Matthew Hussey on Men and Commitment

June 6, 2013

HusseyI just finished reading Matthew Hussey’s Get the Guyand I have to say it’s about the best book on dating and relationships I’ve ever read. I’m not alone – his rating on Amazon is a 4.8 out of 5. I strongly encourage you to buy it here. 

(Speaking of ratings, he’s adorable – sort of a cross between Ryan Gosling and Daniel Radcliffe.)

He started out running bootcamps as a dating coach for men, and it’s clear from his writing he is well versed in Game. However, smart guy that he is, he flipped over to running bootcamps for women, and has coached something like 100,000 of us at this point. And he’s only 26!

This guy is all about Girl Game, and he makes a great deal of sense. I agree with him on almost everything – my only nitpick is that some of his conversation starters sound really cheesy, but maybe when girls approach guys what they say isn’t actually very important. :)

I’ll be writing on several topics in the book that I found particularly strong or interesting. Today I want to share his explanation on how men view commitment, because it closely parallels a lot of the writing I’ve done here on short-term relationship guys vs. long-term relationship guys, cads vs. dads, etc. 

Hussey describes two distinct kind of men, whom he names Mr. Bachelor and Mr. Relationship. No matter what you do on your end, a man’s willingness to commit depends on the emotions he associates with commitment. These emotions may have any number of sources, but it doesn’t really matter – every man is either Mr. Bachelor or Mr. Relationship. It’s hard-wired, or baked in, or something, and you have no control over this.

For Mr. Bachelor, the idea of “settling down” conjures up an image of a bored couple sitting at home on a Friday night watching soap operas, or spending all day Saturday doing household chores. Committing to a relationship looks like the end of all the fun. This perception is reinforced because every guy has a friend who [describes this life].

Essentially, Mr. Bachelor suffers from FOMO, and Hussey describes his preoccupation with chasing variety, adventure and excitement in his 20s, figuring he’ll settle down and bite the bullet when he reaches his 30s. Predictably, in his 30s he realizes he still hasn’t surfed in Thailand or hiked in Nepal. And there’s still so much poon to slay! He figures he’ll still have it going on in his 40s, he should enjoy life while he’s still young!

In contrast, Mr. Relationship experiences these same desires very differently.

Even though Mr. Relationship might miss and even grieve his single life, he understands without a doubt that his perfect woman makes his life much better than it was before. 

Mr. Relationship loves sexual variety, adventure and excitement as much as Mr. Bachelor does, but Mr. Relationship associates these aspects of life with being in a relationship. To Mr. Relationship, having a steady girlfriend, fiancée or wife means having fantastic sex, since having a committed partner means having regular sex with someone who knows his every quirk and turn-on.

He views the woman in his life as someone with whom he can share amazing adventures and experiences. With her, he experiences companionship and the joy of going through life with someone who understands him at the deepest level. To him, relationships are the ultimate pleasure…the single life equals boredom, loneliness, and awkward ONSs with the occasional girl who doesn’t really know what turns him on sexually.

Hussey describes how two men with the same history will reflect very differently on their single days. Mr. Bachelor remembers the poker parties, the occasional unexpected ONS with a stranger, the freedom of not having to explain himself to anyone. Mr. Relationship recalls the endless weekends of boredom when there were no chicks around, the bad sex followed by the unpleasant morning discovery of a hungover stranger in the bed. He likes having girl stuff around the apartment. 

Mr. Bachelor and Mr. Relationship both have the same needs: sexual satisfaction, adventure, excitement. It’s not as if Mr. Bachelor needs more sexual partners or Mr. Relationship needs more intimacy and connection. It’s not that one guy needs a more adventurous lifestyle while another craves a more domestic lifestyle. The only difference between Mr. Bachelor and Mr. Relationship is the emotions they associate with commitment.

Let’s discuss. Here are some questions to start us off:

1. Do all men have the same “needs?” We tend to describe men as universally horny and preoccupied with sex most of the time. Does Mr. Bachelor actually want or need sex more than Mr. Relationship does? Does Mr. Relationship want or need connection more?

2. The data clearly shows that single men have sex less frequently than married men. Does Mr. Bachelor forfeit frequency for novelty while Mr. Relationship forfeits novelty for frequency?

3. Can these needs be met in different ways? Hussey suggests variety can occur both within and outside relationships.

4. How do emotions play a role? Do these divergent outlooks correspond with pessimism and optimism? Or cynicism and hope? 

5. Is Mr. Bachelor a good bet for marriage when he reaches his 40s? Or can no woman hope to hold his attention and suppress his “wanderlust?”

6. Should women who want to marry ever date Mr. Bachelor? If so, why? If not, why not?

7. Is there an analogous divergence of women? Ms. Bachelorette vs. Ms. Relationship? Or Ms. Career vs. Ms. Family? If so, how do these different types of women recall their single days?

Talk to me in the Comments!

  • Escoffier

    “Does Mr. Bachelor actually want or need sex more than Mr. Relationship does? Does Mr. Relationship want or need connection more?”

    Possibly on the former, though I doubht it. Probably on the latter.

    As I have said, I think the desire for variety is biologically present in almost all men, but we do have it to varying degrees and also we respond to it differently. I think the bachelor not only feels it more strongly but other factors are also at work. Roissy makes this point: he likes the chase. Whereas relationship guy really dreads having to make approaches. Bachelor probably gets bored very quickly whereas RG, if he has chosen well, does not. (Though even a RG can get bored quickly if he has not chosen well. I had a couple of GFs whom I ditched quite quickly because there was just nothing there.)

    Re: 2, I don’t know that I would say RG forfeits novelty so much that novelty isn’t such a viable option for him. Now, that may be changing with game. But still, only a minority of men will ever be able to be players. RG likely knows he’s not one of them. Also, as much as he may theoretically enjoy variety, he also knows that he does not enjoy the hunt and may suffer from approach anxiety. So locking down one and staying with her makes a lot of sense and it’s not really “forfeiting” anything.

    Not sure what 3. means. Variety here I take to mean lotsa babes. You can’t have that without either playing or cheating. Unless it means “variety of bedroon experiences with the same person,” which is great, but that’s not the variety I thought we were talking about.

    4 could be argued in many different ways, not sure there is a pattern. Eg, the player could be cynical because of his view of women or he could be optimistic because he believes or knows that he can bang a new babe whenever he wants.

    5. Totally depends. I will say this, I know more players who settled down and are happy than players who are still playing at that age. So, they can.

    6. Only if he’s completely past that stage.

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

      Not sure what 3. means. Variety here I take to mean lotsa babes. You can’t have that without either playing or cheating. Unless it means “variety of bedroon experiences with the same person,” which is great, but that’s not the variety I thought we were talking about.

      Hussey says that men want sexual variety and that there are two routes to it:

      1. Sex with different people.

      2. Different sexual experiences with the same person.

      I found this interesting, because the sphere only allows for 1. Again, this may correlate to U vs. R.

      Hussey states that a man’s deepest desires and fantasies cannot be explored and fulfilled to maximum satisfaction without a deep connection. So the tradeoff is better, more “customized” sex for different bodies.

  • BuenaVista

    What does “FOMO” mean?

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

      What does “FOMO” mean?

      Fear of Missing Out

  • Anacaona

    *grabspopcorn*

  • http://davidvs.net/ davidvs

    *Takes a handful of popcorn.*

  • Anacaona

    @davidvs
    I hope that wasn’t from my bag. Who knows where that hand has been :P

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

      I hope that wasn’t from my bag. Who knows where that hand has been

      ROFL!

  • Escoffier

    I am not so sure about this. I think that it’s true that the best possible sex can only happen with a deep connection, at least that is true for me. But fantasies?

    So, I am not going to say what any of mine are, that would be kinda creepy, but suffice it to say that to the extent that they involve variety, then by definition they cannot be explored or fullfilled through a connection with one person.

    Regarding different experiences with the same person, there’s only so much one can do. I mean, I lack the anal fixation of today’s porn-raised generation, so no interest there. I don’t really have any interest in tying or being tied, either. Whips, nope. Kinkier stuff, definitely not. Perhaps I also lack imaginiation, but I don’t see a whole lot of avenues for “variety” in actualization.

    Variety of partners is another matter.

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

      So, I am not going to say what any of mine are, that would be kinda creepy, but suffice it to say that to the extent that they involve variety, then by definition they cannot be explored or fullfilled through a connection with one person.

      Are fantasies meant to be fulfilled? What purpose do they serve? They seem like an expression of the desire for sexual variety, but perhaps the experience of fantasizing (and masturbating or perhaps pretending your partner is someone else) is gratifying in its own right?

      In general, I think it’s dangerous to equate having a fantasy with having the desire to live it, much less the intent to carry it out.

      Obviously, a fantasy about one’s own partner is another matter.

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

      @Escoffier

      Come now, I’m already conjuring up activities for you involving food. ;)

  • Sassy6519

    Is there an analogous divergence of women? Ms. Bachelorette vs. Ms. Relationship?

    Yes. I consider myself a “Ms. Bachelorette”. Although I’ve been in relationships, I either feel trapped in them or begin to long for my single days while in them. My fondest memories are often tied to my single days.

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

      @Sassy

      Yes. I consider myself a “Ms. Bachelorette”. Although I’ve been in relationships, I either feel trapped in them or begin to long for my single days while in them. My fondest memories are often tied to my single days.

      Now you’ve surprised me! You are clearly very ambivalent and even appear confused about what you want. Getting to the heart of that is the key for you, I think.

  • Escoffier

    “Are fantasies meant to be fulfilled?”

    For me, definitley not. They are just things that sort of pop into my head unbidden. Some of them used to bother me but I have learned to live with them.

  • BuenaVista

    “… my only nitpick is that some of his conversation starters sound really cheesy, but maybe when girls approach guys what they say isn’t actually very important.”

    All a woman needs for an opener is a sincere “Hi. How’s your day going?” and a man with any social skills will handle it from there. It amazes me how few people, hoping for a brief conversation, struggle to make eye contact and say hello. But then I was one of them for all the years that I was a “good man”, so amazement is likely the wrong reaction.

    “No matter what you do on your end, a man’s willingness to commit depends on the emotions he associates with commitment.”

    This is true in my experience, as far as it goes. Where it doesn’t go, as summarized above, is in distinguishing a guy who might appear to be on the bachelor track, but in fact is merely a gunshy relationship-track man. I was drinking at Midway with a Marine and a soldier last week. Only the soldier had lost both of his legs below the knee; suffice to say, he was not outwardly on the hoorah track, but few men would be, and his cynicism belied what he was actually doing, which was attending a Sig Sauer seminar on a new weapon. The Marine just kept his thoughts to himself, other than saying that he no longer fought for the country that had sent him into the shit a few times and then changed its mind about winning. Men are more comfortable evaluating their situations on the basis of action being character, and character being fate.

    Bachelor-track behavior (I exclude PUA manifestations, which strike me as deranged) may simply be a defense against the void that is some prior experience of divorce and parental alienation. My example is probably my son, who is a child of precipitous and unexplained and unforeseen divorce, and consequently lives a lone wolf existence, with his books and his bikes and his mountains, riding 100 miles like other people drive to the 7-11, and writing of avalanches and sleeping in snow caves like the metro boys discuss the virtues of Nolita v. Williamsburg. His yearning is probably for what he had before it was taken away, in five minutes on a Sunday morning, but the risk of having it taken away a second time may cause him to appear the perfect bachelor, which he is not. Like my soldier friend, he may prefer avoidance and bluster to losing the rest of his limbs. He prefers, I’m sure, the fairness of an avalanche to the illogic of hypergamy. I do believe that there is a generation of young men out there who may not have gone their own way yet, and know all the cool spots in all the cool towns, but would prefer the personal defense of a bachelor ethic to revisiting a central, and unpleasant fact, of a previously exploded family relationship. I don’t think there were a lot of these young men when I came of age. Now I think they are everywhere. I meet them most every day.

  • Emily

    Hi Susan!

    If you haven’t seen this talk yet, you need to check it out:

    http://www.ted.com/talks/meg_jay_why_30_is_not_the_new_20.html

  • mr. wavevector

    The data clearly shows that single men have sex less frequently than married men. Does Mr. Bachelor forfeit frequency for novelty while Mr. Relationship forfeits novelty for frequency?

    Yes. But more importantly, Mr. Relationship forfeits novelty for a high quality relationship.

    Mr. Relationship loves sexual variety, adventure and excitement as much as Mr. Bachelor does

    No he doesn’t. He’s clearly sacrificing these things. There’s no way you can sugar coat that. But he makes these sacrifices for things he values more – sexual reliability, intimacy and emotional closeness.

    To Mr. Relationship, having a steady girlfriend, fiancée or wife means having fantastic sex, since having a committed partner means having regular sex with someone who knows his every quirk and turn-on.

    And that’s the sugar coating. I love having sex with my wife – it is sensuous and pleasurable and deeply emotionally satisfying. It is also regular and frequent and mutually orgasmic. But it lacks variety and novelty. And no, mrs. wavevector does not know my every quirk and turn-on. I know where her boundaries and comfort zones are, and I don’t push beyond them. But beyond them are where some of my quirks and turn-ons lie. And there they will lie forevermore, because I am not of the Dan Savage school of sexuality that says all quirks and kinks must be explored.

  • Escoffier

    wave, you can only “sacrifice” something if you have a reasonable prospect of attaining it. I don’t think that applies to most Relationship Guys.

  • mr. wavevector

    Are fantasies meant to be fulfilled? What purpose do they serve? They seem like an expression of the desire for sexual variety, but perhaps the experience of fantasizing (and masturbating or perhaps pretending your partner is someone else) is gratifying in its own right?

    Being Mr. Relationship means choosing to sacrifice sexual variety. That may be in the variety of women he has sex with, or the variety of sexual acts his wife is willing to perform. Fantasy is a way to scratch that itch, and can be very gratifying in its own right. Indeed, particularly when stimulated by porn, it can be much too gratifying to the point of killing desire and performance for real sex, as we’ve discussed before.

  • Jesse

    But it lacks variety and novelty.

    I would’ve thought that’s your job.

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

      But it lacks variety and novelty.

      I would’ve thought that’s your job.

      Ha, nice comeback from the pup!

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Escoffier,

    wave, you can only “sacrifice” something if you have a reasonable prospect of attaining it. I don’t think that applies to most Relationship Guys.

    I disagree. Most of us had variety before we committed, and many of us here have discussed opportunities we’ve had after we committed that we passed up.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Jesse,

    I would’ve thought that’s your job.

    Like I said, my wife has certain boundaries and comfort zones that I respect. I see it as my job to work within those so the experience is mutually enjoyable.

  • Escoffier

    Meaning what, though? If N>1, then a person has had variety. That’s achievable for the vast majority. What is not achievable is variety over the long haul, with regularity, more or less on demand.

    As Susan has noted, even “successful” players have to endure long dry spells. R-oriented guys have to endure more and longer.

    Beyond this, I remain surprised by all the claims of married guys being hit on, it never happens to me. And I am very tall, reasonably fit, full head of hair, very well dressed and (I’m told) can pass for five or even 10 years younger than I am. Perhaps Roissy is right, chicks can smell the beta.

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

      As Susan has noted, even “successful” players have to endure long dry spells. R-oriented guys have to endure more and longer.

      This is precisely what Hussey is arguing against. He’s saying that R guys don’t try for it because they’re not as interested in it.

      The research on the Dark Triad traits often notes the correlation between these traits and a higher number of sex partners. However, the media naturally assumes causation and leads with headlines like “Why Women Love Psychopaths.” However, the explanation for the correlation is that Dark Triad males don’t do monogamy – they’re always, always, pursuing new women, working it, cheating. They may have the same success rate as everyone else, but if they hit on 100 women a year, they may have sex with 5.

      It seems that motivation might be a factor here in the same way.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I’m only 26 and female mate competition is fierce, so it’s expected girls are going to be batting their eyes once in a while, Escof. Dunno about you…

    Do not think I could give up the sexual “variety.” I consider it one of the perks of being in a relationship, actually, I have someone to be kinky with. Sometimes it’s chocolate syrup, sometimes it’s a hot tub, sometimes it’s the women’s locker room, sometimes it’s a tent, sometimes it’s a playground, sometimes it’s 69, sometimes it’s writing porn stories, sometimes it’s picking up pictures, sometimes it’s strip tease night, sometimes it’s strip UNO, sometimes…

  • Escoffier

    I have played strip chess in the past but that’s pretty tame …

  • mr. wavevector

    Escoffier,

    Sacrificing variety for a faithful married man means he will never have sex with another woman never have a sexual experience that his wife won’t participate in. He will never go to N+1. Regularity or having sex on demand are beside the point – we’re talking eternity here, man. It’s a long time!

    I am perfectly happy making that compromise. But it’s ridiculous to try to gloss over the fact that a significant compromise is being made, as some of Hussey’s verbiage that Susan quoted seems to do.

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

      But it’s ridiculous to try to gloss over the fact that a significant compromise is being made, as some of Hussey’s verbiage that Susan quoted seems to do.

      I think he’s very good, but I admit the thought crossed my mind while reading that he is writing for a female audience, one that pays him to provide an upbeat and realistic game plan. There may be a certain amount of hope being sold here – at the expense of realism.

      I’m sure Hussey would acknowledge that even R men feel a certain loss when they agree to lifelong monogamy. And Bachelors may feel lonely at times, or even envious of their married friends. I don’t think he’s suggesting that either Mr. R or Mr. B gets everything they want in their chosen lifestyles.

      Interestingly, he does not tell women to seek out and date Mr. Relationship. He doesn’t even begin to address some of the political stuff we get into here like delaying marriage, fertility window, etc.

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    I’ve gotten laid more by my steady GF in the last month than i did my entire life of being single (or my marriage for that fact)

    Filter filter filter.

    Discuss sexual drives early on, what things you’re into (and not), and make sure you match. Great way to weed out incompatibilities and pump n dump setups.

    Mr. Relationship

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

      @M3

      I’ve gotten laid more by my steady GF in the last month than i did my entire life of being single (or my marriage for that fact)

      That’s the best Field Report we’ve had in a while! Congrats, that is such excellent news. I was just asking someone where you’ve been – so glad you stopped in!

  • Sassy6519

    @ Susan Walsh

    Now you’ve surprised me! You are clearly very ambivalent and even appear confused about what you want. Getting to the heart of that is the key for you, I think.

    Ambivalent is definitely the right word to describe it.

    As much as I like the idea of relationships/monogamy, there are parts of it that deter me from it, or even make me sabotage my relationships while I am in them. I worry about becoming bored with someone. I don’t necessarily like having to answer to somebody. I worry that I may not be completely satisfied with only one person sexually for the rest of my life. These issues are always nagging me in the back of my head whenever I start dating someone new, and it’s part of what makes me “jump ship” early from relationships.

    One of my biggest fears is getting married to someone that I ultimately will become unhappy with. I wouldn’t want to divorce them, since I know how devastating that can be for people, but I also wouldn’t want to be trapped in an unhappy union. I’m so picky because I am trying to avoid that, but my own pickiness does not seem to be enough. Even when I meet men that appear to meet all of my requirements, I still end up feeling like something is missing.

    Ambivalent is definitely the right word.

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    @ Escoff

    “Beyond this, I remain surprised by all the claims of married guys being hit on, it never happens to me. And I am very tall, reasonably fit, full head of hair, very well dressed and (I’m told) can pass for five or even 10 years younger than I am. Perhaps Roissy is right, chicks can smell the beta.”

    Do you innocently flirt with girls? You need to do something first to be noticed.. use Dannyfromthe504 game. That always works.

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

      Do you innocently flirt with girls? You need to do something first to be noticed.. use Dannyfromthe504 game. That always works.

      I do not want HUS to play any role in getting Escoffier to step out! Mrs. Escoff would never forgive me. Cease and desist!

  • Emily

    Congrats on the gf M3. :D

  • mr. wavevector

    @M3,

    Discuss sexual drives early on, what things you’re into (and not), and make sure you match.

    Given sexual dimorphism, the odds are that the man has a higher sex drive, is less restricted and has a higher appetite for novelty than his female partner. Sure, you can try to optimize your mate selection based on these factors but that would likely be a mistake. There are more important things to select for in a marriage. Get what you need, but don’t feel entitled to getting everything you want.

  • Sassy6519

    On a side note, I’m downloading a copy of Matthew Hussey’s book on my Nook right now. I figured I would check it out after your positive reviews Susan. :)

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

      @Sassy

      I’ll be interested to hear what you think of it! I took notes while reading it, so that I could return to a variety of concepts for discussion here.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Given sexual dimorphism, the odds are that the man has a higher sex drive”

    That depends on age.

    “is less restricted”

    I thought women had more oppurtunities, and took them, for sex then men in this culture?

    ” and has a higher appetite for novelty than his female partner. ”

    Novelty’s Tale

    Him: Honey can we have a three some?
    Her: Sure, when are you invited Mike, over?
    Him: Forget it.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Congrats M3! Find a sheath for that sword! ;)

  • Anacaona

    @M3
    Felicidades! :)

  • Fish

    First of all, surprisingly according to this definition I am totally Mr Relationship. Pretty much with everything, so I can’t really speak for Mr. bachelor.

    “2. The data clearly shows that single men have sex less frequently than married men. Does Mr. Bachelor forfeit frequency for novelty while Mr. Relationship forfeits novelty for frequency?” Pretty much

    I agree with everything Wavevector said in 17.

    Re: Variety
    I like sex, I’ve had a lot of it. Lots of variety. It has been my experience that even people who are awesome in bed have a few “go to” things that are staples. Maybe another Pareto breakdown here, 80% of the sex comes with minimal variety, that other 20% maybe novel or other. And, as long as your desires are compatible and you have good communication, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that (however those are 2 pretty big provisos). I don’t think you can ever have TRUE variety in a relationship. Theres nothing wrong with that. I love sushi. I could eat it every day and not get tired of it. I like other foods too, but given a choice, I will always pick sushi. Some people just aren’t wired that way and need a tall blonde one week and a short asian woman the next.

    Re: Mr bachelor & marriage
    I think we know the answer to this. Women should never marry Mr Bachelor because if he offers, he sees that his value is slipping. Its not from a genuine desire to be with the woman, its a good enough proposition. Nobody wants to be the one someone is just settling for. Eventually you will find out and it will wreck the relationship. Maybe I hold marriage to an unattainable standard, but I’d like to think that I would never marry someone where my first thought in the morning and last thought at night wasn’t “damn, my wife is awesome” not “man, if I was only 25 again, I could have nailed her and had a new chick by lunchtime”

    I think there is a segment of women who are not relationship seeking (generally career/school oriented) who might be perfectly fine to date Mr Bachelor. I do not think he is right for the segment of women looking for something substantial. . .

  • Fish

    And Re: sex in a relationship
    I can say that I probably had more sex this year in Feb & March than I did all of last year (great sex too), from being in a relationship with a chick.

    While sex in LTR does tail off, even at the lowest depths of my engagement, we still had sex 1-2x a week, which is more than I’m getting now as a single guy.

  • Escoffier

    wave, still not buying it.

    I think the sphere meme, which Susan appears to agree with, is mostly right: the majority of men who get married are not doing so lamenting the pussy they will never have–they pretty much know they weren’t going to get it anyway. Rather, they are locking down a steady, reliable supply of sex even if it’s one partner unto death.

    Not to rule out love as a motivation, of course.

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

      I think the sphere meme, which Susan appears to agree with, is mostly right: the majority of men who get married are not doing so lamenting the pussy they will never have–they pretty much know they weren’t going to get it anyway.

      I don’t agree with that, I’m not sure why you think this. See my comment above. It sounds like you’re claiming a massive Sour Grapes effect. I would be very distressed to hear that my husband married for this reason. Fortunately, I saw the evidence he did not, and he is very definitely a one woman man. So I think the sphere is off a bit here, but that’s expected, because the sphere hates a beta more than anything, and does not accept that a beta male could be loved by a quality woman and content in his life.

