Through The Valley Of The Shadow Of Human Nature

Commenter NotSursprised in yesterday’s post linked to this story:

20-year-old Nihita Biswas is engaged to Charles Sobhraj. They plan to get married after Sobhraj gets out of prison. These pictures are from Nihita’s recent interview with Kantipur TV. Charles (Gurumukh) Sobhraj (born April 6, 1944 in Saigon, Vietnam) is a French serial killer of Indian and Vietnamese origin, who preyed on Western tourists throughout Southeast Asia during the 1970s. Nicknamed “the Serpent” and “the Bikini killer” for his skills at deception and evasion, he allegedly committed at least 12 murders and was jailed in India from 1976 to 1997, but managed to live a life of leisure in prison. He retired as a celebrity in Paris, then unexpectedly returned to Nepal, where he was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment on August 12, 2004.

He’s a 64 year old serial killer. She’s a cute 20 year old girl who may or may not be low class but, if so, doesn’t look it. She is in love. They are engaged. Let that sink in for a minute.

The commenter Marcus Halberstam mentioned in the comments to my post that the world has been getting more peaceful (by what metric? random crime or full scale warfare?) and this proves that women are not selecting thuggish killers for mating opportunities. He suggested maybe 1% of women get horny for bloodthirsty sociopaths.

1% is lowballing it. If Scott Peterson receives nearly 40 phone calls from bold women pledging their love for him on the first day of his prison term (when the techie guy who updates the software on my computer gets zero calls from women year after year) then it’s a small leap of conjecture to imagine that a lot more than 1% of women are at the very least mildly turned on by the thought of sex with a dominant alpha killer. I’d estimate more like 50% of young, fertile-age women get aroused thinking about what it would feel like to be in the presence of someone like Ted Bundy. The obstacles stopping them from acting out are social controls like shaming and the relatively small pool of available sociopathic prospects.

Do I hate women for pointing this out? Or do you want to believe I hate women so you can continue la dee da-ing with your head in the sand and hope in your heart? The way to find love is to be clear-eyed about what kind of dreck it germinates in.

If you are a young man searching for meaning and trying to make sense of the world, forget the array of religions and philosophies meant to help you discover the truth. They obscure more than they illuminate. I’ve found the best way to gain understanding is to keep these two observations in mind:

At every NAAFA mixer (social events for fatties and the oddballs who want to fuck them) there are 30 obese women for each fatty fucker man.

For every cold-blooded killer getting sentenced to death, there are 30 women begging for his hand in marriage.

That is really all you need to know to guide you on the right path to personal fulfillment.
The rest is filler.





Comments


  1. Chicks dig power. Nothing new under the sun.

    I am, of course, something of a cynic, but even *I* think it’s high time for women to start excercising some discrimination in what type of power they choose to pursue.

    same as it ever was
    same as it ever was
    same as it ever was
    same as it ever was

    Like


  2. Or… maybe she’s crazy like the serial killer. Like attracts like you know.

    I know very few guys who can’t get a girlfriend. I honestly don’t think you know these legions of dudes either. And the only men I know who have all these issues with women have had one of two problems.

    They were socially awkward (which I give no excuse for. Men don’t give excuses for wierd girls with various degrees of lack of social skill).

    They kept trying to get with women who *were* out of their league.

    Like


  3. on September 11, 2008 at 4:08 pm Marcus Halberstam

    Roissy,

    The 1% figure was pure hand-waving, it wasn’t meant to be a serious estimate. If I had to bet, I’d say its a lot closer to 1% than 50%, though.

    Still, the point stands. Killers like Ted Bundy are extremely rare. “Run of the mill” murderers are around 0.01% of the population in America. We all know an undue number of females are attracted to high-profile killers (though many females are attracted to high-profile anything). It would only take a tiny fraction of women to be attracted to murderers for them to be simply flooded with pussy. I think you need to back up that 50% estimate with some sort of evidence. If you’re going to site evolutionary psychology, a link to a study would be nice.

    The fact that the world is getting more peaceful does not in and of itself suggest that female selection is the cause, but it does imply they aren’t doing a terrible job. Sociopaths are generally estimated to be between 1% and 3% of the population (I think the advantages of being a sociopath in a society full of non-sociopaths is obvious, though it has serious drawbacks as well), and the majority of those are not violent. It would be interesting to see any figures of sociopathy from different time periods, but I don’t think its really been seriously studied outside of recent decades.

    Homicide rates were down in the 20th century compared to previous ages, though I’m unsure of the figures associated with all violent deaths. Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Hitler obviously increased the total death toll (not per capita) of the 20th century far higher than its ever been before.

    As Tupac says, chicks dig power. But so do guys, and its not a fault or even a trait of a gender if certain subcultures empower thugs, or allow power to be gained via violent means (as opposed to more modern capitalistic means).

    Like


  4. By way of illustration, I think David Cronenberg’s “A History of Violence” does a fine job of sussing out the subtleties (good and bad) of violence and it’s role in society. People have an uneasy, ambivalent attitude towards violence, and for good reason.

    In particular, check this scene out starting at 7:00

    For those unfamiliar, the film follows the life of a former hitman/killer and his attempt to assimilate into small-town society by taking on a new identity. Eventually, his past comes back to haunt him and it slowly becomes apparent to his wife and son just what he is made of. The wife, being a “proper”, “civilized” sort (hi Clio!), gives him no end of grief when he needs to do what a “man’s got to do.”

    In this scene, watch what the introduction of an aggressive, “violent” dominance does to the limbic-brain psychology of the wife. And then watch as her acculturated, socialized frontal-lobes reassert themselves afterward.

    Cronenberg “gets it.”

    TC

    Like


  5. The obstacles stopping them from acting out are social controls like shaming and the relatively small pool of available sociopathic prospects.

    A good man is hard to find.

    Also, many men out there are sociopaths. They just aren’t of the murdering persuasion. The pool for these kind of men is very deep.

    Like


  6. on September 11, 2008 at 4:33 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    Excellent post! There is also that wacko family killer Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald who is married to some blonde babe — I’ve seen them on CNN. She married him when he was in prison.

    Like


  7. The way you put it I’m glad I’m not a man. You make it sound like a real man’s only option is to cater to a woman’s bad judgement. Now you and I both know that pulls in the pussy. But I still see a disconnect from pussy to “personal fulfillment.” (Maybe that’s because I have one?)

    Like


  8. They were socially awkward (which I give no excuse for. Men don’t give excuses for wierd girls with various degrees of lack of social skill).

    What do you mean? Shyness and taciturnity in a girl are not thought of negatively by most guys. In fact, many guys see them as a positive thing. Even a serious mental illness in a girl is tolerated (for a while at least) if she’s hot.

    They kept trying to get with women who *were* out of their league.

    I doubt it. All guys fantasize about perfect 10 girls, but most of them will happily settle for an average looking girl.

    Like


  9. on September 11, 2008 at 4:44 pm Marcus Halberstam

    As Lemmonex hints at, many sociopaths (or psychopaths, both more or less mean the same thing) are charismatic and charming: two traits that women are attracted to. In order for sociopaths to exist in normal society they must convince others they are normal, and doing this requires charisma.So its not always the case that women are attracted to the sociopath as much as it is that the sociopath fools the woman into thinking he is normal. A true sociopath doesn’t care about anyone, and has no conscience whatsoever.

    I think its also important to remember that we evolved to use violence, but only in certain situations. In tribal times, something like one out of three deaths was due to violence, but inter-tribe violence was much rarer. We haven’t changed that much, but our circumstances have. Women should absolutely be attracted to men who use violence in appropriate situations, but those situations are rare. In other words, evolution shouldn’t have shaped the female mind to say “violence > non-violent” as much as “violent at the right times > non-violent at the wrong times > violent at the wrong times”. Of course, some bitches are just crazy and screw this up. What can you do?

    Like


  10. Status is status. The higher the better. While a prison inmate convicted of murder will get 30 marriage proposals, a wealthy celebrity who is only guilty of killing his own braincells in a drug binge will receive ten times the number of marriage proposals….from hotter women no less.

    Like


  11. Shyness and taciturnity in a girl are not thought of negatively by most guys. In fact, many guys see them as a positive thing. Even a serious mental illness in a girl is tolerated (for a while at least) if she’s hot.

    Being shy or introverted is not a huge dating handicap for a woman. It’s much worse for a man. On the other hand, being moderately overweight or funny-looking is not a huge dating handicap for a man. It’s much worse for a woman.

    Like


  12. on September 11, 2008 at 4:55 pm Marcus Halberstam

    Grace,

    They were socially awkward (which I give no excuse for. Men don’t give excuses for wierd girls with various degrees of lack of social skill).

    I’m with J, it doesn’t really matter to guys. Complete lack of social skills (e.g., a pure nerd) is very rare with women. A guy won’t take home an awkward girl to meet mom and dad if he can help it, but he’ll still sleep with her, and those girls are much, much rarer than the equivalent guy.

    They are also very self-reinforcing. A guy who is never successful with girls will likely remain awkward around them, thus never be successful, and thus remain awkward.

    They kept trying to get with women who *were* out of their league.

    Agreed. This is really the biggest problem most people have.

    Like


  13. Violent crime, measured by the homicide rate, has been plummeting in Northwestern Europe since about 1500, although there are fluctuations around this tendency. In Southern Italy, it has been down since the 1800s. Wars also kill a lower percentage of people than before — about 1/6 of French males killed in WWI compared to about 1/2 of German males in the 30 Years War.

    It’s probably due to the strong centralized states that emerged in the modern period, plus the more obedient and hardworking merchant classes (“middle classes”) outbreeding the thugs. It pays a lot less to be a thug in England in 1700 than in 1200.

    I haven’t seen any studies on China or Japan, but I’ll bet you see the same rough picture.

    Like


  14. “and this proves that women are not selecting thuggish killers for mating opportunities”

    Without doing a lot of data collecting, it certainly doesn’t appear that serial killers have high reproductive output:

    David Berkowitz – 0
    John Wayne Gacy – 2
    Ed Gein – 0
    Jeffrey Dahmer – 0
    Charles Sobhraj – 1
    Richard Ramirez – 0
    Ted Bundy – 0
    Charles Manson – 1

    Techie guys on the other hand often end up in stable lifelong marriages with 2+ children. As Michael Blowhard indicates, these are the men who are overwhelmingly satisfied with their lives at the 30 year class reunion.

    Like


  15. lemmonexxx:
    A good man is hard to find.

    …and a bad man is good to find.

    Also, many men out there are sociopaths.

    you say that like it’s a bad thing.

    ps: your new avatar doesn’t look like you. but i’m digging the devil’s nail polish.

    Like


  16. 9 Marcus Halberstam;

    As Lemmonex hints at, many sociopaths (or psychopaths, both more or less mean the same thing)

    Not that it matters, but a distinction I have seen made between the two is that the sociopath is fundamentally *dependent* on others, i.e., he *needs* to harm others to be himself, whereas the psychopath merely feels indifferent towards others, seeing them merely as tools.

    Like


  17. It’s the nurturing gene gone dysfunctional.

    Male sociopaths trigger the nurturing genes in some women. Convicted sociopaths are the ultimate “fixer upper” that will respond only to her superior loving.

    Like


  18. I stand by my men don’t give socially awkward girls a chance. I’ve TOTALLY seen that one go down with some of the men that I’ve been friends with. And by chance, I don’t mean, “Oh, I’ll monster it for tonight.” All social awkwardness is not shyness. Various ticks, talking too loud, not understanding how to read social situations, collecting dolls, etc… But, these same men expect random pretty girl to want to get with, wait for it… their awkward friend who’s a guy, because he’s nice.

    And in response to J: No, a lot of men who do the most whining, really don’t settle for average girls. That’s usually why they’re still single, or whine all the time. The average on a 10 scale, is a five. From the comments here, a lot of the men seem to think that they would be SETTLING with a seven. Which is still two points above the average. Note, going for someone beyond your reach.

    Like


  19. I think a lot of it has to do with the wishy-washiness of modern men. Men nowadays can’t even decide where the couple should eat these days! “I dunno, what do YOU wanna eat?” You hear it all the time. Plus they don’t want to lead, they’d rather follow. And they’re afraid of conflict and sticking up for themselves.

    One thing about serial killers and criminals: they’re not afraid to make decisions and stick with them (deciding to kill someone and carrying it through is the ballsiest decision you can make) They’re leaders in a warped way, since they refuse to follow laws and social norms and make their own rules. And they aren’t afraid of conflict and asserting their will.

    Like


  20. And then of course there’s this.

    I wonder what’s his allure.

    Like


  21. Grace (#18):

    I agree with you. I do believe that shyness (when combined with sweetness and prettiness, anyway) isn’t crippling to girls the way it is for guys, but there are other behaviors filed under “socially awkward” that are dating death for girls. Oddly, too much confidence is one of them. Most people (men and women) seem to prefer sweet, slightly retiring women to more formidable ones, even when the formidable ones are prettier.

    (I don’t buy into the idea that guys go for looks alone. I think there are certainly personality traits — like an eagerness to please — that they’re looking for as well.)

    Like


  22. Oops. That should have been “certain personality traits,” not “certainly.”

    Like


  23. 20 Slumlord:

    I wonder what’s his allure.

    Free room and board.

    Like


  24. Also note: the only socially awkward trait that was brought up for women, shyness/pacitivity. This is seen as a good thing, but only on pretty girls where men could use this to their advantage. Trust, in every high school/college, I’ll even reach back for elementary school, there are always wierd kids. If you’re a guy and you don’t remember any wierdos who were girls, it usually means that you didn’t notice her to begin with. Which in the adult world translates to social awkwardness in dating situations for a woman.

    Again, there really are not whole roving bands of “beta” men swarming large cities with no access to dating that I’ve ever seen. I have seen examples of both of my points in this city.

    Like attracts like. If you can’t find anyone in DC as a man, you’re doing something wrong. The numbers are skewed in your favor.

    Like


  25. Hitler himself was a huge sex symbol among the ladies.

    Like


  26. Oh, I have dated many sociopaths. Not a bad thing, not a good thing, just Lem thing.

    It does look like me. Too bad you cannot see that my teddy bear got cut out of the avatar. Makes it all seem less devilish.

    Like


  27. “I think a lot of it has to do with the wishy-washiness of modern men. Men nowadays can’t even decide where the couple should eat these days! “I dunno, what do YOU wanna eat?””

    That is such a turnoff!

    “Homicide rates were down in the 20th century compared to previous ages, though I’m unsure of the figures associated with all violent deaths. Stalin, Lenin, Mao and Hitler obviously increased the total death toll (not per capita) of the 20th century far higher than its ever been before.”

    I know the Dutch murder rate in cities was 700 times what it is now during the late middle ages.

    Also the number of women attracted to a criminal is not equal to the number of women who will sleep with him. A gorgeous charming criminal may make a decent girl excited but if she is not acting on it it is of little use to him.

    Like


  28. Grace 2,
    “I know very few guys who can’t get a girlfriend. ”
    That’s because they hardly talk to girls in the first place

    maybe you just don’t befriend betas, natch, omegas.

    “Again, there really are not whole roving bands of “beta” men swarming large cities with no access to dating that I’ve ever seen. ”

    If a colony of betas never leaves its home…

    Like


  29. @#2 Grace

    “They kept trying to get with women who *were* out of their league”

    This can also be effectively translated as: “Don’t you people know your place?”

    Isn’t it funny how saying something like this to a woman or a minority (outside a romantic context) is shameful, but when we talk about ‘beta males’ it’s ok? But this shouldn’t surprise anyone who reads and comprehends the posts here.

    Like


  30. Grace, the average young woman is a six or better, not a five. It varies a bit depending on ethnicity, of course.

    The kind of social awkwardness in a girl that most men would consider a deal-breaker is rare, certainly a lot rarer than male shyness/introversion. In any case, really weird people are overwhelmingly male, because males are generally overrepresented at the extremes of any trait distribution.

    Like


  31. For Animus & J –

    Actually, in the dating world, people ARE told their place all of the time, espcially if you’re a woman. I think that is the problem with all of this whining of the hopeless plight of the “beta” man (it really can’t be that bad out there). Someone (women/girls/whoever) is telling you what is acceptable, or attractive. You just don’t like what they’re saying b/c whatever behavior patterns you have or looks you possess don’t fit that mold of what it takes to actually get what you’re trying to attain, romantically at least.

    These posts aren’t that hard to comprehend. When a lot of the main supporters of the “beta” movement grow up a bit/mature, some of this is going to seem like what it is. A group of people edging towards adulthood, not liking the fact that it involves downsides and that yes, the helicon days of youth are starting to end. This includes possibly not marrying a complete hottie, understanding that women are just as manipulative as men are (perhaps more b/c until recently, most women had no real economic power), and making some compromises.

    And J – no, those social awkwardnesses will not be a deal-breaker for a man to sleep with her. To carry on a serious long-term relationship? Marriage? I’m still going to say yes. B/c adjusting for looks and personality of what a lot of men persue, those same men carrying those traits are still looking for a woman who doesn’t have them, where as you will see awkward women dating men with various social issues.

    Like


  32. on September 11, 2008 at 8:23 pm Comment_Liar_Michael_Blowhard

    ****
    Techie guys on the other hand often end up in stable lifelong marriages with 2+ children. As Michael Blowhard indicates, these are the men who are overwhelmingly satisfied with their lives at the 30 year class reunion.
    ****
    So you know, if you were just smart enough, or worked hard enough, you’d be okay. It’s your fault really.

    Looking at my engineer fathers life, my engineer life, the engineers I know and the engineers he has told me about, I can’t believe a happy rate of over 50%. And. Quite. Frankly. My actual number is smaller.

    So Michy can stop with the pep talks.

    Like


  33. So you think most engineers are not happy?

    Like


  34. Michael 32–

    I agree Michael.

    The fact is that it is hard for “betas” to have a lot of casual hookups. Game can make a high beta a lesser alpha, if that’s what you want. I actually think it’s a good idea, whatever your goals are, since it will make it 1) easier to be choosier in LTR selection; 2) easier to avoid giving her all of the power in the relationship, instead of mearly a whole hell of a lot of it.

    Maybe one of the greatest problems these days actually is that life for a beta post college in his twenties can be pretty arid, while the 7s on up and even 6’s are seeing if they can snag alphas who they also get along with, for marriage and meanwhile lots of fun.

    Also if you get say an urban 7 somehow or even a 6 you’re going to get a girl who’s slept with what, 30-60 guys, but maybe lets on 10, by hints and giggles and denials. You maybe get to ten yourself, but half of those were one offs, almost gifts, didn’t raise your self esteem much. So there’s that to deal with too. The male ego is the male ego and I’m not belittling this at all. I also thing it has implications for her cheating and or divorce down the road.

    Since just about everything in feminist America is oriented towards reversing the natural order of things and giving women in relationships as much power as social messages, peer pressure, the law, and everything else can manage, you need all the help you can get.

    Of course the end goal is companionate co-operation and love, but if you don’t think there is power jockeying going on and that you don’t have tohave some — a lot actually — to keep it all working right and to reignite her loins when they grow cooler, you’re naieve.

    I can’t say these aren’t worse times for young betas who are also high or fairly high educational and job world performers, they are. As I write though this I’m not sure Michael’s looking around at boomer beta life histories is a reliable guide for current twenty somethings.

    Like


  35. First, the world is NOT getting more peaceful.

    Take Europe, where assaults, and such are commonplace, under-reported, and personal safety for the average person is a joke. The typical assailants are Muslim or North African or African, or some combination, and thus exempt from enforcement. There are no-go zones for non-Muslims in the UK and elsewhere.

    We have a temporary lull in WWII level violence, which was itself (along with WWI) unusual. Most of human history has had, with the exception of the 19th and part of the 20th Centuries, fairly constant and high levels of violence. For example, the Metro of Paris is known for it’s blatant and unstoppable assaults and robberies. Technology of course gives even poor nations the ability to nuke people it does not like, and the likelihood of a major Western city being nuked is very high in the next ten years at least.

    Second, women freed of considering other things than testosterone and aggression levels, will find themselves able to choose just their major preference. No need to select for faithfulness, providing ability, just pure excitement. Women of course are the main enforces of PC, and Multiculturalism, which sacrifices public safety in favor of pandering to various hostile sub-groups. Including the assaults and so on. Homicide rates in the US declined to the late 1950’s, at which point PC/Multiculturalism caused it to rise dramatically, peaking in the late 80’s and early 1990’s, and lowering some but not to the 1950’s levels, though some places which rejected PC more (and the largely female and Black enforcers) like NYC got close to 1950’s levels of peaceability.

    Women form the dominant voting block, and have voted themselves PC/Multiculturalism to enable violence. They are not stupid, they know well the enhanced risk they face of personal violence, but prefer it generally to embrace testosterone unchained.

    Certainly the strong centralized state is breaking down. It can’t prevent local jihadis from blowing apart subways or various personal acts of violence, much less a nuclear attack.

    I work with a lot of nerdy engineers. Most of them are dateless, the ones with girlfriends met them in foreign countries. They make good money, but are not the most charismatic or testosterone-driven guys I’ve met.

    Grace — What could EVER go wrong with lots of beta guys unattached to women? WHEN has that EVER been a problem? If you see misogyny around you, expressed openly, think of two things: 1. Not enough married men who have self-interest in suppressing said expressions; 2. far too many nerdy guys who have nothing but negative experiences with women.

    Like


  36. on September 11, 2008 at 9:07 pm Marcus Halberstam

    Grace,

    The majority of dateless betas simply don’t try; they often don’t leave their house. Dating is an enormous amount of work for a man. The average guy must get rejected many, many times before he’s successful, and many betas become too attached to individual women (especially friends) to be able to take continual rejection. As a result, they just stop trying.

    This is why its so helpful to objectify women. The jerk doesn’t care about getting rejected because he doesn’t care about the girls he’s hitting on. The often-unrequited beta doesn’t have it so lucky.

    I’m not sure I can accurately articulate how devastating being rejected or cheated on can be for some betas.

    I’ve been the “alpha” who girls have cheated on with, because they weren’t attracted to their beta boyfriends. Its a role I hope to never play again (as any cheating bitch doesn’t deserve sex, with me or anyone). The last time it happened, the boyfriend was utterly crushed, and years later hasn’t started dating again.

    Like


  37. Hey Whiskey, do you ever read Theordore Dalrymple?

    Like


  38. @Grace: The idea that you can only take what you’re given, that what you’re born with is the peak of what you have; this is not maturity. This is betrayal of the spirit of freedom. Anyone who is told their place and they simply accept it is a slave. They have surrendered their future. Not everyone can have a “hottie”, but that’s no excuse for perpetuating a meme of servitude.

    Like


  39. on September 11, 2008 at 9:21 pm Marcus Halberstam

    whiskey,

    A “temporary lull” in WW2-style violence? WW2 was the perfect storm of the Great Depression combined with the treaty of Versailles, both of which pissed off the German people enough to allow a fascist to take power. The Depression put a stop to the globalization of the 20s, and when goods don’t cross borders, troops often will.

    The world is far more interconnected and interdependent than it was in the 20s (though there was really a lot of globalization back then). IMO its pure fantasy to suggest that we could ever return to working that much violence, at least as long as the Internet and other forms of mass media function.

    There is ample literature showing declines in violence. Your own personal experiences are no substitute for science.

    Like


  40. When a lot of the main supporters of the “beta” movement grow up a bit/mature, some of this is going to seem like what it is. A group of people edging towards adulthood, not liking the fact that it involves downsides… This includes possibly not marrying a complete hottie, understanding that women are just as manipulative as men are (perhaps more b/c until recently, most women had no real economic power), and making some compromises.

    yeah, a lot of this is men who are furious at women for being as fucked-up and human as they are (though in different ways). Men idealize women when they are young, discovering the realities can be crushing.

    There’s also the fact that men naturally want a lot of sexual variety, power, and status. We can all see that there are 10% of the men out there who get a ton of casual sex and adoration from women, every guy at some level wants to be in that group but not everyone can be.

    Like


  41. Animus – Uh. Okay. Except, you know in kindergarten, when people tell you, “You can be anything!” Ever seen a 6’2 gymnast at the Olympics? Sometimes, you DO have to take the cards you were dealt. Maybe gymnastics isn’t for you. Does that mean that the same 6’0 athlete can’t compete in the Olympics? Yeah sure, in something else. When I said out of their league, I didn’t say “give up on dating”, or “hey suck it ya’ll”. I pointed out in a pretty obvious point – in a relationship someone has to like you back. And if EVERYONE that you want, doesn’t want you, maybe you’re barking up the wrong tree. There are other trees in the woods.

    And to be quite honest, this incessant (what you guys are describing at least) whining and hatred festering in most beta men (which I still don’t really believe) is giving up. Hasn’t Roissy championed that they just go for foreign women? So DO THAT. Try that option out, it might work for you instead of being rude to the women here. Or dragging out an example of some crazy chick who wants to marry a killer. There’s lots of crazies that try to marry men in prison. I suspect you wouldn’t be interested in them, no matter how hot they looked (wait scratch that. You might). But most women are NOT trying to marry a murderer. That would be why this story made the news – because it is out of the ordinary..

    Like


  42. The idea that you can only take what you’re given, that what you’re born with is the peak of what you have; this is not maturity. This is betrayal of the spirit of freedom.

    And the idea that every average-looking man of average means, average talent, and average status can get a beautiful girl, or even a pretty girl, is a betrayal of common sense. Grace isn’t saying that every “beta” should settle for a crone. She’s saying that like attracts like. Attractive people tend to be with attractive people. Very beautiful women tend to be with very handsome, very wealthy, or very powerful men. Average-looking people tend to be with average-looking mates. I said it in another thread — people tend to be attracted to people who are either at their level or above it. That means that beautiful women are going to have their eyes set on handsome or high-status men. Pretty women are going to have their eyes set on handsome or high-status men. They’re not looking for someone they instinctively consider beneath them. The same goes for men. Handsome, high-status men are not going to be casting their eyes about for a short, plump girl with bad skin.

    If all men hold out for the elite women, and all women hold out for the elite men, there are going to be a lot of people without mates: first, because there aren’t enough elites to go around, and second, because elites don’t tend to be attracted to the average. That’s a natural, immutable law. All the talk of freedom in the world won’t change it. If people want to ignore that law and keep aiming for the stars, they may do so, but they should understand that there’s a huge risk for failure.

    It comes down to this: if you have high standards, and you refuse to relax your preferences, you have no one to blame but yourself if you fail. The fat girl with bad skin is very, very unlikely to be the star quarterback’s girlfriend. And the nerd who knows the name of every character in Star Wars is very, very unlikely to score with the head cheerleader. Head cheerleader and star quarterback are going to hook up, and that leaves fat girl and nerd boy to be either lonely and bitter, or to consider each other.

    “The Impossible Dream” is a nice song, but it’s not a good building block for a life. I don’t think it’s wrong or criminal to have high standards, but I do think it’s wrong for people to get bitter and start blaming others for their own choices. If you’re holding out for the impossible, or even the merely improbable, you’re playing against the odds, and there’s a strong chance you’ll fail. If you do, you’re the one who made the choice. No one else made it for you.

    Like


  43. elizabeth:
    And the idea that every average-looking man of average means, average talent, and average status can get a beautiful girl, or even a pretty girl, is a betrayal of common sense.

    game is the great playing field leveler.

    It comes down to this: if you have high standards, and you refuse to relax your preferences, you have no one to blame but yourself if you fail.

    men have greater potential to reach their higher standards than do women because power is a more malleable attribute than beauty.

    Like


  44. roissy:

    game is the great playing field leveler.

    But don’t you think game, the way you describe it, takes talent? Especially game skillful enough to make a pretty woman look past average looks and average income? I mean, it’s something that can be learned, but even then, you have to start with someone who has the capacity to learn it and the willingness to apply it. Talent and charm — which I think are necessary for game to work — elevate a man to something beyond “average.”

    men have greater potential to reach their higher standards than do women because power is a more malleable attribute than beauty.

    I agree somewhat here, if not completely — I think charm and vivacity in women is an underrated factor in attraction; I’ve seen beautiful but introverted women ignored in favor of merely attractive but charming women. (Which is why women used to be encouraged to develop their “charms.”) But I still think that, even if men do have greater potential, they’re taking a great risk if they’re shooting for someone who is far above them. Again, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying, as long as you’re ready to accept that it’s a long shot and don’t blame other people if you fail.

    Like


  45. “When I said out of their league, I didn’t say “give up on dating”, or “hey suck it ya’ll”. I pointed out in a pretty obvious point – in a relationship someone has to like you back. And if EVERYONE that you want, doesn’t want you, maybe you’re barking up the wrong tree. There are other trees in the woods.”

    This is a good point. Self improvement does go a long way, but realistic goals are the key to succes.

    “Also if you get say an urban 7 somehow or even a 6 you’re going to get a girl who’s slept with what, 30-60 guys, but maybe lets on 10, by hints and giggles and denials. You maybe get to ten yourself, but half of those were one offs, almost gifts, didn’t raise your self esteem much.”

    How did you get those numbers?

    Like


  46. Meanwhile, the fat girl and the nerd boy can work on their appearances and personalities, and find that they like each other. Things don’t have to be quite that bleak. One of the greatest problems between the sexes today isn’t only that they expect perfection in a mate – though they often expect just that – it’s that while doing so, they still demand unconditional love themselves.

