Thought Experiments

Thought Experiment #1

All else equal, which girl is more likely to get pumped and dumped?:

a. an “adventurous” girl who played musical chairs with the mouths of five guys in a bar one night and banged a local emo rocker in the coatroom an hour after they met.

b. a virgin.

Thought Experiment #2

A normal, emotionally stable man with a good job has been on one date with a girl he likes. She is into him. He didn’t close, but feels confident it will happen soon. One night, in his favorite bar, one of the bartenders (a guy known to be plugged into the local social scene), unaware that the man has been on one date with the girl in this story, tells the man he saw the girl making out with a random dude a couple weeks before their first date, and that a few months ago she banged one of the other bartenders.

Would this man be

a. more likely

b. less likely

to arrange an inspired, creative second date with her? to pay for her drink on the second date? to see her for longer than three months after they’ve started screwing?





Comments


  1. female promiscuity will likely be punished in both cases.

    Like


  2. The answers are a. and b. Really though this is pretty obvious.

    Like


  3. Really though this is pretty obvious.

    i know. this was more of a taunt than an experiment.

    hi michael!

    Like


  4. to arrange an inspired, creative second date with her?

    Naah, more like arranging a quick way to get her to come to his place (or better yet, her place) and get her drunk.

    Like


  5. Only the cuckold beta would entertain the slut.

    A then B.

    Like


  6. on December 24, 2008 at 11:58 am ironrailsironweights

    I see no reason why the man in #2 would particularly care. He wasn’t dating the woman when she made out with the random dude/banged the bartender. Unless he’s hopelessly naive he presumably knew that she probably had some prior sexual experience.

    Oh wait, I forgot … to the pathologically introverted Beta loser nerds whose mindset permeates the blogosphere, a woman who is not as pure as the driven snow (and under age 25 and at least an 8) is not worthy of consideration. Go back to masturbating in Mom’s basement.

    Peter

    Like


  7. on December 24, 2008 at 11:59 am ironrailsironweights

    Prior comment, I meant to say at least an 8, somehow the face symbol came up.

    Peter

    Like


  8. iron/Peter — the second girl has demonstrated that she’s in the habit of having casual sex.

    For any guy entertaining a serious relationship ambition, that girl is not going to be girlfriend and potential wife material. She is for anything BUT casual sex a waste of time.

    He might leverage her into a better girlfriend (social proof of his status), but that’s it. Women don’t get that the more partners they have, the less desirable as potential girlfriends/wives they are.

    This is because men must hedge against their downsides in a relationship. Being dumped is social proof of well, not being desirable. It’s worse for a guy than a girl because a woman is either hot/attractive physically (discernible in seconds) or not. For a guy, being hot is not merely physical but also social, which requires social proof.

    Further, a guy has to hedge against investing time, effort, emotions, into a relationship only to suffer both humiliation and failure in finding out the girl is unfaithful/promiscuous. Since confidence/aggression is key to being successful with women, this is not an trivial issue.

    The worst downside of course is having a kid to support fathered by another man.

    There are considerable bio-evolutionary factors that universally, in every culture, make women with more sex partners LESS desirable as potential wives than women with fewer sex partners. Every culture on earth is subject to these same sexual selection pressures and therefore, has the same views.

    I know Darwin and the theory of evolution is a dirty subject among many, with the prevailing PC view that evolution just “stopped” because of magic and Gaia or whatnot 100,000 years ago. But there it is, it continues to this day.

    A sustained economic downturn, the shattering of the Welfare State under economic collapse, extending the Bombay model of non-state warfare to most industrial nations, huge uncertainty is likely to change the sexual selection process.

    In that case, women will be selecting for the word: P-R-O-T-E-C-T-I-O-N and those who have the ability to provide it, both economically and physically (which means the ability to avoid encountering the Bombay model, basically, or dealing with it in it’s local manifestations) will have the edge.

    You’ll see the power of the marketplace sexually swing back from women / Alphas to men who are both cooperative (betas) and able to provide/protect. The women who engage in casual sex will find the demand for them will be very low, among the desirable men, and they will have to settle for men at a much lower “price” or level of desirability than they thought.

    Like


  9. You should call them “Thought Taunts”, then, not just fir the sake of accuracy but because it’s funnier.

    Like


  10. So women should be even more choosy about the guys that they have sex with? With the inevitable result being that even fewer guys have sex than are already complaining? Doesn’t seem like a good result for the majority of the guys. The better method is to encourage more women to be even more promiscous. That way even the schlubs might stand a chance.

    Like


  11. The point is that if women were more witholding to the alphas they invariably bang anyway, they would inspire more of the courtesy and chivalry that they profess to yearn for from all men.

    Like


  12. Ehh, sounds to me like “if I’m not having fun, I don’t want anyone else to have any fun either”. Which come to think about, sums up a lot of the posts on this board. The other post sounds like complaints from males that are 4s, complaining that they can’t get the 7+, yet in the same breath complain that women are too picky, and aim too high with their own standards for the 7+ males. Of course there are the others, who complain that women are too slutty, and not nearly choosy enough. So I guess there is some variety there. Thank goodness for the occasional incisive gem from various posters.

    Like


  13. Not only that, but if women were less promiscuous they’d leave Alphas alone to begin with, since most would realistically assess their chances of getting his commitment to be low.

    The AFCs would win in this scenario.

    On the other hand, the present situation motivates AFCs to learn Game, and that’s a win-win for everybody, not in the least for the women.

    Like


  14. More average guys learning Game = more average women losing weight.

    Like


  15. I don’t think this post gives much foundation for why men should learn game. Again, the point is being missed. “Less promiscuous” women will still eventually bang alphas, if they are hot enough to warrant the extended wooing. Less attractive, less promiscuous women still wind up settling for betas, but they inspire a wholehearted courtship process that both parties may find worth the reward. Unattractive, ultra-selective women remain virgins. Try to think in economic terms with sliding scales. If a woman can’t snag a lesser alpha, she may still be able to coax favor out of a greater beta.

    Like


  16. deery

    “So women should be even more choosy about the guys that they have sex with? With the inevitable result being that even fewer guys have sex than are already complaining? Doesn’t seem like a good result for the majority of the guys. The better method is to encourage more women to be even more promiscous. That way even the schlubs might stand a chance.”

    Whoosh!

    Women should be picky but in different ways if they want to be happy.

    Here’s a dos and don’ts list:

    Don’t:

    Fuck some bartender because he’s hot
    Fuck some guy on vacation because he’s got great abs
    Do thinks that emotionally damage you to such a degree that you’ll never find an average guy charming again (especially if you’re just an average girl)

    Do:

    Actually go out with a guy who doesn’t immediately push your attraction buttons
    Give a guy a chance who isn’t a charming cad

    Frankly, this isn’t that complex. The problem isn’t that women are too indiscriminate, it’s that they’ve got a natural urge to pick men who are bad news in the long run but, since they don’t really think about cause and effect (that’s for nerds), they don’t realize that they’re mostly picking to be alone with cats at 35. They’re indiscriminate in satiating their own self destructive urges (gee, kinda like eating, fancy that).

    Now, the inevitable response “you can’t get laid”. Actually, I’ve got no problems getting laid because women are fairly simple machines with obvious buttons to be pushed for smart guys who try to figure it out. Unfortunately for the ladies I get with now however, now that I’ve learned the universal laws of attraction, I don’t really give a damn about any individual woman because I know that the same things that got her will get any other chick.

    Like


  17. So women should be even more choosy about the guys that they have sex with?

    Average women don’t much have casual sex with average guys, so the average guy isn’t losing _anything_ by having the average female stop banging alphas.

    The other post sounds like complaints from males that are 4s, complaining that they can’t get the 7+

    No, it’s the male 7s complaining they can’t get the female 7s cause the female 7s are banging alphas in the futile hope of getting committment out of them.

    On the other hand, the present situation motivates AFCs to learn Game, and that’s a win-win for everybody, not in the least for the women.

    Learning game is hard for men.

    Banging alphas is easy for women.

    It’s not a fair trade off.

    Like


  18. iron/peter

    “Go back to masturbating in Mom’s basement.”

    I love it when you talk dirty.Do it some more.

    Like


  19. At the end of the day guys want slutty girls around so that they have women to bang without offering much commitment. We also want virginal, “nice” girls around because these are the women we want to commit to long term. A healthy mix of both types of girls is probably the ideal mix for most guys.

    If you are a girl, decide what you want. If you want to “have a good time” and be the drunk chick dancing on top of a bar somewhere every weekend that’s fine, but just know it increases your chances of getting pumped and dumped. If you actually want a boyfriend to commit to you and care about being in serious relationships than be part of category 2. Its all a trade off.

    Like


  20. I think if women were more picky, Alphas would still have their pick of women, as they naturally appeal to the primal instincts of women.

    Most people over the age of twenty are no longer virgins, so obviously sex is not the sole province of the top ten percent of guys. Most of the complaints don’t seem to be about whether one can get a women ( I think that most guys can), but the “quality” of the woman that most guys can get. There is the belief that Alphas are “hogging” most of the good, attractive women, which only makes sense, as they tend to be the more attractive, charming, and/or wealthier guys. If you think that you are a 7, yet you can’t get 7 women, then it stands to reason that you are probably not a 7, at least as far as women evaluate these things. Everyone, men and women, would prefer to punch above their own weight, but it really isn’t possible for most people.

    Like


  21. on December 24, 2008 at 1:32 pm ironrailsironweights

    At the end of the day guys want slutty girls around so that they have women to bang without offering much commitment. We also want virginal, “nice” girls around because these are the women we want to commit to long term. A healthy mix of both types of girls is probably the ideal mix for most guys.

    It’s not an either/or situation. Most girls are neither pantydropping skanks or virtuous virgins. In other words they’ll have sex from time to time when they’re attracted to a man, with the occasional just-for-fun fling if the opportunity presents itself. Demanding only the purest and most beautiful virgins for long term relationships is unrealistic and often hypocritical.

    Peter

    Like


  22. There is the belief that Alphas are “hogging” most of the good, attractive women, which only makes sense, as they tend to be the more attractive, charming, and/or wealthier guys.

    Geez you dipshit, the problem isn’t that each alpha gets his pick of one of the hottest women, it’s the Chris Rock problem that 90% of women are chasing 10% of men. I know guys with 3 or 4 simultaneous long term relationships. In that situation, someone has to go without.

    If you think that you are a 7, yet you can’t get 7 women, then it stands to reason that you are probably not a 7, at least as far as women evaluate these things.

    Again the problem is that at the top of the male hierarchy we have de facto polygamy, forcing above average guys to take lower than average women.

    Furthermore, you presume that this sort of soft polygamy is inevitable. It isn’t. Our society used to do a much better job of evening these things out.

    Like


  23. whiskey,

    Love the economic perspective on the marketplace. Economic downturn can be prosperous for more than just innovative businesses. Time for innovative beta’s to step-up.

    Like


  24. The only way one can be a 7+ guy is by being able to get 7+ women (obviously the reverse is true for women as well). It isn’t some some abstract category, one’s romantic market value (RMV) is constantly being weighed and tested out there in the field. So if all you can get are average women, then the consensus is, by the only people that matter, is that you are an average guy. Sorry. I’m sure your mom and your friends think that you are a 10+.

    Like


  25. Perhaps there needs to be a certified virgin dating site.

    Like


  26. “The only way one can be a 7+ guy is by being able to get 7+ women (obviously the reverse is true for women as well). It isn’t some some abstract category, one’s romantic market value (RMV) is constantly being weighed and tested out there in the field. So if all you can get are average women, then the consensus is, by the only people that matter, is that you are an average guy. Sorry. I’m sure your mom and your friends think that you are a 10+.”

    Deery, your “model” presumes, arithmetically, a one-to-one pairing of men and women. However, given the the trend to soft-polygamy is our more urbanized areas, your model falls apart. A 7 female pairing off with an 8 male is probably more normative.

    Like


  27. peter peter slut redeemer:
    I see no reason why the man in #2 would particularly care. He wasn’t dating the woman when she made out with the random dude/banged the bartender.

    he had gone on one date with her, and this is the critical distinction. it does not matter for his opinion of her that they weren’t dating while she was boffing the bartender. what matters is her sexual history.

    Unless he’s hopelessly naive he presumably knew that she probably had some prior sexual experience.

    there’s experience, and then there’s experience. girls who monkey swing from one manbranch straight into another are looked upon less favorably as long term prospects by men than girls who have larger gaps of time between their sexual partners.
    there’s also something skeevy about a chick who bangs bartenders and makes out in bars. it hints that she gets thrills from chasing badboys. that is a red flag for any man considering her for LTR material.

    Oh wait, I forgot … to the pathologically introverted Beta loser nerds whose mindset permeates the blogosphere, a woman who is not as pure as the driven snow (and under age 25 and at least an eight) is not worthy of consideration. Go back to masturbating in Mom’s basement.

    sounds like my post hit too close to home.

    It’s not an either/or situation. Most girls are neither pantydropping skanks or virtuous virgins. In other words they’ll have sex from time to time when they’re attracted to a man, with the occasional just-for-fun fling if the opportunity presents itself. Demanding only the purest and most beautiful virgins for long term relationships is unrealistic and often hypocritical.

    false dichotomy.
    peter, this isn’t complicated. the more partners a woman has had, the less desirable she becomes as a long term mate in whom a man is willing to invest his resources and time. the darwinian reasoning for this is sound, and men’s anecdotal observations and personal feelings on the matter back up the scientific explanation, which is why you got so uncharacteristically upset by my leetle thought experiment that flushed out so effortlessly the general unanimity of men’s opinions on this skanky subject.

    if i were a sadistic sort of prick, i might wonder judging by your indignant reaction if your wife divulged some unpleasant cockgobbling history to you after she got you to sign on the dotted line.
    naaaaah… even i’m not that cruel!

    addendum
    there may be racial differences in how men view sluts. it’s possible black guys place less emphasis on their women’s whore score. i will leave it as an exercise for the evo-bio crowd why this might be so.

    Like


  28. Deery —

    The problem is that women have sex thinking that urban anonymity can enable them to have sex with lots of guys (who are mostly Alpha) or “I do but not with you” and pay no price.

    The internet, and all those enabling technologies, are eroding anonymity. Meaning any guy can casually inquire about his prospective date’s past. The more partners, and the more casual the partners, the more likely men will not commit. Alpha OR beta.

    The corollary to women being fairly promiscuous is that men either Alpha or Beta will not commit.

    If women were more picky, the “7” type of attractive women would attract commitment from a like-attractive beta guy. Since they are not, their end game is being dumped after casual sex by the “7” in their thirties after they age out of Alpha interest.

    This is the trade-off. There is no free lunch. Every choice has consequences, and that includes women. They can’t go back and become “like a Virgin.” Once they reach Paris Hilton territory that is who they are forever.

    Yes most people over twenty are not virgins. However, racking up the sex partners is a choice that means little romance.

    Like


  29. @deery

    You’re erroneously assuming a one-to-one correlation; that is, that (for example) the 70th percentile of women are 7s, and the 70th percentile of men are also 7s. The point others are making is that it’s nonlinear.

    Like


  30. Whiskey makes a good point about the very realworld consequences for Women in our Brave New World. And I say this as someone who’s had his fair share of ladies, and intend to hav quite a few more before its said and done.

    Its been proven that Women *are* more inclined towards affairs, flings and the like, *provided they will not be exposed, ie, “shamed”*. Women are extremely sensitive to Social Censure, and are as a result much more harmed by it than are Men. This explains why, for example, all-Female sites, like say Feministing, are much moe likely to ban you if you don’t tow the party line. Its because Women understand the power of “shame”. Its just that they don’t understand that it works, mainly on OTHER WOMEN, not Men. Most Men are rugged individualists, and couldn’t give a fat rat’s behind what anyone thought of them. I know for a fact this Man certainl does not.

    Anyway, when a Man finds out the sexual past of a Woman, he may be more inclined NOT to commit, and this can have powerful consequences for the Woman, especially, as Whiskey and others rightly note, as she ages out of the market, literally. That’s all well and good if she intends to never have kids or marry. But most Women don’t see life that way.

    My bottomline point being: that with great power alsot must come great responsibility. Women have more choice in nearl every way imaginable than ever before in the history of human beings in the world. But with all of that, comes some real and hard choices, and no matter how much the State intervenes, it cannot take the hit for all of the choices Women often make.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  31. “The better method is to encourage more women to be even more promiscous.”
    When I find out a girl I had been considering dating is a slut, or I know she’s a slut from the beginning, I immediately start treating her as if a) she’s always available, and b) she’s not worth any sort of respect. It’s an instinctual response, and my friends all act the same way. If I’m number 17, I won’t be that special to her, so why should she be to me?

    “More average guys learning Game = more average women losing weight.”
    So, is the spread of game making mate selection more ‘meritocratic?’ You always see lots of schlubby guys with cute girlfriends, and most of these pairings are the product of social circles and such. As game, in the form of intriguing outsiders, swoops in, fewer herb-babe couples form.

    “Less promiscuous” women will still eventually bang alphas, if they are hot enough to warrant the extended wooing. ”
    Yeah, but they’ve banged fewer men as a result of the extended courtship.

    “Actually go out with a guy who doesn’t immediately push your attraction buttons
    Give a guy a chance who isn’t a charming cad”
    Deluded. Women are inescapably drawn to charmers. They fail in not acknowledging that the cad won’t commit to them. Besides, casual sex is a hard-wired strategy to obtain high-quality sperm, if you can’t get it through a committed relationship, ie. you’re too ugly to wed an alpha.

    “The only way one can be a 7+ guy is by being able to get 7+ women (obviously the reverse is true for women as well).” What if a 7 woman only bangs 10-men, who also bang 8- 9- and 10-women? Your system is retarded and has no predictive value. It doesn’t offer a realistic model of reality either. And it’s not what people mean when they say a 7.

    Like


  32. All of our theories have certain assumptions built into the models. For one, that there is an equal distribution of 10s, 9s, 8s, and so on for both sexes. Which is not necessarily true. For example, what if indeed 10% of guys were 8’s or better, another 20% 5s-7s, and all the rest were 4s and below? While women had the normal bell curve distribution? What would mating behavior look like then?

    In my experience I see a lot of 4/5/6 guys, feeling like that they should have the 7+ women. I think tv, and porn where the ugly gets the girl have really played havoc with guys’ expectations (George Constanza syndrome). Most guys have no problem getting a woman, in much the same way most women have no problem getting a man. The angst comes in when you can’t get the girl/guy that you are striving to get. And that’s life. Yes, the top echelon of men will have more women and choices that the lower ranked guys won’t have (same for women). But that has always been that way. This bemoaning of “soft” polygamy, as if it is some new phenomena seems hopelessy naive. Did you think the King of England (of whatever the time period), was only shagging the queen? Yes, women married younger in the past, because they had to. Then the married woman still slept with the Alpha guys, so at this point, I don’t have the rose-colored glasses that some seem to have for the oh so glorious past.

    Like


  33. “his bemoaning of “soft” polygamy, as if it is some new phenomena seems hopelessy naive. Did you think the King of England (of whatever the time period), was only shagging the queen?”

    Yes, the King of England and the good looking Bartender of the Local Bar. Soft polygamy hasn’t spread at all. Seriously, try to not be completely innumerate.

    Again, this is great for guys who can get out there a bit because women are fairly simple creatures with simple buttons to push. It’s mostly women and introverted men who suffer under this regime.

    Just like women don’t put two and two together and realize that putting down the ice cream would make their lives better they don’t put two and two together and realize that getting fucked by guys who are out of their league doesn’t end well for them.

    “All of our theories have certain assumptions built into the models. For one, that there is an equal distribution of 10s, 9s, 8s, and so on for both sexes. Which is not necessarily true.

    Think about this one for a minute. If this is really the way the world works, women who want commitment should realize that no man at or above her level will give it to her (since he can always trade to another girl with the same value). Women have to date down since men want commitment less than women. Women don’t like to think about this.

    Like


  34. on December 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm Cannon's Canon

    @ Mu’Min
    “Most Men are rugged individualists, and couldn’t give a fat rat’s behind what anyone thought of them.”

    Let me know how much rugged individualism you see outside on Jan. 4th.

    @anonymous
    ‘ “Less promiscuous” women will still eventually bang alphas, if they are hot enough to warrant the extended wooing. ”
    Yeah, but they’ve banged fewer men as a result of the extended courtship. ‘

    What kind of counterpoint is that?

    Like


  35. Look Roissy, I know that you are FACTUALLY correct in saying that men will treat sluts and prudish women differently. That’s a law of human nature.

    BUT, this is not to say that there remains a MORAL DOUBLE STANDARD in the world.

    In the Islamic world, it’s ok for men to have multiple wives, while women who cheat on their husbands are pariahs in society.

    Islam is a brutal religion. It pains me to see this blog extolling the same morality that Islam preaches.

    We all know what evo psych says about human sexual behavior. Just try not to push it into the moral realm.

    Like


  36. 1. a-A virgin is smart. The first woman is the type who is desperate for attention. Not only will she kiss random men in a bar but she will also kiss other women for attention.
    I don’t get why some people are so needy. Sometimes I thinks it’s a result of having emotionally unavailable parents but not always. This question deserved a third choice. How about a woman who seeks to be courted by a man as well as waiting a few months before giving up the goods.

    2. b- men don’t want to know things like that about women they dig.

    Like


  37. “What kind of counterpoint is that?”
    You said before, “if women were more witholding…” meaning a change from the status quo, rather than a current category of women. And if women across the board raise the time ’til first fuck, they’ll have fucked fewer men over the course of their life, reducing promiscuity.

    Like


  38. John Smith,
    The conclusion is strategic, not moral: if you want a man’s commitment, don’t be a slut.

    Like


  39. john smith:
    That’s a law of human nature.

    would a person be happier if he lived more in accordance with human nature, or less?

    BUT, this is not to say that there remains a MORAL DOUBLE STANDARD in the world.

    reasoned morality is an emergent outgrowth of human nature, and as a second order phenomenon, it fluctuates more wildly, which is why you can observe wide disparities in how one culture treats its sluts compared to another culture. naturally, is != ought, and human nature shouldn’t dictate to us how we conduct our lives, but it’s also true that the more removed our morality is from our relatively immutable evolved natures, the less happy we’ll feel and the more likely we’ll wind up screwing ourselves in the biggest market that matters — the sexual market.

    In the Islamic world, it’s ok for men to have multiple wives, while women who cheat on their husbands are pariahs in society.

    double standards are a consequence of human nature. no one said life was fair.

    Islam is a brutal religion. It pains me to see this blog extolling the same morality that Islam preaches.

    ugh, dude. you’re putting words in my blog. please don’t pull a chic. one of her is enough. one, polygamy would be a disaster for the west, which i’ve written about here. two, i obviously don’t advocate stoning adulterous women like the more regressive strains of islam. i do say that the male impulse to avoid committing to slutty girls is hardwired and serves a useful purpose — that of protecting men from becoming financially enslaved cockolds. since this impulse has ostensibly been with us for millions of years, it stands to reason that a morality which takes into account the greater danger of female infidelity and promiscuity and attempts to mitigate its expression will benefit a cooperative western-style society more than a morality that gives free rein to women to slut it up without consequence.
    of course, the more women are shamed into being sexually chaste, the less fly-by-night nookie guys like me will haul home, but i never claimed that the good of the individual and the good of the whole were perfectly compatible.

    Just try not to push it into the moral realm.

    you cannot sever morality from human nature. morality is just a highly evolved mechanism for maximizing the odds of your gene’s survival and replication through the strategy of reciprocal altruism and kin favoritism.

    Like


  40. on December 24, 2008 at 5:15 pm Cannon's Canon

    Chic, making a guy wait a few months for sex is way overboard barring extreme circumstances. At least a virgin has some deep-rooted mental issues to credit for their chastity. I believe that their has to be some sexual chemistry at the onset of any successful relationship; to martyr it out of principal would be absurd and, ultimately, a turnoff. This is much different than banging bartenders or making out with random dudes in public.

    Like


  41. The reason for the double standard is simple. If a man is promiscuous and bangs a bunch of monogamous chicks and they all get pregnant, everyone knows who the dad is. If a woman is promiscuous with a bunch of monogamous men and gets pregnant, any one of them could be the father, and in the day before DNA tests and reliable birth control, the chances of a promiscuous woman getting pregnant and not knowing the father were even greater.

    Also, ramifications and risks are worse for a woman who is promiscuous. Who is more likely to be stuck with the childrearing burden if they choose a bad mate, the man or the woman? Promiscuity has traditionally been a higher risk to a woman than to a man since she is more likely to get stuck with the baby, so promiscuous women are also traditionally known to have poor risk assessment and judgment.

    Like


  42. Or better yet, watch a few episodes of Maury’s paternity test episodes to see the havoc promiscuous women wreak, and imagine how much worse it must have been in terms of men being tricked into raising other men’s kids in the days before paternity testing technology.

    Traditionally, since there was no DNA testing or any way to check paternity after a baby was born, the optimal way to avoid raising another man’s child under the belief it was your own was to be PREVENTATIVE. Prevention was the best way to ensure you wouldn’t end up raising another man’s kid unknowingly, and prevention consisted of avoiding promiscuous women. That’s why men are hardwired to shame sluts.

    Like


  43. @Cannon’s Canon
    Chic, making a guy wait a few months for sex is way overboard barring extreme circumstances
    Are you serious? Some women make a guy wait a few months so she can avoid being a pump and dump as well as giving herself time to develop some type of fellings and or connection to the guy. Also, there are women who go by the” one hand” rule.
    A woman who sleeps with men soon after meeting them can find herself having sleep with a large number of men buy the time she hits 35.

    At least a virgin has some deep-rooted mental issues to credit for their chastity
    When you write mental issues what exactly are you saying? You don’t think that preserving one’s virginity equals a type of mental illness do you?
    This is much different than banging bartenders or making out with random dudes in public.
    You and I are I2I on making out with random dudes in a bar but his post mentioned that the women been with one bartender. Would you have a problem with a woman who had been with one bartender?

    Like


  44. on December 24, 2008 at 5:29 pm Cannon's Canon

    Anonymous, let’s remove a variable. Two equally hot women: one’s a whore, the other holds herself to respectable, constant standards before blowing dicks. The “less promiscuous” woman has higher value to every man. Any actress/model/celebrity has more appeal than the pornstar who is built just like her. With this in mind, a woman can improve her market value to all men by scaling back the whoreishness. A reserved 7 could jump past a whore 8 when commanding the affections of men.

    This might be overkill for you since it seems you are mistaking sexual activity for promiscuity.

    Like


  45. 1. I selected B. I imagined the slut understanding how the typical hookup happens, being good in bed, and not clingy after. I’d predict her more likely a “pump 2-5 times then dump” girl.

    The virgin would require tons of annoying, unattractive re-assurance you were really into her, not looking for a one night stand, and be terrible in bed. Afterwards she would text/call/attempt to contact the guy at a rate from “slightly annoying” to “overwhelming”. After annoying the guy sufficient over the next 24-72 hours he would stop answering her texts/calls.

    I speak from personal experience with alot of girl As, and a handful of girl Bs

    2. Your summary of what the man will do are somewhat contradictive. If I knew I had a slut on my hands, I would try to plan an awesome, deal sealing date. However, I would not make conscious effort to buy her drinks. I pick

    C. Make an effort for a creative, fun, and type of date that ends back at my place. While out I wouldn’t buy her drinks, but I would suggest some wine or vodka back at my place that I have purchased. I would have in the back of my mind this girl is a bit slutty and has an easy reputation and dating beyond 3 months is out of the question, but to seal the deal fast is critical.

    to arrange an inspired, creative second date with her? absolutely
    to pay for her drink on the second date? not out
    to see her for longer than three months after they’ve started screwing? no

    Like


  46. on December 24, 2008 at 5:46 pm Cannon's Canon

    Chic,
    1. In his late twenties, I can’t imagine an alpha going several months without sex to pursue a fleeting ideal. I’m not presuming to give you a concrete timeframe, but it’s not a few months, unless you’re hunting betas.

    2. When I conceptualize virgins in my age group, I think of a few reasons; deep-rooted family issues, sexual abuse, or ironclad religious fundamentalism. I summarized these as ‘mental issues’ on purpose with tongue-in-cheek. I’m not religious at all myself, so I am instinctively suspicious of that level of fervor in others. I didn’t mean to marginalize those three things, but I don’t think the commenters here are college freshman anymore. Your third choice girl who waits a few months before sex presumes to have none of these pretentions, and is therefore more absurd to me than the virgin.

    3. The bartender in the story represents a small sample size of the body of the girl’s activity, since the comment to the suitor was made innocuously in passing. The guy is turned off because he has no idea how many other random acquaintances out there may have the same type of stories about her. And as for my own perspective, like the experiment goes, I would be less inclined to be thoughtful and creative with my next date.

    Like


  47. “Chic, making a guy wait a few months for sex is way overboard barring extreme circumstances. At least a virgin has some deep-rooted mental issues to credit for their chastity. ”

    Okay, virgins are headcases but a woman who’s ever had sex with a bartender is a slut who’s unworthy of love. You must meet very few relationship-type women

    Like


  48. Cannon,
    I’m sorry I don’t follow; “Jan 4th”? Please explain?

    And Roissy, excellent comments.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  49. Or better yet, watch a few episodes of Maury’s paternity test episodes to see the havoc promiscuous women wreak

    @t- The bigger problem is those promiscuous women don’t use condoms and birthcontrol. You should also keep in mind that there have been some very promiscuous men on Maury, who have 11 or more children by 10 different women. If you think the women bring hell, you should see what lose irresponsible men do.

    The worse of Maury’s women has got to be the woman who had fraternal twins, each child had a different father. That means she sleep with two guys almost right after the other

    That’s why men are hardwired to shame sluts.
    <a http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/02/13/sex-and-sperm-competition/618.html
    A few years ago there was a big debate about sperm competition. It seems that men may have killer sperm, as well as sperm that block the sperm of other males along with fertilizing sperm. Of course it goes back and fourth. One study shows the existence and another refutes the findings and back and fourth for a few years.

    Like


  50. “a local emo rocker”

    I still have no idea what “emo” is.

    – MPM

    Like


  51. You know I don’t do science links so don’t get too excited. I added a link this time because I ‘m sure my comment would get some of you going.

    Like


  52. Chic,
    “1. In his late twenties, I can’t imagine an alpha going several months without sex to pursue a fleeting ideal. I’m not presuming to give you a concrete timeframe, but it’s not a few months, unless you’re hunting betas.”

    Waiting is the best way to weed out men who are only interested in sex. You may think a man who’s willing to wait because he cares about the woman is beta, but don’t y’all always complain that women don’t want betas? This should make you happy.

    Like


  53. Cannon’s Canon When I conceptualize virgins in my age group, I think of a few reasons; deep-rooted family issues, sexual abuse, or ironclad religious fundamentalism. I summarized these as ‘mental issues’ on purpose with tongue-in-cheek
    I was thinking you were writing about younger women. When I hear of an older woman retaining her virginity I think of these three things as well as the possibility of the woman being asexual or some type of weird loner.

    In his late twenties, I can’t imagine an alpha going several months without sex to pursue a fleeting ideal. I’m not presuming to give you a concrete timeframe, but it’s not a few months, unless you’re hunting betas
    Got you but most men are not alphas. Truthfully, few men are natural alphas. Personally, I don’t alpha hunt because it’s a race with to many fierce competitors and I’m not sure I’m fast enough to get a medal. At the top of the female meat market, you need more than looks cunningness plays a big part in who can get the guy to the alter first. Even then, there is still plenty of drama to be had.
    This brings up another important question thought. At what point should person stop seeing other people. Should you stop the moment you meet someone you like or stop once you enter a relationship. An alpha or beta may continue to see other women (preferably woman) until he enters a relationship(?).

    Like


  54. Chic:

    1. I agree. It is prudent for a non-religious woman to wait at least 2-3 months before having sex with someone. It is perfectly imaginable for an alpha to wait that long for someone of sufficient quality.

    2. Why the hate on bar makeouts? I love bar makeouts myself. And I wouldn’t take them _that_ seriously as an indication of sluttiness.

    Like


  55. Hello Waiting is the best way to weed out men who are only interested in sex. You may think a man who’s willing to wait because he cares about the woman is beta, but don’t y’all always complain that women don’t want betas? This should make you happy
    Cosign
    I don’t see the Roissy or Janka types hanging around for 2-3 months. In the rare case that he does, he will expose his true hoish self before 90 days. The stalker would have given me reason to run like hell.

    Like


  56. warning: this post is rather fatalistic. do not read on a sunny day.

    steve johnson:

    Whoosh!

    Women should be picky but in different ways if they want to be happy.

    Here’s a dos and don’ts list:

    Don’t:

    Fuck some bartender because he’s hot
    Fuck some guy on vacation because he’s got great abs
    Do thinks that emotionally damage you to such a degree that you’ll never find an average guy charming again (especially if you’re just an average girl)

    Do:

    Actually go out with a guy who doesn’t immediately push your attraction buttons
    Give a guy a chance who isn’t a charming cad

    Frankly, this isn’t that complex.

    steve, no, it’s not complex. and i agree: this is pretty much the only solution.
    but i think you fail to appreciate just how impracticable this solution is, especially given the current state of society.

    consider:

    1.
    those “attraction buttons” are hardwired – a premise you obviously accept, as you not only use the phrase “attraction buttons” in the first place but also subscribe to Game principles.
    indeed, the essentially immutable nature of the “buttons” is the entire raison d’être of Game.
    for slightly-above-average women to follow your advice would be every bit as difficult as for slightly-above-average men to shun the sexual availability of 8+’s at every turn.
    no, in fact, exponentially more difficult. see #2.