  • Anacaona

    I think the sphere meme, which Susan appears to agree with, is mostly right: the majority of men who get married are not doing so lamenting the pussy they will never have–they pretty much know they weren’t going to get it anyway. Rather, they are locking down a steady, reliable supply of sex even if it’s one partner unto death.
    I remember that in “How to marry the man of your choice” the author said that every woman hoping to get married have to fight their man’s harem whether imaginary or real.
    I do think this is a temperament issue and some men do think of their imaginary girlfriends as real possibilities. While others understand that if they were real they wouldn’t had given them the time of day.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Sometimes you meet a woman–or maybe this was the last century–with whom you crave a relationship, sex to follow. Even if it follows at some distance.
    This has been excavated as being repressed sexual longing. Or puppy love. But as one of Heinlein’s characters (If This Goes On) said, whatever it is, it hurts.
    For real. Sometimes guys really, really want a relationship with a particular woman. Problem with that is they don’t go any alpha, any dominance, any not-needy. So maybe it never, or almost never, ends in a relationship, unless it’s terribly unbalanced. Or perhaps they’re matched. Running down the probabilities here, toward most unlikely.
    But they do.

  • Escoffier

    M3, no, not really. I don’t think I will start either, no point in tempting fate, (leaving aside temperamental unsuitability), I am mostly just curious how this works for others.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Escoffier,

    wave, still not buying it.

    I think the sphere meme, which Susan appears to agree with, is mostly right: the majority of men who get married are not doing so lamenting the pussy they will never have–they pretty much know they weren’t going to get it anyway.

    I don’t know what the majority of men think of this. Another interesting topic for a study! I can only speak to my own experiences and other men I know well enough to talk of such things. Some of them would agree with your perspective, and some with mine.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    The beauty is now that people who want a steady supply of sex, love, home and family from a spouse and also some variety on the side, can now have both.

    Its called open marriage and more and more people are becoming open to it.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Fish:

    how would you characterize some of the go-to moves?

    Which ones did you like and which ones did you not?

    I think you are right, but I also think that this is because people settle into a sexual rut. Sometimes, they might be able to “switch-hit” and mix in some new moves? Maybe with just a little encouragement?

    Thoughts?

  • mr. wavevector
    As Susan has noted, even “successful” players have to endure long dry spells. R-oriented guys have to endure more and longer.

    This is precisely what Hussey is arguing against. He’s saying that R guys don’t try for it because they’re not as interested in it.

    I think there are three somewhat independent variables here:

    1) Do you desire a variety of sexual partners?

    2) Can you obtain a variety of sexual partners?

    3) Will you sacrifice a variety of sexual partners to have a good relationship with one woman?

    I answer yes to all three. That leaves me with an unsatisfied desire for a variety of sexual partners that I have good reasons to believe I could obtain. I’m OK with that. It is my decision and I’m happy with it, because what I gain in the relationship with my wife is so much more important.

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

      @mr. wv

      As usual, I sense that you are very similar to my husband, and our marriages have a similar dynamic.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Susan,

    I think he’s very good, but I admit the thought crossed my mind while reading that he is writing for a female audience, one that pays him to provide an upbeat and realistic game plan.

    That was my thought too. But it wouldn’t be prudent for him to reveal all the demons that those Mr. Relationships harbor. His lady customers would run off screaming. Even you have trouble facing those demons some times, Susan.

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

      Even you have trouble facing those demons some times, Susan.

      Very true, and I would not appreciate paying 18.95 to be served up some new ones!

  • Richard Aubrey

    Susan.

    You a soprano? Reason I ask is I’ve never seen you and Sissel in the same room.

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

      @Richard

      I’ll take that as a huge compliment!

      Her voice is lovely – she reminds me quite a bit of Joan Baez.

  • Jesse

    Like I said, my wife has certain boundaries and comfort zones that I respect. I see it as my job to work within those so the experience is mutually enjoyable.

    The way I see it, you either married 1) married a woman who’s not a great fit sexually, 1a) have uncommon sexual tastes (those two are related of course), or 2) you don’t have enough control in the relationship.

    One reason why I want to be in charge in the relationship is that exciting experiences are much easier to create if I can do whatever I want with her, whenever I want, wherever I want. I’m not interested in having to convene a meeting and hash out an agreement. I don’t want to have to ask.

    This will work because, apart from being an attractive enough and considerate enough partner, and the fact that I believe plenty of women would enjoy such an arrangement, I don’t have particularly strange tastes sexually. I like breasts, butts, thin waists, cute faces – just generally hot women. I also have an interest in younger girls, older women, multiple women, and ‘taboo’ women’, and I may end up experiencing all those things, but I’m quite confident none of them are the source of lasting pleasure. Having two girls kiss and lick your penis surely feels amazing, but it’s just that – you enjoy it and then you move on. It doesn’t really produce pleasure beyond the duration of the act, so I don’t think I’d feel the need to return to that well.

    The most extreme thing I’m interested in is ‘rape,’ or ravishment. Even that I don’t consider very awkward, because it just means forcing myself on my woman, overpowering her, pinning her down and having my way with her. It’s just a continuance of the male dominance theme that I’m fond of, and from what I read there are plenty of women who would be down for that with a loving partner, so it’s not something I feel the need to hide. (I also tend to believe there is a link between interpersonal dynamics and sexual chemistry, so I have some confidence that a woman I mesh really well with outside the bedroom will have compatible desires inside the bedroom. They’re not separate things.)

    Furthermore, as you can imagine ravishment is the kind of thing that you can really only do with someone you trust, so the full expression of my desire for male dominance is only possible in a committed relationship. You can’t fully own and have your way with a casual partner.

    I don’t seem to have a strong need for variety of partners. I would much rather have one very attractive girlfriend to have lots of sex with rather than many less attractive women, because then I get sexual pleasure plus the enjoyment of her company. I want sex plus love when we’re in bed together.

    In sum, I don’t doubt that I can have plenty of exciting sexual experiences with my wife. I just have to lead.

    Now that the digression into my tastes is over… to return to you, either you two aren’t as compatible as you’d like or you need to take charge more.

  • Anacaona

    And another single person that think they know everything about how a marriage should be without reflecting on the fact they are not married themselves. *facepalm*

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

      And another single person that think they know everything about how a marriage should be without reflecting on the fact they are not married themselves. *facepalm*

      I tried to find out Matthew Hussey’s relationship status – not that it matters if he’s advising women on male psychology. He shares a lot of personal dating experiences in the book. Clearly, at 26, with a TV career, he has not settled down yet. I suspect he’s Mr. Bachelor.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Jesse,

    The way I see it, you either married 1) married a woman who’s not a great fit sexually, 1a) have uncommon sexual tastes (those two are related of course), or 2) you don’t have enough control in the relationship.

    The way I see it I married a woman who’s not a perfect fit sexually but is still really good, and is a damn fine fit in many other ways.

    You seem to suffer the delusion that many women do – that you can “fix” your partner to your liking – except you call it “control” and “leading” instead of “fixing”. You can’t make someone what they’re not. You can lead her, but only as far as she’s willing to follow.

    Here’s the thing – you don’t get a perfect fit in a marriage. Ever. You find the best woman you can have and then you work on making the best relationship you can with her.

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    “I do not want HUS to play any role in getting Escoffier to step out! Mrs. Escoff would never forgive me. Cease and desist!”

    hehehe. i was just suggesting he keep his skills sharp so he can really get his wife’s juices flowin when he wants to really turn it on.

    i just draw chalk outlines on the ground for fun :P

  • Escoffier

    Susan, that’s not to say that married R men don’t love their wives, I assume they do, at least at the beginning (and hopefully “forever”). But they also have a realistic sense of their ability to be players.

    I could never have been a player. But supposing I had the right personality for it. Would I have tried it? Biology would have been like the little devil on the shoulder urging me to go for it. But I don’t have the personality for it hence I never even tried to go in that direction.

  • Escoffier

    “This is precisely what Hussey is arguing against. He’s saying that R guys don’t try for it because they’re not as interested in it.”

    I don’t think that’s right, not wholly, at least not in my case.

    I am, and am not, interested in it. I am interested in it on a biological base drive level. I am not interested because I know my personality is all wrong for it and it would not make me happy. I also rather enjoy my pair bond.

    Since I am not an idiot, I don’t have a lot of trouble getting my brain to rule my johnson. Hence, what low nature wants, high nature says, “Nope, I rule.”

  • Anacaona

    Since I am not an idiot, I don’t have a lot of trouble getting my brain to rule my johnson. Hence, what low nature wants, high nature says, “Nope, I rule.”
    My husband puts this way “Mr Happy is stupid,it cannot be let in charge” :P

  • Mike M.

    I think it’s more a matter of R-oriented men valuing affection as well as sex.

    I was participating in a discussion on another forum when the issue of attractiveness came up. With the usual Marilyn Monroe references. Viewed objectively, she was hot…but not uniquely so. But her on-screen persona radiated affection. A comfortable cuddle to go with the hot sex. And a lot of men want that balance, and will cheerfully trade sexual variety to get it.

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

      @Mike M.

      Affection – that’s a great point re the difference between casual sex and relationship sex. I don’t think Hussey mentions it, at least not in that way.

      It seems like the sex goddesses that radiate affection are the ones that tend toward the curvier body type. Even I would like a hug from those women. They seem feminine. The long, lean androgynous types don’t look like they’d offer much comfort or affection.

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    Appreciate the kind sentiments from all.

    “That’s the best Field Report we’ve had in a while! Congrats, that is such excellent news. I was just asking someone where you’ve been – so glad you stopped in!”

    The key here was filtering. I filtered very hard and ended up with someone who’s very much as someone once wrote ‘a winning hand’. No need to ask the dealer for another card looking for blackjack, this one is a winner.

    Of course, drive is crucial, and i think i found a unicorn, because her drive is higher than mine!! But i’ve taken care of business and she’s completely smitten with me. Stamina, control, reading body language, communication, and a tongue that won’t quit. M3 stands for something eh ;)

    And she doesn’t just adore me for my body, but also for my logical mind and whimsical deadpan humor. But i don’t mind when she objectifies me :P i encourage it.

    And we discussed sex early, long before we actually got down to it. Likes, dislikes, frequency, style, etc.. was a great way to see if we matched sexually. I’d advise all women during the escalation phase to speak openly about, instead of jumping into bed on date one and find out he’s a jackhammer. The better he can articulate what he enjoys/does/can do/is willing to try, how he’ll do it… the more you will glean about his ability, and whether he’s into instant self gratification or if he treats sex like an artform (as yours truly does). And it will let your mind wander in anticipation.

    As to my departure from the scene.. I was gone for quite a while because i needed to detox from the ‘sphere’. Everything i know i owe to it.. including your site. Our headbutts aside, your site still provides redpill wisdom, fights feminism, and is on the side of team civilization as vox would say. While i cannot condone marriage in the current legal context, i’m not going to throw women under a bus. I’m still MGTOW but do recognize there are good women out there.. just learn to filter for them only.

    But having stewed in the bowels of the sphere for so long i had to go away for a bit and stop reading about every inane and asinine thing that came up in my news feed and reader.

    If all you know is the ghetto, you think the world is shit. If you live in Vienna, you think the world is beautiful. There’s still a whole host full of problems for guys in the legal arena, and for game-less beta men whom i speak for and try to help. But now i don’t live in the sphere anymore, i only rent.

    I left the ghetto for a bit to see the rest of the world.

    And yes.. it is much nicer to know i have someone out there who actually cares about me and wants to see me this weekend so she can bang my brains out AND watch Star Trek with vs. going out to a club or bar to play heads or tails with flaking drama queens and one night stand emotionless empowered women who think MultiPenis(TM Abott) is a good thing.

  • Fish

    @Beta Guy
    I dated a girl who loved on top, literally broke my bed from bouncing (I have a split boxspring due to a stairwell in my old house), Ive dated women who loved oral, woman who were receptive to anal, different positions, sex is sex. My ex fiance, sex was always the same, a little foreplay, her on top till she got off, then doggy style till I got off. She is attractive and despite being pretty much the same every time, I would still give her a solid B. My most recent ex I would say was in my top 5, we only used about 5-6 positions, but we probably had sex 2-4x a day 2-3x a week. And we just had really good chemistry.

    I may just be someone who doesn’t require variety. I don’t really have any boxes left to check on my sexual bucket list (3sum etc), I know what I like. I’m basically looking for chemistry and shared sexual interests. I believe I can get that in a relationship with the right girl.

  • LouiseC

    It sounds like an interesting book, I’ll have to add it to my summer reading list.

    I think he has a point with everything depending on a person’s emotional response to commitment and I think it does apply to women as well. The fact that more women want relationships is probably because society primes us to want them and to associate them with good feelings (Disney doing its bit for marriage rates and wedding costs all over the world).

    Also I would never date, be in a relationship or marry Mr Bachelor and I would be very worried about any woman who did.

    This man feels negative about commitment, the thought of a relationship makes him unhappy. I’m sure that therapy or time could help that but it’s not your job to save him. You’d be happier in the long run if you go for someone with a healthier attitude.

    Leaving aside the insulting nature (he’s settling in the worst sense of the word and you don’t want to be with a man who thinks “you’ll do”), a man who thinks relationships are supposed to be bad isn’t going to work and to fight to make them good. Wanderlust can often just be another way of saying running away.

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

      @LouiseC

      Welcome, thanks for leaving a comment!

      I’ll agree that Disney is a huge cultural influence, for better and worse.

  • Anacaona

    Clearly, at 26, with a TV career, he has not settled down yet. I suspect he’s Mr. Bachelor.
    A younger BB! :P
    Also this is different is not saying how a marriage should be but how to filter for a LTR vs Pump and Dump.

  • Fish

    @Ana
    My brain sometimes gets veto power. . . sometimes. . . but I know who’s really in charge. Thankfully in matters of finance or anything with long term implications, little Fish does not get a say.

  • http://practicalpersuasion.wordpress.com Practical Persuasion

    “1. Do all men have the same “needs?” We tend to describe men as universally horny and preoccupied with sex most of the time. Does Mr. Bachelor actually want or need sex more than Mr. Relationship does? Does Mr. Relationship want or need connection more?”

    Men seem to have the same needs universally, at least on paper. But Mr. Bachelor’s traits might enable him to play with numbers: he’ll approach more women, he’ll go out more, he’ll go after women most men won’t (taken/married/models), or he’ll lower his standards. He’ll do whatever it takes. The variety of women you see him with is likely a result of this numbers game. Does that mean he wants sex more than Mr. Relationship? Who knows? It may only be that Mr. Bachelor seems to be working a lot harder for sex to someone who doesn’t share his psychological proclivities. Working harder for something doesn’t necessarily mean you want it more; it may mean that your process is inefficient. Mr. Relationship, on the other hand, is not as likely use those methods, so he seems like he is either getting laid less frequently, or that he wants relationships more than sex. He’s going after women he’s likely to have success with, women he knows, women who aren’t likely to reject him, women he’s studied carefully. The dry spells and lack of variety is probably a result of his method. Just looking at mens’ methods, it’s not really possible to determine who wants it more.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    Sir Wavevector:
    “But it wouldn’t be prudent for him to reveal all the demons that those Mr. Relationships harbor. His lady customers would run off screaming. Even you have trouble facing those demons some times, Susan.”

    > What demons? Rejection? Unrequited love? We’ve all experienced it. Get it over it already.

    Jesse James:
    “I also have an interest in younger girls, older women, multiple women, and ‘taboo’ women’”

    By taboo women do you mean transwomen?

  • Esau

    M3: “someone out there who actually cares about me and wants to see me this weekend so she can bang my brains out AND watch Star Trek with vs. going out to a club or bar to play heads or tails with flaking drama queens “

    This really sounds like an excellent exemplar for the “Seeking” part of a man’s personal ad. Very well put! though I guess the woman who can assent to it honestly is rather rare (so, congratulations would be in order).

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Very well put! though I guess the woman who can assent to it honestly is rather rare”

    Plenty of women like sci-fi.

  • Aiva Laz

    “This is precisely what Hussey is arguing against. He’s saying that R guys don’t try for it because they’re not as interested in it.”

    They do not try for it because they cannot do it and know they cannot do it, it is most likely. Many R guys would try to pick up more different women if they could. And below them is that strata of men that Susan – and all other bloggers like her – have never, never written about: the irrecoverable SMP dregs for whom N = 0 and always will unless they pay.

  • Gin Martini

    Sue: “I do not want HUS to play any role in getting Escoffier to step out! Mrs. Escoff would never forgive me. Cease and desist!”

    But if Esc is right, he has nothing to fear, for two reasons. One, married men never get hit on by women, and two, he has no interest in it, so the plausable deniability of flirting leaves an out and he can just turn down any overt advances.

    Clearly, if he is correct, then a bit of fun Danny-game would falsify neither premise. After all, a tall, smart, well-dressed man who can cook…

  • J
  • Gin Martini

    Heh, read that article as if One Night Stands are reporting it.

    Maybe people who are happy get married, not the other way around?

  • Man

    As I am supposed to be a “Bachelor” myself, I am entitled to make some comments.

    Even though Mr. Relationship might miss and even grieve his single life, he understands without a doubt that his perfect woman makes his life much better than it was before.

    Mr. Relationship loves sexual variety, adventure and excitement as much as Mr. Bachelor does, but Mr. Relationship associates these aspects of life with being in a relationship. To Mr. Relationship, having a steady girlfriend, fiancée or wife means having fantastic sex, since having a committed partner means having regular sex with someone who knows his every quirk and turn-on.

    He views the woman in his life as someone with whom he can share amazing adventures and experiences. With her, he experiences companionship and the joy of going through life with someone who understands him at the deepest level. To him, relationships are the ultimate pleasure…the single life equals boredom, loneliness, and awkward ONSs with the occasional girl who doesn’t really know what turns him on sexually.

    Perhaps I am reading something different between the lines, but it seems that he is suggesting that Mr. Relationship, if he exists in the first place, is really deluded. Or perhaps he writes to validate the desires of his female readers. Women very often view themselves as so special, desirable as being a great contribution and addition to a man’s life. He seems to be validating the desire of his readership while at the same time suggesting that Mr. Relationship is very deluded. Very smart indeed.

    I am yet to find a man who confirms this fantastical portrayal of Mr. Relationship’s life, including those who were lucky enough to marry a remarkable feminine woman. I know two of these lucky guys and they are actually just average “dad” guys.

    That said I sometimes informally coach girls whom I talk with and complain about not having a boyfriend. I usually try to make them understand that most men are just invisible to women, including them, and that if she’s willing to acknowledge that there are a lot of men around who might be interested in a relationship with her, she can easily get one. I also advise them to go to places where they can find regular guys, not those with luxury cars, clothes and over-confident ones who would sweep them off their feet, in clubs and bars. I also tell them that going to dancing balls is a good bet.

    Once they are able to let go of their superiority complex and start to acknowledge that, well, men do exist and that many of them are willing to commit to them, they quickly find a boyfriend. It’s really interesting, but the main hurdle a woman has to “get the guy” is to feel any interest or attraction for him in the first place and be willing to have a relationship with normal, average guys. Susan has already written about it here, indirectly: Choose Attraction.

    I just don’t know how to coach them about how to get me. :) Perhaps I am indeed the relationship guy dreaming with the “perfect” woman…

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

      @Man

      Interesting, Hussey’s description of Mr. Relationship is a pretty accurate reflection of several couples I know who have been married a long time. These happily married husbands are very satisfied in life, and have been heard to wonder in amazement how they ever snagged such a terrific woman. My husband regularly tells our kids he has no idea how he got so lucky. :)

      I wouldn’t say that the sex is always fantastic in LTRs, but it is generally regular, and it is far more likely to be fantastic than casual sex, precisely for the reason Hussey states – knowing your partner very well.

      Finally, re amazing adventures and experiences, I suspect, as I implied in the post, that Mr. Bachelor and Mr. Relationship define this very differently. For Mr. Bachelor, taking a kayak onto the Yangtze might be an exciting adventure. For Mr. Relationship, spending a week with the family on a dude ranch in Montana or skiing in the Rockies might be an exciting adventure.

  • Escoffier

    My wife and I bonded over Star Trek. We still do.

  • J

    Heh, read that article as if One Night Stands are reporting it.

    LOL. Me too.

  • Escoffier

    “One, married men never get hit on by women”

    I’m not saying it never happens, just that it never happens to me. So I wonder if its prevelance is exaggerated or if there is just something about me …

    I mean, I am in Manhattan surrounded by single women over 30 who, in the media meme, are desperate to get their hooks into someone, anyone, so …

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

      @Escoffier

      I’m not saying it never happens, just that it never happens to me. So I wonder if its prevelance is exaggerated or if there is just something about me …

      Yes there is something about you and it’s not your looks. I’ve told you numerous times that I think you’re very attractive. I don’t know what mr. wavevector looks like, but he describes himself as average looking, and he still has opportunities.

      Remember, you recently said that even when you were single, when women jumped your bones you freaked out, haha. I think you walk around with a huge blinking sign over your head that says, “Don’t even think of parking here.”

      M3 is right, you could try flirting and find yourself in a very different situation, but the truth is you’re not a natural flirt and don’t want to be.

      I recall Passer By sharing that he’d been hit on by junior lawyers in his firm – he noted that if he’d pursued it he could have given each of them a very memorable minute or two. :) And we know how he jokes around – of course his personality is the same at work. (Hopefully, he does some judicious editing.)

      On the spectrum of flirtatious behavior we have you on one end – oblivious to female attention and disturbed by your fantasies, and we have the “instill dread” sociopaths on the other end.

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    “My wife and I bonded over Star Trek. We still do.”

    Now that’s the truest essence of love.

    Live long and prosper Esc :)

  • J

    Congrats on the gf M3.

    Ditto. I’m glad you found someone!

  • Escoffier

    Susan was saying something earlier about kink or fantasies or what have you, well here’s one I can share, I think she (mine, that is) would look really hot in a female Lt. uniform circa 1966. I have been promised that this will happen Halloween 2013.

    An Orion slave girl would be nice but impractical.

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

      @Escoffier

      OK, now you’ve cast your fantasy. What’s the storyline? ;)

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    Important bits to me:

    “since having a committed partner means having regular sex with someone who knows his every quirk and turn-on.”

    and

    “To him, relationships are the ultimate pleasure…the single life equals boredom, loneliness, and awkward ONSs with the occasional girl who doesn’t really know what turns him on sexually.”

    This is huge for me. (And should be for women too?) Back in ‘the day’ when i was blazing a trail through the gentleman’s clubs, there was no end of having to deal with 1. preconceived notions of what i liked because all guys like X. 2. dealing with women who tried TOO hard or didn’t try AT ALL 3. women who were asking for me to do things i certainly wasn’t into or up for (anal or rough slapping violent sex) 4. having absolutely no clue as to what turned me on or/did not care to see what i responded to.

    As a giver, i’m always asking, always gauging body language and reactions and amplifying when i’ve hit the sweet spot. I care about my lovers needs. I do expect the same courtesy. I simply don’t see how it’s accomplished when sex becomes a detached, emotionless monkey sex robo fuckfest. But that’s just me. Perhaps that’s the Mr. Relationship in me, less sociopath tendencies, zero interest in self gratification, user sex.

    Perhaps this also applies more heavily on Introverts than Extroverts? Granted, us Int’s can occupy our time with whatever we fancy and can rarely be bored.. but in the context of coming home to an empty home without someone waiting for you with a smile on their face, and simply feeling the emptiness and having to think of something to do to allay boredom. An extrovert lives to find excitement, so boredom is a welcome feeling for him/her because it means it’s time to find another adventure. The bachelors life suits a high option Ent just fine, it’s in their DNA.

    I feel a lot of what he’s describing are the dispositions of Int’s and Ent’s wrt to how they view their options.

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

      I feel a lot of what he’s describing are the dispositions of Int’s and Ent’s wrt to how they view their options.

      I have the same sense. Promiscuity is strongly correlated to extraversion. That’s not surprising, as extraverts are far more likely to approach strangers, and far more likely to “own the room.” Both sexes are attracted to extraverts, especially for short-term mating. Personally, I’m glad I married an introvert, but part of that is the “opposites attract” thing.