    It’s also wise to remember that the people who look lucky, are not always so. I know of a man, a solid beta in looks (except that he was very tall), whose intelligence and hard work got him a very highly paid, high profile job, and landed him a wife who was a 10 in looks, and apparently sweet and feminine too. Deeply grateful for this, he didn’t pay too much attention to what kind of person she really was. As it turned out, she was a bipolar alcoholic, barely able to look after herself, let alone their child, and now he’s struggling to look after their kid, while his wife demands more cars and purses and vacations.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    Clio

    Like


  47. 42 Elizabeth:

    If you’re holding out for the impossible, or even the merely improbable, you’re playing against the odds, and there’s a strong chance you’ll fail. If you do, you’re the one who made the choice. No one else made it for you.

    The equanimity you describe in the rest of your comment would be much more apparent today if people had been forthright instead of blowing bubbles of pretty lies.

    In addition, greater numbers of people would be operating at their maximum potential if they weren’t tranquilized by comforting delusions.

    Do you think it is just and good that a fat woman live a life of solitude because no one dared tell her she needs to lose weight, and that she merely wait for “the right guy”?

    If that jerk can’t appreciate you for who you are honey, you need to kick him to the curb and give yourself some “me” time

    …said just before the fatty reaches for another donut….

    Like


  48. 46 Clio:

    You are a goddess.

    Like


  49. “Meanwhile, the fat girl and the nerd boy can work on their appearances and personalities, and find that they like each other. Things don’t have to be quite that bleak. One of the greatest problems between the sexes today isn’t only that they expect perfection in a mate – though they often expect just that – it’s that while doing so, they still demand unconditional love themselves.”

    Indeed. Working on yourself is a very worthwhile endeavor.

    Like


  50. “Do you think it is just and good that a fat woman live a life of solitude because no one dared tell her she needs to lose weight, and that she merely wait for “the right guy”?”

    Women tell fat women to lose weight if they ask or advise. They just don’t do it in front of men because that would be humiliating.

    Like


  51. Tupac:

    Do you think it is just and good that a fat woman live a life of solitude because no one dared tell her she needs to lose weight, and that she merely wait for “the right guy”?

    No. 🙂 And when I had my ugly duckling years in junior high, which included 15 extra pounds that made a huge difference in my figure, I was fast disabused of any notion that it’s “what’s inside that counts.” What’s inside does count — but only later on. Physical attraction is part of what separates romantic love from friendship, and there’s no use in anyone pretending otherwise.

    Needless to say, I stopped reaching for donuts and made good friends with my treadmill. 🙂

    Clio:

    Meanwhile, the fat girl and the nerd boy can work on their appearances and personalities, and find that they like each other. Things don’t have to be quite that bleak.

    I agree absolutely that it doesn’t have to be that bleak, and also that people can improve themselves. But I do think, when people are looking for a relationship, they should be willing to accept their potential partner as they are, and not expect improvements. When we consider how hard it is to change ourselves, it’s a wonder to me that anyone expects someone else to change for them. 🙂

    Like


  52. Ted Bundy was gay

    Like


  53. “Looking at my engineer fathers life, my engineer life, the engineers I know and the engineers he has told me about, I can’t believe a happy rate of over 50%.”

    Over 90% of people in general say they are happy, so no. And I’m sorry your life sucks so much, but there are plenty of surveys that track job satisfaction for different occupations, and engineers, like other well-paying, white-collar occupations, always come up well above the average. With many more saying they are ‘very happy’. They are more religious, more conservative and more likely to be married.

    Blowhard’s description of his 50 year old classmates should be no surprise to people with conservative outlooks:

    “By contrast, the pattern behind the guys’ life-happiness rankings stood out clear as day. Namely: Now that we’re in our early 50s, the calmest and least-troubled guys are the ones who are working in technical fields. Without exception, these old classmates are now mellow and happy souls. They have the contentedness of people leading comprehensible, satisfying lives, lives characterized by finite obligations and dependable rewards. “

    http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2007/09/reunions_2_guyh_1.html

    The average man is best-served in life by playing by the rules, by following laws, by respecting traditions, by working hard, and by forming and maintaining a family.

    Those who don’t play by the rules follow the typical zero-sum pattern: a few win big, but most lose big. (and I have no problem conceding that plenty still end up in the former category)

    I realize the roissy/Roger Devlin inverted paleo viewpoint is that feminists and liberals have broken the system, so that playing by the rules no longer works for most men. Although roissy may have the slightly more “optimistic” version of this dystopian viewpoint: Devlin believes only alphas win under the current system, and most women and most men are screwed. Roissy appears to believe the same, with the twist that most average men can successfully join in the alpha spoils by learning “game”.

    I disagree with this viewpoint. Marriage is not broken for men. Marriage is still the best shot the average man has at happiness. Not the hedonistic lifestyle. Which is, at best, an inferior life choice, and, at worst, a disastrous life-choice, for the average man that chooses it over a conservative, traditional lifestyle.

    Like


  54. Marriage is still the best shot the average man has at happiness.

    Permanent cohabitation to an ugly female for the rest of one’s life with declining sexual rewards and breeding turd children and handing over most of one’s salary to maintain the ugly female and turd children is not happiness and it will never happiness. Those men are just simply deluding themselves.

    In contrast, hot women, lots of sex, and heavy consumerism form the true path to happiness.

    Like


  55. “In contrast, hot women, lots of sex, and heavy consumerism form the true path to happiness.”

    This is not what the sociological data shows. More importantly we’re talking about the realistic best options average men should take. Will David Alexander be happier at 40 as a socially isolated porn addict, as a wannabe player, or as a father and husband and respected member of his Catholic church?

    The future is still unwritten, and any reasonable, well-meaning person will tell you your best probability at happiness is number 3.

    Work hard, graduate college, get a good job, find a wife. Your grandma was right, DA.

    Like


  56. Also if you get say an urban 7 somehow or even a 6 you’re going to get a girl who’s slept with what, 30-60 guys

    On what are you basing that assertion? Based on the statistics I’ve seen, most women (and men) have fewer than ten lifetime sex partners. A woman who’s had 30 to 60 men is very uncommon.

    Like


  57. T AKA Ricky Raw — Yes I have read Dalrymple. My latest post quotes him on this subject, i.e. treating a 17 year old girl who’s violent boyfriend broke her arm. He questions her about the relationship, she admits she knew he was violent but found him preferable to the “boring” guys around him. He notes she’s already had a broken arm and she tells him she can take care of herself. Dalrymple replies men are stronger than women and her indignant response is that sentiment is sexist.

    Women consistently overestimate their ability to handle violent, dangerous men. All the women Fox News features (killed by their husbands, lovers, boyfriends etc.) very possibly could be alive today if they had exercized more careful judgment about them. Dalyrmple notes that the indicators of violence: tattoos indicating a love of violence, scars from fighting, arrest records and prison tattoos, violent behavior while dating, are all observable within a few seconds. Yet even his professional, educated nurses prefer these men.

    Marcus — Nuclear Proliferation + End of Cold War = mass violence or Hiroshima Squared. End of story. Longer version: Pakistan is a violent, factionalized, tribal, dysfunctional place where the current President is a joke with mental problems, whose orders don’t even apply past his own office doors. This tribe with a flag also has 100+ nukes.

    On a smaller level, the amount of violent assaults in Europe since the PC era and No-Go areas in Britain (for non-Muslims) spell the end of the state providing personal security. Read carefully, I cite stats not “personal data” which I agree show very little.

    Like


  58. Grace — the problem is not that Joe Average cannot date a supermodel.

    The problem is that Joe Average cannot date the Girl Next Door. The problem is “soft polygamy” where the Girl Next Door shares a player with about 4-5 other girls, and the Joe Average guy is sitting at home. Most men after a certain floor of attractiveness is met find no real advantage in extra beauty. In fact, a merely pretty girl is a better bet as a girlfriend because less effort fending off other guys, and retaining her affection, is required. Evidence to support this is the very large popularity of the “nerd girl next door” types such as Mythbusters Kari Ann Byron or Alyson Hannigan. Ask most nerds which girl they’d like to date, and it would be one of those, rather than say, some Supermodel.

    You can see what I’m getting at by looking at Urban vs. National sex partners. Women nationally report 9 lifetime sex partners, while NYC women report IIRC around 15. Many can reach Sex and the City numbers — 40 to 60. Adults in NYC (high percentage of seniors btw) have STD rates of 25%, which considering the high percentage of non-sexually active seniors must represent higher rates, significantly higher, in the young population. Nationally this figure is 19%. What these numbers show IMHO is women in urban areas (where most young women live and work btw) having a lot of partners with a very few men.

    What is the selection criteria? Testosterone or much higher status/power than the girl. Not much else. This is a huge sea-change (vs. former assortive mating) and reflects a consumerist approach to sex. AT THE MARGINS this means violent thugs, or Extreme Sports superstars, but the trend is clear. IMHO it’s looking at the margins at either end that shows us where the middle of women’s selection really lies, and it’s troubling. [There were no PUA schools thirty years ago — what does THAT tell you?]

    Michael Blowhard’s sample is skewed — it’s men born in the 1950’s, who very likely married in the early 1970’s or so. About 30 plus years earlier than the current generation. Look, marriage is dead. Women DO (as Devlin points out) demand a premium of power/status/wealth over themselves, which means an ever-upward pyramid of fewer men, unless extreme testosterone can break that equation. Which by definintion leaves out most men. I don’t think it’s feminism. It’s simply the natural result of women unconstrained by any economic and social factors, and wanting what they want.

    Most men are simply going to have to accept that marriage is unaffordable, and their lives will end as singletons, and women will simply have to accept the huge increase in misogyny sure to result from that phenomena.

    Peter — MANY educated, professional women do have about 40-60 guys as partners. Not all. But many.

    Like


  59. 57 Whiskey:

    Marcus — Nuclear Proliferation + End of Cold War = mass violence or Hiroshima Squared. End of story.

    This cannot be overstated.

    Like


  60. 58 Whiskey:

    In fact, a merely pretty girl is a better bet as a girlfriend because less effort fending off other guys, and retaining her affection, is required. Evidence to support this is the very large popularity of the “nerd girl next door” types such as Mythbusters Kari Ann Byron or Alyson Hannigan. ..

    Or Alias Clio, for that matter.

    Look, marriage is dead. Women DO (as Devlin points out) demand a premium of power/status/wealth over themselves, which means an ever-upward pyramid of fewer men, unless extreme testosterone can break that equation. Which by definintion leaves out most men.

    David Alexander wept.

    And Tupac just might be in that same bar, offering him a beer…

    Like


  61. @ 55 Rain And

    Maybe men are lying on their research in order to put up a false front and to reconsole themselves that their life choices worked out. I’d imagine that marry men secretly resent their wives and children and hate their lives, but they’re too deluded to admit that their lives are miserable.

    I could be unhappy as a wannabe player, but I suspect that I would be an awful father and husband to my wife and kids and I’d spend most of my time resenting them for the time and money that they take away. So, I suspect the best option for happiness would be a socially isolated porn addict who attends Catholic church and owns a Nissan GT-R and goes on frequent vacations. Better memories and more loyalty and love from the car than the wife who secretly longs for an alpha and the kids who want a richer and cooler dad.

    So, the best course is to work hard, graduate college, and get a good job to pay for my porn, vacations, photography, railfanning, and sports car capable of 0-60 in 3.3 seconds.

    Like


  62. David Alexander wept.

    No women dating me = money for Nissan GT-R
    No women dating me = money for $3500 Nikon D3
    No women dating me = money for trips around the world to ride trains
    No women dating me = no black or mixed race low IQ with my botched genetic material
    No women dating me = happier women who chase after alpha males that make them happy

    Once you presume sex is no longer in the equation, your mind tends to open up to other opportunities that are more lucrative and better in the long-term.

    Why would I weep?

    Like


  63. Women nationally report 9 lifetime sex partners, while NYC women report IIRC around 15. Many can reach Sex and the City numbers — 40 to 60. Adults in NYC (high percentage of seniors btw) have STD rates of 25%, which considering the high percentage of non-sexually active seniors must represent higher rates, significantly higher, in the young population.

    Or higher rates in the low-income minority population. Women of that sort greatly outnumber Sex and the City types.

    Like


  64. 62 David Alexander:

    I’m glad to see you are feeling better about things, so I won’t meddle.

    Intrigued about your whole geeky “railfanning” thing, however…

    Like


  65. “First, the world is NOT getting more peaceful.”

    Yes it is. There are plenty of papers on this. Even including the big wars of the 20th century, violence by both war and crime have gone down globally over time. And continue to fall as nations develop economically.

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

    “Michael Blowhard’s sample is skewed — it’s men born in the 1950’s, who very likely married in the early 1970’s or so. ”

    Skewed how? These men were getting married when divorce rates were peaking. Divorce has declined and stabilized since that time.

    “Most men are simply going to have to accept that marriage is unaffordable, and their lives will end as singletons, and women will simply have to accept the huge increase in misogyny sure to result from that phenomena.”

    The grand majority of men still get married. And cross-national studies show misogynistic attitudes decrease with % female labor participation.

    “Also if you get say an urban 7 somehow or even a 6 you’re going to get a girl who’s slept with what, 30-60 guys”

    Attractive women report fewer sexual partners, not more. And less than 3% of women report more than 30 sex partners.

    And number of sex partners has decreased over time, not increased.

    http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/06/your-generation-was-sluttier.php

    Like


  66. From a survey conducted by ABC News in 2004:

    Total Number of Sex Partners
    All Men Women
    One 19% 12 25
    2-4 25 16 33
    5-10 28 26 29
    11-20 12 18 6
    21+ 12 20 4

    Like


  67. 58 whiskey:

    Grace — the problem is not that Joe Average cannot date a supermodel.

    The problem is that Joe Average cannot date the Girl Next Door….Most men after a certain floor of attractiveness is met find no real advantage in extra beauty.

    Do you mind if I ask what this floor of attractiveness is? Because if it’s Alyson Hannigan, I can see why Joe Average can’t get her. She’s very pretty. Most people, male and female, are not attractive. Most people, male and female, are average-looking. So the majority of guys are not going to end up with a pretty girl. There just aren’t enough pretty girls to go around.

    The problem is “soft polygamy” where the Girl Next Door shares a player with about 4-5 other girls, and the Joe Average guy is sitting at home….Look, marriage is dead.

    Oh, well, even dead things can be revived. Ask Lazarus. I suppose I’m hopelessly retro, but I’d much rather have a husband than be a member of a harem. Lifelong companionship with someone who knows you very, very well sounds a lot more appealing to me than hooking up for the next several years, and then melting into futility when I’m in my late 30s and 40s. And, troglodyte that I am, I actually want children. More than the designer one boy, one girl. I come from a big family, and I want to same.

    Of course, this might all be a pipe dream, because I have the unfortunate tendency to terrify guys by date number 3, but oh well. Given how often I’m accused of being a ballbusting ice queen, you at least can’t accuse me of contributing to soft polygamy. 🙂

    Like


  68. “Maybe men are lying on their research in order to put up a false front and to reconsole themselves that their life choices worked out.”

    No predictions this would make pan out. Anxiety shows up in cortisol levels and blood pressure, which are better in married men. It isn’t just happiness, but questions dealing with mental illness (do you suffer from depression), positive and negative affect (did you feel angry/happy yesterday), life satisfaction (do you feel fulfilled), and specific experiences (did someone compliment you on a job well done yesterday). Married men also have better physical and mental health, and they live longer.

    “So, I suspect the best option for happiness would be a socially isolated porn addict”

    As much as I suspect this isn’t true, I concede that you are in the best position to know yourself. Different people really are different, so if not you, there certainly are people this must be true for.

    Like


  69. “First, the world is NOT getting more peaceful.”

    Yes it is. There are plenty of papers on this. Even including the big wars of the 20th century, violence by both war and crime have gone down globally over time. And continue to fall as nations develop economically.

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

    “Michael Blowhard’s sample is skewed — it’s men born in the 1950’s, who very likely married in the early 1970’s or so. ”

    Skewed how? These men were getting married when divorce rates were peaking. Divorce has declined and stabilized since that time.

    “Most men are simply going to have to accept that marriage is unaffordable, and their lives will end as singletons, and women will simply have to accept the huge increase in misogyny sure to result from that phenomena.”

    The grand majority of men still get married. And cross-national studies show misogynistic attitudes decrease with % female labor participation.

    Like


  70. “Also if you get say an urban 7 somehow or even a 6 you’re going to get a girl who’s slept with what, 30-60 guys”

    Attractive women report fewer sexual partners, not more. And less than 3% of women report more than 30 sex partners.

    And number of sex partners has decreased over time, not increased.

    http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2008/06/your-generation-was-sluttier.php

    Like


  71. Intrigued about your whole geeky “railfanning” thing, however…

    Put it this way, if I ever visit Miami, unlike most men who’d spend their time around South Beach chasing hot women, I’d be found on the Miami Metrorail or on Tri-Rail riding it aimlessly or taking photos of the system. I spent three days in San Francisco riding MUNI Metro, BART, CalTrain and San Jose’s light rail system, and instead of gaming new women or going out, I spent the rest of my time either walking around aimlessly sometimes taking photos or masturbating in my hotel room or eating poorly prepped fast food. When I came back, I complained about the fact that I didn’t get to ride more trains in San Francisco or nearby Sacramento and that I didn’t drive on more highways while I stayed there. I have plans for a trip to come down Amtrak to visit Washington DC, but only to ride WMATA Metrorail, the local subway. If a city has a decent sized rail system in the US, Canada, Australia, or Europe, I am willing to visit and ride the lines and document with photos.

    So, in essence, I’m a weirdo with an interest in trains (and highways), which a great way to scare women off or attract the ugly scary desperate ones…

    Like


  72. Here’s a link to my somewhat extensive photo gallery of rail photos as proof of my hobby.

    Like


  73. Whiskey 58–

    Marriage is not broken for men. Marriage is still the best shot the average man has at happiness.

    There are three reasons why marriage in America might be broken for men: 1) short or medium term relationships might be more satisfying even past one’s 20’s than a lifetime commitment ; 2) marriage in the peculiar feminist environment that pervades America from educational indoctrination to ongoing media booster shots may tend to make all marital problems automatically the man’s fault,* once she has the security of marriage with it’s one way legal obligations; and 3) the looming prospect of divorce theft means that he’s potentially severely punished if he has an affair, however much just sex and however little he would leave his wife or stop loving and sexing her, while if she has an affair and does all those things, want to leave him for her new lover but he’s married and won’t, and stops giving emotional or sexual attention to her husband, he can punish her by – punishing himself with divorce theft. Her theft of him in divorce, and the loss of his kids, as much as she wants pretty much.

    *[If he wants too little sex, that’s his fault, if she want too little, that’s his fault too, as just one of endless examples; if spends long hours working to get ahead he’s neglecting her, if he doesn’t, he’s unambitious and should be earning so much more; if she wants a less demanding job he has to support her, if she wants to spend as much time at her work or even more than he does, he has to support that too, while in contrast how much emphasis he puts on his work ends up really being up to her, or else he’s failing her, see above. It’s endless.]

    I agree that 1) is no answer for most men (betas) and not even for the great majority of alphas, as they get into their later thirties or at most early forties. However 2) and 3) make marriage an incredibly female titled one way street in America. There’s a whole lot of reason to wage a marriage strike, and just agree to live together for life and raise kids together. Much lower separation theft (still too high on the child support=alimony front though).

    It’s no wonder that women initiate 70-75% of divorce proceedings in America. America not only continues to lead the world in divorce rates, it also does so by a huge margin. See:
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate

    We’re not the only country way out there, but we’re way ahead of anyone else (Puerto Rico is a dependency of the US, our federal laws apply there, etc.), and there’s only a handful of countries almost all in the anglosphere anywhere close. Russia with it’s massive male alcoholism problem and continuing social disintegration after communism is a special case. About Denmark I have not clue; I suspect it’s a set of laws there. Well, laws here have made a huge difference too – those providing women with divorce theft.

    Make sure your browser window is wide enough so you see the bar graph on the far right. It shows the relative rates of the US compared to everyone else more clearly.

    Canada and Australia come in at HALF our rate. France isn’t even on the top 35 list, which means it’s rate is less than 1/10 ours.

    The feminist war against men, especially in marriage. And their push to achieve divorce theft. Don’t you just love it?

    Like


  74. Whiskey 58–

    You can see what I’m getting at by looking at Urban vs. National sex partners. Women nationally report 9 lifetime sex partners, while NYC women report IIRC around 15. Many can reach Sex and the City numbers — 40 to 60. Adults in NYC (high percentage of seniors btw) have STD rates of 25%, which considering the high percentage of non-sexually active seniors must represent higher rates, significantly higher, in the young population.

    There is strong social research data that women greatly underreport their number of sex partners, particularly when it’s high. That is, women saying 1-5 may be pretty accurate; whereas women saying 15 are greatly under reporting. To get to that 15 you had some reporting 40 or more. Make that over 100. And so on.

    Samantha of Sex in the City would have had hundreds of sex partners. Carry high double digits, maybe over 100.

    Women can go on little benders and rack up big numbers. Woman gets depressed and she’s a seven or above, easy as hell to get same night layed by all kinds of different guys, from a comforting high beta, to a sorta comforting (or maybe more than that less alpha, to a real player ride.

    If you know hot girls some of whom are on the slutty side, well you know. Actually, most sluts go through slutty phases and also relationships ones – where they cheat but not too much, so they’re proud of themselves, and happy to allow the occasional fling. Get’s em revved. Get’s the numbers up.

    Not rosy prospects for settling with a beta, divorce wise. Or perpetual cheating wise,for which his remedy is DIVORCE THEFT. Of him by her, if he “kicks her to the curb”.

    Ah, feminist America.

    Like


  75. Elizabeth 67–

    Of course, this might all be a pipe dream, because I have the unfortunate tendency to terrify guys by date number 3, but oh well. Given how often I’m accused of being a ballbusting ice queen, you at least can’t accuse me of contributing to soft polygamy.

    You intrigue me Elizabeth. I’m liking you more and more. I saw your long early post one some recent threat about your time as a prosecutor, etc., so I have that info too. You’re in private practice now?

    Terrify because you’re so smart and accomplished?

    You want kids. How would you see child care being handled prior to school years?

    You’re not as concerned about the money a man earns since you’re doing fine you said, but you do badly want to get married and stay married.

    Male lawyers with lesser amts of sex appeal don’t appeal to you? Or they don’t want a lawyer wife? (I didn’t when I got married; since divorced, no kids.)

    Like


  76. “There is strong social research data that women greatly underreport their number of sex partners, particularly when it’s high. ”

    No there isn’t. Unless “strong social research data” means one paper where polygraph and anonymous answers weren’t reliably different from a report that a peer could look at.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_40/ai_101530208/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1

    Another study found that men (at least a small subset of) were most likely to exaggerate numbers. ( more prone to change answers in conditions where masculinity was threatened)

    Like


  77. “…whereas women saying 15 are greatly under reporting. To get to that 15 you had some reporting 40 or more. Make that over 100. And so on.”

    If this paper exists it sure is amazing it is not cited by any other recent paper investigating this issue. Could it be you are making shit up?

    Like


  78. The sex partner surveys are severely flawed. Compounding the error is that most people read these surveys as bounds with bell-shaped curve distributions. Sex amongst humans DOES NOT follow such a distribution. It is severely skewed toward the top 10% of each sex, going exponential against the top few percent of each sex. To add insult-to-injury as far as betas are concerned, we also coopt, depending on literature, almost 50% of the available sex-base at any one moment. See why the beta’s aren’t getting laid?

    Let’s make it concrete:

    Since I am a busy man I cannot be the player I want to be. But even with that constraint I am bringing 12 to 18 latin Hotts™ into the bedroom on a yearly basis. And that’s not counting opportunity lays, like when an 8+ businesswoman flies into town with the thousand-mile rule in effect Then there are men I know who are fucking women into the ground most nights of the week.

    If you are female moving in our circle, do you sleep with beta-boy or do you wait for me or my fellows who are much more stimulating? QED

    Like


  79. @77

    The literature on the topic is terrible and poor. Practically, I used to be in the clinical fight against HPV at one point. I spent a lot of time in gyn clinics and some very high end ones at that. All day long, elite beauties were walking in because of dysplasia, and it didn’t take long to ferret out the truth. Sexual partners, lots of them, much more than reported in the standard literature. It’s the difference between academics and reality.

    Like


  80. Women who are attracted to psychopaths are not that different from women who are addicted to your blog, Roissy. I suspect we are in varying degrees attracted to badasses.

    We know it’s bad and should not be tolerated but yet it’s so very enticing.

    From a blog reader (not yet a psychopath lover, though)

    Like


  81. I would suspect that making divorce harder to achieve or child support and alimony more difficult to receive would make marriage even less attractive for women. Admittedly, it would cut down on marriages that women arrange simply for future income streams, but I suspect average women will be too scared to marry a man if there are no easy escapes. It just simply makes chasing alpha males to be a more attractive proposition, and it makes beta males even less attractive.

    Like


  82. 71 David Alexander:

    Put it this way, if I ever visit Miami, unlike most men who’d spend their time around South Beach chasing hot women, I’d be found on the Miami Metrorail or on Tri-Rail riding it aimlessly or taking photos of the system.

    I have ridden the Metrorail…long ago…reluctantly.

    You could not have chosen a worse example to sway my judgement.

    Hmmmm. I suppose I liked this “railfanning” thing more when I imagined it to be a rather more romantic and daring scene of breathlessly catching old-time steam locomotives in enclaves of little-known but beautiful countryside. Kerouac style.

    I’ll pass.

    TC

    P.S. You ever think it might be more rewarding to photograph the scenery *outside* of these trains instead of the trains themselves? Just sayin’

    Like


  83. 80 P:

    From a blog reader (not yet a psychopath lover, though)

    You will be.

    Y o u *w i l l* b e

    Like


  84. I have ridden the Metrorail…long ago…reluctantly.

    Put it this way, most railfans don’t come running down to Miami to ride Metrorail. Even I could never justify visiting Miami for the subway alone, and I have more of a reason to visit family in the area than to ride the subway. The women while beautiful are just simply a waste of time for somebody like myself, and Miami isn’t a city that lends itself to fun for nerdy types like myself. I’d rather go to the Caribbean if I wanted warm waters…

    While San Francisco is a justifiable railfan-only destination, cities with smaller systems need to have alternative activities to keep me entertained when I’m done riding the trains. San Diego wins by virtue of being near LA and next to Tijuana, and a Portland-Seattle trip can work when connected Vancouver, and all three cities have a vibrant (and safe) urban environments to explore. In contrast, Houston and Minneapolis are downright pointless for playing railfan.

    I suppose I liked this “railfanning” thing more when I imagined it to be a rather more romantic

    There are plenty of steam foamers and operating steam railroad museums around. A sizable number of these museums can recoup their costs from summer season visitors and film/TV production. Otherwise, my penchant is for subways, light rail systems, and electrified mainline rail which outside of the Northeast is only common in Europe.

    P.S. You ever think it might be more rewarding to photograph the scenery *outside* of these trains instead of the trains themselves? Just sayin’

    That’s what this gallery is for.

    Like


  85. Genital Herpes rates:

    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/citys-genital-herpes-rate-is-above-national-norm/

    Sex and the City numbers:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/2008/05/29/2008-05-29_in_sex_and_the_city_number_of_sex_partne-2.html

    Samantha: 41, the others 18-17 each.

    Average 9 national partners according to Durex survey.

    Fertility of American Women:

    http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/fertility/cps2006.html

    Marriage and Divorce Data:

    http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/marr-div.html

    I will have to dig into the Marriage and Divorce Data. My assumption is that as usual, the Census Bureau is hiding some rather unpleasant numbers and doesn’t want to come out and say something un-PC. My gut tells me that marriage has become unaffordable for all but the wealthiest as housing shoots out of sight in urban coastal job centers where women are (Coyote Blog has a map somewhere showing men-women in city centers, women are in the East, men in the West). Plus the lack of Devlin’s noted power/status differential. Despite our Lawyer’s protestations, I doubt she’d consider a man who was not above status than herself or if equal with an enhancer like champion amateur BASE jumper or other risk-testosterone marker. Since she’s fairly high status already, the pool of men available to her is fairly low and as a practical matter she will have to share, in one form or another.

    Rain — the UK is a FAR more violent place than it was in 1955. Just ask anyone who was alive back then. Dalrymple’s books cover this in detail, as do many European blogs which detail the appalling lack of personal security in most European countries, as nations simply stopped enforcing laws on criminals, instead prosecuting people for what they put in their trash bins. The UK really is a Clockwork Orange Society. The US also has a HUGE problem with violence, which trended up (the National Criminal Justice website has data) enormously in the mid 1960’s and has only declined from sky-high rates of the early 1990’s quite recently, and only in some areas. Detroit might as well be Robocop the Movie, and Minneapolis is know by those who live there as Murderopolis. Lack of political resolve + PC + Multiculturalism + mass third world immigration = massive increases in violence, Japan excepted.

    And MARRIAGE rates have declined tremendously. Fewer people are getting divorced because far fewer marry in the first place. Out of the more than 50 software engineers that have worked with me or alongside me, I can think of only five that were married, and all to foreign women. The rest were all single and not happy about it. Blowhard’s contemporaries had it easy — just avoid those likely to divorce you. The current generation has it much harder. Even finding a woman willing to contemplate marriage means a huge income, in your late thirties, to afford a house, and a woman only a few years younger IF THAT, who has no doubt racked up about 15 partners on the low end, to about 40/60 on the high end. Not a recipe for a lasting relationship given the end of sexual attractiveness for the woman and likely the man. Almost no one gets married in their twenties.

