably make a move on your “man.” However, it is the man’s fault for sleeping with her since he is involved with you, and she is single.

    My own friends have an unspoken rules about not hooking up with the guys you are currently hooking up with, but it is ok after you end it. Like a friend dating an ex.

    @Abbot

    Was it hard to get them to sleep with me? No. However, I did it under the impression that we were dating. I have been told that I was average, or “cute” so it was flattering to have any guy hits on me.

    Couple that with low esteem, passiveness, loose boundaries, being rejected because I was damage good, and a desire to be love. Hooking up was done under ignorance and a desire to be love.

  • Fish

    @Josie
    “Couple that with low esteem, passiveness, loose boundaries, being rejected because I was damage good, and a desire to be love. Hooking up was done under ignorance and a desire to be love.”

    This blog will probably be a great resource for you. Susan preaches strategies for women who are looking for LTR as it seems you are. While there are no guarantees, more opportunities with higher quality guys should give you more chances of success.

    This is a great read:
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/05/16/hookinguprealities/tough-talk-about-sexual-market-value/

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    ” Beyond being a grotesque creature, even fat and plain looking women have zero problem getting laid if they choose to”

    So? Waiting around til closing to saddle up next to the last standing desperate guy and proposition him for sex is not something women do.

    Again, in the normal of course of life, fat, unattractive, average, socially awkward women (who generally aren’t regulars in nightclub social scenes to begin with), generally don’t get approached, what to speak of by good looking men.

    Sure, any woman who walks down the street with a sign that reads, “Will Work 4 Sex” or something of the sort will manage to get laid, but that’s NOT what I’m talking about and these scenarios do not play out except in weird minds.

    What about “ordinary course of life” is so hard for you to understand?

  • Abbot

    “fat, unattractive, average, socially awkward women ”

    On the bell curve, is this the group way off in one tail?…cause that’s slinking below the 4

  • Fish

    @Susan
    I’d believe 25%, but I bet that is weighted towards lower SMV. Unfortunately its next to impossible to do a study where that’s ranked because its subjective & most of the study would end up on the ranking of the SMV itself. The girl in question I’d say was a solid 7, I was stunned she said she was a virgin. I have a female friend who is still a virgin, SMV I’d say about 3-4, doesn’t surprise me at all…

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “I have a female friend who is still a virgin, SMV I’d say about 3-4, doesn’t surprise me at all…”

    See.

  • Travis

    @Josie,
    I apologize for jumping all over you earlier. Now that I’ve read some more of your posts I understand where you’re coming from a little better. My reaction was mostly due to the attack on conservative men. Most of whom I find to be a lot more likely to commit and remain faithful.
    Also, any time I hear a woman complain about “gender roles” it sets off alarm bells in my mind. I’m all for equality. I have no problem with women being educated or working. But I have a SERIOUS problem with the feminist desire to make all gender roles fluid. IMO this is a huge part of the reason we have the problems we do. Men should be raised to be masculine, and women should be raised to be feminine. The opposite obviously doesn’t work.
    (And I was a little insulted by the 30% of married men cheat, stat. I did a quick google search, and from everything I saw, it seems wildly inaccurate.)

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Men should be raised to be masculine, and women should be raised to be feminine. The opposite obviously doesn’t work.”

    Concepts of masculinity and femininity are culture based. I live currently in a culture that thinks meat is “manfood” and yoga and astrology are “womanly”.

  • Travis

    “Concepts of masculinity and femininity are culture based. I live currently in a culture that thinks meat is “manfood” and yoga and astrology are “womanly”.”

    With all due respect, I wasn’t advocating not allowing women to eat steak. I think you’re intelligent enough to realize that. Although I personally agree that yoga and astrology are pretty feminine. ;)
    By the way, you wouldn’t happen to be Plain Jane, would you?

  • Abbot

    “Concepts of masculinity and femininity are culture based.”

    Why does it matter the source, however unfounded? What if its how we are born? What difference does that make? Why is it that women keep trying to “reeducate” about what causes this or what causes that? Aside from the fun trivia, men don’t care and they have no reason to.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Concepts of masculinity and femininity are culture based. I live currently in a culture that thinks meat is “manfood” and yoga and astrology are “womanly”.

    “Why does it matter the source, however unfounded? What if its how we are born?”

    > Did you even bother to read what I wrote above?

    “But the worst damage they actually manage to do is getting good women to go feral just because they are bitter about the joy men get from being able to choose wives from a pool of doe-eyed gaga charming gracious women that only exposure to multiple penises can dull down.”

    > Uh?
    A feminist told someone to go feral because a few men go abroad?

  • purplesneakers

    @Fish

    Is your female friend interested in having sex?

    Even when I was at my most overweight with a terrible haircut and awful sense of style in college, I could have easily lost my virginity. While I wanted to, I felt uncomfortable when I was approached by guys, and I was afraid to start up conversations with anyone of my own volition. In my experience, a woman choosing to have sex often has more to do with her confidence levels than anything else. Although I’m sure that less attractive women will tend to have lower confidence levels, I also know some very, very attractive girls who are virgins post-college. This includes two types of girls: a) girls from unconventional family backgrounds who seem to have issues with physical contact and commitment in general, and b) girls raised in very traditional immigrant families.

    Also, I believe that Susan has often posted about most people engaging in assortative mating (except for the top range of males-middle range of females), so I would find it hard to believe that there are no 3-4 guys willing to have sex with 3-4 girls. I think it’s difficult to come to conclusions without data, and the data often surprises me and my preconceived notions of how the sexual marketplace works.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “This includes two types of girls: a) girls from unconventional family backgrounds who seem to have issues with physical contact and commitment in general”

    What do you mean by “unconventional family backgrounds”.

    “I would find it hard to believe that there are no 3-4 guys willing to have sex with 3-4 girls.”

    They are out there, but in the ordinary course of life if they are not approaching or flirting with or indicating any interest then the 3-4 girls won’t know.

  • Anacaona

    I’d believe 25%, but I bet that is weighted towards lower SMV. Unfortunately its next to impossible to do a study where that’s ranked because its subjective & most of the study would end up on the ranking of the SMV itself. The girl in question I’d say was a solid 7, I was stunned she said she was a virgin. I have a female friend who is still a virgin, SMV I’d say about 3-4, doesn’t surprise me at all…
    Actually the most attractive women can get away with delaying sex. A man might find a hot girl and be attracted enough to bask on her beauty for a while without going all the way with the promise of doing so at some point if he is patient enough or accepting because she wants to wait for marriage so a hot girlfriend> less hot girlfriend. The ugly ones have to offer more incentives for a man to stick around and have a chance at a relationship. At least that is what I had seen a man will tolerate a lot of crap from a hottie that would kick the ugly one for a fraction of the same standard, YMMV.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “The ugly ones have to offer more incentives for a man to stick around and have a chance at a relationship.”

    The meme is that fat women and short men are the best at oral sex.

  • purplesneakers

    What do you mean by “unconventional family backgrounds”.

    Parents in an open marriage, or divorced parents who were not financially, emotionally, or health-wise stable.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Parents in an open marriage”

    That is still unconventional.

    “or divorced parents who were not financially, emotionally, or health-wise stable.”

    Totally mainstream now.

  • purplesneakers

    @Ana
    The ugly ones have to offer more incentives for a man to stick around and have a chance at a relationship. At least that is what I had seen a man will tolerate a lot of crap from a hottie that would kick the ugly one for a fraction of the same standard, YMMV.

    I always hear this, and while I guess I just don’t know enough people or enough about the relationships of the ones I do know to have seen this in practice, it makes me so afraid that some guy will think I’m good enough to have sex with but not have a relationship with me, even despite my faults. It makes me resentful of men and question their motives (especially since I was neither attractive nor socially attuned growing up, and became bitter because of it, and I’m just starting to understand and accept people and get over it), which is one reason I try to stay away from HUS and similar blogs (and when I do, I have so much more romantic success). I guess where I find some ‘consolation’ in scenarios like this are that a) the guy is a chump and she’s probably cheating on him with some alpha (how males may find consolation), or b) eventually he will get sick of her and she’ll never find a meaningful relationship (how females may find consolation).

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    ” It makes me resentful of men and question their motives (especially since I was neither attractive nor socially attuned growing up, and became bitter because of it, and I’m just starting to understand and accept people and get over it), which is one reason I try to stay away from HUS and similar blogs (and when I do, I have so much more romantic success).”

    Quality of life in any area is proportional to the time (not!) spent online.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I have actually been considering taking a sabbatical from my normal online interests to pursue more traditionally “masculine” activities.

    Admittedly, somewhat inspired by the story of BB’s friend getting the boob job and taking on a lot of male interests.

  • Abbot

    “pursue more traditionally “masculine” activities.”

    Then those would being activities innate to your nature and biological physiology.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Shhhh, Abbot, don’t tell anyone I am giving into the patriarchy…

  • Abbot

    “I am giving into the patriarchy…”

    Must be very strong, this contrived patriarchy thingy that certain agenda-driven folks always default to it when things don’t go their way. So strong in fact that it sucks women into doing all sorts of things against their supposed nature such chastising other women who would dare give pleasure to that very same patriarchy. Its reeaaaly uncanny, this patriarchy. Its almost as if its a living breathing creature; an entity unto itself or an imaginary demon that has morphed into some sort of well, idol, like a shadowy figure that follows you and instigates havoc at least in the minds of very confused people. But its summer now, so its Walk Season so lets get going on the first PatriarchyWalk in order to own it and take away the power of those who would use it against us despite their constant failure to actually motivate men to do something. So what! Walk! Just for fucks sake!!

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    My understanding is that men do not “walk,” we “march”

  • Lokland

    A hypothetical on why it occurs.

    ——-

    When I was a teenager I was with my parents and some of their friends.
    Came around to what I wanted to do with my life.

    Not a clue. General dislike of my lack of purpose.

    Best advice I received came from a 53yo woman. Some kind of banker or business thingy.

    ‘What are your friends like?’
    (Generally well mannered, smart guys. Now 2 docs and rich business/finance guy.)

    ‘Don’t worry if your friends are good you will be to.’

    ————-

    Point of story.

    Birds of a feather flock together.
    A restricted women surrounded by sluts will be assumed to be a slut.

    We know this is bad if a woman wants a husband.

    Result: Innate drive to push away promiscuous women to remove the chance of being inappropriately labelled a slut and subsequently passed over in the commitment game.

    ———

    Another personal anecdote.

    Every woman I’ve ever known who had no/few female friends produced some kind of trouble related to sex. Whether that be stealing a boyfriend or cheating on their own.

  • Abbot

    “Study after study has found that sexually permissive women are discriminated against by potential romantic partners, and now also by potential same-sex friends.”
    –Zhana Vrangalova

    Well there you have it. From a credible researcher and feminist. Men, quiet men, who would never utter the word “slut” are, by their natural desires (or lack thereof) causing sluts to recoil. But rather than deslutitize, the feminists want to push men to accept. To that a big FUCK YOU!

    Oh she is angry alright:

    “Projects like the Unslut Project, slut walks, positive media attention, conversations we have with our friends and family every day, sex-positive sex education programmes, and progressive reproductive rights laws; all of those things can change people’s minds.”

    That is, push it on your children with those sex ed programs. But in the end, after all that prickly angry pushing, men still will NOT want to marry sluts!

    http://www.scienceomega.com/article/1117/promiscuous-women-rejected-by-potential-same-sex-friends

    .

  • Fish

    @Beta Guy
    Balance is good in life. I recommend Brazilian Jujitsu, its a great workout and a lot of fun, but I am biased. Also, I have yet to meet any douchey guys at anyplace I’ve been, everyone is super nice and easygoing.

    @Ana
    “The ugly ones have to offer more incentives for a man to stick around and have a chance at a relationship. At least that is what I had seen a man will tolerate a lot of crap from a hottie that would kick the ugly one for a fraction of the same standard, YMMV.”

    I agree with you 100% My point was mostly in 4-6 yrs, I’d figure a hotter girl with more male attention would be more likely to have sex with at least 1-2 guys.

    @Purple Sneakers
    I have no idea. Weve always been just friends and I never really asked about her sexual interests.

    @Hot sauce
    i’d say probably a myth, then again, I am somewhat on the short side (5’9)

  • Fish

    @Abbot
    I’ll marry a slut. . . well with a really good pre-nup. . . If other men are shying away, could create an attractive value proposition. . .

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Fish

    Balance is good in life. I recommend Brazilian Jujitsu, its a great workout and a lot of fun, but I am biased. Also, I have yet to meet any douchey guys at anyplace I’ve been, everyone is super nice and easygoing.

    Have been considering it, but nothing looks attractive around me. I am hoping to add in some diversity in ages, too, since all young people seem to be doof-asses.

    Ideally, what I would like to add in physically:
    1. Basketball League
    2. Martial Art (although I would be partial to Muay Thai)
    3. Cycling group

  • Fish

    @Beta Guy
    Muay Thai is fun, i did it when I was younger. Its a pretty solid choice if you can handle the contact. i’ve had 6 concussions so no more being hit in the head for me. Cycling isn’t all that “manly”, weird recommendation, but try yoga. If you do take Mauy Thai, it will help you.

    If you do get into Muay Thai, this site: http://www.gorillagear.ca/ has great quality stuff at reasonable prices. I got a couple BjJ gis from him, he has gloves, headgear & shinguards and hes a super nice guy.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    True, cycling isn’t entirely “manly.” I should add that this theoretical sabbatical would include some other general interest stuff, like cooking classes, cause why the F not.

    A lot of the focus, though, would be changing the time I spend commenting on HUS, for instance, to sports and the like. In the old days I used to spend time reading Nuclear Posture Reviews, maybe reading some Sports Illustrated would help me connect with men a little more easily.

  • http://www.decoybetty.com Deidre

    Being the romantic that I am, I love the idea that every lid has a unique pot and the idea of wasting time with the wrong lid. Brilliant.

  • J

    @ADBG
    At this point, I almost feel sorry for the promiscuous girls…

    You should, promiscuity is often motivated by pain and insecurity.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Every woman I’ve ever known who had no/few female friends produced some kind of trouble related to sex.”

    I’ve always wondered about the women online, particularly in the Manosphere, and Camille Paglia, who diss their gender and other women so much. I’m equally suspicious of men who do so, or people from X ethnicity who constantly criticize their own culture or ethnicity and people from it to other people, particularly not of that same culture or ethnicity.

    Seems like something strange is going on there.

    Also this whole thing that “average women have to work harder at pleasing their man because he won’t tolerate as much from her as he would from a hot woman”…

    Nothing doing.

    There is no “hot woman” that’s bangin’ down the door to get at an average man coupled with an average woman.

    Put the gear in cruise control ladies and coast on by!

  • J

    Are there ANY benefits to being a slut?”

    From evo-psych POV, there sure are. A non-monogamous female can extract resources from a variety of men, as opposed to putting all her eggs (literally) in one basket with one man. It’s an R-selected strategy and probably works in many different environments for a wide variety of women–from hunter/gatherers to lower SES baby mommas.

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

      From evo-psych POV, there sure are. A non-monogamous female can extract resources from a variety of men, as opposed to putting all her eggs (literally) in one basket with one man.

      She also gets presumably superior genes, and genetic diversity as well. Of course, through most of history the single unwed mother has not been successful in extracting resources from a variety of men. Today she can, and those men are called Congress.

  • Fish

    @Beta Guy
    Sports are good if you like them. One of my best guy friends is really sports illiterate & into science. I used to play hockey, if you can skate (or learn) that is a great, albeit expensive, way to bond with guys. Beers with the team are just as much fun as the game itself. Cooking and craft beers are great hobbies as well.

    Bonding is just about common interests & effort. You seem like a decent guy, if you put in the effort, you will bond with guys. I actually think its even easier than approaching women because there is no appearance aspect to it and if you’re a good guy, most non douchebag guys will be welcoming to their group.

    my favorite phrase “True growth happens once you’ve left your comfort zone.” I can’t recall who said it, could have been an old boss of mine who stole it from someone else. . .

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

      my favorite phrase “True growth happens once you’ve left your comfort zone.”

      Last night I read this quote by Benjamin Franklin:

      “Those things that hurt, instruct.”

      So true.

  • J

    @Josie #48

    Good job of understanding yourself and coming to terms with your past behavior. Don’t be afraid to hold your ground with men who expect you to fall into bed with them. Anyone who walks away is not worth playing around with. Giving in will reduce, not bolster your self-esteem.

  • J

    Admittedly, somewhat inspired by the story of BB’s friend getting the boob job and taking on a lot of male interests.

    So you’re geting a boob job? Don’t do it, ADBG. You’ll be sorry. ;-)

  • J

    I’ve always wondered about the women online, particularly in the Manosphere, and Camille Paglia, who diss their gender and other women so much

    Hi Peej!

    Many of the Manosphere’s ladies’ auxilliary claim to have no/few female friends IRL. I always think it strange when women have no female friends. I personally am sort of an outlier, a female INTP, but even I have a female posse.

    As to Camille Paglia, mentally/emotionally she is pretty male.

  • Anacaona

    it makes me so afraid that some guy will think I’m good enough to have sex with but not have a relationship with me, even despite my faults. It makes me resentful of men and question their motives (especially since I was neither attractive nor socially attuned growing up, and became bitter because of it, and I’m just starting to understand and accept people and get over it), which is one reason I try to stay away from HUS and similar blogs (and when I do, I have so much more romantic success). I guess where I find some ‘consolation’ in scenarios like this are that a) the guy is a chump and she’s probably cheating on him with some alpha (how males may find consolation), or b) eventually he will get sick of her and she’ll never find a meaningful relationship (how females may find consolation).
    I was ugly and chaste being there done that bought the T-Shirt and the mug. NAMALT and at least they get filtered fast. You don’t put out soon you never hear from them ever again. Just try not to get emotionally entangle until they prove that they enjoy your non-sexual company. Sadly filtering is everyone’s job. If dating was easy we wouldn’t need blog like this. Hang in there.

  • Anacaona

    So you’re geting a boob job? Don’t do it, ADBG. You’ll be sorry.
    But he could be holding boobs 24/7 now. That surely is worth it :p

  • Clarence

    I guess I’ll give a H/T to myself :P

    Glad you made use of it :)

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

      @Clarence

      Sorry about that. I do try to H/T, but 5 people sent me this article, so it seemed sort of pointless…I probably should have included a general thank you to all those who reached out. I did appreciate it, my apologies.

  • Josie

    @Susan

    I read in the New York Times a few weeks ago about how women thinks that moving in together is a step toward marriage, whereas men thinks of it as more of auditioning for wife or just a girl to live with.

    In this case, young women should be discourage from moving in with a guy because she can waste years of youth on a guy who has no motive to marry her. It is like the hook up culture, except this one is living together.

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

      @Josie

      In this case, young women should be discourage from moving in with a guy because she can waste years of youth on a guy who has no motive to marry her. It is like the hook up culture, except this one is living together.

      I advise women never to live with a guy for fun, or to save money. It’s a step that should be a precursor to getting engaged, and you should only do it if you’ve already decided to marry at some point.

      Last summer I knew two women – one 28, one 32 – who had lived with their bf’s for 5 years, and were expecting a proposal any day. Both got dumped. The guys, in their early 30s, could not have been more psyched. The women did not share the same optimism about finding someone new.

  • Travis

    Hey Josie,
    Don’t know if you saw it or not, but I posted an apology for attacking you earlier. For some reason it got hung up in moderation. Anyway…

    “I read in the New York Times a few weeks ago about how women thinks that moving in together is a step toward marriage, whereas men thinks of it as more of auditioning for wife or just a girl to live with.”

    Why is using living together as a way to audition for a wife a bad thing? I went the co-habitation route not too long ago, and that’s exactly how I saw it. I assumed she was auditioning me for the role of husband, also.

    And I’m glad we tried living together first, because it didn’t take long for us to realize that we both would have been miserable married to each other. If we would have tied the knot beforehand we would have ended up divorced in short order.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Like when the NRA goes silent after some mass shooting.”

    > Silent? Within 12 hours they’ll be out there declaring “if only there were other people with guns there then lives could have been saved”.

    “Many of the Manosphere’s ladies’ auxilliary claim to have no/few female friends IRL. I always think it strange when women have no female friends. I personally am sort of an outlier, a female INTP, but even I have a female posse.

    As to Camille Paglia, mentally/emotionally she is pretty male.”

    > For all their cries and yelps and petitioning the gods and supplicating the masses for “feminine women” – the only type of women the Mano-blogosphere has managed to attract has been butch dykes (sorry, had to say it) and masculine women who scream that other women are not feminine and submissive enough.
    What?

  • Travis

    @Susan,
    “She also gets presumably superior genes, and genetic diversity as well. Of course, through most of history the single unwed mother has not been successful in extracting resources from a variety of men. Today she can, and those men are called Congress.”

    That was beautiful. Although I’d amend it to read:
    “and those men (and women) are called taxpayers.”

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

      “and those men (and women) are called taxpayers.”

      Seriously, very true! If only the individual members were footing the bill!

  • Abbot

    “Lead author Zhana Vrangalova, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Human Development in Cornell’s College of Human Ecology, explained to ScienceOmega.com how the persistence of sexual double standard could have a negative impact on permissive women, and how the origins of these attitudes may be evolutionary in nature…”

    Yes of course it is. Vrangalova is smart and unlike nearly all feminists she doesn’t hide “inconvenient” facts. Soon she might even be able to wean herself off ineffective tired crutch rhetoric and propaganda like “double standard” and “patriarchy”

  • Abbot

    “Why do you think the idea persists that promiscuous women are ‘slutty’ while promiscuous men are ‘studly’?
    The sexual double standard has a very long and deep history in the Western world, and social norms don’t change over night. It’s a slow and on-going process, and there are many people, both women and men, who actively resist it.”
    –Zhana Vrangalova

    Yes, the “resistors” are feminists and their service providers. Of course, said service providers will bail and go for wife material later. The first DoubleStandardWalk is July 7 in Toronto.

  • Fish

    @Josie & Susan
    re: living together
    Living together before marriage is an important step. You need to make sure that you are compatible living in the same space. If it doesn’t work living together, marriage won’t work. However, you shouldn’t need more than 2-3 yrs living together to decide if it works. I have a former coworker who lived with her then BF for 7 years, she called him her boyfriend forever. They broke up eventually.

    Living together IS a wife audition. Its not a guarantee you’ll get the part, but it means you’re strongly considered for the role. I encouraged my ex-fiance to move in about 3-4 months after we began dating. There are things I would do differently in that relationship, the moving in is not one of them.

    Bottom line: living together is essential to know if you can be successful married. However, like many things, if you let it go too long without an indication that a proposal is coming, don’t be surprised if it never does.

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

      @Fish

      Bottom line: living together is essential to know if you can be successful married. However, like many things, if you let it go too long without an indication that a proposal is coming, don’t be surprised if it never does.

      Well, how does a woman not “let it go too long?” That’s the problem, she has no leverage. She’s already providing all the benefits of marriage.

      My husband and I lived together for several months before we got engaged, but we had both already firmly decided “you’re the one.” The problem with cohabitation is that risk is asymmetrical – there’s far less downside for the guy.

      I stand by my advice, and my daughter has already promised me to heed it.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ J

    From evo-psych POV, there sure are. A non-monogamous female can extract resources from a variety of men, as opposed to putting all her eggs (literally) in one basket with one man. It’s an R-selected strategy and probably works in many different environments for a wide variety of women–from hunter/gatherers to lower SES baby mommas.

    How depressing. The apparent benefits to being a slut are “I can’t control my desire for Alpha Sperm” or “my daddy didn’t love me and this makes me feel better about myself” or “at least it makes a good story for my blog.”
    Not exactly ringing endorsements…

    Also, I will not be getting breast implants. Sorry to disappoint ;)

    @ Fish

    Sports are good if you like them. One of my best guy friends is really sports illiterate & into science. I used to play hockey, if you can skate (or learn) that is a great, albeit expensive, way to bond with guys. Beers with the team are just as much fun as the game itself. Cooking and craft beers are great hobbies as well.
    Bonding is just about common interests & effort. You seem like a decent guy, if you put in the effort, you will bond with guys. I actually think its even easier than approaching women because there is no appearance aspect to it and if you’re a good guy, most non douchebag guys will be welcoming to their group.
    my favorite phrase “True growth happens once you’ve left your comfort zone.” I can’t recall who said it, could have been an old boss of mine who stole it from someone else. . .

    Thanks for the compliment, Fish. The reason I say “sports” is because a lot of my interests do lure some guys in, but others are not always into talking about girls, politics, science, etc. It also seems to me that a lot of guys are very respectful of men who have certain accomplishments, and it would be nice to elevate my standing a tiny bit for career and social reasons.

    Plus, I do enjoy sports, when I have some context behind them. It’s hard for me to sit down and watch a game when I have no idea what’s going on, but I do enjoy watching basketball…in part because a lot of econ blogs link to posts about data and basketball and I find it fascinating.

    So, reading more about sports should spark my interest in it, let me get along better with the guys, etc.

    And some other accomplishments, so I can say I do something besides post online all day ;)

    Most guys are decent enough, just like most girls, but I had to do some personality tweaks to get the results I wanted from the female gender…seems reasonable enough to work with guys on that, too.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    RE; The co-habitating women who were dumped

    Did the men give any reason why they dumped the girls? It sounds that like they just got bored…

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

      Did the men give any reason why they dumped the girls? It sounds that like they just got bored…

      I know about both from the guy’s perspective – it sounds like they basically hit the 7-year itch relationship wise. One started sneaking out at night to go have sex with his subordinate. This went on for about 2 months, and then he told her he wanted to move out, which he did, leaving her holding the lease. He moved in temporarily with his employee/new gf, and then got his own place. Those two creatures are still a couple, and the relationship sounds horrid. He’s high most of the time. Sadly, this is the child of divorce I described yesterday – the girl, I mean.

      The other case is a guy who met a woman a few years ago, fell in love, and asked her to move into the place he owns. Over time, they got into a rut and he started spending more and more nights out with the guys. He started cheating, and she was suspicious of course, but she kept her blinders on, mostly. He didn’t want to lose her half of the rent, but he finally met someone he wanted to see more frequently so he gave her 30 days eviction notice and told her they were done.

      What’s so troubling to me about these stories is that both guys, by all accounts, looked like LTR types to everyone, including their gf’s. And maybe they are, but not above cheating to get that good ole sexual variety once the boredom sets in.

      In any case, both of those women are in a weak position, IMO, not least because they’re heartbroken. Add a year or two just for that.

  • Fish

    @Susan
    If a woman’s desire is to get married and have that marriage be successful, doesn’t she have just as big a stake in it as the guy to make sure it’s successful? If you’re looking at it from the standpoint of leverage, if a guy is just looking for steady sex, he can get that in a LTR without cohabitation.

    I guess it’s semantics because engagement does not necessarily always lead to marriage. My point is that living together before marriage is an important step. I only have one set of married friends who didn’t do it (they’re “abnormal”, allegedly they didn’t have sex with each other before marriage either). For me, its not a financial thing more a “knowing the full scope of what you’re getting” thing.

    As for not letting it go too long, most women I have known are not shy about their expectations for a ring. My ex knew it was coming, she just didn’t know exactly when or how (she was totally surprised, i proposed at a halloween party with all our friends, everyone knew it was coming but her, her response was “you’re kidding, I can’t feel my face…”). I give women credit for intuition on these things, I think they tend to pull the wool over their own eyes. I’ll bet your friends of the 5yr cohabitation had an inkling no ring was forthcoming but convinced themselves otherwise.

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

      @Fish

      I honestly don’t know what one learns by living together. Having done it, I can say there were no real surprises. We’d been together for a year, and had spent most nights together for several months. I knew his values, his attitudes on things like spending, socializing, etc. We’d long ago talked about marriage and kids. We moved in together because we were relocating after school, and it was efficient. I guess I don’t see how a “trial period” marriage makes any sense. BTW, stats show that cohabitating couples break up at a very high rate before marriage, and it also predicts divorce unless the couple was already committed to marriage going in.

      I know you’ve had a different experience, and I don’t know what the nature of your discovery was, but women have a window of fertility, and IMO combining two lives without a promise is complicated, messy, and usually plays out with the man deciding to end things.

  • Travis

    @Susan,
    “She’s already providing all the benefits of marriage.”

    But so do the guys, don’t they? I can’t speak to every situation, but in my own I paid most of the bills, including rent. I provided resources and financial support. During the time we were dating and living together I was monogamous and committed. What benefits could my girlfriend have expected had we gotten married that she didn’t have when we were living together? Other than a promise to stay together forever, which we all know that close to 50% of people break anyway. Usually the women, by the way.

    And what benefits was I getting from my girlfriend by living together that I wasn’t getting before? She cooked me dinner more. Other than that, she didn’t do a whole lot after moving in that she hadn’t been doing before.

    “The problem with cohabitation is that risk is asymmetrical – there’s far less downside for the guy.”

    What is the downside for the woman? That she might waste some time with a guy who doesn’t end up marrying her? Wouldn’t she bear the same risk if she wasn’t living with the guy but they still dated for the same duration? And doesn’t the guy face the same risk?

    Although I would agree that she should leave the guy if the living together arrangement drags on and on with no signs that he’s willing to move forward.

    I’ll admit that maybe I’m missing something. But I don’t see why trying it out before getting married is such a bad thing. It gives both parties the ability to see what they’re getting into, and whether or not it’s what they really want before they jump in. Don’t t women benefit from that as much as men?

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

      @Travis

      Other than a promise to stay together forever, which we all know that close to 50% of people break anyway. Usually the women, by the way.

      It’s 40%, and among the college educated it’s 17%. One study found that in four states without no-fault divorce, 66% of the divorces were initiated by women during the time period (Brinig, 2000 I believe).

      The reason the woman assumes the larger risk is because her peak years of youth and beauty are upon her, while the man has no time limit. If she gets dumped at 32 by a 32 year old guy, he can go out and date women ten years younger, having established himself nicely in his career. His cast off roommate is now competing with women 10 years her junior, and already is in a period of declining fertility. Overnight she becomes a cat lady with baby rabies, while he is Man About Town.

      It’s a poor strategy from a female POV, and excellent strategy from a male POV.

      Re expenses, I think most couples split those evenly – we put everything into one pot, bought furniture together, etc. I was making more in those days, so I spent more. But even if it’s “all expenses paid” a woman in love should not spend her 20s living with a man who may or may not decide to marry her.

  • Sassy6519

    I think that I would only ever cohabitate with a guy if he and I were already engaged. At least with an engagement, I would know that he is at least fairly serious about being with me. The man and I could even remain engaged for a year or two before tying the knot, which would give us a chance to understand how we get along in living together.

  • Travis

    “The reason the woman assumes the larger risk is because her peak years of youth and beauty are upon her, while the man has no time limit. If she gets dumped at 32 by a 32 year old guy, he can go out and date women ten years younger, having established himself nicely in his career.”

    But wouldn’t the same hold true if they weren’t co-habitating, but were just dating instead? Like I said, I agree that a woman shouldn’t stick around forever. The guy should be moving to the next step in a reasonable time frame. But if you’re already dating anyway, why not try living together for a little bit (not forever) so you can make a better informed decision before you get hitched?

    “It’s 40%, and among the college educated it’s 17%. One study found that in four states without no-fault divorce, 66% of the divorces were initiated by women during the time period (Brinig, 2000 I believe).”

    Okay. Four out of ten couples. There’s still a pretty good chance that your marriage isn’t going to last. And if it’s so much harder for women to be old and single than it is for men, why is it that women initiate 66% of the divorces? They seem to be a lot less worried than the guys do.

    I’m not trying to be snarky, I just don’t see it. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

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

      @Travis

      But wouldn’t the same hold true if they weren’t co-habitating, but were just dating instead?

      The risk is higher for both parties because of sunk costs, and the inertia that takes hold. Splitting up after living together can be a traumatic experience, mimicking divorce in some ways. However, the biological reality for females means her risk is greater than his – the risk of waiting is much higher for her.

      Okay. Four out of ten couples. There’s still a pretty good chance that your marriage isn’t going to last.

      You didn’t go to college?

      And if it’s so much harder for women to be old and single than it is for men, why is it that women initiate 66% of the divorces? They seem to be a lot less worried than the guys do.

      The study that generated the 66% number found that the female’s propensity to file reflected the mother’s desire to establish custody of children. So that argument doesn’t really apply here.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Those stories are quite heart-breaking :(

    It should be stated that even LTR-oriented guys are still guys, and we do not like ruts are low-sex relationships. It sounds like those guys ARE LTR guys…they both decided to dump their current girls and move on to other girls, right? They aren’t out there playing the field, they just found other girls to get with.

    Hate to say it, but “guys are guys” means even us restricted, LTR types are quite capable of hurting a girl, whether by negligence, or by intent. I’ve defintiely said some nasty things to the GF on occassion, and I’ve also behaved a little more inapproriately than I should on a few occassions.

    Sometimes, what I think girls don’t realize is that, without a positive sex life, there is no love. I hear this from a lot of guys and I get it myself. Actually popped up this weekend:
    GF: Why don’t you want to sit here and watch that sunset?
    ADBG: Because it’s dumb
    Normally I am quite a romantic guy. But it’s a LDR and I have spent a lot of time taking care of your emotional needs when you break down during your monthly cycle. And I haven’t seen you in 2 weeks.
    That means I need sex.
    So I cannot sit there and stare at the pretty sunset and dream of the romantic-ness and shit.

    I do not feel that passion and therefore cannot feel that romantic connection. It doesn’t exist.
    Okay, I am exaggerating, but all those feelings are quite numb and buried without sex. It’s an important part of the overall relationship and emotional intimacy.

    It also means that the taste of sexual variety can easily lead to emotional infidelity. Very. Very. Very. Quickly.

    Maybe this is just me.

    FTR, this also means that, on occasion, I have to exercise a great deal of self-control. There’s a lot of pretty girls out there…can’t be chatting them up every time I am frustrated with the GF about something or else there could be hell to pay.

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

      @ADBG

      Your advice to women is sound – do not let bed death occur. I don’t know about the sex lives they had with their exes, but it’s fair to assume they weren’t great. OTOH, it’s difficult to say who got bored with whom. A woman can remain interested, but if a guy gets tired of the same old vag, there’s not much she can do.

  • Anacaona

    I stand by my advice, and my daughter has already promised me to heed it.
    Cosign. All women I know that had lived together had to eventually have the “Are we going to get married?” talk and ended up dumped or having to break up or still living together with no ring in sight in the near future.

  • Abbot

    The author of the study is going live at 1:38 (about 10 min) east coast time.

    Here

    http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/sluts-friendship-women/51af543a2b8c2a5917000070

    .

  • Abbot
  • Abbot

    “where did you get that info from? and ‘men are passing around sexually active women’ is a very derogatory way of expressing your thought. YOU just shamed promiscuous women.”
    –ZhanaVrangalova

    http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/sluts-friendship-women/51af543a2b8c2a5917000070

    .

  • Travis

    @Abbot,
    Re: 120,
    Wow. What a classy lady. Bet there are gonna’ be guys just lining up around the block to put a ring on that finger…

  • Abbot

    Hey Travis

    Watch the Huff Post video. Mind blowing

    http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/sluts-friendship-women/51af543a2b8c2a5917000070

    and read the comments section to the right

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Susan

    Your advice to women is sound – do not let bed death occur. I don’t know about the sex lives they had with their exes, but it’s fair to assume they weren’t great. OTOH, it’s difficult to say who got bored with whom. A woman can remain interested, but if a guy gets tired of the same old vag, there’s not much she can do.

    Yeah, I wouldn’t be able to tell. I know the trope is that women get lazy about it more easily, but I do not think all men take the necessary steps to keep sex lives healthy and fresh.

    Big killer would have to be pornography. So, so easy to get addicted…

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    @Travis,
    I’m probably much sluttier than the classy lady from imnotyourgirlfriend and I am married to someone who absolutely loves my sluttiness. Please refrain from projecting your own attitudes and desires to all men out there.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I think he was offering a bet. Maybe you should put your money where your mouth is and take him up on it.

  • Abbot

    There are guys who go for that sort of thing. The feminists crafted this “sex positive” thingy solely to get men to come around and increase the supply of slut savers.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    Exactly. Thank you feminists for indoctrinating a few nice men so they can take pity on us poor sluts and thus save us from our misery.