    2.
    the sort of restraint you’re advocating for women is incalculably more difficult than for men, because, for basically all women with a decent modicum of attractiveness (say 6+), alpha or lesser-alpha fling sex is as plentiful and easily accessible as tap water.
    do not forget this:
    the slightly-above-average female’s access to fling sex is equal to or greater than that of essentially ANY man, with the possible exception of rock stars or professional athletes.
    so:
    * imagine how difficult it would be for you or your buddies to turn down NSA sex with porn stars / models / whatever you like, for no reason other than the vague and distant shadow of taint on potential future relationships with more average partners.
    and
    * couple that difficulty with the complete jettisoning of rational thought that accompanies high sexual arousal / buying temperature.
    yeah, i don’t think so.

    and finally,
    3.
    we live in an oprah culture that tells women that they should have essentially whatever they want, whenever they might feel like wanting it.
    it takes unusually strong character and strict raising for any woman to deny herself any nontrivial gratification in this culture, let alone to go completely against the grain of her hardwiring as noted in #2.

    given the above, the alpha-chasing is going to happen.
    it simply will.
    UNLESS
    (a) a universal religious revival starts putting the lockdown on our worldly desires again,
    or
    (b) the internet completely destroys anonymity and privacy, so that we’re once again living in a tribal village with eyes in the sky (albeit a much, much larger one).

    (a) is essentially impossible at this point, unless the “religious revival” in question is a hostile islamic takeover.

    (b) could happen, though. for all those striplings and lassies posting every last detail of their exploits and sexploits on facebook, it’s going to be a brave new fucking world.

    that is all.
    have a nice day, fuckers.

    Like


  57. I hear of an older woman retaining her virginity I think of these three things as well

    I can’t speak of non-religious women, but I and a couple close friends have dated religious women who were virgins into their thirties. They were perfectly normal people who happened to take their religion seriously.

    Like


  58. on December 24, 2008 at 6:13 pm Cannon's Canon

    Sorry Mu’Min; I meant January 20th.

    Like


  59. Thursday2. Why the hate on bar makeouts? I love bar makeouts myself. And I wouldn’t take them _that_ seriously as an indication of sluttiness

    Well I think it’s partially attention whoring and I also find it disgusting to kiss random people. Hypothetically speaking, I have no idea where his/her mouth was before he/she kissed me.

    Like


  60. Re thought experiment #2:

    i really wonder how much the prevalance of answer b can be chalked up to evolutionary hardwiring, at least not of the type being put forth here. it seems to me that a lot of men would be turned on and secretly more likely to pursue this women (men are, after all, turned on by sexual availability), but at the same time don’t want to be seen as a sucker by other men. and this idea of denying your own individual desires for the sake of social conformity, call it beta, call it feminine, call it ‘slut-shaming’ alpha behavior… i’m not sure how useful it is in a contemporary context.

    personally, finding out about a girl’s sexual history makes very little difference to me. some girls are promiscuous because they’re needy, attention whores who discovered that having guys think they have a better-than-average shot at getting inside them suddenly makes them incredibly ‘popular’, and some girls just like sex. i avoid the former, but make my judgments based on an overall assessment.

    i will say this: if i know a girl has a somewhat indiscriminate sexual history, my patience for games drops to zero. it’s one thing for a girl to tell me, ‘well, i don’t usually’ right before my cock passes her lips on the way down to the back of her throat… i rather enjoy that. the ones who pull the, ‘well, i used to be a great big slut, but those days are over and maybe i’ll let you see a nipple after date #3’, they get kicked straight to the curb.

    Like


  61. @t- The bigger problem is those promiscuous women don’t use condoms and birthcontrol. You should also keep in mind that there have been some very promiscuous men on Maury, who have 11 or more children by 10 different women. If you think the women bring hell, you should see what lose irresponsible men do.

    Stop disagreeing just to disagree. The bigger problem is NOT that the women don’t use condoms and birth control, because if those women didn’t use condoms and birth control but ALSO weren’t promiscuous, when they got pregnant people would know who the father is. There wouldn’t need to be a panel of 5 guys being tested at once, regardless of condom and birth control use. Without female promiscuity, men could be assured of being the father.

    Those promiscuous guys have 10 or 11 children by different women, but at least YOU KNOW WHO THE FATHER IS so long as the girl isn’t a slut too. There’s no guy out there supporting a baby that isn’t his when you have a promiscuous guy sleeping with nonpromiscuous women. Unknown parentage that results from promiscuous women wreaks more havoc than a guy knocking up several women.

    A few years ago there was a big debate about sperm competition. It seems that men may have killer sperm, as well as sperm that block the sperm of other males along with fertilizing sperm. Of course it goes back and fourth. One study shows the existence and another refutes the findings and back and fourth for a few years.

    What does this have to do with why men are hardwired to shame sluts?

    Like


  62. i really wonder how much the prevalance of answer b can be chalked up to evolutionary hardwiring, at least not of the type being put forth here. it seems to me that a lot of men would be turned on and secretly more likely to pursue this women (men are, after all, turned on by sexual availability), but at the same time don’t want to be seen as a sucker by other men. and this idea of denying your own individual desires for the sake of social conformity, call it beta, call it feminine, call it ’slut-shaming’ alpha behavior… i’m not sure how useful it is in a contemporary context.

    Reliable birth control, abortion on demand and DNA testing has exist for several decades now. That’s a drop in the bucket in comparison to the totality of time humankind has been in existence. For a VAST majority of human existence, birth control has not been that reliable, meaning that every man that slept with a woman had a very good chance of impregnating her, even if they tried to be as careful as possible. Very different from today where a woman if responsible and careful can sleep with a man indefinitely without getting pregnant. Also, today there is abortion on demand, so if a woman does get careless and slip up and is not sure who the father is, she can abort and her men never know she was pregnant. Lastly, if she does sleep with several men and gets pregnant and sticks one sucker with the burden, that guy still has the option of DNA testing. Yet even despite all these checks and balances in our current society against being stuck with a baby that isn’t your own, as Maury shows this practice of being stuck with babies not your own is still going on. So can you imagine how bad it was before reliable birth control, abortion on demand and DNA testing existed? You can end up passing on your whole estate and body of wealth to another man’s child? How is it beta to be worried about that? That’s about as huge as stakes get! Now I know what you’re saying, given today’s society and technology, such hangups are not as big a deal. problem is, we have over a hundred thousand years of human development without these technological advancements in existence, versus only a few decades with them. Those few decades are not going to be enough to turn back over 100,000 years of evolutionary hardwiring.

    Also, I find the theory that men would be hardwired to be more turned on by sexually active women to be debatable. Maybe more turned on for banging them in quickies, but not hardwired to pair bond with them, as they’d effectively be choosing to mate long term with the type of woman most likely to give birth to another man’s children. Not optimal evolutionary strategy.
    personally, finding out about a girl’s sexual history makes very little difference to me. some girls are promiscuous because they’re needy, attention whores who discovered that having guys think they have a better-than-average shot at getting inside them suddenly makes them incredibly ‘popular’, and some girls just like sex. i avoid the former, but make my judgments based on an overall assessment.

    Like


  63. johnny fivebut i think you fail to appreciate just how impracticable this solution is, especially given the current state of society.

    Johnny as a group, women have always preferred the true alpha type(aka Clinton effect). The true alpha draws women to him naturally without putting in much effort, even men are mesmerized by him. Your grandmother as well as your great grandmother fought the same battle when it comes to resisting the aura of a true alpha. Most women come to their senses or resist in the same way that most realize that they are not going to marry a ten so they settle for the best from the pool of who they can get.

    Only women who are up for a good fight or who lack future oriented thinking will chase a true alpha around for years.

    Like


  64. T,
    I think a kid raised by a good man who everyone thinks is his father is better off than a kid who knows his dad abandoned him and never sends a dime. It’s certainly not optimal for the putative father but children’s interests trump men’s.

    Like


  65. John Smith wrote :

    “BUT, this is not to say that there remains a MORAL DOUBLE STANDARD in the world.

    In the Islamic world, it’s ok for men to have multiple wives, while women who cheat on their husbands are pariahs in society.

    Islam is a brutal religion. It pains me to see this blog extolling the same morality that Islam preaches.

    We all know what evo psych says about human sexual behavior. Just try not to push it into the moral realm.”

    I see Roissy and T beat me in pointing out the fact that that cheating wife rule is due to the difficulty in determining paternity vs. the fact that maternity is never questionable.

    Islam in not brutal for making cheating women pariahs. It is brutal in allowing a winner-take-all system for alpha men to hog all the women, leaving the losers with no options.

    For all the crap written about Islam badmouthing it, it’s more probable that this particular Islamic sanctioned cultural practice, rather than any theological belief about God in Islam itself is what causes so many Gulf State Arabs (not including Palestinians, they have a legitimate grievance) to become so radical in their beliefs, and ultimately anti-Western and terrorists. Everyone in the West harps upon Islamic fundamentalism as the cause of terror in the Middle East while totally ignoring the demographic reality over there. Middle Eastern populations are extremely young, with the median age being extremely low in comparison with other regions of the Earth. So you have countries full of teenage, early 20s men that find it hard to access women. Since this age group of men in any society is the most dangerous and violent, it isn’t a far reach to think that massive sexual frustration in such cases blows up into radicalism.

    Look at China.. same story by different means.. instead of polygamy, you have the 1 child rule drastically reducing the number of females since they are aborted in favor of male children.

    Chinese culture and people have historically been very peaceful and non-violent. Their cultural traditions of Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism are probably the least radical and most stable/conservative of any of the religions any large group of people have held in the world. And yet, recently, I’ve noticed a disturbing trend of young Chinese men become more and more angry and militant.

    Islam isn’t as predisposed to peaceful measures as Chinese philosophy/religion.

    I’m not proposing this as the sole cause of all the troubles in the world, but it’s worth thinking about.

    How many wives and kids did Bin Laden’s father have? 54 children and 22 wives! What did the other 21 men that were left out by this do?

    Like


  66. T,
    I think a kid raised by a good man who everyone thinks is his father is better off than a kid who knows his dad abandoned him and never sends a dime. It’s certainly not optimal for the putative father but children’s interests trump men’s.

    Yes, and a man is better off taking care of a kid he knows is his as opposed to a kid he believes is his but actually isn’t. Do you dispute that?

    I have no problem with men knowingly taking care of other men’s kids, but the female promiscuity issue is not about that.

    Like


  67. Oops, accidentally included a paragraph of Lance’s original comment in my response to him. This paragraph here was lance’s words, not mine:

    “personally, finding out about a girl’s sexual history makes very little difference to me. some girls are promiscuous because they’re needy, attention whores who discovered that having guys think they have a better-than-average shot at getting inside them suddenly makes them incredibly ‘popular’, and some girls just like sex. i avoid the former, but make my judgments based on an overall assessment.”

    Like


  68. T Stop disagreeing just to disagree. The bigger problem is NOT that the women don’t use condoms and birth control, because if those women didn’t use condoms and birth control but ALSO weren’t promiscuous, when they got pregnant people would know who the father is

    T, I’m not disagreeing to disagree. If women used birth control and condoms together, there would be no need to have a DNA test. Think about it.
    Let’s say “Linda” from New York sleep with 100 guys who live in Manhattan as well 50 from Brooklyn. With each and every guy she used condoms and birth control. Then one day when Linda is around 25 she decides she wants to get married. Linda then moves to Texas so she can find a husband. She does all of the “right things” with each guy she dates in Texas. One day she lands a very good man. Trust me, unless Linda confesses, the guy in Texas will be none the wiser. If he wonders why she is so good in bed, she may say she had a long-term boyfriend who was very experienced & he taught her a lot of tricks. One day they walk down the isle, the end.

    Like


  69. Addendum:

    Found this site with Saudi statistics on sex ratios male/female… not sure where they’re pulling them from, but if this is true, it is scary.

    So, Bin Laden’s dad took 21 wives, in a place where women are far scarcer than men! That’s a double hit for the betas over there.

    ——-

    http://www.middleeastdirectory.com/cs_saudi.htm

    Sex ratio: at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female

    under 15 years: 1.04 male(s)/female

    15-64 years: 1.41 male(s)/female

    65 years and over: 1.22 male(s)/female

    total population: 1.23 male(s)/female (2001 est.)

    Like


  70. you know what chic, i give up. you’re all over the place. now you’re debating whethe or not a woman can sleep with a bunch of guys and be good at hiding her former whore past. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A TRADITIONALLY SMART POLICY TO DO LONG TERM PAIR BONDING WITH PROMISCUOUS WOMEN? This “Linda” in your hypothetical, who is so good at sleeping with dozens of men and covering it up, will you tell me she is just as low-risk and sensible an investment for long-term pair bonding as a woman who is more discriminating.

    You know what, forget about the guys on this blog. Think about if you had a son, or think about if you have a younger nephew or male cousin. If this male relative came to you and had a choice between a “Linda” like your example who slept with 150 men, or a woman with a more conservative background, and you found out both their pasts, would you HONESTLY tell him that both women are equally good marriage prospects? Would you really let your son marry a “Linda” over a more conservative girl.

    Like


  71. Those promiscuous guys have 10 or 11 children by different women, but at least YOU KNOW WHO THE FATHER IS so long as the girl isn’t a slut too

    That’s just it. WE know who the father is but what else…. Most of those men don’t take care of their children, they rely on us to shoulder the burden. The promiscuous guys have 10 or 11 children by different women are little more than sperm donors T. They play no active role in the lives of their children beyond a visit every now and then. Furthermore, those types of guys are the reason why we can’t cap STD infections in this country*. WE can almost eradicate mumps*,whooping cough, and polio but not gonorrhea.

    Keep in mind that it is much easier for a man to spread STDs than the reverse. Add that STD infections are often asymptomatic for women.

    Like


  72. “Yes, and a man is better off taking care of a kid he knows is his as opposed to a kid he believes is his but actually isn’t. Do you dispute that?”

    No

    “I have no problem with men knowingly taking care of other men’s kids, but the female promiscuity issue is not about that.”

    The only way tis becomes a social disaster is if the paternity is found out. If the kid has a genetic disease the mom is screwed, but otherwise unless the bio-dad was of another race or ethnicity a woman can carry that secret to her grave. A lot don’t due to unhappiness in the marriage and general drama whoredom but it is possible.

    I always wonder what the hell women in stable marriages are doing on Maury.

    Like


  73. Tyou know what chic, i give up. you’re all over the place. now you’re debating whethe or not a woman can sleep with a bunch of guys and be good at hiding her former whore past.

    T, the reason I gave you that scenario was to make it clear that beyond morality & religion, a woman or man who sleeps around won’t leave much damage as long as she uses birth control and condoms. It’s the failure to use protection that leads to those Maury shows. Those women and men are irresponsible.

    The point of giving women birthcontrol was to give them choice as well as freedom. Freedom not be locked down with more children than they are there partner can afford or no children at all if a woman so decides. Notice that very few women have more than 5 children anymore. In my grand and great grandmother’s day, many women had ten children.

    Like


  74. Hello, in response to the question ““Yes, and a man is better off taking care of a kid he knows is his as opposed to a kid he believes is his but actually isn’t. Do you dispute that?”:

    No

    THANK you. Which is why men avoid such a scenario by screening out promiscuous women when possible. Case closed.

    Hello in response to “I have no problem with men knowingly taking care of other men’s kids, but the female promiscuity issue is not about that.”

    The only way tis becomes a social disaster is if the paternity is found out. If the kid has a genetic disease the mom is screwed, but otherwise unless the bio-dad was of another race or ethnicity a woman can carry that secret to her grave. A lot don’t due to unhappiness in the marriage and general drama whoredom but it is possible.

    So wait…as long as a man doesn’t find out, the ends justify the means? So how about men cheating their asses off but their wives never finding out? Do you subscribe to the same philosophy then, that what the other person doeesn’t know makes it okay? Somehow I suspect you don’t. This is amorality at its worst, the idea that men exist solely to make the lives of women and their children easier, and let the guy’s best interests be damned. So it’s okay for a guy to think he has a child, that he is spreading his genes into the next generation, and then spend all his hard earned money and bequeath his inheritance to this child that isn’t his, all without knnowing the truth? Because as long as something makes the woman’s life easier, it is objectively good? That’s the only standard for judging the rightness or wrongness of an action, whether it makes the woman’s life easier?

    You are basicaly saying men should specifically ignore warning factors that indicate a high risk of ending up raising another man’s baby on the basis that as long as he never tries to find out the truth he should be just happy being ignorant and duped. That the problem here is the man having the audacity to find out a truth that is helps him make an informed decision rather than just accept a fiction that is beneficial to the woman.

    I always wonder what the hell women in stable marriages are doing on Maury.

    Maybe they have something called a conscience, even if it acts up belatedly.

    Like


  75. Also, I find the theory that men would be hardwired to be more turned on by sexually active women to be debatable.

    This obviously my naivete and idiocy showing, but I have always felt that sluts should make for better wives since they’re slutty, and thus should enjoy sex more than their non-slutty counterparts. In other words, a highly sexually active woman should become a highly sexually active wife while non-sexually active women become boring frigid wives. Of course, this presumes that being slutty is a sign of high sexual desire…

    Like


  76. hello said:

    “The only way tis becomes a social disaster is if the paternity is found out. If the kid has a genetic disease the mom is screwed, but otherwise unless the bio-dad was of another race or ethnicity a woman can carry that secret to her grave. A lot don’t due to unhappiness in the marriage and general drama whoredom but it is possible.”

    Yeah, if the guy never finds out it won’t be that bad, but you are putting a lot of faith in a woman carrying a secret like that her whole life.

    Even the most morally dissolute woman usual has some inkling of conscience somewhere and conscience must have its revenge. That’s why most don’t keep it a secret. Not only would you have to lie to your husband your whole life, but you’d also have to lie to your kid. Do you think most women are built to keep secrets like that permanently? If yes, then you have a lower opinion of women than I do.

    Like


  77. Yes Chic, because EVERYONE who has slept around with tons of partners knows that you never, EVER end up slipping up in the heat of the moment and occasionally fucking with no condoms or “forgetting” to take the pills. A woman with 150 partners like you say in your hypothetical and you seriously want to men to trust the premise that such women can consistently use condoms and pills 100% of the time? Wouldn’t be easier to just avoid a promiscuous woman altogether to the best of your ability?

    Like


  78. T, of course I would tell him to be with the woman with fewer partners. I would also tell my younger sister to avoid the male ho as well. He is not a good investment for a long term relationship.

    The real point is, you may never know how many people another person has sleep with unless you have photographic evidence. Some people really do get around. Often it’s the people you would never think had it in them who are the biggest freaks.

    T, you were not born yesterday, you are in your mid thirties so I know you get what I’m posting.

    Would you really let your son marry a “Linda” over a more conservative girl.
    I could not stop him from marrying who he wants. I can only advise him and to repeat myself… I would tell him to marry the more conservative of the two. I just hope he won’t complain 6 months after the marriage that the conservative girl is to vanilla.

    Like


  79. The real point is, you may never know how many people another person has sleep with unless you have photographic evidence. Some people really do get around. Often it’s the people you would never think had it in them who are the biggest freaks.

    Chic. The point of this post we are responding to, this SPECIFIC POST called “Thought Experiments,” is about a guy who DOES find out evidence of his girl’s promiscuity. Why are you bringing up scenarios describing how a girl can hide her promiscuity. The point of this post is not about how well a woman can hide her promiscuity, it’s about how a guy should respond once he DOES discover her promiscuity. You so just want to disagree, you’re not even caring if your responses and examples relate to the specific scenario we’re discussing, you’re just throwing in every tangentially related scenario you can.

    Like


  80. it’s about how a guy should respond onceif he DOES discover her promiscuity.
    T, men don’t always discover a woman’s promiscuity.

    Like


  81. I personally favoring using State funding to implement mandatory Paternity Testing on the spot as soon as the baby emerges from the Mama. We can nip a lot of this stuff in the bid right quick.

    One has to ask though, why the umpteen feminist groups and organizations are fighting such measures tooth and nail. Things that make one go, hmmm…

    And I’m sorry Kitty, there’s no way in Hell Mu’s paying for ANY kid not of his own blood. Call it what you will, but my job ain’t to lookout for the World’s Children, but to lookout for Mu’s.

    And to make sure that happens, Mu’s gota do all he can to choose wisely when it comes time to plant seeds with an eye on the Future. So, that means, that Good Time Gloria ain’t gonna get it when time comes to go Wifey shopping.

    Buck what you heard-my interests come before all others. If my kid is mine, he or she will want for nothing. If not, I’m suing the you know what off the Momma and anyone else who wants some, too.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  82. T, men don’t always discover a woman’s promiscuity

    Good GOD, I can’t get over this. NO ONE IS SAYING MEN ALWAYS DISCOVER A WOMAN’S PROMISCUITY. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT A MAN SHOULD DO ONCE HE DOES FIND OUT ABOUT IT. Are you deliberately not getting this?

    Like


  83. men don’t always discover a woman’s promiscuity.

    It is easier for a socially aware guy to get an good sense of how promiscuous or not a woman is than you might think. There is no way to be perfectly accurate of course, but there are a lot of tells.

    Like


  84. In societies where women are expected to be virgins when married, there is not also the co-expectation for the women to be good in bed. In most of those places wives are there solely for for their procreative functions, while companionship, sexual pleasure, and friendship are routinely expected to be found outside of marriage.

    Today men marrry the pure girl, and then complain that, shockingly, she is not interested in having sex on a regular basis with him. A laughable concern in the past, as that really wasn’t the main purpose of a wife. In Victorian times, sterility, caused by men who visited prostitutes brining the STDsback home to thier wives was an ongoing concern. So pik the virgin. Just realize that not only does she not like having sex with other men, she probably isn’t also going to like having sex with you. There is a reason, in this day and age, why she is still a virgin. Unless, of course, you are like Gannon, and like messing with the training bra crowd.

    Like


  85. Yes Chic, because EVERYONE who has slept around with tons of partners knows that you never, EVER end up slipping up in the heat of the moment and occasionally fucking with no condoms or “forgetting” to take the pills.
    Well T, we now have plan B. Besides there are other forms of BC besides pills. There is the patch, Depo, Nuva Ring and an updated version of Norplant. As a man who is sexually active, you should keep yourself current when it comes to female birth control.
    A woman with 150 partners like you say in your hypothetical and you seriously want to men to trust the premise that such women can consistently use condoms and pills 100% of the time?,/i>
    Well, there are women who have sleep around yet they have no out of wedlock children.
    BTW, I’m still on one hand but I can tell you that I’ve never had it full on without a condom T. Now I know I am fairly young, but as of today, I’ve avoid that trap. It only takes one time to make a woman pregnant or to contract AIDS. For the life of me, I don’t understand why so many people think it can never happen to them.
    Wouldn’t be easier to just avoid a promiscuous woman altogether to the best of your ability? Of course it would be T. I agree with you 100%. I’m just attempting to make you see that you can’t always “tell” if a woman has been around. The semester she studies abroad may have been the six months that she whored if around Paris. You may never know. I’m sure your woman does not know about every single woman you’ve been with.

    Like


  86. Good GOD, I can’t get over this. NO ONE IS SAYING MEN ALWAYS DISCOVER A WOMAN’S PROMISCUITY. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT A MAN SHOULD DO ONCE HE DOES FIND OUT ABOUT IT. Are you deliberately not getting this?
    Um T, I’ve answered your question about four times already.

    I’m not argumentative. I’m simply pointing out the shades of gray.

    men don’t always discover a woman’s promiscuity.

    It is easier for a socially aware guy to get an good sense of how promiscuous or not a woman is than you might think. There is no way to be perfectly accurate of course, but there are a lot of tells.

    I think you got it Thursday. T and I are bumping heads for some reason.

    Like


  87. to hello and chic:

    would you oppose, or would you favor, routine and mandatory paternity testing and dna matching of every child born in this country?
    and why?

    and if your answer is “oppose”, then please do not give bullshit reasons such as “that would be labeling faithful women as sluts” … because those women’s faithfulness would, of course, be borne out by the results.

    Like


  88. men don’t always discover a woman’s promiscuity.

    Once again, IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. The discussion we’re having is not about how hard it is to find out about a woman’s promiscuity but rather what a man should do when he DOES find out.

    I’m not going to respond to the same point again. Either you get why your arguments are irrelevant and tangential or you don’t.

    T and I are bumping heads for some reason.

    We’re bumping heads because you can’t stay on point and are throwing in every tangential irrelvant argument you can in hopes of finding something that sticks.

    Like


  89. THANK you. Which is why men avoid such a scenario by screening out promiscuous women when possible. Case closed.

    Hello in response to “I have no problem with men knowingly taking care of other men’s kids, but the female promiscuity issue is not about that.”

    The only way tis becomes a social disaster is if the paternity is found out. If the kid has a genetic disease the mom is screwed, but otherwise unless the bio-dad was of another race or ethnicity a woman can carry that secret to her grave. A lot don’t due to unhappiness in the marriage and general drama whoredom but it is possible.

    “So wait…as long as a man doesn’t find out, the ends justify the means? So how about men cheating their asses off but their wives never finding out? Do you subscribe to the same philosophy then, that what the other person doeesn’t know makes it okay?”

    Of course not. I’m simply saying that although you can’t desert a mother and child without them noticing it is possible if unlikely decieve a man into acknowledging a cuckoo’s egg baby without the dad or kid ever finding out. It’s a horrible thing to do and I don’t condone it at all, I’m just disputing your contention that female promiscuity is far and away more socially damaging than the male variety. A promiscuous woman can better control whether she gets pregnant whereas a cheating husband (unless he where’s a condom) has to rely on whether or not has inamorata remembered to take her pill.

    “So it’s okay for a guy to think he has a child, that he is spreading his genes into the next generation, and then spend all his hard earned money and bequeath his inheritance to this child that isn’t his, all without knnowing the truth? Because as long as something makes the woman’s life easier, it is objectively good? That’s the only standard for judging the rightness or wrongness of an action, whether it makes the woman’s life easier?”

    I have more experience than I’d like with women who think everyone should bow down and worship them and I don’t think they deserve anything. Fact is they usually don’t take good care of their kids.

    “You are basicaly saying men should specifically ignore warning factors that indicate a high risk of ending up raising another man’s baby on the basis that as long as he never tries to find out the truth he should be just happy being ignorant and duped. That the problem here is the man having the audacity to find out a truth that is helps him make an informed decision rather than just accept a fiction that is beneficial to the woman.”

    For what it’s worth I think promiscuous people of both sexes should be avoided for LTR, but I think that screwing one bartender does not a skank make. A lot of women have a slutty phase their freshman year of college and maybe one or two flings after that but largely stay within the confines of relationships and aren’t burned out Jenna Jamesons at 30.

    “Maybe they have something called a conscience, even if it acts up belatedly.”

    Paternity tests aren’t that costly. You can drop the bomb in your own living room and give the guy a few shreds of dignity. Even if you’re afraid he’d be violent you can have a trusted relative present. There’s absolutely no need to humiliate the husband like that.

    Like


  90. Anonymous
    In societies where women are expected to be virgins when married, there is not also the co-expectation for the women to be good in bed. In most of those places wives are there solely for for their procreative functions, while companionship, sexual pleasure, and friendship are routinely expected to be found outside of marriage.,/i>
    Cosign anon. This is true in a lot of African socities. It’s the reason I debate with people the meaning of a happy marriage. If it’s to remain married on paper for 40 years than so be it.

    Today men marrry the pure girl, and then complain that, shockingly, she is not interested in having sex on a regular basis with him. A laughable concern in the past, as that really wasn’t the main purpose of a wife.
    Cosign again. Both sexes really expect to much for each other. That’s why I say the soulmate BS is just that BS.
    In Victorian times, sterility, caused by men who visited prostitutes brining the STDsback home to thier wives was an ongoing concern.
    Unto this day so women find themselves sterile for this very reason.
    So pik the virgin. Just realize that not only does she not like having sex with other men, she probably isn’t also going to like having sex with you. There is a reason, in this day and age, why she is still a virgin. Unless, of course, you are like Gannon, and like messing with the training bra crowd.
    Cosign again. People want their cake and eat it too.

    BTW I’m human and not imune to some of this stuff.

    Like


  91. J5,
    Excellent reiteration of my original question; I’d like to expand it to *all* the Ladies of the Forum; what say you, Ladies?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  92. “would you oppose, or would you favor, routine and mandatory paternity testing and dna matching of every child born in this country?
    and why?

    and if your answer is “oppose”, then please do not give bullshit reasons such as “that would be labeling faithful women as sluts” … because those women’s faithfulness would, of course, be borne out by the results.”

    I don’t see a problem with it although it would take a lot of government intervention to keep track of that and finance it and we’re broke.

    However, if a woman passes the paternity test that only shows that any affair she may have had didn’t produce a baby.

    Julia, daughter of Augustus, was so promiscuous that contemporaries were shocked that her children looked so obviously like her husband. She reputedly said “I never take on a passenger unless the boat is full”

    Like


  93. “So pik the virgin. Just realize that not only does she not like having sex with other men, she probably isn’t also going to like having sex with you. There is a reason, in this day and age, why she is still a virgin. Unless, of course, you are like Gannon, and like messing with the training bra crowd.
    Cosign again. People want their cake and eat it too.”

    That’s why beta men who are less likely to cheat are nice.

    Like


  94. “that would be labeling faithful women as sluts”

    Admittedly, it kinda does come off in the same way since it presumes she’s a slut first, then determines later. It’s somewhat similar to presuming every Hispanic person is an illegal immigrant first, or that every black person is a criminal.

    I’m much to gauche caviar to mandate said testing, but I would leave the option for any couple that desires it at the time of birth with no need for consent from the other parent.

    Like


  95. to hello and chic:

    would you oppose, or would you favor, routine and mandatory paternity testing and dna matching of every child born in this country?
    and why?

    I’ve posted about a dozen times that I am for DNA testing of all children before they are taken home or before any man is allowed to sign the birth certificate.

    “that would be labeling faithful women as sluts
    Not at all. How about 20% of anyone’s income for 18 years is a huge chunk of money. Furthermore, it’s unfair to emotionally lock a person to a child.

    J’5, I’m going to keep it real with you. Before those Maury shows became popular, I had no idea that so many women were sleeping with multiple men at the same time without protection. The first time I saw an episode of Maury’s DNA show, I would yell at each guy who came across the stage for not taking care of what I presumed to be his children. Out of 6 couples, only one had a positive match. After asking around, I found out that this occurs fairly often .SMH

    Like


  96. T, I’ve agreed with you. I was simply showing you the gray areas for Christ sakes. One of my male buddies told me men like to be keep ignorant about some things and I see he was right. What’s with the need to have a woman submit. SMH

    You, Roissy, Agnostic, and Animus have all tried it. I notice that you never become so agitated with each other but God forbid a woman disagrees with you.

    BTW, your comment comes across like someone suffering from a whore&madonna

    Like


  97. So, Bin Laden’s dad took 21 wives, in a place where women are far scarcer than men! That’s a double hit for the betas over there.

    The sex ratio statistics that you quote may not apply to Saudi citizenry alone but may also include the many millions of guest workers in the country whose sex ratio is possibly skewed.

    Like


  98. Markku said:

    “The sex ratio statistics that you quote may not apply to Saudi citizenry alone but may also include the many millions of guest workers in the country whose sex ratio is possibly skewed.”

    Good call Markku. I’d forgotten about all the guest workers. Still, it’s listing arabs as 90% and afro-asian (who I assume make up guest workers) as 10%. I wonder what % of guest workers are fellow arabs? Could probably try to deduce the real % if I could get those stats.

    Like


  99. There are probably tons of Lebanese and Palestinians working in the rich Gulf Arab states.

    Like


  100. on December 24, 2008 at 9:25 pm ironrailsironweights

    As a very special Christmas Eve treat … the first-ever GNP from Nepal.

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,
    Peter

    Like


  101. There are probably tons of Lebanese and Palestinians working in the rich Gulf Arab states

    As well as Indians and Ethopians

    Like


  102. Random dude a few weeks ago, and banged a bartender a few months ago? In the same bar?

    Bwahahahahhahhahahaha. I’d sooner vote for the communists

    Like


  103. peter peter slut redeemer

    Best nick ever.

    Seriously Peter, we’ve all been there in high school — defending the slut who you’ve deluded yourself into believing was a great person, all in the unconscious hope that she’d reward you with a blowjob in the back parking lot.

    But… in case you didn’t notice, that never happened, and never will. Plus, look who you’re defending at your age — not a cute, energetic senior in high school, but a woman who should’ve gotten married looong ago, and who is attempting to block out the vision of her bleak future by going on a rampaging cock-bender.

    …wait, that didn’t sound right. You know what I mean.

    Like


  104. I don’t see a problem with it although it would take a lot of government intervention to keep track of that and finance it and we’re broke.

    within a few years at most, it won’t require any more “government intervention” than an ABO/Rh blood test.

    interesting that you’d say “i don’t see a problem with it”, then turn around and name a problem.
    (yes, i understand that your first sentence means that you’re not morally opposed.)

    Like


  105. defending the slut who you’ve deluded yourself into believing was a great person

    If she is a great person, why shouldn’t I defend her? She may give great hugs! 🙂

    Like


  106. Imagine the outrage if a men impregnated his wife with the egg of his girlfriend and his sperm. Can be done with in vitro methods.

    Like


  107. on December 25, 2008 at 10:09 am ironrailsironweights

    Seriously Peter, we’ve all been there in high school — defending the slut who you’ve deluded yourself into believing was a great person, all in the unconscious hope that she’d reward you with a blowjob in the back parking lot.
    But… in case you didn’t notice, that never happened, and never will. Plus, look who you’re defending at your age — not a cute, energetic senior in high school, but a woman who should’ve gotten married looong ago, and who is attempting to block out the vision of her bleak future by going on a rampaging cock-bender.

    It isn’t possible to draw these conclusions based on Roissy’s hypothetical. All we know is that the woman got it on with a bartender a few months ago and was making out with a random dude two weeks ago. For all we know, her sexual experience might otherwise be limited, or at least falls well short of skank level. Nor can we conclude that she should have gotten married long ago, as her age isn’t given. She might only be 21 or 22.

    Peter

    Like


  108. Merry Xmas to all! A drive-by posting before I’m off to the ritual Overeating Fest with relatives.

    As with so many things it depends on what kind of woman. Roissy’s examples are poorly formulated.

    In the Southern California Metroplex the 8+ crowd doesn’t hesitate to bang hot men. Such women will sleep with worthy males when they present themselves. Which is another reason I don’t buy the reported sex statistics. While the average woman reports a median of 8 partners per lifetime, these women are easily having that many in a year. To quote Mystery “They [hot women] are having plenty of sex. Just not with you [the AFC].”