  • JP

    “Yes. I consider myself a “Ms. Bachelorette”. Although I’ve been in relationships, I either feel trapped in them or begin to long for my single days while in them. My fondest memories are often tied to my single days.”

    You are three standard deviations from the norm.

    This means that we can say, with significant certainty, that you are not “the norm”.

    This is actually helpful because we can add it to our list of “things that are not the norm”.

    See how the exception that proves the rule works?

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Susan,

    As usual, I sense that you are very similar to my husband, and our marriages have a similar dynamic.

    Thank you. That’s quite a complement!

    Very true, and I would not appreciate paying 18.95 to be served up some new ones!

    Especially when you get it every day here for free.

  • mr. wavevector

    complement compliment

  • mr. wavevector

    @ J,

    From that article:

    “People are happiest in their youth and when they are older. Middle-aged people are the least happy because they have the most responsibility.”

    That explains us grumpy middle aged guys.

  • mr. wavevector

    I’m not saying it never happens, just that it never happens to me. So I wonder if its prevelance is exaggerated or if there is just something about me …

    I mean, I am in Manhattan surrounded by single women over 30 who, in the media meme, are desperate to get their hooks into someone, anyone, so …

    I suspect M3 was on the right path – that you don’t exhibit the signs of sexual interest that women who might be attracted to you respond to. The IOIs that a man makes are a reflection of his sexual interest and arousal in a woman, and may be unconscious or unconscious, deliberate or even consciously but unsuccessfully suppressed.

    Women are attuned to these signals of male sexual interest. If they find you attractive they may respond in kind. If they find you unattractive they will consider you creepy. If you don’t get this type of response from women, perhaps you don’t feel the attraction in the moment or are very good at concealing it.

    I think those of us who get this type of female attention are signalling interest first. Upon reflection I’m sure I do. Sometimes it’s been unconscious – I’m attracted but distracted so I am not thinking about my attraction. I’m not deliberately trying to perform “mating displays” but end up doing so anyway on instinct. Sometimes I am very aware of my attraction and am trying my best to conceal it, but I don’t think I’m very good at concealing my emotions so my attraction is probably apparent despite my efforts. If the woman finds me attractive too, my behavior may spur her to escalate emotionally. And that’s how married guys find themselves at the edge of the precipice.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Esc,

    P.S.

    I’m not suggesting you should show signs of sexual interest in other women. It doesn’t lead to anything good. I’m just trying to understand the difference in our experiences – especially given the fact that you are apparently more physically attractive than I am.

  • Escoffier

    “These happily married husbands are very satisfied in life, and have been heard to wonder in amazement how they ever snagged such a terrific woman. My husband regularly tells our kids he has no idea how he got so lucky.”

    I know this is probably not what you meant to imply, but it does illustrate something that I see a lot of. For various reasons I get roped into going to a lot of benefits and such and I hear male speakers all the time go on about how it’s a miracle that a dirtbag like themselves married so far above his station, yada yada yada. I hear this ALL THE TIME from men and NEVER ONCE in my life from a woman talk about how great her husband is and how lucky she is to have him.

    Part of that may be just the cultural meme: it’s expected for men to denigrate themselves, but it’s an offense against feminism for women to do so. And to talk about how great the man in her life is, well that is blasphemy!

    Part, however, it also how some women must genuinely feel. Especially the kind of high achieving woman up on the dias.

    Funny, it’s “anti-hypergamy.” Would take a little thought to sort out all the underlying reasons but the pattern is there.

    FWIW, I know that I am lucky to have my wife but I also know that she is lucky to have me, and I know that she knows it. It’s nice to feel appreciated and one of the reasons we are both happy is that we both appreciate the other and make sure we both feel it. I don’t think either one of us married radically above our station in any sense. If I were ever called upon to make such a speech, I would be very gracious about what she means to me, but I would not portray myself as a worm unworthy of her attention who secured it only through luck and/or providence.

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

      FWIW, I know that I am lucky to have my wife but I also know that she is lucky to have me, and I know that she knows it. It’s nice to feel appreciated and one of the reasons we are both happy is that we both appreciate the other and make sure we both feel it. I don’t think either one of us married radically above our station in any sense. If I were ever called upon to make such a speech, I would be very gracious about what she means to me, but I would not portray myself as a worm unworthy of her attention who secured it only through luck and/or providence.

      I don’t think my husband would make that public speech either. It’s more of a joke in the family. And I do regularly tell the kids similar things about their dad, and I also tease him for being slow to come to his senses. We do a lot of good natured teasing in our house.

      My daughter’s primary filter in evaluating men is considering what her father would think of them, and I encourage that. She also goes straight to him rather than me if she needs advice on any aspect of evaluating male character.

      My kids know I hold their father in the highest regard.

      I am truly disgusted whenever I see either a husband or a wife put down the other in public, I cannot even imagine what their family dynamic must be like.

      When we celebrated our first anniversary, we went to Cape Cod for the weekend – we were living in NY at the time. We booked a table at a very expensive and famous (at that time) restaurant. We were seated next to a couple who seemed quite old – maybe in their late 60s. Anyway, the tables were close to one another and it was difficult to ignore their conversation, which was the wife berating her husband for over an hour. It was like a scene from “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” She kept saying things like, “You are such a loser, you have never done one good thing for this family.” He kept answering, “Yes, dear.” God, it was painful to observe, and I think we were both petrified, having been married only a year. Why they went out to an expensive dinner was not clear. They may have even been celebrating something. Terrible.

  • Escoffier

    Susan, I don’t know that I need a story line. Once I see her in that short skirt, the high boots, the neckline, perhaps holding a tricorder, I think nature will just take care of the rest. Not sure I could focus on anything else in any case.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Esc,

    FWIW, I know that I am lucky to have my wife but I also know that she is lucky to have me, and I know that she knows it. It’s nice to feel appreciated and one of the reasons we are both happy is that we both appreciate the other and make sure we both feel it. I don’t think either one of us married radically above our station in any sense. If I were ever called upon to make such a speech, I would be very gracious about what she means to me, but I would not portray myself as a worm unworthy of her attention who secured it only through luck and/or providence.

    Very well said. I heartily concur.

    I think one of the aspects of a relationship where equality is mandatory is respect; each partner should respect the other as they do themselves. If you disrespect yourself, you are disrespecting your partner by implication.

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

      If you disrespect yourself, you are disrespecting your partner by implication.

      I really like this!

  • Escoffier

    RE: signals, I had to go to another damned benefit Wednesday and somebody snapped a pic of our table, which got emailed to me after. Jesus, I look like such a sourpuss. I think I was even trying to smile!

    So, maybe you all have a point …

    I am definitely not a flirt but I can be chatty enough if a conversation somewhow gets going.

    Ah, well, it’s for the best, I suppose, in that there are no temptations …

  • mr. wavevector

    This idea that restricted men are only restricted because they lack options is an example of black and white thinking. It goes like this: Men are more unrestricted on average than women, therefore all men are unrestricted. Since all men are unrestricted they want to promiscuous. If they are not promiscuous it’s because they lack opportunity, and any explanation to the contrary is a rationalization of their failure.

    Sometimes there’s a normative twist: Men should pursue sexual opportunity. Real Men are promiscuous.

    But this is erroneous thinking. The data clearly shows that not all men are unrestricted and there is in fact a large overlap in the sociosexual orientation of the two sexes. Those men who forgo sexual variety either don’t want it, or want it but want a committed relationship more.

  • Man

    These happily married husbands are very satisfied in life, and have been heard to wonder in amazement how they ever snagged such a terrific woman.

    We’re not on the same geographic region, and you’re also from an older generation. But most men just complain about being in a relationship/marriage. I guess they always focus on the bad aspects. And perhaps they are Bachelors too, complaining. But I know two who are visibly happy in their marriages, and their wives are very smart, feminine and beautiful too. They are clearly the average “dad” type. I try not to leave so much room for chance, such as trying to be in the right places and giving attention to the what seem to be the right women/girls, but for sure luck can help a lot.

  • mr. wavevector

    The other day I read a story that had a vignette that illustrated a man in a monogamous relationship who was determined to satisfy his desire for sexual variety. In The Real Story of Ah-Q by the Chinese author Lu Xun, the village patriarch is determined to buy a concubine, and his wife is staging a hunger strike in protest.

    Restricted men don’t seek sexual variety because they are unwilling to inflict that sort of emotional distress on their female partners.

  • BroHamlet

    @Sassy

    As much as I like the idea of relationships/monogamy, there are parts of it that deter me from it, or even make me sabotage my relationships while I am in them. I worry about becoming bored with someone. I don’t necessarily like having to answer to somebody. I worry that I may not be completely satisfied with only one person sexually for the rest of my life. These issues are always nagging me in the back of my head whenever I start dating someone new, and it’s part of what makes me “jump ship” early from relationships.

    Sassy, you have more or less described the guy I look at in the mirror every morning. I feel like I *should* want to be monogamous, but that feeling fades when I get into a relationship. Oddly enough, my parents are still married after 25 years, but I question whether I could accomplish that, and I don’t believe in following social convention just because many other people do. I tend to prize my freedom to pursue the things that hold my attention in life over relationships- I’m lone-wolfish like that with spurts of being inclined to take a break and allow myself to settle down. Maybe it’s not healthy- I think I somehow equate settling down to weakness or giving up.

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

      @BroHamlet

      You sound like a Mr. Bachelor. You associate weakness and giving up with commitment – clearly a different emotional response than a Mr. Relationship. There is nothing unhealthy about it if that is what you prefer. It would be unhealthy to put yourself in a relationship that felt restrictive or even stifling.

      People who don’t want marriage or even relationships should not feel pressured into pursuing them, it only winds up making two people unhappy.

  • Fish

    I’ve used this analogy before. As sometimes being single is like eating at golden corral. Yes, there is a lot of variety, none of it particularly appealing & sometimes the only thing you want is just to gov straight to dessert.

    I think if you find the right partner, relationships have the potential for the highest consistent level of enjoyment. If you find your unicorn & you’re in a relationship, you (hopefully) get to keep her. If you aren’t, you have to hope lightning strikes twice. I also think relationships (marriage) has the highest potential downside if you choose wrong. Its high risk, high reward…

  • mr. wavevector

    One characteristic of a Mr. Relationship is declining sex with available unrestricted females. I’ve been thinking about why a man would do that.

    It comes down to the need to “top” the woman. This is something that both parties usually want and expect. A slutty girl still wants to be the girl in the relationship. To the extent that there is any sexual gate keeping going on, she wants to be the one doing it. She still expects the guy to initiate and escalate sexually. If he doesn’t her reaction is usually negative – he’s a prude, a loser, gay. So to top a slutty girl the guy needs to act even sluttier. If he has a need for emotional connection, he has to ignore it and push hard for sex first.

    The guy who isn’t naturally a bigger slut than the slutty girl needs to make a choice: act like one to get laid, or decline a sexual opportunity. If he chooses the former, he is doing violence to his own emotional needs. He is also dancing to the girl’s tune. The restricted guy who doesn’t dance to any tune but his own will choose the latter path and pass.

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

      The guy who isn’t naturally a bigger slut than the slutty girl needs to make a choice: act like one to get laid, or decline a sexual opportunity. If he chooses the former, he is doing violence to his own emotional needs. He is also dancing to the girl’s tune. The restricted guy who doesn’t dance to any tune but his own will choose the latter path and pass.

      Very interesting hypothesis. It occurs to me that the guy dancing to the girl’s tune is the sphere alpha in this case, while the restricted guy who takes a pass is the sphere beta loser.

      This relates to the concept of BMD, or the good alpha.

  • Zuckercorn

    M3@66
    “problems for guys in the legal arena”, “current legal context”

    Could you explain this a bit?

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    @ Zuckercorn

    Does not need to be rehashed.. this is a relationship blog, not an mra or manosphere blog.

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

      @M3

      Does not need to be rehashed.. this is a relationship blog, not an mra or manosphere blog.

      Thank you, I appreciate this very much.

  • Joe

    …the high boots, the neckline, perhaps holding a tricorder…

    Ack! Esc, TMI! TMI!!!!! ;)

  • Escoffier

    “This idea that restricted men are only restricted because they lack options is an example of black and white thinking.”

    Not what I meant to imply. I shall try to add nuance.

    I think that the vast majority of men biologically want vairety. Some of them get it. Some of them try for it, get some, but not as much as they want. Others try and fail. And still others don’t try.

    In the last three categories, we have lots of men who want something they can’t get. Why not? Presumably because they are not attractive enough, lack game, etc.

    Undoubtedly there is also a category who simply declines but, if they went for it, they could get it. Is this a large category? I doubt it. Or, it depends on what you mean by “variety.” Let’s take a hypothetical guy who loses his V at 20 and then bangs one woman per year over the next decade. His N is 10. That’s well above the median. So, statistically we would have to say that he achieved “variety.”

    Yet in the way his life was actually lived, maybe not. If he’s dedicating it to variety, then presumably the majority of those partners were not LTRs, they were more likely to be casual. 10 ONSs in a decade sounds pretty lousy no matter how you look at it. Really, the variety hunter wants the body count but he also wants the actual sex itself. We know that players have less sex on average than the attached. But to get to even, say, 50% (of total times having sex) of a guy in an LTR, they would have to be out there slaying poon with regularity. This is just not possible for most.

    So, I don’t think it’s crazy to assume that an awful lot of men are able to assess their chances in the SMP. “Well, I might be able to get a dozen ONSs and short flings over the next several years, which might result an N of 12 but only maybe 50 total bangs–that sounds terrible! Much better to get a GF.”

    I am emphatically NOT saying that this is the ONLY reason why a guy would forgoe the chase. There are many reasons. But a clear-headed assessment of his actual options, and how they are actually going to be realized, will convince most men that the player style is not going to get them what they want.

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

      @Escoffier

      I’d be interested in your take on a study that asked undergraduate males and females how many sexual partners they would like to have ideally over a variety of time periods. Men did not desire a greater number of partners.

      :As in a study reported in Buss and Schmitt (1993), participants were first asked to estimate how many sexual partners they would ideally like to have over a series of time intervals: during the next month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, and a lifetime. In addition, participants were also asked to estimate how many sexual partners they thought they could realistically have over the same time intervals, a series of questions Buss and Schmitt (1993) did not ask. Constraint was computed as the difference between partners desired and partners expected for each time period. High positive numbers reflected constraint with ideal scores greater than expected scores.

      Results and Discussion

      The median response for the 30 year period for both men and women was “no difference” between the number of partners ideally desired and realistically expected. Consistent with this finding, the median value was also zero for both men and women for the other 10 time periods as well.

      Consistent with our hypothesis and the expectations of Attachment Fertility Theory, these findings suggest that both men and women, typically, are not constrained in achieving the number of partners they desire. These findings, however, do not support Sexual Strategies Theory. Specifically, if men are not “constrained in their reproductive success primarily by the number of fertile women they can inseminate” (Buss and Schmitt 1993, p. 206), can there be evolutionary-based gender differences in the problems that follow from this non- constraint? Obviously not.

      Buss and Schmitt (1993) found statistically significant differences between the means for men and the means for women at all 11 time intervals from a month to a lifetime. As strong as these findings may appear, Buss and Schmitt’s (1993) inferences rely heavily on t-test comparisons of means. We have argued that this matters both conceptually and statistically (Pedersen et al. 2002). First, these data are heavily skewed. For example, even in Buss and Schmitt’s (1993) original data which they provided to us, for the “next 30 years” time frame, the skew for men was highly significant (Z = 8.94, p < .000001). Given that these data violate the assumptions of parametric tests, medians rather than means are a more appropriate measure of central tendency (Wilcox 1997). As we have reported elsewhere (Pedersen et al. 2002), although we readily replicate Buss and Schmitt’s findings for mean differences between men and women in number of partners desired per time frame, the story is different when we look at medians.

      We (Pedersen et al. 2002) find at the 30-year time frame, for example, that over 50% of both men and women desire no more than 1 sexual partner.

      More recent cross-cultural work by proponents of SST (see Schmitt 2003) indicates that medians for men and women (except for men in Oceania — i.e., Australia, Fiji & Pacific Islands, and New Zealand) were also 1.

      The logic of Sexual Strategies Theory, so tied to non- overlapping biological propensities (e.g., sperm production; bearing offspring), seems consistent with the expectation that at the very least, most men would differ from most women in their sexual strategies. Medians therefore, could provide a particularly useful measure of central tendency with which to examine a hypothesis about evolved, biologically-based, differences between men and women.

      First, virtually all men (98.9%) and virtually all women (99.2%) desire to eventually settle down in a long-term mutually exclusive sexual relationship. Second, of those who have not yet found such a partner, the median desired time frame for ideally dating before finding this person is 5 years into the future. Third, when asked how many short-term and long-term partners men and women ideally desired, we replicated both a mean difference, and no median difference between men and women. Fourth, both men and women desired a median number of 0 short-term partners.

      Study: Are Men and Women Really That Different? Examining Some of Sexual Strategies Theory (SST)’s Key Assumptions about Sex-Distinct Mating Mechanisms

      William C. Pedersen & Anila Putcha-Bhagavatula & Lynn Carol Miller

      What say you?

  • Jonny

    A single guy advising single women on how to find a husband could either be doing a good job (if successful) or could be doing lasting damage. Having married twice, you really don’t know what the marriage institution is until you’re past the point, and even then, it is not the same for everyone. Luckily, I am a man, who can start over. Many women, if made a bad first choice, can have a difficult time in getting a second round. Of course, getting the first round is hard for many women.

    As women are the cause for breakup of the majority of marriges (and I am proof that my first marriage failed due to my wife wanting out), it is vitally important that women figure out what they want out of marriage and not marry for the wrong reason. It is not wrong to have low expectations of marriage. It is the high expectations that can ruin a marriage.

    Low expectations: You will not be alone. You will spend much time with your husband (unless you avoid him) and probably be sick of him. You will not have much sex (but more than being single). You will do most household chores. No gender equality (feminists should not marry).

    High expectations: You will find your soul mate (untrue). You will get richer (depends if you avoid debt). Your man will accept you unconditionally (as you much as you accept your husband unconditionally).

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Escoffier,

    Or, it depends on what you mean by “variety.”

    For married men like us, “variety” would mean cheating on our wives. An affair, a mistress, a ONS, a piece on the side. You seem unsure of your possibilities, but I’m quite confident that if I went looking for trouble I would find it. I choose not to because I value my relationship with my wife more than variety. Even if I were 100% confident of not getting caught, I would still damage my marriage by cheating.

  • Anacaona

    I think she (mine, that is) would look really hot in a female Lt. uniform circa 1966. I have been promised that this will happen Halloween 2013.
    Heh it seems that Uhura is a popular male fetitsh among the geeky crowd. Hubby and I have one of those ‘exceptions’ discussions and he told me that “I will always be faithful to you but if a temporary anomaly happens and Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) circa the 60’s falls into my lap I can’t make promises”

    An extrovert lives to find excitement, so boredom is a welcome feeling for him/her because it means it’s time to find another adventure. The bachelors life suits a high option Ent just fine, it’s in their DNA.
    I’m an extrovert but I don’t experience it that way, Is more like I find excitement on everything. Learning a new recipe, selecting a new house gadget, reading a new scientific advance. The only think I find dull is cleaning up mostly because I have a bad association with it and is repetitive.

    Sometimes there’s a normative twist: Men should pursue sexual opportunity. Real Men are promiscuous.
    If not they turn gay :P

    Maybe it’s not healthy- I think I somehow equate settling down to weakness or giving up.
    I do wonder if this is the way you think your father is? I mean do you feel he gave up a lot of things to be married? Does he ever shows regret or tells you how many things he would had done if it was not for your mother and maybe you? Just curious.

  • Sassy6519

    @ M3

    Perhaps this also applies more heavily on Introverts than Extroverts? Granted, us Int’s can occupy our time with whatever we fancy and can rarely be bored.. but in the context of coming home to an empty home without someone waiting for you with a smile on their face, and simply feeling the emptiness and having to think of something to do to allay boredom. An extrovert lives to find excitement, so boredom is a welcome feeling for him/her because it means it’s time to find another adventure. The bachelors life suits a high option Ent just fine, it’s in their DNA.

    I feel a lot of what he’s describing are the dispositions of Int’s and Ent’s wrt to how they view their options.

    This very well may be the case. My Myer-Briggs type is ENTP, and I admit to having averse reactions to the ideas of commitment and “settling down”. For me, being out and tackling the world is very exciting to me. I value my freedom a lot, and I have a hard time relinquishing some of it whenever I enter a relationship. I like being able to come and go as I please, never having to answer to anyone. I like doing spur of the moment nightlife activities with my friends without having to check in with someone. I don’t necessarily enjoy being “tied down”, and a lot of arguments between my exes and I stemmed from their desires to dictate parts of my schedule/how I spent my time. That is the worst thing someone could do to me, honestly. The moment that I start feeling caged in, the quicker I am to start making my exit out of the relationship.

    @ BroHamlet

    Sassy, you have more or less described the guy I look at in the mirror every morning. I feel like I *should* want to be monogamous, but that feeling fades when I get into a relationship. Oddly enough, my parents are still married after 25 years, but I question whether I could accomplish that, and I don’t believe in following social convention just because many other people do. I tend to prize my freedom to pursue the things that hold my attention in life over relationships- I’m lone-wolfish like that with spurts of being inclined to take a break and allow myself to settle down. Maybe it’s not healthy- I think I somehow equate settling down to weakness or giving up.

    I hear you. Your description fits me too.

  • Sassy6519

    @ JP

    You are three standard deviations from the norm.

    This means that we can say, with significant certainty, that you are not “the norm”.

    This is actually helpful because we can add it to our list of “things that are not the norm”.

    See how the exception that proves the rule works?

    I’m confused. What does any of this have to do with my comment? Would you mind offering some clarification?

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    @ Anacaona
    “The only think I find dull is cleaning up mostly because I have a bad association with it… ”

    Killer dust bunnies? lol.

  • Anacaona

    Killer dust bunnies? lol.
    Heh I wish. Mostly mom never being happy about it, making me do it all over again and not letting me play, watch cartoons or read books until she was happy with the result or too tired to keep arguing. Also sociopath brother being allowed to roam free while I had to do all the housework, because of a difference that was not bigger than 1% of my body. AKA genitalia. Bad memories all over.

  • Escoffier

    wave, that’s way off topic, as should be obvious. We’re not talking about what variety means after the vows, but about the potential to actualize it before the vows.

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan

    You sound like a Mr. Bachelor. You associate weakness and giving up with commitment – clearly a different emotional response than a Mr. Relationship. There is nothing unhealthy about it if that is what you prefer. It would be unhealthy to put yourself in a relationship that felt restrictive or even stifling.

    Fair enough- I think logically I know this, but it’s resulted in some personal strife. One one hand, I have a great example of a solid marriage, and was raised conservatively. On the other, when I think of what I want to leave behind when I’m gone, a family never seems to fall in the top two or three. I come from a family of relatively high achieving, conservative people, and started out never questioning that what they had was what I should want. The fact that my personal ethos drags me in the opposite direction makes me feel selfish, but I can’t really help what I am.

    If I was a girl about to get engaged, I wouldn’t just want a guy to ask me to marry him for the Disneyesque warm fuzzies of crossing the marriage finish line and ticking that box that makes her “ok” by society’s standards. I would be asking him to be honest about what he sees every time he thinks about what he wants his life to be about. Does a partner factor in? Seems to me, a fair number of people do things because they think they’re supposed to.

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

      If I was a girl about to get engaged, I wouldn’t just want a guy to ask me to marry him for the Disneyesque warm fuzzies of crossing the marriage finish line and ticking that box that makes her “ok” by society’s standards. I would be asking him to be honest about what he sees every time he thinks about what he wants his life to be about.

      Marrying without a clear sense of this would be absolute insanity. Divorce in 5.

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    @ Sassy

    Interesting. Even as i worked to increase my options through game, weight training, etc.. i did it to increase my ability to choose a high quality partner for LTR in mind, not to actually exercise every option afforded to me within my reachable and available SMV spectrum of choices. As an INT, that would be overly taxing and exhausting to me and not feeding into the comfortable and consistent reality i crave.