    I’ve been a slut for as long as I can remember and I’ve loved every single moment of it (and still do). Husband or no husband.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    There’s a market for women like Imnotyourgirlfriend and Virtuous Pervert.

    There is a section of society that is extremely sexually uninhibited and they tend to date, mate and marry amongst themselves. Its a niche.

    I’ve written here before about the rise in open relationships and open marriages and took heat for that. I don’t see why, since this is a relationship blog that tracks the trends in the “SMV” – and open marriages, polyamory and plural relationships is a trend that IS on the upswing (heh, see how I did that?)

    Try to divorce your ego and emotions and observe it in a neutral fashion.

    These things have their functions.

    May all sentient beings know peace.

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

      don’t see why, since this is a relationship blog that tracks the trends in the “SMV” – and open marriages, polyamory and plural relationships is a trend that IS on the upswing (heh, see how I did that?)

      Yes, the number of such couples may increase 100% this year because the base is tiny, and will always be tiny.

      Also, PJ, I have deleted those comments of yours in the past because you don’t just observe, you recommend that people try an open relationship!

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    ‘El Sriracha
    Very true, some of us are just wired to be “slutty,” for lack of a better term. They definitely operate quite well within their own niche, but that is defintiely a niche and not the broader society.

    Most of us, including the middle-of-the-roaders, are probably not acting like sluts and trying to be restricted, for a variety of reasons. Casual sex ain’t great sex.

    The annoying part is when Ms. Pervert here is telling someone else to shut up, but tries to phrase it in oh so polite terms!

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    @Abbot,
    yes, men are easy and thank God (read, evolution + society) for that – makes my life easier, I can get laid whenever I want to with whoever I want to.

    you really aren;t getting it, are you? No one has a toss with me any more than I have a toss with them. I don’t NEED TO marry a man who’s OK with my slutiness – that is the only kind of man I WOULD CONSIDER marrying.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Like low-hanging-fruit-grabber girls men have a toss with before moving to the wife group…”

    I wouldn’t call these women “low hanging fruit” because from what I gather of the scene, they are careful and picky about who they explore uninhibited sexuality with and the polyamorous crowd is a world onto itself where people are screened.

    Virtuous Perv also writes on her blog (NSFW) about the difficulties she’s faced in coordinating a MFM 3some so no, even if you think she is “low hanging fruit” not a lot of men want to order the mango if another banana is on the menu at the same time.

    Like I said, this scene is a world onto itself and most men do not have, or even want, access.

    Virtuous Pervert: I remember having MFM 3some fantasies when I was about 12 and happened by chance to read some erotic novel that described a woman who had both her nipples sucked at the same time by two different men.

    I had never heard or thought of such a thing before but it made sense ergonomically.

    My boobs were in their beginning stages at that time but their function as a source of pleasure for myself did not go unnoticed or unexplored by me.

    Suffice it to say that at least once a week on the way home from school I stopped into the convenience store to “buy a Hershey bar” and just happened to discreetly make my way to the back book rack and hope no one noticed.

    Ahhhh, the memories of childhood.

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

      a woman who had both her nipples sucked at the same time by two different men.

      I had never heard or thought of such a thing before but it made sense ergonomically.

      LMAO

      My friends and I found our mothers’ copies of The Sensuous woman (by “J” – too old to be our J though :) ). We read it from cover to cover – I would never, ever have thought of doing that with a washing machine. Not to mention the shower spray.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    Of course it’s a niche, everyone operates within some niche, and some niches are broader than others.

    I’m not saying that everyone should be like me. Like Sriracha Hot Sauce pointed out, all am I saying is there is a place for everyone. If promiscuous women is not your cup of tea, by all means don’t marry one. Just don’t assume that no one else will want to marry them either.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “they tend to date, mate and marry amongst themselves”

    Abbot: “The women need to. The men have options.”

    I didn’t mean the women are dating mating and marrying each other. They are dating, mating and marrying MEN who are in that sub-cultures of polyamory and swinging (different sub-cultures that do sometimes over lap).

  • Sassy6519

    I’m not saying that everyone should be like me. Like Sriracha Hot Sauce pointed out, all am I saying is there is a place for everyone. If promiscuous women is not your cup of tea, by all means don’t marry one. Just don’t assume that no one else will want to marry them either.

    I can get behind this.

    I personally don’t have a problem with whatever sex lives people have for themselves. I also don’t expect people to force their choices on me.

    People of similar sexual backgrounds often do pair up with each other. I’m okay with this. You just have to realize that talking to Abbot is like talking to a brick wall. Save your keystrokes for someone more worthy of your time.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Here’s the thing. There ain’t a place for everyone in society. Some section of us do not reproduce. We do not get married. We get divorced. Happily ever after is not a guarantee, it is something for which you have to work.

    Our slutty sisters are making it much harder on themselves than it has to be. Unless you are absolutely wired to “be” that way, it does not make sense to follow that path. It also means you are going to have self-affiliate with a group of people that are more prone to, well, all sorts of not-happily-ever-after endings. Men with lots of sexual partners are more likely to get bored and more likely to cheat.

    And apparently even the other sluts would rather not be friends with you.

    Such people are a minority and should be respectful of the majority zetgeist, and WHY there is a majority zetgeist.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    Oh but of course there is a place for everyone in society – having a place does not have to include getting married or reproducing.

    Whether “it makes sense” to life a promiscuous lifestyle is a personal choice and everyone should make it for themselves.

    I’m not sure what your issue is really. Of course those making such a choice are a minority. So are gay people, or black people, or disabled people, etc. All of these minorities deserve respect from the majority. And it is not us who disrespect the majority, it’s the majority who is disrespecting us.

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

      @Virtuous Pervert

      Welcome, thanks for joining the conversation.

      All of these minorities deserve respect from the majority. And it is not us who disrespect the majority, it’s the majority who is disrespecting us.

      I’m all for people doing whatever they like with whomever they like. And I think it’s a good thing when people are in relationships that are right for them. We all need connection and love.

      But this statement troubles me – I think respect is something that is not a given – it must be earned. I can respect your rights without respecting your choices. I’m not making a judgment – I know nothing about your life. And that’s the point – I don’t believe it’s appropriate to offer respect or disrespect, though I will certainly treat you with respect as a matter of etiquette.

      In my experience, people who demand respect often move on to demanding others “celebrate” their choices. This leads to proselytizing, to which I do object, strongly.

      FWIW, I don’t expect anyone to respect my lifestyle or celebrate my choices either.

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    Unless you are absolutely wired to “be” that way, it does not make sense to follow that path

    I agree with you. This is why I think it’s really important for people to be authentic with themselves. Many/most people are not inherently promiscuous, or do not behave promiscuously. There is also a group of people, including men and women, that thoroughly enjoy their vast sexual experiences. To each their own.

    I just think that forcing a promiscuous mold onto restricted people and forcing a non-promiscuous mold onto unrestricted people can cause lots of problems. I also think that this issue is a dead horse that has been beaten relentlessly.

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

    Question from a male strategic POV: would living with a woman for, say, 2-3 years, no engagement, give a man insights into what actually being married to this woman would be like—insights that presumably he would not gain from non-co-hab dating for the same length of time? Would this co-hab, probationary-spouse thing be an effective “de-mystification” filter to expose the long-term realities of the relationship, or does it generally fail in this regard?

  • Fish

    @Virtuous Pervert
    In coming to this blog, it has reinforced my belief that there are 2 quite differing opinions on promiscuity. You seem to be of a like mind to me that “it is what it is, number of people you’ve been with is just a number, I like sex, so what?” I think a lot of the people here tend to think women (i guess and men for that matter) with lower mileage are more valuable. Someone brought up a point that people pair up with similar people so slutty (relatively speaking) chicks end up with slutty guys (again relatively speaking). I think if you scroll up in this post, i told abbott I’d kindly take the slutty ones, they are more fun (in my experience).

    BTW, checked out your blog, loved the post on why you should have sex on the first date.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Such people are a minority and should be respectful of the majority zetgeist, and WHY there is a majority zetgeist.”

    How they disrespectful to the majority zeitgeist?

    Just read about how this open marriage couple was booed on Dr. Phil by the “majority zeitgeist”;

    http://n3i-cnjx.blogspot.com/2012/02/open-marriage-dr-phil.html

    See the audience’s opposition and purposely trying to not get what he’s saying and make him look foolish. (He’s cute by the way).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3iJJNy6hJ0

    Besides, culture is fluid and culture evolves/changes. The “zeitgeist” is shifting.

  • Anacaona

    Question from a male strategic POV: would living with a woman for, say, 2-3 years, no engagement, give a man insights into what actually being married to this woman would be like—insights that presumably he would not gain from non-co-hab dating for the same length of time? Would this co-hab, probationary-spouse thing be an effective “de-mystification” filter to expose the long-term realities of the relationship, or does it generally fail in this regard?
    Marriage is one of the things that you need to find someone willing to be flexible and be flexible yourself aside from the compatibility issues that most people need to filter for. During it a lot of things could happen, job losses, death of friends and relatives, difficulties with children, diseases, changing in life plans and interests… cohabitation wouldn’t show you how the two of you will react and how would you handle it as a team or as enemies. Relationship skills are more important than length of the relationship, YMMV.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Oh but of course there is a place for everyone in society – having a place does not have to include getting married or reproducing.

    Whether “it makes sense” to life a promiscuous lifestyle is a personal choice and everyone should make it for themselves.

    I’m not sure what your issue is really.”

    > Virtuous Perv, you’re new here so let me explain.
    A Def Beta Guy’s “issue” comes from this meme that there’s a significant percentage of men in the population who aren’t getting any action at all.
    Forget MFM, or FMF 3somes, these guys can’t even get a date off the calendar.

    They refer to themselves as “incels” or involuntary celibates. They thing somehow the mating market has been rigged against them and they have low sexual self esteem.

    So to see someone who is not only “getting some” but is getting some in a wide variety of ways with multiple people, well, this does something to them deep down inside.

    They don’t want to know about these things because in their minds it reinforces their rung on the ladder of sexual desirability.

  • Abbot

    “lower mileage are more valuable”

    …actually, they are more worthy of commitment and that is absolutely the general consensus among nearly all men. Yes, there are outliers. Yet when men express that, they are usually viciously attacked for -feeling- that way and those attacks mainly come from feminists and promiscuous women.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    @Sriracha Hot Sauce
    Thanks for the explanations, that does put things into perspective, although his handle does point at his self-perspective quite obviously.

    I’m sorry that some men don’t get as much action as they’d like. I wish everyone in this world could get as much as they wanted/needed. The paradoxical thing for men like DefBetaGuy is that the way for them to get more action is to be supportive of women’s desires to be more sexually open. By insulting and shaming promiscuous women, they are working against their own self-interest.

  • Fish

    Re: low hanging fruit

    I dont necessarily think you can call someone who is promiscuous low hanging fruit. In my experience with women of this type, they are having frequent sex but not outside their SMV. Yes, they might be low hanging fruit for the super hot guys, but for the average guy they are generally just as unattainable as a “good girl” type at their SMV. In my experience they are very open to sex but only if you meet their standards. I guess its semantics as I associate low hanging fruit more with male PUA’s who go after less attractive women because the odds are better.

    Of course I may be defensive as I’ve always liked the slutty ones…

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    @Sassy6519
    Thank you :)

    @Fish
    Absolutely to each their own. If someone thinks I’m less valuable or less worthy of commitment for being slutty, that’s their right. I think they are less valuable for thinking that, so it’s all good :) And as a slutty woman, of course I’d be looking for a slutty guy as a partner – being sexually experienced and adventurous is part of my criteria for a partner. I have nothing against prudes being prudes, but I wouldn’t marry one.

    Glad you liked the blog :)

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

      As the study highlights, the biggest reason that women reject sluts as friends is fear of mate poaching. Even promiscuous men worry about other promiscuous men stealing their girlfriends, and women worry even more. In fact, this worry is justified. Promiscuous people do have more short-term relationships, fewer long-term relationships, and do more poaching.

      The study pointed out that permissive people worry about poaching by others, even as they attempt it themselves, lol.

      If we assume that both the mating and the friendships are assortative – that is, slutty women tend to be friends with other slutty women, not with nonpermissive women, and they tend to date promiscuous men, then it’s not necessarily a problem for others. However, many women will feel threatened by the idea that their boyfriend goes out with his friends to a ball game and then a bar, only to find some slutty girl trying to give him a lap dance. It’s not like everyone stays on their side of the line – and someone inclined to poach is generally not someone you appreciate having around.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    To back up Fish’s last comment:
    I absolutely have high standard for the physical appearance of the men I fuck. I’m a pretty attractive woman, and so must they be. They also need to act respectfully towards me (even if they feel differently).

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    There’s no such as thing as a low hanging fruit women. She’s having sex with other guys so she’ll have sex with you too is a laughable assumption.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Not being promiscuous is not the same as being a prude. Just because I don’t have sex with people besides my girlfriend does not mean I just have missionary all the time

    Anyways, short time before I leave

    @ Sassy

    I agree with you. This is why I think it’s really important for people to be authentic with themselves. Many/most people are not inherently promiscuous, or do not behave promiscuously. There is also a group of people, including men and women, that thoroughly enjoy their vast sexual experiences. To each their own.

    How authentic can young people be with themselves? You’re asking an awful lot of people who by and large do not even pay for their own cell phone bills.
    This comment thread got started because someone posted an article from a girl talking about how awesome it was to be raped. Regularly. She was black-out drunk and having sex, can’t even remember the details.
    That’s rape.
    That’s not “Jason grabbed someone’s boobies in a bar,” that’s R-A-P-E.
    Then she says that it’s totally natural.

    No.
    That’s R-A-P-E

    You also have good ol’ VP here with her noble article about how sex on a first date is a great idea.

    It’s fine if those weirdos want to stick to their part of the world, but for the rest of us, this is serious, important shit. You have a woman right here in this thread complaining about how pluralistic ignorance hurt her. You got a number of former players that can’t find love, one saying that he has a problem fucking a girl because he keeps playing the highlight reel. In the past few years I’ve had more than my fair share of tearful confessions from girls who got involved with DJs, felt pressured into blowjobs, whatever.

    I also get to hear wonderful stories, some at this blog, about how difficult it is to get their daughters to NOT behave like sluts.

    Meanwhile, even among the supposed unrestricted, I get to hear that casual sex is probably less pleasant than Game of Thrones. And most of Season 3 sucked and was just two people talking to each other, so I imagine that sex with the fighter pilot was REALLY bad… :P

    This isn’t a symmetrical risk. The vast majority of us are “restricted,” and even the somewhat “unrestricted” often prefer the benefits of a “restricted” relationship. The society should have norms and structures set up, to help the vast, vast, vast majority of us, that do not want threesomes, endless lists of one-night-stands, etc.

    FWIW, I ain’t telling anyone how to live their life. Have I done that to you? Have I done that to VP? No, you guys go do whatever the f you want. I happen to think getting involved with a bunch of guys is dangerous for you, but I don’t know you and I’m not telling you what to do.

    I’m not even telling little harlots they can’t be loved, I’m dating a girl who has a shady past, aren’t I? I can even understand why you get irritated by Abbot, though I think you can just scroll past his comments if you find them so annoying.

    If you want to bust in here and tell men not to snicker about little harlots who talk how awesome it is to get drunk and then get fucked, well, that’s up to Susan, but trying to hand-wave away male responses doesn’t make ‘em disappear.

    As in, most of us still got it, even good ol’ Tom the Slut-Knight. The ones that don’t? Well…uhhh…I guess you can try the players…. ;)

    Okay, off to drink beer and watch hockey

  • Anacaona

    @ADBG
    *slowclap*

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

      @ADBG
      *slowclap*

      I’ll second that – he deserves a virtual standing ovation for that rousing speech!

      Has anyone noticed that ADBG has evolved into a leader among men? He may need to change that handle…

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “In the past few years I’ve had more than my fair share of tearful confessions from girls who got involved with DJs, felt pressured into blowjobs, whatever.”

    I don’t get that. Either you do it or you don’t. What’s this “pressure”? If you don’t want to do it, say no and don’t do it. Finito.

    “This comment thread got started because someone posted an article from a girl talking about how awesome it was to be raped. ”

    That’s sick. Link please?

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    @Def Beta Guy
    Just 2 quick things.

    *I get to hear that casual sex is probably less pleasant than Game of Thrones*
    I’ve no idea how pleasant Game of Thrones may be (I don’t have time for video games, I’m too busy having threesomes), but I do know how pleasant casual sex is for me: A SHIT TON! I have multiple orgasms almost every time I have casual sex.

    *little harlots who talk how awesome it is to get drunk and then get fucked*
    I’ve probably had about 5,000 casual sex encounters (not partners) in my life. The number of encounter during which I’ve been drunk: 5 +/- 2.

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

      I have multiple orgasms almost every time I have casual sex.

      Wow, I’ve been taking it for granted that I can have this without even leaving the house, much less introducing myself to someone new!

      Re casual sex and intoxication, there is a very strong link in college and a few years after. In fact, some studies have shown that students binge drink and pregame in order to prep themselves for casual hookups they wouldn’t have sober. Clearly an indication of highly incongruent behavior.

  • Jesse

    Of course I may be defensive as I’ve always liked the slutty ones…

    I agree. I don’t know why, but there’s something arousing about the idea of it. I’m really only talking about casual sex here. (And as ever I’m only interested in the attractive ones.)

    It’s not the fact that she’s easy, but there’s just something wanton about it. Maybe it’s some sort of sperm competition thing. It’s like, “Okay Jesse, get on her and flog her for all she’s worth. Pound her deep and hard and stake your claim over the other guys.” It appeals to the part of me that wants to be the manliest, best thing out there. (Which I use in my career, incidentally.)

    I don’t know whether I’d actually do it if presented with the opportunity, but I might.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Also, PJ, I have deleted those comments of yours in the past because you don’t just observe, you recommend that people try an open relationship!”

    If you read closely Susan you’d see that the people I recommend try it are the men who talk about this supposed “variety vs marriage” dichotomy and how a relationship with a woman prevents them from “maximizing their options.”

    Well there’s a third option to them and that is open relationship wherein they can have the best of both worlds and shut the hell up about being tied down to just one partner.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    @Susan Walsh
    My comment about respect was in response to Def Beta Guy’s comment that “slutty people are a minority and should be respectful of the majority zetgeist, and WHY there is a majority zetgeist.” My comment was trying to point to the fact that in the vast majority of cases in this culture it is the non-slutty majority who is not respectful of the slutty minority, not the other way around.

    And the kind of respect I’m talking about is the same kind of respect a Black, or a gay, or a disabled person deserves to not be derogated for their race, sexual orientation, or disability. Respect of the right to exist in principle. Which is something that sluts are often denied by the non-slutty majority.

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

      Respect of the right to exist in principle. Which is something that sluts are often denied by the non-slutty majority.

      Are you saying the majority does not believe you have the right to exist? Live your life as you see fit? I’m curious to learn more about this. What form does this take?

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    @ Susan Walsh

    *However, many women will feel threatened by the idea that their boyfriend goes out with his friends to a ball game and then a bar, only to find some slutty girl trying to give him a lap dance.*

    Yes, but (supposing the have a monogamous relationship), don’t you think they should be blaming their boyfriends if they don’t refuse the lap dance and not the ‘ some slutty girl’ ? It is on the boyfriend to honor the agreement he made with his girlfriend.

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

      Yes, but (supposing the have a monogamous relationship), don’t you think they should be blaming their boyfriends if they don’t refuse the lap dance and not the ‘ some slutty girl’ ? It is on the boyfriend to honor the agreement he made with his girlfriend.

      Ha, you have hit close to home with this comment. We recently had a huge debate over my admission that I slept with a guy who had a girlfriend, and did not feel guilty for it. Still don’t, it was many years ago. So I agree with you – it’s not the slut’s fault if the guy cheats.

      I’m simply observing that most people in committed relationships find mate poaching attempts by others inconvenient and unwelcome. Personally, I recommend screening carefully for a partner who does not seek or reward extra-relationship attention. When in doubt, go with an introvert.

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    This isn’t a symmetrical risk. The vast majority of us are “restricted,” and even the somewhat “unrestricted” often prefer the benefits of a “restricted” relationship. The society should have norms and structures set up, to help the vast, vast, vast majority of us, that do not want threesomes, endless lists of one-night-stands, etc.

    FWIW, I ain’t telling anyone how to live their life. Have I done that to you? Have I done that to VP? No, you guys go do whatever the f you want. I happen to think getting involved with a bunch of guys is dangerous for you, but I don’t know you and I’m not telling you what to do.

    I’m not even telling little harlots they can’t be loved, I’m dating a girl who has a shady past, aren’t I? I can even understand why you get irritated by Abbot, though I think you can just scroll past his comments if you find them so annoying.

    If you want to bust in here and tell men not to snicker about little harlots who talk how awesome it is to get drunk and then get fucked, well, that’s up to Susan, but trying to hand-wave away male responses doesn’t make ‘em disappear.

    As in, most of us still got it, even good ol’ Tom the Slut-Knight. The ones that don’t? Well…uhhh…I guess you can try the players….

    1. I don’t know why you appear to be so upset with me. I’ve already stated that I agree with you.

    2. What works for 1 person does not always work for another. That’s all I’m saying. I completely admit that many/most people are restricted and prefer monogamous relationships. I understand that. Good for them. What I am saying is that there is also a group of people that have unrestricted natures due to sheer desire, not pressure or coercion. I don’t think pushing restricted/monogamous molds onto them is a good thing to do. We can agree to disagree on this, if you want.

    3. I thoroughly believe that people with similar backgrounds tend to pair up. People who are restricted tend to end up with restricted people, and the same goes for unrestricted people pairing up with unrestricted people. I just believe that “doom and gloom”, you “harlots” are going to end up alone with cats talk around here is very overblown, hence why I said that the topic is a dead horse that is relentlessly beaten.

    4. Maybe I’m just more tolerant of lifestyles/cultures that are different from my own, but I don’t mind how “promiscuous” people want to be as long as they are responsible and accept whatever consequences occur. Lord knows that I have the capability of being super promiscuous, but I restrain myself because I hold certain personal values. I just don’t care much about the sexual choices of others. I think the key is just to select like-minded individuals for partners. Restricted men and women should select from among themselves, and likewise for unrestricted people. If your qualm is with “restricted” women who dabble in “unrestricted” activities, that is a completely different issue.

  • Anacaona

    Maybe I’m just more tolerant of lifestyles/cultures that are different from my own, but I don’t mind how “promiscuous” people want to be as long as they are responsible and accept whatever consequences occur. Lord knows that I have the capability of being super promiscuous, but I restrain myself because I hold certain personal values. I just don’t care much about the sexual choices of others. I think the key is just to select like-minded individuals for partners. Restricted men and women should select from among themselves, and likewise for unrestricted people. If your qualm is with “restricted” women who dabble in “unrestricted” activities, that is a completely different issue.
    You are forgetting that the unrestricted folks had created the pluralistic effect that “if you are not getting laid every-time you get horny you are a loser” , virgin shaming and even the unrestricted pals that like the “slutty ones” have a limit of how slutty so they also are dabbling with the restricted girls and even running boyfriend game. They don’t play fair so why would we accept their rants like they are innocent? They are part of the problem, they need to be called on that, IMO, YMMV.

  • Gin Martini

    Heh, this ought to be interesting. We really do need more sexually liberated folks here on HUS, it’s been a void ever since Ozy left.

    (Though I don’t miss her faux sadness for “men’s issues”, the ones that just happen line up with feminist theory, and the total ignorance of ones that don’t. VP don’t seem like that.)

    And, why would you require two men to suck both nipples at once? Could be a man and a woman. Or just the man if the woman is well-endowed enough. Come on folks, female bisexuality is mainstream now… get with the liberation, ladies!

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    You are forgetting that the unrestricted folks had created the pluralistic effect that “if you are not getting laid every-time you get horny you are a loser” , virgin shaming and even the unrestricted pals that like the “slutty ones” have a limit of how slutty so they also are dabbling with the restricted girls and even running boyfriend game. They don’t play fair so why would we accept their rants like they are innocent? They are part of the problem, they need to be called on that, IMO, YMMV.

    I agree that the unrestricted individuals who engage in misguided “rants” should be called out.

    I also believe that some unrestricted individuals exist who don’t conduct themselves that way. They have sex when and how they want to have sex without making spectacles of themselves. What about those unrestricted individuals? Should they be lumped in and be called out as well? I don’t think so.

    I just find it weird to decry and entire group of people when variances exist within that group. Sure, radical unrestricted people exist, but radical people exist in every group. I’m a vegetarian, but I don’t try to force my views on others, just like many other vegetarians out there. Should people like me be lumped in and treated similarly to militant PETA members, for example?

    I just don’t see the point in engaging in a witch hunt for all “unrestricted” individuals, when some unrestricted individuals do not hold the same views as the more radical ones. I think there are great differences between people who have and enjoy a lot of sex, and people who have and enjoy a lot of sex while screaming/promoting their choices from the rooftops and shaming restricted people. The second group deserves whatever comes to them, while the first group is okay with me.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    @Susan Walsh
    Oh, new partners can come to your house if need be, you don’t necessarily have to leave it. And trust me, I have plenty of those orgasms that don’t involve new partner, or any partners at all. Again, my comment was in response to ADBG saying that casual sex is not pleasurable.

    Taking my comments out of context like that and making fun of them doesn’t make me wanna stick around for very long. Gin Martini might have to wait for the next sexually liberated woman then..

    About intoxication and casual sex: I know the science. There is a wrong way to have casual sex (e.g, drunk, needing alcohol as an excuse). There is also a right way (e.g, sober, owning it).

    We should be teaching people who want to have casual sex how to do it right, and those who don’t want to have casual sex how not do it at all. What slut-shaming does is teach people who want to have casual sex to not have it, which then leads to them having it the wrong way.

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

      We should be teaching people who want to have casual sex how to do it right

      How do you propose we do that? Sex ed programs do a pretty thorough job of that already, don’t they? I know my town has included fisting in the sex ed curriculum, for example.

      What slut-shaming does is teach people who want to have casual sex to not have it, which then leads to them having it the wrong way.

      If this were true, we wouldn’t have a college culture of casual sex. In fact, it is the vast majority of students not having casual sex who feel like the “have-nots,” the shamed losers. They don’t want to have it, and they don’t care if others have it, they just wish there was a cultural framework that encouraged relationships. They’ve lost dating – and they’re locked into a culture that demands physical intimacy before emotional intimacy.

      That culture needs to be redefined, via distributing accurate information, like the percentage of women age 18-23 with 15 sexual partners is 7. Those women are the outliers, that is the niche.

      Today, due to Pluralistic Ignorance, college students would estimate that number at around 75%. So I don’t see how you can claim casual sex is being shamed. It’s viewed as the norm.

  • Anacaona

    I just don’t see the point in engaging in a witch hunt for all “unrestricted” individuals, when some unrestricted individuals do not hold the same views as the more radical ones. I think there are great differences between people who have and enjoy a lot of sex, and people who have and enjoy a lot of sex while screaming/promoting their choices from the rooftops and shaming restricted people. The second group deserves whatever comes to them, while the first group is okay with me..
    I agree with what you say. I coined the term true sluts and fake sluts not sure if you were around, but is basically the same idea. But any unrestricted ranting on HUS is not the type that deserves to be respected don’t you think?

  • Gin Martini

    “Right to exist” is often code for “require public approval of” because nobody is advocating killing of sexually liberated people. That would be denying their right to exist.

    FWIW, VP, this isn’t a sex-poz blog, the mission here is to get people into monogamous realtionships – at least, the people that want such things.

    People get shamed all the time. Slut shamed, creep shamed, virgin shamed, ugly shamed, poly shamed, vanilla shamed, boring-shamed, prude-shamed, socially-awkward shamed. Those who talk the loudest about shaming usually shame other people… just for different things. I shame the people who shame shamers, or something!

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

      FWIW, VP, this isn’t a sex-poz blog, the mission here is to get people into monogamous realtionships – at least, the people that want such things.

      I have no wish whatsoever to pressure anyone into a monogamous relationship. The best outcome is a strict divide in the population between monogamous and non-monogamous folks.

  • Anacaona

    I shame the people who shame shamers, or something!
    Shame on you! :D

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    I agree with what you say. I coined the term true sluts and fake sluts not sure if you were around, but is basically the same idea. But any unrestricted ranting on HUS is not the type that deserves to be respected don’t you think?

    True, but I haven’t seen any radical unrestricted ranting going on in this thread. Virtuous Pervert seems to have conducted herself pretty civilly. I don’t think many radical unrestricted people comment here. What I see a lot of is that people bring up articles of things uttered by radical unrestricted individuals/radical feminists, then proceed to slam unrestricted people entirely. It just seems overblown to me.

    Also, this is a public blog. Susan could always make it private and regulate who is allowed to comment. She could keep out all of the “unrestricted” people, but I think that would cause more harm than good in the long run.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “And, why would you require two men to suck both nipples at once? Could be a man and a woman.”

    The book was not about a bisexual nor were my fantasies bisexual in nature nor am I bisexual. Highly doubtful it will ever happen but if I ever get both my nipples sucked simultaneously, it will be by two dudes, not two women nor a man and a woman.

    And if I were going to go she, what’s the use of he? I’d go all the way and become full throttle lesbian. Less stress!

    “Or just the man if the woman is well-endowed enough.”

    Nonsense! Not healthy for boobs to be stretched like that over the long haul.

    “Come on folks, female bisexuality is mainstream now… get with the liberation, ladies!”

    Take your own advice and go find a man to suck your d*ck.

    “We should be teaching people who want to have casual sex how to do it right, and those who don’t want to have casual sex how not do it at all. What slut-shaming does is teach people who want to have casual sex to not have it, which then leads to them having it the wrong way.”

    PRECISELY!

    Those who are naturally restricted will stay that way and those who aren’t won’t.

    There’s a lot of head wrangling ’round these parts trying to convince women to be restricted. I don’t get it when those who are, already are, and those who aren’t already aren’t.

    Let go and let god.

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

      Take your own advice and go find a man to suck your d*ck.

      Brilliant. PJ is having a good night.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    VP: What slut-shaming does is teach people who want to have casual sex to not have it, which then leads to them having it the wrong way.

    Susan: If this were true, we wouldn’t have a college culture of casual sex.

    But Susan you said yourself their having it the wrong way right here;

    “Re casual sex and intoxication, there is a very strong link in college and a few years after. In fact, some studies have shown that students binge drink and pregame in order to prep themselves for casual hookups they wouldn’t have sober. Clearly an indication of highly incongruent behavior.”

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

      But Susan you said yourself their having it the wrong way right here;

      Right – those are people who don’t want to have casual sex, but that’s what we’re teaching them to have. It’s the exact opposite of what PV describes.

  • Sassy6519

    I think the key for casual sex to be done “right”, if/when it can be done right, involves certain parameters. These include:

    1. Being sober during the sexual act.

    2. Using condoms/protection.

    3. Not getting emotionally attached to the casual sex partner.

    If one cannot do these things while having casual sex, don’t do it. Casual sex is clearly not for you, and it will cause you more harm than good. For the people who can have sex successfully with the aforementioned parameters in place, I don’t really have a problem with them doing so. What causes most problems is that people either catch feelings from the sex, catch an STD/become pregnant as a result of the sex, or have sex without their full mental faculties/wits about them due to alcohol.

    Failing to adhere to the aforementioned parameters seems like the way to have casual sex the “wrong” way.

  • Anacaona

    True, but I haven’t seen any radical unrestricted ranting going on in this thread. Virtuous Pervert seems to have conducted herself pretty civilly. I don’t think many radical unrestricted people comment here.

    Err disagree with that. First comment was to attack Travis:
    I’m probably much sluttier than the classy lady from imnotyourgirlfriend and I am married to someone who absolutely loves my sluttiness. Please refrain from projecting your own attitudes and desires to all men out there.
    What is the point of that? Why would she care?

    What I see a lot of is that people bring up articles of things uttered by radical unrestricted individuals/radical feminists, then proceed to slam unrestricted people entirely. It just seems overblown to me.
    As a strategy in the same way one maximizes the pool of eligible people by becoming more attractive, the best way to maximize your chances for a monogamous LTR is to filter out unrestricted people. That is the truth not a slam.

    Also, this is a public blog. Susan could always make it private and regulate who is allowed to comment. She could keep out all of the “unrestricted” people, but I think that would cause more harm than good in the long run.
    As a public blog they would also know that anyone can comment in their chosen lifestyle as well, positively and negatively. If they only want praise and acceptance there are sex positive blogs where they can do so and no one will say anything negative to them. Acceptance goes both ways.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    “FWIW, VP, this isn’t a sex-poz blog, the mission here is to get people into monogamous realtionships – at least, the people that want such things.”
    I’d never heard of this blog before and have no idea what it’s agenda is (I stumbled upon it googling up that study that’s been in the news recently). But I would have this same conversation regarding of the nature of the venue. Although, I gotta say the title of the blog is misleading, it’s not about hooking up smart, it’s about not hooking up at all.

    ” I’m probably much sluttier than the classy lady from imnotyourgirlfriend and I am married to someone who absolutely loves my sluttiness. Please refrain from projecting your own attitudes and desires to all men out there.
    What is the point of that? Why would she care?”
    Travis was making an inaccurate generalization (that slutty women will never find anyone to marry them) based on his own supposed preference for a non-slutty wife. My comment was meant to provide an example of the inaccuracy of his statement. I don’t see that as a radical unrestricted attack-rant. He was the one who was making a radical restricted attack.

    “Are you saying the majority does not believe you have the right to exist? Live your life as you see fit? I’m curious to learn more about this. What form does this take?”
    “Right to exist” is often code for “require public approval of” because nobody is advocating killing of sexually liberated people. That would be denying their right to exist.”
    I’m not saying that the majority is advocating killing sluts. But denying the right to a dignified existence can take many forms less extreme than killing. And those happen every day in our schools, churches, media, blogs like this, conversations with parents, friends, and partners… I made the comparison with other minorities already, I hate repeating myself.


    We should be teaching people who want to have casual sex how to do it right

    How do you propose we do that? Sex ed programs do a pretty thorough job of that already, don’t they? I know my town has included fisting in the sex ed curriculum, for example.”

    well, your town is lucky, but most of America receives abstinence-only-until-marriage sex (mis)education or something barely better than that.

    “In fact, it is the vast majority of students not having casual sex who feel like the “have-nots,” the shamed losers. They don’t want to have it, and they don’t care if others have it, they just wish there was a cultural framework that encouraged relationships. They’ve lost dating – and they’re locked into a culture that demands physical intimacy before emotional intimacy.”
    Despite pluralistic ignorance, we have not lost dating. Most people still date, most people still have relationships, that cultural framework is still there. Hooking up on campuses is not replacing dating, it’s supplementing it for those who want a framework different from the relational one.

    “Today, due to Pluralistic Ignorance, college students would estimate that number at around 75%. So I don’t see how you can claim casual sex is being shamed. It’s viewed as the norm.”
    But pluralistic ignorance is just that – ignorance. Most college students do not hook up on a regular basis. Most of the hooking up on campuses is done by 20-30% of the students.
    More importantly though, the college hookup culture is pretty disgusting. It encourages women to do it, but then punishes them for doing it by having their female friends not wanna be friends with them (like that study showed) and men rejecting them as potential long-term partners. And it is heavily dependent upon alcohol, which diminishes women’s agency and men’s responsibility in the whole process. So the college hookup culture creates a false sense of freedom, but leads to badly done casual sex (alcohol, no condoms) and just as much slut-shaming as before.

    I personally believe that most women and many men are restricted in their orientation (either in desire, or attitudes, or in an inability to stay unattached to casual partners). As a society we should empower those people to say ‘no’ to any peer pressure that might be telling them that they should hook up.
    At the same time, we should provide safe space and necessarily skills to the minority of women and men who are unrestricted to have all the casual sex they want in a physically and emotionally safe, responsible way.
    We are currently doing both of those things badly by having a very conflicted attitude toward sexuality.

    “I think the key for casual sex to be done “right”, if/when it can be done right, involves certain parameters. These include:

    1. Being sober during the sexual act.

    2. Using condoms/protection.

    3. Not getting emotionally attached to the casual sex partner.

    If one cannot do these things while having casual sex, don’t do it. Casual sex is clearly not for you, and it will cause you more harm than good. For the people who can have sex successfully with the aforementioned parameters in place, I don’t really have a problem with them doing so. What causes most problems is that people either catch feelings from the sex, catch an STD/become pregnant as a result of the sex, or have sex without their full mental faculties/wits about them due to alcohol.”

