Thoughts on the 80/20 college hookup question.

In the conclusion to my post All the lonely feminist spinsters I mistakenly stated that Kate Bolick had misquoted Susan Walsh on the statistics of the college sexual marketplace (SMP).  It turns out that I was incorrect, and that Susan’s view of this has changed.  Initially Susan believed that 20% of the men on campus were sexually monopolizing 80% of the women.  She shared this perspective in a youtube video which I previously embedded here.  Since then she has reviewed the data on this at the urging of some of her readers, and has changed her opinion on the question.  She describes her thought process here, but her conclusion is that:

20% of both women and men are quite promiscuous, and that 80% of women and men are very dissatisfied in this SMP.

The essential distinction for Susan is whether the 80% of women who she identifies as not highly promiscuous are in fact having sex with the top 20% of men or not.  She clarified this in a comment defending her position a bit further down:

…as Badger claims, 80% of women give “disproportionate attention” to 20% of the men. I don’t doubt that if you asked every woman on campus who she’d most like to get with, 20% would get the most votes. That is not the same thing as what percentage of women are having sex with those 20%. This question of semantics is critical.

This sparked a heated debate with a number of my readers.  Commenter Basil Ransom did his own analysis of the data, and concluded that it wasn’t trustworthy enough to draw any hard conclusions from.  I think there is general agreement that the available data on partner counts is very problematic.  I haven’t taken the time to dive into the data myself, in large part because I don’t believe that it is credible enough to provide greater clarity.

Perhaps more importantly, I don’t think the passionate disagreement from many of my readers is truly about the data, since unreliable data can’t be used to bolster either side’s views.  I also don’t think the core disagreement is with Susan’s assertion that 80% of the women in college are very dissatisfied with the hookup culture.  I think the frustration is that the original 80/20 representation, while likely flawed numerically, provided a generally accurate impression of the basic dysfunction taking place in the college SMP.  Leaving aside the actual numbers, I do think that a large number of college women are ignoring average (beta) college men and only considering a small group of the most attractive men (alphas).  Susan’s re-characterization of the numbers is most problematic because it gives the impression that 80% of college women aren’t focused on the alphas, but that somehow they can’t connect with the betas they crave so much.

To reiterate, to the extent that I am correct in my argument immediately above, this isn’t really an argument about the correct data/statistics.  One could accept Susan’s interpretation of the data entirely and still vehemently disagree with her on her conclusion about how this describes the college SMP.

I think the final conclusion Susan draws is the true weakness in her argument. If 80% of men and women are left out of the SMP, one side or the other (or both) must be refusing to connect with their SMP counterparts.  Someone must be holding out.  Young people will naturally pair off even in the total absence of a functioning courtship tradition.  While I can’t prove this with data, I believe that the holding out is being done by the women.  The alternative is to believe that the beta men are refusing to match up with their SMP peers (the female 80%), and instead are holding out for the most slutty 20% of women.  I posed this challenge to Susan in the discussion of one of her blog posts:

I think suggesting that 80% of college women are “sitting out” the carousel because they aren’t having frequent sex with alphas is misleading, but I also don’t think that is your intent.  The economist in me sees a market that won’t clear, and I think we would agree that it is the women who are holding out;  I don’t think the 80% of men on the sidelines are there because they are holding out for the sluttiest 20% of women.  The original 80/20 stat captures this sense, even if not all of the 80% of women are racking up douche-bag frequent flier miles.

Susan agreed that the beta men weren’t likely doing this.  She pointed out that the culture has feminized men and masculinized women, which has created an attraction mismatch (I agree).  She also thinks that something else in the dysfunctional SMP is keeping a large percentage of college women away from the beta men they really want.  She sees this as an opportunity (emphasis mine):

I agree that 80% of men are not holding out for the sluttiest women. Female commenters sometimes claim that unattractive males demand hot female companions, but that is not my sense at all. If anything, I’ve learned that men are quite malleable in their perception of female attractiveness🙂 Good news for us!

I also believe that quite a few women are what we might call “beta females.” They would no sooner bang a frat star as climb Mt. Everest. They would love to meet a nice, earnest boy. These are not the women who appreciate Dark Triad traits. So there is a real opportunity, I am certain! To get these beta women with beta guys. But right now they’re like the kids at the middle school dance standing against the wall and not interacting. We have to find a way to bridge that gap. Or they do.

I think Susan is right that there are a significant group of women who aren’t pursuing alphas.  However, I don’t think that these women are being prohibited from finding suitable beta mates.  I think these women are operating outside of the visible SMP.  They aren’t hooking up, and they very likely aren’t going on many “dates”.  Despite all of the dysfunction in our culture, young women interested in long term relationships and especially marriage are still in a very fortunate position in the SMP.  They can pair up with men their own age or men who are older than themselves, and are at the height of their attractiveness.  Additionally, a young woman looking for a mate has the numbers in her favor.  Because there are slightly more boys born than girls, and because women tend to prefer to marry men who are older than them, there are more young single men than young single women.  The numbers advantage is even bigger however, since a large percentage of women are not interested in the majority of men at this time.  Young women looking for a husband are essentially able to find them at fire sale prices.

In addition to the three advantages mentioned above, young women looking for a mate have another great advantage;  they are surrounded by large numbers of single men their own age and older in normal social settings (work, school, church, etc).  This allows them to gain the benefits of casting a wide net, without dating large numbers of men or going to keg parties and/or bars to meet men.  There is nothing magic about eating dinner or watching a movie with someone which allows us to get to know them.

Take a young woman like Susan described (not chasing alphas, attracted to beta men in their own league), and she is bound to find a man to pair off with.  While these women don’t attract much attention when the dating scene is being discussed, they definitely show up in the numbers.  The same US Census data which shows that many more women than in the past are postponing marriage also shows that a significant number of women are still marrying in their early 20s:

The age brackets in the data above make it impossible to know the exact percent of women who married at any given age.   However, I think the figures for each bracket very likely are close to the figures for the average age in each bracket.  Therefore, we might assume that roughly 22% of 22.5 year old white women in the US have already married, and roughly 56% of 27.5 year old white women in the US have married.  If you wanted to tune this a bit to account for the fact that marriages are likely taking place at a faster pace in the end of each bracket than in the beginning, we might adjust these estimates out another 6 months, which would give us 22% of white women marrying on or before their 23rd birthday and 56% of white women marrying on or before their 28th birthday.  Any way you slice the data however, a large percentage of women are still marrying in their early 20s.

This is important because marriage is typically preceded by several years of engagement in the monogamous relationship SMP.  A woman who marries on her 23rd birthday will generally have spent several years assessing her options, finding the right man, getting to know him, being engaged, etc.  Riding the carousel not only doesn’t bring her any closer to marriage, it generally will make this goal harder to achieve since it will inhibit her ability to bond with a prospective husband.

The weakness of the census data is that it doesn’t just focus on women in the college SMP, which is where the 80/20 assertion has been made.  I did some searching on this and found statistics specific to college graduates in the paper Who’s Getting Married? Education and Marriage Today and in the Past by Stevenson and Isen:

College-educated women rapidly began postponing marriage after birth control became widely available.  In 1970 the vast majority of those who would ever marry had done so by age 25. This was even true among college-graduates, for whom nearly three-quarters had married by age 25. By 1980, only about half had done so and that proportion fell further to around a third in 2008. In comparison 90% of 25-year-old high school graduates had married in 1970 and this fell only slightly to 83% in 1980.  The postponement in marriage among white high school graduates has happened only recently with a fall from nearly three-quarters marrying by age 25 in 1990, to only half having done so last year.

So roughly a third of women who graduate from college are married by age 25.  I would suggest that this isn’t a group of carouselers suddenly snagging a beta provider for marriage.  They don’t fit with the description of carouselers in the manosphere, since they are marrying in their early 20s.  As I mentioned before, the year a woman marries represents the end of a process which likely started several years earlier.  The vast majority of these women must have been involved with betas while still in college.

But this still leaves two thirds of college women unaccounted for.  A small group of them likely are in the same camp as the women who are married by 25;  they just haven’t married yet.  I would guess that the bulk of the remainder however are either active carousel riders, or passive ones.  One of Susan’s recent posts has an example of what I would consider a passive rider of the carousel.  She quotes a letter from a 22 year old virgin to Dear Margo:

I chose not to lose my virginity in high school; my mother always told me not to settle. I went to college, and a voice in my head told me to wait. I was not interested in one-night stands in a fraternity house. I was mysterious, an enigma.

The “virgin thing’’ went from enigma to stigma in the real world. I’ve been working for a year, and I’m 22 and still a virgin. My confidence makes me attractive to men, and I have a head-turning, Kim Kardashian figure. Desirable men flirt with me, but I know they are only after one thing. Men don’t ask me on dates; they just invite me to their humble abodes. I don’t accept any of these offers because of my “secret.’’ All I really want is for someone to see me for me.

The only men this woman is aware of are player types.  In her world, beta men simply don’t exist.  I would say this woman is passively riding the carousel without even knowing it, as are undoubtedly many others.

Note:  I was hesitant to reopen this topic yet again as the discussion in the last two posts which touched on this turned in large part to personal attacks on Susan.  However, I think it makes sense to go ahead and get this out now verses dig it up again at a later date and I do think the basic question is worthy of discussion.  Feel free to disagree vigorously with Susan’s analysis and/or position, but personal attacks on Susan or her blog will be deleted and the commenter posting them will be placed in moderation.  There has been plenty of opportunity to air these opinions.

This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Finding a Spouse. Bookmark the permalink.

157 Responses to Thoughts on the 80/20 college hookup question.

  1. Good thoughts. The whole 80/20 has been a bit misinterpreted. 20% of both male and female college students are having all the sexual hookups. But what of the remaining 80% of those males and females who claim not to be part of that scene? The 80% of men are telling the truth. The 80% of girls are being a bit cagey with their responses. Likely, they are indulging in the occasional sexual hookup with those 20% of men but they keep it quiet by not telling the whole truth to researchers.

    “Yeah, I had sex with a lacrosse player once but he never called back so I’m not counting that.”

  2. deti says:

    The last quote from the “dear Margo” quip is, I think, a big part of the problem here. Beta men are invisible to women. Men in the manosphere keep pounding this point repeatedly. But it just doesn’t seem to be getting through. We keep hearing over and over women wailing that there are no good men. What women are really saying is that the men they can see and who are attractive to them are “not good men”, meaning all they want is sex. Many, many women will not consider, nor even look for, anything less than alpha.

    The other thing that’s not getting through is that women just do not understand at all what it is like for young men who can’t get dates. Until they hit the wall and are still single, they do not get at all what the sexual desert is like. These women have not even the slightest understanding of it. The grinding loneliness, the utter sense of defeat with no end in sight, the raging hormones with no relief or release, and the intense frustration seem completely foreign to women.

  3. Höllenhund says:

    Accurate post and equally accurate comments. I’d add that the phrase “very dissatisfied in this SMP” is such a blanket term it’s meaningless and sounds like a cop-out. A beta chump who hasn’t been touched by a woman for 4 years will say he’s very dissatisfied in this SMP. A woman who has rejected 20 betas, LJBFed another 20 and milked them for their money, time and empathy, had one-night stands with 10 alphas but failed to gain commitment from any of them will say the same thing with probably the same amount of conviction. Ms. Walsh also seems to ignore the very real and widespread phenomenon of “carousel watching”.

  4. Ya Boy Matt says:

    Guess why Deti? By virtue of being on the internet you (and I) are beta, and thus invisible.

  5. Country lawyer says:

    Take several things abut female nature into account and you can see the problem with the analysis by Susan and all the “good girls.”

    30% of the people in this country go to college. Give or take.

    The ratio of men to women in college is 3/2. (so the percentage of women that goes to college is closer to 40%). And taking the atlantic monthy quotes about that from last year, half of those men are undesirable, so the ratio is 3/1 in that atmosphere.

    Hypergamy means women want the “best.” (your passive riders of the carousal as it were). Its time to put to bed this nonsense that some women aren’t attracted to the dark triad. That’s a pretty lie to make everyone feel better about the way women are, to make women keep up the facade that “not all women are like that.”

    Attraction is attraction. Just as a man can resist the beautiful woman that he knows is bad news, so can women, but that doesn’t mean they don’t feel the pull of him.

    They all do. They’ll deny it, they don’t like it, but its the truth, and deep in our hearts every man that thinks about what they see in the world knows the truth.

    Now add to this, the term “serial monogamy” gets used, but the reality of it is this: Except for the most damaged women they are set up to “love” only one man at a time. They love what they at some instinctual level believe is the best they can get at the moment. This can be eroded or strengthened by the man, but this is the reality of it. They may be attracted to a higher status man then they have, but if they feel no chance they will love the highest status man they can get. This is why a woman that cheats it is almost always the death of that relationshio, but not so the man. Why a woman can go from loving a man, to being completely cold instantly.

    A woman in love will accept many things. Including being part of a rotation (as long as it isn’t rubbed in her face) a harem.

    Players generally have a harem, and in college the sought after men do. They run with 2-5 different girls. And while I do believe the stats on women’s partners are unreported, college women report MORE partners not less than their non college counterparts. The old saw that even if the instruments are wrong, if they are consistently wrong, you can still measure a difference in the data you are receiving).

    If half the men are desirable and they are able to keep a harem (which they can) that means most of the women are involved in college.

    While I would agree that probably a good portion of women aren’t racking up huge numbers in college, they are sleeping with the most desirable men and have 1-4 different partners during college.

    Susan and the other women would say these are good girls, but as the social pathologist has pointed out the probablity to divorce for a woman skyrockets with one prior premarital partner.

    They are damaged goods if they are not virgins. (I note as an aside that The Man Who was Thursday believed that the stats would be the same for men but they weren’t and the reason is that there are far more virgin men out there than virgin women and they settle for damaged goods because it all they can get.

    So while women are not “slutting it up” They are having sex with a small number of men that are reaping the rewards. They are the “Monday girls” and “Tuesday girls” etc.

    So while I may agree that a small percentage of women are truly “skanks” the number of sexual partners women have follows a bell shaped curved with most have 3-9, and the average is the same as the median. While for men it is rapidly approaching the point where the average is the same, but the median is around 0-1, the curve is shifted far to the right.

  6. jack says:

    I have noticed that I have been seeing my term “carousel watcher” turning up in other comments.

    Someone needs to come up with a wittier term, but I still think it is accurate.

    Perhaps 20% of the sluttiest women are hooking up with the most attractive men.

    And the other 60% of the top 80% of women are holding out for the unicorn – the attractive alpha with beta qualities. Perhaps these women are riding the unicorn carousel.

    The are holding out for men who simply do not exist beyond a very tiny slice of available men.

    Essentially, they want a man with alpha-like characteristics and alpha-like options, but who will commit to their beta-female looks and slightly thick soccer-player legs.

    This IS the holy grail for women – a true amazing gentleman who could be a manwhore but refuses to do so.

    These men, rare as they are, tend to wind up with their female equivalent – the amazing hottie who was a virgin when she got married.

    60% of women are riding a vaporware carousel of unicorns.

    Their complete lack of dating action tends to prove this; all the girl’s nights out, large groups of women (p)rejecting every man in sight, etc. They are FURIOUS that the unicorn has not manifested itself yet, and the beta male is hated my them every bit as much as they hate their mirror and the waistband of their favorite jeans. They are just another reflection of that woman’s real SMP value, and that is a truth that they are unwilling to hear.

    Go make a realistic offer on an overpriced house that has been on the market for two years and you will see a very angry seller. And the longer they remain overpriced, the more crushing the blow to the ego when they finally have to sell.

  7. Höllenhund says:

    “Unicorn carousel”…LOL, I like that:). How accurate.

  8. Dalrock says:

    Agreed. Unicorn carousel is brilliant.

  9. Basil Ransom says:

    Walsh takes the most optimistic, ‘sugar and spice and everything nice,’ explanation possible, given the data. I don’t have much strong data to contradict her explanation.

    But the bulk of my experience, and basically every man in the ‘sphere, runs counter to hers. Sure, there is the issue, of players having a skewed view because they quickly filter out the girls who aren’t DTF (btw, this term is extremely mainstream). But, nearly all of the girls I’ve known or met who genuinely wanted monogamous relationships had them. The girls that aren’t ugly and are regularly exposed to men, find boyfriends, if they so choose.

    The manosphere thinks that young attractive women want commitment only from alphas. Even of that I’m not so sure – they seem pretty content or resigned to banging men without future commitment. They may even justify it by saying “he’s not boyfriend material.” There are guys that girls would readily admit they’d fuck but not date. Masculinization 101. As for the men that are “boyfriend material,” they admit to having no interest in them. Plenty of guys who game recommend not even going on dates at all with girls under the age of say, 24.

    As for Walsh’s beta females, I’d bet many make out with boys, several times a year. I bet they’re very much like Miss Margot.

    Miss Margo reminds me of several girls I met on OKCupid. Not that they were virgins, but they had this strong hypocrisy coursing through their conscience. First dates would often end with me kissing, groping or more, but not sex, and then I wouldn’t hear back from them. I was a player to the hilt, and they loved it in the moment, but, I guess, decided it was a bad idea to re-engage afterwards. It’s not like I behaved any differently pre-date. But they were just in this bind of being attracted only to players, but once they *knew* a guy was one, they couldn’t see him again. Sure, my method could be improved, but these girls still have their pick of men, and filter out the betas, and then ditch the remainder when they realize they’re players.

    The point about dating monogamously for several years prior to getting married is a good one.

  10. Lavazza says:

    I wonder what the average time from meeting to marrying is. In my case it was 5 years (24-29 and 22-27). I guess most people who marry before 30 have been together for at least 3 years. Anyway it seems safe to assume that most people who marry before 30 have not spent much of their twenties off the market or in the casual market.

