Studies Reveal Players Like Their Women Dumb, Drunk and Easy

May 24, 2012

She's Everything a Player Could Want

Two new studies reveal fascinating evidence that manwhores are much more attracted to promiscuous women than to less sexually available women. They don’t settle for them, they strongly prefer them. Essentially, men who are oriented toward casual sex deploy “adaptive, exploitative measures against women they perceive as vulnerable.”

Study 1:  Sexual exploitability: observable cues and their link to sexual attraction

Recently published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, the research was conducted by proteges of David Buss at the University of Texas – Austin, the most prestigious department of evolutionary studies in the U.S. 

The authors begin by highlighting the natural conflict between male and female mating strategies, and posit that exploitation is an evolutionary adaptation that functions to motivate the pursuit of sexually accessible women. 

What is an exploitative mating strategy?

An exploitative mating strategy is defined as an adaptive strategy to get sex when a cooperative strategy is deemed unreliable. Cooperative mating strategies are exemplified by mutual interest and consent. There are two primary reasons why males might employ exploitation tactics:

  1. The female does not want to have sex, while the man does.
  2. The female wants a relationship, while the man wants casual sex. 

Exploitative strategies include four different tactics:

I. Sexual seduction

Sexual seduction is the act of charming or convincing someone into having sex. Seduction differs from courtship, which may include long-term commitment and investment as goals.

II. Verbal or nonverbal pressure

Pressure involves relentless persistence, threats, or coercion to induce an individual into having sex.

III. Deception

Deception is dishonesty about intentions, likelihood of further commitment, or personal characteristics such as those sought by members of the opposite sex—a phenomenon well documented in human mating (Haselton, Buss, Oubaid, & Angleitner, 2005).

IV. Sexual assault

Sexual assault involves using physical force, or the threat of physical force, to force sexual intercourse.

Key Implication #1: Men who rely on exploitative mating strategies are either unwilling or unable to secure cooperative mating arrangements.

 

What are the hypotheses re exploitative mating?

The authors developed two hypotheses:

  1. It is possible to identify observable cues that signal which women are exploitable.
  2. Men will find those cues sexually attractive.

194 college students looked at a wide range of pictures of females conveying specific messages or impressions, and males rated their sexual (short-term) attractiveness.

14 cues were significantly positively correlated with exploitability (in order of significance):

  • “Easy”
  • Immature
  • Intoxicated
  • Reckless 
  • Promiscuous 
  • Partying
  • Flirty 
  • Promiscuous friends
  • Attention seeking 
  • Young
  • Sleepy
  • Come hither look
  • Revealing clothing
  • Touching breast 

All 14 of these cues conformed to the pattern of being positively correlated with short-term mate attractiveness while being either negatively or not significantly correlated with long-term mate attractiveness.

The following 7 cues were significantly negatively correlated with exploitability:

  • Intelligent
  • Shy 
  • Age
  • Old 
  • Passed out
  • Flushed face 
  • Anxious

Key Implication #2: Men most likely to pursue short-term or exploitative mating strategies are most attracted to women of low intelligence. Men who avoid smart women are likely relationship avoidant as well.

 

The second important finding of the study was evidence that “the correlations with short-term mate attractiveness were not driven by men simply relaxing their preferences when evaluating women as short-term mates.”

Key Implication #3: Men don’t settle for less when looking for casual sex. Men who prefer casual sex are actually most attracted to women who also prefer casual sex. Sluts find fellow sluts most sexually attractive.

 

Study 2: Exploitative male mating strategies: Personality, mating orientation, and relationship status

Building on the findings in the previous study, the researchers sought to determine whether there are differences among males regarding perceptions of sexual attractiveness as they specifically relate to short-term vs. long-term mating. 

The researchers noted that the men who would have benefited most from a non-cooperative mating strategy are:

  • men low in agreeableness (deficient in personal empathy and warmth)
  • men with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation
  • men not involved in an exclusive relationship

However, they found that the sociosexual orientation piece revealed an important finding.

When a man does not have a committed relationship that could be jeopardized by exploitative short-term mating, possesses low levels of agreeableness, and has a greater orientation toward uncommitted sex, the synergy of these individual differences may activate an exploitative short-term mating strategy.

However, when exploitative short-term mating does not align with a man’s sociosexual orientation, as with men with a more restricted sociosexuality, low levels of agreeableness may be insufficient to activate exploitative short-term mating mechanisms, even among unmated men.

Key Implication #4: Men are hard-wired to prefer short- or long-term mating. Men who are less likely to desire casual sex do not find promiscuity cues sexually attractive, even if they are not getting any.

 

Personality traits are the strongest predictors of willingness to implement exploitative strategies.

The finding that men’s agreeableness, sociosexual orientation, and relationship status interacted to predict perceptions of the sexual exploitability of women who exhibited high levels of cues to exploitability and women who exhibited low levels of these cues suggests that the higher perceptions of women’s exploitability among these men reflect a general tendency to perceive women as sexually exploitable.

…This is consistent with previous findings that men who engage in sexually aggressive behaviors have a personality profile that differs from other men on multiple personality dimensions.

Key Implication #5: Disagreeable players, also known as douchebags, are highly attuned to potential opportunities to seduce, pressure, deceive and/or assault women.

The bad news: If a player, always was a player, always will be a player. 

The good news: He doesn’t want you anyway.

 

  • PeppermintPanda

    Does the word “Duh” mean anything to you?

    I think therawness’s 5 part letter series ( http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-1/ ) is a good article for demonstrating what kind of men Players and Fake-Alpha males are and the kinds of women they actually attract.

    • @Peppermint Panda

      There is definitely a duh element here, I agree. However, 62% of my traffic every day is people new to the site. I can’t really write too much from cumulative knowledge. I try to balance the needs of a rather diverse group of readers here.

      Also, there are some new findings in this research.

      1. Men do not in fact lower standards for short-term mating, which is a dearly held belief, or has been. High N men find high N women more attractive. They’re wired (or descended from males who were wired) for short-term mating, so they select promiscuous women as their first choice.

      2. Men who are not wired for short-term mating do not find slutty girls hot, even when they want to mate and haven’t.

      3. Promiscuous males avoid intelligent women. They rely on slow-wittedness (as the researchers phrased it) to help them achieve success in their exploitations.

      4. The exploitative men did not find slutty women attractive for long-term. My guess is that these men will never mate long term anyway, but it’s interesting that neither non-sluts or sluts appeal to them for anything more than casual sex.

  • I gotta agree. “Duh” does come to mind.

    In order for signals not to get crossed, more guys should be up front. I was never a huge manwhore, but during my casual periods I took pride in not selling any woman a dream. If she was on board with me being up front about not looking for a relationship, then my conscious was clear.

  • Escoffier

    Re: “Duh”:

    It is surprising and depressing how much basic common sense today requires the authority of science before it is accepted.

  • “Promiscuous males avoid intelligent women.”

    “The exploitative men did not find slutty women attractive for long-term.”

    I promise I’m not trying to be an ass. But even without new research, wasn’t this pretty much common knowledge?

    • @Rone

      I promise I’m not trying to be an ass. But even without new research, wasn’t this pretty much common knowledge?

      Haha, no worries.

      “Promiscuous males avoid intelligent women.”

      Quite a few men claim that guys don’t care about intelligence in a mate, and may even consider it a detriment above some baseline “slightly above average” level. I find it interesting that the men who felt this way in the study were the men who were disagreeable and promiscuous.

      “The exploitative men did not find slutty women attractive for long-term.”

      Again, that’s not the whole story. They didn’t like the other women for long-term either. They didn’t like any women for anything more than casual sex. It suggests that there are no “reformed players.” In other words, players are born, or at least made during childhood. No changing his stripes. The obvious implication for women is: Do not date a guy who used to be a player but now says he wants to settle down. He’s not cut out for it.

  • Passer_By

    Some of this seems a bit circular. In study number 1, they postulate that signs of exploitability might be deemed sexually attractive, then they seem to validate that by assuming all of the sexually attractive traits to be signs of exploitability and all of the unattractive traits to be signs of non-exploitability. Maybe some things are just more attractive without regard to exploitative intent. Youth? Wow – youth is sexually attractive. Flirtiness? Touching the breast? Come hither look? These are signs of receiptivity to short term arrangements – which would rule out “exploitation”. Revealing clothes? Uh, half naked chicks are arousing – news at 10:00.

    Note that being passed out is the ultimate in exploitable, but they found that unattractive. Also, shy and anxious could be exploitable, but still not attractive for short term mating. Almost as if they had a conscience, or something.

    The study’s authors also define “exploitative” in a certain way, but then seem to go on to implicity deem all short term arrangements as exploitative by the male, if in cases where the elements of exploitation are absent.

    @susan
    “Promiscuous males avoid intelligent women. They rely on slow-wittedness (as the researchers phrased it) to help them achieve success in their exploitations.”

    Well, more accurately, with 194 randomly chosen males, they did no associate intelligence with short term mating desirability. This doesn’t prove one way or another what a knowledgable player would feel. My guess is that he wouldn’t care one way or the other, and might even prefer moderate intelligence, unless the picture conveying “intelligence” was just a euphemism for being plain looking.

    • @Passer By

      In study number 1, they postulate that signs of exploitability might be deemed sexually attractive, then they seem to validate that by assuming all of the sexually attractive traits to be signs of exploitability and all of the unattractive traits to be signs of non-exploitability.

      Here is the methodology:

      An initial set of 194 participants nominated specificactions, cues, body postures, attitudes, and personality characteristics in three categories: indicators of sexual exploitability, indicators of sexual interest toward one person, and indicators of general sexual availability or openness to sexual activity.

      These are signs of receiptivity to short term arrangements – which would rule out “exploitation”.

      I agree that the term “exploitation” is hardly accurate if a woman is making an informed choice. She may even be the aggressor. However, the study measured the intent of the males. These cues served to activate some males to use coercive rather than cooperative tactics.

      Well, more accurately, with 194 randomly chosen males, they did no associate intelligence with short term mating desirability.

      No, they rated intelligent looking women as unattractive for casual sex, because it inhibits “ease of mental or emotional manipulation” (correlation = -.60). In contrast, the correlation between intelligence and long-term desirability was strong (+.67).

  • Passer_By

    I would add that I’m only reading the summary of the studies here. If I clicked through, I might it more supportive of the conclusions.

  • Passer_By

    Lastly, that passed out chick in the picture is still as hot as she was the first time you posted that picture, even though she’s passed out. But I’d want to wait until she wakes up (I’m not the exploitative type). 🙂

    • @Passer By

      Haha, you remember her! I couldn’t resist because guys said they dig sleepy chicks, lol. I confess I was relieved that unconscious women don’t turn guys on. That’s a bit necrophiliac.

  • Wudang

    “The exploitative men did not find slutty women attractive for long-term. My guess is that these men will never mate long term anyway, but it’s interesting that neither non-sluts or sluts appeal to them for anything more than casual sex.”

    Isen`t there a contradiction there. If they did not find slutty women attractive for the long term that would seem to imply they do find other women more attractive for long term which contradicts that no women appeal to them for anything more than casual sex. Not that I believe those guys are very interested in LTR. I just doubt it is so extremely clear cut.

    • @Wudang

      I believe the player types only found slutty women attractive, and only for casual sex. They rejected them for relationships, but as you say, they may reject everyone for relationships.

  • Herb

    I wanted to say “duh” as well but here’s an issue:

    “Easy”
    Immature
    Intoxicated
    Reckless
    Promiscuous
    Partying

    Flirty
    Promiscuous friends
    Attention seeking
    Young
    Sleepy
    Come hither look
    Revealing clothing
    Touching breast

    That’s the list of what players found attractive in the study. I’ve bolded items I would argue our culture actively encourages women to have. I didn’t bold promiscuous friends but it’s often going to be a side effect.

    We’re actively encouraging, as a culture, seven of those cues. I’d argue that a significant subset is encouraging young women to be easy (explore their sexuality) and as I said promiscuous friends are a common side effect of all those others. Add those two at half credit and we’re at a culture encouraging more player attractors than not.

    • @Herb

      we’re at a culture encouraging more player attractors than not.

      That’s a great point. Girls think they look like everyone else, and they may, but they may be primarily appealing to players. Perhaps that’s why we hear so many girls say, “Where are the good guys? All guys are jerks!”

      Girls need to learn that dressing provocatively is filtering out all the guys who want a relationship.

  • tito

    good thing they did a study to find this out.

  • @Susan

    Gotcha. Especially on that second point. Whether by nature or nurture, it definitely seems that once a player, always a player. I have friends and associates that seemingly can’t get right, no matter how perfect the woman or circumstances in their lives. I also have a few old uncles that fit that description, ha.

    So while I never say never, the odds aren’t in favor of a woman dating a reformed player.

  • But what about the player who was created by girls’ thermonuclear rejections in his youth?

    When high school and college girls say “ewwwww, as if!” enough times to a young man and later in life he learns and successfully uses Dark Game, does that make him a player for life?

    • @Private Man

      But what about the player who was created by girls’ thermonuclear rejections in his youth?

      When high school and college girls say “ewwwww, as if!” enough times to a young man and later in life he learns and successfully uses Dark Game, does that make him a player for life?

      Good question. I think it does, because I think there’s been psychological trauma that led to sociopathy, essentially. Is it possible to “cure” that? I doubt it. Once a man has embraced a coercive method of seduction, focused exclusively on his needs without regard for the feelings of others, how could he ever be whole again? At the very least, he would be a very risky bet for commitment.

      Most of the real players I’ve known fill at least half of the 21 items on Hare’s psychopathy checklist.

      Factor 1: Personality “Aggressive narcissism”

      Glibness/superficial charm
      Grandiose sense of self-worth
      Pathological lying
      Cunning/manipulative
      Lack of remorse or guilt
      Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
      Callousness; lack of empathy

      Failure to accept responsibility for own actions

      Factor 2: Case history “Socially deviant lifestyle”.

      Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
      Parasitic lifestyle
      Poor behavioral control
      Lack of realistic long-term goals

      Impulsivity
      Irresponsibility
      Juvenile delinquency
      Early behavior problems
      Revocation of conditional release

      Traits not correlated with either factor

      Promiscuous sexual behavior
      Many short-term marital relationships
      Criminal versatility
      Acquired behavioural sociopathy/sociological conditioning (Item 21: a newly identified trait i.e. a person relying on sociological strategies and tricks to deceive)

  • Abbot

    ” Men do not in fact lower standards for short-term mating’

    but do women lower certain standards for long-term mating as options dwindle?

    Any long term takers out there for women with a history of submitting their core beings to manipulation?

  • I never say never, but it’s kind of hard not to go by percentages if all you have to go in is past behavior, whether warranted or not. Just like as a man, even if a girl was molested, which is horrible and not her fault, I’d have a hard time “turning a hoe into a housewife.” So I guess I can see it both ways.

  • Abbot

    “I’d have a hard time “turning a hoe into a housewife.”

    Oh, but what of her wonderful character!? ha ha

    But really, it is sad for so many of these misguided American women who boot themselves with the liberation heroin. Cold turkey is painful and no man should complicate his life by benevolently allowing such baggage to follow him home.

  • Abbot

    “Two new studies reveal fascinating evidence that manwhores are much more attracted to promiscuous women than to less sexually available women.”

    One wonders what Womyns Studies reveals about this, since they always seem so busy studying…

  • Herb

    @Passer_by

    Lastly, that passed out chick in the picture is still as hot as she was the first time you posted that picture, even though she’s passed out. But I’d want to wait until she wakes up (I’m not the exploitative type).

    You’re welcome to her.

    She looks like trouble, not in the “you had sex with while I was drunk so it’s rape” type (although you’re buying that risk with her) but the entitlement princess type. Girls like that usually are based on the clothes and the high maintenance look.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    @Susan

    Girls need to learn that dressing provocatively is filtering out all the guys who want a relationship.

    A couple posts ago I said that a girl doesn’t have to be promiscuous to be “slutty.” Perception trumps reality. If a girl exhibits a number of qualities on that list (and in my experience, most attractive girls in their early twenties do), I’m going to write her off as slutty right away.

    I think it also lends credence to Ramble’s claim in another topic that “most girls today are at least kinda slutty,” and why you see a lot of young guys saying “All girls are sluts.”

    Again, perception trumps reality.

    • @Jimmy

      Perception trumps reality. If a girl exhibits a number of qualities on that list (and in my experience, most attractive girls in their early twenties do), I’m going to write her off as slutty right away.

      That’s perfectly understandable and reasonable. I think most 20-something women would be very surprised to learn that, though. I think they really have no idea.

  • Passer_By

    @herb

    “She looks like trouble”

    Didn’t say I wanted to marry her. But she looks to me like she’s on vacation or something with her fiance or husband (notice the rock), had a long day and fell asleep after half a beer.

    Her clothes do make her look a little high maintenance. I’ll grant you that.

  • I don’t want to echo the “duh” comments but is sad people is spending money and funding studies, in something any grandmother would tell you while drinking some tea and biscuits.
    That being said it wouldn’t do any good for anyone to read, lately I linked someone to some studies that show that being overweight is as bad as smoking and the hamster was working overtime to try and debunk them somehow “But I want to be fat and being considered healthy and hot!” between the lines was frankly very pathetic. I can imagine women reacting similarly to this study results.

    • @Anacaona

      is sad people is spending money and funding studies, in something any grandmother would tell you while drinking some tea and biscuits.

      The only hope of fighting the erroneous gender bending theories of feminism are via scientific (well, social scientific) inquiry.

      I can imagine women reacting similarly to this study results.

      I was very surprised, a Slate columnist wrote about the study and pretty much accepted the conclusions. That’s not Jezebel (they were very snarky about it), but Slate tends to be very liberal and pro-female.

  • Herb

    @Jimmy Hendricks

    A couple posts ago I said that a girl doesn’t have to be promiscuous to be “slutty.” Perception trumps reality. If a girl exhibits a number of qualities on that list (and in my experience, most attractive girls in their early twenties do), I’m going to write her off as slutty right away.

    This…this 100 times.

    I’ve been around college campus a lot since 1995: went back after college, lived in walking distance from my alma mater (ECSU) from 1995 to 2003, delivered for Dominos at ECSU then assistant manager at UConn from 2001 to 2005, then worked at Texas A&M 2009-2010 and now across the street from Ga. Tech.

    I think the average college girl looks like a slut. She may not be (not going to argue your numbers) but if only 2 out of 10 are sluts then about 6-7 out of 10 are giving out big, neon slut signals.

    In fact, by the time I was working at A&M I daily to resist the urge to walk up to multiple undergrads and ask, “Does your father know you’re dressed like that?”

    If you want a bigger signal, I had friends in the Boston goth scene in the early aughts who were alarmed at what 20ish women wore in public. We went to clubs where four pieces of electrical tape, vinyl mini-skirt, fishnets, and boots wasn’t exactly uncommon but people wore a coat over it until they got to the club for fuck’s sake.

    I recently heard similar complaints from people in the S&M scene and at Frolicon.

    Helpful hint: when people who club nearly naked or in the later case completely naked and have alternative sexualities think what you’re wearing to work, class, and a regular night out with friends is inappropriate and slutty you’re doing it wrong.

    Like, really, really wrong.

    You might not be a slut but if you dress and act like one don’t be surprised the men who want sluts give you time instead of nice men.

    That’s a great point. Girls think they look like everyone else, and they may, but they may be primarily appealing to players. Perhaps that’s why we hear so many girls say, “Where are the good guys? All guys are jerks!”

    Perhaps it’s also why so many guys think most women are sluts and wonder where the sexually restrained, high value women are.

  • The way women bring their self is what men will look up on them, let’s try to value our self not only for sex.

    • @Judy D. Cunningham

      let’s try to value our self not only for sex.

      Welcome and well said!

  • PeppermintPanda

    Just as a (non-politically correct) question …

    If dressing “slutty” attracts men with “exploitative mating strategies” what does that say about slut-walks?

    Don’t these studies (essentially) demonstrate that the “slut-walkers” are wrong, and the police officer they were protesting was right?

    • @Peppermint Panda

      Don’t these studies (essentially) demonstrate that the “slut-walkers” are wrong, and the police officer they were protesting was right?

      Great point. Since sexual assault/rape is one of the exploitative strategies, a woman who gives off those cues to a man capable of rape is taking a huge risk. But I’ve argued that from the beginning. Feminists will poo-poo this research, like they do any work that aims to hold women accountable.

      Women who are coerced into sex via seduction or pressure (as opposed to deceit or assault) are responsible for their choices. While the male may intend to exploit them, they are perfectly entitled to remove themselves from the coercion. In fact, vulnerable women should stay out of the lion’s den altogether if you ask me.

  • Herb

    @PeppermintPanda

    If dressing “slutty” attracts men with “exploitative mating strategies” what does that say about slut-walks?

    Don’t these studies (essentially) demonstrate that the “slut-walkers” are wrong, and the police officer they were protesting was right?

    Just because you like being a tool of the patriarchy suits you doesn’t mean all women like it.

    Dressing slutty and attracting bad men to have meaningless sex with is empowering, damnit *stomps foot*

  • Jonny

    If a player wants to date women with better looks, why wouldn’t he go for them first? It makes sense to start from the top and work your way down.

    • @Jonny

      If a player wants to date women with better looks, why wouldn’t he go for them first?

      Who said anything about good looks?

  • Abbot

    “If dressing “slutty” attracts men with “exploitative mating strategies” what does that say about slut-walks?”

    The walking sluts are saying that they have the same rights as men to dress any way they want in public and if they choose to present themselves to the male harem for attention and selection then they dont want the undesirable men to say or do anything to interrupt that process

  • modernguy

    It doesn’t matter if you’re not a slut, if you dress that way to get attention your mentality is slutty. Women know what they’re doing. They what men are thinking while they walk around with their asses hanging out of their shorts.

  • Herb

    @Abbot

    The walking sluts are saying that they have the same rights as men to dress any way they want in public and if they choose to present themselves to the male harem for attention and selection then they dont want the undesirable men to say or do anything to interrupt that process

    But later, those same men are not to judge their suitability for those same men based on their actions. Remember, it’s up to a woman to determine her suitability, not the man she choses.

    Sarcasm aside, the part of me that loves the human comedy, I mean James Branch Cabell level human comedy, can’t help by smile about how empowered feminists feel by appealing to the basest instincts of the basest men who are the most likely to be close to the feminist abusive patriarchal oppressor while pinning those labels on the men who like women and want to treat them as human beings.

    If you don’t think karma exists, look at what slut walkers claim, what they do, and what they get.

  • Abbot

    “Dressing slutty and attracting bad men to have meaningless sex with is empowering, damnit *stomps foot*”

    with arms folded, lips all pouty. “Hey baby, you seem sooo, so empowered. Where do you get all that strength and character?” “Oh, when a need a shot of power and confidence, I go out and attract a gaggle of roughnecks, do one or whatev..and I am right back on my feet” Of course you’re ok with that right hon? Say, did you send out those wedding invitations yet?”

  • I found the study very interesting. It did appear as if the assumption was made that short-term mating was inherently exploitative (and so the “seduction” subset of exploitative behavior was defined in such a way that it could be a catch-all for anything that led to a one-night stand).

    As a result, practically any higher N-count man will thus be categorized as a sexually exploitative individual (or “player”), which is certainly possible. However, his N could also mean that he is just a stud who is attractive to women and fortunate enough to be in the market when the zeitgeist supports his theoretically optimal mating strategy.

    Are high-N count men necessarily being exploitative players when the pop-sociologist types who control much of the feminist narrative—uniform in their hatred of evo psych and typically unwilling to even attempt to test theories—are saying things like this (a sample of quotes from “The Richer Sex”, a triumphalist work by Liza Mundy)?

    -“In fact, contrary to the women-don’t-like-casual-sex argument, I would argue that women are becoming the gender that desires sex more than men do (!)…Women are less likely to rely on sex as a strategic way to get resources, because women have more of the resources they need…”

    -“And among those students and young singles who were having sex, my interviews suggested that women were having sex because they wanted it, and men often were having it with the hope to commit…”

    -“Not every women I interviewed was having sex all the time, but quite a few were having quite a bit. The reasons were because they enjoyed it; because it was available; and because—far from being anxious to commit to one man—they wanted to have sex with as many men as they could (!), to see who was best at it…one woman actually referred to this as ‘test-driving a lot of cars before you buy one.'”

    And here, of course, is inserted the classic pillar of all gender-studies department sociological arguments:

    “The good news is that sexual tastes are changing, which is not surprising if masculinity and femininity are social constructs…’I was like, honey, it’s a different generation. It’s a new millennium. You’re not a whore if you’re not getting paid for it.'”

    I wrote a bit on another thread about optimal search strategies using the 1/e rule: to recap, you would employ gambling theory to take your peak mating years and multiply by about 37% to estimate your calibration period (in years). Under some admitted stringent controlling assumptions, you would then use the calibration period to find your highest SMP mate value; after the calibration period was over, you would “buy” (i.e., commit to) the next person who surpassed the highest SMP value achieved during the calibration period.

    If you tell a woman that she has 25 years of peak mating time and she actually has 15, and then also tell her that her peak years start at age 25-28 when they actually start at, say, 20, you are committing her to some enormous potential relationship/psychological challenges down the road. Basically her SMP mate value calibration would be artificially distorted upwards and her assumed safe time window to find a mate would be assumed to be much longer than it actually was.

    The equivalent crime against a young man might be to tell him that his peak years start at age 20 and go on for about 12-15 years. In this case, he would start calibrating well before his peak years, which would skew his SMP values downwards and make him underconfident and his play too conservative. He may also go on to make suboptimal mating decisions if he felt obliged to commit during a falsely constrained window.

    Some feminists may be (unintentionally) lying to women by engaging in what some call “the moralistic fallacy.” The moralistic fallacy is the reverse of the better known “naturalistic fallacy” (which is variously also called the “is-ought gap” and “Hume’s Guillotine”). In the moralistic fallacy, the mistake is to consider how things *ought to be* according to some particular worldview, and then to argue that, because things ought to be this way, they automatically *are* this way in the state of nature. So little things like biological clocks are completely ignored because they don’t fit within the accepted worldview.

    • @Bastiat Blogger

      I really, really hated that Mundy book.

      However, his N could also mean that he is just a stud who is attractive to women and fortunate enough to be in the market when the zeitgeist supports his theoretically optimal mating strategy.

      I agree with this. It’s pretty clear from some accounts here that there are men who do not need to employ any subterfuge whatsoever to get ONSs. If anything the women are probably the seducers in many cases, though it’s not considered deceptive because men are generally happy to oblige.

      I will say, though, that Buss and his work at UT is anathema to feminists – there is no feminist agenda in this research. I do think they’re getting at something quite interesting – how men may be wired differently to employ or prefer various mating strategies.

      There are some men who could be with different women every night, i.e. Tom Brady, and they’re just not wired that way. Brady just wants to be Gisele’s beta boy. There’s a vet in my community who was a Ford model. He has a very large female clientele, but he is married, with three sons and he is known for being extremely circumspect and not flirting at all. Some men who are highly attractive to women consider monogamy their optimal mating strategy.

  • one woman actually referred to this as ‘test-driving a lot of cars before you buy one.’”

    But this is a false premise a woman has not power to make the best lover she had commit to her. This is an objectification the best lover you have might find you lacking on other aspects so he wouldn’t choose you. This denies the idea that men have any agency. I guess this is were all “man up” articles come from: Women must have the power of picking any man they want without considering what men would pick for themselves. Stupid concept for sure, YMMV.

  • Hello Ms. Walsh,
    Once again, excellent post – and I recally very well, reading Prof. Buss’s words on the “Dumb Blonde” strategy in his “The Evolution of Desire”.

    A few points, but first, I just had to annouce –

    That I’m on the Good Men Project!:) My debut, which was May 6, 2012, can be seen here:

    Towards A More Thoughtful (& Personal) Discourse On “The Double Standard”
    http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/towards-a-more-thoughtful-personal-discourse-on-the-double-standard/

    And if all goes well, there will be many more such articles to come.

    Now then, to your post here…

    I am wondering about the dumb blonde strategy in relation to say, the African American community, where a common refrain from many of its more highly educated Sistas is that the Brothas simply cannot handle a “strong woman”. While I don’t think the claim is totally unfounded, I do think that men in general don’t want to have to do verbal combat with a gal just to get a date – and, again, I speak purely in terms of the Black community – there ARE Sistas who seem to delight in cutting (or trying to cut) down men, on the pretense of being “strong” and “intelligent”.

    What say you, about this?

    Second: I am wondering just how “hot” women can indeed be for “Beta” guys. Now, I know that this is a forum that is highly self-selected – but, and I am sure I don’t need me to tell you this – the sexuality of women can be and has been demonstrated to be quite context dependent.

    Assuming that all you say here is indeed true – and I think it is – how are we to account for the fact that so many Beta guys wind up, “mopping up”?

    Your response?

    As always, keep up the good work!

    O.

  • Ferret123

    “Key Implication #4: Men are hard-wired to prefer short- or long-term mating. Men who are less likely to desire casual sex do not find promiscuity cues sexually attractive, even if they are not getting any.”

    I could argue that men that are less likely to desire hook ups is because they can’t. They don’t have the status to have the casual sex so they have a case of not getting their hopes up for the inevitable let down.

    An interesting test is to give these men the tools to have casual sex and then see if they act on it. Give them money, have them go on an intense workout rountine, buy them expensive fashionable clothes and give them game instruction. See if they refuse casual sex then.

    • @Ferret

      What was interesting in the study was that the men who had not had sex recently found the sluts unattractive, even for short-term mating. Perhaps they would like ONSs with the shy, intelligent girls, IDK.

  • VD

    Quite a few men claim that guys don’t care about intelligence in a mate, and may even consider it a detriment above some baseline “slightly above average” level. I find it interesting that the men who felt this way in the study were the men who were disagreeable and promiscuous.

    I believe I was one of those who suggested this. Note that male intelligence isn’t a factor in disfavoring female intelligence, much less male insecurity, but rather disagreeability and promiscuity. It makes sense, as if you’re not planning on spending the rest of your life with her, it doesn’t really matter what her level of intelligence is. Because you’re not going to be around her all that long anyhow. That being said, people are never entirely predictable. One of the sexiest club sluts in the city back in the early 90s was an avid Dickens reader with a complete collection and respectable literature covering every wall in her apartment. Go figure.

  • J

    Haha, you remember her! I couldn’t resist because guys said they dig sleepy chicks, lol

    I remembered her too. I’d have thought she’d have sobered up by now.

  • Todd

    Sarcasm aside, the part of me that loves the human comedy, I mean James Branch Cabell level human comedy, can’t help by smile about how empowered feminists feel by appealing to the basest instincts of the basest men who are the most likely to be close to the feminist abusive patriarchal oppressor while pinning those labels on the men who like women and want to treat them as human beings.

    I wonder if that appealing to those base instincts of base men is somewhat the point. While not all feminists are alike, it seems that women that are attracted to the whole slut-walk thing were women who were done dirty by their dads and other men in their life. In turn, they develop this repetition compulsion where they seek out these loser men in order to, at minimum, turn their bad behavior into a positive experience or, hopefully, turn these bad boys into respectful womynists with enough quality “brain”.

    With regard to Obsidian, I think the same thing happens in the Black community on steroids, especially since a lot of dads not only weren’t worth anything, but often times, just flat not around. They end up doing the same dumb stuff that happened to them as kids. Accordingly, Black boys do the same thing aswell. Look up “African-American men” and “concurrency” on Google, and you’ll see a lot of sociology papers about men with seemingly stereotypically female mindsets.

  • @Ferrett

    I definitely agree on this. I don’t cheat on my wife, but often the guys getting pats on the heads from their wife and her girlfriends for being such a wonderful guy who only has eyes for his wife never had options before. It’s easy to be a standup guy when you never got that kind of attention to begin with.

  • And lol @ everyone deducing that the drunk chick pictured is high maintenance and spoiled because of her clothes. I’m not a fashion expert but that looks like regular ass beach/summer wear to me.

  • Stephanie

    Hello,

    I have a question. What do you think about a guy who by all accounts acts like a beta, but in reality is dating someone much younger and hiding this relationship? He is 26 and he is dating a 19 year old.

  • @Stephanie

    Without knowing all of the facts, I would assume he’s one of those guys that pulls a girl a lot younger than him because those his age don’t give him the time of day. It’s always easier to get with the young, naive girl.

  • Ian

    @Ferret

    I could argue that men that are less likely to desire hook ups is because they can’t. They don’t have the status to have the casual sex so they have a case of not getting their hopes up for the inevitable let down.

    An interesting test is to give these men the tools to have casual sex and then see if they act on it. Give them money, have them go on an intense workout rountine, buy them expensive fashionable clothes and give them game instruction. See if they refuse casual sex then.

    Everybody sees the world from their own perspective, it’s a kind of hamstering. Sleeping with a kind of slovenly, club-going stranger will always be less satisfying to me than a FWB, a romance, an affair, a courtship, anything with an interpersonal context. Uninticing enough that I’ve declined, would decline, and would rather have declined a few other times.

    Different personalities, different frames of experiencing the same event.

  • Stephanie

    @ Rone

    That makes sense, but even though there are women his age that find him attractive?

  • Ted D

    Wow. That picture is lovely. I bet her parents are very proud…

  • Cooper

    @Stephanie
    He could very well not be aware of this. Many guys, including myself, haves tendency to believe unless a girl has show interest immediately that they’ve made up their mind about any relationship or sexual interest. After knowing a girl for a period of time, it’s a waste of our time to try to fabricate something that, until then,, has had no evidence of being – an attraction. Guys are much more likely to move onto the next one, with hopes of better luck.

  • I agree with Cooper. Is there a specific story you have? It’s sort of hard to really share my thoughts on it unless I know the situation.

  • Ferret123

    @Ian

    I wouldn’t whore around if I was an alpha at all. I was just playing Devil’s Adovcate here.

    However, how do I know I wouldn’t whore around if I was an alpha? The answer is, I don’t. That’s why temptation can seen as a postive thing in Christianity. It’s once we conquer the tests that we can overcome the threat of the vice.

    Also, why do so many celebrities whore around? The vast majority of Apex Alphas are notorious for having casual sex. Do you really believe if Tiger Woods was not good at golf, he would be getting all sorts of strange? The man has the personality of a brick wall. He appears to have no chrisma at all.

  • Herb

    @Rone

    And lol @ everyone deducing that the drunk chick pictured is high maintenance and spoiled because of her clothes. I’m not a fashion expert but that looks like regular ass beach/summer wear to me.

    I didn’t say clothes, I said look. Don’t confuse the two.

    The hair cut including dye job and highlights are part of it. Plus, the clothes are typical beach clothes but a matched set in pretty much new condition.

    Finally, I find most Hot Babe types are high maintenance and princesses. That’s my experience. Note, not all attractive women skew high maintenance but Hot Babe types (which this lovely lady is) do.

    I’m sure some don’t but as people might have guessed readying my other posts, I try and work the odds. Call it “statistician Game” which I prefer over “look at how much I can fake being an asshole Game”. It’s worked well enough, is intellectually stimulating, and doesn’t leave me feeling like shit when Nicole tells me to practice flute in front of the mirror to correct some mechanical issues.

    I was thinking coming home that one ‘sphere thing I really don’t get is the whole hooking up with a hot babe. Not just for my reasons above (I’m sure the real men and women will tell me it’s just hamstering because I can’t get one) but because, well…

    Are there really that many ugly women? I mean, when they’re not trying to be are really that many ugly? Sure, when they put effort into it they can look better than otherwise. I love the relaxed but put together business look (try the cover of At Her Feet for the classic example…last year my gf met me at the airport in a suit just for that reason). I love peasant skirts with shells or blouses. Short, bobbed hair is fun and playful while I love long, hair.

    Hell, depending on the day of the week my perfect woman is a tall, red headed tomboy, Francesca Annis, Helen Mirren (did anyone else see *Red*…I realize she was 65 when she made it but she’s still got it…looked better than Mary-Louise Parker who is 19 years younger), Anna Torv, Amber Benson, or one of a dozen other women, famous or otherwise.

    I’m dating the most beautiful woman I know. I thought the checkout girl at B&N tonight, who looked a little like the one from Girls whose boss was harassing but instead of trying to look bad played it up. For one, she had on a purple dress that gave her a great feminine feel and smiled in a way that made you thing she was happy to see you (again, who dresses the actresses on Girls, I mean really.

    Anyway, I’m a guy. I get wanting an attractive mate. I get the evo-psych behind it. Still, damn people, why is the only attractive worthwhile “hot”? What happened to cute, striking, lovely, pretty, handsome, or stunning? Each is completely different (Mary-Louise Parker, Tilda Swinton, Jane Seymour, Audrey Hepburn, Katherine Hepburn, and Rachel Welsh are respective examples) and generally better than a hot babe. How does Kim Kardashian beat any of the above listed women?

    Susan’s readers who don’t post: Don’t be a Maxim girl. Yes, it’ll attract men. Men who want to fuck you and that’s about it. If you have to look to media, I’d suggest you watch movies prior to about 1965 although there are some contemporary examples up there. Look for someone who fits your personality and body type. At one time, “hot chicks” weren’t just the latest cookie-cutter generic blonde made from Hollywood blonde dough when the last one got moldy.

    You’ve got more potential. You can attract better men.

  • Michael Singer

    Couple of observations:
    1.
    There is such a thing as a intelligent woman possessing wisdom and knowledge?
    I have know plenty ( ie hundreds ) of smart / educated women and 2 fully intelligent women. Wisdom is knowing how to act based on received knowledge.

    2.E ssentially, men who are oriented toward casual sex deploy “adaptive, exploitative measures against women they perceive as vulnerable.”
    “The female does not want to have sex, while the man does.”
    “The female wants a relationship, while the man wants casual sex.”

    Given this statement and the picture that was portrayed ( ie passed out).
    – How did become passed out ?
    – Is the state of vunerability self inflicted ?
    – Does she have a sex drive that MIGHT be equal of even greater than the male ?
    – False premise she doesnt want to have sex.
    – False premise she wants to have a relationship.

    This one is actually pretty funny in its implications.

    “Key Implication #2: Men most likely to pursue short-term or exploitative mating strategies are most attracted to women of low intelligence. Men who avoid smart women are likely relationship avoidant as well.”

    So is intelligence is a direct correlation of morals or conduct ? Wow !! So the more intelligent the woman the higher her moral character / more chaste the conduct ? LOL !!!

    If that is what the study is suggesting then the method and parameters need closer examination.

    A wise person will draw their own conclusion.

  • Michael Singer

    LOL, isn’t that a wedding ring on her ring finger ?

  • Herb

    @Michael Singer

    LOL, isn’t that a wedding ring on her ring finger ?

    Looks more like a “three months salary” engagement ring, which is another part of my “high maintenance” case.

    I didn’t pay that for the car I drive.

  • Lokland

    @Jimmy Hendricks, 23

    “Perception trumps reality.”

    +1

    I’ve tried to express this before and failed.

    A virgin can be a slut if she looks like a slut.

  • Stephanie

    @rone & @cooper
    Yes, there is a story. Its about a guy that I have had a thing for over a year. He is 26 (turning 27 in two months) and I am 25. We share common values and some interests. Recently, through the grape vine, I learned that he has been going out with a 19 year old for over a year. I’ve never done anything sexual with him except sometimes cuddle when I sleep over when he has house parties. Anyhow, I have asked him if he is dating someone and he flat out tells me that he is not dating anyone. He tells everyone in our social circle he is “single”. My question then is this: is he waiting for her to turn 21 and finally let everyone know? Or will he dump her? And finally…is this girl really that dumb?

  • To be honest, him “dating” her may not be that serious. She may be a young girl he likes having sex with and spending time with when he wants her around, but not quite the traditional relationship. I’ve seen plenty of guys do this, having a “girlfriend” that’s easy, guaranteed sex while still dealing with other women. I’ve never known a guy to keep his girlfriend a secret unless he had reason to.

  • /\

    That was for Stephanie, by the way.

    And I also meant to add, yeah, she probably is really that dumb, lol. Young girls do dumb things, especially with older guys.

  • Stephanie

    @Rone

    Thank you for answering my question.

  • Herb

    @Rone

    And I also meant to add, yeah, she probably is really that dumb, lol. Young girls do dumb things, especially with older guys.

    I keep hearing that. I need to do some field work. 🙂

  • Michael Singer

    The hypothesis is more ridiculous than I originally thought:
    What are the hypotheses re exploitative mating?

    The authors developed two hypotheses:
    It is possible to identify observable cues that signal which women are exploitable.
    Men will find those cues sexually attractive.

    14 cues were significantly positively correlated with exploitability (in order of significance):
    “Easy”, Immature, Intoxicated, Reckless, Promiscuous , Partying
    Flirty , Promiscuous friends, Attention seeking , Young, Sleepy
    Come hither look, Revealing clothing, Touching breast

    Before moving forward – here is the definition of exploitation:
    1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one’s talents.
    2. To make use of selfishly or unethically:
    3. To advertise; promote.

    Here are the obvious questions:
    – who is exploiting who ????
    -why are men blamed ?
    – why aren’t the females blamed “exploitation” given the demonstrated 14 cues ?

    The hypothesis is false and hence the whole study is faulty. The question is why?
    Here is my hypothesis given what was presented:
    1. Why are the researchers looking for a excuse to dismiss promiscuous female behavior ?
    2. Why are men being blamed for responding to exploitation and then blamed for exploitation and the females are not despite displaying 14 cues ?

    To relieve a person from the consequences of their actions and then vilify and falsely accuse another person is evil and perverse beyond words.

    • @Michael Singer

      You’ve missed the point of the study, which is not about shame at all. The researchers are interested in mating strategies, in this case the various strategies used by males. Those break out into two opposing approaches: cooperative and coercive. To deny that men employ coercion in mating is ridiculous, but again, their agenda is not political.

      There have been studies that look at the role of narcissism in mating, as well as the evolution of the Dark Triad traits as a short-term mating strategy for men who rejected pair-bonding (cooperative mating) when it evolved 1.5 million years ago.

      The point is not that women are slutty. The point is that there are some men for whom the sight of a drunk, sleepy girl is very arousing. Signals of female vulnerability to coercion give them boners.

      Furthermore, we know something about those men. We know that they score very low in agreeableness, with deficiencies in warmth and empathy. They tend to be cold, cynical and calculating. They also avoid relationships, preferring short-term, no-strings encounters. Interestingly, research about men with the Dark Triad traits suggests that they’re wired for short-term because their only hope of reproducing is to get in and out quickly. They just don’t have the relationship skills to sustain a longer liaison.

      Whether the slutty girl wants the sex or enjoys the sex is irrelevant. The study is about male sexual response to cues of female vulnerability or incapacitation. And the researchers were able to derive highly statistically significant data in one study of 194 males. This is not rare.

  • Ian

    @Ferret

    Also, why do so many celebrities whore around? The vast majority of Apex Alphas are notorious for having casual sex.

    A lot of us are using a male high-N as the definition of Alpha. Extroversion, high-testosterone, thrill-seeking. A casual-mating bias might be inherent in the definition, depending on how alpha is defined. Putin vs. Berluscone, who’s more alpha? Different people would give different answers, irrespective of what’s known or unknown about Putin’s predilections.

    However, how do I know I wouldn’t whore around if I was an alpha? The answer is, I don’t. That’s why temptation can seen as a postive thing in Christianity. It’s once we conquer the tests that we can overcome the threat of the vice.

    Right, my point was more on personal preference of vice. Casual, drunken vice with novel strangers is probably a common preference, but not universal, and not the way that every high-capital, amoral male would maximize their hedonism. Tiger, for example, had his porn starlets, his neighbor’s daughter, the Swedish nanny; ongoing, contextual affairs.

    Casual, I see more as a few-and-out’s, hardly knew ya.

  • Wow, that list of cues in the study looks like the cast of characters in a reverse-gender-role version of Snow White & the 7 Dwarfs, for playas:
    ~ Sho’ Might and the 7 Horfs ~
    *Easy
    *Reckless
    *Flirty
    *Sleepy
    *Tipsy (intoxicated)
    *Juvy (immature)
    *Humpy (promiscuous)

    • @Inlone

      OMG, that riff on Snow White is hilarious. I don’t know why, but I keep cracking up at “Sleepy.” There’s something very twisted about that.

  • The only hope of fighting the erroneous gender bending theories of feminism are via scientific (well, social scientific) inquiry.

    Oh don’t get me wrong I just mentioned that is sad when we got to a point that only science can say something that people new 60 years ago. I love having science to back certain things up. The place I linked the study has been quiet for three days now. Its a start.

  • OhioStater

    It’s playing the odds: if she wants a cooperative relationship, then she’ll let you know. If you’re not her type, you can still get her and the associated social proof.

  • “Girls need to learn that dressing provocatively is filtering out all the guys who want a relationship.”

    Not so fast. Even if young women do stop dressing provocatively, they’re still going to filter out the guys who want a relationship because those guys are Betas. So, the ladies will wind up even more frustrated, and whining that dressing modestly has failed to “reform” the jerks they’re still hot for, while still not caring about the other 80% of men who are okay with them not dressing provocatively.

    • @Inlone

      So, the ladies will wind up even more frustrated, and whining that dressing modestly has failed to “reform” the jerks they’re still hot for, while still not caring about the other 80% of men who are okay with them not dressing provocatively.