    AMEN.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go stick some needles into my slave’s body, and get a few of those orgasms that you don’t have to leave the house for.

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

      @Virtuous Pervert

      Although, I gotta say the title of the blog is misleading, it’s not about hooking up smart, it’s about not hooking up at all.

      Hooking up means anything from a kiss to intercourse. Intercourse is thought to happen in only about a third of hookups among college students, and a high percentage of students who have hooked up by graduation have not had intercourse in a hookup. Again, casual sex is the exception, not the norm for actual behavior. Culturally, it’s the norm, and hooking up without having it is the exception. This is the dilemma for students, and it’s why hookup culture gets such a bad rap – it’s not that people care who you want to have sex with, it’s that most students are dissatisfied and unhappy with the cultural norms and expectations.

      And those happen every day in our schools, churches, media, blogs like this, conversations with parents, friends, and partners… I made the comparison with other minorities already, I hate repeating myself.

      Casual sex is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes in life, including physical and emotional harm. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a single parent who wishes it for their own child. You are being judged not for your lifestyle, which no one even needs to know about, but for your attempt to “spread the message” of casual sex, e.g. we need to teach kids more about it.

      well, your town is lucky, but most of America receives abstinence-only-until-marriage sex (mis)education or something barely better than that.

      Most of us taxpayers don’t feel lucky – school funds going to instruction of a practice that compromises normal rectal function. It’s dangerous. It’s just PC nonsense to include such a topic.

      I also do not believe you are correct about abstinence-only sex ed in most of America. Do you have any data on that? I believe it’s common in places that don’t mention in their history books that the South lost the Civil War.

      Hooking up on campuses is not replacing dating, it’s supplementing it for those who want a framework different from the relational one.

      You obviously don’t know what you are talking about. The average female has been on less than one date by graduation. There is no dating. Relationships do happen, of course – about half of students at any one time – but hooking up is the only pathway to them. Students have to run the gauntlet and have sexual contact first.

      More importantly though, the college hookup culture is pretty disgusting. It encourages women to do it, but then punishes them for doing it by having their female friends not wanna be friends with them (like that study showed) and men rejecting them as potential long-term partners.

      It is not culture that causes both men and women to dislike sluts. It’s slutty behavior, as I’ve already noted. Sluts are more likely to poach mates. They are more likely to be untrustworthy.

      At the same time, we should provide safe space and necessarily skills

      Skills? What on earth are you talking about? You don’t think that young people who want to have sex can figure it out? Are you suggesting that Sex Weeks that demonstrate nipple clamps are opening up a world of possibility for students who always wanted that information but didn’t have it? The teaching of sex skills does not belong on any campus, and most definitely should not be funded in any way by the federal govt/taxpayers.

      We are currently doing both of those things badly by having a very conflicted attitude toward sexuality.

      The conflict comes from the decoupling of physical and emotional intimacy. For students who want that, it’s never been easier to get – the culture celebrates their choices, even as their peers disrespect them for their behavior. For most students, the conflict can only be resolved by restraining sexual expression until it is in line with the opportunity for emotional expression.

      That’s my readership. My goal is to support the majority of people, who feel trapped by a culture of casual sex. Due to the health risks associated with casual sex, I can not endorse it for anyone, but I obviously respect the right of all individuals to exert their personal freedom. Just leave the rest of us out of it.

      I remain encouraged that students are beginning to speak up and tell the truth about this harmful practice, and rejecting it for themselves. Correcting ignorance is always a good thing.

  • Gin Martini

    Nah, my dance card is full for women. Why would I need a man? *puzzled*

    Since you mention it, going full-lesbian would be an *excellent* choice for you. I really think everyone would appreciate that.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    Err disagree with that. First comment was to attack Travis: What is the point of that? Why would she care?

    I’ll repost what Virtuous Pervert stated in response to your questions.

    Travis was making an inaccurate generalization (that slutty women will never find anyone to marry them) based on his own supposed preference for a non-slutty wife. My comment was meant to provide an example of the inaccuracy of his statement. I don’t see that as a radical unrestricted attack-rant. He was the one who was making a radical restricted attack.

    As a strategy in the same way one maximizes the pool of eligible people by becoming more attractive, the best way to maximize your chances for a monogamous LTR is to filter out unrestricted people. That is the truth not a slam.

    I get that, but why the constant need to bring up articles by radical unrestricted people, only to slam all unrestricted people? Like I said before, it all seems overblown. I don’t attack meat-eaters left and right even though I’m a vegetarian. I’m a vegetarian because it’s a personal choice. I don’t expect others to all be vegetarians, I don’t try to convince meat-eaters to become vegetarian, and I sure as hell don’t go around with a “holier than thou” attitude towards meat-eaters. I don’t do that because I know that doing so would be the quickest way for me to be ignored, called crazy, hated, or all of the above. I just don’t see the point to all the mud slinging, from both sides.

    As a public blog they would also know that anyone can comment in their chosen lifestyle as well, positively and negatively. If they only want praise and acceptance there are sex positive blogs where they can do so and no one will say anything negative to them. Acceptance goes both ways.

    I agree with you.

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

      I get that, but why the constant need to bring up articles by radical unrestricted people, only to slam all unrestricted people?

      Virtuous pervert may not be a radical feminist, IDK, but she is radical all the same, wanting public funding and PR for the promotion and teaching of casual sex skills, whatever that means. She wants to promote casual sex and get information out to young people who “need it.” As if sluts are a discriminated against minority like gay youth. Please.

  • Anacaona

    I’d never heard of this blog before and have no idea what it’s agenda is (I stumbled upon it googling up that study that’s been in the news recently).
    There is an about section right under the title.

    But I would have this same conversation regarding of the nature of the venue.
    You took one comment and decided to correct it. Not the same thing as having a conversation.

    Although, I gotta say the title of the blog is misleading, it’s not about hooking up smart, it’s about not hooking up at all.
    About section again.

    Travis was making an inaccurate generalization (that slutty women will never find anyone to marry them) based on his own supposed preference for a non-slutty wife. My comment was meant to provide an example of the inaccuracy of his statement. I don’t see that as a radical unrestricted attack-rant. He was the one who was making a radical restricted attack.
    This blog is full of “examples like yours” we are also full of examples of men that upon hearing their fiances/girlfriends/wives numbers and former sexual activities head for the hills and left them puzzled and heartbroken, some of them managed to work through it with lot of pain and difficulty and still have issues over it. Travis was talking about his specific group of men. A bit of info for the women that come here searching advice to get a boyfriend. He was correct in his statement, you might had gotten lucky but it seems that the way things are the most partners a woman have the smaller the pool of men that will ‘not care’, hence she will be competing for the few that don’t. Not very good strategy for someone that wants to get married. This blog is about strategy hence why the hooking up most be smart.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    VP said,
    “Travis was making an inaccurate generalization (that slutty women will never find anyone to marry them) based on his own supposed preference for a non-slutty wife. My comment was meant to provide an example of the inaccuracy of his statement. I don’t see that as a radical unrestricted attack-rant. He was the one who was making a radical restricted attack.”

    > VP is right. Unrestricted people, or people who may be generally restricted but have had some casual sex, even a few one night stands, get married all the time.

    Susan herself has shared some details from her grad school days and she as heck wasn’t sitting on the fence! Has that stopped her from being married for almost 3 decades and raising a family? Nope.

    VP,
    “I’m not saying that the majority is advocating killing sluts. But denying the right to a dignified existence can take many forms less extreme than killing. And those happen every day in our schools, churches, media, blogs like this, conversations with parents, friends, and partners… ”

    > To be fair VP, I don’t think churches are the place to advocate for pro-unrestricted sexuality. Its just not the function of churches to advocate for that, nor does it have to be.

    By extension neither are schools.

    Susan,
    “How do you propose we do that? Sex ed programs do a pretty thorough job of that already, don’t they? I know my town has included fisting in the sex ed curriculum, for example.”

    VP responded,
    “well, your town is lucky, but most of America receives abstinence-only-until-marriage sex (mis)education or something barely better than that.”

    > I don’t think a town is “lucky” to have “fisting” incorporated into sex-ed.
    What’s lucky about that? I could have gone my entire life without knowing what the hell that was and not have been worse for it, maybe better off in fact since googling it about a year ago.

    Abstinence only can be problematic but I don’t see the need for public schools to outline and detail the entire gamut of kink. What’s the point?

    VP,
    “At the same time, we should provide safe space and necessarily skills to the minority of women and men who are unrestricted to have all the casual sex they want in a physically and emotionally safe, responsible way.”

    > The safe space is already there – the privacy of their own homes. Sexual skills are learned by doing. Before the internet, public schools sex ed and porn did women and men have any problem figuring out what made them feel good? I don’t think so.

    VP,
    “We are currently doing both of those things badly by having a very conflicted attitude toward sexuality. ”

    >
    This planet’s approach to sexuality is quite schizophrenic. There are women in the US who are going in for “hymen restoration surgery” voluntarily while in another part of the world girls are held down for forced clitorectomies.

    A woman breast feeding her child in public can make news for “public nudity” or “offending sensibilities” while people will PAY to objectify breasts at strip clubs or in porn apart from their intended and natural function as suppliers of food for babies, and any protest of that is seen as a threat to “freedom of speech”!

    Bikinis get skimpier and skimpier at the beach and that’s ok as long as the chicks wearing them are “hawt” but god forbid an average mother feed her child on the same beach.

    WTF?

  • Anacaona

    I get that, but why the constant need to bring up articles by radical unrestricted people, only to slam all unrestricted people?
    Because this is a relationship blog? Didn’t we found Data after Data that shows that unrestricted people are a risky bet for what we are promoting here?
    I’m a vegetarian because it’s a personal choice. I don’t expect others to all be vegetarians, I don’t try to convince meat-eaters to become vegetarian, and I sure as hell don’t go around with a “holier than thou” attitude towards meat-eaters. I don’t do that because I know that doing so would be the quickest way for me to be ignored, called crazy, hated, or all of the above. I just don’t see the point to all the mud slinging, from both sides.
    If this was “sex positive/poligamy/polyamory blog” and someone came to mud slid them you would have a point but is not is a relationship blog. I don’t go to Jezebel to tell them “the error of their ways” I just don’t visit anymore. If I was slutting myself out for right or wrong reasons I wouldn’t come here, either.
    There is space in the Internet for everything, just not rule for people to be received with open arms in every single corner of it. If a place is not your cup of tea don’t go, problem solved. I don’t visit places that don’t support my choices. If Susan says tomorrow that unrestricted people are as good bets as restricted I would probably not come here anymore. Not rant trying to change everyone’s minds. Is not that hard.

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

      There is space in the Internet for everything, just not rule for people to be received with open arms in every single corner of it.

      Exactly. I want to clarify something here – someone said this is a “public” blog. In the past some men have told me I have to let them have their say, because the blog is public.

      The blog is not public. It is available by open invitation to all who conduct themselves in a civil manner. Vicious Pervert is welcome to comment here because she has been civil, and I’m happy to debate her ideas.

      I view this space as my virtual living room, and reserve the right to ask anyone to leave my home. I’ve been doing this more lately, and deleting more comments from drive-by trolls without explanation. It’s made a big difference, as least from my POV.

      Carry on.

  • Abbot

    Low hanging fruit

    That is not the women. That is the men. Men are low hanging fruit because its no challenge for women to sex one up and therefore NOT an accomplishment or anything to be proud of. Like cheap abundant food in the US, you’re seen as a glutton for over doing it. And you are.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “If Susan says tomorrow that unrestricted people are as good bets as restricted I would probably not come here anymore. Not rant trying to change everyone’s minds. Is not that hard.”

    >Well, I’m sure Susan thinks of herself and her husband as “sure bets” and yet neither of them were “restricted” in grad school.

    So this “restricted” and “promiscuous” thing is all relative.

    “Low hanging fruit

    That is not the women. That is the men. Men are low hanging fruit because its no challenge for women to sex one up and therefore NOT an accomplishment or anything to be proud of. Like cheap abundant food in the US, you’re seen as a glutton for over doing it. And you are.”

    > Well VP wrote on her blog the difficulties in setting up a MFM 3some so the men she deals with aren’t hanging low. Plus she says she’s picky about looks so what to speak of fruit, I’m sure their nuts aren’t hanging low either.

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

      Well, I’m sure Susan thinks of herself and her husband as “sure bets” and yet neither of them were “restricted” in grad school.

      I would not judge anyone as a sure bet for marital success, including myself. There are blogs in the sphere full of restricted people who make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

      We discuss trends here, as well as statistics that give us some sense of the odds. People beat them all the time. I’m trying to share strategies for a woman of 21 who wants marriage and family – what are the practices and attitudes that are most likely to be successful for her before she turns 30?

      Given the divorce rate among the educated, it’s clear that people everywhere on the SOI spectrum can be happily married, though the top quintile of unrestricteds cheats and divorces at double the rate of everyone else.

      I have never promoted virginity or abstinence here – and I’ve been clear about not regretting my own choices.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    If this was “sex positive/poligamy/polyamory blog” and someone came to mud slid them you would have a point but is not is a relationship blog. I don’t go to Jezebel to tell them “the error of their ways” I just don’t visit anymore. If I was slutting myself out for right or wrong reasons I wouldn’t come here, either.
    There is space in the Internet for everything, just not rule for people to be received with open arms in every single corner of it. If a place is not your cup of tea don’t go, problem solved. I don’t visit places that don’t support my choices. If Susan says tomorrow that unrestricted people are as good bets as restricted I would probably not come here anymore. Not rant trying to change everyone’s minds. Is not that hard.

    I get that, and I’m not trying to be a bitch here, despite my love of it. I’m just trying to think outside the box.

    I understand that hostile quadrants of the internet exist. I just think that Hooking Up Smart is much better than that. I don’t think that it should become a “relationship only echo chamber”. Although the blog does strive to promote relationship formation, it seems dumb in my opinion to not welcome open discourse with individuals who have varying opinions. If discussions can be kept civil, and differences of opinion are able to coexist without hostility, what is the problem? I understand whenever Susan moderates comments that are outright rude, off topic, and incite hostility. Such comments are not conducive to healthy debate.

    What I wouldn’t understand would be the need to shut out all dissenting opinions. That seems very ignorant to me. Susan has stated that, in her real life, she is able to have debates with some of her closest friends who have differing views from hers. I know that Susan has always welcomed commenters from different cultures/backgrounds/viewpoints, as long as they engaged in pleasant communication. Why should that change? Shouldn’t the merit of relationship-only teachings be able to stand the test of healthy scrutiny? Should we believe every thing that Susan says blindly without engaging in critical thinking and forming our own opinions?

    Some people may be interested in living their lives as sheeple, but I am not one of them. The moment that Susan’s blog stops being a place for open and honest debate, relatively free of hostility and malice, is the day that I stop commenting here.

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

      The moment that Susan’s blog stops being a place for open and honest debate, relatively free of hostility and malice, is the day that I stop commenting here.

      That will never happen. If it ever gets to the point where I can’t control that, I’ll take the blog down. I’ve come close before to throwing in the towel, but have weathered the rough spots. It’s a big job keeping the debate honest and civil – people get very emotional about this topic. I do my best, but it’s not always good enough. I’ll keep trying.

  • Sassy6519

    The Cornell study stuck a MAJOR f’n knife into the heart of the asshat sex poz femisphere and the cult has not yet figured out how to respond (damage control). Granted, the author knew the results would create intense controversy and she is clearly looking to capitalize on it and make a name for herself. However, the collateral effect is positive as it puts a deserved spotlight on what has become a shameful national embarrassment: our women.

    This is a prime example of what I’m talking about. Is this necessary, helpful, informative, anything even remotely beneficial, etc??

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

      This is a prime example of what I’m talking about. Is this necessary, helpful, informative, anything even remotely beneficial, etc??

      You know, I liked Abbot’s comment until he raged against American women again. He needs to chill – I’ve had to delete at least a dozen comments of his on this thread.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “our women”

    Who’s women?

  • Sassy6519

    @ SHS

    Who’s women?

    He means American women.

    Conversation devolving into a diatribe about American men expatriating and marrying foreign women in 3….2….1….

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    Don’t forget the “doe eyed” part, Sassy. ;)

  • Anacaona

    I understand that hostile quadrants of the internet exist. I just think that Hooking Up Smart is much better than that. I don’t think that it should become a “relationship only echo chamber”. Although the blog does strive to promote relationship formation, it seems dumb in my opinion to not welcome open discourse with individuals who have varying opinions. If discussions can be kept civil, and differences of opinion are able to coexist without hostility, what is the problem? I understand whenever Susan moderates comments that are outright rude, off topic, and incite hostility. Such comments are not conducive to healthy debate.
    Is a waste of time?
    Cosmo already has all the sex tips any young woman might need for a lifetime or two. Feminists spent all their free time trumping ‘sluts for everyone’ 24/7. HUS is one of the few blogs where politically correctness is not trumped in detriment of what actually works for single young women. There is no point on having more of that here. Women need grounded in reality advice. If sex positivism would had been the answer there wouldn’t be the misery we see in campus would they? Why would we need to have the same old “I was slut and I got married” in here.? There is plenty of that everywhere else.

    Shouldn’t the merit of relationship-only teachings be able to stand the test of healthy scrutiny? Should we believe every thing that Susan says blindly without engaging in critical thinking and forming our own opinions?
    Unrestricted telling their sexual tales/kinks is not scrutiny. They need do Susan’s leg work and bring DATA that showed that their sexual escapades don’t affect their rates in marriage, divorce, cheating and the like. Susan also has a policy against the idea that personal anecdote triumphs Data.

    Some people may be interested in living their lives as sheeple, but I am not one of them. The moment that Susan’s blog stops being a place for open and honest debate, relatively free of hostility and malice, is the day that I stop commenting here.
    I would as well. Not at all what is happening here.

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

      Unrestricted telling their sexual tales/kinks is not scrutiny. They need do Susan’s leg work and bring DATA that showed that their sexual escapades don’t affect their rates in marriage, divorce, cheating and the like. Susan also has a policy against the idea that personal anecdote triumphs Data.

      I confess I’m disappointed that VP turned out to be ill informed and spewing political talk. She was proselytizing after all, and I will not allow that.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    Cosmo already has all the sex tips any young woman might need for a lifetime or two. Feminists spent all their free time trumping ‘sluts for everyone’ 24/7. HUS is one of the few blogs where politically correctness is not trumped in detriment of what actually works for single young women. There is no point on having more of that here. Women need grounded in reality advice. If sex positivism would had been the answer there wouldn’t be the misery we see in campus would they? Why would we need to have the same old “I was slut and I got married” in here? There is plenty of that everywhere else.

    Yes, I know. I know that Susan is not advocating the unrestricted lifestyle, but I don’t see why unrestricted individuals should not be allowed to peacefully comment without being attacked. Perhaps they want to discuss the topics at hand. Perhaps it’s a woman/man who has acted in unrestricted fashions, yet now wants to actually learn things from Susan and others. Maybe an unrestricted person wants to throw his/her two cents into a discussion without trying to put-down/shame restricted people. I just don’t see why such coexistence shouldn’t occur. The last thing HUS needs to become is an echo chamber that restricts outside thoughts/opinions/experiences. At that point, Susan’s blog will become a place that she has oftentimes criticized other places for being (close-minded hostile environments that refute disagreement/dissent of any kind).

  • Sassy6519

    All I’m saying is that if we chase out unrestricted people who comment on this blog with torches and pitchforks, this blog will be no better than Jezebel (which supposedly notoriously shouts down and chases out people who have differing views than their own). Such behavior is not right, regardless of which side of the fence it comes from.

    @ Anacaona

    I would as well. Not at all what is happening here.

    Could have fooled me…

  • Anacaona

    Yes, I know. I know that Susan is not advocating the unrestricted lifestyle, but I don’t see why unrestricted individuals should not be allowed to peacefully comment without being attacked.
    Ozy was not attacked. She was polite the first comment of the new poster was to correct someone without even bothering to understand what it was said or the context. And she admitted herself. We have had other commenters that disagreed and were polite and they were treated as such.

    Perhaps it’s a woman/man who has acted in unrestricted fashions, yet now wants to actually learn things from Susan and others
    I forgot her name but we had that too. She came to learn and we received her.

    Maybe an unrestricted person wants to throw his/her two cents into a discussion without trying to put-down/shame restricted people.
    That is BB and we love him don’t we? Han Solo is also revered and until the last fall Jason was treated as a friend and valued commenter.
    The new commenter is just the unrestricted version of some of the other guys that had been here and are not anymore. That is the problem a different attitude and things wouldn’t had gone the way they were.

    If you are referring to PJ we have no idea if she is restricted or not, one day she claim to be a virgin the other she talks like she has slept with whole India and parts of Africa. Soon she will be back at crazy Defcon 1.

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

      That is BB and we love him don’t we? Han Solo is also revered and until the last fall Jason was treated as a friend and valued commenter.

      Jason knows I will welcome him back, he and I have disagreed before. I am quite fond of several of the unrestricted guys here, and I don’t have a problem with unrestricted women either. I’ve shared how a few of the women in my focus groups are very high N, and I love and accept them. They do not feel judged by me.

      People do get judgey here, but to be honest, the most extreme comments have come from those in the long tails – highly restricted and highly unrestricted. Again, they can have their say if they’re civil. Of course, if they’re wrong or their arguments suck I’ll be the first to say so. :)

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “If you are referring to PJ we have no idea if she is restricted or not, one day she claim to be a virgin the other she talks like she has slept with whole India and parts of Africa”

    Never!
    I claimed to have “dated the rainbow” – and I indeed have.

    It is you who assumed by “dating” I meant “sex” because that is YOUR culture.

  • Gin Martini

    Of course, I don’t mean pressure. I was just quoting your mission statement, and that’s why I said those who want one. You’ve said before this place is no the place to advocate for casual sex, women or men. Obviously, the topic comes up tangentially all the time.

    Sassy 197, well said. I got piled on a bit for admitting I really liked our third, and it wasn’t unemotional or a stranger or bad sex (a stereotype)… but, I fully expected a little heat. You might call me a troll for that, but it’s actually true. We then had a good discussion on what restricted vs. unrestricted really means, that went somewhere.

    I think VP could add a lot here, just, beware of the mission and stay away from the social justical/generalized advocacy of the lifestyle, and we could learn a lot. Most sex-poz bloggers are very heavily into both.

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

      I was just quoting your mission statement, and that’s why I said those who want one.

      I know, I wasn’t directing my response at you personally. One of the claims common among HUS haters is that Walsh is trying to get players into relationships by shaming them. This could not be further from the truth. I want players to stay away from relationships and the women who want them. (same goes for sluts).

  • Josie

    @ Travis,

    apologies accepted…everyone has knee jerk reaction. I guess I mean conservative, in the sense that these guys were willingly hook up and have casual sex with girls but reserved girlfriend status to either a restricted, nice hot girl or a restricted cute girl with a great personality.

    In other words, they have no respects for the girls they sleeps with casually.

    @ Susan et al.

    On the topic of marriage, I have been reading Washington Square by Henry James. I had also read Persuasion by Jane Austin.

    It gave me an understanding of why marriage is so much more important about two generation ago.

    In Persuasion, Anne is a pretty and smart girl who comes from a prominent family but falls in love with a handsome naval captain. Her mother’s friend, Lady Russell persuade her to break off the engagement and both her older sister, Elizabeth and father, Sir Elliot agrees.

    8 years later, Anne’s father had gamble away the family’s fortune and now he must rent out the estate. Guess who happens to the lease it? Her ex-fiance’s sister and husband. Moreover, her ex is now a desirable bachelor.

    However, in Washington Square, Catherine is the plain and dull daughter of Dr. Austin Sloper. She also happens to be the only child and heiress to her family fortune. Her father is disappointed that she “neither pretty, clever, nor witty.” She was courted by a the handsome, charming but broke Morris Townsend who lives with his sister after gambling away his small inheritance.

    Catherine choose him and love despite her father objection and insistence that Morris is after her money since she lacks any feminine charm i.e. beauty, wittiness. In the end, Morris jilted her after he discovered that her father had change his will, so that she is left with a liveable wage instead of the extravagant life he imagines for himself.

    So what does this have to do with HUS and marriage? Will, it makes me thankful that I no longer live in the 1800s to early 1900s. My money will be my, instead of my husband even if I inherited. I do feel sorry because a lot of women must marry a man if they are to avoid poverty. However, many wealthy widows refused to remarried since their husbands will have control over their property and money.

    In this case, Anne marries her ex after he had proven that he can take care of her whereas Catherine choose to remain single so that she will have control over her finance.

  • Josie

    In other words, while getting marry may be a young girl’s destiny, her choice in a husband determines her future.

  • Escoffier

    “I’m probably much sluttier than the classy lady from imnotyourgirlfriend”

    Ana, some of us cherish the little mental pictures we paint of other commenters, please do not spoil our illusions with shocking statements like this, thx.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    You guys had quite a fun little discussion while I was gone…Hawks and Spurs both won on the road, so it can’t get much better! (Thankfully I am not a baseball fan, or it can’t get much worse)

    Thanks for the kind words Ana and Susan. I don’t foresee changing the handle anytime soon, though last night one of my friends dragged me to a store to help him pick out a shirt. He has a date tonight :P
    Then I had to yell at him for wanting to bring a present along…sheesh…

    Then we almost got into a fight with a D1 basketball player. Christ. Never met a bigger douche in my whole life.

    One thing I wanted to comment on realllll quick here, that PJ came up with:

    A Def Beta Guy’s “issue” comes from this meme that there’s a significant percentage of men in the population who aren’t getting any action at all.
    Forget MFM, or FMF 3somes, these guys can’t even get a date off the calendar.

    This is not my issue. That’s a separate one. I think the InCels have it tough but that’s not at all what I am talking about. My general issue is the same that Susan has been highlighting here, that we have a culture that is more or less dictated by the unrestricted, fueled by alcohol and pluralistic ignorance, for a culture that is mostly restricted.
    So as Sassy said, it is stupid to try to force an unrestricted mold on restricted people. That’s more or less what we’re doing! With DISASTOROUS consequences.
    And as Ana pointed out, we have quite a few “unrestricted” people…who still try to act restricted because they want the benefits of having a monogamous relationship. BB is one such person, apparently. Zach gave it a shot, apparently Jason is giving it a shot, Han prefers being in a relationship…
    You guys are acting like there is some sort of serious choice to be restricted vs. unrestricted, as if anything more than a small, small, small fraction of the population is actually going to enjoy it.
    Sometimes, in our econ discussions between rational people, we have a random communist or Austrian or something that jumps in and DEMANDS to be taken seriously. That’s y’all “unrestricted” that want your threesomes and open relationships and all that crap.
    You are very extreme, you have nothing to offer the vast majority of the population, your mores have permeated through a large chunk of the population, and it is HIGHLY damaging.
    So, no, you unrestricted types are generally not respectful at all, of restricted people, or the culture that we need to establish to help restricted people find happiness.
    THAT is my issue.
    My SPECIFIC issue is that VP decided to trot on here and harp on Travis for something he said about harlots, this is how she described it:

    Travis was making an inaccurate generalization (that slutty women will never find anyone to marry them) based on his own supposed preference for a non-slutty wife. My comment was meant to provide an example of the inaccuracy of his statement. I don’t see that as a radical unrestricted attack-rant. He was the one who was making a radical restricted attack

    Yep, that radical restricted attack from a restricted guy saying that a lot of guys aren’t going to want to marry a girl who gets black-out drunk and then has sex. In our own little venue for relationship-blogging. Oh so extreme.
    I don’t have a problem with the legit-unrestricted people as long as they stay on their own little island. This is a living room for Susan, and VP just popped her head in the window to say “I don’t like this conversation you are having, you should be nicer to sluts. There’s someone out there for everyone, sluts can find love too!”
    Yeah, THAT is what annoys me. That’s not being “respectful” or “civil.” That’s butting your head into a conversation on a blog that you are not a frequent member of and trying to control the conversation.
    Just because it’s phrased in a slightly nicer way than how Abbott puts things, does not mean it’s not trying to control the conversation.
    I really don’t know why you are trying to use Susan as an example of how great casual sex is, either, PJ. She seems extremely satisfied with her marriage of 30 years, her 2 children, and her self-described amazing sex. Somehow that sounds a lot more appealing than a one night stand that is comparable in quality to HBO.
    I would also say that’s a stunning rebuke of, well, your entire philosophy on relationships. And that’s coming from someone who seems relatively unrestricted.

    @ Sassy
    I think for the most part my response to PJ summarized my views. Not angry at you by the way, way too satisified to be pissed off right now ;)

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

      He has a date tonight
      Then I had to yell at him for wanting to bring a present along…sheesh…

      How is this level of cluelessness even possible? They didn’t even do that in the 18th century!

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

      we have a culture that is more or less dictated by the unrestricted, fueled by alcohol and pluralistic ignorance, for a population that is mostly restricted.
      So as Sassy said, it is stupid to try to force an unrestricted mold on restricted people. That’s more or less what we’re doing! With DISASTOROUS consequences.

      Exactly, well said.

      She seems extremely satisfied with her marriage of 30 years, her 2 children, and her self-described amazing sex. Somehow that sounds a lot more appealing than a one night stand that is comparable in quality to HBO.

      LOL, that GoT wisecrack really got to you.

      I am not highly unrestricted and never was. I think my score on the SOI would probably be a bit on the unrestricted side – maybe one standard deviation from the mean, at most. However, by some standards my double digits make me a raging slut. I’d like to point out that VP has acknowledged having 5,000 casual sexual encounters. That’s one a week for nearly ten years! (The petri dish implications of this really gross me out. I’m visualizing little bugs of every shape and size zooming around like pinballs.)

      There’s a big difference between a woman who has had one ONS, a woman who has had a handful, and a woman who has had hundreds. It’s just not reasonable to call all of them “unrestricted.” The one ONS woman is at the mean on the SOI, the handful is probably 1 SD out, and the VPs of this world are at the point in the long tail where they’re not visible to the naked eye on a graph.

  • Abbot

    “You are being judged not for your lifestyle, which no one even needs to know about, but for your attempt to “spread the message” of casual sex, e.g. we need to teach kids more about it.”

    The root of this, AS ALWAYS, is the insidious infuriation feminists harbor against men for some supposed sexual oppression and they insanely believe the only way to “de-oppress” is via an all out fuck-all that will render sex as benign as breathing or eating. The children, YOUR children, are now the primary target as their attempts to change adult men has proven to be a knuckle-cracking and teeth gnashing exercise in futility.

    “My goal is to support the majority of people, who feel trapped by a culture of casual sex…I obviously respect the right of all individuals to exert their personal freedom. Just leave the rest of us out of it.”

    The scene — child in the midst of an intense tantrum, fists clenched, shrieking sounds, tears flowing, face red, jumping up and down and bouncing off the walls:

    no! No! NO! You cannot be left out of it…waaa! waaa! Don’t you know that we feminists finally found the key to absolute equality!? Its about the fucking! The fucking is the command central of control over us! We have to break the “continuum of fuck control” and ensure that no man can “express his fuck control” or “embrace his fuck control” or “discover his fuck control” or find his fuck control empowering!! We cannot deconstruct patriarchal penis power unless everyone follows are sick twisted self-serving prickly know-it-all feminist-studies guidance. So listen up!

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    FWIW, I do understand that I am probably on the restricted end of things, even here.

    But I am not telling anyone to stay a virgin until 24. In fact I am pretty sure I broadcast a “WARNING WARNING THIS IS NOT FOR EVERYONE” message. Along with a “YOU ARE NOT LIKE ME” message.

    I have no interest in forcing my values on everyone else, trying to make other people like me, or telling other people how to live their lives.

  • Abbot

    Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman still have not responded to the Cornell study. Aside from Jezebel, every other blue blooded feminist is afraid to. Clearly, the study rammed a sock down the throat of the asshat sex poz femisphere.

  • Josie

    Besides this, why are men and women still being judge based on their looks and wealth.

    It was okay for Anne to marry Captain Wentworth now that he is rich, but it was wrong for Morris Townsend to pursue Catherine for her money?

    Why is Catherine unworthy of love because she was dull and plain, but Anne is pretty and thus, entitled to a rich guy?

    Why does society today stills put emphasis on female beauty whereas men are only known for their wealth?

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

      It was okay for Anne to marry Captain Wentworth now that he is rich, but it was wrong for Morris Townsend to pursue Catherine for her money?

      Why is Catherine unworthy of love because she was dull and plain, but Anne is pretty and thus, entitled to a rich guy?

      Anne Elliot is no beauty, and at the time of the story, she is nearing 30, resigned to spinsterhood. She did not reject Capt. Wentworth because of his money, she rejected him to please Lady Russell, who insisted it was what Anne’s dead mother would have wanted. She couldn’t care less about his fortune. She believes throughout the book that he couldn’t possibly still be attracted to her, or forgive her for that mistake that destroyed both their happiness.

      The real gold digger in Persuasion is her Eliot cousin.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    @Susan Walsh

    Again, casual sex is the exception, not the norm for actual behavior. Culturally, it’s the norm, and hooking up without having it is the exception.

    I disagree that culturally casual sex is the norm. In some subcultures around the US, yes, but they are a very small minority (like the party culture in NYC, for example). Even on many college campuses, it’s not the norm, it’s the exception. Given that each study uses a different definition of casual sex/hooking up, it’s really hard to pinpoint the actual numbers, but it seems that on most campuses that have been surveyed, it’s a minority of students who have casual sex (defined as oral sex or intercourse).

    Casual sex is associated with a wide range of negative outcomes in life, including physical and emotional harm.

    OK, let’s talks some data.
    Emotional harm: There is not a single *longitudinal* study finding universally negative emotional outcomes of casual sex. Fielder & Carey (2009) found a marginally statistical trend for depression (but not self-esteem) among women (but not men), and Meier (2007) found a negative effect on self-esteem among the youngest girls who had casual sex early compared to their cohort. There were no effects on depression for these girls, and no effects on either outcome for girls who hooked up on-time or late relative to their cohort, or for boys regardless of timing.
    Several other longitudinal studies have found no main effects of casual sex on depression, loneliness, or self-esteem. No other psychological well-being outcome has been studied.

    Physical harm: yes, people who have casual sex are more likely to have STIs and unwanted pregnancies, but that’s because they do it irresponsibly. These are easy to prevent, people just have to be smart about it. And that’s what needs to be taught (more on that below).

    Cheating and relationship satisfaction/dissolution. Unrestricted people do have higher rates of cheating and relationship dissolution, and I think I saw a study finding lower relationship satisfaction as well. (In all of these studies it was assumed the relationships were supposedly monogamous, and most of them likely were.) This to me says that unrestricted people should not attempt to have monogamous relationship. They should look for other high-SOI partners and form open, swinger, poly etc relationships. I’d like to see a study comparing high-SOI people in monogamous and open relationships on all of these relationship-relevant outcomes. Then we can talk whether unrestricted orientation and behavior is necessarily a bad thing for LTRs.

    Most of us taxpayers don’t feel lucky – school funds going to instruction of a practice that compromises normal rectal function. It’s dangerous. It’s just PC nonsense to include such a topic.

    Well, you should feel lucky. I don’t know your specific curriculum, but chances are if they include fisting, they include comprehensive sex information about many other things, and that can only be a good thing. I also assume – and hope – that when they teach fisting, and any other sexual activity, they teach about the risks as well as any benefits. You don’t protect kids from sex by not telling them about it, you protect them by giving them all the information (the risks and the benefits) so they can make an informed decision about what to engage in, and how to do it safely.

    I also do not believe you are correct about abstinence-only sex ed in most of America. Do you have any data on that? I believe it’s common in places that don’t mention in their history books that the South lost the Civil War.

    In 1999, one third of all public school districts in the US were teaching abstinence-only curricula (Fine & McLelland, 2006, p. 7). I haven’t seen have more recent data, but I can find it for you if you’d like. From what I gather, there has been a rightful backlash against AOUM, so there are now more and more states banning it. But still, not that long ago, ONE THIRD of the US schools taught nothing but AOUM. That is not only the South. That is terrifying, an entire generation of Americans systematically robbed of their right to safe and responsible search for sexual pleasure and fulfillment.

    You obviously don’t know what you are talking about. The average female has been on less than one date by graduation. There is no dating.