    If i actually enjoyed long engaging conversations with strangers, meeting new strange random people, looking for new adventurous thing to constantly do.. where being a comfortable and consistent homebody wasn’t a requirement, perhaps that temperament would have made me more amiable to utilizing my newfound skills to take the high risk road of being more unrestricted?

  • Sassy6519

    @ BroHamlet

    If I was a girl about to get engaged, I wouldn’t just want a guy to ask me to marry him for the Disneyesque warm fuzzies of crossing the marriage finish line and ticking that box that makes her “ok” by society’s standards. I would be asking him to be honest about what he sees every time he thinks about what he wants his life to be about. Does a partner factor in? Seems to me, a fair number of people do things because they think they’re supposed to.

    Oh man, if I could, I would give you a big kiss on the cheek for this comment.

    You have summarized a lot of my feelings in this one paragraph. I get a lot of pressure from my family to get married and have kids, but it just makes me want to run. I have absolutely no desire to get married just for the sake of saying that I am married. I would rather cut off my own arm, to be honest, than to do that. That’s how strongly I feel about it. If I ever get married, it will be because I have found a man that makes marriage seem like a pleasant option for a lifetime. I don’t want to “half-ass” it, and I have yet to meet a man that even remotely inspires me in such ways. I don’t want to get married just because it is something that is expected of me, as a woman in this society. If I have to choose between that and spending the rest of my days with cats, I’m going with the cats.

  • Hope

    Escoffier “I hear this ALL THE TIME from men and NEVER ONCE in my life from a woman talk about how great her husband is and how lucky she is to have him.”

    I say that my husband is awesome and I’m lucky to have him all the time, but you are right that not a lot of women say this.

    And for what it’s worth, I find your online persona to be one of the more attractive that I’ve seen. If you don’t notice the women flirting with you, maybe you just don’t realize that they think you’re attractive. Women are mostly not overt about it, unless the man initiates. I’m one of the weird ones that do initiate, and my husband was surprised that I expressed interest in him first.

    Also, consider that your IQ is probably several standard deviations above the norm. The average girl isn’t going to appreciate your type, and your type (like your wife) isn’t going to express her interest in the salacious and obvious way that you would take notice as “flirting.” So you’re dealing with an “elite” and “selective” female audience, and well, they wouldn’t be openly flirting with a married man. At least, they shouldn’t.

  • Escoffier

    Hope, you are very kind.

    I admit, I didn’t think of you (or anyone here) when I made that comment about women talking about their husbands. I was thinking only of experience at awards dinners (I have been to a lot), where I hear the men say that all the time and the women, never.

    In the last two months alone I heard two different billionaires talk about how amazing it is that their amazing wives stooped to marry them and how it explains all their success. I suppose these dudes have alpha cred to burn so why not but it just seems kinds stupid.

  • Sassy6519

    @ M3

    Interesting. Even as i worked to increase my options through game, weight training, etc.. i did it to increase my ability to choose a high quality partner for LTR in mind, not to actually exercise every option afforded to me within my reachable and available SMV spectrum of choices. As an INT, that would be overly taxing and exhausting to me and not feeding into the comfortable and consistent reality i crave.

    I think that is the major difference between INT and ENT. To me, exploring choices/options is very exciting. I don’t find it taxing at all.

    If i actually enjoyed long engaging conversations with strangers, meeting new strange random people, looking for new adventurous thing to constantly do.. where being a comfortable and consistent homebody wasn’t a requirement, perhaps that temperament would have made me more amiable to utilizing my newfound skills to take the high risk road of being more unrestricted?

    Perhaps.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Esc,

    wave, that’s way off topic, as should be obvious. We’re not talking about what variety means after the vows, but about the potential to actualize it before the vows.

    Speak for yourself – I was talking about variety in all its manifestations. It doesn’t make sense to talk about a “sacrifice” a married man makes in sexual variety unless you consider his sexual opportunities after he marries, because it is exactly those opportunities that he vows to forgo.

    When a married man is faced with a beautiful young woman looking up at him with wide-eyed admiration, her face flushed with excitement and desire, and has to fight like hell against his own raging desire and infatuation to stay faithful to his wife, he truly understands what he’s sacrificing. And if he surmounts that challenge, he can accept the title of Mr. Relationship knowing that it is a sign of his character and strength of will, not a sign of his paucity of opportunity.

  • mr. wavevector

    I suppose these dudes have alpha cred to burn so why not but it just seems kinds stupid.

    Maybe they’re overcompensating for treating their wives like shit the rest of the time.

  • Man

    I hear this ALL THE TIME from men and NEVER ONCE in my life from a woman talk about how great her husband is and how lucky she is to have him.

    Part of that may be just the cultural meme: it’s expected for men to denigrate themselves, but it’s an offense against feminism for women to do so. And to talk about how great the man in her life is, well that is blasphemy!

    Part, however, it also how some women must genuinely feel. Especially the kind of high achieving woman up on the dias.

    +1 On Facebook, for instance, it is very common that men will publish in their profile their pictures with her mate and children. And some women publish only their own. There might be a variety of reasons, but indeed it’s hard for us to men to realize that we are never loved and desired as much as we love and desire them. They are always sure of our love and feelings. We are never sure of theirs. We desire and love them (their bodies, company, affection) so ardently, it’s as if they were our existential aim. Yet, we are never desired and loved with the same intensity and we can never know their true feelings. No wonder men are so romantic and love is so idealized and romanticized by male writers, poets and musicians. It’s as if the whole of the universe revolves around them. Yet, we do not exist. We are invisible. Only our external or subjective attributes exist. And every often we do not even have a name, feelings or a personality… Welcome to men’s reality world (of desiring, while not being so much desired). :) Man’s existential aim: woman. Woman’s existential aim: children.

  • Escoffier

    “Speak for yourself”

    No need to snark. This is, or was, not personal.

    The question is whether some/most R men go that way because they lack the option to rack up a body count, not what they do after they are married. Of course that would not account for all instances, but it’s a mistake of Hussey’s to assume that all R men are that way because they have zero inclination to variety, just as the flipside mistake is to assume that nearly everyone has a shot at variety but the most virtuous choose to forego it.

  • JP

    I always thought of being married and having children as basic requirements for adulthood.

    Plus, being married is the only way to avoid chronic guilt and regret for engaging in extra-marital sex.

    I couldn’t tell you if I am “restricted” or not, since my motivation was moral perfectionism in aligning myself as much as possible with what I perceived to be the objective permanent moral order.

    This is also my primary motivation in avoiding porn as well.

  • JP

    I have had sex with precisely one woman in my life because my *goal* was to have sex with precisely one woman.

  • mr. wavevector

    No need to snark. This is, or was, not personal.

    It’s not snark. You made a statement about what “we” are talking about. I’m pointing out that is not what I am talking about. You and I are talking about different things, as I’ll explain.

    The question is whether some/most R men go that way because they lack the option to rack up a body count, not what they do after they are married.

    That may be your question, but this exchange started with my comment at #17 (to which you responded in #18), in which I was addressing a different question. My response was a reply to this question from Susan:

    The data clearly shows that single men have sex less frequently than married men. Does Mr. Bachelor forfeit frequency for novelty while Mr. Relationship forfeits novelty for frequency?

    Susan is presenting a contrast where married men have more sex than single men. I addressed the tradeoffs married men make in my response in #17, and specifically how that affects me in my marriage. All my comments since then have all been in the same context: the tradeoffs men make in marriage. If we’ve been having different conversations, it’s because you have continued to talk about a different point, which is the decisions men make before marriage.

    but it’s a mistake of Hussey’s to assume that all R men are that way because they have zero inclination to variety, just as the flipside mistake is to assume that nearly everyone has a shot at variety but the most virtuous choose to forego it.

    That I agree with.

  • JP

    “Susan is presenting a contrast where married men have more sex than single men. I addressed the tradeoffs married men make in my response in #17, and specifically how that affects me in my marriage. All my comments since then have all been in the same context: the tradeoffs men make in marriage.”

    I didn’t view marriage as a tradeoff, as much as I viewed it as obligatory.

  • mr. wavevector

    I didn’t view marriage as a tradeoff, as much as I viewed it as obligatory.

    That simplifies the problem a bit/

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

    I have tended to think in terms of an efficient frontier with SMV Quality positioned on one axis and Commitment Required on the other. A dotted line across the horizontal might represent a man’s minimum SMV threshold.

    So perhaps normally this creates a curve that slopes up and to the right—for gain in the SMV of a female sexual partner, a man would be expected to have to commit more. Maybe we should describe Commitment Required in units that run from 1-10, like SMV. Commitment below “5” units depicts casual sex; above 5 depicts increasing degrees of exclusivity.

    If a man needs a mate with a minimum SMV of 7 to be happy, he could hypothetically consult his SMV vs. Commitment tool and find that he needs to expend a minimum of 7 Commitment units to have a sexual relationship with her (i.e., an LTR). Another man may find that he needs a similar SMV 7 mate, but perhaps in his case he only has to expend 3 Commitment units to make this a reality (i.e., an STR). Yet a third man may find himself in the unfortunate position of wanting an SMV 7 woman, but being required to supply an extravagant 13 Commitment units—he only has 10, so he basically cannot have sex with an SMV 7 unless he acquires vast resources or something.

    I think that most guys realize that there is normally a tradeoff out there between Mate SMV and Casual Sex. Perhaps most successful player types either have a lower SMV threshold (they are willing to have sex with lower SMV women than their more restricted male peers would be willing to have sex with), or they can reliably obtain casual sex with higher SMV women (women that other men would only be able to seduce by using high levels of commitment).

  • Hope

    Susan, I’ve participated in some of those undergraduate psychology surveys. Honestly I think they’re not as good as general population surveys. They tend to do those things to first-year, psych 101 students, who are kind of wide eyed and innocent. So if you ask those guys, they’re going to give different answers than those same guys might give in a few years.

    Not saying that the results are invalid, but I don’t like undergrad surveys in general.

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

      @Hope

      They tend to do those things to first-year, psych 101 students, who are kind of wide eyed and innocent. So if you ask those guys, they’re going to give different answers than those same guys might give in a few years.

      That may be, but I figured guys at their absolute height of horniness would be more likely than anyone to express the desire for more partners. Isn’t this what they think of 24/7? In any case, the comparison to other research using the same subject population should be valid.

      Not saying that the results are invalid, but I don’t like undergrad surveys in general.

      Unfortunately, almost all academics use undergrads!

  • Hope

    Susan “As in a study reported in Buss and Schmitt (1993)”

    Plus, you know, 1993 was a long time ago. A lot has changed in 20 years to make those undergraduate guys’ views a bit outdated, for good or for ill.

    Mr. Wavevector “The guy who isn’t naturally a bigger slut than the slutty girl needs to make a choice: act like one to get laid, or decline a sexual opportunity. If he chooses the former, he is doing violence to his own emotional needs. He is also dancing to the girl’s tune. The restricted guy who doesn’t dance to any tune but his own will choose the latter path and pass.”

    This is very well-stated. My husband was like this and sat out dating for a long time because of it.

    Man “Man’s existential aim: woman. Woman’s existential aim: children.”

    Reminds me of a saying: “Men love women. Women love kids. Kids love Elmo.”

  • Paul Rivers

    Wow, what an interesting article. Personally, I think all the points I’ve seen here reflect my own views on the dynamic between the different kinds of guys and how their emotions work – from the perspective of another guy, at least.

    “1. Do all men have the same “needs?” We tend to describe men as universally horny and preoccupied with sex most of the time. Does Mr. Bachelor actually want or need sex more than Mr. Relationship does? Does Mr. Relationship want or need connection more?”

    I think that for Mr. Relationship, emotional connection is a prerequisite for sex, whereas it is not for Mr. Bachelor (or at least not as much, or maybe it’s not personal and exclusive emotional connection for him).

    I don’t think there’s a difference in drive, more of a difference in what defines “quality”.

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

      @Paul Rivers

      I don’t think there’s a difference in drive, more of a difference in what defines “quality”.

      That makes sense, and I think that’s a good corollary to Hussey’s focusing on the emotions a man feels around commitment. There is also the reasoning or judgment involved in deciding what his individual highest quality experience will be.

      I wrote a comment on #2, but the comment system ate it saying “You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.”.

      I’ve never heard of that happening! How annoying, I apologize. I checked but I don’t have it. I hate it when thoughtful comments disappear, ugh.

  • Paul Rivers

    I wrote a comment on #2, but the comment system ate it saying “You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.”.

    It also lost and threw out the comment, the page didn’t have it, and hitting back didn’t have it either. Don’t feel like rewriting it – guess it’s gone.

  • Escoffier

    Ack, bold error!

  • Paul Rivers

    “3. Can these needs be met in different ways? Hussey suggests variety can occur both within and outside relationships.”

    Imagine your princess ideology, where she believes that one day a man is going to come along and save her from her tame and boring life. He will “rescue” her, and suddenly she’ll have it all – live in a castle, suddenly have a bunch of friends, go on wild and exciting adventures, have great sex, be respected by everyone…etc etc etc.

    Obviously a lot of these “needs” are not inherently sexual.

    One of the biggest things I see in women that aren’t particularly relationship trustworthy is that they difficulty making people interested in joining in adventures, talking to them, getting to know each other – without being flirty or dating.

    Unfortunately, it’s not really easy, especially as you get older. There’s an entire mentality that’s like “you’re making new friends? doing new things? you’re married / have children – you’re not supposed to be doing that”.

  • Paul Rivers

    “4. How do emotions play a role? Do these divergent outlooks correspond with pessimism and optimism? Or cynicism and hope?”

    I don’t think it’s either of those, I think it’s a matter of what you enjoy.

    Let me tell you about two completely fictitious men. The first guy is a hunter. He spends thousands of dollars to fly over to Africa. He hires a guide, he rents a vehicle, etc. He gets a tent, and ventures out into the wilderness in pursuit of the most dangerous..uh, second most dangerous game – lions. (Let’s assume he’s not hunting people, lol). After a week of camping hunting, he finally tracks down a lion. The lion springs at him, his gun jams – but at the last second he frees it up and shoots the lion. The lion – already mid-air – is immediately killed, but it’s body still in motion hits him and knocks him over. Wow, he says – what an adventure!

    At the end of his trip, he goes back to his dull job as a doctor, endlessly seeing patients mostly consisting of people with colds, and the elderly who continually have one minor ailment after another.

    The second guy is also a hunter back home – deer, stuff like that. He sees a movie on the exciting safari of Africa and how amazing it’s supposed to be. The first guy relates his **amazing** story of the hunt and personal satisfaction to the second guy.

    So the second guy spends thousands of dollars to fly over to Africa. He hires a guide, rents a vehicle, etc. He gets a tent, and ventures out into the wilderness in pursuit of the…second most dangerous game. :-)

    His guide only barely speaks english. He tries to make friends with his guide and the other guys in the group, but they both know at the end of the week he’s flying home and he’ll never see them again. It’s not the same as hunting with his friends back home. The flies are – everywhere. Even with bug spray, you’re nearly eaten alive the moment you step out of your tent. The heat is incredibly oppressive, you can’t even hardly sleep at night. He’s kind of having a miserable time, but hey – he’s already there, and he’s payed a lot of money.

    After a week of camping and hunting, and continually thinking “why am I doing this shit?”, he finally tracks down a lion. The lion springs at him, but his gun jams. But he’s no idiot – at the last second he frees it up and shoots the lion. The lion – already mid-air – is immediately killed, but it’s body still in motion hits him and knocks him over. His brain – not sure if the lion is actually dead and is going dig it’s teeth into his neck and kill him and it rips his head from his body – flashes his entire life before his eyes. He’s thinking to himself – WHAT THE FUCK WAS I THINKING??? He almost died, surrounded by people he didn’t know, in the middle of some shithole African savanna, after a miserable week of sunburn, flies, and borderline heatstroke. His guide and the other people in the group clap him on the back and congratulate him, but he knows this was an absolutely stupid idea that he would NEVER do again.

    He flies back home, to his life of enjoying hunting on the weekend with his friends and enjoying the comradrie of a bunch of guys he’s known for year, and his satisfying and rewarding job as a doctor where he enjoys working with people every day, saving lives, and even enjoys chatting with his regular elderly patients. He derives real satisfaction from the fact that he makes peoples lives better, he gets respect as a doctor, and hey – the fact that he makes a crapload of money and really enjoys puzzling out what sickness the person has is awesome to. :-)

    Now what’s the difference between these two men? The exact same experience for both of them results in totally different emotional reactions based on what they enjoy. The first guy loves hunting, conquering, etc – he doesn’t care about the drawbacks – the bugs, the heat. He doesn’t even care that he’s putting his life in danger just to shoot something, in fact for him – that’s part of the thrill. That’s what making it exciting. He doesn’t enjoy the group satisfaction of doing something like the second guy does. The fact that the people he’s surrounded with he’ll never see again just isn’t something that makes any difference to him.

    For the second guy, the bugs and the heat are something he can put up with but doesn’t enjoy. And the fact that he’s putting his life in danger completely drains ALL of the fun out of it. Rather than making things “more exciting”, the fact the he’s in real genuine danger is a HUGE turnoff for him, something that he’s only willing to put up with if he was doing something really important – he’d run into a burning house to save the life of his child, but risking his life to shoot a stupid lion? He’s doesn’t feel “excited” by that – he feels like a guy who put all his money into a stock, then the stock immediately crashed. Stupid. Idiotic. And – when we’re talking about something recreational – not having anyone he knows along just isn’t as fun, though with the life threatening thing it’s really a minor point.

    It’s not about optimism, cynisiscm, pessimism or hope – it’s about what causes you to feel good, and what causes you to feel bad.

  • Paul Rivers

    “5. Is Mr. Bachelor a good bet for marriage when he reaches his 40s? Or can no woman hope to hold his attention and suppress his “wanderlust?””

    That’s hard to say. As someone else said, most people do not actually fall into this way of black and white thinking. He’s probably not a good candidate by his 40’s is he’s still into the thrill of the chase and only the chase. But it’s hard to say for sure – sometimes after he’s shot 35 different Lions, it’s just not as thrilling any more. Likewise, after nailing so many women he it’s just not exciting for him to nail some airhead 20-year old, and the older he gets the more it’s the case that the “hot” women he can get are just dumber and dumber. Sometimes – not always, but sometimes – the same thing that makes sleeping with the same girl boring is the same thing that makes nailing a bunch of different women boring. He’s like “I know I can hit that, but I’ve hit some random ass so many times I just don’t care any more. I want to do something new and different.”

    I’d say there’s a better chance of finding this in a guy who’s in hit his 30’s than a guy who’s hit his 40’s though.

    “6. Should women who want to marry ever date Mr. Bachelor? If so, why? If not, why not?”

    Yes. Woman who are just like Mr. Bachelor definitely should be dating him.

    There’s a lot of women out there who simply aren’t Mrs. Relationship themselves. They’re also like guy #1 – the things that Guy #2 likes just don’t excite them.

    It’s more complicated than that – but my post is already way to long, lol…

    “7. Is there an analogous divergence of women? Ms. Bachelorette vs. Ms. Relationship? Or Ms. Career vs. Ms. Family? If so, how do these different types of women recall their single days?”

    Yes. For sure. Without doubt. Etc. Same dynamic – what *causes* her to feel happy/excited/satisfied/etc? A woman wants a relationship but isn’t actually made happy / excited /etc by the actual relationship is just as bad for a relationship as the man who’s the same way.

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

      “6. Should women who want to marry ever date Mr. Bachelor? If so, why? If not, why not?”

      Yes. Woman who are just like Mr. Bachelor definitely should be dating him.

      There’s a lot of women out there who simply aren’t Mrs. Relationship themselves. They’re also like guy #1 – the things that Guy #2 likes just don’t excite them.

      Very good point.

  • mr. wavevector

    They tend to do those things to first-year, psych 101 students, who are kind of wide eyed and innocent.

    In addition to being 18 year old undergrads, the subjects of psych studies have been criticized as being WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. Not exactly representative of humankind in general.

  • Escoffier

    Here’s the initial claim:

    “Mr. Relationship forfeits novelty for a high quality relationship.”

    OK. Certainly some do. But, as worded, it implies that most or all do. That variety is by default a sacrifice for “Mr. Relationship.”

    I don’t believe that. I don’t think the numbers show it. I don’t think common sense or logic will sustain it.

    The real disagreement here is about prevalence. Leave aside which category you or I may or may not be in. I will stipulate that you made a voluntary sacrifice just as I will stipulate that I did not, or not to the same degree. The question is, who outnumbers whom? Guys like you or guys like me?

  • Escoffier

    So, we’re having a party tomorrow and I prepped a bunch of stuff tonight to work ahead. On Fridays, BBC America shows ST-TNG, so I had that on as I worked. My wife came in and I reminded her, because I had Star Trek to remind me, “Remember your promise for Halloween.”

    “I know.”

    “What rank will you be?”

    “Lieutenant. You have to outrank me!”

    Hypergamy!

    Then I said something snarky, which I can’t remember, and she said “If you piss me off, I’ll be an admiral!”

    I confess a certain line from the film A Few Good Men popped into my head but I didn’t mention it.

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

      “Lieutenant. You have to outrank me!”

      Hypergamy!

      I’m loving these domestic field reports from the Escoffier household.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Even at Psy 10, we have some selection or self-selection going on. Among other things, these folks are more likely to be self-evaluating. Even if they’re trying to be Holden Caulfield, or anti-Caulfield. Or whomever.
    In addition, if they’re further into psych than intro, they’ve had some training in testing; construction, analysis, type.
    And they’re probably paranoid about any promised anonymity.

  • Hope

    Paul Rivers #152, that was a brilliant story, and I think it quite accurately describes the mentality between people who like that sort of “lifestyle” vs. people who do not.

    Susan, the other thing about those undergrad psych surveys, people tend to not tell the whole truth on them, even if you don’t put your name on them. I know when I was an undergrad and doing those surveys, I had to get some kind of “completion” on them in order to pass the class, and so even if they assured my anonymity, it didn’t feel completely anonymous.

  • Anacaona

    @Paul Rivers
    Great analysis. I think there is the internal excitement vs the external excitement to take in account as well. I remember some people enjoy other’s peoples company even if they are not doing anything particularly exciting (playing chess, watching a movie, having a quiet talk). While for others the company most be in an exciting setting (dancing, clubbing, kayaking) for it to be enjoyable. We also have those ” I need to get out of the house” type vs “I want to spent a quiet evening at home” type. Of course all this is an spectrum I rarely ever need to go out but I do once in a blue moon while I have a friend that spending a weekend in the house is akin to Chinese torture. Entirely different positions.

  • JP

    “Of course all this is an spectrum I rarely ever need to go out but I do once in a blue moon while I have a friend that spending a weekend in the house is akin to Chinese torture.”

    Isn’t adult life itself boring and repetitive for most people, though?

    I know that I spend most of my time bored out of my mind.

  • Anacaona

    I know that I spend most of my time bored out of my mind.
    I only get bored to tears by certain commenter here that keeps spitting the same crap, again, again and again. You know who I’m talking about. Aside from that I never get bored.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I can’t stand boredom. It makes me want to burn things. Or learn.

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

    When I really think about it, the most psychologically golden moments for an unrestricted male/”Mr. Bachelor” may come well *after* sex, when he is performing his post-coital victory lap and reflecting on the latest adventure. I figure that a visual aid may be the best way to articulate this time of private triumph, so check out this brief clip:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1e5h9YSe_k

    I think that JT’s personal Times Square “slutwalk” captures the essence of the emotional exaltation involved. Look at how he just swags out, unrestrained by normal rules, his drained testicles no doubt swinging freely despite his homoerotically-tight jeans.. Look at this man’s face at about :32—that’s the look of deep life satisfaction, perhaps the same smug, gigolo look that would be found on a champion stallion now happily working the breeding grounds of a thoroughbred stud farm.