      I see I am going to have to put together a “Start Here” primer for new readers. The bottom line is that 90% of women have never been with a jerk. So on what basis do you claim that all women are hot for them?

  • Michael Singer

    Allow me to suggest – The study does support the following:

    Dumb, Drunk and Easy Women will exploit themselves via 14 cues to attract players.

    How the following 14 cues are identified as “short-term mate attractiveness” and are not seen as self exploitation to attract men.

    Btw, Key Implication #3 is true and is self incriminating since “Sluts find fellow sluts most sexually attractive.”

    Key Implication #3: Men don’t settle for less when looking for casual sex. Men who prefer casual sex are actually most attracted to women who also prefer casual sex. Sluts find fellow sluts most sexually attractive.

  • SayWhaat

    Even if young women do stop dressing provocatively, they’re still going to filter out the guys who want a relationship because those guys are Betas.

    Not true. Sensuality > Sexy.

    I can wear a nice, modest sundress that doesn’t show any amount of skin that would be considered “indecent”, and my boyfriend (and boys before him) would go absolutely nuts.

    There’s a reason Joan from Mad Men has inspired such a lustful following. She is usually never inappropriately dressed (I can remember one post-coitus scene she did where she was wearing a corset-like thing, but even then it didn’t reveal anything we hadn’t already seen) and she *ooooozes* sensual appeal.

  • J

    @Herb

    I love the relaxed but put together business look (try the cover of At Her Feet for the classic example.

    I googled the book. I thought the pantsuit on the cover model was OK, but I loved how she accessorized it.

    Time to wake up the husband….

  • J

    @Say Whaat #78

    Cosigned. I’ve been a modest dresser all my life and have always attracted men. Revealing clothes do attract guys who just want sex, but relationship-oriented men tend to respond well to pretty but modest clothing.

  • Jimmy Hendricks

    I can wear a nice, modest sundress that doesn’t show any amount of skin that would be considered “indecent”, and my boyfriend (and boys before him) would go absolutely nuts.

    Amen x 1000. There are few things hotter than a cute girl in a sundress.

  • Jimmy Hendricks
    • @Jimmy

      I think those girls look really cute and classy. I hope no one here would describe them as looking slutty.

  • Wudang

    There is a fair bit of evidence that high IQ correlates with lower sex drive and low IQ with high sex drive. One study I saw found that the lower the IQ the earlier they started having sex and the more partners they had. Another study looked at male students at MIT and found that not only where they not having sex, they where far less likely to masturbate at all (half as likely I think) than the average male. The last study can be taken as an indication that the correlation between IQ and sexual behavior is not just about how IQ influences choices but at least partially about sex drive.

    • @Wudang

      The last study can be taken as an indication that the correlation between IQ and sexual behavior is not just about how IQ influences choices but at least partially about sex drive.

      How so? The men are responding negatively to women who look intelligent. Are you saying that a dumb looking woman implies higher sex drive? Interesting.

      Also, I’ve read that high IQ is correlated to lower levels of testosterone, and vice versa, which may be the same thing you’re referring to. Hence the term “dumb jock.” In which case our stereotypical alpha (high T) is suitable as a short-term mating choice in terms of physical survival skills, but not so attractive an option if your sons actually reach adulthood, as they will have lower IQ. That’s quite a tradeoff. In an era of low infant mortality and an information economy, high T men should be the lowest value.

  • Herb

    @J

    @Herb

    I love the relaxed but put together business look (try the cover of At Her Feet for the classic example.

    I googled the book. I thought the pantsuit on the cover model was OK, but I loved how she accessorized it.

    I can go on for quite some time about that picture (the book is pretty good too). I think she looks great in terms of put together.

    I was once told to find five pictures I thought were hot and explain why they were hot. That was one of them.

    As for the accessory, as you put it, did you notice she’s leaning on him? To me that’s a huge part of what makes it hot because it shows the interconnectedness. I even brought that up in a discussion at SJW and before I finished the sentence people got it.

  • Wudang

    I think when it comes to casual sex for men it can be stripped down to two core factors. One is of course availability. Men want to try to get women they can succeed with. That saves time and effort. It also saves face in case he gets turned down which will cost him preselection points. The second factor is fertility. With casual sex you only have one or a few chances at impregnation with each woman so it is extremely important that the woman be generally fertile and ovulating at the time. (A lot of slut tells are ovulation tells as well because women behave far more slutty/sexually agressively arround the time of ovulation). The quality of the baby should matter very little compared to chance of impregnation. Most kids had a fair chance of survival and replication anyway (women 80% and men 40%) so it is more important to be sure just to get an average one than to get one with extra good ods, when your effort is just for one night anyway. The fact that men are far more likely to have sex with a girl far more ugly than he normally would if none of his friends will know about it or if those friends doN´t care about that and won`t give him shit over it indicates that this reflects the preselection loss he would experience if it became widely known who he banged. The value of the amount of preselection loss for banging a too ugly chick can probably be calculated quite acurately by looking at the difference between the rank of the least pretty girl he would bang if everyone knew and the least pretty girl he would bang if no one knew. Banging a 2 when your normal public lowest stadard is 5 means the loss in your own value in the eyes of other women (and los of status in mens eyes which leads to loss of rank there which in turn leads to loss of mating oportunities) can be calculated to the difference in benefit between banging a 2 and a 5.

    One reason men might be vary of women that don`t have slut tells for casual sex might be that they fear being forced by her family and allies to provide for her to some extent. This is not unkonw. Men have untill recently been forced to “man up and do the right thing” by marrying the women they knock up. In tribes that are promiscuos it will often be deceided that a guy that sleeps with a woman for some time needs to provide for life for the child or if several sleep wtih her that he needs to provide some for it together with others. Sometimes one child is considered to have seven or more fathers etc. So men would be fearfull of being forced to invest in something low quality.

    • @Wudang

      The fact that men are far more likely to have sex with a girl far more ugly than he normally would if none of his friends will know about it or if those friends doN´t care about that and won`t give him shit over it indicates that this reflects the preselection loss he would experience if it became widely known who he banged.

      One of the things I found interesting in the study was the conclusion that men do not lower their standards for casual sex. It may well be that ugly women can attract guys if they are exhibiting the vulnerability cues. Obviously, there’s a floor, but ahem, I recall Jaclyn Friedman boasting about her Craigslist encounters. It may be that a woman’s short-term orientation is what attracts the male, and that her looks are less important.

  • Wudang

    Regarding the correlation with men who rape. Doesen`t this indicate that alphas with low agreableness are amongst the most likely to rape. I have always been sceptical of womens evaluation of who has rape potential. THey often say that the awkward and needy guy htat aproaches them gives them creepy vibes they figure indicates he is a potential rapist. Those men to me often seem very harmless and weak and like they rarely will have the violence potential to rape. On the other hand when I meet alphas with obvious and strong dark triad indicators they strike me as extremely likely to be rapists when they don`t get their way. I think rapists are probably most often alphas and sometimes omeas that totally tipped over.

    • @Wudang

      Doesen`t this indicate that alphas with low agreableness are amongst the most likely to rape

      Absolutely, no question. Violent tendencies among alphas are just one of the drawbacks to being in a relationship with one. Let’s face it, all thugs are alpha.

      Obviously, this definition of alpha is considerably broader than “who gets laid.” It focuses on the intrasexual dominance among men, which is really how alphas are crowned.

  • freebird

    It’s called a sundress because it’s transparent when back lit by the sun.
    yes,transparent.

    There is a reason Amish women wear black thicker clothing,to prevent this sort of lust.

  • Bastiat…”Under some admitted stringent controlling assumptions, you would then use the calibration period to find your highest SMP mate value; after the calibration period was over, you would “buy””

    One of the implicit assumptions would seem to be that your search effectiveness remains constant over the interval….for example, that you’ll be able to meet people just as well once you get out of college as you will during college. Also, I suspect that the math if done in detail would show that someone who is enough of an outlier from your distribution should be snapped up immediately….say you’ve been dating 5 years and the people who like you are in the 4:8 range according to whatever your criteria are. Now you meet a 19 who is really crazy about you. Shouldn’t you snap him/her up?

    My most recent post: Movie Review: Little Man, What Now?

  • @Freebird
    And there’s a reason why most women who wear sundresses also wear slips underneath them.

  • Wudang

    “How so? The men are responding negatively to women who look intelligent. Are you saying that a dumb looking woman implies higher sex drive? Interesting.”

    I was refering to the MIT study not your studies. The fact that the students where so much less likely to masturbate indicates lower sex drive.

  • VD

    The point is that there are some men for whom the sight of a drunk, sleepy girl is very arousing. Signals of female vulnerability to coercion give them boners.

    True. Which tends to raise the interesting question of whether women are intentionally signaling these fine, upstanding gentlemen to approach them when they take two sips of beer and suddenly begin declaring, to all and sundry,”I am SOOOO drunk!”

    It had really never occurred to me that any man wouldn’t find drunk and sleepy to be arousing. What’s not to like about dreamy, half-lidded eyes and tousled bedhead? Do BETA men seriously like chipper, spunky, hey-up-and-at-’em women? The mere thought fills me with horror.

    • It had really never occurred to me that any man wouldn’t find drunk and sleepy to be arousing. What’s not to like about dreamy, half-lidded eyes and tousled bedhead? Do BETA men seriously like chipper, spunky, hey-up-and-at-’em women? The mere thought fills me with horror.

      Haha, this cracked me up. Perhaps this is a massive case of female projection on my part. As a mother, I am horrified and repulsed by the thought.

      I agree with you, as I’ve said, that in many cases, there is no actual exploitation taking place. It is perhaps an unfortunate choice of words, because it tends to portray the women as victims. I’ve always maintained that women are responsible for doing everything in their power to keep themselves out of harm’s way.

      Also, I recall that studies have found that young people – both men and women – binge drink for the express purpose of getting loose enough to get naked with a stranger. Very few people can pull this off without some lowering of inhibition. One could argue that women who do this are deliberately setting themselves up as vulnerable to a coercive strategy, with the plausible deniability that a morning hangover will afford.

  • David, that’s absolutely true: the approach assumes that you have steady access to equally-attractive mating opportunities throughout your peak mating years. It also assumes that there are no equivalents to depreciation costs involved in the sampling and search processes; higher partner N counts are not punished in this model, as it only considers the years spent in the game (imagine that it did not do this and instead required a statistically significant number of romantic partners!).

    This can have serious ramifications… Someone could begin college and assume she was starting fifteen years in the peak mate selection window, but then find, for example, that four years in a college environment gave much greater access to opportunities than did the eleven years after college (or vice-versa—college could also be a very poor environment).

    In effect, this would mean that her peak mating window would have to be segmented into tranches. The first, lets call it “AAA” tranche would last for only four years. Post-college, she would have to operate according to a less-attractive opportunities window. After that window closed, an even less attractive tranche would provide the appropriate search criteria.

    Away and away and way it goes, and where it stops, nobody knows.

    I wouldn’t argue that this framework should be taken literally, but I would argue that it dramatically demonstrates the effects of time decay on mating opportunities, predicts the need to manage expectations downwards if windows close, and thus may be an important, weaponized”Red Pill” device. 1/e may also prove to be a particularly bitter pill to swallow if it causes major planned-life script conflicts, so I don’t think that many will want to take it.

    Perhaps a tragic, but realistic, result is that responsible life-strategy guides may find themselves having to give very different advice to young men and young women, and to do so knowing that the strategies are going to result in some friction and conflict down the road. However, that’s what efficient market-clearing price discovery is all about, right? Susan, do you find yourself being torn on this? I know that your initial constituency was skewed towards young women, but I would think that you will increasingly find yourself in a position where younger guys are also asking for your thoughts (as evidenced by reader e-mails, etc.).

    David, I also agree about the need for some kind of failsafe mechanism that should be triggered in the event that someone encounters a true extreme event, “Black Swan” type of opportunity. Under those circumstances, the search should be abandoned in order to aggressively secure the treasure. Clearly this requires the ability to know a very, very good thing when you see it, and that may be a skill in shorter supply than we would like to think.

  • Abbot

    “It may be that a woman’s short-term orientation is what attracts the male, and that her looks are less important.”

    Its the ease and equality of readiness

  • Abbot

    “Violent tendencies among alphas are just one of the drawbacks to being in a relationship with one.”

    In feminist circles, only alphas are visible as being men. All others are swept into the caste they call “Nice Guys ®.” Its no mystery why feminism has fallen out of favor.

    https://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/09/30/hookinguprealities/marcottes-boxers-are-in-a-twist-over-nice-guys®/

    • @Abbot

      In feminist circles, only alphas are visible as being men. All others are swept into the caste they call “Nice Guys ®.

      This is the greatest irony of feminism, IMO.

  • VD: One of the sexiest club sluts in the city back in the early 90s was an avid Dickens reader with a complete collection and respectable literature covering every wall in her apartment. Go figure.

    What I do not get and find contradictory in the manosphere is the claim that men are not interested in smart women but will trot out all kinds of studies and shit to prove that Game is most effective on “intelligent” women.

    The impression I get is that even though they claim a woman’s smarts means absolutely nothing to them in the scheme of things there is almost a desperate need to prove that intelligent women are the only ones they are bedding using Game and that it is most effective on them. It is as though they are insulted at the notion that others would think that they could only pull dumb women.

    Why won’t they trumpet the dumb women they claim to prefer? Nevertheless, instead they are only trumpeting the smart ones. I guess it would be too embarrassing to admit to only banging dumb chicks. Moreover, let me repeat, these are the women they claim to prefer to spend their time with, supposedly.

    They need to make up their minds.
    .

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I agree with you, as I’ve said, that in many cases, there is no actual exploitation taking place. It is perhaps an unfortunate choice of words, because it tends to portray the women as victims. I’ve always maintained that women are responsible for doing everything in their power to keep themselves out of harm’s way.

    I’m not sure such research could be published without using a word choice that made the women victims.

    For all of feminism’s insistence that women are as capable (or more capable) as men when it comes to any interaction with men they can’t stop the brutes. The idea that any woman could be responsible for an interaction with a man going bad seems to be unimaginable (and I mean that quite literally, the can’t imagine it) for feminists.

  • Bastiat…Under (the true extreme prospective mate of a “Black Swan” level of wonderfulness), the search should be abandoned in order to aggressively secure the treasure. Clearly this requires the ability to know a very, very good thing when you see it, and that may be a skill in shorter supply than we would like to think.”

    I read somewhere–maybe it was here–a comment by someone who had been with someone she (I think it was a she) was really crazy about (in a positive way) but had ditched because she thought she really *should* play the field a bit more and see what was out there…and was now regretting it very much.

    My most recent post….Little Man, What Now?

  • @Liza
    What I do not get and find contradictory in the manosphere is the claim that men are not interested in smart women but will trot out all kinds of studies and shit to prove that Game is most effective on “intelligent” women.

    From what I’ve gathered, intelligence is not the major factor in either case, but a woman’s sense of superiority when she believes she is more intelligent than everyone else. It is the attitude, not her smarts, that makes her both a pain to be around and an easy target for a well-delivered “neg” to her intelligence.

  • Ted D

    VD – “It had really never occurred to me that any man wouldn’t find drunk and sleepy to be arousing. What’s not to like about dreamy, half-lidded eyes and tousled bedhead? Do BETA men seriously like chipper, spunky, hey-up-and-at-’em women? The mere thought fills me with horror.”

    Not exactly. To be honest, for me it is about presence of mind. By that I mean, I have NO desire to have sex with a woman that isn’t fully “in the moment” with me, which means she has to be at least sober and conscious enough to be into it. There is nothing at all attractive to me about a woman that is two sips away from passed out, or one yawn away from falling asleep. Now I LOVE some good bed head, and I’m perfectly OK with “dreamy” as long as it is dreamy with mostly full mental facilities. For me, at least half the pleasure of sex is the spiritual/emotional/mental connection part. Otherwise all I’d be doing is jerking off with some woman’s vagina. If that is really all I’m looking for, I’d rather do it myself. It will feel better, end better, and require much less work and risk.

  • Ramble

    What I do not get and find contradictory in the manosphere is the claim that men are not interested in smart women but will trot out all kinds of studies and shit to prove that Game is most effective on “intelligent” women.

    So much of it depends on what you define as “smart”.

    But, an easier and more straight-forward approach is to think about those girls most likely to trot out in some blog/forum, “I’m smart!” (think Huffington Post).

    Most men, as far as I can tell, do not desire those kinds of girls.

    Basically, the smartest people I have met rarely refer to themselves as smart.

    Also, it should be said that if a guy *is* interested in getting married and having children, he should probably disqualify those girls majoring in Cultural Anthropolgy. I mean, how excited is she going to be about getting married and raising his children?

  • Herb

    @Ramble, Bellita

    So much of it depends on what you define as “smart”.

    But, an easier and more straight-forward approach is to think about those girls most likely to trot out in some blog/forum, “I’m smart!” (think Huffington Post).

    Most men, as far as I can tell, do not desire those kinds of girls.

    Basically, the smartest people I have met rarely refer to themselves as smart.

    From what I’ve gathered, intelligence is not the major factor in either case, but a woman’s sense of superiority when she believes she is more intelligent than everyone else. It is the attitude, not her smarts, that makes her both a pain to be around and an easy target for a well-delivered “neg” to her intelligence.

    I’d say they’ve got it.

    It’s probably similar to my reaction to a lot of liberal people. More than one person who knew me somewhat already upon learning I’m politically conservative has given me, “I thought you were smarter than that”, “Wow, I thought you were smart”, or “Why, you’re smart”.

    Next time a political debate came up the good manners gloves were off and 9 times out of 10 (or even more often) I learned they were “smart” because they were “liberal” and they had little to not thought process behind it. It was just their environment that was mostly intelligent people who were also liberal (I was living in New England at the time), therefore they figured they were the same. In the process they were happy to conclude non-liberal people were stupid.

    It really makes you want to put them in their place and I suspect a lot of “smart” girls are the same thing. Look at me, I got a degree in something so I’m smarter than you when it’s really, honey, get all the degrees you want. I’m still smarter.

  • Marie

    That picture on top makes me sad and uncomfortable.

    @Saywhaat
    I agree, the appropriate dress attracts the right kind of men. I remember a men’s magazine did a large survey on it (European men, that is), with plenty of sexy outfits, and the one men preferred BY FAR was the ‘cute sundress’. Slightly above the knee, strappy, fitted enough to see the contours of the body but not reveling to much skin.

    http://www.sodabottle.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Miranda-Kerr-appearing-on-Extra-TV-at-the-Grove-in-LA-317×476.jpg

    A cute sundress on a nice girl won’t make players stay away though, but it helps.

    • @Marie

      That picture on top makes me sad and uncomfortable.

      I’m sorry, but it’s meant to. Women need to understand that there are men who would rather see them in that state than any other. She’s a sitting duck.

  • Halo Effect

    The assumptions that many here seem to hold completely contradict my reality. Sex is not a win-lose deal. I love sex, women love sex. I’ve never been with a woman who didn’t. A woman doesn’t give anything up when she has sex with me. We both gain something (sometimes a relationship, sometimes just a great experience).

    Even when I want sex, I look for attractive, intelligent (and conscious :p) girls. Low intelligence is a turn-off. Insecurity is a turn-off.

    I do not have to lie to get sex. I am honest and direct. If women desire sex as much as I do and will enjoy the experience as much as I will (whether it be a one-night stand or a longer term relationship) then no deception or pressure is necessary, is there?

    It seems like another example of how our beliefs shape our experiences. If you believe high self-esteem, intelligent women don’t want sex outside of relationships and that women have to be deceived and pressured into having sex, then what you’ll find is high self-esteem, intelligent women reject you and you only ever get the slutty, insecure, promiscuous girls. If you believe that awesome women love sex and that this is a great thing, you’ll get the awesome women..

    • @Halo Effect

      If you believe high self-esteem, intelligent women don’t want sex outside of relationships and that women have to be deceived and pressured into having sex, then what you’ll find is high self-esteem, intelligent women reject you and you only ever get the slutty, insecure, promiscuous girls.

      It’s great that you’ve had positive casual sex experiences, and that the women you’ve been with have enjoyed them too. Still, there are many characteristics that correlate strongly to female promiscuity:

      low agreeableness
      low conscientiousness
      high impulsivity
      high need for dopamine stimulation (risk-seeking, novelty-seeking)
      low self-esteem (as measured by post-hookup emotional experience)
      depression
      parents divorced
      binge drinking
      high testosterone

      I’d estimate that no more than 5 out of 100 women are capable of enjoying a no-strings sex lifestyle. In any case, it is never the solution to a problem.

  • Ted D

    “That picture on top makes me sad and uncomfortable.”

    It makes me wonder where in the hell they guy is that bought her the huge rock she is wearing. I hope he is around and the picture was originally intended to be privately funny, but my fear is he was either completely oblivious that it happened (she was away/on vacation/etc) or even worse that he was a participant. Seriously, isn’t part of being with someone protecting them from their own stupidity on occasion? I have no problems with people having a good time, even if it involves passing out, but at least be responsible enough to know someone around you has your back, and that you are in a generally safe place in case they aren’t.

    I’m very glad I was young and stupid before camera phones were invented.

    • @Ted

      Seriously, isn’t part of being with someone protecting them from their own stupidity on occasion?

      Maybe her fiance is the one who wrote “fun” with an arrow pointing to her vagina. If that was meant to be private, it’s a disaster. The image is in the top three when one googles “drunk slut.”

  • Ted D

    Halo Effect – “It seems like another example of how our beliefs shape our experiences. If you believe high self-esteem, intelligent women don’t want sex outside of relationships and that women have to be deceived and pressured into having sex, then what you’ll find is high self-esteem, intelligent women reject you and you only ever get the slutty, insecure, promiscuous girls. If you believe that awesome women love sex and that this is a great thing, you’ll get the awesome women..”

    Or, you believe that like men, all women enjoy sex, but the ones with quality character don’t simply jump into bed for the sheer physical pleasure of it, but instead save it as something special to be shared with someone they love. I’ve never said that women don’t enjoy sex, and in fact I believe it would be detrimental to us as a species if they didn’t enjoy it. But, exercising the will to refrain from what “feels good” in order to add value to something long term to me is a very good indicator of quality character.

    I LOVE sex. It feels freaking great, gives me energy, and makes me feel good physically and emotionally. But that doesn’t change how I “use” my sexuality, which is as an added value to a committed relationship with someone I love and care about. I don’t understand why some people insist that anyone with a conservative sexual value system don’t like sex. The two are in no way connected, and at least personally it couldn’t be farther from the truth.

  • Doc

    I love (sarcasm intended) how there are all of these studies proving what any man with a brain already knew – of course the problem is there are always people who deny the truth – so you have to beat them over the head with the facts, which require this type of behavioral analysis.

    Of course, the ones who find it inconvenient with their beliefs will stick their head in the sand and ignore the facts like they always do… Or just make up lies, and repeat them over and over, hoping that if they say it often enough, it will be seen as the truth – which has been shown to work – unfortunately….

  • Ramble

    Marie, it is interesting that you chose a picture of Miranda Kerr as an example of a nice girl in a cute sundress (she definitely looks cute) since her taste in men, when she was at the height of her fertility, was very interesting.

  • BroHamlet

    @Susan
    Ugh. The title picture of the thread = SMH

    @Jimmy

    That pic you linked is proof positive why college (at least at a big state school) is awesome. If I were one of those girls I’d be PISSED if I read the caption on the lower left, though LOL.

    @SayWhaat

    Yup. Sundresses are a cheat code to the game, for real.

  • Ramble

    In feminist circles, only alphas are visible as being men. All others are swept into the caste they call “Nice Guys ®.

    This is the greatest irony of feminism, IMO.

    And, according to Feministing, Nice Guys® are not really nice since they are just pretending to be nice. So, you might as well go for the assholes since they are being more honest.

    Also, and this is completely unrelated to my previous statement, they are HUGE fans of Mad Men. Although, I am racking my brain as to why.

    • @Ramble

      Also, and this is completely unrelated to my previous statement, they are HUGE fans of Mad Men. Although, I am racking my brain as to why.

      I know – Amanda Marcotte uses some Mad Men cartoon version of herself as her avatar. She’s also a fan of Girls, which is even harder to fathom.

  • Emily

    >> “Next time a political debate came up the good manners gloves were off and 9 times out of 10 (or even more often) I learned they were “smart” because they were “liberal” and they had little to not thought process behind it”

    I see it from a lot of atheists as well. I’ve known a lot of people who claim that they’re more “scientific” because they don’t believe in God even though they actually studied Philosophy or English Lit or something like that.

    Not All Atheists Are Like That (NAAALT) of course. But the ones that are are really annoying!

    …and I should shut up now before I trigger some sort of religious debate.
    : P

  • Doc

    Susan — Women need to understand that there are men who would rather see them in that state than any other. She’s a sitting duck.

    Long ago, when in college, there was a young women – the sister of a friend – who insisted on going to frat parties and being stupid. I managed to intercept her twice when she was drunk being led up-stairs. Of course the frat-boys weren’t happy at having their fun removed, but such is life. Anyway – she continued till she was “gang banged” and wanted sympathy. She didn’t get it, since unlike the Federal government and its VAWA stupidity – I believe women are accountable for their foolish actions. She obviously was looking for this to happen for some reason, and no one was going to stop it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of women out there like her.

    Or maybe that is “fortunate” for the guys who enjoy that sort of woman. I never saw a need – I like my women fully aware, and very interactive. But that is me, some guys just need a warm body…

    • @Doc

      I managed to intercept her twice when she was drunk being led up-stairs. Of course the frat-boys weren’t happy at having their fun removed, but such is life. Anyway – she continued till she was “gang banged” and wanted sympathy.

      You were a good man to try to save her from those guys, but you couldn’t save her from herself. She was obviously determined to achieve that outcome. Although you didn’t sympathize, if she’d complained to the school that frat would have undoubtedly been kicked off campus. They were obviously douches (like the Duke lacrosse players) but that doesn’t make them criminals. I don’t care how drunk a woman is, if she keeps showing up weekend after weekend and getting drunk with the specific intent of capturing male sexual attention, SHE WAS ASKING FOR IT. I’m in total agreement with you here.

  • Ramble

    <blockquote“Next time a political debate came up the good manners gloves were off and 9 times out of 10 (or even more often) I learned they were “smart” because they were “liberal” and they had little to not thought process behind it”

    I see it from a lot of atheists as well. I’ve known a lot of people who claim that they’re more “scientific” because they don’t believe in God even though they actually studied Philosophy or English Lit or something like that.

    People, in general, like to feel superior. Thugs like to feel physically superior and need to engage in certain acts to truly feel physically superior. Others like to feel morally superior.

    Once you understand that about (many) people, putting these actions in context becomes that much easier.

  • Ramble

    Or maybe that is “fortunate” for the guys who enjoy that sort of woman. I never saw a need – I like my women fully aware, and very interactive. But that is me, some guys just need a warm body…

    For some guys, when they are drunk (and stupid) and see a girl who is drunk (and stupid) they think to themselves, “Wow, I just found my hole-mate”.

  • Ramble

    *** CLEANUP ON AISLE 124 ***

    Blockquote Fail.

  • My point was, guys who utilize Game claim they have no interest in intelligent women. However, on the other hand will claim that those are the women they attract the most using it.

    I am just calling them out on their B.S. That’s all.

  • Herb

    @Liza and Ramble

    Oh, I’ve seen it from atheists. I saw it from Protestants when I became Catholic despite being brought up Presbyterian and Baptist. I’ve seen it from fellow conservatives when confronted by knowledgeable liberals and other believers confronted by thoughtful agnostics (more so than atheists).

    I think Ramble has it when he says, “People, in general, like to feel superior. ” Also, it seems people who insist on “being superior” are the ones least able to sustain it.

  • BroHamlet

    @Doc

    Or maybe that is “fortunate” for the guys who enjoy that sort of woman. I never saw a need – I like my women fully aware, and very interactive. But that is me, some guys just need a warm body…

    I once was out with a buddy and got accosted by a girl who was drugged up on a combination of stuff (ecstasy and something else, couldn’t tell what). She was a stone cold 9, but I can tell you that there’s nothing weirder than a super hot girl trying to grab you in public in an upscale bar- I’m really not joking. I didn’t take the bait, because I have no desire to end up in jail on false rape charges (might legitimately be actual rape if she’s drugged, so no thanks lol). She ended up getting kicked out of the venue because she was too unruly (and probably way too high). The funniest part of this whole thing, is I found out later this girl was an acquaintance of a buddy of mine- she showed up at a party he threw a few weeks later. She didn’t remember who I was.

    • She didn’t remember who I was.

      Did she still think you were hot? 😉

  • OffTheCuff

    Fer: “An interesting test is to give these men the tools to have casual sex and then see if they act on it. Give them money, have them go on an intense workout rountine, buy them expensive fashionable clothes and give them game instruction. See if they refuse casual sex then”

    Already been done, and we’ve referenced it here. There was a study where random men were proposed for casual sex by a woman. Something like 75% accepted. That should tell you how at least how many men will accept casual sex, and that’s not controlling for other “woulda” factors like having a girlfriend and not wanting to cheat.

    So, you’re right. Not pursuing casual sex because of the risk/reward being deemed unacceptable is very different than wanting it. I don’t agree with Sue’s conclusion here.

    • @OTC

      Not pursuing casual sex because of the risk/reward being deemed unacceptable is very different than wanting it. I don’t agree with Sue’s conclusion here.

      Like I said earlier, it might be that the men who found “vulnerable” women sexually unattractive would have jumped at the chance to have casual sex with a brainy, shy girl. We just know they said “no thanks” to having sex with sleepy, drunk, slutty girls. The study’s conclusion is that men with a short-term mating strategy prefer those girls, and men with a lower sociosexual orientation do not find them sexually attractive.

      Also, I don’t think it’s possible to separate risk/reward from wanting. For many people, something far riskier (or even less risky) than they like automatically translates to DO NOT WANT. I think that’s what is happening when women say they don’t like jerks. Maybe they think they’re attractive before they know them, maybe they don’t, but the minute they get the real picture they’re turned off. I have experienced that feeling many times myself.

  • OffTheCuff

    Liz: “My point was, guys who utilize Game claim they have no interest in intelligent women”

    Who claims that? I think you’re misunderstanding, here. It doesn’t mean we dislike like attractive women who happen to be intelligent, it’s that intelligence doesn’t make you more attractive in the initial stage. It’s a secondary attribute at best.

    In caveman language: IQ not make big boner.

    Just like most women don’t find politeness attractive in of itself. Now, it’s sure appreciated in an otherwise attractive man. But it ain’t a tingle-generator.

  • Ted D

    Susan – “Maybe her fiance is the one who wrote “fun” with an arrow pointing to her vagina. If that was meant to be private, it’s a disaster. The image is in the top three when one googles “drunk slut.””

    For real? Wow that really sucks for her. Not only because its a bad rap, but because everyone uses the ‘net to look at people, including employers. We can argue about practices that include invasions of privacy, but the fact is if it is publicly available, I see no problem with an employer using it as input to a hiring decision. If this young woman wanted to be a teacher, and she applied at a school I ran, I’d quickly pass on her as soon as I dug that picture up. Not at all the kind of thing I would want the parent’s of my students calling me about.

    • @Ted D

      Well, she may be OK because her name is not attached to the photo. But if one of her employers ever googles “drunk slut” 🙂 and finds her it’s going to be a problem.

  • Back when pterodactyls ruled the skies and I was dating, a young women I was interested in was always dressed very demurely and tastefully. I could tell she had a nice figure, but she didn’t see any need to put it on full display. On the third date, she wore a knit alpaca wool dress that hugged her curves like a LeMans driver at Monte Carlo.

    I didn’t marry her, but I would have….

    I thought this behavior was far sexier than the carnal display I see on any Friday night downtown.

    • @Mule

      I thought this behavior was far sexier than the carnal display I see on any Friday night downtown.

      I agree. I mean, I can’t agree as a woman, but I think I know what you mean. We just keep upping the ante to achieve arousal. I would love to hit the big reset button and go back to a time when men became aroused glimpsing an ankle. Imagine one’s first glimpse of a naked body when that’s all you’ve ever seen of the opposite sex!

      We’re operating in a very narrow range today, IMO.

  • Ramble

    My point was, guys who utilize Game claim they have no interest in intelligent women.

    Again, almost any guy looking to be more attractive to you, or any other girl, is likely employing some “Game”.

    However, I think that you are saying, “Many PUAs couldn’t care less about ‘intelligent’ girls”, which may very well be true.

    However, as one PUA once pointed out, the really idiotic girls tend to go for those cavemen that have the base physical features that they desire, and that is all.

  • Ramble

    Back when pterodactyls ruled the skies and I was dating, a young women I was interested in was always dressed very demurely and tastefully. I could tell she had a nice figure, but she didn’t see any need to put it on full display. On the third date, she wore a knit alpaca wool dress that hugged her curves like a LeMans driver at Monte Carlo.

    In my entire life I have seen fewer than a dozen girls dressed in really feminine and demure dresses (or skirt and blouse) that let you know they had a nice body and lots of class.

    It is so sexy.

    However, it very often looks somewhat old-fashioned. Though, for me, that is a big plus, not a negative.

  • Ramble

    They were obviously douches (like the Duke lacrosse players) but that doesn’t make them criminals.

    I am curious, is she a victim of low self esteem and self-destructive behaviour, and they are douches, or, did the slutty Ying and the slut-banging Yang meet and act accordingly?

    • @Ramble

      did the slutty Ying and the slut-banging Yang meet and act accordingly?

      This. It’s one of the main tenets of HUS at this point. Very promiscuous people are clearly drawn to each other like magnets.

  • On the other hand when I meet alphas with obvious and strong dark triad indicators they strike me as extremely likely to be rapists when they don`t get their way. I think rapists are probably most often alphas and sometimes omeas that totally tipped over.

    This is sadly my second hand experience too. Most of the Alpha’s are used to have all the women they want don’t take kindly rejection or a high level of resistance and rather do something extreme to get the girl than just move on on someone else, this is also a factor on at least 80% of the men that kill women in my country those women were whether theirs and once they broke up they just couldn’t handle it or never wanted them on the first place, Manosphere usually don’t talk about the dark side of being an Alpha but is really dark and is darker that you can imagine, YMMV.

    Now you meet a 19 who is really crazy about you. Shouldn’t you snap him/her up?

    Clearly this requires the ability to know a very, very good thing when you see it, and that may be a skill in shorter supply than we would like to think.

    He/She should, but then we live in a choice addiction, most people don’t realize that the perfect opportunity presented to them till years after the fact. That is one of the reasons parents and older relatives used to assist on mate selection on more traditional societies because they could tell someone a good deal that might escape them out of lack of experience.

    I read somewhere–maybe it was here–a comment by someone who had been with someone she (I think it was a she) was really crazy about (in a positive way) but had ditched because she thought she really *should* play the field a bit more and see what was out there…and was now regretting it very much.

    This is really common Bellita had a recent example and I personally saw several of my fellow male friends really in love with their girlfriends/wife but unable to settle down (and in one case divorced) because they weren’t done with all the sex they wanted to have with multiple women, breaking up and being really miserable and depressed for months afterwards, breaking your own heart for the sake of your penis is a completely strange concept for me.
    Men are very different in that aspect the fact that he is in love with you doesn’t guarantee he will stay and/or commit if other factors don’t fit on their logic, a woman in love will endure anything, that is pretty much the cad goal in my country: make her fall in love and then do whatever they want to (reveal they are married, drug users, gang members…) because he knows her feelings will keep her around 9 times out 10. I only know one woman (aside from myself I had done they whole I feel really strongly about this guy but I rather keep my distance) she got divorced while crying all the way from hiring the lawyer to the signing of papers and the lawyer even asked her if she was sure about her choice seeing how much of a mess she was, because her husband had moved in with a teenager and pretty much told her “to wait for him to be done with her” I guess it was too much for her, YMMV.

    Maybe her fiance is the one who wrote “fun” with an arrow pointing to her vagina. If that was meant to be private, it’s a disaster. The image is in the top three when one googles “drunk slut.”

    I told my husband that I want to make a pic of myself barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen but I chickened out thinking that somehow it will make it to the net even if I keep it in my camera, this day nothing is safe.

    Oh, I’ve seen it from atheists. I saw it from Protestants when I became Catholic despite being brought up Presbyterian and Baptist. I’ve seen it from fellow conservatives when confronted by knowledgeable liberals and other believers confronted by thoughtful agnostics (more so than atheists).

    I saw from Dragon Ball Z fans to Naruto fans…WTF!? People doesn’t do anything for fun anymore? Is everything some sort of superiority contest? I can deal with fandom wars that make some sense (Harmoniacs scared the shit out of me though) but to other fandoms? and “I’m better than you because I like Saint Seiya the best” are just stupid and annoying, YMMV.

  • @Liza:

    With all due respect, I do not know where you are getting your information from; when you assert that “the Manosphere” says that Game works best on intelligent Women, then walks back on that assertion, I must ask: precisely WHO are you talking about within the Manosphere, who says this? Name of blog/blogger/links, please?

    Because, from what I go on – which is “The Game” by Neil “Style” Strauss – it is absolutely true that Game tends to work best on Women who have a bit more going on upstairs than just styling gel. I’ve seen it firsthand, and have discussed it at my blog; when I get a chance, I’ll post up the link for you.

    But yea, as someone else, I think it might have been OTC has said – “Cavemen” type guys tend to appeal most to the more niteclub going gals. Me? I say live and let live. No sweat off my back.

    Holla back…

    O.

  • Ramble

    I would love to hit the big reset button and go back to a time when men became aroused glimpsing an ankle.

    Start slut shaming like crazy.

  • FeralEmployee

    @Emily, 122

    The pompous leftists have taken over the house, they and their little YT frenzy club (including feminists like Rebecca Watson and some sex-pozzies). They can keep the house, but the real scientists are leaving. If you compare Ken Miller to any of those pinheads, my choice is swiftly made with the former. I was in it for the science, now out of it for the very same reason. Within time, they’ll find the solid structure of scientists on which the movement started, has eroded and left them to fall face down.

  • @Anacoana,
    You know, I hear what you and some others here have been saying – but I’m still not seeing a heck of a lot of evidence among the below-30 crowd that gals go gaa-gaa for the shy and meek Beta dudes. I can tell you right out that in Black USA, they gets NO LOVE at all. I made this point a little while back at a blog that Ms. Walsh has some degree of familiarity with, called Very Smart Brothas; here’s what I said:

    “I want the truth!”
    “You can’t handle the truth!”
    – A Few Good Men

    Good morning mr champ, everyone,
    Now todays topic is much more like it! Lets get right to it shall we?

    As i begin, it is worth noting that of the nearly 200 comments posted thus far, the vast majority have been made by women, not men; and of the men who have commented, less than half have actually addressed your topic. My comment then, will be truly unique in this regard.

    I should like to propose the following dear sir: that your problem isnt quite what it seems; rather, it is the result of your being something of an ill fit for what black women-and here i am talking about those “bougie girls” which youre enamored-actually wants, longterm.

    Why do i say that?

    Because it has been proven time and again, that nerdy brothas have in fact, very little cache amongst the sistahood. I can hear the howls of denial and personal attack coming a country mile away, but any brotha with at least one good eye knows that what im saying is true. Simply put, sistas-again we are talking about the whitleys of the world, not the laquishas-just dont have that much interest in the more quirkier guys like you.

    In his book “is marriage for black people”, ralph richard banks devotes an entire section to what he calls “the blue collar brother”; he argues that the meme has such powerful cultural force that it has made tyler perry the most successful black man ever in hollywood history. Much of banks’ book proceeds along these lines, usually in the “see i told you so it wouldnt work!” vein-but as i was reading his words, two burning questions came to mind:

    1. Why DO so many sistas identify with the blue collar brotha theme (to the extent that theyve made perry a very wealthy man!); and

    2. Why DONT these sistas find the reed richards type brothas interesting at all?

    I think the answer to both, comes down to some of the things you hinted at in your post, champ-and which brings us to the brink of yet another very ugly truth:

    That the very things that makes one brilliant makes them also a bit ill-suited for relationships; and heres the real kicker:

    That brilliance and what the sistas have come to call “swag” are quite indeed, *negatively correlated*.

    None of this should come as too big of a surprise or shock-after all, it is widely acknowledged that everything else in life comes with its tradeoffs-yes? Well, when it comes to things like IQ-which is what youre really talking about here champ, lets not mince words-the tradeoff is a reduced ability to “read” social cues; to be socially adroit; to possess a kind of “social intelligence”; and so on.

    The higher a male goes in terms of IQ, the more difficult it is for him to be able to socially relate to others. All of this is well documented-what hasnt been as rigorously studied, is how it applies to black folks. Which is truly unfortunate.

    But that doesnt mean that we dont have anything to go on. The very fact that an entire cottage industry of articles, blogs, books and films featuring the “blue collar brotha” not only exists, but thrives, while the reed richards type brotha barely gets a mention at all from the sistahood says loud and clear what they find more desirable-swag. Which, when you really break it down, simply means social intelligence.

    Now then-lets take things one step further…

    The solution to your problem, assuming you want to be mated, is to find women who appreciate more raw brainpower than the vast majorty of sistas have aplty demonstrated in myriad of ways. Therefore, i recommend that you seriously consider dating white, specifically jewish women, and/or asian women. Both types of women come from long and established histories where guys like you were highly valued; they understand the tradeoffs that come with such men; and have no problems making the needed adjustments. Since it is clear to me that you have little interest in learning game to the extent that it would enable you to compete in any meaningulf way against the diva dudes, what i suggest is a most prudent strategy-and one that has proven successful. Many “brainy brothas” go this route either sooner or later; among them, one john mcwhorter, and even obamas brother who currently resides in china.

    Yes, it may put a dent in your cred as a black blogger/writer-especially since your bread and butter is black women-but it all comes down to whether you wish to live out the rest of your days in a futlie effort to give those same sistas something that you do not have and dont wish to be bothered with-or, if youre willing truly think outside the box.

    Time, will tell…

    Now adjourn your arses…

    O.”
    http://verysmartbrothas.com/why-being-a-single-man-is-kind-of-overrated/#comment-430943

  • @Susan, Ramble

    What was arousing/sexy about my date’s behavior was because it was evidently for MY benefit and not for the generic androsphere.

    Even today I think it would be a good strategy for a young woman, calibrated, of course.

    • @Mule

      What was arousing/sexy about my date’s behavior was because it was evidently for MY benefit and not for the generic androsphere.

      This is something women do not understand. They think they’re more attractive to a guy if every guy in the vicinity is staring at them. They don’t understand that men loathe feeling jealousy and want their women to reserve sexiness for private time with them.

      One young couple I know got into a huge fight when they went out with their friends. The girl stood on the brass rung at the bar and leaned over to grab her drink. Her bf accused her of “sticking her ass out at the bar.” While I don’t believe that was her intention, my guess is that she was wearing something that gave all the guys around an eyeful of her nice round bottom.

      Women think modesty will cost them male attention, but the opposite is true.

  • @Ms. Walsh,
    “This. It’s one of the main tenets of HUS at this point. Very promiscuous people are clearly drawn to each other like magnets.”

    O: Yes, this may indeed be true; but even so, it STILL doesn’t account for what I’m talking about above.

    Comments? Where is the evidence that the shy, nerdy, Beta guys under 30, are indeed desired?

    Please explain?

    Thanks.

    O.

    • @Obs

      Where is the evidence that the shy, nerdy, Beta guys under 30, are indeed desired?

      There is none 🙂

      However, I don’t believe that 80% of the male population is shy and nerdy. We’ve got extremely dominant alphas on one end of the spectrum, omega males on the other. Shy nerdy guys moving toward the middle but still not in the central part of the bell curve. Who’s there? A lot of this alpha beta confusion could be cleared up if we could accurately identify who is where and what they’re like. We can’t do that of course, because we all have our different ideas about what constitutes those things.

  • @Ramble:
    “Start slut shaming like crazy.”

    O: Actually, Women do just that – to each other. It’s the major derogatory weapon in any Woman’s arsenal, when coming up against an intrasexual competitor for what would be considered a desired (Male) mate. Please see The Evolution of Desire, by Prof. Dave Buss, for more on this point, in particular what he presents about a book written and published back in the early 60s called “The Sot-Weed Factor”. I never knew there were so many ways to call a Woman a slut, LOL.

    I suppose, it truly takes one, to know one…

    O.

  • I must ask: precisely WHO are you talking about within the Manosphere, who says this? Name of blog/blogger/links, please?

    Hi Obsidian,

    I have heard this assertion from Roissy several times. It somehow implies that educated/intelligent women are more promiscuous and less educated/dumb ones are less promiscuous. I just think assertion is unfounded that is all.

    Why is there a need in the manosphere to prove that educated/intelligent women are more susceptible to Game while at the same time claiming educated/smart women are the least appealing to them?

    According to this study posted, dumb women are more susceptible to being bedded by players due to them being easier to manipulate and coerce. Now, this makes perfect sense to me

    So, according to The Game” by Neil “Style” Strauss the assertion is true. Okay, please explain.

    .

  • Herb

    @MuleChewingBriars

    On the third date, she wore a knit alpaca wool dress that hugged her curves like a LeMans driver at Monte Carlo.

    I didn’t marry her, but I would have….

    I thought this behavior was far sexier than the carnal display I see on any Friday night downtown.

    Most modern women don’t understand that teasing is generally better than seeing.