    I think you are the one you doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Here is one example: In a study from a Southeast university, the mean number of dates students had gone on since starting college was 2.76; the mean number of hook ups: 2.51 – and the included freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, so that number would be even higher if you only took seniors at the end of college. And, 72% of students had been on at least one date; 87% had at least one hookup (Brimeyer & Smith, 2012).
    Dating in college is alive and well. As is hooking up. But having an agenda can prevent you from seeing data you don’t want to see. Happens to the best of us.

    It is not culture that causes both men and women to dislike sluts. It’s slutty behavior, as I’ve already noted. Sluts are more likely to poach mates. They are more likely to be untrustworthy.

    If you read the Cornell study, you’d know that the authors offered mate poaching as one explanation for disliking sluts. Cultural stigma was the other one. But because mate poaching is likely to affect both sexes similarly, it is more likely that it is cultural stigma that plays a bigger role for disliking of female sluts. Because if that were not the case, the male sluts would have been just as strongly disliked. Yet, they weren’t.
    But keep in mind that neither mate poaching nor stigma were directly tested in this study, they were only suggested as explanations. There is plenty of other evidence that such stigma exists and that women are the ones to police other women’s sexuality more than men (e.g., Baumeister & Twenge, 2002).

    At the same time, we should provide safe space and necessarily skills

    Skills? What on earth are you talking about? You don’t think that young people who want to have sex can figure it out? Are you suggesting that Sex Weeks that demonstrate nipple clamps are opening up a world of possibility for students who always wanted that information but didn’t have it? The teaching of sex skills does not belong on any campus, and most definitely should not be funding in any way by the federal govt/taxpayers.

    Actually, by skills I meant teaching people how to do it responsibly: to always use protection, not get drunk/high before they do it, not do it for the wrong reasons (e.g. they’re hoping for a relationship), etc.
    But since you mention it, no, I don’t think young people who want to have sex can figure it out. Any more than they can figure out how to do calculus or learn chemistry. Sure, they can go online or ask their friends, but the knowledge that they get from those sources will be choppy and often highly inaccurate.
    I think people should also have Sex Week kind of information available to them in college (not mandatory of course). It’s better to learn about these skills in that kind of environment (which will include the risks as well as the benefits), than to pick it up from porn. And yes, I personally think the govt should pay for it. Full comprehensive sex education is something that this country (and any country) would benefit from greatly.
    Again, so that there are no misunderstandings about my views on this, my idea of an ideal comprehensive sex ed curriculum is not one that celebrates every possible sexual activity out there; it’s one that includes accurate information about as many sexual activities as possible given time constraints, covering all the risks and benefits each activity entails and providing all the info and skills necessary for a person to engage in each responsibly IF they decide to engage in it.

    The conflict comes from the decoupling of physical and emotional intimacy.

    No, that’s not where the conflict comes from. The decoupling of physical and emotional intimacy is not problematic for everyone all the time. For many people, the two can be decoupled (at least sometimes) without negative outcomes; for many others, that cannot be done safely. This is because SOI comes with a normal distribution in the population, as does our sensitivity to oxytocin (most likely). The conflict comes from our society’s inability to fully embrace (without shaming them for it after) the high end of the SOI spectrum.

    My bottom line: High SOI people would be unhappy trying to be chaste and monogamous, low SOI people would be unhappy trying to hook up, and all of those in between could probably go either way or go in different ways at different points in life and depending on other personality characteristics and life circumstances. We should be teaching kids (and adults) how to say no to sexual behavior they do not want (whatever that may be), how to say yes to sexual behavior that they do want (whatever that may be), and how to engage in whatever they decide to engage in responsibly and safely.

    I rest my case – I have shared my views and the data to back it up, for whatever is worth to you and your readers. I may be back if I have time, but I do have my academic papers and my busy sex life to attend to.

    Best to you all. I hope you find what you are looking for and are happy with your choices.

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

      @Virtuous Pervert

      STIs are not easy to prevent. HPV is impossible to prevent. Condoms are not 100% effective in preventing any STI, because condoms fail.

      Kids have plenty of advice about safe sex, and still only 1/3 use condoms when they have sex during a hookup.

      Even on many college campuses, it’s not the norm, it’s the exception. Given that each study uses a different definition of casual sex/hooking up, it’s really hard to pinpoint the actual numbers, but it seems that on most campuses that have been surveyed, it’s a minority of students who have casual sex (defined as oral sex or intercourse).

      That’s the point. Several studies have shown that when you ask college students what percentage of students had sex the previous weekend, the estimates are 75-80%. The real number is 5-10%. That’s Pluralistic Ignorance. Why is that important? Because young people feel enormous peer pressure. The result is that tons of kids feel like they should be having casual sex, because most other kids are having casual sex, which must be normal.

      The research on the motivations for hooking up, and the regret experienced afterwards, is very clear. Kids do it, or at least try it, to fit in, especially freshman year.

      A similar pattern exists with binge drinking. By highlighting how few students actually get wasted, colleges have seen the binge drinking numbers go way down. Kids realize it’s OK not to get drunk, and so they stop doing it.

      It’s the same with sex – college students are increasingly judging not just women, but also men, for promiscuous behavior. They’re figuring out that these few people are skewing perceptions on campus and having a deleterious effect on the whole culture. I believe we will continue to see a decrease in the incidence of hooking up, as stats become available. For example, Duke did a study of the hookup culture on its own campus, and when they concluded that only 10% of students were hooking up regularly, they published that information far and wide. Telling the truth and getting the facts out there is a good thing.

      Ain’t nobody stopping sluts from getting with manwhores, though. That 10% will continue to have casual sex, as there is plenty of support for it in the popular culture.

      This to me says that unrestricted people should not attempt to have monogamous relationship. They should look for other high-SOI partners and form open, swinger, poly etc relationships. I’d like to see a study comparing high-SOI people in monogamous and open relationships on all of these relationship-relevant outcomes.

      Agree 100%.

      In 1999, one third of all public school districts in the US were teaching abstinence-only curricula (Fine & McLelland, 2006, p. 7). I haven’t seen have more recent data, but I can find it for you if you’d like. From what I gather, there has been a rightful backlash against AOUM, so there are now more and more states banning it.

      In that case, why are you describing it as a current problem? Personally, I am opposed to abstinence-only education, but I believe it merits a place in the curriculum. In Boston, it’s a dirty word, a sex ed teacher wouldn’t be caught dead suggesting kids might actually want to wait to have sex.

      In a study from a Southeast university, the mean number of dates students had gone on since starting college was 2.76; the mean number of hook ups: 2.51 – and the included freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors, so that number would be even higher if you only took seniors at the end of college

      Let’s double the number of dates to 6. That’s 1.5 dates per year. You think that describes a dating culture? In the 70s we had a dating culture. I estimate that we went on at least 30 dates a year when single, and at least 75 when in a relationship, which we often were.

      As for the number of hookups, agreed, also low. What does this tell us?

      That young people are not getting together in healthy ways. We should see enthusiastic mating in that age range, and we do not. The question is why? Because young people do not see alternatives.

      Cultural stigma was the other one.

      What you call a cultural stigma I call a biological sex difference. That is the basis of the sexual double standard. A study of 57 countries found that men value sexual loyalty and faithfulness highly, and believe that a promiscuous sexual history predicts failure. The fear of cuckoldry is real and sensible. This is common across all cultures, barring a few tribal cultures.

      I don’t know what to make of the fact that sluts don’t want to be friends with other sluts. That did surprise me, but I don’t see how cultural stigma could be occurring from the very women trying to fight it.

      There is plenty of other evidence that such stigma exists and that women are the ones to police other women’s sexuality more than men (e.g., Baumeister & Twenge, 2002).

      As well they might, as promiscuous women significantly increase the availability of casual sex. If promiscuous women targeted other high SOI individuals this would matter less, but they do not discriminate in this fashion, so nonpermissive women are affected. It’s not surprising they resent it, as they perceive it reduces their own options.

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

      But because mate poaching is likely to affect both sexes similarly, it is more likely that it is cultural stigma that plays a bigger role for disliking of female sluts. Because if that were not the case, the male sluts would have been just as strongly disliked. Yet, they weren’t.

      They weren’t disliked by other men in this study, they were not evaluated by women. Other research shows a growing disrespect for slutty men and women, as evidenced by the pie chart I included in the post. What is evolving is a single standard that is anti-promiscuity. I welcome that.

  • Abbot

    “Why does society today stills put emphasis on female beauty whereas men are only known for their wealth?”

    Society = Tabloids
    Stop reading tabloids
    Men appreciate female beauty. Females respond.
    Women appreciate male wealth. Males respond.
    Human nature is the root. Keep it simple. Be happy.

  • Abbot

    “the male sluts would have been just as strongly disliked. Yet, they weren’t.”

    Men like/love sluts! All men! Fuck fuck fuck! Why not?
    What really really pisses off the “unrestricted” women and feminists is that nearly all men change that viewpoint when commitment to a woman is being considered. That is the core central root of all this female-derived sex-related anger.

    Some women claim to be this unrestricted thingy as some sort of lifestyle nonsense but far more women will have an unrestricted bout aka slut phase and marriage-minded men are proud (and wise) to lump them into the same category.

  • Escoffier

    Josie: Anne Eliot was plain, not pretty.

    Beyond this you are mistaking interpersonal pressure for societal pressure.

  • Abbot

    “promiscuous women significantly increase the availability of casual sex. If promiscuous women targeted other high SOI individuals this would matter less, but they do not discriminate in this fashion, so nonpermissive women are affected. It’s not surprising they resent it, as they perceive it reduces their own options.”

    Only a self serving agenda-driven angry promiscuous women would deny these facts.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Susan

    LOL, that GoT wisecrack really got to you.

    It’s hard not to let it, it’s so funny! :P
    In seriousness, though, it doesn’t surprise me, and I would also apply the same caveat to some of the sex in my own relationship, too. There’s more to life than sex, so, obviously, there’s going to be something fun to do besides sex a lot of the time.

    I don’t think I would ever put you on the tail end of SOI, anywhere close to the threesomes and sex with a stranger every night range. No way Jose. And obviously you don’t regret any of your hook-ups. My larger point was that even people who “lean” unrestricted in some ways, often-times prefer quality, monogamous relationships.
    So lumping the term unrestricted on anyone on the top 50% of the distribution is useless.

    I think it’s an absolute fair warning, though, to point this out:
    To the very-restricted crowd, a woman or a man who is, say +1 SD in SOI, and acts on it, may look the same, as VP looks to a +1 SD.
    A woman who is +1 SD in SOI, and doesn’t act on it, is not much different than a woman who is -1SD in SOI. Possibly similar for the guys. Everything’s hunky dory.
    The only thing we are really giving up is some “meh” sex. But it gives you easier access to guys like Lokland, Ted D, Cooper, etc.
    I can’t tell anyone what trade-off to make, and obviously for me it will be easy since I am restricted. I don’t know how unrestricted people feel because I’m not one, but it doesn’t SEEM like a good trade to me.

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

      My larger point was that even people who “lean” unrestricted in some ways, often-times prefer quality, monogamous relationships.
      So lumping the term unrestricted on anyone on the top 50% of the distribution is useless.

      Agreed. I’ve been trying to steer us away from the binary labeling and think more about a spectrum of continuum.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Also, be nice to the guy who wanted to give a gift! He may be a little dumb, but it’s just because he really likes the girl.

    If you saw the friggin shirt he picked out, oh my god. Was a friggin’ fluorsecent green.

    We found one the two of us liked, so I sent the GF a picture. She said he looked like a trucker. Then he saw it was only $15 and said “I am not wearing a $15 shirt to a date!”

    Was quite funny.

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

      Also, be nice to the guy who wanted to give a gift! He may be a little dumb, but it’s just because he really likes the girl.

      I know, and I don’t want to see him fail when she opens her front door! Get that guy to HUS if you can, we’ll set him straight.

  • Anacaona

    Ana, some of us cherish the little mental pictures we paint of other commenters, please do not spoil our illusions with shocking statements like this, thx.
    That was VP not me I was quoting her. I’m a whore with just one costumer for life, thank you very much :P

  • mr. wavevector

    I took a quick look at Virtuous Pervert’s blog. It’s a worth a read for anyone wondering what extremely unrestricted female sexuality looks like.

    I was amused by her vacuous presumption of superiority so typical among liberal academics. People who agree with her sexual politics are enlightened and evolved; those who disagree are backwards Neanderthals. But her sexual practices and mores represent a de-evolution of civilization, not an evolution. Restrictions of sexual behavior have been an essential element of civilized society from its inception. I doubt there any societies that would condone the full range of VP’s sexual behavior, but those most likely to tolerate it would be found among the primitive tribes residing in the rain forests of the Congo or Amazon.

    In contrast to those unenlightened “Neanderthals” who disapprove of unrestricted sexuality, the nearest approximation of VP’s sexual behavior would be a female chimpanzee in permanent estrus, happily rutting with all available attractive males. A fully defoliated female chimp with a blog and a hormone disorder, perhaps.

  • Anacaona

    He has a date tonight
    Then I had to yell at him for wanting to bring a present along…sheesh…

    Maybe your new handle should be Male Matchmaker. Is nice that you are helping your clueless friends. Take it as your way to make the world a better place :)

    Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman still have not responded to the Cornell study. Aside from Jezebel, every other blue blooded feminist is afraid to. Clearly, the study rammed a sock down the throat of the asshat sex poz femisphere.
    Don’t chant victory they are probably organizing “Hug a slut week” as we speak.

    What is evolving is a single standard that is anti-promiscuity.
    YAY! :D

  • Escoffier

    232, now that’s good writing.

  • Abbot

    “People who agree with her sexual politics are enlightened and evolved; those who disagree are backwards Neanderthals”

    These politics (behaviors) are not possible without the assured fact that men will participate (voluntary implantation of an erect penis into a wet willing vagina). If any man dares to defy her in this regard, then he must be an unenlightened backward Neanderthal which is ironic since Neanderthals dragged women back to caves and did exactly that whether women like it or not. In conclusion, if men merely resort to acting the way they always have then by default they must be enlightened and evolved. So what do we have to concerns ourselves with?

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    I have no interest in forcing my values on everyone else, trying to make other people like me, or telling other people how to live their lives.

    I respect that, and that is also how I try to conduct myself with others.

    @ Virtuous Pervert

    For what it is worth, I don’t have any problem with how you choose to live your life. As long as one is not harming others, and one is willing to accept whatever consequences happen as a result of one’s choices/actions, I really could care less what other people do. Maybe I’m an outlier in that regard.

    *Shrugs*

  • doomwolf

    WV 232

    Agreed.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Sassy,

    For what it is worth, I don’t have any problem with how you choose to live your life.

    I don’t have a problem with what she does in private. I do have an issue with her presenting the value system she uses to justify her behavior as more enlightened or evolved. And I really have a problem when people like her use their academic positions to indoctrinate college students in their “evolved” value system.

  • Liz

    I mainly want to know how many of HUS readers know –

    What is Mean, Median, and Mode?

    No cheating. No looking it up first. ;-)

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

      @Liz

      I mainly want to know how many of HUS readers know –

      What is Mean, Median, and Mode?

      Ha, I just posted some info. on that in the Matthew Hussey thread.

  • JP

    What is Mean, Median, and Mode?

    Mean is average.

    Median is the midpoint of the series.

    Mode is the largest single data point.

    I’m certain on the first two. Not the third.

  • JP

    “@ ADBG

    I have no interest in forcing my values on everyone else, trying to make other people like me, or telling other people how to live their lives.

    I respect that, and that is also how I try to conduct myself with others.”

    I’m more of a “determining what the ideal moral values are” and then “making all societies conform to these ideal moral values” kind of guy.

    Cultural relativism really isn’t my thing.

  • Abbot

    “And I really have a problem when people like her use their academic positions to indoctrinate college students in their “evolved” value system.”

    That indoctrination at the high school level is euphemistically called comprehensive sex education.

  • Liz

    Courtesy of Mr. Wave Vector:

    I do have an issue with her presenting the value system she uses to justify her behavior as more enlightened or evolved.

    Unfortunately, I am becoming convinced that the average person’s “morals” are actually justifications for what they are themselves already inclined toward.

    I see it in myself as well.

  • JP

    “Unfortunately, I am becoming convinced that the average person’s “morals” are actually justifications for what they are themselves already inclined toward.”

    I’m fairly certain that I’m aware when I act against what I view as the moral order.

    Every time I lie or do something evil, I’m well aware that I’m engaged in actions that are not justified.

  • Abbot

    Well, here it is. The first true blue feminist critique, er twist -

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/07/slut_shaming_study_women_discriminate_against_promiscuous_women_but_so_do.html?wpisrc=flyouts

    This is very revealing. Finally, feminists are acknowledging the deep nature of men’s thinking:

    “I hear from men who tell me, “Men don’t slut-shame women. We’d love for women to have more casual sex with us.” But liking the fact that a woman wants to have sex doesn’t translate to actually liking the woman herself—especially if she’s mostly interested in doing it with another guy”

  • JP

    From the article:

    “In opposition to the female response, the young men actually rated Slutty Jim as more competent and emotionally stable than Prudish Jim.”

  • Abbot

    “In opposition to the female response, the young men actually rated Slutty Jim as more competent and emotionally stable than Prudish Jim.”

    Slutty Jim proves he is. Prudish Jim may have those traits but less obviously so. Slutty Jane may also be competent and stable but a woman does not need those traits to bed a bunch of dudes. These notions which seem so obvious to men and not worth talking about really tear women up as they go into such excruciating detail about it and even conduct studies.

  • JP

    “Slutty Jim proves he is. Prudish Jim may have those traits but less obviously so.”

    I don’t understand.

    How does that prove he’s competent and emotionally stable?

  • purplesneakers

    This is kind of a sidenote, but does the shift toward “comprehensive sex education” have anything to do with the ridiculously skimpy outfits I see high school (and middle school!) girls wearing nowadays–have schools removed dress codes or been reluctant to enforce them? (And I wasn’t in high school that long ago either…) I think the current trend is loose short shorts with knee-high socks, aka looking like they’re dressed for a ‘naughty little schoolgirl’ porno, to go to school. maybe it’s just the fact that I was such a huge nerd in high school and would never have comprehended dressing like that (nor would my parents have allowed me), but I feel like girls/women have been taught this other paradox that they should be able to dress however they want without being sexualized [by boys/men they don't find attractive], without having to take responsibility for how they act/dress and without really understanding their own sexuality, even though they’re clearly putting it all on display and possibly de-sensitizing their classmates to it.

  • Abbot

    “comprehensive sex education” have anything to do with the ridiculously skimpy outfits..”

    CSE is feminist indoctrination of boys so they become accepting of everything women do sexually no matter their age and to ensure that boys/men know how girls/women get off sexually especially in a casual context.

  • Abbot

    “How does that prove he’s competent and emotionally stable?”

    Not clinically, but socially. A man who can bed lots of women in short order exhibits / exudes competence and must have control over his emotions in order to direct the emotions of another, in this case a female.

  • Sassy6519

    @ mr. wavevector

    I don’t have a problem with what she does in private. I do have an issue with her presenting the value system she uses to justify her behavior as more enlightened or evolved. And I really have a problem when people like her use their academic positions to indoctrinate college students in their “evolved” value system.

    I agree, but there is definitely a difference between claiming moral superiority/enlightenment over others and giving one’s opinions as an unrestricted individual. From what you state, Virtuous Pervert does the former on her blog. That’s well within her right to do so, as is everyone’s right to write what they want on their own blogs. Correct me if I’m wrong though, but has Virtuous Pervert engaged in shaming of restricted people/claiming moral superiority on HUS so far? Wouldn’t it be better to argue her blog’s argument on her blog?

    I think that interactions such as VP’s comment # 219 and Susan’s comment # 225 are the healthiest and most civil way to go about such discussions. There is neither name calling nor malicious bad mouthing. Instead, there is a healthy exchange of ideas. VP even brought data of her own, and Susan discussed the data. That was music to my ears, and it made me happy because such discussions could never be had on other quadrants of the internet.

    I

  • Woo-woo

    Drinking a beer in your honor, ADBG. Please tell me, what is a DJ?

    I’ve had more than my fair share of tearful confessions from girls who got involved with DJs

  • Escoffier

    disk jockey?

  • Abbot
  • JP

    “There is neither name calling nor malicious bad mouthing. Instead, there is a healthy exchange of ideas. VP even brought data of her own, and Susan discussed the data.”

    One problem is that morality is based on a priori metaphysical assumptions and is not really “data-driven”.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    A DJ is what you have at your wedding for music, so that your wedding band does not shoot you up full of cross-bows.

    This gal does not have good taste in men, unfortunately. She was damn near breaking down at lunch today because her current boyfriend is kind of being a dick.

    Enjoy your beer, random person I don’t know. To a Bruins sweep!

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Sorry for double-post…
    @ Sassy and JP

    I respect that, and that is also how I try to conduct myself with others.

    I’m more of a “determining what the ideal moral values are” and then “making all societies conform to these ideal moral values” kind of guy.

    Cultural relativism really isn’t my thing.

    I should add in, Sassy, that I am somewhat of a social conservative, like JP here. For me, while I, well, I do enjoy the idea of “let ideas be debated and people decide,” I don’t think culture actually works that way in practice. There are prevailing norms, practices, etc, that influence behavior, and most people do not have the time or inclination to read about all this stuff, let alone understand it.

    Very tough to ask young people to make these decisions. They are going to follow a prevailing cultural zetgeist, which as it stands from VP’s stats, has hook-ups occur as frequently as dates, and people more likely to hook up in college than date (80-something versus 70-something percent).

    TBH? I have never been on a date in my entire life. I don’t even understand the concept.

    The culture should definitely be shifted back in the conservative direction, and the “well I’ll air all viewpoints equally and let kids decide!” strikes me as irresponsible and washing your hands a lot of pain that kids are suffering unnecessarily.

    When I say I don’t want to FORCE my values on people, I mean I am not interested in telling people to wait till marriage, because most don’t want that, and I am not going to tell the uber-unrestricted that they shouldn’t have threesomes.

    But I absolutely am interested in re-setting some norms.

    @ Susan

    I know, and I don’t want to see him fail when she opens her front door! Get that guy to HUS if you can, we’ll set him straight.

    He reads on occasion. I’ll ask him if he ever wants to comment.
    Should warn you in advance…he ain’t a feminist :P

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    I should add in, Sassy, that I am somewhat of a social conservative, like JP here. For me, while I, well, I do enjoy the idea of “let ideas be debated and people decide,” I don’t think culture actually works that way in practice. There are prevailing norms, practices, etc, that influence behavior, and most people do not have the time or inclination to read about all this stuff, let alone understand it.

    I tend to be very liberal, with regards to social issues.

    TBH? I have never been on a date in my entire life. I don’t even understand the concept.

    I find this very hard to believe. To be frank, I’m always a little surprised at the amount of people who claim to not date or who claim to be forced to hookup because “dating is dead”. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve had a pretty solid and rich dating life, even during college. I would meet a guy, he would ask for my phone number, we would arrange to go out to dinner or to the movies, and drinking alcohol/having sex were not requirements. Maybe men just like me more than the average woman, but I’ve rarely experienced being relegated to the hookup sidelines with a lack of dates. Maybe I’m just privileged, and I don’t know how the other side lives.

    *Shrugs*

    The culture should definitely be shifted back in the conservative direction, and the “well I’ll air all viewpoints equally and let kids decide!” strikes me as irresponsible and washing your hands a lot of pain that kids are suffering unnecessarily.

    We will just have to agree to disagree then, I guess. I’m not striving for a more unrestricted environment, by any means, but I do value the power of “choice”. Let the individuals who are restricted or unrestricted act in accordance with their own values. What I think is causing most of this strife, to be honest, is that many of the people who are viewed as cool/popular in social hierarchies are often not the restricted individuals. The restricted individuals may fear being labelled losers due to the fact that their behaviors are not like those of the popular kids. They feel like outcasts because the cheerleaders/star athletes/frat boys/sorority sisters define what is “cool”, and most restricted people don’t fit into the molds that are set by those people.

    What I wonder is can restricted individuals be content in their morals/values without feeling like they are missing out because they are judging themselves based on parameters set by the popular, more unrestricted crowds? Can restricted individuals accept their choices/lives, even if they are not viewed as ideal by the popular/cool crowd? I’m not sure.

    I feel like a lot of complaints stem from the desire to redefine what is “cool” in order to placate bruised egos.

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

      @Sassy

      For anyone debating whether dating is dead, I suggest you google the phrase and see what pops up. Here is one recent article:

      The End of Courtship

      Maybe men just like me more than the average woman, but I’ve rarely experienced being relegated to the hookup sidelines with a lack of dates.

      One thing we understand well is that high SMV women are essentially priced out of the market, because their good looking male counterparts have more options for casual sex than other men.

      We also know that unrestricted men, or alpha men, don’t tend to date either, as they are not relationship-oriented. They do not find the effort of courtship necessary to realize their goals of casual sex. They are the men who booty call someone they just met online, text last minute, etc.

      It simply doesn’t make sense that you, a self-described high SMV woman, would be regularly asked out on dates by alpha males. Does. Not. Compute.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Yeah, I think there’s a lot of bruised egos. I think the “cool” kids are leaning unrestricted and therefore are setting the standard. Like, everyone talking about their “Sigma” husbands: they are deltas, and even if they are independent, they don’t set SMP terms because they aren’t market makers, so who cares if they are “independent”?
    Only need to differentiate at the top.
    Lot of player-resentment/envy, lot of anger at the sluts for “having their cake and eating it too.”
    I do understand it, basically feels like you are being treated like shit by the society as a whole, on the basis of your SMV-rank. That ain’t kosher.

    Admittedly, I felt this way a little bit. But after being around a few years? Awwwwwww hell no. I would rather be poor for the rest of my life than be a player. The happiest people that I see are the ones that are low N and monogamous.

    So I am quite happy with where I am at. Even if it blows up with the current GF, I’ve got enough going for me that life is going to be okay and I’ll find a new girl.

    One of the fun things about being in a relationship, at least that I’ve found, is that the social pressure fades a lot. I got someone to hang out with who thinks I am cool.

    The only thing I am interested in, is not having young people trying to act “cool” by acting “unrestricted,” when they are uber restricted. There ain’t nothing wrong with being restricted, and you absolutely can behave that way in current market conditions.

    Admittedly, though, it’s going to be tough. For me there really wasn’t a lot of choice…unrestricted behavior viscerally disgusts me. To a certain extent it disgusts you too, Ms. “Ewwww, you had a threesome?” :p

  • Anacaona

    Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve had a pretty solid and rich dating life, even during college. I would meet a guy, he would ask for my phone number, we would arrange go out to dinner or to the movies, and drinking alcohol/having sex were not requirements. Maybe men just like me more than the average woman, but I’ve rarely experienced being relegated to the hookup sidelines with a lack of dates. Maybe I’m just privileged, and I don’t know how the other side lives.
    Didn’t you said that no one wanted to go out with you when you weren’t this attractive? Did you ever were in position to say no to a hook up with one of your crushes?

    What I wonder is can restricted individuals be content in their morals/values without feeling like they are missing out because they are judging themselves based on parameters set by the popular, more unrestricted crowds?

    Thank you for the restricted shaming. Very productive.
    For the kids in the audience…
    SayWhaat had a lot of men running for the hills because she was a virgin.

    Several guys here had said that a woman that delays sex must be having someone on the side, not being attracted or doing price discrimination.

    We had women confessing losing their virginity to guys that didn’t knew because being a virgin was an obstacle.

    We also had a case of a young girl that got an intervention from her roomates because she wasn’t hooking up and that made them look bad in college.
    Do you think this was born out of thin air? The unrestricted are the ones promoting the ‘coolness’ of casual sex and shaming anyone that feels otherwise as “repressed/prude/slave of the patriarchy”. The restricted are finally waking up to the fact that they are normal and majority. Would you prefer for them to continue feeling like losers because the unrestricted say so?

  • Anacaona

    Like, everyone talking about their “Sigma” husbands:
    Hey not me. Completely average couple and proud. :D

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    Admittedly, though, it’s going to be tough. For me there really wasn’t a lot of choice…unrestricted behavior viscerally disgusts me. To a certain extent it disgusts you too, Ms. “Ewwww, you had a threesome?” :p

    When did I say that? If you’re talking about the ex-bf of mine who admitted to having a threesome once, I never said that I was grossed out by it. I said that I was shocked, yet I understood how a guy like him could have been able to have a threesome. I don’t think that I will ever have a threesome myself, but I can’t guarantee that. I also don’t begrudge others who do have them.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    Didn’t you said that no one wanted to go out with you when you weren’t this attractive? Did you ever were in position to say no to a hook up with one of your crushes?

    I was not attractive in high school. I blossomed early on in college, however, and my dating life was pretty solid and plentiful throughout.

    Thank you for the restricted shaming. Very productive.

    For the love of god, please read what I wrote again. If you think that I was shaming restricted people, try again. ADBG seems to have grasped what I was getting at.

    Do you think this was born out of thin air? The unrestricted are the ones promoting the ‘coolness’ of casual sex and shaming anyone that feels otherwise as “repressed/prude/slave of the patriarchy”. The restricted are finally waking up to the fact that they are normal and majority. Would you prefer for them to continue feeling like losers because the unrestricted say so?

    It’s not born out of thin air. What I’m saying is that no one would be paying attention to what unrestricted people say if those people oftentimes were not members of the “popular/cool” kids. Whether it’s good or bad, many people place more value in the star athletes than the computer geeks. Many people place more value in the sorority girls than the plain-janes on campus. These “cool” people just happen to oftentimes be of a more unrestricted nature, and their behaviors tend to dictate what is deemed cool in the society. I bet that if star-athletes/sorority sisters started acting in more restricted fashions, others would too. Why? That’s easy. These people have the power to influence the behavior of others, and other people try to emulate them in an attempt to gain some “cool” status of their own.

    I think that restricted individuals have every right to be restricted, and I don’t think that they should be harassed for being so. What I am saying, however, is that being restricted may result in occupying a lower-status rung on the social hierarchy. As long as restricted individuals are okay with not pandering to the “popular/cool/unrestricted” masses, they should be fine.

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

      I bet that if star-athletes/sorority sisters started acting in more restricted fashions, others would too.

      Interestingly, this study was inspired by the author’s hearing sorority women judge sluts very harshly. I know that in my daughter’s experience with rush, the girls who had gotten around first semester were rejected by every sorority. That’s not to say sorority girls don’t wind up hooking up, but there is a lot of variation among them, and it varies by school as well.

  • Anacaona

    I was not attractive in high school. I blossomed early on in college, however, and my dating life was pretty solid and plentiful throughout.
    You belong to the minority. In here most women (maybe excepting Susan) don;t have your looks to get secured dates and boyfriends ala carte.

    These people have the power to influence the behavior of others, and other people try to emulate them in an attempt to gain some “cool” status of their own.
    Try the media too. Teens shows are full of oversexed teens. Even the designated virgin ends up with a new notch on her bell with regularity. If your friends talk about it and is on TV everyone but you is having sex. Is the message behind it.

    As long as restricted individuals are okay with not pandering to the “popular/cool/unrestricted” masses, they should be fine.
    As long as people stop watching reality shows the Kardashian’s shouldn’t be millionaires out of being stupid in TV…. How do you plan to tell the kids that the cool kids are shouldn’t be paid attention to if everyone else is doing it?

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    You belong to the minority. In here most women (maybe excepting Susan) don;t have your looks to get secured dates and boyfriends ala carte.

    I realize this, hence why I said that I may be privileged in this regard.

    Try the media too. Teens shows are full of oversexed teens. Even the designated virgin ends up with a new notch on her bell with regularity. If your friends talk about it and is on TV everyone but you is having sex. Is the message behind it.

    Yes, and the media affects society in two ways. These are:

    1. The media sets new precedents for the society.

    2. The media reflects back precedents that have already been established in the society.

    The media’s goal is to produce/show whatever will sell the most/get the most viewers. For the most part, people want to see/interact with/emulate the popular/cool crowd. The power of social influence has been established in human societies for almost our entire existence as a species.

    As long as people stop watching reality shows the Kardashian’s shouldn’t be millionaires out of being stupid in TV…. How do you plan to tell the kids that the cool kids are shouldn’t be paid attention to if everyone else is doing it?

    This is the crux of the issue. To be honest, there are many things that can be done, but the results may not always be positive.

    Personally, I’ve never lived my life with the goal of appeasing everyone or fitting in everywhere. In some social circles, I have high social status, while I have lower social status in others. I also surrounded myself with like-minded individuals. My best friends in college had similar values and ideas about relationships, and we all graduated from college as virgins. We were just comfortable navigating through the social hierarchy in our own ways without necessarily striving to be like the most popular people. None of my best girl friends were in sororities, but we “got in where we fit in”. I knew that I was not at the top of the social hierarchy, and I accepted it/was okay with it. I graduated from college in 2010, and the “hookup culture” never really affected me because I had no problem standing by my choices without feeling sorry for myself. Sometimes, an “I don’t give a fuck” attitude is the best defense.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    You. are. so fucking full of shit. Benefit? Of course you mean some version of erotic pleasure. There is NO other “benefit” and you know it. These are children and THEY ARE NOT YOUR CHILDREN you indoctrinating fucktard.

    So let me get this straight. Me providing a polite example to counter someone’s inaccurate generalization was judged as offensive, uncivil, and an unrestricted rant, but this is OK? This guy you welcome back on the forum again and again. Mind-blowing.

    @ Susan Walsh

    STIs are not easy to prevent. HPV is impossible to prevent. Condoms are not 100% effective in preventing any STI, because condoms fail. Kids have plenty of advice about safe sex, and still only 1/3 use condoms when they have sex during a hookup.

    Condoms are not 100% safe, but nothing in life is. Crossing the street is probably more dangerous than having sex with condoms. The problem is in using them. Kids do not get enough training to use them. We know that because European countries with the same level of sexual behavior have much lower STIs and pregnancies than the US and much higher condom usage. The difference? They really teach their kids how to have responsible sex. We don’t.

    Several studies have shown that when you ask college students what percentage of students had sex the previous weekend, the estimates are 75-80%. The real number is 5-10%. That’s Pluralistic Ignorance. Why is that important? Because young people feel enormous peer pressure.

    The real number is higher than 5-10% but lower than 75-80%. Although, your data on pluralistic ignorance are from Lambert et al., (2003) and those are 10 years old and from one single campus. Different campuses have different cultures. You should know better than to generalize from one study.

    Duke did a study of the hookup culture on its own campus, and when they concluded that only 10% of students were hooking up regularly, they published that information far and wide. Telling the truth and getting the facts out there is a good thing.

    I’m all for getting the facts out there. And then people can make their own decisions.

    In that case, why are you describing it as a current problem?

    Because still many kids in the US get AOUM sex ed. And even one child getting it is one too many. (You just used equally old data to prove your point, but I can’t use them to prove mine? Ah those agenda-driven blinders…)

    Let’s double the number of dates to 6. That’s 1.5 dates per year. You think that describes a dating culture? In the 70s we had a dating culture. I estimate that we went on at least 30 dates a year when single, and at least 75 when in a relationship, which we often were.

    I don’t know what is the right number of dates, but what these data are telling us is that dating is not dead and hooking up rampant, as you claimed earlier. Dating is as alive or as dead as hooking up, which is what I was claiming earlier (they are too complementary relational/sexual cultures on campuses).

    I’d like to point out that VP has acknowledged having 5,000 casual sexual encounters. That’s one a week for nearly ten years!

    Thanks for doing the math. Since I’ve been having sex for 20 years, that’s one every two weeks. Sounds about right.

    The petri dish implications of this really gross me out. I’m visualizing little bugs of every shape and size zooming around like pinballs.

    You restricted people just can’t help yourselves against bashing promiscuous people every chance you get and making all sorts of assumptions about their lives, can you?
    In those 5,000 encounters and 500 partners I’ve had the pleasure to enjoy, I’ve been left with one single case of Chlamydia. The reason? I grew up in a country where condoms were not used or taught. I’ve not had a single STI in the last 15 of my very active sex life.

    They weren’t disliked by other men in this study, they were not evaluated by women. Other research shows a growing disrespect for slutty men and women, as evidenced by the pie chart I included in the post. What is evolving is a single standard that is anti-promiscuity. I welcome that.