  11. Anonymous Reader says:

    If I understand correctly the DOJ report on sexual assault that keeps being referenced, it suffers from three major flaws.

    1. There is an element of self selection within the pool. Students were contacted via email multiple times and finally via physical mail, but only some responded. I have not yet found within the DOJ document what percentage of those emailed actually responded yet, but it clearly is not 100%. The researchers noted that many fewer men responded than women. I believe that is because of problem 2.

    2. The claims of anonymity are unsupportable. I know for a fact that every college campus IT department routinely logs all Internet Protocol (IP) addresses accessed via campus networks, and the IP addresses of the computers used for that access. In plain English, the browsing history of every single computer connected to a campus network is recorded in an accessable database, and that database can be mined using standard tools to produce a history of every Internet action taken by any given computer. This is done for a variety of reasons, some of them legal in nature. It is trivial – trivial– for any campus IT department to find all the computers on campus that have ever accessed a given web site. Therefore it would be very easy to locate every computer that was used to access the website used in this survey. Dormitory IP’s tie to room numbers, and that ties to occupants. Lab computers tie to physical locations, and can be tied to a limited number of people. Laptops generally are personally owned, and that ties to individuals.

    It is true that many people do not know this; campus IT administrators all have many sad tales of individuals who found out the hard way that browsing forbidden sites, or sending nasty email, is not at all anonymous. However, anyone who is in the least computer savvy would know this, as a rule men are better informed than women on computer issues, and therefore I strongly suspect that the smaller response from men can be directly laid on the fact that many of them knew full well the promise of anonymity was false.

    3. Women under-report the number of partners consistently. The “lie detector” experiment shows this very clearly, with the number of partners reported doubling when the respondants have reason to believe that lies will be found out (2.2 for non anonymous to 4.4 for anonymous + “lie detector). There are ways to deal with known underreporting in surveys of this type, but so far I have not found the DOJ study uses them (it could be they did and I have not yet located that part of the report).

    Therefore, this study is very questionable in terms of statistical significance due to self-selection bias, it is very questionable due to lack of male participation, it is very questionable due to the “anonymous” nature being an illusion, and it is very questionable due to the known under-reporting of women & no adjustment made for that fact.

    I find the methodology to be flawed. Therefore the results are of questionable significance and not useful for supporting any logical argument. The 80/20 question remains unanswered. To claim otherwise is not supportable with logic.

  12. Joshua says:

    For the entirety of human existence we’ve had knowledge we couldn’t prove but knew to be true. And now were supposed to look the other way cause someone on team woman, who tries to teach sluts to lie to their future husbands inst convinced? She is a part of the problem not the solution and now you’ve all let her frame the debate. I don’t like her, but fuck me she has you all running around in circles trying to justify something ALL red pill men know to be true. I’m astounded.

  13. jlw says:

    The 80% that don’t get any action with traditional means can be further divided into betas who could change their results and omegas with standards who cannot. What percentage of the 80% is omega? What should they do? This is perhaps the largest demographic that no one has ever written substantively about. Are there more male omegas than female? Can omegas wring happiness from other sources in life? What are the early symptoms of omegadom that should be noted by friends and family? Roissy and his ilk try to cartoonize omegas, but those are comical outliers. Dalrock, what do you think about omegas and their options?

  14. Susan Walsh says:

    Dalrock, I just left a comment on the 87 Dates thread that addresses this post, so I’ll double post it here:

    @Mencken

    Thanks for your thoughtful and measured reply. You may be surprised to learn that I don’t disagree with a single thing you’ve said. I have frequently written about female hypergamy and the loss of assortative mating after the Sexual Revolution. I credit Brendan with opening my eyes to this, FWIW.

    In fact, I’ll go a step further. In today’s SMP most women – probably 90% – are attracted to the top 10% of men. I think it’s worse than you do! However, I know that there is some settling that goes on – college girls have a saying: “Boyfriends are ugly.” And of course many women understand that they don’t stand a chance against those slutty sorority girls. Finally, many women are not slutty, and not willing to act slutty, period. The prevalence of virgins proves that.

    The real problem in this SMP is double edged:
    1. Most men are invisible to women.
    2. The total unleashing of female sexuality has resulted in women zeroing in on a few men with laser intensity.

    This is the reason I am vociferously pro-Game and anti-feminism. I seek to redress the balance.

    My position on this is not new. I have a daughter and a beta son. I have a beta husband I love very much. I am doing what I can. You may disagree with my analyses, my assumptions and my conclusions. That’s fair and I really do welcome the debate. What I resent is the questioning of my motives. I’ll leave it there, I just needed to say that.

    P.S. I’m glad you’re enjoying Jack’s wit. He’s been a longtime reader of mine and his incisive commentary never fails to inform and amuse.

  15. Uncle Elmer says:

    Your statistics make my head spin. Having returned to college in middle-age to study dance, I conclude that 60% of the 80% of the women you cite as “holding out” are in fact, obese. Something to do with high-fructose corn syrup in the diet. The rest are Womyn’s Studies majors, or pre-law.

  16. Ya Boy Matt says:

    There are NO attractive young women in college not routinely riding the cock carousel and receiving multiple loads to their orifices/faces/backsides each and every weekend and that is the fact that no amount of slut apologia will gloss over.

    we hold these truths to be self-evident.

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, I strongly object to the comment posted at 8:49 PM. This posting is an obvious, blatant troll for flames in bad faith. The intent clearly is to lure critics into breaking the rule you stated at the tale of your posting, or to tacitly allow certain false statements to go unchallenged. It is a lose-lose propostion that indicates a passive-aggressive mindset.

    Again, I strongly object to this posting, solely in terms of content.

  18. clarence says:

    Dalrock:
    I strongly object to the posting by “anonymous reader” at 9:24 pm based on the fact that it seems to contain not arguments but ad-homonym arguments.

  19. Ya Boy Matt says:

    Dalrock:
    I strongly object to the posting at 9.09 pm based on the fact that it contains truths to terrible to contemplate for the general populace.

  20. rmax says:

    What part of women are hypergamous doesnt susan walsh understand?

    Its clear women are hypergamous, the data backs this, the pua community, mra etc, except for susan walsh … coincidence?

    Didnt think so …

  21. P Ray says:

    Women prefer a good “approach” to a good man…
    with the idea that they want to be with a man who can attract other women but want to be with only them.
    Then complain that all men are bastards when they can’t tie him down,
    proceed to find a normal guy
    and then complain to him about all the ways he is deficient compared to the man who didn’t want to get married to her.
    This is the reason why a woman with extensive dating experience must be avoided.
    Her inability to decide, becomes spun by her as a failure on the part of men. The only thing she will be useful for, is as a pivot or a jump-off point for men.
    Because no man can build a stable relationship with a woman who is always looking for the bigger better deal.

  22. rmax says:

    Susan Walshes assertions of 80% of women dont hookup or get laid in college, is also false, most obese, or with no social qualities, such as not being a flake, or just plain clearly mentally disturbed, all the traits ive seen in college, arent even in the smp to begin with

    What I have seen firsthand, these same obese, mentally disturbed women still get served by men trying to get their foot in the smp, ie learning the ropes

    What most people dont realise its not betas banging these trainwrecks, its alphas in training, or guys looking to get their first steps in the smp

    True betas are too busy making excuses for not approaching hot women, or trying to find the right one …. never knowing what the hell to do when they do …

    A true beta would never bang an obese or mentally retarded woman, as shes not the one …

    True betas are the ultimate avoiders of the smp, not because theyre shunned by women, but because of their instinctual need for a connection, which women have never known how to connect with another rational human being, this realisation is unknown to true betas

    Women dont shun betas in the smp, beta men avoid the smp like the plague, as they cant understand the true function of the smp in the first place

    Which is to treat women as they should be treated

    Brute confidence, willpower & physical & emotional shows of brute strength, gets you in the smp, a connection with a woman gets you thrown out of the smp

    Women crave extreme acts of aggression, which is why direct game works so well on alot of women, be distant, cold & totally not giving a crap about a womans feelings works everytime, as long as you never spell it out for them you dont give a crap, they dont have the capacity to work it out

    The evidence is with women who stay with partners who batter them for years, refusing to divorce them, even when their husband asks for a divorce, or pumps & dumps them day in day out … ie ALL women are like that in the smp

    Most men, especially true betas, dont realise how truly sociopathic & psychotically mentally deranged most women are

    This is why most betas dont enter the smp in the first place, as the smp forces betas to realise the true reality of a woman, women dont connect with men, they connect to confidence, status, materialism, anything with an extreme emotional reward

    Women connect to the context of an object not its substance

  23. Paragon says:

    @ Dalrock

    “In the conclusion to my post All the lonely feminist spinsters I mistakenly stated that Kate Bolick had misquoted Susan Walsh on the statistics of the college sexual marketplace (SMP). It turns out that I was incorrect, and that Susan’s view of this has changed. Initially Susan believed that 20% of the men on campus were sexually monopolizing 80% of the women. She shared this perspective in a youtube video which I previously embedded here. Since then she has reviewed the data on this at the urging of some of her readers, and has changed her opinion on the question. She describes her thought process here, but her conclusion is that:

    “”20% of both women and men are quite promiscuous, and that 80% of women and men are very dissatisfied in this SMP.””

    Which says specifies nothing about ‘mating’ statistics(the crux of contention), rendering her argument a classic red herring.

    But, the realities of dimorphic sex(that it is a real dichotomy), defeats any notion of symmetry she may(?) be supposing.

    “I think the final conclusion Susan draws is the true weakness in her argument. If 80% of men and women are left out of the SMP, one side or the other (or both) must be refusing to connect with their SMP counterparts. Someone must be holding out.

    Young people will naturally pair off even in the total absence of a functioning courtship tradition. While I can’t prove this with data, I believe that the holding out is being done by the women.”

    That’s the thing though – this dynamic doesn’t need to be arbitrarily measured(any more than quantum jiggle) – your suspicion can be reasonably inferred from data/investigation that agrees in all frames of observation.

    And this is why we can justifiy such assumptions from agreement with a prevailing evolutionary synthesis.

    “But this still leaves two thirds of college women unaccounted for. A small group of them likely are in the same camp as the women who are married by 25; they just haven’t married yet. I would guess that the bulk of the remainder however are either active carousel riders, or passive ones. One of Susan’s recent posts has an example of what I would consider a passive rider
    of the carousel. She quotes a letter from a 22 year old virgin to Dear Margo:

    “”I chose not to lose my virginity in high school; my mother always told me not to settle. I went to college, and a voice in my head told me to wait. I was not interested in one-night stands in a fraternity house. I was mysterious, an enigma.

    The “virgin thing’’ went from enigma to stigma in the real world. I’ve been working for a year, and I’m 22 and still a virgin. My confidence makes me attractive to men, and I have a head-turning, Kim Kardashian figure. Desirable men flirt with me, but I know they are only after one thing. Men don’t ask me on dates; they just invite me to their humble abodes. I don’t accept any of these offers because of my “secret.’’ All I really want is for someone to see me for me.””

    The only men this woman is aware of are player types. In her world, beta men simply don’t exist. I would say this woman is passively riding the carousel without even knowing it, as are undoubtedly many others.”

    Nicely reasoned – they are all waiting on toasted ice.

    A physically beautiful male(cue short-term genetic benefits), with indications of investing(cue long term direct benefits) in a single(often mediocre) female – such males would be at an evolutionary disadvantage for eschewing a plethora of mating opportunities, and thus evolution will cull their frequencies to a prohibitive rarity.

  24. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’m plowing through the DOJ report. Here are some facts of significance. I’ve transcribed as carefully as possible in order to avoid mispellings or typos:

    3.1.2 Recruitment Procedures and Response Rates (second sentence)
    …Sampled students were sent an initial recruitment e-mail that described the study, provided each student with a unique CSA Study ID #, and included a hyperlink to the CSA Study Web site.

    3.1.4 Incentive Redemption
    The instrument was programmed to generate a “survey completion code” immediately after the respondent scrolled through the informational module. The students were then directed to a second Web site (which opened up in a new window) to obtain their incentive for completing the survey. At this Web site, the students entered their “CSA Study ID#” and their “survey completion code”. The Web site was programmed to ensure that the ID and the code were valid (and had not been previously used to obtain an incentive) prior to issuing a $10 gift certificate code for Amazon.com and an iTunes song download. When an incentive was issued, the sample member was identified as having received an incentive, but no link between the identity of a sample member and their survey was created.

    The emphasis on “second” is in the original. So far, so good on this part of the anonymity issue. However there is another part of 3.1.4.

    This incentive strategy fulfilled three major objectives: (1) maintaining the anonymity of the survey data, (2) allowing us to track survey completion (so that we could follow up with noncompleters, generate response rate estimates, and compare the final respondents with the sampling frame), and (3) ensuring that each respondent would only receive one incentive and that only the students sampled for the survey would be able to receive the incentive.

    This confuses me. I don’t see how it is possible to claim (1) and (2) above. If the administrators of the site/poll have the ability to track down those students who do not complete the survey, I assume via the unique CSA Study ID#, then I do not see what prevents them from being able to find all those students issued a CSA Study ID# who ever used it, i.e. the total set of competers and noncompleters, in other words every student who took part in the survey to any extent. That means that potentially every student who participated could be identified, and that blows up anonymity in a separate way, independent of the IP issue.

    Furthermore, the unique pairing of the CSA Study ID# with the “survey completion code” offers another means to identify students who participated in the survey. It is worth noting that about 84% of the students who completed the survey followed through to redeem their incentive. So the majority of students who took the survey could be identified as survey takers through their incentive redemption, although what they said on the survey would not necessarily be identified.

    At this point, perhaps we should discuss what “anonymous” means. I think the creators of this survey intent “anonymity” to mean that no one individuals answers to the survey can be matched to them. If that is the definition, then I’ll agree that there likely is anonymity here. However, if one defines “anonymous” as “no one can tell whether you took the survey or not”, that doesn’t hold up at all, because of the use of unique CSA Study ID#’s.

    So the question is, does the second form of anonymity matter or not? Does it matter if any given woman knows that someone, somewhere can tell if she took the survey? I believe it does matter, and I point to the “lie detector” experiment as supporting my claim.

    Also I’m reading through the data handling section 3.2 and I have not found any mechanism to deal with known underreporting of sexual partners by women. Therefore, I stand by my assertion that the numbers from this survey cannot be regarded as anything but flawed, and that the results do not support the 80/20 claim made.

    Rational criticism welcomed, I may well be missing something here.

    Flames, insults, arrogant contempt for me as a person, etc. || /dev/null

  25. Paragon says:

    I would like to assert that women aren’t that different than men with respect to their short-term mating criteria, in that their choices are strongly weighted for physical characteristics(ie. physical attractiveness).

    Despite what many would have us believe, mere words and body-language(or other absurd contrivances) are rarely the determinate factor(when removed from other variables).

    Females aren’t any more susceptible to cryptic seduction techniques, than are males.

    Like I explained in an earlier post(with supporting references), females are not attracted to certain rogue behaviors(abuse, delinquency, etc) per se, but rather it is a case that these behaviors have become correlated with male physical attractiveness – which is the *real* variable we are often observing(except in special cases where material resources become a deciding factor, like in prostitution).

    It is also important to appreciate that what females deem as physically attractive, and what males ‘suppose’, are often disparate quantities(even though there is plenty of instructive data out there to reconcile the two).

    As I have said before – there are only two quantities of value females consider in mate choice, genetic benefits(indicated in physical attractiveness), and direct benefits(indicated in investment strategies with respect to material resources, and paternal investment).

    So, the onus is upon the ‘game’ community to unify agreement with either of these quantities(beyond a circular argument).

    And there are obvious reasons why physical traits are an obvious confounder of ‘seduction’ competencies(ie. because relative deviations in physical characters can reliably signal developmental incompetence, from which sensory biases become fixed by evolutionary success).

    In order to advance a similar argument(unified in a broad evolutionary synthesis) for vague(independent) seduction competencies(ie. ‘game’), you would have to show their basis in evolutionary success beyond a circular argument(ie. how did female bias for these seduction systems *evolve* – what advantages did they confer *before* they became correlated with male reproductive success).

    Until gamers can show this, they are leaning on naive premises(and, dare I say, unmitigated bullshit).

    Game’s core premise relies upon ‘confidence'(given the ‘congruence’ apology that is regularly appealed to when game techniques/methods are demonstratedly falsified).

    The parsimonious interpretation is that ‘confidence’ is a dependent variable, adapted from justified expectations(with a basis in some history of prior outcomes).

    In other words: confidence is the subjective consequence of an ‘expected value’ – derived of an obligate heuristic motif.

    But, correlation does not imply causation.

    So, ‘confidence’ doesn’t just spontaneously organize within an empirical vacuum, and thus cannot be trivially acquired outside of ‘experience’.

    So, what gamers(and their apologists) are truly observing (but apparently not intelligent enough to infer), is not that women are attracted to ‘confidence’ per se(as an independent
    variable).

    But, rather that the men who tend to be successful with women in the first place(for whatever reason), also have a high confidence(justified expectation) of future(continued) success.

  26. rmax says:

    The above by paragon is basic anti-game nonsense, everyone knows women dont judge on looks, they go on the observed context of a man

    Also his attempts to falsely re-define confidence is wrong, confidence & extreme acts of confidence trigger biological receptors biologically for a woman

    His attempts to falsely redefine basic pua is concepts is laughable bad …

  27. rmax says:

    In fact paragons arguments come across as some sort of stealth feminist post … trying to deride clearly well known biological functions of women, as laughably unknown

    A well known feminist tactic

  28. hurpadurp says:

    Man, this is gonna be good. I wish I could post that .gif of Michael Jackson eating popcorn right now.