  • doomwolf

    PR #152

    That story is, in a nutshell, how I feel sometimes. Three weeks ago my regiment had our end of year BBQ/drinkfest. I’m a clerk, and one of the guys who I’d been dealing with gave me a piece of his mind about how I had been a bit of an ass to him on the phone, so I apologized, and then somehow the subject of sex came up – maybe he figured I’d been frustrated ant not getting any, IDK – and started trying to egg me on to go pick up some girl at the bar and screw her. I really didn’t know how to tell him that I had zero interest in doing that, it just does not sound that appealing to me.

  • Anacaona

    I figure that a visual aid may be the best way to articulate this time of private triumph, so check out this brief clip:
    Heh I always expected him getting hit by a truck when he crossed the street. I prefer him as Danny in Grease he was a bit of an asshole but he showed goodness and it looks like he was a closet romantic that couldn’t show it due to ‘pride’. I also think that if his friend was willing to do the responsible thing with Rizzo the whole group couldn’t be that bad. Anyhow, my favorite male private moment of triumph belongs to Will Smith. Starts at 2:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXkm9JvhLFk

  • chris

    Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters by Dr Helen from PJMedia.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00APDFXKO/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=U

    I bought a kindle version and my suggestion to those who want to
    understand what men really think about dating and mating and marriage in this modern culture to get a copy as well.
    The kindle version is only $9, and if this book was sent to the top of the charts on Amazon or on various best selling booklists it would send a massive wake-up call to the culture about men and their opinions and feelings in the dating game rather than Kay Hymowitz’s bullshit “Manning Up” or Hanna Rosin’s even worse “The End of Men.”

  • Aiva Laz

    “I always thought of being married and having children as basic requirements for adulthood.”

    I feel I profoundly disagree with this in my life. I do not want children and am still adult. I do not want marriage and am still adult. My mate and I are professional. I am an advocate and he an hydrogen engineer.

    I disagree with thought that he loves me more than I love him based on sex. I can lose minutes looking at his pictures on my computer.

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

      @Alva Laz

      I disagree with thought that he loves me more than I love him based on sex.

      Welcome. I agree with you. The idea that women can’t love men fully is nonsense.

  • Aiva Laz

    „Sex” being gender. Not physical act. Sorry.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Escoffier,

    The question is, who outnumbers whom? Guys like you or guys like me?

    No idea. Maybe MegaMan will jump to the rescue, firing facts and figures.

    If we consider the post-marriage set, one clue is the number of men who actually commit adultery, since obviously they had the opportunity and took it. The lifetime rate of adultery for men is 28%, according to this article. So that’s a significant minority in the “opportunity” camp.

    Some people, even sex researchers, believe that all men are so unrestricted in their pursuit of sexual novelty that the rate of adultery equals the opportunity for adultery. I don’t believe that. I think many men when faced with an opportunity to cheat will say “I love my wife” or “I love my kids” or “I love my money and don’t want to lose it in a divorce” and decline. But how many can but don’t? I’ve never seen a study of that.

    In the realm of personal anecdote, I have friends who have cheated, friends who had the opportunity to cheat but didn’t, and friends for whom cheating just hasn’t been an issue. Not enough data to conjecture the answer to your question.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Esc,

    Of course, considering the post-marriage set introduces a bias, because these are men who were attractive enough to get the girl at least once in their life. It excludes the incels and others who lose in the SMP.

    Another part of the male population I observe are the washed-up guys. These are men who once could get a girl but are now too unattractive to do so. These are usually older men with no money, no prospects, no looks, and no game. Often they have let them selves go physically, are not in good physical or mental health, have no job nor interesting hobbies, but do have an addiction.

    No idea of the size of these groups either, but they go in the “no opportunity” group.

  • JP

    “I feel I profoundly disagree with this in my life. I do not want children and am still adult. I do not want marriage and am still adult. My mate and I are professional. I am an advocate and he an hydrogen engineer.”

    I don’t want to pay taxes.

    In fact, my life is stuffed with things that I don’t want to do.

    This issue relates to the metaphysical issue of how best to achieve the White Destiny (for lack of a better phrase) as opposed to the Dark Fate of the war of all against all.

    What is the duty of man and how do we best achieve our corporate metaphysical objective?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    What JP said….we all have social obligations to keep us on track towards White Destiny as opposed to Dark Fate.

    If you don’t mind “dark fate,” well, I assume Ana’s home country fits the bill.

  • Anacaona

    If you don’t mind “dark fate,” well, I assume Ana’s home country fits the bill.
    Oh yeah so very much.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Oh no worries, Ana. We are being spied on all the time now and the President of the US says he kills any citizen he wants without trial, warrant, oversight, or even reporting.

    Even if you think Obama is a swell guy, well, Herman Cain and Donald Trump were both “winning” for a while.

  • Gin Martini

    Avila: “I feel I profoundly disagree with this in my life.”

    JP’s pithy quote also sums up my attitude, because we were both raised conservative Lutheran. Marriage was the only correct way.

    I’m guessing you were not.

  • Man

    @chris:

    Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters by Dr Helen from PJMedia.

    It looks like a great development and eye-opener even though realistically our society is still way too deaf to men’s cries. So she acknowledges that as a woman she is likely to get the message more effectively through. She also acknowledges that men are reacting either consciously or unconsciously (rising misogyny to my mind). I think this is a very good development and that more women should step up (to safeguard their best interests as well).

  • JP

    “Avila: “I feel I profoundly disagree with this in my life.”

    JP’s pithy quote also sums up my attitude, because we were both raised conservative Lutheran. Marriage was the only correct way.

    I’m guessing you were not.”

    Interestingly enough, I also considered swearing at any time for any reason absolutely forbidden, since it was also a crime against humanity.

    I think I’ve actually used swear words on two or three separate occasions. It’s extremely difficult to remove that particular block.

    However I did not perceive any restrictions on alcohol or coffee. All other drug use was also considered a crime against humanity.

    In hindsight, it’s somewhat clear why I didn’t have a particularly pleasant time in college.

  • Man

    I disagree with thought that he loves me more than I love him based on sex.

    Passion (lust) is not love, in the same way that a woman’s attraction to male traits of dominance, social status, power, etc. is not love. But if men have ceded power to women in the last 50 years or so in the West is precisely because their essential biological need was used for socio-political ends against them. What happened on a societal level is more or less the risk that a man runs in every relationship with a woman.

    Women have a natural capability of dissimulation of feelings, victimization and ability to manipulate emotions (OK, I know that NAWALT), combined with a lack of sexual tension that gives them tremendous power and advantage to control and manipulate men. And under this misandrous culture, a lot of them will just do that, because it can be much profitable. Even Susan, a strong women’s advocate, acknowledges that about 10% of women are just unmarriageable and with great potential to turn a man’s life into misery. If she as woman, knowing very well how women are like and having the same resources, states that what are the risks for the average clueless and marginalized/battered average 21st man?

    As a rule of thumb, I would say that if a woman has to make a conscious effort or has difficulties to show respect, appreciation and affection for her mate (or men in general), then she does not love him (them). The overall cultural assumption that men only need or think about sex is also, to my mind, a sign that men are not appreciated, understood, heard and respected on a societal level.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    Man,
    “She also acknowledges that men are reacting either consciously or unconsciously (rising misogyny to my mind). I think this is a very good development”

    > So rising misogyny is a “very good development” to your mind?

    “In addition to being 18 year old undergrads, the subjects of psych studies have been criticized as being WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. Not exactly representative of humankind in general.”

    > As someone who’s lived on 4 continents, YEP.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    Man, I clicked on that link and it is revealed in one of the review comments that the author, Dr. Helen, qouted ROISSY of all people in her book!

    4.0 out of 5 stars Going Benedict May 23, 2013
    By Eric Jackson
    Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

    During one of the recent presidential debates, moderator Candy Crowley, who is as objective as she is beautiful, cut to an audience member who asked the candidates what they would do to rectify the situation whereby females make “only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn.” Despite the paucity of evidence for this much vaunted gap, Obama and Romney stumbled all over themselves in order to demonstrate how willing they were to help women.

    Less than a month prior to the debate, an article in the Daily Mail noted that in the U.S., the labor participation rate for men had dropped to 69.9 percent, the “lowest level ever recorded.” A spurious wage gap between men and women is regarded as an occasion for Government to Do Something; if men are falling behind in the economy, they need to Man Up.

    In her new book, Men on Strike, Dr. Helen Smith takes umbrage with this double standard and speaks up for the men who are reluctant to champion their own cause. In our haste to better society for women, we have eroded the institutional incentives which spurred a man to go to school, to work hard and to marry. Now, many men are going Galt.

    >>>ROISSY QUOTE BELOW<<<

    She quotes the blogger Roissy: "Men slowly discover that the effort to win women's attention via employment is not rewarding them the way it did for their dads and grandads, and that now only herculean efforts to make considerably more than women will give them an edge in the mating market." From a certain standpoint, dropping out is rational.

    Probably the most important chapter of her book covers the kangaroo courts of family law. Men are routinely forced to pay child support for children that aren't their own; if they fail to pony up, they are sent to jail. Courts have even held that a boy who was statutorily raped by an older woman was liable for her child support. When it comes to procreation: women have rights, men have responsibilities.

    Dr. Smith possesses a sympathetic understanding for the plight of men. Her book is filled with insightful anecdotes from men she has interviewed or who have commented on her blog. Since men are reluctant to bring their concerns forward, for fear of being seen as unmanly, Dr. Smith provides a helpful service in reminding men that they are not alone. The media remains oblivious to the extent, as well as the nature, of the man strike, but her book is a welcome addition to the trickle that will soon become a deluge.

    There is a minor flaw in her book, or, rather, there is an unresolved dilemma among those who wish to supplant female privilege with justice. One camp argues that only a doctrine of separate spheres is sufficient to maintain a stable society; that female suffrage leads to civilizational collapse by way of unchecked hypergamy. A more moderate school of thought, to which Dr. Smith subscribes, wishes to replace our regime with one that, at least legally, treats men and women with genuine equality.

    Regardless of the specific program, if the political problem proves to be intractable, more radical gestures may be required. For while opting out might work for individual men, the author astutely observes that such an approach is not good for civilization as a whole.

    Perhaps a better model than John Galt, the striker, would be the great founder of monasticism, St. Benedict. Today's Benedictines would not need to be celibate like the saint and his monks. Instead, as the philosopher Alidsair MacIntyre suggested, we could start little communities with wives and children, far away from the evils of modern society. One might call it: going Benedict.

  • J

    I hear this ALL THE TIME from men and NEVER ONCE in my life from a woman talk about how great her husband is and how lucky she is to have him.

    Esco, every married female regular on this blog has that about her husband at one time or another.

  • Aiva Laz

    No, I simply love him as much as he loves me.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ J,

    I hear this ALL THE TIME from men and NEVER ONCE in my life from a woman talk about how great her husband is and how lucky she is to have him.

    Esco, every married female regular on this blog has that about her husband at one time or another.

    Wasn’t he talking about the context of benefits and awards dinners and such? He was pointing out a trope of ritualistic male self denigration accompanied by homages for his wife. I don’t think he was implying that wives never praise their husbands in any situation.

  • tsimmons

    I have to agree with Mr. Wavevector above.

    “The data clearly shows that single men have sex less frequently than married men.”

    Susan quotes this all the time, and I think it’s extraordinarily misleading.

    The set of married men is a subset of the set of men who can get girlfriends.

    Therefore, to judge whether or not marriage is a good move sexually for men, you have to compare the amount of sex married men get to the amount of sex men with girlfriends get.

    Comparing married men to the set of all men is a false comparison because it includes (to be blunt) losers and incels.

    If some guy out there hasn’t had a girlfriend or gotten laid in the last five years and wants to know how to improve his situation, “Hey, you should get married!” is not helpful advice. So you have to take those individuals out of the equation entirely.

    The relevant comparison is: “If you are a 22-35 year old male who regularly has a girlfriend for at least 4 months of any given year, will you have more or less sex in the next 5 years if you get married today?”

    4 months of any year is an incredibly low threshold to cross. And if you cross it, you will almost certainly have less sex in the next 5 years if you get married now. There are other reasons to get married anyway, but let’s not try to pretend that “You’ll have more sex!” is one of them.

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

      The set of married men is a subset of the set of men who can get girlfriends.

      But the single men presumably include many of the most attractive men, the Mr. Bachelors, right?

      We’ve often discussed here how many men who are not attractive would rather remain single than get with a woman of their own SMV, so that’s another element of self-selection.

      The truth is, a married man having sex three times a week is tough competition for even the handsomest single guy who avoids relationships.

  • mr. wavevector
    The set of married men is a subset of the set of men who can get girlfriends.

    But the single men presumably include many of the most attractive men, the Mr. Bachelors, right?

    Both are right. The majority of men in the middle of the SMV distribution end up married, leaving the studs to enjoy their good fortune and the incels to mourn their failure. But even most of those studs end up married eventually.

    I would guess that the distribution of married man sexual frequency is normal, while single man sexual frequency is highly bimodal. Most of these studies report average results, and the average is not a good representation of a bimodal distribution.

    Has there been a study of sex frequency that tries to account for SMV? Even self-reported SMV would be a useful indicator.

    The truth is, a married man having sex three times a week is tough competition for even the handsomest single guy who avoids relationships.

    Sorry alpha rabbit. Beta tortoise wins again!

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

      Sorry alpha rabbit. Beta tortoise wins again!

      LOL

  • Man

    @Sriracha:

    So rising misogyny is a “very good development” to your mind?

    No. I don’t think so. But I do acknowledge it seems to be the natural way men as a whole react to passive aggressive female manipulation (which feminism is all about). Women can cry and resort to victimization: everybody hears them, including men. Men cannot cry and resort to victimization: nobody hears them. They are given two ultimate choices: comply and submit, or revolt and fight. Very clearly the “sphere” attests that the latter path is becoming increasingly an option with many being envy of Muslims and their specific Sharia laws for women.

    One camp argues that only a doctrine of separate spheres is sufficient to maintain a stable society; that female suffrage leads to civilizational collapse by way of unchecked hypergamy. A more moderate school of thought, to which Dr. Smith subscribes, wishes to replace our regime with one that, at least legally, treats men and women with genuine equality.

    I think the dilemma can only be resolved in a more equalitarian or sensible way to the degree at which more women step up to fight feminism and support men. Yet only with time we’ll know how all of this will play out, taking also into consideration the global economic changes going on.

  • Man

    @Susan:

    The truth is, a married man having sex three times a week is tough competition for even the handsomest single guy who avoids relationships.

    I think this is true. But perhaps it also reflects the fact that getting regular sex is not enough of an inducement for a guy to be interested in relationships?

    We’ve often discussed here how many men who are not attractive would rather remain single than get with a woman of their own SMV…

    I would appreciate to hear women or have a post here at HUS about the “dad” qualities which women find attractive in a man. I mean, some of the men I know who seem to have “snagged” the best wives in the “market” are just regular guys with “dad” qualities. What makes them attractive? It doesn’t seem to be anything related with what is often discussed in the “sphere” and even often here at HUS. Were they just lucky then? I don’t think so. I think there are qualities in them which made them attractive to these high EQ women in the first place and it seems to be related with their “dad” qualities.

  • JP

    “What makes them attractive?”

    A Duke Law degree?

  • JP

    “We’ve often discussed here how many men who are not attractive would rather remain single than get with a woman of their own SMV, so that’s another element of self-selection.”

    And again, this could be because they are not attracted to the person because the person is not physically attractive enough.

    I tried this once because I thought it would work.

    It failed.

  • Aiva Laz

    “We’ve often discussed here how many men who are not attractive would rather remain single than get with a woman of their own SMV, so that’s another element of self-selection. ”

    As a new viewer, I would like to see that post (or posts)! Could someone direct me to that post? What happens to such men? Do they eventually match up with their corresponding matches or not?

    “But the single men presumably include many of the most attractive men, the Mr. Bachelors, right?”

    But also many of the least attractive men, yes?

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

      @Alva Laz

      As a new viewer, I would like to see that post (or posts)! Could someone direct me to that post? What happens to such men? Do they eventually match up with their corresponding matches or not?

      I have never written a post about this, it is something that has come up frequently among male commenters in the threads. I wish I could be more specific, but I do not recall where those conversations are.

  • Man

    A Duke Law degree?

    Nope. No Duke Law degrees, luxury cars or possessions. Just regular, “dad” types. And their wives seem also to be the regular “mom” types, even though I am referring to some of the most beautiful and feminine women I’ve known.

  • JP

    “No Duke Law degrees, luxury cars or possessions.”

    I’m still trying to figure out whether a Duke Law degree is an asset or a liability.

  • JP

    Here’s the Duke Law petition for anyone who is amused by such things:

    http://dukelawpetition.blogspot.com/2013/01/duke-law-tuition-petition.html

    “Yet the full cost of Duke Law School far exceeds tuition alone. When fees, mandatory health insurance, books and living expenses are included, the cost for one year of law school is $72,621 for the 2012-2013 academic year, according to Duke’s website.[6] At this level of tuition and living expenses, the total cost for three years is $217,863. This assessment is overly optimistic, however, because it does not include the interest on the loans (often as high as 8.5 percent for PLUS loans[7]) that 86 percent of Duke’s 2011 class took out to finance their education.[8] The non-profit organization Law School Transparency estimates that the full, debt-financed cost for three years of law school at Duke is actually $252,727.[9] Even with Duke’s generous scholarship program, the average amount borrowed by the 2011 class was $128,057, which, due to accrued interest, climbed to $145,000 by the repayment period starting in November 2011.[10] Moreover, these costs do not take into account the opportunity cost that students incur by not working for three years – a likely hefty toll given Duke’s ambitious and successful student body.

    Meanwhile, the employment situation for Duke Law graduates is rapidly deteriorating. Only 82.1 percent of the class of 2011 was able to obtain full time, long term jobs requiring bar passage[11] – a low number considering the high debt levels of graduates. More alarmingly, salaries have failed to keep pace with rapid tuition growth. Only 58.9 percent of 2011 graduates landed jobs in private firms, and of that group only half made $160,000 as first year associates.[12] This means that less than 30 percent of Duke’s 2011 class earned even close to enough money to sustain monthly payments of approximately $1,600 that the average student borrower faces under a standard ten year payment plan.[13] In fact, FinAid estimates that a salary of $200,239.20 is necessary to comfortably pay off this level of debt, a salary unobtainable for the vast majority of Duke Law graduates.[14] Moreover, only 11.6 percent of the class obtained public interest or government jobs that might qualify them for Duke’s loan forgiveness program.[15] The stark reality is that many Duke Law graduates are saddled with non-dischargeable student loan debt that is simply impossible to pay on the average lawyer salary – if they are fortunate enough to obtain paying legal work.”

  • Mireille

    I would appreciate to hear women or have a post here at HUS about the “dad” qualities which women find attractive in a man. What makes them attractive?I think there are qualities in them which made them attractive to these high EQ women in the first place and it seems to be related with their “dad” qualities.

    I think a lot of women have share here the qualities they found attractive in men in general and in their husbands in particular. Too busy ramming on the deceiving character of women in general to notice it ?

    For my part, it is mix of all the following quality:
    _Intelligence
    _Kindness
    _Empathy
    _Psychological/Emotional strength and stability
    _Reliability
    _Ability to provide/protect

  • tsimmons

    “The truth is, a married man having sex three times a week is tough competition for even the handsomest single guy who avoids relationships.”

    Sure.

    But if I take ten male friends who have been married 3 years or more, and ten male friends who are in relationships with women but have not married them, the latter set will have more guys having sex 3 times a week than the former set.

    There’s a reason the “jar of pennies” parable earns so much knowing laughter from the people who hear it. It’s because it reflects the experience of the majority of people.

    Sex frequency in first year of relationship > sex frequency after first year of relationship but prior to marriage > sex frequency of first year of marriage > sex frequency of all marriage years post-first-year. For the average relationship.

    Trying to achieve the highest result via serial monogamy takes a bit of doing, because every time you trade out you’re taking a chance of being single for an extended period of time. Staying in the first or second set until ultimatum behavior forces you to capitulate or move on seems like the best bet for most men (if an only if we’re talking about sex frequency and no other relationship attribute).

    So marriage is a great deal for men sexually if they’re unable to keep themselves in one of the first two sets. But the guys who have to decide whether or not to get married are generally already IN one of the first two sets. So it’s a reverse catch-22 (a catch-55, maybe?).

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

      @tsimmons

      But if I take ten male friends who have been married 3 years or more, and ten male friends who are in relationships with women but have not married them, the latter set will have more guys having sex 3 times a week than the former set.

      Right, because frequency of sex decreases after the limerence phase ends, and of course when children arrive. This is not a case of dads grumpy with too little sex – nature gives them a huge boost of oxytocin so their T levels and sex drive drops during the critical period of childrearing.

      Trying to achieve the highest result via serial monogamy takes a bit of doing, because every time you trade out you’re taking a chance of being single for an extended period of time

      Indeed. There are also heavy costs associated with the search for new sexual partners, as well as the maintenance of any relationship that is not strictly short-term.

      So marriage is a great deal for men sexually if they’re unable to keep themselves in one of the first two sets.

      I never meant to suggest that men should get married in order to have more sex. Mr. Bachelor and Mr. Relationship have different emotional responses to commitment. Mr. Relationship is happiest with regular sex with his beloved, with its ups and downs over the years. Mr. Bachelor is happiest when he can score a new sexual adventure and strut his way home. BTW, studies show that for promiscuous men, attraction to a woman drops more dramatically after intercourse. They really are wired for hit and run.

  • Gin Martini

    Mirielle… If those attributes can make a revolting man attractive, then they are “attraction” traits, otherwise they are merely desired, or just amplify attraction that is already there (which is how I see it).

    I agree with 1-5 myself, they can make an average girl stunning in my mind, but if she’s far below the threshold, they can’t do anything at all. Conversely, a woman who is lacking in these secondary traits but is physically attractive, doesn’t suddenly become ugly – she doesn’t get that force multiplier of personality and, in my mind, can be less attractive than a so-called “hotter” woman.

    You heard me right… the total attraction force potential of the sweet girl next door, as experienced by men, is far higher than the nasty model. Looks only goes so far. (Of course if you are both a model AND sweet… well… that’s how multiplication works.)

    tsimmons: “Comparing married men to the set of all men is a false comparison because it includes (to be blunt) losers and incels.”

    There are Kinsey stats that compare sex frequency cohabitating with married folks. The married folks have far more sex than cohabs, except maybe in one narrow age-range. The singles have very little sex comparatively, but it isn’t broken down by LTR/no LTR. Still, if “players” were getting laid like tile, they might bring up the non-LTR average to be close to the married folks, but it doesn’t.

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

      Mirielle… If those attributes can make a revolting man attractive, then they are “attraction” traits, otherwise they are merely desired, or just amplify attraction that is already there (which is how I see it).

      Buss’ list of female sexual attraction cues includes all the beta traits. Economic capacity and social dominance head the list, but most of the other traits are beta. The attraction is not a sequential process – if possessing #1 and #2, keep considering man – but a sort of weighted formula, where all the traits work together to present as a package.

      I really need to get a text expansion app so that I can type the word Buss and get the whole list down immediately. No matter how many times I share this, it keeps coming up.

  • Mireille

    @ Gin Martini,

    I was trying to elevate the discussion past simply being physically attractive. Seems obvious you have to desire physically someone to be compelled to assess their other qualities. If someone think you’re less than pretty, they don’t really care if you’re the nicest and most supportive girl in the world.

  • JP

    @Gin Martini – why did you change your handle?

  • JP
  • A Definite Beta Guy

    The most interesting event from last night was that I was with the only guy in the entire bar that the GIRLS were going to. As in, some girl literally pretended she was reeling in a fish to get his attention.

    There was nothing remarkable about him. Plain dress, slightly above average height, somewhat dorky hair. Looked very dorky on the whole actually, and I think his dancing was a little lame, and apparently he had never been drunk before…

    Used to run track and field. That body-type. Note: that’s incredibly “fit” and muscular by normal standards.

    But that’s what they were going for.

    I would also note that although red was a very eye-catching color, the girls who produced an immediate “approach her now” feeling, at least in me, were wearing blue dresses, with relatively simple patterns.

    Am I unique in this?