    Strapless dresses work on that theory as do backless ones as do curve hugging dresses and skirts. So does fan dancing and other forms of burlesque for that matter.

    Let me think I’m seeing it even though I’m really imagining and you’ll have my attention much more than otherwise.

  • but I’m still not seeing a heck of a lot of evidence among the below-30 crowd that gals go gaa-gaa for the shy and meek Beta dudes. I can tell you right out that in Black USA, they gets NO LOVE at all.

    I think Susan has mentioned the concept of invisibility for the Betas of each gender. I will say what I had gathered from the info and comments here but this is a personal opinion and I could be totally off the mark and if I offend anyone here is not my intention this is sort of the way I think the statistics can match the experience of people reporting here and again I could be just talking out of my pregnant butt.

    The ones married to Betas in the crowd (Susan, Hope and Me not sure if J husband is a Beta) took the risk to start things going and also knew more or less some girl game (femininity, healthy weight, tasteful clothing, connect with men and get to know them…).
    If you see comments here women are really resistant to initiating, to be feminine, and to be agreeable even if they find those guys attractive they want them to do the first move. That probably plays a part I know I let go of a lot of shy guys when I was younger because I expected them to do the first move, it was not after I realized that it was “make the first move or die alone” that I managed to work out the courage to do so.
    Also a lot of Beta males report to pay a lot of attention to the hot women that are hanging out with jerks, and if their counterparts are not feminine and take care of the basics attraction cues (long hair, healthy weight…) to at least compensate for hot crazy ones even if men expectations get adjusted faster than women’s it still takes time to do so so.
    I think there is a lot of lack of communication between the Betas of both genders that are natural counterparts do to modern brainwashing (feminism, fat acceptance movement, rebellion at the helpmate concept for women…) about the genders.
    The betas think that all women are aggressive and sexually forward so the women that are trying to to get their attention with “shyness and eye contact” don’t register and they are not going to make the first move either. So I wouldn’t be surprised that there is a lot more women day dreaming about a cute beta guy in work/campus/cafeteria than what perception leads on. Is just they had no idea what to do neither men know how to attract and their hot crazy counterparts do a good job at “nuclear rejection, gyms are places women want to be left alone, sexual harassment charges out of a simple comment” that very early very few men are going to go and try to find out why the girl at the other side of counter looks at them so much, too high of a prize, YMMV.

  • Cooper

    “Where is the evidence that the shy, nerdy, Beta guys under 30, are indeed desired?”

    I don’t believe there is any. Only evidence of betas being desirable is the married women of HUS that always say their lovely husbands are perfect betas with that mix of alpha. But to a single, under 30, guy hearing that is essentially useless – it really has no relevance to the SMP, for a single person at least.
    I think this is because once in a relationship the women start to adore the beta side – as it provides security. This does not translate in terms of desirablity or attracting women. The fact remains, for betas, it is best to just act alpha.

  • True indeed, women tend to be the biggest “slut shamers” for one reason or another.

  • Herb

    @Susan

    I agree. I mean, I can’t agree as a woman, but I think I know what you mean. We just keep upping the ante to achieve arousal. I would love to hit the big reset button and go back to a time when men became aroused glimpsing an ankle. Imagine one’s first glimpse of a naked body when that’s all you’ve ever seen of the opposite sex!

    Walter Williams has remarked more than once he remembers when I young man had to do something more monumental than go to the mall to see a young lady’s navel.

    I have taken a few potshots at some really slutty dressed women. Once, I had three delivers to the same dorm on Halloween. I had delivered two and was waiting on the third. The couple that got one of them (an emo looking guy and a cute but average girl who were both in the rumpled not going out look) were hanging outside eating their pizza while I waited.

    This tall blonde girl, make from the same blonde dough as the woman in the slut picture, comes out to leave for a party. She’s wearing lingerie, stockings and garters, heels, and panties, all red. She’s also wearing a fireman’s helmet. She stops and vamps for us. At the time I thought it was for the men but knowing now about intrasexual competition I suspect it was to embarrass the average girl.

    “Do you like my fireman’s costume?” she said.

    I looked her right in the eye and said, “Oh, I thought you were a stripper with a fireman act.”

    I never liked that shit. I suspect that may be one reason I don’t like “hot babes” because they too often have that “my shit don’t stink and I’m a special snowflake” attitude. The only one I had sex with just laid there. I guess she figured just being her made the sex fun.

  • Emily

    >> “True indeed, women tend to be the biggest “slut shamers” for one reason or another.”

    Women are also the biggest “virgin shamers”. For a lot of girls, it can get pretty confusing.

  • Wudang

    Liza:

    “My point was, guys who utilize Game claim they have no interest in intelligent women. However, on the other hand will claim that those are the women they attract the most using it.

    I am just calling them out on their B.S. That’s all.”

    There is a lot of difference here and PUAs are much more varied than what one might think from just reading the manopshere. The manosphere is very narrow in its game focus and seems to draw mostly on mystery and David Deangelo and very few others.

    For PUAs who very explicitly go for highly intelligent and intelectual women look at this guy:

    http://www.socialcoach.com/

    His one of my favourite PUAs by the way and one of those I most would encourage people to work with if they want coaching.

    And look at David Shades writings and at Juggler.

    There are tons of others, both teachers and just guys hanging out in forums.

    I think the manopshere guys are correct though that intelligence do take a back seat for guys and that it isen`t really a sexual attractor in the sense that looks and femininity are. For me intelligence is very important and if the woman is not above a certain and very high threshold I just can`t fall in love with them. But it is more like it is a bonding factor and liking factor rather than a direct boner factor. A woman who is just below my threshold for physical attractiveness can`t get above it no matter how great I think her intelect is. And it means very little for pure sexual attraction for casual sex. So it is more like I get sexually attracted by conventional stuff and hold back on falling in love unless I have certain bonding/liking factors and one of those is intelligence. There is some sort of respect admiration factor in it as well which deems her of higher quality which I guess to some extent increases man tingles and certainly increases love/bonding feelings and committment.

    For me mutual interests come in the same category. Those are things that create closeness and connectedness which is very important but by themselves they don`t create sexual attraction but friendly attraction and bonds. When sexual attraction is mixed in common interests and anything that gives a feeling of us being the same and close and on the same team etc. creates warm closeness and intimacy feelings that when combined with sexual attraction increases them and changes them so they become something much more pleasurable and deep.

    I think a good general way of thinking about this stuff is this. Sexual attraction comes from polarity between differences which means that the more different we are the more attracted we become. The closeness and bonding feelings stem from sameness and if there is not enough sexual attraction those factors just creates friendships and liking. This refelcts the fact that sameness is good for making a relationship work while polarity reflects the fact that what are good survivability factors for men and women are generally the exact oposite. Hence the fact that the more masculine and the more feminine a man and a woman is the more they are sexually attracted to each other but the less they understand and often like each other. David Deida says that what attracted you most to your partner is what will piss you of the most. I am drawn in by female emotionality and girly girl behavior but it does drive me insane more so than most else I think.

    In eastern philosophy and in tantra this attraction between oposites is considered a fact and so during sex they have plenty of techniques to temporarily amplify those differences to increase attraction. I think the BDSM community also recognizes this although I am not very familiar with it. The more extreme the dominance and the submission, hence differnt poles, the more attraction. I think this might also be an actual electric principle but not sure about that.

    All of this stuff is more complicated than this IMO and I could point out a lot of nuances to it but as a general rule and brute theory I think it holds true.

  • @Liza:

    Hey! Replies below:

    “I have heard this assertion from Roissy several times. It somehow implies that educated/intelligent women are more promiscuous and less educated/dumb ones are less promiscuous. I just think assertion is unfounded that is all.”

    O: Ahhh, and therein lies the BIG problem. Roissy gets, in my view, way too much attention from people, especially people who aren’t “in the life” so to speak. His is but one take – and a very slanted one at that – on Game. Please keep that in mind.

    “Why is there a need in the manosphere to prove that educated/intelligent women are more susceptible to Game while at the same time claiming educated/smart women are the least appealing to them?”

    O: I don’t think there is such a “need” at all; I think you’re rolling on what one – ONE – Man in the Manosphere is saying. Which is fine, but we just need to be much more precise, is all.

    “According to this study posted, dumb women are more susceptible to being bedded by players due to them being easier to manipulate and coerce. Now, this makes perfect sense to me”

    O: OK.

    “So, according to The Game” by Neil “Style” Strauss the assertion is true. Okay, please explain.”

    O: Sure – I address the issue on my blog here:
    Scipio Africanus On The Differing Types Of Sistas
    http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/64675

    Any comments or questions, holla. 😉

    O.

  • Re: slut shaming by women

    I know a woman who works as a paralegal who said that if you are representing a woman in a misdiagnosed breast cancer case, the worst juror to have is a woman of similar age and background. This juror will ask, “Why didn’t the plaintiff get a second opinion? A third? Figure out something was wrong much earlier? . . .” And this is because women don’t like to think that anything so horrifying could happen to them; they’d rather blame the victim and maintain the illusion of control. Never mind that crappy things can happen even to people who take every precaution.

    This is the dark underbelly of slut shaming when it’s done by women. It’s less “You’ve made your bed and now you have to lie in it” and more “You made it happen to you because you’re BAD and it will never happen to me because I’m GOOD.”

    (As for when it’s done by men . . . A few months ago, there was a thread in which male commenters pointed out repeatedly that men don’t “hate” sluts . . . that, in fact, men love sluts, just not for marriage. But this unspoken preference is framed as “slut shaming” by feminists. I think most men would be very level-headed in pointing out to women how poor choices in the past have led to lonely results in the present, but this doesn’t involve shaming at all.)

  • @Anacaona:
    Replies below:

    “I think Susan has mentioned the concept of invisibility for the Betas of each gender.”

    O: There is no such thing as a “female Beta”.

    “I will say what I had gathered from the info and comments here but this is a personal opinion and I could be totally off the mark and if I offend anyone here is not my intention this is sort of the way I think the statistics can match the experience of people reporting here and again I could be just talking out of my pregnant butt.”

    O: With all due respect Ana, and this is based just on the self-reporting of quite a few guys right here in this very forum – you *are* kinda talking out of your (pregnant – congrats!) butt. If anything, the anecdotal self-reports from the fellas aligns quite well with the more rigorous statistical evidence – there simply isn’t much of a market for the prototypical Beta guy in the *under 30* dating/mating market. I just gave you the skinny on how all this goes down in the Black American community – I can tell you flat out right now – if you’re a Black Reed Richards type, you can forget about it. Now, once you’re beyond the age of 30, then yea, you’ve got a shot. Under 30? No. Dice. Sistas, simply put, DO NOT select for straight-ahead brainpower, etc. They. Don’t. And I think the evidence, which everyone here knows, supports my theory and assertion.

    “The ones married to Betas in the crowd (Susan, Hope and Me not sure if J husband is a Beta) took the risk to start things going and also knew more or less some girl game (femininity, healthy weight, tasteful clothing, connect with men and get to know them…).”

    O: Again, they/you are a highly selected (and small, when compared to the legions of Women out there) group, and, as RooshV has recently said, the only “girl game” out there is this:

    1. You’re not hot enough; spend all your free time improving your appearance

    And

    2. Lower your standards.

    I’ve recently talked about this; I’ll post it here in a moment…

    “If you see comments here women are really resistant to initiating, to be feminine, and to be agreeable even if they find those guys attractive they want them to do the first move.”

    O: *Turns to the fellas reading along*

    Do you all really believe that? Show of hands now – how many of you fellas saw, firsthand, an Alpha hardly having to do ANY approaching, because the ladies were approaching HIM?

    Yea. That’s what I thought…

    “That probably plays a part I know I let go of a lot of shy guys when I was younger because I expected them to do the first move, it was not after I realized that it was “make the first move or die alone” that I managed to work out the courage to do so.”

    O: Again, you’re proving my point – being younger, under 30, for a Beta guy, is bed-death…

    “Also a lot of Beta males report to pay a lot of attention to the hot women that are hanging out with jerks, and if their counterparts are not feminine and take care of the basics attraction cues (long hair, healthy weight…) to at least compensate for hot crazy ones even if men expectations get adjusted faster than women’s it still takes time to do so so.”

    O: Yes, of course this is true; Betas may be Betas, but they’re still guys, and they respond to what all (or most) guys respond to, which is Female Hotness. The trick though, is that what attracts guys is very easily seen and demarcated; what does the same for Women though? Not so much. That’s part of the problem, because so many Women are so clueless about exactly what turns them on and why (please note that documented findings of people like Ogas and Buss, in noting that “mystery” plays a huge element in female romance and erotica novels and the like; compare and contrast to (male) porn, where nothing, ahem, is left to the imagination…)

    “I think there is a lot of lack of communication between the Betas of both genders that are natural counterparts do to modern brainwashing (feminism, fat acceptance movement, rebellion at the helpmate concept for women…) about the genders.”

    O: Nope. It’s all the result of both sexes’ evolvled sexual psychology at work. Simple. As. That. This is why Feminists get their bloomers in a bunch, because all their harangues against the Patriarchy haven’t brought about a willingness on the part of the guys to hookup with homely, overweight gals. EvoPsych explains why. And we all know what Feminists think of EvoPsych – don’t we? 😉

    And again – there is no such thing as a “female Beta”. It’s an oxymoron, when you think about it.

    “The betas think that all women are aggressive and sexually forward so the women that are trying to to get their attention with “shyness and eye contact” don’t register and they are not going to make the first move either. So I wouldn’t be surprised that there is a lot more women day dreaming about a cute beta guy in work/campus/cafeteria than what perception leads on.”

    O: Again, please read your Ogas and Buss. Their research and data refutes your assertion above.

    “Is just they had no idea what to do neither men know how to attract and their hot crazy counterparts do a good job at “nuclear rejection, gyms are places women want to be left alone, sexual harassment charges out of a simple comment” that very early very few men are going to go and try to find out why the girl at the other side of counter looks at them so much, too high of a prize, YMMV.”

    O: The problem there, of course, is that, aside from the niteclub environment – which is the defacto sanction mating ground for human beings – there are no other such sanction mating ground places, *that are clearly demarcated as such* – and it has long been my view, that this is just the ladies in particular, like it.

    Why?

    Because for one thing, it gives them plausible deniability – unlike the club scene, where the very presence of Women being there says that they are indeed looking for a guy to get with, in other settings – school, the job, the gym, at the store, etc, et al – they can always have an out if the wrong guy approaches.

    And second, it’s a very good way for ladies to test the social signal reading cues of guys, how he reads unspoken and very subtle signs and signals of largely female interaction and context. Now of course, all this is greatly frustrating for the guys; but, if one understands the heavy costs Women must pay in order to mate, one can understand why they sh*t test so early and often.

    Doesn’t make it “right”, of course – but one can understand it.

    Holla back

    O.

  • @Emily
    Women are also the biggest “virgin shamers”. For a lot of girls, it can get pretty confusing.

    I guess my comment at 162 applies to this, too. Shaming involves distancing yourself from the “evil,” so to speak.

  • @O
    Okay you might be right about the other ones but there are not female Betas? Really? What about all the girls here that had been friendzoned, rejected or ignored by guys and how many times guys here say that if you are too fat/unattractive they won’t even bother?…What are they?

  • @Ms. Walsh:
    “There is none…”

    O: That’s what I thought – and therein lies the problem you you, Ms. Walsh. Why?

    Because, until or unless you can come up with at least *some* hard metrics that backs up your Grand Unified Theory of Betaness, you will not be able to make a hard case that actually works for it. At best, you’ll be able to say what worked for you, and you might be able to point to a relatively very small pool of Women, like Ms. Hope, Ms. J, Ms. Anacaona, and a few others. But in the main? Nada.

    Meanwhile, guys have all kinds of evidence as to what actually DOES get Women wet, when it matters the most, which is under 30 – and it ain’t Betas. Again, please see my VSB-excerpted post which I have posted above on the first page of comments here – in the Black community, it is quite clear what Sistas in the main choose to select for in mates, and Black Beta Reed Richards AINT IT.

    I think we all know this, however politically incorrect it may be to actually say that – and since I’m Black, yes, I’m giving everyone here permission and a pass to notice outloud what we all can see with one good eye. 😉

    That’s a heck of a tough nut for you to crack, Ms. Walsh…good luck with that…

    “However, I don’t believe that 80% of the male population is shy and nerdy.”

    O: That’s fine; I don’t think it matters either way. No one’s arguing the exact number – the bottom line is what Women desire most, SEXUALLY – and as we both know, that in today’s mating environment, no sexual attraction means, that NOTHING HAPPENS. Hence, the Alphas win. Simple as (unless you’re counting the over 30 crowd – then, Betas have a fighting chance. Of course, there’s all manner of problems there, too, that I need not belabor here…).

    “We’ve got extremely dominant alphas on one end of the spectrum, omega males on the other. Shy nerdy guys moving toward the middle but still not in the central part of the bell curve. Who’s there? A lot of this alpha beta confusion could be cleared up if we could accurately identify who is where and what they’re like. We can’t do that of course, because we all have our different ideas about what constitutes those things.”

    O: I beg to differ; I think these things are largely hashed out. The problem is whether we are brave enough to accept what our lying eyes are telling us…as George Orwell once said… 😉

    Holla back

    O.

    • @Obs

      Because, until or unless you can come up with at least *some* hard metrics that backs up your Grand Unified Theory of Betaness, you will not be able to make a hard case that actually works for it.

      Ironically, a lot of the evo psych research points to women selecting men for traits that you would call beta. It’s very clear that women select different men for short-term vs. long-term mating, or at least they give different weight to various factors. Furthermore, female sexuality is not an on/off switch for dominance. From Ogas’ A Billion Wicked Thoughts:

      Men are visual. They respond to a gender cue that is fundamental and fixed. They respond to visual cues that are flexible during adolescence, then very fixed…Any cue triggers an immediate, powerful reaction directed toward seduction and orgasm.

      Women are more focused on emotional and psychological cues, which generate erotic stories suited for satisfying female appetites. Women respond to a truly astonishing range of cues across many domains. The physical appearance of a man, his social status, personality, commitment, the authenticity of his emotions, his confidence, family, attitude toward children, kindness, height and smell are all important to women.

      Unlike men, who become aroused after being exposed to a single cue, women need to experience enough simultaneous cues to cross an ever-varying threshold. Sometimes, just a few overwhelming cues can take a woman there. Other times, it takes a very large number of moderate cutes. For a man, a single cue is often sufficient, and sometimes necessary. For women, no single cue is either necessary or sufficient.

      The truth is, one man who cleans up at the bar by always getting a girl to go home with him would likely flame out in another setting. He’s playing to his strengths among women who seek overt dominance displays and get to sex in 7 hours. That same guy might be the laughingstock in a Wall St. firm.

  • @O
    Also all Game bloggers specially in approach so how come Alpha’s need to learn to approach and fight approach anxiety if the moment they turn Alpha’s women are going to flock to them, that is a really contradictory definition.

    And you asked if Betas were desirable not if they got approached. I mentioned that I always liked shy guys I didn’t approached because I didn’t knew how or that it was supposed to be a good strategy. That doesn’t proof if they are not desirable.

  • @Anacaona:
    “Okay you might be right about the other ones but there are not female Betas? Really? What about all the girls here that had been friendzoned, rejected or ignored by guys and how many times guys here say that if you are too fat/unattractive they won’t even bother?…What are they?”

    O: Not hot enough. They need to spend all their free time working on improving their appearance and then lower their standards.

    As Roosh rightly noted, here:
    The Secret To Landing A Man
    http://www.rooshv.com/the-secret-to-landing-a-man

    And, here:

    ““There ain’t no mystery…”
    -Brand Nubian

    Good morning mr champ, fellow vsbers,
    Great topic! Lets jump right in, shall we?

    Once again we see that science and age old wisdom clearly illuminates what “relationship idealism” and other hokey, ridiculous notions we black folk embarrassingly cling to, simply cannot.

    For, what appears to be a tortured axiom about a man needing to love a woman more than the reverse, is simply a cover for a stark evolutionary truth, one that is the result of both mens and womens evolved sexual psychology – the reason why men can “grow on” women is due to the fact that women have a different and much more expansive list of mating criteria than do men; if a man can kind of average out and/or, come up big in a few of the areas that women desire most in men as mates, and has ample time to display/demonstrate this, he can and most likely will, “grow on her”.

    For the female however – and unfortunately – things are quite a bit more cut and dry – and this takes to the heart of todays topic; for the simple truth is, that if a woman isnt hot enough for the man in question, then no, his investment (read: love) isnt as likely to be strong (and hence the cheating etc et al).

    Simply put, nature has deemed it so that among the top things men look for in women, is their youth and beauty, in that order-the younger/hotter the better-and when a woman comes up relatively short in either (or worse, both) these areas, problems along the lines youre speaking are likely to arise.

    With a vengence.

    In game/seduction circles, this scientific truth is translated/communicated thus:

    The woman should (must) be at least one point higher in relative physical attractiveness than the man.

    If not two (which is the preferred obsidian methodology)

    This ensures the mans likely longterm emotional and material investment in the woman, because she brings significant reproductive and social mating resources to the table (YES, men are indeed judged socially by the feminine company they keep), which her youth and beauty are proxies for. When a woman encounters a man (or men!) who arent invested in her along the lines delineated above, it is because she is simply not hot enough for him, and she must do two things:

    1. Spend all her free time improving her physical appearance

    And

    2. Lower her standards in terms of the men she wishes to date.

    If a 6 woman attempts to shoot for an 8 man, chances are very high he will NOT “love” (ie, invest emotionally, materially) in her over the longterm, is if at all. If however, she gets with a 4 man, she will get a considerable emotional and material investment from him.

    It really is as simple as that, folks.

    Of course, trying to make women-black women in particular-understand and accept this, is akin to trying to explain to a fish how wet water is, or trying to explain newtonian physics to a salamander.

    Hmm.

    At any rate, my good man, your post today just goes to show how and why, black men need to both read more, and apply that which they read, so they wont continue to be so very befuddled, and we can actually begin to solve problems.

    There is no mystery.

    Now adjourn your arses…

    O.”
    http://verysmartbrothas.com/why-its-true-that-men-need-to-fall-for-women-a-bit-harder-than-they-fall-for-us/#comments

    Any questions? 😉

    O.

    • @Obs

      Come on, I’ve heard you say that the dimes are SOL in this SMP. They couldn’t be hotter, but they want commitment (but not from Roosh!). Their counterparts are not going to give it to them. “Be hotter” is about as useful as Amanda Marcotte telling nice guys to “be more attractive.”

  • @Anacoana:
    “Also all Game bloggers specially in approach so how come Alpha’s need to learn to approach and fight approach anxiety if the moment they turn Alpha’s women are going to flock to them, that is a really contradictory definition.”

    O: No, it’s not; what you are referring to are guys first starting out, newbies; THEY are the ones who need to learn how to approach, etc. Guys who have refined Game and the social and preselection proofs to back it up either don’t need to approach much at all, or failing that, do a mere fraction of the approach that the youngbucks in the Game do. Take Ms. Brown Sugah, for example – she approached me, not the other way around. The concept of “PAS”, or Proximity Alert System? That’s another example. There are others.

    “And you asked if Betas were desirable not if they got approached. I mentioned that I always liked shy guys I didn’t approached because I didn’t knew how or that it was supposed to be a good strategy. That doesn’t proof if they are not desirable.”

    O: No, it’s not – but that doesn’t account for the fact that tons of Women approach more Alpha guys all the time; are you seriously going to attempt to argue that they were old pros at approaching guys? Guys reading along, do you believe that?

    Let’s see what they have to say to that…

    O.

  • 1. Spend all her free time improving her physical appearance

    And

    2. Lower her standards in terms of the men she wishes to date.

    I don’t get it. How is that any difference than telling a Beta male to ” Be more Alpha” and “Stop pedestalizing women” both are lacking on something they need to add to be more attractive to the opposite gender. And Alpha woman will be a 9 or a 10 while an Alpha man would be someone I guess like Roissy so why they don’t work as equivalents? If the Beta female is having oneitis for a male 8 is not different than the nerdy guy having oneitis for the hot crazy girl he is orbiting wouldn’t it?

    Mmm I do have something to add to what you are doing comparing the Black smart brothas, dating lives but I rather say it on your blog.

  • Abbot

    “male commenters pointed out repeatedly that men don’t “hate” sluts . . . that, in fact, men love sluts, just not for marriage.”

    Its been that way for a long time, even before this current feminist fad.

    “But this unspoken preference is framed as “slut shaming” by feminists.”

    There was never a reason to speak about it. But now this preference should be broadcast as much as possible because men have nothing to lose by doing so. At the very least, feminists will be even angrier and there is never any harm in that.

  • J

    As for the accessory, as you put it, did you notice she’s leaning on him? To me that’s a huge part of what makes it hot because it shows the interconnectedness.

    That’ s interesting, Herb, because I think leaning on someone shows depency.

  • @Anacaona:
    “I don’t get it. How is that any difference than telling a Beta male to ” Be more Alpha” and “Stop pedestalizing women” both are lacking on something they need to add to be more attractive to the opposite gender.”

    O: You’re 100% correct; there is no difference in that regard.

    “And Alpha woman will be a 9 or a 10 while an Alpha man would be someone I guess like Roissy so why they don’t work as equivalents?”

    O: Why do you automatically assume that an Alpha Male would be akin to Roissy? On what basis do you make this assertion? Please explain?

    Also: there is no such thing as an “Alpha Woman”; the term is an oxymoron.

    “If the Beta female is having oneitis for a male 8 is not different than the nerdy guy having oneitis for the hot crazy girl he is orbiting wouldn’t it?”

    O: You don’t know what Oneitis means. Please read The Game’s glossary section to find out. In the meantime, you can roll with this:
    http://www.pualingo.com/pua-definitions/one-itis/

    The Game’s definition is actually better in my view, because it emphasizes first and foremost that it is condition where the guy obsesses over a gal he has not slept with. There really is no feminine equivalent when you think about it.

    O.

    Mmm I do have something to add to what you are doing comparing the Black smart brothas, dating lives but I rather say it on your blog.

  • Mike C

    I wouldn’t argue that this framework should be taken literally, but I would argue that it dramatically demonstrates the effects of time decay on mating opportunities,

    Love how you worked option pricing theory into SMP with the time decay concept. Sweet!

    Perhaps a tragic, but realistic, result is that responsible life-strategy guides may find themselves having to give very different advice to young men and young women, and to do so knowing that the strategies are going to result in some friction and conflict down the road. However, that’s what efficient market-clearing price discovery is all about, right? Susan, do you find yourself being torn on this? I know that your initial constituency was skewed towards young women, but I would think that you will increasingly find yourself in a position where younger guys are also asking for your thoughts (as evidenced by reader e-mails, etc.).

    As DS would say steel on target. As I’ve mentioned a GREAT number of times, inevitably there is a sort of futile squaring of the circle that goes along with trying to advise both men and women. There is a tension between male and female interests. I don’t think they are diametrically opposed, but neither are they perfectly aligned.

    That said, I’ve repeatedly tried to offer up what I think is the key takeaway of market dynamics for the high to higher SMV woman who is commitment oriented which is to fish in a different lake. The 22-25 year old commitment oriented woman isn’t going to find her best candidates in the 22-25 year old guy pool. I think this is becoming increasingly perceived as accurate here, but I was saying this over a year ago. A 30 year old guy who has his shit together, career going, still in decent shape, is going to be more interested in “locking it down” with perhaps a 25-year old woman at the peak of her market value.

    You’ve got to know when to cash in on your market value and who your natural buyers are. Many women like Facebook wait too long. Facebook could have IPOed awhile ago when social media stocks were at the height of their perceived popularity and gotten a higher price and more post IPO success. But they waited too long, and now it is a debacle.

    • @Bastiat Blogger

      Perhaps a tragic, but realistic, result is that responsible life-strategy guides may find themselves having to give very different advice to young men and young women, and to do so knowing that the strategies are going to result in some friction and conflict down the road. However, that’s what efficient market-clearing price discovery is all about, right? Susan, do you find yourself being torn on this? I know that your initial constituency was skewed towards young women, but I would think that you will increasingly find yourself in a position where younger guys are also asking for your thoughts (as evidenced by reader e-mails, etc.).

      My apologies, I missed your question until Mike C copied it. This is something I have given a great deal of thought to. Here’s what I have figured out. First, the sexes have different mating priorities and therefore very different strategies for meeting their objectives. I promote relationships over casual sex, and there are more women who feel that way than men. OTOH, I am pro-Game. While I applaud Game because it makes men more attractive to women for relationships, I value it also as a self-development tool for men. I have no problem with a guy getting some Game and enjoying casual sex. Just as I have no problem with women pursuing a short-term mating strategy if that’s what they want.

      I don’t advise those people though. I’ve received emails from guys asking me how to get a harem going. One guy wrote and told me he is a virgin and wants to fuck 10 women in 2012, how can I help him get there. I always wish these guys the best and suggest that I’m not inclined or qualified to give that advice. Much of the time guys want to know how to handle a particular situation or girl. It’s almost always a case of the guy being too eager and supplicating, so I generally advise them to pump the brakes and start learning more about Game. I usually give them some male blogs to get them going. If it’s a letter I post, like the recent one from Ben, I try to stay neutral – no moral judgment – and answer his question as specifically as I can. I also always inform the writer that I believe he will benefit from male advice in the comment threads and invite him to participate. That has worked pretty well.

      I do have a pretty large male readership. I estimate that at least 30% of my readers are male, maybe even 40%. Some come to argue, but I think a lot of the men here are good men who know full well they are either not interested or not capable of employing some of the more sociopathic strategies promoted by “dark” Game bloggers. I think the other reason guys come here is that it’s the only site that I know of where there’s a vibrant coed discussion. When we’re not bickering, and sometimes when we are, I think a lot of useful information gets passed between the sexes. Though dialogue here can get tense at times, it’s nothing like the vituperative tone that online discussions often take on.

      I’m walking a fine line, I know. I try to be fair, and I also rely on men here to tell me when I’ve failed to do that, or to correct me when I’m wrong about Game or some aspect of male sexuality or psychology.

  • @Mike:
    “That said, I’ve repeatedly tried to offer up what I think is the key takeaway of market dynamics for the high to higher SMV woman who is commitment oriented which is to fish in a different lake. The 22-25 year old commitment oriented woman isn’t going to find her best candidates in the 22-25 year old guy pool. I think this is becoming increasingly perceived as accurate here, but I was saying this over a year ago. A 30 year old guy who has his shit together, career going, still in decent shape, is going to be more interested in “locking it down” with perhaps a 25-year old woman at the peak of her market value.

    You’ve got to know when to cash in on your market value and who your natural buyers are. Many women like Facebook wait too long. Facebook could have IPOed awhile ago when social media stocks were at the height of their perceived popularity and gotten a higher price and more post IPO success. But they waited too long, and now it is a debacle.”

    O: Ms. Walsh’s gotta put this up as the HUS Comment of the Month!!!

    All I would add is the following:

    If you’re a Woman looking to get hitched or otherwise Boo’d up, DO NOT GO TO PLACES LIKE NYC. ESPECIALLY IF YOU’RE BLACK.

    The numbers are seriously skewed against you, it is freakin’ ridiculous. And this is coming from someone who’s lived in the NYC area recently. Trust me, it’s a Playa’s Paradise.

    Good lookin’ Mike!

    O.

    • @Mike C

      That said, I’ve repeatedly tried to offer up what I think is the key takeaway of market dynamics for the high to higher SMV woman who is commitment oriented which is to fish in a different lake. The 22-25 year old commitment oriented woman isn’t going to find her best candidates in the 22-25 year old guy pool. I think this is becoming increasingly perceived as accurate here, but I was saying this over a year ago.

      I agree completely. If there were such a thing as Girl Game, this would be one of the key concepts. I’ve been sharing this advice far and wide since you first said it. The only problem is, girls are not sure how to make that leap. They don’t naturally encounter guys that much older than them. IDK, maybe online dating is the way to do it?

      I’d like to crack the code on meeting new people. I think there are so many people who would like to meet, but are not quite sure how to make it happen. We were discussing “How About We..” yesterday, but it would be good if there were more organic ways of meeting the opposite sex.

  • O: You’re 100% correct; there is no difference in that regard.

    Then she is a Beta female. 😉

    O: Why do you automatically assume that an Alpha Male would be akin to Roissy? On what basis do you make this assertion? Please explain?

    Every guy that ones to be an Alpha mentions his articles and techniques as the way to go so, if he his not an Alpha who is?

    Oneitis:
    You had never heard a woman saying “He is the only man for me”?

  • Herb

    If anything, the anecdotal self-reports from the fellas aligns quite well with the more rigorous statistical evidence – there simply isn’t much of a market for the prototypical Beta guy in the *under 30* dating/mating market. I just gave you the skinny on how all this goes down in the Black American community – I can tell you flat out right now – if you’re a Black Reed Richards type, you can forget about it. Now, once you’re beyond the age of 30, then yea, you’ve got a shot. Under 30? No. Dice. Sistas, simply put, DO NOT select for straight-ahead brainpower, etc. They. Don’t. And I think the evidence, which everyone here knows, supports my theory and assertion.

    This is something very important I think a lot of HUS women misunderstand, a lot of HUS readers (Susan’s non-posting audience wondering where the boyfriend is) need to really learn, and a cause of much of the manosphere’s anger.

    Under 30 beta guys, guys who are accepting society’s signals and integrating them, are pretty much invisible. When women hit marriage age they suddenly find us.

    As I’ve said more than once our culture encourages women to have fun before they get married.

    If I walked up to any of the women here at HUS and said, “I’ve had fun banging hot sluts and now I’m ready to settle down. Let’s get married” how would you react?

    Well, that’s how many beta guys react.

    This is also where I think a lot of the belief that most women are carousal riders come is born. Men want to have sex in their twenties and most of us get little. We assume women want to have sex just as much. While this is projection we also have plenty of sex possies screaming women should fuck like me so it’s not just projection. The fact is women control access to sex. The logical conclusion of “women want to fuck like us” and “women can have sex when they want” is “women are fucking someone who wasn’t us”.

    So now, we aren’t just not fun but we’re not fun in terms of having sex.

    This is the origin of much of the manospher’s anger and the assumption (despite the numbers Susan has dug up) that women are slutting it up with alphas.

    The problem is, more and more men are going to be so frustrated by 30 that they’ll start finding game and think, “why should I buy a used up slut” (I know it’s perception, but just think like these guys for a moment) because now they can “bang a pretty new one”.

    This is also how virgin is a measure of quality. She wasn’t sexing up random guys who are fun and settling for your boring ass for sperm and cash and prizes. She’s actually saying, “You are my fun.” While this has always been true and has evo roots in the context of sex possies screaming “fuck like a man”, people in general saying “have your fun before you get married”, and general invisibility the value in a woman who “hasn’t had any fun” is multiplied immensely.

    As a tangent, I think woman are more damaged by “have your fun before you get married” more than “fuck like a man”. The latter can help get you a high N but so can the former. The former also can affect your expectations of marriage. I think much of the complaint about “women want to get married not be married” has it’s origin in that attitude. A wedding is a big party for you but the marriage is something you’ve been told 15+ years is what you do after you have fun. Therefore, it’s drudgery to too many women and I think is why we see them divorce sooner and more often than men.

    • @Herb

      The logical conclusion of “women want to fuck like us” and “women can have sex when they want” is “women are fucking someone who wasn’t us”.

      Thank you, that’s the best explanation I’ve ever heard for the cock carousel followed by beta provider meme.

  • J

    The ones married to Betas in the crowd (Susan, Hope and Me not sure if J husband is a Beta)

    God how I hate these terms… I would say DH (DEAR HUSBAND!) is an Alpha in the business world (senior executive who grew up on welfare for a while), a Sigma socially (wins by not playing the game, self-contained personality) and a Beta sexually (low notch count, history of LTRs vs ONSs, faithful to me, good dad, civilized man, the sort of guy you’d actually want to marry). A commenter of Vox Day’s blog related Sigmahood to being an INTJ, which DH certainly is. That rang true to me, so I think of him as a Sigma mostly.

  • @Anacaona:

    “Then she is a Beta female.”

    O: Nope; Men don’t select sexually for the same things that Women select for; this in part explains why, throughout human history, twice as many Women have successfully mated as compared to Men.

    “Every guy that ones to be an Alpha mentions his articles and techniques as the way to go so, if he his not an Alpha who is?”

    O: I’ve got at least 100 articles/blog posts specifically geared to Game; you are most welcome to puruse the archives! Would you consider me in the same league as the Dark Lord?

    “Oneitis:
    You had never heard a woman saying “He is the only man for me”?”

    O: Of course; have you ever heard of SWV?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWV
    “You’re The One” on YouTube:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irOAfaU5S9k

    “You’re The One” lyrics:
    http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/swv/youretheone.html

    Please note that what Style says in The Game about Oneitis, and how it so dramatically differs from one of the hottest girl groups in the 90s.

    Any questions or comments, holla.

    O.

  • @Ms. J:
    “God how I hate these terms… I would say DH (DEAR HUSBAND!) is an Alpha in the business world (senior executive who grew up on welfare for a while), a Sigma socially (wins by not playing the game, self-contained personality) and a Beta sexually (low notch count, history of LTRs vs ONSs, faithful to me, good dad, civilized man, the sort of guy you’d actually want to marry). A commenter of Vox Day’s blog related Sigmahood to being an INTJ, which DH certainly is. That rang true to me, so I think of him as a Sigma mostly.”

    O: This is incorrect. An Alpha Male, as per Game cricles, is simply the following:

    A Male who is deemed the most sexually desirable by the Women of his social mileu.

    Simple as.

    O.

  • Herb

    @J

    That’ s interesting, Herb, because I think leaning on someone shows depency.

    That’s my point about interconnectedness.

    In the D/s world, although fashions change (the over emphasis on the value of submissive partners has peaked with people being sick of “submission is a gift” and I suspect a combination of “Dom worship” and “I’m not a sub, I’m a bottom” is about to come back…the later bringing my experience in the lifestyle full circle when it happened) people tend to pretty readily accept that Dominant and submissive are interdependent people. That’s why I love that leaning even as he is wrapped around her leg. That’s why when I described it to make a point at SJW so many people got it.

    This is something very broken in the vanilla SMP. Most women want to be with dominant men, but our culture takes great pains to tell women that being submissive to a man (being the compliment to the dominant man they want) makes them less.

    She’s leaning on Her boy in that picture because without him She’s less as much as he is. Can She stand without leaning on him? Sure. Can he face life without Her control and guidance? Sure, but in exchanging that authority, in placing himself below Her and Her leaning on him they together are more than they were apart.

    If only more vanilla people got that.

  • J

    @Bellita #162

    Very astute post!

  • @ Ana

    On the Alpha/beta WOMAN idea.

    I think a better terminology is the idea of queen bee with women. In my experience groups of women have one woman that is in charge of the group. They’ll be the one that will cockblock guys, have the most influence on others of her group, etc.

    However, being in that position doesn’t really do anything for her mating standards the way being an Alpha does for a guy. It says nothing of her looks, her femininity, anything. She simply is dominant in a group of women.

    This is in contrast to Alpha males that are both able to land women and are the leader within a group of men. The difference is that in male group dynamics it generally is less used to judge the other men (which is what women do, impart judgment from the queen bee down to the others), but instead is more of a lead by example. If the Alpha male thinks one of his bros is making a stupid choice, he’ll either let him make it or banter over it at the male’s expense to show him how silly he’s being. But if his bro continues to be a tool, the Alpha male will let him be a tool and learn from it. This again, is in contrast to the queen bee that will usually expel a woman from the group for going against the group’s stated decision.

    Alpha/Beta males are equal but vastly different from queen bee ideas. And queen bee/leader of a group of women has absolutely no impact on her SMV. If anything it usually hurts it because its rare that a man will both meet her standards and want to put up with her shit.

  • @Herb:
    Great, thoughtful points you raise here! Let’s have at it:

    “This is something very important I think a lot of HUS women misunderstand, a lot of HUS readers (Susan’s non-posting audience wondering where the boyfriend is) need to really learn, and a cause of much of the manosphere’s anger.”

    O: Yupyup – and I would take it one step further. I would argue that this is something that goes far beyond HUS’ borders, if you will; it is something that is, for all intents, all-pervasive, in the “Femosphere”, if you will – the world occupied by and for, Women, in all its forms, not just Feminists, with the big “F”. Simply put, I do not think that Women, as a group, take the concerns of Men seriously, especially those Men who, for whatever reason, don’t measure up. Hence why you see all the bitterly expressed contempt for Nice Guys and the like in card-carrying Feminist circles and so forth.

    “Under 30 beta guys, guys who are accepting society’s signals and integrating them, are pretty much invisible. When women hit marriage age they suddenly find us.”

    O: I think there’s some evidence to support that statement.

    “As I’ve said more than once our culture encourages women to have fun before they get married.”

    O: I think so, too.

    “If I walked up to any of the women here at HUS and said, “I’ve had fun banging hot sluts and now I’m ready to settle down. Let’s get married” how would you react?”

    O: The same way just about any Woman, anywhere at this point, would react, LOL.

    “Well, that’s how many beta guys react.”

    O: Yup.

    “This is also where I think a lot of the belief that most women are carousal riders come is born. Men want to have sex in their twenties and most of us get little. We assume women want to have sex just as much. While this is projection we also have plenty of sex possies screaming women should fuck like me so it’s not just projection. The fact is women control access to sex. The logical conclusion of “women want to fuck like us” and “women can have sex when they want” is “women are fucking someone who wasn’t us”.”

    O: For far too many Men – tru dat.

    “So now, we aren’t just not fun but we’re not fun in terms of having sex.”

    O: Speak on it brother, speak on it…

    “This is the origin of much of the manospher’s anger and the assumption (despite the numbers Susan has dug up) that women are slutting it up with alphas.”

    O: Perception, more often than not, IS reality…

    “The problem is, more and more men are going to be so frustrated by 30 that they’ll start finding game and think, “why should I buy a used up slut” (I know it’s perception, but just think like these guys for a moment) because now they can “bang a pretty new one”.”

    O: I don’t think that’s all just smoke and mirrors at work there, Herb. I mean, think about it – we all know the out of wedlock birthrate in Black America is – and that’s not counting those Women there who are divorced. Let’s face it, if you’re incurably Beta, your choices are limited largely to Women who’ve more often than not mated a Dark Alpha type. It’s something that’s so common in the Black community its not even discussed as a phenomenon anymore because we’re so used to seeing it. And by all accounts, this is starting to “creep” into White society, too – at both ends, the Jerry Springer/Maury end, and the Lori Gottlieb end.

    “This is also how virgin is a measure of quality. She wasn’t sexing up random guys who are fun and settling for your boring ass for sperm and cash and prizes. She’s actually saying, “You are my fun.” While this has always been true and has evo roots in the context of sex possies screaming “fuck like a man”, people in general saying “have your fun before you get married”, and general invisibility the value in a woman who “hasn’t had any fun” is multiplied immensely.”

    O: Hmmm…

    “As a tangent, I think woman are more damaged by “have your fun before you get married” more than “fuck like a man”. The latter can help get you a high N but so can the former. The former also can affect your expectations of marriage. I think much of the complaint about “women want to get married not be married” has it’s origin in that attitude. A wedding is a big party for you but the marriage is something you’ve been told 15+ years is what you do after you have fun. Therefore, it’s drudgery to too many women and I think is why we see them divorce sooner and more often than men.”

    O: Again – tru dat…

    O.

  • Also, Obsidian’s back.

    Hell. Yes. I need more coffee, possibly some popcorn, and the ability to revert from reading one type of writing style to another. Love it.

    • Also, Obsidian’s back.

      Hell. Yes. I need more coffee, possibly some popcorn, and the ability to revert from reading one type of writing style to another. Love it.

      It really is so good to have him here. He’s so damned smart and well read you can’t win a debate with him, but he’s a rare man. A Game-made alpha with the highest possible ethical code.

  • A one line sentence on women group leaders vs men group leaders.

    Women focus inwards, men focus outwards.

  • J

    She’s leaning on Her boy in that picture because without him She’s less as much as he is. Can She stand without leaning on him? Sure. Can he face life without Her control and guidance? Sure, but in exchanging that authority, in placing himself below Her and Her leaning on him they together are more than they were apart.

    Yeah, I sort of got that, but I didn’t want to presume too much being rather vanilla myself.

    It’s not surprising to me that dominance can be a sort of dependency. My father, who was a very dominant man, was also very dependent on my mother in a weird, cryptic way-and, as I’ve said before, she ran the show in ways he never came close to understanding. My DH, who has little desire to dominate or be dominated, is very independent.

    they together are more than they were apart.

    That’s sort of the key to any relationship…

  • O: I’ve got at least 100 articles/blog posts specifically geared to Game; you are most welcome to puruse the archives! Would you consider me in the same league as the Dark Lord?

    But no one quotes you 😉 as they way they quote Roissy, I’m just going for the “dream” many males express, not what I find particularly attractive.

    I also told you a long time ago that black background with white letters hurt my eyes so I won’t be reading your posts anytime sooner, your blog is hard to read for me.

    @Leap of a Beta

    I have a whole series about Queen Bee in my blog, so I know the difference between group dynamics of females.