    The scientific jury is still out on whether a single restricted standard is emerging. I believe that the different standards (double, single restricted, and single unrestricted) will all co-exist in different segments of the population at the same time for a very very long time to come.

    @ Ana

    no one would be paying attention to what unrestricted people say if those people oftentimes were not members of the “popular/cool” kids. Whether it’s good or bad, many people place more value in the star athletes than the computer geeks. Many people place more value in the sorority girls than the plain-janes on campus. These “cool” people just happen to oftentimes be of a more unrestricted nature, and their behaviors tend to dictate what is deemed cool in the society.

    To put things into perspective: There is a fairly strong and replicated correlation between sociosexuality and extraversion. A big reason why the unrestricted kids end up being the cool kids is because they are simply more gregarious. You might never be able to make the restricted AKA introverted kids popular/cool, but you can – and absolutely should – empower them to resist peer pressure to do stuff they don’t want to do.

    @Abott

    Several other longitudinal studies have found no main effects of casual sex on depression, loneliness, or self-esteem. No other psychological well-being outcome has been studied.”
    The Zhana Vrangalova study sorta puts a crush on all that.

    No, it does not. She found nothing about the slutty women themselves. She found something about how other people view them. You clearly don’t understand anything about science.

    @several people who keep talking how most people are uber-restricted. SOI has a normal distribution more or less. You might need a stats refresher. The uber-restricted are one tail of the distribution. I’m the other one. Most people are in the middle.

    @Mr wavevector

    People who agree with her sexual politics are enlightened and evolved; those who disagree are backwards Neanderthals.

    Let me clarify. In that post I called hypocritical Neanderthals those men who will sleep with a woman on the date and then not consider her suitable wife material because she did the same thing he did. It’s the hypocrisy that I consider backward. The guys who apply the same standard to their own behavior and to the behavior of the women they fuck/date, I have absolutely no issues with.
    And, as Sassy pointed out, if you wanna debate me on what I wrote on my blog, you’re welcome to have that discussion with me there.

    @Sassy6519

    For what it is worth, I don’t have any problem with how you choose to live your life. As long as one is not harming others, and one is willing to accept whatever consequences happen as a result of one’s choices/actions, I really could care less what other people do. Maybe I’m an outlier in that regard.

    Thank you. It is always nice to encounter someone like you. You would not be an outlier in the world that I live in, but on this blog you do seem to be the outlier.

    OK, I’m off for the night. Time for encounter #5,001. You all have a wonderful night.

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

      @VP

      Me providing a polite example to counter someone’s inaccurate generalization was judged as offensive, uncivil, and an unrestricted rant, but this is OK?

      Not by me. Abbot’s comment violates my comment policy and was deleted as soon as I saw it.

      Condoms are not 100% safe, but nothing in life is. Crossing the street is probably more dangerous than having sex with condoms.

      Having sex with an infected person whose condom breaks happens with regularity. People getting killed crossing the street does not. You also ignored HPV, which may be transmitted through contact with the thighs, trunk, abdomen, etc. There’s a reason why GYNs want to know how many sexual partners a woman has had – it’s the biggest risk factor.

      Re condom usage, I believe many students cite having been drunk as a key reason for not using them. Binge drinking is largely an American college campus phenomenon, so that would explain the difference from Europe. As I stated earlier, kids drink to get courage for an act they know they will feel pressured to perform even though it makes them uncomfortable. The best way to reduce STIs is to reduce the amount of casual sex.

      Claiming that kids don’t know how to use them is not credible – every freshman orientation includes sex ed information and the distribution of condoms. It’s not exactly rocket science.

      Different campuses have different cultures.

      At the micro level, perhaps, but hookup culture is prevalent and dominant at all campuses I’m aware of except BYU. Can you cite other schools where students do not vocalize displeasure at hookup culture?

      what these data are telling us is that dating is not dead and hooking up rampant, as you claimed earlier.

      1.5 dates a year does not describe a culture of dating. I did not claim that hooking up is rampant. I know you’re a smart women, so I don’t understand why you’re having trouble absorbing what I’ve repeated several times now. It’s not the incidence of casual sex, it’s the culture of casual sex. It’s the Pluralistic Ignorance that is found on college campuses everywhere. We have a very good understanding of how kids are actually having sex:


      The Definitive Survey of College Students’ Sexual Behavior By Gender

      Because still many kids in the US get AOUM sex ed. And even one child getting it is one too many. (You just used equally old data to prove your point, but I can’t use them to prove mine? Ah those agenda-driven blinders…

      But you stated that the trend toward eradicating it is already underway. If that’s not moving fast enough for you, why not lobby those states rather than encourage the teaching of casual sex skills, which goes well beyond your stated goal of teaching kids facts around sex. I’d like to see a much more robust curriculum addressing the consequences of sex, including:

      STD rates, how each disease is transmitted, and infection rates by gender
      oral sex risks
      anal sex risks
      the emotional distress and regret many young people feel after having casual sex
      the power of peer pressure
      common motives for having casual sex, most notably low self-esteem and short-term validation
      abstinence
      pregnancy
      the fertility timeline
      abortion
      adoption
      the poor outcomes for single mothers, as well as for their children
      the biological basis for the sexual double standard

      Here’s what I would like to see banned from sex ed curricula:

      providing information about practices such as fisting, SMBD, and any other variety of kink
      “how to” instruction related to sex practices, other than safety
      instruction, demonstration or distribution of any sex toy
      direct or tacit encouragement to explore bisexuality

      You restricted people just can’t help yourselves against bashing promiscuous people every chance you get and making all sorts of assumptions about their lives, can you?

      Promiscuous people have far more STIs than non-promiscuous people. Obviously. I am not making any assumption about your life, I am stating a fact about the risk of promiscuity.

      I have no reason to trust your claim of being STI-free, but I don’t care. If you don’t have any viral antibodies, you’ve essentially bested the odds of your average Powerball winner. To pretend that disease is not a real and present risk of casual sex is dishonest.

      The scientific jury is still out on whether a single restricted standard is emerging. I believe that the different standards (double, single restricted, and single unrestricted) will all co-exist in different segments of the population at the same time for a very very long time to come.

      Of course there will always be some diversity of views – but 50 years after the Sexual Revolution, the “free love” movement has slowed and now appears to be chugging into reverse. I hope so.

      Time for encounter #5,001.

      I understand that you choose to exhibit your sex life on your own blog, but here we don’t really keep one another posted on when we have sex. I find your repeated sharing of these details at HUS a bit repellent, to be honest. I’d appreciate it if you refrained.

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

      To put things into perspective: There is a fairly strong and replicated correlation between sociosexuality and extraversion.

      Here’s a summary of how personality traits correlate to promiscuity:

      1. Extraversion is a strong predictor of short-term mating behaviors, including promiscuity and infidelity, though results vary slightly by sex.

      2. and 3. Low agreeableness and low conscientiousness both predict all forms of short-term mating behavior for both sexes. The strongest link is to infidelity for both traits.

      4. Among North American men, neuroticism was not associated with short-term mating orientation. However, the correlation was significant for females.

      5. In men, openness predicted lower interest in short-term mating overall. Low levels of openness were correlated with increased infidelity and succumbing to mate poaches.

      In women, high openness predicted interest in short-term mating and willingness to have sex without commitment.

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/03/06/hookinguprealities/which-personalities-are-best-for-relationships/

      http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165862.pdf

      Here’s a refresher on promiscuity:

      Who is promiscuous?

      1. “While men in general are more unrestricted in sociosexual orientation than women, the variance within each sex is much greater than variance between the sexes.”

      2. “Women in the top female quintile of the SOI were nearly as elevated in their relevant sexual experiences as men in the top male quintile, even though the 80th female percentile was equivalent to only the 39th male percentile.”

      (IOW, there are similar numbers of very unrestricted men and women.)

      What do unrestricted people do?

      3. They:

      engage in sex at an earlier point in their relationships
      engage in sex with more than one partner at a time
      be involved in sexual relationships characterized by less investment, commitment, love, and dependency.

      4. “Sociosexuality is strongly related to a history of “double matings,” or a woman’s having sex with two men during a short enough time period that she could be simultaneously inseminated by both.”

      5. “Half of the men and women in the top (withinsex) quintiles of sociosexuality had been sexually unfaithful to a steady partner; this was more than a tenfold increase over the corresponding rate for people in the bottom quintiles.”

      6. “Sociosexually unrestricted individuals are far more likely to experience divorce than sociosexually restricted individuals because they are more likely to engage in extramarital affairs…Children of divorce face a greater likelihood of divorce themselves than children of intact marriages. It appears that the most of the inheritance of divorce occurs through genetic transmission.””
      How is sociosexual orientation acquired?

      7.

      49% of sociosexual orientation is heritable, i.e. determined by genes.
      2% is attributable to shared environment, i.e. parenting.
      47% is attributable to unshared environment, e.g. peer pressure, popular culture.
      2% is attributable to the respondent’s age, so it appears that sociosexual orientation changes very slightly over the life course.
      Is it static or variable?

      8. “Sociosexual orientation (just like all other personality traits) is a relatively stable trait of individuals over the life course; in other words, people are either sociosexually restricted or unrestricted most of their lives.“

      9. “In a study of over 14,000 people in over 48 countries, researchers found the SOI to be reliable and predictive across a wide range of cultures and populations. Furthermore:

      Sex differences in sociosexuality were significantly larger when reproductive environments were demanding but were reduced to more moderate levels in cultures with more political and economic gender equality.

      Sex ratios also predict sociosexuality. Nations with a low ratio of men to women had higher SOI scores. The U.S. is pretty much smack in the middle.”

      Are people with unrestricted sexuality more attractive?

      10. “Although men had trouble knowing which women were unrestricted, they preferred those female faces. Unrestricted female composite faces were seen as more attractive than restricted female composites by both sexes, suggesting that attractive women’s unrestricted scores may be the result of more attractive women having greater sexual opportunities and thus developing a less restricted outlook.”

      11. ”Self-perceived attractiveness was a significant positive predictor of SOI score. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that women’s mating strategy is facultatively linked to their self-perceived mate value: Women who perceive themselves as more attractive score higher on the SOI scale. Behaving in a sociosexually unrestricted manner may lead to self-perceptions of attractiveness.“

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/09/14/hookinguprealities/16-things-you-always-wanted-to-know-about-promiscuity/

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

      @VP

      SOI has a normal distribution more or less.

      I have been looking for that information for ages without any luck. Do you have a link you can share?

  • Anacaona

    The media’s goal is to produce/show whatever will sell the most/get the most viewers. For the most part, people want to see/interact with/emulate the popular/cool crowd. The power of social influence has been established in human societies for almost our entire existence as a species.
    Not a complete analysis first there is the viral effect. After certain number of people like something some other people will accept it because is easier than ignore it. For example I had seen it happening with Harry Potter and Twilight and I’m pretty much a pariah now that I didn’t jumped on Hunger Games or 50. But I saw a lot of people that weren’t interested that got into those books because a big part of their group was discussing it.
    Also there is a breaking point in which the popularity starts to backfire. Which might be starting to happen with the unrestricted crowd.

    Personally,
    And there is your issue. The things that work for you are not working for a sizable size of the people,specially the ones that need them. Susan has helped real people with real problems and has had real results. All that without pandering to the cool unrestricted crowd. Why should she start now?
    In those 5,000 encounters and 500 partners I’ve had the pleasure to enjoy, I’ve been left with one single case of Chlamydia.

    Now I’m curious we have never mentioned if anyone has ever had an STD at HUS. Anyone feel like sharing?

    The uber-restricted are one tail of the distribution.
    That’s me. Nice to meet you. Never going to visit your blog BTW.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    And there is your issue. The things that work for you are not working for a sizable size of the people,specially the ones that need them. Susan has helped real people with real problems and has had real results. All that without pandering to the cool unrestricted crowd. Why should she start now?

    1. Last time I checked, I haven’t been going around trying to tell people that they should be more like me, unless they have specifically asked for tips with regards to issues that I have experience with. I haven’t been going around telling people to avoid relationships just because I do. I haven’t been telling people to have more adventurous sex, just because I do. If anything, I value the ability for people to hear both sides of any argument, and making their own educated choices afterwards.

    2. I don’t expect Susan to change her style/mission, and I haven’t been arguing that she should. I feel like you are arguing points that I have not made whatsoever. It’s getting frustrating, and fairly old.

  • Sassy6519

    Now I’m curious we have never mentioned if anyone has ever had an STD at HUS. Anyone feel like sharing?

    Sure, I’ll share. I had chlamydia once. I got it from a boyfriend who did not know he had it because he was asymptomatic. When I had my regular STD screening, they found it, and I took antibiotics for it.

    Anyone can get an STD, and a person does not have to be strictly promiscuous to get one.

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

      Anyone can get an STD, and a person does not have to be strictly promiscuous to get one.

      Come on, Sassy, you know better than to argue this. Do you think that if you’d had sex with a bunch of different guys you’d never see again you would have been likely to get additional cases? Ever seen the chart that demonstrates how every time you have sex you’re having sex with that person’s previous partners? The progression is geometric.

      When one engages in risky behavior, the risk is present every time, so by engaging in that behavior 100 times you are 100 times more likely to catch an STD than if you engage once. Each encounter has the same risk, so if it’s 50% and you get away with it once, you still face needing a clean run 99 more times.

  • SayWhaat

    You might never be able to make the restricted AKA introverted kids popular/cool

    If I had a nickel for every time someone interchanged “restricted” with “wallflower”…

  • SayWhaat

    I got it from a boyfriend who did not know he had it because he was asymptomatic.

    Aaand that’s why I require test results before sleeping with anyone.

  • Sassy6519

    @ SayWhaat

    Aaand that’s why I require test results before sleeping with anyone.

    Yeah, I don’t blame you.

    The bad thing is that STD’s spread so rapidly and efficiently that almost every person can expect to contract some form of STD before they die, especially HPV, chlamydia, and herpes. Herpes and HPV can be spread with skin-to-skin contact, and both STDs can be spread through oral,vaginal, and anal sex. The other thing is that both STDs can lie dormant in a person’s systems for months or years before causing an outbreak. A person can have the virus, yet not test positive for it because the virus is in a dormant state. I’ve heard of cases where people have been in monogamous relationships for years, only to have a partner suddenly test positive for an STD after many negative tests.

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

      The bad thing is that STD’s spread so rapidly and efficiently that almost every person can expect to contract some form of STD before they die, especially HPV, chlamydia, and herpes.

      Sassy, what has gotten into you? This is a false and rather ridiculous statement. A person who is monogamous with an uninfected person has no chance of contracting an STD. It is estimated that about half of adults will contract an STD in their lifetime, and half of those cases are among people ages 15-24.

      BTW, states spend $16 billion per year treating STDs. That’s a valid reason to view promiscuity as everybody’s business.

      You can significantly reduce your chances while dating by avoiding people who have casual sex. It’s one of the primary reasons to avoid manwhores, as they are far more likely than sluts to be asymptomatic for both HPV and herpes.

      http://www.ashasexualhealth.org/std-sti/std-statistics.html

  • Anacaona

    1. Last time I checked, I haven’t been going around trying to tell people that they should be more like me, unless they have specifically asked for tips with regards to issues that I have experience with. I haven’t been going around telling people to avoid relationships just because I do. I haven’t been telling people to have more adventurous sex, just because I do. If anything, I value the ability for people to hear both sides of any argument, and making their own educated choices afterwards.
    You frame your argument based in your experiences and view of the argument. Hence why you stating again what you personally doesn’t add much.

    2. I don’t expect Susan to change her style/mission, and I haven’t been arguing that she should. I feel like you are arguing points that I have not made whatsoever. It’s getting frustrating, and fairly old.
    You think we are chasing off valuable unrestricted commenters. I disagree. Isn’t that the point?

  • Liz

    @JP

    Every time I lie or do something evil, I’m well aware that I’m engaged in actions that are not justified.

    Whether we actually stick to our morals is a whole other subject. There must be 1,000 the-flesh-was-weak stories on HUS.

    I’ll give an example about what I meant. Like some people here, I believe in being kind to all and if I must reject somebody, I’ll try to spare their feelings AMAP.

    That’s a moral value… or is it? The truth is, I really dislike confrontation. I’m almost pathologically afraid of getting into arguments. So the “moral value” supports what I already have a need to do. Was it created for that purpose? Well, in this day and age we can pick and choose and I think we choose to highlight the values that work for us at that time. That’s all I was saying. But then again, I’ve been accused of having “relative morality” and I’m still trying to shake off that bucket of water.

  • Woo-woo

    @A Definite Beta Guy

    Enjoy your beer, random person I don’t know. To a Bruins sweep!

    I’ve posted under another name. Just having a temporary identity crisis. How’d you know I live near Boston?

    I’m also a recovering Libertarian, by the way. ;-)

  • Liz

    @JP

    Mean is average.
    Median is the midpoint of the series.
    Mode is the largest single data point.

    Correct, except that technically all three are considered “averages.” There’s just three different ways of arriving at one.

    Mean = add up all returns, and divide by the sample size
    Median = half the respondents have more, half have less
    Mode = most common answer

    I knew HUS readers were smart. ;-)

  • mr. wavevector

    I agree, but there is definitely a difference between claiming moral superiority/enlightenment over others and giving one’s opinions as an unrestricted individual. From what you state, Virtuous Pervert does the former on her blog. That’s well within her right to do so, as is everyone’s right to write what they want on their own blogs. Correct me if I’m wrong though, but has Virtuous Pervert engaged in shaming of restricted people/claiming moral superiority on HUS so far?

    Actually no, it’s interesting – here’s she’s claiming to be a member of a persecuted minority deserving of special protections.

    Wouldn’t it be better to argue her blog’s argument on her blog?

    I can’t argue with everyone who’s wrong on the internet! I was just sharing a few impressions of her blog here, since she left us the link to it.

    I can see why you might see VP as something of a kindred spirit – you don’t have the company of other women with a high sex drive here – but I think you and she are very different. You are struggling with the issue of self control, while she rejects the idea of self control entirely. Her executive functioning appears high, but it’s devoted to the fulfillment of her desires, not the regulation of them.

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

      Actually no, it’s interesting – here’s she’s claiming to be a member of a persecuted minority deserving of special protections.

      Exactly. She has also ridiculed others for having an agenda, while she acknowledges having one herself. Personally, I don’t understand what’s bad about having an agenda. That’s how we foster change. Being dishonest to further your agenda is another matter.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ SayWhaat,

    If I had a nickel for every time someone interchanged “restricted” with “wallflower”…

    We’ve been debating that point on the Matthew Hussey thread.

  • Abbot

    If men were equally as discriminating when it came to selecting a wife as they were to getting laid, there would be very few promiscuous women in the first place.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    You frame your argument based in your experiences and view of the argument. Hence why you stating again what you personally doesn’t add much.

    I can only state what I have done to avoid “hookup culture”. If I were able to read minds, I would provide you with the methods of others. Since I can’t do that, I offer what I can. The key is that I haven’t been going around telling everyone that they should act the way that I do. That seems to be your main argument, and I keep telling you that I don’t go around trying to cram my methods down other people’s throats. There is a difference between sharing experiences, and recommending that other people take similar actions. I do the former, but not the latter.

    You think we are chasing off valuable unrestricted commenters. I disagree. Isn’t that the point?

    No, that is not the point, and you continue to miss it. Susan seems to understand what I’m getting at, and a few others as well.

    No matter what someone’s opinion is, Susan has stated that they are free to share it as long as it is not malicious, incendiary, off-topic, or denigrating to others. She has stated that she welcomes open and healthy debate, numerous times in fact. I agree with her stance on this. She even allows some of her more extreme opposers to comment on here, such as Roissy and Roosh, as long as they remain civil and on topic.

    I found it very odd that people dog-piled on Virtuous Pervert, even though she has yet to engage in malicious and off-topic commentary. I, like Susan, believe that people can comment here as long as they respect the “codes of conduct”. Virtuous Pervert has done so, yet her personal choices have incited such an uproar. I find this confusing and laughable.

    Susan and Virtuous Pervert were able to have a civil exchange in comments # 219 and #225, based on data and logical debate. Why others resorted to out-right aggressive and passive-aggressive tactics to respond to her astounds me. That was my issue from the beginning.

    I hope that clarifies things for you.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Sassy, correct me if I am wrong, but we have had numerous discussions about your desire for “fried ice,” IE, a man with options who doesn’t exercise them. And I seem to recall the threesome guy and the guy’s N, producing something bigger than “shock”

    Anyone else here remember any of this or do I have a false impression?

    So let me get this straight. Me providing a polite example to counter someone’s inaccurate generalization was judged as offensive, uncivil, and an unrestricted rant, but this is OK? This guy you welcome back on the forum again and again. Mind-blowing.

    This is the angriest Abbott has gotten, AFAIK. He normally does not target individual commenters with his ire, it’s a more general “no rings for sluts!”

    But now you are basically saying it’s okay to teach children about fisting, so what do you expect, lol

    Getting annoyed at the reaction of other people will not help you, ’cause those feelings are still going to be there.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I found it very odd that people dog-piled on Virtuous Pervert, even though she has yet to engage in malicious and off-topic commentary

    Her first post was the equivalent of leaning into someone else’s living room and saying “I don’t like those things you say about sluts. I am a slut too!”

    Not at all respectful. She is not a regular here, she isn’t a moderator, she isn’t the blog hostess, she isn’t an investor, she was a “concerned citizen” butting in on someone else’s conversation, because she thinks society is just too darn mean towards sluts.

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

      she was a “concerned citizen” butting in on someone else’s conversation, because she thinks society is just too darn mean towards sluts.

      I for one am happy she came because it means that HUS is ranking quite high in the Google results for the study. :)

  • Sassy6519

    @ mr. wavevector

    I can see why you might see VP as something of a kindred spirit – you don’t have the company of other women with a high sex drive here – but I think you and she are very different. You are struggling with the issue of self control, while she rejects the idea of self control entirely. Her executive functioning appears high, but it’s devoted to the fulfillment of her desires, not the regulation of them.

    I’m not defending her because I view her as a “kindred spirit”. Read my post to Anacaona above.

    Although Virtuous Pervert’s experiences/behaviors are vastly different from my own, I don’t use that as a justification to dismiss everything that she says, unlike others here have done. I’m willing to hear what they have to say, as long as the commentary is on topic, not malicious, and civil.

    I hold very little stake in claiming moral superiority over others. I’m not perfect. There are things that I have done that have been less than noble, as has everyone. What gives me the right to judge her so, since I am not free of “sin” myself? I have very little tolerance for pretentiousness.

    @ ADBG

    This is the angriest Abbott has gotten, AFAIK. He normally does not target individual commenters with his ire, it’s a more general “no rings for sluts!”

    I too was upset that such a garbage and malicious comment was allowed to stand. If he can’t learn to comment in a more civil manner, as per Susan’s own listed “rules of engagement”, he should hold his tongue instead.

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

      I too was upset that such a garbage and malicious comment was allowed to stand. If he can’t learn to comment in a more civil manner, as per Susan’s own listed “rules of engagement”, he should hold his tongue instead.

      It was not “allowed to stand.” I deleted it as soon as I saw it. The truth is, I do not sit at the blog all day. I have other things to do. FWIW, Abbot has been placed in moderation, based on his commentary in this most recent thread.

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    This was Travis’ original comment:

    Wow. What a classy lady. Bet there are gonna’ be guys just lining up around the block to put a ring on that finger…

    This was Virtuous Pervert’s response:

    I’m probably much sluttier than the classy lady from imnotyourgirlfriend and I am married to someone who absolutely loves my sluttiness. Please refrain from projecting your own attitudes and desires to all men out there.

    I don’t see the problem with her comment. If Travis was inferring that the “slut” in question would not have any marriage offers because of her sexual history, due to his own lack of willingness to marry such a woman, he indeed was projecting his views onto all men. That statement would be inaccurate then, which Virtuous Pervert stated.

    Supposedly, even with her roughly 500 sexual partners, Virtuous Pervert has been able to find a husband. She hasn’t even recommended that others travel her same path. From my understanding, she is a huge supporter of the idea that people act in accordance with their own values. She doesn’t appear to begrudge restricted people conducting themselves in restricted fashions. She has claimed, a few times on this thread in fact, that people should be free to pursue whatever sexual lives they want to pursue, whether they be restricted or unrestricted.

    She didn’t seem to be shouting a rude comment in passing through a window. If anything, she too is a guest of the “dinner party” in Susan’s living room. What I think is that she said something in opposition to the restricted majority that comments here, and it ruffled their feathers.

    This reminds me of how much flack Tom received when he commented here. I thought that was uncalled for as well.

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

    I think that Virtuous Pervert could provide lively and interesting commentary about life as a near-totally unrestricted female. It’s an area of the SMP that doesn’t get a lot of coverage—the women who actually thrive on hook-up culture. Readers might find her fascinating as a sort of dark seductress figure even if they would never pursue that kind of casual sex lifestyle themselves.

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

      near-totally unrestricted female.

      Near totally, lol? What is she missing?

      Readers might find her fascinating as a sort of dark seductress figure even if they would never pursue that kind of casual sex lifestyle themselves.

      Based on the findings of this study, I don’t think women are looking to “hang out” with sluts, even online. I don’t find her at all fascinating. In fact, this will piss her off, but I find her kind of sad. And I think of her poor parents.

  • JP

    “I think that Virtuous Pervert could provide lively and interesting commentary about life as a near-totally unrestricted female. It’s an area of the SMP that doesn’t get a lot of coverage—the women who actually thrive on hook-up culture. Readers might find her fascinating as a sort of dark seductress figure even if they would never pursue that kind of casual sex lifestyle themselves.”

    The question is whether such people approach psychopathy or not.

    Meaning are they truly dark in the sense of the Dark Feminine.

    I don’t have an answer.

    However, it is quite the relevant question.

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

      The question is whether such people approach psychopathy or not.

      Promiscuity is on the Hare Psychopathy checklist, but so are many other (often correlated) factors.

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    Sassy, correct me if I am wrong, but we have had numerous discussions about your desire for “fried ice,” IE, a man with options who doesn’t exercise them. And I seem to recall the threesome guy and the guy’s N, producing something bigger than “shock”

    I dug through past threads, and I found my comment. Here it is.

    OMG. This just happened to me, almost word for word.

    The guy that I have been dating recently, who is now my boyfriend, talked with me last night about our sexual histories. I asked him about his number, and he admitted that it is somewhere in the 20s. He even took it a step further by admitting to having a threesome once.

    I’m somewhat in shock about it. I’m not sure what to think, to be honest. He is a really handsome guy, so I do understand how his number can be that high. Still, I’m a little worried by it at the same time. I’d be lying if I said that it doesn’t bother me a little. He’s been fantastic so far though, and I won’t break up with him over it. I guess I’ll just have to suck it up and take this in stride.

    Notice how my concerns are mostly with regards to his high N, not the threesome. Later on, I made the following comment:

    Yeah, I know. I do want “fried ice”, in a sense. I do really like him though, which is why I don’t think this will be a deal breaker. As Susan said though, however, I plan on keeping my eyes open for any bad signs.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Yeah, I don’t blame you on that, Sassy. Thanks for digging through the threads. I figured we might have to wait for Mega to do that, but he might be keeping different threads book-marked… :P

    Your position on ex-guy strikes me as a pretty mature one to take. On the the other hand, I might be biased because I took the same one. In fact, I’d probably call you stupid if you saw a guy with high-N and just wrote it off as “NBD.” No blame here :P

    How would you like it if people were telling you that you were just being an insecure little girl and can’t handle a real man? Well, I imagine you would shrug that off, too, but it is not a pleasant feeling to have. That’s a pretty prevailing culture, outside le manosphere.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Also, Sassy,

    You have a very curt communication style. This is not meant to be an insult, it’s just an observation. I think you have agreed with this yourself and said it has caused you problems in the past. No biggie, there’s no need for any of us to take offense to it, because we know where you are coming from.

    VP does not have a curt communication style, her posts, to me, are all laced with vague attempts to dominate the conversation and shame others. She has a socially dominant communication style, and I would caution you NOT to confuse the APPEARANCE of civil discourse with ACTUAL civil discourse.

    Re: “Please refrain.” Watch this video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YIchQaISms

    These guys are not saying “please be quiet” like a school-teacher. They are trained soldiers that could probably kill you and phrasing things politely, but you can tell by their “frame” that it’s a bit more than a subtle plea.

    That’s how that “please refrain” comment on VP’s works.

    As for a civil conversation with Susan? Not how I am seeing it…

    Subtle jab at “don’t talk to me that way or else I’ll take my ball and go home!”

    Taking my comments out of context like that and making fun of them doesn’t make me wanna stick around for very long.

    Subtle jab at “you’re not allowed to have your own feelings and you are shaming me.”

    You restricted people just can’t help yourselves against bashing promiscuous people every chance you get and making all sorts of assumptions about their lives, can you?

    Since Susan doesn’t really judge anyone for N, kind of ridiculous. But when you think you are an oppressed minority, I guess you see “oppression” everywhere.

    This jab at Abbot is basically a mirror-copy of game’s “is she always like that?”

    So let me get this straight. Me providing a polite example to counter someone’s inaccurate generalization was judged as offensive, uncivil, and an unrestricted rant, but this is OK? This guy you welcome back on the forum again and again. Mind-blowing.

    Ohhh, I like this jab too:

    several people who keep talking how most people are uber-restricted. SOI has a normal distribution more or less. You might need a stats refresher.

    I don’t think anyone said everyone was uber-restricted. However, I think most people ARE N<=3 and most people do make a go of lifelong monogamy (although they don't always succeed). She is in a distinct minority.

    This all to me looks like subtle attempts to control conversation, with the merest appearance of "civility."

    So I decided to check out her blog.

    Yep, when she's in her own domain she's a raving lunatic with rants that are suited for Jezebel. If she's really all that interested in civil conversation, she wouldn't have started with an aggressive "please refrain" and she wouldn't be posting those screeds on her own blog.

    But again, I may be biased, because I have the same demeanor wherever I go.
    Here's me responding to a communist, an ideology which I consider heinous and responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people and the worst poverty crisis in history, saying that feudalism and capitalism are basically the same processes:

    I understand what you are getting at, I think, and explained that in my post. Your theory is looking at means of production and control of them as the defining fundamental feature of economic and political relationships. The only difference between feudalism and capitalism is the means of production. Well, the major difference.

    But the underlying dynamics are the same. If you don’t control the means of production then you have to work for someone who does and they will extract economic rent because they control the means of production.

    It’s still a huge difference from feudalism in MANY ways. People really do have a way to better themselves in a capitalist society that they never did have a feudal society. The economic pie in general is larger, we aren’t stuck in a malthusian trap, labor markets are free, capital is plentiful, governments are responsive and mostly bound by the rule of law, etc.

    Respectful people are respectful almost everywhere, unless given a reason to actually BE aggressive. For example, some guy thinking he can grab money out of my hand because he’s bigger.

    Personally?

    I smell a rat.

  • Anacaona

    I don’t see the problem with her comment.
    I do. Let’s agree to disagree.

  • Abbot

    “This all to me looks like subtle attempts to control conversation, with the merest appearance of “civility.”

    “I smell a rat.”

    Its a re-caster: someone who attempts to disarm the views expressed and render them subversive rather than mainstream. This was expected since the Cornell study could not be refuted on the basis of it being from the MRA crowd or a religious group. Its very mainstream and was conducted by a sex poz cult feminist. Although it was crafted to illicit sympathy, it severely backfired and became fodder ideal for exposing feminist support and promotion of promiscuity.

  • Anacaona

    I think that Virtuous Pervert could provide lively and interesting commentary about life as a near-totally unrestricted female.

    Google search results
    Slutty wife 11,600,000 results
    Slutty Girlfriend: 43,000,000 results
    Nympho Women 11,500,000 results

    It’s an area of the SMP that doesn’t get a lot of coverage—the women who actually thrive on hook-up culture.
    Feministing: “Hookup Culture” does not exist – Feministing
    Jezebel: 5 Reasons Why Hookup Culture Isn’t Ruining a Generation –
    “hook up culture good for women” has 299,000,000 results

    Readers might find her fascinating as a sort of dark seductress figure even if they would never pursue that kind of casual sex lifestyle themselves.

    As shown before people curious about “unrestricted lifestyle” and “The good side of the hook up culture” only need to do a Google search. Susan has share that the number 1 search that get her people here is “Why I don’t have a boyfriend?” Clearly they are looking for different things when the land here.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    My new favorite term is micro-aggression

  • Abbot

    With this study, a new term is born.

    The Promiscuity Problem

    Its so very post sexual revolution.

  • Anacaona

    My new favorite term is micro-aggression
    Are you reading AlphaMale too?

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Sassy,

    From my understanding, she is a huge supporter of the idea that people act in accordance with their own values. She doesn’t appear to begrudge restricted people conducting themselves in restricted fashions. She has claimed, a few times on this thread in fact, that people should be free to pursue whatever sexual lives they want to pursue, whether they be restricted or unrestricted.

    I don’t believe people should act “in accordance with their own values”. Values that every one makes up for themselves are no values at all. Values should be set by society to protect both the individual and the common good.

    I don’t think people should have unlimited freedom to pursue whatever sexual lives they want either. Sexual interactions are one of the bases of society, and society has an interest in regulating them. All societies do, and the more civilized ones tend to do more so than the primitive ones.

    That’s why I’m perfectly OK with slut shaming. It’s one of the way society constrains sexual behavior and encourages the more productive and beneficial forms of sexuality over the others. I think we need more slut shaming (for both sexes) not less.

    Easy to say for me because I’m not a slut. But let’s look at values that do apply to me. I think society should shame men and women who cheat on their spouses. I have been sorely tempted to do so, but didn’t. I am glad I had those societal values to support me because otherwise I might have invented my own values to justify cheating, and cheating would have made life much worse for everyone involved.

    Here’s another one – I once admitted in another thread that I struggled to keeping my eyes off the 13 year old babysitters’ impressive breasts. Susan tried dumping a pile of shame on me for that. That’s OK – I agree that middle aged men should not be ogling pubescent girls, which is why I try as hard as I can not to. Without that societal value I might have felt free to ogle away, causing that girl intense discomfort.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    I do. Let’s agree to disagree.

    I’m cool with that.

  • Sassy6519

    @ mr. wavevectory

    I don’t believe people should act “in accordance with their own values”. Values that every one makes up for themselves are no values at all. Values should be set by society to protect both the individual and the common good.

    I don’t think people should have unlimited freedom to pursue whatever sexual lives they want either. Sexual interactions are one of the bases of society, and society has an interest in regulating them. All societies do, and the more civilized ones tend to do more so than the primitive ones.

    This is the beauty of personal freedom/choice. Differences in opinions can exist. Even though you don’t believe that people “should have unlimited freedom to pursue whatever sexual lives they want”, I do, with the caveat that someone’s sexual life does not harm others. That would be my only stipulation on things.

    That’s why I’m perfectly OK with slut shaming. It’s one of the way society constrains sexual behavior and encourages the more productive and beneficial forms of sexuality over the others. I think we need more slut shaming (for both sexes) not less.

    I disagree with this too, but my goal is not to change your opinions. Once again, this is the beauty of having differences in opinions exist.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    One thing we understand well is that high SMV women are essentially priced out of the market, because their good looking male counterparts have more options for casual sex than other men.

    We also know that unrestricted men, or alpha men, don’t tend to date either, as they are not relationship-oriented. They do not find the effort of courtship necessary to realize their goals of casual sex. They are the men who booty call someone they just met online, text last minute, etc.

    It simply doesn’t make sense that you, a self-described high SMV woman, would be regularly asked out on dates by alpha males. Does. Not. Compute.

    It could be that I’ve just been lucky. It could be that I’ve been catching high SMV guys at the right time and place in their lives. It could be that the men I’ve encountered have been willing to sacrifice their other options for me because they thought I was worth it.

    I do understand that not every woman has the same advantages as me. Not all men have the same advantages as Jason or HanSolo either. The key, in such situations, would be for people to realistically understand their strengths and weaknesses and utilize strategies that best suit their needs. The strategies that I use, and the skills that I have, will not work for all women. The problem stems from situations where people try to use the strategies of others that do not work for themselves.

    I’ve heard countless tales of restricted males trying to use the same strategies that unrestricted men use, and wondering why they don’t get the results that they want. I’ve heard stories of restricted women conducting themselves in ways that unrestricted women use, and wondering why they don’t get the results that they want. It’s highly incongruent behavior, and it is the root of most of the problems.