  29. P Ray says:

    Rmax makes a very good point in that men wanting a connection are not going to be putting themselves out there willy-nilly.
    Omega/Beta men don’t want to be financing the lives of carousel hoppers/watchers, because not only do they waste money doing so, they also deplete the goodwill that such men have towards women. Not to mention, they build a bad reputation for themselves (women hate being socially – outside of dinner dates – around men they are using).
    The men/women foisting marriage through the idea of “meet plenty of women and date plenty” are the same ones who expect someone to ignore their past sexual history in the name of “true love”
    Which is very weird. If someone was your “true love” … wouldn’t they be worth forsaking all others to be with only them?
    Or are they confusing “true love” with “forgiveness no matter what ther person did in the past?”
    The more women want men that have the ability to play around, but want to be with only them … the more they are saying that they only want players.

  30. Anonymous Reader says:

    I thought about the issue of anonymity and the DOJ survey some more. Since the team doing the survey issued a unique CSA Study ID# to each student’s email address, and since that unique ID# must be entered to start the survey, and since a “survey completion code” was generated presumably on the survey web site immediately upon completion, it is trivial to determine the email address of each and every student who commenced the survey but did not complete it. Therefore the team doing the survey could on a daily basis contact via email those students who did not complete the survey.

    If this was done, it can only have damaged the idea of anonymity. Imagine being Jane Jones who started the survey, whether in her dorm room or at some coffee house, and who did not complete it for whatever reason – ran out of time, suddenly closed the browser window when a roommate came in or someone looked over her shoulder, loss of connecition, whatever. Then some time later, she gets another email saying “Hey, we understand you started the survey but didn’t finish it. Is there a problem, can we help?”. Now ask yourself, is that going to add to her sense of anonymity, or detract from it? This is a bit in the social engineering / psychology realm but in my opinion such a Big Sibling kind of email would take away from the sense of anonymity, not add to it. And as we know from the “lie detector” experiment, when women think someone knows they are taking a sex survey, they will not tell the truth about the number of sexual partners they have had, they will deliberately underreport.

    For the sake of argument I’ll call the kind of anonymity where the actual results can’t be tied to any one person Type 0 anonymity and the kind of anonymity where no one knows who took the survey Type 1 anonymity. My claim is this: for most college students, if they don’t have Type 1 anonymity, they are not likely to assume Type 0 is true, either. And the unique CSA Study ID# demolishes Type 1 anonimity.

    So the methodology in my opinion guarantees skewed data via under-reporting of the number of sexual partners by women. Because full anonymity cannot be guaranteed, and because they would be sure that lying could not be detected. Now I must, must get some sleep.

  31. Feel free to disagree vigorously with Susan’s analysis and/or position, but personal attacks on Susan or her blog will be deleted and the commenter posting them will be placed in moderation.

    Since Susan Walsh and her flunkies are making up conspiracy theories about third parties who aren’t involved in this debate, in this instance it happens to be me, secretly architecting an invasion of this blog, this is an egregious double standard, Dalrock.

  32. rmax says:

    Exactly P Ray, true betas dont participate in the smp, they hookup ACCIDENTALLY through their social circles, mainly because of a peer pressure to perform, by women, not men

    Most true betas dont goto house parties or social events to have sex with women, they goto hang out with their buddies, get stoned or hammered go home …

    Again this peer pressure is FROM women in their social circle, to the point of pressuring the PERCEIVED alpha for sex BY THE WOMAN

    Ive had plenty of women trying to pressure me for sex at social events, parties women drunk & sober etc., even though i had no intention or remotely thought of sex at a friends social event

    Ive observed most men observe the social code, while women break the social codes of conduct repeatedly by harrassing men to the point, they get so pissed off they have to drag the women outside & blow them off, or tell them to get off directly, without creating a scene, this rarely works as a women in heat never hears a word you say

    And then theres the crazy woman in clubs who literally goes around begging for sex with every guy she sees

    In fact most women who havent got laid in a few weeks, go around hungrily begging for sex, in supermarkets, grocery stores, no venue is off limits for a woman in heat

    In fact Ive never seen most beta men pressuring women for sex at social events, its women who pressurise these men into sex

    The only time ive seen men approaching beta, pressuring women for sex are at clubs in poor ghetto neighborhoods

    Its this pressuring, another way of women nagging men for sex, through peer pressure the ONLY time a true beta gets laid

    The true beta rationalises the chick he laid as being not the one, as the woman he laid made no attempt at connecting emotionally BEFORE she gave him sex

    True betas need a clear LOGICAL RATIONAL reason to connect with a woman

    What is this basic logical rational need for a true beta to connect with a woman?

    Chemistry & she has to make an effort to be ENTHUSIASTIC about everything he does, without the two there is no connection for a true beta

    Chemistry is basically a biophysical process, facial symmetry in both partners, amount of oxcytocins & bonding chemicals released BY the woman, these bonding chemicals also need massive amounts of dopamine triggers for the male to bond with the woman, hence enthusiasm for his work, hobbies, laugh at his jokes, & genuine wild encouragement all seem to work as successful strategies for women

  33. jack says:

    I agree that the cause and effect are reversed:

    Women do not find asshole behavior attractive, in the strictest sense – the case is that men who are very attractive become dismissive and insensitive to women due to the fact that these men would have to duck every couple of minutes to avoid being hit square in the face by willing poon.

    The sexual revolution and the internet have teamed up to deliver to men the disappointing and heartbreaking reality – that women really do not love men at all, even the alphas. The alphas only remain lovable to the extent that they serve to elevate the woman’s social status in the eyes of her peers, or even in her own eyes.

    “All the boys are monsters, all the girls are whores, so if you lose the one you love, there’s always plenty more…”

  34. Pingback: Boring is good. | Dark Brightness

  35. P Ray says:

    Anyone advocating Game to the idea that “good women need you to have it to know you are the one for them” …
    is someone basically saying that men need to be banged-up enough not to care about the person they’re with.
    which is an indirect command to become a player …
    why would a man who is a player, believe that the woman he is with is any good? After all … to become a good player – you have to have your heart smashed enough by someone you care for. I believe that happened to so many men now considered players – and am happy to be proven wrong.
    Women will not make an effort to meet a man halfway, that she does not respect. BIG RED FLAG there.
    A man is more likely to value a woman who doesn’t play games with him – because she values him enough to be honest with him.
    A woman who lies to men to keep them interested … is simply a woman saying that the man is not worth being honest to.
    I’m thinking the high women get from being with men that they consider worthy of respect, is in part related to the idea of “look at how jealous my girlfriends are of me being with him”.
    After all … women have a checklist for the men they marry,
    but not for the men they hook up with.
    This may mean that only the man they marry (who is the one most socially visible to others) is being shown off as a trophy.

  36. Pingback: To Avoid Criticism I Get Accused Of Leading A Conspiracy To Invade Blogs | Omega Virgin Revolt

  37. Mencken says:

    @Susan

    Indeed, I am surprised to learn that is your view. Perhaps if I had been previously acquainted with your blog I would not have been. I just took a moment to peruse it, and now I can do nothing more than raise an eyebrow at those who have labeled you “the enemy.” There are forces at work here beyond rationality, I wager.

    But I digress. Yes, we are most certainly in accord on this topic.

  38. Johnycomelately says:

    “Because there are slightly more boys born than girls”
    Take away boys that are:
    Gay
    In prison
    Disabled (higher representation among males)
    Homeless/Destitute
    Severe drug addiction
    Working/Living in remote area
    Priests/Monastics
    Mental instability
    Higher suicide/ work place/ motor vehicle deaths

  39. rmax says:

    Yep, women are far too contextual biologically & socially, to connect with men

    Project the right context & you can lay most women, i observed this in school, short ridiculous asshole EVERYONE hated even the girls, got the hottest chicks in school, while the rest played strip poker, spin the bottle etc., with the guy, all the attractive girls, exact same pattern, not a hint of deviation

    Most guys wld knock this guy out, his assholisness was bordering on the sociopathical

    Most men dont realise how truly sociopathic & mentally disturbed women truly are, their need for a sociopathic asshole is literally infinite, also the sociopathic behaviour they want from men is infinte, there is no limit, they want a man to be as asshole to the point literally everyone around him hates his guts

    The proof is with women who stay with men who batter them for years, murderers & serial killers, gangbangers, penniless welfare serfs, penniless hobos, penniless musicians, penniless artists, the extents of assholish behaviour women demand & expect from men is infinite

    There are NO limits when it comes to women, this is the cold hard truth

    This is WHY real betas cant connect with women & reject the SMP, waiting for the one

    Real Betas Are Civilised, they cannot understand or connect with the sheer social & contextual vivid brutality a woman expects from a man

    The irony is in so called cities, the women are a hundred times more brutal & degenerate, as theyre allowed to travel in packs of herds, getting more feral & savage, the greater the group of women they travel with

    A pack of women will always be more ruthless & savage, especially in a city, then a woman with a small 3 or 4 close knit friends

    The proof any inner city club in manchester, or any inner city ghetto, where the greatest density of women exist, with the greatest rates of divorce, single motherhood, disgusting drunken laddettes, female gangbangers, women drug addicts

    This is the reality most True Betas face, the savagery & degeneracy women stoop to & are capable of, in the so called slum they call a modern world

    This is why True Betas reject the smp & are always waiting for the one … rather then face the cold hard brutality of it all

  40. Hare Krsna says:

    Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on women and anti-feminism
    http://prabhupadawomen.wordpress.com/

    The purpose of this essay is to address the issue of feminism and misandry (hatred of men, the opposite of misogyny) and how it has destroyed modern society. We will be analyzing many of the statements made by Srila Prabhupada about women, their role in society, and the anti-feminism stance of his teachings.

  41. rmax says:

    The even bigger proof the savagery of allowing women to travel in packs, are the family & divorce courts, & feminism itself

    Take a woman out of a herd of women & they turn into stay at home moms, grandparents, hardworking farmers wives & beholden & respectful of the morals & ethics of civilised True Betas

    Put A Woman back into a herd of women, & you get single moms, divorce & family courts, feminists, & ghettos & slums in inner cities

    Yes women create ghettos & slums, not poverty, poverty is a byproduct of female dominated areas in inner cities in white & ethnic communities

    The damage packs of women do is unlimited, look at how theyve ruined colleges & universities, schools, corporations, through the courts & ridiculous environments designed to hate men & persecute them in the Very places they work in…

    Take those women out of the herd of women & you get REAL education, scientists & progress

    Ever seen a slum in the countryside? Where the women are segregated & forced to spread out by distance?

    It is the density & herd behaviour of women responsible for the SMP, packs of women running wild like packs of savages unfettered by the courts & criminal conduct in the courts, & the blind ignorance & devoid of any intellectual arguements evil feminists

    Destroying our cities & inner cities, with their criminal illegal laws & laws designed to HARRASS MEN, in the name of harrassing women …

    The common mistake susan walsh, dalrok & most people in the manosphere make is the fact PUA is NOT in the SMP

    PUA is not about playing the smp, its about knowing how to get women outside the rules of the smp

    Its NOT only True Betas rejecting the smp, its also PUAs,

    True PUAs dont date, they bang chicks, big difference

    They also dont participate in hook-up culture, as the whole premise of pua is to build a harem of girls & rotate

    The true premise of PUA is that it is a counter culture, not a community, it is a revolutionary response to the devolution of culture by women, it is an intellectualisation of culture by men thanks to the advances men have made in science & technology, through the creation of the internet & the information age

    The SMP as it stands today consists of alphas learning to get chicks, & guys learning how to game women

    Traditional men & women & true betas DONT participate in the SMP, they have their OWN social circles

    Social circles are still the dominant form of mating for most normal men

    The SMP & its rules are artificially created constructs by women, which most men never participate in, designed to screw over new fresh gullible alphas & open minded men accidently thinking they have to date to form a relationship …

    The SMP is created by herds of women in cities, most men ESPECIALLY alphas opt out of the smp, preferring their own insular social circles

    The SMP is simply a feminist construct, designed to derail the true picture on how men & women find REAL relationships

    Studies have proven men bond better with women they have known a long time, ie in their social circles, cousins, relatives, high school friends etc., the PUA counter culture has known most men ONLY find REAL relationships in social circles, for years

    Anyone telling you men build real long lasting relationships, through slumming in clubs, or dating looser divorced women, in some fantasy smp hasnt got a clue how REAL men form long term relationships

    This is a fact Susan walsh, athol, dalrock etc., have to face, there is no real SMP, the men who regularly date & ACTIVELY look for women through dating IS SMALL, to the point of being none existent

    Men do NOT participate in ANYTHING THEY DO NOT CREATE, as it does not serve their emotional & financial needs to participate in none male created constructs

    The proof? Millions of men BROWSE dating sites, the amount of men who decide to create long term relationship is none existent, compared to social circles & acquaintences men have known & trust

    ALL of the PUA gurus, ie tyler durden, mystery etc., ended up forming REAL relationships ONLY with women in their social circle

    These are men who have dated & pumped & dumped literally HUNDREDS of women

    The courts & laws created the SMP by women for women, lets be exact here … the smp was created by looser couldnt get a guy if they tried women for looser degenerate women, & only mostly women participate in dating culture, the VAST majority of alpha men DONT date, they DONT hook up, they have harems …

    The VAST majority of True Betas DONT date, they DONT hook up, they have social circles

    Men dont participate in constructs they dont create

    Until Susan Walsh, athol, dalrock etc., realise the SMP is not about men, its about degenerate herds of savage women, in cities creating the BLACK ghettos, the WHITE slums & poverty & destroying men & families

    True Betas see this, True Alphas see this, True PUAs see this, most men reject the concept of a SMP & all its carousel of women & degenerate void of intellectual facts feminists

    Let me state this very clearly, if most men reject the SMP, & in fact dont participate, it does not exist

    So what exactly is the SMP? It is a construct created by feminists to get women to normalise the traits of feminism, to normalise the natural savage herd behaviour of women & brand it as feminism, while making it acceptable for women to act as savages

    When a woman goes against her natural instinct to procreate & benefit society as a mother & wife in a heterosexual relationship, she is a savage primitive nothing more, hence their need for assholes & thugs

    When savage primitives herd together, they create slums, ghettos, poverty & savage behaviour

  42. Desiderius says:

    Mencken,

    I remember once reading an essay/article by your namesake regarding the fierce monogamy of many historical alphas (I recall him mentioning Bismarck among several others and of course Mencken himself was a fine example) contra the conventional wisdom that they can’t keep it in their pants. As that false wisdom has served (with the help of the special feminist horror of the double standard) as a basis for an erosion of esteem for monogamy in general, and specifically among alpha females, I’d be very appreciative for any information you have regarding how I might find that article.

  43. greyghost says:

    rmax
    Outstanding comment. Even before the internet and any knowledge of the MRM or even feminism. In the mid to late eighties I just kind of didn’t like the idea of dating. I never like the idea of courting or any of that. I new there was something wrong with it and this train of thought on the subject as you have brought up in your comments on the various bloggers helps explain the inconclusiveness. There never seemed to be a solution to work for in the discussion. (there won’t be because they are playing in a woman’s game. there is no solution to female drama the hamster won’t have it)
    This is the beauty of having children. The desire to do right by your kids gets the best out of a basically beta type(me). I never would have thought about or undertood any of this beyond a gut feeling. I have something to offer my son and daughters beyond just agreeing with pop culture.
    rmax you doe have one thing really wrong
    “When a woman goes against her natural instinct to procreate & benefit society as a mother & wife in a heterosexual relationship, she is a savage primitive nothing more, hence their need for assholes & thugs”
    The savage primiative is natural. Things thats feminism as declared as oppression and misogyny are were actually checks that a civilized society had on this behavior in women. To prevent what you have just disscribed in your comment.The same society also has checks on male behavior much of which is discribed as duty and responsibility. What susan and other such bloggers are trying to do is get civil behavior in a society with out rules. Trying to get women to behave with honor in impossible. Though many of the relationship bloggers will deny it as I used to, the MGTOW combined with the PUA will have far more success in acheiving their goals.It just doesn’t look and sound appealing to women,but the effect is what you want just not as happy and romantic.

  44. deti says:

    Damn. This phenomenon of “carousel watchers” and the “unicorn carousel” is brilliant. And there is something to it. There is definitely something to it.

    First, we should define these terms so they don’t get lost or distorted. Feel free to disagree, add to or delete from these definitiions.

    “Carousel watcher”: (1) A woman who neither rides the alpha carousel nor wishes to ride. (2) A woman who does not ride the alpha carousel but isn’t allowed to ride because she isn’t sufficiently attractive to do so. (3) A woman who formerly rode the alpha carousel but was kicked off because she hit the Wall, but hasn’t accepted the fact that she can no longer ride the carousel. All three types of women wish for and wait for an alpha male to present himself to her for sex and/or relationships, without having to ride the carousel.

    “Carousel watching” The phenomenon in which a woman or groups of women do not ride the alpha carousel, but instead stand or sit around it, observing and studying the carousel and the persons on it, and doing either of the following: wishing and waiting for alpha males to present themselves to the women for sex and/or relationships; or lamenting and grousing that alpha males have not presented themselves to the women for sex and/or relationships. The women do this to try to get an alpha without having to ride the carousel and in an attempt to shift the risk back to men.

    “Unicorn carousel”: A fictional construct in the minds of women consisting of a group of alpha males with sufficient beta characteristics who will at some undetermined future time present themselves to women for sex and/or relationships.

  45. deti says:

    Damn. Definition (2) above should be:

    A woman who wants to ride the alpha carousel but isn’t allowed to ride because she isn’t sufficiently attractive to do so.

  46. Lavazza says:

    deti: Very good stuff.

    “The women do this to try to get an alpha without having to ride the carousel and in an attempt to shift the risk back to men.”

    This part might need some additions. For this to happen the alpha pony has to get off the carousel, since the carousel is defined by what is happening on it (and “the rules” for this activity), which is something some women do not want to participate in, even if she’s only interested in the alpha ponies on the carousel and not the beta ponies off the carousel.