    Marriage is dead. Single mothers, a bunch of bad boys, and even greater resentful “betas” this generation, and nothing BUT bad boys in one form or another is what lies in the future. Along with heaping dose of misogyny. “Increased female participation in the workplace?” Ha that’s a laugh. It sure decreased misogyny and Islamism in say, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Algeria, Iran, and Tunisia, to name a number of nations with increased female participation in the workplace above historic norms. Rather, what the study shows is increased PC and resentful men in Scandi/Euro nations as governments pander to female voters who outnumber men slightly. [But of course, immigrants exercise their “violence veto” all the time with impunity.]

    Look at any R&B song circa 1965, and any Rap song 2005, to see the attitude towards women this reward system generates.

    Somehow, magically a bunch of women who work with lonely beta guys but don’t marry them, will make misogyny go away. Right after the Unicorns prance onto the field.

    Like


  86. “From a survey conducted by ABC News in 2004:

    Total Number of Sex Partners
    All Men Women
    One 19% 12 25
    2-4 25 16 33
    5-10 28 26 29
    11-20 12 18 6
    21+ 12 20 4”

    That sounds more normal.

    That said, unless some men are having sex with men, the average for men must be the same as for women. I guess in every 1000 women, there will be a prostitute with thousands of notches, a nympho with 500 and 3 girls with numbers over 200. The 200 men with numbers over 20 will likely not have numbers into the triple digits.

    I’m not sure if people are having that much more sex partners than in the 80’s, but I do think that the people who get around are a lot more visible than they used to be.

    Like


  87. Do you mind if I ask what this floor of attractiveness is?

    If I can presume to speak for average guys, I’d say: (1) not fat, and (2) good personality. That’s all an average guy really needs.

    Railfanning

    You might like Boston’s MBTA. I used to ride the northwestern Fitchburg commuter rail line, which takes you through some really nice scenery, including right past Walden Pond. The conductors’ Boston accent is cool too.

    Like


  88. Rain and —

    I endorse all that El Guapo’s said on this topic.

    Could it be you are making shit up?

    The post of mine you’re referring to was obviously not based upon a study. I was making the numbers up i through out as a bunch of illustrative examples.

    It’s based on my dating involvement with a lot of a whole lot of hottish and quite a few definitely real hot women. BTW in my experience the sluttiest women are much more likely to come from the hottish ranks that the really hot ranks, though sometimes real hotties can be real promiscuous for sure.

    It’s partly that when your around you in a scene and with a group you see stuff and are confided in if you’re interested and a good listener. That is if you’re one of them, getting plenty of hot yourself. As well, I’ve always loved to get this info out of girls. I love to have girls tell me their slutty adventures. Often do it as part of sex play. Yeah sometimes fantasy but better when truth and I like to know which is which, after. But most of the talking about this is clothed type talking.

    You find that there’s this process of revelation of layer after layer of sluttiest stuff done (most outrageous is easy for a girl to tell, she’ll talk about public sex or something, that right near the tip of the iceberg of a sluttier girl). Anyway I have a knack at this, I like it, they like to spill if they fell comfortable. Often leads to screwing if it’s with someone I wasn’t doing that with already.

    Like


  89. Samantha of Sex in the City would have had hundreds of sex partners. Carry high double digits, maybe over 100.

    Quite true. Of course, there’s also the fact that both of these lovely ladies are fictional characters and don’t actually exist.

    Like


  90. @Elizabeth
    But don’t you think game, the way you describe it, takes talent? Especially game skillful enough to make a pretty woman look past average looks and average income?

    You do know that human performance is malleable, right? That most people operate at a fraction of their potential maximum in a given area? That most of what we call ‘talent’ is 90% experience, 10% innate? You say ‘well, not everyone can be a sports star’. Yea, that’s true, but usually what makes the difference is how much they practice. Michael Jordan wasn’t great at basketball because he was deigned great skills. Michael Jordan was great because he practiced longer and harder than anyone to develop great skills. ‘Game’ is no different. This is why induction often involves what they call ‘boot camp’.

    I know it’s a freaky concept, but most men can learn to become quite charming. Most women hate this idea because it’s easier for men to change their place.

    Like


  91. roissy:

    “lemmonexxx:
    A good man is hard to find.

    …and a bad man is good to find.

    Also, many men out there are sociopaths.

    you say that like it’s a bad thing.”

    Sociopaths are the most worthless people of all. Worse, their value usually strongly negative. If it were possible to relieably diagnose sociopathy during pregrancy, I would be in favor of mandatory termination of those pregnancies.

    Like


  92. “Oh, I have dated many sociopaths. Not a bad thing, not a good thing, just Lem thing.”

    I strongly suggest you refrain from reproducing.

    Like


  93. “That most people operate at a fraction of their potential maximum in a given area?”

    I believe it was Einstein who said “pussy is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.”

    Like


  94. THANK YOU PETER! for pointing out the obvious of SATC. I have to say, marriage isn’t dead. If anything, it is becoming more obvious (from friends and observations) that the best catches (men and women) are going to be off the market at around 30. Barring those who put in time for demanding grad school programs (and even those are pairing up), at 32+ if you’re a single man and still espousing these sorts of theories, I’d stay FAR FAR away.

    And I do have to ask, I’m wondering what kind of familial relationships a lot of the men on this blog had while growing up. Didn’t anyone have sisters? Cousins? FRIENDS who were girls for goodness sakes??? There seems to be a lack of basic socialization in regards to women, especially if you’ve ever known any growing up.

    News Break: Alyson Hannigan is not an average looking girl. Sure she “played one on TV”. But Jason Biggs was portrayed as an average looking guy, and he’s actually really good looking. If Jason Biggs was my floor of attractivness for average, I’d have some serious problems in evaluating who’s out there on the dating scene. I’m guessing a lot of the guys here are having that issue. The whole “player” mentality is great, for when you’re young. Or once you reach a certain amount of independent wealth. But if you’ve never seen someone have a major life change (lose a parent, or a sibling etc.), I don’t see how this is sustainable for very long periods of time w/out dependency on alcohol and drug use. It is very beneficial to have a network that strongly supports you and geniunely cares about you as you mature. Life happens.

    Point being, a stable home life allows for weathering storms that may come later. Constantly chasing after chicks does get old after a while. Feminism didn’t kill marriage. It allowed women to be able work in more powerful positions. It allowed women who weren’t from wealthy families to travel. It helped to champion the right of women to leave abusive husbands, and to be able to expect some degree of control over her own body. What seems to be the bigger issue, is the infatilization of American culture, and the rejection of personal responsibility, not “the womenz got choices and they ain’t choosin me”.

    Like


  95. Edison.

    Einstein was a brilliant physicist, but most of his bon mots are stupid.

    Like


  96. If I can presume to speak for average guys, I’d say: (1) not fat, and (2) good personality. That’s all an average guy really needs.

    PA, can you be more specific by what you mean by not fat? Provide an image of your upper limit. Two women with the same BMI can look very different depending on percentage of body fat versus muscle.

    Good personality is also highly subjective – but I’ll assume for now you agree with Roissy in his assessment of what constitutes a quality girl.

    Like


  97. Feminism didn’t kill marriage. It allowed women to be able work in more powerful positions. It allowed women who weren’t from wealthy families to travel. It helped to champion the right of women to leave abusive husbands, and to be able to expect some degree of control over her own body.

    To take a value-neutral view of feminism: it upset the ecosystem. Some of its accomplishments were marginally positive and some were tragic in their intended and unintended consequences.

    “Marginally positive,” because it’s a common fallacy to assume tha tfeminism liberatet teh Western woman. The Western tradition was always the best place for a woman, when you compare it to all other civilizations. Feminism has been a boon to some upper-class women, though, so in that respect is was a positive.

    Like


  98. Brandy, regarding “not fat” and “good personality” — when I travel outside of the United States (I’m originally Eastern European, and my wife and I revisit there periodically) I see, everywhere I look, normal, pretty girls with pleasant personalities.

    I’m not talking about the “hot eastern European women ™ ” of dorks’ presumptuous fantasies. I’m talking about regular women who dress pleasantly, who aren’t physically repulsive at mere sight, and who carry themselves like women, not vulgarians.

    Many American guys feel like this normalcy is gone from American women.

    I see what they mean, at least in the middle-class / suburban / urban scene. One caveat is that when I visit the ‘flyover’ states (includnig places like rural New England) I do come across with many pleasant girls, similar to how I describe the Eastern European ones.

    Like


  99. Rain — the UK is a FAR more violent place than it was in 1955. Just ask anyone who was alive back then. Dalrymple’s books cover this in detail, as do many European blogs which detail the appalling lack of personal security in most European countries, as nations simply stopped enforcing laws on criminals,

    This is so true. When I moved into Helsinki as a naive country boy, I would actually try the police when I found drug needles lying around the street or saw knives pulled on people (or even myself). That seems so laughable now. There’s no point even talking to the police unless someone is ending up in the hospital.

    It’s not just not enforcing laws, it’s that the punishments offered by the laws are almost meaningless and the courts will go even lower from there. The jails don’t even hold people – even the most notorious imbecile psychopaths are well known for endless series of escapes, often fleeing after being given unsupervised vacation from prison (!). Even child rapists often only get probation. Some of them actually opt to stay in prison if their names or faces have leaked – there are loads of crime magazines that try to do that in a popular attempt to circumvent the lack of punishment.

    Meanwhile, we’ve started putting people in jail for insulting Muhammed…

    Nobody seems to really understand how it came to be this way, since nobody *actually* wants it, but a big part of it is shaming anyone tough on crime as a populist, an admirer of America or a Nazi and increasingly shaming them as racists since immigrants from certain regions have a rather massive overrepresentation in certain crimes. Nobody likes the way it is but everyone is too intimidated or worried about appearing low class to speak non-anonymously against what’s going on – and it all gets reinforced because the people who do speak against this are the happily low class ones who have no worry about appearing low class.

    Like


  100. “The sex partner surveys are severely flawed… The literature on the topic is terrible and poor. ”

    No it isn’t. It just isn’t showing what you want it to. Sex partner reports are similar in America, the US, France, and other developed countries. The methodology is careful and well-explicated. Many experimental methods have failed to demonstrate large error. If you believe there is systematic error, then cite research which indicates this. Hand-waving is the last resort of the scoundrel.

    “I endorse all that El Guapo’s said on this topic.”

    You were the one yakking about “strong social research data”. Now that I’ve demonstrated it doesn’t show what you wanted it to, it’s “severely flawed”? How convenient.

    “the UK is a FAR more violent place than it was in 1955. Just ask anyone who was alive back then”

    The UK is not the world. And historically the UK is at a low point of violence. A very clear trend of decline since the 1600s to about the 1960s. Then there was a cross-national bump in the 60s-80s in some developed countries, and another decline since then.

    http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/41/4/618

    “Almost no one gets married in their twenties.”

    Gallup Data from 2006-2008 shows that 59% of people are married by age 29. Another 14% are cohabitating.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/109402/Age-24-Marriage-Wins.aspx
    A majority of people get married in their 20s.

    “Rather, what the study shows is increased PC and resentful men in Scandi/Euro nations as governments pander to female voters who outnumber men slightly.”

    Everyone, can we please stop with this TEH SURVEYS IS LYING shit? Either you have real evidence for this or not. Hand-waving is not evidence.

    Men have no reason to lie about their sexual attitudes on an anonymous or confidential survey. Women perceive sexism as declining too. In an international context, men have gotten happier with increasing sexual equality. With fewer people at the bottom claiming they are “not very happy”.

    Like


  101. “The sex partner surveys are severely flawed… The literature on the topic is terrible and poor. ”

    No it isn’t. It just isn’t showing what you want it to. Sex partner reports are similar in America, the US, France, and other developed countries. The methodology is careful and well-explicated. Many experimental methods have failed to demonstrate large error. If you believe there is systematic error, then cite research which indicates this. Hand-waving is the last resort of the scoundrel.

    “I endorse all that El Guapo’s said on this topic.”

    You were the one yakking about “strong social research data”. Now that I’ve demonstrated it doesn’t show what you wanted it to, it’s “severely flawed”? How convenient.

    “the UK is a FAR more violent place than it was in 1955. Just ask anyone who was alive back then”

    The UK is not the world. And historically the UK is at a low point of violence. A very clear trend of decline since the 1600s to about the 1960s. Then there was a cross-national bump in the 60s-80s in some developed countries, and another decline since then.

    http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/41/4/618

    Like


  102. “Almost no one gets married in their twenties.”

    Gallup Data from 2006-2008 shows that 59% of people are married by age 29. Another 14% are cohabitating.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/109402/Age-24-Marriage-Wins.aspx
    A majority of people get married in their 20s.

    “Rather, what the study shows is increased PC and resentful men in Scandi/Euro nations as governments pander to female voters who outnumber men slightly.”

    Everyone, can we please stop with this TEH SURVEYS IS LYING shit? Either you have real evidence for this or not. Hand-waving is not evidence.

    Men have no reason to lie about their sexual attitudes on an anonymous or confidential survey. Women perceive sexism as declining too. In an international context, men have gotten happier with increasing sexual equality. With fewer people at the bottom claiming they are “not very happy”.

    Like


  103. 75 dougjnn

    You intrigue me Elizabeth. I’m liking you more and more.

    Thanks! 🙂

    You’re in private practice now?

    No — billable hours would be a nightmare, and I like independence too much. I’m working for my state’s government now as a staff attorney for an administrative law tribunal. I miss the courtroom, but the job’s academic nature appeals to me — basically, I’m writing judicial opinions — and I also have a lot more free time for creative writing, which is what I really want to do. Prosecuting was fascinating, but it didn’t leave me with much time to have a life.

    Terrify because you’re smart and accomplished?

    Hee. Thanks again. 🙂 But no. My mom is smart and accomplished — and very beautiful — and when she was in her twenties, she had more suitors than Helen of Troy. I don’t think most men are intimidated by smart, accomplished women, contrary to feminist belief. I think I just have a strange combination of traits that makes it hard for me to have close romantic relationships, even if those traits serve me well in other areas of my life. I love history, and frankly, I’d rather spend an evening talking about Thucydides than going out. I think arguing, as long as it’s not a nasty, personal quarrel, is fun, but I think a lot of men (and a lot of women) find that off-putting. I grew up with five brothers, so I have very tomboyish interests (when I was in high school, I helped coach a football team), and even though I like clothes, jewelry, and makeup as much as the next woman (and am quite vain), I don’t think my personality is feminine enough for most guys I’ve dated. I’m utterly useless at small talk; my idea of casual conversation is talking about how Julius Caesar was kidnapped by pirates when he was a young man. I was very shy when I was little, and I learned to hide it a little too well, I think, because people have come away with the impression that I’m snobby and bored when I’m really feeling awkward and shy. I also manage to somehow be both brash and sensitive, and I think that puzzles people. I’m pretty volatile — I can switch from being very playful to very intense in about a millisecond, so I think it’s hard for people who haven’t known me for a long time to get a handle on my personality. And I have a strange aversion to being touched — I don’t even like hugging people, unless it’s someone I know very, very well; my mom told me that when I was a baby, I would never cry unless someone tried to pick me up. I think it’s related to the fact that I’m highly claustrophobic. And in today’s hook-up-on-the-first-date culture, I think the fact that I’m not even comfortable kissing on a first date turns a lot of men off. I tend to freeze up when someone tries to kiss me, and I can completely understand why most men wouldn’t find that appealing. Romantically, I’m probably the least experienced 27-year-old in the world. 🙂 There are a lot of things in modern American culture I’m grateful for — I like being able to vote, I like being able to practice law — but man, I would’ve been a lot more comfortable with Victorian-style courting than American-style dating. 🙂

    You want kids. How would you see child care being handled prior to school years?

    If my husband and I could afford it, I’d like to stay at home. Since my real passion is writing, that’s something I could do in addition to being the primary caregiver.

    If we couldn’t afford it (and we stayed in my current city, where my parents also live), I imagine my parents would be eager to help some — my mom loves babies. Also, my job is flexible, and I could do a lot of it at home. One of the lawyers in my office just had a baby, and she’s working from home for the next several months. Day care or a babysitter would have to be used as well, though, which is why my first preference would be to stay at home. I don’t really like the idea of kids being raised by day cares and babysitters.

    Of course, if I become a billionaire author like J.K. Rowling, it won’t be a problem at all. 🙂

    Male lawyers…don’t appeal to you? Or they don’t want a lawyer wife?

    A little of both, probably. I’m not opposed, on principle, to marrying a lawyer, and a lot of lawyers do actually get married, but I’ve yet to find a lawyer I’d like to marry, and I think they feel the same way about me. 🙂

    Like


  104. THANK YOU PETER! for pointing out the obvious of SATC.

    No problemo. It’s almost amusing how that show is incessantly trotted out (metaphorically speaking) as an example of urban women’s sexual and other behavior. People keep forgetting that it’s fictional. In addition, AIUI many of the writers and other people who worked on the show were gay men.

    Like


  105. 80 P

    Women who are attracted to psychopaths are not that different from women who are addicted to your blog, Roissy. I suspect we are in varying degrees attracted to badasses.

    Hee. Personally, I think Roissy’s blog is fun because he’s a good writer, and he sheds light on what, to me, is a completely alien world. But I haven’t found badasses that much fun in real life. Generally they’re interested in doing things that I’m not comfortable doing with near-strangers, and their eyes start looking around for their next victim the moment I start babbling about the Battle of Plataea. 🙂

    85 whiskey

    Despite our Lawyer’s protestations, I doubt she’d consider a man who was not above status than herself or if equal with an enhancer like champion amateur BASE jumper or other high-testosterone marker. Since she’s fairly high status already, the pool of men available to her is fairly low and as a practical matter she will have to share, in one form or another.

    The biggest personality turnoff for me is stupidity. If someone spends his spare hours doing high-risk activities for no reason other than a thrill, he’ll earn my contempt, not my attraction. I find courage and daring attractive — if applied to worthwhile pursuits. Policemen, firemen, and soldiers are a lot more appealing to me than wealthy thrill-seekers.

    I’m not saying women don’t consider status — many do. But look at Sarah Palin. She’s the governor of state and a candidate for vice president — that’s about as high-status as it gets. And look at her husband. He’s an actual man, not a blow-dried metrosexual. Smart women who can get ahead on their own don’t pay as much attention to status because they don’t have to.

    As for sharing — it won’t happen. The most appealing part of a romantic relationship to me is devotion, not sex. I don’t get over my dislike of being touched without devotion, so a player-type would have no interest in me. I couldn’t give that kind of man the sort of casual fun he wants, and he couldn’t give me the love and loyalty I would want. There’s a good possibility I’ll die without getting married, but it’s not because I’ll be part of a player’s harem.

    90 animus

    You do know that human performance is malleable, right? That most people operate at a fraction of their potential maximum in a given area? That most of what we call ‘talent’ is 90% experience, 10% innate?

    I know this is true in theory. I know this is true in practice — for some extraordinarily self-willed individuals, Michael Jordan being a good example. But I don’t think the average human being is that self-willed. And even Michael Jordan had to have a starting base of talent to work with. I couldn’t do what he can with all the work in the world. Everyone here can write, but few people, with all the work in the world, could even approach Shakespeare. Even pop fiction writers like Michael Crichton start out with more innate ability than most people who can write. Native ability isn’t everything, but it’s impossible to excel, or even to be very good, without it.

    I know it’s a freaky concept, but most men can learn to be quite charming. Most women hate this idea because it’s easier for men to change their place.

    On the contrary. I think most women would welcome a world in which they all could have charming mates. Charm is one of the most attractive features anyone, man or woman, can have, and the world would be a happier place with more of it. But I think if developing charm were simply a matter of applying the personality equivalent of elbow grease, and following a few maxims, more people would have it. I don’t think charm is an easy thing to learn in practice, even if, in principle, it all seems pretty simple.

    Like


  106. @101 RainAnd

    No. Both sexes are more or less lying for a variety of pyschological reasons. You need real time in the field. You think because the data is consistent that it is accurate. I’m telling you, point blank, it’s wrong in the extreme, consistency be damned. The HPV data makes a mockery of all the other surrogates for sexual activity, and it’s a freaking epidemic. The only reason women are not dropping like flies from cervical cancer is the dysplasia screening programs. (And before the Pap smear, they did drop like flies…)

    When you are in the field, even allowing for skewed samples, the number of women presenting with dysplasia argues that the number of sexual partners is legion. And that number only goes up the hotter the woman. Do you understand what I’m saying — these women admitted as much. The fact that it is not reported by Big Pharma for reasons I can only guess at, is not my problem. I have no doubts that some beautiful women consider themselves The Prize and show some [relative] restraint. But it’s hardly the rule. A healthy woman has an unrestrained libido and she’s fucking. Period. As it should be. Ladies, if you are not getting laid regularly something is wrong. And if your desire to get laid isn’t there, get off the damn OCP.

    Face the simple fact. Those of us who can do. When the lights go down, it’s a party leading to an orgy of sex. And both benefits and distribution of said sex are terribly skewed towards us.

    Someone further up the thread mentioned that women can and do confess to sluttiness during sex. With certain women this behavior is a wonderful energizer of sexual arousal. I’ve used it myself on occasion, a great bit of transference. The memory of the previous sex arousing them, and then the results of that arousal go to my benefit. By the way, get them to confess to a position they found particularly exciting and you’re off to the races!

    Like


  107. “Lack of political resolve + PC + Multiculturalism + mass third world immigration = massive increases in violence, Japan excepted.”

    Finland is one of the few first world countries yet free of these scourges, although some of our politicians are hell-bent on getting on board with the rest of western Europe. If you eventually become fed up with all that bullshit, you might want to consider emigrating to an eastern European country like Estonia, the economy of which is growing rapidly but that thoughly inoculated against the PC disease by the recent Soviet occupation.

    Like


  108. Elizabeth,

    Are you in a university town? I suggest you try scientists. There are many odd ones, but many more attractive, intelligent ones who are similar to you: low empathy, high analytic skills and interests.

    Like


  109. “No. Both sexes are more or less lying for a variety of pyschological reasons. You need real time in the field.”

    Don’t feed me that horseshit. I’m so sick of anonymous people on the Internet trying to play the authority card. “Oh shit, someone named “Breakdancing Vampire” says that we only use 10% of our brains. It must be true because he says he’s a neurosurgeon!” Fuck off, the evidence contradicts you. Links and data are the only currency that count on the Internet. To the extent that we can demonstrate some men “lie” on sexual surveys, it’s upwards, not downwards. And even using the higher male estimates for both men and women (a big concession), we still see very few women with large numbers of sex partners.

    “The HPV data makes a mockery of all the other surrogates for sexual activity, and it’s a freaking epidemic”

    You can’t derive number of partners from an HPV infection. HPV spreads very easily. Pretty much any adult that has had more than one sex partner with someone else that has had more than one sex partner, is a likely candidate.

    And standard reported sexual partner number does map very closely onto number of STDs people have contracted. Just one more piece of evidence for the accuracy of the surveys.

    “the number of women presenting with dysplasia argues that the number of sexual partners is legion. And that number only goes up the hotter the woman.”

    This is contradicted by both data explicitly testing for this, and basic Parental Investment Theory. Attractive men are better suited to follow their optimal reproductive strategy (low commitment sex with higher numbers of partners), while attractive women are better suited to follow their optimal reproductive strategy (high commitment sex with a lower number of partners).

    Like


  110. Canada and Australia come in at HALF our rate.

    Canada and Australia while considerably smaller in population and in density are the two nations that one could argue are the best comparisons to the United States. Australia and Canada aren’t magical centres of the patriarchy, and these are countries with high female participation rates and low birth rates as well. If the divorce laws are similar in these countries to US divorce laws in terms of child support or alimony, then there must be a cultural factor within the US that leads to higher divorce rates.

    That’s all an average guy really needs.

    There’s the David Alexander standards which includes petite white or chubby white girls, nails and a preference for high heel shoes, and even meeting that doesn’t guarantee sexual interest on my part.

    You might like Boston’s MBTA

    A lot of railfans hate Boston’s MBTA for their decision not to electrify their lines and various other questionable decisions made about expansions and fleet purchases. I’ve been on a sizeable chunk of their subway/light rail network, and very little of the commuter rail network. Depending on the schedules, maybe a trip up to Fitchburg would be worth the hassle. 🙂

    BTW, NYC’s equivalent of the Fitchburg is the Port Jervis line which goes thru some of the most beautiful rural scenery in the metro area, and it includes the Moodna Viaduct, one of the few of that exist on the Eastern seaboard. Metro-North’s Hudson line is beautiful as well with its views of the Hudson River, and New Jersey Transit’s Gladstone Line will easily take one to areas of New Jersey where farms are still common and cows still graze on land.

    BTW, are you a Boston native?

    when I travel outside of the United States I see, everywhere I look, normal, pretty girls with pleasant personalities.

    Judging from the Eastern European tourists that I see here in New York, they’re not magically better looking than women in the US, IMHO.

    It’s not just not enforcing laws, it’s that the punishments offered by the laws are almost meaningless and the courts will go even lower from there.

    I’ll admit as somebody who leans towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, you can’t have a functioning society where the police are simply choosing not to arrest offenders, and judges are unwilling to place criminals who need to be remanded in jails and eventually prison.

    Gallup Data from 2006-2008 shows that 59% of people are married by age 29. Another 14% are cohabitating.

    As anecdotal evidence, every weekend in the local newspaper, one can generally find announcements of engaged couples, some of whom have master’s degrees and others with no degrees or associates degrees with the vast majority in their mid-twenties. I’ve had two male friends in the early twenties almost willing to propose to their girlfriends until other issues complicated their relationships. In direct contrast, I’m holding out for a mythical woman that doesn’t exist or won’t date me if she did exist. I suspect that it’s the ultra-picky people in urban areas along with people with depression or other issues are those who are unable to find marriage partners.

    Like


  111. are you a Boston native?

    No, I just lived/worked there for a few years during the late 90s.

    Like


  112. Elizabeth – you’ve clearly articulated valid counter arguments to the standard drivel that just gets repeated ad infinitum on this blog. I predict one the following canned responses from most of the readership:
    1. This is/you are just the exception that proves the rule.

    2. Really? Because I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a lawyer that was married to a school teacher who met a waiter at a restaurant where she said the bartender knew a man who…

    3. No way! Follow this link to a random study that I know absolutely nothing about but found via a Google search using the keywords “STUDY PROVES YOU ARE ALWAYS WRONG AND I AM ALWAYS RIGHT”. Never mind that I had to scroll through the search results to page 132 to find one study that actually agreed with the point that I’m trying to make and that it was sponsored by Roy Den Hollander.

    4. No response at all, and in the next post they’ll just repeat more of the same paying not attention to the evidence you just presented to the contrary.

    Sadly, the debate, and I use the term sarcastically, just never gets off the ground around here. Let the arrows fly.

    Like


  113. A month or two ago the Washington DC “City Paper” has a really cool article on a guy who made a train/local bus ride from DC to NYC, without using Amtrak. If you can find it on Google, you’ll probably enjoy it.

    MARC (Maryland’s rail system) might be a helpful keyword.

    Like


  114. 108 Astra

    Are you in a university town? I suggest you try scientists. There are many odd ones, but many more attractive, intelligent ones who are similar to you: low empathy, high analytic skills and interests.

    Thanks for the advice, Astra, but I’m curious — what did I say that makes you think I’m low empathy? Because I’m actually one of those people who has the annoying tendency to cry just because someone around me is in distress. 🙂 Obviously that’s a trait I have to clamp down on in the workplace, but it’s not really one I try to suppress in my regular life.

    I do live in a university town, and I’m no more opposed, in principle, to dating scientists than to dating lawyers, but my experience with people in the sciences is that we have very little in common. I like history, literature, the liberal arts. I’m afraid I have about zero interest in the sciences. I couldn’t even read a complete article on the machine that’s supposedly going to bring about the apocalypse (so far, the apocalypse seems awfully similar to everyday life…); my eyes were glazing over in the first sentence, even though everyone around me assures me that it’s fascinating stuff. 🙂

    Like


  115. A month or two ago the Washington DC “City Paper” has a really cool article on a guy who made a train/local bus ride from DC to NYC, without using Amtrak. If you can find it on Google, you’ll probably enjoy it.

    You can travel by commuter rail from New London, Connecticut (almost on the Rhode Island border) to Fredricksburg, Virigina (about midway between Washington and Richmond), except for a stretch of about 20 miles between Newark, Delaware and Perryville, Maryland.

    Like


  116. Elizabeth – you’ve clearly articulated valid counter arguments to the standard drivel that just gets repeated ad infinitum on this blog. I predict one the following canned responses from most of the readership:

    Your comment basically just amounts to:

    “You support my worldview which in turn is flattering to my self-image, therefore you are automatically smarter and more mature than everyone else on here that i don’t agree with, no matter how articulate and well-supported and clearly reasoned their arguments are.”

    Which is just as predictable a canned response on this blog as the 5 examples you provide.

    Like


  117. my idea of casual conversation is talking about how Julius Caesar was kidnapped by pirates when he was a young man.

    My husband loves talking about Julius Caesar and history (particularly Roman and ancient) all day long. I will listen to him talk about it, but I can’t say much in turn, since my interests are more in evo. psych, science, web/technology, and video games.

    I think his written grammar would be too awful for you, though. And he’s very blue collar in his demeanor, kind of a redneck white nerd boy who is not too refined.

    And in today’s hook-up-on-the-first-date culture, I think the fact that I’m not even comfortable kissing on a first date turns a lot of men off.