    If Guy 1 wants a relationship, but Guy 2 wants to bang lots of women, why does Guy 1 mimic Guy 2 if his goal is not to bang lots of women? In my opinion, Guy 1 feels like what he values is not enough because Guy 2 is often viewed as a higher quality male. Suddenly, just wanting a relationship is no longer good enough. Guy 1 feels like he should be slaying chicks because Guy 2 does, and Guy 2 is considered “cool” by the mainstream. Guy 1 is also probably envious of the type of ladies that Guy 2 lands. Guy 2, most likely, bangs women with highly overt sex appeal/attractiveness. Guy 1 wants a slice of that pie, so he mimics Guy 2 behavior in an attempt to attract such women.

    In my opinion, peer pressure is the root of a lot of this. People feel pressured to live up to the standards set by the “elite”, oftentimes to the detriment of their own personal desires.

  • a definite beta guy

    Sassy

    If your entire philosophy is based on “if we could only get rid of peer pressure then all my ideas would work” do you think you have a viable philosophy?

  • Sassy6519

    HanSolo wrote this on another thread, and I think it ties in very nicely to what I have been describing.

    I agree that the queen bee and culture have further influence on women.

    Here’s a question. Who inspires the queen bees to want what they want? Or, in other words, what do queen bees want?

    The feminist queen bees seem to want economic and political power for themselves and women. A lot of the rules they promote though implicitly promote hypergamy. If men are all told they’re creeps for eyeing women or approaching then it leaves it up to women to approach (usually more attractive men, don’t mean just in looks) or the boldest or higher-value-than-her men to approach. Also, the postpone-marriage for career implicitly sets a much higher value on the type of man that could get her to break her career focus during her 20′s.

    I’ve hypothesized before that many queen bees want the apex alphas (in addition to money and fame) and so you can see how one sub-class of queen bees–certain “divas”–do what it takes to get the rock star or hiphop apex alphas by responding to what is demanded, namely being both pretty and really slutty. Kim Kardashian is a big example of using her looks plus sex to get famous in order to attract the men that perhaps just being pretty wouldn’t have attracted as much.

    This then serves as the template for how less famous yet hypergamous women can try to get the local and lower-down version of the thug or rock star apex alpha.

    Ding Ding Ding!!

    The “elite/cool/popular” crowd tends to set the tone for “cool” behaviors, and people lower on the social hierarchy tend to follow suit, much to their own personal detriments.

  • purplesneakers

    While I think there’s something to be said for restricted and unrestricted people to adopt different strategies, I think the difference is overblown, for both genders. Women generally will still want their hypergamous instinct satisfied, and men will still want their sexual desires satisfied. Maybe I’m misunderstanding, in which case it would be helpful to talk about how strategies for someone seeking a relationship should differ depending on where they are on the slutty spectrum.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    Come on, Sassy, you know better than to argue this. Do you think that if you’d had sex with a bunch of different guys you’d never see again you would have been likely to get additional cases? Ever seen the chart that demonstrates how every time you have sex you’re having sex with that person’s previous partners? The progression is geometric.

    When one engages in risky behavior, the risk is present every time, so by engaging in that behavior 100 times you are 100 times more likely to catch an STD than if you engage once. Each encounter has the same risk, so if it’s 50% and you get away with it once, you still face needing a clean run 99 more times.

    I think you didn’t understand my statement.

    I never said that the rates of contracting STDs was the same for restricted and unrestricted people. Of course the chance of contracting an STD increases with an increase in the amount of sexual partners, due to variances in exposure. I never argued otherwise.

    I simply stated that the risk of contracting STDs is always present with any sexual activity. A person can contract an STD with their first partner. They don’t have to rack up a high count to be put at risk. That’s all I said.

    I never argued that unrestricted people aren’t at higher risk of contracting an STD.

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

      I never argued that unrestricted people aren’t at higher risk of contracting an STD.

      Didn’t you say that everyone would get an STD in their lifetime? That would assume that everyone is engaging in high risk behavior. In fact, the number is 50%, and half of those are occurring in very young people.

      I found it a very alarmist statement.

  • Abbot

    “There’s a reason why GYNs want to know how many sexual partners a woman has had – it’s the biggest risk factor.”

    Same goes for commitment oriented men. Too bad those results are not published. It would be such a great time saver…

    .

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    If your entire philosophy is based on “if we could only get rid of peer pressure then all my ideas would work” do you think you have a viable philosophy?

    I’m not trying to prescribe my “philosophy” to the entire population. I’m just trying to offer up explanations of why people feel the need to act incongruently, to the detriment of their own desires. If other people want to think of large scale ways of implementing it, that’s on them. I’m more interested in forming hypothesizes, at the moment. If other people want to go on a massive crusade, that’s on them.

  • JP

    “I’m just trying to offer up explanations of why people feel the need to act incongruently, to the detriment of their own desires.”

    Well, I can think of a few reasons.

    (1) Avoiding divine sanction
    (2) Avoiding social sanction
    (3) Avoiding prison
    (4) Avoiding guilt
    (5) Dying the death of courage

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    Sassy, what has gotten into you? This is a false and rather ridiculous statement. A person who is monogamous with an uninfected person has no chance of contracting an STD. It is estimated that about half of adults will contract an STD in their lifetime, and half of those cases are among people ages 15-24.

    http://www.hpvinfo.ca/teachers/myths-about-hpv/

    http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/diseases-maladies/hpv-vph-eng.php

    Here are some important excerpts:

    FACT: The majority of people will get HPV at least once in their lifetime , but only a small percentage of infections will cause cancer. Like other infections, HPV may go away without any treatment or problems—but certain low-risk types (e.g., types 6 and 11) may cause warts in the genital area, and at least 15 high-risk types of HPV (e.g., types 16 and 18) may cause cancer.

    It is estimated that as many as 75% of sexually active men and women will have at least one HPV infection in their lifetime, but many people with healthy immune systems will eventually clear the infection from their bodies.

    MYTH: HPV will not affect me because I only have one partner. It only affects people who “sleep around”

    FACT: Any person who has sexual contact with another person can get HPV. You may be at risk even if you have only one partner because your partner may have had other partners in the past.

    You can have sex with an infected person without knowing the person has the virus. You can spread the virus without knowing you are infected because you may not have any visible symptoms. Each partner in a sexual relationship may carry the infection for many years without knowing it.

    As I said earlier, HPV is very bad because it can lie dormant in a person’s system for months to YEARS, all the while not testing positive for it. There is also not an HPV test for men yet, and they are often silent carriers for it. This is why HPV is so rampant.

    I don’t think saying almost everyone will contract some form of an STD in their lifetime was inaccurate at all.

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

      @Sassy

      The 75% number applies to people who remain non-monogamous. The 50% number applies to the population for all STDs.

      In any case, your likelihood of contracting an STD is highly predictable based on your number of sexual partners. Obviously, who you have sex with also matters a great deal, hence the need to avoid sluts of both sexes.

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

        I’m entertaining this evening, so I’m off. Have a good weekend, everyone.

  • Abbot

    “HUS is ranking quite high in the Google results for the study.”

    That author is going to keep going. Right into the mainstream. The media loves controversy and she aims to deliver even if she sells out the likes of Marcotte, Friedman et al who are going to take a collective dump.

  • JP

    “I don’t think saying almost everyone will contract some form of an STD in their lifetime was inaccurate at all.”

    I’m trying to think of the number of friends/acquaintances/family memebers I know who have, or have had, an STD.

    One.

    And she’s diagnosed bipolar.

  • JP

    “Promiscuity is on the Hare Psychopathy checklist, but so are many other (often correlated) factors.”

    Bipolar people often have lovely promiscuity episodes.

    Apparently there’s a vibe or a tell that people who are hell bent on having one night stands can pick up on in other people so that they know that they can talk them into sex.

  • Sassy6519

    @ JP

    I’m trying to think of the number of friends/acquaintances/family memebers I know who have, or have had, an STD.

    One.

    Do you ask all people that you know/meet, both male and female, whether or not they have ever had an STD before?

  • JP

    “Do you ask all people that you know/meet, both male and female, whether or not they have ever had an STD before?”

    Open people generally tell you that they’ve had an STD or various other information that you really don’t need to know.

    For example, one of my acquaintances from college always tells me when he tries to commit suicide. He’s never had an STD as far as I know and I know way too much his life.

    My clients, on the other hand, often have STD’s, which is usually the least of their problems.

  • JP

    @ADBG:

    “Here’s me responding to a communist, an ideology which I consider heinous and responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people and the worst poverty crisis in history, saying that feudalism and capitalism are basically the same processes”

    Communism works just fine with populations that are around or about Dunbar’s number.

    “Dunbar’s number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.[1] Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.[2][3] Dunbar’s number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_Number

    I do not think that communism can be applied to larger social groups.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    Didn’t you say that everyone would get an STD in their lifetime? That would assume that everyone is engaging in high risk behavior. In fact, the number is 50%, and half of those are occurring in very young people.

    I found it a very alarmist statement.

    I said almost all people would contract some form of an STD in their lifetime. The key word is almost. I never claimed that everyone would.

    Also, check out the comment I made at #322.

    The 75% number applies to people who remain non-monogamous. The 50% number applies to the population for all STDs.

    The stats I gave are for sexually active individuals. That does not mean that a person has to be non-monogamous. Sexually active simply means engaging in sexual activity.

    I am also talking about infection rates for a lifetime. A person could always contract an STD during their single days, before settling down in a longterm monogamous relationship.

    I also found more data.

    http://www.hpvinfo.ca/health-care-professionals/what-is-hpv/incidence-and-prevalence-of-hpv-in-canada/

    It is estimated that 75% of Canadians will have at least one HPV infection in their lifetime. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada estimates that 10% to 30% of the Canadian adult population is infected with HPV. This is in line with research from the US and Europe which has shown that 10% to 40% of sexually active women are infected by HPV at any one time.

  • Chant

    mr. wavevector et al,

    I would like to ask a question regarding societal shaming, specifically i am curious as what would count as such an act?

  • Josie

    Alpha males are also very dangerous….I google Sport Illustrated Where’s Daddy, an article about the number of out wedlock children that NBA and NFL produces. For each guy who has no OOW, there one who has two or three baby mamas.

    This is disturbing, in that the man can provides for the children but is not a part of their life. These women were sleeping with the best of the male species. Of course, they will only date/married a restricted or unrestricted high value women, i.e. Kim and Khloe Kardashian, Elin Nordegren.

    In a previous post, Susan wrote that beautiful girls are price out since men in their league (handsome, charming, successful, and accomplished) has no problem getting casual sex.

    In this situation, pretty girls either have to be A) unrestricted in hopes of getting an alphas male or she can be B) restricted but must be exceptional.

    A) Kim and Khloe Kardashian
    B) Elin Nordegren

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1012762/

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Here’s another one – I once admitted in another thread that I struggled to keeping my eyes off the 13 year old babysitters’ impressive breasts. Susan tried dumping a pile of shame on me for that. That’s OK – I agree that middle aged men should not be ogling pubescent girls, which is why I try as hard as I can not to. Without that societal value I might have felt free to ogle away, causing that girl intense discomfort.”

    > I’ve wondered beforea dads of pubescent girls. Do they oogle their daughters? How do they deal with that attraction on a psychological level.

    Any dads here to weight in? How about moms?

    “I don’t believe people should act “in accordance with their own values”. Values that every one makes up for themselves are no values at all. Values should be set by society to protect both the individual and the common good.

    I don’t think people should have unlimited freedom to pursue whatever sexual lives they want either. Sexual interactions are one of the bases of society, and society has an interest in regulating them. All societies do, and the more civilized ones tend to do more so than the primitive ones.

    That’s why I’m perfectly OK with slut shaming. It’s one of the way society constrains sexual behavior and encourages the more productive and beneficial forms of sexuality over the others. I think we need more slut shaming (for both sexes) not less.”

    > This is easily solved. Slut shaming could disappear in a day if Americans just learned to keep their mouths shut in public forums about their sex lives.

    There was once a time when the intimacy that happened in the privacy of your own home, whether with 1 or 10 people was kept in within that privacy. There are also other cultures where people still keep their personal lives, well, personal.

    “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” can be applied everywhere.

    Don’t ask, don’t tell.

    There – slut shaming just disappeared and everyone gets theirs.

    All sides happy now?

  • Anacaona

    Here’s a question. Who inspires the queen bees to want what they want? Or, in other words, what do queen bees want?
    I was going to answer in the other thread but it works here too.
    The Queen Bees do whatever is designated as cool in the culture. Now what becomes cool gets a push from them but it has to reach certain level of acceptance before it becomes mainstream.
    Being slutty was considered shameful back in the day.The cool kids were the clean ones that were responsible and good while the bad kids were the losers. Culture changed this slowly. Feel by sympathizing and idealizing the rebels. You can see the storytelling shifting to use the ‘fallen woman’ as the victim of societal restriction, add the sexual revolution, the attack to traditional and conservative values and in a few decades we went from idolizing Donna Reed to idolizing Kim Kardashian. Is not that the cool kids tend to be more unrestricted, is that unrestrictiveness became cool and the cool kids took it over as part of their identity. Is a symbiotic relationship. Hence the one standard for both genders is a good thing. Once the narrative starts to consider promiscuity uncool. The mindless masses will start to fall in line. But is a slow process. I do think we are in the beginning of it though, YMMV.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Come on, Sassy, you know better than to argue this. Do you think that if you’d had sex with a bunch of different guys you’d never see again you would have been likely to get additional cases? Ever seen the chart that demonstrates how every time you have sex you’re having sex with that person’s previous partners? The progression is geometric.

    When one engages in risky behavior, the risk is present every time, so by engaging in that behavior 100 times you are 100 times more likely to catch an STD than if you engage once. Each encounter has the same risk, so if it’s 50% and you get away with it once, you still face needing a clean run 99 more times.”

    > But Susan here’s the thing. Sex itself, even if just once in a “relationship” is risky. Say I never had a previous sexual partner but I had sex with my boyfriend who had sex with one previous partner who happened to have an STD.

    Now consider my math wrt pretty girls (7s and up) who never go long without boyfriends from the age of 14.

    Even if she ONLY ever has “relationship sex” and even if she ONLY has 1 boyfriend every 2 years (which for pretty American girls is low), then by the time she’s 28 he’s had “relationship sex” with 7 men.

    Let’s so those 7 men are similarly restricted and only ever had “relationship sex” with 7 other women each. Since they are men and men naturally have lower numbers than women, we’ll bring their numbers down to 5 each.

    5 X 7 = 35

    And this is for attractive, restricted Americans who are not having one night stands or hook ups but merely the chaste “relationship sex”.

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

      @Plain Jane

      Let’s so those 7 men are similarly restricted and only ever had “relationship sex” with 7 other women each. Since they are men and men naturally have lower numbers than women, we’ll bring their numbers down to 5 each.

      5 X 7 = 35

      And this is for attractive, restricted Americans who are not having one night stands or hook ups but merely the chaste “relationship sex”.

      Yup. I do know women who got very unlucky – a few who got herpes in college from the boys they lost their virginity to.

      I don’t know why people are struggling to understand the most basic laws of probability.

      Anyone can get hit by a car, but your odds of injury rise significantly when you routinely play in traffic.

      Each time you do so, your odds of getting hit are the same – say 10%. But when you look forward to five years of playing in traffic, your odds of getting hit go up to, say, 99%.

      When you gamble again and again and again, eventually you are going to lose. That’s why it is simply not credible that VP doesn’t have an STD. Her odds of being disease-free are probably around the same as the odds of winning big in the lottery.

  • Abbot

    Why do so may women rush to defend casual sex and promiscuity so vigorously? Its like a sickness in and of itself.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “promiscuous women significantly increase the availability of casual sex. If promiscuous women targeted other high SOI individuals this would matter less, but they do not discriminate in this fashion, so nonpermissive women are affected.”

    Non-permissive women are affected only if they themselves are targetting permissive men as mates.

    “If promiscuous women targeted other high SOI individuals”

    Well they pretty much are. I mean, a promiscuous woman who tries to poach a non-promiscuous man will not succeed in poaching him. If she does, then his partner just discovered that she’s paired with an incompatible, promiscuous mate and that knowledge should be welcomed because it sets her free to find a non-permissive, compatible partner.

  • JP

    “But is a slow process. I do think we are in the beginning of it though, YMMV.”

    The crisis era only really began in 2008, which is when this “Hook Up culture” peaked.

    That being said, I have no idea what’s going to replace it.

  • Josie

    @ SHS

    I guess most dads struggles with their own sexuality and their daughters when their little girls turns into women.

    I can never imagine myself in that situation.

    Beta Guys

    It makes me think about some guys who became manwhore or who takes advantage of the hook up culture. Most of them are were in relationships and were heartbroken.

    A friend of my tells me about his first girlfriend, who met at a party. They dated for a while, before she cheated on him with his best friend while he was on vacation.

    Another male friend of my told me about his ex, who he caught having a threesome with other guys.

    The hook up culture had made it difficult for young guys to find a girlfriend, because there is a possibility that their slutty girlfriend will cheat. Unless if you care alpha male enough to dominate her, she can be approach by their more alpha male friends.

    So for men, it is a bad idea to have man whores as friends unless one is the dominate one.

  • HanSolo

    @Anacaona

    What are your thoughts on why unrestrictedness became cool and why did the culture change in this way?

    Who were the people that instigated this and what were their motives, conscious or subconscious?

  • JP

    “Another male friend of my told me about his ex, who he caught having a threesome with other guys.”

    I’m trying to imagine what I would have done in a situation like that when I was younger.

    I became somewhat irritated once just because a guy sent my girlfriend flowers and asked her to date him. And by “somewhat irritated”, I mean that my adrenaline was at 100% and I was physically shaking in rage.

    Based on reading my father’s letters to my mother, there may be genetic component to that particular feature of mine.

    It’s extremely difficult to turn off once triggered because of the adrenal rush.

    I’ve only had it triggered twice because of women I was dating.

  • JP

    “@Anacaona

    What are your thoughts on why unrestrictedness became cool and why did the culture change in this way?”

    The current era of unrestrictedness can be traced to the so-called “Consciousness Awakening” of the 1960′s.

    The old era of restrictedness peaked and began it’s long collapse into Hook Up culture, lead by the Baby Boomers.

    It gained force during the Unraveling and hit’s it trough with the final credit mania circa 2007.

    This has all happened before.

    This will all happen again.

  • Anacaona

    @Han
    JP is right. A recommended reading is The Fourth Turning that explains all this. I will say that the differences between us and lets say the roaring 20′s is that we have a lot more people, mass media, reliable contraception and more emphasis in money making and education, YMMV.

  • JP

    Specifically, what’s going to happen over the next decade or two is that the social/sexual mores will be reconstituted in fashion which the current generations find acceptable.

    There will not be a return to the 1950′s, because that order is completely unraveled, but you can expect that there are going to be significant changes and a significant amount of order.

    I think this only really applies to the social group with significant economic / social heft, meaning the UMC and friends.

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

      Specifically, what’s going to happen over the next decade or two is that the social/sexual mores will be reconstituted in fashion which the current generations find acceptable.

      There will not be a return to the 1950′s, because that order is completely unraveled, but you can expect that there are going to be significant changes and a significant amount of order.

      I think this only really applies to the social group with significant economic / social heft, meaning the UMC and friends.

      Cosign this, I’ve come to the same conclusion.

  • JP

    Looks like I haven’t posted over on the Fourth Turning forums since about February.

    http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/member.php?8146-JonLaw

    Mike Alexander is currently playing with turnings and Mega-Turnings back to the 1200′s, in case anyone likes playing with historical patterns.

  • Josie

    @ Han and JP

    I have no idea, I guess Birth control had made it possible for people to have premartial sex.

    I mean, being a virgin today is weird unless one is a conservative christian.

    Sex is something teenagers are curious about, and I guess people do it because it feels good.

    I think that Man whore and sluts comes into existence because women no longer rely financially on men and the free love movement.

    Most men and women had casual sex, because probably one of them were damages in some way. I certainly was, and my two friends who has casual sex were heartbroken because of their slutty ex girlfriends.

  • Josie

    I think because no one waits for marriage to have sex, it is a bad idea to think that one’s high school sweetheart is the one.

    Most young men no longer does relationship, because they got their heartbroken by their slutty girlfriend. Of course, they made the false assumption that she is their girlfriend since they are hooking up but being a slut, she is sleeping with other guys.

    Even for the guys who does make it official, it would be a bad idea to fall in love with her since she will break up with you and become a slut. They been told that women wants relationship, yet they are confused by their girlfriends or ex girlfriends slutty behaviors.

  • JP

    “Most young men no longer does relationship, because they got their heartbroken by their slutty girlfriend.”

    People have been having their heart broken for years. My near-retirement-age cousin got married and was so shell-shocked by his divorce that he never even dated again, as far as I know.

    This also operates in reverse, you know. One divorce I know of was because the guy got married and then continued to try to date other women. I’m still confused by that one. I mean, I really, really don’t understand what was going it. It was way beyond weird.

    It’s people being people. Which means lots of stupidity.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Sassy

    I’m not trying to prescribe my “philosophy” to the entire population. I’m just trying to offer up explanations of why people feel the need to act incongruently, to the detriment of their own desires. If other people want to think of large scale ways of implementing it, that’s on them. I’m more interested in forming hypothesizes, at the moment. If other people want to go on a massive crusade, that’s on them.

    Your hypotheses do not seem to jive with a live and let live philosophy. If the majority of people can expect to get an STD, maybe we have somewhat of a problem?
    I understand there are theoretical solutions, but so far you and VP have just hand-waved it away saying “people should fight peer pressure.” Why should we have to fight peer pressure if we are the majority? If there’s going to be peer pressure, which is unavoidable to some extent, it should be on the unrestricted minority, not the restricted majority.

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    I understand there are theoretical solutions, but so far you and VP have just hand-waved it away saying “people should fight peer pressure.” Why should we have to fight peer pressure if we are the majority? If there’s going to be peer pressure, which is unavoidable to some extent, it should be on the unrestricted minority, not the restricted majority.

    To do what? Fall into line? Start acting in ways that are incongruent with their own unrestricted behavior/nature? Get them to convert to a more restricted lifestyle? Expect them to get married and have children just like everyone else?

    Good luck with that. People naturally vary. I don’t know of a single trait, except for breathing perhaps, where all people conduct themselves in the same fashion. There will always be differences in opinions. There will always be religious people clamoring to change the opinions of atheists, and vise-versa. There will always be pro-choice and pro-life people. There will always be people in favor of capital punishment, and others who are against it. There will always be people who conform to norms, and those who act in opposition to them.

    Expecting the “unrestricted” population to change their ways at the request of restricted individuals will be about as effective as a “bible thumper” quoting scripture to an atheist.

    Short of physically forcing people to act in certain ways, whether or not those ways are in alignment with their views or not, I don’t see how people will ever agree about anything or conduct themselves similarly. With that being said, and considering that a segment of the population will always be on the “unrestricted” side, what should restricted people do? Wring their hands at the thought of unrestricted people acting in unrestricted fashions, or carry on with their lives without much thought to what unrestricted people do?

    The world will continue to spin, and people will continue to be people. Expecting everyone to act in one standard fashion is foolish. Restricted people expecting everyone to act like they do is just as foolish as unrestricted people expecting everyone to act like they do. There will always be dissenters. I guess this fact just doesn’t bother me that much. I can’t control people. I can only control myself, and I strive to surround myself with people who have similar values/ideals that I do. If I spent all my time worrying about what everyone else was doing, I’d expect to worry myself into an early grave. I have better ways of spending my time, to be honest.

  • a definite beta guy

    There will always be peer pressure. Should it be on restricted to act unrestricted or unrestricted to act restricted?

  • a definite beta guy

    Sorry for the curt response…heading out to observe the field!

  • Sassy6519

    After writing the above post, it reminded me of something. A similar dynamic exists with regards to the topic of having children. Some people have children, while others do not. I’ve noticed, however, that I have oftentimes received pushback from some people whenever I state that I would prefer to not have children. I have never once stated that others should feel the same way I do, on this issue. I have absolutely no problem with other people deciding to have kids. That’s their choice and right to do so. It doesn’t concern me, and I’m glad that other people are happy to start families.

    I don’t receive the same amount of detached respect for my choice, however. It always makes me wonder, “Why does it matter to you? It’s my body and my choice. Why are you getting bent out of shape over my decision not to have kids?”.

    Does the “childless shaming” make me want to change my ways? No. It all just seems like hot air to me. Such opinions don’t hold much sway with me. I will do what I want to do, on the matter, and someone thinking negatively about me and my decision not to have children can clench their fists in anger if it makes them feel better. Short of someone physically forcing me to have children, I don’t see how someone could impact my decision.

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

      @Sassy

      I don’t receive the same amount of detached respect for my choice, however. It always makes me wonder, “Why does it matter to you? It’s my body and my choice. Why are you getting bent out of shape over my decision not to have kids?”.

      Well, for one thing, you’ll get entitlement benefits from the wages earned by other people’s kids, and won’t contribute anything of your own to the system.

      I have witnessed this pushback, but I don’t think people believe they will have any impact on a woman’s decision. Rather, they find it strange that a woman would not want children. For better or worse, it raises a bit of a red flag in people’s minds re attachment style, narcissism, and some other things. I believe men who don’t want families experience the same thing – as BroHamlet has described. We are reproduction machines, according to Helen Fisher. Choosing not to reproduce is something that the majority of people cannot comprehend.

      Anecdotally, the women I have known who did not want children did not enjoy being children, for a variety of reasons. One of my closest friends made this choice, which she explained as a fear and certainty that she could only produce genetically defective offspring.

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    There will always be peer pressure. Should it be on restricted to act unrestricted or unrestricted to act restricted?

    I think both things are stupid, and not very effective. I’m not a supporter of either.

    Perhaps you should target this question towards others who have more specific opinions on the matter.

  • Anacaona

    @Sassy
    It took around two decades to go from “All the cool, sophisticated, sexy people smoke” to “smoking is disgusting all the sexy, cool, sophisticated people don’t smoke”. You and women like VP might do whatever they want to. But there are more people in the middle than in the extreme. Enough incentives at the top and the unrestricted will stop being the ‘standard of success’. In any case I don’t think the restricted will hunt unrestricted down. Mostly ignore them, and hopefully the unrestricted ignore them back.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “I think that Man whore and sluts comes into existence because women no longer rely financially on men and the free love movement. ”

    Promiscuous people generally have high libidos.

    “There will always be peer pressure. Should it be on restricted to act unrestricted or unrestricted to act restricted?”

    Neither. People should just keep their sex life, or lack thereof, to themselves.

    What happens in your bedroom, stays in your bedroom.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Anacaona

    It took around two decades to go from “All the cool, sophisticated, sexy people smoke” to “smoking is disgusting all the sexy, cool, sophisticated people don’t smoke”.

    True. The cultural ideas that “cool people smoke” and “smoking is cool” have seen significant decreases. Although 19%-20% of adults smoke in the US, not everyone feels as pressured to do so. The people that don’t want to smoke don’t smoke, and the people that do want to smoke do smoke.

    You and women like VP might do whatever they want to. But there are more people in the middle than in the extreme.

    True. I myself am in the middle, but I think that people forgot that fact during this conversation. I don’t necessarily have to be a part of a group in order to understand them/somewhat support them.

    Enough incentives at the top and the unrestricted will stop being the ‘standard of success’. In any case I don’t think the restricted will hunt unrestricted down. Mostly ignore them, and hopefully the unrestricted ignore them back.

    This is what I hope for as well.

  • Anacaona

    True. The cultural ideas that “cool people smoke” and “smoking is cool” have seen significant decreases. Although 19%-20% of adults smoke in the US, not everyone feels as pressured to do so. The people that don’t want to smoke don’t smoke, and the people that do want to smoke do smoke.
    Actually I learned in 23andme that people have some genetic component that makes smoking more pleasurable and more addictive. My husband has those genes but since he grew up around non smokers he never developed the habit and never will. I don’t have them so even if I tried smoking for a few months I quit cold turkey never turned back, because I don’t have the genes but also because I don’t have a culture of smoking to need to smoke as part of the group experience. So even people wired for something can be influenced by the culture. Now hubby drinks like 7 cups of coffee a day, given that USA is the Coffee country. Luckily is good for his heart. :)

  • Mireille
  • Anacaona

    Probably the worst advice ever?
    Dr Abbot: Clearly she shows a chronic case of multipenitis. Take two slutshamers and don’t call me in the morning.

    Not trying to offend anyone just trying to be funny.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Chant,

    I would like to ask a question regarding societal shaming, specifically i am curious as what would count as such an act?

    Societal shaming involves expressing disapproval about another’s behavior, often using derogatory language. I engaged in some in #232:

    In contrast to those unenlightened “Neanderthals” who disapprove of unrestricted sexuality, the nearest approximation of VP’s sexual behavior would be a female chimpanzee in permanent estrus, happily rutting with all available attractive males. A fully defoliated female chimp with a blog and a hormone disorder, perhaps.

    I compared VP to a chimpanzee to express my disapproval of her sexual behavior. Most people would consider that derogatory.

    Here’s another example: a blog post from a woman complaining about the reaction she got from other women while wearing a sexy Star Trek science officer dress at a scifi convention. Apparently a lot of them thought her hem line was too short and had to tell her about it.

  • Liz

    @JP

    The current era of unrestrictedness can be traced to the so-called “Consciousness Awakening” of the 1960′s.

    I’m checking out your link. Forgive me if I’ve posted this before, but I found this very illuminating. It’s from a 1988 book. (I wonder what the author would say now.)

    My mother would say things to the effect of, ‘If you sleep with them before you marry them, they will have no reason to marry you.’ That attitude was everything our generation despised: dishonest, manipulative, crass. Love should be freely given.

    We knew our mothers had had no choice economically or morally. They’d lived in the era of the double standard, of ‘good’ girls and ‘bad’ girls. But now that we were enlightened and sex was good and natural, there were no bad girls. Right?

    In theory, yes. In practice, we heard guys introduce their girlfriends as “my slut.” Most men didn’t blame women for sleeping with them. But they might back away from a woman who had – if only because she might start to expect a commitment before the man even knew her… or himself.

    In the late Sixties, many men, at least middle-class men, were thrown into great identity confusion. Counterculture men, devaluing work and war, lost the old reliable yardsticks for measuring themselves as men. Adolescence continued into the twenties; men uncertain of their identity shrank from intimacy. At the same time, sex in delicious variety was suddenly available without consequences or guilt: women didn’t have to get pregnant, and men didn’t have to get caught. The result: many men avoided intimate commitment, and women lost their traditional route to identity.

    If the price of ‘love’ was emotional and economic dependency – a kind of permanent childhood – then it wasn’t love. (And it certainly wasn’t security). If men used our bodies, ignored our hearts, or disrespected our minds, in or out of marriage, that wasn’t love either. It was fuck.

    With the birth of feminism, gay and straight, women took the sexual initiative away from men. On the positive side, we had finally learned to distinguish sex and love, and to know and like our bodies. On the negative side, we’d learned to separate sex from love almost as cheerfully as men. Sexual veterans of both genders became nostalgic for the days of their blundering innocence, before heart, soul, and body parted company.

    - Annie Gottlieb, Do You Believe in Magic?

  • Lokland

    @Ana

    “Actually I learned in 23andme that people have some genetic component that makes smoking more pleasurable and more addictive. ”

    Be somewhat careful with this service.
    I have a project where I assign my students a topic and have them go and look at the research behind the 23andme genetic variants.

    A lot of it is not so cut and dry as they make it out to be.

    (Though on the other hand a handful of them are very good.)

  • Tim

    I think its understandable for an average male to be averse to invest in a relationship with a woman accustomed to sex with superior quality men. It is an undeniable fact that mediocre women can easily have sex with higher quality men. The mediocre male gets nothing.

    Its not that there is anything immoral with a woman being promiscuous. I have absolutely not disrespect for a woman who has slept with a 100 men. It can just be my preference to not want anything serious to do with them.

  • Tim

    Is there any study/survey that establishes a correlation between promiscuity and physical attractiveness, in men and women?

    I faintly remember there was a study by Li & Kenrick; concluding that the probability of a promiscuous man being good looking is much higher than the probability of a promiscuous woman being good looking; but cant find it.

  • Tim

    Among women and feminists, there is an emerging double standard against men – that women who sleep around are empowered and liberated but men who do so are immature douchebags who have issues with intimacy and probably misogynistic.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “Anyone can get hit by a car, but your odds of injury rise significantly when you routinely play in traffic.”

    To add to your example.

    Promiscuous people sleep with more people thus have a higher STD rate.

    That means (to use the car example),

    a promiscuous person is playing in traffic for five years straight on a highway (interstate in the US?) whereas the restricted person is playing in traffic on a suburban street every once in a while.

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

      a promiscuous person is playing in traffic for five years straight on a highway (interstate in the US?) whereas the restricted person is playing in traffic on a suburban street every once in a while.

      Exactly! Thank you, I was getting frustrated with myself for being unable to explain this concept.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Susan,

    Are you breaching any confidences with that anecdote, Susan? It probably isn’t hard to figure out who that woman is given that description.

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

      @mr. wv

      Thank you for calling me out on that. That was incredibly careless and thoughtless of me. It’s not something she was very private about, but I’m sure she wouldn’t appreciate being contacted by some stranger about it now!

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Sassy

    I think both things are stupid, and not very effective. I’m not a supporter of either.

    Perhaps you should target this question towards others who have more specific opinions on the matter.

    Okay, so your philosophy is that there should be no judgement and no peer pressure and no social pressure.

    That’s wonderful, but it’s not realistic for the vast majority of people. Humans are social animals that have evolved to model behavior, try out behavior, respond to pressure, etc. This will always happen to some degree, and you cannot stop it anymore than you can stop hypergamy or lust for sexual variety.

    The question becomes, how do we structure that, so it benefits the majority of people, without making the lives of minorities insufferable?

  • JP

    “Okay, so your philosophy is that there should be no judgement and no peer pressure and no social pressure.”

    Yay, libertarianism!

    The philosophy of 14 year old boys who read Ayn Rand and science fiction.

    The perfect philosophy for a world that doesn’t actually exist.

  • JP

    “One of my closest friends made this choice, which she explained as a fear and certainty that she could only produce genetically defective offspring.”

    This is actually a good idea and reflects well on her.

    I keep cringing that my sister keeps having children when her husband has MS.

  • Sassy6519

    @ JP

    Yay, libertarianism!

    The philosophy of 14 year old boys who read Ayn Rand and science fiction.

    The perfect philosophy for a world that doesn’t actually exist.

    You may not agree with it, but opinions like mine do exist. I’m not the only person.

    Believe what YOU want to believe, and I’ll believe what I want to believe.

    Ahhh, the joys of freedom and personal choice….

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Social conservatives are well aware that social liberals exist :P

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    Social conservatives are well aware that social liberals exist

    Yes, but passive-aggressive snark directed towards my opinion, especially when I have not criticized his personal views, is uncalled for. That kind of shit unnecessarily stirs the pot.

    If I can respect someone’s right to having their own opinions, especially if those opinions differ from my own, I expect to receive the same respect in return.

    Unless he wants me to start openly badmouthing social conservative views, which I can do. I don’t think anyone wants me to get me started down that road, however. It will not be pretty.

  • Sassy6519

    @ ADBG

    The question becomes, how do we structure that, so it benefits the majority of people, without making the lives of minorities insufferable?

    This is a great question. I’m not sure what the solution is, however. It seems like such a balancing act, to be honest, or like a Goldilocks and the Three Bears situation.

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

    Sassy, I personally agree with your position on this.

    “He that complies against his Will,
    Is of his own Opinion still;
    Which he may adhere to, yet disown,
    For Reasons to himself best known.”

    -Samuel Butler

    I would encourage everyone here to take the Arnold Kling political heuristics test! The results could be fun.

    Which of the following applies to you (if you could only pick one)?

    x) My heroes are people who have stood up for the underprivileged. The people I cannot stand are people who do not seem to care about the oppression of working people, minorities, and women.

    y) My heroes are people who have stood up for Western values. The people I cannot stand are the people who do not seem to mind the assault on the moral virtues and traditions that are foundation of our civilization.

    z) My heroes are people who have stood up for the individual’s right to his or her own choices. The people I cannot stand are people who want to use the government (force) to impose their value system on everyone else.