    Are these women sluts? I don’t think so. Plus, the existence of PUA’s demolishes the myth of the Female Virtue. Hot women, when the lights go down, are fucking alphas or their vibrators, just not the betas and other AFC’s. It’s the betas that are forbidden egg access, not the alphas!

    It’s irrational, at the alpha level, to worry about female loyalty. Either she is or she isn’t and since the female ability to hide her priors exceeds the male ability to find out without private investigators or outright confession, just go with the flow.

    Also consider:

    Child illegitimacy runs 10%-25% on average and upto 70% in narrow segments. Scary!

    Cheating seems to hover around 8%+/-4%. Reasonable given the number of men that go beta in relationship mode.

    Does anyone think here that, except at the outlier margin, they will really know from their trial period with a woman, whether or not she will cheat? Doubtful in the extreme. In the game of Love, men tend to bring knives to a nuke fight.

    Like


  109. on December 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm sara I spouting random drivel

    If I was in the company of a man who uttered the words “sexual marketplace” I could not get away fast enough. Roissy and company? You make the whole of life seem cheap and ugly. My New Year’s resolution should be to stop exposing myself to that type of thinking. Sex as commodity? I wonder what kind of relationship Roissy has with his mother, if any. Oh and Merry Christmas!

    Like


  110. Sara I said:

    “If I was in the company of a man who uttered the words “sexual marketplace” I could not get away fast enough. ”

    Well, I agree, it’s an unpleasant term. But just because it’s unpleasant, it doesn’t mean it’s any less true. I thought the point of this blog is to be the place “where pretty lies perish.” Anyways, is this lion killing the antelope “cheap and ugly?” Or is it at the same time a demonstration of the awe and beauty of nature? I would say it’s both, just like the thought of “sexual marketplace.”

    I wouldn’t worry about any man actually saying this to you or to any girl. All the men on this planet that think this are clever enough to know that women “could not get away fast enough” if you actually told them what you thought. This is what “Game” is all about.

    Your problem will be that you’ll not know which guy actually thinks like this. Game is designed to bypass female intuition, which is usually a girl’s best defense.

    Like


  111. Dynamo Kiev

    Your problem will be that you’ll not know which guy actually thinks like this. Game is designed to bypass female intuition, which is usually a girl’s best defense.

    “Game” is designed to bypass female intuition, but some of us females have highly developed (or at least not highly resisted) intuition and instincts; instincts that have developed over millions of years and unless we’ve been conditioned by “society” are still operational. Don’t worry about me. I am seriously IMMUNE to “Game”. Ugh. I’ve been tested more than a few times and came through with flying colors. “Game” is for women who have been conditioned OUT of their instincts and are thus handy prey for the cunning and clever. Once bagged the attraction is gone because who really values something they got through calculation and cleverness?

    Isn’t it nice to know there is at least one woman on the planet who trusts her instincts? One woman who is real and wants real and values real and can handle real? True, real is not always pretty, but it’s the best game in town and the only one worth engaging in. Love is a beautiful poetic game or an ugly utilitarian competition; which is not love at all but a pathetic substitute for the real thing.

    Don’t tell me; you disagree? I’m sick of this place!!!

    Like


  112. @Mu Min “Things that make one go, hmmm…”
    Man you just sent me back like 2 decades LOL

    There is an argument that the chemicals associated with ‘love’ oxytocin etc… are basically Commitment Devices… so in terms of a LTR… I’m guessing that some would think that an epic amount of partners implies the female’s Commitment Device is not very reliable.

    @sara I
    If your GAME is tight, ideally you should be in high social demand, interesting, funny, and have massive amounts of social proof. Do you think you are immune to people with weaksauce game? Or are you pretty much 100% looks. Because I think that the difference might be more in degree of skill than GAME itself… since it really is just carrying out things that would normally be judged as good, also getting into physical shape, carrying yourself better, and developing your inner game are all parts of it, not just the bag of tricks per se. If you are not internally consistent with the image you portray your game needs improvement. Just a thought. I’m glad Hitler didn’t pop up on this comment thread.

    Like


  113. El Guapo said:

    Child illegitimacy runs 10%-25% on average…

    It’s a bit higher than that; the illegitimacy rate here in the United States is about 35% now.

    For what it’s worth in the UK it’s in the mid 40’s, with a probable majority of births to people of British descent being out of wedlock. (Muslim immigrants, mostly from South Asia, bring the aggregate rate down a bit.)

    Like


  114. Does anyone have a source for the illegitimate children statistics? I would definitely like to see some reliable data on that one.

    I don’t have a problem with falling marriage rates (especially given what a raw deal marriage is), but I have a significant problem with the dissolution of the nuclear family where children are involved; I think it bodes poorly for civilization.

    Though, if history is any indication, we may have a hard swing of the pendulum in the other direction with the next generation or two getting into government.

    Like


  115. I am seriously IMMUNE to “Game”. Ugh. I’ve been tested more than a few times and came through with flying colors.

    If a guy uses game properly, you won’t even know he is using it.

    Like


  116. […] Thought Experiments Thought Experiment #1 All else equal, which girl is more likely to get pumped and dumped?: a. an […] […]

    Like



  117. you cannot sever morality from human nature. morality is just a highly evolved mechanism for maximizing the odds of your gene’s survival and replication through the strategy of reciprocal altruism and kin favoritism.

    Roissy, you’re right. I’m not trying to say that you’re condemning these women. But, from a fellow atheist it really does smack of religious morality. This is rather what I’d have told to me:

    Look, woman: you can be a slut all you want and as long as you are a good person your sexual proclivities aren’t going to change my liking you as a person. Just don’t get pregnant and make the state foot the bill.

    However, if you want a man to commit his resources and time to you, then you have to change your behavior.

    Simple as that.

    I think
    it stands to reason that a morality which takes into account the greater danger of female infidelity and promiscuity and attempts to mitigate its expression will benefit a cooperative western-style society more than a morality that gives free rein to women to slut it up without consequence.

    and

    you cannot sever morality from human nature. morality is just a highly evolved mechanism for maximizing the odds of your gene’s survival and replication through the strategy of reciprocal altruism and kin favoritism.

    are a little to harsh. The institution of marriage is dead. The Singularity awaits.

    R.,
    I guess I’m making the mistake of condemning any idea which remotely has any connotation of similarity to Islamic values. Good rebuttal.

    Like


  118. Look, this is with the assumption of birth control, which really should be ubiquitous in this day and age. It’s just religious nutjobs (preaching the exact SAME sexual purity that I thought you were) that is preventing serious research into more effective and painless forms of birth control.

    Like


  119. Seriously, why do people continue to seriously engage sara on an intellectial level here? Her whole point in commenting is to brag about how immune she is to whatever Game concept Roissy is currently posting about, spout vague, new age drivel and claim how tired she is of this blog for the millionth time, even though she can never stop commenting here and was bellyaching and giving a sob story that one time Roissy almost banned her.

    Like


  120. Jackson said:

    Does anyone have a source for the illegitimate children statistics? I would definitely like to see some reliable data on that one.

    Here’s the data for the United States. Actually, 37% of births are to unmarried mothers as of 2005, not 35%. Interestingly, according to this chart, the number hasn’t budged up or down since 1991 or so.

    Like


  121. sara I:
    “Don’t tell me; you disagree? I’m sick of this place!!!”

    And here you are. You know its wrong but it feels so right.

    Like


  122. “religious nutjobs” are not holding up science completing the male birth control pill. Unless the research involves slicing and dicing aborted children, religious people don’t care.

    Like


  123. Deery — The King of England did not monopolize 80% of the women. That’s a pattern of Eastern societies. Individuals don’t matter, for the most part, on broad social trends.

    What matters is that far too many men cannot find ANY women. If you have a large pool of unattached men, well that’s never ended well. And women and children get it in the neck FIRST.

    Women in their thirties complain about the quality of their dates, men complain about no dates whatsoever particularly in their twenties. These two conditions are related. Failure/non-connectededness with women, then being the last choice for women in their thirties, is a condition guaranteed to produce most of the divorces and relationship failures.

    This is not Costanza syndrome, it’s social status obsessions.

    Deery, what if you have a Herb-type son? Do you want to him to be lonely, unhappy, desperate, and angry all his life? If you have a kid, unless you perform selective sex abortions, you are likely to come up 50% male with offspring. Unless you’re setting on hundreds of millions of bucks, he’s likely to come up snake-eyes (20% men hogging 80% women) and end up like the herbs.

    IF anything, TV and pr0n emphasize the fantasy of women never being bothered by herb-like desires by beta men, dreamy McSteamy Doctors for average women, sharing of Big Men by women, etc. Given that TV and Films (outside Action Movies) are a female and gay ghetto.

    John Smith — you are confusing your own personal morality with social consequences. Respect and freedom for women don’t just come by magic fairy dust. But rather a broad investment in WOMEN by MEN. Polygamist and semi-polygamist (“soft polygamy”) like West Africa end up treating women like chattel or slaves. Places where monogamous, mostly faithful marriages occur are the places where men DEFEND women’s freedom and so on. Not out of “moralism” but in their own self-intest hard-wired into society.

    Chic — Clinton was not the kind of “Alpha” men consider Alpha. Men consider patronage networks to be Alpha, not banging lots of women and lots of status mongering.

    Hello — A professional class woman screwing a bartender = high susceptibility to bad boy flings and cheating, based on a guy being “hot” and poor impulse control. Not to mention getting drunk and screwing guys in bars. You don’t have a “slutty phase.” Women either burn out the effects of hormones allowing emotional bonds released through sex by lots of partners or don’t. Either way, a woman with lots of partners is a poor bet to bond with a man. Being #45 or whatever means you’re just a number for a man. Nothing special and destined to be “fired” like most football coaches or eventually star athletes. Just a number, and the effects of hormones creating bonds is just gone.

    Women collectively can have as many bad boy flings as they want. They can’t get men to committ, collectively, in that sense. Eternal boy-men avoiding committment are created by women chasing bad boys.

    Jackson — the Census Bureau has stats. Dating from August, if you add up the categories it comes to 41% for Whites, and Juan Williams on Fathers Day had a column citing the 70% Black Illegtimacy rate. The US Census Bureau has responded by now counting any man who lives with a woman no matter how briefly or his biological or matrimonial relationships to the child and women (if she has a child) as a “married couple.” Problem Solved!

    You can’t have the nuclear family without constraints on particularly female sexual activity. Can’t be done. Can’t do it. Want sexual freedom for women, unbounded? Say goodbye to the nuclear family.

    Like


  124. a. an “adventurous” girl who played musical chairs with the mouths of five guys in a bar one night and banged a local emo rocker in the coatroom an hour after they met.

    this totally sounds me like me… in DC…5 years ago.

    Like


  125. Y’all are reaching conclusions about what’s natural in terms of reactions and feelings … based on a rigged thought experiment that takes for granted any number of highly unnatural factors? (A few for-examples: a contemporary post-“Spring Break” setting, slutty table-dancing girls, bartenders, emo rockers, dates, drinks …) That’s pretty funny. It’s a little like claiming that you’ve gotten to the root of humankind’s hardwired emotional and preference structures once you’ve determined which of this season’s Hollywood blockbusters suburban kids in Iowa like best.

    Look: there are good eggs-valuable/sperm-cheap reasons why many men will tend to be wary of skanks where LTR prospects go. That’s so obvious it barely needs stating. (I mean, unless this comes as news to you, in which case you’re probably carrying on hyper-emphatically, as though you just discovered it.) What’s less obvious and maybe more interesting are bunches of other questions.

    Here’s one: Where’s the line that separates skank from nice modern girl taking part in life as we know it?

    Presumably many of you modern youngdudez don’t have too much trouble with the idea of settling down with a woman who has, as they say, been with a few guys. If you marry at 30, and your beloved is 30 too, many of you wouldn’t really expect her to be a virgin, right?

    If that’s true, then it follows that the preference for non-skankiness in a LTR-possibility isn’t automatically absolute; it doesn’t demand virginity. For whatever reason — maybe the inborn preference isn’t that strong, maybe culture can override the lizard brain a little bit, whatever — there’s some wiggle room there.

    Well, how much? Perhaps that varies somewhat from man to man, and from culture to culture. Maybe it also depends a bit on the specifics of cases.

    Since we’re having fun with thought experiments, here’s another one for you. Picture an interesting, pretty girl. She started having sex at 17 … She has never hung at bars or danced on tabletops, instead preferring to meet guys through friends or at parties or school or work … She carries herself well … She tends to get involved with the guys she sleeps with and tends only to sleep with guys she likes … A few mad flings sneak in there anyway because a girl can be crazy sometimes … Still, she basically has pride and self-respect …

    Now she’s 27. You meet her and you like her. Hey, she’s pretty, smart, and sweet. At only 27, and not having burned it all up on the bar scene, she’s even fresh. You appreciate the fact that she isn’t a complete idiot where sex is concerned. She knows how to kiss, she likes her loving and understands what a man’s pleasures are, and she doesn’t need to be taught how to share a bed.

    Plus, you get along with her. So you start to play with the idea of her as a LTR possibility. Now you learn about her sexual history, forget how.

    Let’s say that she’s had sex with two new guys a year. That’s not a lot; it’s certainly not going to land her on Maury. Still it’s a fact that she’s boffed 20 guys. Which means that she’s had 20 different guys’ dicks up her twat, that she’s likely had 20 different dicks down her throat, and that she may even have had a few different dicks up her ass.

    Cum-bucket to be dismissed without another thought? Or acceptable LTR-possibility material?

    The main point here isn’t that she’s either a skank or a sweet girl. The main point is that you aren’t all going to agree in your judgment of her and your decisions about her. Before you met her, 20 dicks had already blown hot loads down her throat … That can seem like a lot, or that can seem like not so much, or that can seem like a lot at first, but when you really think about it, two a year doesn’t qualify a girl as skanky these days by a long shot …

    I’d suggest that this example 1) isn’t nearly as rigged a case as Roissy’s two thought experiments are, and 2) does a nice job of illustrating the kinds of fuzzy predicaments the primeval male brain often encounters in the modern world. Some guys will find the girl in my example perfectly plausible as a LTR candidate, while others will turn on her in disgust.

    Why is there any wiggle room at all in there, given the skank-avoidance instinct? Is it because we’ve been deluded by feminism? Because we inevitably compromise with the world as it presents itself? Because the skank-avoidance instinct, while real (at least where assessing LTR candidates goes), isn’t really all that strong? Because culture always plays a role? Some mixture of all the above?

    Like


  126. Incidentally, I’m really puzzled by the focus on finally-settling-down and long-term-relationships around here. It seems to me obsessive, if not a bit Beta. Whatever happened to enjoying the hunt? Life: it’s a journey, baby. The only real destination is death. So why not pause to enjoy the getting-there before it’s all over?

    FWIW, I’ve often noticed that introverts and geeks often hate — as in hate-hate-hate — dating and courtship. They often can’t wait for it to be over. They’re desperate to land a girl, and buy the suburban house, and be surrounded by a normal life. (No disrespect meant to “normal,” which the world depends on.) I’m wondering if some of what I’m picking up around here are the musings and thoughts of guys who basically don’t enjoy the male-female dance.

    Small tip that may or may not be useful: Stopping obsessing about who you’re finally going to settle down with can open you to enjoying the process a whole lot more.

    Like


  127. And on the note Mike B. has left off on, I thought it would be a great time to post this UPDATE:

    I thought it would be a good idea to spend the Christmas holiday reading the latest shipment of books I’d received. Although I had briefly thumbed through them all, one in particular caught my eye and held my interest: The Art of Seduction, by Robert Greene.

    I had been a fan of Greene since the publication of The 48 Laws of Power, and had heard of his Art of Seduction, though no one I knew had actually read it.

    My friends, let me assure you, that it is definitely worth the price of admission, and in my humble view is, like The 48 Laws, mandatory study for anyone interested in Game.

    Greene’s grand survey of the world’s romantic/erotic literature, along with his brief bios of world figures, celebrities and notable persons, not only tallies well with Mystery & Style/Strauss’ findings & experiences, but the former powerfully confirms the latter, often in uncanny detail.

    Keep in mind here, that much of Greene’s work focuses on writing that is, at the least, several centuries old.

    And, like the 48 Laws, it is a thorough, but easy read; I consumed the whole 330-plus pages in a day. Of course, it being a powerful resource book, I’ll be checking back in regularly for relevant references.
    One thing, among a great many, that stood out to me, was Greene’s analysis of Lord Byron, a Rake’s Rake. I had heard of him, but never really knew much about him or his work. In his overview of Byron, Greene notes that Byron *was handicapped*-he was born with a clubfoot. As a result, he couldn’t participate in the big ballroom dances that were quite a big deal back then in Western Europe. But that didn’t stop Byron’s Game. Not by a longshot.

    I note the above w/a particular sense of irony, given my recent exchanges w/our own David Alexander, and Eurosabra’s timely interjection into our conversation, noting that despite his own infirmity, he still knew the love of a Woman, thanks in large part to, Game.

    ‘Nuff said.

    For those who wish to be Masters of the Game-as do I-The Art of Seduction is a must-have volume in your library of Crimson Arts.

    Salaam
    Mu’Min/Obsidian

    Like


  128. Mu, others – there was a discussion here recently about which Game book to read first. Some folks made recommendations, but I don’t remember what they were. You mind giving me a reminder? Thanks!

    Like


  129. Thanks Whisky – I was familiar with that particular problem in census data, but didn’t know it wasn’t perpetual. I’ll go dig through it.

    As to MB – not all of us who comment here occasionally want to “settle down”. I, for my part, have no intention of ever getting married, for any reason, full stop.

    Like


  130. PA,
    I believe Roissy gave a somewhat extensive list sometime back, I can’t recall the name of the thread but it was from Sep on in the archives. You can go that route and try to dig it up.

    As for myself, I merely followed the conversations here and elsewhere on the Web, listened to what seemed to be the “must reads” and took it from there:

    The Game
    The Mystery Method
    Pimp
    The Art of Seduction
    The Red Queen

    And so on.

    I would strongly urge you or anyone else so inclined to search for Roissy’s reading list.

    And, if I may say so, his “16 Commandments of Poon” is worth a read.
    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  131. on December 26, 2008 at 9:14 am failedaristocrat

    Thanks Mu!

    Sounds like “The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists” by Neil Strauss is the first one to buy.

    Like


  132. on December 26, 2008 at 9:15 am ironrailsironweights

    FWIW, I’ve often noticed that introverts and geeks often hate — as in hate-hate-hate — dating and courtship. They often can’t wait for it to be over. They’re desperate to land a girl, and buy the suburban house, and be surrounded by a normal life. (No disrespect meant to “normal,” which the world depends on.) I’m wondering if some of what I’m picking up around here are the musings and thoughts of guys who basically don’t enjoy the male-female dance.

    For sure. It’s a reasonable guess that most of the men who comment here have not had much luck in the dating and relationships field. They’re clearly not going to find the male-female dance much fun.

    Peter

    Like


  133. on December 26, 2008 at 9:21 am failedaristocrat

    It’s a reasonable guess that most of the men who comment here have not had much luck in the dating and relationships field.

    Yes. it’s a reasonable guess. But my sense is that the majority are normal and even impressive guys who come here either “seeking knowledge / that they would not teach them of in college” (The Police) or older guys like me and probably you as well, who did very well for themselves but not after some frustrations in younger years due to having no tactical know-how.

    They’re clearly not going to find the male-female dance much fun.

    There is certainly a subset of people who are nerds and don’t much enjoy any sort of human interaction. They are easy to make put.

    Like


  134. on December 26, 2008 at 9:22 am failedaristocrat

    “They are easy to make put.”

    They are easy to spot.

    Like


  135. failedaristocrat – that’s my old defunct blog nickname. It appeared here for some reason.- PA

    Like


  136. on December 26, 2008 at 9:37 am ironrailsironweights

    What never ceases to surprise me, and not in a good way, is how the male-female dance has now become the male-female war. It certainly seems as if the whole dating and relationships area is highly adversarial and filled with mistrust and deception. It always was competitive, of course, but in a fun way. Today the fun has disappeared. I wonder why.

    Peter

    Like


  137. Michael: I’d suggest that this example 1) isn’t nearly as rigged a case as Roissy’s two thought experiments are, and 2) does a nice job of illustrating the kinds of fuzzy predicaments the primeval male brain often encounters in the modern world.

    The issue is how directly the man has to confront the reality of the woman’s sexual activity. The more directly he has to confront it–if he actually sees it, if he hears about it from other people than her, if her activities are described in detail, if they happened recently, if they happened in a common social setting–anything that overcomes the man’s ability to simply compartmentalize her sexual history–any of those factors will make it harder for the man to love her.

    If the man actually was forced to confront the specific reality that 20 cocks “blew hot loads down the throat” of his inamorata, that would be much more problematic for his romantic feelings for her than simply hearing she’d had sex with two men a year over the course of a decade.

    Twenty is just a number. Twenty cocks cumming in your beloved’s mouth (with her active encouragement) is a romance-killer. Not a sex-killer, a romance-killer. I’m surprised you actually doubt this, Michael.

    Like


  138. I don’t know where people keep coming up with the random numbers like 20% of men hogging 80% of the women. It simply isn’t true. The majority of men have managed to shed theri virginity while still in high school. Almost everyone has done so by the end of the college-age years. Most men get married, and the most common age for marriage, for both sexes, is still in their twenties. Most people marry someone within two years of their own age. Some I’m not seeing the women hogging phenemona goinf here.

    Are there some privileged guys, at the far reaches of the scale who could have pretty much any woman that they wished? Of course. And are there other guys, on the other end, who can’t have anyone at all? Yes, and it works much the same for women I’m sure. But that seems relatively self-evident, and such people form such a small percentage of the population, they don’t have that much effect on most people’s lives.

    For most (non-ugly)guys who can’t get women, it seems like the biggest mistake they make is overreaching, going for the 8s, when they are a 5, not even bothering to ask women out, hoping that they will fall into his bed accidently, and closely connected to the second point, thinking that because you were a “nice guy”, that a woman owes you sex because of that. All those “techniques” tend to be an epic fail, and only make your social acquitances laugh at you behind your back.

    Like


  139. on December 26, 2008 at 10:58 am ironrailsironweights

    I don’t know where people keep coming up with the random numbers like 20% of men hogging 80% of the women. It simply isn’t true. The majority of men have managed to shed theri virginity while still in high school. Almost everyone has done so by the end of the college-age years. Most men get married, and the most common age for marriage, for both sexes, is still in their twenties. Most people marry someone within two years of their own age. Some I’m not seeing the women hogging phenemona going here.

    Regional effects are at play. While on a nationwide level most men lose their virginity at a young age and get married in their 20’s, in some urban areas women indeed are drawn to Alpha males and this so-called soft polygamy leaves most men out in the cold. Roissy’s hometown of Washington D.C. is notorious for this, as are New York, San Francisco and probably some other places. If there’s a common denominator, it’s that these cities have many affluent, powerful men. Again, though, these are the exceptions; for most men in America, the situation isn’t nearly so bad.

    Peter

    Like


  140. “What never ceases to surprise me, and not in a good way, is how the male-female dance has now become the male-female war. It certainly seems as if the whole dating and relationships area is highly adversarial and filled with mistrust and deception. It always was competitive, of course, but in a fun way. Today the fun has disappeared. I wonder why.”

    In the past although there were always a few ladies of loose virtue and natural alphas who got casual sex even from “good girls” the greater social pressure to marry, and the fact that casual sex always carried the risk of pregnancy, most men and women shared the goal of pairing up fairly quickly with the best spouse they could get. Now women want marriage and LTRs when men are far less willing to engage in them and all men, even unattractive ones, have the expectation of casual sex when sober women for the most part have little desire to give it to average and below average dudes. Despite the promotion of androgyny as an ideal the lack of courtship rules makes differences between the sexes and their goals are more, not less, obvious than before and they act accordingly.

    Like


  141. PatrickH — The points are:

    1) There will be lots of different ways of responding to learning that a girl of 27 who you like has had 20 lovers, and all of them will be consistent with evo-bio. Some guys will be appalled, some guys will be “meh,” some guys may even like it. There’s no place in evo-bio to turn to for guidance on how to respond to the fact of a modern girl who has slept with two new guys a year. Is she a modest, self-respecting sweetie? Is she spreading it around too thin? For any reaction you have to this girl, it’ll be easy to find someone being equally as honest who has a different reaction to learning about her sexual history.

    (As you point out, the circumstances under which you learn those facts is one element that’ll condition your response. So tell me why such a supposedly strong instinct should be so easily conditioned by such circumstances? Though these questions may not be infinitely complicated, in the modern world they’re certainly often gray-area questions.)

    2) Girls like the one I’ve described aren’t non-existent.

    To repeat: I find the phenomenon of Game interesting, I wish I’d had more of it myself back in the single years, and I’m a big fan of evo-bio. But, as a fan of evo-bio, something I’m often struck by is ill-suited (or maybe just unhelpful) evo-bio is as a guide to life in the modern world.

    For instance, the topic of hot and cold running water.

    1) We didn’t evolve to inhabit a world that includes hot and cold running water.
    2) Yet many people like having hot and cold running water. 3) That may have to do with inborn tendencies (a love of ease and convenience, and a love of warmth and refreshment, at least when we’re in the mood for them).
    4) Inhabiting a world of hot and cold running water probably alienates a person somewhat from his/her more essential instincts.
    4) Yet many people (I’m certainly one) would choose to inhabit a world that includes hot and cold running water over one that doesn’t.

    (Incidentally, some people don’t care about hot and cold running water, or even like it. Are they dismissable and weird? I mean objectively speaking, not just vis a vis your own preference? Or is it interesting and normal-in-the-broader-sense that a certain percentage of people don’t care about whether their life includes hot and cold running water? Seems to me that a true evo-bio fan wouldn’t dismiss them, but would be interested in them as representatives of an aspect of what it is to be human. The challenge is to come up with a Larger Explanation that accounts for them too.)

    By the way, you (as in, Hey, random-Roissy-surfer) may prefer your girls to be clean and to smell nice. I certainly do. Yet … Is that an evolved taste? Can you back your (probably very strong) preference up with evo-bio? If so, please give us a demo.

    Here’s part of what you need to contend with: For most of humankind’s history, men and women both majorly stank, and didn’t even have a conception of 2009-style hygiene, let alone 2009-style Photoshopped teased-and-toned beauty

    In the interests of re-synching up with the beast within, do most of the Game fans here really want to return to a world where gals bathe but once a month, if that — and where they let the body hair run wild?

    Hey, another not-unrealistic tale to have fun with:

    Let’s say you meet the girl the 20-lovers-by-27 girl I described above. Let’s say you’re one of these “I prefer a virgin” guys, and you back your preference up with evo-bio and feel real righteous and justified about it.

    OK. Now let’s say you know about her sexual history. But you have a nice time with her. The two of you dance well, you share a few interests, something in her eyes charms you, and wowee you have a nice vibe in bed. So you decide, Well, hell, until my dream woman comes along this is certainly a nice enough way to spend time. So you let yourself have a relationship with her. Realistically speaking, you even put some real efforts into this. You commit some energy, time, and daring.

    Six months later, you’re still having a nice time. She’s come through in a few situations, she’s demonstrated some friendship and loyalty, the sex is still good, maybe you’re enjoying food and movies together, she’s not a huge pain in the ass to spend time with … You’re an idiot guy, so you’re a little surprised when a friend points out to you that you’ve never been happier. OK, so you get used to the fact that you’re kinda fond of her and would be lonely if she ditched you. Still: You’re holding out for that virgin of your dreams.

    Another six months goes by and they’re nice too. And she starts to hint about marriage.

    OK: What do you go with? Your preference for virgins, which you pretend to yourself can’t be argued with because it’s evo-bio in its raw state, and you’re a man who likes to synch his life up with evo-bio? Or do you go with your fondness for the experienced-but-sweet girl you’re been sharing your life with, and who has made your life happier than it has ever before been?

    Do you really want to be someone who craps all over a girl you’ve enjoyed spending a year with, who has given you a lot, who you’ve grown seriously fond of, and who you’ve committed real resources to? All in the name of not-settling, and of being a righteous evo-bio-influenced Real Man?

    Like


  142. One must necessarily distinguish between pop culture biology and legitimate experimental learning.

    Something like 80% of studies fail to replicate, after all; I can find the link and the paper on it if someone wants to dig through it and verify that.

    It comes back to the Malcom Gladwell sort of explanations and the narrative bias; it’s very easy to make claims that seem supported because our minds trick us. It’s actually quite hard to prove something from an evolutionary biology perspective with solid empirical evidence.

    I would be careful about what you believe, for any reason.

    Like


  143. On the whole elites hogging the opposite sex angle:

    Obviously Plain Jane is fucking Average Joe, since the species continues and the average age of marriage still hovers around 24.

    But not in the Big City demographic. In the Big City (or the Sourthern California Metroplex where I am) Plain Jane is not only invisible to all the men she really wants, she is home alone eating ice-cream with Plain Sally, both of them devaluing themselves into Fatty Jane and Fatty Sally, all because she can’t settle for Average Joe as her market value dictates all the while complaining “there are no good men”. In the Big City no less!!!!

    Average Joe is a full AFC in the Big City. Out in the midwest Average Joe might have gotten the attention of Pretty Sally but certainly managed to lay Plain Jane, and marrying either one in the heartland meant some contentment and happiness. Unfortunately, in the Big City , he is invisible to Plain Jane and Pretty Sally who are blinded by all The Hot Men. And of course he doesn’t exist at all to Hot Julie. And in a moth to the flame effect, he has eyes only for Hot Julie and deludes himself he has a shot with her.

    For Hot Julie and Hot Sandra the situation is far different. The see each other as competition for the relatively scarce resource of the elite male in the Big City. It’s a no-holds barred battle in which both put out, literally and figuratively. While never asking if the guy is seeing other women, they know instinctively he has 2 on the side, and it’s a question of how to monopolize him. She knows she will lose more often than not but it only takes one, and she knows she will bag Him eventually.

    Hot Frank sees it differently as well. He is Tall with money or power or Game or Real Honesty (it can happen!) or a Big Cock or some combination of the above. With a little effort he finds that he is banging almost any Hot Woman he wants, life is good, and doesn’t understand why his Buddy’s isn’t a fraction as lucky, never realizing he and his equivalents are the cause.

    Semi-Hot Buddy Matt, by every standard of modern civilization, has enough money, looks and status that he should be fucking his brains out. But not in the Big City. His status is high enough that 7’s are non-existent to him but the 9 he is pining over is fucking a 10 and he feels taking an 8 to bed for LTR’s purposes is settling. He doesn’t admit to himself he is outcompeted, that his turn at the elite Hot will never come. What he should do is move to the Heartland and bag a Sweet Joanna who is a 9 and will be a great mother.

    And so soft polygamy comes to pass, where El Guapo in the Southern California Metroplex can have a dozen or so very good-looking to outright hot women in the average year without breaking a sweat. And El Guapo’s good friend Broker Martin settles for whatever he can get. And when the Revolution comes, as it will, I will have to make sure Broker Martin doesn’t have a weapon in his hands. He might shoot me as well the people who have triggered The Great Depression #2.

    Like


  144. I’m not even sure what that whole story meant. Most people, man or woman, hold out for what they can get, and end up settling for who will have them. This “Big Man” phenomena, much bemoaned, I think exists in only the smallest percentage of men, that I doubt most men are affected. In most cities, like DC, New York, and others, what keeps most women from settling down is that they no longer have to. When your whole economic basis and survival depends on finding the highest staus male who you can get, and you know that he is looking for someone who is still relatively young, then you will get married very young, and probably regret your choice for most of your life (who amongst us would have stayed with their high school sweetheart?).

    But women in the cities tend to be a lot more educated, welathier, and have more careers than women located elsewhere. So they can function quite well without a man. They might want a man, but they don’t *need* one to make it. So for them, better a high quality man, or no man at all, as men are not needed for economic survival. Without the fear of unintended pregnancy, why not dally with the best and brightest of the men? Until ready for parentage, why stick with one person at all? And even now, more women opt for single parenthood, as they feel that the extra resources a man might bring for the child aren’t worth the extra headache.

    Like


  145. 20 sex partners by 27?

    The median number of sex partners for US women is 4. The median number for UK women is 6.5. Michael’s hypothetical has had 5 times the US median. She is on the far edge of the bell curve. Keeping in mind that 30-40% of women cheat and, in all statistical likelihood, we have a cheater.

    Furthermore, to get to 20 partners over 10 years a woman and not go over 2 partners a year, she would have to have had no long term relationships over a year. No matter how you slice it, she seems like she is flitting from man to man. Not a good sign.

    Overall, a bad bet.

    another not-unrealistic tale

    Laughable. If a guy doesn’t have decent other opportunities over a _year_, then he is increadibly weak, and in all this discussion I always said that weak men will often compromise and marry more promiscuous women. A guy with more experience would realize just how interchangable women are. She’s not that special.

    Michael, where do you come up with these fairy tales? Stop sentimentalizing actresses. Yes, yes, we all see their charms, but that doesn’t make them a good long term prospects. Roissy’s description of the ups and downs of dating artsy chicks seems to me dead on:

    Every man should experience at least once in his life the joy of dating an artist chick. Painters, photographers, singers, freelance fiction writers, actresses… their exuberant lovemaking will spoil you for all other women. Their beautiful romantic gestures will capture your heart. Their craving for intimacy and their wellspring of empathy will draw you in. And then right at the moment you fall deepest for her you will catch her one night frenching a half-shaven DJ at a seedy club.

    This also happens to match up well with Clio’s description of the eternal ingenue. These kinds of girls seem more innocent than they are, and are indeed heartbreakers. If there is one rule I would urge all artsy men to follow it is this: don’t marry an actress.

    Like


  146. @deery ,
    Many women would agree with you that we want men, but don’t need them. Many women would agree that no man at all beats the option of some men.