    I can definitely relate to that. I did not kiss people at all, nor did I ever “date.” I also hate small talk and was always extremely shy with men. Though I am very physically affectionate once I get intimate, it was not often at all I would get close to guys to do that. All of my relationships actually flourished through online chat communication.

    Have you ever fallen in love with anyone? If you’ve never really connected with someone online, maybe you could do what I did when I was younger, and start just meeting guys mind-to-mind online, and see where it goes. Start a friendship with someone with your interests.

    You sound like a man needs to have direct access to the inner workings of your mind before he can have your heart, and only a while after that can he have your body. That’s how I work, too.

    Like


  118. @ 113 PA

    I know of a few railfans who want to make similar journeys from DC to Boston, but the “bus bridges” between the local commuter lines along with the sparse service on some segments simply discourage all but the most extreme individuals from making the quest. In contrast, busfans are well known for making such quests. Personally, unless I was desperate, I’d rather pay the money for bourgeois Amtrak at 125mph passing the pissant local stops or the various non-Greyhound bus services that operate.

    BTW, I presumed you were a pro-prole due to living in Boston. IIRC, Boston’s white population seems have more poor whites than here in New York. Hell, I remember at Wellesley, most of the low-wage cleaning staff and food service employees were whites which came as a shock to me since most of their equivalents in New York would be native born or immigrant blacks.

    @ 115 Peter

    IIRC, the gap between New London, and TF Green Airport which will have MBTA service in 2009/10 is about 40 miles. The big gaps between commuter service are essentially areas with no bare affiliations to a metropolitan area, and thus, commuter rail agencies are very hesitant to bother serving these areas, thus leaving Amtrak, ultra sparse bus service, or driving as the only options.

    Like


  119. 117 Hope:

    If you don’t mind divulging some personal info (I’m not quite sure how anonymous your online persona is), would you care to tell me how frequently you and your husband do the horizontal mambo? That might shed some light on things…

    Like


  120. Hi Elizabeth,

    I interpreted your low empathy to your aversion to being touched and by the overall tenor of your comments, which seem to place a heavy premium on logical interaction over emotional bonding and an impatience with irrational behavior. Empathy isn’t all about tear ducts. Take a look at the Empathy Quotient: http://www.glennrowe.net/BaronCohen/EmpathyQuotient/EmpathyQuotient.aspx

    I’m a (female) scientist with strong interests in history, cooking, and mountain biking. My colleagues (mostly men) include people into mountain climbing, triathlons, photography, exotic cats, wine, etc. One thing I think you might find in common with scientists is a tendency toward obsessiveness in hobbies as well as work.

    Like


  121. “Marginally positive,” because it’s a common fallacy to assume tha tfeminism liberatet teh Western woman.

    Pre-Feminism: A woman pretends to find David Alexander interesting and deals with his various quirks because living with him and putting up with him is better than starving. Lots of hatred and resentment on her part towards him.

    Post-Feminism: David Alexander can keep his earnings instead of spending it on a woman who doesn’t really love him or desire him in any form. No more false delusions over a woman’s true desires.

    Like


  122. I presumed you were a pro-prole due to living in Boston. IIRC,

    I think having been in the US Army made me ‘pro-prole.’

    My family’s background in Eastern Europe was first generation (dad) and second generation (mom) upper-middle class urban professional. Of course, I grew up there when it was still Communist, but in some ways, it was similar to being upper middle class here in the US.

    We came to the US when I was in my teens, I lived in a somewhat mixed ‘prole’ and aspirning middle class suburban neighborhood in the DC area, and went to a solidly middle/upper-middle class high school.

    My exposure to a cross-section of American society was somewhat limited at that point, but in the military, most of the guys I was serving with were rural types who liked Country music. Not really my thing — I like rock and pop — but after that, I was ever since annoyed by yuppies’ contempt of law abiding lower middle class types.

    At higher levels, there is also something of a Kulturkampf against these kinds of Americans, typical examples being movies like “Boys Don’t Cry.”

    Like


  123. “Take a look at the Empathy Quotient: http://www.glennrowe.net/BaronCohen/EmpathyQuotient/EmpathyQuotient.aspx

    What is kind of confusing is that this test is measuring both empathy, the ability to sense others’ feelings, and sympathy, the degree to which others’ feelings affect us.

    I score average, and consider myself to be average in empathy today. When I was in my early teens, I was a low empathy/low sympathy person, AKA a dork. In my late teens, a normal empathy/low sympathy person AKA a jerk. Those are two very different sorts of personalities.

    Interbreeding either of these types may result in superlow empathy, or aspergerlike personality or superlow sympathy bordering on sociopathic personality. But that is just my theory.

    Like


  124. Elizabeth 103–

    billable hours would be a nightmare *** I miss the courtroom, but the job’s academic nature appeals to me — basically, I’m writing judicial opinions —

    I understand very well where you’re coming from, and have a better idea of the sort of personality type of female lawyer you are now.

    I also have a lot more free time for creative writing, which is what I really want to do. Prosecuting was fascinating, but it didn’t leave me with much time to have a life.

    I hear that. Wistfully. But it’s attractive in a woman to me.

    My mom is smart and accomplished — and very beautiful — and when she was in her twenties, she had more suitors than Helen of Troy. I don’t think most men are intimidated by smart, accomplished women, contrary to feminist belief.

    Stop it! You keep turning me on Elizabeth. This is supposed to be a cool medium, this comment board.

    I love history

    God so do I. You seem more focused on the classics than I am though. I’m more into comparative world history and the intersection of civilizations, or civilizations and parasitic (well partly symbiotic) “barbarian” cultures. Stuff like the recurring conquest by step nomads of neighboring civilizations with much greater populations and often even technologies of war. Nothing like basic training for all healthy males from age 8 onward, and free fodder for huge herds of horse, which were mighty expensive to maintain in the settled empires of Persia, Byzantium, Han China, etc., unlike all their cheap serfs.

    But then I love the intersection of genetics, psychology and society – evo-psych and related stuff. Oh and also exploring what’s taboo.

    I think arguing, as long as it’s not a nasty, personal quarrel, is fun, but I think a lot of men (and a lot of women) find that off-putting.

    Yum.

    I grew up with five brothers, so I have very tomboyish interests (when I was in high school, I helped coach a football team), and even though I like clothes, jewelry, and makeup as much as the next woman (and am quite vain)
    Nice.

    my idea of casual conversation is talking about how Julius Caesar was kidnapped by pirates when he was a young man.

    You must have loved HBO’s Rome, n’est pas? I sure did. Didn’t hurt that it was gorgeous, and that Polly Walker was some kind of seriously formidably gorgeous MILF herself. I made AnyDvd copies of my Netlix rental in fact. We’ll have to watch it sometime.

    I’m utterly useless at small talk;

    If you like, I’m quite sure I could help you with that. You’d have to know me enough to trust me though, or it would help a lot if you did. Also, it would help if you were with me while talking to someone else, to begin with. It CAN be made not boring which is key, if done right and with the right people, who are the only ones you should spend any time doing it with. Later. Think subterranean.

    I was very shy when I was little, and I learned to hide it a little too well, I think, because people have come away with the impression that I’m snobby and bored when I’m really feeling awkward and shy. I also manage to somehow be both brash and sensitive, and I think that puzzles people. I’m pretty volatile — I can switch from being very playful to very intense in about a millisecond, so I think it’s hard for people who haven’t known me for a long time to get a handle on my personality.

    If you were standing near me and telling me this I’d be smiling warmly at you, and I’d gently touch, and then ever so lightly stroke your forearm, the hairs on it really. Because the way you’re saying this to me, you are open to me, you want to confess to me to see if I hear you and what I make of you. (I just analyzed that for the first time writing this, but I felt the desire to touch you at this point the first time it read through your message, before starting this reply.) You’re hoping I’ll touch you, without expecting it.

    And I have a strange aversion to being touched — I don’t even like hugging people, unless it’s someone I know very, very well; my mom told me that when I was a baby, I would never cry unless someone tried to pick me up.

    Now I want to just barely stroke the side of your face, my touch is so light. But it’s not because I want to kiss you now Elizabeth. I want to calm you. You’ll have to badly want me to kiss you before I’d do that with YOU Elizabeth.

    And in today’s hook-up-on-the-first-date culture, I think the fact that I’m not even comfortable kissing on a first date turns a lot of men off.

    It’s really more like three with allowances for up to five. The push sometimes for one has as much to do with her as him. That is, if she gives it up night one or two for the guys she’s really hot for, you don’t want to first get around to trying until date three. But if a girl genuinely runs on a different clock, esp. if it’s not just a different one for guys she might be serious about or is playing The Rules on, it’s different.

    Romantically, I’m probably the least experienced 27-year-old in the world.

    In a lot of ways I find that incredibly attractive Elizabeth. No, not for catting around. But as a possible one and only ….

    If my husband and I could afford it, I’d like to stay at home. Since my real passion is writing, that’s something I could do in addition to being the primary caregiver.

    Mmm. But then once in school, at least part time out of the house, with help of course?

    Like


  125. @105 Elizabeth:
    Of course most people don’t have the will to push themselves to excel. But people do become inspired and people CAN change. You’re failing to make a distinction here though: You’re very right, it’s very very unlikely that you could become as good as Jordan or The Bard in their respective fields. But I’m not talking about being the best, I’m talking about being on the right side of the curve. As a young woman, IF you practiced basketball every day for a year, would be WNBA material? Probably not. But would you be better than say, 80% of the women your age? Quite possibly. ‘Game’ is the same way. Maybe you have a hard time seeing this because you’ve never had the joy of being immersed in a culture of people who are determined to change and seen them rise to greatness. I’m not talking about guys banging Angelina Jolie here; I’m talking about having a ‘hot’ girlfriend.

    And as for women preferring a more charming populace? Subconsciously, there’s a serious percentage of women who derive some measure of their self-worth from their accessibility in the dating tier. If men rise to meet these new standards, the accessibility falls. Their self-esteem goes down and men, having more options, tolerate fewer of the cards in the female deck. Now that may sound like an awful analysis, but I don’t disparage anyone for it. It’s just natural, the way things are.

    Like


  126. El Guapo 106–

    Someone further up the thread mentioned that women can and do confess to sluttiness during sex.

    That would be me.

    With certain women this behavior is a wonderful energizer of sexual arousal. I’ve used it myself on occasion, a great bit of transference. The memory of the previous sex arousing them, and then the results of that arousal go to my benefit.

    You said it. It also puts you on the inside. You know what a slutty little girl she is, you love it, you get off on it, and she feels way hot about herself and herself with you, BEYOND all the hot making that just the telling of it is doing for you. Plus, it make you great fuck buddy material in her eyes, cause she doesn’t have to hide and can even get off on sharing. Partners in crime kinda feeling.

    You ever get into getting this kind of girl into fucking someone else for you, to please you? That can be really hot. Lots of ways of doing it. It can be fun to plot who at a club or something and then unleash her.

    Then have her come back to you. I’ve done that a few times and it was pretty amazing. Blew her away too.

    Like


  127. @120, my empathy score is “very high” (on the test you linked). I recall taking another test where I scored 98 percentile on empathy. Nonetheless, I like analytical/theoretical subjects and enjoy friendly debates. I am quite obsessive in my hobbies and work. I have spent hundreds of hours “perfecting” and tweaking code, making character builds, grinding a new level in an online game, etc. I don’t think being “nerdy” automatically makes a person less on the empathy/sympathy scales, though maybe I am an exception here again.

    @119, it’s over 100 times a year on average. We try to connect on a physical level at least twice a week, and often it’s more than that, because I’m a very “grabby” kind of person and like to be close physically. Incidentally, we had a long discussion about that last night. He has not really been into doing stuff for me sexually, whereas I’ve been very giving for him. It gets tiring after 8 years of only me giving and him receiving, but he isn’t into it physically so much. He says he’ll try to change that.

    I try to keep Hope pretty anonymous, and it’s not too easy to Google for such a common word.

    Like


  128. 112 Brandy

    Elizabeth – you’ve clearly articulated valid counter arguments to the standard drivel that just gets repeated ad infinitum on this blog.

    Thanks. 🙂

    117 Hope

    My husband loves talking about Julius Caesar and history (particularly Roman and ancient) all day long.

    Ha ha, that’s awesome. So nice to know I’m not the only freak in the world!

    …since my interests are more in evo. psych, science, web/technology, and video games.

    I’m useless with the first three, but if you’re a Legend of Zelda fan, you and I can talk. I grew up on those games. I loved them because they were basically a fairy tale that you could play.

    Have you ever fallen in love with anyone?

    I have once, but he didn’t feel the same way about me. He pretty much just wanted to hook up with me and keep playing the field. He wasn’t a jerk by any means; he and I just had different priorities, and I’m definitely not a “sleep with ’em to try to keep ’em” type of girl.

    You sound like a man needs to have direct access to the inner workings of your mind before he can have your heart, and only a while after that can he have your body.

    Yes, yes, absolutely. I took a psych class in college in which we had to take all these different personality tests, and one of them said that the way to my heart is through my mind. There’s a lot of drivel in those tests, but that, I thought, was insightful. I don’t understand people who don’t want intellectual stimulation in a mate, but then, not everyone is me, of course. (For which the world is, I’m sure, quite grateful.)

    120 Astra

    I interpreted your low empathy to your aversion to being touched and by the overall tenor of your comments, which seem to place a high premium on logical interaction over emotional bonding and an impatience with irrational behavior.

    Ah, okay, I get it. I was thinking of empathy in lay terms, and you were thinking of it in scientific terms.

    I scored a 38 on the empathy test, by the way. Which looks like it’s average, but on the low end of average.

    One thing I think you might find in common with scientists is a tendency towards obsessiveness in hobbies as well as work.

    Which I would consider an absolute plus! I love enthusiasm. I find people’s admiration of all things cool rather bizarre, personally. I feel uncomfortable around cool/cold people. It’s like, come on, crack a smile already. (One that isn’t ironic.)

    124 dougjnn

    Stop it! You keep turning me on Elizabeth. This is supposed to be a cool medium, this comment board.

    Hee. Sorry. (See above comment about coolness!)

    You seem more focused on the classics than I am though.

    Oh yes. I love the classics — Rome, Athens, and Sparta are my favorites, but archaic and classical Greece in general, ancient Egypt, and the ancient Near East are all fascinating. I also like Renaissance history, the Age of Exploration, British history, French history, and, of course, American history. The Revolutionary Era (A.D. 1760 – 1815) and the last century of the Roman Republic are my two favorite periods in history.

    You must have loved HBO’s Rome….

    Actually, I never watched it. I was excited when I first heard about it, and then I read the creator of the show talking about how Caesar was basically a charming sociopath, and I didn’t like that take on it. So I never watched it. I thought to call Caesar a sociopath just because he was ambitious — and ruthless when he thought it was necessary — was to completely miss the measure of the man. A sociopath would’ve killed all his enemies after the Civil War; Caesar not only pardoned them, but gave them important positions in the government. So it didn’t sound like I’d much like the portrayal of Caesar, and I don’t like people ripping on my boy. Oh. Oops. There I go…. 😉

    Anyway. I heard that it was a well-done, entertaining show, but I’m weird like that when I’m attached to things, even if those things are, you know, dead Roman dictators I’ve never met. I couldn’t watch the John Adams miniseries, either, because of the way it portrayed Alexander Hamilton.

    If you like, I’m quite sure I could help you with that.

    Oh, cool. Pretty much everyone I know will thank you. Kind of a funny story: I was flying back from a trial team competition with my teammates in law school, and my partner knew I’m afraid of flying, so when the plane was taking off, he told me to tell him about Plutarch — which I was reading for about the thousandth time — to distract me. I then proceeded to talk to him for an hour about Plutarch’s Lives, and the Peloponnesian War, and a host of other things, and finally the lady in front of us turned around. I felt for sure she was going to tell me to shut the hell up, but instead she told me I should really be a history teacher. Which I probably should be, but it’s a bit too late for that now.

    Oh, and my sorority sisters in college had a game they would play at the breakfast table: “What Elizabeth would say during sex.” “Peloponnesian War,” “Caesar,” and “veni vidi vici” were the top vote-getters. I confess: I did rather like the last. 🙂

    But if a girl genuinely runs on a different clock, esp. if it’s not just a different one for guys she might be serious about or is playing The Rules on, it’s different.

    Well, that’s good. As for The Rules, even if I knew them, I doubt I’d follow them. It’s hard enough remembering Title 72 of my state’s code. 🙂

    But then once in school, at least part time of the house, with help of course?

    Yup. Staring at a wall all day, waiting for everyone else to come home, really isn’t my idea of a good time.

    Unless, of course, I can manage to have a career as an author and am thus able to work from home. I’m actually not too keen on working in offices. Not forever, at least. It feels a bit too much like being in prison.

    Like


  129. 125 Animus

    I think you and I are actually talking pretty much the same thing. I’m saying that it takes more than an average man to get a pretty girl, and you’re saying — if I’m interpreting you correctly — that men can learn not to be average. And I totally agree that self-willed people can improve themselves and become quite impressive, even if they’re not going to become a basketball superstar like Michael Jordan, or a writing genius like the Bard. But I think the will and the drive to improve yourself is, in itself, a rather extraordinary trait. Which means that these supposedly average men who improve themselves aren’t really average men to begin with, whatever their looks and resources.

    Does that make sense?

    Oh, and for people who derive their measure of self-worth from their accessibility — believe me, I know people like that exist. I went to college at an Ivy, where worth is pretty much entirely measured by how you compare to other people and how “elite” you are. I just don’t think most people, men or women, are like that. They have better measurse of judging their worth.

    Like


  130. 129 Elizabeth:

    Which means that these supposedly average men who improve themselves aren’t really average men to begin with, whatever their looks and resources.

    WE ARE LEGION

    Like


  131. I’d estimate more like 50% of young, fertile-age women get aroused thinking about what it would feel like to be in the presence of someone like Ted Bundy

    I refuse to

    it’s Friday

    Like


  132. 85: Right after the Unicorns prance onto the field.

    *clapping gleefully* Yaaaay, unicorns! It’s about time they showed up.

    Like


  133. @126

    Yes. I have used the sluttiness confession very successfully in bisexual women to get that second girl into the mix. Back when threesomes used to happen Oh well… time marches on. Once they realize that you are beyond nonjudgemental but positive of their sex choices, the sky is the limit.

    Like


  134. @1o9

    Listen. I frankly don’t care about Parental Investment Theory. You realize that no amount of unprovable evolutionary pyschobabble doesn’t change the reality on the ground right?

    You are identical to the folks in Galileo’s time that refused to look thru the telescope because it disagreed with what Rome said.

    I’m telling you — the hotter the woman, the more partners she has. When a hot 30 yr old tells me she has had 15 lovers I laugh kindly and tell her to confess the truth. That’s when the numbers like 30 or more pop out. The 27 yr-old super fuck of 3 months ago confessed to a whopping 134. (She actually kept a log!)

    There is this quaint notion in the literature that women somehow “guard the egg”. Well, true, they guard it from men they don’t consider worthy. Your quaint literature head-up-their-ass researchers never stop to think that given any ten men throwing themselves at her, that she will in fact sleep with the man she considers best and attractive. There’s this hidden assumption that she somehow goes home alone, which I’m sure is inculcated as a story when we all hit puberty, but that’s not the reality. The itch, thank you very much, will be scratched. Whether she keeps them around, in this day of birth control, is a much more interesting question.

    So go ahead and believe the evolutionary pyschobabble or you can get out there, fuck the Hotts and discover the truth. We are an uber-sexual species that puts rabbits to shame.

    Do you really think evolution would have created a scheme where it made it difficult for the male to reproduce? By making the female hyper-selective to boot? Please. Get over yourself, your big brain, you book smarts, and go get some real ass and assess the reality for yourself. A year from now you can apologize to me for being so dense.

    Like


  135. 134: El Guapo:

    Oh snap! somebody just got SERVED, yo!

    Like


  136. on September 12, 2008 at 11:31 pm Marcus Halberstam

    whiskey,

    I get you on the dangers of nuclear weapons. However, a nuclear exchange doesn’t occur because the world is a more violent place, it occurs because a few individuals are violent. The world itself could be 100 times safer than it is now, but its the people who control the nukes who really matter when it comes to prevent nuclear exchange.

    El Guapo,

    Reality isn’t your opinion. Opinions are often too biased and narrow in scope to be very useful, and you haven’t seen it all (neither have I; neither has Roissy). Science isn’t perfect, but its all we’ve got.

    Do you really think evolution would have created a scheme where it made it difficult for the male to reproduce?

    Sure, why not? To a certain extent men and women do evolve separately. If it was advantageous for women to make it really difficult for men to impregnate them, evolution would tend to favor that sort of behavior.

    Like


  137. “I frankly don’t care about Parental Investment Theory. You realize that no amount of unprovable evolutionary pyschobabble… “

    A very well-established theory that predicts male and female behavior across all species. Including humans.

    “I’m telling you — the hotter the woman, the more partners she has. When a hot 30 yr old tells me …”

    I’ll tell you what chief, you put together a big enough, random sample, like the scientist do, and then we’ll talk

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.014

    Your anecdotal experience is not evidence. No one’s is. That isn’t how science works.

    The reason unattractive women have more sex partners is because they don’t have as much leverage to be choosy. They get pumped and dumped. While attractive women get to be choosier, and extract commitment in line with their different sexual preferences.

    It’s basic economics. Men want many more sex partners than women do, on average, so women have increasing ability to meet their own preferences as their own mate value increases.

    “Your quaint literature head-up-their-ass researchers never stop to think that given any ten men throwing themselves at her, that she will in fact sleep with the man she considers best and attractive.”

    And if men can they will sleep with the woman they consider best and attractive…. and maybe 6 of the other 9 as well, if they’re willing and it doesn’t take any effort. Women are hypergamous, men are polygamous. Women want to hold on to that 10; men just want all the 10s.

    “Do you really think evolution would have created a scheme where it made it difficult for the male to reproduce?”

    There are a lot of species like this, where a minority of males do most of the reproduction. With humans we know from DNA that about 40% of men in history have reproduced and 80% of women.

    Like


  138. I don’t think most men are intimidated by smart, accomplished women, contrary to feminist belief. I think I just have a strange combination of traits that makes it hard for me to have close romantic relationships, even if those traits serve me well in other areas of my life.

    Funny, Elizabeth, much of what you said in this and other comments sounds very much like me, esp. that bit about having “a strange combination of traits that makes it hard for me to have a close romantic relationship”. I wonder if women with intellectual ambitions have certain personality traits in common?

    I think, though, that you may be mistaken in the first part of this comment. It looks to me as if many men, perhaps a majority, if given a choice between two women who were equally attractive to look at, would choose the less ambitious one for either a fling or a mate.

    It’s not exactly that they’re intimidated by ambition, achievement or intelligence (though some probably are), but that these traits seem to make a woman less feminine in their eyes, depending on how they’re presented. Many of the men who post here go on about their preference for women who work at ultra-feminine occupations like kindergarten teaching, nursing, and ballet-dancing. And have you ever read Roissy’s ravings about women lawyers?

    Like


  139. 138 alias clio

    I wonder if women with intellectual ambitions have certain personality traits in common?

    Probably. I think people with intellectual ambitions in general probably have a more tumultuous “life of the mind,” so to speak, than people who are more sensually driven. I have a cousin — gorgeous blonde girl, charming, friendly, sweet, and very shallow. She’s not stupid by any means, but I don’t think she’s ever really thought about anything in her life. Once, at a party, I walked in on her and some of her friends in my bedroom (back when I was still in college and living with my parents during the summers); my bedroom had huge bookshelves that went from floor to ceiling, lined with books, and my cousin was telling her friends, “See these books? My cousin has read all of them.” They were all acting like this was an extremely alien thing to do. My cousin never reads anything but fashion magazines, and all it takes for her to be attracted to a boy is good lucks and charm. Brains don’t matter to her much at all.

    From what I’ve seen of the world, a lot of people seem to be like my cousin — they’re driven by external, sensual stimulations much more than anything internal. So it wouldn’t surprise me if those of us who need internal stimulation as much as external stimulation have a lot of things in common. Maybe we all have a glitch in our brains or something. 🙂

    I think, though, that you may be mistaken in the first part of this comment. It looks to me as if many men, perhaps a majority, if given a choice between two women who were equally attractive to look at, would choose the less ambitious one for either a fling or a mate.

    Oh, I agree that a lot of men find ambition to be a turn-off. Ambition is a dangerous trait, and often ruthless, and if someone’s looking for a peaceful, loving, gentle dame, he’s probably wise to steer well-clear of the ambitious ones. I agree with you that a lot of men would choose the less ambitious girl for either a fling or a mate. In fact, I think a lot of men find ambition so detracting that they would ignore a downright beautiful, ambitious girl in return for a merely pretty but retiring one. The key is: I think ambition is the turn-off, not intelligence or talent. When I was in school, the smartest girls were generally also attractive, and they always had boyfriends. Most of my sorority sisters are married off now, and they’re smart as whips. The difference between a girl who’s merely smart and an ambitious girl is that the ambitious girl is always going to fuel a huge portion of her passion into her ambitions. Other people are more…balanced. I think ambition is a hard trait for anyone to deal with, really, but ambitious men are still attractive to women because they’re often charismatic and powerful. But I think there’s still a preference in many men for women who are…gentler, not as driven, and not as intense, if that makes sense. As no one can really control their preferences, I don’t see much of a point in holding that against anyone, or feeling sorry for myself or bitter at the world. But I do think my ambition turns a lot of guys off. I could give up the law — it interests me, but it’s not my passion. But I could never give up writing — a huge portion of my passions and energy go into that — and I think that’s a huge turn-off for people who want their mates to see them as the center of their world. And I think a lot of people, men and women, want their mates to see them as the center of the world.

    It’s not exactly that they’re intimidated by ambition, achievement or intelligence (though some probably are), but that these traits seem to make a woman less feminine in their eyes, depending on how they’re presented.

    Yes, I agree. I actually get along better with men than women in general. But I get along with men in a comradely, one-of-the-guys sort of way, not in a potentially-romantic sort of way. (I have a monthly poker game with some cops.) 🙂

    And have you ever read Roissy’s ravings about women lawyers?

    Yeah. And I’ll give him this: there is absolutely nothing gentle or feminine about me in cross-examination. 🙂 (I miss jury trials. God, what an adrenaline rush.)

    Like


  140. alias clio 138 —

    It’s not exactly that they’re intimidated by ambition, achievement or intelligence (though some probably are), but that these traits seem to make a woman less feminine in their eyes, depending on how they’re presented.

    I’ve always had somewhat conradictory feelings in all this. I’ve found myself VERY drawn to the sorts of answers Elizabeth is giving me and others. It’s lead to some introspection.

    Love intelligence. Love accomplishment, a ceretain amount of it, actually a whole lot of it. And love a woman for whom career ambition is definitely secondary.

    And…. I think I’m attracted to the smart ambitious side of the scale so far as most smart and ambitious men go. I mean those who tell the complete truth about their greatest attractions and aren’t just following the (feminist approved) fashion.

    The feminist horror way of putting what I’m talking about is: he’s achieved ALL THAT and then thrown it away for a man? I think it’s more accurate to say, let all that be secondary for a good while to a family. Never thrown away, but to be picked back up. At some loss to final bureaucratic position or whatever, but who the hell cares?? (uberFeminists do, that’s for sure).

    This by the way is the core of why women don’t get “equal pay for equal work” and shouldn’t. They work less hours and have less experience, after awhile.

    Like


  141. Elizabeth 128–

    I’m a bit disappointed Elizabeth. Were there too many watching you?

    How can I teach you about small talk, and some other things, if you won’t come with me at all. Risk a little more baby.

    Like


  142. Alias Clio 138 & dougjnn 140 —

    he’s achieved all that

    should of course be:

    SHE’s achieved all that

    Like


  143. Rain and —

    First of all you’re getting annoying, like a snapping little rat dog.

    Second, what El Guapo and I are both saying is very similar and is coming from the same sorts of experiences with the same sorts of women. Hot and hottish women who have no great religious or other worldview impediment to free sexual experiences, and endless eager suitors, but rather only reputation to consider. So they do and deny. A lot of clandestine doing and some that isn’t.

    Third, I have gobs of respect for the scientific method, even in the social sciences where it’s a lot dicier. As well I don’t have any good take on how numerous the “young, hot and active” segment of the female population is. They are the one’s the El Guapo and I are both saying wildly understate their numbers BECAUSE WE SEE IT ALL THE TIME IN OUR personal lives, and then get at the truth. From what he’s said, I think I have a lot more of a sort of fettish about finding this out about girls than he does or most men who are getting it do, but he sees similar things as well.

    I’m not saying that girls with low numbers significantly understate even those numbers. I’m saying the ones with high numbers do, or a lot of them.

    So huge numbers of fatties and others with really low girl numbers bring down the female average and certainly the median a lot. The female median in fact probably is pretty damn low. What the survey’s don’t convey accurately at all is the top 10-20% of the female sex pile. Because they don’t tell the truth, even to their girlfriends. They only get closer to it with them.

    Like


  144. on September 13, 2008 at 6:37 am Comment_Gots_The_Mouth

    53 Rain and: burbled
    ****
    “Looking at my engineer fathers life, my engineer life, the engineers I know and the engineers he has told me about, I can’t believe a happy rate of over 50%.”