  47. deti says:

    There is something to the carousel watching phenomenon. It seems to be a recent development in the last 20 years or so.

    In the mid to late 80s when I was in college, everyone seemed to be willingly participating in the SMP. Assortative mating ruled the day. Men and women pretty much behaved rationally. Like pretty much went with like. Male 4s got with female 3s and 4s. Alpha males (9s and 10s) got with the very hottest females. Upper betas (8s) were with the alpha castoffs. The beta males (6s and 7s) were with 5, 6 and 7 females. Anyone who wanted a BF or a sex partner could get one. There was an alpha carousel which only the 8, 9 and 10 women could ride. There was even a beta carousel of sorts for the 4-7 women. Only the truly unfortunates were unable to participate.

    There was very little of women punching way above their weight, i.e. a 4 woman going home with a 9 alpha for a pump & dump. This almost never happened. First, the alphas had the 9 and 10 sorority sisters to themselves and had no use or need for second tier women. Second, alphas had reputations to uphold. If they slummied it up with a 5, the 9s and 10s heard about it, and he would be alpha no more. Third, the 4-7 women fully knew these men were off limits to them for anything but sex. Most of the women instinctively understood they would be seen as sluts and thus destroy their SMV if they let alphas pump & dump them. They also understood even the 5-7 men didn’t want sluts for anything but sex either. That is, if she let an alpha use her, betas wouldn’t want her for anything other than pump & dump either.

    More to the point, there was very little carousel watching. Very, very few women held out for the alphas. There was hypergamy but it was checked with reasonable controls. A female 5 held out for the best 6 she could get. She considered herself wildly successful if she bagged a 7 and she held onto him for dear life. Anything above a 7 was out of reach for her.. A male 5 could easily participate in this SMP. He could with no effort at all get a 4, a 5, or even a 6, all of whom would sex him up. The main difference was that most of these women were looking eventually for marriage, and were sincere in their efforts. Also, keep in mind this was just as liberal divorce laws were kicking in and the full effect hadn’t yet been felt or appreciated.

    Compare and contrast to today, 25 years later: we have the effects we all know. Some women routinely slut it up with alphas. We now have the carousel watcher phenomenon, in which women petulantly sit on the sidelines, hoping for the alpha male to simply show up, sweep her off her feet, take her back to the castle on his white horse, and ravage her all night long. But unfortunately for them, Fabio never appears. They sit and pine for a man who will never arrive; they wait for a fictional creature who exists only in their fevered imaginations and created by enormous doses of emotional pornography; they wait for events that will never happen.

  48. Lavazza says:

    Some alpha ponies get off the carousel, because their alphaness has decreased. What the watchers want most dearly is for the alpha ponies to keep their alphaness and grow into unicorns and move to a unicorn carousel near her that no other women know of.

  49. Joe Blow says:

    “The ratio of men to women in college is 3/2.”

    That is factually incorrect. The ratio of men to women is 2:3. 40% of the students are male. There are significant deviations from that in engineering, math and science colleges, but the higher education population tilts very heavily female, to the point where it is causing a bit of an admissions crisis. Were it not for a heavy hand on the scale in favor of men, the ratio would be close to 3:7. Why this is, is not clear, but it likely has something to do with the way that primary and secondary education seem to be geared toward ensuring female academic success and discouraging masculine behavior. See, e.g. Christina Hoff Summers, “The War on Boys.”

    This has an effect of encouraging hookup culture because there is a scarcity of males.

  50. Brendan says:

    Why this is, is not clear, but it likely has something to do with the way that primary and secondary education seem to be geared toward ensuring female academic success and discouraging masculine behavior. See, e.g. Christina Hoff Summers, “The War on Boys.”

    This has an effect of encouraging hookup culture because there is a scarcity of males.

    Yes, this is exacerbating the trend, without doubt, because it creates both increased competitive pressure among women vis-a-vis men *and* increased leverage for the most desirable men vis-a-vis these women. The same phenomenon perpetuates itself after college in female-heavy East Coast cities like Manhattan, DC and Boston.

    There is something to the carousel watching phenomenon. It seems to be a recent development in the last 20 years or so.

    In the mid to late 80s when I was in college, everyone seemed to be willingly participating in the SMP.

    I think it depended on where you were. Where I was (at the same time period), the situation was transitioning. There was very little dating at all. The hook-up culture was getting started, but did not have everyone participating in it — I’d estimate that a small percentage of guys did (athletes, frat boys, some other of the more attractive males), and a somewhat larger percentage of women did (maybe 40% or so at the most, probably less on a frequent basis). There was a smallish number of people who had paired off from groups (it was pretty small — 10-15% or so at the most, really), and everyone else (around 50%) who was generally not involved with anyone else on any ongoing basis and not regularly hooking up, either. Some portion of this latter group might have the occasional ONS, but it wasn’t that common, either. In general, most people were *very* reluctant to form attachments that could be lasting because most did not wish to be tied down after graduation — this was more of a higher-end institution with high FTO types, so the life trajectory expectations of the men and women alike were more along the lines of “I don’t want an attachment that will limit me in terms of options post-graduation or one that will mess me up emotionally due to having to break it off then after getting really attached to someone, so now is not the time for that”. What people did about that varied, but in general only a minority hooked up — just as many basically opted out, at *that* time, men and women alike.

    It was different than it seems to be today (modestly more pairing off, less pervasive hooking up), but similar in some ways as well (no dating at all, really, even among those who paired up — people simply “hung out together”). It was heading in the direction we see today, but not quite there yet. I think that the intervening time period of just over 20 years has seen other social changes that have pushed this along that trajectory, such as a substantial decrease in the ratio of men to women in colleges, and the pornification of sexual culture due to generations matriculating who were raised on internet porn, among other things.

  51. P Ray says:

    @Deti:
    While what you say is true about female carousel watchers,
    female carousel watchers damage the chances of beta/omega men by using relational aggression, thus pushing them down further.
    Examples include saying such-and-such a person is “creepy”, has “threatened” violence or “hates women”. One of the uses of social media is to do that, and many women are using it in that way.
    Women in the carousel are fully occupied with the ride; female carousel watchers have time, envy and a desire to interfere in other peoples’ relationships.

  52. deti says:

    Brendan:

    Agreed. I was in the midwest and still am. What I described was in the pre-internet age too. Then, trends moved more slowly inward from the coasts. I doubt that hookup culture had made it all the way in in the late 80s.

    The hookup culture and SMP is different in the midwest where I live, with the possible exception of Chicago and maybe Dallas. There is less hookup or at least fewer persons participating in hookup. The culture (TV, SATC, EPL) has some influence but it’s not as pronounced here, I think. There are hardcore players and sluts, but not as many and not as visible as in the major coastal cities. From what I hear on these blogs, NYC, DC, LA are just brutal. Perhaps Chicago and Dallas less so.

  53. Mencken says:

    Desiderius,

    Regrettably, nothing comes to mind – though I will be on the lookout, since such a treatise would be of interest to myself.

  54. Lavazza says:

    Brendan: “In general, most people were *very* reluctant to form attachments that could be lasting because most did not wish to be tied down after graduation.”

    This is strange to me. When I was at uni in Sweden most wanted to find a long time partner already at university, because it was a good pool for eligible partners of the opposite sex (there are two university cities with a student population of 20-30 000 students to a population of 60 000 and 130 000, and Stockholm is the only city that has more than 50 000 20-25 year olds, of which maybe 15-20 000 are students). There was little opportunity in getting a first job in Stockholm. I think that only 20-30 % of the people I knew got their first job there. Most had to go to smaller cities to learn the ropes before they could get a job in Stockholm, so most people paired up and had a long distance relationship for 1-2 years. I guess only 10 % of singles found someone during this exodus. Maybe 20 % of the couples broke up during it, but most survived it quite easily, so marriage and kids followed.

  55. deti says:

    “female carousel watchers have time, envy and a desire to interfere in other peoples’ relationships.”

    I’m not sure it’s a desire to interfere with others’ relationships. I think the carousel watcher is simply sitting or standing there, observing the SMP’s machinery at work. She’s frustrated and sitting there, not riding for a couple of reasons, I think She either (1) doesn’t want to ride because she wants a stud alpha without having to put herself through that sexual meat grinder; or (2) she’s not attractive enough to ride but really wants to.

  56. deti says:

    Lavazza:

    I suspect Brendan was talking about (1) students going on to grad school and (2) students moving into employment anywhere in the country or perhaps abroad.

    Though I was in the midwest and at a less prestigious university, I fell into the first category and understood Brendan’s POV. It was generally considered better not to get into an LTR if you were going to grad school which could be anywhere. If you weren’t planning on grad school, employment was less of an issue since most returned to their towns/cities of origin for employment, or became townies. I was in a long distance relationship all through grad school in a different city and tried to make that work instead of getting married (big, big mistake). I eventually broke with her after grad school, and we didn’t get married. Better to have simply broken it off after graduating college rather than try to keep an LDR going through the rigors of grad school.

  57. Old Glory says:

    Awesome post, Dalrock. The concepts of “carousel watching” and “unicorn carousel” are also things I can get behind. Definitely real social phenomena from what I’ve seen — even here in DC. Girls running in groups, looking for a unicorn to appear.

    I recently became aware of the “roster” concept that these girls use: think of a basketball roster, complete with a team captain, point guard, and the option for a sixth man. Yea, you see where I’m going with this. Essentially they don’t necessarily sleep with all these men, but they rank them for who has the most potential to make it to TC… who would, hopefully, then become something more.

  58. Brendan says:

    This is strange to me. When I was at uni in Sweden most wanted to find a long time partner already at university, because it was a good pool for eligible partners of the opposite sex

    It’s the sheer scale of the US as well. It’s not uncommon for people travel across the country to go to college, then again to get their first job, or go to graduate school or what have you, and then again to get their first graduate/professional job. It’s a lot of geographical ping-pong at very long distances (compared to inside Sweden), and with critical resume elements on each “leg” (e.g., which grad school, which first job, etc.). It isn’t that uncommon for someone from NY to go to college in California, back to the East Coast or Texas or Chicago for grad school, then back to the West Coast or something for their first professional job — and vice versa. In light of this kind of ping-pong effect, the reluctance people have is that, as Deti says, tying oneself down geographically seems like a bad choice when critical resume junctures are happening, and “long distance” can mean really long, like 3000 mile, distance. Certainly this attitude is more common among the higher-achieving high FTO set (more likely to be ping-ponging collecting resume items), but it’s definitely there and was out in spades where I went to college. It’s true that this runs directly counter to the reality that at no other time in your life are you surrounded by more appropriate and available potential mates, but among the higher-achiever, FTO types the idea is deferring that until the resume is built a bit first, and one is geographically at least somewhat more settled. And, as Deti points out, this is not without reason, either.

  59. Lavazza says:

    Brendan: Thanks for the clarification. Sweden has long distances, as well (2200 km north south), but most were able to get their first job maximum 4-5 hours away from each other. We do not have this grad school fenomenen. Economy is 4 years, law and engineering is 4.5 years and medicin is 5.5 years. And that is it, then people start working. Science nerds might do a PhD, and high fliers with an Econ or engineering degree might have their employer pay a MBA abroad after a couple of years. But that is really marginal. Some really ambitious people might do both engineering AND economics in double time (adding a year or so), but an engineering degree (there are hardly any “small” engineering schools, just the two top schools) or an Econ degree from the one top school is good enough to become a high flier in Swedish industry.

  60. AnonymousDog says:

    Brendan, deti, Lavazza,

    I saw what you describe as an undergraduate at Big Ten Ag & Engineering School back in the late 70’s and early 80’s. The male to female ratio on campus then was 5:3. The few structured social events were either sponsored by, or controlled by the “Greek system”, so guys who didn’t have “letters on their asses” weren’t really welcome at those events(though non-Greek women were). And frankly, since we were not welcome, we claimed to despise those social events as being less than ‘cool’.

    So the main venues for non-Greek men to meet women were class, student housing, keggers, or the bars, all of which favored more socially “aggressive” men. (I should probably add that most dorms were NOT coed on that campus back then). I knew a very few guys who were engaging in (or claiming to)what would now be called ‘hooking up’, though I never heard that term used then. I also knew a fair number of couples in “joined-at-the -hip” relationships, though, again, I never heard that term used. It always seemed to me that most of the women in my curriculum (Ag), were avoiding any entanglements which might complicate their post-graduation life, or they had(or claimed to have) a boyfriend “back home” somewhere.

    My sense. with hindsight, is that a majority of unattached women on campus would have been happy to engage in assortative dating and mating had the social infrastructure(structured social occasions) existed to bring the “80%” of men and women together. I have to suspect that would still be true.

  61. Brendan says:

    Lavazza —

    Yes, that’s pretty different. As you probably know, in the US, graduate and professional degrees are longer, and, importantly, are most commonly done at a different institution than the undergraduate school. And while it’s true that Sweden is long from top to bottom, it’s a bit different from the US where our two largest cities are 3000+ miles apart, and so on, and where our educational institutions are all over the place. For example, I went to graduate/professional school in North Carolina, and only around 10% of the class was from North Carolina — people came there from everywhere (California, Florida, Alaska, New York, Texas and so on) and then dispersed to everywhere after they were finished. There was only a tiny amount of relationship formation happening as a result of that. Sweden may have something similar happening, but I think that the difference in scale, as well as the fact that our big population centers are located all over the place (coasts, corners and in the middle now as well), makes the geographical ping pong much more daunting, I would think.

  62. deti says:

    AnonDog:

    Yep. Class, the dorms and the house parties were the social scene if you weren’t Greek. Most students weren’t Greek. A woman had to be at least –at least — a 7 to join most every sorority. Guys joined frats for the specific purpose of getting laid. A few found out if you couldn’t get laid before going Greek you probably wouldn’t have much more luck once you were in a frat — because 90% of the women were better looking than the women on campus at large and were plugged in to all the social events. There were also a lot more alpha males in the frats, so if you weren’t very alpha yourself, you looked even less so next to these guys. That kind of social proof didn’t help you much with women

    A lot of women at my campus wanted to connect with men but didn’t want to go to the parties or run the risk of pump & dumps, which sometimes happened though not as much as I hear about now on these blogs. There were a very few guys doing hookups. Back then we called it pick her up and take her home or just pickup for short. I also knew a few LTRs who later married, half still together, half divorced.

    AnonDog said: “My sense. with hindsight, is that a majority of unattached women on campus would have been happy to engage in assortative dating and mating had the social infrastructure(structured social occasions) existed to bring the “80%” of men and women together. I have to suspect that would still be true.”

    I disagree with this, from what I’m hearing now, though I suppose it could be true in the midwest. This was less true at my campus (a step down from a Big Ten school). Just about any woman who wanted to find a BF or a date could get one. I think it’s even less true now. You have lots of carousel watchers, disappointed that they can’t get an alpha. You have 4 and 5 women getting pumped and dumped by alphas, from the field reports we hear. Those 4 and 5 women have hugely overinflated views of their own sexual market values.

  63. Brendan says:

    Deti —

    Yes, at my school the frat scene was only rather moderate — most people were not in frats, and (at that time at least) most of the frat parties were “open”, so anyone who wanted to could go to them. There were certainly party frats and people who were inveterate frat party goers, but most people abstained from that, including most women. The grad school I went to had a much more prominent/dominant frat scene for its undergrads — I think it varies a lot by school and perhaps by location as well.

    Most people who did end up connecting did so through class or through dorm/friends and dorm parties. Dorm parties generally would have a few people ONSing, but only a few. There was a lot of posing/validation going on more than anything else, for most people, at these dorm parties. But really, and especially once people got beyond the first couple of years, people mostly stuck with their own friends and party-going became more limited to the local dorm parties and so on — for the non-frat-party crowd, that is. I suspect that the emergent hook-up culture at the time began with the frat parties.

  64. deti says:

    Brendan:

    Your college experience is much like mine. I went to a 20,000 student institution in the midwest. Alcohol wasn’t allowed in the dorms. Underage drinking was rampant but happened at the house party which was the dominant social scene. These were houses or apartments rented by upperclassmen, hosting a party with a keg or two of cheap beer. You bought your beer cup at the door and drank all night. As many people as could pack into the house or apartment got in. There was some pickup and ONSs but mostly you knew the women were looking for relationships. Most women drew the line at P in V sex but would do just about everything else. You had to be a little careful at the house parties because the townie high school girls often showed up. Frat parties were open but unless you were a top tier male you didn’t go. It was a waste of time unless your main aim was to get drunk with your friends. The women were going for the Greek alpha males all the way, unless the alphas were attached. This was my first experience with the alpha male/social proof phenomenon, though I didn’t know it at the time. Some Greek alphas were attached, but occasionally “cheated” on the side with girls if they could pull them. There were a few apex alphas who could do anything and anyone they wanted. They had rotating soft harems.

    I went to grad school in Illinois. That school had a dominant Greek scene for undergrads but I wasn’t in that at all. The students came there from everywhere and most dispersed back to major cities. In my grad school classes there were a very few couples, but most stayed single, I suspect.

  65. jack says:

    I have been shopping for a house lately in the $200,000 price range.

    I have noticed that some houses are priced at $220k, but could easily sell at $200k.

    I have noticed other houses priced at $220k that need to be priced more like $140k.

    The second house is effectively “not really for sale”. Despite it being listed on the real estate websites, the pricing is far too high to attract anything but the occasional viewing.

    I’m sure that the $140k house has had a couple showings (kinds like a pump ‘n’ dump) to buyers in the $200k-ish price range (kinda like an alpha male), but these showings are accidental (drunken horny hookup), since once inside (heh), the $200k buyer realizes that the pricing is unrealistic (shes’s actually a 5).