    On parentage, however, you ask, “Why not opt for single parenthood?” Because that choice is brutal for the child. Ultimately, the single-by-choice mother must answer to the child, “I never intended for you to have a father.” That is very different than other explanations, such as, “Your father and I love you , but we just can’t live together ” or “Your father loved you very much before he died.”

    Meet Lori Gottlieb: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry
    or Caitlin Flanagan: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/raising-fatherless-boys

    Like


  147. Michael Blowhard :
    “The main point here isn’t that she’s either a skank or a sweet girl. The main point is that you aren’t all going to agree in your judgment of her and your decisions about her. Before you met her, 20 dicks had already blown hot loads down her throat … That can seem like a lot, or that can seem like not so much, or that can seem like a lot at first, but when you really think about it, two a year doesn’t qualify a girl as skanky these days by a long shot … ”

    You seem to be focusing too much on the micro, while not observing the macro. Otherwise put: you aren’t seeing the forest for the trees.

    I mean, sure, opinions can vary in the example that you give. Some guys might be willing to live with it, others won’t be nearly as sanguine. Does this mean, as you seem to suggest, that evo-bio leaves us high and dry? That it offers us little or no guidance (at least on this particular issue)? Hardly.

    While there is going to be variation at the individual level, we do see a pattern at the broader societal level. As women have become more and more promiscuous, men have responded by committing less and less. That’s not to say that NO men commit – of course many still do. Just fewer of them. We are quicker to bail, quicker to pump and dump, more and more likely to avoid really putting ourselves on the line. Even when we commit, we tend to do so less strongly. Look around. This is happening. It’s real. If you don’t believe your own lying eyes, then check out the macro data. It tells the same story.

    The girl you describe is not a good bet. And yet, a guy may be willing to commit to her – even knowing of her cum dumpster past. But she will be a less valuable property, and he will be quicker to bail. And she will be quicker to bail because of this, not to mention the fact that she is quite used to the “sex and then go your separate ways” dance. She’s already done it twenty times. What’s one more? We’ve all seen this movie before. We know how it ends. Do we really need to watch “Save the Last Herpes Sore” again? No thanks.

    Anybody here with any experience at all has to know how painful those early breakups could be. Heart wrenching. But after awhile? Who gives a fuck? The same thing goes for women – perhaps even more so. Breaking up becomes easier and easier. We know this, by experience and observation – and also in our hardwiring. A girl that has done a lot of breaking up is GOOD at it. It’s what she does. Those powerful pair bonding feelings that she once had are long gone, or at least greatly muted. Why put all of your eggs in that basket? She’s not likely to save all of her eggs for you.

    This isn’t to say that female promiscuity is the only factor at work here, far from it. It is to say that it is an important factor, and it hits us right in our hardwiring. Sure, some guys will override this and commit anyway. But it’s the macro trend that is at issue – not an absolutist claim that every guy will give equal weight to the same scenario. For example, men tend to be territorial and acquisitive where finances are concerned. And yet, we see that men differ greatly in how much emphasis they place on their careers, and how generous or miserly they may be with money. There is a lot of variation. But it’s not a blank slate – which is why communism doesn’t work very well.

    The promiscuity of women isn’t running into a blank slate either. It’s running into men’s hardwiring – and it’s having an effect. One effect is creating a society that isn’t going to work very well.

    Like


  148. @Deery

    Thank you for illustrating in two paragraphs why Western Civ is doomed to destruction.

    I for one, would have loved to marry my senior year sweetheart. She married the next guy she met in college and has 3 kids. It could just as easily been me.

    I see we have swallowed the feminist claptrap that a woman “can function quite well without a man“. What a load of horse manure. Have you seen the desperate high-30somethings and low40somethings out there desperately seeking the very companionship you so deny being a prime imperative? Have you ever chatted with the ultimate outcome females in their 50’s, blathering how happy they are alone, without children and without a man? Regardless of claims to the contrary, these latter women have thrown away their lives, their happiness and their genetic heritage. For every married Carly Fiorina (whose ambitions should never have been allowed — she destroyed 50% of HP’s stock value) we have legions of women who are neither happy nor fulfilled. And they deserve every minute of it. It’s called justice. Believe feminist insanity and reap the consequences.

    Like


  149. @Thursday

    Love ya man, and I’m not picking a fight. My two cents (or dime with inflation)…

    Normally as a scientist I tend to defer to the numbers. But the numbers don’t wash at all and simple inspection says they are wrong.

    Many a college female has had at least 5 lovers by the time she graduates. In my graduating class, I could throw a stone in any direction and hit a girl who had that many. This is simply a fact. I saw the boyfriends, the one-night stands, the drunken stupors, the pining away and settling for Mr. Right Now. Roguely I estimate at least 30% of the women had the 5+ count.

    As an investigator in a NorthEastern University I routinely elicited sexual histories in very attractive patients with cervical dysplasia that had partner counts that would make your eyebrows raise.

    Frankly, there’s a confounding variable in these studies that is unaccounted for and everyone is falling into the same deviation hole. We are an incredibly sexually active species. I don’t know why the numbers don’t reflect it and I don’t care. The Southern California Metroplex is chock full of women (and men) who routinely go home with each other at rates that must dwarf what is being reported in official channels. I see it every weekend.

    So unless I’m sitting smack in the middle of the hyperactive tail of the distribution, I don’t know how the the numbers can be so unrealistically low.

    Like


  150. I don’t know how the the numbers can be so unrealistically low.

    I do. If the numbers rely on self-reporting, you have your answer right there. Anyone who sincerely believes that extremely low number is fooling themselves. Plus women are known for “don’t count” sex, as in “I was drunk and I don’t remember it, do it doesn’t count.” or “That was vacation and he didn’t speak English, so it doesn’t count.”

    Like


  151. Ehh, I still say there is a difference between *wanting* a man, and *needing* a man. In the past, a woman definitely needed a man. An unmarried, past a certain age, was almost certainly not economically self-sufficient, and more often than not depeneded on the charity and forebearance of wealthier relatives. Nowdays, the equivalent woman would economically self-sufficent, and thus doesn’t feel quite the same impetus to marry the first guy who will have her.

    Which is not to say that she may not want to get married, or be desperately lonely if she fails to do so. But nothing quite lights a fire under one’s ass about getting married than the knowledge that you might very well starve or be a charity case if one fails to do so. The 40-50 year old guys often give off the same air of desperation, trolling the clubs, trying to pick up the young girls, and (if not quite wealthy), getting rebuffed at every turn. Other men and women get married, and at the age of 40-50 realize that they are quite miserable and lonely nonetheless. It isn’t as if marriage is some sort of a magic talisman against being unhappy. Some, especialy many posters here, swear that it is a catalyst for that condition.

    Like


  152. So unless I’m sitting smack in the middle of the hyperactive tail of the distribution, I don’t know how the the numbers can be so unrealistically low.

    Median is not mean.

    Like


  153. These lower numbers are probably somewhat influenced by self-reporting, BUT I do believe that there is a significant segment of women that really are at the 4 or less figure. A very large segment, in fact. I know of plenty of women that, I’m quite confident, have had four or fewer partners. They are all off the market, and pretty much have been off the market for almost their entire lives.

    Typically, they got involved in long term relationships back in school (high school or undergrad) – and stayed in them. Believe it or not, this happens quite a bit. There is still a normal America out there, though clearly it is diminishing. The good girls get scooped up early in life.

    By definition, these women are off the market, and pretty much stay off the market. So if you, for whatever reason, missed that boat – well, you are probably going to be meeting women that are far more promiscuous than the “average” female.

    When you are out and about, what are the chances of meeting the “good girl”? Slim to none. It would be sheer fluke if you meet her at one of the vanishingly brief periods in which she is available.

    But the promiscuous women? They are perpetually available. Serial daters, cheaters, or what have you. In and out of relationships all the time. These types are going to be massively overrepresented in the dating pool. They ARE the available pool in a very real sense, and therefore drive dating and mating dynamics. More’s the pity. There are no doubt some “good” girls that are available, but it is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

    Like


  154. In my graduating class, I could throw a stone in any direction and hit a girl who had that many. This is simply a fact. I saw the boyfriends, the one-night stands, the drunken stupors, the pining away and settling for Mr. Right Now. Roguely I estimate at least 30% of the women had the 5+ count.

    There are large pockets of promiscuity in the U.S. Who denies it? There are certain schools where everyone is screwing around. However, in other schools, there are a lot of virgins, the Ivy League and conservative Christian schools being prime examples.

    As an investigator in a NorthEastern University I routinely elicited sexual histories in very attractive patients with cervical dysplasia that had partner counts that would make your eyebrows raise.

    There is the possibility of selection bias. These are women who are having problems with their cervix after all.

    Like


  155. T.:

    There are certain, usually urban, circles where 20 partners is normal. For example, women in New York _average_ 20 partners. Certainly, 20 partners for a woman in one of Michael’s acting circles would not be unusual at all.

    BTW the national _mean_ for women is, IIRC, around 9. Someone somewhere must be making up for all those median women in the mid-west.

    Like


  156. Thursday, I’m not saying 20 partners should be considered normal either, I’m not that much of a slut apologist. It’s the 4 partner median thing for a woman’s whole lifetime that I find questionable. That, I think, is from serious underreporting by women.

    Like


  157. Regional effects are at play. While on a nationwide level most men lose their virginity at a young age and get married in their 20’s, in some urban areas women indeed are drawn to Alpha males and this so-called soft polygamy leaves most men out in the cold.

    Does this trend extend to the suburbs of these large urban cores, or are young women stuck in the ‘burbs similar to their rural counterparts?

    Like


  158. Typically, they got involved in long term relationships back in school (high school or undergrad) – and stayed in them. Believe it or not, this happens quite a bit. There is still a normal America out there, though clearly it is diminishing. The good girls get scooped up early in life.

    Very true. This happens a lot out in the heartland. Conservative church girls, in particular, tend to marry in their early twenties. After all, they really want to have sex too. They just want to have it in the right way.

    By definition, these women are off the market, and pretty much stay off the market. So if you, for whatever reason, missed that boat – well, you are probably going to be meeting women that are far more promiscuous than the “average” female.

    This is the major disadvantage of getting good later in life. You can have your pick, but you still have to sift through a lot of trash. The bars are great for practicing your game, but they are full of sluts and attention whores, and your typical 25+ group at a church has a lot of ugly and/or socially maladjusted girls. There are still some gems out there, but you have to look pretty hard for them.

    Like


  159. Typically, they got involved in long term relationships back in school (high school or undergrad) – and stayed in them. Believe it or not, this happens quite a bit. There is still a normal America out there, though clearly it is diminishing. The good girls get scooped up early in life.

    Very true. This happens a lot out in the heartland. Conservative church girls, in particular, tend to marry in their early twenties. After all, they really want to have sex too. They just want to have it in the right way.

    By definition, these women are off the market, and pretty much stay off the market. So if you, for whatever reason, missed that boat – well, you are probably going to be meeting women that are far more promiscuous than the “average” female.

    This is the major disadvantage of getting good later in life. You can have your pick, but you still have to sift through a lot of trash. The bars are great for practicing your game, but they are full of sluts and attention whores, and your typical 25+ group at a church has a lot of ugly and/or socially maladjusted girls. There are still some gems out there, but you have to look pretty hard for them.

    Like


  160. @Ryder,
    That’s a very good point. The “dating pool” women are a unique small subset of all women. Same for men.

    Like


  161. As much as it may pain me to say this, Deery is 100% correct.

    Women do what they do in our Time, because, simply, they can.

    Period. End. Of. Story.

    And while I lament with my Brothers, a world of it won’t change a darned thing.

    I fancy myself much like the gentlemen of the turn of the last century; they took up hobbies like birdwatching; they were amatuer naturalists. I think its fair to say that for many of us, Evo-Psych is the Naturalism of our Time.

    And therein lies the big problem for me, because EP has as its basis the teachings of Darwin; survival of the fittest. It is a tacit acknowledgement that Life ain’t Fair. If ANYONE here knows that, truly, its me.

    So, I fail to understand how and why, so many of my Brothers, who have so much more than more-in terms of education and real income, simply refuse to understand and accept this most basic tenet of Darwin’s views.

    A fundament of said views/EP is that those who do not Adapt, DIE. Period. And after awhile of reading the comments of several here, one cannt help but get the sinking feeling that there are those who simply flatout refuse to adapt. Or, in other words, Change.

    Women have Choice now. For better or for worse, they simply, don’t need Men anymore. Deery, again, is right.

    And I ain’t even gonna front. It hurts, as a Man, to openly admit that fact.

    But…

    What if a Woman stuck around, because she *wanted* you, as a Man? Hmm? Then what?

    Many of you saw my post about “L” The Jewess. When she *shit-tested* me, I banged on her (hung up the phone). I kept doing her like that for a solid month.

    Now, *why* did she want me? Clearly, it wasn’t because of the size of my wallet or bank account-I’m a Blue Colar Brotha, and besides, if it was money she was after, she could have stayed out on the Main Line. In large part, Game is about finding out and isolating what that “why” is.

    A word about this whole “entitlement” piece wrt HB10s…

    There’s nothing wrong with expecting the best, but I think only a fool doesn’t manage their expectations. If you’re a kinda nerdy guy, your chances of landing a seriously HB are long indeed.

    The major reason why? Because for one, the higher up the Babechain you go, the more socially inclined they become. In order for you to even get close to them, you have to be good w/their crowd. And since that’s the case, if you’re the nerdy type, you have a particular problem-because nerds, as a rule, *aren’t very good with people*. And we’re not even talking about serious Game skills yet. We’re just talking about getting your foot in the door.

    So you have to be realistic with what you have to work with. Forget about HB10s, they for the Big Dogs. Your speed is anywhere from 6 to 7.5.

    Honestly, I didn’t get into Game to land HB10s, though if that happens I’ll be most pleased. I got into it as part social experiment, part ego aggrandizement/enjoyment. This is more about me than it is about “them”. “They”-the Ladies-just happen to be along for the ride.

    So, to sum up: Whiskey’s right. The Pill, the Condom, Abortion on Demand, and a plethora of legal, social and political changes have come down the pike hat have all but irrevocably changed the mating and dating landscape, and today, Women have much more “market power” than they’re willing to admit. Not doubt about it.

    Here’s the thing, though: unless a Tianamen Square-like crackdown/rollback of the above things happens, NO ONE’S GOING BACK. And that includes, quiet as its kept, quite a few Men.

    That means only one real option left to guys. Actually, two. I’ve already listed them.

    Change is the only real constant in our World. As it changes, we must change with it.

    Adapt-or…

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  162. After all, they really want to have sex too. They just want to have it in the right way.

    But when you have sex the right way, is it as fun as when you do it the wrong way? In other words, are the women fucking alpha males having a better sex life than the women who marry beta male?

    Like


  163. on December 26, 2008 at 4:57 pm ironrailsironweights

    do most of the Game fans here really want to return to a world where gals bathe but once a month, if that — and where they let the body hair run wild?

    The bathing once a month doesn’t sound so cool, but as for the body hair run wild ….

    Peter

    Like


  164. In other words, are the women fucking alpha males having a better sex life than the women who marry beta male?

    The women who report the most sexual satisfaction are married conservative Catholics and evangelicals.

    IIRC from gnxp.com, the women (and men!) who report the most sexual satisfaction are those with one lifetime partner. Interestingly, the men with the most partners had the least satisfaction of all groups.

    Like


  165. on December 26, 2008 at 5:14 pm ironrailsironweights

    Interestingly, the men with the most partners had the least satisfaction of all groups.

    Men who seek out very high numbers of sex partners may very well be very unhappy with their lives in the first place and seek comfort through constant sex.

    Peter

    Like


  166. Mu:

    A word about this whole “entitlement” piece wrt HB10s….There’s nothing wrong with expecting the best, but I think only a fool doesn’t manage their expectations…
    The major reason why? Because for one, the higher up the Babechain you go, the more socially inclined they become. In order for you to even get close to them, you have to be good w/their crowd.

    This will be the new frontier for Game theory.

    Like


  167. last post mine

    Like


  168. Thursday — Where are you finding me discussing actresses? Wrong comments-thread. Besides, If I were talking about performers, typical numbers wouldn’t hover around “two a year” or “twenty total,” believe me. Not that you or I (or anyone, really) would ever be able to find out the truth of the matter … Ah, the maddening, satisfying pleasure/pain of having an affair with an actress …

    Am I the only guy here who’s a little shocked to run across guys characterizing the young woman I described above (two new guys a year for ten years) as a not-to-be-trusted skank? Man, back in the day, it took a lot more adventuring than that to turn a girl into a skank.

    Like


  169. Mu’Min,

    I hear you, dude. You made some good points in posts upstream. But keep in mind that these legal, political and social changes were pushed very hard by particular groups with an agenda. It didn’t happen overnight, and it is far from certain that it was inevitable. Of course, the groups that pushed it now claim that it was inevitable and there is “no going back.”

    Well, there may be no going back, but from that it doesn’t follow that the current status quo is inevitable and permanent. If our status quo was so inevitable, they wouldn’t have had to push it so hard. They wouldn’t have to work so hard to smear and marginalize the opposition. It’s artificial, and they know it. Standard leftist approach: work like crazy to change something, then once the change is accomplished smugly claim that it was simply inevitable and we are stuck with it. Smear anyone who disagrees. After they accomplish the dirty deed, they somehow become converts to the eternal and the timeless nature of life. lol What a swindle.

    Their smug little con often works because it seems to be human nature to assume that whatever social system prevails in a given time is somehow permanent and immovable. But history shows something very different. And as for this crazy social system that we have today, I see within it the seeds of its own destruction. No way is it going to last. The only question, as far as I’m concerned, is what will follow it.

    What the system does, in effect, is pull the old bait and switch. It glamorizes the Sex in the City lifestyle, and spends countless billions promoting this vision. When people are too young to know any better, many fall for this. But where does it lead? Unhappiness. Therapy and incurable STD’s. There are an awful lot of lonely, unhappy people out there. If the rates of therapy and depression are any indication, people were not meant to live like this. But once those pair bonding emotions are gone – well, the damage has been done. The whole set up is pretty rotten.

    But because the system is so out of wack with nature (while falsely claiming to be simply a natural expression of nature), it provides the source of its own eventual destruction: a growing number of pissed off males with less and less to lose. In short, the fodder for all revolutions. Men make revolutions, not women. The worthless pieces of crap playing video games today may well be playing a very different game tomorrow, hard as that may be to believe. And if the economy goes into terminal mode in the next few years, some serious change may come sooner rather than later. And not “change we can believe in”, lol. We’ll see.

    The key is for people to understand that the problem is systemic, and it is the system itself that has to be dealt with. Not just as concerns dating and mating, but all across the board. It’s all of a piece. Airheaded females and whores are merely a symptom of that system. But until then, you are absolutely right – adapt. Adapt, but never concede legitimacy to the system. It truly doesn’t deserve it. In the meantime, might as well have a good time in the twighlight years of the empire. Decadent systems do have their consolations! Rack ’em.

    Rock on,
    Ryder

    Like


  170. Thursday:

    In other words, are the women fucking alpha males having a better sex life than the women who marry beta male?

    The women who report the most sexual satisfaction are married conservative Catholics and evangelicals.

    Whenever one reads disclosures by women regarding their sexual satisfaction it is important to keep in mind that two broad categories fall under the general rubric of “sex” in their minds:

    – companionate pair-bond lovemaking which reflects their need for “trust” and “closeness”

    – animalistic and primal sex which reflects hard-wired triggers for dominance and SMV disparity coefficients, i.e., “I’m so turned on by how much bigger/stronger/better he is than me”

    Much confusion results when these distinctions are not kept in mind and one attempts to parse some of the seemingly contradictory claims by women regarding their sexual predilections.

    For example, some women claim “size doesn’t matter” while other women wax poetic about huge dongs. While there may be legitimate differences of opinion, what usually happens is Horny Holly tells Beta Brian she absolutely *loves* their sex in spite of his leetle pee-pee. And in one sense, she is right: she loves how comfy and warm it feels to have won commitment from a beta provider. But she only manages to maintain this charade by strenuously resisting the memory — on the fringes of her awareness — of the time back in college when Alpha Adam stretched her hole to new levels of pain/pleasure, inducing screaming orgasms before leaving her spent and shaking in a wet puddle of her own juices.

    Like


  171. Michael:

    “Am I the only guy here who’s a little shocked to run across guys characterizing the young woman I described above (two new guys a year for ten years) as a not-to-be-trusted skank? Man, back in the day, it took a lot more adventuring than that to turn a girl into a skank.”

    There are skanks, and then there are skanks. But no matter how you candycoat it, at the end of the day this girl has spent a decade or more going through a lot of guys. That’s what she does. It’s clearly a habit. Can she break the habit? Who knows? Why bother taking the chance?

    Can you really blame guys for assuming that Past is Prologue? Why should we be convinced that a magical change is going to come over this person? Life is short, and youth is even shorter. Getting involved with the wrong person can put a serious dent in both.

    I would say that a girl who has gone through twenty partners is raising some serious red flags, to put it charitably. Did she want commitments from those twenty men, none of whom were willing to give it to her? Red flag. Twenty red flags, as a matter of fact.

    And if she was just having casual sex with twenty men, well…what does that say about her? It tells me that she is the type of person who has no problem “loving and leaving.” Do you expect a guy to eagerly marry a “love ’em and leave ’em” type? Prostitutes don’t get many marriage proposals from their johns.

    To be honest, and I’m far from a prude, there is no combination of twenty partners that would be o.k. with me. Not for a long term relationship. And frankly, with the STD risk, probably not for a short term fling either. Maybe if there were condoms made of titanium.

    But hey, opinions may vary.

    Now, I’ll grant you that it is possible that she could turn out to be an acceptable wife. But why take the chance? In a system with the divorce rate so high, and so many legal factors working against men … I’d consider him a fool to marry such a girl, or have a child with her. Candycoated or not, she’s got enough red flags to have a pretty respectable May Day Parade. Marriage is a big enough leap of faith without marrying someone who’s worked through the better portion of a platoon of Marines.

    Like


  172. The women who report the most sexual satisfaction are married conservative Catholics and evangelicals.

    Aren’t these groups known for being somewhat anti-sex or just not inclined to sexuality in general? Of course, one could argue that if virgins are marrying each other, they have no idea what “better” is like since they’re only used to one partner while the rest of us (not including myself) are experienced with numerous partners, and are more demanding about what we want sexually. In the case of these conservative religious types, low demand for sex combined with low sexual demands may simply create a feeling of satisfaction that the rest of us may never know.

    Like


  173. ‘Whenever one reads disclosures by women regarding their sexual satisfaction it is important to keep in mind that two broad categories fall under the general rubric of “sex” in their minds:

    – companionate pair-bond lovemaking which reflects their need for “trust” and “closeness”

    – animalistic and primal sex which reflects hard-wired triggers for dominance and SMV disparity coefficients, i.e., “I’m so turned on by how much bigger/stronger/better he is than me?”‘

    You’re not into loving pair bonding? Better not tell Clio

    Like


  174. Ryder writes: Standard leftist approach: work like crazy to change something, then once the change is accomplished smugly claim that it was simply inevitable and we are stuck with it. Smear anyone who disagrees.

    Nicely put.

    Do you expect a guy to eagerly marry a “love ‘em and leave ‘em” type?

    Another way of seeing this girl’s history is that, unlike less adventurous women, she may have learned how to conduct a love affair, and how to manage a love life. Emotional and sexual competence can be a very nice thing to encounter, believe me, as emotional and sexual naivete can be a total drag to run into. Incidentally, part of the point of my hypothetical was that the dude didn’t start out thinking of her as marriage material. But he liked her, he had a nice time with her, time passed, emotions and energies are swapped, some bonding occurs … And what now?

    Prostitutes don’t get many marriage proposals from their johns.

    It isn’t just a wee bit harsh to compare a girl who’s had two new boyfriends a year to a prostitute?

    But hey, opinions may vary.

    That’s my main point — in a case like the one I’ve presented, opinions will vary. In modern circumstances, under modern conditions, evo-bio may — or may not — provide a youngdude with some useful guidance. Evo bio is a very good thing to know about, but it isn’t the be-all and end-all of self-help / advice / philosophy / religion.

    Like


  175. My Ace Boon Coon Rydah,
    What up, man? Good to see ya back in action, chief. Just wanted to drop the following on you.

    I’ve given this whole thing a heck of a lot of thought lately, and have worked really hard to set aside my own personal views, biases, values, etc. And, I gotta tell ya, I can’t see Women, in America, take together as a group, kicking say, Abortion to the curb; or The Pill to the curb; or No Fault Divorce to the curb. I just don’t see it, Ryder. Anything’s possible, but as far as I can tell, the aforementioned play a huge role in the way things are right now. They’re not the only things. But they’s a big part.

    So, on some level, to debate “who” is behind these changes is to me, w/all due respect bruh, a big fat red herring. The bottomline is that these things are here, they gonna be here, and they ain’t leaving outta here. The End.

    Now, having said that, is the USA doomed? Maybe. I’ve thought a lot about this, too. At this point, I honestly don’t know. But it could very well be.

    All’s I know is this, Rydah: the only “X factor” I have any control over, for real, for sure, is Mu. Mu is the only constant in the eye of the storm. If Mu wants a different result, Mu’s gotta change up the tempo. Will that guarantee success? Nope. Nothing guarantees success. Nothing ever will. Part of the reason why so many here and elsewhere are having such a hard time with this Game thing is because they have so little Faith, in my opinion. And Faith, by its very nature, is irrational.

    So are Women.

    Are we learning yet?;)

    Holla back

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  176. Thursday:
    “This is the major disadvantage of getting good later in life. You can have your pick, but you still have to sift through a lot of trash. The bars are great for practicing your game, but they are full of sluts and attention whores, and your typical 25+ group at a church has a lot of ugly and/or socially maladjusted girls. There are still some gems out there, but you have to look pretty hard for them.”

    Absolutely. Not only is it a major disadvantage for those who don’t have the ability early on, but it also misdirects many of the early birds.

    The early birds (who should have got the worm) are taught that they should rack ’em up and move on, thinking that there will be a limitless supply of great girls when they want to settle down. Basically, they are told not to appreciate what they have. So they don’t.

    Talk to most guys who have a lot of experience, and ask them to list the three most important girls in their history. Odds are those three will cluster, chronologically, at or near the beginning of their dating life. But the culture tells them to move on. Often enough, they do. As time goes on, the pair bondings get weaker and weaker, which is why so many people long for those first relationships. A healthy culture would encourage us to cherish those first relationships. A depraved culture encourages us to throw them away. Guess which kind of culture we live in?

    Like


  177. Mu’Min,

    Yeah man, good to see you around. You know I’m down with the underground. Look, as much as I don’t like it (and I don’t think you do either), I agree that we’re stuck with the current situation – at least until the core system falls apart. I am increasingly persuaded that the days are numbered for this system, but I can’t say whether it’s got fifty years left to it or five. I happen to believe it is likely to be sooner rather than later, but who knows?

    In the meantime, life is for the living. And you are absolutely right that the one thing you can control is you. It took me a long time to learn that lesson – too long. But I learned it. I realize that a guy can carve out a pretty good life for himself in this society, if he understands the rules. And, for lack of anything better to do, that’s what I’m doing. Once a guy understands this, a whole new world opens up.

    I guess I could leave it at that, boff chicks and make some bank. Nothing wrong with that, but at the end of the day, for me it’s just not enough. It never was. I’ve had some primo women in my time, the real deal. But the radical in me always comes through! I could be out with a Victoria’s Secret model, and pretty soon I’ll want to start talking politics (I’d give it about three dates, with maximum self discipline). It’s just in the blood. A man can’t run away from his nature. In other words – you’re right, but it probably won’t work out that way for me.

    But seriously, good to touch base with you. I can’t post often for the time being (trying to start a business in what appears to be a depression – crazy I know), but I do try to read your posts.

    Rock on,
    Ryder

    Like


  178. Ryder,
    Mentioning Politics in *any* way, shape, form or fashion, is serious Booty Repellent, man. Don’t do it! & this is especially true the Hotter the Chick. The less attractive jawns you can go there with, the problem there is that 9 times outta 10 they’re Leftwingers and will clamp their thighs tighter than Fort Knox upon finding out youse a GOPer. I mean, there’s just no way I can get any action being a BlackCon in the Obama Era. So I just politely nod and say as little as possible, and try to change the subject.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  179. Eager to hear more from Mu, Ryder and T. about what it’s like — romantically and sexually speaking — to be a black conservative these days. Doesn’t help you get laid? Best to keep quiet about it?

    Like


  180. I mean, there’s just no way I can get any action being a BlackCon in the Obama Era.

    The whole BlackCon thing interestst me. By BlackCon I don’t mean conservative black nationalists who are more interested in black self-reliance than they are in good relations with whites.

    I mean Black Cons like apparently you and T/Ricky are. Honestly, I don’t come across guys like that among in mainstream public figures, or much in persomnal experience either.

    To be blunt – I’m not sure I’ve ever come across a black dude who doesn’t at some level carry an anti-white animus. I’ve picked it up in successful blacks too, though it can show itself indirectly. One real-life example: a guy at work I’m friends with, black dude, real nice and laid-back guy once got wierdly emphatic with me about the fact that Payton Manning was the Superbowl MVP two years ago rather than one of the two (black) running backs.

    Anyway, there is Thomas Sowell, for example, but he’s not known to non-intellectuals. There are political figures like Ward Connerly or Clarence Thomas, but they (Thomas especially!) are viscerally hated by the Libs, black and white ones.

    And yet, you don’t come across like someone who is embattled within the black community for being a “sellout” or whatever. What’s the difference? The fact that you are a yonger guy and Thomas is from a generation that was more Black=Leftie?

    Like


  181. Mike B.,
    Can’t speak for T-Raw, and I always assumed Ryder was White (he still my Brother in any event), but for my part, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, if a Sista gets wind you down with the GOP you can kiss the Poon goodbye.

    The End.

    I’ve had several Sistas pretty much ready to kick Mu to the curb behind that, man. It ain’t no joke. See, you gotta understand that Black folks feel some kinda way about the GOP; rightly or wrongly, they associate being a Republican, with being a Racist.

    And Black folks feel some kind of way about Racism. Rea or imagined.

    Add to that the usual irrationality of Women in general, etc et al, and toss in the extra sassy ways of the Sistahood, and man, it can be a real headache.

    So, Mu has learned, that its best just not to go there. Unless he’s in the company of White folks, and even then, Mu has to be careful, lest he find himself in the midst of a SWPL gathering.

    In short, to be a BlackCon and not backed up like Dave Alex, better to just not saying anything pertaining to politics, nod politely and then change the subject.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  182. @Thursday

    Nice set of posts.

    Interesting on who reports the most sexual satisfaction.

    Like


  183. on December 26, 2008 at 8:52 pm ironrailsironweights

    Am I the only guy here who’s a little shocked to run across guys characterizing the young woman I described above (two new guys a year for ten years) as a not-to-be-trusted skank?

    Oh no, I think the same way as you. The thing is, the typical reader of this blog is a pathologically introverted Beta loser nerd who plays World of Warcraft in Mom’s basement 18 hours a day and whose only sexual experience is with Mrs. Palm and her five daughters. And he clearly thinks differently.

    Peter

    Like


  184. How many cliches can we find in Peter’s post?

    I’m none of the things Peter names in his comment and I find two new guys a year for ten years way beyond skankorama, and into the skankodome.

    Like


  185. on December 26, 2008 at 9:07 pm Usually Lurking

    Incidentally, I’m really puzzled by the focus on finally-settling-down and long-term-relationships around here. It seems to me obsessive, if not a bit Beta. Whatever happened to enjoying the hunt?

    You don’t hunt for pussy on a blog, you debate nerdy bullshit.

    Like


  186. on December 26, 2008 at 9:14 pm ironrailsironweights

    How many cliches can we find in Peter’s post?
    I’m none of the things Peter names in his comment and I find two new guys a year for ten years way beyond skankorama, and into the skankodome.

    Well, not every regular on this blog fits all my cliches. But a lot do.

    Peter

    Like


  187. I don’t fall under that roster either Peter

    *giggles*

    You know that all of the femmes d’Roissy love you.

    Like


  188. on December 26, 2008 at 9:21 pm Glengarry Glenpoon

    Michael Blowhard, about that nice girl: I’d say that it comes down to how many of those twenty guys I know. My gut feeling is zero or maybe one (I can then at least try to believe her when she tells me she traded up). Any more and she’d end up in the non-LTR bin, the smirks would kill.

    Like


  189. on December 26, 2008 at 9:22 pm Usually Lurking

    Six months later, you’re still having a nice time. She’s come through in a few situations, she’s demonstrated some friendship and loyalty, the sex is still good, maybe you’re enjoying food and movies together, she’s not a huge pain in the ass to spend time with … You’re an idiot guy, so you’re a little surprised when a friend points out to you that you’ve never been happier.

    Only happier when he is not thinking about her get face painted by some other guy.

    In my experience, these guys tend to DEMAND that the girl NEVER talk about her past.

    And Thursday was right on, 20 guys by 27 means this chick has basically never had a real long-term relationship.

    Like


  190. would you oppose, or would you favor, routine and mandatory paternity testing and dna matching of every child born in this country?Excellent reiteration of my original question; I’d like to expand it to *all* the Ladies of the Forum; what say you, Ladies?

    Totally favor, as it seems to me it can only benefit all involved.

    I would look upon it as not unlike the mandatory drug testing one must undergo to work for any number of employers. Yes, I can see why one might object to it on a philosophical level as compromising their privacy, but on the other hand, if you’re of clear conscience, you have nothing to worry about….

    Like


  191. on December 26, 2008 at 9:33 pm Glengarry Glenpoon

    Actually, the slutty girl still has a few, weak LTR cards to play. Let’s say she doesn’t mind me having the occasional hookup, joins me for a non-devil threesome every now and then, uses her hard-earned skills with slutty brio, etc. I might be convinced to give it a shot (but what are the odds of it lasting?).

    Any kids would still be “trust, but verify”.

    Like


  192. on December 26, 2008 at 9:35 pm Glengarry Glenpoon

    Two boyfriends every year for a full ten years would make me estimate my relationship with that girl to last up to six months.