    The issue is that Obsidian calls this Alpha: A Male who is deemed the most sexually desirable by the Women of his social mileu.
    So a woman that is most sexually desirable by the men on her social group should be her equivalent but he keeps saying that it doesn’t. Makes.no.sense.

    Please note that what Style says in The Game about Oneitis, and how it so dramatically differs from one of the hottest girl groups in the 90s.

    You need to hear more Spanish lyrics, if that is your measure, we have plenty of songs with Game definition of oneitis.

  • Herb

    @J

    It’s not surprising to me that dominance can be a sort of dependency. My father, who was a very dominant man, was also very dependent on my mother in a weird, cryptic way-and, as I’ve said before, she ran the show in ways he never came close to understanding.

    I’ve heard dominants who, after they lost their partner discussing having to remember that coffee, shampoo, soap, Dr. Pepper in the fridge, $20s in their wallet, gas in the car, and a ton of other things do not magically appear.

    One of the women at SJW spent the week leading up to it doing everything so could so her bf would only have to “feed himself, feed the cat, and not burn the house down in the process”. She was only confident about the last two.

    “Behind every good man is a good woman” became a saying for a reason. In an earlier post someone complained men only want a woman who can cook and is a maid. That a lot of men have reduced homec to that doesn’t surprise me. The success in feminists convincing women of that is what does. To truly run a household: budget, plan meals, cook, clean, laundry, schedule, improvise disasters, hire appropriate professionals (plumber, AC tech, etc), and still be socially and sexually available isn’t easy nor valueless.

    One day my gf will forget how to buy Rockstar and keep it in the fridge (the first service that became routine) as well as others. Many people would see anyone doing that, male or female, as lowering themselves. I consider it an achievement.

  • Herb

    @J

    they together are more than they were apart.

    That’s sort of the key to any relationship…

    From your lips to the ears of everyone who “likes” or even just “accepts” combat dating.

  • @ Ana
    “So a woman that is most sexually desirable by the men on her social group should be her equivalent but he keeps saying that it doesn’t. Makes.no.sense.”

    He’s saying that because the term Alpha for males comes along with being a leader and example in male group dynamics WHILE also being sexually desirable. They’re very interconnected with what makes a man sexually desirable to most women.

    Women’s attractiveness has no connection with the leadership connotations in the term Alpha. That’s why men disagree the idea of Alpha/beta women on those terms being applied to how sexually desired a woman is. A woman is attractive because of her physical body and feminine personality. Often the leader of a group of women seems to be the bitchiest, most entitled, of them; whether they’re attractive or not.

    So, yeah, if you continue to use the term alpha/beta women, there will probably continue to be miscommunications and push back against that terminology.

  • Marie

    @ Emily
    “Women are also the biggest “virgin shamers”. For a lot of girls, it can get pretty confusing.”

    Women shame those who make different choices than themselves. Virgins or sexually inexperienced women feel threatened by the sexual experience of promiscuous women, and promiscuous women often feel a certain shame for sleeping around, at least from what I can see. The women I know whom are promiscuous are EXTREMELY sensitive to anything that can be interpreted as critique. I know that deep down they are judging themselves.
    When I was a virgin at 17, my (promiscuous) sister asked me “when exactly are you going to have sex??”. It was the summer I eventually lost my virginity, and I remember I felt like I was the last person in the world to have sex 🙁

  • @Anacaona:

    “But no one quotes you 😉 as they way they quote Roissy, I’m just going for the “dream” many males express, not what I find particularly attractive.”

    O: I can dig it, but if you’re going to go that route, then you need to look at the whole thing through a door, instead of a keyhole. What do guys say when they quote say, Juggler? Or D’Angelo? Or Mystery” Or Jeffries? Or Style? Or Manson? Or Lyons? ALL of these guys are bigger than me and Roissy put together. Do you know what’s being said there, and if not, why, given that you are deigning to discuss Game to a particular degree. Or is it that your fixation on/with Roissy suffices for you? 😉

    “I also told you a long time ago that black background with white letters hurt my eyes so I won’t be reading your posts anytime sooner, your blog is hard to read for me.”

    O: I don’t recall; at any rate, that’s what they made the RSS feed for. 🙂

    “@Leap of a Beta

    I have a whole series about Queen Bee in my blog, so I know the difference between group dynamics of females.”

    O: Why then, do you continue to think erroneously on these matters? Please explain?

    “The issue is that Obsidian calls this Alpha: A Male who is deemed the most sexually desirable by the Women of his social mileu.
    So a woman that is most sexually desirable by the men on her social group should be her equivalent but he keeps saying that it doesn’t. Makes.no.sense.”

    O: Yes, it does – because the sexual selection criteria of both is vastly different. Have you read any of David Buss’ works?

    Please note that what Style says in The Game about Oneitis, and how it so dramatically differs from one of the hottest girl groups in the 90s.

    “You need to hear more Spanish lyrics, if that is your measure, we have plenty of songs with Game definition of oneitis.”

    O: If that is so, why then did you bring the matter up? Please explain? By all accounts, you seem not to understand what Oneitis actually means. I gave you the working definition by one of the Founding Fathers of Game himself – and – he gives a live-fire example of Oneitis in action in the book by way of his friend Marko.

    Please review it?

    O.

  • He’s saying that because the term Alpha for males comes along with being a leader and example in male group dynamics WHILE also being sexually desirable. They’re very interconnected with what makes a man sexually desirable to most women.

    Oh you see that makes more sense.
    But then there is a discussion on the sphere that some men that no man worth his balls will follow (like the hipsters) that are the ones getting more laid if that makes them Alpha either way. So again I’m not confusing the terms the term is applied for getting laid first and foremost leadership is optional, it seems like.

  • @ Ana

    I’d be willing to bet that any guy getting laid on a regular basis with multiple women will be leading something. Whether his buddies, the women themselves, at work, anything; that confidence goes a hell of a long ways towards making it a reality. It might not be readily apparent, or something you would consider worth leading, but its likely happening.

  • Do you know what’s being said there, and if not, why, given that you are deigning to discuss Game to a particular degree. Or is it that your fixation on/with Roissy suffices for you?

    My knowledge of manosphere comes from Badger, Athol, Dalrock…all of them seem to mention Roissy more than anyone else. Is just that.

    O: Why then, do you continue to think erroneously on these matters? Please explain?

    Because this is what men say? Look at the “effeminate hipster is an Alpha because chicks sleep with him at the drop of a hat” discussions. It seems that getting laid is the definition of Alpha not how many men find him worth following. If this is erroneous I welcome you to visit other’s men blogs and tell them to pick a definition and stick to it.

    If that is so, why then did you bring the matter up? Please explain? By all accounts, you seem not to understand what Oneitis actually means. I gave you the working definition by one of the Founding Fathers of Game himself – and – he gives a live-fire example of Oneitis in action in the book by way of his friend Marko.

    I bring it because you deny the existence of women that indeed cannot get men and because I know plenty of women that are unable to move on from a man they deem the one. Sometimes not getting sex from him either. My experience doesn’t matches yours, isn’t it valid?

  • Joe

    @Marie

    I felt like I was the last person in the world to have sex

    Statistically speaking, there were 10 boys who would have died for you those years. And, statistically speaking one of them died a virgin. I’m guessing that he was thinking of you at the time.

    Sometimes I think women have no idea what onitis truly is.

  • I’d be willing to bet that any guy getting laid on a regular basis with multiple women will be leading something. Whether his buddies, the women themselves, at work, anything; that confidence goes a hell of a long ways towards making it a reality. It might not be readily apparent, or something you would consider worth leading, but its likely happening.

    Hey this is not my idea is men’s one. If the guy looks effeminate even if all women love him they won’t consider him Alpha, regardless of how women desire him or follow him, that is what they say all the time, so yeah the terms are confusing depending on who applies them.

  • @Anacaona:
    “My knowledge of manosphere comes from Badger, Athol, Dalrock…all of them seem to mention Roissy more than anyone else. Is just that.”

    O: That’s nice; but I didn’t ask you about the Manosphere, I asked you about GAME. And yes, there IS a big difference.

    You were saying…? 😉

    “Because this is what men say? Look at the “effeminate hipster is an Alpha because chicks sleep with him at the drop of a hat” discussions. It seems that getting laid is the definition of Alpha not how many men find him worth following. If this is erroneous I welcome you to visit other’s men blogs and tell them to pick a definition and stick to it.”

    O: ??? I don’t follow. Please elaborate?

    “I bring it because you deny the existence of women that indeed cannot get men and because I know plenty of women that are unable to move on from a man they deem the one. Sometimes not getting sex from him either. My experience doesn’t matches yours, isn’t it valid?”

    O: I don’t know if it’s a good idea to base an entire discussion on our individual experiences as the starting and potential ending point(s); I think it is much mopre productive to discuss these matters from either an empirical standpoint, or, failing that, the aggregated experiences of a large quantity of Men and Women.

    Having said all that, I would wager a princely sum if I were a betting Man, that you have NOT read The Game, and as such, cannot truly engage in a meaningful discussion of what, exactly, Oneitis is. If my surmise is indeed correct, there is little more to be gained at this juncture.

    But perhaps I could be wrong…

    Anacaona, have you read The Game?

    O.

    • Having said all that, I would wager a princely sum if I were a betting Man, that you have NOT read The Game, and as such, cannot truly engage in a meaningful discussion of what, exactly, Oneitis is. If my surmise is indeed correct, there is little more to be gained at this juncture.

      But perhaps I could be wrong…

      Anacaona, have you read The Game?

      Uh oh! Anacaona, it was this exact same conversation that got me to read The Game and Mystery Method! Obs will hound you until you read it. In fairness, it totally turned around my thinking on Game, and was well worth it. I also felt enormous empathy and fondness for Mystery. Goofy hat notwithstanding, he was/is a gentle soul.

  • @Anacaona:
    “Hey this is not my idea is men’s one. If the guy looks effeminate even if all women love him they won’t consider him Alpha, regardless of how women desire him or follow him, that is what they say all the time, so yeah the terms are confusing depending on who applies them.”

    O: The singer Prince Roger Nelson – known by his stage name, which is simply Prince – is a fixture in Black pop music cultural life. I think it is fair to say that is as effeminant as they come – yet I’ve yet to hear ANY BLACK MAN say, that Prince wasn’t an Alpha.

    None.

    You were saying?

    O.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    I have no problems believing that there are plenty of women who have a very difficult time securing commitment from a man and even sex from certain men on their targets. There were plenty of women who tried to use their wiles to seduce me over the years.

    Marie, I stayed a virgin until I was 24. You were barely a standard deviation above average, I was damn near unicorn 😛

  • VD

    The impression I get is that even though they claim a woman’s smarts means absolutely nothing to them in the scheme of things there is almost a desperate need to prove that intelligent women are the only ones they are bedding using Game and that it is most effective on them. It is as though they are insulted at the notion that others would think that they could only pull dumb women. Why won’t they trumpet the dumb women they claim to prefer? Nevertheless, instead they are only trumpeting the smart ones. I guess it would be too embarrassing to admit to only banging dumb chicks. My point was, guys who utilize Game claim they have no interest in intelligent women. However, on the other hand will claim that those are the women they attract the most using it.

    You’re failing to understand the point and committing a category error. The Game theorists don’t, for the most part, trumpet the smart women they are bedding. I have never seen Roissy say much about a woman’s IQ or education; his disdain for female lawyers with their man-jaws and hairy arms is powerful. However, they certainly do respond to the claims of Game critics, mostly female, who falsely claim that Game only works on dumb girls unable to “see through it”.

    The idea that intelligence is related to susceptibility to Game is based on the idea that a woman who can “see through” Game will not be attracted by it. But this is not true, as can easily be understood by the idea that a man will not be attracted to a woman with large and nicely shaped breasts because he is sufficiently intelligent to spot implants. (Don’t get distracted on the implants vs natural debate here, that’s beside the point.) Smart women are not only every bit as drawn to social dominance and other aspects of Game as dumb women, but they are additionally susceptible to intellectual Displays of High Value that dumb women are not. For example, I speak Italian. That would mean absolutely nothing to the average Kardashian viewer, but the sort of educated upper middle-class smart girl whose semester abroad in Florence was the defining moment of her life, who goes on endlessly about how much she loves Dante and Boccaccio, woud be extraordinarily attracted by an offhand “yeah, if you enjoyed it in English, you really should try it in the original” comment. This is the sort of thing that the Game theorists are talking about, they’re not fetishizing female intelligence while simultaneously denying its attraction.

    Most of the Alpha’s are used to have all the women they want don’t take kindly rejection or a high level of resistance and rather do something extreme to get the girl than just move on on someone else, this is also a factor on at least 80% of the men that kill women in my country those women were whether theirs and once they broke up they just couldn’t handle it or never wanted them on the first place, Manosphere usually don’t talk about the dark side of being an Alpha but is really dark and is darker that you can imagine, YMMV.

    This is wildly incorrect. Most Alphas mind rejection far less than Deltas, Gammas, and Omegas do. The error in your thinking is readily apparent when you talk about “than just move on on someone else”. Alphas already have someone else, usually several someone elses. Alphas know that eventually a girl is going to leave the harem in pursuit of commitment, so they usually start making plans to replace her once she begins to show her dissatisfaction by pushing to upgrade the relationship status. It’s the Gamma males you have to watch out for. Once they finally score a girl, they do not want to give her up.

    Alphas usually initiate the break-ups. And when they don’t, they tend to seek solace in another woman, usually that same day.

  • Cooper

    I strongly completely agree with Obsidians #166 post.

    Not that I like it, but it’s the truth. There is no evidence that women find betas attractive – and I mean pre-marriage. I really resent the idea of being selected, or selecting someone, after they’ve “had all their fun.”
    I really want to agree with Susan, as what Obsidian described as her “Grand Unified Theory of Betaness.”

    I want to believe in it, but as a “under 30” guy, I don’t know if I can afford to. I feel like I’d be a fool to do so.

    • @Cooper

      I want to believe in it, but as a “under 30″ guy, I don’t know if I can afford to. I feel like I’d be a fool to do so.

      Don’t! I’m writing for women here, I’m telling them to select men of good character. I believe in what I’m saying with all my heart.

      You have a different mission. You are a man of good character and now you need to get on the radar screens of all the women you find attractive. Alpha behaviors will do that for you. You need to learn to be bold and approach and detach from outcomes to let rejection bounce right off of you.

      NO MAN SHOULD READ MY ADVICE TO WOMEN AS A REASON TO BE COMPLACENT.

      Cooper, I want to see you succeed, and that’s far more likely if you study Game and bring the dominance.

  • VD

    I think it is fair to say that is as effeminant as they come – yet I’ve yet to hear ANY BLACK MAN say, that Prince wasn’t an Alpha.

    Prince isn’t the least bit effeminate in person. I ran into him several times in the early 90s. He’s smaller than you would imagine, but he carries himself in a perfectly masculine way and speaks in an arrogant, dominant manner. I once nearly got in a fight with him and his bodyguard because I would not back down to him at a night club when he was pestering a friend of mine. He’s definitely socially dominant despite his tiny size.

  • Lokland

    @Saywhaat and some others

    +1 on the sensuality.

    Sundress, definetly uber hot and classy.

    Other suggestions.

    My fiance has this top. It has cutout shoulders, loose around her chest and waist but tighter (not skin tight) around her stomach.
    OMFG, mind blowingly hot. Love the shoulder cutouts.
    That + blue heans + heels is unbearable.

    One piece business suit type thing. Black knee length business suit, frames her ass perfectly that changes material, colour to a brown blouse type thing. Tight around the waist.
    With heels.
    OMFG, mind blowingly hot.

    I’ll also vouch for Mule on the woolen dress. In this case its black with some kinda belt thingy.
    With heels = OMFG, mind blowingly hot.

    A classy, sexy is better than a slutty sexy a million times over.

    @Herb

    WRT the fire hoe.
    Classy move.

    I don’t know if this is universal but I find strong displays of female intrasexual competition that are totally unnecessary EXTREMELY unnatractive.

    Not in a short term sense but in a long term sense.

    In your example she just attempted to make another person feel like shit because she could.

    Her mother needs to come and slap her and tell her to put some clothes on.

    Ladies: kindness, kindness, kindness.
    If small forest animals begin to frolick around you when you walk through a park we’ll know your a keeper.

    • I am totally charmed by Lokland’s appreciation of female fashion. 🙂

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Here’s the thing about intelligence:

    It makes you really goddam dumb.

    Seriously. My favorite example is politics. The more educated, the more wealthy, and the more involved and informed you are, the more extreme you are. If people were rationally discussing these things, they’d move closer together.

    But they aren’t moving closer together. Because they aren’t rationally discussing.

    They are engaging in circle-jerks and confirming their previous biases.

    They do not listen to alternative viewpoints and their “dialogue” is imitating Jon Stewart, IE parodying and a bunch of idiotic one-liners. Often with such that makes no sense. So I hear someone that says, oh we have 11 carriers that’s more than everyone else combined, that means we can get rid of them all!

    Intelligent women have hamsters, too, and they run very, very fast.

    And again, I am not totally convinced by these CDC numbers. I don’t even think there are that many players on college campuses to begin with. I’ve seen exactly two men I’d categorize as True Alpha in my entire LIFE. One of these guys got more attention than star NFL players. Set a player loose on campus, and I’m sure he’s going to mop up.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Cooper

    “I really resent the idea of being selected, or selecting someone, after they’ve “had all their fun.””

    It is one of the worst things I’ve ever felt.

  • This is wildly incorrect. Most Alphas mind rejection far less than Deltas, Gammas, and Omegas do. The error in your thinking is readily apparent when you talk about “than just move on on someone else”. Alphas already have someone else, usually several someone elses.

    Actually the Alphas that had killed women, in my country again , had more than one woman and they still will murderer any of them that left before they were done with her. You are assuming that being an Alpha with other women makes the insult less important, it doesn’t . One famous case had a doctor killing his mistress, not his wife and he had other women on the side, he still shot her straight on the chess and killed himself afterwards.

    O: The singer Prince Roger Nelson – known by his stage name, which is simply Prince – is a fixture in Black pop music cultural life. I think it is fair to say that is as effeminant as they come – yet I’ve yet to hear ANY BLACK MAN say, that Prince wasn’t an Alpha.

    How some pop stars? Or actors heartthrobs?

    Having said all that, I would wager a princely sum if I were a betting Man, that you have NOT read The Game, and as such, cannot truly engage in a meaningful discussion of what, exactly, Oneitis is. If my surmise is indeed correct, there is little more to be gained at this juncture.

    That’s nice; but I didn’t ask you about the Manosphere, I asked you about GAME. And yes, there IS a big difference.

    What is the difference?

    I don’t know if it’s a good idea to base an entire discussion on our individual experiences as the starting and potential ending point(s); I

    Didn;t you mentioned that Ms Brown Sugar approached you? Isn’t that a personal experience?

    Anacaona, have you read The Game?

    Had you read The-Spearhead?

    One-itis for men = never good.
    One-itis for women = good if the man she selects is good.

    I would agree that the results are different but then this is moving the goal posts. Is about the feelings or the results of those feelings on the other person?
    I will also say that the oneitis in women is good if the man finds her the most attractive woman he can get and reciprocates in the way she wants to. A harem girl developing oneitis is doomed as she is if the guy finds her “love” too clingy.

  • “I really resent the idea of being selected, or selecting someone, after they’ve “had all their fun.””

    I cosign and agree, that is why never dated promiscuous men and didn’t marry one. 😉

  • @ Ana
    “A harem girl developing oneitis is doomed as she is if the guy finds her “love” too clingy”

    Then she’d have made a poor choice for her relationship prospect, wouldn’t she?

  • Then she’d have made a poor choice for her relationship prospect, wouldn’t she?

    Well it depends if you win or lose if the guy on the harem picked her she did a right choice but if he doesn’t then she is an idiot. Of course I personally think dating a man that is dating other women is an stupidity but given how many men advice men to always have more than one woman it seems common enough for people just to consider it normal way to get to know each other nowadays. Heck we had a huge discussion at Athol when someone was defending a woman becoming involved with a married man as not a sign that she was not a slut or an idiot so yeah…times are changing.

  • @Anacaona:

    “How some pop stars? Or actors heartthrobs?”

    O: Sure! What about Michael Jackson?

    “What is the difference?”

    O: To ask the question is to answer it, my dear.

    “Didn;t you mentioned that Ms Brown Sugar approached you? Isn’t that a personal experience?”

    O: Yes on both counts; but it still isn’t a good idea to conduct the discussion based on my lone experience.

    “Had you read The-Spearhead?”

    O: LOL. You should have been more intellectually honest, Anacaona; I can respect ignorance of the facts. But being arrogant in one’s ignorance? Not a good look.

    Have YOU read The Spearhead?
    http://www.the-spearhead.com/author/obsidian/

    I think our discussion has run its course…unless you choose to actually educate yourself on exactly what Game is. Hoe springs eternal.

    Good night, Anacaona.

    LOL

    O.

  • Passer_By

    @susan, Ted

    In looking at the picture, I’m not at all convinced that the “Fun” with the arrow was written on her before the picture was taken. It sort of looks like someone later photoshopped it afterwards, maybe by someone she doesn’t even know.

  • O: Sure! What about Michael Jackson?

    ??? Why not an straight, white males?

    O: To ask the question is to answer it, my dear.

    No is not.

    O: Yes on both counts; but it still isn’t a good idea to conduct the discussion based on my lone experience.

    True that.

    O: LOL. You should have been more intellectually honest, Anacaona; I can respect ignorance of the facts. But being arrogant in one’s ignorance? Not a good look.

    I was being facetious…You answer all your questions with answers.

    I think our discussion has run its course…unless you choose to actually educate yourself on exactly what Game is. Hoe springs eternal.

    I think the problem is that I already know Game. As interpreted for the people out there in the field. The book you mention barely registers in the manosphere we both visit so it seems to me that you decided to use ONE source that doesn’t seem to be used by the people in the fight. Is akin to you wanting to dismiss Roissy when pretty much everyone quotes it all the time. Why would I listen to you under those arguments?

    Good night, Anacaona.

    Good night O.

  • Sorry I mean you answer all your questions with answers.

  • Damn it !
    You answer all your questions with questions

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    I think it’s no secret that I’ll saying girls in their twenties truly do not want commitment – at least I have a bunch of time here. Most of the time, you try to reassure me that many young women are LTR-oriented.

    You’ve had a few post about the relationship-risks of Alphas, and recently one about the relationship-pros of seeking a beta.
    And you’ll also say your pro-game.
    “I am pro-Game. While I applaud Game because it makes men more attractive to women for relationships”
    “It’s almost always a case of the guy being too eager and supplicating, so I generally advise them to pump the brakes and start learning more about Game”
    Do you not find this a paradox? As advising a man who appears to be having problems to learn game is essentially saying “be less beta, be more alpha”

    So, by supporting Game (self-improvement – aka inner-game – excluded) you’re basically saying to guys be less of relationship material in order to be more attractive. (be alpha – the relationship-risk – to be more attractive)

    I feel like I’m going in circles. You’re pro-relationship, but you’re also pro-alpha. (I know your not “pro-alpha” but by suggesting men with women problem to learn game is essentially telling them to be “more alpha”)

    There isn’t many affirmed truths in all of the SMP-jargon, but I, as a man, try to find sticking points which I can bounce back too when I’m feeling confused. So far my collection is (roughly in order of importance)
    1. game works 2. game teaches betas to be more alpha 3. alphas are good for LTRs

    If the best advice for guys is to learn game, then the advice is to be more alpha, and that advice is to be less of LTR-material.

    Someone must understand this. My head is now spinning.

    • @Cooper

      So, by supporting Game (self-improvement – aka inner-game – excluded) you’re basically saying to guys be less of relationship material in order to be more attractive. (be alpha – the relationship-risk – to be more attractive)

      I can see why you say it’s a paradox. It’s true that becoming more alpha gives you more options and that you may not choose a relationship. On the other hand, you will be a more attractive relationship prospect. So you become more desirable to all women, including those who would like you to commit.

      A lot of guys are happy to learn Game to get the relationship they really want. Most of you are not looking to become PUAs. So I think much of the time it’s win – win. Both you and some woman will benefit. Sometimes guys will choose to play the field and that’s fine too. The consolation prize is that you are happier and more adept at attracting women. I think that’s worthwhile, whether you make one woman happy right now or not.

      Game makes men better, or it can. It adds to the number of attractive men in the world. As a woman I just don’t see how I can’t support that. Do I hope you won’t become a total asshole player? Of course, and I really don’t believe you will. So I feel comfortable encouraging you to learn it.

  • Cooper

    AAAGGH!
    Correction: #3 “NOT good for LTRs”

  • @ Ana

    “The Game” by strauss that O keeps referencing was probably the more influential books for PUA’s. It was one of the first books out on Game. I think it was one of the ways game got fairly large national attention and most PUA’s will refer to it as the first book they read on game.

    I personally haven’t read it, so I can’t comment on it.

  • @ Susan
    ““Be hotter” is about as useful as Amanda Marcotte telling nice guys to “be more attractive.””

    How so? Maybe its my perspective as a male, but simply knowing how to wear makeup and pick out an outfit that suits her body makes a woman more attractive. Pretty much don’t have rolls and put on a dress and you’ll be able to find a guy that finds you physically attractive. I can understand that trying to embody ones ‘femininity’ as a personality can be harder than knowing how to dress, but it seems to have fairly clear definitions of having a soft, caring, and kind personality.

    Men seem to have a harder time of it. The looks I’d say is on par with being as difficult as a woman. Both have to stay physically healthy. But masculinity in today’s environment is harder because its been suppressed and hidden. Again, maybe its just me trying to achieve it as well, but the idea of masculinity and embodying it is much harder for me to define than femininity. Possibly because of the convoluted social structures we have these days on when a man should/shouldn’t show he cares, how to be dominant without being overly aggressive/dangerous, how to pass fitness tests, etc.

  • Mike C

    I agree completely. If there were such a thing as Girl Game, this would be one of the key concepts. I’ve been sharing this advice far and wide since you first said it. The only problem is, girls are not sure how to make that leap. They don’t naturally encounter guys that much older than them. IDK, maybe online dating is the way to do it?

    That could be one way. I will say this. Generally speaking, especially in urban areas, guys who are late 20s to say early to mid 30s with some career success and maybe some financial progress don’t hang out and socialize in the same venues as the 23-year old guy basically looking to continue the college bar lifestyle with $2 pitchers on Tuesday.

    So if a girl is looking to meet potentially a more established guy who is potentially more commitment oriented or open to it, she is just wasting her time if she is spending alot of time socializing where all the people right out of college go to drink cheap booze.

    I’d like to crack the code on meeting new people. I think there are so many people who would like to meet, but are not quite sure how to make it happen. We were discussing “How About We..” yesterday, but it would be good if there were more organic ways of meeting the opposite sex.

    Yeah, its tough. Again, if you are in a more urban area, I know there are a lot of places people go to catch a few drinks after work. Might be a good place to potentially meet friends of co-workers (would NOT date co-workers). Other than that, I think something like what was mentioned about common interests is a great idea. I’ve met a lot of girls I either dated or could have dated (attached at those times) through the gym as training is important to me. If I were single, I’d probably shift my routine to be there during prime time hours.

    Obviously, as a young woman, you’d have to be in places where you can actually get approached, and than obviously being approachable.

  • Lokland

    @Cooper

    “If the best advice for guys is to learn game, then the advice is to be more alpha, and that advice is to be less of LTR-material.”

    Let me assist you.

    Follow my instructions without question and I will answer your dilemmia and draw attention to the error and your thinking.

    1. Draw a horizontal line with a number 2 pencil.
    2. Divide said line into thirds using two tiny vertical lines.
    3. You now have 3 sections assuming your reading ability and spatial sense are above the tenth percentile.
    4. Working left to right write the following about 1cm (I just confused the hell out of all the Americans btw) above each section. Loser, Boyfriend, Stud.
    5. Now draw a dot on the line in the middle of the loser section (far left).
    6. One centimetre (their reeling now) under the dot write me.
    7. About 5cm (mind fuck) above the diagram draw a line and add an arrow pointing to the left.
    8. About 5cm (convulsions) below the diagram draw a line and add an arrow pointing to the right.
    9. Above the arrow pointing to the left write “nice guy”.
    10. Above the arrow pointing to the right write “game”.
    11. Draw a bow around the full diagram.
    12. Outside of box in bottom right corner write Figure 1. Male Relationships Simplified.
    13. Examine said diagram thouroughly.
    14. Draw a dot in the middle of the Boyfriend section.
    15. About 1cm under this dot write Future Me.
    16. Act accordingly.

    • @Lokland

      Bless your heart, your advice to Cooper is AWESOME! (and hilarious)

  • Lokland

    Corrections:

    ‘in’ your thinking
    bow=box

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “This is something women do not understand. They think they’re more attractive to a guy if every guy in the vicinity is staring at them. They don’t understand that men loathe feeling jealousy and want their women to reserve sexiness for private time with them.”

    There is an element your missing hear.

    Some (very few) women will have every guy in the vicinity staring slack jawed at them if they were a burlap sack with puke in their hair.

    This does not incite jealousy only a confidence boost for her guy.

    For all other women, if every guys staring at them it is because they are actively drawing that attention to themeselves.
    (For example, bending over and displaying your ass for a crowd. I have another opinion on that but it comes next.)

    This is bad. Very, very bad. This makes you a slut (Its weird that the bar for slut drops when in a relationship dontcha think?) which will incite loads of jealousy.

    So for any girl under say an 8.9/10 if guys are staring out you, your probably not being appropriate in some way. If your a 9/10 and above then you are merely existing and doing your thing.

    Minor difference but gotta help the pretty girls.

    Now, for example, bending over and displaying your ass for a crowd.

    This could legitametely (and likely seems to be) an honest mistake but from the guys perspective he cannot EVER be certain of that. No amount of discussing, screaming, pleading or manipulating can ever completely remove that doubt. (This would be analogous to, for an example that occured to me this fine afternoon, talking to the girl giving you a haircut with your future wife not 10 feet away. Later that night future wife thinks you were flirting with hair cut girl… no amount of rational explanation can fix that.) This is where the concept of TRUST is required in a relationship.

    Trust only goes so far and cannot be put to the test to often because even multiple mistakes in a certain timeframe can break it.

    PS If I were the guy in your example I’d be royally pissed as well. But I’m a puritan or something like that.

    “I am totally charmed by Lokland’s appreciation of female fashion.”

    I get that a lot actually.

    • @Lokland

      I think it was an honest mistake, but if lots of men feel like you do, then what’s required is for women to get more self-conscious about the way they move. I mean self-conscious in a good way, not as an expression of anxiety or discomfort.

      Re your fiancee’s getting jealous and the idea of trust in a relationship. I remember when my husband and I first got together. I was hyper aware of other women who gave him attention, looked at him on the subway, etc. I believed he was in love with me but was naturally on guard against any female efforts to poach my mate. If he responded favorably to those IOIs or encouraged them, I felt threatened. He had to become conscious of his own behavior with other women as a demonstration of loyalty so that he could earn my trust. I did the same for him, and that created security for us both. Neither one of us has given the other any reason to feel threatened, jealous or suspicious since.

      BTW, that is why “instilling dread” is terrible advice that will lead straight to relationship failure.

  • “The Game” by strauss that O keeps referencing was probably the more influential books for PUA’s. It was one of the first books out on Game. I think it was one of the ways game got fairly large national attention and most PUA’s will refer to it as the first book they read on game.

    And you haven’t read it. It seems to me that The Game is a bit lie The Bible everyone considers it the book with all the answers but few people actually read it, or did it completely. Seems like men already distilled it into actions. Read down my answer to Susan.

    @Susan
    I don’t hate Game or Mystery, if that is what you meant on changing my mind I just think makes more sense to see what Game enthusiasts are “doing and thinking now” than what they supposedly read or not. Never trust a man’s words but his actions is my motto, YMMV.

    • @Anacaona

      Never trust a man’s words but his actions is my motto, YMMV.

      Men say this about women all the time too. It’s good advice for everyone, in every area of life. Putting your faith in someone whose actions don’t back up their claims makes one a sucker.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “The consolation prize is that you are happier and more adept at attracting women. I think that’s worthwhile, whether you make one woman happy right now or not.”

    NOT A CHANCE IN FUCKING HELL YOU PULL THIS SHIT.

    The MAIN PRIZE is for the MAN. Game is not for the women specifically.
    It is not meant to improve her life but HIS.

    Any extra benefit for her is a consolation prize.

    Don’t ever switch those two things.

    • @Lokland

      The consolation prize is that you are happier and more adept at attracting women. I think that’s worthwhile, whether you make one woman happy right now or not.”

      NOT A CHANCE IN FUCKING HELL YOU PULL THIS SHIT.

      The MAIN PRIZE is for the MAN. Game is not for the women specifically.
      It is not meant to improve her life but HIS.

      Sorry, that’s a misunderstanding, I wasn’t clear. I meant that is a consolation prize for me, lol.

      IOW, I want Cooper to improve his life, even if that means I’ve influenced a guy toward non-monogamy. It’s a risk I take when I endorse Game. I may be helping to create a player. But I think Cooper’s happiness trumps my desire to see men in relationships. His happiness as a player would be my consolation prize.

  • Abbot

    Amanda Marcotte’s reaction after reading some of this post:

    http://i820.photobucket.com/albums/zz124/chessboardstreets/29l20qo.gif

    Yes, really.

  • Cooper

    @SW
    “Game makes men better”
    Game makes men more alpha, which is more attractive to women – and as you just said, even the ones looking to commit. And according to previous post, that makes them less LTR suitable.

    Why women (including the LTR-oriented ones) like unsuitable men more bewilders me.

    I know that one pictures a more physically attractive man when he is described as alpha. As well as a unfit, or unmotivated (similarily “complacent” as you puy it) man when he is described as beta.
    (at least I do – the same way I inherently picture a more attractive women when she is described to be more desirable [or higher N]. I just do)

    This is not the case. I truly believe women are becoming unattracted based on my intensions – I have trouble believing otherwise cause all experience supports it.

    In regards to being too eager, I think there is a spectrum that stretches from being far too supplicating over to being LTR-oriented.

    Why wouldn’t anyone who has experience with the SMP, and is LTR-oriented, not be eager to get out of it?

    So when women suggest that betas are too supplicating to find attractive, I think it’s code for them “being too pro-relationship.” Thus has created my belief that young women do not want commitment. (cause if they did, their actions wouldn’t be so contradictory)

    On a side note, what was the lesson from Girls’ Ep.6?
    Hannah went out on a date with what they seemed to be portraying as the perfect beta. They purposefully made her seem rather unimpressed.
    Why is she much more satisfied with a 1/10 of attention from Adam (who is arguably a cad) than 9/10 the interest from a nice, employed, very-attractive beta?
    You must agree that they were purposefully portraying that pharmacist to be nearly perfect. Obviously cast to be more attractive than Adam, better educated, working at his family run store (which he mentioned he has partial ownership!), had his own car, took her out for a nice evening, was extremely polite. What was the problem? Or were they intentionally making it seem like Hannah simply wants Adams’ commitment cause it’s unavailable?

    • @Cooper

      I know that one pictures a more physically attractive man when he is described as alpha. As well as a unfit, or unmotivated (similarily “complacent” as you puy it) man when he is described as beta.

      Actually, this is a fallacy. I’ve personally known numerous extremely unattractive alphas and many good looking betas. I don’t think the alpha/beta distinction has much to do with looks. Yes, women like Tom Brady’s looks, with his strong jawline. But there are many dominant, high T guys who have a sort of cro magnon look, and women generally do not find that attractive.

      So when women suggest that betas are too supplicating to find attractive, I think it’s code for them “being too pro-relationship.”

      Not all women want relationships, but in my experience, most do. However, most will go without rather than “settle.” I don’t think that supplication is perceived as being pro-relationship, I think women perceive it as the man not being discriminating. He’s so eager to lock it down that he moves really fast and doesn’t make the female work for commitment.

      Because the sexes have divergent mating strategies, each sex expects resistance from the other. Men expect women to make them work for sex, and women expect men to make them work for commitment. We want to feel that we’ve earned your attraction and affection to the point that you want to be exclusive. If you do that too soon, we know you’re handing it out easily, and that means low standards. No woman wants to be with a man who has low standards.

  • Michael Singer

    @ Susan

    Pleas help me to understand:

    – Please explain the define or explain what is coercion ?
    – Are the 14 cues that women exhibit exploitation ?

    As you mentioned – “To deny that men employ coercion in mating is ridiculous, but again, their agenda is not political.”

    Then how is the 14 cues that women use to exploit themselves to attract men is not viewed as exploitation where as the mens actions are ?

    In addition, are there any studies or a “sound theory” that support – “(cooperative mating) when it evolved 1.5 million years ago”. If so, then what is presented might be considered worth looking at. Btw, here is a little reminder on the scientific method

    1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
    2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
    3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
    4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
    5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
    When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

    “The point is not that women are slutty.”
    Please explain how the following behavior is not slutty ?
    Easy, Immature, Intoxicated, Reckless, “Promiscuous” Partying, Flirty “Promiscuous friends
    Attention seeking , Young, Sleepy, Come hither look, “Revealing clothing, Touching breast
    You have omitted the obvious – therefore your conclusion is ex-facie

    ” The point is that there are some men for whom the sight of a drunk, sleepy girl is very arousing. Signals of female vulnerability to coercion give them boners.”
    Allow me point out the obvious – how is the drunk girl behaving ? She is exploiting herself given the definition of exploitation.
    How did the sleepy girl become sleepy and how was her behavior prior to sleeping ? Again, she exploited herself. To claim that she is modest innocent well behaved bystander is highly improbable and fly in the face of common sense as well asintelligence.

    ” Interestingly, research about men with the Dark Triad traits suggests that they’re wired for short-term because their only hope of reproducing is to get in and out quickly. They just don’t have the relationship skills to sustain a longer liaison.”

    The same is true for Dark Triad women of whom I have had the intense displeasure of meeting and interacting with.

    “Whether the slutty girl wants the sex or enjoys the sex is irrelevant. The study is about male sexual response to cues of female vulnerability or incapacitation.”

    Maybe I am missing something on this “Whether the slutty girl wants the sex or enjoys the sex is irrelevant”.
    – How is a slutty girl who wants sex is viewed as vulnerable ?
    – How is a slutty girl who incapacitated herself and wants sex is viewed as vulnerable ?
    – How is guy who responds to the girl who wants sex is viewed as a coercing the women into sex ?

  • Cooper

    @Lokland
    Hahaha, I follow your instruction to the millimeter. And it’s the truth.

    Now, obviously you’re aware that that spectrum was based on how a man is perceived by women.
    So, when any women has a complaint anything near “where are the good guys?” The answer is “in loserville where you put them.”
    Or, “why are all the guys jerks?” Is “cause that is what you’ve taught them to be.”

    Is wringing the niceness out of guys really want women want?
    Imo, that’s the epitome of Game.

  • @ Ana
    Yep. Haven’t read The Game. Mostly because I haven’t wanted to spend money on it than a lack of actual interest. Instead I’ve spent my time reading the free online blogs by people that have read it instead. The only actual money I’ve spent on learning game (other than the drinks I buy when going out at night and actually putting lessons to use) was on Roosh’s Bang and Day Bang. Money well spent. His books don’t have a physical copy (as I believe The Game does – which means I’m just going to read it for free at barnes and noble when I feel like it and have the time). Plus I knew I liked his writing style and game style from his blog. It gave me something fun to read on my kindle besides the normal literature.

    I’ll also say that I do love reading or rereading each of those on the L, at a coffee shop, etc; and immediately approaching a woman. Both an ego boost, a way of getting around approach anxiety, and just outright fun/hilarious to my sense of humor and irony.

  • Herb

    @Lokland

    Let me assist you.

    Follow my instructions without question and I will answer your dilemmia and draw attention to the error and your thinking.

    ROFLMPO

    Which means it’s very, very true.

    Susan, time for another blog post with diagram.

  • @Leap of a Beta

    Hey I really don’t mind who read it or not. I’m mostly paying attention to how men interpret it, but I’m curious about something. Why wouldn’t you reward a writer you find useful at the very least with buying a copy of his work?

  • @ Ana
    If I read it and like it – I will. I bought Roosh’s works because I enjoy his blog, had read excerpts from his books that I enjoyed, and wanted the book on hand. I have no knowledge of any of that information going into The Game by Strauss, so I’ll look over it before actually buying it.

  • Michael Singer

    Btw, I dont mean this to sound arrogant but I will share a little of my personal experience.
    Imo, the vast majority of women are protagonist(use self exploitation) and most will do anything to attract attention (even grab another woman’s breast as indicated in the 14 cues). Btw, women don’t deal with rejection very well and get angry when they are rejected. Hence the promiscuous behavior to attract men of low morals to avoid rejection ( like attract like as seen in #3).

    To not take responsibility for ones own behavior is narcissistic, lack of empathy, self introspection and this is psychotic moral behavior.
    To excuse bad behavior and blame another for responding same exact behavior is perverse.

  • If I read it and like it – I will. I bought Roosh’s works because I enjoy his blog, had read excerpts from his books that I enjoyed, and wanted the book on hand. I have no knowledge of any of that information going into The Game by Strauss, so I’ll look over it before actually buying it.

    Heh you are Gaming the book then? If is worth it you pay for it if not read and dump…it fits! 😀

  • @ Ana
    Hahaha. I like that.

    Gaming the Game book.

    Done. Bring it on book. Show me you’re worth commitment. Otherwise I’m gonna pump and dump your ass.

  • With that thought, I’m gonna go enjoy my little corner of Chicago night life. Have a good night all.

  • Cooper

    “Susan, time for another blog post with diagram.”

    *chants* Graphs! Graphs! Graphs!

  • expat

    Highly educated, professional women in big cities tend to be more promiscuous than the average women. So I do not see “players” avoiding them. These type of women chase men and can be aggressive if they see something they want. They act more like like men in seeking sex

  • @ Susan (re: comment #85)

    : I see I am going to have to put together a “Start Here” primer for new readers.

    Guilty as charged. I am a new reader.

    The bottom line is that 90% of women have never been with a jerk. So on what basis do you claim that all women are hot for them?”

    As for the “90% of women who have never been with a jerk” – I know that. The point is that they still DESIRE those guys, not that they’ve gotten their wish and actually been with them. I really should’ve used the word Alpha instead of jerk. Wherever I wrote “jerk”, replace it with “Alpha”.

    The basis that most young women (I was generalizing and never said “all”) are hot for Alphas (not necessarily jerks) comes from reading Game/PUA blogs and forums, plus my limited personal life experiences. I’m no social scientist, so my claim is just hearsay. But I believe it.

    You understood the basic gist of my comment (#76). What’s funny is that SayWhaat took it in the opposite way than I intended, and she sparked a whole subthread about sundresses! Lol… I re-read my comment and see how it could be misinterpreted. It’s pretty entertaining how comments on a blog can take such tangential directions. And if SayWhaat is still reading, I do agree that sundresses are sexy (except on fat chicks)!

    SayWhaat thought I was saying that if women dress modestly, then relationship-oriented men would filter those ladies out of their (the men’s) plans. I meant it in the other direction: women filtering out men. Regardless of how they dress, modestly or not, young women will still be uninterested in most Betas. I meant that all those ladies can go ahead and dress modestly, but they’re dressing modestly for the Alphas first and foremost, in the hopes of attracting Alphas, Alphas, Alphas. She wants the Alpha to notice her modesty, not the relationship-oriented guys. She’ll be hoping her newfound modesty will make those hot Alpha guys become relationship-oriented toward her.The now modestly-dressed girl will continue to filter out most of the relationship-oriented Betas (who comprise a majority of relationship-oriented men).

    I don’t have any hard evidence of this, but I think a lot of men would agree. Guess I’m just a pessimist.

    I suppose a lot of the comments on this thread (and maybe you see this a lot), especially the disagreements, are based on the fact that we can’t seem to agree on the definition of “Alpha” or “Beta”, etc. For example, when I see the phrase “shy and nerdy”, I’m thinking “Omega” not “Beta”. Maybe because I’m an Omega. I think lots of Betas are very friendly, fun guys (“nice guys”, or “Average Frustrated Chumps”), and I don’t think very many of them are nerds.

    My take on HUS was that your purpose was to persuade young women that riding the c*ck carousel was a bad idea.Am I right in guessing that HUS hopes to convince young women that many Betas are good catches and might have some latent Alpha qualities that can be brought out by a girl?

    PS, thanks for noticing my Snow White riff, Susan. I thought it was pretty funny too. Seeing that word “Sleepy” in the list of cues is what inspired it.

    • @Inlone

      The point is that they still DESIRE those guys, not that they’ve gotten their wish and actually been with them. I really should’ve used the word Alpha instead of jerk. Wherever I wrote “jerk”, replace it with “Alpha”.

      I disagree, in part. Study after study has shown that women like dominance in men. We really do like to be led. Promiscuous women go after dominant men with the offer of easy sex, and it works a great deal of the time. Women who are not promiscuous may wish that Prince Charming would show up at their doorstep but they’re not having casual sex as a strategy to find him. And their Prince Charming, it should be said, is not a manwhore. Non-promiscuous women don’t want men with a history of promiscuity because they’re not compatible, and they have signaled disinterest in commitment and relationships.

      So….it seems to me that the answer for relationship-oriented men or men who want to be with a woman of limited sexual experience is to develop the requisite degree of dominance to be “her” Prince Charming.