    The $140-150k-ish buyers are not even going in to look because they are priced out. And any buyer who dares offer the actual value as a price (beta male) will receive scorn and anger over their “insulting” offer (‘creepy’ offer)?

    Once again, a beta male is no different toa girl than her mirror and the waistband of her smallest pair of jeans: Just another painful reminder of her true sexual rank.

  66. Mark says:

    Since there’s a lack of data about college hookups, it would be hard to verify that 20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women rather than 20% of men having sex with 20% of women. I think, though, that plenty of guys can offer personal anecdotes that indicate that might be true. Or, take for example, what we can see if we go higher up the scale. There’s plenty of biographical information on the rich, famous and successful. When we see a famous high status male who’s known for having multiple relationships, for example Bill Clinton or Arnold Schwarzenegger, and then look at the women they have relationships with, women like Monica or Arnold’s Mexican maid, the women are not having the same number of partners. They are perfectly happy having sex with the one high status male and pretty much ignore every other male. And if you look at famous high status women who would have lots of opportunities to be promiscuous, you never see them taking advantage of that. Instead of having sex with multiple men, they use their high status to get involved with equally high status men. You could probably go through the biographies of dozens of female actresses, pop stars and so on and hardly find anything like the indulgence in groupie sex that you could find in the biographies of their male equivalents. Women are generally just not that promiscuous so it’s hard to believe that a small group of men can find enough promiscuous women to have lots of sex. They have to be drawing from a larger pool of women who are not normally promiscuous. So if this is the case at the very top, doesn’t it make sense that it would still be the case to a lesser extent lower down the ladder?

  67. Looking Glass says:

    On the college stuff, while my experiences are much more recent, I can’t shed all that much information on it. I went to a small college that’s still heavily male (business school, basically, lol) and I had no real desire to be in any part of the hook-up or dating scene. I was too busy, haha. (worked 1/2 time and was doing a double major)

    But I can comment on the “going to grad school” bit. If a guy or gal is really planning on Graduate School, they’re not much looking at getting locked down. Once they get to graduate school, it’s a rather different story (though depends where you go). Getting a Master’s and a Missus wasn’t uncommon for guys from my school. Though, especially in the current college scene, a guy in a Grad program (generally going to be making good money in 1-2 years) is a lot higher up the SMP than a guy in another degree. So they can swing for better in Grad school than they can as an undergraduate. At least in the 25% of women in college that still want to get married by 25.

  68. Desiderius says:

    Update from Susan’s blog:

    “A thousand thanks. Here is how I see the fight against feminism – I’ve been thinking about this a lot. Ending the feminist agenda will require turning the tide with male politicians, who have done a lot to support the feminist ideology. That means producing a clear and vocal majority clamoring for change. This cannot be done without women – it’s mathematically impossible.

    Also, if women perceive feminism as getting in the way of their own goals, I.e., sluts are preventing me from getting a boyfriend, then they will speak out against feminism. Ultimately, female intrasexual competition is the key, because women are very invested in the outcome.

    MRAs hate the idea of making women allies, but they can’t do it without us. That’s my assessment of the situation.”

    You got a problem with that, I got a problem with you.

  69. Ya Boy Matt says:

    Simple minded the majority of women are, and it shows just how flawed their understanding is of MRA. Not about the divorce rape, not about father’s rights, not about paternity fraud, not about anything oh no

    What matters is whether cupcake can get a boyfriend or not.

  70. Twenty says:

    @Desiderius

    Update from Susan’s blog:

    “A thousand thanks. Here is how I see the fight against feminism – I’ve been thinking about this a lot. Ending the feminist agenda will require turning the tide with male politicians, who have done a lot to support the feminist ideology. That means producing a clear and vocal majority clamoring for change. This cannot be done without women – it’s mathematically impossible.

    MRAs hate the idea of making women allies, but they can’t do it without us. That’s my assessment of the situation.”

    You got a problem with that, I got a problem with you.

    Feminists are parasites. They need a host. The host does not need them. To kill a parasite, you need only separate it from its host. You don’t need to ask its permission.

    The quoted message is basically that men must supplicate and cater to women — that it’s all about what the wimminz want. Screw that. Men built this society, men run (in the nuts-and-bolts, who-repairs-the-subways-tracks sense, as well as the leadership sense) this society, and it’s long past time they once again stood tall and shook the heavens.

    So, sparky, I guess you have a problem with me. Whatchagonnado about it?

  71. Paragon says:

    @ rmax

    “The above by paragon is basic anti-game nonsense, everyone knows women dont judge on looks, they go on the observed context of a man”

    Please define ‘context’ in a meaningful, falsifiable way – in a way that science can speak to.

    “Also his attempts to falsely re-define confidence is wrong, confidence & extreme acts of confidence trigger biological receptors biologically for a woman”

    Define confidence please?

    By any meaningful definition, confidence is not an a priori quantity – it cannot be disentangled from it’s dependencies?

    Confidence exists only so far as to say something about these other variables.

    So, when one observes confidence correlated with a given outcome, it can only say something about these dependencies.

    Correlation does not equal causation.

    “His attempts to falsely redefine basic pua is concepts is laughable bad …”

    I’m not trying to redefine anything – I’m merely pointing out that much of game/pua canon fails to agree with an evolutionary synthesis.

  72. Paragon says:

    @ rmax

    “In fact paragons arguments come across as some sort of stealth feminist post … trying to deride clearly well known biological functions of women”

    Well known biological functions of women?

    Like what?

  73. Paragon says:

    @ rmax

    “Most men dont realise how truly sociopathic & mentally disturbed women truly are, their need for a sociopathic asshole is literally infinite, also the sociopathic behaviour they want from men is infinte, there is no limit, they want a man to be as asshole to the point literally everyone around him hates his guts.

    The proof is with women who stay with men who batter them for years, murderers & serial killers, gangbangers, penniless welfare serfs, penniless hobos, penniless musicians, penniless artists, the extents of assholish behaviour women demand & expect from men is infinite.

    There are NO limits when it comes to women, this is the cold hard truth”

    This is easily explained, in that the strategic optima of genetic benefits(indicated in physical attractiveness) is short-term mating, and thus anything that expedites short-term mating traffic(netting males higher fitness gains, and thus an evolutionary advantage) is likewise
    advantageous.

    It then follows that genetically attractive males should evolve strategies that expedite this kind of traffic(frequently indicated in abuse, delinquency, and promiscuity), as documented in the study: “Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency”
    (Martin L. Lalumièrea and Vernon L. Quinseyb
    a Forensic Program, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 250
    College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5T 1R8;b Department of Psychology,
    Queen’s University at Kingston, Humphrey Hall, Kingston, Ontario,
    Canada, K7L 3N6.)

    (unlike you, I can provide references in support of my arguments)

    Thus, evolutionary success will tend to correlate male physical attractiveness with abusive, delinquent, and promiscuous tendencies(and will limit deviations accordingly).

    So, when we observe that females privilege such males, it is not that females find these traits attractive per se, but rather that they are selecting for certain desirable traits that have become correlated with negative ones – this is their dilemma.

    In fact, females will be under evolutionary pressure to accomodate such males, as male offspring will tend to share the same inherent advantages as their fathers, resulting in high-fitness male offspring for the mothers(and thus a likewise evolutionary advantage).

    Females who tend to reject such males will be at a relative disadvantage(producing less prolific offspring), and thus evolution will tend to limit the frequency of such females over time to the point of rarity.

    To summarize, there are evolutionary reasons why female choices tend in the opposite direction from ‘nice guys'(females who privilege ‘nice guys’ – by the conventional meaning of the term – incur an evolutionary disadvantage for the increased prospect of breeding fitness-handicapped sons – thus evolution will limit the frequency of such outcomes accordingly).

  74. Paragon says:

    For the record – I do not believe that surveys are a reliable indication of mating distributions(ie. there is consistent evidence of falsified reporting – and every indication that males embellish, while females understate), especially when it disagrees so strongly, not only with what sexual evolution predicts, but what other controlled testing reveals of male/female mating preferences, and the resultant asymmetry).

  75. nyccine says:

    This is the reason I am vociferously pro-Game and anti-feminism. I seek to redress the balance.

    There’s a lot wrong with this, and it requires a lot of unpacking to really get to the heart of the problem:

    1) The notion that you only need to have x amount of game to suceed in finding a spouse, and keeping her. In truth, as Game is fundamentaly a response to hypergamy, then it must necessarily follow that Game itself is relative, not absolute, just as hypergamy is relative, not absolute (“could I do better?” is hard-wired into the female psyche).

    It is true that there is a “you must be this tall to ride” aspect to game, and that in the current SMP, having the bare minimum amount of game will dramatically increase your success, but this is only true because the competition level is so low; herein lies the trap for advocates of Game for normal guys.

    Game will prove to be a resource with dramatically diminishing returns; after a critical threshold (and while I have no idea what this level might be, it is likely far from 100% of all men), you’re right back at square one, with whoever proves to be the best at running game (or, whoever can back up their game with actual status) getting right back on top of the SMP.

    2) Ignoring the political and sociological consequences of the open embrace of Game by men at large. This is the huge one; men pursuing game as a valid response to hypergamy completely legitimizes it.

    We’re already behind the 8-ball in this regard; the vast majority of our social institutions exhort women to give into these impulses, and those that don’t tend to assent by silence. When men embrace game, there will no longer be any moral or philosophical standing to rebut hypergamy, and in fact future generations of men will likely not even understand arguments that male-female relations could be any other way.

    And no, we’re not going to game women into submission; pace Roissy, we have ample evidence that women are not *ever* going to react to the consequences of giving in to their primal urges by re-accepting the restraints of traditional relationships; there will always be something else they can point the finger at, as they already do now.

  76. Lavazza says:

    nyccine: Hypergamy is a given. What has changed is that society and laws have been propping women up and pushing men down for some decades. It’s a situation that cannot hold. This will not last. I guess it is due to cheap and plentiful energy, that has made the need for an efficiently functioning society less immediate. We will go back to a situation where hypergamy is still prevalent but more kept in check when the need for a efficiently functioning society becomes more immediate. It is hard to say what has historically been the long term equilibrium, but I am quite sure that today’s situation has never existed for a prolonged time (centuries rather than decades) in any group, society or era.

  77. Desiderius says:

    Twenty,

    “So, sparky, I guess you have a problem with me. Whatchagonnado about it?”

    Point out that you can’t fucking read? She’s not a feminist, she’s an anti-feminist. Monogamous civilization doesn’t exist without the alpha females being on board (making all the others raise their kids with monogamous values, not the crap we have now). That’s history, not MRA utopian fantasyland.

    Although no doubt you’ve fantasized about your maternity wear when the MRA utopian kingdom comes and you get to raise the kids. Sparky.

  78. Desiderius says:

    nyccine

    Agree wholeheartedly. Rome wasn’t built in a day. Perfect enemy of the good, etc…

    Game is a band-aid, but we’ll never get rid of it completely. That’s like the radical feminists refusing to do anything at all to attract men. Game/heels signals to the opposite sex that you’re at least interested in their needs, even the obsolete ones.

  79. hurpadurp says:

    Although no doubt you’ve fantasized about your maternity wear when the MRA utopian kingdom comes and you get to raise the kids. Sparky.

    To be fair, I pointed out in another thread that single fatherhood via surrogacy was an option. He told me it was a “bad idea.”

    That being the case, though, if Mr. Twenty sincerely believes this, then it somewhat undermines his point. Yes, men may build and run this society, but unfortunately, at least at the moment, we can’t make more men, we still need to rely on those evil parasites called women for now. Regardless of whether or not you think Ms. Walsh is an “ally,” even if she isn’t, attacking her isn’t going to do much to solve the deeper problem. Like I said in the other thread, it would be a far more productive use of time for MRAs to get involved in scientific pursuits or even just donate money to transhumanist organizations instead of wasting effort trying to purge the MRM of women. Once we can grow boys in vats, that’ll happen anyways, so it makes more sense to concentrate on that goal first.

  80. Brendan says:

    Game/heels signals to the opposite sex that you’re at least interested in their needs, even the obsolete ones.

    This is true. Both are weapons as well. Game is a weapon in the sense that it disarms shit testing and female snap exclusion routines. Heels are a weapon in the sense that they physically exclude more men, thus limiting the pool to even more physically hypergamous men (on the margins).

    Remember, this is, in essence, a war when it comes to mating, because the two sexes have cross purposes. A healthy society recasts the war as a dance where each partner must accommodate the other to move in synchrony. A dysfunctional one strips that away, leaving us with combat dating.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    Brendan/Novasseeker
    Remember, this is, in essence, a war when it comes to mating, because the two sexes have cross purposes. A healthy society recasts the war as a dance where each partner must accommodate the other to move in synchrony. A dysfunctional one strips that away, leaving us with combat dating.

    And a dysfunctional society finds itself with fewer and fewer high-performing beta men, which in turn leads to a lowering of standards for critical path jobs. Eventually, basic services begin to suffer. An industrial society requires investment in the most critical resource of all: intelligent, reliable, men. The US now actively attacks intelligent boys and men in a variety of ways, even as it demands that they “man up” and win the race of life no matter how much weight is piled on their back. This is a condition that can’t last.

    Game is useful. But it is not enough, not nearly enough.

  82. Mark says:

    Lavazza: That was a good point that female hypergamy will be held in check once an efficiently functioning society becomes more important. There was equilibrium for many years with ninety percent of the population marrying and raising children together and we had a wealthy and well functioning society. We got away from that and I think we are fast reaching the point where current conditions can’t continue. I don’t think change will come from women because they are the ones who benefit from current conditions. They get to slut it up with alpha males and have children with them and then have beta males support them and their children by extracting taxes from them to support the welfare state the women live off of. And when I say welfare state, I don’t mean just direct payments. That would include the whole panoply of government interventions like divorce laws benefiting women, affirmative action laws, and indirect subsidies to women like government jobs for them or jobs in heavily government subsidized fields like higher education and health care. If you were a typical female, why would you give that up voluntarily? We men are the ones who are going to have to think up strategies to deal with this issue and we can only rely on the support of the few women who are intelligent enough to see the long term problems if we continue the current setup and are willing to give up their current advantages for the long term health of our society. And the day is coming very soon when those advantages will have to be given up because if they aren’t the economy will collapse and then the advantages will disappear anyway.

  83. deti says:

    Hypergamy can’t be legitimized or delegitimized. It is hardwired into the female brain. It can only be checked and controlled. When the old controls such as early marriage, elder women instructing and training the girls and younger women, and legal framework penalizing divorce and hypergamy were thrown off, nothing restrained hypergamy. Game and MGTOW emerged as new effective controls

    Many men are effectively saying to women: “Many of you will be going it alone. If you won’t submit to the old controls with us, we’ll put new checks on you. If the old controls are removed through the new laws, we won’t subject ourselves to the new laws. In the unlikely event we do marry you, we’ll game you to keep you in check. If you divorce us you’ll be going it alone.”

  84. jack says:

    The new generation of young men are growing up in a world where they will have a hard time ever accepting the idea that women are the underprivileged sex.

    Sooner or later a critical mass of young men will start voting their interests; I wonder what political party will figure this out and capitalize on it?

  85. jack says:

    Being saddled with a wife and children has always been a VERY effective control on young men going wild and agitating for political reform, especially using more extreme methods. Gotta keep paying the mortgage, and junior needs new shoes, right?

    But what happens when you have a large contingent of young men completely shut out of the sex/marriage market? Game can and will shift the 80/20 breakpoint at some level, but game and mgtow is not going to be sufficient to overcome the institutionalized feminism that pervades every aspect of American culture.

  86. Anonymous Reader says:

    jack
    The new generation of young men are growing up in a world where they will have a hard time ever accepting the idea that women are the underprivileged sex.

    This is true.

    Sooner or later a critical mass of young men will start voting their interests; I wonder what political party will figure this out and capitalize on it?

    I’m not sure that is going to happen, and even if it does it won’t matter, because female voters plus mangina voters will outnumber them.

    [D: It isn’t votes at the ballot box which will send shockwaves, but men voting with their feet. We only need a significant minority of men to decline marriage, or at least (preferable in my opinion) decline marriage to unworthy women. Those who outright decline marriage will likely have further impact as many of them will decide not to knock themselves out since they aren’t supporting a family. There isn’t much the feminists and manginas can do to counter this.]

  87. RL says:

    STD rates by gender are also insightful wrt hypergamy: http://www.cdc.gov/std/health-disparities/gender.htm

    Although I am not sure how to quantify differences in screening rates, sensitivity to infection etc. which should also be considered.

  88. jack says:

    I’m not sure that is going to happen, and even if it does it won’t matter, because female voters plus mangina voters will outnumber them.

    Possibly, but I predict that a large number of men will go through a process I call “manginapause”, where, accompanied by hot flashes and night sweats, the young mangina finally shakes the estrogen free of his system and begins to think, look, and act like a man.

    Hell, it happens to women in their 50s, why not betaboy manginas?

  89. Paragon says:

    Game is largely a myth – a popular fiction synthesized to embellish male success with a basis in real quantities of evolutionary value.

    Trivial observations that seemingly confirm ‘game’, are observing nothing more than spurious correlations.

    The quest for a practically learned skill that can ‘bend’ female choice is a fools errand, because in order for evolution to work opportunistically, it must cull (in particular)male frequencies every generation.

  90. Anonymous Reader says:

    jack
    I predict that a large number of men will go through a process I call “manginapause”, where, accompanied by hot flashes and night sweats, the young mangina finally shakes the estrogen free of his system and begins to think, look, and act like a man.

    What, exactly, will cause this to happen?

    Hell, it happens to women in their 50s, why not betaboy manginas?

    Even the worst of manginas do not actually possess ovaries. They just act like it.

  91. Anonymous Reader says:

    Paragon
    The quest for a practically learned skill that can ‘bend’ female choice is a fools errand,

    This is a strawman. Your argument appears to be against something that no one is calling Game.