    Over 90% of people in general say they are happy, so no. And I’m sorry your life sucks so much, but there are plenty of surveys that track job satisfaction for different occupations, and engineers, like other well-paying, white-collar occupations, always come up well above the average. With many more saying they are ‘very happy’. They are more religious, more conservative and more likely to be married.
    ****
    Rain boy, I’m glad your ‘sorry’ I’m a loser and that the ‘winners’ are quite happy. Of course, apparently half my co-workers, half my fathers co-workers, and, of course, my father himself are also ‘losers’. Uh, my boss was also a ‘loser’ to. Though I think most of his unhappiness stemmed from having to keep his crazy wife happy or “she would divorce him and destroy his company”. Is that a little to real-world for Rain boy?

    People are required, Rain boy, to be happy. Happiness is mandatory. To not be happy is to be a LOSER. It is to be PREY. So I’m sure 90% of people are “happy”. Well, actually I’m not. Mass Media probably had to stack lies on top of the polled own lies.

    When I was on a vacation in Margarite Island, I talked to a German engineer. Said I wanted to leave America because the Hindu swarm was driving down wages and ruining working conditions. He said a whole group of engineers had been wiped out in the company he worked in Germany. That it was a problem there to.

    And yet the Mass Media claims, with the mass deindustrialization, economic collapes, and Hindu invasion that America has “to few engineers”.

    The only evidence I see of “to few engineers” is that those that keep their jobs have to work 60 hour weeks. At that point you make pretty much what a factory worker made forty years ago.

    This is so wide-spread you get things like Dilbert, and it SELLS.

    But against that, you have a MASS MEDIA poll! And they would NEVER, EVER LIE!

    Ike is a Category-4 or Category-5 storm.

    Like


  145. on September 13, 2008 at 6:42 am Comment_Gots_The_Mouth

    Margarita, Venzuela not Margarite

    Like


  146. 139 Elizabeth:

    The key is: I think ambition is the turn-off, not intelligence or talent.

    Whoomp! There it is.

    Somebody give Elizabeth a gold star.

    This is all quite simple: any man (worthy of the name) is going to want, ultimately, in some form another, a woman who is a companion, a source of nuturing, a helpmeet, someone who “sees” him, makes him feel visible, makes him feel loved.

    This is not to say that intelligence or talent is seen as a threat. But when a man cannot rest easy with the thought that his wife is eternally seeking to alter her station in life, constantly flapping her wings to flee, how can you expect love to flourish in such an unstable environment?

    Every one of you high-steppin’ females needs to realize that unless a more “alpha” guy to whom you can pay subservience to is within your reach, your narcissistic dream of constant upward mobility will be the metadeath of you.

    I recommend David Deida and his book “Intimate Communion” for a more thorough treatment of this topic. The basic premise is that sexuality and romantic love rests upon this dynamic polarity between male/female, active/passive, leader/follower.

    In no way do I wish to be construed as a reactionary curmudgeon advocating for a return to the old days. I absolutely *love* you ladies for the quality of your minds (especially Clio ;)) but at some point you may have to resign yourselves to the fact that other men have not yet caught up to the all pervasive evolutionary vector that is driving us all to higher levels of being.

    There is a distinction between you two. Elizabeth is apparently the higher-testosterone lass who relishes the “fight”. Hey, it’s all good. Were we to meet each other in meatspace, she would be the one I would enjoy casual (and debauched) sexual encounters with, perhaps even threesomes.

    But as David Deida says, “I would rather dance with a princess than joust with a warrior.” From what little I can gather, I imagine Clio’s “ambition” is more the internal, emotional, life of the mind. Splendid. I *prefer* a woman who stretches the tendrils of her being to absorb the world about her — in a very delimited fashion. I would never imagine Clio to make major and abrubt changes in the actual circumstances of her lifestyle or friends. Instead, I would envision a warm, safe environment in our home in New England, catching a symphony performance or two (incidentally did I mention I was a music major in college?), or birdwatching, or simply watching the kids as we enjoy warm cocoa while wearing our cardigan sweaters.

    In any event, you and Clio seem to be getting along smashingly. Could you perhaps put in a good word for me and assure her I’m not a baaaaaaaad man?

    I’m just drawn that way.

    What do I know, I’m three sheets to the wind at this point and wondering what it’s all about.

    TC

    Like


  147. “Hot and hottish women who have no great religious or other worldview impediment to free sexual experiences, and endless eager suitors, but rather only reputation to consider.”

    I have plenty of suitos and guys regularly stop me in the street to tell me I’m pretty. I don’t believe any higher force would punish me for promiscuity.

    However, I don’t do casual sex. I know it would bring me more pain than pleasure and I could not feel comfortable sleeping with a man to whom I was just a body to get off on.
    Why would I do something that was not that pleasureable to me and that could leave me feeling depressed for weeks or months afterwards?

    Like


  148. TC, not to shoot a hole in your fantasies but I am too old for you. It’s sort of a pity, but there you are. Oh, and I think you weren’t reading Elizabeth carefully, because she doesn’t like casual touching and is testosterone-driven, she says, only in the courtroom.

    Clio

    p.s. Posting comments while drunk can lead to all kinds of trouble…better just to go to bed and sleep it off.

    Like


  149. Tupac Chopra 146 —

    There is a distinction between you two. Elizabeth is apparently the higher-testosterone lass who relishes the “fight”. Hey, it’s all good. Were we to meet each other in meatspace, she would be the one I would enjoy casual (and debauched) sexual encounters with, perhaps even threesomes.

    You’re not getting Elizabeth AT ALL. This is just wildly off. WAY off.

    Now if she were in love … But that’s not what you’re saying whatsoever.

    In no way do I wish to be construed as a reactionary curmudgeon advocating for a return to the old days. I absolutely *love* you ladies for the quality of your minds

    Educated men in the Anglosphere, and in such countries as France and Germany, felt that way about relatively educated and intellectually curious women in 1900. It’s nothing new. It certainly greatly precedes any kind of radical or Marxist feminism having any influence.

    Like


  150. “Hot and hottish women who have no great religious or other worldview impediment to free sexual experiences, and endless eager suitors, but rather only reputation to consider. So they do and deny. A lot of clandestine doing and some that isn’t.”

    I’d like to see some numbers here if only for the sake of illustration.

    Is the only explanation for a high HPV incidence among hot girls a high number of partners? Could it be that their sex partners are practically exclusively alpha males whose cocks are much more likely to be veritable colonies of microbial pathogens than those of betas?

    Like


  151. Oh, I agree that a lot of men find ambition to be a turn-off. Ambition is a dangerous trait, and often ruthless, and if someone’s looking for a peaceful, loving, gentle dame, he’s probably wise to steer well-clear of the ambitious ones.

    No guy wants a woman that acts like a dude. Unless you are a dude that likes cock.

    Like


  152. 148 Clio:

    TC, not to shoot a hole in your fantasies but I am too old for you.

    *sniff* This is about that Patrick, isn’t it?! *sniffle*

    Ah, well then. A boy can dream, eh?

    I shall henceforth return to taking solace in the collective arms of a string of spoiled, shallow hipster chicks. Wish me luck.

    Like


  153. There, there, dear. I’m sure you’ll have more fun with those hipster chickadees.

    clio

    Like


  154. 140 dougjnn

    I think it’s more accurate to say, let all that be secondary for a good while to a family.

    Pretty much. Women have a different biological schedule than men do. It sucks, but that’s the way it is. Frankly, I think it would make a lot of sense to accelerate education for the high achievers so that they’re not in school through their mid to late twenties. Junior high is a waste of time, as are the first two years of college. (Not to mention the last two years of law school.) School doesn’t need to last nearly as long as it does.

    With accelerated education, women would have some years to work and be independent — which I think is important — and still be able to respect their biological clocks. And men would have more time to build for a future. I don’t think anyone really gains anything from the prolonged adolescence we have in this country. By my senior year in high school, I was impatient to be done with school, and I still had another seven years to go. College felt more like I was treading water for four years than enjoying “the best years of my life.” And it didn’t help that a lot of my professors were idiots who wanted to talk about “social constructs” rather than teach us something that was actually worth learning.

    141 dougjnn

    I’m a bit disappointed Elizabeth. Were there too many watching you?

    Er. I think I missed something…? (Sorry. I can be extremely dense.)

    146 Tupac Chopra

    Somebody give Elizabeth a gold star.

    *pins gold star to shirt*

    But when a man cannot rest easy with the thought that his wife is eternally seeking to alter her station in life, constantly flapping her wings to flee, how can you expect love to flourish in such an unstable environment?

    Sigh. This is why I’m doomed. I’ve always thought — well, hoped — that there’d be guys who like to fly too. And there are. The problem is, they all seem to want someone back in the nest. 🙂 I should’ve been a man. My personality would work so much better on a man. Karma’s punishing me for something, obviously.

    Every one of you high-steppin’ females needs to realize that unless a more “alpha” guy to whom you can pay subservience to is within your reach, your narcissistic dream of constant upward mobility will be the metadeath of you.

    It’s not a dream of upward mobility so much as a dream of startling achievement. I could care less where I stand in the pecking order, because I don’t really believe in it, but there are a lot of things I’d like to do with my life and in it. And, um, I’m really not good at the subservience thing. I’m not interested in dominating anyone, but I’m not interested in being dominated, either. As Herodotus said, “I don’t want to rule or be ruled.”

    In no way do I wish to be construed as a reactionary curmudgeon advocating for a return to the old days.

    No danger here. 🙂 People have their preferences, and that’s that. Thinking a man is evil because he likes gentle women is sort of like thinking someone’s evil because they like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate.

    There is a distinction between you two. Elizabeth is apparently the higher-testosterone lass who relishes the “fight.”

    I’ll own up to being very, very competitive, though I hope not in a nasty way.

    Were we to meet each other in meatspace, she would be the one I would enjoy casual (and debauched) sexual encounters with, perhaps even threesomes.

    More likely we could enjoy rousing, intense arguments. I’m afraid when it comes to sex, I would probably be exactly the kind of boring, conservative, prudish girl that people here don’t seem to like much. 🙂

    I would rather dance with a princess than joust with a warrior….

    Doomed, doomed, doomed. You know, in stories, I always related to the heroes and wanted to be like them. The princesses bored me.

    Could you perhaps put in a good word for me…?

    I would, but she beat me to replying. 🙂

    148 Clio

    Oh, and I think you weren’t reading Elizabeth carefully, because she doesn’t like casual touching and is testosterone-driven, she says, only in the courtroom.

    Well, not only there; I’ve been informed that I can get downright scary in political debates. Not in a screaming, I-will-cut-your-heart-out-and-eat-it sort of way, but…let’s just say I’m tenacious. Pretty much whenever there’s something to win, I get competitive. But I don’t — at least, I hope I don’t — try to one-up people in relationships. That’s just obnoxious.

    149 dougjnn

    Educated men in the Anglosphere, and in such countries as France and Germany, felt that way about relatively educated and intellectually curious women in 1900. It’s nothing new.

    Yes, and in Enlightenment France, the best salons were run by women. There were several highly acclaimed female poets during the Renaissance, including Queen Marguerite of Navarre. Montesquieu, writing after the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, wrote that women often make better leaders than men. In ancient Rome and Sparta, girls were as well-educated as the boys. The Romans even had female doctors — not just midwifes, actual doctors. The feminist idea that women were kept in darkness and ignorance until the 20th century is absurd. Again, I don’t think female intelligence and accomplishment has been threatening to men (well, except in some societies — here let me thank God that I’m an American, and not, say, a Saudi). But while women with artistic and intellectual achievements weren’t seen as asexual, women with more political and martial achievements were (hence Queen Elizabeth’s cultivation of her image as the Virgin Queen).

    The Romans actually had some pretty interesting ideas about this. Our word for “virtue” comes from the Latin word virtu, which in itself comes from the Latin word vir, meaning “man.” To the Romans, “virtue” was “manly courage, valor.” But they didn’t exclude the possibility that women could have virtue. The Romans — unlike most of the Greeks, with the notable exception of the Spartans — believed that women could be courageous and heroic. But the Romans thought that if a woman surrendered to sexual passion (they saw the woman’s role in sex as submissive), she lost her capacity for virtue. So basically, if a woman never “submitted” or “surrendered,” she could be like a man. This idea evolved into the medieval/Victorian notion that a woman who had sex outside of marriage lost her virtue, though by that time, of course, virtue meant something quite different.

    I think it’s interesting that the place of women in martial, masculine societies, like Sparta and Rome, was quite high, and the Spartans honored several of their women (like Queen Gorgo, who’s depicted in the movie 300) as heroes. Of course, the Spartans and Romans didn’t really have to feel anxious about their masculinity, so that might be one reason why they weren’t intimidated by smart, high-achieving women. 🙂

    Like


  155. I’m afraid when it comes to sex, I would probably be exactly the kind of boring, conservative, prudish girl that people here don’t seem to like much.

    David Alexander is just one guy, not “people here.” 😉

    Like


  156. It’s not a dream of upward mobility so much as a dream of startling achievement. I could care less where I stand in the pecking order, because I don’t really believe in it, but there are a lot of things I’d like to do with my life and in it.

    Elizabeth, I used to be very competitive and wanting achievement like you. The difference was that I just didn’t feel like it. I’ve always been somewhat of an A student, but I think I relied more on my natural smarts and charming teachers into thinking I worked harder than I did. I didn’t want to put in the long hours and true hard work required for high achievement.

    My mom also pushed me intently for graduate school, law school or business school. I resisted because I was living with my then boyfriend (now husband), who showed me that even without a college degree he was doing fine. Most of the time getting a job is about the social connections and who you know. He would have supported anything I did, really. He loves smart women, and wasn’t intimidated by smarter, higher-achievement women either. But I frankly enjoyed the working part during college more than the schooling.

    Also, I have never lived entirely alone except for half a year in college, and even then it was in a dorm situation where I was more or less “safe.” I am very needy; co-dependency is my middle name. I think if I had the chance, I would have moved in with a guy at 15 and loved it. I did at 18 and never looked back. I rather admire the very independent-spirited women, but I could never be one myself.

    Doomed, doomed, doomed. You know, in stories, I always related to the heroes and wanted to be like them. The princesses bored me.

    I have always related to the heroes, too, and I love a good theoretical fight myself. But the character I relate to the most, above any warrior, is a healer. I never identified with the princesses because I always thought I was too ugly to be one. Besides, I’m not white.

    But the Romans thought that if a woman surrendered to sexual passion (they saw the woman’s role in sex as submissive), she lost her capacity for virtue. So basically, if a woman never “submitted” or “surrendered,” she could be like a man.

    It seems like a lot of my female friends have been a bit on the masculine side mentally and emotionally. I would love to talk to you more Elizabeth! I used to talk to a 23 year old girl who sounds a little like you in some respects, and she is still in law school. Actually, she’s still a virgin and lives alone.

    Men, especially Roissy who espouses this, also seem to think that high testosterone and ambition in women are earmarks for a sexually cavalier attitude. But in my opinion and observation that is very untrue. There are some very “feminine” women who throw their bodies at men indiscriminately, and some “masculine” women who are practically celibate.

    And, um, I’m really not good at the subservience thing. I’m not interested in dominating anyone, but I’m not interested in being dominated, either.

    I used to think women can be “dominant” sexually, but that was a bit of delusional idiocy. The woman’s role in sex is submissive. Submissive does not mean passive. It just means yielding to another’s expressed will or the display of force. Even when a woman thinks she is being “dominant” with a “submissive” man, she is merely catering to his wants and desires. Those desires are not really her own, but she is doing it to please the man.

    There is nothing really wrong with that, but if you do not submit, then yeah, most men are going to find that perplexing and a bit off-putting. Some men really like a “challenge,” but often those men tend to then bow out for the next conquest. I am surprised though, that with your kind of intelligence (and I sense that you are extremely intelligent!) and wit, more men did not fall in love with you through conversation alone.

    Like


  157. ” The feminist idea that women were kept in darkness and ignorance until the 20th century is absurd.”

    A lot of people think all of history was like the 1950’s. In most of history, the family was not just a consuming but also a productive unit and most men could not afford to marry a pretty ditz.

    “But the Romans thought that if a woman surrendered to sexual passion (they saw the woman’s role in sex as submissive), she lost her capacity for virtue. So basically, if a woman never “submitted” or “surrendered,” she could be like a man.”

    Now to get back to casual sex, I do think that women who have no trouble sleeping around tend to either take a masculine approach to it, or delude themselves. I feel that a healthy woman cannot submits sexually to a man who does not even like her enough to take her out and not feel deeply hurt. I do think a disproportionate part of women who sleep around are high testosterone, but that does certainly not mean that most high test women sleep around.

    “Even when a woman thinks she is being “dominant” with a “submissive” man, she is merely catering to his wants and desires. Those desires are not really her own, but she is doing it to please the man.”

    I think this goes for most people and a feminine woman cannot become truly masculine no matter how hard she tries. The sort of feminists who belive men and women should not only have the same opportunities but should also have the same end result are the main culprits. The folks who want to force women to work fulltime through starting families so we can have 50% female CEO’s. I guess they are mostly masculine women who belive all women are like them. In reality women tend to make different choices because they enjoy different things because of their different hormonal wiring than males.

    I have seen some women who are naturally masculine and men who are naturally feminine and there do exist people who, on a hormonal level, are wired unlike most of their sex.

    Like


  158. Elizabeth, a few comments:

    “The feminist idea that women were kept in darkness and ignorance until the 20th century is absurd.” — This idea isn’t universally held by feminists, you know, though it has been promoted by media feminists (as I call them) like Gloria Steinem. I don’t care what kind of Seven Sisters education that woman received; she’s an ignoramus, but a highly influential one. Unfortunately, most media feminists are like her: reasonably well-read in English literature or in sociological theory but otherwise ill-educated. Anyway, many feminist historians have worked to convince people of exactly the opposite truth: that women had a far larger role in western society than our culture has tended to remember. Of course, they blame this forgetfulness on sexism, which may or may not be accurate.

    I’m puzzled by what you say about the ancient Romans and their attitude towards “virtue” in women. Surely if they equated it – “vir” – with courage, and believed that this vir was something that women lost in sexual surrender to a man, their definition of virtue was not in fact so different from the one you assign (a bit confusingly) both to medieval society and the Victorians? The Romans prized virginity in girls and fidelity in married women, just as medievals did. The great difference between the mindset of the late Romans and the early Christians was that the latter accorded a kind of mystical importance to female virginity, which they associated with a kind of special connection or closeness to God, one that no man, nor married woman, could hope to achieve. But perhas this – that importance of female virginity to the medievals (but certainly not the Victorians) – is what you meant in saying that “virtue meant something quite different” to them?

    p.s. I’m with Camille Paglia in thinking that “women are the stronger sex from birth to death”. Not physically, of course, but in their capacity for the endurance of hardship and deprivation. So I never thought of princesses as weak. Anyway, some of the best-known fairy-tales have heroic women as their central characters: the Black Bull of Norway (rather like Beauty and the Beast); the story of Scheherezade; the English fairy-tale “Cap o’ Rushes” (on which the story of King Lear was based, in part); and another, “Molly Whipple”, in which a young girl rescues her sisters from a giant and frees a kingdom from an evil enchantment. So I never thought that being female meant being excluded from being a hero…

    Clio

    Like


  159. 153 Clio:

    You consider me the young apprentice
    Caught between the Scylla and Charybidis

    I have only come here seeking knowledge
    Things they wouldn’t teach me of in college

    Ill be wrapped around your finger

    Mephistopheles is not your name
    But I know what you’re up to just the same
    I will listen hard to your tuition
    And you will see it come to its fruition

    Ill be wrapped around your finger

    Devil and the deep blue sea behind me
    Vanish in the air you’ll never find me
    I will turn your face to alabaster
    Then you will find your servant is your master

    And you’ll be wrapped around my finger
    You’ll be wrapped around my finger…

    -Sting

    Like


  160. 156 Hope

    I used to be very competitive and wanting achievement like you. The difference was that I just didn’t feel like it.

    A lot of my friends from college are like that. They’re smart enough to move worlds if they want to, but they actually want to have a life. My ambitions have changed some over the years — I used to, God help me, want to be a politician and ultimately run for president. I thought writing was just a hobby that I indulged because I was bored with school, and that once I was in the “real world” doing interesting things, I wouldn’t feel the need to make up stories anymore. And then I went into prosecuting, which was a very interesting, high-powered, and at times dangerous job, and I realized that I…still wanted to write all the time. So my ambitions have somewhat altered, but the intensity is the same.

    I actually think there’s something much wiser in people who want to have a balanced, meaningful life. I certainly think those are the happiest people. But I don’t think I could be like that. Whenever I’ve tried to be “normal” and go out a lot — with friends and on dates — I find that I’m rather excruciatingly bored. There’s something about activities that most people enjoy that I just…don’t. I think there’s something messed up with my wiring.

    I am very needy; co-dependency is my middle name.

    And I’m rather fanatically independent, which in itself has the tendency to scare people off.

    I never identified with the princesses because I always thought I was too ugly to be one. Besides, I’m not white.

    And I’m not blonde. I have black hair and pale skin, and in fairy tales, that usually meant “evil witch,” not “beautiful princess.” My brothers used to call me Snow White to tease me, which I hated, because Snow White is without doubt the most insipid heroine in any story ever. I was ecstatic when Disney’s Beauty and the Beast came out, because the heroine had dark hair and liked to read books and sang about wanting adventure. That was one Disney princess I could relate to.

    (I am going to be arrested for felony abuse of smileys one of these days.)

    Men, especially Roissy who espouses this, also seem to think that high testosterone and ambition in women are earmarks for a sexually cavalier attitude. But in my opinion and observation that is very untrue.

    In mine as well. The ambitious women I’ve known have been almost puritanical about sex — in behavior, at least, if not in belief. I don’t have any religious or moral opposition to sex before marriage; my attitude about such things — at least regarding other people — is pretty laissez-faire. But I don’t think I could ever be cavalier about sex. I’ve floored a guy for making unwelcome advances before. Of course, he was very drunk, so that doesn’t really count as a show of physical strength.

    There is nothing really wrong with that, but if you do not submit, then yeah, most men are going to find that perplexing and a bit off-putting.

    So I’ve noticed. I have lingering control freak issues, I suppose. I was very bossy when I was younger. I’ve managed to moderate that, at least, but my issues with yielding, not so much.

    Some men really like a “challenge,” but often those men tend to then bow out for the next conquest.

    Yeah. My experience with men who want a “challenge” is that they’re really not into the idea of emotional attachment with one of their “challenges.” It’s just an ego thing for them. They want to be able to say, “Hey, guess who I laid” to their buddies.

    I am surprised though, that with your kind of intelligence (and I sense that you are extremely intelligent!) and wit, more men did not fall in love with you through conversation alone.

    Thanks! I’ve met a few scary stalker types over the years, and a few pushovers who don’t mind me taking the lead because they wanted a woman to play the man. (I think at least one was a closeted gay fellow who wanted a beard.) But the bright, well-adjusted, masculine guys I’ve known have been a lot more interested in friendship with me than romance.

    I’ve been great at setting up my friends with each other, though. I predicted that two of my friends would get married before they started dating or had even expressed interest in each other. Lo and behold, their first anniversary is coming up.

    157 Yours Truly

    I do think a disproportionate part of women who sleep around are high testosterone, but that does certainly not mean that most high test women sleep around.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you were right about high-testosterone women, but where I think Roissy and others are wrong is — I don’t think women with high testosterone are necessarily ambitious. I don’t think men are put off by high testosterone — men like to have sex, after all — but I do think many men are instinctively turned off by ambition, even for a short-term relationship. Maybe it would feel like sleeping with a man to them, I don’t know. The point is, it would be hard for a heterosexual ambitious woman to sleep around a lot if no man wants to sleep with her!

    I guess they are mostly masculine women who believe all women are like them. In reality women tend to make different choices because they enjoy different things because of their different hormonal wiring than males.

    Yes. My own rather uncharitable theory about women in the more intolerant branches of feminism is that a lot of those women are “failed women.” That is, they actually would have liked to be the princess-type, but they couldn’t for some reason — because they were ugly, fat, etc. So, out of pride, they rejected that ideal entirely and have been doing their utmost to get rid of it — if they can’t have it, then no one should.

    That probably sounds unkind, but the reason I think that is because they’ve declared an unnecessary war on a lifestyle that is appealing to many women. For the feminists who believe feminism is really about choice, other women’s choices wouldn’t be alarming so long as they were choices freely made.

    I have seen some women who are naturally masculine and men who are naturally feminine and there do exist people who, on a hormonal level, are wired unlike most of their sex.

    True. Of course, I wouldn’t really like to describe myself as masculine, because that brings up images of a big, brawny woman with a mustache, and I’m pretty small and dainty with a soft voice. (And I’m vain. Don’t forget vain.) Which was quite useful in giving defendants a false sense of security right before cross-examination…. 😉

    158 Clio

    This idea isn’t universally held by feminists…

    You’re right, and I was being clumsy. Normally when I say “feminist,” I’m talking about the Gloria Steinhem types, but of course she and her kind aren’t the only kind of feminists, though they dearly would love the world to think they are.

    I’m puzzled by what you say about the ancient Romans and their attitude toward “virtue” in women.

    Hmm. Let’s see if I can be more clear. To the Romans, virtue (manly courage) was a masculine trait, but it was one women could have if they were courageous and had never submitted to sex. For medieval Christians, both men and women could have virtue (moral excellence), but for an unmarried woman to be virtuous, she had to be chaste. During the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, people continued to pay lip service to the importance of chastity, but their attitudes were much more relaxed. The Victorian era was kind of a backlash against the excesses of the Enlightenment, and the Victorians’ notions of virtue were highly influenced by the strict medieval ones. Both the medievals and the Victorians had an ideal of woman as a clean, pure, almost sainted being; they put women on a pedestal but also treated them like children in constant need of protection. People during the Renaissance and the Enlightement — periods that were highly influenced by classical Rome — were more, shall we say, realistic.

    So the Roman notion of virtue was quite different than the medieval/Victorian one. To the Romans, virtue meant courage. To the medievals and the Victorians, it meant moral excellence, which includes much more than just courage. And yet, despite the difference in meanings, the Roman notion that women lost their virtue if they submitted to sex was adopted, in part, by the medievals and the Victorians. The medievals and the Victorians adapted it to mean no sex prior to marriage. But the Romans made no such allowance — once a woman had sex, she could no longer have virtue. It didn’t matter whether she had sex before marriage or after — once she had sex, she could no longer have virtue. (Note that “virgin” has the same root, vir, as “virtue.”)

    In other words, I think it’s interesting that the Romans believed women could be as brave as men — could be like men — but only as long as they were virgins.

    Hope that makes more sense.

    I never thought of princesses as weak.

    I didn’t think they were weak. Just boring. And unfortunately, I’ve never heard of those stories you mentioned — I’ll have to look them up.

    Like


  161. Oh dear. Elizabeth, I was afraid you were going to say something like that. Begging your pardon, but I suspect, from your last comment, that you have fallen victim to some form of highly ideological history teaching.

    I don’t see – and from my reading of medieval history, do not believe – that the medieval definition of virtue, which you define as “moral excellence” excluded courage for women. It seems to me from what you say that the Roman definition of “virtue” as manly courage was actually narrower than that of medieval Christian society. Female saints showed bravery in the face of death (particularly the martyrs of the early Christian era) over and over again, and even once Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire, saintly women continued to show courage, and to be recognised for doing so, in defying the authority of their parents by, for example, refusing to marry, or in some cases defying the authority of the Church itself.

    The other point I was trying to make was that it’s clear that the Romans too (and I know less about specifically Roman history than you, so I can only follow your lead in this) still placed a premium on female virginity, to the extent that they thought that a woman’s capacity for manly virtue (courage) was destroyed by sexual relations. If that is so, then medieval moralists actually granted women a wider latitude in virtue than their Roman counterparts, for while they certainly thought virginity was the crowning glory of female virtue, they were aware that women might possess other virtues, including courage, even when they failed in chastity or virginity.

    Incidentally, medieval moralists did not think women were purer than men, although you can find a few exceptions here and there. They believed women were irrational creatures who were subject to their passions, including sexual passion, far more than men. Another point: in general, women had more rights during the medieval and Renaissance eras than they did once the Enlightenment had arrived. This was because, prior to the upheavals of the 18th century, rank was a far more important gauge of one’s social and legal rights in continental Europe – Britain was different – than was sex, er, excuse me, gender. When Canada was transferred from French to British hands in the middle of the 18th century, landowning women LOST their right to vote in councils, etc.

    Sorry to go on about this, but I’m actually a historian by profession (not in academia, though), and my specialty was women in the (early modern) Church.

    Clio

    Like


  162. Elizabeth 160—

    Frankly, I think it would make a lot of sense to accelerate education for the high achievers so that they’re not in school through their mid to late twenties. Junior high is a waste of time, as are the first two years of college. (Not to mention the last two years of law school.) School doesn’t need to last nearly as long as it does.

    I’ve long thought very similar things. Except for those of us who are into casual and semi-casual sex (relationship try-out sex but with low barriers to entry), college and the extended years of law school can be one hell of a fun playground. Hell, I literally banged fully 2/3 of the hottish girls in my law school class. The only ones that got away were in really serious as in engaged type relationships (save one, who just got away), and I got some like that too. Fun times. But the last year of law school especially is a total waste; completely not needed. Just competing with med school and staying “ahead” of B school in the “serious professional training” academic bullshiite sweepstakes I think.

    Yes. My own rather uncharitable theory about women in the more intolerant branches of feminism is that a lot of those women are “failed women.” That is, they actually would have liked to be the princess-type, but they couldn’t for some reason — because they were ugly, fat, etc. So, out of pride, they rejected that ideal entirely and have been doing their utmost to get rid of it — if they can’t have it, then no one should.