      She wants the Alpha to notice her modesty, not the relationship-oriented guys. She’ll be hoping her newfound modesty will make those hot Alpha guys become relationship-oriented toward her.

      I don’t think so. Women who behave and dress modestly have learned first hand that they are invisible to alphas. Nearly all alphas hang with slutty girls. I actually know very attractive women who dress down (hoodie, flats, no makeup) specifically so they don’t get attention from cads.

      Am I right in guessing that HUS hopes to convince young women that many Betas are good catches and might have some latent Alpha qualities that can be brought out by a girl?

      I think girls can definitely bring out alpha in guys. There was a post a while back – Caroline and Josh, I think. She worked to give him positive reinforcement for more dominant behaviors. However, if you don’t bring some dominance you’re not going to have the opportunity to get that girl to work with you. A woman can reinforce your dominant behavior and make you more comfortable about asserting dominance, but a baseline level of dominance is the price of entry. It just is. There is no way around this. The good news is that Game lays it out for you, with lots of illustrative examples.

  • Michael Singer

    It is pretty common knowledge that “women choose bad boys”. To suggest otherwise is flys in the face of experience and studies.
    http://www.livescience.com/20294-women-choose-bad-boys.html

    This leaves the “screaming obvious question” of how do women choose bad boys ? By behaving in the following manner – Easy, Immature, Intoxicated, Reckless, “Promiscuous” Partying, Flirty “Promiscuous friends, Attention seeking , Young, Sleepy, Come hither look, “Revealing clothing, Touching breast.

    WAIT !!!!!! That behavior is only for dark triad men who are looking to use coercion to exploit women.

    Btw, who in the heck would want to make a life long commitment of marriage and children to a female exhibiting 14 cues or to “bad boy” ?
    Marriage only works if both people share like values.

    • Btw, who in the heck would want to make a life long commitment of marriage and children to a female exhibiting 14 cues or to “bad boy” ?
      Marriage only works if both people share like values.

      Bad boys don’t get married, or if they do they tend to divorce. As you say, it’s a bad strategy.

      Again, the point of the study was to examine various male mating strategies. Of course some women are acting slutty, and don’t need to be exploited to have consensual sex. That doesn’t mean that the men who seduce them are not exploitative in their orientation. Apparently, some men are strictly coercive in their orientation. Exploiting female vulnerability turns them on. That’s what I think is interesting about the study. Not whether women are actually being exploited.

  • @Anacaona

    Yes, there are “female Betas”, at least metaphorically (sort of like calling a guy a “manwhore”). But the key difference is in the numbers.

    Male Betas are a majority of the male population. Female Betas are a minority of the female population, because most women can go have sex pretty easily (especially if they lower their standards). At least I see it that way because I define Beta as the proverbial nice-guy who almost never gets laid because he was taught that being obsequious and supplicating towards girls was the way to go, and he doesn’t understand how that turns off most women. But I’m sure there are also some women who are clueless on how to get laid (for the most part it involves just showing up).

  • Abbot

    “women don’t deal with rejection very well and get angry when they are rejected. Hence the promiscuous behavior to attract men of low morals to avoid rejection”

    That does explain a lot of what is going on. To even suggest that such behavior has not impacted a woman’s view of sex and her own sexuality is asinine. Of course it does and its a foolish man who would even consider committing his life to such a woman, especially if he wants children.

  • Male Betas are a majority of the male population. Female Betas are a minority of the female population, because most women can go have sex pretty easily (especially if they lower their standards). At least I see it that way because I define Beta as the proverbial nice-guy who almost never gets laid because he was taught that being obsequious and supplicating towards girls was the way to go, and he doesn’t understand how that turns off most women. But I’m sure there are also some women who are clueless on how to get laid (for the most part it involves just showing up).

    This is were things get complicated. Most men here say that women are the gatekeepers of sex but that men are the gatekeepers of commitment so a female Beta should be one that cannot get commitment not sex from a man she finds attractive, regardless how many men are willing to pump and dump her? But somehow that is also incorrect??? It seems that there is a lot of pick your own definition game in here.

  • Michael Singer

    @Abot

    Hell hath no fury like a women scorned (The Mourning Bride by William Congreve).

    A woman will exploite herself and then decide once the man shows interest which keeps her in the power position.

    The more subtle the “exploitation” the more sublime which equates to higher morals. This is where it gets really fun !!!!

    A woman of high morals will reject the players – this is the #1 common complaint of the alpha/cad. Why ? They are desensitized and have “shot their wad” ie exploited themselves and hence the female of high morals will reject them.

    The man with high morals will wait as will the high moral female ( it is a mutual introspection that is “subterranean” ( ie deep calling to deep ie radar).
    The women will drop the slightest wisp of hint of interest of which the man will pick up on and then proceed or the two will move toward each other. No lines or games are needed.

    What is common between both the moral man / woman they understand consequences, cautious, dont waste time with promiscuous people, disciplined, and take their time. The majority of the time – this can be “sensed” without words and confirmed by behavior.

  • Abbot

    “Hell hath no fury like a women scorned”

    Well, that sums up the feminist demeanor. Interesting though how they couch their fury in reams of rhetoric and endless hyperbole of all sorts.

    “A woman will exploite herself and then decide once the man shows interest which keeps her in the power position.”

    The feminist euphemism for this is “empower” whereby the emotionally and mentally weak evolve their character through sexual self exploitation until they are supposedly better and ready for marriage.

    “A woman of high morals will reject the players”

    Thus a woman who has a high N has probably not always avoided players and has thus demonstrated she is not of high morals merely by having a high N

  • “women are the gatekeepers of sex but men are the gatekeepers of commitment so a female Beta should be one that cannot get commitment not sex from a man she finds attractive, regardless how many men are willing to pump and dump her? But somehow that is also incorrect??? It seems that there is a lot of pick your own definition game in here.”

    No, I think that’s a pretty good definition – practically all women can ‘get’ sex at a far higher rate than almost all men, but that demonstrably does not confer upon them any elite status. The achievement for men is sex, the achievement for women is commitment.

  • @Byron
    Let’s hear what the other guys have to say about this.

    In other news I just saw Battleship. It was a popcorn movie and I think it was really fun lots of manly men and a couple of hot chicks so I recommend it.
    I did noticed a trope that we barely mention here: The Asshole that only needs the right motivation to become all that he is (instead of a good woman like in female aimed entertainment even though he managed to land a hot, kind smart woman in spite of his Darwin award level of stupidity) I wonder if men are a bit more forgiving of that one than the Romance equivalent… Thoughts?

  • Ian

    @Susan

    I can see why you say it’s a paradox. It’s true that becoming more alpha gives you more options and that you may not choose a relationship. On the other hand, you will be a more attractive relationship prospect. So you become more desirable to all women, including those who would like you to commit.

    Alpha can be a bit of a short-hand. Women also have short-term and long-term attractors. I’m relatively attractive in my social circles, but I get approached most often as the dopamine-fling for women in (or just out of) stalled-out relationships. I’ve found those affairs only last as long as good sex lasts, as long as aloofness lasts. Even if they’re relationship-types by evidence, I’ve been ghosted for switching to bonding cues.

    I have a friend, very intelligent, very handsome, social intelligence through the roof. He does very well with women in our group, women at clubs, has a “fun-times” parade of women when he’s single. He progresses into relationships much easier than I, but the relationships turn sour in months. He’s too empathetic, lacks leadership, gets walked on and heads back to the clubs.

    Women may be less selective, biologically, for a “baby-daddy” than a husband. One is good genes, the other is good genes plus a Game of Thrones-style social alliance. For long-term mating, cues are things like status, wealth, reputation, bonding traits with leadership traits. Typically, “Beta” men intelligent enough to learn Game already have status and bonding traits, learning attractiveness and dominance cues fill what lacks.

    My friend needs to learn dominance. I’d need to increase my SES. Unattractive men need good-gene cues. We’re just patching different holes.

    • @Ian

      My friend needs to learn dominance. I’d need to increase my SES. Unattractive men need good-gene cues. We’re just patching different holes.

      Good point. There is no “one size fits all.” And that’s true for women as well, btw.

      I’m relatively attractive in my social circles, but I get approached most often as the dopamine-fling for women in (or just out of) stalled-out relationships. I’ve found those affairs only last as long as good sex lasts, as long as aloofness lasts

      OK, I just want to point out that you are attracting women who need a dopamine fix. That is one segment of the female population. If you are satisfied, great. If not, you need to fish in a different pond.

  • Michael Singer

    @ Abot
    I have met a few women of high morals over the years. They come from exceptional families, exceptional fathers, and 1st generation Americans or non Americans. They are educated, hardworking, feminine, and beautiful.

    Needless to say, the trick is not to be infected with the American culture of Moral Schizophrenia.

    Btw, definition of Schizophrenia – is a mental disorder characterized by a breakdown of thought processes and by poor emotional responsiveness. It most commonly manifests itself as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction.

  • Michael Singer

    “to improve his life, even if that means I’ve influenced a guy toward non-monogamy. It’s a risk I take when I endorse Game. I may be helping to create a player. But I think Cooper’s happiness trumps my desire to see men in relationships. His happiness as a player would be my consolation prize.”

    Interesting comment. What do want the end result to be ?
    1. Going the player routs
    2. Going the man route

    There are consequences for every single action.
    Ones action will bring joy or pain to yourself and those around you. It is the law of reaping and sowing – if someone says otherwise they are in denial of reality or perverse.

    1. Player route
    Pros are easy sex, easy women, fun !!
    Cons are emotional sterile, sexually addicted, ruin of character, high risk of disease, high risk of parenthood/ financial entrapment, ruin of mental, emotional , and spiritual health just to name a few.

    If you want to eat, sleep, drink, breathe,excrete and reproduce / live like a animal then this is a great road to go.

    2. Become a man (vast difference between a “man” and “male gender”)
    Pros-educated, self controlled, discipline, moral, go anywhere and do anything you want when you want. A man of character, discipline, morals, responsible and integrity makes very very “rich” dominate happy man. Btw, can have any female you choose. Ability and “authority” ato choose higher value women. Low disease rate , highest $$$, and highest ROI.

    Cons -Takes discipline, hard work, and self sacrifice.
    Not all males in gender are men. There are very very few men.

    Invest in yourself and actually become “a man”- dont waste time with a player and “making a woman happy” (impossible, moving target, and is slavery).

    Make yourself happy the right way and you will attract others with like values and you will be able to maintain it.

  • Most of the real players I’ve known fill at least half of the 21 items on Hare’s psychopathy checklist.

    Isn’t it rather TELLING that women find psychopathy attractive?

    • @MarkyMark

      Isn’t it rather TELLING that women find psychopathy attractive?

      This is where I think the manosphere gets it wrong. Let’s say 20% of men (it’s probably less) fit the criteria for psychopathy. I contend that 20% of women like psychopaths. That means that psychopaths will have no trouble getting women – as the ratio is 1:1. The error occurs when we look at the success of psychopaths and conclude that 100% of women like them.

      It’s really a case of MWANLT – Most women are not like that.

  • Michael,

    yes, men & women, ying / yang, apples / oranges, that’s why we need to recognize they have different criteria for sex & relationships.

  • Marie

    “Putting your faith in someone whose actions don’t back up their claims makes one a sucker.”

    I agree with this, especially that his actions should back up his claims, not prove everything on their own.
    I’ve met some men (genuinely nice guys) who don’t get that women don’t believe a man’s words. Obviously it’s frustrating to tell a girl over and over that you really care about her, for her to respond “That’s just words, you need to prove it”. I agree that if a man is all words and no actions, that’s a bad sign. He should initiate contact, ask you out, be attentive. But the equivalent to grand words would be grand gestures, and there’s a limit to how much of that you can expect of a man. I’m always skeptical to a man’s words, and I realize that it can make me come across as cynical and cold. I don’t want to come across as someone who’s dated assholes either, I feel it reflects badly on me. You get to a point where you just need to trust someone. If he says he thinks you’re amazing, be happy about it.

  • Wudang

    “I agree completely. If there were such a thing as Girl Game, this would be one of the key concepts. I’ve been sharing this advice far and wide since you first said it. The only problem is, girls are not sure how to make that leap. They don’t naturally encounter guys that much older than them. IDK, maybe online dating is the way to do it?

    I’d like to crack the code on meeting new people. I think there are so many people who would like to meet, but are not quite sure how to make it happen. We were discussing “How About We..” yesterday, but it would be good if there were more organic ways of meeting the opposite sex.”

    I believe a woman who is very good at giving strong IOIs and approach invitations can go arround in a city and get several guys whom she finds attractive to approach her quite easily. As has been mentioned before women don`t send strong enough signals. They also probably has a bit limited reportoire. That stuff can be thaught and women can experiment with it themselves. I am not a big fan of the idea of women approaching directly themselves. I think a combination of IOIs/aproach invitations, giving guys excuses for starting conversations such as bumping into them “acidentally” and dropping something they can help you pick up, and indierct openers such as asking what direction something is in (should be the same direction he is going) or making a statement about something in the situation, is the way to go for women. Start experimenting with that and go to PUA boards and ask the guys there and the few playettes there for advice on how to do this if you are confused. Look at movies where women do this (european movies are far better for this). If a woman learns to do all that stuff well she can get all sorts of guys to approach her or get into conversations with her. So if she wants and older guy she can get in touch with him this way.

    • @Wudang

      As has been mentioned before women don`t send strong enough signals. They also probably has a bit limited reportoire. That stuff can be thaught and women can experiment with it themselves

      Hmmm, interesting. IOI Bootcamp for women?

  • Wudang

    “I also felt enormous empathy and fondness for Mystery. Goofy hat notwithstanding, he was/is a gentle soul.”

    HA. Thats the way I always felt as well. I dislike most of his style of game but I love him for the character he is and I do think he is a gentle soul.

    • @Wudang

      I dislike most of his style of game but I love him for the character he is and I do think he is a gentle soul.

      He has wrestled demons, especially depression. I think he’s bipolar IIRC. He has a lot of love to give. That’s really what he was looking for – a woman to give that to. A while back he sang a lullaby to his daughter on YouTube and Roissy ridiculed him mercilessly for it. I thought it was incredibly sweet and loving. I bet he’s a great dad. I know he would want to be.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Field Report from Last Night:

    Do not visit ex-girlfriend before going to the Field. That shit can mess with your head.

    Jokes about drinking shitty beer, great for guys. Did not go over as well with the girl I was talking to.

    Messed up head already+quick brush-off=not a great night for ADBG. Confidence shot. Good for a laugh, can spend today recovering. Still met some new girls through the social circle, though, so all in all not terrible. Met some army vets, stand-up guys.

    General Thoughts:
    Girl game is what Hope says it is. Hands down, 100%. Right now, it feels like I’m switching between STR and LTR mindsets. I can literally feel my attraction to that girl in the picture change by the hour, I can literally feel the “Slut Screen” go up and go down by the hour.

    A girl getting hotter is not girl game and I know instinctively that while she may earn commitment from me short-term, it would be still be short-term.

    A girl who could touch my soul like Hope can would be impossible to let go. Even watching her write triggers those Beta and LTR instincts to go haywire.

    Or maybe that’s just me, but that’s just my thought on the matter.

    • @ADBG

      I’m sorry last night was a bummer. Getting blown out sucks. FWIW, I think you’ve taken a huge leap forward just by separating from the ex.

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    Isn’t it obvious that I don’t want to be a player?

    Players don’t respect the women they sleep with, just as much as they don’t feel bad exploiting women who will have them. It’s just like the list of the 14 characteristics in this posts, which all men see women displaying all the time. Once a guy sees signs of sexual-exploitation he thinks the woman has done so intentionally to give him permission to exploit her. Do you think players have a hard time sleeping at night? No, of course not.
    They don’t feel as they’ve exploited anyone, just responded to those displaying signs of exploitability.

    I don’t want to be a *happy* player.

    Hope once made a comment to me suggesting why not I treat women like a science experiment; and since one way hasn’t worked, then move on and test the next.
    This kinda relates to Michael Singers Player vs Man description.

    What I original had told Hope was, I would not just simply “try the next method;” because my method so far has been act with integrity and discipline, in my mind similarly to what Michael Singer described as a man.
    Or as Abbot described as high moral.

    “Thus a woman who has a high N has probably not always avoided players and has thus demonstrated she is not of high morals merely by having a high N”
    Conversely, a player has demonstrated he is not of high morals merely by seeking women who display signs of exploitability.

    A man has principles – high morals. I’m not going to become a player cause most likely the women who I’ll get will not have the same integrity as I do.

    I think promiscuity reflects upon ones character, both men and women. Essentially by going the player route, I will be lowering myself, and most likely finding someone at that lower level. Thus not respecting them. Then, BOOM, cad behavior cause I’ll have never felt I owed them otherwise. (That’s not me.)

    • @Cooper

      A man has principles – high morals. I’m not going to become a player cause most likely the women who I’ll get will not have the same integrity as I do.

      I think promiscuity reflects upon ones character, both men and women. Essentially by going the player route, I will be lowering myself, and most likely finding someone at that lower level. Thus not respecting them. Then, BOOM, cad behavior cause I’ll have never felt I owed them otherwise. (That’s not me.)

      Honestly, I have known from Day 1 that you could never be a player. You’re a one woman man at heart, you’re attractive, and you’re figuring it out. I’ve already said once that you are a supercatch. You should definitely hold out for a woman who meets your standards.

      Not all cases are so clearcut. There are definitely some guys who flirt with the dark side – usually because they’re not getting the results they want. They go full bore asshole and have a couple of ONSs, and it’s very, very hard to go back.

  • Cooper

    @Wudang, Susan

    Re: Mystery

    You two were fond of Mystery? He was enormously insecure, had such little self-esteem, and all this crazy behavior was a constant attempt to counter that. And it was usually at the cost of others’, emotionally.

    How is that a “gentle soul?”

    He would do anything to pump himself up, even at the expense of others; and since he was obviously so damaged, it meant he had to do so constantly.

    • @Cooper

      I never saw Mystery pump himself up at the expense of others. I read about him and have watched most of his videos. He actually comes across as remarkably free of ego, IMO.

  • Wudang

    New book on the HUS reading list: The war of the sexes by Paul Seabright. Economic and game (as in math not PUA) theory applied to the relationship between the sexes.

    A big article in a local newspaper where full of manosphere truisms and wrote about lower ranking men banding together to control female sexuality etc. and legitimate needs for controling sexuality and female sexuality throughout history. That is the first time ever I have read that in MSM. It was written about with total dispassion.

    The article also mentioned that today about 33% of the men are getting 66% of the children. The men who get the most children are wealthy, smart and educated but get divorced and start several families. One of the topics that has not been covered well at HUS is looking at the remarriage market. Not the topic of this blog, I know, but still highly relevant and related to what we talk about here. On some level women are quite successfull at shutting out the bottom 20% of men from amrriage/families and mating with the remaining upper men. 26% of men at 40 do not have children. I am guessing a few alphas who didn`t want children or relationship and the omegas and bottom betas pluss some infertile guys or guys with infertile women.

    • @Wudang

      Thanks for the book rec. I’ll check it out.

  • Men say this about women all the time too. It’s good advice for everyone, in every area of life. Putting your faith in someone whose actions don’t back up their claims makes one a sucker.

    I think this is good advice for everything in life. Some people claim to be a lot of things “Christian, Liberal, conservative…” but many people take whatever from their label that suits them and benefits them and ignore the tough parts. I do remember a tell from one my friends loser boyfriends was that he was a “christian” but have no issues on screwing her once or twice a week. We were like “That is not truth” of course since she is an idiot she was like “Well he is just modern and making one exception for me” hamster full force. Everything ended up terrible and she moved on but she might as well stayed around since next man was even worse, she is the kind of people that make me see red how can someone devolve like that? But then my male friend is on kid number 4 with 3 women I’m like does he thinks he is some baby making machine? So yeah…I will read the book when I see more Obsidian like gamers blogging around, so far not really.

    BTW, that is why “instilling dread” is terrible advice that will lead straight to relationship failure.

    ITA. I’m still on that mode although hubby never does anything but he works in a college so I’m always making sure no skank is trying to win an A by flirting/banging the teacher. Good thing his major has mostly gay men and bimbos and I’m friends and liked by all his coworkers, male, female, lesbian, gay, friends… Hard for someone to be inappropriate without me knowing. 😉

    “with the added fact that most black women do not find white men attractive. They are accustomed to black men’s naturally atheletic physiques, deeper voices, and the rest. So while black men today pretty much have their pick, …Its the reason you’ll read comments from them stating they’d never date a woman who has dated a black guy.”

    I mentioned that this most be a cultural thing in my country white men are considered really attractive, all my friends and me ended up marrying white or lighter skinned men and is easier to find a dark woman with a lighter skinned men than the other way around. So there most be some other cultural forces at work, IMO.

  • Cooper, my husband has high morality and integrity, but when he grabs my boobs does that mean he’s “objectifying” me? I don’t think so. He is just being a man. There are ways to be a sexual, attractive and sexy man without dumping your morals into the sewers. Finding those ways will improve your outcomes with women.

  • Tasmin

    @Herb #177
    100%.
    The under 30 years for beta men – and I would include the beta+ or whatever you call the mix who are investing in demanding school and/or career trajectories – consists of long spans of single, non-sexual, “invisible” time which frames their view of the SMP and anchors women’s motivations, attraction triggers, etc. in their minds. You touched on how the stats and the experiences reported by women here at HUS and elsewhere may differ significantly from the “reality” that takes hold in those years leading up to 30, but most of these men (myself included) would agree that the reality that counts is not the population-wide stats or the handful of reports from women that support an entirely different image/experience during those years, but rather the experiential and observational data collected in those often painful spans of invisibility.

    Experience trumps and it can be a very difficult process to unwind those perceptions, disarm the skepticism, overcome the risk/reward imbalance, and rise above the bitterness and resentment that has had a decade or more of reinforcement. For some men, these things have metastasized and they will probably never find a way to align the realities, but for others, they will find a way to move forward. I guess I am just restating why the red pill is so tough to get down – and while many men can do so, those horse pills always leave a little lump in your throat for a while; a reminder that the path forward is painful, but also that once the pill is down, you can’t exactly go back either.

    The thing about those years is that invisible does not mean nonexistent; those men are participants, often doing what they have been told is good, right, responsible – and getting very little reinforcement from women along the way. Taking the high road, building character and all of the things that men are told are of the highest value often go unnoticed, all the while they are hoping to harvest something from what they have been toiling over for years. For some, it may suddenly appear at 32, but by then it can feel a bit hollow and/or be fed through the grinder of the counter-productive emotions and perspectives built up over the years.

    While the projections and images, assumptions and extrapolations of their experiences and observations may not be “accurate” in the larger sense, I think young women – and even older women who eventually notice the 32y/o versions of these men, have no idea the extent to which the years between 15 and 30 for Beta men can deeply implant beliefs that will be significant drivers in their ability and willingness to commit, marry, or even participate in the SMP. This can be amplified greatly for those men who also experienced a failed LTR/marriage during this span.

    I still struggle with these things and admit that at times I let those (arguably false) but imbedded beliefs infect my view of women and relationships – not to mention the entire role of men. During my 20’s I was a high-achiever in the American sense and have since altered course for reasons of pursuing something more meaningful (for me), but I will admit that a part of my motivation for altering course was because I no longer cared to play the role; a role that involved me delaying a tremendous amount of personal gratification for that ‘higher road’, which as it turned out counts for very little in terms of attracting and bonding.

    And the fact that I suddenly find myself garnering attention from (the over 30) women does not neutralize the years of 14-24, and a 10-year quasi-marriage that was scuttled in the name of her ‘happiness’, but rather wells up skepticism and occasionally resentment. You see, we see ourselves as being pretty much the same men we have always been – so why am I such a catch now, at 39? Part of the challenge is that while it may be incredibly flattering to have a woman basically tell you they want to have your babies, it just doesn’t ring the same when that statement is coming from a 35 y/o who has prefaced that statement with tales of self-indulgence, wanderlust, optional masters-degrees, foreign escapades, and/or how hard it is to find a ‘good’ man over 30 who wants a relationship and does not have kids from a prior relationship or whatever else. It just feels a little too convenient. And that is sad, for all involved.

    I’m all about young people spending their 20’s growing, experiencing, learning, having fun – but they need to be aware of the hidden costs of their decisions. And for young women how important and ultimately rewarding it can be to learn how to break the barriers and open their eyes to the invisible men in those years. Which can save both men and women from a much harder fought SMP in their 30’s. HUS is a great resource in this regard, but sadly a small island in an otherwise bleak sea. In the meantime, as my first swim coach used to say: kick harder.

  • @Coop
    “A man has principles – high morals. I’m not going to become a player cause most likely the women who I’ll get will not have the same integrity as I do.”

    A man can improve his life without going down the player path. To suggest otherwise is a false dilemma. You need not compromise your principles, especially if you’re seeking a likeminded girl. The road will be tougher, but more rewarding in the long run. This is a point I’ll disagree with the Queen of the HUS castle on.

    • @Megaman

      A man can improve his life without going down the player path. To suggest otherwise is a false dilemma. You need not compromise your principles, especially if you’re seeking a likeminded girl. The road will be tougher, but more rewarding in the long run. This is a point I’ll disagree with the Queen of the HUS castle on.

      ????But I agree completely!

  • Addressing Ms. Anacaona, & Other Finer Points Of GAME

    9:01 AM 5/26/2012 Sat

    OK, time for me to jump back in.

    There’s a few points I want to make; get coffee.

    ON ONEITIS

    “Oneitis (noun): 1. an obsession with a girl whom one is not dating; pickup artists believe that such an extreme fixation on one woman significantly lowers a man’s chances of dating or sleeping with her.”

    pp. 444, “The Game”, by Neil “Style” Strauss

    That, is the official definition of the term “Oneitis”, and, as I’ve said yesterday, Strauss goes on to give a “live-fire” example of exactly what that term means with his friend Marko, in the book – pp. 77-92.

    Read it for yourself.

    This is hugely important, because Anacaona displays the very same problem I’ve personally encountered dozens of times over the years – that of Women who, because they’ve read a smattering of (usually poor) Game representation from secondhand (at best) sources in a narrow slice of the blogosphere, think they know all they need to begin discussing it and addressing the matters it takes up in any meaningful way.

    In fact, I’ve written about this very topic and can see that, if Anacaona is any indication, nothing has changed:

    WHY Won’t Women Read Books On Game?
    http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/61430

    The reason WHY Anacaona feels as she does – and make no mistake here, this is about FEELINGS – is because, well, Roissy confirms what she already wants to believe about Game. This is why she has no need to explore what Game actually is on its own merits; she’s content with, even needs, Roissy’s spin on it, because that way, it gives her preconceived notions all the justification they need.

    But such a way of doing things is intellectually lazy. No academic worth his or her salt would accept such lax thinking, to say nothing of “scholarship”.

    Anacaona reminds me of an exchange I had with sex-positive and socalled BDSM expert Clarisse Thorn, on her socalled “Ethical Pickup Artistry” discussion at her blog; when I mentioned EvoPsych, her response was to say, and I’m quoting her now, that she “fucking HATES” EvoPsych; she then went on to recommend a book called Sex At Dawn (as a counter to works like, say, The Evolution of Desire), *EVEN WHILE FREELY ADMITTING THAT SHE’D NEVER READ IT*, because, well, it agrees with her sociopolitical worldview. When I pointed this out to her, she banned me from the discussion.

    See for yourself:

    Ethical Pickup Artistry
    http://clarissethorn.com/blog/2011/03/23/ethical-pick-up-artistry/

    That Woman has gone on to write a book(!) about Game and the Seduction Community. You can’t make this stuff up.

    To date – and I say this as one who has, for the most part, almost exclusively written about Game for at least three years at this point – I can count the number of Women I personally have known on a first name basis, who have actually read The Game, on less than one hand – and two of those fingers include Ms. Walsh and my Ms. Brown Sugah.

    That. Is. Scary.

    When put together with the fact that the vast majority of Women who attempt to discuss Game, don’t know what the heck they are talking about.

    So I can wholly relate to what Anacaona is saying when she mentions the Bible and how little of it is actually read, most of all by devout believers – and here again she reveals her ignorance of The Game; because if she had read it, the first thing she would have noticed about the book was its appearance.

    It looks just like a Bible. The covers, the gilded pages, the red sating ribbon bookmark, the whole shot. It was intended to be the Pickup Artist’s Bible, and in many ways, it is.

    Hmm.

    One of the reasons why I have such an immense respect for Ms. Walsh is because she is both highly trained in a specialized field of study, has worked applying those skills out in the realworld with a goodly degree of success, and has demonstrated a mastery of said specialized field to the extent that she is able to apply the principles she learned into new areas of study. She is a University of Pennsylvania/Wharton School-trained MBA in Economics (most recently ranked as #5 in the country’s top universitys by U.S. News & World Report). I, have never studied Econ at that level – which explains why, to date, I have never attempted to debate her, publicly or privately, on Economic principles. Why? Because, I simply do not know enough about it. Most of the time, I am simply sitting on the sidelines learning at her feet, going back and doing my own independent study on the background of the principles she is speaking about in her many deeply informative posts. I would feel like an utter fool to even fix my mouth to say to her something like, “I’ll discuss Econ based on what the talking heads say about it” as a basis upon which to engage her in any kind of debate on the matter.

    I have found, that the vast majority of Women who take the view of Game that Anacaona has, not only are ignorant about exactly what Game is, but they are confident that the little bit of what they have read about Game, in large part presented either by Roissy himself or the socalled “Roissysphere” – that constellation of blogs and websites that in one way or another acknowledge him as an important voice on such matters – is all that is needed for them to come to an educated conclusion and to have an educated opinon on the whole ball of wax. When I point out just how shortsighted this is, I am then hit with all manner of stubborn excuses and refusals as to why they can’t and won’t take the time out to read, from the source, what Game is.

    Of course, the problem with all this, is that not only do I know who and what Roissy/Heartiste is, but I also know who and what Game is; and hence I can tell the big, major differences between the two. I know for a fact that Roissy/Heartiste, while largely accurate on the big sweeping points and tenets of Game, also is deeply intellectually dishonest; he can and will deliberately distort or otherwise obscure the facts from his audience, because he knows how to play to their innermost fears.

    ON BLUE VALENTINE & FIFTY SHADES OF GREY

    For example, Roissy/Heartiste wrote a review of the film Blue Valentine when it first came out, and how it was yet another nail in the coffin of Feminist-informed political correctness when it came to the “pretty lie” that was the true sexual nature of Women. Of course, what his missive conveniently left out, was the little fact that Ryan Gosling’s character, was a falling down drunk – which, in the overall scheme of things, just might have a bit to do with why his marriage fell apart? No – all you got from Roissy/Heartiste, was that BV showed the Woman character to be a wanton lass with no ability to stand by her Man, come Hell or highwater. He didn’t do his audience any justice in the least by presenting the film in such a dishonest manner.

    Another more recent example, was Roissy/Heartiste’s review of the hit novel (and soon to be a movie) Fifty Shades Of Grey – here Roissy/Heartiste yet again distorts and obscures the facts for/from his audience. Now, to be sure, he is by no means alone in giving Fifty Shades short shrift – with the notable exception of Ms. Walsh here at HUS, I have yet to read a review, anywhere, by anyone, who put out first and foremost the facts about the book and what it was really all about, and THEN, giving their own take(s) on what was presented. ALL of the reviews I’ve read about Fifty Shades were more like personal op/eds about what those particular writers felt about what they thought they read, more than anything the actual book says, and why it means so much to Women. As I’ve said, the only review I thought worth reading was Ms. Walsh’s, for the reasons I detail below:

    1. Ms. Walsh makes it clear that the book is actually a trilogy – which is HUGE. The way Fifty Shades is presented by the MSM and bloggers like Roissy/Heartiste, is as if it’s a one-shot read – but it’s not. Even while Ms. Walsh has admitted to not reading all three books in the series, she has read two of them – and has made it clear that the book’s story arc changes quite dramatically in a number of ways. This is hugely important, because it adds very much needed context to what is being said, which in turn greatly informs the discussion on why so many Women find the book so deeply satisfying – which leads me to my next point –

    2. Ms. Walsh makes clear that the book is about RELATIONSHIPS, of which sex obviously plays a role; but even here, Ms. Walsh makes a clear and vital distinction: THE BDSM ‘PLAY’ OF THE BOOK, IN TRUTH, PLAYS A RATHER MINISCULE ROLE IN THE STORY. As she makes clear in her review, while “BDSM” is prominent in the first book, it plays little to no role at all in the second. This is vastly different from the way Fifty Shades is presented by the MSM, and for Roissy/Heartiste’s part, is again distorted by him to give the impression that for one to be successfully sexually with a Woman, one has to be a full-on Jerk of the First Order, 24/7 – when Ms. Walsh clearly shows, per the book now, that this is clearly not the case – Christian Grey very much changes in his orientation and attitude towards Anastasia Steele by Book Two of the series; in fact, he is very much “Beta”, to use Roissy’s/Heartiste’s term. This is a very important part that is left out, and unless you’ve either read the books yourself, or, failing that, you’ve been fortunate enough to get an intellectually honest review of them by someone like Ms. Walsh, you wouldn’t know that – I certainly didn’t – and just knowing that changes EVERYTHING you thought you knew about the book(s).

    I know it did for me.

    Which explains the next point:

    3. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE BUZZ ABOUT FIFTY SHADES WAS FROM MARRIED WOMEN. In other words, they were coming from Women who were already in pre-existing relationships, who were already (in many cases, if self-report means anything, happily) mated, if you will – not single ladies pining away for some Alpha Male in the sky to descend on them like Thor from Asgard or something. They were using their reading of Fifty Shades as a springboard and window onto their own intimate lives with their hubbies and seeking ways to enliven their sexual lives with THEM – not some other guy, as Roissy/Heartiste’s review would have you believe. Again, this makes perfect sense, when you 1. understand what the book(s) are actually about; 2. understand what BDSM is actually about; and 3. understand what female sexual psychology is all about…

    Which is…

    RELATIONSHIPS. Again: yes, sex does indeed play a powerful role in Fifty Shades; but what plays an even more powerful role, is RELATIONSHIPS.

    Nor is this something that is unique to Fifty Shades – and since it has been compared to this work I’m about to cite, and since Roissy/Heartiste has taken it for the inspiration behind his very online persona, I’m going to say, without any fear of contradiction or rebuke, that The Story of O, was at bottom (pardon the pun; winks at Herb), about RELATIONSHIPS – in this case, the very intense relationship between O and Sir Steven. No matter what one’s personal view of BDSM (more on this below – read on while you get your second cup of joe) one way or another, the fact remains that The Story of O wouldn’t be a story, WITHOUT THE RELATIONSHIP ASPECT TO/OF IT. And THIS, is what Ogas and Buss, in their respective works (A Billion Wicked Thoughts and The Evolution of Desire, Why Do Women Have Sex?) are talking about (indeed, E.L. James validates everything Ogas says in his book like a MFer!). But you see, I would not have been able to say all that, if I had not read The Story of O, and then came across Ms. Walsh’s excellent review of Fifty Shades of Grey.

    See what I’m saying here, people?

    Now – I say all that, to say this:

    ROISSY/HEARTISTE INTENTIONALLY HIDES, DISTORTS AND OBSCURES THE FACTS ABOUT EVOPSYCH, GAME AND RELATED MATTERS, BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT WITHOUT DOING THESE THINGS AND PRESENTING IT ALL IN THE MOST SKEWED WAY POSSIBLE, WHICH IS TO, A-PRIORI, PRESENT WOMEN IN THE WORST POSSIBLE LIGHT, HE WON’T HAVE AN AUDIENCE.

    And THAT, is why I refer to him, as the Dark Lord of Sith Game. Because it is the Sith Way to use lies, deceit, fear, anger and hate; to present convincing half-truths; and to omit key facts. Roissy/Heartiste is dangerous – very, very dangerous – because of his very seductive way of writing and presentation – and when Women like Anacaona, or Clarisse Thorn, give him undue weight in any discussion having to do with Game and the like, they/you are in essence, giving him more power.

    ON BDSM:

    Back when Ms. Walsh discussed Fifty Shades I had noticed Herb’s many comments, and I want to publicly thank him for doing so; what he presented, taken altogether, was a powerful presentation/primer, into the subculture of practices and lifestyle orientation – indeed, relationships – that has been with Humanity almost since the very beginning. This was why, in part, I didn’t see what all the fuss about Fifty Shades was about – because to me, BDSM is only one of many expressions of romantic and sexual interaction, nothing more, nothing less. But, what I will say, is that it does greatly inform, at least for me, why we Men and Women do what we do in a sociosexual sense. I don’t want to get bogged too far into a inside-baseball kind of discussion on BDSM, but what I will say is that I’m with Herb in that if people better understood the former -that is to say, BDSM – it would better equip them with the information to understand better the latter – Male/Female sexual/romantic relationships. Why?

    Because – and here we bring things round robin back to the current topic – it is part of a Man’s sexual psychology, to exclusively “own” his Woman, sexually. When she displays herself in a manner that suggests sexual availability to other Men – for example, by showing too much skin, and/or excessive makeup, and/or engaging in suggestive body language and the like – it all amounts to a constellation of signals to other Males in the round that she is sexually available, and that the Male she is currently with is UNSATISFACTORY. She is inviting the other Males to approach – and is, whether she knows this or not, putting her current Man on the spot (and perhaps this is indeed, on purpose, albeit subconsciously; after all, we’ve all heard of the “Let’s You & Him Fight” phenomenon before, right? In the community, we refer to such things as Sh*t Tests…and they are very real…) in terms of the very real possibility of having to ward off potential suitors.

    A Woman can be attractive, without being overtly sexually so, and here Ms. Walsh and others have already discussed this, so I need not belabor the point. But, more importantly, I think it’s vital for all of us, to understand WHY Men react and respond in the ways they do, to various cues put forth by Women. A big part of BDSM culture, insofar as its Male Doms are concerned, is the forward recognition of them to need to be just that – Dominant in their romantic and sexual interactions with their Women. The big strength of the community is its focus on honesty, transparency, communication and negotiation – none of which can really happen WITHOUT RELATIONSHIPS. I think Herb would agree with me when I say, that I don’t think a BDSM situation can really arise on a one night stand or “friends with benefits” basis – not without opening a serious can of worms, anyway. At any rate, I think the big gift the BDSM world brings to the more vanilla side, is that being open and honest about your needs – spefically identifying them, discussing them in an open way, and negotiating that with your partner, especially in a sexual/romantic sense, can be and is, a great thing – liberating even, I would say. In our time right now, it has become increasingly difficult, for all sides, to BE honest, in part, because of all the “shaming” and the like that is sure to come from the opinion makers and shapers, of which Feminism is one (but by no means, the only one – I want to make that clear. It’s my view that Feminism, while rightly deserving critique in its own right and on their own merits, also tends to get undue flak, which is hugely important when one considers the Manosphere.)

    For example, just as most Men need to feel Dominant over their Women (and numerous EvoPsych studies done by Buss and others backs this up), many, many Women NEED to feel submissive to their Men (which again, is backed up by the studies Buss and others have done, to say nothing of the groundbreaking research done by Ogas); indeed, this is what Fifty Shades of Grey, to say nothing of The Story of O, was really all about – the natural need of the Male and Female to be Dominant and Submissive (yes Herb, I hear you loud and clear – not all Men and Women are that way. I get that, and have no problem with it – for the most part, I’m a live-and-let-live kind of guy. But I think you would agree with me, that the evidence – both rigorously scientific and anecdotal – supports what I’m saying here in the main. Would you agree?). This is the natural way of things – something that both Ogas and Buss have clearly borne out in their respective works, to name a paltry few. This is something that is deeply unsettling to the likes of Feminists and other Postmodernists, by the way – because it threatens, deeply, their preconceived notions of how the world is supposed to work. This is why, in Game circles, we refer to this whole ball of wax “The Matrix” and when one learns Game – which is indeed deeply informed by EvoPsych – one then gets the Neo Experience of “seeing” The Matrix (and yes, Style says this in The Game).

    So – what ARE Women saying, in their huge response to Fifty Shades of Grey? Well, they’re saying – at least as far as I can tell – that they want their Men – that’s a huge factor to acknowledge here, because these Women ARE ALREADY mated – to bring (more, if it applies) Dominance, ALONG WITH THEIR LONGTERM PAIRBONDING SKILLS, so as to satisfy her needs psychosexually, which is to submit to a clearly stronger, confident, more powerful Male, WHO BRINGS THE SENSITIVITY GAME WITH AND ONLY HER.

    Well ladies, if you didn’t know already, Game addresses that.

    Very, very well, I might add.

    Far from seeing Fifty Shades as some kind of indictment on the whole of Modern Day Manhood by Today’s Women and/or some kind of brutal expose’ as to the “true” sexual nature of Women (as Roissy/Heartiste would have us believe), I see it as a clarion call for Men to rise to the occasion and to give their Women what they so desperately want and need – just like I saw the purpose of Steve Harvey’s bestselling book (IMMENSELY SUCCESSFUL) and equally phenomenally successful move adaption, Act Like A Lady, Think Like A Man – Harvey is giving a much-need window onto Male Sexual Psychology to Women – and by all accounts, Women have eaten it up. As one who’s taken the time to actually investigate what Harvey’s had to say, it is hard for me to find disagreement with him – if anything, I find myself standing shoulder to shoulder with him on many, many points.

    ADDRESSING LOOKING FOR A BETA

    The problem I had with your points was similar to that I had/have with Anacaona’s, at least in part – you’re intellectually lazy. To give the reasons as to why you haven’t read The Game, is nothing short of intellectual laziness, which contributes to your overall ignorance of the finer points and history of Game as we know it today in our time.

    For example – Roosh, practices a modified form of the Mystery Method. In fact, so does Roissy/Heartiste, and most of the other Game writers out there (including yours truly). Very, very few Gamesmen employ, for example, Ross Jeffries’ methods. And all the rest, like Juggler, D’Angelo and so forth? At best, they’re variations on the Mystery theme. That’s not to say they bring little to no value to the table – far from it – just saying to you that you probably wouldn’t know that if you didn’t even take the time out to read The Game for yourself.

    Now, don’t get me wrong – I actually like many of the things Roosh has to say – hence my quote and linking to him above in the thread. I admire his take-the-bull-by-the-horns approach to life that, to be frank, I found was sorely lacking and downright lame over at Roissy/Heartiste, who would constantly whine, b*tch and moan about American Women, but then wouldn’t actually DO anything about it. Roosh gives actionable advice to those Men who have had it with American Women and wish to go elsewhere. While I don’t agree with his and Roissy/Heartiste’s views when it comes to American Women, I do respect Roosh’s sense of personal agency.

    Having said that, I’ve also gone on record in rebuking him for an incident that went down a few years back that I shall not reference specifically, because he was in clear violation of one of the most fundamental tenets of Game. It is for this and other reasons, that I consider him something of a Game Darksider, though not to the degree and on the same level as that of Roissy/Heartiste – the latter I would consider Sith, and if you ask other Game writers, like Mark Manson and others, they would agree with my distinction. It is one, with a major difference.

    In any event, your to date lax study habits flows into one of the oft-mentioned “problems” with Game; that it somehow has been taken over by snakeoil salesmen and the like who are only interested in selling their wares to unsuspecting dupes of Menfolk. While I would be the first to acknowledge the existence of such types in the seduction community – heck, where don’t they abound, in any area of human endeavor? – I would also be the first to say, that such “concern trolling” is just a weebit overwrought. For one thing, as you rightly note, a guy can get a heck of a lot of Game materials and instruction for free, so long as he has access to the Internet; and if he’s just a weebit saavy, he can actually buy a few books (and I would definitely include Bang here) for little or nothing.

    I know I did.

    My copy of The Game is used and I got it from Amazon, for like $10 or something like that. In fact, I’ve spent less than a C-note on my Game library, which consists of roughly a dozen or so books (of which The Story of O is one). I don’t need to tell you how easy it is to blow a C-Note in minutes on something that you won’t even remember a month later – it was one of the best investments I ever made, and makes all those dupes grinding it out in school and going into Debt For Life look like just that – dupes.

    Both Mystery and Style have talked about what a real education for a Man should entail in their respective works. They repay close study. And even at the somewhat exhorbitant rates some charge for their bootcamps and the like, they pale in comparison to again, the school debt so many Men in our time grind under. For example, the average African American is saddled with about $20K USD of school debt; for a mere sliver of the cost, that same African American Man can learn Game, and get a huge bang, pardon the pun, for the buck in terms of ROI.

    Trust you me, I have done the math.

    God bless ya – and do your homework!

    Now adjourn your arses…

    O.

    • @Obsidian

      First, I do need to point out that Anacaona, in my experience, is not pretending to be an authority on Game, or even particularly interested in debating its merits. Her own frame of reference reflects growing up in the DR, and dealing with the men in her own community. While her definition of alpha vs. beta is unique to her in these parts (and whose isn’t?), it overlaps with others’ enough to make productive discussion possible, IMO. Personally, I don’t think that reading up on Game would be the most productive use of her time as she works, is a writer, and is preparing to welcome a baby to her family.