    I would guess that the majority of people who post on HUS are MBTI introverted judgers of relatively low N who would also test out as Fisherian “Builders”, and who would most identify with Proposition Y from above.

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

      @BB

      My heroes are not described by any of those statements. I will work on crafting a statement of who my heroes are and who I cannot stand.

  • JP

    “Unless he wants me to start openly badmouthing social conservative views, which I can do. I don’t think anyone wants me to get me started down that road, however. It will not be pretty.”

    I’m always entertained by things like this, so go ahead.

    I’m not exactly “social conservative”, so the chances of it actually bothering me are about zero.

    Libertarianism is interwoven with Objectivism, the anti-religion of Communism.

    “Antireligions are at least as common among civil religions as they are among theist faiths. The civil religion of Americanism, for example, has as its antireligion the devout and richly detailed claim, common among American radicals of all stripes, that the United States is uniquely evil among the world’s nations. This creed, or anticreed, simply inverts the standard notions of American exceptionalism without changing them in any other way. In the same way, Communism has its antireligion, which was founded by the Russian expatriate Ayn Rand and has become the central faith of much of America’s current pseudoconservative movement. There is of course nothing actually conservative about Rand’s Objectivism; it’s simply what you get when you accept the presuppositions of Marxism—atheism, materialism, class warfare, and the rest of it—but say “Evil, be thou my good” to all its value judgments. If you’ve ever wondered why so many American pseudoconservatives sound as though they’re trying to imitate the cackling capitalist villains of traditional Communist demonology, now you know.”

    http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2013-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2013-05-08T23:10:00-07:00&max-results=23&start=5&by-date=false

  • Sassy6519

    @ JP

    I’m always entertained by things like this, so go ahead.

    I’m not exactly “social conservative”, so the chances of it actually bothering me are about zero.

    You may not be offended, but that doesn’t mean that other commenters would not be upset by such dialogue. Starting such an argument would also be very off topic and incendiary for this blog.

    I may not be the most noble individual, but at least I have the tact to know when to hold my tongue.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Bastiat Blogger

    Which of the following applies to you (if you could only pick one)?

    x) My heroes are people who have stood up for the underprivileged. The people I cannot stand are people who do not seem to care about the oppression of working people, minorities, and women.

    y) My heroes are people who have stood up for Western values. The people I cannot stand are the people who do not seem to mind the assault on the moral virtues and traditions that are foundation of our civilization.

    z) My heroes are people who have stood up for the individual’s right to his or her own choices. The people I cannot stand are people who want to use the government (force) to impose their value system on everyone else.

    I would guess that the majority of people who post on HUS are MBTI introverted judgers of relatively low N who would also test out as Fisherian “Builders”, and who would most identify with Proposition Y from above.

    This is an interesting concept. I think that your summary of the type of people who typically comment at HUS is fairly spot on. The majority is most likely comprised of (I)ntroverted individuals with a (J)udging function, and (E)xtroverted people with (P)erceiving functions are probably in the minority.

    I myself have an ENTP profile, I tested as a Fisherian “Explorer”, and I most identify with statement z.

    What about you? What are your characteristics?

  • Mireille

    @ BB,

    I’m definitely a position X person.

    The Y and Z statements sound so deluded to me; Western values? LOL
    Individual choices? Major LOL.

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

    Sassy: same as you, across the board

  • JP

    “If your little tower is not mercifully blasted by the thunderbolt in this life, then it will be severely blasted upon your demise. Evidently, that is when you will have the opportunity to bear witness to the full extent of your folly. You won’t even have to be judged by God. Rather, you will judge yourself…”

    “I myself have an ENTP profile, I tested as a Fisherian “Explorer”, and I most identify with statement z.”

    The first time I took the MTBI test, I was:

    I’m an E/I split, high N, very high T, and very high P.

    I always question the value of those tests.

    Apparently, I’m a Negotiator with the Fisher thingy.

    My job is basically performing (x)-type activities. Although I don’t have “heroes”.

    “24 Explorer, 22 Builder, 26 Director and 31 Negotiator”

  • Mireille

    Where can you take those tests actually; any reliable links?

  • mr. wavevector

    @ BB,

    What if my heroes have sought world domination, have bent all others to their conquering will, and have raped, plundered and slain all who stood in their path?

    (joke ;-) )

    If I can’t have world domination, give me a good balance of X and Z: personal freedoms in the context of civilized virtues.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Bastiat Blogger

    Sassy: same as you, across the board

    Perhaps you and I are meant to be after all. ;)

    I kid, I kid…..

    You and I would probably be better suited as adventure buddies more than anything else.

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

      @Sassy

      You and I would probably be better suited as adventure buddies more than anything else.

      I’ve been thinking of you all weekend – don’t be freaked out. Here’s what I wonder. If you’re an Explorer, with a highly unrestricted sexuality, and you don’t want marriage, children, or possibly even a relationship, then why are you behaving in a sexually restricted fashion? This strikes me as incongruent – just from the other side of the fence.

  • Mireille

    Some place on the internet said I was this:

    ISFJ

    Introvert(33%) Sensing(12%) Feeling(12%) Judging(33%)

    You have moderate preference of Introversion over Extraversion (33%)
    You have slight preference of Sensing over Intuition (12%)
    You have slight preference of Feeling over Thinking (12%)
    You have moderate preference of Judging over Perceiving (33%)

    I’m not familiar with these types of tests but my type has probably evolved with age; there was a period when younger I was more into thinking than feeling. Maybe I’m accepting my self and feelings more? Pure speculation.

  • SayWhaat

    Sassy: same as you, across the board

    Perhaps you and I are meant to be after all.

    Now kiss!

  • Mireille

    Plus, what is the difference between Sensing and Intuition? I thought they were the same.

  • Anacaona

    Be somewhat careful with this service.
    I have a project where I assign my students a topic and have them go and look at the research behind the 23andme genetic variants.
    A lot of it is not so cut and dry as they make it out to be.

    Oh I know is constantly evolving also both hubby and I have high risk of Diabetes type B. While I was not surprised since all my family gets it after the reach 60 or get 20 pounds overweight. But there is not a single case in his family so is fascinating trying to find out what activated the disease in me but not in his family. I also found out that I have longer than average telomeres. I might live to see my grand-kids after all! :)

    Anecdotally, the women I have known who did not want children did not enjoy being children, for a variety of reasons. One of my closest friends made this choice, which she explained as a fear and certainty that she could only produce genetically defective offspring.
    I read in a psychology book that people that hate certain age groups didn’t had good experiences at that same age. I personally don’t like teenagers a lot, and I did have a horrible teenagerhood. Good thing is just between 13 and 17 so I just need to sent William away for 4 years! J/K I’ll get over it. I always do, I will always will :D

    The question becomes, how do we structure that, so it benefits the majority of people, without making the lives of minorities insufferable?
    I read a book that had this solved by people creating their nations apart from each other. Libertarians lived in their own territory with coins and economy, same for communists, democrats, liberals, conservatives. I don’t think I could finish it so I don’t know how it ended, but is a fascinating concept. Letting everyone live by their own rules with similarly individuals apart from other influences, check in 300 years and see the results. Fascinating.

    I’m always entertained by things like this, so go ahead.

    Cosign this. Also Sassy mentioned that everything should be open to discussed here as long as is civil. She can be civil about her ideas I’m sure. I personally used to be fan of Virginia Postrel and John Stossel so its not like I hate libertarian ideas. I just disagree with many of them.

    @BB
    I always said that the perfect world is one where everyone can do what they want to. But everyone WANTS to do what is best for everyone in the long run. I do believe in the power of one so the concept that individual choices are isolated from societal repercussions is incorrect IMO. We all make the world a better place or a worst place depending on individual choices.
    So I would say I support Z as long it doesn’t get in the way of X, and neither of them in the way of Y. Utopian maybe? ;)

  • Sassy6519

    @ SayWhaat

    HAHAHA!!!

    That cracked me up. I love that meme.

  • JP

    “Plus, what is the difference between Sensing and Intuition? I thought they were the same.”

    Well, here’s one:

    “The second pair of psychological preferences is Sensing and Intuition. Do you pay more attention to information that comes in through your five senses (Sensing), or do you pay more attention to the patterns and possibilities that you see in the information you receive (Intuition)?”

    http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/sensing-or-intuition.asp

  • JP

    “I’m not familiar with these types of tests but my type has probably evolved with age; there was a period when younger I was more into thinking than feeling. Maybe I’m accepting my self and feelings more? ”

    My feelings didn’t really “turn on” until my early-20′s, so prior to that I was basically 100% T.

    I have no idea how I would test now.

  • Mireille

    Thanks Sassy,

    I must have answered these questions wrong because I definitely rely on intuition more than on sensing. The difference is only 12% so I guess it’s not really significant.

  • JP

    “I also found out that I have longer than average telomeres. I might live to see my grand-kids after all!”

    My grandmother lived long enough for her to become a great-great grandmother (my first cousin, twice removed).

    So, you might be aiming a little low.

  • Mireille

    Ugh,

    I meant Thanks, JP!

  • Anacaona

    So, you might be aiming a little low.
    I’m 35 and my first baby is 8 months old. My family also pretty much drops dead like flies after reaching 70′s due to strokes. I’m trying to aim as much as I can.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    Tim:

    “I faintly remember there was a study by Li & Kenrick; concluding that the probability of a promiscuous man being good looking is much higher than the probability of a promiscuous woman being good looking; but cant find it.”

    Depends how you define “promiscuity”.

    Pretty girls and young women, from about 14 onwards are never long without a “boyfriend”. For proof, look around you. Enough said.

    So, even if these attractive females restrain themselves to only “relationship sex”, foregoing casual hook ups and one night stands, by virtue of the fact that they are never long without a boyfriend, the numbers add up.

    Take one of my own clients for example. She’s 17 and her number is 4. Why? Because she’s pretty and has had 1 boyfriend every year since 14.

    A queen bee? Social extrovert? Popular cheer leader at her school? Life of the party type?

    NOPE!

    She’s an introverted homeschooled girl who spends most of her time at home and has very few friends.

    Yet, even she, without a school, without parties, without any social life to speak of at all, as managed to attract 4 boyfriends in 4 years BECAUSE SHE’S PRETTY.

    So, without being promiscuous, without drunk hook ups at parties, simply by having chaste “relationship sex” – she has a number of 4 at 17.

    If this trajectory continues, and I see no reason why it will not, she is attractive after all, her number will be on the high side by 25.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Societal shaming involves expressing disapproval about another’s behavior, often using derogatory language. I engaged in some in #232:

    I compared VP to a chimpanzee to express my disapproval of her sexual behavior. Most people would consider that derogatory. ”

    > But you wouldn’t dare do this to her in public. The internet is where bravado and shame tactics get displayed but those same shamers keep their traps shut in public.

    “I don’t know why people are struggling to understand the most basic laws of probability.

    Anyone can get hit by a car, but your odds of injury rise significantly when you routinely play in traffic.

    Each time you do so, your odds of getting hit are the same – say 10%. But when you look forward to five years of playing in traffic, your odds of getting hit go up to, say, 99%.

    When you gamble again and again and again, eventually you are going to lose. That’s why it is simply not credible that VP doesn’t have an STD. Her odds of being disease-free are probably around the same as the odds of winning big in the lottery.”

    > People who work in the Porn Industry claim that they have lower STD rates than people who don’t! They say its because they get checked regularly, like every 3 months, whereas the rest of the population gets checked once every few years if at all.

    This doesn’t seem to add up though because “getting checked” will not prevent STDs but merely tell you if you have them. If you have one, and then stop working in porn because of it, how do you reach the conclusion that the Porn Industry has less STDs then the rest of the population?

    Its merely a case of people getting STDs while working in porn, getting checked and diagnosed, and quitting porn because of the STDs –
    THAT THEY GOT WHILE WORKING IN PORN!

    Also Susan, you are a great proponent of “relationship sex”. How does “relationship sex” prevent the spreading of STDs?

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

      Also Susan, you are a great proponent of “relationship sex”. How does “relationship sex” prevent the spreading of STDs?

      Because you only play in traffic on rare occasions.

  • Anacaona

    A metaphor. You got 100 dollars as a gift and go to Las Vegas.
    Extremely Unrestricted: Bet them all, life is too short gambling is fun.

    Unrestricted: Spent 80 gambling you might hit the jackpot, is not like you are going to be rich with 100 dollars anyhow.

    HUS: Statistically you should be on numbers 13, 34, 42. Because those have the best chances to win. You could bet a little bit in your favorite number just in case but I would only invest 50 dollars and save the rest.

    Restricted: I might go to Las Vegas and bet 20 dollars and save the rest.

    Extremely restricted: What the hell are you doing in Las Vegas? Buy The Richest man of Babylon get the rest of your money in a bank while you work out a good long term investment. You might take years but at the end you will get reliable more money.

    Going to visit relatives. Have a fun Sunday.

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

      @Anacaona

      Here’s a story about Las Vegas. Once my coworkers and I went on a whim after work (I lived in LA at the time). I had only $20, this was well before ATMs. I played Black Jack, and parlayed that $20 into $1200. The management started hovering, lol. I remember we were all drinking White Russians – we anticipated the Dude! I started losing, of course, and my winnings shrank to $800, at which point I cashed out. I took everyone out to eat (very cheap in LV) and went home and paid off my credit card debt. Surprisingly, I have never been tempted to return.

      So yeah, HUS behavior, rather than straight unrestricted or straight restricted. I’m a hybrid. :)

  • Sai

    Well, you don’t want your man stolen, so why hang around somebody more likely to do that?

    @Sassy
    “I think that I would only ever cohabitate with a guy if he and I were already engaged. At least with an engagement, I would know that he is at least fairly serious about being with me.”

    +1
    Call me paranoid.

    “This is a great question. I’m not sure what the solution is, however. It seems like such a balancing act, to be honest, or like a Goldilocks and the Three Bears situation.”

    Nothing wrong with balance.
    (I am Z-type, can’t help it)

    @ADBG
    “GF: Why don’t you want to sit here and watch that sunset?
    ADBG: Because it’s dumb”
    LMAO
    Long live honest men and their honesty.

    @SayWhaat
    “Aaand that’s why I require test results before sleeping with anyone.”
    +1

    @Anacaona
    Have fun!

    I can’t wait for the single standard to become stronger~

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Also Susan, you are a great proponent of “relationship sex”. How does “relationship sex” prevent the spreading of STDs?”

    “Because you only play in traffic on rare occasions.”

    >
    Doesn’t matter.

    For attractive people of either gender who restrict themselves to “relationship sex” with boyfriends/girlfriends only, by 26 they will have have an N of between 5-10.

    You brought up the chart that shows how when we have sex we are also having it with every person our sex partners ever had sex with too (disease probability-wise), then that means that attractive people who are all fishing in the same “relationship sex only” pond are exposing themselves to between 50-100 sex partner risks each!

    Holy moley pass the guacamole!

    “I’ve been thinking of you all weekend – don’t be freaked out. Here’s what I wonder. If you’re an Explorer, with a highly unrestricted sexuality, and you don’t want marriage, children, or possibly even a relationship, then why are you behaving in a sexually restricted fashion? This strikes me as incongruent – just from the other side of the fence.”

    >
    I can relate to Sassy. I’m an explorer in the sense of world travel and new (non-sexual) experiences. I never wanted kids but am open to the fact that I might change my mind – as of now, no. I am not unrestricted in my sexuality and neither has Sassy said that she was. However both of us know that other people are free to do what they want sexually with consenting partners even if we ourselves would not do that.

    There’s no reason why either of us need to express an “unrestricted sexuality” because of the above reasons.

    My libido is low and I think Sassy said her’s was high. Even when I went through a short period of a higher libido, I did not have unrestricted sex with other people. Why would or should I?

    So many other elements factor into whether or not we would have sex such as; relationship status, physical attraction, chemistry, shared values and interests, etc.

    Just because a woman has a high libido doesn’t mean she’s hot for every Tom, De’angelo and Harish that may cross her path.

  • Lokland

    @PJ

    “For attractive people of either gender who restrict themselves to “relationship sex” with boyfriends/girlfriends only, by 26 they will have have an N of between 5-10.”

    Most people are average,
    most average people are single (as you said hot people get what they want).

    HUS caters to single people.

    Conclusion:

    Shut up PJ.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “HUS caters to single people.”

    HUS caters to the readership which is largely comprised of “average single guys” who want “ATTRACTIVE single women”.

    Their fantasies, ideals and aspirations are caught up in the idea that they can get a girlfriend or wife at least 2 points higher than them on the Richter Scale of Looks.

    Maybe they can

    And, like most attractive American women, she would have had more “relationship sex” than these guys had.

    Don’t fight it.

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

      HUS caters to the readership which is largely comprised of “average single guys” who want “ATTRACTIVE single women”.

      False. Shut up PJ.

  • Lokland

    @PJ

    Most of the male regulars are married and/or players. No incels that I’m aware of.
    Most of the female regulars are married.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Most of the male regulars are married and/or players. No incels that I’m aware of.”

    Did I say anything about “incel”?

    Whether they are self-professed “players” or just regular “restricted” guys who are dating, I stand by what I say about the type of women they desire for relationships.

    The married guys too. Though if they are old and their wives were 7 + pretty when they married, the previous “relationship sex” N may be lower than today’s young women below 40.

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    I’ve been thinking of you all weekend – don’t be freaked out. Here’s what I wonder. If you’re an Explorer, with a highly unrestricted sexuality, and you don’t want marriage, children, or possibly even a relationship, then why are you behaving in a sexually restricted fashion? This strikes me as incongruent – just from the other side of the fence.

    I wouldn’t say that I have a highly unrestricted sexuality. I’m more likely in the middle, or somewhat closer towards the unrestricted tail of the curve. I have a high sex drive and I have adventurous sexual proclivities. Although I could satisfy those desires with casual sex, there are other aspects of casual sex that I find wanting.

    I like the idea of having one main person that I have sex with. I don’t want to continually find new partners, even though it would be easy for me to do so. It’s effort that I think would be better spent elsewhere, however. I also believe that the quality of sex had with one person is better than the quality of sex had with many. I can focus all my attention on learning how to please one person, and they would do the same for me. I could learn 1 sexual “roadmap” very well instead of learning many. The key for me would be to find someone that I feel sexually satisfied with. If I end up with someone who I don’t feel sexually satisfied with, I know that I will be tempted to seek sex outside of the union.

    Although I understand that a risk always exists in catching STDs from sexual activities, I can limit the amount of risk by limiting my exposure to partners.

    Finally, I’m ambivalent about relationships overall. I very well may meet a man at some point who makes the prospect of “settling down” seem worth it. If I meet that person, I don’t think I would be too averse to a long-term relationship or marriage. I may be scared of commitment/relationships at the moment, but I don’t want to completely rule out the chance of meeting someone that inspires me to change my outlook.

  • Gin Martini

    PJ: “HUS caters to the readership which is largely comprised of “average single guys” who want “ATTRACTIVE single women”.”

    Funny, I thought HUS caters to above-avwrage young single women.

    Like SayWhaat, who despite being over 14, somehow doesn’t have the 10 boyfriends you posit she should have.

    PJ: “Their fantasies, ideals and aspirations are caught up in the idea that they can get a girlfriend or wife at least 2 points higher than them on the Richter Scale of Looks.”

    You’re just making shit up. Name one.

    Average men find average women plenty attractive enough for us.

  • Lokland

    @GM

    “You’re just making shit up. Name one.
    Average men find average women plenty attractive enough for us.”

    +1

    @PJ

    “Whether they are self-professed “players” or just regular “restricted” guys who are dating, I stand by what I say about the type of women they desire for relationships.”

    Yes and they have managed to secure commitment from such women.

    So either the women are average and you are wrong or HUS caters to only the above average.

  • doomwolf

    I’d happily go for an “average single female” GF. Bird in the hand & all that

  • purplesneakers

    Although I still read regularly, I don’t comment regularly anymore, and only occasionally will read the comments. But if it’s a “girl game” post, I will definitely read everything involved. Part of the reason for not reading everything else is that I don’t have the time when comment threads basically turn into a discussion of the outliers in the SMP. That’s great…. but I feel like there must be plenty of average people like me who would like more concrete advice about how to work on ourselves, meet someone, and nurture a relationship. I think the “25 politically incorrect ways to get a boyfriend” was one of my favorite posts ever. And the recent ‘tough talk on SMV’ was good, too, although I feel like it could have gotten into more concrete examples of what to do if you’ve maxed out on your SMV and you still feel like you have limited options.

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

      @Purplesneakers

      That’s great…. but I feel like there must be plenty of average people like me who would like more concrete advice about how to work on ourselves, meet someone, and nurture a relationship.

      I hear you – I have been focusing more on “how to” posts for young women, and will continue to do so. I still like to change things up, and you may not find that every post is to your liking.

  • Lokland

    “Part of the reason for not reading everything else is that I don’t have the time when comment threads basically turn into a discussion of the outliers in the SMP. That’s great…. but I feel like there must be plenty of average people like me who would like more concrete advice about how to work on ourselves, meet someone, and nurture a relationship.”

    Agreed.
    As a site dedicated to helping ‘everyone’ get into a relationship we spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing male sluts and why beautiful women are SOL.

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

      As a site dedicated to helping ‘everyone’ get into a relationship we spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing male sluts and why beautiful women are SOL.

      Funny, I would have said we spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing red pill issues that men are concerned with.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    Ginger Martian:
    “Like SayWhaat, who despite being over 14, somehow doesn’t have the 10 boyfriends you posit she should have.”

    > I never said EVERY female over 14. I said, the pretty ones, at least a 7, which is well above average looking. They do have at least 1 boyfriend every two years since the time they start to date. And how do you know SayWhaat has NOT had that? Or how do you know she’s at least a 7 for that matter?

    Plus, she comes from the same ethnic minority demographic in this country that I do and we tend to be even more restricted than other restricted Americans because our family cultures are different and more traditional and socially conservative. Not saying she is or isn’t, I don’t know. But she’s a member of a small ethnic minority here in the US and I didn’t really have that minority in mind when I was talking about the typical above average looking American female.

    “HUS caters to the readership which is largely comprised of “average single guys” who want “ATTRACTIVE single women”.

    Susan: “False. Shut up PJ.”

    > How is it false? All the male commenters here have expressed a desire for an attractive woman.

  • SayWhaat

    Plus, she comes from the same ethnic minority demographic in this country that I do and we tend to be even more restricted than other restricted Americans because our family cultures are different and more traditional and socially conservative.

    This is true. My parents got mad at me for wearing a sleeveless top in middle school.

    And how do you know SayWhaat has NOT had that? Or how do you know she’s at least a 7 for that matter?

    I am a New York 4, an Oklahoma 9 or 2 (depending on demographic), and a Martian 6.5.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “I am a New York 4, an Oklahoma 9 or 2 (depending on demographic), and a Martian 6.5.”

    Ha! Yeah, to Desi guys I’m a 4 or 5 but non-Desi mainstream American guys find me an exotic 7 (I think).
    The White Nationalists would consider me a 1.
    The Black Nationalists a 2, unless they are the ones that say Buddha and Krishna were Africans, then I might be a 5, but nowhere near “Nubian Queen” status.

    And in other countries (with non-Desis) I do OK as well.

  • Josie

    On the whole Alpha thing….I think I stated earlier that while unrestricted men may wants to hang out with other unrestricted men, it would be a bad idea when one settled down.

    Case in point…Kim Kardashian ( a hot slut) was friends with Kanye when she dated and later marry Kris Humphries. Both were alpha males, given that one was a basketball player and the other, a singer. Yet, Kanye was able to steal Kim away from Kris (so to speak).

    In this case, when a alpha male gets a girlfriend, he better be sure to get a new groups of friends who are beta or lower if he is dating a hot slut. Since the hot slut can get seduced by his friends.

  • Anacaona

    Case in point…Kim Kardashian ( a hot slut) was friends with Kanye when she dated and later marry Kris Humphries. Both were alpha males, given that one was a basketball player and the other, a singer. Yet, Kanye was able to steal Kim away from Kris (so to speak).
    I hope I’m not sinning by bad mouthing an innocent woman. But my take is that Kim as a smart whore that only picked Kris because the timing was good for a dream wedding, could only stand him for a few months and later took Kanye as a quick sperm donor for another rating breaking event “single motherhood”. This SNL skit kinds of sums it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jwlp5HAyYAg
    Had I mentioned that I hate reality TV? Oh I do so much…

  • Escoffier

    I have been to Las Vegas three times and never gambled a cent.

  • JP

    “I have been to Las Vegas three times and never gambled a cent.”

    I been to Atlantic City a few times.

    They were chaotic adventures, mostly involving becoming bored, driving all over the Northeast picking up friends, and then arriving in the casinos at around midnight.

    The last time I went, I called up one of my friends, told him to get on a plane, and then I picked him up at La Guardia. We made friends with some guy who was in hock to the casino about $15,000 and had been comped rooms and, since we had been up for about 22 hours, crashed in his room at about 4:00 a.m.

    Not much actual gambling was ever involved, though.

  • Hope

    Saywhaat, how’s it going? Are you feeling better lately?

    Sassy, I think much of your ambivalence towards relationships comes from your upbringing and childhood. I can somewhat relate since I have an absent father and a crazy mother. It’s not easy to get over that consternation, but perhaps you could make some female friends who have big families and see what the fuss is about. I know that’s what changed my outlook, when I observed actually happy marriages and families.

  • J

    Although, I gotta say the title of the blog is misleading, it’s not about hooking up smart, it’s about not hooking up at all

    This made me LOL. The usual criticism of this blog from its ‘spherian, “Christian,” and Trad Con critics is that there’s no such thing as “hooking up smart” and that Susan should be preaching abstinence. This is a middle ground blog about how to survive the hook-up culture and find a relationship.

  • Anacaona

    So yeah, HUS behavior, rather than straight unrestricted or straight restricted. I’m a hybrid.
    We have a lotto system in my country were we bet on numbers and we get like 100 times what we bet. There is something called ‘pale’ where you bet two numbers are going to be picked from the globe the same day and win 1000 times. I had played that like 7 times in my life and won 5. I only bet when I have a HUGE hint that I’m going to win. I probably had made relatively more money than the average gambler. ;)

    I have been to Las Vegas three times and never gambled a cent
    Prude! :P

    This is a middle ground blog about how to survive the hook-up culture and find a relationship.
    Hence why both sides hate it. Moderation is the enemy for every extreme.

  • J

    “Here’s another one – I once admitted in another thread that I struggled to keeping my eyes off the 13 year old babysitters’ impressive breasts. Susan tried dumping a pile of shame on me for that. That’s OK – I agree that middle aged men should not be ogling pubescent girls, which is why I try as hard as I can not to. Without that societal value I might have felt free to ogle away, causing that girl intense discomfort.”

    > I’ve wondered beforea dads of pubescent girls. Do they oogle their daughters? How do they deal with that attraction on a psychological level.

    Any dads here to weight in? How about moms?

    This is a hard one. I can fully understand a man’s propensity to ogle prettty young girls, especially those whose physical development is advanced for their age. A sex drive is a sex drive. OTOH, morality and civilization demand people sit on all sorts of urges since the damage that results from sexualizing people who look adult but who are still kids emotionally is great. I can tell you that even as a mother of boys, I am made uncomfortable by middle-aged women who tell me how hot my teenage sons are, even when I know there is no chance of that being acted on or that that they are “pimping” for daughters or nieces, etc. There is still something a little creepy about it.

    I was an early developer. I am certain this made my father uncomfortable as he became far less physically demonstrative as I developed. There was no more sitting on daddy’s lap once the boobs came. I recall feeling rejected at first and then really creeped out as it dawned on me that he was no doubt erecting that barrier as a bulwark against uncomfortable feelings he might experience as a result of contact with me. That made me both grateful and uncomfortable–grateful that he wasn’t the sort who’d molest his daughter, uncomfortable that something inside him or about me made him worry it was even a remote possibility.

    As to other men, he was extremely aware of my effect on them. He demanded modest dress and was very vigilent in policing the behavior of men around me. Walking down the street with him was like waling with a bodyguard. His facial expression alone was highly effective at shuttting sown the male gaze. While Susan might dump a pile of shame, my father always looked ready to pump a pile of whoop ass. Ever see the episode of The Sopranos where Meadow complains to Carmela that some minor Mafia thug makes a comment about Meadow having “cream on her face” from a pastry she was eating and Tony goes and beats the guy within an inch of his life? The threat of my father doing something like that always hung in the air.

  • J

    The management started hovering, lol. …. I started losing, of course,

    There was probably a relationship between those two events, BTW.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “As a site dedicated to helping ‘everyone’ get into a relationship we spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing male sluts and why beautiful women are SOL.

    Funny, I would have said we spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing red pill issues that men are concerned with.”

    Same thing.
    Just my monthly acknowledgment that HUS caters to the above average.

  • Anacaona

    Just my monthly acknowledgment that HUS caters to the above average.
    You know I think this idea that caters is a bit too conspiracy like. Susan opened a blog to discuss the current SMP, people started to aggregate and the blog evolved. Is more likely people with similar curiosity and interest found her blog and is also likely that the ones used to debate or that think better by bouncing out ideas with others comment more often than not. Thus is not so much catering is more like we are creating an environment fertile for certain types to comment and influence.

    Also what is your definition of above average?
    I agree with Susan that we have a lot good looking people here. But that is not the whole story. SOI shows that a very restricted 8 is as screw in this SMP as unrestricted 4. So even if we have good looking, educated people here that doesn’t mean they are above average when they go out and meet people.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ J,

    he was no doubt erecting that barrier as a bulwark against uncomfortable feelings the erection he might experience as a result of contact with me.

    Let’s not beat around the bush here. ;-)

  • mr. wavevector

    While Susan might dump a pile of shame, my father always looked ready to pump a pile of whoop ass.

    A good example of male/female complementary roles. Female emotional pressure plus male authority. Kids who have both are more likely to stay on the right path.

  • Lokland

    @Ana

    Its not a conspiracy to acknowledge that certain services cater to different socioeconomic levels.

    Ditto that for attractiveness.

    Similarly its unsurprising to find that someone who is LMC cannot shop at the same places (or in the same quantity) as the UMC person.

    Different services for different people based on what they have at their disposal.

    ————–

    As for above average, I meant merely in looks.
    As enjoyable as it is to discuss the restricted 8′s difficulty getting a relationship the restricted 5′s outnumber them by magnitudes.

  • Josie

    @J
    Ha…I think that I had been reading too many tabloids too!!! It is something one does for fun, but I am hoping that I risen above that by reading classic novels like Persuasion and Washington Square.

    Anyways, I think that no men and women wants a slut or cad as a friend. A slut might try to sleep with your boyfriend, whereas a cad will try to steal a beta guy’s girlfriend. I mean, it may be fun to hang out with a slut or cad, but in the long run, no one wants to be close friends with them.

    I am thinking about my guy friends, who are now having casual sex because of the heartbreak they endured. I think that for a young, beta guy, he now has to worry about his cute, average girlfriend being seduced by cads!!!

    In Susan’s previous post, average girls has a higher number than hot girls due to being approached more. It used to be that hot girls gets seduced by cads, but because of the hook up culture and slutty behaviors, now young beta guys has to worry if their cute girlfriend will be cheat on them with a cad.

    So even beta guys has no desires to be friends with cads.

  • Escoffier

    Just as at night, all cows are black, on the internet, everyone’s an 8.

    I think HUS does cater to an above average crowd but looks-wise, the strong probability is that we run the gamut. However, I think it safe to say that in terms of education and SES, this is Lake Wobegon.

  • Josie

    At the same time, I think that it is much more difficult for young men than for young, cute girls. In that an average girl just needs to be aware why hot guys are talking to them, thus hook up with beta guys or resists being seduced by cads. She still has the loving beta boyfriend.

    I think this blog helps a lot. Obviously, a cute girl can gets hot guy to sleeps with her, but a beta guy has to settled for a cute girl or must worship his hot girlfriend, but there is a still a possibility that they will be seduced.

  • Josie

    @ JP

    I guess we are all just lonely people looking for love, but had slept with too many cads/sluts that we had grown cynical.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    @ABDG

    My new favorite term is micro-aggression

    All of my micro-aggressions you extracted in your previous comment were in direct response to MACRO-aggressions by other commenters. You stop the macro-aggressions, I’ll happily stop the micr0-aggressions.

    @Wavevector and Sassy
    I don’t believe people should act “in accordance with their own values”. Values that every one makes up for themselves are no values at all. Values should be set by society to protect both the individual and the common good.
    I don’t think people should have unlimited freedom to pursue whatever sexual lives they want either. Sexual interactions are one of the bases of society, and society has an interest in regulating them. All societies do, and the more civilized ones tend to do more so than the primitive ones.
    The debate between cultural relativism and cultural absolutism is very old. Wavevector’s view is a prime example of absolutism. Sassy and I believe in relativism (as long as no other people are directly harmed). Sassy, you can’t defend the relativist perspective to an absolutist by arguing that everyone should live according to their values – they reject that concept in principle. You also can’t agree to disagree (the way relativists can amongst themselves) – in the relativists’worldview, there is room for the absolutists’ lifestyles; for absolutists, there is no room for relativists’ lifestyles (unless they conform to whatever their specific norms happen to be).
    That is the kind of existential right of unrestricted people as a minority who don’t conform to the restricted majority’s norms that I mentioned earlier, not some special privileges and protections.

    Having sex with an infected person whose condom breaks happens with regularity. People getting killed crossing the street does not.

    There were 33,000 traffic crashes-related death in 2010 in the US (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6215a1.htm). Compare that to 8,000 HIV-related deaths (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/aids-hiv.htm) + some 4,000 cervical cancer-related deaths (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FIB_STI_US.html), and you can easily argue that crossing the street plus riding in motor vehicles is far more dangerous than having sex. Just like seat belts make driving safer, condoms make sex safer. But each and every one of us takes a certain amount of risk by doing both.

    You also ignored HPV, which may be transmitted through contact with the thighs, trunk, abdomen, etc.

    I ignored HPV because it’s a complicated STI. Sassy argued my points, so no need to repeat all of it. Most people will get some type of HPV during their lifetimes, and many (most?) of those will get it from a romantic partner, not casual. And of course, there’s a vaccine for the 4 most problematic strains.

    As I stated earlier, kids drink to get courage for an act they know they will feel pressured to perform even though it makes them uncomfortable.

    That’s one major reason why they feel the need to get drunk. The other major reason is that they know they will be slut-shamed the next day for something that they WANTED to do, so they need alcohol to serve them as an excuse for why they hooked up.

    I would actually love to see a study on why all those people who say they hooked up because of alcohol (which can be as high as 50% among some samples) felt they needed alcohol – i.e. whether it’d be peer pressure or fear of slut-shaming that would come on top. Pls let me know if someone has done this already.

    Re condom usage, I believe many students cite having been drunk as a key reason for not using them. Binge drinking is largely an American college campus phenomenon, so that would explain the difference from Europe. The best way to reduce STIs is to reduce the amount of casual sex.

    I agree binge drinking is to blame for a lot of negative consequences of casual sex. But binge drinking is a cultural phenomenon and it can be changed much more easily than casual sex which is a universal phenomenon amongst the minority of unrestricted people. So in ABSTRACT, the best way to reduce STIs may be to reduce the amount of casual sex, but in PRACTICE, the most effective way would be to reduce binge drinking, increase safe sex skills, and teach people to own their sexuality (how say no to unwanted, say yes to wanted stuff).

    Claiming that kids don’t know how to use them is not credible – every freshman orientation includes sex ed information and the distribution of condoms. It’s not exactly rocket science.

    When I talk about teaching kids to use condoms I’m not talking about teaching them how to actually put a condom on a penis. What I’m talking about is teaching them skills to negotiate usage in various sexual situations, to say no to unprotected sex, to not have sex drunk (so that they don’t end up having unprotected sex), how to deal with shame about buying condoms or carrying them on them at all times, etc. That’s the kind of stuff that they need to learn and practice in sex ed, and the kind of stuff that only comprehensive, sex-positive sex ed can provide. Scaring the shit out of them by talking about only the negatives of sex is not gonna do much good (as study after study show about AOUM programs).

    At the micro level, perhaps, but hookup culture is prevalent and dominant at all campuses I’m aware of except BYU. Can you cite other schools where students do not vocalize displeasure at hookup culture?