    Oh absolutely. It’s such a truism and potent force in feminism that they’re always hiding it by trotting out some spokeswoman who looks hot and feminine. But just at the rows behind her. As well, let’s not forget how many of the most ardent feminists are lesbians, who can man hate with abandon, and without deep personal exceptions and bedroom contradictions.

    Another said: I have seen some women who are naturally masculine and men who are naturally feminine and there do exist people who, on a hormonal level, are wired unlike most of their sex.

    Elizabeth: “True.”

    Show me a hetro feminist who has chosen a suckup beta boy bf or husband who she doms day to day and no doubt in the bedroom, and I’ll show you a woman who’s aching of some alpha male dominance on the side, whether she knows it or not. Almost without exception is what I’m saying, even when that isn’t how she wants to live her day to day. I’ve played that drop in bull role before.

    Hope: but if you do not submit, then yeah, most men are going to find that perplexing and a bit off-putting.
    Elizabeth: So I’ve noticed. I have lingering control freak issues, I suppose. I was very bossy when I was younger. I’ve managed to moderate that, at least, but my issues with yielding, not so much.

    In my opinion this is key, this is your biggest issue, your only issue really, in attracting and keeping a thrilling high quality man. Everything else is just you, and a wonderful you as well.

    I guess what I’m really saying Elizabeth is that if I were younger I’d be after you, as in really. Looking to convert comment meet into more. This is the area I’d worry a a bit about.

    But I’d be inclined to view it as a shield against the unworthy, until proven otherwise. I’d be inclined to believe that that part of you can be pierced by someone worthy who’s really into you, and that the end result would be that much stronger, durable and exclusive a bond.

    Are you also pretty, black haired pale skinned Elizabeth? Are you very pretty? I think you will tell me the truth. Without unwanted modesty, or unwanted inflation. Higher also isn’t necessarily better in a life partner, beyond a point.

    Like


  163. 161 Clio

    Begging your pardon, but I suspect, from your last comment, that you have fallen victim to some form of highly ideological history teaching.

    It’s possible. Most of my professors weren’t happy if they weren’t drowning us in their daily dose of ideology.

    I don’t see — and from my reading of medieval history, do not believe — that the medieval definition of virtue, which you define as “moral excellence” excluded courage for women.

    Hence the significance of “manly courage” to the Romans, specifically, the kind of valor necessary to win an empire. There were other kinds of courage, which the Romans had other words for. But virtue meant something specific to the Romans that it didn’t mean to later peoples who used the word. You’ll notice I said that “moral excellence” includes much more than just courage, but I (and, I’m sure, medieval people) would include courage as part of virtue. Just not the very specific courage that the Romans invoked when they spoke of virtue.

    It seems to me from what you say that the Roman definition of “virtue” as manly courage was actually narrower than that of medieval Christian society.

    Yes, it was. This is not to say that the Romans didn’t have their own standards of moral excellence — they had notions of ethics and principles that went far beyond valor. But they weren’t referring to those other principles when they spoke of virtue. I just think it’s interesting that the word “virtue” traveled so far from its original roots.

    The other point I was trying to make was that it’s clear that the Romans too…still placed a premium on female virginity….

    Yes, and not just because they admired brave, martial females. They also prized virginity for age-old reasons relating to jealousy, suitability, and paternity, as the tale of the rape of Lucretia shows.

    I’m getting the feeling — please correct me if I’m wrong — that you think I’m saying the Romans’ definition of virtue was superior to later ones. That’s not the case at all. My comments about the Romans’ idea of virtue was made in the context of the discussion of ambitious women and how women with more political/martial ambitions are often seen as more masculine or asexual, that is, not desirable. That’s certainly the way the Romans saw it; they did not think that martial valor was a feminine trait. They weren’t excluding the possibility that a woman could be like a man — basically, capable of political or battlefield glory — but they didn’t believe that a woman could be both manly (in the political/military sphere) and womanly (in the sexual/family sphere). My remarks, in my first comment dealing with the issue, about later notions of virtue weren’t meant to disparage medieval or Victorian ideals, they were just throwaway remarks about how a particular part of the Roman idea of virtue (the necessity of female chastity) was included in a definition that was otherwise far different than the one the Romans had believed in.

    Sorry to go on about this….

    Nah, don’t apologize. It’s interesting.

    162 dougjnn

    But the last year of law school especially is a total waste; completely not needed. Just competing with med school and staying “ahead” of B school in the “serious professional training” academic bullshiite sweepstakes I think.

    Oh yes. It’s all about the hood at graduation and the title “doctor” in the degree. Which is silly, since no one bothers calling us doctors anyway….

    In my opinion this is key, this is your biggest issue, your only issue really, in attracting and keeping a thrilling high quality man. Everything else is just you, and a wonderful you as well.

    Aw, thanks. 🙂 I don’t know if it’s the only issue, but I’m sure it’s one of them.

    But I’d be inclined to view it as a shield against the unworthy, until proven otherwise. I’d be inclined to believe that that part of you can be pierced by someone worthy who’s really into you, and that the end result would be that much stronger, durable and exclusive a bond.

    I’ll grant I’ve yet to meet a man I’d like to drop the armor for — though perhaps that just comes from having impossibly high standards. My first little-girl crushes were on fictional characters and historical figures, and it’s not like the boys I grew up with, or the men I’m around now, are like those characters or figures at all. 🙂

    Are you also pretty, black haired pale skinned Elizabeth? Are you very pretty? I think you will tell me the truth. Without unwanted modesty, or unwanted inflation.

    Well, to some extent, beauty is in the eye of the beholder — ha ha. Just kidding. Yes, I am, though in a way that’s not much the fashion now. Hollywood wouldn’t want me, unless they needed someone to play a Victorian heroine dying of consumption. I’m pretty slight and delicate, and I’m anemic. Not much of an issue at the moment, because I get some color during the summer, at least, but in the winter, I can look downright unhealthy. My very kind brothers say I look like a vampire.

    So yeah. I’m not exactly the tall sun-bronzed goddess you see gracing magazine covers these days, but I have a pretty face.

    Like


  164. Elizabeth 163–

    Well my etherial vampiress, give me a star or starlet to help me visualize … Someone I can IMBD or some such.

    Talent is irrelevant here. We’re talking visuals at the moment.

    Like


  165. 164 dougjnn:

    I’m guessing Laura Flynn Boyle

    Like


  166. Um…I can’t really think of any actress I resemble too closely. Maybe a little Natalie Portman, a little Vivien Leigh. My mom would say Natalie Wood, but I don’t see the resemblance at all. My face is heart-shaped (not thin and narrow, like Lara Flynn Boyle’s — loved her in the Practice, by the way). I have big dark eyes and cupid’s bow lips. High forehead. My hair is sleek (with the assistance of a flat iron, anyway) and goes almost to my waist. I look a lot younger than I am and get mistaken for a high school kid all the time, because my skin isn’t really lining yet (there are advantages to my vampiric inability to tan!). I get hit on by high school boys a lot, which is kind of flattering and kind of mortifying. 🙂 The doe eyes probably have something to do with it. They make me look really naive.

    Like


  167. 166 Elizabeth:

    …Natalie Portman….Natalie Wood…big dark eyes…cupid’s bow lips…hair is sleek…doe eyes… naive..

    *gulp*

    Oh God. I think I’ve finally found someone to make me forget about Clio.

    [I] get mistaken for a high school kid all the time…

    DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER

    Like


  168. Excellent. I, on the other hand, am a big and blond and blue-eyed Franco-Slav. And over 35 (well, quite a lot over). Miss Elizabeth is a much more appropriate target for your impulsive affections.

    Clio

    Like


  169. 168 Clio:

    Clio, dear, please please PLEASE don’t be upset. You know how I jest. I will say this: never before in my life have I been drawn to a woman (you) solely due to the quality of her mind (and whatever aspects of her demeanor are capable of being transmitted over this medium). I mean that most sincerely. While we were of course not meant to be, I have taken note of the experience and it offers me hope that I might one day transcend the bondage I am in due to my immature love of physical beauty. Honestly.

    Plus, Elizabeth is a lawyer-chick, so you know what that means.

    Hugs and Kisses,

    TC

    Like


  170. Dear Tupac, of course I’m not upset…just amused. Drop by my blog sometime if you like. At the moment I’m having great difficulty posting anything there so haven’t done so for some days. But I’m sure that will resolve itself shortly – or I’ll switch from blogger to wordpress.

    alias clio

    Like


  171. Elizabeth 166–

    Maybe a little Natalie Portman, a little Vivien Leigh.

    Oh wow!! Be still my heart.

    Stepping back and thinking on you Elizabeth, you are indeed a very rare bird these days I can very easily see why you say you sometimes wish for Victorian (upper class) society ball and soiree courtship rituals.

    I see you as a tremendous, really tremendous (and NOT just saying) and rare life time prize for the right man, who’s also somewhat rare.

    But what you YOU want Elizabeth? Forget for the moment about too much settling. But DO be a bit realistic about who will be attracted to you. It’s unlikely for example that a super extraverted man will be. Those aren’t your strengths, and while differences can compliment each other, there also needs to be strong common emotional and intellectual ground, particularly when the woman is intellectually oriented.

    Also, do you think you want real passion? You may not really know if you’ve never really felt it, but are you very resistant to the idea, or do you merely think it may never visit you?

    Like


  172. Elizabeth, you sound like the kind of woman Tim Burton loves to cast in his movies. So I’m thinking…

    Helena Bonham Carter. Close?

    Like


  173. Clio: I, on the other hand, am a big and blond and blue-eyed Franco-Slav.

    Ix-nay on the ig-bay. Nope. Just ain’t true. Tupe, she’s guffing you. She’s plenty tall (almost as tall as me, and I’m not tall for a man, but not quite average either, so she’s getting up in altitude for the Fair Sex). But “big”? No way.

    Like


  174. 167 Tupac Chopra

    Hee. Er…thanks. 🙂

    171 dougjnn

    Thank you. 🙂

    What do I want? Um. Someone who isn’t scared of me?

    Okay, I won’t be facetious. But you’re going to laugh anyway, because I’m about to go into hopeless romantic (read: impossible) territory.

    I want someone heroic. I want someone who believes in something greater than himself and is willing to serve that vision. I want someone who thinks life is about more than merely fulfilling base appetites. Who thinks that there’s a purpose larger than his own amusement. Who is brilliant, loyal, respectful, gallant, kind, and strong. Who is willing to stand up for what’s right even when it’s not popular, who knows how to be both realistic and optimistic, and who knows when to be lighthearted and when to be serious. Handsome would be nice, but it’s far from my top priority. Funny would be nice, but in a witty way, not a goofy way, and again, that’s far from my top priority. I don’t really care about charm or cool, and I’m certainly not looking for someone who’s the life of the party.

    What can I say — I like the honorable warrior type. If the Trojan prince Hector were a real man, I’d be head over heels. 🙂

    And yes, I want passion — but for me, that includes someone who can put my brain on fire. Passion isn’t just about the body for me.

    Like


  175. 172 PatrickH

    Not really. My features are a lot…softer than Helena Bonham Carter’s, if that makes any sense. Her face is pretty angular, and mine isn’t really.

    But I see where you get that from. She has an old-fashioned air to her, and I do too.

    Like


  176. Elizabeth 174–

    I thought you’d say things along those lines, but wanted to hear.

    I want someone heroic. I want someone who believes in something greater than himself and is willing to serve that vision.

    That sort of hunger is usually dealth with these days by being and being attracted to crusading leftists of one sort or another. (I speak as a former leftist. I’m sure my cynicism on this point is not lost on you.)

    Yet you don’t seem leftist to me.

    Medecine san frontiers?

    Like


  177. No, I’m not a leftist. In fact, after college, my patience with leftists is pretty non-existent.

    I don’t really find activists or “crusader” types appealing in general. Most of the “activists” I’ve known have wanted to “serve the cause” by whining a lot. And I find the “causes” today pretty dull and uninspiring. Sanctimonious lectures about global warming coming from Ivy Leaguers with trust funds just don’t quite rank up there with holding the pass at Thermopylae. 🙂

    Like


  178. 170 Clio:

    Drop by my blog sometime if you like.

    I have done so, as I mentioned to you there. But as I also mentioned, it was a tad intimidating — I felt the urge to run away with my tail between my legs. I suspect I may be out of my depth in your waters — a rare occurrence for the ‘Pac.

    But I shall consider it.

    Like


  179. 174 Elizabeth:

    [snip effusive scroll of requirements]

    Your laundry list, as I’m sure you are aware, is as unrealistic as it is noble. I’m not knocking it, and were you a fresh faced girl in her early twenties, I would hold my peace. But I respectfully suggest that at your age (27?), you sand and shave a few of the burrs off that list — life will go a lot more smoothly. HTH.

    Handsome would be nice, but it’s far from my top priority.

    I suppose we weren’t meant for each other then.

    *preen*

    Passion isn’t just about the body for me.

    Sigh. More’s the pity.

    TC

    😉

    Like


  180. Sanctimonious lectures about global warming coming from Ivy Leaguers with trust funds just don’t quite rank up there with holding the pass at Thermopylae.

    I like Elizabeth!

    Just for that:

    Like


  181. Elizabeth 177–

    I don’t really find activists or “crusader” types appealing in general. Most of the “activists” I’ve known have wanted to “serve the cause” by whining a lot. And I find the “causes” today pretty dull and uninspiring. Sanctimonious lectures about global warming coming from Ivy Leaguers with trust funds just don’t quite rank up there with holding the pass at Thermopylae.

    You keep making me get up, pace about, and curse the heavens that I didn’t run into exactly you when I was more than a little younger. *ahem* You do realize that don’t you Elizabeth?

    So what kind of warrior who deeply loves his worthy woman who fully gets him, are you attracted to, when you shift your gaze time forward from Thermopylae?

    I think you’re gonna say it “beats the hell out of me, that’s my problem”, or something like. But maybe not.

    Floor is yours.

    Like


  182. As you mentioned to me there, Tupac? I can’t recall anyone calling himself that ever appearing on my blog – perhaps you used another pseudonym? Or I may have missed your comment, esp. if it was a recent one, since I’m having so much trouble with that gosh-durned blog.

    clio

    Like


  183. Clio:

    They were recent, tagged anonymously, but I signed off with my initials. They were, uh, unmistakably me you might say. You couldn’t have missed them unless your blogware isn’t doing something right. Try the post that started it all.

    Like


  184. 179 Tupac Chopra

    I know it’s unrealistic. Thing is, there aren’t exactly nice mortal boys lining up for me, so why not keep dreaming about a demigod? 🙂

    And yes, I’m 27.

    180 dougjnn

    Aw. Thanks again. 🙂

    So what kind of warrior who deeply loves his worthy woman who fully gets him, are you attracted to, when you shift your gaze time forward from Thermopylae?

    I think you’re gonna say it “beats the hell out of me, that’s my problem”, or something like. But maybe not.

    Well, here’s the thing. Every time I’ve met someone who’s going to be my best friend, I’ve known that immediately — it’s just so easy to talk to them. And my dad told my mom on their first date that he was going to marry her. The whole “at first sight” thing kind of runs in the family. So I haven’t seen him yet, but if I did, I think I’d know it. 🙂

    But that’s not to say I’m ignoring guys just because I don’t feel an instant spark. Like I said — I just have a habit of scaring them off. 🙂

    Like


  185. Elizabeth 184–

    I just have a habit of scaring them off.

    You won’t scare off the one’s who are good enough for you if you show them early on, as in VERY early on, where your priorities are. To any guy that shows any promise. They have friends. Be just as emotionally forthcoming as you have been here. It’s nothing but an advantage and a time saver.

    In other words don’t try to hide your intelligence or your educational pedigree but do de-emphasize competition and career ambition in how you present yourself. Well, you’ve done that here. Beautifully. Sure worked for me.

    I completely agree with Roissy though that it’s time for you to go into overdrive in finding the love of your life. It’s more important than anything else right now for you. Tick tock.

    I keep thinking you are most likely to find a good enough man who won’t be intimidated by you in someone quite a bit older, as in maybe up to ten years older (but without kids). An alphaish guy who’s gotten divorced from a hottie that couldn’t stop playing around on him might be a really good candidate for you for example, esp. if it wasn’t too long a marriage. Esp. if that hottie didn’t share his intellectual interests and was party party all the time, instead of some of the time. Alternatively, you would also seem awfully attractive to a guy who’s gotten divorced from a driven career woman, who’s highly critical of everything all the time, including him.

    An awful lot of guys in their later 30’s would really love a fresh 27yo like you. Hell, you’re comparitively practically virginal in heart and probably other things as well. You have a heart that can really, really be his. You are ripe, very ripe, for deep love Elizabeth.

    How about hottish girlfriends who are married or engaged? I mean networks of friends off of that, who know lots of guys, some of whom are re-entering the market?

    What about flirting with married men? I’m not suggesting having an affair with one, I’m suggesting becoming flirting, sexual tension friends with as many married men as you can. Just friends is ok, but adding so sexual tension spice to it will motivate him a lot more to want to be in your corner and help you, particularly the ones mostly likely to have the right kinds of friends or friends of friends. Again, put out there what you’ve said here. Let everyone know you’re not a typical lawyer chick, but a girl who wants a leading man and a family, a man she can share ideas with and fall totally in love with, more than a career. But that too, so far as it can work. God that’s so attractive to strong men Elizabeth.

    Like


  186. I’ll grant I’ve yet to meet a man I’d like to drop the armor for — though perhaps that just comes from having impossibly high standards. My first little-girl crushes were on fictional characters and historical figures, and it’s not like the boys I grew up with, or the men I’m around now, are like those characters or figures at all.

    This is exactly the female version of the male fantasy of bedding a supermodel (“my first little-boy crushes were on the Sports Illustrated swimsuit models…”). Except Elizabeth has a better chance of being able to fool herself that some flawed, human guy is actually a knight on shining armor out of a juvenile storybook than a guy has of convincing himself that an average woman looks like a supermodel. The reproduction of the human race depends heavily on the female capacity for self-deception…

    Like


  187. 185 dougjnn

    My dad’s actually fifteen years older than my mom, and he was divorced with three kids when they got married. (My mom was 28 when they got married, my dad 43.) They’ve been married for more than thirty years, so I’ve never been turned off by the idea of marrying an older man, a divorced man, or even a divorced man with children. In fact, I’ve always kind of assumed that I’d marry someone older than me, because I’ve always felt a lot older than guys my age. Problem is, the only older guys who ever show any interest in me are either married or off-limits for another reason (I’ve had teachers hit on me before. Ugh). I seem to be the girl that people want to have an affair with. And that’s something I’m not interested in at all.

    I have plenty of friends who are trying to set me up — rather more often than I’m comfortable with, in fact — but that’s pretty much led to a bunch of failed first dates. I go out with pretty much whoever asks me out — I’m willing to give anyone a shot, so long as I don’t have a reason to dislike them. (And by that, I mean a real reason — like I know they’ve done something cruel or dishonorable to someone I care about — not a stupid reason, like I don’t like what they happen to be wearing that day.) So it’s not like I’m hiding in a hole, waiting for fortune to find me. I’m just not clicking with the guys I meet. It’s not that they’re bad guys, it’s just that they’re not the right guys for me.

    There are, I suppose, certain things I can’t compromise on. One is intelligence. I can be friends with people who aren’t much interested in the life of the mind, but I can’t be attracted to them. I know that there isn’t much opportunity these days to be heroic, but I still need someone who thinks life is about more than eating, drinking, hooking up, and watching the Big Game. I can’t even be friends with someone who’s disloyal, so I certainly couldn’t marry someone who’s disloyal. I detest rudeness and cruelty. And I absolutely cannot abide cowards. There’s no way I could be attracted to someone who’s less brave than I am, and I’m a fighter, so I recognize that’s a pretty tall order. But that’s what I am, and that’s something I won’t change. If I see someone getting picked on, it’s not something I’m going to ignore because it’s not feminine to interfere.

    One more thing I can’t compromise on — and this can make it difficult to find friends, let alone a boyfriend — is pride. I can’t be with someone who expects or demands that I surrender my pride to theirs. I mean, I’m more than willing to admit when I’m wrong, and to apologize when I’ve behaved wrongly, but I won’t do anything that I consider degrading. So I’d never be able to live up to the “madonna in public, whore in the bedroom” ideal that some men have. I’d actually be less offended if my husband went to a prostitute for certain things than if he asked me to do certain things.

    I recognize that this is a big drawback in today’s anything-goes culture, but I’ll put it this way: Lucifer is my favorite character in Paradise Lost for a reason, and it’s because he and I are fanatical practitioners of the same sin. 🙂

    So — I might want something that doesn’t exist, and I might be too inflexible, and there’s a good chance that I’ll never get married. I don’t consider that an ideal situation, because, as I said, I want a family. I don’t want to be lonely. But I’d be even lonelier with a dull, cowardly slob who I married because I was afraid of the tick-tick-tick than I would be on my own.

    What I find rather disheartening is that my list of “requirements” seems a lot less limiting than the lists a lot of people, men and women, have. Other than intelligence, my “requirements” are all things men can choose to be; they’re traits that come from living by a certain code, not traits one has to be born with. People can choose to be kind or cruel, cowardly or brave. People can choose to believe that life is about more than base appetites. People can choose to be loyal. They can’t, on the other hand, choose to be good-looking, funny, or even rich. And yet I suspect if I told people I wanted a “rich, handsome guy who makes me laugh!”, they’d think I was being much less picky than I am now. And they’d be right, because most people don’t seem to believe in what I believe in anymore. We’re living in a decadent age, where fun is the highest good, where even the idea of honor is sneered at, and where love is basically a pretty synonym for sexual desire. That’s just the way things are. But I’m attracted to what I’m attracted to, and that’s just the way I am. I can choose to compromise or I can choose to hold out, and I don’t think I’m obliged to compromise. As far as I’m concerned, my only obligation, if I choose not to compromise, is to recognize that I made a choice, and not blame the world for it. People are what they are, I am what I am, and things don’t always work out. That’s okay. I have a lot to live for, even if I don’t get married and have children of my own. That’s the up side of ambition — I already have something to consume me.

    In other words — I appreciate the advice, and I think it’s good advice, but it still requires that I find the “right man,” and I’m realistic enough to know that he might not exist. Attraction is a two-way street. I have to like him, and he has to like me. Most men I meet seem to be interested only in my appearance. When they discover I’m not an easy, carefree lay, they move on. And the good men I meet, who I might be attracted to, given enough time — who I might be willing to compromise with, so to speak — seem to like other girls and have no problem finding them. That’s fine. I think it’d take an unusually passionate, self-willed — and very proud — man to be attracted to me, and that kind of man would be difficult to find at any time, but especially in a time like now, with our easy-come, easy-go, risk-averse, challenge-averse culture. I’m an outlier. It’s hard for outliers to find mates. Like attracts like, and there aren’t that many people like me. I’m strange and bizarre. And I can live with it. I’ve been living with it for 27 years, after all. One does get used to being a freak. 🙂

    186 MQ

    Except Elizabeth has a better chance of being able to fool herself that some flawed, human guy is actually a knight on shining armor out a juvenile storybook than a guy has of convincing himself that an average woman looks like a supermodel.

    Eh, not really. Honor is a hard thing to fake, and one thing I won’t do is wallow in self-delusion. You won’t hear me singing “Someday My Prince Will Come.” Maybe “Perhaps Someday My Prince Will Come.” But I’m not as confident as insipid storybook princesses. 🙂

    Like


  188. 187: where even the idea of honor is sneered at

    I’ve been scoffed at right here in these very comments for bringing it up in earnest.

    Like


  189. Elizabeth 187–

    BTW, as an aside, your overall great relationship with your dad is an enormous plus in having a rich and lasting marriage. You know that. It’s also true.

    This last post confirms to me much I pretty much knew, and underscores some things I was a bit worried about.

    There are many things you talk about in this latest comment that do present a challenge for a girl like you. They do narrow your field. We do indeed live in a very decadent age.

    There is one thing you’ve said that you are very wrong about. It is also fundamental. It’s a huge block for you in finding deep connection and love with a worthy man.

    You would not have been opening up to me as you have Elizabeth if you didn’t think I knew some things that might be valuable to you; if you didn’t think I fundamentally got you.

    So now tell me Elizabeth. Before I tell you, because it will be better this way. What is it that I think you’ve got fundamentally wrong, that really matters for you? You don’t have to agree it’s wrong — I’m sure you don’t at this point. Just tell me what I think it is.

    Like


  190. Elizabeth, men like that do exist, though you may be right that they are rare. My husband is like that. Intelligent, courageous, willful, loyal, witty, funny, confident, respectful, kind, believes very strongly in honor and would fight and sacrifice his life for the right cause, like his family. He’s even tall and good looking (at least in my opinion), though in a rather nerdy way. He was in the marines, can fight, and he has been in real fights. But I often take him for granted, as I’ve known him for almost 10 years. I met him young, when I was 15 and he was 21.

    The thing is, the man that you describe might want to do things that oppose starting a family. He might dream of searching for archaeological ruins or ancient civilizations underwater. Or going out to the desert to live with the natives for a while. Or any number of wild things that make me a bit annoyed (as these are things my husband want to do), because you can’t really have a family when you’re living the life of a warrior or nomad.

    I feel kind of bad that I’m chaining him to a lifestyle of middle class insipidity. He hates work, routine, doesn’t want to be controlled, and longs to be his own boss and to be self-directed, but he goes to work anyway so we can make a decent living. We’re not rich, and we can’t travel all of Europe or do whatever we want, like this trust fund kid we know. That’s another thing. The man you describe cannot stay that kind of man in this kind of society, and maybe that is why you can’t find him?

    You might laugh at this, but my husband takes out his inner warrior and war leader ambitions in video games, and sometimes I join him. He loves strategy games and city-building games, or just war games in general. Sometimes I play them with him, but like I said I’m not really into being a warrior or leader, but more of a healer and support.

    Well, that’s kind of the problem, too. “Nerdy” men don’t really interact with women often, except other gaming women (who are taken quite soon by a gaming guy), so you won’t really meet them if you don’t look. I know so many great men whom the other guys on this website would call “betas” and “nerds,” but who might easily fit your description. Hell, just go to the Rome: Total War website and behold the legions of men fervently into Roman history!

    Also, people are imperfect, and I have had to learn tolerance and love of imperfections. He is not without his faults, but then neither am I. Living with someone for years is a totally different experience than any book or movie can ever depict, because it’s simply too mundane to make a story out of, and so most stories never talk about it at all.

    When you’ve known someone for so long, it’s hard to really idealize them romantically, as you seem to do for your as yet unmet “Prince.” A man is just a man, and while you can try to inspire him to be a better man, he will still always be somewhat stinky, a bit lazy, and be inclined to grab your behind.

    In the end, a lot of men do like physical pleasure and the simple little things women do for them. Just because you live a rich life of the mind does not mean you should ignore the body completely. The mind, body and spirit are very intimately connected. You might already know that though.

    Anyway, good luck. You may be an outlier, but really, in the fortunate direction. It could be a lot worse. My bit of advice (and this is where dougjnn will very much disagree) — don’t compromise on the loyalty requirement. No matter what the pick-up artists and these bloggers say about how a woman gets wet for a man that sleeps around, a truly honorable man who is your life partner would not do that. Yes, it might get a woman passionate or hotly jealous in the short term, but you know that you deserve better.

    Like


  191. 188 Anonymous 57

    I’ve been scoffed at right here in these very comments for bringing it up in earnest.

    That doesn’t much surprise me. I don’t think many people come to blogs like this for lessons in honor. 🙂

    189 dougjnn

    BTW, as an aside, your overall great relationship with your dad is an enormous plus in having a rich and lasting marriage. You know that. It’s also true.

    Yup. I’ve heard plenty of researchers say that the greatest predictor for a woman’s success in the world is her relationship with her father. I know my dad has certainly set a shining example. So has my mom.

    What is it that I think you’ve got fundamentally wrong, that really matters for you? You don’t have to agree it’s wrong — I’m sure you don’t at this point. Just tell me what I think it is.

    What I said about pride, I’m guessing.

    190 Hope

    The thing is, the man that you describe might want to do things that oppose starting a family.

    Yes, I know. That’s the problem with conflicting desires. 🙂

    The man you describe cannot stay that kind of man in this kind of society, and maybe that is why you can’t find him?

    Probably. I think that’s one of the biggest problems I have with the times we’re living in — it’s just a little too safe.

    I know so many great men whom the other guys on this website would call “betas” and “nerds,” but who might easily fit your description.

    Oh, I know. I’m so not looking for a jock-type or a player or a movie star. Blech. I like men with some brains, thanks. 🙂

    Also, people are imperfect, and I have had to learn tolerance and love of imperfections.

    I’m not looking for perfection. If I wanted to get into my own faults, I could talk about them for hours, from the silly (I babble, especially when nervous) to the severe (impatient, judgmental, reckless, vain, hypersensitive, prone to hubris…). I know people have flaws; I know they make mistakes. I know people can have bad breath, especially in the morning. 🙂 I’m not looking for someone to put on a pedestal or to be superhuman. I’m just looking for someone with the traits I value.

    My bit of advice (and this is where dougjnn will very much disagree) — don’t compromise on the loyalty requirement.

    I won’t. I don’t much care what a man did with women before me (well, unless he has an STD or something), but if he’s expecting to play around, he can do it without me. I agree with Dante that the lowest places are in hell are reserved for traitors. 🙂

    And that sort of thing actually doesn’t get me passionate or hotly jealous — betrayal makes me turn frigid, then indifferent. It’s one area where I’m pretty unforgiving.