      Second, I do appreciate your analysis of what really goes on with the cherrypicking among bloggers to distort in self-serving ways. I will be honest here – as you may know, I never write about a study using a secondary source. I always read the published paper, analyze the statistical correlates, etc. There have been many times when I’ve been madly taking notes, outlining a post, and suddenly come upon a piece of data, or an admission by the researchers, that renders my whole argument null and void. Or at least weakens it considerably. It is soooooo tempting to ignore it. I know that it’s unlikely a single reader will do the work to find it and call me out. But I can’t bring myself to do it. I always dial my presentation back to allow for that conflict or uncertainty in the findings.

      Roissy has riffed on several studies that I’ve read closely, and I’ve often felt “Aha, I see what you did there.” He often slices and dices to create a whole new (and false) set of conclusions, which always paint women in a terrible light. Naturally, this is always accompanied by self-congratulatory “I told you so’s” or “Science is finally catching up with Heartiste!”

      In short, there’s a lot of propaganda and readers should be highly critical and skeptical, particularly when they’ve been advised to alter their behavior. I expect that (and I get it, lol).

  • Kaikou
  • @ O

    I think you were addressing me when you said looking for a beta? Anyways, yes, I realize that not reading ‘The Game’ is a combination of intellectual laziness and being cheap. It very much is me circling around what The Game has spawned before picking it up. I know that Mystery’s style is the basis for most of the game sites I read online. That being said, in the 7 months I’ve had since having the red pill, my brain has been constantly stretched by the amount and variety of reading and writing I’ve done on this online. I definitely would still consider myself in the ‘student’ category of game, but I’m a damn good student who’s doing things thoroughly.

    The Game is there, its just a question of when I’ll read it. Probably in the next few weeks, honestly.

  • Actually, maybe sooner. Just checked it on Amazon for the first time for my Kindle (instead of the Barnes and Noble price) and it’s about 50% the price at 19.99 instead of like, 35 dollars when I last saw it in a book store.

  • @Leap Of A Beta:
    We are all students, good sir; there is always room for improvement.

    For all of us.

    And, my bad on getting your name wrong.

    O.

  • @ O

    Haha. True that on the learning. When we stop learning, we start dying.

    All good on the name too, figured you thought I was a chick or something and that I’d correct it. Checked my budget, bought the book, and now off to lunch and to start reading it.

    • @Leap

      Checked my budget, bought the book, and now off to lunch and to start reading it.

      It’s a great story and a great read. I read it at the rather tenacious urging of Obsidian, and felt all my reservations dissipate. The guys in The Game are good men, trying to find a way to connect with women. Even when Neil Strauss had 8 (8!) women in rotation, he was 100% honest with all of them.

  • The reason “game” isn’t a big thing for women is because for the most part, they’ve never had to develop theories or stances on how to attract the opposite sex. The way the scene is set up, 90% of women don’t have to go past putting on a nice outfit and getting someone’s attention. If they had to approach a guy cold, outside of physical, they’d be pretty limited.

    But because sex is treated as something women hold the gate to, guys have had to learn how to approach things on a psychological level. The market is skewed so that dick has no value because guys are constantly offering it, ha. There’s no need to learn game for something people have been offering you since you were 15. It’s like trying to teach a really pale person the art of getting sunburned. If you’re alive, it’ s kinda gonna happen anyway so there’s not much to be learned.

  • this is Jen

    @ Cooper

    “I really resent the idea of being selected, or selecting someone, after they’ve “had all their fun.””

    It is one of the worst things I’ve ever felt.
    ———————————————————————–

    When I first read this I thought of one of my best friends in high school- she was beautiful and dated BMOCs profusely. Ended up marrying someone completely different.

    I thought ” I wonder how much he knows and how he feels about it all”

    But then I realized that I myself married someone who had also sampled many of the opposite sex. Of course my eyes were open the whole time. And when we met I was NOT looking for a husband. He was still dating around when we first met. As we got to know eachother I did give his past a ton of consideration.

    And I don not feel like I was chosen because he was finished having fun. But maybe it doesnt work that way male to female? Only female to male?

  • SayWhaat

    And I don not feel like I was chosen because he was finished having fun. But maybe it doesnt work that way male to female? Only female to male?

    It’s possible that it just worked that way for you. Myself, I would be very opposed to being with a guy who was only with me after he’d had his “fun”. That guy can just fuck off.

  • Wudang

    This is jen:

    I think there is a gender difference here in that men reserve their strongest feelings and their strongest investment in someone who they think will be lojal and a good mother while women will often invest stronger feelings and, if they had gotten them, the strongest investment in the alphas they were having fun with. So a man who has had his fun with sluttier girls won`t be likely to ever put them higher than his safer wife or feel stronger towards them than his safer wife, in fact the oposite. That said, it is not unlikely that some freaky slut who was crazy in bed and extremely sexual gave him more raw sexual attraction and on some level better sex and he might miss that. Still the woman a man will feel an attraction towards which is comparable to the attraction a woman feels for the most alpha man she was with is reserved for the more pure, good girl, wife material woman he wants to marry. So she is still better of although if he had not “had his fun” she would have been better of.

  • Esau

    “He’s so eager to lock it down that he moves really fast and doesn’t make the female work for commitment.”

    This is a standard, oft-mentioned idea of Susan’s, that a woman won’t value a man’s commitment unless she is made to “work for it” first (so much for love at first sight). I’m not disputing it; but I have to say that I don’t have a good idea as to just what kind of “work” we’re thinking of here: fetching his pipe and slippers? answering his booty calls? Does “work for it” mean anything different from “cater to his whims”? I’m sure I’m missing the main idea here.

    • @Esau

      This is a standard, oft-mentioned idea of Susan’s, that a woman won’t value a man’s commitment unless she is made to “work for it” first (so much for love at first sight). I’m not disputing it; but I have to say that I don’t have a good idea as to just what kind of “work” we’re thinking of here: fetching his pipe and slippers? answering his booty calls? Does “work for it” mean anything different from “cater to his whims”?

      “Work for it” simply means that you have to earn a man’s affection, respect and commitment. It’s no different than any other relationship that both parties choose to create. We don’t make a stranger at a cocktail party our best friend – we test compatibility and confirm the person’s character – the likelihood that they will be a true and loyal friend.

      “Love at first sight” is of course not possible. It’s just a powerful physical attraction. In my experience, most of those relationships don’t stand the test of time. For example, I wonder what percentage of impulsive weddings in Las Vegas end in divorce.

      We’re all very familiar with male skepticism of a woman who grants access to sexual intercourse right away. Odds are she’s done this before, possibly often. Her mating value is severely compromised as her partner perceives that he is nothing special – this is just her MO. He may suspect that she is after his resources. (Research shows that access to resources is one of the primary reasons women evolved a short-term mating strategy.)

      It’s the same with women and commitment. When a guy goes from 0 to 60 in a date or two, in constant contact, aiming hard to please, possibly expressing jealousy or ownership – the woman perceives herself as nothing special to this man. He offered commitment without even knowing her! She suspects that he is strictly interested in what she has to offer physically. In an era rife with casual sex, this has the added implication that the male is not able to acquire sex elsewhere – a sort of negative social proof.

      In short, women want to experience a mutual falling in love based on the growth of real feelings of affection. A man who short circuits the process robs her of one of the most important experiences she will ever have. That may not be his intention, but she is likely to experience it this way.

      Relationships are more likely to last if women take their time offering sex and men take their time offering commitment.

  • Emily

    >> “This is a standard, oft-mentioned idea of Susan’s, that a woman won’t value a man’s commitment unless she is made to “work for it” first (so much for love at first sight). I’m not disputing it; but I have to say that I don’t have a good idea as to just what kind of “work” we’re thinking of here: fetching his pipe and slippers? answering his booty calls? Does “work for it” mean anything different from “cater to his whims”? I’m sure I’m missing the main idea here.”

    Here’s just one idea:

    I personally think that the “define the relationship” talk should be left to the woman. I’m not saying that the guy can’t be monogamous or anything. But maybe it should be the girl’s job to worry about the actual “boyfriend-and-girlfriend” titles/”Facebook official” stuff.

  • @O
    I think I mentioned I’m a woman of results. When I decided to have my minor on comparative theology my goal was to find out the truth of faith as practiced by everyone. Once I learned almost everything I needed to learn in theory I spent at least six months taking studies directly from the people of faith: Mormons, Evangelicals, Jehovah witnesses, Muslim (sadly Jewish community in my country is small only two synagogues and they are wary of people approaching at least they were back them so I didn’t got that one), Buddhists, Catholics…The difference was not only abysmal it was impossible to reconcile.
    A couple of times I tried to point out some inconsistency and I got at worst anger and at best “oh…okay” with no attempts to improve or change or learn or even challenge their believe. Given that I’m a woman I’m pretty sure any critique of the method they are using because I know “The source” will have similar results so what would be the point?
    I don’t consider Roissy or Roosh a saint of game but is the saint of the students of Game, whatever he distilled from it the guys prefer him to The Game, so the real world is filled with his ideas not the original ones. Is the difference between Jesus and Paul to use another biblical example.
    So in the end the practical triumphs the theoretical, you cannot erase The Crusades by claiming that there was not enough biblical basis on 90% of their motivation. So I’m mostly being practical studying gamers as they are now, not Game as it was founded because it seems to me that was the first step and we are living farther away from that, if you consider that intellectually lazy so be it.

    • @Anacaona

      I don’t consider Roissy or Roosh a saint of game but is the saint of the students of Game, whatever he distilled from it the guys prefer him to The Game, so the real world is filled with his ideas not the original ones.

      I think this is a critical point. Online Game discussions have veered strongly away from the original source material. In the three years I’ve been blogging, there has been a strong influx of “dark” Game bloggers, and I’ve even seen some of the good guys indulging in moral equivalency to justify dabbling in unethical tactics.

      Obsidian’s brand of ethical Game is in danger of becoming extinct.

  • Michael Singer

    “Bad boys don’t get married, or if they do they tend to divorce. As you say, it’s a bad strategy.”

    You are correct – they don’t get married. With that being said, why do women get pregnant from one and then blame the man for not wanting to marry ? Entrapment through a child is cruel and perverse to child.
    Given the level of education, availability of birth control, low failure rate of birth control, and high incidence of multiple abortions. Why are there so many single mothers with illegitimate children ?

    Sounds like stupid promiscuous females getting involved with stupid promiscuous males and then blaming the promiscuous male for their own stupid choice for choosing the promiscuous male.

    “Again, the point of the study was to examine various male mating strategies. Of course some women are acting slutty, and don’t need to be exploited to have consensual sex. ”

    That is the fallacy of the study based in the definition of exploitation and the claim of men are exploiting women: Here is the definition of exploitation:
    1. To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one’s talents.
    2. To make use of selfishly or unethically:
    3. To advertise; promote.

    So how are the 14 cues the women are exhibiting are NOT exploitation ?
    How is “acting slutty” NOT exploitation according to the definition ?

    The study shows – the women use slutty behavior (SEE DEFINITION) to exploite men and blame men for getting “turned on” by a women promiscuous behavior.

  • Wudang

    “I think girls can definitely bring out alpha in guys. There was a post a while back – Caroline and Josh, I think. She worked to give him positive reinforcement for more dominant behaviors. However, if you don’t bring some dominance you’re not going to have the opportunity to get that girl to work with you. A woman can reinforce your dominant behavior and make you more comfortable about asserting dominance, but a baseline level of dominance is the price of entry. It just is. There is no way around this. The good news is that Game lays it out for you, with lots of illustrative examples.”

    About psycopathy. THe numbers aren`t one to one as the finding is that those men have many more sexual partners than average. The ratio would rather be 1:2 or 1:5 or soemthing not 1:1.

    And, although alphas get most of their partners amongst the more promiscuous women the number counts of the most promiscuous women don`t match the number counts of the most promiscuous men so those men have to have gotten large parts of their numbers from less promiscuous women. This has been the repeated finding in the studies I have seen about this over the years where there have always been more men with very high numbers than women with very high numbers. Also I know lots of men with very high numbers but very few women who are anywhere near matching them. I have male friends and friends of friends with numbers arround 100 and 150 and know tons of men with number such as 40, 50, and 70 but hardly ever meet women wtih numbers above 30 and only know about one that might be over 100. Almost every guy I know with high numbers also have had more than one virgin when they were in their teens and early twenties. This is also the experience of every guy online I talk to about this who has a high count himself or who have friends who has a high count. They have had several, often many women that where very low count or even virgins. I have also had several women that had had little or no sex outside relationships than except with me. I doubt that I and all of my friends and all of the guys I have ever discussed this with online are anomalies. Its just impossible for me to believe there is a 1:1 matching between alphas and sluts. I highly agree more promsicuous women is where alphas get most of their sex but I think you are conveniantly twisting it too mcuh in that direction. None of the guys will ever buy that story because it counteracts the experience of all of us.

    Now, for the actual numbers. This study for example show that more than twice as many men as women have had above 10 partners. That means they have gotten at least half their sex with less promiscuous women.

    “more men than women reported having sexual intercourse with 10 or more partners of the opposite sex (27 per cent of men and 13 per cent of women).”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/sexual-health-and-advice/8958520/Average-man-has-9-sexual-partners-in-lifetime-women-have-4.html

    The study also showed a bit more women than men had only had one partner which is also an important fact.

    Here is another one showing the same pattern even stronger:

    And for the highest number of partners in the study, 8.3% of women and 21.4% of men have had 15 or more partners. While the number of sex partners increased with age, by the age of 24 more than 14% of men and 7 % of women have had 15 or more sex partners.

    http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/how-many-sex-partners-do-people-really-have/

    The kinsey institute reports that amongst men:

    16% have had 11-20 partners, and 17% have had 21 or more partners

    While amongst women only:

    6% have had 11-20 partners, and 3% have had 21 or more partners

    http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html

    Which is a very strong confirmation of what the manosphere has been saying about alphas hooking up with a lot of less promiscuous girls.

    So rather than saying alphas sleep with promsicuous women it would be more acurate to say that alphas get about half or less of their sex with promiscuous women and half or more of their sex with moderately and not so promiscuous women.

  • Wudang

    “I personally think that the “define the relationship” talk should be left to the woman. I’m not saying that the guy can’t be monogamous or anything. But maybe it should be the girl’s job to worry about the actual “boyfriend-and-girlfriend” titles/”Facebook official” stuff.”

    Conventional PUA advice is to not bring up the discussion about relationship status and let her do that when she just can`t take waiting any longer and just HAS to know. That aparently is almost always at the three month mark which suggest to me that there is some sort of hormonal thing going on that forces her to define the relationship or move on.

  • Wudang

    “Bad boys don’t get married”

    But they do tend to end up with a baby her and there. Even american prison inmates have more children than average american men.

  • Michael Singer

    “Bad boys don’t get married
    But they do tend to end up with a baby her and there. Even american prison inmates have more children than average american men.”

    How is this attractive ????? LOL !!!
    Female that are “attracted” to this are stupid ( understating this to be kind)
    Stupid is forever and ugly.

  • Lokland

    @Wudang

    I have an alternate explanation for this.
    The three month mark is the point in time where a man must decide whether or not to toss her or keep her.
    It would make sense that the most evolutionarily fit women would be those that inquired at this time.

    Let me explain.

    I meet Jane now.
    We fuck.
    Three months from now in my cave with a lil fire goin roastin some mammoth Jane comes to me with her stomach bulging a lil bit.
    Claims baby is mine.

    At this I must decide whether Jane is faithful to me or if the baby is not mine. If I decide it is likely mine then I commit. If I decide not mine I do not commit and she is in a royally fucked position because I’m the one with tasty mammoth meat.

    Therefore it would make sense that woman would seeks confirmation of commitment just before baby bump shows up. It removes all that unpleasantness, especially if she has been unfaithful.

    I think 3 months is also the standard time it takes for a man to decide whether a girlfriend is keeper vs. slut pile material. I know for me I throw out “faithful” tests (analogous to shit tests) quite extensively for the first 3 months of a relationship upon which I relax their use (still throw some out even now but not very often).

  • I think 3 months is also the standard time it takes for a man to decide whether a girlfriend is keeper vs. slut pile material. I know for me I throw out “faithful” tests (analogous to shit tests) quite extensively for the first 3 months of a relationship upon which I relax their use (still throw some out even now but not very often).

    Interestingly enough I don’t connect emotionally with anyone (whether friend, lover or enemy) before the 3 or 6 months mark. I mentioned before that I don’t have first impressions and it takes me around that time to say “I think this person is X” My friend (the idiot) used to be a first impressions girl if she liked you the first day she will fell in love in like a week, if she didn’t liked you right away you were doomed forever (She actually had an orbiter for the longest time we all told her he was in love with her and we all though they will end up together…not a chance) I wonder if there is a correlation on how long it takes for people to connect and how that relates to their dating/mating choices…pondering pondering.

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “I think it was an honest mistake, but if lots of men feel like you do, then what’s required is for women to get more self-conscious about the way they move.”

    This can be related to the above.

    Let me place this shiny $100 bill (brown, not that shitty green coloured money that all looks the same) between us and take a bet that said couple had been dating for less than a year?

    Since I know I’m right (if somehow I’m wrong, please refrain from making me look like an idiot and just nod and smile) I will move on.

    The intial stages of a relationship for a man are centred around: 1) getting laid, 2) determining how faithful she is.

    1. This is self evident, no explanation required.
    2. Now how do we test this.

    Our mating is core pair bond with opportunistic cheating.

    Best way to test fiathfulness (see above)?

    i) Present new girl with opportunity and examine response.
    ii) Test new girls ability/willingness to create said opportunity.

    Theres multiple ways to do number one but all it requires is the word no. Shorter than yes and easier to say. Not really complex on how to pass that faithful test.

    Number two is about as sinister as your average guy is going to get.

    Take new girl to place filled with studs wearing provocative clothing (her not them) and test response to given attention.
    Examine to see if see seeks said attention.

    Either should be a dealbreaker.

    As you said accidents happen and I’ll concede the one presented seems entirely reasonable.

    However in early dating phase with little basis of trust established accidents can end budding relationships.

    If your example had occured in the first few weeks/months of the relationship it wouldn’t have been a fight. He would have dumped her on the spot (assuming he had any self respect).

    Later in the relationship it will lead to a fight.

    Much later maybe just minor annoyance.

    Much, much later it would probably pass unnoticed.

    My point was this:

    You should suggest to your readers that the intial dating phase (say 6 months) the guy will be subconsciously (potentially consciously) looking for reasons to rule them out as girlfriends.

    One of those disqualifiers would definetly be the creation/trying to garner attention from other males. Call it faithful tests which utilize a pass-fail system intially.

    Let me give you two personal examples.

    The fail.
    Couple girls ago I invited a girl for a St. Paddies day weekend in another city at my friends uni (we’d been “seeing” each other for about 1.5 months and she had potential.)

    On the way home…

    Your friend is really cute……….

    Never spoke to her again.

    The pass. (My fiance.)

    She dislikes slutty clothes. Another party weekend (not the green one but I can’t remeber what), same friend from above in my city.
    Bug her to wear something slutty mostly to get cred from the guys.
    Show up at a house pre-party.
    Playing beer pong with said friend.
    She sits on couch in the sexiest, littlest black cocktail dress and basically folds up into a ball. Puts a pillow on her stomach to hide.
    Three guys try and talk to her in the hour or so we’re their. She gives them the pleasent but GTFA treatment.

    Epic pass with bonus marks and award cookies and ribbons and butterflies and all that jazz.

    Note: Friend refers to friends, main friend I’ve known since we threw sand at each others castles back in the day.

    “Sorry, that’s a misunderstanding, I wasn’t clear. I meant that is a consolation prize for me, lol. ”

    I understand. Just needed to make sure.

    P.S Big letters were for attention grabbing not anger.

  • Michael Singer

    @ Lokland
    Congrats on a bastard child !!! Whoo hoo !!!
    There is more to it than what you portrayed.
    1. The child is screwed and ends up being aborted.
    – Good luck to you and girly getting over the emotional and mental trauma on that one if you ever do.
    2. Take the high road
    – Keep the kid and marry the gal.
    – Odds are against you and her making it. It takes some serious commitment and integrity to hang in there ( btw you just screwed yourself financially, career, and severely limited your options and bought your life instructor. Pretty expensive imo
    3. Dont marry the gal and she keeps the kid
    – you just picked up baggage financially, emotionally, mentally for the life of the kid or till pregnant psycho gal gets married and some other guy picks up her and your kid.

    What about the outcome of the child ? This wasn’t his/her idea to show up. It was Jane and yours.

    Permit me to ask a hard question.
    Whats your take on 2 peoples “test for a lifelong commitment / encumberment ” starts at the time of hookup and the final decision is based on the wrecking a innocent life ?

  • Lokland

    @Machael Singer

    It was a hypothetical bro…

  • Michael Singer

    Sorry bro – what you stated is reality and if you know anyone this has happened to then you have a small circle of acquaintances. Btw, USA government studies back this up.

    It has been stated the definition of insanity is repeat something over and over expecting a different outcome. That is a little too kind imo. It should include stupidity is to repeat something over and over again expecting a different outcome.

    When people hook up there are “real world” consequences. How many females have abortions a year ? How many repeat offenders ? How many single female parents.

    The mark of a real “Man” is one who is disciplined, self controlled, and responsible for his own actions. While he is at this – he will protect women and children not destroy them ( in this case – avoid sluts).
    Btw, a man will use his big head to control his little head and not the other way around. Otherwise, a male will eventually destroy himself and those around him.

  • Cooper

    @Susan

    What about Girls’ Episode 6? (see #239)

    Why did Lena have Hannah seem so unimpressed by what seemed like sincerity?

    • @Cooper

      What about Girls’ Episode 6? (see #239)

      You must agree that they were purposefully portraying that pharmacist to be nearly perfect. Obviously cast to be more attractive than Adam, better educated, working at his family run store (which he mentioned he has partial ownership!), had his own car, took her out for a nice evening, was extremely polite. What was the problem? Or were they intentionally making it seem like Hannah simply wants Adams’ commitment cause it’s unavailable?

      I didn’t like Episode 6. It was the one episode directed and co-written by Judd Apatow. Lena Dunham was careful to mention that she had nothing to do with the parents’ sex scene. For me, the episode just didn’t ring true, and I was truly repulsed by her parents having sex in the shower. Gross. Who wants to watch middle aged people having sex?

      However, I think you raise a really interesting point about Hannah and the pharmacist. I think she did find him attractive, she was obviously trying to look her best as she got ready for the evening. As you say, he was cute and nice and stable. But there were two major ways in which they were not compatible:

      1. His midwestern life has no appeal to her as an edgy Brooklyn girl. They got pizza on paper plates for dinner. The fundraiser they went to featured her high school friend Heather dancing in an embarrassingly bad way, and the pharmacist was bopping to the music, clearly enjoying himself. I think Heather thought he was lame. She wants a guy with NYC edge. Wasn’t there a scene where she says she’s a writer, and he questions what that even means?

      And remember how her mother observes that he doesn’t light a fire under her but he will do for today? (I thought that was an incredibly bitchy remark, btw.)

      2. Hannah’s taste in men is suspect for obvious reasons. Even in this SMP, she’s worse off than most women. Marnie can’t believe she keeps seeing this douche Adam that no one has ever met. Also, her recent sexual experience is rather odd, to say the least. Unlike Adam, who is always walking around shirtless and with his jeans undone, the pharmacist was quick to hide his body under the comforter and go straight for missionary. That is very vanilla by any standards, much less Hannah’s. The fact that she would try to insert her finger into his bum at the start cracked me up – what was she thinking? And then asking him if she’s tight like a baby? He was truly disgusted. (I actually thought it was hilarious). So they were not sexually compatible, to say the least.

      A woman like Hannah, who is head over heels for a rejecting slacker, is never going to give a guy like the pharmacist a chance.

      By the way, I loved how Adam said on the phone, “I miss you. I saw your name on my missed calls and I thought “Where the fuck is that girl?””

      Could it be that Adam is developing real feelings for Hannah? Hope springs eternal!

  • Wudang

    I found this discussion about the SMP 20 years ago very interesting and relevant to HUS.

  • Wudang
  • Michael Singer

    @Wudang

    good link & insight from “backbreaker

    “but i don’t think women per say have changed. i got cheated on, flaked on growing up as well lol. the main issue is that most women have very unrealistic exceptions of their pulling power.

    and in reality it’s not their fault it’s ours. we have created a vicious cycle. all the AFC’s out there have told all these hb 7’s that their **** doesn’t stink and they believe it.

    i will add this as well. becuase men have been so chumpish the last decade or so, it has stunted the growth of most women. most women are told becuase they look good in tight jeans and have nice tits they don’t have to do antyhing else to attract a top flight man. ”

    How this relates to this blog is this.
    Based on the definition of exploitation seen in #307 the men are being blamed for exploitation when the sluts are in truth exploiting the guys.
    In summary, if a guy thinks with his small head you will eventually get caught up up blamed and pay the price for satisfying a glandular urge without thinking about it and wrecking their lives and the females they come in contact with.

  • Emily

    >> “Conventional PUA advice is to not bring up the discussion about relationship status and let her do that when she just can`t take waiting any longer and just HAS to know. ”

    Yeah, I know initiating “the talk” always makes me feel very lame and girly. But at least I’m female. I think it just comes across as kind of vulnerable and insecure. I’m not morally opposed to guys initiating the “relationship talk” or anything, but it does come across as very “Beta”.

    >> “That aparently is almost always at the three month mark which suggest to me that there is some sort of hormonal thing going on that forces her to define the relationship or move on.”

    Haha I did it at the three week mark. :p But the main reason why I brought it up so early was because we live in different cities (not quite an LDR, but still geographically inconvenient) and it was pretty much inevitable that we would be spending the night at each other’s places. I didn’t like the idea of spending the night with a guy unless I knew that we were 100% exclusive.

  • Emily

    >> “IOI Bootcamp for women?”

    Not a bad idea. I know a lot of the guys think this knowledge should be common sense, but most women Have. No. Clue.

    Most of the advice out there is Cosmo type stuff, which is pretty much useless.

  • Wudang

    “Haha I did it at the three week mark. :p But the main reason why I brought it up so early was because we live in different cities (not quite an LDR, but still geographically inconvenient) and it was pretty much inevitable that we would be spending the night at each other’s places. I didn’t like the idea of spending the night with a guy unless I knew that we were 100% exclusive.”

    I think the three month thingy might be dependent on somewhat aloof alpha game. At least on not going in very romantic style etc. Then I think she will ask sooner.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    “And I don not feel like I was chosen because he was finished having fun. But maybe it doesnt work that way male to female? Only female to male?”

    This is probably a somewhat different scenario. A guy who has finished “having fun” implies he was never, ever serious about those other girls and actually is entering into a serious relationship with you. And yes, he is definitely still having fun with you in a way, but in a respectful way, that fully maximizes and includes you.

    What would you say if your husband was regularly taking these women on horse drawn carriage rides in the winter and in the summer to Caribbean islands and grand vacations and he wrote poems and books for these other girls.

    For you, he realllllyyyyy only bothers you for sex maybe twice a day, and other than that he barely talks to you. McDonalds for dinner.

    When you confront him on this, he says he was once a beta, and then he learned game from the Dark Lord and knows that he doesn’t actually need to do all that stupid stuff to get what he wants from you and his romantic side is dead. He is finally learning to “respect himself.”

    “@ADBG

    I’m sorry last night was a bummer. Getting blown out sucks. FWIW, I think you’ve taken a huge leap forward just by separating from the ex.”

    Thanks, Susan. It’ll be all good. It’s possible that night-game just isn’t my natural forte 😛
    But I’ve met, oh, five or six new girls in the past few days, so life goes on.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Oh and Cooper, regarding the whole “reflection on character” thing:

    Yes, it is a reflection on character.

    It is also a reflection on culture.

    No matter how desperate I got, never, ever would I roofie a girl or rape her. Society condemns this as absolutely wrong and this has how I have been brought up.

    There is no societal expectation whatosever of refraining from casual sexual activity. In fact you are MOCKED for not wanting to hook up randomly or being a virgin.

    My favorite story on this is American Pie. American Pie is actually a story about shame, about guys who feel horribly shamed by their virginity and do whatever it takes to get rid of it, and that includes doing some HORRIBLE things to people. All of them realize that they are wrong, have done bad things, and realize sex doesn’t matter that much. They all get laid anyways, because, you know, in a decent culture you wouldn’t starve your characters of sexual attentin that everyone else is getting. The protagonists do get their reward.

    American Pie has instead been twisted into an endorsement of raunch culture where casual sex is the norm.

    Now, I have had a very different experience than most people. The books I read and the culture I was exposed to put casual sex in a very negative light. My social circle did not engage in sexual sex, they were mostly AFCs so there was no real social sanction. Again and again I heard people older than me, more experienced than me, saying “I wish I didn’t have all that meaningless sex” or “I wish I saved myself,” etc.

    But other people weren’t exposed to this.

    It’s tough to be too judgmental about them when they are living in total ignorance.

  • Alias

    Wudang:
    “The article also mentioned that today about 33% of the men are getting 66% of the children. The men who get the most children are wealthy, smart and educated but get divorced and start several families. One of the topics that has not been covered well at HUS is looking at the remarriage market. ”
    ———

    Whenever the “40% of men vs. 80% of women successfully passed on their DNA” is brought up, I often wonder if rather than women participating in harems, a more likely explanation might be that due to the high rate of women dying at childbirth- the widowers simply remarried and had more children.

  • Abbot
  • American Pie

    You know I never liked the American Pie movies, bathroom humor is not my thing. I liked the Porky’s movies the best. Not sure how manosphere guys see them, but I found them funnier, of course nowadays with prostitution being illegal I guess it wouldn’t translate well.

    Whenever the “40% of men vs. 80% of women successfully passed on their DNA” is brought up, I often wonder if rather than women participating in harems, a more likely explanation might be that due to the high rate of women dying at childbirth- the widowers simply remarried and had more children.

    I think is a combination of factors men more prone and encouraged to do things that could and will get them killed (war, hunting expeditions…) and also high rates of deaths during childbirth for young women, plus widows remarrying as well, plus harems. I don’t think it was a matter of just one thing, YMMV.

    Confirmed slut tell

    There goes my plan for a tasteful tattoo at some point on the future 🙁

  • @ Abbot

    That’s nothing new. Any body modifications are a slut tell. Multiple piercings, tattoos, unnatural hair dyes, and drastic haircuts. Basically the more they do to their body, the more likely they’ll let you be one of those things.

  • GudEnuf

    It all fits together:

    1. Cads look for stupid women.

    2. The sons of cads inherit the stupidity of their mothers.

    3. They also inherit their promiscuity of their fathers.

    So we would expect that, over time, promiscuity would become correlated with stupidity (at least in men). Let me check Google….

    …well look at that!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7339654/Intelligent-men-less-likely-to-cheat.html

  • this is Jen

    ADBG says
    What would you say if your husband was regularly taking these women on horse drawn carriage rides in the winter and in the summer to Caribbean islands and grand vacations and he wrote poems and books for these other girls.

    For you, he realllllyyyyy only bothers you for sex maybe twice a day, and other than that he barely talks to you. McDonalds for dinner.

    When you confront him on this, he says he was once a beta, and then he learned game from the Dark Lord and knows that he doesn’t actually need to do all that stupid stuff to get what he wants from you and his romantic side is dead. He is finally learning to “respect himself
    ———————————————————————

    LOL, ADBG!
    This really did make me chuckle. He told me long ago that he took his prom date to Wendys for dinner.
    I have grilled him extensively- I was never the type to date a guy like him. So I was very interested in knowing how that all works.

    What I came to learn is that there ARE girls who are willing to sleep with guys like this. HE never promised anything to any of them. As a matter of fact he described a few girl he passed up because he knew they wanted more. He said they had ” stars shooting out of their eyes” for him. He avoided those, and stuck to the type of girl who would come over at 2am.

    Now that I think of it, I was more curious about what the girls were really like than anything else. And shocked and so many of the stories of how little it took to bed them.

  • Wudang

    Well, the studies on the general poppulation show the oposite pattern, alphas getting over half their sex from less promsicuous women. And these aren`t`old studies, they are current ones. THe pattern increased by age but was already crystal clear by age 24:

    And for the highest number of partners in the study, 8.3% of women and 21.4% of men have had 15 or more partners. While the number of sex partners increased with age, by the age of 24 more than 14% of men and 7 % of women have had 15 or more sex partners.

    So there is no reason to believe this generation has a different pattern wtih the promiscuous men and women aligned in a perfect 1:1 pattern. The reality is, as the numbers show, VERY different from that.

    • @Wudang

      Was there also a difference in the reported mean? Because we all know what that implies…

  • Esau

    Re Susan at 333:

    You’re re-stating the basic principle here, but you haven’t answered my specific question:

    “Work for it” simply means that you have to earn a man’s affection, respect and commitment.

    And she earns that affection, respect and commitment by doing what, exactly? What kind of thing do you have in mind? is it anything other than simply catering to all the man’s whims?

    • @Esau

      I did answer it. We fall in love when there is attraction and compatibility. Smart people also screen for character. So to earn a man’s affection, respect and commitment, she should have to display compatibility and good character. How one defines those may vary, but a man’s offering commitment to a woman he hardly knows or who has treated him poorly, e.g. flaking, shit tests, is going to be perceived as unattractive.

  • Wudang

    “Was there also a difference in the reported mean? Because we all know what that implies…”

    Not sure. But if you are implying it means that the men are lying, the only study we have looking at this found that women lowered their number a lot and men lowered their number a tiny bit.

  • @SW
    “????But I agree completely!”

    Your advice to Coop seemed a little disconcerting, particularly #266. A bit like giving a kid the keys to the car and not caring how he drives, as long as the joyride isn’t in your neighborhood. You did acknowledge the risk, that this might be help “create” more men you’ll ultimately have to warn your target female demographic to avoid. That’s quite a double-edged sword to wield. Hopefully this isn’t taking one step forward and two steps back. I don’t think the current SMP is suffering from an overabundance of commitment-minded guys, quite the opposite.

    He obviously has misgivings about game, which is marketed as a catch-all solution. I’ll agree that he can certainly benefit from some focused assertiveness in the right environment, with the kinds of girls he’d find compatible. I probably employed something similar, but it wasn’t around complete strangers. Trying to date an unknown quantity probably has the lowest success rate these days.

    “Relationships are more likely to last if women take their time offering sex and men take their time offering commitment.”

    Agreed. Guys shouldn’t even mention commitment (or whatever euphemism fits) until sex is imminent. I didn’t, even though it was on my mind leading up to T minus zero. But the “gatekeeper” analogy for men vs. women doesn’t completely make sense. The context of first-time sex will to a large degree determine whether the relationship will even happen, let alone succeed. So I agree, women need to be in the driver’s seat on that one.

    But commitment isn’t some one-time event. BOTH parties have to agree to it first, and be “practioners” on an ongoing basis. That’s much more significant than sex at the beginning IMO. It seems like apples and oranges to compare the two. Given that about ~ 1/3 of guys these days have either eschewed commitment altogether, or don’t remain faithful once in a relationship, I’m wondering if women can afford to be so picky about which kinds of men are offering exclusivity?

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @this is jen

    “LOL, ADBG!
    This really did make me chuckle. He told me long ago that he took his prom date to Wendys for dinner.
    I have grilled him extensively- I was never the type to date a guy like him. So I was very interested in knowing how that all works.

    What I came to learn is that there ARE girls who are willing to sleep with guys like this. HE never promised anything to any of them. As a matter of fact he described a few girl he passed up because he knew they wanted more. He said they had ” stars shooting out of their eyes” for him. He avoided those, and stuck to the type of girl who would come over at 2am.

    Now that I think of it, I was more curious about what the girls were really like than anything else. And shocked and so many of the stories of how little it took to bed them.”

    So nothing he did was unable to make you feel like you weren’t special, he was absolutely into a full commitment with you and treated you well and didn’t treat you like crap. When he was going through his “fun” stage, he just using girl and treating them like crap, essentially. You’re totally different.

    The girl who “waits” for me is treating me as totally different, by denying me something that I very much want with her. By the things she WON’T do with me. Because she wants to feel special. Her way of feeling special with me, is literally treating me like crap. Her way of feeling special with me, is saying that she had much more fun with other guys, and is ready for “boring time” with me.

    Absolutely no guy wants to feel like that.

    Doubly-so for a redpill guy who is having trouble getting relationships. Dogsquat has a post about insecurities in relationships:

    http://consideredcarefully.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/on-insecurity/

    This type of girl literally confirms every single INsecurity a sexually inexperienced, red-pill guy can have. Every single one. This person doesn’t make you feel whole: They tear you down into a thousand little pieces and make you feel like a child.

    It seems guys like Megaman and Tom do not have this kind of insecurity. That is fine for them. Guys like Cooper and myself do. Pairing up with girls who think like this and act like this can easily become a soul-crushing experience.

    @ Susan
    ” So they were not sexually compatible, to say the least.”
    What? This is the first time they were having sex and they barely knew each other! Maybe if they actually established some sort of realistic, working relationship and explored somewhat sexually they could find something that worked for them.

    Good sex can take just as much effort as a good relationship. It’s not magic!

    • @ADBG

      ” So they were not sexually compatible, to say the least.”
      What? This is the first time they were having sex and they barely knew each other!

      True, but the scene was written to show Hannah as wanting to experiment from the get go, talk dirty, etc. As we’ve seen, she’s hardly the type to hide under the covers. The pharmacist went at it almost furtively, it seemed to me.

      Plus, it was clearly just a ONS – not the beginning of a relationship.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Oh, also:

    “I think Heather thought he was lame.”

    Absolutely. I assume you mean Hannah thought the pharmacist guy was lame? I agree entirely. The problem is that Hannah is an immature child that she has no idea what she wants, no idea what “cool” is, and therefore has that very college-like attitude called “FOMO” or “Fear of Missing Out.” Because of this massive immaturity on her part, she is pissing away vast amounts of money and a life most would envy. And probably she would envy, too, if she could her head out of her own ass.

    But then again, I don’t like Hannah. She thought she was “in a relationship” with Adam, and then immediately wanted to fuck her boss, who is married. Hannah is a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad person, and even at the end of the episode when she says Pharmacist Guy is good enough “for the day.”

    Hannah uses guys.

    Hannah uses her friend. That’s why she doesn’t care that Marnie’s relationship was ruined by her writing, except to note HOW AWESOME HER WRITING MUST BE!

    Hannah is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad. Eric didn’t dodge a bullet, he dodged a 5-megaton nuclear warhead coupled with a bad case of hemorrhoids.

    I think a couple threads ago, you asked me why I called all these girls sociopaths. To be totally honest, I am not sure that is the correct word to use, because I am not all up on the DSM terminology. But every single one of them has shown that they are willing to DEVASTATE other people’s lives and emotions, without even realizing let alone caring about the consequences, all in the pursuit of ridiculous goals like “I am unsmotable” or “I didn’t want him to break up with me” or “I wanted a good story.”

    And willing to devastate the lives of the people closest to them! Charlie absolutely loved Marine, willing to do anything. Used. Hannah’s parents love her so, so much. Used. Ex-boyfriend. Used. I guess Jessa is a special case, because the ex boyfriend wasn’t that close to her, but Jessa has demonstrated no emotional connection to anyone.

    I know you’re rooting for Adam and Hannah to get together, but I personally hope Hannah has her heart treated like monkey-meat some more, because she so clearly deserves it.

    • @ADBG

      I reluctantly concur re the entitlement, narcissism, and general fucked up-edness of the girls on Girls. But I don’t think they’re alone. Hannah’s ex was gay! If being in a relationship with her in college wasn’t using her I don’t know what is. Marnie definitely used (abused) Charlie’s love for her. Shoshanna wanted to use a guy as a virginity swiper. Jessa is clearly an opportunist.

      Still, I can’t hate them. I loved “I am unsmotable.” We’re not meant to admire these people, we’re meant to laugh at them.

  • FeralEmployee

    @SW 338

    By the way, I loved how Adam said on the phone, “I miss you. I saw your name on my missed calls and I thought “Where the fuck is that girl?””

    Could it be that Adam is developing real feelings for Hannah? Hope springs eternal!

    *K.O.’s Susan’s hamster*

  • Abbot

    “The market is skewed so that dick has no value because guys are constantly offering it”

    That is why so many women, especially the promiscuous ones, cannot understand why nearly all commitment-oriented men place value on vagina and how a woman treated it. They fail or do not want to see it from the male perspective, only their own.

  • @Abbot

    Exactly. A woman who can and is willing to see the other side of the coin will empower herself and benefit her sex and dating life. Those who don’t probably just never met a guy who made them confront these truths.

  • this is Jen

    ADBG says.

    So nothing he did was unable to make you feel like you weren’t special, he was absolutely into a full commitment with you and treated you well and didn’t treat you like crap. When he was going through his “fun” stage, he just using girl and treating them like crap, essentially. You’re totally different.
    —————————————————————–

    If you mean what I think you mean here…which is he treated me well, then yes, you described it correctly. BTW I don’t know that he treated every woman before me like crap, but he certainly didnt have to work hard to notch count them.

    Then again — I doubt I would have put up with any bad treatment. I was in no way looking for a relationship at that point in my life, havng just been thru a divorce from the first guy I ever slept with. At that time I was soaking up all the info I could about the way women and men interacted.
    —————————————————————–
    ADBG says
    The girl who “waits” for me is treating me as totally different, by denying me something that I very much want with her. By the things she WON’T do with me. Because she wants to feel special. Her way of feeling special with me, is literally treating me like crap. Her way of feeling special with me, is saying that she had much more fun with other guys, and is ready for “boring time” with me.

    Absolutely no guy wants to feel like that.
    RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • @Susan
    Thank you for you comments about my choices. 🙂
    Obsidian probably already made up his mind but thank you nevertheless.
    Since is brought up I want to clarify my interest on Gamers and Men’s rights.
    1) I actually want to live in a fair world. I already lived on “Asshole supremacy island” and I didn’t wanted to escape on “Bitch supremacy first world”. As limited as my condition as a woman make me to completely grasp the suffering of the average Beta male I do feel for them as much as I feel for my single female friends back in my country. I do see them as the victims of this situation and I wish to give as little help as I can.
    2) I choose to trade my culture for my husband’s and raise a family here. I don’t believe on going unprepared to face any situation I’m learning everything about the challenge my kids will face (male and female) in the future in order to offer them a clear view of the world so at least whatever choices they make they are informed. Sadly in daily interactions PC culture has lead to shallow relationships, people can’t speak of certain things because it will make people feel uncomfortable. Thus I need to dig deeper, I already spent almost two years among feminists (and I still have some feminists I read like The feminist breeder) and I looked for the other side of the argument to find that IMO feminism is in its Age of terror stage and thus I side with the issues and concerns men have about dating and men’s rights places, since I think they are more in need of help than females at this point.
    3) I also want to serve as the warning label missing in many of this advices for men. Herb mentioned that the first feminists wavers made the mistake of striving to give power to women and skew personal responsibility, consequences and ethics. Thinking that with power women will choose to be good and fair but like he mentioned women listened to sluts and the man haters instead not the ones that really wanted a gender equal work not some sort of gender supremacy. I know the mission of the manosphere is to help their brothers to not be chumps of women and to find some level of happiness and I think that is good in general terms and I agree with Susan that most gamers won’t cross the dark side… in this generation.
    But letting this knowledge out without making sure that there is some controls and understanding on the other side is dangerous. Men of the next generations wouldn’t have any incentive to act any different than modern feminists do now, punishing generations of women to come for the crimes of their ancestors, most like feminist foolishly and unfairly does with the good men of this culture. Men can become corrupted by their attractiveness in the same way women had been corrupted by their own, and end up like my country men (cheaters, neglectful parents, batterers and murderers), in few generations and even though I’m sure many of you might think is the fair thing to happen after decades of abuse or that is impossible (effectively many ancient cultures have tales of times when women ruled and abused their power and hence why they lost all rights, several of them) because is the nature of humanity: the circle of gender interactions, have always a gender trying to make the other gender pay for the sins of their parents. I would feel I would be humanistically lazy if I don’t tell what I had seen and what might happen. I believe firmly that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, so I will be the annoying reminder.
    I might be just a vulgar Cassandra and nothing I mention touches anyone struggling with the unfairness of the current market, but I will say it anyway, there must be a better way and as long as I believe it and our gracious host allows it, I will be around to tell it, is better than the alternative, IMO,YMMV.

  • @Susan
    By the way, I loved how Adam said on the phone, “I miss you. I saw your name on my missed calls and I thought “Where the fuck is that girl?””

    Could it be that Adam is developing real feelings for Hannah? Hope springs eternal!

    Here we go again, Susan . . . 😉

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @Rone

    “Exactly. A woman who can and is willing to see the other side of the coin will empower herself and benefit her sex and dating life. Those who don’t probably just never met a guy who made them confront these truths.”

    Mmmm, not sure on this. I’ve tried to explain the male perspective to several women and they refuse to acknowledge it, let alone accept it as legitimate. They don’t even understand it.

    Lokland has had similar experiences.

    Men are wrong. Men are bad. Men know nothing about relationships or morals. Women cannot do wrong by men, because women are victims.
    This is what many women have been told all their lives and, at least among the ones I have discussed some of these issues with, are unable to even consider alternative viewpoints.

    @ This is jen

    “RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
    I did.
    Though at her request I did make one last attempt to explain her problems to her.
    In retrospect, it was hilarious.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Oh, obviously, NAWALT. Proof in point: HUS.