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    Paragon, if you wish to pontificate on the issue of Game, I would suggest you do so at heartiste.wordpress.com, although reading the site prior to posting might be a good idea.

  93. Twenty says:

    @Desiderius says:

    Point out that you can’t fucking read? She’s not a feminist, she’s an anti-feminist.

    My objections to SW have been clearly spelled out elsewhere (the last thread, for instance). Why don’t you go read them, you illiterate moron? In fact, my objections to the very message your quoted were spelled out in the very message you’re responding to, and didn’t include the word “feminist” once. If one of use has a problem with reading comprehension, I think it’s pretty clear than it ain’t me, babe.

    Monogamous civilization doesn’t exist without the alpha females being on board

    “Alpha females” don’t exist.

    (making all the others raise their kids with monogamous values, not the crap we have now). That’s history, not MRA utopian fantasyland.

    Asserting that your view of the matter “is history” and that someone else’s view is a “fantasyland” is not, you know, an actual argument. It’s just the preening of an ignoramus who hopes to win the day by acting as if he’s already one it. You argue like a woman.

    Although no doubt you’ve fantasized about your maternity wear when the MRA utopian kingdom comes and you get to raise the kids.

    WTF this has to do with anything I’ve ever said or written I have no idea.

    I asked you what you were going to do about the fact that you have a problem with me. As I suspected, the answer is: “nothing at all”. So, my response to your declaration that I, due to my views, find myself in your black book is: “I don’t give a shit. Get stuffed.”

  94. Anacaona says:

    But what happens when you have a large contingent of young men completely shut out of the sex/marriage market? Game can and will shift the 80/20 breakpoint at some level, but game and mgtow is not going to be sufficient to overcome the institutionalized feminism that pervades every aspect of American culture.

    We will have a neat glance at that in China, but then China doesn’t have any qualms into killing their citizens if needed. Will USA ever fall into that? I do wonder I mean Obama has daughters, Clinton one daughter, George Bush daughters too, when was the last time USA had a president that could see exactly how bad boys are doing in the feminist poisoned system? Will they listen if a large group of men were dissenting or they will label them “evil” and try to neutralize them if the feminists say so?

  95. Anonymous Reader says:

    [D: It isn’t votes at the ballot box which will send shockwaves, but men voting with their feet. We only need a significant minority of men to decline marriage, or at least (preferable in my opinion) decline marriage to unworthy women.

    That will become more difficult I suspect, because feminists will stop calling themselves ‘feminist” and will learn to talk a bit less obnoxiously. They’ll learn to look just worthy enough to hook a man…

    Those who outright decline marriage will likely have further impact as many of them will decide not to knock themselves out since they aren’t supporting a family. There isn’t much the feminists and manginas can do to counter this.]

    Those who decline marriage will still be taxed, and their tax monies will go to the single women babymommas. So even MGTOW types will be supporting one or more women, they just won’t know who or where. Rome enacted bachelor taxes at one point, I can definitely see a feminist/tradcon/mangina alliance to do the same in the US, in the not too distant future. In the long run such a tax would fail, of course, as it failed in Rome but it would prolong the game.

    So long as women can ‘marry’ the government, a lot of them will do so. Sure, they’ll whine and complain about the “good man shortage”, but that won’t stop them from getting knocked up by the neighborhood Alpha thug and raising one or more children, or renting some poor Beta for a few years in order to get access to his sperm and resources. Only when women can’t “marry” betas via the government will there be any wide scale movement to reconsider. How bad do you think the fiscal crisis will have to get to end welfare as we know it?

    And don’t kid yourself when you see some woman or mangina mouthing a slogan about “the family” or “marriage” or even “men are not so bad”. Lots of people in Europe stopped calling themselves Communists about 20 or so years ago, but they didn’t change the way they think. They still thought like Communists, they still supported one-party top-down unaccountable government, they just did so using different slogans – “social justice”, etc. So just because someone claims they are opposed to feminism, it does not necessarily follow that they don’t think and act like a feminist. Words are cheap. Actions are a bit more expensive. Slogans and labels can be slapped on lots of things. Everyone in the US under the age of 70 or even older has some degree of feminist thinking inside their head because it’s been so ubiquitous in the wider culture.

    Feminism has a number of premises but a key one is gynosupremacy. The notion that women are just better than men, not equal but better, and therefore they deserve “more” than men of whatever social good is desired. Regardless of what political label a woman or man choose to drape on at a given time, if there is an underlying premise that men are animals and women are people, or that men are bad and women are good, or that men are immoral and women are moral, then that person is deep down inside a feminist. And thus will proceed from feminist principles. The bachelor tax I mentioned above would be a perfect example: feminists, both “out” and “stealth” would naturally support any increase in resource transfer from men to women, no question. Tradcons, who all too often are basically feminists in older style clothing, are always about “women and children” no matter how badly the women may behave, or how many different fathers the children may have. Manginas do what ever women tell them to do. And yet, I’m sure the tradcons would claim they are anti-feminist, and some number of stealth feminists would wave their “anti-feminist” cred in the air even as they endorse yet another feminist poison injection into the social structure.

    In short: actions speak louder than words. In a few years, “feminism” will become less popular as a label. But the gynosupremacy ideas, the “men bad women good” notions, the “women as moral superiors” ideas will be much harder to root out. One test for an ‘anti feminist” will be to ask them to publicly support an end to men’s-fault divorce, or for mandatory paternity testing, or to call for an end to Affirmative Action for women, etc. Expect smoke to be blown; “Oh, that’s important but I just don’t have the time now”, or “well, the issue is more complex than you say”, or “we shouldn’t change those laws right now because there are more important things to do”. Or expect token lip service, and nothing more: some tradcon bloggers are willing to put one tiny posting up saying “Divorce is bad. I oppose it” and nothing else. That’s right up there with some former East German Communist saying “Mistakes were made. I oppose them”; not really convincing, is it? It’s the ideas that I am more concerned with than the slogans that people wrapt themselves up in.

    Finally, in response to men who insist on “good women”, I am coming to expect a version of “girl game” that will consist of teaching young women just enough manners and politeness – to mimic “goodness – to enable them to hook a beta. Said beta man, after duly providing enough sperm for one or two children, can later be gutted & filleted via the divorce industry, thereby enabling the women to continue to receive the resources, but not to have to sexually service that ikky old beta. In other words, the same Marriage 2.0 divorce theft as today, but with an old-fashioned lace doily placed under it to make it look a bit nicer.

    This “girl game” might even be taught under the banner of “neo-traditional marriage”, or “modern Christian motherhood”, or some other clever bit of labeling. The women teaching it no doubt will insist they are opposed to feminism, even as they basically continue to teach women to be slightly less obnoxious feminists – who are just as dangerous to men as the older ones were.

    This is pretty long. Maybe I should whip up an email address just to discuss such things with you, rather than clutter up the blog?

  96. Doc says:

    While it may be true that 80% of the women aren’t pursuing 20% of the men, I can say that those 20% of the men are expected, and are pursuing 80% of the women successfully. So while that “beta female” isn’t out their trying to compete directly with the 20% who are out to score every night, it is rather fun for the male to “nail” that little mousy beta-female and they (the ladies) are more than willing to have one of those 20% of men as a bed-partner for the night.

    Every man knows that they are expected to be the pursuer – no matter what the various women’s groups may tout as the ideal. The fact is that college campuses really are as they have always been – the alpha male has his pick, and the beta-males get the cast-offs. And those same cast-offs are willing to “trade-up” for the night if for no other reason than to prove to herself (and her other beta-females) that she can have sex with an alpha – on his terms.

    Women today are starving for men who cut through the BS and act like men. I learned that long ago, and have reaped the rewards ever since. More than a few times I have called women on their BS and just as often ended up with the hottest one in my room that evening. So women can spout whatever non-sense is going around today, but when it comes down to who they are going home with that night, it’s the guy that they are attracted to, and attraction isn’t controllable, so while she may say she is looking for X, Y, and Z – that is all BS. It’s what gets her juices flowing that is what she really wants – it’s just that it isn’t politically correct for a woman to say that she wants a man who will take her when the mood strikes, and complain about him while craving and waiting for the opportunity to hook up with him again. And it doesn’t matter if she is in a relationship with that Beta-male (who actually may meet her X, Y and Z criteria) or not, when the opportunity comes she will lie like a dog. More than once I’ve had a woman in bed answer her phone and tell her significant-other that she is “out with the girls” or some other tripe before I go back for seconds… Of course she’s going back to the idiot that night – but that’s fine with me. As long as she’s with some Beta she’ll always be easy pickings…

    So those 80% are just acting as a reserve – so while 20% of the women may be playing the same game as the men, the others in that 80% are targets of opportunity.

  97. deti says:

    @ Anon Reader:

    “So long as women can ‘marry’ the government, a lot of them will do so. *** Only when women can’t “marry” betas via the government will there be any wide scale movement to reconsider. How bad do you think the fiscal crisis will have to get to end welfare as we know it?”

    In the US the fiscal situation is unsustainable and has been for 30 years. It’s due for a complete collapse and I think complete collapse is what it will take before women cannot “marry” Nanny Government. When that happens, I expect women to grovel at the feet of men, alpha and beta alike.

    “Finally, in response to men who insist on “good women”, I am coming to expect a version of “girl game” that will consist of teaching young women just enough manners and politeness – to mimic “goodness – to enable them to hook a beta. Said beta man, after duly providing enough sperm for one or two children, can later be gutted & filleted via the divorce industry, thereby enabling the women to continue to receive the resources, but not to have to sexually service that ikky old beta ***”

    I’m not as pessimistic as you are. The effect is percolating up but I’m not as sure the motives are as dark as you believe for all women. I suspect there are women out there who are figuring out that divorce after marrying beta just leaves them lonely. They can’t get alpha sex because they’re worn out, jaded and don’t have their looks. They don’t want beta sex of course. So what’s left? As support I would point to the myriad of MSM screeds lamenting the plight of the Lorraine Berrys and Kate Bolicks of the world — divorced and hating it; or never married and hating it. Cautionary tales for foolish young women. I suspect there are many young women saying they never want to end up like either of these women, and the millions like them wandering our cities, bars, airports and office buildings.

  98. Anonymous says:

    “And while I do believe the stats on women’s partners are unreported, college women report MORE partners not less than their non college counterparts.”

    This is untrue. There’s a negative correlation between education and number of sex partners – and the higher ranked the school, the less number of partners. This applies to both men and women. Furthermore, those who report the highest number of partners are those who don’t go to college – “townies”.

    Of course, anyone who has spent time around the working-class would know that they party far harder than any college kids.

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anacaona
    Obama has daughters, Clinton one daughter, George Bush daughters too, when was the last time USA had a president that could see exactly how bad boys are doing in the feminist poisoned system?

    Never. No such President has existed. Social Conservative Reagan signed the first men’s-fault divorce law into effect in California back in 1968 or ’69 if I remember right. He may have regretted that but never put any effort into overturning it, and by the time he was President most states in the US had flipped to men’s fault divorce. GHW Bush was a White Knight as far as I can tell, and the rest we know about. It’s really difficult to comprehend just how catered to women and girls are by all parts of the political space, and how impossible it is to get anyone in public life to even midly criticize any woman’s bad behavior. One of my tests for tradcons is to ask them what they think of Andrea Yates. None have ever even replied. That’s pretty clear to me.

    Will they listen if a large group of men were dissenting or they will label them “evil” and try to neutralize them if the feminists say so?

    Hard to say, perhaps a mix of “misguided” and “misogynist” shaming would be deployed. One thing for sure, those men would not be actually heard, actually listened to.

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anonymous
    This is untrue. There’s a negative correlation between education and number of sex partners – and the higher ranked the school, the less number of partners. This applies to both men and women. Furthermore, those who report the highest number of partners are those who don’t go to college – “townies”.

    Could you provide a cite to support this, please?

  101. Anonymous says:

    On this blog, as well as other MRA blogs, there seems to be a drastic overestimation of how promiscuous college girls really are. In my experience, 20% of college women are indeed racking up the large numbers – and these 20% probably come from low-income backgrounds. Truth be told, many of them are probably also racial minorities…

    It may be true that every girl ends up sleeping with teh same alpha male, but this doesn’t mean that they have a lot of sexual partners.

  102. Anacaona says:

    @Anonymous Reader
    You might not know because my name is pretty obscure but I’m a woman, born with a womb and all that, and one of the regulars at Susan Walsh’s blog. I never expected you (or any of the others that consider women always the enemy in this matters) to answer my questions. I respect your right to not trust my judgement out of my gender, just making sure you know who are you engaging too, to avoid misunderstandings.

  103. deti says:

    “This is untrue. There’s a negative correlation between education and number of sex partners – and the higher ranked the school, the less number of partners. This applies to both men and women. Furthermore, those who report the highest number of partners are those who don’t go to college – “townies”.”

    This doesn’t ring true. College women have far more access to a wider variety of sex partners than their contemporaries who are working. Townies move in more constricted social circles and less access to sex partners. Maybe there is science to back it up, but I doubt it.

  104. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anonymous
    On this blog, as well as other MRA blogs, there seems to be a drastic overestimation of how promiscuous college girls really are. In my experience, 20% of college women are indeed racking up the large numbers – and these 20% probably come from low-income backgrounds. Truth be told, many of them are probably also racial minorities…

    Anonymous, you might want to read a few more articles on the site before posting utter nonsense like this. Many of the regulars are way ahead of you, and you need to catch up.

  105. deti says:

    Women in college have more access to more men than their noncollege contemporaries. Women in college are freer to have sex with a wider variety of men. Most of them live away from home. They are no longer under a curfew or the watchful eye of a parent. They have no immediate accountability to anyone. They are responsible to no one but themselves. They have their own money and mostly their own means of transportation.

  106. Anonymous Reader says:

    deti
    In the US the fiscal situation is unsustainable and has been for 30 years. It’s due for a complete collapse and I think complete collapse is what it will take before women cannot “marry” Nanny Government. When that happens, I expect women to grovel at the feet of men, alpha and beta alike.

    Complete collapse is going to look really ugly in a lot of ways. And before then, I expect women to demand men with guns take resources away from other men to keep them fed. So I do not look forward to such a thing with any pleasure.

    I’m not as pessimistic as you are. The effect is percolating up but I’m not as sure the motives are as dark as you believe for all women. I suspect there are women out there who are figuring out that divorce after marrying beta just leaves them lonely. They can’t get alpha sex because they’re worn out, jaded and don’t have their looks. They don’t want beta sex of course. So what’s left?

    Maybe find some church in a storefront and start the “Saved Women”? Some carousel riders decide they need a beta now, get with some church ladies who will teach them how to look and act less sluttish, then they can start shaming any unmarried men in the church? There’s always going to be some poor Herb around who’s willing to play “Cap’n Sav-a-Ho”, especially if his preacher tells him its the right thing to do. And of course, they don’t really have to stop Facebooking at night, or maybe having a little afternoon Alpha on the side as long as they show up for church on Sunday, right?

    Seriously, if Dalrock is right, and men really do start making noise about “quality women” that’s going to be a cue not only for carousel riders and other high-partner-count women to pretend to be what they are not, it’s surely going to provide a niche market for “refurbishing” women – and any number of churches, especially those run by women preachers, are likely to be up for the job. Maybe “Promise Keepers” could make it a part of their national movement.

    As support I would point to the myriad of MSM screeds lamenting the plight of the Lorraine Berrys and Kate Bolicks of the world — divorced and hating it; or never married and hating it. Cautionary tales for foolish young women. I suspect there are many young women saying they never want to end up like either of these women, and the millions like them wandering our cities, bars, airports and office buildings.

    You could be right, but the problem I see is that the only lesson such women will get is “look this way, don’t talk like that, pretend to be nice, and you’ll get one”, rather than anything that might teach them, oh, that men are actually human beings. People. Cut us, and we bleed, etc.

  107. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anacaona
    @Anonymous Reader
    You might not know because my name is pretty obscure but I’m a woman, born with a womb and all that, and one of the regulars at Susan Walsh’s blog.

    If I recall correctly, you were “Stephanie Rowling” before, and I do recall you from this and other sites.

    I never expected you (or any of the others that consider women always the enemy in this matters) to answer my questions.

    Two points:
    1. It’s an open forum. People ask questions, someone may or may not answer them. Multiple people may give different answers. I think that you should already know this, from previous experience on blogs.
    2. If you want to know what I think, or believe, or consider, asking me works better than telling me. When someone asks me, I may or may not answer. When someone tells me what I think, it’s very annoying for a whole lot of reasons.

    I respect your right to not trust my judgement out of my gender, just making sure you know who are you engaging too, to avoid misunderstandings.

    You know, you really don’t have any idea what it is like to have grown up in the US in the last 40-50 years as a male. If I want to know what it’s like to be a young woman in the Dominican Republic, you would be the first one I would turn to – and I would never dream of telling you what your own life was like. So it would be useful if you would extend that grace to the men you interact with both on line and off line. I’m pretty sure, just for example, that no one has ever yelled in your face that because you are a woman, you are a criminal. But “Men Are Rapists!” is a slogan that I’ve encountered more than once. It doesn’t sound any better out of a bullhorn, and the novelty wears off very quickly. And that’s just one example, there are many more.

    In short, if you find that there are men in the US who do not trust women very easily, you might consider that they have reasons, both personal and public, for that state of mind. And there might, just might, be some women involved.

  108. Anonymous Reader says:

    For what it’s worth, I’m not saying that carousel riding women, high partner count women, etc. are utterly bad and beyond helping. It’s just that the odds are not good, and a man with a such a woman will need to keep very close tabs on her, and she must obey him without hesitation. His leadership must be accepted without question. Because the potential cost to him in the divorce industrial machine is high, and the temptations are many in the modern world.