    Like


  193. Oscar Wilde once said “Twenty years of romance leaves a woman a ruin, but twenty years of marriage makes a woman something like a public building.”

    Like


  194. PA:

    For absolute newbies, I would start off with the following:

    Books
    1. The Game by Neil Strauss
    2. The Mystery Method or another good basic PUA manual based on it, like Magic Bullets (my favourite) or Decibel’s PUA manual (free on the internet).
    The manuals can be pretty dry and Mu is right that The Game puts flesh on the bones. It also gives you a good idea of the potential dark side of getting into this stuff. My main bone to pick with the book is that it makes learning this stuff seem way easier than it is. Keep in mind that Strauss basically dropped out of society for an entire year to hang out with the best minds in pick up. His personal tutor was Mystery.

    Videos:
    1. Real Social Dynamics Foundations (the best newbie DVD set out there)
    2. David DeAngelo Approaching Women and Starting Conversations (great for opening and features appearances from a lot of people from The Game, including Mystery, Toecutter [Vision], Tyler Durden etc.)
    It is all available on youtube from a guy called don7frye. Here is Part 1:

    Links to the rest can be found from there.

    Like


  195. Otherwise Roissy’s list here is pretty good:
    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/my-life-philosophy/#comment-39054

    Live footage is good to watch. These are the best sources I could find:
    Keys to the VIP Seasons 1-3 (features some really good guys, including a lot of naturals, and some really bad guys, and some of the downright ugly. Cajun’s episode has to be the best PUA performance anyone has put out there.)
    Mehow’s Infield Exposed (8 DVDs of infield videos)

    Robert Greene’s The Art of Seduction puts a lot of this stuff in historical perspective.

    Relevant EvPsych books are too many to list, but The Red Queen and The Evolution of Desire are pretty good basic primers on human sexuality. Louann Brizendine’s The Female Brain is perhaps the best book on women ever written.

    RSD has some other really good DVD sets out. RSD are particularly good at anticipating the difficulties that you will experience at each stage as you start to get better. I’d recommend Transformations and The Jeffy Show. A lot of people with inner game problems swear by The Blueprint, though after reading a lot of psych books I found it mostly redundant.

    Like


  196. MB,

    Interesting example but I’m not sure of how realistic it is.

    There are some numbers that women will never have and I think between 8-50 fall into that range (at 27).

    To get to 20 you’ve got to basically fuck strangers or fuck guys after a few dates (post a blind approach). Women who do that sort of thing don’t stop at 2 guys per year (but might stop counting at 2 per year).

    So the reaction is two fold:

    1) It’s really improbable that this woman is a 2 per year, no more no less girl. Getting to 20 via one 10 man gang bang and a few long term relationships is far worse than just 2 per year.
    2) Any girl who will admit to a number like 20 is very likely to be at a much higher number

    Like


  197. “Relevant EvPsych books are too many to list, but The Red Queen and The Evolution of Desire are pretty good basic primers on human sexuality. Louann Brizendine’s The Female Brain is perhaps the best book on women ever written.”

    I’d skip right to “Sperm Wars” by Robin Baker.

    That book was majorly eye opening for me (in terms of explaining “mysteries” of human sexuality). Red Queen was great if you’re interested in biology generally but not as useful for pickup.

    I really can’t recommend Sperm Wars highly enough.

    Like


  198. In short, to be a BlackCon and not backed up like Dave Alex

    Pardon? I’m not a conservative, and one may want to explain the second remark…

    See, you gotta understand that Black folks feel some kinda way about the GOP; rightly or wrongly, they associate being a Republican, with being a Racist.

    Even in my family of Caribbean immigrants, it was a bombshell when my cousin openly admitted to being a Republican. Otherwise, most of my family is composed of Democrats and those lean towards the party.

    Still to this day, the DNC is seen as the party of “regular people” and most black people see themselves as poor and downtrodden, and the DNC panders to that by pointing out statistical poverty in the community. Plus, it generally doesn’t help that the Republicans ended up absorbing the old and unapolagetic Dixiecrats into their party.

    As for my cousin, she’s a Republican primarily because she’s a free-market style conservative, so it’s the low-tax, small government side that appeals to her. Arguably, given the conservative outlook of my family, the RNC should be appealing, but they fear the small-government side, especially since they came from a country with a kleptocratic government that did nothing.

    As for myself, I think we all know real-life David’s political outlook.

    a guy at work I’m friends with, black dude, real nice and laid-back guy once got wierdly emphatic with me about the fact that Payton Manning was the Superbowl MVP two years ago rather than one of the two (black) running backs

    One must remember that for a sizable portion of the black population, some will see racism as the reason as to why something occurred. So if a white guy wins the MVP twice while a black guy who did just as well didn’t win, then it’s “obviously” racism. It’s a legacy of the past that will simply continue to haunt us in the future.

    Like


  199. “Any girl who will admit to a number like 20 is very likely to be at a much higher number”

    Chris Rock once said that one had to give women a 7 dick curve when it came to the number of guys she’s been with.

    Like


  200. MB,
    Have you ever seen the movie “Friday Night” by
    Claire Denis? It shows average looking people finding eroticism and joy in everyday life.

    In short it would make the guys here tear their hair out.

    Like


  201. hello:

    You’re not into loving pair bonding? Better not tell Clio

    Clio who?

    Like


  202. PA:

    I’m none of the things Peter names in his comment and I find two new guys a year for ten years way beyond skankorama, and into the skankodome.

    What do you think of a girl who has alternating clusters of short affairs (say, 3 a year) bookended by multi-year LTRs?

    Like


  203. Glengarry Glenpoon:

    Michael Blowhard, about that nice girl: I’d say that it comes down to how many of those twenty guys I know. My gut feeling is zero or maybe one (I can then at least try to believe her when she tells me she traded up). Any more and she’d end up in the non-LTR bin, the smirks would kill.

    Nothing to add to this but to say I can’t stop chuckling at your name.

    Like


  204. Thursday:

    Books
    1. The Game by Neil Strauss
    2. The Mystery Method or another good basic PUA manual based on it, like Magic Bullets (my favourite) or Decibel’s PUA manual (free on the internet).

    I’ve only read one of those three but I would add Franco Seduction’s “Practical Female Psychology” to the list. Not as many nitty gritty bells and whistles as the other books, but plenty of wisdom provided by experienced MEN to fundamentally reorient your thinking about women. I meant to recommend it to MB back when he was asking for sources. I think he would find its information more applicable to his marriage than the other books.

    Can anyone tell me if there is any new cutting-edge shit out there? I’m thinking I need to re-up my game for the new year.

    Like


  205. Relevant EvPsych books are too many to list, but The Red Queen and The Evolution of Desire are pretty good basic primers on human sexuality. Louann Brizendine’s The Female Brain is perhaps the best book on women ever written.

    I would add “Sperm Wars” by Robin Baker before any of those.

    RSD has some other really good DVD sets out. RSD are particularly good at anticipating the difficulties that you will experience at each stage as you start to get better. I’d recommend Transformations and The Jeffy Show.

    Don’t know about those but for beginners who are at risk for information overload, I would recommend Gunwitch’s “Way of Gun” audio course. Very simple, to the point, and effective.

    Like


  206. Tupac!

    *hides behind Michael Blowhard*

    That’s either a gun or a riding crop in his hand, and I hope it’s a gun.

    Like


  207. I’ve been looking for a good book on cold reading. Any suggestions?

    Like


  208. Mu is a man of wisdom.

    “Skankodome” is a really funny word.

    What’s become of the ladies? Eager to hear whether they agree with many of the guys here that a 27 year old gal who’s averaged two new guys a year qualifies as a skank.

    Like


  209. “What’s become of the ladies? Eager to hear whether they agree with many of the guys here that a 27 year old gal who’s averaged two new guys a year qualifies as a skank.”

    The number is less important than the quality of the relationships. If she genuinely liked all those guys she’s fine. If she was trying to sleep her way to the top at work, get financial help from lovers or just trying to get lots of attention that’s a different matter although she may have grown up and moved beyond that by 27.

    Although it can also go both ways with a man insisting he can’t get married until he’s shagged X many women, preoccupation with numbers is parochial and limiting. A lotof women become jaded after years on the meat market but how so varies from individual to individual. A lot of the nerdy guys here are obsessed with the one magic number at which a woman suddenly and irrevocably becomes incapable of love or fidelity but it doesn’t exist. Bad relationships with abusive, unfaithful or manipulative men damage women far more than having a high number count.

    The concern about numbers seems to rest on two fears:

    A. that you can’t measure up to her other lovers.
    B. that you won’t be special/ she won’t love you as much
    C. she’s likelier to be unfaithful

    A. Even if she’s only been with one other guy as opposed to twenty her other lover could still be taller, richer, wittier than you. Unless you’ve met him you don’t know. There’s a greater likelihood if she’s been with more guys but it’s also possible that they were all at your level or that she doesn’t remember them fondly and prefers being with you to dwelling on the past.
    B. You judge how much a woman loves you and considers you special by how she treats you not by how many men she’s banged. A virgin who picks fights with you doesn’t love you more than a twenty lovers plus woman who is sweet and respectful.
    C. If someone wants to cheat on you there’s very little you can do about it . You can try to select for the most inexperienced woman you can find (who will probably not want to have sex much but that’s a different story) but after 30 years of marriage even she might wonder what she missed and stray. A lot of women cheat for emotional reasons instead of pure lust so the number count can be misleading.

    Like


  210. Hello — That’s nicely put, thanks. I wonder if there might be one other reason the guys around here are numbers-obsessed. They’re guys, and many of them seem to be geekish guys. They like hard, literal, preferably numbered things. I also find the idea that female beauty can be ranked on one line from 1 to 10 pretty silly. But don’t let that get around!

    Like


  211. Deery, let me explain things to you.

    In college, outside of elite ones, the gender imbalance (60-40 women) means “ladies lower your standards” and that plus lots of booze means one night stands for Joe Average. Who then goes to an urban area and unless he is genetically blessed, inherited money, got lucky, or otherwise became a Big Shot, goes year after with nothing. The guys in “Office Space” are probably a good example. Particularly “Michael Bolton.”

    In fact, the smarter and more abstract oriented a guy is, the more likely he is to be engaged in a career without a lot social prestige and Big Shottery, and the more women will avoid him.

    Most professional class jobs are in the urban areas, so men outside Big Law, and other “Entourage” style occupations (obnoxious agents like Ari Gold, minor celebrities, hip-edgy DJs/Rockers etc) are basically hosed.

    This means two things. One, men are not going to care much about women who the ones most signally not dating them, not married to them, not bearing their children. Same goes for kids. Two, these men will cause trouble one way or another, particularly if they can use technology to do so. Nothing comes for free and women delude themselves on the price.

    Blowhard: lots of guys HATE the dating routine because for them it’s one long stretch of humiliation and failure. Failure in HS (let me guess, you probably matured earlier than your peers, were a competitive and GOOD athlete, had girls all over you), some success in College (see above), failure during much of the low-earning, low-status twenties, only intermittent success with less desirable women later on. If you’re a winner all your life you will never understand the losers, and modern life creates a few Lottery Winners among men and a huge class of losers.

    In South Central, guys respond by being the hardest hard-ass they can be. In suburbia, it’s a retreat to pr0n, contempt for women, and video games. None of this is good or a sign of a healthy society. It’s fine for winners with girls coming out of their ears to play around. Guys who mostly lose when they get any Wins tend to want to keep them. And erase the desperate and dangerous loneliness that characterizes most young men absent the lottery Winnings in their twenties.

    If you’ve only won at Life (and Michael all due respect you come across like one of Life’s Lottery Winners) playing around seems like a good idea. Lots of painful losses tend to awaken one to the downside. I’m not trying to be obnoxious, mind you, it’s just that you come across like George Clooney asking, “hey, what’s the big deal about dating women?”

    It’s easy for him. But society is not built on Clooney, rather on the masses of ordinary Joes (and Janes).

    Like


  212. Whiskey — Nice explanation, tks. I certainly don’t mean to carry on like a winner, let alone a Clooney type. If only. Passable looking but no more … OK high school athlete but no more … Bright and arty, but that has its downsides too … No interest in a career or kids, and no gift for money … But I like gals and people, enjoy parties and socializing, am crazy about sex (and have an interest in it in much the way some people have an interest in sports or wine, as something to be cultivated and explroed) and I generally get a kick out of the courtship dance. I did OK-enough with gals during the single years, and I wound up with a quirkily glamorous and fun wife, though I never really expected to marry. Fun to compare notes here with folks, to reflect on the past, and to learn about the present. Sounds like a much colder dating/romance/sex world than the one I took part in, that’s for sure.

    Like


  213. PA —

    There’s Jackie Robinson (lifelong conservative Republican) and of course, the incomparable Larry Elder of Talk Radio. Probably Tiger Woods, and Ice-T. [Ironic that the latter plays cops now.] Those are Black Conservatives. I suspect there are more but they lay low like Hollywood conservatives for the same reason.

    Hello: I think you nailed it, and it is a concern, i.e. A. Won’t measure up to past lovers; B. You’re not special she does not love you as much, and C. likely to be unfaithful.

    Early romances are the most intense, women recall them decades later, and they do provoke male jealousy because women DO on average fall for a guy early in their love life hardest.

    Recall, women can and do dump at the slightest whim, particularly in marriage, so hedging the downside is inevitable for guys. You talking about why the fear is unjustified won’t change male behavior, which is going to tend to pump and dump regarding Fear A.

    Fear B is also right on the money. There’s nothing to suggest she didn’t say the EXACT SAME THINGS to the other guys, and DO THE EXACT SAME THINGS to the other guys. Past is prologue, so guys factoring in this will tend towards pump and dump. A woman with twenty or more past partners has to show extraordinary levels of love/devotion to earn a man’s trust to marry, given all the past actions of being out of love (likely when someone “better” came along).

    Fear C is also right on the money. While if someone is going to cheat on you there is little you can do about it, you can LIMIT your exposure. Most guys will. Guy’s don’t want to get married to most women because they fear divorce and figure that most of the women they date are likely to cheat. Guys for obvious reasons don’t react the same to women when they are cheated on. They don’t stand by their gal.

    Fears A-C are rational, real, and given today’s society, propel men to casual sex, friends with benefits, to hedge against being dumped, cheated on, and not being loved or special compared to other lovers.

    Look, women are obviously happy with this situation. They want and need lots of sex partners. They just should not expect in the main to get married, or men to be faithful. They shockingly cannot have it all. Even if they are Christie Brinkley.

    The corollary to women’s freedom is men’s freedom. A woman with twenty partners is not going to find a guy who will commit to her, knowing her past. The more men pencil in that number of partners for women, the less likely they are to commit to them emotionally and matrimonially.

    Broadly speaking, women get two basic choices in men and the social constraints involving men and women. They can have commitment, and the model of lifetime romantic love, within marriage, or they can have sexual freedom and lots of partners. They cannot have both because as much as women think they can hector and lecture and apply social pressure to men, lots of partners for women produce dis-investment in women as anything other than sex objects.

    Mu’Min is correct, this will not change (lots of partners for women), so women should expect to be treated as disposable sex objects, in the main, by men, with all that implies. Because men will ALWAYS hedge against the downside.

    Like


  214. I just want to chime in w/a few things.

    Though I do agree with Whiskey’s analysis overall, there comes a point when, as a Man, one has to accept that there are Winners and Losers in this world. And that for most of us, most of the time, Life is a bit of both. The trick, of course, is to maximize one, and minimize the other.

    There are always those who are more popular, more handsome, have bigger dicks (although, the vast majority of Women don’t find the idea of being done w/a racehorse’s schlong very attractive), taller, more money, etc., et al. This is just a fact of life.

    Maybe I always knew this, in the back of my mind; but what I’ve learned recently, is that Mu has to find what makes *him* so special that it makes a Woman want to stick *in spite* of what I said above.

    And to do that, Mu has to turn the focus, not outward, but inward.

    I’m finding that Game is a very introspective thing, man. That you have to be willing to take a good bit of time to examine yourself.

    Take the idea of Peacocking, for example. Its actually a very delicate thing. That’s because what works for Mystery may not work well for you. And the only way to discover what works well for you is to go inside.

    Women have a much richer inner life than do Men, on average. This is what they talk about, all the time-their inner lives. Starting with those little tea parties when their little girls.

    One of the things I’m learning from the Art of Seduction, is that most of those guys weren’t super rich, are exceedingly handsome (remember, Lord Byron had a clubfoot!), etc. Some were, no doubt-but just many, were not. But what they all had in common was an awareness of and an appreciation for, their own, and by extension, a Woman’s, inner life.

    Strauss’ book The Game-thats all its about, Strauss’ inner journey, to discover, who he was.

    And that’s why I put it before Mystery’s book, because at the end of the day if you don’t have an appreciation for your own inner life, all the “tricks” of Game in the world really won’t help you. This explains why guys, some of them right here, have mountains of Game stuff, and rarely if ever actually go out on a date, much less score with a Woman. They’re still seeing the world through Male eyes. You have to see the world, as Women do. Strauss got it. And in litle baby steps, Mu is getting it.

    It doesn’t bother me one bit whether there’s a bigger, stronger, more well endowed, more skilled, handsomer, richer, more educated guy(s) out there. As a matter of public policy, yea, the Chos of the world do concern me. But on the personal level, the fact that “Big Men” exist doesn’t enter my mind when I’m talking to a Woman. All I’m interested in is, presenting why I am who I am, and why she wants to stick around to find out more. If she does, great. If not, no big deal-her loss.

    As for Women’s past history of lovers/sex partners-I’ve never asked for such information, because I knew chances were I wouldn’t like the answer. And besides, the Past is the Past, man. Leave it there. That’s what I do. No one wants stuff thrown up in their face. If it bothers you that much that girlfriend might have been around the block one too many times-and hey, I feel ya-then leave her alone, fullstop. Otherwise, there ain’t much point in cogitating over it. Put your best foot forward and be the best you that you can be, and that’s it.

    You know, I gotta say this. I sense a great deal of Fear in a lot of you guys’ comments. And if there’s one thing that turns Women off in a Man, it is Fear. Why do you think the Three Second Rule is so important? Whe you walk in a room and you actually lock eyes with a Woman, an you DON’T APPROACH, DON’T DO SOMETHING, she gets the distinct impression that you’re afraid.

    And, you lose. Again.

    Don’t take my word for it-the Ladies here can confirm or deny what I’ve just said.

    And Fear, that’s an inner thing. Women know it well, even in our time now. They live in its shadow. A simple walk to the corner store could prove dangerous for them in ways the vast majority of us will never know. Same w/bars. Niteclubs. Frat parties. For that matter, sophisticated, upscale dinner parties.

    So why would a Woman want a guy who reeks of Fear? Hmm?

    Fear is an inner thing. Peacocking, the essence of it, to really pull it off, is in inner thing. Game, all of it really, is an inner thing.

    At the end of the day, its what is on the inside that counts. Strauss understood that.

    Do you?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  215. on December 27, 2008 at 7:40 am Glengarry Glenpoon

    Tupac, Always be closing.

    Like


  216. I also find the idea that female beauty can be ranked on one line from 1 to 10 pretty silly.

    a truly hard, literal geek would absolutely disdain any measuring scale whose lower endpoint isn’t 0.

    but there are certainly uber-geeks who have expanded the rating scale into 3-space.

    my physical rating scale has exactly three points:
    0 = wouldn’t hit it
    1 = would hit it
    2 = would admit it

    good enough for me.

    Like


  217. mu, i hereby dub you “brother”.

    Maybe I always knew this, in the back of my mind; but what I’ve learned recently, is that Mu has to find what makes *him* so special that it makes a Woman want to stick *in spite* of what I said above.

    very true.
    interestingly, this is probably the single area of inner game with which i’ve never had any trouble. i’ve gone from elated to deflated, from runnin’ high to runnin’ dry, but i have always, always qualified chicks, at least internally.
    from the meanest dimes to the leanest times, i’ve never shaken the attitude that any girl lucky enough to be by my side is just that – lucky.
    it took far too long, though, for me to realize the value of explicit qualifying.

    so, mu, my advice here:
    YOU should be the sticky tape.
    ALL of you.
    the way you walk, strive, talk, jive, write, tarry, strike, parry, do, think, screw, drink, lay, score, slay … and more.
    ahem.
    if any woman thinks of herself as your “better half”, even for a minute, go find a better (w)hole, and get in it.

    fuck that noise.

    Like


  218. @J5: LOL! I like that.

    I said before, that to me the idea of scoring “HB10s” wasn’t that big a deal for me. If it happens, great, if not, great. Life goes on.

    While I recognize that there is such a thing as objective beauty and so on, I also keep in mind that there’s more to a Woman than her looks alone. Other things have to be taken into account, too.

    How many of us, for example, have had a drop dead beauty in bed, who turned out to be a dud?! That’s happened to me, a few times. God, what a disappointment.

    Now don’t get me wrong, you can score a HB10 and she truly be the bomb in the sack. I’m simply maing the case that one does not automatically translate into the other.

    I just focus on having a good time. Of course as Men we are seriously visually stimulated, so it is our way to go after that which looks the most enticing to us. But we should keep in mind there are other things too.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  219. LOL! I like that.

    wow, what have i wrought.
    i’m going to wake up tomorrow, look at that post, and think it came from one of the characters in Doom Fox (absolutely the worst thing ever written by iceberg slim).

    Of course as Men we are seriously visually stimulated, so it is our way to go after that which looks the most enticing to us. But we should keep in mind there are other things too.

    oh yeah.

    i’ve been seduced by a long line of non-visual stimuli, including the following:
    * the delightfully girly voice of a carefree blonde ingenue
    * a few women’s irresistible smell (all but two were bi- or poly-racial)
    * the absolutely amazing feeling of my hands on the pleasantly voluptuous buttocks of a cute 20-year-old redhead who’d always considered her ass “too fat”
    * soulful, throaty singing voices
    * more irresistible smells
    * polysyllabic words

    the list goes on.

    and, as i’ve stated elsewhere on this forum, i’d rather own a 7.5 than just stick my dick in a 8-9 (remember i don’t believe in 10s).

    in fact, while i’m no mystery, i’ve had enough that the three-point scale (see up about 3 posts) works for me at this point.

    How many of us, for example, have had a drop dead beauty in bed, who turned out to be a dud?! That’s happened to me, a few times. God, what a disappointment.

    hey, isn’t that why they call ’em “drop dead”
    ha!
    i need to go to sleep.

    Like


  220. And besides, the Past is the Past, man. Leave it there. That’s what I do. No one wants stuff thrown up in their face. If it bothers you that much that girlfriend might have been around the block one too many times-and hey, I feel ya-then leave her alone, fullstop. Otherwise, there ain’t much point in cogitating over it. Put your best foot forward and be the best you that you can be, and that’s it.

    amen.

    and one more thing, people: as has been said earlier on this thread, there are “tells”.
    lots of them.
    it’s not hard to tell a woman’s sexual past from your FIRST everything with her: first kiss, first foreplay, first fuck, first sexual innuendoes, first everything.
    holy shit, i think i just discovered an actual niche for another PUA type social awareness book.

    A. that you can’t measure up to her other lovers.
    B. that you won’t be special/ she won’t love you as much
    C. she’s likelier to be unfaithful

    i will never lose a second’s sleep over (a) or (b), because, after all, i’m “the lacrimator” for a reason.

    it’s amazing how conveniently women forget the devastating practical, financial, and emotional consequences of (c) for men.

    j5 / the lacrimator

    Like


  221. whiskey:

    If you’ve only won at Life (and Michael all due respect you come across like one of Life’s Lottery Winners) playing around seems like a good idea. Lots of painful losses tend to awaken one to the downside. I’m not trying to be obnoxious, mind you, it’s just that you [Michael Blowhard] come across like George Clooney asking, “hey, what’s the big deal about dating women?”

    Meaning no offense or disrespect to Michael, I got the exact same impression. Discussing these issues with him is kind of like talking about really serious life problems with young people who have never known anything except cozy, sheltered life in happy upper middle class families. He similarly seems to be aware only in a very vague and abstract sense that many people, in fact the majority, have been dealt a much worse hand in life. Hence his surprise at the fact that many of these less lucky folks react with seething resentment when they realize how brutally unequal the sexual marketplace really is, and that their only hope to improve their lot is to toss away any romantic cliches and embrace the cynical game-based approach. Apparently, it was only the mass anonymity on the internet that enabled him to realize how widespread such attitutes really are.

    Mind you, I’m not passing any judgements here, nor trying to denigrate Michael or anyone else. I honestly think that this is the right explanation for his bewilderment.

    Like


  222. Vladi,
    Hold up, chief. I hear what you’re saying, and while I don’t claim to speak for Mike B., I do think I have something to contribute to the discussion here.

    I’ve mentioned the realworld fact that Life ain’t Fair; among everyone here, I think I’m the lowman on the totem pole here. Insofar as I know, NONE of you are Blue Collar guys. And I think its safe to say, that the vasyt majority of you are Black either. And there’s a few other things that are “marks” against me in the dating game that wouldn’t apply to the vast majority of you.

    Yet, for the most part, I’m the last one doing the lion’s share of the complaining. And at the end of the day, that’s what it is, and I like to call things by their rightful names. Its one thing to see a wrong and point it out; its another to cry Sour Grapes in the name of the former.

    Look, anyone who wants to can improve their lot in life, even Roissy has said as much. What you have to do is be aware of *what is possible* and set for yourself attainable goals. It is just downright unreasonable for any nerd/geek to up and score a HB10, or, do as little as possible to improve himself, *socially*, and expect a 7-8.5 to choose HIM from among the multitude. Why should she? I mean, really? Because he has a good job and is a nice guy?

    Uh, newsflash: not only are nice guys w/good jobs LEGION in White America, but the vast majority of Women in America make their own cash. And if they’re halfway decent looking, they dragging nice guys from the ankles everyday, al day.

    So, you gotta bring something else to the table.

    Again, I gotta go back to The Game.

    Strauss was a good guy; highly educated, came from a good background, curious, well read, works for one of the world’s biggest newspapers, *ever*. And w/o Game, he would have never met Lisa, let alone all those other women in his life over the two years previous to the publication of the book.

    But he looked like every other guy: drab. And worse, he lacked any social skill, which is, for the umpteenth time, BEAUTIFUL WOMEN ESPECIALLY, HIGHLY VALUE.

    So, again, unless or until a guy addresses these things about himself, he can pretty much forget winnin an audience with the Beauties of the World, unless an Act of God occurs.

    What I get from Mike B.’s comments, is that he laments the *fun* that courting seemed to have, and I think he’s on to something there. And do you know who I put at least part of the blame for that on?

    US. In just about everything I’ve read and studied, and recalling from my own past-and maybe Mike B. will corroborate this-it was the Men who led the way. If dating ain’t fun, you got to take it upon yourself to make it fun!

    Mystery says as much in his book: YOU have to make it happen. Sitting back bemoaning things while letting Life pass you by ain’t gonna get it.

    OK, take me right now-the big Xmas party I’ve written about has been cancelled because the hostess broke her leg the other day on the ice. No problem: that only gives me more time to study, think about how I’m gonna do things for the big New Year’s Eve party, and more importantly, prepare for my Big Date right after.

    I’ll give up some of the details after it all goes down.

    All of that entails being proactive, man. No Woman, no matter how hot or whatever else, is gonna do this, you gotta do it. Alphas makeit happen. If you ain’t quite Alpha, fake it till you make it.

    We’ve all done it. Why should it be any different when it comes to the dating world, is beyond me, man.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  223. Michael Blowhard:

    But I like gals and people, enjoy parties and socializing, am crazy about sex (and have an interest in it in much the way some people have an interest in sports or wine, as something to be cultivated and explroed)

    You see, this is what I’m talking about in my above comment. To an average guy, this sounds like someone from the upper class talking about expensive hobbies, refined tastes, exotic travels, etc., as if that were something normal and accessible to everyone. Believe me, for most guys out there who are not natural charmers, sex with decently attractive women is something they can expect only as an extremely rare stroke of luck, if even that. For them, it’s definitely not something that could feasibly be “cultivated and explored” — except by trying to improve their game, which is probably not what you mean by it.

    Now, please understand that I’m not trying to be rude or disrespectful by what I’m about to write. I’ve enjoyed reading lots of your writing, and I respect you and agree with many of your opinions. However, on this particular topic, you remind me of a hopelessly naive trust fund leftist who has never given much thought to any issues of economics and politics, but firmly believes that if we all just were nice and relaxed and open-minded to his naive leftist views, then somehow magically, everyone would be able to enjoy a lifestyle similar to his. Sorry, but things just don’t work like that. You can’t have sexual laissez-faire without a whole bunch of frustrated losers for every winner capable of “cultivating and exploring”.

    Like


  224. among everyone here, I think I’m the lowman on the totem pole here.

    Mu’min, you’re one of my favorite commenters here but seriously, that’s something I’d expect to see from David Alexander. Being fourty, gainfully employed and a good writer puts you near the top of the totem pole here.

    Insofar as I know, NONE of you are Blue Collar guys.

    My parents were penniless immigants and at 13 I didn’t speak a word of English. I spent my twenties washing dishes, then in the Army, then installing floors, all the while taking community college & State U classes. I’m in a professional line of work now but it took me a long time to get there. Blue collar enough for ya? =)

    And I think its safe to say, that the vast majority of you are Black either.

    More of our friend DA here, dude! Does your being black hurt your odds with black women? Does your being black hurt your odds with white women any more than being white had hurt my odds with black women?

    Like


  225. Whiskey/Vlad — Oh, no problem if you want to disrespect. No problem if my stories and/or advice strike you as antiquated. They probably are. And I’m feeling foolish if I’ve been putting myself out there as an easygoing smoothie, because back in my single days I certainly had my dry periods and bad dates. It’s all a long time ago, though. I don’t recall the frustrations anything as vividly as I do the general pleasures.

    Still, I had nearly 20 years as an eager, sometimes lucky / sometimes-not single guy, so it’s fun to visit here, reflect over the past, and see what’s up today.

    So far as the present goes, what I find myself often mulling over and trying to call a little attention to is what Vlad calls the “seething resentment” of guys who struggle in the sexual marketplace.

    Now, guys without women will tend to feel grumpy, and god knows that previous generations had their own versions of seething resentment. Check out Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver” for one example. A lot of the hardboiled pulp fiction of the ’40s and ’50s expressed bitterness about the status quo. A French novelist named Celine was a genius at male gloom and negativity — check out “Journey to the End of the Night.” And, long ago, in “Notes from Underground,” Dostoevsky pretty much nailed the condition once and for all. I like Houllebecq a lot myself, but it isn’t as though he was the first artist to head in these directions. He’s great, but he’s also (when I’m feeling uncharitable) a kind of Celine lite.

    All that said, the amount and the kind of hostility and resentment that gets expressed here is really startling. It’s really off the scale, at least so far as my experience goes.

    Another thing that’s striking is the script behind it — the usual account of it and explanation for it. It’s amazingly uniform, as though it has been rehearsed in dormitory bull sessions and online forums for the past 10 years.

    I don’t doubt the feeling, and I learn from the script.

    Where the feeling goes, though, I do, like Mu’Min, look at the hostility and think, “That ain’t going to do anyone any good in terms of finding companionship with girls.” Maybe it’s cosmically justified, maybe not. But, practically speaking, there’ll be a few girls who like the prickiliness, and many more who flee from it. Result: Lonely embittered guy gets lonelier and more embittered.

    I suppose that anger and bitterness might drive a guy to learn Game and up his skills, which is a good thing. And it’s certainly a good and heartening thing that guys are learning from each other and comparing experiences.

    But, more directly, negativity and anger will tend to subvert your success. That’s just a good general life-rule.

    So why not stop dwelling on the anger and the hurt and play with the idea that girls can be charming and courtship can be fun?

    Seriously: if all you’re into is sexual release, and all you’re feeling is frustration and horniness, porn is more direct and functional. David Alexander has a point there — real girls are a lot of trouble. And most guys aren’t all that into having kids. They may like the idea of leaving a genetic legacy, but the reality is even more trouble than having romances. Result: if you don’t let yourself like the process (of romance, courtship, finding girls charming, etc), you probably aren’t going to bother with it at all. At the least, you’ll always be fighting an uphill battle.

    I also try to explain to myself why the bitterness and anger are so very bad, and so markedly louder than in generations I’ve seen before. My guesses: bad educations, feminist moms, much more intrusive and titillating pop culture, video games, endless and easily available porn, the complete collapse of traditional masculinity … Plus young women today really are often charmless. The fit and chic ones are mega-hot physically, at least in a media-pretty (thanks Nicole) way, but often amazingly unappealing as people. If all they offer is their media prettiness, why bother with ’em at all? Why not just jerk off to a magazine or Web image instead? Quicker, faster, easier. So, you have my sympathies there: I can’t imagine putting up with many of these girls either.

    Final hunch: y’all have been raised to express your feelings, and have become really good at venting. As amusing as the venting performances sometimes are, I think that’s been disastrous.

    Hey, youngdudez: that’s another way in which you’ve been mis-served and lied to. 95% of the time, successful maleness is about containing your feelings. Emotional expression isn’t just beta, it’s girly.

    And venting is a dangerous habit, as addictive and destructive as cocaine. It gives you the impression you’re accomplishing something and getting somewhere, it raises your blood pressure in ways that feel enjoyable. But all the while it’s undermining your personality.

    So an older and wiser (and probably tiresome) tip here: Give up the venting. It’s counter-productive. If you’re mad at feminist educations that have lied to you about the nature of women, you should be just as mad about educations and upbringings that led you to believe that venting is a good idea. It isn’t. Every time you vent, a little bit of your masculinity crumbles.

    As for the script y’all have polished to such a gleaming state : it’s impressive, it makes some sense. I don’t buy it completely though. It reminds me of the anti-Boomer rants of the Gen Xers. It’s not that they didn’t have some points, god knows. But it became a kind of negative ideology and bonding ritual for many of them. (Which is OK, by the way.) Result: they had a brief moment in the sun with it. But Gen X was one of the most quickly done-with generations ever, don’t you find? That’s partly because they didn’t have anything positive to care about, or to make a statement with. All they had was their anger towards their parents and elders. And greed and resentment will only get you so far.