    But it’s not a simple matter of just forcing a girl to confront the nonsense she has been taught. She has a vested interest in believing said nonsense, because otherwise she might have to admit she was at fault. This is a natural human condition.

  • Abbot

    “The trick is stay clear of the “blast site” and not to add fuel to the fire(quicken the course).”

    Here is some fuel that is sure to ignite feminists

    http://utexas.academia.edu/DavidMBuss/Papers/738778/Evolutionary_Psychology_and_Feminism

    .

  • J

    In my entire life I have seen fewer than a dozen girls dressed in really feminine and demure dresses (or skirt and blouse) that let you know they had a nice body and lots of class….It is so sexy…..However, it very often looks somewhat old-fashioned. Though, for me, that is a big plus, not a negative.

    I surprised that you don’t see it often. IME, men really respond to this look.

  • @ ADBG
    “But it’s not a simple matter of just forcing a girl to confront the nonsense she has been taught. She has a vested interest in believing said nonsense, because otherwise she might have to admit she was at fault. This is a natural human condition.”

    I simply stopped trying to show women their ridiculousness. It has only been somewhat accepted once, by a friend of mine that was having issues getting over her boyfriend and now lives in Boston. She still has issues, because she has only half heartedly accepted that she’s at fault and refuses to examine her own faults, says that she’s just the way she is, and that if she even examines or tries to change it it’s not “what true love is supposed to be about.” Which was her response AFTER I gave her tough love attitudes AND had her send Susan an email because she hadn’t listened to me and I was tired of saying the same thing repeatedly.

    And that’s the best case scenario.

    Most often it just blows up in your face.

    Just see women as what they are. Don’t try to change them or make them better. Don’t try to open their eyes or take away their hamsters. They won’t thank you for it, even if they listen you’ll get a grudging, resentful thanks at best.

    Just NEXT! and find one that gets how a man wants to be treated when you meet her. Who cares if she understands how rare she is or what you had to go through to find her? I doubt she cares about that, or will thank you if you let her know. Show her your appreciation by some commitment in return for the great sex and femininity she’s adding to your life.

  • Myra

    Hello all,
    Someone mentioned that all a girl needs to do is “show up”. Well, I have been showing up and let me tell you I see no results. I meet guys, give them my number and never hear from them again. They appear interested at the time, and I always try to give indicators of interests. I really don’t know what I am doing wrong. I am 25 in good shape, dress well,and have various interests. I feel like sometimes the reason why I can’t attract a mans interests is because I’ve never been in a relationship. I am not a reform slut, I am still to this day a virgin. I’ve also tried to meet men older than me but so far no result. Any suggestions?

    • @Myra

      Are you meeting men who have demonstrated an interest in commitment? If you’re meeting guys who are looking for casual and you don’t come across as slutty, they’re not going to follow up. It’s very important to focus on the right kind of men. Where do you go to meet them?

  • Abbot

    “I surprised that you don’t see it often. IME, men really respond to this look.”

    Absolute irrefutable proof that men today want to be in the culture their lucky grandfathers lived through. Never sell yourself short.

  • Abbot

    “Someone mentioned that all a girl needs to do is “show up”

    Really? Where did you read that? Show up in what context?

  • J

    A while back he sang a lullaby to his daughter on YouTube and Roissy ridiculed him mercilessly for it. I thought it was incredibly sweet and loving.

    It’s been a while since I saw that video, but my recollection of my first impression of it was that he was gaming his daughter. I thought that, with all the references to flowers and candy, it was a bit incestuous at worst, an introduction to game victimhood at best. What’s the “best way to say I love you?” the song asks. Being present in her life? Warning her away from PUAs? Not accostuming her to bs?

    • It’s been a while since I saw that video, but my recollection of my first impression of it was that he was gaming his daughter.

      OMG, I never even thought of that! It’s been ages since I saw it too, but I recall Roissy basically calling him a chump for being a “dad.”

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @Leap

    Yep. I’m done trying to discuss things unless she brings it up and then I’m just going to explain it once and be done with it.

    The last girl I saw in anything close to a feminine dress was Elliot Reid on scrubs. Mmmmm. Skip to 5:40
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWYXGa0znBc

    Women in real life? Oh, I’ve seen it three times. Once was my sister’s wedding. The other time was March 30, 2006. It was the first warm day of the year, and she had on this beautiful floral pattern dress. Walked across campus with her head held down, because I think she was so insecure about wearing a dress on a slightly windy day. Why, I don’t know, it went down damn near to her ankle, but she still looked beautiful, if a bit old-fashioned.

    The other time was on the roof of a building. We had secretly met up. She was wearing an adorable salmon dress that came halfway down her thigh, with a very subdued necklace lined with similar colored gems, each the size of, I dunno, a quarter? It wasn’t quite warm enough, though, not in September in Chicago, so she had to put on blue jeans for the rest of the day.

  • J

    Why did Lena have Hannah seem so unimpressed by what seemed like sincerity?

    Because she’s nuts?

    Actually, I cosign Susan’s first comment. She has a big ego investment in being NYC Hannah, not mid-West Hannah. A failed plytwright outranks a successful pharmacist in that world.

    I too found her inability to enjoy reasonable vanilla sex was telling of a certain level of screwed-uppedness. He also gave her the option of slowing things down, which she refused to take.

    I had also hoped NOT to see Hannah naked again, so I was disappointed.

    • I had also hoped NOT to see Hannah naked again, so I was disappointed.

      LOL, I’ve watched the show with girls that age and they all shout EW! when Hannah’s boobs are revealed yet again. They love how comfortable she is with her body but have seen enough, thank you very much.

  • Myra

    @abbott :
    Now I sound like one of those entitled girls. Umm..…it was mentioned by someone in this tread. I would look it up but I am reading and commenting from my phone. :/

  • J

    @Abbot #362

    LOL. A few years ago, a commenter on Roissy suggested that, if I want to hold on to my husband, I should wear tight, short dresses and heels all the time. I told him I’d be happy to do that in the unlikely event that DH ever requests that. In the meantime, we went to brunch this morning. I wore a short-sleeved (not sleeveless) T-shirt that skimmed my figure, a long, full Indian print skirt and ballet flats. We got a lot of appreciative glances.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Myra, if you are a virgin and you mention it in this thread, you are telegraphing shyness, which is going to put off guys who are interested in STRs.

    And that’s pretty much the only guys that do any approaching. The guys who WOULD you want are too shy to approach a shy girl themselves. It’s like middle school, both guys and girls sticking to their own sides of the gym.

    But I can’t help you from across the internet, unfortunately.

  • this is Jen

    Women in real life? Oh, I’ve seen it three times. Once was my sister’s wedding.
    The other time was March 30, 2006. It was the first warm day of the year, and
    she had on this beautiful floral pattern dress. Walked across campus with her
    head held down, because I think she was so insecure about wearing a dress on a
    slightly windy day. Why, I don’t know, it went down damn near to her ankle, but
    she still looked beautiful, if a bit old-fashioned.

    ———————————————-

    You guys ar making me chuckle tonight. This reminds me of a dress I used to have, that I guy I knew dubbed my “ivory girl dress”

  • this is Jen

    are

  • this is Jen

    But seriously have you seen the dresses 17 year olds are wearing to prom these days? Its appalling- they look like tramps! Why are moms and dads letting their kids wear that trash??

  • Abbot

    “Why are moms and dads letting their kids wear that trash??”

    That is the core reason women take on an then defend promiscuity…poor parenting. Mal raised women. If ya can get passed the infamous “yech factor” then you’re contending with the raising of YOUR children. Good luck gentlemen

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Because 17 year olds are dumb and think they know everything. And they refuse to listen to other people that know better.

    I remember when I graduated high-school and thought I knew everything. Someone gave me a book called “Wisdom for a High School Grad.” In it, people said again and again that they thought they knew everything and then learned they were morons.

    And then I realized I was probably not the smartest guy in the world.

  • Re: David & Abigail

    I always thought Bathsheba was the real love of David’s life.

  • Abbot
  • Michael Singer

    @Belita

    David had a few wives. Abigail was the smartest of the bunch.
    I might suggest a re-read ( David took her as his wife when he a was wanted man).

  • Hope (A different one)

    “Men who are not wired for short-term mating do not find slutty girls hot, even when they want to mate and haven’t.”

    Despite everyone saying “Duh” .. this is actually really useful to me! I have often felt uneasy and kind of down around my guy friends who eagerly express how much they find girls who are revealing way too much skin, being super sexual on the DF, drunk, eyeliner smudged, just generally messy- really attractive.

    I was despairing going, how am I ever going to be attractive to anyone if that is what men want? I couldn’t behave like that even if I wanted to because I would repulse myself.. Now I can relax – because those are NOT the kinds of men I want to be with.

    Thank you Susan! x

    • @Different Hope

      You are most welcome, I too found that very interesting. If a woman can find a guy who says, “I would never get with a slut” she’s way ahead of the game.

      The same guys who find those messy girls hot don’t want them for relationships, though. They totally disrespect them. Those guys aren’t likely to want relationships at all, so women benefit from understanding that any effort directed their way is wasted.

  • Rum

    This study seems hopelessly jejune. It overlooks completely the irrelevance of male prefferences if the females are not down for it. Guys looking for stable, long term relationships have generally learned a long time ago that sluts are not likely to want to fuck them because sluts as are hypergamous as their more continent sisters and what they offer is not hot enough tonight when she wants to fuck tonight.
    Yes, women do want to fuck tonight, some of them sometimes anyway.
    Men learn to avoid going where they are not wanted.
    If sluts really wanted to fuck the average Nice Guy (TM) -like, in some alternative world- the “study” would have turned out different.

  • ADBG said:

    “It seems some guys do not have this kind of insecurity. That is fine for them. Guys like Cooper and myself do. Pairing up with girls who think like this and act like this can easily become a soul-crushing experience. ”
    ________________________________________

    Two useful questions to ask oneself when confronted with an opposing viewpoint are:

    1. What does that person want to be true?
    2. To what extent does that desire effect their objectivity?

    I like doing this little exercise especially when I don’t have a dog in the fight. It’s a good way to learn about people. Please forgive the slight alteration in your quoted passage.

    ADBG said:

    “But every single one of them has shown that they are willing to DEVASTATE other people’s lives and emotions, without even realizing let alone caring about the consequences, all in the pursuit of ridiculous goals like “I am unsmotable” or “I didn’t want him to break up with me” or “I wanted a good story.”
    ___________________________________________

    Dude, every single person on Earth is three missed meals away from being an animal – a murdering, thieving, lying, cheating, bash-your-head-in-with-a-rock-and-steal-your-food-to-survive animal.

    Even the crunchiest hippie/vegan Save The Whales college sophomore will shank your ass if it comes down to you or her…and she thinks she can get away with it. Your priorities are not her priorities. She’s descended from thousands of generations of tough, resourceful, lucky, and ruthless people – people who were cunning and strong enough to survive and reproduce successfully in a rough environment.

    Tigers do not rule the world. That nice, sweet, 120lb girl does. A practical man keeps this in mind.

  • @ ADBG
    If you’re not seeing women in dresses, you need to visit more parks in the spring/summer. Specifically parks with 20’s women/hipsters. They’re a small part of the population after you filter overweight/slutty/masculine/jeans and t-shirt women, but they still exist. Also, women that you start flirting with, tell them that you find the rare woman able to still keep in touch with her soft, feminine side through her fashion and clothing…. She’ll do it if she’s into you. She’ll dig out that summer floral print or pastel colored dress. If not, you’ve learned she both can’t take hints and/or doesn’t do feminine. Or she simply doesn’t like your leadership. Next her.

    @ Myra
    Show up in decent shape wearing the kind of fashion/dress I just described above, have a soft, demure, feminine personality to match. Then put your hand on the elbow of the guy you’re attracted to, make eye contact, then smile softly and look down while blushing.

    If he doesn’t get the idea, he doesn’t have a penis.

    @ Dogsquat

    “Tigers do not rule the world. That nice, sweet, 120lb girl does. A practical man keeps this in mind.”

    I would alter it to say her emotions/opinions do. Then the legion of white knights make it happen. I’m not sure if I blame entitled women or white knights more; I think it depends on my mood.

  • @Michael
    I know what advice you’re giving and I agree with you about Abigail being a good woman, but from a woman’s point of view, marriage to a man who already has several wives (and a future affair with Bathsheba about to happen) just isn’t an inspiring love story.

  • Leap of a Beta said:

    “I would alter it to say her emotions/opinions do. Then the legion of white knights make it happen. I’m not sure if I blame entitled women or white knights more; I think it depends on my mood.”
    _________________________________
    Yes, that argument can be made.

    I’m referring to something slightly different, though.

    Mindset.

    My example of the tiger and the hippie chick was perhaps poorly chosen.
    I was trying to contrast the most (apparently) harmless creature I could think of with the most dangerous and lethal. The human’s gender in the example is unimportant.

    One is endangered, and the other is not. The reasons for this are worth considering.

  • @ Dogsquat

    Ah, ok.

    Gotta love contrast of that ruthlessness with a society empowered to ‘not hurt anyone’s feelings’

    Oh, except all those men that are losers and don’t know how to get a girlfriend. We meant everyone else’s feelings.

  • Michael Singer

    @Belita
    David was married at the to Micael ( Sauls Daughter) of whom he probably hasn’t seen in awhile.

    Abigal was a fabulously wealthy widow yet she accepted Davids marriage proposal ( what wealthy widow would want to marry the most man in the nation and chased by special forces including the king himself ?) What sane woman would do that and place herself at risk with a Bad Boy like David and his Mighty Men.

    When all was said and done – she was Davids first queen and Michal was out.

    Bathsheba was a bimbo and the downfall of David and the trouble of a lot of pain for him and his house. He was never the same after that. There is a major consequence lesson to learn from.

  • I always thought Bathsheba was the real love of David’s life.

    I always though that His Penis was the real love of David’s life. I think I had this combo with J but is worth repeating biblical patriarchs are not meant to be perfect. God commit to his word and the people he chooses to but that doesn’t mean they are without sin, the only one without sin in the bible is Jesus. The rest might help God’s work but they were doing it with a lot of human flaws that shouldn’t be imitated or overlooked, because they are part of the “God’s plan”, YMMV.

  • Lokland

    @ABDG

    Yes. I know any women when confronted with their own clockwork put up a brick wall and toss a picture of a fluffy kitten on it.

    Thats not unique to women though. See probably 90% of the male population and game. Some will outright reject it, others will read but not employ.

    Its not a chick thing. Its a people thing.
    Its called stupidity and needing to hold onto whatever ideals get them through the night.

    @ADBG. Leap, Dogsquat

    As for women being ruthless.
    So are men.

    I like DSs description but he is missing one thing.
    Leap hit on that.

    Women tend to be more devastating to others not because their any nuttier than men but because they have government, law, white knights etc. enforing their ideas/views/opinions on how the world should exist.

    Your average guy can scream and yell, throw a punch. If he is really pissed light a fire or shoot somebody. Thats peanuts compared to an entire society alligned against you.

    Do I enjoy said power imbalance? No.
    Do I live with it? Until my contracts up.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Leap Re: Feminine dress

    Funny you should say that about the hipsters, one of the girls I saw in that feminine dress style is now a hipster. The other has two hipster sisters.

    Where do you go in Chicago to find these unicorns? Just any park? Maybe I’ll stop by Millennium today.

    @Everyone Re: Women being ruthless

    Susan’s got the right idea here. Of course women can be ruthless. Everyone can be ruthless.

    I’m just talking about the Girls on Girls. These girls are being ruthless in the almost-vain pursuit of ego bursts that are ultimately going to mean nothing because these girls are vastly immature, emotionally undeveloped, and willing to screw their own best friends over for…what?

    I’d stay far away from those girls. Maybe Marnie and ShoSho are approachable.

    Also, Susan, in one of the inside-the-episode segments, LD was saying that these characters are meant to be sympathized with and she is taking a risk because girls with character flaws are not looked highly upon.

    Now, I love my girls and women with character flaws. The Kids Are All Right is one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. But those women had some pretty obvious redeeming features.

    These girls…if I could make it analogous to a war film, it’s like watching a squad of guys burning small villages at complete random because it makes them happy, and then they get pissed off and “so sad” when once in a while one of them takes some shrapnel to the face.

    But, hey, I guess maybe that’s what dating is these days. I dunno!

  • SayWhaat

    …Which was her response AFTER I gave her tough love attitudes AND had her send Susan an email because she hadn’t listened to me and I was tired of saying the same thing repeatedly.

    And that’s the best case scenario.

    Most often it just blows up in your face.

    It’s not just girls who do this. One time a guy asked me if the girl he was interested in had hooked up with any other guys. I knew that she had, and I also knew that she was trying to poach my current crush (despite knowing that I really liked him). I told the guy what I knew, warned him that he didn’t hear it from me (which he of course ignored), and then was promptly assailed by the girl in question. They were official the next week.

    The ironic ending to the story is that he eventually dumped her, saying that “she wasn’t wife material”. YOU THINK?!

    You can’t reason with people when they believe they’re in love.

  • SayWhaat

    Shoshanna wanted to use a guy as a virginity swiper.

    I know that I’m asking to be flamed by saying this, but I don’t entirely blame Shoshanna for that.

    • I know that I’m asking to be flamed by saying this, but I don’t entirely blame Shoshanna for that.

      Me neither. For starters, though he didn’t take the bait, most guys don’t object to being used for sex. It’s not like she risked hurting his feelings or anything.

  • @ ADBG

    I spend most of my free time in the area’s between Wicker Park and Logan Square, around Millennium park, oak park beach, in barnes and nobles cafes, or in coffee shops. Helps that when I’m not working at a job site, I get to do most of my drawing/drafting where ever I please. Lots of hipsters in those places. Sadly, majority of them still are overweight or suffer from hipster’s inability to dress oneself – clothes that clash in ways that are unappealing, hide all of their body, or show off bodies that are out of shape. Still, they’re the most likely group to have the rare feminine girl in a dress.

    As such, yesterday I got to day approach three women. One blew out, had a positive close (but no number because I wasn’t interested in it though she showed she was), and the last had a change of venue when she and the guy friend she was with joined me for some stoop drinking. They couldn’t resist the idea of some home made kahlua in last nights heat, and the conversation was good, so we moved it from coffee shop to my stoop.

  • SayWhaat

    By the way, I loved how Adam said on the phone, “I miss you. I saw your name on my missed calls and I thought “Where the fuck is that girl?””
    Could it be that Adam is developing real feelings for Hannah? Hope springs eternal!

    I’d like to point out that this is exactly how girls are drawn to guys who are obviously bad for them. Adam is clearly a douche, but he doesn’t act like a douche all the time. The times that he doesn’t act douchey (i.e. shows that he listens to Hannah, flirt-jokes with Hannah, and calls her to see where she is) are the times when Hannah comes back, even after she’s resolved not to. This is exactly the kind of behavior that makes women think, “does he? doesn’t he?” and wish desperately that the former is true.

    I think every woman is hardwired to feel this hope every time. Even the hot ones (as Zach pointed out in another thread). Contrary to manosphere myth, women are not being pursued by guys 24/7 — as soon as a (non-offensive) guy starts showing interest, she will also become interested, even if those displays of interest are minimal (see: Grace and Brady). Every person, man or woman, has that fear of being alone. It takes a truly strong and perceptive woman to be able to stand up against that fear to avoid being toyed with by a guy like Adam.

  • @ SayWhaat

    Haha. Hilarious, if annoying for you, story in its naivety. Though I’d change your statement from “You can’t reason with people when they’re in love” to simply “You can’t reason with people.” Too many people have been told to be their unique snowflake, follow their heart/emotions/dreams, and to ‘just be true to yourself.’ I get where it comes from, but no one in America has any idea of ‘moderation’ between emotions/rational thinking, so you get the majority that think only with emotions, and a few only with reason.

    So much easier to simply learn to appeal to people’s emotions.

  • Cooper

    @Susan
    “Could it be that Adam is developing real feelings for Hannah? Hope springs eternal!”

    Are you really going to be fooled twice?

    Haven’t you realized that this show is NOT serving to be a love-story; and rather attempting to be more like a wake-up call?

    Re: Him not fitting her Brooklyn lifestyle.
    ” Wasn’t there a scene where she says she’s a writer, and he questions what that even means?”

    I think there was more to this scene. I think it started with him asking how she’s been managing without her parents money, or simply what she does for work. And she complained about how unstable her employment has been. Then he suggested why not move home if it’s not working, cause he knew of a local job he could get her. And she is quick to decline cause she is a “writer,” as if it is was her source of income. Which is why he said “what does that even mean?”
    Because up till then they’d been talking about “what it is she does” in terms of earning money and supporting themselves. Her saying “I am a writer” spoke a thousand words, IMO.

    It outlined her entire outlook. She would rather chase something non-existent than choose something available and practical. Her choosing to be unemployed in Brooklyn saying “I am a writer,” is way better than taking an available local job (the sure thing); similarily to her liking Adam or him.

    Don’t you see Lena is purposefully portraying Hannah as chasing what is non-existent? It’s this “edge-factor” than she craves, which is prohibiting her from seeing the practical options available to her.

    (the show was named “Girls” and not “Women” for reason – don’t cha think? Dunham is purposefully protraying the irrational immaturity of these young women, no?)

    • @Cooper

      Don’t you see Lena is purposefully portraying Hannah as chasing what is non-existent? It’s this “edge-factor” than she craves, which is prohibiting her from seeing the practical options available to her.

      (the show was named “Girls” and not “Women” for reason – don’t cha think? Dunham is purposefully protraying the irrational immaturity of these young women, no?)

      Yes, I totally agree. She’s acknowledging the entitlement, narcissism and immaturity of 20-something women in America today. ADBG doesn’t find the characters sympathetic but I do, actually. Both the girls and the guys. Most of them are knuckleheads, stumbling along.

      We might wonder what the hell Hannah is thinking to stay broke in NYC and get hung up on an unavailable jerk, but we feel empathy for her just the same. At least, I do. If the show goes on for several seasons, it will be interesting to see whether the characters mature, or just stay the same (like they did in Seinfeld).

  • Joe

    @SayWhaat

    I’d like to point out that this is exactly how girls are drawn to guys who are obviously bad for them. Adam is clearly a douche, but he doesn’t act like a douche all the time.

    40 years ago and more, the psychologist B.F. Skinner was floating the idea that the surest way to create an addict was to use a random schedule of positive reinforcement. When you reward a bird with birdseed every time for pecking on a button, he’ll peck until he’s sated. Reward him randomly for pecking and he’ll never stop pecking.

    Ouch.

  • Abbot

    These festers and walkers never actually admit what it is they want so they couch it as

    “we wanted to address issues of sexual assault and victim blaming.”

    But it seems that what they want is for men to accept women any which way they are presented and to completely overlook what they have done in the past. This goal is so overwhelming that they have created all these fests and walks yet their demands are vague, purposely or otherwise.

    “race and class intersect with gender and sex-negativity to contribute to sexual violence”

    So, being negative about sex leads to violence. Okaaay.

    “ConsentFest 2011 was planned as a day-long event, combining a SlutWalk with a day in the park where entertainers and speakers could make their messages heard.”

    Heard by whom? Who is the target listener? Why is there never a clear and consistent list of demands for men to consider?

    http://www.consentfest.ca/about/

    .

  • Myra

    @Susan
    I try to meet guys through my friends house parties. Also, by meeting mutual friends of my coworkers and networking events in my area. Its funny that you mention short term relationship guys, recently a friend/guy that I had a thing for told me why I don’t go out there and have “more fun”.
    It didn’t take long after that to me to realize what he wanted. I keep my distance from him now a days.

    • @Myra

      Those are good places to meet guys. Stick to your guns, and don’t give up. The most important thing is to select the right man, and then to give him unmistakable IOIs. Lots of times women think they’re being obvious or even aggressive and the guy has no clue. In your case, I think the right man is going to be someone of limited sexual experience himself. There are plenty of men your age and older who have not been players, and who don’t have casual sex. You need to find them – those guys are going to value your virginity, not treat it as a burden or indicator your being “no fun.”

  • Abbot

    “Reward him randomly for pecking and he’ll never stop pecking.”

    And struggle with stopping even when attempting to adapt to a fixed schedule [marriage]. Do not marry a conflicted person. Step away form the hookup cauldron when its time for a wife.

  • Cooper

    Great posts!

    #344 (Megaman), #345, #346 (ADBG), #347 (Feral)

  • It outlined her entire outlook. She would rather chase something non-existent than choose something available and practical. Her choosing to be unemployed in Brooklyn saying “I am a writer,” is way better than taking an available local job (the sure thing); similarily to her liking Adam or him.

    Ohh this might make me interested on the show. Most people I know that “are writers” have steady non glamorous jobs to pay the bills while they wait for the writing to make them big enough to pay the bills or just consider it extra cash income. It would be interesting to see how that works in the show…I’m curious now.

    (the show was named “Girls” and not “Women” for reason – don’t cha think? Dunham is purposefully protraying the irrational immaturity of these young women, no?)

    Is like the movie Little Children in that aspect then. Stupid adults acting like Little Children.

    “ConsentFest 2011 was planned as a day-long event, combining a SlutWalk with a day in the park where entertainers and speakers could make their messages heard.”

    *HeadMeetsPalmMeatsDesk*

    Reward him randomly for pecking and he’ll never stop pecking.

    This is interesting in the book Mating in Captivity that I also read the writer recommends certain level of distance to keep a man sexually interested. I dunno I didn’t recommended it because the advices were a bit…odd. Just wanted to mention the book in case anyone knows it.

  • @ A Definite Beta Guy

    “Mmmm, not sure on this. I’ve tried to explain the male perspective to several women and they refuse to acknowledge it, let alone accept it as legitimate. They don’t even understand it.

    Lokland has had similar experiences.

    Men are wrong. Men are bad. Men know nothing about relationships or morals. Women cannot do wrong by men, because women are victims.
    This is what many women have been told all their lives and, at least among the ones I have discussed some of these issues with, are unable to even consider alternative viewpoints.”

    I’ve had those experiences also, but my positives have outweighed the negatives. The late Patrice O’Neal had a satellite radio program called “The Black Phillip Show” that spoke about game and relationships.

    When women can’t see outside of themselves, it’s typically from an emotional stance. I “feel” this way, so I don’t want to consider the other side, or because I “feel” this way, your stance has no merit. Patrice O’Neal described cutting through the emotion with logic as “medicine,” or giving women another option on how to think and feel.

    I’ve applied this to my relationship and gotta say, it’s worth the persistence. In order to shift the balance to have your needs and desires met, it’s a must that you give her another way of thinking so that she can’t just blow you off as if the male’s point of view doesn’t matter. This isn’t going to happen in one conversation, but requires you to give her “medicine” eating through her desire not to see your point of view with logic.

    And once you alter the rules of engagement for her to confront you on a logical standpoint rather than emotional, you have to keep it there and not entertain anything that tries to blow up your stance from a strictly emotional point of view.

    So I don’t think of it as trying to explain something, I look at it as my duty to prioritize what I want and need. I feel what I feel, so if she doesn’t understand it, that’s fine. But I damn well make sure she acknowledges it, because my thoughts and needs are every bit as valid as hers.

  • Abbot

    “I “feel” this way, so I don’t want to consider the other side, or because I “feel” this way, your stance has no merit.”

    Is that why the Constitution and the Republic itself is now being compromised? Half the population seem happy to create rules that govern the entire way of life on feelings rather than necessity.

    The Constitution brings necessity within itself, making everything necessary to do constitutional. It does not adopt the squeamish attitude that something is constitutional because it is moral and necessary to do outside the Constitution. Ignoring necessity leads to ruin or to hypocrisy. If necessity is left outside the Constitution, principles shrivel to wishes or “values” or “feelings.”

  • SayWhaat

    @ Joe:

    40 years ago and more, the psychologist B.F. Skinner was floating the idea that the surest way to create an addict was to use a random schedule of positive reinforcement. When you reward a bird with birdseed every time for pecking on a button, he’ll peck until he’s sated. Reward him randomly for pecking and he’ll never stop pecking.

    Bingo.

    If there is any “empowerment” we must arm young women with, it should be the ability to recognize and detach from a futile situation.

    Granted, it takes a lot of inner strength and maturity…

  • If there is any “empowerment” we must arm young women with, it should be the ability to recognize and detach from a futile situation.

    Granted, it takes a lot of inner strength and maturity…

    That would be a good post for HUS. The trap of the “push and pull” or “If he is ambiguous and erratic RUN!” I think 80% of the success of the players is probably do to this “feeding hope” at random intervals so everytime the woman is emotionally on the edge of moving on she gets sucked in. That was problem with stupid Smallville. One brilliant episode (usually the season premiere and the finale) and then 15 episodes of pure suck sprinkling some good ones between them to keep me hooked. Never fucking again.

    @Susan
    The issue is that even if Adam does develops whatever he calls affection for Hannah you think he will wake up become a responsible mate, propose, buy a house and have 2.5 children with Hannah? It doesn’t matter if he falls for her or not that matters is who he is. No to mention that I’m sure that if Adam woked up one morning being the perfect boyfriend Hannah would probably treat him like the pharmacist, anyway. Relationships or commitment don’t fix fucked up people, IMO, YMMV.

  • Cooper

    “even if Adam does develops whatever he calls affection for Hannah you think he will wake up become a responsible mate?”

    Nope.

    “if Adam woked up one morning being the perfect boyfriend Hannah would probably treat him like the pharmacist, anyway.”

    Yup.

  • SayWhaat

    Speaking of Girls, did anyone catch the latest episode??

  • Lokland

    @Susan

    “For starters, though he didn’t take the bait, most guys don’t object to being used for sex. It’s not like she risked hurting his feelings or anything.”

    Bad mindset to take.

    This can lead to

    most women orgasm when being raped. It’s not like he risked her pleasure or happiness or anything.

    • @Lokland

      I don’t see it. The two barely knew each other, it was clearly a no-strings hookup. She told him she was a virgin. She wasn’t really using him in any other way than how people use each other in every casual sexual encounter.

  • Marie

    @Joe
    “40 years ago and more, the psychologist B.F. Skinner was floating the idea that the surest way to create an addict was to use a random schedule of positive reinforcement. When you reward a bird with birdseed every time for pecking on a button, he’ll peck until he’s sated. Reward him randomly for pecking and he’ll never stop pecking.”

    Is this gender-specific? Because it’s usually mentioned as something which works on women. Maybe because women don’t usually aim to do it with men?

  • Lokland

    Or as a more realistic, less dramatic example.

    With proper treatment HIV is nearly impossible to pass on. most people won’t get HIV if their partner is medicated. It’s not like they risk hurting their partner by not informing.

    PS This is a serious debate going on in Canada right now. It may become legal to not inform someone of HIV status. (The chance of passing it on when medicated now is literally infintismal. I still dislike it.)

  • Abbot

    An old article but a read of the comments shows how consistent the arguments are when it comes to this topic. The women seem to want to remain pissed off rather than make adjustments and its going to get worse for them as men are becoming more defiant.

    http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith/42_dating_advice.html

    .

  • Abbot

    “You think that short skirt says to guys, “I’m a fashion billboard!” Think again. Chad tells girls how guys see such fashion statements as advertising something completely different than a hip dresser. Chad wrings out every ounce of experience from his colorful life and uses it to help teens make informed choices.”

    More books like this are sorely needed

    http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Guys-Chad-Eastham/dp/1400309689

    .

  • @Lokland re: The Aids

    Yeah, HIV is sort of becoming a serious, chronic condition rather than a death sentence.

    The one that scares me is hepatitis, Fuck, one time I was doing CPR on a heroin dealer/user with multiple gunshot wounds. Somehow, blood squirted into my mouth. He died despite our efforts, and it turned out he had HIV and 2 forms of hepatitis (you know there’s a hep D? Fucking blew my mind. Viruses are amazing).

    That was a long, long year. I almost quit working in health care. Nothing happened to me, but it’s still in the back of my head every time I get an STD screening or a physical.

  • Cooper

    “We might wonder what the hell Hannah is thinking to stay broke in NYC and get hung up on an unavailable jerk, but we feel empathy for her just the same. At least, I do. If the show goes on for several seasons, it will be interesting to see whether the characters mature.”

    I don’t share the empathy. I think it would be a damn shame for Dunham to highlight all that is wrong with them, then let them escape unscaved. I think with the direct this show is heading, their all for a whole bunch of hurt.
    (not that I wish it upon them)
    I think Marnie is going to get to see Charlie find someone special and severely regret not appreciating him. I think Hannah is going to keep getting strung along until Adam literally disappears from her life without notice. (and his absense of formally saying goodbye will truly let Hannah know what he thought of her the entire time.)
    Jessa will probably end up pregnant with that married mans’ child. It’s only Shoshanna that I feel may be used an example of what was they should have done.
    Bottomline, this show has a ton of heartbreak lined up for these girls – that the feeling I get with nearly every scene. (again, not that I wish it on them – but the writing is on the wall)

    I just get the sense that if they don’t have big heartbreak endings that all the highlighting of immaturity will be of no importance.

  • @SW
    “If a woman can find a guy who says, ‘I would never get with a slut’ she’s way ahead of the game.”

    I also thought this was the most interesting part of the study. Especially, the *even if they are not getting any* part. The stereotype still lingers, wrongly I might add, that guys will take it wherever they can get it. And if they can’t get it from the “easy” chicks, they still want it anyway. I’d describe my guy friends as on Team R, in the marriage market. We never used to go out looking for these kinds of women. I guess we never took them seriously WRT dating.

  • Joe

    @Marie

    Is this gender-specific?

    I’ve never seen anything that says woman, as a class, are more prone to addiction than men, as a class. There are indications that men get addicted to different things than do women, though.

    I have seen that there’s a tremendously wide variation among people. Some are just going to become addicts to something, no matter what you do. Others never will. From a non-definitive source:

    Another issue interestingly related to addiction is the relative relationship between these abuses and addictions regarding gender. A collection of recent studies have shown that male adolescents are more active in early drug and alcohol experimentation and that men in general are four times more likely to become dependent on alcohol, twice as likely to routinely use marijuana, and one and a half times more likely to become addicted to cigarettes. Conversely, female adolescents are far more likely to experience the activities associated with behavioral addictions, and women far outnumber men in addictions to eating, binging and purging, thus developing eating disorders at a greater rate.

    This stratification may either evidence a key difference in the nature of addictive personalities and a link to gender, or it may discredit the theory as a whole, depending on perspective.

  • Abbot

    “There are indications that men get addicted to different things than do women”

    Women can and do get addicted to casual sex more than men do. Men would at the same rate if it was cheap, easy and always available on a whim, but for men that is not the case.

    Who wants to commit to such an addict, “former” or otherwise?

  • Underdog

    @Dogsquat

    Fucking crazy story. Glad you’re okay, bro.

  • Lokland

    @DS

    That must have been really freaky.

    @Susan

    I’ve never seen the show.
    I’m more against the logic of
    X probably doesn’t care about Y so its okay. (Don’t mean this to an extreme point obviously. I want my suprise parties with the little horn thingies and paper hats.)

    • @Lokland

      I’m more against the logic of
      X probably doesn’t care about Y so its okay.

      You’re right, that is totally unacceptable. As always, deception, whether outright or by omission, can be avoided by clearly communicating one’s intentions. I’ve heard plenty of stories where both men and women have said very clearly up front “I’m not looking for anything serious.” Even with a ONS. I respect that.

  • Cooper

    @SayWhaat
    I’ll be watching last nights episode tonight.

    @Susan

    Do you really think that this show, or at least this season, can end happily?
    What example would that be sending?

    See I think may be the difference between the sexes; despite all their previous indiscretions women hope to, or would more happily, see all end well. (as in some triumph that love conquers all)
    Where as I, and Im not sure about the rest of the guy viewers, would much rather see that the universe corrects itself – and see that those, deserving indeed do, get what they deserve.

    • @Cooper

      See I think may be the difference between the sexes; despite all their previous indiscretions women hope to, or would more happily, see all end well. (as in some triumph that love conquers all)
      Where as I, and Im not sure about the rest of the guy viewers, would much rather see that the universe corrects itself – and see that those, deserving indeed do, get what they deserve.

      This is very interesting, and I think you are correct. Women tends to have their heads in the clouds that way.

      I don’t think the show is going to provide happy endings. I think it’s going to portray life pretty accurately. Some things will work out, at least for a while, lots of things won’t. I believe that Lena Dunham, based on her post-episode interviews, is quite concerned about character growth, or at least providing the characters with opportunities to grow via life experience. That is why I hope that we do get to see the characters live and learn, as opposed to continually making the same stupid mistakes again and again (though that too can be very realistic).

  • J

    @SW

    I reluctantly concur re the entitlement, narcissism, and general fucked up-edness of the girls on Girls.

    It’s a generational thing. Teens – post-college age kids are all narcissists. It’s the fault of our generation sadly.

    but I recall Roissy basically calling him a chump for being a “dad.”

    All a part of Roissy’s “charm.”

    They love how comfortable she is with her body but have seen enough, thank you very much.

    I share that feeling. The first few times it was brave; now I’ve seen enough. I’m also hoping that Lena will earn enough money from “Girls” to laser off those damn tats.

  • J

    Could it be that Adam is developing real feelings for Hannah? Hope springs eternal!

    I believe he has feelings for Hannah. I also believe he’s a fairly fcuked-up individual. She should stay clear, but she won’t. They’ll do some sort of bizarre little dance that briefly gets them into a relationship that will damage them both.

  • Herb

    @Tasmin

    You see, we see ourselves as being pretty much the same
    men we have always been – so why am I such a catch now, at 39? Part of
    the challenge is that while it may be incredibly flattering to have a
    woman basically tell you they want to have your babies, it just
    doesn’t ring the same when that statement is coming from a 35 y/o who
    has prefaced that statement with tales of self-indulgence, wanderlust,
    optional masters-degrees, foreign escapades, and/or how hard it is to
    find a ‘good’ man over 30 who wants a relationship and does not have
    kids from a prior relationship or whatever else. It just feels a
    little too convenient.

    Yes…

    And convenient is the word I’ve been missing. We become visible when
    it’s convenient to the woman.

    @Obsidian

    I think Herb would agree with me when I say, that I don’t
    think a BDSM situation can really arise on a one night stand or
    “friends with benefits” basis – not without opening a serious can of
    worms, anyway. At any rate, I think the big gift the BDSM world brings
    to the more vanilla side, is that being open and honest about your
    needs – spefically identifying them, discussing them in an open way,
    and negotiating that with your partner, especially in a
    sexual/romantic sense, can be and is, a great thing – liberating even,
    I would say.

    Oh, kinky swingers exist and play dates exist and play partners who
    aren’t exactly romantic partners exist.

    But, they tend to all be much better about negotiating limits and
    making sure both parties understand and agree to those limits. In
    that sense there is a difference. People don’t go to the club and
    play thinking that play date will get them a partner long term. It
    might but people still see it as a step. The more casual the playdate
    is the less likely it is to happen. If I see you at the club and we
    negotiate a quick scene for whatever reason you might not even talk
    again. If we meet at an outing like a munch and spend the next month
    seeing each other twice and negotiating a playdate for a party at the
    end of that month, well yeah.

    Because we were dating up to that point.

    That’s our adavantage. Because what we do is out of the mainstream
    and we openly negotiate limits, what’s allowed, and so on we have to
    communicate. You see someone three or four times before playing to
    negotiate the odds of you talking about things outside of BDSM get
    higher.

    Add in how much it is expected behavior to read and go to classes on
    relationship and you see that it isn’t the BDSM per se making the
    difference but the culture around it. It’s that being out of the
    mainstream we don’t think we know it all and thus accept we have to
    learn.

    Here’s a great example (and it ties back to reading The Game as
    is being discussed). Here is a partial list of relationship (not
    erotica) books on my shelf that I’ve either read or have in the
    reading queue (partial because I’m not at home and might forget some).
    The Bottoming Book, The Topping Book, SM 101,
    Screw the Roses, Give Me the Thorns, The Loving
    Dominant
    , At Her Feet, Slavecraft, The
    Surrendered Wife
    , and Living M/s. That leaves out books
    that are strictly physical how-to books although some of the above
    have some how-to. Still, that’s nine books and they are not all
    submissive specific. Two, in fact, are aimed at dominants/tops.

    If you don’t have a boyfriend/girlfriend how much reading are you
    doing about how to be attractive to the opposite gender, how to
    behavior, and, perhaps most importantly, how they think? If you think
    by being born, straight, and available you know it all I think I see
    one of your problems.

    In our time right now, it has become increasingly
    difficult, for all sides, to BE honest, in part, because of all the
    “shaming” and the like

    Notice the big relationship skill above I talked about was
    negotiating? You have to be open about what you need, want, and are
    willing to compromise to negotiate. You need to learn to talk about
    things you’re afraid to discuss.

    Negotiating should be part of every relationship, from a vanilla first
    date to an M/s couple’s final contract at collaring.

    this is what Fifty Shades of Grey, to say nothing of The
    Story of O, was really all about – the natural need of the Male and
    Female to be Dominant and Submissive (yes Herb, I hear you loud and
    clear – not all Men and Women are that way. I get that, and have no
    problem with it – for the most part, I’m a live-and-let-live kind of
    guy. But I think you would agree with me, that the evidence – both
    rigorously scientific and anecdotal – supports what I’m saying here in
    the main. Would you agree?).

    Oh, I’m an outlier. Then again, the Dom men and sub women in the
    community are probably outliers too in terms of being fringe.

    BTW, The Story of O is much hotter than I suspect Fifty
    Shades of Grey
    hopes to be. If you want some S&M porn it, Anne
    Rice’s Beauty books (which were my gateway drug), and Laura Antoniou’s
    Marketplace books are a great start. While I’m listing, if you’re
    open to gay male porn Mr. Benson is really, really hot.

    Speaking of Stephan and O, in the S&M world you’ll often hear people
    refer to a couple’s honeymoon phase as their “Sir Stephen and O”
    phase. It’s in learning to go beyond that phase and maintain the
    relationship (and roles within it) that is hard.

    BTW, I want to reiterate something I know I’ve said but I suspect some
    people will miss: I do not argue any superiority to BDSM (unlike
    some) in bringing these results. Any degree to which that community
    does better than society as a whole is a by-product of being outside
    the mainstream and people entering it assuming they need to learn “how
    to do it”. Even then, the relationship stuff initially seeps in as a
    side effect of going to classes on “how to do S&M” when what they
    really want is how to use a flogger.

    @Abbott

    “The market is skewed so that dick has no value because
    guys are constantly offering it”

    That is why so many women, especially the promiscuous ones, cannot
    understand why nearly all commitment-oriented men place value on
    vagina and how a woman treated it. They fail or do not want to see
    it from the male perspective, only their own.

    There is a reason over 20% of my relationship books are oriented
    towards the type of people I want for a partner. Knowing how they
    think is crucial for me getting what I need and want.

    Game does that for mainstream straight men. What are all the ladies
    who come to HUS after googling “Why don’t I have a boyfriend?” doing
    to understand how men think and what men want.

    Do you know how powerful that knowledge is? As I said in an early
    post I answered a general discussion question at SJW using knowledge
    drawn to a large degree from HUS and explained the male thinking that
    shaped my answer. Yesterday I learned that on the feedback my insight
    into male thinking (27 people, 22 female at SJW) was very helpful. In
    fact, I’ve been asked to present at SJW next year because of it.

    If women really want that answer not only should they read HUS for
    strategy and tactics but the Rs and others for insight into male
    thinking.

    Look at the trouble “this is Jen” is having grokking why waiting makes a guy nuts (although she did get it at the end).

    I ran the scenario by my gf today: woman has been hooking up by date three but wants the new guy to wait six weeks because he’s special. Her answer, “you want to start doing that don’t have sex with anyone for a year first.”

    @Ana

    Ohh this might make me interested on the show. Most people I know that “are writers” have steady non glamorous jobs to pay the bills while they wait for the writing to make them big enough to pay the bills or just consider it extra cash income. It would be interesting to see how that works in the show. I’m curious now.

    Austin Kleon’s Steal Like An Artist (about being a working artist) has an entire chapter called “Be Boring: It’s the only way to get work done” with headings like “Take care of yourself”, “Stay out of debt”, “Keep the day job”, and “Get yourself a calendar”.

    When I saw him speak last month I first thanked him for including it and asked if he got push back on that chapter. He said the only people who did (wanting to embrace the starving, carefree, risktaking artist) were people who weren’t successful. Everyone actually making money from their art (full or part time) that has commented on it has told him it is spot on.

    @SayWhaat

    If there is any “empowerment” we must arm young women with, it should be the ability to recognize and detach from a futile situation.

    While I don’t disagree that’ll be a hard sell. Right now we’re empowering them to demand everyone else conform to their fantasies. That’s a pretty heady brew.

  • J

    @Say Whaat

    I’d like to point out that this is exactly how girls are drawn to guys who are obviously bad for them. Adam is clearly a douche, but he doesn’t act like a douche all the time.

    That is called intermittent reinforcement. It works on guys too B.F. Skinner discovered it before Roissy did.

  • J

    @Cooper #397

    Great post!

    @Joe #398

    I see you got to Skinner before I did!

  • Herb

    @Susan

    We might wonder what the hell Hannah is thinking to stay broke in NYC and get hung up on an unavailable jerk, but we feel empathy for her just the same. At least, I do. If the show goes on for several seasons, it will be interesting to see whether the characters mature, or just stay the same (like they did in Seinfeld).