    I continue to be baffled why people find this “going out” thing fun.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Lol, JP, that comic is hilarious

  • mr. wavevector

    @ tsimmons,

    Let’s look at some data on the frequency of “Men Reporting Frequency of Vaginal Sex”. (below). You can see that the percentage of men reporting fairly frequent sex (2-3 times a week) is much higher among the marrieds than the singles. But even more dramatic is the very large percentage of single men who haven’t got laid in a year.

    Percentage of Men Reporting Frequency of Vaginal Sex, N=2396

    No PIV in last year
    Age Single Married
    18-24 56.9 4.2
    25-29 46.6 1.6
    30-39 39.6 4.5
    40-49 48.9 9.1
    50-59 67.7 20.6
    60-69 86.4 33.9
    70+ 81.6 54.2

    PIV 2-3 times per week
    Age Single Married
    18-24 8.0 45.8
    25-29 4.1 37.1
    30-39 1.7 26.8
    40-49 8.0 19.9
    50-59 5.3 15.0
    60-69 1.2 9.5
    70+ 0.0 5.8

    A lot of the complaining about sex in marriage comes from my age group. Only 16% of married men 50-59 get laid multiple times a week, but only 6% of the singles are. I’m one of the lucky ones, I see. Woo-hoo! Thank you, mrs. wavevector.

  • Fish

    @Susan
    “The truth is, a married man having sex three times a week is tough competition for even the handsomest single guy who avoids relationships.”

    I have accepted I’m not the “average” guy by any means, but i’ll use this year as an example (at the halfway point). For 4 months of the year, I have had very little sex, we’ll say 5 times total (I can’t really estimate because it wasn’t with new partners). For 2 months of the year, I had an extremely high amount of sex (4-10x a week). I would estimate I have had sex around 30 times. A married could who has sex 1-3x a week (we’ll say 2x for ease of calculation) will have already had sex over 50 times in that span of time.

    I’m not saying i’m a representative sample of “mr bachelor” or single guys as a whole, but the numbers suggest a “good” relationship/marriage will beat a single guy. Its why companies hedge earnings. Unless you are at a level where you literally can have sex as much as you want with whomever you want, a couple in a functional marriage will beat you. However, that guy is probably as much an outlier as the “sex once a month or less” marriages.

    I think the mr bachelor mindset is like that of someone who does sales. I previously worked in the investments industry and every other place is looking to get people in commission only sales jobs with promises “you could earn 100k in your first year.” There are some top performers who do, most do not. Mr. Relationship is the salaried position, you know what you are going to make generally and you’re good with it. You may not have the earnings potential of Mr bachelor, but you know you are getting a steady paycheck month to month.

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

      I think the mr bachelor mindset is like that of someone who does sales. I previously worked in the investments industry and every other place is looking to get people in commission only sales jobs with promises “you could earn 100k in your first year.” There are some top performers who do, most do not. Mr. Relationship is the salaried position, you know what you are going to make generally and you’re good with it.

      That’s a brilliant metaphor, I love it.

  • Fish

    And even to break down into utils using a grade point system, lets even say the average married couple was having C level sex (2 utils/occurance) and i’m having B level sex (better, but non pornstar level, 3 utils/occurance), the married couple will still beat me in overall satisfaction 100 – 90.

    Obviously those ratings will be much more subjective, but in my experience, A level sex is random or stays in porn. its not something that can be had consistently.

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

      And even to break down into utils using a grade point system

      Even better! My brothers once came up with a concept of evaluating all social opportunities in terms of the available “British Fun Units” or BFUs. The three of us were single and in our early 20s at the time, and this system worked extremely well.

  • Man

    @Mireille:

    Too busy ramming on the deceiving character of women in general to notice it ?
    For my part, it is mix of all the following quality:
    _Intelligence
    _Kindness
    _Empathy
    _Psychological/Emotional strength and stability
    _Reliability
    _Ability to provide/protect

    Actually I had noticed only you before here at HUS. And the only author I know of who seems to be trying to convey another message to men is Shaunti Feldhahn in For Men Only.

  • Fish

    @Beta guy
    The fun of going out depends on your goals. If hooking up is you main reason to go out, its not very efficient at doing that. Personally I enjoy doing it to have a few drinks & spend time with friends. If it happens to be my group of female friends, I’m almost guaranteed not to hook up. However, I still have a good time doing it.

  • Hope

    My husband was actually not outwardly Mr. Relationship, as I was his first girlfriend and “real” relationship. His mentality sort of fit, but his actions didn’t. He was more of a Mr. Bachelor and didn’t think most girls were girlfriend material. That was actually one of the first things he said to me, and he also told me he was not looking for a girlfriend.

    I think for a certain set of men, a woman has to really cross a threshold of excellence before he is moved enough to commit to her. Maybe this set of men is growing in population thanks to the internet and the sharing of knowledge among intelligent men. Whereas before, just being hot and young was enough, today a woman has to have much more of the “multipliers” like kindness, empathy, sweetness, practicality, non-bitchy personality, etc. At least, she does if she wants to get a certain type of high MMV man who is interested in marriage but is very picky.

  • Anacaona

    I would also note that although red was a very eye-catching color, the girls who produced an immediate “approach her now” feeling, at least in me, were wearing blue dresses, with relatively simple patterns.

    Am I unique in this?
    Actually blue is the color of being likeable. People going to job interviews are advice to use blue. You need to remember that red screams sex and passion so if you are unrestricted you might want to go for that. Restricted probably find that too aggressive and look for likeable.

  • mr. wavevector

    The Lonely Life of Singles

    The Kinsey Institute data on sexual frequency allows us to put some ‘sphere memes to the test.

    Meme: Men peak in SMV in their 30’s and can do well into their 40’s.

    Data says: TRUE. Men 30-39 have the lowest rate of involuntary celibacy among single men at 39.6%, while men 40-49 have the highest rate of having sex multiple times per week among single men at 10.3%.

    Caveat: Very few single men of any age are having sex multiple times a week, and most aren’t having any sex at all.

    Meme: Single women “hit the wall” in their 30’s and have fewer sexual opportunities.

    Data says: TRUE. The rate of celibacy among single women jumps from 43% for 25-29 year olds to 72.3% for 30-39 year olds, while the number of single women having sex multiple times a week drops from 11.4% for 20-29 year olds to 4.5% for 30-39 year olds. Single men in these age brackets are much more successful sexually.

    Caveat: The 30-49 year old men do better than the women, but they don’t do well compared to married men.

    Meme: Young single women are slutting it up and riding the carousel.

    Data says: FALSE. Except for single women 25-29, most single women do not have sex even once a year. Only a bit more than half of those in the prime age bracket of 25-29 had any sex in the last year.

    No vaginal sex in last year
    Age Group Male Female
    18-24 56.9 50.8
    25-29 46.6 43
    30-39 39.6 72.3
    40-49 48.9 71.1
    50-59 67.7 85.4
    60-69 86.4 84.5
    70+ 81.6 100

    Vaginal sex 2+ times per week
    Age Group Male Female
    18-24 10.2 13.1
    25-29 4.1 11.4
    30-39 7.2 4.5
    40-49 10.3 2.1
    50-59 5.8 2.2
    60-69 1.2 2.6
    70+ 0 0

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Meme: Single women “hit the wall” in their 30′s and have fewer sexual opportunities.

    Data says: TRUE. The rate of celibacy among single women jumps from 43% for 25-29 year olds to 72.3% for 30-39 year olds, while the number of single women having sex multiple times a week drops from 11.4% for 20-29 year olds to 4.5% for 30-39 year olds. Single men in these age brackets are much more successful sexually.”

    > Most American women in their 30s are divorced or going through one. They usually take some time after the divorce, like a year or two, sometimes more, to “find themselves” or “focus on me” before they get back into relationship, but MOST of them do get back into at least one more relationship, often more.

    “Manosphere Meme: Men peak in SMV in their 30′s and can do well into their 40′s.”

    > The Manosphere meme is actually that men peak in their 40’s and do well into their 70’s.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!

  • mr. wavevector

    Most American women in their 30s are divorced or going through one.

    False. Given that all women don’t marry and less than half that do divorce, your statement is mathematically impossible.

  • mr. wavevector

    The Manosphere meme is actually that men peak in their 40′s and do well into their 70′s.

    18.4% of single men 70+ are still getting some. Alphas for life.

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

      18.4% of single men 70+ are still getting some. Alphas for life.

      Ha, more like beneficiaries of a highly skewed sex ratio! My MIL, a widow, lives at a retirement community. The fat old widowers are beating them off with a stick. Women have actually had physical fights over one of the men there – Mr. Martini. He spends the winter in FL and when he comes back the old ladies assume coquettish poses and try to lure him into commitment. It’s hilarious.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “18.4% of single men 70+ are still getting some. Alphas for life.”

    I don’t believe that b.s. for a nano second.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    Ahhh on the other hand I may have spoke too soon.

    STD epidemic at retirement community in Florida;

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/item_Cc7ZfG20iWexuTKNixQhvO

    and

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-05-16/health/os-seniors-stds-national-20110516_1_std-cases-syphilis-and-chlamydia-older-adults

    Keep in mind they are getting it on with each other, which means our grandmothers and great grand mothers “still got it” too!

    Alpha matriarchs.

    (though if they really “still had it” they’d be going cougar, which I’m sure a few are ;) …..).

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    Ha ha ha! This is classic;

    ” LADY LAKE, Fla. – It’s 11 p.m. at the Bourbon Street Bar, and Roselyn’s gyrating her hips to the blues band, Sue’s sipping a cocktail and flirting with her new boyfriend, and Alan is scanning the crowd for cute girls.

    “See those two?” a buxom blonde asks, pointing to an elegant couple at the bar. “They were caught having sex in their golf cart a few weeks ago. It happens a lot!”

    Welcome to ground zero for geriatrics who are seriously getting it on.

    It’s a Thursday night at one of a half-dozen hot spots at the 20,000-acre Central Florida complex called The Villages, the largest gated retirement community in America – and one of the most popular destinations for New Yorkers in their golden years – where the female-to-male ratio runs 10 to 1.

    It’s a widower’s paradise, and the word on the street is that there’s a big black market for Viagra. ”

    >
    In the gulf cart? Really, now?

  • Gin Martini

    JP: There’s little left for me to say.

    My status and experiences are too divergent (class, looks, age, money, etc) to the readership here, and mostly irrelevant, so I’m now investing my energy towards individuals or small groups, not the public. Decided to commemorate that with a handle change, perhaps to indicate that little I say is very serious. My old identity may come back, if certain conditions change.

    Rage-quitting is never my style, I disengage a bit and move to other areas.

    Off to get some sun. It’s really nice here in Boston…

  • mr. wavevector

    Keep in mind they are getting it on with each other, which means our grandmothers and great grand mothers “still got it” too!

    Alpha matriarchs.

    Sluts!

    And a ratio of 10 female per male? That’s why 18.4% of those 70+ single men are getting laid and 0 % of 70+ single women are. You read that right – zero percent. A 70+ single women getting laid is a statistical rounding error. Those few remaining single old men who can still get it up have their pick of all those 60 year old babes.

  • Fish

    @Hope
    I think that sums me up as well (although I am not and have yet to be married. Close only counts in hand grenades & horseshoes). I am looking for a relationship, but my standards to commit long term are very high, so I end up with a string of short term relationships. i put my odds of marriage around 50% as although I think my MMV is above average, i’m also looking for a combination of qualities that is both rare and has a tendency not to be on the open market for long.

  • Sai

    Paul Rivers part #4 says it best IMO. In this case, it’s perfectly valid that “it’s not you, it’s me.”

    @M3
    Congratulations!

    (I was going to buy or make a nice blue Science Officer uniform… but now I’ll never be able to not think about this thread. XD)

  • Man

    Whereas before, just being hot and young was enough, today a woman has to have much more of the “multipliers” like kindness, empathy, sweetness, practicality, non-bitchy personality, etc. At least, she does if she wants to get a certain type of high MMV man who is interested in marriage but is very picky.

    That’s our Hope. :)

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “60 year old babes”

    No such thing. Babe ends on the last month of a woman’s 29th year at most.
    Generally it ends on the last month of her 23rd year unless she’s East Asian.

    ;)

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Hope,

    Whereas before, just being hot and young was enough, today a woman has to have much more of the “multipliers” like kindness, empathy, sweetness, practicality, non-bitchy personality, etc. At least, she does if she wants to get a certain type of high MMV man who is interested in marriage but is very picky.

    Very true. I had “nurturing” on my list too.

    The manosphere meme is that all men care about is looks. That is ridiculous – another example of black and white thinking from guys who’ve never had a real long term relationship. A woman’s character and personality is what men fall in love with. Many men don’t recognize that because their emotional attraction stimulates their sexual desire, and they are a lot more aware of their sexual desire than they are of their emotions.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Whereas before, just being hot and young was enough, today a woman has to have much more of the “multipliers” like kindness, empathy, sweetness, practicality, non-bitchy personality, etc. At least, she does if she wants to get a certain type of high MMV man who is interested in marriage but is very picky.”

    “Very true.”

    Not true.

    Hot and young by themselves never qualified anyone as a wife and mother of children.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “Ha, more like beneficiaries of a highly skewed sex ratio! My MIL, a widow, lives at a retirement community. The fat old widowers are beating them off with a stick. Women have actually had physical fights over one of the men there – Mr. Martini. He spends the winter in FL and when he comes back the old ladies assume coquettish poses and try to lure him into commitment. It’s hilarious.”

    Susan, scroll up and read the links to news coverage of “The Villages” near Orlando, FL.

    “RETIRE TO THE BEDROOM:
    SEX FEST AT OLD-TIMERS’ HOTTEST SPOT”

  • http://whoism3.wordpress.com M3

    @ Sai

    “(I was going to buy or make a nice blue Science Officer uniform… but now I’ll never be able to not think about this thread. XD)”

    Beverly Crusher was Sooooo Hot. And who can forget the incredible Jadzia Dax. You want trek with sex appeal.. go blue! Guaranteed to make more than just the uniform blue.

    @ WaveVector

    “The manosphere meme is that all men care about is looks. That is ridiculous – another example of black and white thinking from guys who’ve never had a real long term relationship. A woman’s character and personality is what men fall in love with”

    While this is most certainly true as i can attest to it because i always look for LTR traits in a woman that jive with my own, i wouldn’t go so far as to say it isn’t a reality. The meme is based on the idea that feminists crow on and on about how personality (which they frame as the strong bitchy tnkgrll type) and character (euphemism for ignore my 200lbs of haagendaas impulse control failure) in lieu of good looks. The whole fat acceptance movement is based on this and the sphere is right in slapping it down with laughter.

    Just as the reverse is true for beta men.. they need to display some alpha to gather interest and get a foot through the door, women must be sufficiently attractive enough for that particular man. Rational Male did a post based on men’s predominance towards the thin and healthy, while there is a subset that have a fetish for the obese.. one cannot implicate that ALL men are capable of being able to fall in love with heavy women.

    Initial attraction is what is required for both sexes to ‘see’ each other.. character, personality, interests, drives and chemistry are what glue them together. Once you’re together, you have the leeway (gaining weight, being more beta.. to a degree on both) but you can’t get away with this before initial attraction.

    @ Hot Sauce

    “Hot and young by themselves never qualified anyone as a wife and mother of children.”

    Very true. I have heard too many stories in the sphere about many men lamenting their choices of marriage partner, or basically speaking derogatorily about quite a large swath of todays average urban woman who may be an HB9 and dressed to the tits hot.. but in the same vein worth only a pump and dump because she has zero qualities of being a good wife or decent mother of children.

    “Sorry alpha rabbit. Beta tortoise wins again!”

    Don’t know who originally wrote this, but as cute amusing as it is, i don’t agree with it. Alpha rabbit always wins. You may love all the traits a beta tortoise portrays.. but they don’t instill desire or attraction. I know. I lived it. It’s not a coincidence that me myself and i have experienced this on multiple occasions. Everyone knows i’m beta through and through. It is when i displayed nothing but beta that my life always sucked. It was only in those moments where i accidentally channeled alpha, or after i discovered the sphere and actualized what i learned about being alpha (while maintaining my beta core) did i see results. Beta by itself doesn’t win and never will. The rabbit always needs to be crossing the finish line.. but women like it better when the tortoise is hanging onto the rabbits tail for dear life so it crosses the finish line too. ;)

  • mr. wavevector

    @ M3,

    Don’t know who originally wrote this, but as cute amusing as it is, i don’t agree with it. Alpha rabbit always wins. You may love all the traits a beta tortoise portrays.. but they don’t instill desire or attraction. I know. I lived it. It’s not a coincidence that me myself and i have experienced this on multiple occasions. Everyone knows i’m beta through and through. It is when i displayed nothing but beta that my life always sucked.

    I wrote it. I agree with you that beta (as in Roissy beta) with no alpha at all ends up incel. That’s not what I meant though. I meant beta as a fairly high status but relationship oriented man, like the Vox beta. Those are the married guys, the Mr. Relationships we’re discussing. They are men who are attractive enough to get the girl, and good enough to keep her. Pure alphas get a lot of girls but can’t or won’t keep them, and unless they are truly at the pinnacle of the SMP they get laid less in the long run.

  • mr. wavevector

    @M3,

    While this is most certainly true as i can attest to it because i always look for LTR traits in a woman that jive with my own, i wouldn’t go so far as to say it isn’t a reality

    I’m sure it’s not a reality that all men care about is looks. It might be a reality that’s all some men care about, but even then I doubt it. Studies that compare stated dating priorities with the dates people actually choose show that what people think they want doesn’t correlate very well with who they actually choose. None of that contradicts the fact that women’s looks are a very important attraction factor for men.

    I do agree with your point that the black and white thinking of the manosphere is a useful antidote for the equally black and white thinking of the feminist hegemony.

  • mr. wavevector

    Mr. Relationship is the salaried position, you know what you are going to make generally and you’re good with it.

    He works hard for the cunny
    So hard for it honey
    He works hard for the cunny
    So you better treat him right

  • Man

    Buss’ list of female sexual attraction cues includes all the beta traits. Economic capacity and social dominance head the list, but most of the other traits are beta. The attraction is not a sequential process – if possessing #1 and #2, keep considering man – but a sort of weighted formula, where all the traits work together to present as a package.

    I really need to get a text expansion app so that I can type the word Buss and get the whole list down immediately. No matter how many times I share this, it keeps coming up.

    It’s not HUSssie’s fault but it looks like 99.9% of HUS discussions are about alpha, beta and who’s getting high “N” and the quality of “N”. Whatever Buss’s message is, it isn’t being delivered or even considered in the first place (at least in the “manosphere”).

    As a last note, I notice nobody mentioned economic/job instability or mobility as a reason for guys avoiding relationships. I think this is an important factor nowadays, not only for men but for women too.

  • chris

    @Hope

    “I think for a certain set of men, a woman has to really cross a threshold of excellence before he is moved enough to commit to her. Maybe this set of men is growing in population thanks to the internet and the sharing of knowledge among intelligent men. Whereas before, just being hot and young was enough, today a woman has to have much more of the “multipliers” like kindness, empathy, sweetness, practicality, non-bitchy personality, etc. At least, she does if she wants to get a certain type of high MMV man who is interested in marriage but is very picky.”

    Let X represent all the traits that make a woman long-term/marriage/wife material, (i.e. kindness, empathy, sweetness, practicality, non-bitchy personality, etc. )

    There are two ways for X to exist in a woman;
    1) Social conditioning (via the culture, society)
    2) Those traits are inherent (i.e. genetic)

    Our culture and society in the past was set up to socially condition these X traits into women. Now it no longer is (in fact some may argue it socially conditions the exact opposite). So men who seek long term relationships/marriage/wives will be selecting among those women who have X traits via route 2, that is women who inherently possess X traits. This requires an evaluation of each individual woman, rather than relying on the culture to have done is job at socializing X into women.

  • Sriracha Hot Sauce

    “He works hard for the cunny
    So hard for it honey
    He works hard for the cunny
    So you better treat him right”

    Tumble outta bed and I stumble to the kitchen
    Pour myself a cup of ambition
    Yawnin’, stretchin’, try to come to life
    Jump in the shower and the blood starts pumpin’
    Out on the streets the traffic starts jumpin’
    And folks like me on the job from nine to five
    Chorus:

    Workin’ nine to five
    What a way to make a livin’
    Barely gettin’ by
    It’s all takin’ and no givin’
    They just use your mind
    And they never give you credit
    It’s enough to drive you
    Crazy if you let it

    Nine to five, for service and devotion
    You would think that I
    Would deserve a fair promotion
    Want to move ahead
    But the boss won’t seem to let me
    I swear sometimes that man is out to get me
    Mmmmm…

    They let your dream
    Just a’ watch ‘em shatter
    You’re just a step
    On the boss man’s ladder
    But you got dreams he’ll never take away

    In the same boat with a lot of your friends
    Waitin’ for the day your ship’ll come in
    And the tide’s gonna turn
    And it’s all gonna roll your way

    2nd Chorus:

    Workin’ nine to five
    What a way to make a livin’
    Barely gettin’ by
    It’s all takin’ and no givin’
    They just use your mind
    And you never get the credit
    It’s enough to drive you
    Crazy if you let it

    Nine to five, yeah
    They got you where they want you
    There’s a better life
    And you think about it, don’t you?
    It’s a rich man’s game
    No matter what they call it
    And you spend your life
    Puttin’ money in his wallet

    3rd Chorus:

    Nine to five
    What a way to make a livin’
    Barely gettin’ by
    It’s all takin’ and no givin’
    They just use you mind
    And they never give you credit
    It’s enough to drive you
    Crazy if you let it

    Fade:

    Nine to five, yeah
    They got you where they want you
    There’s a better life
    And you dream about it, don’t you?
    It’s a rich man’s game
    No matter what they call it
    And you spend your life
    Puttin’ money in his wallet

  • Aiva Laz

    Hostess Susan,

    I understand. Thank you. I had to find definition of “incel” and now I think I know how statistics suggest from where they come. From States census, there appear to be 105 boy babies for every 100 girl babies, based on the male to female ratio of ages 0 to 5.

    Ratio of single men to single women in younger groups becomes even larger because older “winner” men divorce and marry younger women. So using States census data, in the age bracket of 18-29, there are 119 single men for every 100 single women. For people aged 30-39, there are 117 single men for every 100 single women. Dating life much harder for under-40-year-old men than for women!

    Using same data, in 2006, 16.7% of men 41-45 were never married, compared to 10.6% of women. From 1970, unmarried gap has increased from 1.8 percentage points to 6.1 percentage points. Maybe most “loser” males born between 1925 and 1930 were able to find wives but such males born between 1961 and 1966 never find wife.

    In new times, women would rather become the second wife of older “winner” male or never marry at all, than settle for “loser” male!

  • Man

    @Mireille:

    If someone think you’re less than pretty, they don’t really care if you’re the nicest and most supportive girl in the world.

    I think that for most girls the challenge is to tell the difference between his perception and her self-perception of beauty. I guess it’s just like men feeling intimated of approaching a girl. Very often he “figures out” beforehand that he doesn’t hold a chance. At least that’s what “he” knows. Has he got to try and face outright rejection or wait for indications of interest? Interesting mating dance, isn’t it? Anyway easier said than done…

  • Fish

    @Man
    “As a last note, I notice nobody mentioned economic/job instability or mobility as a reason for guys avoiding relationships.”

    I think that is an excuse for guys who would be avoiding relationships anyways. I’m going to call a spade a spade here. I am moving in 2 months, 3 hours away, then 2 years after than moving around 1500 miles. While I am open to the thought of a relationship, really, i intend to keep my exceedingly high standards for one and my moving around is a convenient excuse not to pursue one.

    I think if a guy wants a relationship, he will seek one out (well guys able to get & pursue, not the timid, shy ones). if he doesnt want one, there are a million ready excuses, but they are just that: excuses. I’m not saying there arent people worth dating from 3 hours away, but I’m not working terribly hard to find them. . .