    So I like to prod and poke the script a bit, mostly to learn about it, but also to see where it seems solid and where it seems weak.

    Fun in any case to have the chance to do all this and yak with the crowd here.

    Like


  226. Just caught up with Mu’s most recent comment. I co-sign, I endorse, I think y’all ought to turn it into a wall poster and study it daily.

    Like


  227. I’ve mentioned the realworld fact that Life ain’t Fair; among everyone here, I think I’m the lowman on the totem pole here. Insofar as I know, NONE of you are Blue Collar guys. And I think its safe to say, that the vasyt majority of you are Black either. And there’s a few other things that are “marks” against me in the dating game that wouldn’t apply to the vast majority of you.

    Yet, for the most part, I’m the last one doing the lion’s share of the complaining.

    I think I’ve figured out a big reason for this after reading this blog and a lot of the once focused on IQ and race realism: entitlement. Someone in another comments section linked to a book about school shootings, and it discussed why some bullied people never do school shootings and others do, and what the finding was was that the people who snapped into becoming school shooters were the ones who felt a sense of entitlement to popularity and girls and the good things in life. There’s also a book called Rage of a Privileged Class that discusses how middle class and upper class blacks that benefit from affirmative action are often more bitter and crying sour grapes than lower class blacks who are doing much worse (I believe Michelle Obama’s life and off the cuff comments are evidence of this). It’s because these blacks, being “good blacks” and not thugs, felt entitled to great things, plus when you throw in the entitlement they feel because of slavery and past discrimination and it gets worse. With high IQ white people, both on the left and the right, they have high entitlement issues too because growing up they were told that being smart was the ultimate passport to success. They got praise from parents and teachers, were told that they would get the last laughs on the jocks, bullies and cool kids later in life, that they would inherit the best the world had to offer in terms of careers and women, and when life doesn’t work out that way, they get a chip on their shoulders. I’m starting to see the same dynamic in game too, some people take it and use it constructively, but it also attracts an ugly kind of guy who is bitter and angry because he feels his niceness and book smarts entitled him to the best women and he plans to use game as a way to strike back at the unfairness of life.

    Whether it’s the black pride movement, race realism, or Game, there are some great core ideas in all of them but it’s the minority of entitled, vocal abusers in the bunch that ruin the reps of the rational users, who are the majority.

    Like


  228. Mu’min, you’re one of my favorite commenters here but seriously, that’s something I’d expect to see from David Alexander. Being fourty, gainfully employed and a good writer puts you near the top of the totem pole here.

    I know what Mu is getting at here, and it’s not defeatism although it seems that way at the surface. I think he’s saying the opposite, that ON PAPER he is the low man on the totem pole, but because he never buys into his supposed inferiority or believes he is a victim, he lives a great life.

    Like, when I read this ring of blogs, I come across a certain type of bitter white guy, especially on Half Sigma or Sailer, that constantly likes to bring up the inferiority of everyone who isn’t white or NAM, who doesn’t have an off-the-charts IQ and who doesn’t have an Ivy League pedigree. They almost treat people who don’t fit into those categories as lepers. I think these people are a minority of readers that are especially vocal, so I don’t take them as the norm, but from reading their words, supposedly I’m supposed to be so low-status that Asian and Russian women have no attraction to me, I can only attract low-class white women or white women rebelling against their fathers, etc. Yet for me none of this is true, and I think it’s because growing up I had no awareness I was supposed to be inferior. Maybe it’s because I went to Catholic School instead of public school with a bunch of bleeding heart liberal teachers, but no one told me I was supposed to be inferior to anyone and held me to the same standards.

    For Mu, he has the class thing at play too being blue collar. A lot of the bitter contingent of the Half Sigma and Sailer crowd would chart out a graph explaining why he should be undateable to anyone except a poor black woman over 250 lbs. Yet that isn’t his reality, because he doesn’t feel entitled or buy into the limitations others place on him.

    Dave Alexander’s character (I refuse to believe he’s for real) actually does buy into the limitations others place on him based on his race and class and as a result lives down to them.

    Like


  229. They got praise from parents and teachers, were told that they would get the last laughs on the jocks , bullies and cool kids later in life, that they would inherit the best the world had to offer in terms of careers and women, and when life doesn’t work out that way, they get a chip on their shoulders.

    I blame “The Death of a Salesman.”

    Seriously, one of the best parenting tips I’ve ever seen is to never praise your kid for being smart. If he does well in school, praise him for having worked hard.

    Like


  230. Seriously, one of the best parenting tips I’ve ever seen is to never praise your kid for being smart. If he does well in school, praise him for having worked hard.

    Good one PA! For anyone curious about what PA is talking about, here’s the link (I just googled it):

    http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/

    I think it would go a long way to ending a lot of the entitlement issues in our current culture.

    Like


  231. I know what Mu is getting at here, and it’s not defeatism although it seems that way at the surface. I think he’s saying the opposite, that ON PAPER he is the low man on the totem pole, but because he never buys into his supposed inferiority or believes he is a victim, he lives a great life.

    I see what you’re saying. Looks like he was being emphatic but I may have misread that as bitter, which struck me as way out of charater for him.

    Like


  232. I see what you’re saying. Looks like he was being emphatic but I may have misread that as bitter, which struck me as way out of charater for him.

    I also may be making the mistake of reading my worldview and life experiences into his words, so I wouldn’t write off your interpretation either until Mu himself comes back to clear up his words for himself.

    Like


  233. Thanks, Mike B.

    PA-let me please try to clarify. In NO WAY am I lamenting my life or doing a “Dave Alexander”. I think my actions in just this past month alone, would attest to that.

    My point was that I was attempting to make the case that so many of these guys have MORE than I do, yet I get laid MORE than they do. At some point, a reasonable person has to ask, “why”. That’s all I’m sayin’. I have no regrets in life at the least.

    At the end of the day, you gotta take a look in the mirror, man. That’s all I’m saying. And Mike B’s right, Women can and often do come with their headaches. But I’d take that any day over working it out with the hand. Any day.

    OK, UPDATE:

    Just came back from the tailor and picked up my grey three button. Went back to the Men’s shop I told y’all about and copped a bably blue french cuff shirt, and a really nice navy blue and pink paisley tie/pocket square/cuff link set. Big pink paisleys against an indigo blue field. That’ll work. Didn’t see it last time but noticed it out of the corner of my eye this time. Grey works when you’ve got something to “bounce it off” of. And I’ve been thinking a good bit about a lot of Game theory, plus bringing in recent stuff I picked up from Greene: you want to push the envelope just a bit. Women like Subtlety.

    Plus, Grey, Blue, Black, these are colors that convey authority, gravitas. I just “peacock” it a bit because I’m going into a party environment-so stuff like the ostentatious tie/cufflink set will attract attention. You look important, therefore you must be important! Social proof yourself.

    Mystery says that you’ve got put some thought into how you go about presenting yourself on the Peacocking tip. Greene says the exact same thing. So I’ve been doing some research and spending time doing just that. The trick, for me, is to find the balance between the ostentatious, the vintage, & the saavy, while keeping it somewhat light and fun all at the same time.

    Question for the fellas reading this: its Saturday and you’re about to hit the clubs. Whatcha wearing? What does it say about you? What message are you trying to send?

    You see, the ensemble I just described says I’m going highest possible profile, and I don’t have time for silly chicks and their headgames. Now watch how I work it.

    Finally, again to reiterate: I’m not bemoaning my lot in life. All I’m saying to the fellas is this:

    If Mu can do it, who can’t?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  234. In NO WAY am I lamenting my life or doing a “Dave Alexander”.

    Whew!

    Like


  235. T./Michael:

    Is it really failure with women that makes the men here angry? Most of them now seem to be doing quite well. As I have said before, “Success with women is more disillusioning than failure.”

    Take for example, something that has fairly recently started happening to me: married women, often with small children, hiding or mysteriously “losing” their rings when I start casually talking to them. Seriously creepy, and not at all a credit to womankind, if you stop and think about it, but also genuinely amusing, not to mention ego stroking, in the moment.

    A great part of success with women is putting away that analytical, judgmental part of yourself and just enjoying the moment when interacting with them. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make judgments though; it just means you don’t bring judgmentalism to the table when interacting with them. Personally, having some success with this has made me both more sympathetic towards and more critical of women. In general, I would have to say that having some game makes you like women more, but respect them less.

    Like


  236. @RickyRaw

    Entitlement. Our society is becoming static and upward mobility and taking stock in various aspects of the Good Life are being severely limited.

    I for one don’t blame them at all. In moral reality, they should be able to get these things by working hard and applying what truly is the Prime Asset, their smarts. Unfortunately the actual situation prevents that. Taxes that prevent the accumulation of capital for the dangerous competition of the newcomer and the multi-trillion regulatory apparatus that crushes business before it comes about by placing insurmountable quantum barriers in the path of investors and talent, all conspire to eliminate opportunity.

    I was recently told that I was unqualified to do something, notwithstanding having 3 degrees in the topic and related fields. Thankfully I don’t have to deal with external limiters. I laughed and told the S.O.B. that within 3 months I would have a subsidiary up and running doing exactly what I was so unqualified to do. It hasn’t quite turned a profit yet, but the game is young…

    Like


  237. Thursday,
    If I may, let’s look at your personal example: you’re getting hit on by a lot of married Women these days. OK.

    But what if they had a legit reason to? I’m not saying its right, just saying that they’re hitting on you or any other Man doesn’t come out of a vacuum.

    Listen, its hard to say this, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of guys out there not only don’t know what they’re doing at all w/Women, but a lot of them don’t care either. If you’re into Game, you know this. Perhaps even more than Women themselves.

    So yea, blame has to be laid on the wifey for stepping out. But for my part I gotta look at the hubbie, too. Maybe he was hitting on all cylinders and she just gotta have it. Or, maybe he was being neglectful, dispassionate, and perhaps a weebit unfaithful (and not very good about hiding it either) himself?

    Hmm?

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  238. but what I’ve learned recently, is that Mu has to find what makes *him* so special that it makes a Woman want to stick *in spite* of what I said above. And to do that, Mu has to turn the focus, not outward, but inward.

    And this is a facet of Game that no woman — no, not even a dreaded feminist! — can say a single word against.

    I just focus on having a good time. Of course as Men we are seriously visually stimulated, so it is our way to go after that which looks the most enticing to us. But we should keep in mind there are other things too.

    Mu, I’ve only quoted bits because it would be redundant to quote your posts in their entirety, but I am very glad to know that men like you are out and about in Philly.

    95% of the time, successful maleness is about containing your feelings. Emotional expression isn’t just beta, it’s girly.

    I’d go so far as to say it’s girly (in a bad way) even for females. Successful femaleness is also about a certain amount of self-control and stoicism. Not in exactly the same ways as are expected of men, of course, but to just as great a degree. Being in touch with one’s empathetic, emotive side does not mean filterlessly broadcasting every emotion one has 24/7, nor does it mean turning oneself over entirely to emotion and eschewing logic. There are far too many women (and consequently, men) who equate illogic with femininity, and it’s bad for everybody.

    Like


  239. T:

    I think it would go a long way to ending a lot of the entitlement issues in our current culture.

    How do you distinguish entitlement from having self-esteem and the belief that one is no less deserving of the Good Things in Life than one’s peers?

    The entitlement problem in our general culture is due to weakness, laziness, spoiledness and a “blame others” victim-orientation. But that’s not what we’re talking about in this thread. Most of the men in the community should be commended for taking it upon themselves to improve their lives without blaming others. And many work their asses off without even a whimper of the stress they willingly take on.

    Doesn’t mean some still eat shit-sandwiches while others dine on caviar though.

    Like


  240. Thursday:

    Take for example, something that has fairly recently started happening to me: married women, often with small children, hiding or mysteriously “losing” their rings when I start casually talking to them.

    If I had a dollar for every time a girl has checked me out/given me “the look” while casually hugging her boyfriend and resting her head on his shoulder…

    Like


  241. Michael Blowhard:

    Now, guys without women will tend to feel grumpy, and god knows that previous generations had their own versions of seething resentment. […] All that said, the amount and the kind of hostility and resentment that gets expressed here is really startling. It’s really off the scale, at least so far as my experience goes.

    Yes, but previous generations didn’t have the internet. You could see the resentment of the sexual underclass occasionally used as a motive in film or fiction, but it’s only now that you can read what masses of people honestly think in places like this one. I mean, think about it. Assume for the sake of the argument that this sort of mass resentment had existed 20 or 30 years ago (as I believe it actually did). Where exactly would you have seen it expressed?

    So why not stop dwelling on the anger and the hurt and play with the idea that girls can be charming and courtship can be fun?

    Now this is where you display what I compared to the trust fund leftist mentality above. You’re talking as if everyone just needs to relax and enjoy life, shedding unjustified fears, frustrations, and misconceptions, and they’ll all magically get fun experiences of romance and sex. No, they won’t. The real ugly truth is that most people just aren’t attractive or sexy, period. Most guys are uninteresting drab betas, and most girls are plain or ugly. Only a minority of people of either sex are attractive enough that they could ever have a relationship where at least one side wouldn’t yearn and lust after more attractive alternatives, even if so secretly that one is ashamed to admit it even to oneself. As far as hedonistic aspects of sex go, the sexual attractiveness of the median person of either sex is depressingly low. Barring some drastic genetic reengineering of the human species, things will always be like that.

    Usually I like your curious and open-minded approach on all sorts of topics, but here you seem to be stuck with a naive and idealistic view that if sexual laissez-faire isn’t bringing universal happiness, it must be the fault of some unnatural forces, in whose absence everyone would have a fun sex life (a condition you claim existed in your younger days). Then you proceed to analyze what these forces might be. Well, yes, I agree that each of the factors you list might have some role in the present state of affairs, but with such analysis, you’re missing the forest for the trees. What you should ask yourself is whether maybe a large amount of misery and frustrations is inherent to the conditions of human sexual freedom, and how representative your impressions of how things were a generation ago really are.

    Like


  242. Mu is peacocking! I wish I had the sartorial-flair gene myself, but I don’t, alas.

    Thursday: A great part of success with women is putting away that analytical, judgmental part of yourself and just enjoying the moment when interacting with them.

    Ain’t that the case.

    That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make judgments though; it just means you don’t bring judgmentalism to the table when interacting with them.

    Here I differ a bit from you. I never expected women to be moral paragons, though obviously one role they play in society (or used to, anyway) was a moral policewomen. But I was lucky in some ways. I grew up before ’70s feminism, and I grew up with a pretty and popular older sister. So the nature of women and the games they play never hit me as a big unpleasant surprise.

    Vlad — I agree that there have always been lots of feelings around that didn’t have a chance to be expressed, and that the web has opened all kinds of expression and communication avenues up. That said, I think the web (and the social conditions that surround it) also create new kinds of experiences and feelings. The all-pervasiveness of porn and easy access to it is one for-instance. When porn was hard to get hold of and underground, it had a “forbidden” tang to it. No longer. And, as I wrote above, guys now vent, and specialize in venting. That was seriously never the case before. So ideology, social conditions, technology, they all play a role.

    What you should ask yourself is whether maybe a large amount of misery and frustrations is inherent to the conditions of human sexual freedom, and how representative your impressions of how things were a generation ago really are.

    You realize that you’re generlizing from your own experiences at least as much as I am from mine, right? That you’re reaching conclusions about the real universal nature of things based on your own experience of Now? And that Now may well prove in the long run to be every bit as anomalous as my ’70s Now may be?

    Like


  243. Coffee is for closers….

    Like


  244. Thank you, Blue.

    I’m watching “Iron Man”. Excellent Game scene early on in the flick, Cocky Funny all day. Downey’s the Man when it comes to being quick on his feet w/the throwaway lines. I’m given to understand that Downey actually ad-libbed something like half the script, ie, half the film wasn’t even written. He’s good.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  245. The entitlement problem in our general culture is due to weakness, laziness, spoiledness and a “blame others” victim-orientation.

    No. It is most definitely not caused by the above mentioned items. All those are incidental and not causal. The 3% of whiners out there don’t make the world. It’s the vast swath of the middle 75% that keeps it all going and they are being exploited (literally) into the ground by the current fascim-lite and soon to be socialist-heavy system.

    Understand: The system of laws in place prevents positive outcomes.

    The current economic crisis, which has in point of fact taken the wealth of many and obliterated the Good Life for them, is a direct result of the Community Reinvestment Act and, in sublime irony, Obama’s lawsuit back in Chicago that forced the banks to actually act on that law. (Does anyone else find it amusing that the very man responsible for this disaster was elected President to save us from his very mistake?). Don’t get me started on Greenspan who should have known better on his monetary policies….

    Like


  246. I never expected women to be moral paragons

    Some are significantly better people than others. Some make significantly better long term partners than others. It is foolish not to make such judgments and act on them.

    Like


  247. Dave Alexander’s character (I refuse to believe he’s for real) actually does buy into the limitations others place on him based on his race and class and as a result lives down to them.

    As I stated here, “David Alexander” is the hyped up and amplified version of a real life human. Now, do you think that the character is just a massive sham, or that it’s just an exaggerated version of one’s real life thoughts?

    I’d personally argue that much of David’s complaining is simply based on the fact that he feels behind because he didn’t finish school on time and makes a fraction of what his former friends made. Admittedly, David feels somewhat ashamed of himself because he went from honor student at high school to near college dropout while those who did worse than him managed to become successful. I suspect that if David’s real life persona made finished school and had his career settled, he’d feel a bit more confident about himself vis à vis others and quite possibly women.

    As for the race realism, while David fears them, and the “facts” that they bring about the race that David belongs to, one part of him feels disappointed that he hasn’t done as well as expected since he *could* have been a counterpoint to their theories, and another is well aware that he can’t blame them for his own failings. Race realists didn’t cut class, but David did. Race realists didn’t fool around on the computer, David did. And certainly, race realists didn’t waste time masturbating all day, but David did. In other words, poor choices and decisions on the part of David lead to his general malaise, and while he realizes that his world may not be the magical place that he would have preferred, David realizes that only his hard work can make it better than what it is now.

    I spent my twenties washing dishes, then in the Army, then installing floors, all the while taking community college & State U classes.

    Somehow, I had figured that you went straight from high school to the Army…

    Like


  248. time to play ref here between mike and vlad.

    vlad:

    You see, this is what I’m talking about in my above comment. To an average guy, this sounds like someone from the upper class talking about expensive hobbies, refined tastes, exotic travels, etc., as if that were something normal and accessible to everyone. Believe me, for most guys out there who are not natural charmers, sex with decently attractive women is something they can expect only as an extremely rare stroke of luck, if even that. For them, it’s definitely not something that could feasibly be “cultivated and explored” — except by trying to improve their game, which is probably not what you mean by it.

    dude!
    if you’re going to “cultivate and explore” sex, 99% of that cultivation and exploration is going to happen within relationships.
    you have to be somewhere for a while to truly “explore” it.

    and i live in the bay area, a.k.a. the armpit of the men’s dating world, and even i’m not going to let you tell me that a decent relationship is something that’s only available to “natural charmers”.

    mike:

    $20 says that you and your wife are somewhat into, or at least have tried, swinging.

    Like


  249. On Half Sigma:
    I’ve enjoyed many of his insights, and, of course, I don’t agree with everything he says. For example, I do think he kinda goes overboard in his dislike for AK Guv Sarah Palin.

    What interests me is his near obsession with “proles”. For a man who, by what he says about himself, is middle class or above, he seems to spend what appears to me an inordinate amount of time on the ways, thoughts, actions, comings and goings of “Prole” folk. The question of course, has to be why? Especially since he has made it very clear that he does not think very highly of them, and does all he can to assiduously avoid them in his personal life. What’s to be gained in constantly dogging them out?

    I’m no psychologist so I’m not going to attempt to speculate as to why Half Sigma does what he does in this regard. All’s I know is, that its pretty clear that for one who has an awfully limited amount of direct exposure to a group of people which garners so much of his attention and time, that there’s something more than meets the eye.

    On the other hand, I think HS is a good writer w/some interesting things to say.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  250. Especially since he has made it very clear that he does not think very highly of them, and does all he can to assiduously avoid them in his personal life. What’s to be gained in constantly dogging them out?

    I’m no psychologist so I’m not going to attempt to speculate as to why Half Sigma does what he does in this regard. All’s I know is, that its pretty clear that for one who has an awfully limited amount of direct exposure to a group of people which garners so much of his attention and time, that there’s something more than meets the eye.

    this is EXACTLY the attitude of feminists toward men. you don’t have to change a word of it, except perhaps the pronouns.

    come to think of it, it’s also exactly the attitute of wannabe-PUA keyboard jockeys toward women.

    and it’s also the attitude of bleeding-heart liberals toward every “oppressed” group under the sun, except in those cases it’s the reverse: the bleeding-hearts are obsessed with propping up and venerating every victim culture out there, including cultures from which they’ve never actually met one single living, breathing individual.

    Like


  251. It isn’t just a wee bit harsh to compare a girl who’s had two new boyfriends a year to a prostitute?

    What kind of shit is having two new boyfriends a year for a decade? None of those twenty relationships resulted in anything resembling a pair-bond. If the girl were capable of pair-bonding in the beginning, that ability was gone long before end of the first half.

    Like


  252. But seriously, good to touch base with you. I can’t post often for the time being (trying to start a business in what appears to be a depression – crazy I know), but I do try to read your posts.

    Ryder, does your business idea involve helping companies or consumers cut expenses? Such businesses tend to thrive when the economy is bad.

    Like


  253. Markku said:

    “What kind of shit is having two new boyfriends a year for a decade? None of those twenty relationships resulted in anything resembling a pair-bond. If the girl were capable of pair-bonding in the beginning, that ability was gone long before end of the first half.”

    Yeah, what he said. Some people put up the dumbest fucking examples on this site. 20 boyfriends in 10 years, how fucking laughable is that? I’d rather find some chick that went nuts and banged 19 guys in 3 months in a fit of whoredom and then spent the next 9 years with one guy that one that had 2 boyfriends every year for ten years.

    Like


  254. I’d rather find some chick that went nuts and banged 19 guys in 3 months in a fit of whoredom and then spent the next 9 years with one guy that one that had 2 boyfriends every year for ten years.

    agreed.

    short periods of experimentation are sometimes just that – experimentation.

    long-term behavior patterns DO NOT CHANGE. channel, perhaps, but there’s no way that Ms. Always Greener On The Other Side After Six Months, after carrying on that pattern for a whole decade (!), could ever possibly have a meaningful LTR.

    Like


  255. Ragtag way above is correct. A virgin is more likely to get pumped and dumped — she’s naive, clingy, inexperienced, doesn’t know what she wants, tends to freak out, and usually makes bad choices about who she loses her virginity to. I speak from experience, unfortunately.

    The female promiscuity freakout here is mostly just insecurity about sexual women. News flash: since slavery is illegal, you have to trust your partner to do the right thing by you. So avoid untrustworthy people. In today’s world, women having plenty of prior sexual partners doesn’t mean they’re untrustworthy. Having few prior sexual partners doesn’t mean people are trustworthy either. Both men and women should avoid committment to people with a history of cheating, but that’s it.

    Like


  256. long-term behavior patterns DO NOT CHANGE. channel, perhaps, but there’s no way that Ms. Always Greener On The Other Side After Six Months, after carrying on that pattern for a whole decade (!), could ever possibly have a meaningful LTR.

    completely correct, that’s the right way to look at it. You have to put yourself psychologically in the other persons shoes. What kind of behavior patterns are genuinely incompatible with settling down?

    Like


  257. How do you distinguish entitlement from having self-esteem and the belief that one is no less deserving of the Good Things in Life than one’s peers?

    I think these are the same, first one is just shorter. To me, the real question is whether the entitlement is substantiated or not.

    The entitlement may be unsubstantiated when your self-esteem is too high. This is often because you have inaccurate self-knowledge. You may also have inaccurate view of external reality, for example be mistaken about the factors (probably more favorable to you) that are relevant on determining who deserves Good Things in Life.

    Of course, any change also requires vision of the new outcome. From this perspective, ability to pump up your self-esteem is also kind of useful. But I think the change must always begin with brutal honesty about yourself and the external reality. You can’t “fake it till you make it” unless you know that you should be faking, and know exactly how to fake it.

    Like


  258. Game, all of it really, is an inner thing.

    I think you’re mostly correct. Women are highly sensitive to nuances in body language. A man’s state of mind is revealed by small gestures and expressions that are outside conscious control, which is why actors don’t rely on simply going through the motions but try to get into the emotion state they are supposed to convey.

    But that is not all. While state is the foundation, there’s tactics.

    Like


  259. SPERM WARS

    A long ago, in a pond on a planet far away…

    Like


  260. So avoid untrustworthy people. In today’s world, women having plenty of prior sexual partners doesn’t mean they’re untrustworthy.

    Again, the numbers of partners before marriage is the best predictor of cheating. The research is clear on this. Read David Buss.

    In today’s world, women having plenty of prior sexual partners doesn’t mean they’re untrustworthy. Having few prior sexual partners doesn’t mean people are trustworthy either.

    Again, the issue is statistical likelihood, not foolproof prediction. You can do everything right and still get cheated on, but one would be extremely foolish not to play the percentages. And women with high numbers of partners are bad bets. Period.

    Like


  261. Avoid untrustworthy people.

    Be yourself.

    Isn’t female dating advice grand?

    Like


  262. Whiskey saidChic — Clinton was not the kind of “Alpha” men consider Alpha. Men consider patronage networks to be Alpha, not banging lots of women and lots of status mongering

    Clinton is a true alpha be because of his very strong aura. A very very very small number of men have an aura which is so strong that being in their presence can make a woman aroused or physically excited. A woman’s nipples will become hard, she will feel moist, light headed and short of breath. For me, it’s such an ackward and uncomfortable feeling that I move away from the true alpha types as fast as my feet will take me.
    <a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IN5uoKQVHA
    Watch the video Whiskey. It sums it up perfectly. A true alpha male is really the cake(2:50).
    I posted a comment about the experience of friend who met Bill Clinton when she was a middle school student. She said she felt “light headed” and that there was “a light shinning down on his head”. She also said that “he did not walk like other people, he glided into the classroom”. When you ask her about her experience meeting Bill Clinton today, ten years later, she still gets that dreamy eyed look when retelling her story

    Like


  263. Patrickh If the man actually was forced to confront the specific reality that 20 cocks “blew hot loads down the throat” of his inamorata, that would be much more problematic for his romantic feelings for her than simply hearing she’d had sex with two men a year over the course of a decade.

    Twenty is just a number. Twenty cocks cumming in your beloved’s mouth (with her active encouragement) is a romance-killer. Not a sex-killer, a romance-killer.

    I2I Patrick I2I

    Like


  264. Yeah, what he said. Some people put up the dumbest fucking examples on this site. 20 boyfriends in 10 years, how fucking laughable is that? I’d rather find some chick that went nuts and banged 19 guys in 3 months in a fit of whoredom and then spent the next 9 years with one guy that one that had 2 boyfriends every year for ten years
    Well MB example is what you will commonly find in the real word( minus the throat stuff of course).
    Tupac If I had a dollar for every time a girl has checked me out/given me “the look” while casually hugging her boyfriend and resting her head on his shoulder
    My Lord
    I thought only men did that. SMH

    Like


  265. “Tupac If I had a dollar for every time a girl has checked me out/given me “the look” while casually hugging her boyfriend and resting her head on his shoulder

    I thought only men did that. SMH”

    Really?

    I get this all the time. That and girls holding hands with guys giving me slow a head to toes and back look.

    Like


  266. El guapoRegardless of claims to the contrary, these latter women have thrown away their lives, their happiness and their genetic heritage.
    Many of these same women quite possibly would have made some man very miserable. No human being is happy all of the time. For many human beings, women more than men, marriage is not the answer.
    DeeryOther men and women get married, and at the age of 40-50 realize that they are quite miserable and lonely nonetheless.
    cosign
    El GuapoFor every married Carly Fiorina (whose ambitions should never have been allowed — she destroyed 50% of HP’s stock value) we have legions of women who are neither happy nor fulfilled. And they deserve every minute of it. It’s called justice. Believe feminist insanity and reap the consequences.
    So because she is a woman, she should not have been HP’s CEO? How about all of the male CEO’s who had companies tank under their tutelage? How about Lewis Glucksman for Lehman brothers for starters?

    T I do. If the numbers rely on self-reporting, you have your answer right there. Anyone who sincerely believes that extremely low number is fooling themselves. Plus women are known for “don’t count” sex, as in “I was drunk and I don’t remember it, do it doesn’t count.” or “That was vacation and he didn’t speak English, so it doesn’t count.”
    Or,”it was only two minutes so that doesn’t count” as well as, “ he only licked it so that doesn’t count”.
    Men who seek out very high numbers of sex partners may very well be very unhappy with their lives in the first place and seek comfort through constant sex.
    Peter

    IfCC,Hugh Heifner said as much about himself.

    Like


  267. Thursday: Some [women] are significantly better people than others. Some make significantly better long term partners than others. It is foolish not to make such judgments and act on them.

    Sometimes “judgement” (in the sense that I think you’re using the word anyway) is appropriate, sometimes enthusiasm, or risk-taking, or rashness is appropriate.

    Thursday: One would be extremely foolish not to play the percentages.

    I’m a big fan of knowing the odds but not such a big fan of being a slave to them, especially where romance and sex go. Specifying one’s requirements and playing the odds (in other words, working your way through menus and sub-menus) may or may not get you where you really want to be where love, relationships and sex go. Luck, whim, happenstance, and “chemistry” play big roles as well, and it’s wise to be open to them too. (Most guys and gals have had the experience of doing everything right and winding up with a dud date or evening or episode in the sack. Something was missing. But what?) Menus and submenus would never have led me to my wife, for instance. She was completely not my type, and our relationship was a bad bet in many ways. Yet the chemistry (whatever the hell that is) was amazing, and we’re now 20 years into a rewarding marriage.

    Johnny 5: long-term behavior patterns DO NOT CHANGE. channel, perhaps, but there’s no way that Ms. Always Greener On The Other Side After Six Months, after carrying on that pattern for a whole decade (!), could ever possibly have a meaningful LTR.

    Here’s another way of looking at her: After ten years of practice, she has learned how to conduct a love affair. Girls who don’t give themselves some practice have no clue about what goes into crafting a love affair. A marriage is a love affair writ large. Hence, a girl with ten years of regular practice may well prove to be great at marriage. Having developed skills and experience, she’s ready to move her efforts onto a larger scale. Meanwhile, the inexperienced girl is still a fumbler struggling with her basic scales and chords.

    Chic Noir: SMH

    What does “SMH” mean?

    Like


  268. Really
    Yes Steve. I’m finding that I’ve been bitching about typical male behavior while women are doing the same thing.

    I think it’s really disrespectful to give someone the eye when you are with your SO. Looking is one thing but the eye is an open invitation.

    Tupacof the time back in college when Alpha Adam stretched her hole to new levels of pain/pleasure, inducing screaming orgasms before leaving her spent and shaking in a wet puddle of her own juices.
    *seeing stars*
    Tupac and Roissy are the same person. St8 out of a black lace novel.
    helloYou’re not into loving pair bonding? Better not tell Clio
    HA
    *runs over to tell clio something very important*
    *gives clio a South African condom*

    Like


  269. MB-Shaking my head

    Like


  270. Chic,

    I notice you use “st8” where “straight” should be. Shouldn’t you type “str8” because “st8” is logically pronounced “state”?

    Like


  271. Again, the numbers of partners before marriage is the best predictor of cheating. The research is clear on this. Read David Buss.

    This is simply not true. There is a ton of research evidence on infidelity, but it is very murky. There are many correlates of infidelity, and number of pre-marital sexual partners is indeed one, for men and women. But pre-marital sexual experience is not the best predictor of cheating by a long shot. I believe attitudes toward cheating, time spent away from home due to e.g. work travel, marital quality, religiousity, and race are all bigger. And there are numerous reasons these studies don’t control for on why you might see a correlation between pre-marital partners and cheating later — e.g. shy, ugly people are less likely to have people hit on them before marriage and also less likely to have people hit on them when they are married. I’m not particularly interested in marrying a shy ugly person for this reason.

    You have a touching faith in David Buss, probably because he confirms many of your prejudices.

    Hence, a girl with ten years of regular practice may well prove to be great at marriage. Having developed skills and experience, she’s ready to move her efforts onto a larger scale. Meanwhile, the inexperienced girl is still a fumbler struggling with her basic scales and chords.

    this is a possible way to look at it too, although I think early bonding is still helpful. The bottom line is that readiness to be loyal to another person is very complex and individual-specific, as well as specific to time of life. If you have any kind of good interpersonal sense, you’re better off just getting to know someone well than obsessing over notoriously inexact social science research. I know for me I’ve had a large number of women and I’m much more ready to be monogamous now than I was back when I was inexperienced and driven to seek out new experience.

    If the man actually was forced to confront the specific reality that 20 cocks “blew hot loads down the throat” of his inamorata, that would be much more problematic for his romantic feelings for her than simply hearing she’d had sex with two men a year over the course of a decade.

    I’d say the issue here is this man’s compulsion to obsessively visualize his girlfriend in pornographic situations with other men, not the past sexual experience of the girlfriend. He’s the only one who can “force” himself to “confront” this. If I had a girlfriend who was haunted by obsessive images of me making out or having sex with my exes, I’d run for the hills, real fast.

    Like


  272. opps
    thanks sparks

    Like


  273. El Guapo: For every married Carly Fiorina (whose ambitions should never have been allowed — she destroyed 50% of HP’s stock value) we have legions of women who are neither happy nor fulfilled. And they deserve every minute of it. It’s called justice. Believe feminist insanity and reap the consequences.
    So because she is a woman, she should not have been HP’s CEO? How about all of the male CEO’s who had companies tank under their tutelage? How about Lewis Glucksman for Lehman brothers for starters?

    Don’t be silly! Of course women don’t have the monopoly on stupidity. But Fiorina annihilated shareholder value when the economy was expanding. It is my opinion that she is by every standard that a CEO should be evaluated by, incompetent. Carly Fiorina and all her ilk got to their positions based on feminist claptrap that fostered their advancement and not based on ability. It’s beyond the pale that she keeps turning up like a bad penny, the last time as an economic adviser to McCain. Kiss of death that was.