    Like


  192. Elizabeth 191 —

    What I said about pride, I’m guessing.

    Yes, of course. But what about what you said about “pride”. Surely you don’t think I believe a woman should think little of herself, and that that is the ticket to attracting the highest quality man of honor that you crave.

    What about what you said Elizabeth.

    Oh, and what Hope said about what I will disagree about is mostly wrong. I think deep two way loyalty is absolutely essential in any great long term relationship or marriage. She’s talking about some things I’ve talked with her about, but they aren’t core things. Let’s deal with core things, shall we?

    Like


  193. Hope, what you describe sounds a lot like the sort of men I am into. I kind of like nerdy guys :p, though the more attractive portion of them. It is important for me that a guy truly inhabits his body and does not neglect the physical level. So much wisdom can be attained trough exercise, competitive sports, dance and other bodily activities. To be honest, I think I would have far more in common with a cute engineer who lives out his inner warrior online and in fencing class than with some street thug soldier with bad grammer. I’d also get along well with an adventurous archeologist type, as I am very introverted and can be alone very well.

    Regarding age, most of the guys that approach me in the flesh are my own age or younger. I’ve attracted some older guys online, and they were a lot less mature than the younger guys who approach me, especially if they were specifically looking for someone younger. I think I may sound older than I look. I get along best with guys close to me in age who happen to be very mature for their age.

    Like


  194. 192 dougjnn

    No, I don’t think you think that women should think little of themselves. But I guess I don’t really know what you’re talking about. Maybe you think I’m equating submission with a surrender of pride? I can see why you would think that, if that’s the case. It’s the truth.

    Which perhaps means I’m incapable of love, but oh well. I don’t think sex and romance have to be about domination and submission, but if other people do, that’s their prerogative.

    Like


  195. 193 Yours Truly

    I’d also get along well with an adventurous archeologist type, as I am very introverted and can be alone very well.

    Yes, exactly. I mean, I’m not very introverted — I usually test on the threshold between introversion and extroversion — but I can be alone quite well, and for long periods of time. I certainly wouldn’t want to pin down or cage an adventurous man. I don’t think together every minute is healthy for any relationship. In fact, clinginess drives me crazy.

    Regarding age, most of the guys that approach me in the flesh are my own age or younger.

    These days, the majority of men who approach me are disproportionately younger than I am, but I think that’s because they think I’m younger than I am.

    Like


  196. Elizabeth, you are very interesting. I am in law school now, and you seem to possess some of the qualities (analytical, competitive) common in the female law types but also you are obviously unique in many ways. I kind of lucked out with where I go – many of the women are attractive here, in the confident, outspoken way you’d expect in a professional school. I’m 5-6 years older than the average student here (though not necessarily more mature). Law school is a weird environment because of the competitive nature – on the one hand you make friends, but on the other hand, in the back of your mind, you know he/she may screw you over if they can.

    Btw, I kind of like Criminal Law. I might consider working in it – though I know the pay ain’t great.

    Any tips on, um, succeeding with law chicks are appreciated. They’re certainly different from say, teachers. And Jack wants to get some soon.

    Like


  197. 196 Jack

    I’m probably the last person in the world to go to for advice on scoring. But if you have any specific questions, I might (stress: might) be able to answer them. 🙂

    Here’s one ironclad rule, though — do not, under any circumstances known to God or man, try to hook up with a female law student in the two weeks before finals. 🙂

    And if you’re at all interested in being a trial lawyer, I would definitely start out with criminal law. Prosecutors and public defenders will see the courtroom on the first day of the job, and have their own case load from day one. I was doing trials within a few weeks of starting as a prosecutor. Compare that to associates at big law firms, who might start seeing a courtroom after several years of being a glorified research assistant.

    Like


  198. Elizabeth 194 –

    No, I don’t think you think that women should think little of themselves. But I guess I don’t really know what you’re talking about. Maybe you think I’m equating submission with a surrender of pride? I can see why you would think that, if that’s the case. It’s the truth.

    Ker.. chunck.

    I just heard the steel doors of your openness and curiosity about what I have to say close firmly shut.

    This is going to be a lot of work. I debated whether I’d go on or not. I guess I’ll continue for a bit and see. I have no Sisyphus ambitions.

    I’m not talking about giving up your pride whatsoever. How about adding more sexual pride and confidence? I’m not talking about submission to a man in marriage. I am talking about a fully companionate and equal marriage. I am talking about emergent areas to be determined in which you lead and he follows. That might sometimes include the bedroom, but probably wouldn’t for a while, you being such an ingénue in that department from what you’ve said. But some people are remarkably fast learners and you might well be in this area as in others. IF, IF, IF. Let’s get to that if.

    You will never have great sex if you worry too much about equality in the bedroom or worry very much about going too far. At the same time if your lover doesn’t want to tell you how much he adores you afterwards, which doesn’t mean the second after, then there might indeed be something wrong. Oh, and you should feel that too. Well, full spectrum adoration takes more than sex for most healthy and intelligent people (and certainly will for you) but the sex should be helping, not getting in the way.

    Ok, having said that much, let’s take a step back to your big post about your mate search efforts, requirements and challenges.

    Elizabeth 187 (as will be all quotes hereafter):

    So it’s not like I’m hiding in a hole, waiting for fortune to find me. I’m just not clicking with the guys I meet. It’s not that they’re bad guys, it’s just that they’re not the right guys for me.

    Ok, you’re meeting a fair volume of guys, but you’re very picky and the one’s you MIGHT like aren’t drawn enough to you.

    There are, I suppose, certain things I can’t compromise on. One is intelligence.

    Fine. I wouldn’t dream of suggesting you compromise there. There are also a lot of smart guys out there that aren’t getting women they’re happy with.

    I still need someone who thinks life is about more than eating, drinking, hooking up, and watching the Big Game. I can’t even be friends with someone who’s disloyal, so I certainly couldn’t marry someone who’s disloyal. I detest rudeness and cruelty. And I absolutely cannot abide cowards.

    All very doable for a high quality girl like you.

    There’s no way I could be attracted to someone who’s less brave than I am, and I’m a fighter, so I recognize that’s a pretty tall order. But that’s what I am, and that’s something I won’t change. If I see someone getting picked on, it’s not something I’m going to ignore because it’s not feminine to interfere.

    Yeah, as you implied this is a considerably taller one than the others, but this too you can find.

    I can’t be with someone who expects or demands that I surrender my pride to theirs. I mean, I’m more than willing to admit when I’m wrong, and to apologize when I’ve behaved wrongly,

    Good. No confident, quality man wants his woman to have to surrender her pride, or be anything remotely like his doormat.

    but I won’t do anything that I consider degrading.

    Ummm. Okay. I guess. [Orange flag alert.] Publically degrading? No of course not. Genuinely degrading? No. But some people consider oral sex degrading and the vast majority of US women used to, not so long ago – though only a small minority do now and most of them do so for puritan religious type reasons. You don’t mean things like that I trust???

    So I’d never be able to live up to the “madonna in public, whore in the bedroom” ideal that some men have. I’d actually be less offended if my husband went to a prostitute for certain things than if he asked me to do certain things.

    All right, a red flag is now on the field. A big, banner size, screaming red flag.

    This sounds like an awful lot more than just aversion to a particular sexual act, such as e.g. anal. It’s sounds like there’s a lot of, to be frank, inner prude going on. My intention isn’t to throw out names as a put down. It’s to be sure we’re being real here.

    It’s one thing for the prize of your love and sexual intimacy to require at least the strong beginnings of love first, with no quick path to getting there, unlike with most bordering on nearly all your competition, as you are aware. You’re aware of that and you know it’s a massive impediment to your finding a man you can be happy with, given your high requirements elsewhere as well.

    But it’s something else when a guy getting an idea of the hurdle field in front of him also get’s vibes from you that while you will be something of a Madonna in public quite naturally and comfortably, you won’t be “a whore in the bedroom”.

    I submit to you that that is actually your biggest problem in attracting worthy men. That vibe. The showing love first hurdles are a problem and narrow your field a lot, but if you aren’t much concerned about getting sex without love while you explore possible men and bide your time, it might not be such a huge impediment to finding what you want.

    No “whore in the bedroom” at the finish line though is a killer. It would sure mean bye bye from an appropriately younger me in looking to settle down mode, if I became convinced you were unmovable on the subject.

    A final thought for now. You shouldn’t compromise on this. You shouldn’t do, or keep doing, sexual things which horrify and disgust you. But you perhaps should makes sure that being a “whore in the bedroom” isn’t actually a wonderful and love enhancing way to be and share.

    This horror at being a “whore in the bedroom” must be based on false assumptions and predictions. It seems to me it has to be. All my experience tells me that. All of it. Because women who are loved and cherished in equal relationships, and are whores in the bedroom, have such a good time there and generally. That doesn’t fix all problems but it sure does help loving relationships a lot. A whole lot.

    Is any of this making sense to you?

    Like


  199. 198 dougjnn

    I just heard the steel doors of your openness and curiosity about what I have to say close firmly shut.

    Nah. If I weren’t curious, I wouldn’t be here. I won’t agree with everything I read, but that doesn’t mean I’m not open to reading it.

    You will never have great sex if you worry too much about equality in the bedroom or worry very much about going too far.

    Er, since I’ve never even remotely approached going to the bedroom with a guy, this isn’t really high on my list of concerns at this point.

    But some people consider oral sex degrading…most of them do so for puritan religious type reasons. You don’t mean things like that I trust???

    Actually, I do. Not for religious reasons, just for personal ones. I wouldn’t want to put anyone’s genitals in my mouth. The idea revolts me. If other people like that sort of thing, that’s fine — it’s not my business what they do with each other voluntarily, and for what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s immoral or anything like that. If that’s what they like, that’s what they like. But since I find it personally objectionable, I think it would be degrading for me to do it.

    This sounds like an awful lot more than just an aversion to a particular sex act, such as e.g. anal….

    That idea also revolts me.

    It sounds like there’s a lot of, to be frank, inner prude going on.

    Er, yes. I think I said earlier that I’d probably be exactly the kind of prudish, conservative girl guys here don’t seem to like much.

    I submit to you that this is actually your biggest problem in attracting worthy men.

    Perhaps. But I couldn’t stay attracted to someone who wanted me to do things I’m deeply uncomfortable with and averse to.

    This horror at being a “whore in the bedroom” must be based on false assumptions and predictions.

    I don’t think I’ve put enough thought in it to advance to the level of assumptions and predictions. 🙂 I just know the idea of doing certain things revolts me. I assume most heterosexual men wouldn’t be too keen on the idea of someone’s penis being shoved into their mouth or their ass, so maybe you can relate it to that, I don’t know.

    Is any of this making sense to you?

    Um, not really. But I’m not sure there’s anything you can say that will make it make sense. I haven’t been comfortable with overtly physical stuff from birth; it takes a lot of trust for me to let down even basic barriers, and I think there are certain barriers that I’ll never be able to let down. But it’s not like I go into dates telling guys, “By the way, I’ll never give you a blow job.” I honestly thing that when it comes to the physical stuff, it’s all about the basic barriers, not the advanced ones. And fundamentally, I think it’s more about personality than anything else. I think, where it counts — not in appearance, but in character — I’m too much like a man for men to like me as anything but a friend and colleague. So sorry. I’m not trying to be difficult here, but I really have zero experience where this sort of stuff is concerned.

    Like


  200. Elizabeth 199-

    I haven’t been comfortable with overtly physical stuff from birth; it takes a lot of trust for me to let down even basic barriers, and I think there are certain barriers that I’ll never be able to let down. But it’s not like I go into dates telling guys, “By the way, I’ll never give you a blow job.”

    Men can feel it. Lots and lots of men can.

    After all Elizabeth, you are WAY out there on these things.

    Men may not think “I bet she’ll never give me a blow job” — though they might, or might think she’ll never like it and will stop immediately upon marriage or some such. But they will think “she just feels kinda cold and/or pretty rigid. If there’s sexual heat in there somewhere, I’m not feeling it.”

    Men with any alternatives do want to feel sexual heat down there. As you’ve said the sorts of men you’re attracted to do attract other girls as alternatives.

    You will probably eventually find some guy that will want you regardless, and who you can respect intellectually.

    He’s gonna be VERY beta sexually unless you do some big changing and rethinking. A guy who you can view by any stretch heroic? A friendship only marriage perhaps?

    You’re making me sad. I feel bad about this. I like you. This feels tragic to me. In so many ways you don’t sound so masculine. But asexual. Maybe that.

    If its a matter of blockage, it can be dissolved. Do you have sexual fantasies?

    Like


  201. Elizabeth, men do often want a woman who hints at her wildness in bed. Men need sex like they need air and water. I intuited this when I was in my early teens, and my awful relationship with my father might have helped me here rather than hindered me. I craved a man’s affections in all ways, and I always jumped on guys who demonstrated to me their love.

    I haven’t been comfortable with overtly physical stuff from birth; it takes a lot of trust for me to let down even basic barriers, and I think there are certain barriers that I’ll never be able to let down.

    Physical expressions of love are powerful, and it is real power that a woman holds. A plain woman can turn into the sexiest woman on Earth for a man, if she knows how to properly wield her sexual power. I’m not saying you should do it for every man out there. I certainly don’t. But when the man is worthy, when he truly loves you, it’s worth letting down your guards.

    I also do not think there is anything wrong with being a whore in the bedroom. All those who are good at what they do perfect it through repeated practice — artists, writers, cooks, etc. Sex is a potentially creative act in addition to a potentially destructive one. At the same time, innocence and virginity are also prized. A lot of women won’t really be into the raw, dirty and naughty parts of sex, because they have been taught to stay away.

    P.S. Go ahead and laugh, but growing up with nerdy guys of all ages (12 to 60+) did me quite a bit of good. I knew just exactly how much men like sex, how that fact never changes.

    P.P.S. Oral sex is great, for the man and for the woman.

    Like


  202. 200 dougjnn

    Men can feel it. Lots and lots of men can.

    Well, I have been called an Ice Princess since high school….

    After all Elizabeth, you are WAY out there on these things.

    I realize that.

    A friendship only marriage perhaps?

    I doubt it. I don’t much see the point of marriage if there aren’t kids, there won’t be kids if there’s no sex, and I don’t think I could ever have sex without feeling enough passion to get over my dislike of being touched.

    You’re making me sad. I feel bad about this. I like you. This feels tragic for me.

    Aw, don’t be sad. I assure you, I’m quite happy. 🙂

    In so many ways you don’t sound so masculine. But asexual. Maybe that.

    I don’t think I’m asexual. The idea of (conventional, not kinky) sex with someone I love and feel passion for doesn’t gross me out. But I’ve felt really strong passion for a guy only once, and he wasn’t right for other reasons, so it came to nothing.

    If it sheds any light on the subject, I am very, very picky about friends too. I mean, I have a lot of casual friends, but I have few confidants.

    If its a matter of blockage, it can be dissolved.

    I’m sure some reservations can be resolved, but not all of them. There are certain things I wouldn’t do for anyone.

    Do you have sexual fantasies?

    Um, yes (my face is now crimson), but I doubt they’d tell you anything about me that I haven’t said quite openly already. Really, I think the fantasies are more about the man than the sex.

    201 Hope

    Elizabeth, men do often want a woman who hints at her wildness in bed.

    So I’ve noticed. 🙂

    Men need sex like they need air and water.

    I know. I have five brothers, after all. 🙂

    Physical expressions of love are powerful, and it is real power that a woman holds….when the man is worthy, when he truly loves you, it’s worth letting down your guards.

    I’m sure it is. But I’ve never met a man who truly loves me.

    I also do not think there is anything wrong with being a whore in the bedroom.

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, either. I assure you, I’m not being held back by religious belief or notions of purity or something. I’m no atheist, but I think the Almighty has rather more important things to pay attention to than what I do or do not do in bed. 🙂

    Like


  203. Elizabeth 202–

    I’m sure it is. But I’ve never met a man who truly loves me.

    Until you change your attitudes towards sex and sexuality significantly, you are quite literally NOT WORTHY of any man.

    Your physical attractiveness is quite literally a fraud and a deception. It might lead some men to suppose and believe things but they will turn out to not be true.

    Having romatic feelings for you will turn into nothing but heartache.

    You are sexually loxic.

    I’ve never said that before to anyone, but I mean it.

    Change or get thee to a convent of one sort or another. Your dating is an utter fraud.

    Like


  204. Elizabeth–

    You show no anguish whatsoever. You are shockingly cold and asexual and yet you see no need to change, or work hard on your sexuality problems. You don’t see your extreme deficits as problems even. Or at most, only a marketing one, in your so far fruitless search for an interested man who’s remotely interested in you. Once the truth is out, big effing surprise.

    To say that you will not be able to hold any man’s sexual attention for long is a gross understatement.

    More than that, you don’t deserve to. I regard it as the duty of any man to all that is male to cheat on you early, fundamentally in heart as well as body, and often. Just all the freakin time.

    You are not worthy of any sexual or romantic loyalty whatsoever.

    Like


  205. I don’t think I could ever have sex without feeling enough passion to get over my dislike of being touched.

    I understand where you’re coming from with that. In person I also seem quite frigid and give off an asexual vibe, and I have always presented an outward face that most men would look at and think of as “unavailable.” In a very nerdy, goodie-two shoes way, not in a princess-y way. People that I’ve first met online who then meet me in person have commented on this vast dichotomy.

    Like you, I am not touchy-feely at all with people in daily life. I’ve been uncomfortable with hugging friends since I was young. The culture I grew up was rather stiff. I don’t like to hug my parents, nor did I ever have a lot of physical affection. But with a man I love, I am completely different.

    But I’ve felt really strong passion for a guy only once, and he wasn’t right for other reasons, so it came to nothing.

    I’m sorry to hear that it didn’t work out with your first love. That is devastating in itself, and I don’t think I would have completely gotten over it either. I view sex as a very sacred and powerful thing, and I don’t go there unless there is true love involved.

    So I could have easily been in your situation, except… somehow, before I even was 18, five different guys claimed they fell in love with me. I don’t really know how it happened, or what I did really (certainly I thought I was undeserving). But maybe you have to let down your guard a little first before men will love you.

    Rather than dreaming of a man who mostly exists in your head, do you try to look at the men in front of you and find out who they really are? What their hopes, dreams and aspirations are? Do you give up quickly, after a few conversations, or do you talk with them a lot, deeply and emotionally, for weeks? And with the man that you did feel real love and passion for, did you know him very well, inside and out, or was he just a false image, a cipher?

    Once upon a time I fell in love with a ghost of a man, and the very idea of him, even though in truth I knew little about him, was exciting. Years later I met the real thing and was disappointed. In time, though, I came to really love the flesh and blood living man, with his crooked grin and clumsy hands.

    I regard it as the duty of any man to all that is male to cheat on you early, fundamentally in heart as well as body, and often. Just all the freakin time.

    You are not worthy of any sexual or romantic loyalty whatsoever.

    That’s very harsh. I’m no Christian, but didn’t Jesus find ways to love even the most unlovable of debauched human beings?

    We don’t know what might have happened in her past to cause her to wall up and want to retain control of her body and feeling. And this is a rather public medium, and not everyone is comfortable being completely honest when things can be traced back to them.

    Like


  206. I think there do exist dating sites for the asexual.

    I have noticed a few male and female asexuals on a thread on another forum and they do exist and most do want a partner in a chaste but tender romance. If you want children, and have an asexual husband, you can do sperm injections. You could also adopt.

    There is nothing fraudulent about being asexual if you are dating men who are the same. Asexuality is no more immoral than homosexuality or kinkyness. Both can be hurtful if you are with a normal partner, but an appropriate partner would likely feel relieved.
    I do think it is best to stay away from sexual men, because you do sound like you are asexual or bordering on it. To normal people, sex with the right person is something to look forward to, not something that can be tolerated.

    You also do not have to marry if that path is not for you. Some people get a lot of satisfaction out of a friendship with someone of the opposite or same sex. Some asexual people also find a place in polyamorous groups as an emotional partner to someone who has other sexual outlets.

    Like


  207. Hope 205 —

    dougjnn: You are not worthy of any sexual or romantic loyalty whatsoever.

    Hope: That’s very harsh.

    Good. That’s exactly what I intended. Glad it felt that way to you.

    Reflect a moment Hope. How often have you seen me get really harsh?

    I either want to shock her into wanting to change, or shock her out of trying to deceive men into dating her, or *shudder* marrying her.

    Because I guarantee you Hope, as hard as she may now find the dating scene, if she really let even the less perceptive men know the truth depths of her lack of sexuality virtually all, bordering on all, men would stay away.

    When you add child support enforced costs to the urge to reproduce the calculus become just about all.

    Like


  208. “I view sex as a very sacred and powerful thing, and I don’t go there unless there is true love involved. ”

    I feel the same way and feel the word sacred is very fitting even though I’m not a believer.

    “Rather than dreaming of a man who mostly exists in your head, do you try to look at the men in front of you and find out who they really are? What their hopes, dreams and aspirations are?”

    This is very important, I did not do this when I was in my teens and it did make guys seem boring. Men become more interesting when you search for the best in them and appreciate it. The nice man who removes the big spider from your cellar is also a kind of hero 🙂

    “Once upon a time I fell in love with a ghost of a man, and the very idea of him, even though in truth I knew little about him, was exciting.”

    This was also me once. You fall in love with a fantasy, and then discover the real man is a different man.

    I also feel that comment was harsh. It is pretty irrelevant to decide what people deserve or are worthy of unless you can and will supply it.

    Like


  209. Yours truly —

    There is nothing fraudulent about being asexual if you are dating men who are the same.

    Ok, but that’s not remotely what she’s doing. It’s not what she’s done here. Look how long it took me to learn the truth — and I’m the ONLY one who got to it. It’s not

    To wit, see this @ Elizabeth 199:

    But it’s not like I go into dates telling guys, “By the way, I’ll never give you a blow job.” I honestly thing that when it comes to the physical stuff, it’s all about the basic barriers, not the advanced ones.

    If the later part of that sounds to you like maybe she’s really dealing with inhibitions, well that’s how I proceeded for awhile. See the dialog following.

    Like


  210. ” Look how long it took me to learn the truth — and I’m the ONLY one who got to it. It’s not ”

    Well, you aren’t dating her. 🙂 I don’t think meeting someone over the internet entitles him to know about my sexual preferences.

    I don’t know what she is doing on dates, really. If a guy told me on the 5th date that he was asexual, I would be a bit disappointed, but not betrayed. If he told me after we were engaged or married, then, yes, that is very bad and harmful.

    I know one woman who married a man who stopped being sexual after their wedding night, though he performed normally during engagement. She said he never wanted sex unless it was 7am and then only without foreplay. That kind of situation is betrayal. But I don’t think Elizabeth is doing this.

    Like


  211. Yours truly 210–

    I don’t know what she is doing on dates, really.

    Exactly. That was exactly my purpose in being harsh. Actually, first of all I just wanted to be, badly. But I also thought about it. And concluded as I’ve explained.

    If she went into dates saying essentially “look, I may be pretty asexual. I do long for a deep romantic friendship and I think for the right man I’d be a loyal life companion. But I don’t know about the sexual side. A whole lot of things there turn me off or disgust me. Are you still interested?”

    Then I’d say fine. This process might lead her to conclude that the only way she can honestly and fairly attract a man she’s attracted to is to give him a WHOLE LOT of license to have sex and affairs with other women, with some agreed upon amounts of discretion. Maybe a lot of discretion.

    That could possibly work.

    Instead what I see as likely is some guy being seriously decieved as she becomes increasingly desperate to marry and have children.

    Like


  212. I agre with most of the above, that is why I suggested a fellow asexual or alternatively a polyamourous arrangement.

    “Instead what I see as likely is some guy being seriously decieved as she becomes increasingly desperate to marry and have children.”

    From which of her comments do you conclude that?

    Like


  213. 203 dougjnn

    Until you change your attitudes toward sex and sexuality significantly, you are quite literally NOT WORTHY of any man.

    Ah, well. C’est la vie. But I’m a bit at loss for what I said that’s so offensive. Is anal sex that big of deal for guys?

    Your physical attractiveness is quite literally a fraud and a deception. It might lead some men to suppose and believe things but they will turn out not to be true.

    Why? I dress well, but not suggestively. I don’t move with an enticing, sensual sway. I don’t think I do anything that can be construed as false advertising, that is, “readily available sex here.” I’m vain, so I like looking pretty, but not in a titillating way.

    Change or get thee to a convent of one sort or another. Your dating is an utter fraud.

    Why? I’m not making any promises I can’t keep. I’m not giving any hints of wild debauched abandon. I’d like to get married. I’d like to have children. If I fell in love, I’m guessing I’d like to have sex with my husband. I go out with guys who ask me out; it’s not like I chase down some poor, unsuspecting fellow and force him to date me. I’m not really seeing what false signals I’m sending out. I go out, we don’t like each other that way, we move on. Such is the way of the world.

    204 dougjnn

    You show no anguish whatsoever. You are shockingly cold and asexual and yet you see no need to change, or work hard on your sexuality problems.

    Well, I don’t really believe in crying over spilt milk, so to speak. I am what I am; I’m not going to spend my life depressed because I can’t “have it all.” And my “sexuality problems” aren’t even problems, considering that at this point, they’re entirely theoretical. Like I said — I haven’t really met any men that I’d want to change for. So I really have no idea how I’d act around a guy I really, deeply loved. I’m not sure there’s someone out there for me. That’s okay. Not everyone has mates. I’m not hurting anyone, I’m not standing in the way of other people who want to get married/have sex/be healthy, so I’m really not seeing why you’re so offended by me.

    To say that you will not be able to hold any man’s sexual attention for long is a gross understatement…You are not worthy of any sexual or romantic loyalty whatsoever.

    Er. I mean, you’re welcome to your opinion and all, but I’m still not really getting your anger, or at least your intensity. If what you’re saying is true, I’m the one who pays the consequences, right? I assure you I haven’t left a string of broken hearts, led along by false promises, in my wake. So if I’m the only one hurt by me…what’s the point in anyone else getting mad? I could see people getting mad at me if I were demanding that they change for me, or if I were pretending to be something I’m not, but I’m not. I know full well that people are what they are, that they like what they like, and that’s that.

    Like


  214. I suspect dougjnn had a wife or girlfriend who was frigid and is taking this personally. She may have also taken him to the cleaners.

    Like


  215. Yours truly 212–

    From which of her comments do you conclude that?

    All of them. The totality. Where does she show any realization that what she has to offer sexually is simply not enough for nearly any man to be at all happy, and definitely not enough for any man with alternatives to put up with for long?

    There are ways of dealing with the “not put with for long” than can still allow her a warm and close personal partnership/friendship. I.e. permitt her sexual husband discrete daliances.

    (The trouble is that discretion is a challenge when the surrounding society, or large parts of especially the female portions of it, are so determined to blow up married male daliances. America today is pretty much unique in the world on this both now and even more historically.)

    Like


  216. 205 Hope

    Rather than dreaming of a man who mostly exists in your head, do you try to look at the men in front of you and find out who they really are? What their hopes, dreams and aspirations are? Do you give up quickly, after a few conversations, or do you talk with them a lot, deeply and emotionally, for weeks?

    Um, more like they give up quickly. 🙂 I think this whole conversation started when I made an off-hand remark that guys tend to be scared off by date number 3 and never call for date number 4, and dougjnn asked why that was. I don’t think I haven’t “found a man” because no man can compare to the dream man in my head — I don’t expect a dream. I think my lack of success is simply due to the fact that I’m bizarre. 🙂 I said at the outset that I have a weird combination of traits, among those that I’m physically reserved, that I don’t think are conducive to romance.

    The guys I find that are really easy to talk to tend to be the ones who take a “friendship approach,” not a “let’s go out” approach. Without the pressure of a Date, and all the expectations that go along with that, it’s a lot easier for me to get to know someone. I have lots of guy friends. And I assume, if I do get married, it will be a relationship that started out like that, but that had an underlying sexual tension from the beginning.

    I’m afraid dating just doesn’t work for me. But I don’t want to just start rejecting men, without even knowing them, just because it hasn’t worked out in the past. You never know when lightning will strike. 🙂

    Like


  217. Is anal sex that big of deal for guys?

    Anal isn’t for most guys, merely a passing curiosity in most cases. But oral can be a big deal for a lot of them. Plenty of guys do manage without, but they’re not really happy about it. Of course they’d rather have normal sex sans oral than nothing at all.

    so I’m really not seeing why you’re so offended by me.

    I’m still not really getting your anger, or at least your intensity.

    He is offended by you because he saw real potential in you — for himself. Then again, he hands out compliments quite freely, so you might not have reason to think he was serious. But he was, and in his way, he was also starting to get emotionally invested in you.

    People don’t usually get angry about things they don’t care too much about. Any show of intense emotion surely has something behind it.

    My mirror neurons work pretty well online.

    Like


  218. I think that while the asexual marriage may be a reasonably fit place for a child to be born in, the dalliance/polyamorous marriage does not seem like a stable place to me.

    I do think it is best for a child to be porn to parents who love eachother durably, romantically and also passionately.

    “The guys I find that are really easy to talk to tend to be the ones who take a “friendship approach,” not a “let’s go out” approach. Without the pressure of a Date, and all the expectations that go along with that, it’s a lot easier for me to get to know someone. I have lots of guy friends. And I assume, if I do get married, it will be a relationship that started out like that, but that had an underlying sexual tension from the beginning.”