  • angelguy

    “I think if a guy wants a relationship, he will seek one out (well guys able to get & pursue, not the timid, shy ones). if he doesnt want one, there are a million ready excuses, but they are just that: excuses. I’m not saying there arent people worth dating from 3 hours away, but I’m not working terribly hard to find them. . .”

    @Fish

    You can use that same logic for Women too.
    They are just that, excuses.

  • angelguy

    “As a last note, I notice nobody mentioned economic/job instability or mobility as a reason for guys avoiding relationships”

    @Man

    I think it is because most of the focus on HUS tends to be on how a woman gets a commitable Man. All men that are marriagable material, aren’t economically challenged. Those that are, are even considered date-worthy.

  • angelguy

    “aren’t even considered date-worthy.”

    Sorry, typo correction.

  • Fish

    @Angelguy

    I’d agree with you,but I can’t really speak for the mindset of women. I don’t understand them (I understand certain behaviors and specific people, but as a group, not so much). However, I can speak as a single, 33yo dude who dates but has not been married.

  • Hope

    Chris, that is true, but blogs like Susan’s help the individual woman gain that “X factor,” and while that does not solve the societal issue, it does help people who seek the help. It’s somewhat like weight loss techniques. Even if it doesn’t solve the obesity epidemic, it helps the individual take charge of his or her health.

    Of course, some of the X is innate, just like people have a natural tendency towards certain body types. But there is an appreciable difference between no girl game at all vs being the best you can be, like obesity vs healthy for your body type.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Re: Hope and Chris conversation

    Culture is really just a million little cultures, sort of like “society” is a million little people. There are some cultures that are going to be effective at producing high quality men and women, and some that are not.

    Look at the happy people in relationships and what kind of cultures they participate in…then go to those cultures ;)

  • Jonny

    Women need to look at their own reflection as well. Many are not marriageable by preference or lack of attraction. It is a bad idea to promote marriage to them when they already own cats and don’t know where they went wrong.

  • Fish

    @Jonny
    “Women need to look at their own reflection as well. Many are not marriageable by preference or lack of attraction.”

    There have been posts here about that exact same thing. But there are 2 separate problems at work there, both fixable (for someone who genuinely wants a relationship). Problem A) self-perceived value is higher than market value. Fix – increase market value or lower expectations. Problem B) making poor relationship choices (i.e. bad boys or guys looking for sex and not relationship). Fix – better filtering process for guys.

    There is a pretty big supply of both single men and women, so that isn’t the issue. As I see it, the point of the blog is to help those women who “don’t know where they went wrong”. Just like every guy is not entitled to a porn star home maker type who will let him play video games all day, all women are not entitled to a tall, attractive 6 figure earner who waxes poetically about her day and night. Any market is really about uniting buyers and sellers, not worrying about those who choose not to participate.

  • Jonny

    Problem C) Lack of understanding of what makes a relationship work.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Re: problem C
    A young woman today told me that she must find fault in her boyfriend and start a fight in order to keep him on his toes, or else he will get bored and leave her.

    Yep.

    Good times.

  • Mireille

    @ ADBG,

    Probably the guy is not very responsive or engaging; She has to battle to get his attention so she created drama to draw him in. Bad dynamic. Some men just get super passive once in a relationship.

  • mr. wavevector

    ADBG,

    A young woman today told me that she must find fault in her boyfriend and start a fight in order to keep him on his toes, or else he will get bored and leave her.

    What’s that? Dark girl-game?

    Sounds like a female form of negging. Dark guy-game uses negs to get the girl (i.e get sex), while dark girl-game uses negs to keep the guy (i.e. maintain commitment).

  • JP

    “A young woman today told me that she must find fault in her boyfriend and start a fight in order to keep him on his toes, or else he will get bored and leave her.”

    That sounds like a very good way to get fired from your position.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Mireille

    Probably the guy is not very responsive or engaging; She has to battle to get his attention so she created drama to draw him in. Bad dynamic. Some men just get super passive once in a relationship.

    Right on. A classic relationship disfunction is male withdrawal / female pursuit; the man withdraws emotionally, so the woman pursues, which makes the man withdraw even more. The woman’s intent may be good – maintain emotional engagement – but her actions are counterproductive.

    Sometimes the dynamic is more negative – one partner undercuts the self esteem of the other so they won’t feel capable of leaving the relationship. Both sexes participate in this type of manipulation.

    Sometimes the men who get super passive do so because of egalitarian beliefs. They don’t want to act dominant so they become unassertive. This can lead to a negative cycle too – the woman doesn’t want to be dominant either so she also becomes unassertive. I’ve seen this referred to as “mutually assured submission”, and it’s an attraction killer.

  • Josie

    Many of the guys who never settled down ends up being those creepy old guys at a bar or hanging with young women in third world countries i.e. Brazil, Thailand, Mexico, and other foreign countries.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I think this girl is just stupid and does not understand men well. Their most recent problem is that she dragged him to a christening for a family that she does not know very well and the guy resented being there.

  • JP

    “Their most recent problem is that she dragged him to a christening for a family that she does not know very well and the guy resented being there.”

    She really likes christenings?

  • Tom

    I think there is a difference between the needs of mr relationship and the sworn single guy.
    Sure both want sex, but mr relationanship wants committment and doesnt HAVE to have strange to feed his needs nor his ego. Some guys really do need variety to get the same bang for their buck (no pun intended). While other guys find the same woman over and over is just fine. There are ways to spice up long term sex without adding a third person. Then there are the guys who have to constantly feed their ego with the “hunt,” capture, and release. Most of the guys with very large numbers are these types.

    As far as women and their behavior goes, a lot of womens behavior is a direct result of the man they are with and what they think they need to be like in order to please him.
    I remember recently reading an article that suggested that women sometimes were different with the bad boys because wild behavior was expected, but that wasnt really their natural desire to act that way. They were really happy when they dated a more normal guy so they could be them selves and not what someone else expected.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    JP,

    beats the f out of me

    But they just started dating and it almost sounds like they are trying to combine lives already, lol

    They’re dumb

  • JP

    “JP,

    beats the f out of me

    But they just started dating and it almost sounds like they are trying to combine lives already, lol

    They’re dumb”

    How old? 25? 21? 28? 72?

  • Fish

    Re: starting fights

    I had an ex do that. She would pick on me and start fights seemingly for no reason. Some people just like attention. Bad attention is still attention. She is the only girl I’ve dated I ever raised my voice at. Our relationship didn’t last long after that.

    However, I don’t believe women like that to be in the majority. I think those types of behaviors seem to be more attributable to younger girls who (hopefully) grow out of them by 25 or so.

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

      I had an ex do that. She would pick on me and start fights seemingly for no reason. Some people just like attention. Bad attention is still attention.

      The original comment referred to the starting of fights as a tactic to breathe life into a boring or low investment relationship – a similar tactic is picking fights essentially to get to the makeup sex. This is usually a sign of impending relationship death, the way you whack a dying tree with a baseball bat to get one more good bloom.

  • Hope

    ADBG, that sounds like projection on her part. For some girls, they need the guy to keep her on her toes with drama, and she projects that desire into the guy as well, because sometimes female empathy works like this: “I feel this way, so other people must also feel this way.” That is probably also why she dragged her boyfriend to the event that he didn’t want to go, because she wanted to go and incorrectly assumed that he would change his mind once he got there and saw how fun it was!

    The proper way to engage empathy is to have both self awareness and other awareness, to be able to separate your own feelings from those of others. So she can tell her boyfriend what she would like to do, and ask him how he feels about it, then come to a mutually agreeable term or condition, and show more understanding during the event to validate the other person’s feelings: “I know you hate these things, and I really appreciate you coming with me despite how you feel. Next time I will go to a guy movie with you to make up for it, ok?” That’s the level of girl game that would have made him brag about his girlfriend instead of complain about her. The action would have been the same, he had to go to some event he didn’t want to go, but the feeling about it would be different.

    And of course, that goes back to the point of this entire post–how someone feels about something is key. This is also something I learned from reading parenting books. Name the emotion, don’t invalidate the emotion, and affirm the person while giving your own viewpoint. Now that I think about it, this is pretty much universal.

  • a definite beta guy

    Yep. Total projection.

    Jp she is 25. Still quite immature but trying at adulthood.

    It is sad

  • Richard Aubrey

    Mr. Wave,

    “Sometimes the men who get super passive do so because of egalitarian beliefs. They don’t want to act dominant so they become unassertive. This can lead to a negative cycle too – the woman doesn’t want to be dominant either so she also becomes unassertive. I’ve seen this referred to as “mutually assured submission”, and it’s an attraction killer.”

    That seems, from what I recall, to be a good possibility, although not necessarily for the couple in question.
    I recall a party we went to a couple of years after we were married. Young couples. Guys talking loudly about business. I had done various things, one way or another, which I thought of as both laudable and difficult. As the guys got to be more self-important, I thought I could let out a yell and half of them would wet their pants.
    In the job interview for my first job after the Army, a couple of us were talking to a company man, a little twerp. “What’s the toughest decision you’ve ever had to make?” I figured he’d tell us about evicting his mother or something.
    One guy, been in the Provincial Recon Units–bunch of bandits–said, “We had a couple of guys we didn’t know if they were VC, but I decided to kill them anyway.” Way he talked, it hadn’t bothered him all that much. Shut up the twerp, though. The guy left, saying he wasn’t going to work with such a bunch of morons.
    Having said all that, there were lots of us affected by the movement for equality, who figured that stomping around like King Studs was juvenile–we could take care of business if necessary but when it wasn’t, why bother?–and particularly it was stupid to be pushing around the one you love. Not that we thought about it much, if I’m an example. Just try not to be a loudmouth butthead.
    Added to the fact that there were plenty of things about which we were, in Susan’s words, indifferent, and I guess you could say that we were inviting trouble, because we figured women were rational homo sap, just like us. The feminists–or in my generation, the proto-feminists–were insisting it was so. No feminine intuition, no cutsy indecisiveness, none of that. Who were we to argue?
    Wife sees hubby straighten out a couple of assholes, come home and cut half a cord of wood in a bitter wind. He comes in and when she asks what he wants for dinner, he says, “Whatever’s handy.”
    BZZZT! LOSER!
    If we’d ever thought about it thirty to fifty years ago, which I don’t think we ever did, we’d have thought it was the dumbest thing imaginable.
    I did not marry a semi-rational case, thankyouverymuch. Too bad about you.

    Having said all of THAT, the woman in the question must have a scrambled view of the BF. If he’s only getting it up–possibly literally–when she starts a fight, maybe she needs a different boyfriend. He sure as hell needs a different girlfriend.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Hope.
    If the couple in question were an Item, it follows, at least in my generation, that you go to a christening. It’s what you do. Nobody said you have to like it. You go, you be cheerful and you don’t doze during the service, you make graceful farewells.
    If I had found out I was within one degree of separation–my SO–from somebody getting christened, I’d expect to go.
    Went to two funerals for the same family at the same funeral home within maybe ten years and remarked I’d like to hear about a christening sometime. Just for variation.
    Six months later, I got a christening announcement. Due to an address issue, it was late. But I got a present. Probably the first week Babies ‘r Us had been open. Scary.
    She shouldn’t have had to drag him and he shouldn’t have had to be dragged and there needn’t have been some kind of quid pro quo.
    It’s what you do.
    What, are these two fourteen years old or something?

  • Man

    @Hope:

    …that sounds like projection on her part. For some girls, they need the guy to keep her on her toes with drama, and she projects that desire into the guy as well, because sometimes female empathy works like this: “I feel this way, so other people must also feel this way.”

    Thanks, Hope, for this excellent lesson into some girls psychology. I wonder if Tom needs your counselling too. At least I would like to know your view on this:

    As far as women and their behavior goes, a lot of womens behavior is a direct result of the man they are with and what they think they need to be like in order to please him.
    I remember recently reading an article that suggested that women sometimes were different with the bad boys because wild behavior was expected, but that wasnt really their natural desire to act that way. They were really happy when they dated a more normal guy so they could be them selves and not what someone else expected.

    What comes to my mind is: saint for bad boy, bitch for good guy. I think that, with the possible exception of some really serious co-dependence case (dysfunctional behavior due to child abuse, etc.), a girl’s choices and behavior towards her mates is a very good indication of her true character and preferences/attraction. By the way, I think that Codependency is not gender specific and can also be a common male pattern (save the “good girl” from the “bad boy”).

  • purplesneakers

    I started reading this book today, and while I haven’t gotten to the commitment part yet, I must say that I’m really surprised! A lot of his advice to women is similar to red pill advice to men, such as being confident, having high standards, and (most surprisingly) operating from a mentality of scarcity rather than abundance. He also seems to give advice about approaching men contrary to what I’ve often read in the comments here, and also about acting feminine and vulnerable. Come to think of it, it’s probably that last part (the vulnerable part) that is hardest to overcome my ‘feminist programming’ for. It’s still hard for me to believe that me asking for help on something would come across as endearing and feminine, and not annoying/needy/”useless American woman”-y, which I feel like is another complaint you hear a lot in the manosphere. So there’s definitely a lot to discuss in this book!

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

      @purplesneakers

      A lot of his advice to women is similar to red pill advice to men, such as being confident, having high standards, and (most surprisingly) operating from a mentality of scarcity rather than abundance. He also seems to give advice about approaching men contrary to what I’ve often read in the comments here, and also about acting feminine and vulnerable.

      Yes, it’s very Game-like. Not straight down the line, though – for example, he claims that men like really independent women, they just don’t want them to be masculine or aggressive. He also recommends a technique where women tease men – he’s big on playful teasing.

  • purplesneakers

    Oops. tha’ts meant to say *abundance rather than scarcity.

  • BuenaVista

    Fish: “I had an ex do that. She would pick on me and start fights seemingly for no reason.”

    I experience this quite often, and did as well when married. The origin of the fight, though, was usually something related to a charge of “you don’t really love me.” “You don’t really love me”, is really just code for “I’m going to start a fight now because I can’t articulate why I’m losing interest in you.” Or, “I’m insecure so you’re going to pay for it now”, — as Hope suggests, an impossible-to-solve projection (because I can’t prove I’m not something) (no one can prove a negative).

    When married, as Mr. Relationship, this meant, “I can’t fault you as a husband, because you’re a “a good man” but I’m not sure I like you any more, anyway, because I want you to “be better at being a man”.” Here it’s just total projection: it was the she, not the he, who had fallen out of love, despite the probity and commitment of the he, who had adopted max-beta commitment attributes to salvage the marriage. (Because, right?, a post-feminist male should always be “a good man.”)

    As Mr. Bachelor I think it means, “We are not progressing as I would like to a commitment state., and you’re a little too “good at being a man” and I want you to be more of “a good man”.”

    In general I just ask now: “Why are you self-sabotaging? Have you thought about this tantrum in the context of some objective you’re seeking?” The 25 year-old child in the example, above, I would guess is just pre-rationalizing the pending implosion in her relationship, and asserting the only control she can muster to protect her ego: lighting off the incendiaries in order to provoke this or that reaction, and hastening the outcome she predicts, fears and wants.

    I got a text at 11 p.m. last night from a woman whom I queried about her quite effective self-sabotage six months ago, before I terminated the dating relationship. At the time of lost contact, she actually replied: “That’s odd, because that’s just what I’m talking to my therapist about at the moment.”

    I just think this behavior is quite common with people of either sex in any form of relationship, who struggle to speak plainly about what they want and don’t want. Manipulation is more comforting to them than indifferent honesty, I guess.

    The same behavior is very common in my business career. I always tell new clients what my objectives are and usually follow-up immediately with what we *won’t* do, which is often met with stunned silence. But I have to do it; it’s part of the qualifying process that must completed. (Entrepreneurs choose their clients well, rather than vice versa, if they wish to succeed.) Because if I don’t, we’ll get sucked into client behavior that I know does not comport with my objective function, which is completing a high-risk, difficult sales process and installing software that is extremely high-risk for the client. Your average Oracle salesmen just says and does whatever the client wants, and so this “things we won’t do” is counter-cultural to those in the corporate hive. I also think that it’s counter-cultural to much of the SMP. This was the principal difficulty Alexis described last week. She found it impossible to just tell bike dude what she needed from him, and adopted instead a strategy of sex-proffering hope. Her actions had no relationship to her objective function.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Rational guy, Richard, don’t disagree with anything you are saying.

    Issue here, as far as I seet it, is:
    A. The guy is a little bitch
    B. Guy isn’t really into the girl that much
    C. Even if A and B not true, couple is not spending enough time together

    They have been dating for, oh, I dunno, 5 weeks? They spent a whole saturday with family and then a Sunday at this Christening and then zero time as a couple. A, if the girl is spending the whole day with your family, you do not have permission to bitch when she invites you to a Christening (wtf is wrong with you?)

    C, as a new couple, your time should be mostly spent with each other, with family as a peripheral occurrence.

    B, tbh, I think this was just a wedding hookup for him that got into a relationship somehow and I don’t think he is psyched for it.

    And even if that allllllllll worked, the girl seems to think she should be starting fights for “interest” and she has referenced “training” boys numerous times.

    As I have told her, she cannot “train” a man and were he so easily trained, she would lose interest. The watch-word is “Respect.”

    And indeed, there is little to no reason for me to “respect” any average person I come across, not beyond cordial relations, IE not spitting in someone’s face if they shake my hand.

    The flip-side is that merely being a man walking around, does not earn you much respect or interest these days either. Gotta display to get respect and credibility or else you are not a man, you are walking real-doll with a penis.

    Hence, a lot of bravado, like what you’re seeing…permanent 14 year old adolescence. With more money. And a bit more refined so it LOOKS prettier, but the dynamics are the same.

    One of my buddies is working on oil rigs out in Saudi Arabia. Sounds like fun. I work with insurance companies. I spoke with one dumb-shit yesterday who told me they were with-holding a 2011 payment because of a 2013 overpayment…

    These things normally clear in a week…you’re telling me that you held payment for 2 years because you have a crystal ball that told you you were going to overpay us in the future?

    Yeah, one of those “I am going to strangle you, you incompetent dumbass” conversations.

    Hard to respect that kind of job. Although this has air conditioning. And I can post online. And so on.

    It lacks the manly awesome factor, though.

    As for “you go to Christening because it’s just one of those things you do and you shouldn’t expect a quid pro quo”:

    Probably, in your day, the quid pro quo did not have to be expected. And women had some understanding of not being dumbasses and not demanding too much, and vice versa.

    Example of failure on this front:
    GF and I have a long-distance relationship, do not often get to see each other. Often times she likes to rope me into family things. Whatever, I am an exceedingly easy-going guy, so I can go to this. Plus Daddy was a fighter pilot and a business consultant at 10,000 different companies, and I like to hear about Canadian railways, Pratt-Whitney engine testing, etc.

    But I don’t want to spend my whole weekend there, so one particular evening, agreement was made that we were spending too much time there, so that Saturday evening we head home, spend Sunday together.

    Saturday evening comes, and GF pitches a fit. “So you get everything you want. If it was me, I would do it. I thought once you saw how fun it was you would change your mind.”
    I am sorry to say…
    I was extremely tempted to slap her.
    Extremely inapproriate, extremely bratty behavior. Disrespectful to me, to the relationship, to everything.

    This was the worst such outburst, but she occasionally does drift towards too much time with la familia and not enough with ADBG, and sometimes I need to give her the (metaphorical) bump on the head.

    This is universally acknowledged as “not that bad” since the other women, that both the men and women around here know, are uniformly worse.

    It seems to me that the HUS-women are uniquely high quality and that any non-HUS woman is going to need such a noggin’-bump. Too entitled, too princess-y.

  • Fish

    @beta guy
    “It seems to me that the HUS-women are uniquely high quality and that any non-HUS woman is going to need such a noggin’-bump. Too entitled, too princess-y.”

    Well, by virtue of coming to the blog, HUS women are taking a step to improve themselves, so that does differentiate them from the masses. I wouldn’t say all women are like this though.

    I literally LOL’d at noggin bump

  • Hope

    Man “What comes to my mind is: saint for bad boy, bitch for good guy. I think that, with the possible exception of some really serious co-dependence case (dysfunctional behavior due to child abuse, etc.), a girl’s choices and behavior towards her mates is a very good indication of her true character and preferences/attraction.”

    I don’t think it’s quite that. I think it’s more that young women (just like young men) will treat others as poorly as others allow. Thus, if a person is “permissive” or “nice,” the treatment is that of “bitch” or “jerk.” If a person is “strict” or “mean,” they get treated much more “saintly” due to the setting of boundaries, i.e. acceptable vs. unacceptable behavior.

    This is something that bears out in my own experience because I had set such strict boundaries for myself in relationships — nothing physical, not even making out, until the guy demonstrated to me beyond a shadow of doubt that he was in love with me. Sounds pretty far-fetched for this day and age, but I managed to stick to it the entire time.

    Likewise when my husband set boundaries of acceptable behavior for me, I adhered to them. He is not a “bad boy,” and I would say he’s a “good guy,” but he has a lot of self-respect and the confidence to stick up for what he wants, which means he gets the “saintly” treatment. I also set my own boundaries, and he respects them as well. That’s something human, not masculine or feminine.

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

    I dutifully downloaded the Hussey book and gave it an aggressive skim, dipping into some sections more thoroughly than others.

    My own view, based on my superficial exposure, is that it is an upbeat and useful guide, probably not a hardcore “Red Pill” for women treatise (I am not sure that this would be accepted by a wide audience, anyway—the extremely Red Pill “What Men Don’t Want Women to Know” classic by Smith and Doe has apparently been met with a lot of hostility), but more of a gentle argument for using some stylized and modified PUA templates as part of a Girl Game. I think he is optimistic

    In terms of breaking down how three different types of SOI guys—Unrestricted, Middle, Restricted—tend to view the market, let’s start with the assumption that we have 3 men of extremely high SMV who are able to call their own shots to a large extent.

    I think that apex Bachelor/Player types do have a price at which they would settle down, but their ideal situation, a priori, probably looks like this (listed from most favored option to least):

    1. Casual Sex with SMV10 females
    2. (tie) 2a. Casual Sex with SMV 7-9 females; 2b. Committed Sex with SMV 10 female
    3. Committed Sex with SMV 7-9 female
    4. Fap to Porn
    5. Casual Sex with SMV<7 females
    6. Committed Sex with SMV<7 female

    In contrast, perhaps Mr. Relationship looks more like this in terms of order of preference:

    1. Committed Sex with SMV10 female
    2. Committed Sex with SMV 7-9 female
    3. Casual Sex with SMV 10 female
    4. Casual Sex with SMV 7-9 female
    5. Committed Sex with SMV<7 female
    6. Fap to Porn
    7. Casual Sex with SMV<7 female

    Last we have an extremely restricted man:

    1. Committed Sex with SMV10
    2. Committed Sex with SMV 7-9
    3. Committed Sex with SMV<7
    4. Fap to Porn
    5. Casual Sex with SMV 10
    6. Casual Sex with SMV 7-9
    7. Casual Sex with SMV<7

    These preference list then obviously hits the harsh reality of the operators' individual SMP environments, and each man has to adapt to these conditions and calibrate to what he can actually achieve. So it is very possible to see a theoretically unrestricted, natural player guy who lives in, say, Fairbanks in a committed relationship, and to see a Mr. Relationship acting like a player in a place like South Beach. The really restricted guy would rather be alone with his porn than having casual sex.

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

      @Bastiat Blogger

      I think you’ve nailed the econ piece of the sex C/B analysis, but you fail to take into account the differences in temperament, or emotional response, as outlined by Hussey. Clearly, he does not view this as resulting directly and solely from a man’s own SMV.

      Because personality traits and life experience play such a huge role in views toward commitment, relying solely on looks is very inaccurate, IMO.

  • Escoffier

    So, I googled Smith and Doe and just about the first thing I came across was this: “Only 3.6 percent of men will remain faithful to their women”

    Now, that can’t possibly be true. Even if you interpret it to men “96.6% of men will cheat at some point in their lives,” which leaves open the possibility of them being faithful to at least one woman, it still seems preposterous.

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

    Escoff., their book lacks scientific rigor, to say the least. It’s darkly comic and very cynical.