    To those women who really, truly, turn themselves around, and the men who accept them, I offer my best wishes. Women who are fakers, on the other hand, I don’t have any use for. I hope this clarifies.

  109. Dalrock says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    That will become more difficult I suspect, because feminists will stop calling themselves ‘feminist” and will learn to talk a bit less obnoxiously. They’ll learn to look just worthy enough to hook a man…

    Some women are certainly good enough at acting to pull this sort of thing off, but I don’t think most women could. The nature of the signs men should look for are much deeper than her just acting nice. She would have to acknowledge that those who divorce frivolously deserve to be judged harshly for it, for example. This is fairly common among women reading and commenting here, but very uncommon outside of this sphere. It is an entirely foreign idea to almost all women today. To fake it, they would have to first acknowledge the idea. This would involve a level of debate which today at least is unimaginable.

    Those who decline marriage will still be taxed, and their tax monies will go to the single women babymommas. So even MGTOW types will be supporting one or more women, they just won’t know who or where. Rome enacted bachelor taxes at one point, I can definitely see a feminist/tradcon/mangina alliance to do the same in the US, in the not too distant future. In the long run such a tax would fail, of course, as it failed in Rome but it would prolong the game.

    I can’t imagine the constitutional grounds to have a tax aimed solely at unmarried men. I know our friends the socons are making noises in this direction, but I don’t see it coming to pass. We already have a distinction in the tax code between married and not and raising children or not, so they could very well decide to punitively tax the childless and unmarried. But then the tax would fall harder on women than men, because men don’t need the same level of income to feel safe and secure. Additionally, unmarried childless women will need their career and their belongings to signal status since they don’t have the traditional status associated with being a wife and mother. Men like Captain Capitalism can slip under the punitive tax brackets much easier than career gals.

    So long as women can ‘marry’ the government, a lot of them will do so. Sure, they’ll whine and complain about the “good man shortage”, but that won’t stop them from getting knocked up by the neighborhood Alpha thug and raising one or more children, or renting some poor Beta for a few years in order to get access to his sperm and resources.

    You are thinking like a man. Status matters to women. It matters immensely. Having a child out of wedlock is low class. We pulled stats showing how much middle class women loath doing this in multiple countries in the discussion section of the post on women valuing marriage. It isn’t just the US. The only distinction is in some countries living together with the father (commonlaw light if you will) seems to be deemed close enough for many women. Also, as has been mentioned many women see divorcing the father after the fact as ok, especially since they assume they will be able to remarry. But this rules out the alpha thug either way. This route is very attractive to women in the underclass. It is anathema to middle class and above women. I don’t know why so many in the manosphere miss this.

    Only when women can’t “marry” betas via the government will there be any wide scale movement to reconsider. How bad do you think the fiscal crisis will have to get to end welfare as we know it?

    Right now women generally feel very safe outside of marriage. But it wouldn’t take a huge change in the economy, government programs (both benefits and employment), crime rates, and marriage rates to change this. And all of these things are already moving against them. My observation is that women tend to process risk differently than men. They tend to feel either completely safe, or completely vulnerable. Right now the women you are talking about feel completely safe. That could swing to completely vulnerable very quickly.

    And don’t kid yourself when you see some woman or mangina mouthing a slogan about “the family” or “marriage” or even “men are not so bad”. Lots of people in Europe stopped calling themselves Communists about 20 or so years ago, but they didn’t change the way they think.

    I very much do not kid myself on this, and your analogy is spot on. Where I think we disagree is whether or not we should discuss the issue with anyone who isn’t truly antifeminist.

    Regardless of what political label a woman or man choose to drape on at a given time, if there is an underlying premise that men are animals and women are people, or that men are bad and women are good, or that men are immoral and women are moral, then that person is deep down inside a feminist. And thus will proceed from feminist principles.

    Absolutely, and as I think you wrote elsewhere, everyone in our culture has been deeply exposed to this. It is something we carry with us without ever having considered it. This is exactly why we need to engage with those we disagree with, and win the argument on the merits. I make exceptions for specific cases of willful poisoning of the culture and/or harming children however (Lorraine Berry and the EPL woman come to mind).

    Finally, in response to men who insist on “good women”, I am coming to expect a version of “girl game” that will consist of teaching young women just enough manners and politeness – to mimic “goodness – to enable them to hook a beta. Said beta man, after duly providing enough sperm for one or two children, can later be gutted & filleted via the divorce industry, thereby enabling the women to continue to receive the resources, but not to have to sexually service that ikky old beta. In other words, the same Marriage 2.0 divorce theft as today, but with an old-fashioned lace doily placed under it to make it look a bit nicer.

    Even with the totally rigged system today many women aren’t following the feminist script. Failing to make this distinction would be a huge strategic error. With that said, great caution is of course required, and only the man himself can decide what level of evidence is good enough to take a gamble on.

    This “girl game” might even be taught under the banner of “neo-traditional marriage”, or “modern Christian motherhood”, or some other clever bit of labeling. The women teaching it no doubt will insist they are opposed to feminism, even as they basically continue to teach women to be slightly less obnoxious feminists – who are just as dangerous to men as the older ones were.

    This seems very likely. And we will call them on it for all to see.

    This is pretty long. Maybe I should whip up an email address just to discuss such things with you, rather than clutter up the blog?

    I don’t see this as clutter at all. I’ll give you my email address if you like however. I can’t guarantee I’ll always be timely in my replies however. I do enjoy reading your thoughts, and quite often agree with them. Have you considered starting your own blog?

  110. hurpadurp says:

    For what it’s worth, I don’t mind reading his responses either. The only comments I personally dislike reading are the ones which are just strings of personal attacks or the holier-than-thou, “look how enlightened I am!” passive-aggressiveness of people like Xiomara or whoever. I don’t know if it counts for much, but if we are counting, here’s +1 for Anonymous Reader to keep posting here.

  111. Anacaona says:

    In short, if you find that there are men in the US who do not trust women very easily, you might consider that they have reasons, both personal and public, for that state of mind. And there might, just might, be some women involved.

    Yes I know. I learned about boys growing up in USA labeled as rapists both in Jezebel (because they continue to do the same up to this day) and at Susan’s blog because she is trying to fight that, that is why I accept your right not to take me seriously. I didn’t meant to invalidate your opinions I was mostly thinking that you though I was a male, talk with me for a few posts, then find out that I wasn’t and be mad that you wasted your time. It was all what I meant to say.

  112. Anonymous says:

    I still don’t buy that women who go to college end up more promiscuous. There’s been a wide range of correlations between IQ and impulse control – those with low IQ do more drugs, drink more, are more likely to be obese, and even have a lower life expectancy. “Being away from home” seems unimportant compared to all that. Furthermore, this is totally anecdotal, but it seemed that the ‘bad kids’ in high school were able to live wild lifestyles despite living with their parents – they simply spend most of their time away from their house.

  113. tspoon says:

    @ Dalrock “But then the tax would fall harder on women than men, because men don’t need the same level of income to feel safe and secure. ”

    A system looking to avoid this problem would merely:

    A. Raise taxes through a variety of means.
    B. Give tax writeoffs to married people and parents (i.e. any situation you could reasonable expect to not primarily benefit males)
    C. Institute a wide ranging series of social programs which aim to to reduce to burden on females due to their ‘needs’. Something of this nature might be – for instance – free health care.

    Of course, most western societies are quite far along this path. I don’t really know if a catastrophic failure will occur. One thing I’m reasonably sure of is that catastrophic failure is more likely, and more acceptable – to most females – than any return to personal responsibility, or expectation of a valid contribution to society.

  114. Anacaona says:

    A. Raise taxes through a variety of means.

    That is what I’m thinking all they need to do is finding out what kind of goods are pursued by unmarried males from 18 to 60 and tax the hell out of them while giving tax cuts to single women and you have bachelor tax in everything but name. Is not that hard the government only needs to sit and re distribute the tax break and like mentioned before single men would be in the dark about why their Warhammer figures are twice as expensive from last year for no reason.

  115. Anacaona says:

    Sorry I meant single mothers and women.

  116. Anonymous says:

    “Finally, in response to men who insist on “good women”, I am coming to expect a version of “girl game” that will consist of teaching young women just enough manners and politeness – to mimic “goodness – to enable them to hook a beta”

    Im not even sure this is possible – women’s behavior could just be a response to the economic-technological milieu, and won’t change unless the economic situation changes, or new technology makes things different.

  117. hurpadurp says:

    “why their Warhammer figures are twice as expensive from last year”

    Because Games Workshop sucks.

    (Sorry, I used to play Warhammer 40k and couldn’t resist :p )

  118. Anacaona says:

    Because Games Workshop sucks.
    Heh my husband is still a player that is why I know this is very true. So good call!😀

  119. hurpadurp says:

    Warhammer itself is fine, but the prices have *always* been ridiculous. I stopped playing because I wasn’t gonna pay 25 dollars for models that cost like 5 cents to make. This was in the 90s, mind you. I don’t even want to know what the prices are now.

    The video games are great, though, especially Dawn of War.

  120. Anacaona says:

    Warhammer itself is fine, but the prices have *always* been ridiculous. I stopped playing because I wasn’t gonna pay 25 dollars for models that cost like 5 cents to make. This was in the 90s, mind you. I don’t even want to know what the prices are now.

    My husband combines buying the figures with casting his own parts. I don’t think they are that expensive anymore he started in the 90’s like you took a pause and now is back and it doesn’t seem the prices but sometimes the quality and the lack of variety on Orcs faces what annoy him,, what did you did with your old figures, BTW? One of the things about quiting is having to get rid of entire armies after you spent so much time and money painting them.

    The video games are great, though, especially Dawn of War.

    Had you tried Minecraft? My husband is addicted to it, he was playing Psychonauts recently too and Team Fortress. I only play WoW because I feel I’m going to embarrass him if I decide to enter the other games with his very skilled friends, also I need to write. There is not enough time for hobbies and I have yet to have children it will be interesting balancing all that with blogging and a part time job.Oh well that is why God created Coffee I can sleep when I’m dead.😉

  121. hurpadurp says:

    My old Space Marine army is stashed away in a closet somewhere, probably…lol. As for Minecraft, I haven’t tried it, though I keep hearing people talk about it all the time.

  122. Anacaona says:

    As for Minecraft, I haven’t tried it, though I keep hearing people talk about it all the time.

    You should try a demo and see, warning Minecraft is like TVtropes. You enter and before you realize it you would had spent hours in it.

  123. Lavazza says:

    “My observation is that women tend to process risk differently than men. They tend to feel either completely safe, or completely vulnerable. Right now the women you are talking about feel completely safe. That could swing to completely vulnerable very quickly.”

    I have never thought about this, but it rings true.

  124. tspoon says:

    @Anacaona “single men would be in the dark about why their Warhammer figures are twice as expensive from last year for no reason.”

    maybe a significant part of future male innovation will be the technology of small scale production of things males actually want – from raw materials not heavily taxed – i.e. that which is normally purchased by other demographics.

  125. hurpadurp says:

    maybe a significant part of future male innovation will be the technology of small scale production of things males actually want – from raw materials not heavily taxed – i.e. that which is normally purchased by other demographics.

    Hot damn, that might get me to give 40k another try.

    Then again, if the ‘apocalyptic’ scenarios envisioned by a lot of MRAs come to pass, it won’t really matter. If society collapses, most men will be too busy just trying to survive to “innovate’ that sort of technology (societal collapse isn’t conducive to technological achievement, judging by the Dark Ages) and/or if we all get conquered by the Muslims, well, suffice it to say that Warhammer, and a lot of other stuff men like, are pretty “un-islamic.” Hard to find time to play a game when you gotta pray 5 times a day.

  126. Paragon says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    “This is a strawman. Your argument appears to be against something that no one is calling Game.”

    If, indeed, no one were claiming this, then I would have no issue.

    “Paragon, if you wish to pontificate on the issue of Game, I would suggest you do so at heartiste.wordpress.com, although reading the site prior to posting might be a good idea.”

    I’ve been there(and was not impressed)

    But, if you could direct me to a consistent, commonly held definition of ‘game’, I would appreciate it.

  127. Paragon says:

    @ Paragon

    “For the record – I do not believe that surveys are a reliable indication of mating distributions(ie. there is consistent evidence of falsified reporting – and every indication that males embellish, while females understate), especially when it disagrees so strongly, not only with what sexual evolution predicts, but what other controlled testing reveals of male/female mating preferences, and the resultant asymmetry.”

    On further consideration – if these surveys are, in fact, accurate – I suspect this is the outcome of a biased sample(ie. we should expect that a college girl population represent a less promiscuous sample than normal, given an evident tendency to long term investments – long-term gains – reasonably inferred from their extended academic endeavors).

    Beyond that, anything approaching symmetry(in some observed sample under consideration), can only be a function of mass information media profoundly altering female information of the system(observable male variance – skewing perceptions of male normal, when unified with the principle of Koinophilia), and in turn, their expectations(which mediate strategic tendencies).

  128. nyccine says:

    Hypergamy can’t be legitimized or delegitimized. It is hardwired into the female brain.

    You’re kidding, right? What the heck do you think the social conract is? What do you think civilization has been doing for thousands of years? By means of social custom and law, we lend legitimacy to the things we want to see more of, and delegitimize things we want to see less of. You are aware that women were – and are – the primary drivers in keeping women in line with whatever society has deemed appropriate female behaviour, right? That survey after survey show that women find other women to be the harshest judges of sexual promiscuity right?

    Why do you think the slutwalks were so emotional? Why do you think the Hamster exists at all? It doesn’t exist in a vacuum; it exists because women still, even in the EPL, Sex and the City zeitgeist, get at a primal level, even if they can’t articulate it, that being seen as a slut means they are not truly eligible for a man.

    That is what I am getting at. Embracing hypergamy, telling men to change themselves to give the beast exactly what it wants, would be the final nail in the coffin. You are now freeing her to embrace her hypergamic impulse in full, free from any risk of judgement as a slut.

    Not only that, put you take away the justifications for any arguments against the hypergamy-driven SMP. You can see this now amongst Gen X and Y’s, who, though badly damaged by rampant divorce, can’t, by and large, fathom an environment in which women are forced into remaining in marriages. This is what happens whenever you cede the other’s side’s key assumptions – you just can’t win the argument on their terms.

  129. jack says:

    Anonymous reader-

    You have a female’s antennae for satire. Just saying.

  130. Anonymous Reader says:

    Paragon
    @ Anonymous Reader
    “This is a strawman. Your argument appears to be against something that no one is calling Game.”

    If, indeed, no one were claiming this, then I would have no issue.

    Many people are confused about the topic, and write foolish things. Why, some
    are so foolish they deny that evolution has led to men and women having
    differences in brain structure, can you imagine?

    “Paragon, if you wish to pontificate on the issue of Game, I would suggest you do so at heartiste.wordpress.com, although reading the site prior to posting might be a good idea.”
    I’ve been there(and was not impressed)

    Gosh, that’s too bad. Perhaps you’ll have to find something else to post about?

    But, if you could direct me to a consistent, commonly held definition of ‘game’, I would appreciate it.

    I’m not aware of any commonly held definition of “game”, perhaps that is part of your difficulty.
    There was no accurate, rigorous, definition of gravity for a very long time, and yet humans managed to use gravity to their advantage nevertheless. This is a hint…

    So what’s your point?

  131. Anonymous Reader says:

    jack, do you have a point to make, or are you just cruising?

  132. Anonymous Reader says:

    On further consideration – if these surveys are, in fact, accurate –

    Which they clearly are not. Do you understand what reasoning from a false premise leads to?

    I suspect this is the outcome of a biased sample(ie. we should expect that a college girl population represent a less promiscuous sample than normal, given an evident tendency to long term investments – long-term gains – reasonably inferred from their extended academic endeavors).

    Why is it reasonable to infer any tendency to long term investment from someone attending a 5-year-long party on someone else’s dime? Have you been on any college campus in the last 15 years?

  133. jack says:

    AR-

    I make my points – loosen your necktie a bit and relax. Your stilted, wonkish commentary, while interesting, is encumbered by what I can only assume to be deliberate attempts to obfuscate.

    Don’t get me wrong, there is something very charmingly Alex P. Keaton-ish about your commentary. Your attempts at an intellectual display of force, however, come off a bit too much like peacocking to have popular appeal.

    You may, of course, decide to indulge in rationalization that this is simply proof of your intellectual superiority, which is fine with me.

    Why not try stripping all of the baroque ornamentation from your commentary?

  134. Anonymous says:

    My observation is that women tend to process risk differently than men. They tend to feel either completely safe, or completely vulnerable. Right now the women you are talking about feel completely safe. That could swing to completely vulnerable very quickly.”

    Indeed, this seems accurate. I believe this is because women never dealt with threats themselves – the men in their community dealt with the threats for them. As a result, they never needed to develop the judgement to understand different types of threats, different gradations in threats, and different strategies to deal with them. All they had to do was yell “help!”, and then trust a man to accurately read what was going on and do the right. This is probably why so many women are so quick to call the police when they feel even the least threatened.

  135. Anonymous says:

    “Why is it reasonable to infer any tendency to long term investment from someone attending a 5-year-long party on someone else’s dime? Have you been on any college campus in the last 15 years?”

    Once again, this is anecdotal. The data shows that college kids have less sexual partners than the non-college kids – and the more highly ranked the school, the even less number of partners.

  136. Anonymous Reader says:

    The data shows that college kids have less sexual partners than the non-college kids – and the more highly ranked the school, the even less number of partners.

    For the second time, provide a citation.

    [D: I would like to see that as well. I was thinking I had seen it shown that there was a negative correlation between IQ and promiscuity which would have fit here, but with some quick searching I couldn’t find any, or at least one for women.]

  137. Anacaona says:

    This is probably why so many women are so quick to call the police when they feel even the least threatened.