    I think you have captured why the show doesn’t interest me.

    I hated Seinfeld.

    Everyone’s description tells me I’m in for the same kinds of characters.

    @Lokland & Dogsquat

    PS This is a serious debate going on in Canada right now. It may become legal to not inform someone of HIV status. (The chance of passing it on when medicated now is literally infintismal. I still dislike it.)

    Yeah, HIV is sort of becoming a serious, chronic condition rather than a death sentence.

    This is a big issue for gay men because it has driven efforts at prevention way down. Between a sense of fatalism about getting it anyway and the fact it’s a survivable condition people are taking it much less seriously.

    Plus, we’ve never treated AIDS/HIV in a public health way the way we should have. Standard procedures that are used in any outbreak were illegal for privacy reasons which were just the gay rights community using it to push legal changes. You can see it in the gay male attitude about conventional STDs in the late 80s in NYC and SF (when getting anal gonorrhea was a badge of honor in sticking it to the normals). The fact that they achieved their aim on a pile of bodies has bothered some in retrospect but not most.

    The one that scares me is hepatitis, Fuck, one time I was doing CPR on a heroin dealer/user with multiple gunshot wounds. Somehow, blood squirted into my mouth. He died despite our efforts, and it turned out he had HIV and 2 forms of hepatitis (you know there’s a hep D? Fucking blew my mind. Viruses are amazing).

    Indeed I did. In fact, I’ve had the vaccine for Hep (A&B only if memory serves…Sir Dogsquat will know more) because my doctor thinks I’m gay. Seriously, being open that you’re into S&M while 40ish, single, and in Midtown Atlanta equals being gay. Why he thinks I’m okay with being open about being into S&M but not about being gay escapes me but there it is.

    @J

    I surprised that you don’t see it often. IME, men really respond to this look.

    Most women don’t dress for men, they dress for other women. This is how 3/4+ of the 80% non-casual sex women wind up looking like sluts and thus only attracting men who want sluts.

    @Cooper

    I don’t share the empathy. I think it would be a damn shame for Dunham to highlight all that is wrong with them, then let them escape unscaved. I think with the direct this show is heading, their all for a whole bunch of hurt. (not that I wish it upon them)

    The network will insist on a SitC ending where a decade of rejecting decent men, slutting it up, and being horrid icons of consumer culture result not in STDs, single motherhood, and being alone but fantasy rich guys sweeping you off your feet. See my point about entitlement equaling everyone else has to play in your fantasy world.

    • The network will insist on a SitC ending where a decade of rejecting decent men, slutting it up, and being horrid icons of consumer culture result not in STDs, single motherhood, and being alone but fantasy rich guys sweeping you off your feet.

      No way, it’s HBO.

  • @SW
    “If the show goes on for several seasons, it will be interesting to see whether the characters mature, or just stay the same (like they did in Seinfeld).”

    I thought the Seinfeld gang actually got *less* mature as the series went on. It was intentionally absurdist, at least that’s what Seinfeld and Larry David have said. Seemed like they were combining a modern setting/subject matter with attempts at old-fashioned schtick.

    • @Megaman

      I continue to see echoes of Larry David all over the place in Girls. I think he’s a comic genius, although I find Curb Your Enthusiasm too discomfiting to watch. It’s clear to me that Dunham grew up watching Seinfeld in reruns. In fact, in this week’s episode, there is a lot of bad dancing, a la the dancing Elaine episode.

  • J

    Most women don’t dress for men, they dress for other women. This is how 3/4+ of the 80% non-casual sex women wind up looking like sluts and thus only attracting men who want sluts.

    It’s funny. When I was in my teens and early twenties, nothing made me happier than hearing, “Oh, J, where did you get that?” from another girl. Then I realized that impressing other girls really doesn’t get a straight woman what she wants.

    • @J

      All the girls walk by
      Dressed up for each other
      And the boys do the boogie-woogie
      On the corner of the street

      Van Morrison

  • Abbot

    “We become visible when it’s convenient to the woman.”

    That would make a good post topic. But the strategy for men is to avoid this crowded field of blatantly insincere convenience mongers.

    “tales of self-indulgence, wanderlust, foreign escapades”

    Noted additions to the slut-tell list

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    @ Susan

    It’s hard to feel empathy because they feel no regret of their actions, they are totally, 100% wrapped in their own pain. They are inflicting massive pain on the other people in their lives, though.

    Plus, they do not show any redeeming virtues. What’s good about Jessa? Nothing. What’s good about Hannah? Nothing.

    I can feel sympathy for the following younger characters, in order, and explain exactly why:
    Charlie: Come on, do I have to explain why? He’s a good guy that just doesn’t know how to work a relationship.
    Ray: He’s looking out for his buddy and knows the value of McDonalds and how full of shit Marnie is.
    Adam: He’s a functional automaton, that’s having a casual relationship with a girl because that’s exactly what she wants. He does have a small tiny bit of compassion for Hannah.
    Shosho: Well, she doesn’t have positive value, really, but at least she isn’t crazy.
    Marnie: She sets up the party for Jessa when she comes home. She plans the Abortion Date. She at least tries to explain the problem with her relationship to Charlie.

    So, not a complete lack of sympathy. Just almost a complete lack.

    @ Herb

    “I ran the scenario by my gf today: woman has been hooking up by date three but wants the new guy to wait six weeks because he’s special. Her answer, “you want to start doing that don’t have sex with anyone for a year first.””

    Well, you don’t understand. Girls want male attention. The men who don’t really care about you really want sex badly, so she has to give it away so she can have male attention and validation. But because you care for her so much, she can with-hold the sex, which also makes it more special, so you should take it as a compliment.

    This makes perfect sense…from a woman’s point of view, completely ignoring a man’s point of view. I am also a guy. I also want to have sex with you. Even more so because I care about you, so I actually want sex with you MORE than those other guys did. But you think you can make me wait, so you do it anyways. I am being charged a higher price for the same thing.

  • Austin Kleon’s Steal Like An Artist (about being a working artist) has an entire chapter called “Be Boring: It’s the only way to get work done” with headings like “Take care of yourself”, “Stay out of debt”, “Keep the day job”, and “Get yourself a calendar”.

    Added that book to the must read list, thanks! :). I personally noticed that when I’m not working in a boring job I can’t write as well. In fact the most busy the more prolific so I totally endorse this idea.

  • Abbot

    “I am being charged a higher price for the same thing.”

    That in addition to being strategically duped. But only a life-long non-member of the harem can pull that off graciously. Sleep-around girls have no practice and pretty much give themselves away unless the guy is an absolute moron which is probably all that such a woman will wind up with anyway – a perfect dupee.

  • Herb

    @ADBG

    Well, you don’t understand. Girls want male attention.

    I think you misunderstood. She thinks a woman who has been relatively easy who want to hold men off for a while should quit having sex for a year. If she’s had sex in the past year it’s reasonable for a guy today to get it at the same speed guys in the past year have gotten it.

  • A Definite Beta Guy

    Was being sarcastic my good man.

    And a little treat for everyone:
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/Girls

  • Abbot

    “If she’s had sex in the past year it’s reasonable for a guy today to get it at the same speed guys in the past year have gotten it.”

    That bar keeps getting lowered. Soon it will be just a month needed to cool her genitals

  • SayWhaat

    Despite Jessa’s immense trampiness, I have to admit that the gal is eminently feminine. Another true-to-form observation from Dunham: the glamorous slut is full of feminine charm.

  • SayWhaat

    The network will insist on a SitC ending where a decade of rejecting decent men, slutting it up, and being horrid icons of consumer culture result not in STDs, single motherhood, and being alone but fantasy rich guys sweeping you off your feet. See my point about entitlement equaling everyone else has to play in your fantasy world.

    I hope not, and it may be too early to say this but I don’t think the show will head in that direction. The only misstep the show has taken so far is the one episode that was directed by Judd Apatow (I don’t think he actually “gets” the show’s MO — and I do think that it has an MO).

    Y’all need to watch the latest ep already so we can chat about it in more detail!!

  • Re: ms anacaona:
    You know, i dont have any problem whatsoever with what ms anacaona does or does not believe-thats her right and honestly i couldnt care less.

    But what i DO have a ginormous problem with is her intellectual dishonesty-which is part of the reason why i dropped out of the discussion a long way back. Ms anacaona is more than free to beleive whatever she wants but she is NOT free to make up her own facts. The problem here is that when it comes to game concepts she is flatout wrong and ive proven why i make such an assertion. That she chooses to go on believing whatever in light of these facts says something about her that has reduced my respect for her intellectual honesty to rubble.

    Nor am i in any way swayed by the fact that ms anacaona is w/child and/or otherwise really busy-not when i can at random pull up any number of posts here at hus and see her peppered throughout the comment threads. If she has that kind of time to research such things then she has the time to know what she is talking about. There is no excuse for wilful ignorance, and i for one wont tolerate it.

    Ms anacaona is wrong about game. Ive proven how and why this is so. Ive also proven how and why people like roissy are a poor representation with which to render a judgment about game. That ms anacaona still wishes to believe whatever misinformed things and ideas about game is a problem i can or should solve at this point.

    Just wanted to say that.

    Ideologues are a serious bonerkiller.

    O.

  • Abbot

    Note from the comments here that men

    will. not. change.

    http://www.dearcupid.org/question/how-many-is-too-many-sexual-partners.html

    .

  • Michael Singer

    In review of the “so called study” a old French tem came to mind:
    – Agent provocateur
    Agent provocateur – Provocative agent’ – employed to induce or incite a suspected person or group to commit an incriminating act.

    Please explain how exploitation (14 cues of women) is classified as “exploitation” ? LOL….

    It is ” reciprocal promiscuity” ie Hedonistic courting and nothing more than a devolved Rite of Spring & Fertility.
    History is self repetitive and all the so “called study” is attempting to do is “gold plate” a turd.

  • Royale W. Cheese

    At first glance, the title may read like a tautology, but after thinking about it for a minute, I appreciate the message here.

    As the post mentioned, people assume that players go after weak prey because they have to settle only after the more “high value” women turned them down. However, the article makes the premise clear that the first choice of the player is the weak prey.

    I never really thought of it that way. This is great news for a lot of women, especially for me. I always have great convos with a lot of friendly people at parties and bars, but often go home wondering why certain guys never bothered to seriously flirt. Coming away from a party not having been swooped down upon by these jokers might mean that your perceived “value” is too high. Heck, I’ll take that.

  • Cooper

    @SayWhaat
    I’m now caught up with Episode 7.

    What were your thoughts?

    Once again, I could believe what Hannah did. And Charlie/Marnie situation went down as I predicted.
    (Im not to keep the thread spoiler free, I guess – forum thread perhaps)

  • @Coop
    “Why wouldn’t anyone who has experience with the SMP, and is LTR-oriented, not be eager to get out of it?”

    You made this comment up-thread, and I must have missed it. You’ve hit the nail on the head for pretty much every single friend I have, especially the ladies. There used to be a time when most young people enjoyed dating (not sleeping with) a good portion of the opposite sex. I think that mostly disappeared after 1990.

    The primary objective these days is to meet someone reasonably compatible (not perfect, but pretty good), and NOT spend years dating for no particular reason. A strong second is to exit the SMP and no longer be single! That may seem like a bad reason to settle down, but I totally disagree. It’s a hostile dating environment out there, particularly when it comes to strangers, and it doesn’t get any easier as you get older.

  • @Royale

    Honestly, you’re right. I’ve done plenty fellas nights and thrown parties and when a dude is in the mindset of “What can you do for me tonight?” 9 times out of 10 he’ll realize from the jump whether the woman he encountered is a long-term project or temporary. If the goal of the night is no strings attached fun, the long-term project, while desirable, doesn’t jibe with the objective in front of him.

  • Bob

    ”n my entire life I have seen fewer than a dozen girls dressed in really feminine and demure dresses (or skirt and blouse) that let you know they had a nice body and lots of class….It is so sexy…..However, it very often looks somewhat old-fashioned. Though, for me, that is a big plus, not a negative.”

    My Church doesn’t lack for feminine girls. There’s nothing like being in a church party and looking around to see teenager girls with transparent dresses and their thongs and G-strings outlined, visible, and sometimes even bare to the eye. It sure does fill us with the spirit of the lord – with women who are supposed to be ”virgins” already slutting it up, at least visually, and I suspect that the thugs and bad boys lurking around aren’t waiting for the Reverend to give his blessings to the changing seasons.

    Oh well, guess I’ll have to prepare myself for when these God-fearing women, feminine, pretty(honestly, even an average-looking 15-25y old woman is attractive by design) grow tired of Alpha males and decide to sell their depreciating looks, stds, and baby-thugs to the good men and to the good boys who ask these girls and women to dance, but have to stick to the wall, LOL!

    By preparing I mean, totally ignoring them <– this is what women fear the most. Without male attention and without our resources they wither and die LOL!

  • The primary objective these days is to meet someone reasonably compatible (not perfect, but pretty good), and NOT spend years dating for no particular reason. A strong second is to exit the SMP and no longer be single! That may seem like a bad reason to settle down, but I totally disagree. It’s a hostile dating environment out there, particularly when it comes to strangers, and it doesn’t get any easier as you get older.

    I hated dating with a fire of two thousand suns so yeah I don’t see the fun or casual part of having to wonder a guys intentions or having to be afraid of saying/wearing/doing the wrong thing because you might scare off a potential no to mention how can you get anything done when you are full of angst? I guess tortured artists might enjoy it but I’m not one of those very few that need to have a boring real life in order to explore my fictional universes, so yeah hopefully efficientizing dating (getting the best out of it as soon as possible) becomes a trend at some point for the group that truly doesn’t have any fun on it, regardless how many there are, YMMV.

  • Re: Girls

    It does seem in the Hannah/Adam storyline that the writers might be moving it towards some form of relationship-type-thing, but it’s not likely to last or turn out well. And how realistic that would be in real life is, of course, another thing altogether.

    I’m really getting quite hooked on the show now, its depiction of women as non-victim-status adults having to be accountable for their stupid actions is really quite revolutionary, I’ve never seen that before in female-created fiction.

    The character of Marnie, who would be the protected princess, loved by all & blessed with serendipity in anything else, here is shown as boring, mean & self-obsessed, fucking up her & other peoples lives because she doesn’t know what she wants but believes she should have it all.

    Likewise, seeing the (physically) hugely attractive Jessa register only tedium & disgust when the poor guy she lured out to a party on a whim & then get his nose broken cries on her & seeks comfort… ouch. That was hard to watch.

    I’m not sure if the audience at large is seeing this stuff as clearly as perhaps we are here, but I’m glad it’s out there, anyway & I really hope it stays this special.

  • Tom

    Two new studies reveal fascinating evidence that manwhores are much more attracted to promiscuous women than to less sexually available women. They don’t settle for them, they strongly prefer them. Essentially, men who are oriented toward casual sex deploy “adaptive, exploitative measures against women they perceive as vulnerable.”
    _______________
    It took a study for some genius to figure this out?….lol

  • Herb

    @Megaman

    The primary objective these days is to meet someone reasonably compatible (not perfect, but pretty good), and NOT spend years dating for no particular reason.

    Wasn’t it always? Dating for me has always been a kind of hell that I just wanted to escape.

    @Ana

    I hated dating with a fire of two thousand suns so yeah I don’t see the fun or casual part of having to wonder a guys intentions or having to be afraid of saying/wearing/doing the wrong thing because you might scare off a potential no to mention how can you get anything done when you are full of angst?

    This, exactly.

    @Susan

    No way, it’s HBO.

    So was Sex in the City…I just double checked.

    • @Herb

      No way, it’s HBO.

      So was Sex in the City…I just double checked.

      Yes, and in both cases the network allowed the show to be completely controlled by the writers.

  • Abbot

    “It took a study for some genius to figure this out?”

    Fortunately it does not require a genius to figure out it feels good and right, for any reason so deemed by men, to avoid promiscuous women for anything more than friendship and sex

  • @Bob

    It was tough going to church as a teenager and trying not to stare at the girl whose thong is showing. That was about a decade ago for me, can’t imagine what it’s like for today’s teenager.

  • Abbot

    “By preparing I mean, totally ignoring them <– this is what women fear the most."

    The major point in all this for sleeop-around-women and their feminist advocates is the frightening unwillingness of what is assumed to be a captive audience – men.

  • Cooper

    Re: Girls

    Was anyone actually happy with Hannah/Adam at the end of Episode 7?

    Once again, Adam had shown no real interest, and Hanna has foolishly not asked very important questions. Adam asked her “do you want me to be you’re boyfriend, is that what you want.” – scene change – and their all in the cab together.
    I don’t think Adam even understands what “boyfriend” may even mean. He expressed that he has zero interest in sharing details of his life with Hannah. And what Hannah really should have asked was “do you want to be my boyfriend?”

    I give them a few episodes together, then he’ll split with a excuse like “look kid, I’m done playing the role in your dairy. I never wanted to stick around forever.”. (Com’on admit that it sounds like him)

    • @Cooper

      My take on Episode 7 has just gone up. I’ll start the conversation with your comment and my response.

  • J

    @SW

    I love Van Morrison.

  • FeralEmployee

    @Cooper, 426

    The hypocrisy this leads to is mind-blowing. Not only can you hear them think aloud about what an asshole you are, but they don’t seem to comprehend the inherent failure of such wishful thinking. It’s as if they rely on a man to be strict and take the heat to solve a problem, so that afterwards they can criticize him for it and tell him how they would have done it (and fail if they would, which they don’t mention).

    Luckily, I find you can pluck out those type of women easily (can’t put it in words, I’d say it’s in the stare), I avoid them like the plague whenever I can.

  • J

    There is definitely a duh element here, I agree. However, 62% of my traffic every day is people new to the site.

    Just saw this. That’s terrific. Congratulations!

    • @J

      There is definitely a duh element here, I agree. However, 62% of my traffic every day is people new to the site.

      Just saw this. That’s terrific. Congratulations!

      That’s so funny, I saw it in a glass-half-empty kind of way. If just a quarter of those first-time visitors became regulars, I’d have the largest blog in the world. 🙂

  • J

    Likewise, seeing the (physically) hugely attractive Jessa register only tedium & disgust when the poor guy she lured out to a party on a whim & then get his nose broken cries on her & seeks comfort… ouch. That was hard to watch.

    Jessa had a moment there that you may have missed. When her boss says, “I’m sick,” she answers, “I’m sick. I just can’t keep doing this.” She sees that she has a tendency to create these little dramas around her that actually hurt people and that it needs to stop. It’s an epiphany. Will she have the courage to face the emptiness inside her that causes her to act out like this? I’m waiting to see how Jessa will explore it in future episodes.

  • It was tough going to church as a teenager and trying not to stare at the girl whose thong is showing. That was about a decade ago for me, can’t imagine what it’s like for today’s teenager.

    I remember the Jezzies being up all in arms when a religious guy was talking about how modesty was important for the women going to church as to make things easier on their brothers. I always wondered why did they cared that much since most Jezzies hate religion and religious folks anyway and call religions patriarchy yet they seem to feel the right how women on religions should behave or not…I think the concept of freedom of religion is not taught on Gender Studies or liberal education.

  • J

    I hated dating with a fire of two thousand suns

    Who didn’t?

    There have been times that I’ve been so angry at my husband that I could have killed him, but I refrained because there was always a possibility of parole and having to date again.

    I will include a 😉 for the humor-impaired.

    • I will include a 😉 for the humor-impaired.

      Always a good strategy. You never know who’s lurking.

  • J

    Posts # 466, 468 ,469, and 471 are mine. I mistyped my email address and got a new avatar. Sorry about the confusion.

    Was anyone actually happy with Hannah/Adam at the end of Episode 7?

    Dramatically, I thought it was excellent. It’s a cliffhanger.

    Once again, Adam had shown no real interest, and Hanna has foolishly not asked very important questions.

    That’s our gal Hannah! Adam is correct when he points out that she really isn’t interested in a relationship with him, just in having an experience that she can write about.

    Adam asked her “do you want me to be you’re boyfriend, is that what you want.” – scene change – and their all in the cab together.

    I assume that later we will find out what happened in between scenes and that it will have great dramatic impact. Lena is a terrific writer.

    I don’t think Adam even understands what “boyfriend” may even mean. He expressed that he has zero interest in sharing details of his life with Hannah.

    Because she never asked? Or maybe that was just an excuse?

    And what Hannah really should have asked was “do you want to be my boyfriend?”

    It’s significant that she didn’t, don’t you think?

    I give them a few episodes together, then he’ll split with a excuse like “look kid, I’m done playing the role in your diary. I never wanted to stick around forever.”. (Com’on admit that it sounds like him)

    Yep. That scene writes itself.

    In the meantime though, we’ve had some background on Adam that gives him some emotional depth. The revelation of his alcoholism makes him “vulnerable” in Hannah’s eyes and “interesting.” He’s no longer just a lout with no life that Hannah knows next to nothing about; he’s a reformed alcoholic who “loves books,” hangs out with lesbians and is going to sink a boat as performance art. This episode laid out the hamster chow.

  • @Herb hubby and I feel your pain.

    There have been times that I’ve been so angry at my husband that I could have killed him, but I refrained because there was always a possibility of parole and having to date again.

    Hubby and I joke about this all the time funny enough I usually tell him “I could kill you Cervantes wrote the Quixote in jail you know?” but then he adds “You will have to date again” That usually helps to light the atmosphere. I know it sounds the most unromantic thing ever but we find it funny because is freaking true. 😉

    Maybe we should create a dating site: ihatedating.com for people that wants to meet people that are done with the SMP and just want out…right now! Not sure how popular will be because it might be just for the desperate but who knows maybe there is an audience for that too, there is a kink for everything they say 😉

  • J,

    I love Van Morrison

    Greatest white soul singer ever.

    Jessa had a moment there that you may have missed. When her boss says, “I’m sick,” she answers, “I’m sick. I just can’t keep doing this.” She sees that she has a tendency to create these little dramas around her that actually hurt people and that it needs to stop. It’s an epiphany.

    You might be right, I kind of registered that bit but then she just went on continuing being a bitch, so I actually thought she was more saying ‘I have to stop doing this with guys because of the tiresome inconvenience it brings to my life’.

    I do think there will be some change & growth in her character though. Would be nice if she inspired others to do the same.

    I’m starting to think I may just be a better looking Adam: Quite probably a sex addict, huge love of books & hangs out with a lot of lesbians. I keep a tidier apartment, though.

    • @Byron

      You might be right, I kind of registered that bit but then she just went on continuing being a bitch,

      Whoa, how was Jessa being a bitch? I thought she was a lot nicer to him than he deserved. As she said, she liked him better when *he* was a good guy. To which he said, “Ain’t that the way?” Not really.

  • J

    I know it sounds the most unromantic thing ever but we find it funny because is freaking true.

    It’s romantic that you joke about your conflicts.

    I remember my first big marital argument. When it was over, we apologized to each other. I put my head on DH’s shoulder, and he said with a big shit-eating grin on his face, “I promise you that we’ll never argue like that again.” And then we laughed our asses off.

  • Herb

    Re: Hating dating…

    I guess this is a big thing I don’t get about a lot of people, especially women, in the SMP.

    For me dating was always a means to an end once I was in the service (ie, over 19): wife and starting a family. I never got the idea of dating for fun. Oh, I tried in HS and my first year in college and sure I got laid from dating but that wasn’t the point. The point was: meet girl, get married, start adult life.

    If you want to have “fun” in your twenties WTF are you dating? Go have fun.

    Someone (Dalrock?) wrote a post about not dating unless you’re intending to marry. Regardless of the source, I think that’s sage advice.

  • Cooper

    @J
    Yeah, it’s interesting that they have provides a bunch of information about Adams life, and I think Hannah interprets all it a getting to know him better. And that it’s the shows attempt to give him “emotional depth” – to feed the starving hamsters.
    Where as I see it as us, and Hannah, simply finding out just how much Adam has not bother to devulge.
    I think Hannah felt as though Adam and her were enjoying each others company, but I feel like Adam couldn’t care less whether it was her or the lesbian he was dancing with.
    I can’t remember the scene exactly, (I’ll have to rewatch later) but there was a moment when Hannah finally talks to Adam on the dance floor, and says something like “I’m happy to see you” or “I missed you.”
    Adam has this way of responding with this look that’s like “why are you expressing this to me?” This look he often has, when Hannah says anything emotional, makes me think he really has no clue why she thinks he is interested, at all.

    Just because Hannah now *knows* more about his life, it does not mean that she is any more a part of it.

  • Tom

    Fortunately it does not require a genius to figure out it feels good and right, for any reason so deemed by”some” men…..
    There I fixed for you.

  • J

    Greatest white soul singer ever.

    He’s da shizzle. (I love saying shit like that because it annoys my kids!)

    I kind of registered that bit but then she just went on continuing being a bitch, so I actually thought she was more saying ‘I have to stop doing this with guys because of the tiresome inconvenience it brings to my life’.

    I can see that IRL, but I don’t think Lena would write it that way.

    I do think there will be some change & growth in her character though. Would be nice if she inspired others to do the same.

    Interesting…. Remember the scene when Hannah’s parents cut her off and she says that she thinks she may be “a voice of her generation”? I think Lena really is. I think (hope!) that a lot of young women will identify with the show, see themselves in the characters and question their own motives and the culture that has been sold to them.

    I’m starting to think I may just be a better looking Adam: Quite probably a sex addict, huge love of books & hangs out with a lot of lesbians. I keep a tidier apartment, though.

    LOL. I hope you waer a shirt too.

    I don’t think that Adam is really a sex addict, or a real alcoholic for that matter. My guess is that his backstory will reveal a drunken teenaged incident, followed by being coerced into AA by parents or as a term of probation. There will be a deep, dark reason for his sticking with it; it’ll answer some emotional need that he will need to address.

    Obviously, I spend too much of my time thinking about this.

  • The story of Hannah and Adam reminds me of a caution I should have written in my other comments about emotional escalation. The emotional escalation should be both ways. If he’s not interested in the girl’s background and feelings, he’s just not that into her, and she should back off.

    BTW, I hope people had a good weekend!

  • Tom

    University of Iowa study…just saying…

    Study suggests ‘hookups’ can turn into meaningful relationships

  • Cooper

    @J
    “”And what Hannah really should have asked was “do you want to be my boyfriend?”

    It’s significant that she didn’t, don’t you think?”

    Yes, extremely significant. He had JUST finished saying that he’s “not goig talk her ear off about things she doesn’t ask.”

  • J

    but I feel like Adam couldn’t care less whether it was her or the lesbian he was dancing with.

    That was an interesting scene. He tells her that he had called out after her but that she didn’t hear him; he really wanted her to know that he saw her and called out. It also really struck me that He tells the lesbians that Hannah “fcuking scares” him.

    Just because Hannah now *knows* more about his life, it does not mean that she is any more a part of it.

    That’s true. There should be a name for that sort of fallacious thinking because it’s common enough IRL. Women share stories to build relationships; they assume men do the same.

  • It’s romantic that you joke about your conflicts.

    In weird way I guess.

    I remember my first big marital argument. When it was over, we apologized to each other. I put my head on DH’s shoulder, and he said with a big shit-eating grin on his face, “I promise you that we’ll never argue like that again.” And then we laughed our asses off.

    My big first marital argument took us to therapy (It wasn’t that bad on hindsight more like bad communication and me having and empty stomach Starving Ana becomes bitch Ana really easily) and we spent the whole tape making fun of how bad therapy actually is. They made us watch a bunch of outdated videos called Fighting for your marriage and it was freaking awful no wonder people divorce so much here. At the end we kind of make peace and I think it was just a way to let us know that whatever problems we have weren’t that big and we should make sure they kept that way, we just need to be a bit more open about certain things, we had done quite well after that. Fights are usually dissipated with humor and respect from the other’s POV no to mention we don’t look to win the argument just air it and move on. That I think is really a key part of making things work, YMMV.

    Someone (Dalrock?) wrote a post about not dating unless you’re intending to marry. Regardless of the source, I think that’s sage advice.

    Cosign that to a an extent I will say that dating long is not the problem but there should be standards of dating only people that have the potential to become a spouse, dating for not reason just because the other person is attractive is a recipe for disaster, YMMV.

    PS
    I’m really sorry your romantic dreams had been shattered by the hostile SMP environment. I still hope you meet a woman that makes you change your mind and end up having what you wanted and succeed on it too. *hugs*

  • Alias

    Bob
    “My Church doesn’t lack for feminine girls. There’s nothing like being in a church party and looking around to see teenager girls with transparent dresses and their thongs and G-strings outlined, visible, and sometimes even bare to the eye. ”
    ——–

    Would you consider sending an anonymous note to your preacher with those exact descriptions and the need for them to openly discuss a dress code?
    I wonder how they would address it, if at all.
    Same with the work environment where women disregard the dress code but no one says/does anything about it even though it bothers them.

  • I can see that IRL, but I don’t think Lena would write it that way.

    Maybe. Seems in keeping with the character, though.

    My guess is that his backstory will reveal a drunken teenaged incident, followed by being coerced into AA by parents or as a term of probation. There will be a deep, dark reason for his sticking with it; it’ll answer some emotional need that he will need to address.

    You’re such a girl! That’s romance novel thinking. I hope it doesn’t work out that way, it would be too much like just another show then. I like it that Lena is just depicting the reality of the characters without a lot of cliched manipulation or judgement. The thing that is interesting about Adam is that, although he is depicted as greasy & funny looking & the owner of a really horrible shirt, the story is repeatedly showing us that there’s more to him, without explaining away the grimier corners. He’s not The Bad Guy, he just is what he is, & doesn’t pretend to be anything different. That’s actually the most attractive part of him, & probably what Hannah likes so much.

    The alcohol thing must be something bigger than just a DUI or some one-off event, for it to be such a defining part of his life 10 years later or whatever. I think he is an alcoholic, & I think he genuinely doesn’t know if he is a sex addict or not (if, indeed, such a thing actually exists).

    I hope you wear a shirt

    As I told the arresting officers, I was born naked, & I intend to die that way.

  • J

    Yes, extremely significant. He had JUST finished saying that he’s “not goig talk her ear off about things she doesn’t ask.”

    And STILL she doesn’t ask. Because she loves having him to write about, not him. She likes his being a blank page that she write on becasue it plays into her image of herself. At the being of the episode, Marnie tells Hannah that she’s built a whole “mythos” around being a loser, the anti-heroine of her own story. Hannah has more agency that she knows or wants to know. If she really knew then she’d have to abandon her literery pose.

  • Herb

    @Alias

    Same with the work environment where women disregard the dress code but no one says/does anything about it even though it bothers them.

    I learned you don’t do that. I had a friend who finally complained about a woman who had a camel-toe and excessively cleavage more often than not.

    He was told his complaining about a dress code violation was sexual harassment because she hadn’t expressed a desire for him to check out her clothing so closely. In what would be a manosphere classic if it happened today she was trying to attract some cute guy in sales. He was supposed to notice and if anyone else did they were harassers.

    Friend quickly found another job, but still we all learned a lesson (one I already learned in a post Tailhook Navy and got hit again with years later on the calendar bit).

    Of course, the main lesson I learned is no female co-workers is worth $5-10k less a year just so you don’t deal with the bullshit.

  • J

    @Ana

    Everyone argues. It’s good to know how to argue productively and respectfully.

    @Byron

    You’re such a girl!

    I can’t help it. It’s the genitalia.

    That’s romance novel thinking. I hope it doesn’t work out that way, it would be too much like just another show then.

    No, she won’t write it like that. She’ll show Hannah getting taken in by it and being hurt by it.

    I like it that Lena is just depicting the reality of the characters without a lot of cliched manipulation or judgement. The thing that is interesting about Adam is that, although he is depicted as greasy & funny looking & the owner of a really horrible shirt, the story is repeatedly showing us that there’s more to him, without explaining away the grimier corners.

    I like that too.

    He’s not The Bad Guy, he just is what he is, & doesn’t pretend to be anything different. That’s actually the most attractive part of him, & probably what Hannah likes so much.

    Maybe. It’s what I like about the character.

    The alcohol thing must be something bigger than just a DUI or some one-off event, for it to be such a defining part of his life 10 years later or whatever. I think he is an alcoholic, & I think he genuinely doesn’t know if he is a sex addict or not (if, indeed, such a thing actually exists).

    We’ll see. You could be right, but I seee it right now as an excuse for his extended adolescence than a real thing. I don’t believe in sexual addiction. Yeah, people repeatedly engage in sex because because of the bio-chemical rewards, but aren’t they supposed to?

    As I told the arresting officers, I was born naked, & I intend to die that way.

    LMAO

  • @Michael Singer
    Abigal was a fabulously wealthy widow yet she accepted Davids marriage proposal ( what wealthy widow would want to marry the most man in the nation and chased by special forces including the king himself ?) What sane woman would do that and place herself at risk with a Bad Boy like David and his Mighty Men.

    Oh, I get it now! I’m sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought you were advising women to make the same choice Abigail did, when you really meant the opposite. Thanks for taking the time to explain. 🙂

  • Alias

    Anacaona:
    “I hated dating with a fire of two thousand suns
    —-
    J:
    “Who didn’t?
    There have been times that I’ve been so angry at my husband that I could have killed him, but I refrained because there was always a possibility of parole and having to date again.”
    ———–

    Ha.
    My dating strategy was *identical* to my shopping strategy:

    – research what I want
    – know where I can get the best deals
    – save up for it
    – wait for a sale
    – bring my list of the most important features I’m going to need
    – stay within my budget
    – make sure it’s exactly what I want because I hate to have to return anything
    – don’t care to ask others for their opinions if it doesn’t affect them directly
    – this is the funny one: I rarely try anything on for size, I’m pretty good at eyeballing how well it’ll fit
    – walk straight to the register and make my purchase
    – rush the heck out of there
    – take good care of my purchases so that it’ll last me a long time

    bam! bam! done and done.

    • My dating strategy was *identical* to my shopping strategy:

      – research what I want
      – know where I can get the best deals
      – save up for it
      – wait for a sale
      – bring my list of the most important features I’m going to need
      – stay within my budget
      – make sure it’s exactly what I want because I hate to have to return anything
      – don’t care to ask others for their opinions if it doesn’t affect them directly
      – this is the funny one: I rarely try anything on for size, I’m pretty good at eyeballing how well it’ll fit
      – walk straight to the register and make my purchase
      – rush the heck out of there
      – take good care of my purchases so that it’ll last me a long time

      bam! bam! done and done.

      Brilliant!

  • J

    @Bellita

    That’s pretty much how I shop too!

  • @Alias
    Heh we already mentioned that it looks like smart shoppers are smart daters. Hope and I shop at Ross dress for less and I know that many of my hiergamous friends are really into shopping just because. I have a friend (single mother of two different assholes, first baby at 15) that shops almost daily and leaves her clothes in the closet for years you can actually find clothes with the tags on it, her sister usually gives away her clothes and she doesn’t notices. I wonder if we could add spendthrift as a slut tell? MMMM

    – make sure it’s exactly what I want because I hate to have to return anything

    Oh my problem with this is that I hate having something in my closet that I haven’t wore on a certain period of time, (in my country there is no returns policies as good as here) so seeing something and say “I haven’t wore this on a year I could had used that money for something better” really drives me out of my rails. So I avoid it at all costs.

  • @SW
    “I continue to see echoes of Larry David all over the place in Girls.”

    That’s interesting. I also don’t particularly enjoy CYE, though the Seinfeld “reunion” was pretty funny. Seinfeld (the show) was great because it was a collaborative effort between the two of them. And despite being a show about nothing (i.e. nihilism), it ended with a whimper, not a bang.

    I probably won’t watch Girls, doesn’t seem like my cup of tea. The descriptions remind me of the Larry Sanders Show, also on HBO, which I probably enjoyed more than Seinfeld. It had pretty cynical humor, raw subject matter, and intentionally exaggerated and dysfunctional characters. The premise was totally different (late night talk show), but with celebrities playing themselves, only as hyper-caricatures, it was hilarious.

  • Alias

    Herb:
    “I learned you don’t do that.

    Of course, the main lesson I learned is no female co-workers is worth $5-10k less a year just so you don’t deal with the bullshit.”
    ———–

    That’s why I suggested he do it anonymously. Do you think it might be more effective that way or am I off base?

  • J

    That’s so funny, I saw it in a glass-half-empty kind of way. If just a quarter of those first-time visitors became regulars, I’d have the largest blog in the world.

    Nah, you’re doing fine. I’m tremendously impressed. If I ever decided to blog, you’d be the first person I’d ask for advise.

    Always a good strategy. You never know who’s lurking.

    Forget the lurkers. A lot of the regulars don’t get my humor.

  • Alias

    Hey Sue
    Hope you had a good holiday. Oh, and congrats on your son’s graduation!

    Susan:
    “Brilliant!”
    ————–
    Thanks.
    I forgot to add a few;

    – negotiate the price if possible
    – don’t shop online unless it’s for something I’ve already seen in person
    – read some reviews to learn about any pitfalls
    – find out the store hours
    – make sure to get a receipt
    – adhere to the tag instructions
    – save my receipt and warranties

    Which all amounted to:
    know which features are essential/non-negotiable, cutting down on wasted time, vetting properly, recognizing whose opinion isn’t valid, asking the proper questions before making the purchase, only considering unbiased opinions, going to the right venue, looking to buy the products that are actually on the market and not the displays, paying attention to the sales pitch or false advertising to detect whether they accurately describes the product or not, no window shopping pining for things I can’t afford, not falling for false advertisements, recognizing a quality product, willing to pay what the product’s worth if it’s quality, knowing that if I wait too long, inflation will reduce my purchasing power, purchasing an unused product even deliberately seeking the one on the rack that no one or few have tried on, content because I know I got a great deal, learn how to care for it.
    I could go on and on, but I’ll stop here. 😉
    Now we know why calling it a “market” is accurate even if it makes people uncomfortable.

    • @Alias

      Hmmm, I just may have to put that together as a post (with due credit to Alias, of course). The shopping metaphor really works, and you know I love the market dynamics piece.

  • @ Ana

    “Oh my problem with this is that I hate having something in my closet that I haven’t wore on a certain period of time, (in my country there is no returns policies as good as here) so seeing something and say “I haven’t wore this on a year I could had used that money for something better” really drives me out of my rails. So I avoid it at all costs.”

    Welcome to the world of most men’s views on fashion. I do the same thing – the exception being clothes that are expensive and reserved for special occasions. Those are ones I see, think of the good times I’ve had in them, and look forward to using them again.

  • Alias

    Susan:
    “Hmmm, I just may have to put that together as a post (with due credit to Alias, of course). The shopping metaphor really works, and you know I love the market dynamics piece.”
    ————–

    Huh? (gulps)
    Well, I suppose I can always change my handle from Alias to Incognito.
    I trust you’ll clean up the botched up grammar. 🙂
    (off to an undisclosed location- no, it won’t be the mall!)

  • Welcome to the world of most men’s views on fashion. I do the same thing – the exception being clothes that are expensive and reserved for special occasions. Those are ones I see, think of the good times I’ve had in them, and look forward to using them again.

    Yes but I will say that if I have an special occasion outfit that I haven’t wore on a while it stills bothers me, except for the wedding dress of course 😉

  • Whoa, how was Jessa being a bitch? I thought she was a lot nicer to him than he deserved. As she said, she liked him better when *he* was a good guy. To which he said, “Ain’t that the way?” Not really.

    Well, first off, I’m not saying she is being more self-obsessed than anyone else on the show, which is very fair that way. Her ‘boss’ Jeff has kind of embarrassed himself coming all that way to a party with a bottle of wine on the promise of something happening between them, so he comes out of it looking a bit feeble &, as he says, ‘That Guy’. But the fact is he’s there only because she got him there on a thoughtless whim, & he’s in the Emergency Room because she threw a bottle at, & then started a fight with, the crusty punks who instead beat HIM up & broke his nose, rather than beat up the pretty girl. But she displays no empathy, care or concern for him at all, or regret for her actions, only, as i said earlier, boredom & revulsion. When she says to him ‘We can still be friends’, he correctly replies ‘we were never friends’. You can’t be a friend to anyone if you care only for yourself.

    • @Byron

      You pwned me with that comment 🙂 Jessa is guilty as charged.

  • Abbot

    “Study suggests ‘hookups’ can turn into meaningful relationships”

    Evidently, a few men are sympathetic to mercy

  • Abbot

    “Fortunately it does not require a genius to figure out it feels good and right, for any reason so deemed by”some” men…..
    There I fixed for you.”

    Yes, that is more accurate because most men don’t actually have to think [deem] about what feels good and right about ferreting out sluts as totally unnecessary to consider for marriage…it is universally natural and they merely act accordingly.

    Thanks for the fix

  • Abbot

    Is this whole campaign or movement to get men to change how they think really working? Maybe the strategy of “asking” men to change would work better than making hollow wishful-thinkng declarations that things are changing.

    http://www.stage3.salon.com/2012/03/26/redefining_wife_material/singleton/

    “the idea of the “marriageable woman” has evolved dramatically — and continues to, today”

    Unfortunately for WOEs, the expressed explored and embraced, it has not not evolved at all

    “What made “wife material” a compliment is the dichotomy between the women who are and those who are not deemed worthy of putting a ring on it ”

    Why does this current universal fact annoy certain women so much?

    “And it is increasingly clear that we can all be made of wife material, but only if we want to be.”

    If women were to marry themselves, then they can finally get to determine what is wife material

  • Abbot

    Accurate or not, men writing about this subject is appearing more and more. One possible outcome is that women will be pitted against other women leading to more women on women vicious verbal attacks over who is the bigger slut. And its all good.

    http://studyitonline.com/g4g/2009/10/10-maternal-signs-how-to-tell-a-woman-is-not-a-slut/

    .

  • Herb,

    I had a friend who finally complained about a woman who had a camel-toe and excessively cleavage more often than not.

    He was told his complaining about a dress code violation was sexual harassment because she hadn’t expressed a desire for him to check out her clothing so closely.

    The real question to me is: why did he complain in the first place?

  • Herb

    @Scot

    The real question to me is: why did he complain in the first place?

    Because it was inappropriate and distracting.

    Why do I not wear sneakers out or wear just a tee-shirt many places but insist on wearing a shirt with a collar. Because there is such a thing as appropriate dress.

  • Herb,

    Because it was inappropriate and distracting.

    Why do I not wear sneakers out or wear just a tee-shirt many places but insist on wearing a shirt with a collar. Because there is such a thing as appropriate dress.

    That’s very mature.

  • Zac

    Susan, I’ve had many wonderful relationships with some of the most intelligent women I’ve ever had. I don’t know what a man whore is but I’m certainly been promiscuous in my timeI’ve had both short term and long term relationships during this time. One lasted 2 years, one 5 1/2, and my latest 7 months and on going. I definitely would never want to categorize myself as a player and I know many other guys that are much like me.

    I find this research to be rather biased and I think calling anyone a slut or man whore is a really judgmental thing to do.

    I’m sure for every guy out there that looks for an “easy lay” (for lack of a better term) or a girl to take advantage of there are just as many men who appreciate and love women that just enjoy having relationships with many of them. I feel as though so far reading this blog it’s slightly biases towards putting those men down with the bad ones. Maybe I haven’t dug deep enough yet to see you address that fact but so far what I’ve seen has seemed to attack myself and some other people I know that definitely don’t fall into the categories it seems have been set down here as final.
    Most men I know would never take advantage of someone.

    The picture at the top actually made me cringe. Whoever did that to her is mean. In a way I think it’s slightly exploitative to use a picture of a passed out drunk girl who has fun written on her leg as an image on a site. Unless she is a model and posed for it or something.

    I think you make a lot of good points. There are many really shitty guys out there that act this way. I just think you are painting with a very broad brush. Like I said though I haven’t dug deep enough into your blog to know if I’m just jumping to conclusions and getting slightly irked at a few small examples or if it’s a trend on your blog so I really hope not to offend by pointing these things out.

  • Zac

    I meant “Susan, I’ve had many wonderful relationships with some of the most intelligent women I’ve ever met”

  • SayWhaat

    I definitely would never want to categorize myself as a player and I know many other guys that are much like me.

    I find this research to be rather biased and I think calling anyone a slut or man whore is a really judgmental thing to do.

    *paging Abbot*

  • Windy

    Scot Lasley May 30, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    Some men don’t like to be used as centers of free male attention. And it’s quite annoying to be surrounded by women who are attractive and make sure the entire world knows of it. Trust me. Sweden, snowing, and very attractive 18 year olds all day in college wearing nothing but shorts and tops. WTF.

    Oh well, back to dehumanizing my sexual desires by gorging on porn.

  • NK

    Fascinating – I recognised all of this list early on in my youth and tried to actively not seem like that girl at all. I have failed a few times (drunk, attention seeking anyone?) and those were some of my most regrettable lays – !
    I would describe myself as promiscuous (trying to recover!) and intelligent.
    Is this study saying that their are no intelligent promiscuous girls out there?

    How high does my IQ need to be to prove that I’m intelligent lol

  • Abbot

    “Is this study saying that their are no intelligent promiscuous girls out there?”

    Certainly the feminists are busy right now trying to hobble one together.

    Studies, being what they are, can be interesting and great for discussion over a couple beers. But they have zero to do with how men think when selecting a woman to commit to and that is where promiscuous women are running into a wall.