    For instance, they have a questionnaire that asks women to rate their men on a number of dimensions. Here is a piece of the scoring summary:

    “If your man scored between -50 and 0: CONDITION GREEN. Congratulations—your man is faithful, loving, and true. The good news is, he’s probably so unattractive that no other woman wants him. The bad new is that as time goes by, neither will you.”

  • Man

    @Hope:

    Thus, if a person is “permissive” or “nice,” the treatment is that of “bitch” or “jerk.” If a person is “strict” or “mean,” they get treated much more “saintly” due to the setting of boundaries, i.e. acceptable vs. unacceptable behavior.

    Agreed. I just meant that a person who respects others without demand and without making drama (agreeableness) is much more desirable than one who needs to be constantly reigned in to behave properly and in an agreeable manner. Pia Mellody has done a good work on boundaries in Intimacy Factor.

  • mr. wavevector

    So, I googled Smith and Doe and just about the first thing I came across was this: “Only 3.6 percent of men will remain faithful to their women”

    If you define “faithful” narrowly enough this might be true. Some people consider porn cheating. That alone will get you close to 96.4% of men.

    Others also consider flirting or even looking intently at a pretty girl cheating. That should get you the rest of the way there.

  • Escoffier

    Somehow I doubt that’s what Smith and Doe meant, but not having read the book (nor will I), I can’t be sure.

  • Lokland

    @Mr. WV

    “Others also consider flirting or even looking intently at a pretty girl cheating. That should get you the rest of the way there.”

    Not arguing the second as I think its a tad much but do you not consider the first cheating?

  • Hope

    Man, while the low drama girl who is very agreeable does exist, she is not likely to be the super hot girl that guys notice right away. Hot girls can get away with worse behavior, generally speaking.

    To some extent it’s like the hazing practice fraternities use to make themselves seem more exclusive. The ones who suffer through the hazing feel even more loyalty than if there was no hazing.

    There is a grain of truth to drama causing hotter sex and more emotional investment. Too much of it is of course toxic, and many people fail to realize that too much spice is not the variety of life… it just burns you.

  • Escoffier

    thanks wave, pretty hilarious

  • Escoffier

    oops, I meant thanks for the link in the other thread.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Lokland,

    I think cheating occurs when one establishes a romantic or sexual relationship with another person other than their SO. Cheating requires both a relationship and the intention to be in that relationship. So I think most flirting falls short of cheating, although it could be an indication that the flirter might be inclined towards cheating.

    I don’t think porn use is cheating. It isn’t a relationship with another person, although it can compete with a relationship with the SO and be very damaging to that relationship.

    I don’t think developing a crush for another person is cheating as long as one resists the crush and removes oneself from the crush-inducing situation if one can. A crush that one chooses to indulge in becomes cheating.

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

      I don’t think developing a crush for another person is cheating as long as one resists the crush and removes oneself from the crush-inducing situation if one can. A crush that one chooses to indulge in becomes cheating.

      Interesting, I’m working on a post about extra-relationship crushes.

  • Emily

    >> “Not arguing the second as I think its a tad much but do you not consider the first cheating?”

    Okay, I’ll bite. ;)

    I think that there’s a huge difference between flirting vs. flirting with intention. Half of the time that I’ve been accused of flirting with somebody, I didn’t even realize that I was doing it. (This is more something that would happen during my single days, but still.) The thing is that “flirting” can mean anything from basic friendly behaviour to more obvious sexual overtures, so it’s hard to make black and white judgements. My bf and I would be okay with the former, but the latter could cause some problems. Even if it’s not cheating per say, it’s still disrespectful of your parter.

    In conclusion: It depends.

  • JP

    From Dr. Phil:

    “It is not OK behavior. It is a perverse and ridiculous intrusion into your relationship. It is an insult, it is disloyal and it is cheating.”

    I think that there are a significant number of people who think of pornography use in this fashion.

    Although, more specifically, it tends to make such women think of people who use porn as “perverted” or “disgusting” because it’s basically uncivilized behavior.

  • angelguy

    “The thing is that “flirting” can mean anything from basic friendly behaviour to more obvious sexual overtures, so it’s hard to make black and white judgements. My bf and I would be okay with the former, but the latter could cause some problems. Even if it’s not cheating per say, it’s still disrespectful of your parter. ”

    @Emily
    Everyone has their degrees of friendly and sexual overtures. In the context of being in a relationship, one has to be very careful of mixed signals. Some women are very subtle in that regard.

    In regards to pornography being a form of cheating, wouldn’t watching soap operas of actors you like be a form of cheating as well. Emotional cheating?

    The common aspect is: Desire.
    Both are not real, one is naked, the other isn’t.

  • Man

    @Hope:

    Man, while the low drama girl who is very agreeable does exist, she is not likely to be the super hot girl that guys notice right away.

    Hope, do you think that low drama, very agreeable girls tend to be more insecure as compared with other girls (irrespective of her level of beauty)? Does she need more reassurance than the average girl? If so, what kind of reassurance? Do you think that vulnerability is always a turnoff for women? I mean, women are unlikely to forgive any signs of vulnerability and weakness as much as men are unlikely to forgive any lack of beauty or femininity? In other words, does a man have the right to be weak and vulnerable in a woman’s mind? Or instead this will be interpreted as a sign of weakness which allows for bad treatment or cause revulsion? I am just curious to know your views about these dynamics.

  • Escoffier

    Sample size of one, but my wife is as low drama as they come and is also super-secure. She requires reassurance about once a year, if that, and I have to be really bad about ignoring her or just being a dick for an extended period before it comes to that.

  • Anacaona

    Sample size of one, but my wife is as low drama as they come and is also super-secure. She requires reassurance about once a year, if that, and I have to be really bad about ignoring her or just being a dick for an extended period before it comes to that.
    Sample size of two. I’m possessive but most of the time I assume my hubby is faithful and safe. I don’t like fighting so I never provoke a fight.

  • mr. wavevector

    do you think that low drama, very agreeable girls tend to be more insecure as compared with other girls

    Sample size of 3. My wife is very low drama, very agreeable, and very secure. She has a very good sense of self and is happy with who she is. She is also very emotionally stable and grounded.

  • Lokland

    @Mr. WV/Emily

    “I think cheating occurs when one establishes a romantic or sexual relationship with another person other than their SO. Cheating requires both a relationship and the intention to be in that relationship. So I think most flirting falls short of cheating, although it could be an indication that the flirter might be inclined towards cheating.”

    Interesting. I differ in that I end the requirement at intent and/or attempt not the actual establishment of such a relationship.

    Flirting by my definition is infidelity (and incredibly disrespectful regardless of whether it is or is not infidelity) however flirting to me is overtly sexual.

    Being friendly =/= flirting.

    Re porn use and crushes.
    Agreed on both.

  • mr. wavevector

    Interesting, I’m working on a post about extra-relationship crushes.

    I’m looking forward to that.

    My encounters with post-marital crushes were aided and abetted by blue-pill thinking, namely that we’re all rational adults who can exert conscious control over our mating instincts, so “platonic” friendships should be no problem.

    It’s not true. The limbic system is not under rational control and will cleverly subvert one’s conscious actions and motivations to its own ends. Platonic friendships in the presence of sexual attraction are at best a fiction, and at worse a self-rationalization to engage in an emotional affair.

  • Emily

    >> “Interesting, I’m working on a post about extra-relationship crushes.”

    Ooooh! I don’t think we’ve explored this topic before. This one will be interesting. :)

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

      The relationship crushes post is up.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Lokland,

    I differ in that I end the requirement at intent and/or attempt not the actual establishment of such a relationship.

    I can see why you would hold that position. However, I think the intent to commit a misdeed is a lesser transgression than accomplishing the misdeed.

    If I decide to rob a bank and grab my ski mask and pistol but my car breaks down on the way and I never commit the robbery, that’s a bad thing, but it’s not as bad as actually robbing the bank.

    If I meet a hot babe and I try to initiate an affair with her but she tells me to get lost, that’s a bad thing, but it’s not as bad as having sex with her.

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

      If I meet a hot babe and I try to initiate an affair with her but she tells me to get lost, that’s a bad thing, but it’s not as bad as having sex with her.

      Your partner is the person who will judge how bad it is, regardless of whether you agree. I would view the attempt as every bit as hurtful and therefore harmful to my marriage as the successful execution, at least emotionally. Obviously, the physical risks are greater if sex occurs.

      This is related, I think, to my earlier opinion that the other woman is not to blame. Whether you succeed or not, your intent is very important. Now, if you were tempted and thought about it, but pulled back on your own, that would obviously be better than having the affair.

      Let’s move this convo to the new post.

  • mr. wavevector

    @ Emily,

    Ooooh! I don’t think we’ve explored this topic before. This one will be interesting. :-)

    I can see all sorts of rabbit holes that conversation will be exploring!

  • Lokland

    @Mr. WV

    “However, I think the intent to commit a misdeed is a lesser transgression than accomplishing the misdeed.”

    It depends upon what one considers the misdeed.

    For example.
    Flirting in and of itself is not problematic as it causes no lasting harm.
    As is a man cheating on his wife without picking up an STI and/or pregnancy (ditto that for a wife).

    However the misdeed itself may not actually be the physical act but a breech in trust that one will not attempt or do such things.

  • JP

    “Platonic friendships in the presence of sexual attraction are at best a fiction, and at worse a self-rationalization to engage in an emotional affair.”

    This explains why I have no problems being friends/friendly with my ex-girlfriend.

  • JP

    @Susan:

    “I don’t think developing a crush for another person is cheating as long as one resists the crush and removes oneself from the crush-inducing situation if one can. A crush that one chooses to indulge in becomes cheating.

    Interesting, I’m working on a post about extra-relationship crushes.”

    You are going to get the issue/problem of limerence wrong.

    Again.

    Because crush =/= limerence =/= so-called new relationship energy.

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

      You are going to get the issue/problem of limerence wrong.

      Again.

      Because crush =/= limerence =/= so-called new relationship energy.

      I didn’t even deal with that. :P

  • JP

    @Susan

    I’ve both been limerent and experienced what the poly-people apparently call “new relationship energy”.

    Those two experiences have absolutely nothing in common.

    For instance, I never experienced limerence with my wife.

    In fact, I’ve never even dated someone for whom I was limerent.

    From wikipedia:

    “More recently, limerence has been defined in relation to obsessive compulsive disorder as “an involuntary interpersonal state that involves intrusive, obsessive, and compulsive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are contingent on perceived emotional reciprocation from the object of interest”.[2] Limerence has also been defined in terms of the potentially inspirational effects and the relationship to attachment theory, which is not exclusively sexual, as being “an involuntary potentially inspiring state of adoration and attachment to a limerent object involving intrusive and obsessive thoughts, feelings and behaviors from euphoria to despair, contingent on perceived emotional reciprocation”.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence

  • mr. wavevector

    @JP,

    “an involuntary potentially inspiring state of adoration and attachment to a limerent object involving intrusive and obsessive thoughts, feelings and behaviors from euphoria to despair, contingent on perceived emotional reciprocation”

    That’s what I mean when I say “crush”. If you say “crush =/= limerence”, what do you mean by “crush”?

  • mr. wavevector

    Experiencing “limerance” for another person while in a committed relationship is like flying though the galaxy and suddenly realizing you’re getting sucked into a black hole. All you can do is put thrusters on max and hope you have enough power to reverse course before getting sucked over the event horizon. When that happens, it’s game over for your relationship. And it can be a hell of a battle to escape that attractive force if you got too close to it.

    Believing in “platonic friendships” is like flying around the galaxy and not believing in black holes.

  • Man

    @Mr.WV:

    Believing in “platonic friendships” is like flying around the galaxy and not believing in black holes.

    I can confirm this out of two platonic friendships with married women which turned out into strong passion. We didn’t get intimate however. I almost got beaten up by strangers in one case and the another we’re still friends, although not working together anymore. I just wonder: do you think this is a good way to start relationships between two single people? I am inclined to think so, if the spark happens. I mean, if there isn’t mutual attraction the relationship would remain strictly friendly anyway. And if it’s mutual then it’s a good start I think. I also think there is always an element of choice in one or both parts anyway, even though the attraction might be strong.

  • Hope

    Man, I think others have basically answered the first part of your question. Low drama women tend to be self assured enough to not cause drama. Self esteem is different from arrogance or ego, but more about healthy self respect.

    As to the second part of your question, whether it’s acceptable for men to show weakness and vulnerability, it will depend on the woman and her individual inclinations, as well as the specific scenario. For example, a woman might find it very endearing to see a man reveal his childhood trauma, but the same woman might not like his revealing that he is not able to conquer his fear of driving.

    Basically, it comes down to whether or not the weakness is keeping the person from functioning as an autonomous, mature and competent adult. If he’s afraid of losing her in a car accident, but it’s not a debilitating fear, revealing it will make her feel good that he loves her. If he’s afraid of letting her drive at all and takes away her car keys, that’s controlling and bad behavior. However, it may not even be an issue in a large city with great public transit. So again, it’s highly individual.

  • JP

    “That’s what I mean when I say “crush”. If you say “crush =/= limerence”, what do you mean by “crush”?”

    The “hey this girl is cute and I like spending time with her. I think I could date her and enjoy it. I think I’ll pursue this. “Butterflies in your stomach”, etc. Actual thought and consideration of pros and cons may be required.

    Limerance – zero to involuntary romantic obsession in a heartbeat with an unknown trigger. Emphasis on involuntary. Crushes don’t hijack your entire internal emotional system with uncontrollable OCD to the point where there is significant impact on the rest of your activities. You really, really wish that your brain had an override switch.

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

      Crushes don’t hijack your entire internal emotional system with uncontrollable OCD to the point where there is significant impact on the rest of your activities. You really, really wish that your brain had an override switch.

      This is true. Limerence is the period where lust transitions to falling in love, according to Helen Fisher. I think crushes are far milder than that.

  • Escoffier

    JP, zero to 60 sounds very improbable to me. But developing a strong crush over time, without really meaning to, could have the same effect.

  • JP

    “Experiencing “limerance” for another person while in a committed relationship is like flying though the galaxy and suddenly realizing you’re getting sucked into a black hole.”

    As my nearly college girlfriend once learned (meaning that I was working on dating her a couple of months and things were going really smoothly), it’s a really, really bad idea to be anywhere in my vicinity, relationship-wise, when I go limerant.

    I literally couldn’t speak to her again and she screamed at me on the phone about how horrible of a person I was. At the time, I was thinking to myself “I really do agree that I’m horrible, please make this stop.”

    It would have been helpful to know that this phenomenon existed before it blew a gaping hole in my college social life.

  • Man

    Low drama women tend to be self assured enough to not cause drama. Self esteem is different from arrogance or ego, but more about healthy self respect.

    +1 Thanks, Hope. Your explanation and examples about the second question are particularly enlightening. You have a talent. :)

  • Hope

    Mr. Wavevector, my husband and I were both red pill before we meet each other, and we were in complete agreement about opposite sex friendships. We don’t go anywhere near that; no playing with fire. It’s just not worth it. I can honestly say I’ve not had a “crush” on anyone else since I fell in love with my husband.

    JP, so you never felt that strongly about your wife? That’s kind of depressing. Did you become limerent for another woman while married to your wife?

  • JP

    “JP, zero to 60 sounds very improbable to me. But developing a strong crush over time, without really meaning to, could have the same effect.”

    I’m glad that it’s improbable because it’s one of the most annoying things I’ve experienced.

    It made me feel really bad for people who actually had OCD.

  • JP

    “This is true. Limerence is the period where lust transitions to falling in love, according to Helen Fisher.”

    Whatever I’m talking about happens when you aren’t even dating the person. In fact, I’ve never dated anyone I’ve been limerant for. This is particularly anxiety producing.

    What Helen Fisher is talking about sounds like the “new relationship energy” or what I call the “fun” or “new and exciting” part of a relationship. I definitely experienced this with my wife. It’s quite enjoyable.

  • Man

    @Hope:

    Likewise when my husband set boundaries of acceptable behavior for me, I adhered to them.

    Hope, I still have a question for you. How does a man set boundaries of acceptable behavior for his mate, in a world where there are no socially acceptable boundaries for female behavior?

    I mean, most girls nowadays enjoy a lot of freedom, power and no limits/boundaries of acceptable behavior. By the way, that’s also why I reject the notion that all women are really interested in getting commitment, by offering sex as an inducement.

    It looks more like an astute game: she offers sex as a trap, is reluctant to escalate emotionally (commit), sets boundaries of appropriate behavior for her boyfriend, demands total freedom for her, say, to go out on girly nights, go out with her girl friends to bars, etc. and if he protests or tries to set boundaries he is immediately labeled as bad and controlling, oppressive, etc. and she might withdraw from the relationship immediately. Typically the man will accept her demands to have the supply of sex. As I see it, true players will agree with her demands for no strings attached sex, pretending to be liberal, comprehensive, etc. and enjoy the sex part and eventually they break down her game while getting sex for free. On the other hand, guys who are really honest and interested in a relationship might lose total control very quickly, while remaining attached to her for the sex (trap), and even be at constant risk of being cheated.

    In such a situation what do you think is the best approach for a man to set proper boundaries of acceptable behavior for woman (if he’s really interested in a relationship)? Can that also be a kind of litmus test to know whether she’s really interested in him? I mean, if he sets proper boundaries of acceptable behavior she is likely to label him as bad and controlling and might just run away. If he doesn’t set proper boundaries of acceptable behavior she might quickly have total control over him. I would like to know your sensible views about this situation.

  • Richard Aubrey

    Man

    “” I mean, if he sets proper boundaries of acceptable behavior she is likely to label him as bad and controlling and might just run away.””

    He wins.

  • Man

    @Richard: I also think so. If she is genuinely interested in him, she will respect his boundaries of acceptable behavior in an agreeable manner (and even value him for that).

  • Hope

    Man “How does a man set boundaries of acceptable behavior for his mate, in a world where there are no socially acceptable boundaries for female behavior?”

    Pretty easily. He has to talk about it with her.

    And I agree with Richard Aubrey — “if he sets proper boundaries of acceptable behavior she is likely to label him as bad and controlling and might just run away.” Working as intended. He needs to just let that one go.

  • J

    How does a man set boundaries of acceptable behavior for his mate, in a world where there are no socially acceptable boundaries for female behavior?

    He says, “I don’t like that. It bothers me. Stop.” If his feelings matter to her, she’ll stop. The same strategy works for women as well.

  • Man

    Pretty easily. He has to talk about it with her… If his feelings matter to her, she’ll stop.

    Thanks, Hope and J for your sensible feedback.

  • Josie

    I think for Mr. Bachelor, as he ages, he needs to increase his wealth and prestige.

    a young woman looking for marriage would prefer a 30 year old man that just starting his career and is at his peak attractiveness than a 40 year old who is slightly passed his prime.

    In this case, the 40 year old needs wealth and prestige to compensate for his lack of youth. Even if he stills wants variety, his wealth must increase in order to attract young women. He may still attract women his age, but most of them are less desirable for other reasons.

    Look at Huge Hefner, he has an endless option of young women but that is because he owns Playboy, is a millionaire, and lives in a mansion. Does anyone honestly think that these young women slept with Hef because they found him physically attractive.

    Hef makes no bones that he is a rich man, and he has no shame in spoiling these young women but he does it because he wants to be with young women.

    What I want to know is, how does these young women stomach the thought of having sex with someone that old. Hef is like, 82?

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

      What I want to know is, how does these young women stomach the thought of having sex with someone that old. Hef is like, 82?

      Lights out, lie back, and think of England.

  • Josie

    In this case, Mr. Relationship is wise in that by marrying during his prime 26 – 34, he is making the best decision.

    He is still young and attractiveness enough that his looks and youth can attract a young woman.

    Since he is just starting his career, he can now provide financially for a family. He also has a lesser chance of attracting a gold digger.

    So while he may be scarifying variety, he is making a decision to invest his own progeny.

  • Josie

    I think this explained the 40% divorce rate. Perhaps, some bachelors decides to settled down and married because they found an exceptional woman.

    However, their desires for variety gets the best of them and they cheat yet refused to divorce their wives.

    Wives, in respond to the adultery files for divorce.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    The girl who decides to start drama had more drama this weekend.

    Went to wedding.
    Boyfriend decided to have a shot with the birde and groom by himself wihout invting the girlfriend.

    Fight ensues.

    Great times.

    Sorry for spelling mistakes. Watching Crwaford block another and a little too lazy to check my spelling.

  • J

    @Man

    You are very welcome.

  • angelguy

    “I think this explained the 40% divorce rate. Perhaps, some bachelors decides to settled down and married because they found an exceptional woman.”

    @ Josie

    I don’t think it is all that simple. You are painting a whole gender with one brush. Sometimes, it is not always the Man who resists commitment.

    Sometimes people don’t meet until later in life, it happens.

  • Jayn Rand

    “Look at Huge Hefner, he has an endless option of young women but that is because he owns Playboy, is a millionaire, and lives in a mansion. Does anyone honestly think that these young women slept with Hef because they found him physically attractive.

    Hef makes no bones that he is a rich man, and he has no shame in spoiling these young women but he does it because he wants to be with young women.

    What I want to know is, how does these young women stomach the thought of having sex with someone that old. Hef is like, 82?”

    ____

    First, he is not having sex with most of them, if any. Second, they ALL have hot young stud boyfriends their own age.

    An ex Playboy Mansion resident already spilled the beans on all that in an expose. She also said he cannot get it up without tons of pills and watching gay porn – two dudes going at it.

  • Vitor

    No matter what you do on your end, a man’s willingness to commit depends on the emotions he associates with commitment.

    I have been giving my thoughts thoroughly on this question in the recent past, as far as my own life and relationships (status) are concerned. I have never been into casual sex or hookup culture. I am just the regular guy who kept dreaming finding a significant one and enjoying the rest of life together. I have always viewed relationships, at least as I wished them to be, as a place for mutual respect, affection, growth, companionship, etc.

    But then the fact is I am still single. I was thinking about which are my feelings with regard to relationships and women. What I found through this process of self-introspection is that I dread relationships… Or more precisely I am quite wary of them nowadays.

    Perhaps this is the result of emotional wounds, an emotional baggage of rejections, hurt feelings, shattered dreams. But the fact is that I am quite afraid of relationships nowadays. They absolutely don’t seem be what I have always thought and expected from them. I also tend to view women with deep suspicion.

    I mean, typically I would want respect, emotional support from a mate. But I am afraid that my relationships with women will be inevitably plagued by power struggles, dominance games, etc. It is as if every woman on earth is a potential mysandrous feminist, and that I will end up to be proving to have value for her all the time, doing all the effort to keep the relationship going, and with no guarantee, no security, no respect, no genuine affection… I sounds like and feels like a terror story. And to warn me of the potential problems ahead, I have a close relative who’s just going through a hell in his marriage with a modern, independent and free woman, so full of herself (we’re concerned about his mental and emotional health and hope that he will be wise enough to divorce her as soon as possible).

    So, when I think of commitment, I am reminded of potential troubles. I know this is such a negative and stifling view on relationships. But for me it looks like the dangers and risks are real for sure.

    Sometimes I wonder: are we men also entitled to be loved and respected? Or is something we always have to fight for in a relationship. Can we be vulnerable and have imperfections?

    Particularly, I feel more attracted to girl when I am infatuated with her. But then I have been taught that this is not being dominant and that women don’t like men like that. Actually from the three girlfriends I have had, I was really infatuated with the last one. I was really happy with the relationship and in fact infatuated with her. I am a little guilty of the breakup, I think, because of my own issues which I brought into the relationship. And there were other issues as well as the distance between us. But I left the relationship again with a broken heart, and shattered dreams.

    These days I invited out a workplace colleague for whom I also felt a vibe. I was given a respectful “no” as an answer. I thanked her for that. Some girls don’t even care to give a polite answer. I am not into chasing games either.

    Life goes on… But I am still to figure out how much of a choice I have in being a Mr. Relationship or a Mr. Bachelor. I just know I want respect, love and emotional support from a mate. No… sex is not the most important thing for me. Sex is not all I need from a woman. Sex for me should just be something to enjoy out of our relationship and not the basis upon which to found it.