    I can’t cite other schools because there has been no studies on pluralistic ignorance in other schools except that one school surveyed in Lambert et al (2003) that you cited, and Reiber & Garcia (2010). Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I’m not saying a hookup culture is not prevalent in most schools, I’m saying we don’t know if it is because we have don’t have data to claim that.

    I did not claim that hooking up is rampant.

    You claimed that there is less dating than hooking up going on; that a college woman had been on less than 1 date by the end of college. I provided data that that was not correct, at least in that one study that provided such a comparison. There, it seems, there’s just as much hooking up as dating going on.

    I’d like to see a much more robust curriculum addressing the consequences of sex, including:

    STD rates, how each disease is transmitted, and infection rates by gender
    oral sex risks
    anal sex risks
    the emotional distress and regret many young people feel after having casual sex
    the power of peer pressure
    common motives for having casual sex, most notably low self-esteem and short-term validation
    abstinence
    pregnancy
    the fertility timeline
    abortion
    adoption
    the poor outcomes for single mothers, as well as for their children
    the biological basis for the sexual double standard

    Here’s what I would like to see banned from sex ed curricula:

    providing information about practices such as fisting, SMBD, and any other variety of kink
    “how to” instruction related to sex practices, other than safety
    instruction, demonstration or distribution of any sex toy
    direct or tacit encouragement to explore bisexuality.

    I would include in sex ed all of the consequences you mention. I also agree they don’t need to teach how to for different sexual practices. However, I think it is paramount for programs to include:
    - information on the existence and definition of the many different types of sexualities (straight, gay, bi, trans, monogamous, poly, casual, romantic, etc), and explicitly present these as valid choices/desires for those who have them (as long as it’s done safely and without harming others)
    - resources for how to find more detailed information on less common forms of sexuality for the minority of kids who’d be interested in learning more;
    - encouragement to explore your sexuality, whatever that may be, and how to protect yourself and not to harm other people in the process
    - how to own your sexuality: i.e. how to, without shame, guilt, or fear, say yes to the things you want and say no to the things you don’t want;
    - the social stigma basis of the sexual double standard.

    To pretend that disease is not a real and present risk of casual sex is dishonest.

    I’m not doing either. The risk is real, and I am the first to acknowledge that. My point is that if you do it responsibly (and that is possible), the risk of getting STIs thru casual sex is decreased substantially to the point of being lower than the risk of getting STIs thru irresponsible relational sex.

    I understand that you choose to exhibit your sex life on your own blog, but here we don’t really keep one another posted on when we have sex. I find your repeated sharing of these details at HUS a bit repellent, to be honest.

    In the world I inhabit, sharing sex life info is the same as sharing info about, say, hosting this evening. Here, one is normal, the other one is repellent. Funny how those things work. Sure, I can spare you the details.

    SOI has a normal distribution more or less.

    I have been looking for that information for ages without any luck. Do you have a link you can share?

    Since no nationally representative studies have ever used the SOI or the SOI-R, we don’t have a definite answer on that question. Most studies come from college students, which are clearly not representative. The largest community-based study that has provided raw means and SDs was the German study that validated the SOI-R measure (Penke & Asendorpf, 2008). On the Behavior aspect, both sexes were skewed toward the restricted end (~2.7 on a 1 to 9 scale); on the Attitude aspect, men were skewed toward the unrestricted end (6.4), women were in the middle (5.4); on the Desire aspect – which I consider the most relevant for what people want regardless of environmental constraints – men were slightly skewed unrestricted (5.6), women were slightly skewed unrestricted (4.0).

    Of course there will always be some diversity of views – but 50 years after the Sexual Revolution, the “free love” movement has slowed and now appears to be chugging into reverse. I hope so.

    Actually, the way I see it, in the short-term, the pendulum swings back and forth, with the overall effect in the long-term moving slowly but surely in the more progressive end (and by that I don’t mean that everyone will be expected or pressured into promiscuity, but that promiscuity will become just another valid sexual lifestyle).
    The free love was followed by the AIDS scare and the religious right revival. Now that AIDS is almost just another chronic disease and the religious right is loosing its grip on society (I’m sure you’ve seen the numbers of the religiously unaffiliated being the fastest growing ‘religious’ group in America), free love is coming up again. All the movements toward open relationships, monogam-ish relationships, anti-slut-shaming etc, all of that says to me that while a segment of the population will always remain conservative, other bigger segments of the population are moving toward socially progressive values. I sure hope so. Only time will tell which one of us is correct.

    Anecdotally, the women I have known who did not want children did not enjoy being children, for a variety of reasons. One of my closest friends made this choice, which she explained as a fear and certainty that she could only produced genetically defective offspring.

    There are many reasons people today choose not to have kids. I think I’d make a great mom if I did have kids, but I don’t want them because I love my life the way it is and kids would seriously cramp my style. Evolutionarily, the choice to not reproduce may be strange, but we do many things today that did not make sense back in pre-historic times.

    Based on the findings of this study, I don’t think women are looking to “hang out” with sluts, even online. I don’t find her at all fascinating. In fact, this will piss her off, but I find her kind of sad. And I think of her poor parents.

    Piss me off? Haha, not in the least. People have had all sorts of opinions about me all my life, and will continue to do so. They don’t affect me or how I view myself at all. I’m not sure how my parents figure into any of this, but you’re free to feel sorry for them too.
    Re: the study – I’m sure you’re aware of the problems of generalizing. That study tested friendships among social science college students at one University. There are many (niche) environments where women like me can be accepted, cherished, and thrive. I have more friends (online and offline) than I have time for. I get emails every day from women (and men) from all over the world telling me my blog has empowered them to own their sexuality more. Some people need a blog like yours. Others need a blog like mine. People are different.

    I have been to Las Vegas three times and never gambled a cent.

    Me neither. I don’t gamble with money. I also don’t drive without a seat belt, don’t drive drunk (actually I don’t get drunk, period), I don’t have sex without condoms, I don’t rock climb without rope. There’s often this stereotype of promiscuous people as being reckless in general. I am a sensation seeker, but I’m not impulsive or reckless, I’m pretty smart about it.

    @Tim,

    Among women and feminists, there is an emerging double standard against men – that women who sleep around are empowered and liberated but men who do so are immature douchebags who have issues with intimacy and probably misogynistic.

    As a woman and a feminist, I disagree. I have the same standard for both sexes who sleep around: you’re fine as long oas you do it responsibly and safely for everyone involved. The kinds of unrestricted men I consider douchebags are those who lie to the women they sleep with (e.g., implying they want a relationship just to get laid), and those who hypocritically reject the unrestricted women they sleep with as unsuitable for LTR for the same thing that they themselves are: unrestricted. I have absolutely no issues with my moral male slut friends :)

    @Wavevector
    the nearest approximation of VP’s sexual behavior would be a female chimpanzee in permanent estrus, happily rutting with all available attractive males. A fully defoliated female chimp with a blog and a hormone disorder, perhaps.

    I don’t see the ‘female chimpanzee in permanent estrus, happily rutting with all available attractive males’ as derogatory, I find it amusing. I don’t have a hormone disorder though. I just got lucky: enough testosterone to give me high-libido; a DRD4 allele to give me a desire for novelty; great looks to allow me to get the most attractive men; low oxytocin to help me not get attached to my casual sex partners; and high intelligence to make smart choices about my risky behavior.

    @Josie,

    Most men and women had casual sex, because probably one of them were damages in some way. I certainly was, and my two friends who has casual sex were heartbroken because of their slutty ex girlfriends.

    People keep talking about the emotional consequences of casual sex. But everyone seems to forget that people are hurt by long-term relationships too – emotionally and physically, and given the depth of those emotions compared to those in casual sex, the consequences are more dire. As I mentioned before, there is currently no longitudinal research showing any negative long-term consequences of casual sex for psychological well-being.

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

      @VP

      Sassy and I believe in relativism (as long as no other people are directly harmed).

      How about indirectly harmed?

      I would actually love to see a study on why all those people who say they hooked up because of alcohol (which can be as high as 50% among some samples) felt they needed alcohol – i.e. whether it’d be peer pressure or fear of slut-shaming that would come on top. Pls let me know if someone has done this already.

      Hookup culture is not the same as peer pressure, as the woman may have no slutty friends and therefore experience no direct pressure. The cultural pressure, while indirect, is very effective in defining the hookup as the only route to a relationship, as discussed in Kate Bogle’s research.

      The other major reason is that they know they will be slut-shamed the next day for something that they WANTED to do, so they need alcohol to serve them as an excuse for why they hooked up.

      I don’t think it’s a fear of slut shaming by others, it’s the shame they feel themselves. Getting drunk before acting out allows a woman to disassociate herself from her choice the next day, e.g. “I’m still a good girl.” In addition, this is where a lot of false rape charges originate – the woman feels so ashamed of her own choice she can’t live with it, and comes to see the sex as non-consensual, even when that was not the case.

      Results:  Binge drinking was reported by 30% of women and 42% of men. Gender differences were found in rates of receptive anal sex which increased linearly with increased alcohol use among women but did not differ among men. Within gender analyses showed that women binge drinkers engaged in anal sex at more than twice the rate of women who drank alcohol without binges (33.3% vs. 15.9%; p < 0.05) and 3 times the rate of women who abstained from alcohol (11.1%; p < 0.05). Having multiple sex partners was more than twice as common among women binge drinkers than women abstainers (40.5% vs. 16.8%; p < 0.05). Gonorrhea was nearly 5 times higher among women binge drinkers compared to women abstainers (10.6% vs. 2.2%; p < 0.05). The association between binge drinking and sexual behaviors/gonorrhea remained after controlling for drug use. Among men, rates of risky sexual behaviors/STDs were high, but did not differ by alcohol use.

      http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2011/01/which-women-are-more-likely-to-have-anal-sex/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20bakadesuyo%20%28Barking%20up%20the%20wrong%20tree%29


      Vander Ven, an associate professor of sociology and anthropology at Ohio University, surveyed more than 400 students around the country from 2003 to 2009, conducted 25 interviews and did more than 100 hours of field research.

      His conclusion: The campus environment provides so much social support that even when students have bad experiences drinking, the help they get from friends afterward is seen as a positive.

      Researchers at the University of Washington-Seattle cite similar findings in a study of 500 students in the journal Psychology of Addictive Behaviors in May. Social benefits of drinking include a “boost of courage” and increased chattiness, they say, which outweigh negatives such as hangovers, fights or unwanted hookups.

      http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2011/08/College-drinking-is-liberating-and-a-good-excuse/50080738/1

      As many as 23% of women, and 7% of men report hooking up resulting in unwanted intercourse, and 78% of unwanted sexual encounters occurring during a hookup (Flack et al., 2007).

      While the mass media often promulgates the message of hookups freeing women from gender role stereotypes in an attempt to liberate them, the emotional toll of such behaviors is rarely explored. We have seen the image many times over. The morning after a one-night stand, many a female awakens glowing and with a perfectly tousled appeal. Yet, some research suggests otherwise. In addition to the higher risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections, or being the victim of sexual assault, for many, an unwanted sexual encounter results in a variety of stress responses, including numbing and avoidance responses and hyperarousal (Flack et al., 2007).

      …So what predicts a “hookup”? The jury is still out. Theories range from the individual to sociocultural influences. Social cognitive theories suggest the important role of shaping that takes place on multiple simultaneous levels; for many, a salient intimate relationship is modeled by parents’ relationships, whereas a college setting may provide an immediate social context, and messages from the mass media many encompass a larger socially dominant sphere that provide norms on sexual behavior (Fielder & Carey, 2010). When alcohol is added into the equation, a number of factors emerge as predicting high risk sexual behaviors, including sensation seeking, impulsivity, proneness toward social deviance, and the inability toward tolerating boredom (Gute & Eshbaugh, 2008).

      …In a fascinating study on hooking up and pluralistic ignorance, researchers showed that both men and women showed less comfort with the perceived norm of hooking up than they thought was experienced by same-sex peers. Both genders believed the other gender to be more comfortable with hooking up than either gender actually reported (Lambert, Kahn, & Apple, 2003). Thus it appears that ultimately, in the case of hooking up, the media’s portrayal is a far cry from reality. Instead, it is promoting harmful messages that are hazardous to the physical and mental well-being of the public.

      http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/millennial-media/201107/hookups-and-friends-benefits-is-everyone-really-just-doing-it

      Sex and Alcohol

      Almost 50% of unplanned sexual encounters are under the influence of alcohol.
      80% of first sexual experiences occur under the influence of alcohol.
      By senior year, 81% of students have had sex because they were drunk.
      College students who mix alcohol and sex report having more partners whom they know only “slightly” or “moderately.”
      Alcohol impairment often leads to: not knowing your partner; not having avcondom available; not using a condom; or not using it correctly.
      In two-thirds of unplanned pregnancies, the woman was intoxicated during sex.
      60% of STDs are transmitted when the partners are drunk.
      Drinking games are used on campuses as a way for males to deliberately get females drunk quickly, often for purposes for sex.
      90% of all sexual assaults occur under the influence of alcohol!

      http://www.stevenson.edu/SharedMedia/PDF/Wellness/college_sex_and_alcohol.pdf

      Amidst efforts to confront the “hook-up culture” on college campuses and educate students on the dangers of mixing booze and sex, college students are often not given enough credit for taking care of their friends and preventing them from making risky choices, the authors of the study found.
      “Our research suggests that the claim that college students routinely engage in risky sexual behavior while intoxicated may be exaggerated,” said Linda C. Lederman in a statement. She is a dean at Arizona State University and one of the authors.

      The researchers surveyed 141 undergraduate students, asking them hypothetical questions and offering them low- , moderate- and high-risk options. For a question about letting a friend, “Jane,” drunkenly leave the bar with a guy she just met:

      Just over 39% of students chose option “A. Try to persuade her not to go by reminding her she may regret it” (moderate risk option); 21.4% chose option “B. Wish Jane a fun time” (high risk option); and the remaining 39.3% chose option “C. Make sure Jane gets home safely” (low risk option).
      In discussions after the survey, students shared three strategies for persuading a female friend not to go home with a stranger, according to a news release about the research:

      Highlight the regret associated with that behavior.Participants said they would remind their friends about the negative health and social consequences associated with going home with someone. These include getting pregnant, developing a bad reputation and regretting their decision in the morning.Use trickery or deception. Students hold the belief that drunken friends can be easily distracted or exploited. To remove their friends from a risky situation, the participants said they would trick their friends by taking them to get food, or putting them into a cab to go home, instead of going to the male acquaintance’s place.Direct confrontation. To protect their friends from dangerous situations, the study participants said they would directly confront their friends. This includes specifically telling their friends that they need to leave, or physically removing them from the situation.
      The research was published in the article “Friends Don’t Let Jane Hook Up Drunk: A Qualitative Analysis of Participation in a Simulation of College Drinking-Related Decisions,” in the most recent volume of the Communication Education academic journal.

      Traditional-age students at four-year colleges who engage in binge drinking are no likelier to have sex than are their peers who do not — but they are more likely to have sex with multiple partners, both protected and unprotected

      http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/05/04/qt

      You claimed that there is less dating than hooking up going on; that a college woman had been on less than 1 date by the end of college. I provided data that that was not correct, at least in that one study that provided such a comparison. There, it seems, there’s just as much hooking up as dating going on.

      I’ve said repeatedly that penetrative hookups are only practiced regularly by a small percentage of the population – probably 10-15%. Dating is unusual. The problem is that students perceive they can’t get a relationship without physical intimacy prior to emotional intimacy. The vast majority of students would prefer a much stronger dating culture:

      A new study by psychologists at James Madison University found — not surprisingly — that college students hooked up almost twice as often as they went on actual dates. The perplexing part? The majority of students from both genders said that given the choice, they preferred traditional dating.

      All things being equal, 95 percent of female students said they would choose dating over hooking up, and 77.5 percent of men said the same.

      So, uh, why don’t they just date?

      Arnie Kahn, one of three co-authors of the study, which grew out of undergraduate student Carolyn Bradshaw’s thesis, says it comes down to something called “pluralistic ignorance.” Essentially: Everybody’s doing it, so it must be good.

      One of Kahn’s previous studies on the topic found that both men and women overestimated the degree to which the opposite gender enjoyed hooking up — described in this study as “a sexual encounter, usually lasting only one night, between people who are strangers or brief acquaintances.”

      Furthermore, students overestimated how much members of their own gender liked hooking up. “Because everybody else is hooking up you assume that they do it because they like it. Whereas you know that you don’t like it that much, but you do it to go along,” Kahn explains. “College students are very conformist.”

      The new study, published in March, also helps explain why hooking up has become so prevalent. Trying to actually date seems too risky — put yourself out there, and you might get hurt. “Men talk most about rejection,” Kahn says. “When you’re hooking up you’re not going to get rejected, ’cause you’re probably wasted anyway.” (Previous studies have shown that most hookups are preceded by alcohol consumption.)

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/07/AR2010050702755.html

      In the world I inhabit, sharing sex life info is the same as sharing info about, say, hosting this evening. Here, one is normal, the other one is repellent. Funny how those things work.

      Really? So you share details of your sex life with say, the supermarket cashier? The mom with her toddler ahead of you in line at a restaurant? The clerk at your local DMV?

      Do you feel it is your right to inflict that information in a polite society that rejects sharing that information with strangers and considers it an unwelcome imposition?

      As I mentioned before, there is currently no longitudinal research showing any negative long-term consequences of casual sex for psychological well-being.

      I’m sure that for those women wired for short-term mating, whether it be via prenatal exposure to androgens, personality traits such as low conscientiousness and low agreeableness, or even the DRD4 mutation, casual sex is a rewarding lifestyle. It is in everyone’s best interest if those women mate with like-minded partners. High SOI types belong together!

      As I see it, inauthentic or incongruent behavior is what is problematic. My aim is to empower women who don’t want a casual sex lifestyle to resist participating in it. Just say no to casual sex. Since that accounts for most women, the message is finding a warm reception.

  • Josie

    @Susan

    I just finished reading Washington Square a few days ago, and being a bored young woman who is staying with my parent while I look for a job, I have been reading Madame Bovary. (as you suggested)

    Emma had gotten married to Charles Bovary and now they are living in a small town and she gave birth to her daughter, Bertie. She is extremely bored, and wants more passion in her life. She is under the illusion that Leon, the pharmacist’s assistance is in love with her since he is attractive whereas her husband is growing old and fat. She is also disappointed Charles failed to make as much money as she expects him to.

    I think that it is really cool so Austin, James, and Flaubert all lives in the same era and so can relate to each other.

    Anyways, I came to one conclusion, I think that Anne Eliot, Catherine Sloper, and Emma Bovary all needs a special someone in their lives:

    Aunt Susan Walsh!!!

    Susan, how would you advised these young women when it comes to love?

    Would you advise Anne to married Captain Wentworth, despite how Lady Russel feels or is 19 too young to be married?

    Would you tell Catherine Sloper that she should give Morris Townsend a second chance, even though he jilted her after she informs him of her disinheritance or is it better for her to stay a cynical spinster.

    When she was being courted by Townsend, would you tell her to be more cautious about his motives or you tell her that he is after her money?

    Would discourage Emma from having an affair just because she is bored with married life? Would you tell her the truth about the world, so that she stays faithful to a man that loves her?

  • Josie

    I am sorry, I am only asking you this because I held you in great esteem and respects your opinions. Or maybe I have been reading too many novels written during Victorian Era.

    @Mr. Wavevector and J

    I think that it is great how your father protected you!!! I think that while all men may be attracted to young women, especially after one hits puberty, most men avoids or refused to act on their lust because they have a daughter they love and care about.

    Also, because it is illegal and against social norms, since no one wants their own daughters being used by an older man.

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

      @Josie

      I am sorry, I am only asking you this because I held you in great esteem and respects your opinions. Or maybe I have been reading too many novels written during Victorian Era.

      I would never tinker with great literature. :)

      And I can’t begin to rewrite those choices because I am not of that time.

      Today a young woman would be less likely to let a Lady Russell force her to reject a marriage proposal on the grounds that the man was not wealthy, and far less likely to consider marriage at 19.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    @Wavevector

    I don’t see the ‘female chimpanzee in permanent estrus, happily rutting with all available attractive males’ as derogatory, I find it amusing. I don’t have a hormone disorder though. I just got lucky: enough testosterone to give me high-libido; a DRD4 allele to give me a desire for novelty; great looks to allow me to get the most attractive men; low oxytocin to help me not get attached to my casual sex partners; and high intelligence to make smart choices about my risky behavior.

    I forgot one key thing that makes me lucky, especially in the light of the study that started this trend: an extremely stable sense of high self-esteem which allows me to not give a fuck about what others think about me.

  • J

    @Wave #441

    EEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Dude, sometimes there’s a compelling reason to beat around the bush. I’m pretty widely known both IRL and on the net for saying what I mean, but I really did not want to go THERE.

  • http://perverticallyvirtuous.wordpress.com/ Virtuous Pervert

    @ Susan Walsh

    She has also ridiculed others for having an agenda, while she acknowledges having one herself. Personally, I don’t understand what’s bad about having an agenda. That’s how we foster change. Being dishonest to further your agenda is another matter.

    I haven’t ridiculed others for having an agenda (I also don’t think that’s a bad thing necessarily), I’ve ridiculed them for falling easy prey to confirmation bias that suits their agenda (like you did with the mean # of dates) or for requiring less stringent criteria for the evidence that furthers their agenda than for the opposing evidence (like you did with citing old data to support pluralistic ignorance, but dismissing my old data to support AOUM).

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

      I’ve ridiculed them for falling easy prey to confirmation bias that suits their agenda (like you did with the mean # of dates) or for requiring less stringent criteria for the evidence that furthers their agenda than for the opposing evidence (like you did with citing old data to support pluralistic ignorance, but dismissing my old data to support AOUM).

      You’ve either done a great deal of cherry picking yourself, or are naive/ignorant about life on college campuses today. Dishonest or failed understanding, take your pick. I get the sense it’s the latter, which is just so strange. Perhaps it is the result of living in a sort of cocoon that you call your niche, IDK.

  • Escoffier

    “I believe in relativism (as long as no other people are directly harmed).”

    An obviously contradictory statement that takes about 10 seconds to refute (not that the refutation will be accepted).

  • Josie

    @Susan,

    sorry…you don’t have to answer, because I think I already know the answer…I think I just need to start a book club..sorry, this is your blog…

    anyways, casual sex does much more damages then relationship sex. Most people starts hooking up because they got hurt in a relationship, but after a while, they prefer the comfort of one person.

    I guess casual sex just gets boring after a while….because men constantly needs to approached and women often feels used…of course there are those that are wired for casual sex, and they should be able to do what they please.

  • Josie

    Most of my female friends and I felt that it was fun at first, but many of us agrees that we felt more used than pleasurable. We decided that we prefers the comfort of knowing that we are making love, instead of having sex.

    Even some of my guy friends who has casual sex admits that they do want a girlfriend, but she must be quality, restricted girl who is both pretty and unlikely to be easily seduced by other cads.

    I think that the hook up culture just makes it difficult for anyone who wants a relationship…

  • Lokland

    “There were 33,000 traffic crashes-related death in 2010 in the US (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6215a1.htm). Compare that to 8,000 HIV-related deaths (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/aids-hiv.htm) + some 4,000 cervical cancer-related deaths ”

    This comparison is ridiculous.

    First, you need to control for the number of people who drive and/or ride in a car over a given year as opposed to the number of people who actually have sex. (The second set will be much, much, much lower than the first.)

    Second, you need to somehow equilibrate the risk of how much driving is done as opposed to the number of sex partners one has (which is nearly impossible) as the longer one drives the higher the likelihood of getting into an accident. Whereas the longer one has sex has no increased risk of an STI ig ones partner does not have an STI.

    Similarly you would need to somehow equalize the effect of multiple partners as opposed to individual partners.

    ——

    Conclusion: The two are completely incompatible due to both the differences in how risk accumulates and the number of individuals partaking in each.

    Note: You compared absolute differences instead of relative ones which is the problem. Must compare relative rates not absolute numbers if there are differences in the level of occurrence between the two populations.

  • Lokland

    @Esc

    “Just as at night, all cows are black, on the internet, everyone’s an 8.

    I think HUS does cater to an above average crowd but looks-wise, the strong probability is that we run the gamut. However, I think it safe to say that in terms of education and SES, this is Lake Wobegon.”

    Yes, I suspect this.
    Too bad because it obfuscates the advice a person requires and what they need to do to get the desired result.

    An SMV 5 man/woman giving requirements and saying they are an SMV 8 distorts market expectations for the kids who don’t know any better.
    A similar problem occurs in reverse but that is not a common occurrence.

  • Escoffier

    Josie:

    Had Anne married Wentworth at first, she would have missed a decade of pain, which is good. However, Austen also hints that Wentworth might not have had quite as success had he married young. Not that Austen was against marrying young, but remember that Wentworth had no fortune. For a “settled man” in Austen’s world, getting married young is good. For one who needs to make his way, perhaps not. Cuts both ways in this case. The book is rather complicated.

    The other two books are far simpler. Emma and Charles are both twits. Charles is perhaps stupider, but Emma’s character is rotten to the core.

    Washington Square is rather a weak book, a rewrite in the essentials of the Lily Dale story in Small House and Last Chronicle.

  • SayWhaat

    Hi Hope! I’m fine, I just felt it best to concentrate more on my real life for a bit (things are super-busy). Hope Aidan’s doing well! :)

  • mr. wavevector

    @ J,

    @Wave #441

    EEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ROFL

    You can’t give guys a setup for a gross out joke that good and not expect one of us to take it ;-)

  • J

    But, dude, you don’t realize how hard it is for me to be delicate, how hard I tried and how close I was to succeeding……..

    That may not happen again in our life times; it’s like missing Haley’s comet.

  • J

    @Hope

    Speaking of Aidan, I do believe you owe the commentariat some new pics. ;-)

    It’s been a while.

  • Hope

    SayWhaat, glad to hear that you’re doing well. No news on the romance front?

    J, my normal computer is in the shop for a while, so I don’t have all the new photos. I can email you my site though (using the email address you left on my blog).

  • Abbot

    “Getting drunk before acting out allows a woman to disassociate herself from her choice the next day”

    Could it be that women need to know men much longer before exposing themselves sexually and therefore have fear of what still is a stranger?

  • Gin Martini

    I, for one, have sex with third parties so I can drink without shame. I’m tired of VP’s booze-negativism, and my drinking has hurt nobody but my own hungover head, easily fixable with an ibuprofen and fried bacon.

  • SayWhaat

    SayWhaat, glad to hear that you’re doing well. No news on the romance front?

    Eh, not really, lol.

  • purplesneakers

    I hear you – I have been focusing more on “how to” posts for young women, and will continue to do so. I still like to change things up, and you may not find that every post is to your liking.

    Of course. :) I’m looking forward to the posts about Matthew Hussey’s book actually, since your post about it inspired me to buy it and start reading it on my commute. I have some thoughts about it that I’ll post over in that thread soon.

  • J

    @Hope,

    I have a better email account; please email Susan for that address.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Sassy

    Not sure if you’re following the rest of the conversation here or not, but I skimmed it and it more or less summed up my viewpoint and the viewpoint of the social conservatives: There ain’t no such thing as an action that affects only yourself.

    Society may well be an ocean and your actions may just be a drop, but all oceans are nothing but a series of drops. Everything we do has some impact on setting the standards for the culture around us.

    This apparently isn’t controversial when we are talking about, say, the influence of porn, and how it might be negative by causing young people to try aggressive anal or something. Some people apparently do get pissy when we say “hey, your casual sex standards are causing everyone else to act like a dumbass.”

    Not you specifically, but you get the point, I’m sure.

    We’re also used to getting mocked by social liberals, often violently. We’re pretty used to it. Doesn’t affect us much. :P

    @ VP

    All of my micro-aggressions you extracted in your previous comment were in direct response to MACRO-aggressions by other commenters. You stop the macro-aggressions, I’ll happily stop the micr0-aggressions.

    The micro-aggression comment wasn’t about you. Was actually something I was linked to from another manosphere blog, as Anacona correctly guessed. Poor girl dressed up as a sexy star trek lieutenant or something, and was having a bunch of “micro-aggressions” against her.
    But.
    At least you can admit you are having some aggressive commentary here ;)

    The thing about micro-aggressions is that they are still aggressive behavior, they are just given the cloak of “civility.” That’s why ‘dem Jezzies get so pissed at them, because no one is OPENLY attacking them, but they still get all these micro-aggressions.

    To which I say poo-poo, you cannot go out in the world and expect everyone to kow-tow. It’s different on a blog, which is not public property. Jezebel has all the right they want to regulate micro-aggressions at Jezebel, and none at all in the real world.

  • Escoffier

    “Was actually something I was linked to from another manosphere blog, as Anacona correctly guessed. Poor girl dressed up as a sexy star trek lieutenant or something, and was having a bunch of “micro-aggressions” against her.”

    Hmmmm … sounds familiar … link?

  • Anacaona

    This apparently isn’t controversial when we are talking about, say, the influence of porn, and how it might be negative by causing young people to try aggressive anal or something. Some people apparently do get pissy when we say “hey, your casual sex standards are causing everyone else to act like a dumbass.”
    The green movement is based on the concept of one person polluting the planet is one person too much. So yeah…

  • mr. wavevector
  • Pingback: Sex Science Info: From Academic Journals to the Media | The Sexy Science of Sex

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

      Ha, the study’s author (a feminist, remember) linked to HUS with this comment:

      The Sex-Negative Blogs

      Those who want to force everyone to conform to the traditional idea of acceptable sexuality took the study as evidence that women should really not be promiscuous. They are using the results to scare women who would like to be promiscuous into not being promiscuous so as to avoid social rejection. According to these people, shunning promiscuous women should be done every chance you get so that they mend their ways. Also, according to them, the sexual double standard is immutable, so no matter what we do, promiscuous women will always be shamed and discriminated against by friends and partners; hence, they shouldn’t be promiscuous.

      If you can wade through the misogyny and conservative ideology, knock yourselves out.

      And she thinks I’m misogynist, lol.

  • Emily

    When I read the title of the article I rolled my eyes (“Slut Shaming and Concern Trolling in Geek Culture”), but her costume isn’t bad at all. I wouldn’t have much sympathy for a bimbo in a Slave Leia costume, but the Star Trek dress is cute.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Not to mention a rather significant distortion of what we actually support…which she accuses US of, lol

  • Josie

    Since we are the topic of looks, what I want to know is:

    How did a beautiful woman like Adriana Lima remained a virgin until she got married at 27?

    How did average girls like Yessica Kumala managed to score a hottie like Josh Holloway? How did an average girl managed to score a husband like Matthew Fox?

    I am tired of hearing stories from women like Karen Owens and other girls sex escapades, I want to hear other stories like the two I listed above.

    Adriana is beautiful and probably was hounded by alpha dogs, and she eventually married a soccer player, so how did she stayed a virgin?

    How did average girls score hotties, like Holloway’s wife? I want to know her secret!!!

  • Abbot

    “The Sex-Negative Blogs”

    After all this time, here is what it actually means -

    Sex negative = harem negative
    Sex positive = harem positive

    Then it must follow, if a man is sex positive (whether he gets laid with ease or not) he will embrace anything and everything a woman decided to do sexually and be as open to loving her as a woman who barely got around.

  • Abbot

    “…took the study as evidence that women should really not be promiscuous.”

    So she gets the results back, reads them and just before hitting the publish-to-the-world button she does not consider that interpretation was a wee bit possible?

    .

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    How did average girls score hotties, like Holloway’s wife? I want to know her secret!!!

    Love goggles are worth a good 2-3 points, lol

  • Hope

    Josie “How did average girls score hotties, like Holloway’s wife? I want to know her secret!!!”

    Get the guy when he’s young and before he’s famous. Apparently Holloway met his wife 7 years before they married, a year before he landed his first role on Angel, and approximately 6 years before he hit it big with a major role on Lost.

    Also, make the first moves on the guy, and demonstrate, demonstrate, demonstrate (love, affection and single-minded dedication).

    Here’s a nice article about it:
    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Dec/04/il/FP512040330.html

    He apparently hasn’t, for instance, hired a good accountant. He pulls up to a gas station convenience store for food and drink and slips his bank card into an ATM only to find the account is tapped out. He asks to be spotted a few bucks. He hasn’t been going on extravagant spending sprees, he explains, just been too busy to deposit his “Lost” paychecks.

    He also shares details about how he met Kumala, 28, a native of Jakarta, Indonesia, seven years ago at L.A.’s Sunset Room (now the Cabana Club). “I tried to run, but when it’s undeniable, it’s undeniable,” he says with a laugh. “She gave me a slap on the shoulder, looked me up and down and said, ‘Give me your number before you leave.’ ”

    Yessie, as he calls her, came back a half-hour later and demanded his phone number but refused to give hers. “She had game,” he says.

    ‘STILL DATING’

    The morning after their first date, they were building sandcastles on the beach and planning their future. For their wedding on Kaua’i last October, they wrote what they call “realistic” vows. “There’s no ’till death do us part,’ because that doesn’t normally happen,” says Kumala, who sometimes calls her husband “Cornhusk,” for his long, golden-lit hair. “If it doesn’t work, we’ll love each other enough as human beings to release each other.”

    Holloway quickly adds: “But that’s our strength. We’re still dating.”

    They talk of their belated honeymoon in Alaska, driving across the state in an RV for 18 days of fishing, cooking under the stars — and gaining weight. Holloway put on 14 pounds. “Sawyer had a big belly,” jokes Kumala, who encouraged her husband to hire his first cardio trainer to kickbox off the pounds before “Lost” resumed for Season 2.

  • Escoffier

    That blogger is an idiot but she does look great in that uniform.

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

      That blogger is an idiot but she does look great in that uniform.

      Really? I think she has a horse face.

  • Escoffier

    With the addendum: minus the fake red hair. Mrs. E’s red mane is natural, so score one for my anti-feminist science officer.

  • Abbot

    “She prefers to provoke sympathy and empathy for the promiscuous women who are being shunned by their friends. If promiscuous women suffer emotionally for their behavior, the fault must lie in those who are “slut-shaming” them.”
    –Stuart Schneiderman

    The questions that never gets answered –

    Why are these feminists so acutely hellbent on coddling promiscuous women? The campaign of late has turned to berating dissenters and even garnering sympathy that stops just short of groveling to the public with tear-filled eyes.

    Why do feminists never, ever even hint at the possibility of suggesting that promiscuous women reevaluate their behaviors? All you here is – “she likes sex” “sex is natural and healthy” as if these feminists are a gaggle of vapid marionette puppets.

    Why are the men, the agents of female promiscuity, never mentioned? Are they merely props who are assumed to always be there; always ready and always willing?

    And of course, why sex? Why has sex overtaken and consumed feminist thought? Are they really just protecting their turf or access to all the most highly desirable men? Could it be all a ruse and really a matter of them hogging all the best penis for themselves and then use studies, rants and diatribes to get everyone else to accept so as to lessen their guilt?

  • JP

    “The campaign of late has turned to berating dissenters and even garnering sympathy that stops just short of groveling to the public with tear-filled eyes.”

    That’s because their feelings were hurt.

    :(

    They are simply sad.

    :(

    Mean people are saying mean things.

    :(

    Do you realize how hard life is? How much pain and suffering you experience? They don’t deserve meanness.

    :(

  • Abbot

    “They don’t deserve meanness.”
    =
    Being avoided for friendship today
    +
    Being avoided for matrimony later

    But rather than ask people nicely to change, she attacks with:

    “They are using the results to scare women who would like to be promiscuous into not being promiscuous so as to avoid social rejection.”

    This assumes -

    Women who are restlessly jonesing promiscuity will be developmentally stunted if they refrain from throwing themselves on all manner of penis.

    Such women are in any way concerned or care about what anyone else thinks.

    They need even more social acceptance beyond the wide audience of PA’s (promiscuity agents) always happily ready to take them out, placate their every whim and thoroughly massage their genitals. Repeatedly.

  • Escoffier

    Look down a little bit.

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

      Look down a little bit.

      Haha, yes, she has a nice figure. And beauty is only a lightswitch away.

  • Josie

    @ Hope

    I think that Mr. Holloway’s wife is cute. I give her a 6.7, but given his handsome face, his sexy body, and his wealth, he could had gotten a younger, more attractive woman. He is probably a 10, about ten years ago.

    He is either an 8 or a 9. He was at his peak when he was in Lost.