    I thought dating was getting to know eachother and building a friendship with an underlying sexual tension?

    Like


  219. “He is offended by you because he saw real potential in you — for himself. Then again, he hands out compliments quite freely, so you might not have reason to think he was serious. But he was, and in his way, he was also starting to get emotionally invested in you.”

    Yes, I agree. Thanks for pointing that out.

    I did not realise men got that invested over conversation online with strangers.

    Like


  220. 206 Yours Truly

    I don’t think I’m asexual, because I am quite capable of feeling passion, intense passion. At this point, though, I’ve only felt it for someone once, and, as I said, he and I didn’t work out for other reasons. In that case, sex isn’t something I would have “tolerated,” because I was very attracted to him physically; I’m sure it was something I would have enjoyed. But I don’t feel passion very easily, and I don’t feel comfortable being touched by someone I’m not emotionally close with. So I need both passion and emotional intensity before I’d feel comfortable being touched in a sexual way. I couldn’t have sex with someone I’m only vaguely attracted to, so casual hookups aren’t for me. But neither is an asexual relationship. That, to me, is friendship. 🙂

    208 Yours Truly

    The nice man who removes the big spider from your cellar is also a kind of hero.

    Ha ha, totally agree. Spiders = complete and total nastiness.

    210 Yours Truly

    That kind of situation is betrayal. But I don’t think Elizabeth is doing this.

    No, I’m not. I’m not proceeding beyond talkie, movie-and-dinner dates. Very casual. Comically unserious. As I said, I am not leaving a bloody trail of broken hearts in my wake. 🙂

    211 dougjnn

    Instead what I see as likely is some guy being seriously deceived as she becomes increasingly desperate to marry and have children.

    Um, here I don’t think you’ve been paying attention to all I’ve said. I’ve said more than once that it’s quite possible I’ll never get married. That’s true. And that’s because I’m not interested in deceiving anyone — and also, incidentally, because I couldn’t marry someone I didn’t feel deep passion for. Just because I’d like to get married and have children doesn’t mean it’s something I’m desperate to do. As I said, I’m ambitious. That is something that could easily consume me. I don’t think I’ll be a failure if, at the end of the my life, I never had a husband or children. Elizabeth I didn’t. Neither did Jane Austen. It’s just not in the cards for everyone.

    215 dougjnn

    Where does she show any realization that what she has to offer sexually is simply not enough…?

    I actually think I’ve shown a lot of realization in that regard. Hence my comments that I might well never get married, and that if I don’t, it’s very much my responsibility, because there are things I can’t compromise on.

    218 Yours Truly

    I thought dating was getting to know each other and building a friendship with an underlying sexual tension?

    So did I, but in these days of the “3 date” rule, I think a lot of people see a date as a prelude to a hook up.

    Like


  221. “I don’t think I’m asexual, because I am quite capable of feeling passion, intense passion. At this point, though, I’ve only felt it for someone once, and, as I said, he and I didn’t work out for other reasons.”

    What did you like about him, what made him special for you?

    “No, I’m not. I’m not proceeding beyond talkie, movie-and-dinner dates. Very casual. Comically unserious. As I said, I am not leaving a bloody trail of broken hearts in my wake. :)”

    Ah okay. Then it seems fair, especially if if does not even get to date 4. I would not expect a guy to tell me about his fetish on the second date, LOL! That would be pretty presumtuous. At that point, you don’t even know if there will be a next date, let alone a relationship.

    “So did I, but in these days of the “3 date” rule, I think a lot of people see a date as a prelude to a hook up.”

    Those are their assumptions, and if a man operated under that rule, he should not complain about a broken heart. A guy like that is likely sleeping with women, dangling a relationshipcarrot to get sex, and breaking heart after heart.

    Like


  222. For what it’s worth, Elizabeth, I think dougjnn is being really unreasonable. It’s as if he’s assuming you’re doing some variant of leading men on. If that were a very safe assumption, I could understand anger. But that’s not really a safe assumption even for women in general. And in my experience it’s a particularly unsafe assumption for smart women. (Apparently-smart women, anyway: +2 points for being a lawyer, +6 for writing well, -1 for being too content too far out on one end of Snow’s “two cultures” scale, and -1 for indiscriminate use of smileys.:-)

    I’ve been the target of a sort of mirror image of dougjnn’s outrage. I get it from women, not men. For you, getting laid would be about as hard as falling off a log, and various men have been interested in you in large part because they’re interesting in sleeping with you. For me, getting remarried would be about as hard as falling off a log, and various women have been interested in me in large part because they’d like to marry me. I’ve made myself very clear about being hopelessly uninterested in remarriage. For the women I’ve been involved with, that seems sufficient: we’ve parted with various kinds of regrets, not but bitterness or outrage. But from third-party women like nnjguod, nothing suffices: I take angry flak about my moral obligation to satisfy women’s emotional needs by marrying women I’m romantically involved with.

    A particularly vivid memory is one of those third-party women critics who had earlier unburdened herself about her no-fault divorce. In hindsight it had not improved her life, and therefore she had come to decide it had not been a good thing. Nice foreshadowing for how my decisions should have nothing to do with my own welfare, and everything to do with my moral responsibilities: normally I take a few sentences of flak, but this woman chewed me out for at least five minutes, probably ten, about my responsibility not to move out, but to get engaged with the woman I was living with.

    If I am ever commissioned to write sequels to _The Inferno_ and _The Screwtape Letters_, look for the passages about straining at someone deciding not to get engaged, while swallowing guiltlessly blowing off one’s own marriage vows. Meanwhile, until I get such a commission, my literary bile is bottled up. Under as much pressure, perhaps, as the romantic impulses of, um, some hypothetical deeply inhibited person, I’m having trouble thinking of a concrete example.:-) So as I log out, I hope for the vicarious release of returning to this blog to find you ripping him a new one. Win one for the hypocritically-criticized team!

    (Or maybe I overlooked dougjnn elsewhere attacking men who sleep with women without intending to marry them? If he is not solely critical of women who have deep reservations about giving men what they want, then the parallel will be broken, because he’s not nearly as hypocritical as his female counterpart. In that case, go ahead and rip him a new one, but it’ll be less likely to make the earth move for me.:-)

    Elizabeth wrote “I’m still not really getting your anger, or at least your intensity.”

    The intensity doesn’t surprise me. I’m guessing dougjnn has too many bad memories, as vivid as mine, of women dishonestly leading men on. My vivid memory of hypocritical criticism is no more vivid than my memory of another woman talking about how she enjoyed getting drinks and favors from guys by dishonestly feigning interest. Infuriating, rather literally. But whatever is behind it, his criticism looks like a problem on his end, not on yours.

    Like


  223. Hope 217 —

    He is offended by you because he saw real potential in you — for himself. Then again, he hands out compliments quite freely, so you might not have reason to think he was serious. But he was, and in his way, he was also starting to get emotionally invested in you.

    In a limited way that’s right. The “real potential” part is absolutely right. The “for himself” part is only true by remove. I never had any interest in trying to convert online to more and made that very clear, and in fact disqualifed myself by saying I was too old for her, early and often.

    I was interested because I thought I saw real potential that was having a hard time coming out due to inhibition rather than a basic lack of fire, and also due to a strong requirement that some or a lot of love precede sex. As much as I like playing without that also, I can and do also respect it when it’s genuine. I respect that in you too Hope, as I’ve told you.

    As for being free with my compliments, well yes and no. Certainly far from indiscriminate. Very far. But I find much in you that is very attractive Hope. You are REALLY commited to a deeply loving relationship. Not just keeping the relationship going long term, but making it maximally close and sexual. I’ve also seen much that’s very attractive to me in Yours Truly, though I didn’t in the beginning, only after she started opening up and talking about her hopes and yearnings and what not.

    Like


  224. Elizabeth 213–

    Ah, well. C’est la vie. But I’m a bit at loss for what I said that’s so offensive. Is anal sex that big of deal for guys?

    No. It actually doesn’t matter to me much at all. There are pschological reasons to go there a time or two (at least with women who don’t have a great aversion but only a scared reluctance) but not necessarily to keep going there, and really anal is of little importance to me. It’s certainly not as pleasurable to me as vaginal or oral, and it’s rarely as pleasurable to the womanh, again except sometimes psychologically in breaking taboos etc. Actually if you re-read the post in which I mention anal, you’ll se I did so in a dismissive way, indicating that your having an aversion to only THAT sort of thing is no big deal.

    Hope is right about oral though, only it’s more so. It’s absolutely expected by any reasonably sexual man these days. You’ve got to be plumbing down low for that not to be the case. The converse is certainly true as well — “all” young American women of any sexual experience expect to receive oral sex.

    However this focus on particular sexual acts isn’t what it’s all about. What it’s all about is sexuality or lack thereof. Sexual heat.

    Like


  225. 221 Yours Truly

    What did you like about him, what made him special for you?

    He was very bright, handsome, witty, charming, and fun to be around. Very confident — he wasn’t intimidated by me in the least — and we shared a lot of the same interests, including politics. He was quite ambitious (which is appealing to me) and driven. He wasn’t the kind of guy who…waited for my permission, I guess. He wasn’t afraid to steal a kiss when he wanted one, and he delighted in surprising me. But he didn’t want anything serious, and I didn’t want to be casual, so that was that.

    Basically, I liked him because he kept me on my toes, but he was affectionate and fun about it, not controlling. We had a lively, sparring relationship — it was a little like friendly warfare, if that makes sense. I think I like conflict a bit more than the typical girl, so it was invigorating. But I’m not sure that’s the kind of relationship that could last.

    It was fun, though. 🙂

    Like


  226. Elizabeth 220–

    I don’t think I’m asexual, because I am quite capable of feeling passion, intense passion. At this point, though, I’ve only felt it for someone once, and, as I said, he and I didn’t work out for other reasons. In that case, sex isn’t something I would have “tolerated,” because I was very attracted to him physically; I’m sure it was something I would have enjoyed.

    Well then good for you. Maybe there’s hope for you after all.

    You would do well to rethink this aversion to being a “whore in the bedroom” however. Really and truly. Only be that for someone like that one guy you felt something for once. That’s fine. (As is ruling out anal.)

    Like


  227. dougjnn,
    Thanks again for the compliments !

    Elizabeth,

    My guess is that you are just extremely picky with attraction, but not discerning enough when looking st how a man feels about you. Go back to Hope’s post about truly searching for who a man is deep down.

    I also think a relationship between two yang people is by default temporary. You will not inspire a man like that to tenderness by competing with him.

    I also wonder what men really mean when they say women are leading them on…

    Like


  228. 205 Hope

    So I could have easily been in your situation, except… somehow, before I even was 18, five different guys claimed they fell in love with me. I don’t really know how it happened, or what I did really (certainly I thought I was undeserving). But maybe you have to let down your guard a little first before men will love you.

    Elizabeth has mentioned that she lives in a red state, where I’d guess a much smaller fraction of men would be interested in her. In places like Silicon Valley and many online communities, a much larger share of men are looking for very smart mates. I don’t know where you went to high school, but my guess is that this is primarily responsible for the difference in your experiences.

    I know that I strongly prefer someone like you or her. Instead of being turned off, I’d be intrigued by Elizabeth’s ambition and want to be supportive. (And I’m very impressed by her knowledge of history!) And I’d have no problem with being patient regarding the physical side of a relationship. These preferences are extremely “beta” and would make me absolutely terrible at finding short-term relationships. Fortunately, I have zero interest in such things; the only thing that interests me is finding a life partner I can love and support with all my heart. (But despite Roissy’s very different preferences, his commitment to telling the truth as he sees it makes at least 10-20% of what he writes useful reading for me.)

    But I am not in a red state.

    Like


  229. 222 William Newman

    (Apparently-smart women, anyway: +2 points for being a lawyer, +6 for writing well, -1 for being too content too far out on one end of Snow’s “two cultures” scale, and -1 for indiscriminate use of smileys.:-)

    Sorry! I’m addicted, I know. It’s sick. I try to stop…I really do…but it’s just…too…tempting…. 😉

    Actually, I tend to rely on tone, expression, and hand gestures a lot when I’m speaking to make it clear that I’m not being hostile, even if I’m arguing. And since I can’t rely on those things here, smileys are my default substitute.

    What’s Snow’s “two cultures” scale?

    228 DoJ

    Elizabeth has mentioned that she lives in a red state, where I’d guess a much smaller fraction of men would be interested in her.

    You’re probably onto something here. Also, living in a red state just means fewer men (in absolute numbers) in general, and fewer available single men, since people tend to get married here rather young.

    I know that I strongly prefer someone like you or her. Instead of being turned off, I’d be intrigued by Elizabeth’s ambition and want to be supportive. (And I’m very impressed by her knowledge of history!) And I’d have no problem with being patient regarding the physical side of a relationship.

    Ah, thanks. 🙂

    These preferences are extremely “beta” and would make me absolutely terrible at finding short-term relationships. Fortunately, I have zero interest in such things; the only thing that interests me is finding a life partner I can love and support with all my heart.

    Some people might call this beta; I call it class. You’ll make a special lady very happy, DoJ.

    Like


  230. “Some people might call this beta; I call it class. You’ll make a special lady very happy, DoJ.”

    Agreed!

    Elizabeth,

    When you have fantasies, do you feel the same way for the fantasy men as you did for that guy?

    Like


  231. 230 Yours Truly

    When you have fantasies, do you feel the same way for the fantasy men as you did for that guy?

    No. The real is always preferable to the pretend. 🙂

    Like


  232. That’s good!

    At what age was that first love?

    Like


  233. 232 Yours Truly

    Late teens. I had minor crushes before him, and I’ve had mini-flings since then, but I’ve had nothing approaching that level of emotional intensity.

    Like


  234. Elizabeth – many people have intimacy issues. It seems like you will, and I hope you will, open up for the right man. If you’re looking for a very smart man to love you and appreciate a conservative woman like yourself, you won’t have much trouble I don’t think. Many of us (even roissy) lament the complete lack of respectable women suitable for long relationships. Perhaps you could consider moving to a major city where people stay single longer and where you’ll find more guys that might be into a woman like you. Personally, I think smart is hot in a woman, as long as it doesn’t come with arrogance or a desire to show me up. I don’t like having to dumb myself down.

    P.S. From what I hear, the hooking up really gets going later in the semester from all the stress 😉

    Like


  235. “Late teens. I had minor crushes before him, and I’ve had mini-flings since then, but I’ve had nothing approaching that level of emotional intensity.”

    Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think you may not have fully developed on an emotional level. It does seem like part of you is stuck in the teen years.
    It could also be that you are not meeting enough men at your intelligence level, but you said you dated.

    Like


  236. 236 Yours Truly:

    Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think you may not have fully developed on an emotional level.

    I was going to say that.

    Elizabeth is an exceptionally bright girl of 27 going on 17.

    Like


  237. Yours Truly 235–

    Tupac Chopra 236–

    Oh yeah. I had similar thoughts beginning several days ago. A sort of female slight asperger’s has occurred to me, especially re: the touching aversion thing, and then going from there. I wouldn’t say I’m at all sure about that though. The emotionally stuck part though, yeah.

    All this is combined in someone who’s not just very bright, but also remarkably insightful and anti-dogmatic. A very open minded intelligence. Makes me want to bang my head against a wall. Well, I guess that’s what I did, isn’t it? It’s also more than a little weird to be discussing in front of her, but maybe better than behind someone’s back as is the usual custom. But… it’s all anonymous and might possibly even do some good.

    Like


  238. 237 douggie:

    Oh yeah. I had similar thoughts beginning several days ago. A sort of female slight asperger’s has occurred to me, especially re: the touching aversion thing, and then going from there. I wouldn’t say I’m at all sure about that though. The emotionally stuck part though, yeah.

    All this is combined in someone who’s not just very bright, but also remarkably insightful and anti-dogmatic.

    I’m beginning to think “sockpuppet” regarding Elizabef. What sayest thou, Roissy?

    Like


  239. 234 Jack

    Elizabeth – many people have intimacy issues. It seems like you will, and I hope that you will, open up for the right man.

    235 Yours Truly

    Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think you may not have fully developed on an emotional level. It does seem like part of you is stuck in the teen years. It could also be that you are not meeting enough men at your intelligence level, but you said you dated.

    236 Tupac Chopra

    I was going to say that.

    Elizabeth is an exceptionally bright girl of 27 going on 17.

    All right. I debated about posting this, because it doesn’t really matter, and I didn’t mean to turn this thread into a discussion of me and all my idiosyncrasies.

    But there are points I have to make that have value independent of me and my life, and I think they’re worth making. And, yes, I don’t like to be misunderstood. So here goes.

    I think, in reading my direct responses to other people’s direct questions, you guys have gotten a skewed impression of me. (Except for Hope and DoJ, who have given indications that they’ve picked up on a bit more of what I’ve said.) I think you’ve gotten this idea that at heart I’m just an innocent little girl living a dream life who needs to wake up and grow up, and when I do that — when I forget Twu Wuv and accept the real world — everything will be fine. Or you think I’m an asexual ice queen. The former is more accurate than the latter, but neither is accurate.

    The truth is, I know what my number one problem in the arena of romance is, and dougjnn’s right that it’s my responsibility, but he’s wrong that he thinks it’s something I need to correct. My problem is not my aversion to being touched (which, I said early on, dissolves with people I’m close to). My problem is not my opposition to performing certain sexual acts, which strike me as intellectually disgusting, but since I’ve never been in a position to actually do any of them, who knows how I’d react? And my problem is not a lack of passion. In fact, it might well be the opposite. In person, I can be so intense that I terrify people; as I’ve grown older, I’ve tried to tone it down by acting calmer, joking, smiling a lot (and posting lots of smileys in Internet discussions). But I run on a pretty explosive furnace, and it’s one that is best kept under tight regulation. People who say “ice queens” are devoid of passion need to understand that usually, the ice is there for a reason, and it’s not because the person doesn’t care about anything. It’s because we’ve learned the world can’t handle, or doesn’t like, us in our unbridled glory, and if you want to survive in the world, you have to learn how to get along in it.

    My number one problem in the arena of romance is that I’m ambitious. Not ambitious in the modern sense — this isn’t about a good career and material wealth. I’m ambitious in the classical sense — I have a passionate, overwhelming, all-consuming drive to achieve something startling and have a name that lives through the ages. This isn’t much understood, and it’s a good thing it’s not much understood, because the world would be a much deadlier place if more people felt like I do. I said yesterday I will not be a failure in life if I never have a husband and children. I believe that. But I’ll consider myself a failure if I never achieve what I want to achieve — and that means, if I have a partner, I need one who will understand that writing isn’t something I can pick up and leave off whenever I feel like it. It isn’t some little amusing hobby that can be abandoned at will. It is something that I must do, and it is something that I must do for several hours a day. It is something I must do a lot if I’m going to be happy, and it is something that I will make sacrifices for. If I gave it up, I would be a hollow shell of a girl. I know this is probably impossible to understand for anyone who isn’t ambitious, but creating stories — even if they’re never published — is something I must do if I’m going to go on breathing. I might never reach my goal, but if I stop chasing it, I might as well not exist. The things in the world that other people find so absorbing — hobbies, dating, that sort of thing — are often things that take me away from what I really want to be doing. I left a job that was exciting, fascinating and worthwhile for a more ordinary one that gave me more time to write, because no matter how interesting prosecuting was, no matter how exciting it was, not having enough time to write was like living with a hole in my heart.

    This is always going to be a priority for me. Always. And no man who wants a woman who will make him the absolute center of her world is going to want me.

    Now, ambition runs in my family. My dad’s an ambitious man, and he was still a wonderful parent. The benefit of having ambitious parents is that they raise their children to be independent. I was never the center of my parents’ world. I was an important part of their world, and they gave me the love and care I needed. But I didn’t — thank God — have them breathing over me every second of the day. My brothers and I had a free, Tom Sawyerish childhood, and frankly, I think that’s a lot better than today’s hyperparenting. But that’s beside the point.

    The point is that most people aren’t like me. To most people, work is a means to an end, and life is what happens when they’re not working. That’s not how I am. I feel most alive when I’m writing. And any man who even potentially wants me has to understand that, yes, I have a whole other world in my head, a world full of people demanding to have their adventures written, and those people are as vibrantly real to me as the people I meet in the real world. So yes, I have fantasies — fantasies that demand to be put on paper. I assure you, I’m not going to bed every night fantasizing about the Perfect Ecstatic Union with My Perfect Man. I fall asleep every night with a cramping hand because I can’t write as fast as I think.

    But the thing you have to understand about ambitious people is that it’s not just in our chosen arena where our ambition comes out. It comes out in everything — including in personal relationships. It’s hard for me to shut out the unquenchable drive to excel just because I’m not writing at the moment. As a prosecutor, I was undefeated. I never lost a jury trial. You see, I do know how to charm people, how to dazzle them, how to mesmerize — and manipulate — them when I want to, and I did that with juries. Forceful passion fascinates people, and I know how to unleash passion when I want to. And I’m very competitive, and I like power.

    In other words, if I wanted to be, I could be very, very dangerous — in the law, in politics, in the world at large, and especially, especially in romance. I actually think the men of the world should get down on bended knee and thank God for my “issues,” because I’ve never had trouble attracting men, and if I wanted to make some poor, nice, hapless fellow fall desperately in love with me, I could. But I like being honest. Honesty, self-control, and a reluctance to hurt people are pretty much the only things I have to stop me from proving just how much I could win and how much I could take from people if I wanted to.

    And so my dating life goes something like this. The first date is casual and fun. The second date is a little more serious but still fun. By the third date, if I’m getting the sense that a guy is getting genuinely interested in me, I let him know, as gently and not-awkwardly as I can, that though I’m interested in serious relationships, I don’t want to get in deep with people who don’t know that, yes, I’m a bit different than other girls. And most guys — understandably — don’t want that.

    I don’t think I’m being emotionally immature by recognizing that I need someone who won’t be hurt by my ambition. I actually think I’m being pretty damned mature by letting people know early on what they’re getting into. And I think I’m being clear-eyed by recognizing that I need someone who is independent enough or ambitious enough himself that he won’t resent the time I spend in my own world.

    So — what does this have to do with this site? Well, I see a lot of remarks made about how all the pretty women are sleeping around with alpha men and ignoring all the rest. This is not true. I’ve also seen some comments about how it’s some kind of tragedy or waste if I don’t find the Right Man. This is also untrue. The Right Man might literally not exist for me — not because I have impossible expectations, not because I’m a little girl in a dream world, but because I know very well that most people do not want truly ambitious mates. I’d consider that a mature insight into (adult) human nature, not the kind of idea of a girl stuck in Teenagerdom. As it happens, I am often a girl in a dream world, because, strange being that I am, I have a passion for writing about people who don’t exist. This might make me eccentric, and bizarre, and quite possibly unsuited for romance, but I don’t think it makes me immature, I don’t think it makes me icy, and I certain don’t think it’s a trait I have to “cure.” And I think it’s a much bigger tragedy that out there in the world, there are ugly girls who would make great wives, but that no one will pay attention to because they’re not pretty enough. I think it’s a much bigger tragedy for someone who desperately wants love not to find it than it would be for me, because I already have passion I’m living for. The difference is, I don’t need an external source to satisfy it. All I need is a pen, a paper, and my imagination.

    Like


  240. 238 Tupac Chopra

    I’m beginning to think “sockpuppet” regarding Elizabef. What sayest thou, Roissy?

    Er. I think our august host just expired from laughter.

    Like


  241. And I didn’t close the italics tags. Sorry.

    Like


  242. “I don’t think I’m being emotionally immature by recognizing that I need someone who won’t be hurt by my ambition. ”

    That is not the reason why I said you might be emotionally immature. It was moreso because I got the impression that you tend to stay inside your own head in your own world. Maybe I am mistakes and you do tend to put yourself in other people’s shoes on a regular basis, it is hard to tell over the internet.

    Like


  243. 240 Elizabeth:

    Er. I think our august host just expired from laughter.

    Are you laughing at me, with me, for me or against me? 😉

    Like


  244. 243 Tupac Chopra

    Are you laughing at me, with me, for me or against me?

    Well, I’m laughing at you, but I think if Roissy were going to go through the trouble of creating a sock puppet, he would refrain from creating an Evil Lawyer Beast.

    And if he would so demean himself by even momentarily occuping the mindset of the Dread Female Lawyer, he probably would have made her a bit more of a ball-busting slut. 😀

    Like


  245. 244 Elizabeth:

    Well, I’m laughing at you, but I think if Roissy were going to go through the trouble of creating a sock puppet, he would refrain from creating an Evil Lawyer Beast.

    It was not my intention to imply Roissy had anything to do with it — I was merely seeking out his considered opinion.

    The only thing suggesting you are female is your word. All else about you feels “male”, as per Hope’s reminder about the proclivity of some men to assume female identities online. Got the old gears turnin’ in Tupac’s head, it did.

    Like


  246. I envy your persistent passion and drive, Elizabeth. I really do. I am so lazy, and I procrastinate all the time. Total slacker here.

    I’m currently working on a project that I’ve put in a lot of time designing, coding and testing, but my passion for it just waned so quickly. I did manage to get it off the ground.

    Many of my favorite female authors are not married. Maybe it is simply the sheer amount of time needed. Practice makes people tremendously better at what they do, and with so much time you have put into writing, I am sure you will do something great.

    Like


  247. 245 Tupac Chopra

    It was not my intention to imply Roissy had anything to do with it — I was merely seeking out his considered opinion.

    Ah, okay, got it.

    The only thing suggesting you are female is your word. All else about you feels “male”, as per Hope’s reminder about the proclivity of some men to assume female identities online.

    Er. Not really seeing where you getting this, but okay.

    246 Hope

    I envy your persistent passion and drive, Elizabeth.

    Thanks! 🙂

    I did manage to get it off the ground.

    Cool. Good luck with it!

    I am sure you will do something great.

    And thanks again. 😀

    Like


  248. 239 Elizabeth

    I think, in reading my direct responses to other people’s direct questions, you guys have gotten a skewed impression of me. (Except for Hope and DoJ, who have given indications that they’ve picked up on a bit more of what I’ve said.)

    Random fact: Both Hope and I are of East Asian ancestry. For all I know, we are the only commenters in this discussion for which that is true. Small sample size, but probably not a total coincidence.

    I’m definitely curious about what drives you so strongly to write. I don’t know if you have any interest at all in an email pen pal, but on the off chance that you do, I’ve given up my anonymity.

    Like


  249. 248 DoJ

    I’d love an email pen pal. 🙂 Is your address on your linked site?

    Like


  250. 249 Elizabeth

    I’d love an email pen pal. 🙂 Is your address on your linked site?

    Yes, under the user info/profile.

    On a silly note, depending on how comment moderation works, the record may show that I figured out your state of residence before you told everyone. 🙂 Well, now I know not to include two hyperlinks in a short comment (one to a 2004 red/blue county map and one to the Wikipedia entry on Sun Valley)…

    Like


  251. 250 DoJ

    Cool. I’ll drop you an email. 🙂

    You know about Sun Valley, then?

    Like


  252. 251 Elizabeth

    You know about Sun Valley, then?

    Yes, I once traveled there for some self-congratulatory “American Academy of Achievement Banquet of the Golden Plate” thingy. I recall a girl in the group who couldn’t stop condescendingly joking about “‘tatoes”; that sort of thing may or may not have caused the organization to start inviting graduate students instead of high school students a few years later…

    Like


  253. […] In short, women are voting more Democrat because the Democrat Party is the prime force for turning the government into the world’s biggest provider beta. From the time of the “sexual revolution” (which was really a “sexual devolution” back towards pre-agricultural mating norms when 80% of the women and 40% of the highest testosterone men reproduced) women have been more free to choose mating opportunities based on their gina tingles and the economic and social empowerment granted, respectively, by their pointless humanities degrees and the disintegration of traditional slut shaming mechanisms. The life of serial monogamy and alpha cock hopping has never been more attainable for the average American woman, and the result has been predictable: Women are substituting the beta males they no longer want or need for marriage with a Big Brother Daddy government to help them foot the child-raising bills that their PUA, drug running and serial killer lovers won’t. […]

    Like


  254. […] insights are hard even for me to swallow, and not because of lack of real world evidence.  Take this post about a 64 year-old serial killer who ended up engaged to an attractive 20 year-old while in […]

    Like


  255. We don’t even need to consider serial killers. Same thing is true for petty criminals and thugs of all type. Ask a women to imagine an outlaw and watch her get turned on. Ask her to imagine a kind, responsible, honest man who has a good job, and watch her reflexively roll her eyes.

    Women spit on men who treat them with respect and kindness, and reward men who are violent and evil. And then women act surprised when they get treated badly!

    In case you are wondering, I am an asshole. I used to be kind and honest, but was punished for it. When I am an asshole, I am rewarded with enthusiastic sex. I don’t know why it works that way, but it does.

    You chicks don’t like me? YOU CREATED ME.

    Like


  256. “Grace — the problem is not that Joe Average cannot date a supermodel.

    The problem is that Joe Average cannot date the Girl Next Door….Most men after a certain floor of attractiveness is met find no real advantage in extra beauty.

    Do you mind if I ask what this floor of attractiveness is? Because if it’s Alyson Hannigan, I can see why Joe Average can’t get her. She’s very pretty. Most people, male and female, are not attractive. Most people, male and female, are average-looking. So the majority of guys are not going to end up with a pretty girl. There just aren’t enough pretty girls to go around.”

    Elizabeth, Alyson Hannigan is very average looking. And I agree, most people are not attractive, so Alyson is better looking than most people. At least we agree on that.

    Like