    When you advance somebody because of their sex instead of their ability, male or female, only disaster ensues. We have legions of women advanced into positions of authority because of the fear of legal retribution, not on the basis of real ability.

    Like


  274. Don’t be silly! Of course women don’t have the monopoly on stupidity. But Fiorina annihilated shareholder value when the economy was expanding. It is my opinion that she is by every standard that a CEO should be evaluated by, incompetent

    ^^^OK

    When you advance somebody because of their sex instead of their ability, male or female, only disaster ensues.
    agreed

    but….. how many incompetent men have advanced based on their connections inside the good ole boy network?

    Like


  275. Michael:

    With all due respect, the above is just about the most womanish piece of relationship advice I have ever heard from a man. Your feminine side frequently serves you well in your role as agent provocateur and promoter of discussion in the arts, but seems to lead you badly astray in the world of romantic advice. This shit has real world consequences.

    RE: Chemistry

    Chemistry can be manufactured. It isn’t some mysterious thing.

    RE: Openness

    You fail to distinguish between different types of openness. Being open to dating people with different looks, personalities and interests is good. Being open to settling down with people who exhibit major red flags for significant character flaws is bad.

    RE: Enthusiasm

    There is still a lot of room for spontaneity and fun while taking care not to set yourself up for heartbreak. Love is an art. As such to do well, care, planning, discipline, preparation are as essential as being in the moment. Spontaneity works best when working off of a solid framework. It is the difference between Miles Davis reworking a tin pan alley classic on the fly vs. some free jazz noodle from Ornette Coleman.

    RE: Luck

    Telling people to rely on luck, fate, God, whatever is the worst relationship advice _ever_. Worse than “just be yourself.” It never “just happens.” Whether or not you are aware of the reasons why your relationship works, the reasons are there.

    RE: Risk

    Risk is inherent to relationships, but there is a crucial difference between taking risks and plain stupidity.

    Michael, I am really happy things worked out for you. You are great guy and I am glad you have a fantastic marriage. But I am really tired of people who back into their relationships, who are not able to explicitly articulate why their relationships work, doling out the advice. It is all very well meaning, but it can do extreme harm.

    Like


  276. But pre-marital sexual experience is not the best predictor of cheating by a long shot.

    Could you provide references.

    Like


  277. but….. how many incompetent men have advanced based on their connections inside the good ole boy network?

    Far fewer than otherwise supposed amongst those who traffic in ability and not pull.

    The Good Ole Boy network is a figment of feminist myth and propaganda that in the real business world is mostly non-existent and to the extent it exists, it exists in politics and fascist government-supported businesses where graft and favoritism have their home. If there was such a network amongst us capitalists, I would have found it by now.

    Also it makes Joe advancing Adam because Joe knows Adam’s ability on the grounds that if Jane was available Jane should have have been advanced ( never mind that Joe doesn’t know Jane or her ability) as something improper. Which is poppycock. You advance those you trust and know.

    This doesn’t mean when all this feminist nonsense began that some perfectly competent women weren’t advanced on purpose by the network of threatened males or that some incompetent males didn’t get their position because of political pull.

    Ok. Need more cold medicine….

    Like


  278. Somehow, I had figured that you went straight from high school to the Army…

    After high school I went straight to Basic Training for the Army Reserves but that was summer training + one weekend per month deal. The idea was to go to college after high school but since I couldn’t afford the registration fee at my first choice college, I went to the Community College and worked in restaurants. Drank too much and partied and did other things during that period, and ended up going into active duty (full time) Army at 21.

    Like


  279. Could you provide references.

    you never provide any sources or references for any of your wild claims, so I’m not sure why I should. Anyway, since I know you love David Buss, I’ll give you this reference in which Dr. Buss finds that chastity was one of the least important mating concerns of American males in the 1970s through the 1990s, and males and females were both equally (un)concerned with chastity over this period. He also finds, consistent with a ton of evidence, that mating habits are massively culturally influenced, shown in this case by the rapid decline in the importance of “chastity” as a concern from the 1930s through the 1960s in the U.S.

    I did do some reading in this whole literature a while ago, because it’s interesting, but it has been a while. I actually remember I ended up liking David Buss somewhat, he’s miles better than the popular “ev psych” crowd since he is always careful to make his empirical methodology clear enough that you can see what he is doing and he goes to the trouble of gathering some data to test his theories. But I think his theories are pretty ad hoc and he also has a strong tendency to overgeneralize from relatively small differences between men and women — a lot of times if you look at his findings men and women aren’t actually all that different but he puts a lot of evolutionary psychology weight on the differences while downplaying the similarities.

    There’s a general problem with ev psych, especially with the sloppy popularizers and their even sloppier followers (like you), that they don’t put much real thought about what the evolutionary cultural environment was like, and put a huge overemphasis on one isolated evolutionary factor in segregation from others. For example, since we know that in tribal (as opposed to agricultural) societies there is a ton of promiscuity, divorce, and remarriage, it’s pretty obvious that any male who was really avoided paternal investment with women who had prior partners would be at a major evolutionary disadvantage. He would lose out on all kinds of paternal opportunities with post-adolescent women. Granted, there is the problem of paternal uncertainty to balance off against this, but my sense would be that would be a pretty small issue compared to the price of not mating with such a large proportion of fertile women in the tribe. And if you ask what evidence there is for my “sense”, well, what evidence is there for your over-the-top paranoid obsession with paternal uncertainty either. The point is the tradeoff is going to be complex and just saying “it’s evolution” gets you almost nowhere except on the most basic issues.

    For the wider literature on infidelity that you asked about (which is huge in sociology and goes well beyond evolutionary psychologists), the findings are wildly variable across studies with not much is really settled, like a lot of social science research. One thing for sure is that there are numerous correlates of infidelity. A quick googling shows that the literature is in obscure journals and not really web-accessible. But two sources are Atkins and Baucom and Treas and Giesen . Treas and Giesen are actually the standard reference on a correlation between pre-marital partners and infidelity, but as I recall attitudinal and other variables are more important even in their study.

    Like


  280. Thursday — You’re normally an excellent reader and a knowledgeable artsguy. What’s happening today?

    * No, chemistry in the sense I’m using the word can’t be manufactured. If it could be, then every romantic-comedy movie would be a sure bet. Instead, romantic comedy is the flukiest of the genres. No one knows in advance whether the sparks are really going to fly between the stars, and no one knows in advance if any of the magic they’re hoping takes place between the stars is going to reach and move the audience. With suspense, you can pretty much manufacture some kind of excitement. With romance –er, romantic comedy — you just have to do your best, and then hope for the best. You’re hoping “the chemistry works.” 90% of the time it doesn’t. But 10% of the time something that’s champagne-fizzy and hard to pin down happens, often in movies that are otherwise quite imperfect, as in poorly-manufactured. Audiences know when the chemistry works, and box office figures reflect it. But in over a century of movie people trying, no one has ever been able to “manufacture” romantic chemistry.

    * OK, you win: Openness and stupidity are two different things. That really needs to be spelled out? The intelligence level around here must be much lower than I thought it was.

    * There is still a lot of room for spontaneity and fun while taking care not to set yourself up for heartbreak. If you’re able to lose your heart while not losing a least a little bit of your head, then you really have attained Jedi master status! I live on a far lower plane, and I suspect that 99% of the rest of the world does too. Down here, the experience of actual love and good sex often scrambles feelings and brains.

    * Spontaneity works best when working off of a solid framework. Agreed, at least most of the time. So why are you carrying on as though we deeply disagree?

    * Telling people to rely on luck, fate, God, whatever is the worst relationship advice _ever_. Who are you arguing with here? Who was it who advised anyone to “rely” on luck? Not me.

    * I am really tired of people who back into their relationships, who are not able to explicitly articulate why their relationships work, doling out the advice. Fair enough, but you do realize that you’re speaking for yourself, don’t you?

    Look, the whole love-is-an-artform thing you espouse is what I espouse too. Courtship is a craft, with a history (and a culture, and a literature …) The male-female dance is one with actual steps that can be taught and learned. Etc, etc.

    That said, just as many well-made movies, books, paintings and movies fall flat despite being well-done, it’s quite possible to do romance and courtship by the book and still completely miss the point. Which after all is to have a life that’s a little more (rather than less) rewarding.

    It’s also completely possible to be an on-the-ball, experienced sophisticate and still be surprised — if not whipsawed and poleaxed — by running across real feelings of love and heartbreak.

    These are some of the risks you take if you get into the game of love at all.

    There is no way to completely insulate yourself against these risks, just as there’s no way to ensure that you will always succeed. Techniques can certainly help you raise your batting average, and developing some craft can certainly help you enjoy the game more. That said, even the best whiff as often as they get on base, and you’re going to be an ass as often as you’re going to be a hero.

    “Game” may strike me as a hyperbolic, hiphop / first-person-shooter parody of trad courtship, but I’m an old geezer, and if it works for today’s youngdudez more power to it and to them.

    It does, however, sometimes get closed and deterministic. In your own case, it has left you feeling depressed or disenchanted with women. Is that a good thing? Maybe? Maybe not?

    One piece of advice I’d like to pass along — you and everyone else can certainly choose to ignore it, doesn’t bother me at all — is this: Let go of some of the judgment, be more open to the moment, relax the focus on end results, and see if you can enjoy the process.

    Sure, study and use Game too. (I’d also suggest taking a look at more traditional works that deal with love, courtship, sex, and seduction.) Absolutely. But for god’s sake remember to have fun.

    BTW, I’m surprised that you see such things as “openness to the moment” and “relax the focus on end results” as airy-fairy. They’re techniques. Good arts classes teach them alongside the (equally as important) “here’s how to draw a hand” stuff. The coolest and most up-to-date exercise gurus (Arthur De Vany, Mark Sisson) teach “remember to have fun” as part of fitness — research is showing that simply grinding out a lot of miles or iron-pumping is finally counterproductive. A halfway decent acting teacher will teach you how to project your voice, how to cross the stage — and also how to “keep the moment alive.” Dancers know that they need to shake it out and go a little wild on a semi-regular (but unpredictable!) basis in addition to practicing and working on their steps if they want to really be able to dance …

    Nonetheless: no guarantees, never any guarantees. You prepare, you pitch yourself in, you see how it goes and where it goes, you maybe adjust, you keep pitching and re-pitching yourself into it … Maybe something interesting happens. Maybe it doesn’t. Technique plus preparation plus effort plus spirit, plus a willingness to fail, plus a willingness to see where the moment will take you, and the resourcefulness, generosity and humor to respond to surprises …

    Like


  281. Mu’Min —

    My concern is that too many losers in a society, create an incentive to throw the whole game over and start from scratch, with themselves as the winners. That has been the game in Africa, in London’s White (and non-White) underclass, in Latin America (meet Raul Castro, same as Baptista), in Black and Mexican Ghettos, in a whole lot of places.

    The best way to get both stability and social peace is for the minimum amount possible of men to be married to a woman they love. That does indeed count as “winning” where it does indeed count, but more importantly it creates social peace and a vested interest in DEFENDING the nation and society. From all threats.

    Japanese militarism, after all, rose because there were a lot of unattached men who correctly figured if THEY were running things they’d have their pick of women. Any system that creates a lot of losers with women, isolated, runs a huge risk of violent overthrow from within.

    I’d go further and say society would suffer less violence with men poor but at least able to attract a woman they loved, then be relatively rich, with most men having practically all material needs met but no women.

    But more to the point, I don’t think Game can help the masses of most men. Fear is going to rule them, and they will hedge against losing, the way the losses in the economy will create a generation of hedgers and savers and frugal people (anyone with a Depression Era relative knows how they save packets of ketchup, from fast food places, because of past experience).

    Like


  282. Michael —

    My point is that there was and is a huge GENERATIONAL change that I sort of straddle. I can tell anecdotally there is a HUGE difference in the kind of women you were involved with and the kind of young women (22-32) facing most guys in the dating game in Urban Professional settings.

    Believe me, I’ve had dealings with many of these women professionally. They are smart, decent, kind, thoughtful, and their lives romantically are a wreck because they choose awful guys for the most part based on how “hot” they are in some form or another, basically the most dominant guy in the bar. A lucky few get somewhat older players who’ve banged far more women they have men, but most are desperately unhappy.

    IMHO (no disrespect intended) it is simply impossible for someone like yourself who is both older and not hanging around in bars or around younger people talking about their love lives (I often wish they’d shut up but it’s fodder for thinking) to understand how radically things have shifted and how great the loser class is particularly among non-prestige professionals (Engineers, IT, etc.) wrt women.

    Dalrymple said the past is a different country, they do things differently there, and you are with all due respect still a foreigner to the “now.”

    I am frankly terrified at the anger and resentment towards women I see simmering every day in the casual conversations of young men. Hang out at places like AICN or Slashdot or other Geek Central places and you’ll see it. And as a side-note, having lots of very smart guys outside the dating market and filled with resentment is not a smart social move. I am very scared at the attitudes towards women by a lot of guys, and it did not come from nowhere. Unattached guys are ALWAYS dangerous.

    No matter HOW the game is played, the way it’s arranged, only a few guys are going to win. Most of the rest KNOW they are going to lose, even if they gamed up.

    There is not any going back. Women and (the few male winners) will simply have to deal with the “betas revenge” which won’t be guys running around in the Street with AK-47s (though will get that ala Bombay from Third World guys priced out by polygamy) but people sitting on their hands when women and children are in trouble. When some old guy is hit by a car and lying on the street. When someone is mugged.

    Consider the reality of say, “Engineer A” who works at an office, but makes a salary that does not allow for the purchase of a house, not even in this market. He’s saved his money, but has no real clue about women. He had nothing but failure in HS, some success in College, helped by Booze and favorable sex ratios, and nothing in the urban professional settings. The desirable men are Bigshot Lawyers, highly verbal, aggressive, higher income and most definitely, social status. The attractive secretaries, marketing people, and so on (his work-mates are all male) date the Bigshot lawyers, or fellow marketers, not the nerdy engineers. He goes a decade like this.

    Even if you gamed him up with Neil Strauss and Mystery 24-7, he’s not going to change. And the damage he’s going to do is by sitting on his hands when he is needed the most. And any adventurer, tin-pot con-men, or what have you that promises him a total upheaval of EVERYTHING so he has a shot at a girl that’s worth having (not the gal he lusted after ten years ago, now with a whole bevy of playmates in her past while he’s had very few) … well he’s in.

    It’s like a situation ENGINEERED to create havoc in the fundamental building blocks of society. Not to even address the death of the nuclear family.

    Like


  283. I want to address a few points, if I may.

    Mike B., it had occured to me while making my preparations for the study and application of Game, to see what I could learn down through the Ages, which was the impetus for me getting hold of The Art of Seduction, by Greene. I’m glad I did, because he did the homework for me, compiling in one volume excerpts of romantic/erotic literature bext known to Liberal Arts types. And I learned, A LOT. And I think that gave me a more expanded perspective of Game in our time, and how I might apply it.

    Turning to Whiskey’s points, only the tailends of his posts I’ll respond to, if I can.

    I stand as a direct rebuke of the idea, that “status”, etc, are major factors on the dating scene right now. Steve P says in The Game, that to be successful, you have to make your own reality. That’s what I do; I play against type.

    Throughout the The Game, Strauss never once mentions whether he or Mystery, or anyone else with whom he was associated with, was questioned by *any* Woman, as to what they did or their status in Society; if they did, there’d BE no Mystery Method. Because, in American terms at least, Mystery, back then, would have been considered, a bum. Or at least a slacker. Take your pick.

    I said it before, and I’ll say it again: Game is an inner thing, man. And the vast majority of the guys you spoke of, are looking everywhere but on the inside.

    Most of them aren’t interesting. Period, dot. They have *no* social skills. At. All. Fashion sense? Fuget ’bout it. Sure, they make a nice living, and maybe nice guys. So? There’s literally millions where that came from.

    The “Big Law” types and so on, that are the apparent preserve of the Alpha Male class, possess qualities that you yourself noted: firstly, that they are very verbal. The Geeks of the word are too, they just do it in a different way. They express it accross computer screens rather than in realtime verbal communication. Though Mystery says that the Game is played in the field, I beg to differ, and offer as Prima Facie proof The Game itself. In it, a PUA named Maddash picked up a gal, who gave a scathing “review” of a date she’d been out on with one of the very guys you say are taking up all the (choice) gals-he had the car, money, condo AND YACHT-and she was miserable.

    Maddash got hold of the gal’s email, wrote a few emails of his own, bang, they’s gettin’ it on. Never. Met. Her. In. Person. Until. He. Nailed. Her.

    He did it all on the strength of Game. All on the Internet. All Seduction. And all w/o a yacht, big money, car or “status”.

    A Geek could learn how to do that, Whiskey.

    I say most guys of that class will lose, because they simply will not address the simple fact that they are living in an upgraded time. It is simply no enough to be a nice guy with a nice job. If it ever was. It isn’t, now. Go around and ask the ladies what they think about this. Listen to what they say, watch what they do. That’s what I’ve been doing, really, really closely, over the past few months or so. Its quite an education.

    T-Raw mentioned, about me, that I don’t accept limitations. He’s right. I don’t.

    The Men you spoke of, they do.

    Compare and contrast.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  284. T. AKA Ricky Raw — Yes that has been my impression as well regarding Half Sigma’s and Sailer’s posters (some of them). Call it the “Falling Down” syndrome.

    Which makes sense. Machiavelli (and others after) said there is nothing more dangerous than to make a man poor after he was rich (or well off). Machiavelli even says that a man would forgive his father’s murder faster than being impoverished, and if a man is to be made poor better for the Prince to simply kill him.

    We don’t make men poor, but we do see lots of men made losers in the game of love. I think Machiavelli was right (I’ve had to delete comments out of bounds on my own blog in that regards).

    Peacocking — It’s almost impossible for nerdy, Engineering types to pull that off. I’ve seen guys try it. The problem is that group conformity and fitting in at work are so opposite of what is required to be successful with women. Women like the “fake rebels” like Clinton who are “above” the regular rules but endorse the system. Women HATE nerdy guys who challenge the whole intellectual system itself. Tell an Engineering type to “peacock” and he’ll take it to the intellectual level of challenging feminine orthodoxy, rather than pose in various attention-grabbing clothing. Or he’ll pose for his nerdy friends in “cool” lederhosen or something.

    MQ — reality check, lots of partners for a woman (or a man for that matter) means a low probability of a relationship lasting. Only a desperate man would take the chance. Most will not, preferring instead to have no strings attached sex. Particularly if the woman is older, less physically attractive, and so forth. This is why lots of partners is bad for society, it decreases the ability of a woman to find a husband/father and helps create single mothers.

    Chic — thats a woman’s perspective. That ain’t Alpha for a man, who doesn’t want to bang the most powerful guy around. Alpha would be Dick Winters, who led his company in deadly combat and commands their respect sixty odd years later. Men would consider the late Bill Walsh Alpha (former players and coaches openly cried at his funeral) or heck, Patton. Most guys despise and hate Clinton, or laugh at him. No one laughed at Patton or Walsh or Winters.

    Let’s review: for Women Alpha = is he the most socially powerful, if so I want to bang him. Total dweebs like Prince Charles or borderline psychos like Pete Doherty will qualify. For MEN, Alpha means: this leader will get me through combat alive, or win the game, or create a patronage network where I take part (that’s say, Mayor Daley’s power). The two are NOT the same, and may be somewhat though not always mutually exclusive.

    MB — a woman with a pattern of every six months getting a new boyfriend is 99% bet to do it again, and a 1% to stick with New Guy. Love is powerful, but it is most powerful early, when the first few loves make their appearance. New Guy is just another number He is mid-stream for say “Samantha” on Sex and the City.

    And the advice is dumb. Absent lots of money, most guys cannot AFFORD to waste time with a non relationship girl when they get in their thirties. They have an attractiveness clock too and every extra effort they have to put in the gym to maintain shape and conditioning reminds them of it. Your advice is probably spot on for say, Hugh Hefner, but for Joe Average it’s poison.

    Also, imagine (we live in what I’ve dubbed “A Science Fiction World”) if some smart nerdy guys whipped up a set of super-pheromones that would create powerful feelings of attraction and desire in women to the wearer? This is just this side of plausible, like nuclear weapons in 1940.

    Or what Thursday said. You’re from Dalyrmple’s other country. They did things differently there. Courtship is in fact DEAD. It’s pick-up time at the bar, where women “hope” that whatever hot bad boy they drag home will magically change into Prince Charming.

    Haha. Courtship. Hook-up is more like it. Which dominates in College, and after.

    Game. My own theory, experience PUA go from zero to hero with Women, and they just made a phony performance of themselves, like a Professional Wrestler character. Except women think it’s real (and dump the PUA like Strauss when they find out the character is fake). The success with a fake character (not the real guy) leaves PUA men with a healthy contempt for women, who fall for the fake character not the real guy.

    NEVER underestimate the bitterness of the failed male romantic. He makes the woman scorned look like a well fed tabby.

    [I apologize for not being in the ebb and flow of comments — I was busy all day doing the books of the non-profit charity I’m helping. It’s pretty cool, math and science tutoring for disadvantaged kids in SoCal. The kids are amazingly bright, I mean off the charts around 145+ IQ, but I fear for the guys chances at meeting peer women, with the same intelligence. The girls have their pick of guys. Any halfway attractive woman in science or engineering can write her own romantic ticket.]

    Like


  285. Whiskey, I’m curious: what’s the racial background of the kids you’re helping out?

    And let’s be clear on something: I’m an official Union card-carrier. Can’t get much more conformity than that. I’m pretty sure your IT buds can do things on the job I simply cannot.

    But the difference between me and them is, I don’t let my job define the whole of my existence. In fact that only reason why I discuss it at all is because I’m trying to make a point: *it doesn’t matter*. It just doesn’t.

    Its been said here, that guys can get gals if they want em, they just have to be willing to lower their own standards to do it. Move to places in the Heartland. And so forth. How many of your IT buds are willing to do that? My guess is not that many. If they’re not willing to even try something as relatively simple as peacocking, I have a hard time seeing them pulling up stakes to find a wife.

    And I can promise you Whiskey, that I could move in the *exact* same social circles your IT buds are getting blown out of, and score. Granted, I may not score the Cream of the crop honies, but the IT Gang ain’t scorin’ em-or anyone else-either. My point is I could do beter than them, as a complete and total outsider. Why?

    Confidence. Knowledge of Self. Refusal to accept limitations. And yea, Game.

    Somewhere in this discussion the idea of personal agency has been lost. The undergirding philosophy of Conservatism is Personal Responsibility. If it’s going to Be, it will Be, because of Me.

    And yea, you can’t bring an IT line of thought into Peacocking, man. In fact I’d say to leave all that behind. You want to make yourself over into the kind of person you really want to be. That’s what I do. By day I’m a Blue Collar Union worker. But by night and on the weekend the Inner Mu comes out: I’m a Gentleman, a Dandy, an Aristocrat. None of that should sound too alien to you, Whiskey, you’ve written beautiful articiles about superhero movies and the like. In that sense am I, or Strauss, so much different than Stan Lee or Jack Kirby?

    The IT Crowd is too mundane, too drab, too “blah”. But its not irreversible. It can be fixed. Again-if Mu can do it, who can’t?

    A final word on Strauss. Like you, there have been some who contend that Game is a fraud, afterall, Strauss couldn’t hold onto the gal he loved because the magic wore off and he was just faking it. OK. So does that mean that Marriage is a fraud, especially since fewer and fewer people in America are doing it? I would say, on balance, that Strauss’ life has been immeasurably enriched, post-Game, than pre-Game. And I think if he were asked that same question, he would agree.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  286. Mu’min:

    I stand as a direct rebuke of the idea, that “status”, etc, are major factors on the dating scene right now. Steve P says in The Game, that to be successful, you have to make your own reality. That’s what I do; I play against type.

    Status is not something you are, it is something you do.

    Like


  287. it is simply impossible for someone like yourself […] to understand how radically things have shifted and how great the loser class is particularly among non-prestige professionals (Engineers, IT, etc.) wrt women.

    I also believe this to be true. But I have been unable to verify this hunch with any statistics. How would you define the loser class? Men who have not gotten any in 5 years?

    Like


  288. If there was such a network amongst us capitalists, I would have found it by now.

    Try any large pharmaceutical company. Seriously.

    Like


  289. @blue

    Learn to read.

    I excluded fascist businesses, Big Pharma being the prototype of government-protected business. Without the FDA preventing newcomers and driving development costs to the outrageous, their absurd pricing power would evaporate overnight.

    I didn’t say these networks didn’t exist within those areas of the economy dependent on government and areas dependent on favoritism like politics.

    The rest of us, which is 75% of the real economy, don’t engage in favors. We engage in ability. We don’t give or ask for favors.

    Like


  290. IMHO (no disrespect intended) it is simply impossible for someone like yourself who is both older and not hanging around in bars or around younger people talking about their love lives (I often wish they’d shut up but it’s fodder for thinking) to understand how radically things have shifted and how great the loser class is particularly among non-prestige professionals (Engineers, IT, etc.) wrt women.

    Vlad/Whiskey: “There’s no bread”

    Michael Blowhard: “Well, let them eat cake then”

    Like


  291. A Geek could learn how to do that, Whiskey.

    Not for the most part. My observation is that Geeks remain Geeks and look unbelievably stupid and timid and tentative attempting anything at all — or go to the opposite extreme of hyper-aggressivity and destroy any alpha potential they might radiate.

    What we need is more and more training camps to teach every Nerd, Geek, Doofus and Beta how to hold themselves, how to dress and how to interact with women. Break it all down for them and force them to approach one hundred women in one hundred days….

    Like


  292. Many of the IT-type crowd have Asperger’s syndrome (often called “engineer’s syndrome”), which profoundly affect the way that they are perceived by other people, and the way that they can interact with women. I do think Game has some limited utility with the Asperger’s crowd, as they understand systems very well, and once things are clearly spelled out for them, they will try to apply it. The higher functioning ones might even make something of a success of it.

    However most of the IT crowd who have Asperger’s syndrome will be flops at applying Game, as they simply can’t read people, are often too focused on their own exceedingly narrow interests, and don’t really understand complex human hierchary. They will overreach in the type of women they think they can get, they won’t be able to read a room, or signals of interest/disinterest, and if they do sucessfully read a signal of interest, they will turn off the women by droning on and on about 15th century battle techniques.

    In the past such men were not expected to marry, and did not do so. Such humans are not easily tolerated by other humans, nor do they tolerate others easily. They instead became the ecentric uncle who spent all day in his room studying chess moves, or monks categorizing pea plants in their garden.

    Game doesn’t really help the IT crowd, nor should it really be expected to. There is a limit to how much Game can do. The best bet for the IT crowd is to find women who also have Asperger’s syndrome, and marry them. No, she will not in all likelyhood be a 10, but the two will get along much better than a couple where one is high along the spectrum, and the other is not.

    Like


  293. …how great the loser class is particularly among non-prestige professionals …

    And let me amplify and second the comments about just how bad this is for society.

    We are creating a slave class. Rather than being enslaved to a Master, they are being enslaved in and by a system of rules. It is not freedom when The System forces a poor choice of a and b, while making c,d,e unprofitable and f,g illegal. Furthermore, the tax rate removes the ability to accumulate capital to those in the low-end of the spectrum (<$60k/yr) and regulation prevents those in the transition arena to long-term wealth ($60K to $120K) the advancement required to push their lives into the endgame. I for one found the comments that $96k/yr in the other thread insufficient to get a quality woman in New York astonishing. This was not true in 1960 for an adjusted 1960 income of $40K/yr. Game might get you laid but as a general rule doesn’t put food on the table!

    And they, the impending slave class, are starting to perceive the ties that bind. Unless we act soon, and Obama is clearly heading the wrong way, no career+no women spells a group of non-invested males who will not hesitate to sit on their ass or passively support anyone who “guarantees” them a better future… Hmmm… did I just describe part of Obama’s election strategy? Maybe we are further down the pike than I thought…

    Like


  294. Whiskey:
    Japanese militarism, after all, rose because there were a lot of unattached men who correctly figured if THEY were running things they’d have their pick of women. Any system that creates a lot of losers with women, isolated, runs a huge risk of violent overthrow from within.

    Interesting, plausible contention. Can you cite any historical books or articles that argue this?

    Like


  295. @deery

    Many of the IT-type crowd have Asperger’s syndrome (often called “engineer’s syndrome”), which profoundly affect the way that they are perceived by other people, and the way that they can interact with women.

    Very unlikely to be true.

    The incidence of Asperger’s syndrome is about 2 per 1000.

    Like


  296. @Paltry

    The works of Carrol Quigley address this tangentially and if memory serves, there are similar comments in Weapon Systems and Political Stability, also by Quigley

    Like


  297. El Guapo,

    Thanks. And thanks to anyone else who responds.

    Like


  298. El Guapo

    People with Asperger’s tend to cluster in the IT/engineering fields, so it is not a random selection.

    Like


  299. @Deery

    For pete’s sake man — not possible even if selection is non-random. The incidence of the engineering professions is north of 66 per 1000. Even if ALL syndrome people were within the engineering professions they would be outgunned 33-to-1.

    Under what interpretation of the English language does 1-in-33 classify as “many”?

    Like


  300. Re black conservatives – the evolution in the thinking of the blogger Black Men for Mccain in the election run up is a good read. It’s almost too perfect – a parody or Obama psyops?

    Like


  301. Michael:

    In your own case, it has left you feeling depressed or disenchanted with women.

    No, I’m not really bitter about women. I am somewhat taken aback by just how many truly shitty women there are out there, but I’ve known too many really good ones (through dating, family, friends) to get too cynical. I have to say that I am really grateful for having known truly good people up close. What appears to be cynicism is really just high standards.

    Besides even at my worst my so-called cynicism tends to be a cheerful cynicism. I have no illusions about the world, but I’m not a hater. In my day to day interactions, I pretty much take people as they are, and I always try to rememeber that there is some good in almost everyone. I don’t reduce people to their worst selves, but I don’t excuse their bad behaviour either. I reserve the right to make private judgments about them for my own purposes.

    I would also refer back to my earlier comment:
    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/thought-experiments/#comment-42201

    I’d also suggest taking a look at more traditional works that deal with love, courtship, sex, and seduction.

    Any suggestions? I’ve read Ovid’s Art of Love. Rather hit and miss. I’ve also skimmed through the Kama Sutra. Didn’t find it that useful.

    BTW have you read Greene’s Art of Seduction. Mu is right about it putting “game” into historical perspective. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

    No, chemistry in the sense I’m using the word can’t be manufactured.

    What I men by it is the following. You may think, oh this girl is sooooooo special. Things fizz, pop, crackle. You think, wow, the connection we have is one of a kind. Then you go out with 10 other girls and you find out that, no, it isn’t. You can recreate it surprisingly well with different women, if you know what you are doing. Women are surprisingly replaceable.

    Roissy has some thoughts.
    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/a-test-of-your-game-the-judging/#comment-29087

    Openness and stupidity are two different things.

    I guess we most disagree then on whether being open to a relationship with someone with 20 partners by 27 is a stupid risk.

    then you really have attained Jedi master status!

    When you get good at this your fear just drops away. It really is a kind of zen state. Women are replaceable.

    It’s also completely possible to be an on-the-ball, experienced sophisticate and still be surprised — if not whipsawed and poleaxed — by running across real feelings of love and heartbreak.

    I had a really bad breakup towards the beginning of the year with someone I thought was absolutely amazing. I thought I would die. I ended up making out with someone else two days later. I stopped feeling bad. At all.

    Like


  302. http://www.engineersguideusa.com/Careers/engineer_career_outlook.htm

    One of my sources, with a very easy to read table. Even if there was an incidence of Asperger’s of only 2/1000, that would mean that there would probably be about 660,000 people walking around with Asperger’s in the US. There is the belief that Asperger’s is very underdiagosed, especially in women, the poor, and the higher functioning.

    Many of these Aspies, career-wise, would cluster probably around the computer (74,000), aerospace (78,000), and nuclear(16,000) aspects of engineering. Enough for there to be jokes about the high incidences of Asperger’s in Silicon Valley, and NASA. Also noted in the literature is the way that those cultures have conformed to deal with the needs of the a workforce which tends to be high in people who have Asperger’s.

    With that said, for normal women, guys who have the typical “extreme male mind” that characterizes people with Asperger’s and engineers of many types don’t make particularly good dates. Which leads to a lot of failure as far as love life goes. As these types are found more often on the internet than other neurotypical type of people, you will also hear more complaints about lack of success with women, with the same litany over and over. Women want only successful, highly verbal men, who take some time with their looks. As if it had ever been any other way.

    Perhaps the reason black men tend to be so successful with women is if nothing else, they have the verbal, and look primping parts down pat. Which apparently draws the ladies. Now if only more American white guys could get with the program…

    Like


  303. Further thoughts. In talking with other men who have had a lot of experience with women, for at least some of them, it can become really hard to bond with one particular woman. You really stop believing any particular woman is special. It is good to have the attitude of “next!” when dealing with women, but taken to extremes this can prevent true bonding. I’m not that deep into this, but already I am starting to have doubts about whether I will ever be able to love with the depth I would have been capable of in my younger days.

    Of course, there are the male equivalents of the eternal ingenue, who keep falling in love over and over and over again, but I think they are less frequent than among women. And I am not one of them.

    Like


  304. @El Guapo:

    Kiss my ass. The old-boy networking starts further down than the executive level in any large corporation, and it has less to do with government influence than you appear to believe. I cited pharmaceuticals because I’ve done a lot of work there, but gender discrimination exists in all facets of corporate business, whether you are personally affected by it or not.

    Like


  305. Thursday: this is a natural part of growing older, you’ve seen it all before. But a contributing factor is that in the pickup stage it helps not to idealize women or build them up romantically. So an overemphasis on qualities useful in pickup numbs you out romantically. This is a flaw in the “PUA helps for relationships” theory — I mean, it’s always good with women to have internal balance and not to be a total dweeb, which is the phase a lot of young guys are in. But you have to be emotionally present and vulnerable.

    Like


  306. This is a flaw in the “PUA helps for relationships” theory

    Right. Long term, game helps keeps her interested in you, but it can make you less interested in her.

    Like


  307. Thursday,
    I been meaning to tell you, I’ve read your blog a little while back. Interesting stuff, man. Your view on Nerd Gals is interesting too, and though I’ve never actually dated them as you describe it, the going view in the community is that they are the *most* likely to be effected by strong Game. This is because its easier to apply Game on smarter gals than not so smarter ones. One reason is because in order for Game to work, the gal’s attention must be focused on you. Nerdy Gals tend to have stronger powers of attention than the run of the mill Chickenhead.

    Anyway, I wanted to speak a bit t your referencing of me and my recent comments on Greene’s The Art of Seduction. Yea, you’ll definitely like that book, man. For one, he does all the legwork for you, so you don’t have to end up spending weeks and months reading all of the Romantic and Erotic Classics trolling for pearls of wisdom. Second, the way he divides the book up into parts and gives easy to follow advice and hints etc is the bomb. Truly. Plus you don’t have to read it all at once (like I did LOL). You can get the beginning part, then jump around to where you need to go and take it from there, even referring back to it as you need to in your operation(s).

    I’ve said it before but it bears repeating, that to me, some of the Game Theory out there is a bit too “geeky” for me, and this includes Mystery Method. Now don’t get me wrong, MM is the bomb. Its just that in my opinion, it needs the “human”, for lack of a better way of putting it, touch that Strauss gives in the Game, and Greene gives both of their books even more heft and gravitas by providing documented historical sources.

    Besides, chicks dig well read guys, man. Greene gives enough to where you can have a nice conversation with a gal who’s a Liberal Arts type. Which is most of em.

    Oh, and I’ve got the Kama Sutra on order. Actually two of em. One is a recent translation w/o the pictures, but is far and away better than Burton’s, and the other is illustrated with artwork and sculptures from India. Serious conversation piece w/o hitting the gal over the head if you know what I mean.;)

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  308. Smart girl != nerd girl

    Lawyers and lit profs, game away. They will fall the hardest for game.
    Computer programmers and engineers, not so much. Their personalities are too straightforward.

    Read econonerd Megan McArdle’s post on how she found players fun for a date or two (with no sex) and nothing more:
    http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/by_request_dating_games.php
    (BTW she doesn’t have any real understanding of game.)

    Like


  309. Nerd Gals

    the one thing i’ve discovered about nerd girls is that almost ALL of them have a voracious sexual appetite.
    sometimes it takes a fair amount of effort to originally let it off the rails… but… ddaaaaayyyyuuuuummmm.

    Like


  310. J5,
    I think you might be onto something there; by definition these are gals who are very smart, and as such may tend to get more of a charge out of sex than the average gal. I’ve read studies many years ago that suggest that Women who are more educated tend toward easier orgasms than those who are not. *shrugs* I don’t know for sure, but the theory makes sense on its face.

    Salaam
    Mu

    Like


  311. thursday & others

    Right. Long term, game helps keeps her interested in you, but it can make you less interested in her.

    yes.

    in fact, it can make you “less interested in her” in two different ways – two different meanings of “interested”.

    * 1) you’ll become less focused on, or convinced of, her value as an individual, and more inclined to see her as interchangeable with all other women.
    this is presumably what you meant.

    but also
    * 2) you’ll frame things in a much more egocentric way, and may even be tempted to misattribute her qualities to yourself.
    case in point: let’s say that you run across a “virtuous” girl (yes, there really are some left) in your travels, who really does wait at least some time for sex, always, as a matter of principle. after enough Game experience, you WILL automatically begin to interpret this as “lmr” or “s3 ain’t workin’ today”; the mere thought that she’s not an s3 automaton, like all the others, won’t even occur to you.
    it’s a self-reinforcing cycle, really. yes, women have a LOT of commonalities, which is why Game works so spectacularly well, but they also have a lot of differences. taken to the extreme, the Game mentality will make you think that there are no differences, other than those caused by the player’s own technique – and the player won’t find any counterevidence to that viewpoint. any ideology, including that of Game, is a powerful lens through which to view the world.

    footnote:
    re #1, the flipside here is that game will also magnify the “different”-ness of any woman who DOESN’T follow the script.
    recall that the only thing neil strauss really found all that special about lisa leveridge at first was that she didn’t react to his technique as did all the others.
    so, ironically, game may serve to render a “special” woman even more special.

    Like


  312. J5,
    I think you might be onto something there; by definition these are gals who are very smart, and as such may tend to get more of a charge out of sex than the average gal. I’ve read studies many years ago that suggest that Women who are more educated tend toward easier orgasms than those who are not. *shrugs* I don’t know for sure, but the theory makes sense on its face.

    i think “smart” or “educated” is way too broad of a brush here. i’ve consistently found this off-the-charts sexual appetite in *nerd* girls, not just “smart” girls.
    as in girls who are good with charts and graphs, like big words for their own sake, love to read, write, and solve puzzles, actually think about things like the missing apostrophes on billboards, but, most notably, aren’t as naturally social, or socially natural, as most girls AND don’t put that much effort into dolling themselves up on the daily.

    many of these nerd girls have mostly, or even exclusively, male friends, and have checked out of the catty, cliquish world of women’s friendships forever.

    i’ve met quite a few of these girls. some of them are cute to start with, but, because of the aforementioned lack of social prowess, they haven’t been subjected to the usual mind- and libido-numbing barrage of nonstop approaches (what was it mystery said? 10,000 approaches by age 23?). so it’s a lot like letting a tiger out of a cage.
    oh man. they’ll fuck and fuck and fuck and suck and make out and fuck and fuck and suck and … yeah.
    they don’t care. they’ll blow me on the freeway with the convertible top down in broad daylight, fuck me in the bathroom stalls at fast food restaurants, lift up their skirts so i can eat pussy between the stacks at the public library … yeah, like i said, voracious.

    another thing i’ve discovered is that nerd girls don’t move like other girls. oftentimes i have to position them myself at first, as if i were making a diorama for school. in particular, i’ve had to teach quite a few nerd chicks to arch their backs correctly for doggy.

    Mu, the above is not the case for “smart”, and, especially, “educated” (a term whose meaning has been greatly diluted in recent decades) chicks in general, although i’ve definitely noticed a correlation.

    Like


  313. Whiskey Chic — Thats a woman’s perspective. That ain’t Alpha for a man, who doesn’t want to bang the most powerful guy around. Alpha would be Dick Winters, who led his company in deadly combat and commands their respect sixty odd years later. Men would consider the late Bill Walsh Alpha (former players and coaches openly cried at his funeral) or heck, Patton. Most guys despise and hate Clinton, or laugh at him. No one laughed at Patton or Walsh or Winters.

    I hear you Whiskey. However for men who are looking to get laid, it’s more important to concentrate on the factors that women find attractive. Men who meet Clinton or Obama in person are often sucked in by their aura as well. A male commenter posted the story of a friend who met Clinton. The guy wasn’t a Clinton fan by far but was completely sweep up in his aura.
    Let’s review: for Women Alpha = is he the most socially powerful, if so I want to bang him. Total dweebs like Prince Charles or borderline psychos like Pete Doherty will qualify
    Not quite Whiskey. The true alpha is the type who walks into a room causes an electrical shock to go through the bodies of each woman in the room. He is not a bully, physically intimidating to any of the men in the vicinity. He simply dominates without putting any effort into it.

    Whiskey, I’ve mentioned all of this before but for some reason you aren’t getting it. Notice how no female commenter here has debated me on this issue. That’s because all of us have come across this type of male and we have all had the very same physical reaction. Whenever a man has this type of pull in a room women sometimes give each other a look that says “oh shit, do you feel that”.

    Like


  314. derry Such humans are not easily tolerated by other humans, nor do they tolerate others easily. They instead became the ecentric uncle who spent all day in his room studying chess moves, or monks categorizing pea plants in their garden.

    This is a very good description of my uncle and brother to a lesser degree. You have summed it up so perfectly. If anything, the Asperger’s/high functioning Autism crowd is better suited for a marriage of convenience versus a modern American marriage.

    Like


  315. El Guapo
    @deery

    Many of the IT-type crowd have Asperger’s syndrome (often called “engineer’s syndrome”), which profoundly affect the way that they are perceived by other people, and the way that they can interact with women.

    Very unlikely to be true.

    The incidence of Asperger’s syndrome is about 2 per 1000.
    <a http://www.autismspeaks.org/press/cdc_autism_prevalence.php
    Group Asperger’s syndrome with Autism(as they often are) and you get a much higher number.
    1 in 150.
    Again, don’t get accustomed to me linking stats.

    Like


  316. J5:

    I think this illustrates that just because a girl doesn’t have a lot of partners doesn’t mean she isn’t into sex. Most nerd girls don’t sleep around, but I’d have to say that my impression matches yours that once they get into it they get into it.

    This year I dated an engineer’s daughter earlier this year. 34 years old and still a solid 8.5. Only had 2 partners her whole life, but made it abundantly clear that she was _not_ indifferent to sex. Didn’t work out, but I learned a lot.

    Like


  317. while i don’t doubt that the actual prevalence of autism/asperger’s is increasing, i think that the “crisis” is, at least partly, manufactured.

    here’s what i mean:
    there are lots of kids out there, especially in places like route 128 and silicon valley, who have never been exposed to “normal” people in their entire childhood.
    both of their parents are typically type-A, hard-driving, antisocial (especially the father) go-getters. to make things worse, the mothers are typically saturated with feminist ideology, thus scuttling their sons’ already longshot chances at competent social interaction.
    many of these children attend “special” private schools all the way from k to 12, come home, and spend the rest of the day online. many of them have literally never met a normal functioning individual.

    needless to say, although this sort of isolation is a short-term palliative – the kids don’t have to deal with the hellhole that is the early adolescence of a Spectrum kid amidst normal people – it’s a long-term disaster. it fucks them up for life. no wonder we’ve got more diagnoses.

    or:
    for less severe Spectrum kids, pretty much all you’ve gotta do is throw them into the mix, and they’ll be fine. they’ll have their highs and lows – and, for some of them, that unique relentless drive will lead to a lot of achievement, and even a certain amount of alpha-ness, so it’s not all “lows” – but they’ll turn out ok.
    isolate them, and you’ve got head cases.

    but we now have a culture that pales at the thought of anyone under 18 feeling the slightest amount of discomfort, so, guess what.

    also, americans just like to label things to make themselves feel better.
    didn’t teach your kid discipline? no problem, just call ’em “ADD” and slap some ritalin on ’em.
    didn’t give your kid the chance to socialize? no problem, just call ’em “asperger’s” and isolate ’em.

    this is not to say that there aren’t genuine cases out there, but the whole thing is really, really overblown. give 90% of these kids some normal interaction, a fight or two, some team AND individual sports, and kill the feminist bullshit, and watch the “crisis” vanish before our eyes.

    Like


  318. lift up their skirts so i can eat pussy between the stacks at the public library

    😯
    *dead faint*
    *carefully lifts skirt before hitting the floor*

    There is the belief that Asperger’s is very underdiagosed, especially in women, the poor, and the higher functioning
    Very true
    . blue
    @El Guapo:
    Kiss my ass. The old-boy networking starts further down than the executive level in any large corporation, and it has less to do with government influence than you appear to believe

    See, I was going to engage El Guapo but it was a not debate not worth having since his mind is so firmly made up.

    Like


  319. I think this illustrates that just because a girl doesn’t have a lot of partners doesn’t mean she isn’t into sex.

    well, no, of course not. for women, “# of partners” and “fondness for sex” are orthogonal, provided at least that the former is not 0.
    i thought this was obvious to … like … anyone who knows, like, anything.

    you see, for women, “getting into sex” is generally something that happens within relationships. granted, said “relationships” don’t have to be true ltr’s – they can be intense, hormonal, short-term, game-assisted flings – but they’re still relationships.

    note to the nitpickers out there:
    this is not true of all women, of course; there are exceptions, just as there are to any statement about human behavior. i’ve met hardcore swinger chicks, and even a couple of b-grade porn actresses, who are “into” non-relationship casual sex with a zeal that would make most men blanch.

    in sum:
    * there are women with very few total partners who are very “into” sex.
    downside: can be clingy as a motherfucker. good luck trying to break up with one of these.
    upside: mostly good gf/wife material, unless the clingy factor is out of control.

    * there are women with lots of partners who love sex.
    downside: you’ll always feel like the half-price buffet is open from noon to 9pm, but you got there at 8:51.
    upside: these women are almost always ridiculously good lovers. they also don’t play any head games, ever. you always know exactly where you stand.

    * there are women with very few partners who aren’t that into sex.
    downside: do i really have to say?
    upside: lowest likelihood of cheating. very little drama.

    * there are women with lots of partners who aren’t that into sex. think of the high school or college slut who would just tip back the fifth, close her eyes, spread ’em for you and your buddies, and not make a sound the whole time**.
    downside: everything.
    upside: nothing.

    **there seem to be more of these girls in the South than elsewhere.

    Like


  320. j5- You make some very good points. I would like to add that increasing number of children diagnosed with Aspergers and Autism has been linked to a possible number of sources such as increased age parents (esp farther), pollution, medications, etc…

    Check out the high incidence of autism found in Howard County, MD. It crosses racial boundaries.

    Like


  321. Check out the high incidence of autism found in Howard County, MD.

    Whoa! too close to home. What do you know about this?

    Howard County is unremarkeable as far as I know. The Uber-Yuppies, if genetic predisposition is a factor, are in the adjacent Montgomery County. The nearby Fort Meade or the other government campus shouldn’t be an environmental factor. Aberdeen some 40 miles north of Baltimore woudl be a likelier culprit.

    Like


  322. chic noir, yes, i’ve seen, and read, most of those studies. almost all of them seem to be fatalistic chicanery, meant to absolve the parents of such children of their god-given responsibility to socialize their kids.
    i mean, pollution? pollution, for god’s sake? give me a break. not only is that prima facie farfetched, but, around here (sf bay area), well-to-do folks – who are the ones having all these asperger kids, by and large – live away from, above, or upwind from most airborne pollutants, while the ghetto and barrio kids are breathing that wonderful toxic soup on the daily.

    i mean, finding statistical correlations is great and all that, but the people conducting these studies seem to forget to pack occam’s razor along with their other mental toiletries.

    here are some confounding variables and/or alternate explanatory chains for these (at least partly spurious) correlations:

    * increased age of parents:
    older parents more affluent parents more likely to have typical (if latent) aspie characteristics, at least around here aspie kids.

    * pollution:
    pollution is mostly in major metro areas.
    aspies are mostly in major metro areas.
    there you go.

    * medications:
    the type of parents that take / give lots of medications are also the type of parents who will deal with a “syndrome” by medicating it and/or labeling it, rather than trying to better in through socialization.

    Like


  323. PA
    Check out the high incidence of autism found in Howard County, MD.

    Whoa! too close to home. What do you know about this?

    The disease is in the family. Therefore I tend to read what I can about it.

    Like


  324. Without the FDA preventing newcomers and driving development costs to the outrageous, their absurd pricing power would evaporate overnight.

    Are you questioning regulatory bodies such as the FDA as a concept or are you saying the FDA is currently corrupt and mismanaged?

    I wouldn’t swallow a picogram of any medicine not approved by a public regulatory body like the FDA or one monitored by public authorities (unless all other options exhausted). Drugs MUST be put through rigorous testing until allowed on the market. Without such regulation in place, the market would be full of snake oils sold as the real deal and the consumer would only know whether a product was properly tested after the fact.

    Like


  325. marku,Drugs MUST be put through rigorous testing until allowed on the market. Without such regulation in place, the market would be full of snake oils sold as the real deal and the consumer would only know whether a product was properly tested after the fact.

    Major cosign with this.
    At the same time I can recall workers at FDA being called for taking bribes from pharmaceutical manufactures a few years ago. At the end of the day, people will be people.

    Like


  326. Asperger can also be thought as a range on the autism spectrum. I believe that while most engineers are quite close to the border of asperger range, they still don’t qualify by the official definitions. Also, I remember reading from somewhere that most high functioning aspergers never get diagnosed.

    And this “Geek Syndrome” article from Wired is also a classic on the subject:

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html

    Btw, my own experience is that high functioning aspergers can easily learn to “read people”. Not in the same way as regular people, but by learning to “read” body language, and then learning how to understand emotional state based on this. In fact, through this, I think that aspergers have special abilities to learn to “read people” better than regular people.

    Like


  327. In the past such men were not expected to marry, and did not do so. Such humans are not easily tolerated by other humans, nor do they tolerate others easily. They instead became the ecentric uncle who spent all day in his room studying chess moves, or monks categorizing pea plants in their garden.

    Game doesn’t really help the IT crowd, nor should it really be expected to. There is a limit to how much Game can do. The best bet for the IT crowd is to find women who also have Asperger’s syndrome, and marry them. No, she will not in all likelyhood be a 10, but the two will get along much better than a couple where one is high along the spectrum, and the other is not.

    No particular disrespect, but you’re full of shit when it comes to the IT crowd. The average software engineer is a somewhat nerdish but completely normal guy. I’ve known hundreds of these people professionally and socially. In my circle of friends and acquintances, the majority of those in their thirties are married or in LTRs.

    Like


  328. No particular disrespect, but you’re full of shit

    Okay!
    *scratches head*

    Like


  329. I think you might be onto something there; by definition these are gals who are very smart, and as such may tend to get more of a charge out of sex than the average gal. I’ve read studies many years ago that suggest that Women who are more educated tend toward easier orgasms than those who are not. *shrugs* I don’t know for sure, but the theory makes sense on its face.

    I think nerd chicks can be expected to have been exposed to higher levels of testosterone while in the womb than girly girls. Thus higher sex appetite combined with more masculine mind overall.

    Like


  330. agnostic Thatcher has blue eyes, whereas Palin has brown. Where blue-eyed people exist at all, they have an easier time sitting still and focusing for a long time. I imagine Palin has the attention-span of a hummingbird
    *shakes head*

    Like


  331. MQ: I’d say the issue here is this man’s compulsion to obsessively visualize his girlfriend in pornographic situations with other men, not the past sexual experience of the girlfriend. He’s the only one who can “force” himself to “confront” this. If I had a girlfriend who was haunted by obsessive images of me making out or having sex with my exes, I’d run for the hills, real fast.

    You’re a slippery one, indeed, MQ, and not just about the perfidiousness of Republicans vs. Dems, or IQ and race, but about this too. I have learned over time to just not trust you to put quoted remarks in context, to properly describe the results of studies you cite, or in general to respond to comments in anything like an honest, straightforward way.

    I suppose I could put the above reaction from you to a quote of mine in the context of the running disagreement with Michael Blowhard from which that quote was amputated, including the fact that the pornographic image was from Michael, not me, but I’m just too tired. Still, I have learned that you are just not trustworthy. Too evasive, too slippery, to quick with the juiced-up half-quote.

    You fatigue me, you and Chris White and Tom West and all the other mealy-mouthed leftist hacks like you here and at 2Bs. As much as I’ve had my heated disagreements with Roissy, I’ve come to see why he despises you.

    Hey, you might consider, MQ, making cultivating honesty one or your New Year’s resolutions….

    …ah, who am I kidding? You’d manage to shade the resolution to give yourself an out whenever you need one.

    I give up on you.

    Like


  332. The average software engineer is a somewhat nerdish but completely normal guy.

    yes.

    it bears keeping in mind, too, that the architecture of silicon valley very much reinforces the social isolation and awkwardness of these people.

    to wit:
    * the valley is endless suburbia; there are very, very few social meeting places for adults. the places that try to be such meeting places, such as santana row in san jose, are overrun by $30,000-millionaire-type douchebags and divorced cougars.
    * corporate buildings are literally miles apart, located on their own “campuses”. unlike working in a real city, or even a dense suburb (like, say, berkeley or santa monica), you have to go way out of your way to even see people who don’t work in your building, let alone socialize with those people.
    * public transit is not a feasible option, so everyone drives alone.**
    * buildings shared by multiple companies have an architecture that promotes isolation. each office opens directly to the outside (remember the climate here), NO ONE uses interior corridors except to go to the bathrooms, and there are in general no lounge areas.
    * san francisco, home to the only half-decent social scene in the area, is an hour away.
    * the valley is densely populated by immigrant populations from india and east asia, populations that, to say the least, aren’t known for living it up.
    * people work A LOT, and often have hour-long one-way commutes on top of it all.

    there’s more, but i think you get the picture. i know silicon valley IT types who quite literally haven’t socialized for months. and that includes “walk around during the day and make small talk with strangers in the public square”-type socializing, not just socializing in the types of places that scare the likes of david alexander.

    **don’t underestimate the potency of public transit as a meeting place. i’ve actually met and closed more hot girls from BART (the san francisco subway) than from clubs.

    Like


  333. agnostic Thatcher has blue eyes, whereas Palin has brown. Where blue-eyed people exist at all, they have an easier time sitting still and focusing for a long time. I imagine Palin has the attention-span of a hummingbird
    *shakes head*

    wrong blog

    Like


  334. Michael Blowhard:

    You realize that you’re generlizing from your own experiences at least as much as I am from mine, right? That you’re reaching conclusions about the real universal nature of things based on your own experience of Now? And that Now may well prove in the long run to be every bit as anomalous as my ’70s Now may be?

    Yes, of course, it could be. But my experience includes life in two quite different cultures — Canada and former Yugoslavia — and in both places, I’ve known lots of guys ranging from formidable players to those who couldn’t get laid in a whorehouse (the latter being significantly more numerous, of course). In these, otherwise very different places, I’ve never observed any significant differences in the basic patterns of male/female attraction that occurs once the traditional restraints are removed: girls are magnetically attracted to a minority of successful players, who get pussy by the truckload, and a much greater sexual underclass are struggling for their rejects and leftovers — the latter effectively getting a worse deal than they would get under an old-fashioned prudish regime. You would really have a hard time finding some common set of social, cultural, or whatever other factors that might have led to the same situation in both places.

    (By the way, I’m personally satisfied with my own situation; what I write is not motivated by any personal feeling of frustration and resentment. Also, I don’t share Whiskey’s apocalyptic visions, and I’m ready to admit that most frustrated single men are single because of their own unrealistic standards, not an actual shortage of women. However, the above is an honest description of what I see in reality.)

    Like


  335. on December 28, 2008 at 9:10 pm Dark Wing Duck

    Whiskey

    It’s like a situation ENGINEERED to create havoc in the fundamental building blocks of society. Not to even address the death of the nuclear family.

    Sadly this line describes the mentality of people like david cash Jr.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989037,00.html

    The extreme selfsih mentality isn’t limited to men, women who reward predators have a far more direct role in the destruction of the West. The delusion of the bad boy under her control will produce a far higher body count than the spurned man taking his shot. The fairer sex is hell bent on unleashing sociopths on the rest of us.

    Shalom,
    Dark Wing Duck

    Like


  336. Mu’Min —

    They are Hispanic / Asian. I’m in SoCal / OC so that’s what’s going on in Santa Ana. We might expand later, to other school districts. But funding is tough gig, I’m in awe of the guys who can ask cold for $20K or so. And get it. Hispanic / Asian is who are the disadvantaged kids in Santa Ana. We go by federal poverty line.

    I just am pessmistic that we can ask guys to be what would seem to be bipolar. A few can do it, most cannot. And the various propaganda and stuff from people from other countries, like Michael Blowhard (the Past = Another Country) only fools guys longer. We ask for lots of cooperation, respect and so on in the workplace and the complete opposite in pick up spots and being outgoing and that’s just not possible for *MOST* non-verbal professionals. I just don’t think this is a “doable” thing for most technical professionals.

    So we will get as we already are, a steady stream of the best and the brightest moving to Law instead of say, Electrical or Materials Engineering. Seeing the technical fields get a “Asian/Indian” caste type vibe, i.e. “less desirable male” than highly verbal, outgoing, aggressive types.

    Personal observation backed up by data from co-workers, etc. “What do you do?” is about the first question out of any gal’s mouth. At least in the LA-OC area, I’ve seen that in DC, NYC, Denver, Sacramento, and the SF area as well. Reports from friends in the Dallas/Ft. Worth, Atlanta, and Seattle areas support that also.

    My concern is that there is NOT “a lot of ruin in a nation” to quote Adam Smith, that erosion of our technical and scientific fields due to social pressures of mating. I don’t think I’m being apocalyptic either — look at Britain. In less than two and half generations, it went from what would epitomize politeness and trustworthiness to … soccer yobs and brutal drunkenness and violence. From Stiff Upper Lip and unlocked doors to deadly soccer riots and home invasions.

    Chic — I actually AGREE with you. Just that men and women define “Alpha” differently. Guys mostly laugh at Doherty and Clinton. They’re Leno punchlines.

    He-Man: that would be my definition of the Loser Class. Ironically Aldous Huxley and other Sci-Fi writers posited a “sexual socialism” of the loser class voting themselves sex in the natural forward movement of promiscuity and the welfare state, though some animals were more equal than others.

    Deery — untrue. In fact prior to the Sexual Revolution Geeks/nerds did well, from Gutenberg to John Moses Browning to Philo T. Farnsworth, even if they did not find huge financial success. The nuclear family was WHY Westerners spread and constantly advanced technology and the brilliant stuff created by Chinese eunuchs went nowhere. Sorry, only a woman could have stated that. Creating a eunuch class of techs is like deliberately burning the Great Fleet (of China) that ranged all the way down to East Africa. It made China weak and the plaything of anyone. Though it preserved the Big Man system.

    Paltry — Wiki has an article with good links on the Black Dragons. Their predecessor the Black Ocean Society was a mixture of Samurai dispossed after the Satsuma Rebellion and flat out criminals.

    Like


  337. Whiskey
    I actually AGREE with you. Just that men and women define “Alpha” differently.

    Okay, I got you. I guess it’s the reason some men who do well with women are hated by other men.

    Like


  338. I think this illustrates that just because a girl doesn’t have a lot of partners doesn’t mean she isn’t into sex. Most nerd girls don’t sleep around, but I’d have to say that my impression matches yours that once they get into it they get into it.

    I think the theory that a lot of beta chumps like myself end up developing is that if women liked sex, they’d actively go out and seek it instead of getting men to ask them out and denying them sex later on. Then it’s combined with questionable experiences with women who fake orgasms or seem uninterested in sex, golddiggers, frumpy and poorly dressed (read: non-sexy) women, lingering effects of mothers and sisters, and stories of sexless marriages, so eventually one can come away with the feeling that women don’t like sex. Of course, the theory seems to disregard the magic of alpha males and their effect on the entire mating process.

    Like


  339. not just socializing in the types of places that scare the likes of david alexander

    Yeah, I’m afraid of bars and clubs. “Non-date” keeps trying to drag me to one.

    BTW, surprisingly, I managed to have a little small talk with some older woman in downtown San Jose when I was photographing the light rail system…

    san francisco, home to the only half-decent social scene in the area, is an hour away

    You’re a wuss. It’s only an hour and CalTrain isn’t that bad.

    Now, if you think it’s too long, support the California High-Speed Rail system. Caltrain will get upgrades to 125mph running and electrification which means higher accelerating trains at higher speeds and a shorter trip.

    Re: Aspergers

    As somebody who went to a “special school” back in the 1980s to learn how to speak and part-takes in a hobby where Aspergers like symptoms are commonplace, from what I’ve seen, Aspergers seems to be diagnosed in pre-school and early primary school now, and a sizable portion of these kids would have been left alone and untreated in earlier eras. Children with Aspergers with some counseling can be helped, and they can lead relatively normal lives.

    ADD and ADHD can depend. My niece has been diagnosed with ADHD, and from what I’ve seen, disciplining her isn’t functional, and the condition was diagnosed in her mother and aunts so it seems to be inherited. In contrast, I’ve seen others get it because the school was looking for any reason to get the kids labeled as problematic and dumped into special ed.

    Like


  340. But funding is tough gig, I’m in awe of the guys who can ask cold for $20K or so. And get it.

    This kind of sales skill is closely related to pickup. It’s like the grownup version.

    Just that men and women define “Alpha” differently. Guys mostly laugh at Doherty and Clinton. They’re Leno punchlines.

    All politicians are Leno punchlines. It’s the nature of politics. I agree a certain type of man detested Clinton, perhaps for being too feminine in affect — “I feel your pain!”. But Clinton was very effective both as a seducer of women and a leader more broadly. He left office with the highest job approval ratings of any president since WWII and 67% of the public said he was a strong leader.

    I have learned over time to just not trust you to put quoted remarks in context, to properly describe the results of studies you cite, or in general to respond to comments in anything like an honest, straightforward way.

    I think you’re just frustrated because I’m smarter than you. You don’t give actual coherent responses to things I say, you just start going on about how you don’t understand it and therefore it must be a lie of some sort. Try developing a clear argument or citing a study yourself sometime. The internet is a fun place for arguing. It’s one of the top uses of the net, after porn, online shopping, quick access to box scores, and googling obscure shit.

    Like


  341. Bill Clinton is basically the male equivalent of a really hot girl who catty women call a slut. In 1992, there was only a four point gender gap for Clinton. As women began to fall for Clinton during his first term and men grew suspicious of him, the gender gap grew to 11 points in the 1996 election.

    The feelings of male haters of Clinton and female haters of our hypothetical hot girl are essentially rooted in jealously. Jealously is perhaps the strongest of human emotions. I smiled when it was announced that Tom Brady was out for the season, which I wouldn’t have done for any other player. Jealously was the sole reason.

    Like


  342. I’m late to this party, but here are a few remarks.

    – A woman with 20 previous partners would have to provide extraordinary evidence of willingness to permanently settle down for me to consider a relationship with them (since I have zero interest in short-term relationships).

    – Speaking of that parenthetical, what I want is not entirely under my control. What is under my control is the steps I take to try to fulfill my wants. While I have a lot of respect for his observations on other matters, Michael’s claim that I “should” want to take my time and smell the roses when it comes to relationships is extremely condescending. Tactically, it is normally advantageous to PRETEND to want to do so, and of course it’s easier to pretend something when you’re able to fool yourself, but the same logical ability that let me place among the top in the world in both math and programming contests makes it impossible for me to fool myself in that way. Too many of the things I’m really excited about doing in the future require a lifelong relationship with eventual kids, while none of them involve a short-term relationship. Combine that with the number of other nerds I know who are in danger of never finding a life partner, and I have every reason to care about the end result over all else, though of course I am now practicing pretending not to because that will probably be tactically necessary.

    This doesn’t prevent me from “enjoying the moment”… but I will only put myself in the position to have such moments with potential life partners, rather than girls I’ve determined to be unsuited for that. I actually am an eternal ingenue in my own way, but I don’t take that for granted; instead I explicitly avoid doing anything that, in my view, might damage my ability to pair bond.

    – Thursday is correct that the sort of nerd girl I’m interested in isn’t especially receptive to Game, at least as it’s normally practiced. Megan McArdle is one example, and yes, I’d consider a non-6’2” version of her a very good match for me. (On a random note, Elizabeth mentioned in a comment that McArdle’s blog post was what led her here.) My best female friend, who was until recently a highly ranked engineer at Google, is another example of someone who is not only not very receptive to Game, but values me precisely because I’m so straightforwardly trustworthy.

    That said, I met my sister’s new boyfriend a few weeks ago, and let’s just say that he’s either a natural or has benefited from Game, lol. But my sister is not really a nerd girl, and when he touched my female officemate who is more of one, it wasn’t received positively.

    – I have some Asperger-like characteristics, but I’m definitely not someone who is “not easily tolerated by other humans [and doesn’t] tolerate others easily,” or incapable of reading signals of disinterest, so I’m pretty clearly not a “genuine case.” On the other hand, I AM concerned about the consequences of assortative mating; the evidence suggests that if I mate with a girl too much like me, the risk of producing a genuine case is disturbingly high. It’s a risk I’ll still take if I wind up in that position, but all other things being equal I’d rather not end up with my female clone for this reason… and this reason alone. Quite unfortunate, really.

    (Incidentally, I was kind of shocked to hear that Chic Noir is slightly Asperger’s.)

    – “Hispanic / Asian”, whiskey? I’m curious about the relative frequency of each, compared to that in the overall population.

    Like


  343. MQ:

    Are you smarter than me? As if that matters, you useless lying little shit. I think your ideology has made you actually stupid, though it does seem to have left you a kind of sophomoric cunning. But that’s all you’ve got. There’s just nothing to you but your little maneuvers.

    Well, maneuver away, Slippery Mike. Oh, and have yourself a great New Year!

    Like


  344. Whiskey – Dalrymple is always worthy of attention, but you misattributed “The past is a foreign country” to him. It’s actually the opening line of LP Hartley’s The Go-Between. Perhaps if you knew that you’d have better success with women.

    Like


  345. the evidence suggests that if I mate with a girl too much like me, the risk of producing a genuine case is disturbingly high
    So this is the reason you don’t want me.

    Incidentally, I was kind of shocked to hear that Chic Noir is slightly Asperger’s

    I believe I was misdiagnosed. I have a brother and a few more male relatives who are asper/autistic. I think I’m, more socially awkward and a loner than Aspers. In fact autism & Aspergers are found in more males more so than females. The fact that I have relatives who are spectrum may have led to a lazy diagnosis.

    Like


  346. The past usage of a vagina dictates it’s present and future value.

    Like


  347. “deery:

    So women should be even more choosy about the guys that they have sex with?”

    Assuming women posess rational criteria.

    Wrong assumption.

    Like


  348. […] sexually repressed. These types aren’t too common in DC, but they do exist. I give sluts a hard time, but her twisted sister, the Frigid Ice Queen, is just as distressing. At the first signs you have […]

    Like


  349. […] the word meaningless by rationalizing promiscuity as normal and decrying purity. (Many men would disagree.)  Such an analysis would require greater context than mere statutory analysis, and courts may […]

    Like


  350. […] No girl wants to be labeled a slut (even if she co-opts the term for herself in a vain attempt to de-fang it), which is why women lie about their past number of partners. Women know, deep down, that being less slutty means better treatment from men. […]

    Like