    And why they are more likely to use deadly force, like shooting, when in danger. I will add that women have always been physically weaker in average and being depending on their beauty for status they have a huge aversion to be in any sort of danger that might cause them harm, a scar more might mean going down in status or marrying down than they would if they were whole.

  138. Paragon says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    “I’m not aware of any commonly held definition of “game”, perhaps that is part of your difficulty.
    There was no accurate, rigorous, definition of gravity for a very long time, and yet humans managed to use gravity to their

    advantage nevertheless. This is a hint…”

    Yes, but once gravity was identified, and observed scientifically, it was quickly unified into a consistent working theory of natural laws.

    “So what’s your point?”

    Begs the question why ‘game’ has not.

    But, it occurs that since there are only two *conflicting* quantities of evolutionary value in consideration of female mate choice(those implied in short-term and long-term mating), then game, even undefined, must address one or the other(but not both).

    And, I think it is uncontroversial to say that ‘game’ is popularly appealed to in terms of short-term mating(ie. hook-ups), as the quantity in question.

    So, a problem occurs in the observation of ‘naturals'(an accepted premise of game convention) – demonstrating game as a behavioral phenomenon of ‘handicapping’ load(via the handicap principle), rather than some cryptic fitness indicator.

    From that perspective, ‘game’ doesn’t sound very flattering.

  139. Paragon says:

    To elaborate – in applying the ‘handicap principle’, it tells us that those whose success threshold is lower in terms of ‘game’, are displaying greater indications of genetic fitness, given that this greater effort will allude to a fitness handicap.

    This is because fitness signals have evolved to be energetically costly to display, where the quality of signals are handicap limited – where these handicaps can be manifest through differentials in observable ‘effort'(or any other kind of relative energetic liability).

  140. Anonymous says:

    I’m having trouble finding the original research as well(though it does exist), however, I found this article on virginity at MIT.

    “There is a stereotype that MIT is a land of asexual nerds. That’s not quite true. Our survey found that 42 percent of students consider themselves virgins: 37 percent of men and 48 percent of women. The numbers are predictably higher for freshman class, which is 64 percent virgins: 60 percent of men and 69 percent of women. The freshmen numbers square with national estimates — it’s the upperclassmen who are having less sex than the national average for their age group.”

    http://tech.mit.edu/V129/N49/survey.html

    I will keep looking for the other research – it was done over 5 years ago as I recall. IMO, it seems the media loves to portray college kids as hedonistic monsters.

  141. Anonymous Reader says:

    Paragon:
    The remark about gravity was intended to point out that things can “work” even though we cannot rigorously define them. I doubt that Game will ever by rigorously defined, because the area it addresses – human sexual attraction – is very “fuzzy” and not at all clean/crisp in terms of action-reaction.

    But, it occurs that since there are only two *conflicting* quantities of evolutionary value in consideration of female mate choice(those implied in short-term and long-term mating), then game, even undefined, must address one or the other(but not both).

    Why must it address one or the other, but not both?

    And, I think it is uncontroversial to say that ‘game’ is popularly appealed to in terms of short-term mating(ie. hook-ups), as the quantity in question.

    Have you looked at Athol’s site “married man sex life”, or “gaming my wife”? Both are clearly long term oriented.

    So, a problem occurs in the observation of ‘naturals’(an accepted premise of game convention) – demonstrating game as a behavioral phenomenon of ‘handicapping’ load(via the handicap principle), rather than some cryptic fitness indicator.

    I do not understand this sentence.

    From that perspective, ‘game’ doesn’t sound very flattering.

    Some of the things that one learns in Game about women are not very flattering. Some of those things are the exact opposite of what men have been taught about women for a long time. Cognitive dissonance is often a result. For example, if a man “knows” that women do not really enjoy sex all that much, but will do it with a man they are married to for procreation it is a shock to find out that women will do all sorts of sexual experiments with a man who displays the right cues of dominance to her but not necessarily with any other man. Or if a man “knows” that women are rational thinkers who carefully choose a mate based on long-term goals, it can be a real upsetting experience to discover that many women talk that talk, but walk exactly the opposite way and just rationalize the difference away, with ease. Even “good girls” can go “bad”, given the right opportunities. Doesn’t mean they will – their conscious mind can override the ‘gina tingles if she’s strong enough – but they can.

    However, the fact remains that single men, men in LTR’s, pick up artists, men who have been married for decades – all report that applying even the most basic principles of Game often obtain the result of more sexual attention from women in their life, and less bad behavior from those women. In short, “it works”. No matter how much some people don’t like that, it doesn’t change the facts.

  142. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anonymous, do you see any possible problem with the data accuracy of this survey?

    Here is the opening of the link you posted:
    Earlier this month, we asked all undergraduates via e-mail to take a sex survey. We asked you if you were having sex, when you were having sex, what kind of sex, and how good it was. About forty percent, or 1729 people, responded. We present the results here. Some of the statistics will not surprise anybody. Some surprised us all.

    1. There is no anonymity in the sample, because campus email was used. I use the term “anonymity” here to mean that the pollster knows who took the survey, and the people being polled also know that their identity is known. It has been shown in previous work that women tend to under-report sexual activity in surveys that are not anonymous. However I am not aware of any means to estimate how much they underreport, so there is no way to correct the data.

    2. The survey is self-selected, with 60% of the survey pool refusing to participate therefore there is no way to consider this survey an accurate cross section of the student body.

    Given these two problems I cannot find the survey credible, nor the results useful in any way.

    But thank you for researching the topic and posting some results. Please do post more results when you find them. I do not mean that sarcastically, I sincerely want to see as many surveys on this topic as can be found.

  143. Lily says:

    @ deti
    “These women have not even the slightest understanding of it. The grinding loneliness, the utter sense of defeat with no end in sight, the raging hormones with no relief or release, and the intense frustration seem completely foreign to women.”

    I think it may be an cross gender communication thing. I’m trying to reconcile what you say here with what you said simultaneously on the other thread “I’m looking back on my entire dating life pre-marriage which consists of about 12 years, more or less.. I think I went on about 100 dates. Not first dates. Dates. In 12 years. With about, oh, around 25 to 30 women. About half of those resulted in any sexual contact”

    I can’t. See if I read the first in isolation I would have a lot of empathy but I would not perceive it in the way that you describe in the other thread around the same time. If other men are seeing the latter as hardship in the same way I think that would explain why women aren’t getting it.

  144. Lily says:

    @Opus
    My pa went to school at 5. My generation was the first in my family that didn’t have a full time nanny and I did not go away till 11 but my granny says it spoilt us.

  145. Paragon says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    “I doubt that Game will ever by rigorously defined, because the area it addresses – human sexual attraction – is very “fuzzy” and not at all clean/crisp in terms of action-reaction.”

    It is not for want of rigor, but consistency.

    “Why must it address one or the other, but not both?”

    Because, they are evolutionary strategies with conflicted optima in time variance(long-term vs. short-term).

    “I do not understand this sentence.”

    What game really is, is a display of sexual confidence – which is circular to it’s justification(ie. those who are justifiably confident of continued future success, need expend less effort – in terms of handicapping – in trying to embellish themselves through ‘game’).

    “For example, if a man “knows” that women do not really enjoy sex all that much, but will do it with a man they are married to for procreation it is a shock to find out that women will do all sorts of sexual experiments with a man who displays the right cues of dominance to her but not necessarily with any other man.”

    And what evidence is there that ‘dominance’ is the determinant of female sexual choice?

    In fact, there’s quite alot of evidence falsifying this premise.

    Furthermore, where mate access is no longer a function of subordinate status concessions in prevailing human populations(compared to the way it works in smaller populations typical of early hominid ‘troops’, and those of other primates), dominance can say nothing about its distribution(given that density dependence means large populations have marginalized
    mating concessions to a negligible quantity).

    “However, the fact remains that single men, men in LTR’s, pick up artists, men who have been married for decades – all report that applying even the most basic principles of Game often obtain the result of more sexual attention from women in their life, and less bad behavior from those women. In short, “it works”. No matter how much some people don’t like that, it doesn’t change the facts.”

    What facts?

    Unverifyable anecdotes from people who are psychologicallly/emotionally/financially invested in game to begin with?

    Sorry, but that’s not very compelling.

  146. deti says:

    Lily: re your 10/27. comment at 6:29 pm:

    I first became sexually aware at 10, lost virginity at 17. No sexual release during those seven years. Dating life started at 16. Married at 28. Most dates went nowhere sexually. In college went through a 14 month dry spell at age 19-20, followed by a 4 year oneitis relationship hell that was also mostly sexless. Such dry spells and relationships are extremely frustrating sexually.

    If a woman wants to have sex, she need not do anything except show up in a public place and select the most attractive man. Men have to work very hard to get a sex partner.

    Understand it now?

  147. deti says:

    And I’d venture to say there are a lot of men out there who go years with no sexual contact whatsoever because they can’t find anyone willing even to talk to them, much less date them, much less have sex with them.

  148. Lily says:

    hi deti, no I’m afraid I don’t understand it now, not in your case. Especially the complaint about the lack of sex between ages 10-17.

    I do empathise on the onenitis hell though, a lot of us have been there😦

  149. deti says:

    Lily: Here’s the point, and the main difference between men’s sexual experience and women’s sexual experience:

    If a woman wants to have sex, she need not do anything except show up in a public place and select the most attractive man. Men have to work very hard to get a sex partner.

    It takes no effort at all for a woman to get sex. She can get sex anytime she wants it. All she has to do is show up anywhere with functioning genitals.

    By contrast, a man must put forth enormous effort to get a sex partner, with a failure rate somewhere between 75% to 95%. He has to DHV, pass fitness tests, look good, converse, overcome resistance, get past cockblockers, and convince her he is high value enough for her to have sex with.

  150. Brendan says:

    I think Lily is looking at it from an absolute numbers game, and saying that you ought not be complaining if you have had some sexual contact with 12-15 women over the course of your pre-married years, rather than from the perspective of the amount of effort it took to even get that as compared with the situation faced by a woman who had the same thing in mind.

    I think women view it differently, though, because most of them (leaving aside the ones who really do fuck like men do) want only a small number of men, and so for them they perceive that as scarcity as well — because the rest of the men are invisible/blanks/desexualized. Notice that the main complaint from women about the SMP is “not enough good men” — i.e., an expression of scarcity. That only makes sense in the context of hypergamy, of course, as there is no lack of *willing* men for most women. But women are hypergamous by nature, and one of the effects of that is that it creates an attractional scarcity — something where they perceive opportunities to be scarce, because to them only a smallish percentage of men count as an opportunity. And if the woman is not slutty, or doesn’t fuck like a guy, she doesn’t want to actually ride the carousel — but she watches it, and not the other guys standing around the carousel. This scarcity is entirely self-imposed, of course, but I don’t think it’s voluntary, because attraction and hypergamy are wired into women.

    The backside of that, of course, is that while this scarcity is self-imposed (if involuntarily) on women, it is not self-imposed on men, yet results in an imposed scarcity on men as well (at least on the 80%). Men in that 80% need to jump through all kinds of hoops to get anywhere with women due to hypergamy, but are not prone to see that as bad or as scarcity, because they themselves are experiencing scarcity due to the “lack of good men” (i.e., the lack of hypergamously attractive men who will commit to them).

    Hypergamy is the center of all of this, for both sexes. That’s why controlling it was a good solution, socially — for women, in the long run, as well as men. That genie is long out of the bottle, however, and she isn’t going back in anytime soon — she’s having too much fun pole dancing on the carousel.

  151. Paragon says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    “Why is it reasonable to infer any tendency to long term investment from someone attending a 5-year-long party on someone else’s dime?”

    Because, I don’t think a ‘5-year-long party’ is an apt characterization of the college experience for the typical student.

    Nor do I think that college students are particularly inclined to promiscuity(compared to other populations).

    Hollywood treatments, and mass-media sensationalism have skewed perceptions of the typical college experience.

  152. Anonymous Reader says:

    Paragon
    I don’t think a ’5-year-long party’ is an apt characterization of the college experience for the typical student.

    Define “typical student”, and “typical college” for that matter.

    Nor do I think that college students are particularly inclined to promiscuity(compared to other populations).

    Ok. I think differently, based on history and hypergamy. So?

    Hollywood treatments, and mass-media sensationalism have skewed perceptions of the typical college experience.

    So what? I’m not relying on either of those sources for the premises of my opinion.

  153. Paragon says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    “Ok. I think differently, based on history and hypergamy. So?”

    I confess, I can get carried away in trying to hypothetically justify a counterfactual.

    Thus, my argument’s basis was speculative(intuition, observation, in agreement with theory and certain tennuous assumptions, which I don’t necessarily hold to), rather than following from sample data.

    Therefor, as a reasonable individual, I am not invested in any conclusion.

  154. Pingback: Boundless is their foolishness. | Dalrock

  155. Pingback: Susan Walsh | The Black Pill

  156. @Paragon,

    “It then follows that genetically attractive males should evolve strategies that expedite this kind of traffic(frequently indicated in abuse, delinquency, and promiscuity), as documented in the study: “Good genes, mating effort, and delinquency”

    Evidence suggests the opposite pattern:
    1) You would have to prove that there is a direct association between physical attractiveness and good genes, which is not entirely clear:
    The polyandric pattern that we see today in humans, which women mate with a minority of males could have the most marked effect in reducing the number of deleterious mutations in the next generation. When environmental mutagenesis falls, the number of eligible males would increase and a species would change from a polygamous to a monogamous pattern of mating. Therefore if sexual attraction is a force which counteracts genomic degradation this result would imply that women should not be attracted by good genes, but by a lack of bad genes. Humans should choose mates in a way that maximizes their reproductive success. But what exactly is the optimal choice? Most empirical research is based on the assumption that individuals seek a mate of the highest possible quality (in terms of the genes or resources that can provide), and hence show directional preferences for indicators of mate quality. This would imply that attractiveness and quality should be highly correlated. But surprisingly there are not a linear relationship between beauty or its components and genetic fitness, and there are not particular greater mate qualities of those who are highly attractive. Empirical research show that whereas unattractive faces can signal poor genetic fitness, on this account, those who avoid mates with extremely unattractive faces would have increased their reproductive success over those who did not. In the extreme case of genetic anomalies, such as Down’s syndrome, it is obvious that unattractive faces signal low health and intelligence. However, faces that are above average in attractiveness are no more ‘‘fit’’ than those in the middle of the attractiveness.

    Specifically, some mathematical models have shown that the preferred male must provide genes that increase the survivorship or mating success of the offspring as compared to the genes provided by less desirable males. And empirical research on lek mating systems, as well as other non resource-based mating systems has confirmed the association between mate preference and increased offspring viability, although the fitness effects appear small at only a few percent. Beauty provided valid cues to intelligence and/or health for faces in the lower but not the upper halves of the distributions of these facial qualities. Thus, low attractiveness (low averageness, low symmetry, or low sexual dimorphism) signal low fitness, as indexed by intelligence or health. On the other hand, high attractiveness does not signal any higher levels of fitness than does moderate levels of these attribute. Then mate preferences for attractive faces could not have enhanced reproductive success via choice mates in the top half of the beauty distribution. So maybe humans not only correctly utilize these cues when they are valid, but they also overgeneralize, utilizing these cues in the upper half of the distribution, where they are not valid. Therefore beauty preferences appear to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms.

    2) You would have to prove that physical attractiveness is correlated with delinquency and criminal behavior, which is refuted by several studies:

    http://cw.routledge.com/ref/criminology/physical.html
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00916114
    https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=112343

  157. anathemaparagon says:

    @ tyrionl annister

    “Evidence suggests the opposite pattern:
    1) You would have to prove that there is a direct association between physical attractiveness and good genes, which is not entirely clear:
    The polyandric pattern that we see today in humans, which women mate with a minority of males could have the most marked effect in reducing the number of deleterious mutations in the next generation. When environmental mutagenesis falls, the number of eligible males would increase and a species would change from a polygamous to a monogamous pattern of mating.”

    I’m afraid that assumption won’t hold, because of the mutation-selection balance(which will preserve a sufficient variance in male attractiveness), as well as the fact that in smaller populations mutational loading(where deleterious recessives tend to combine at greater frequencies in smaller breeding populations) will increase.

    And as evolutionary selection must cull(particularly male) frequencies every generation in order to operate opportunistically, it doesn’t seem that human females are liable to concede these skewed mating ratios without a compelling reason to do so(ie. at least not anytime soon).

    “Therefore if sexual attraction is a force which counteracts genomic degradation this result would imply that women should not be attracted by good genes, but by a lack of bad genes.”

    Precisely.

    Evolutionary ‘culling'(of deleterious traits) is a more apt description of how evolutionary selection actually works.

    “Humans should choose mates in a way that maximizes their reproductive success. But what exactly is the optimal choice? Most empirical research is based on the assumption that individuals seek a mate of the highest possible quality (in terms of the genes or resources that can provide), and hence show directional preferences for indicators of mate quality. This would imply that attractiveness and quality should be highly correlated. But surprisingly there are not a linear relationship between beauty or its components and genetic fitness, and there are not particular greater mate qualities of those who are highly attractive. Empirical research show that whereas unattractive faces can signal poor genetic fitness, on this account, those who avoid mates with extremely unattractive faces would have increased their reproductive success over those who did not. In the extreme case of genetic anomalies, such as Down’s syndrome, it is obvious that unattractive faces signal low health and intelligence. However, faces that are above average in attractiveness are no more ‘‘fit’’ than those in the middle of the attractiveness.”

    First, let us assume that extreme deviations in bi-lateral symmetry, or other potential indicators/markers of developmental incompetence, can be taken as ‘signals’ of ‘bad'(fitness handicapped) genes.

    Following from this assumption, might it not be the case that females would be better ensured against developmental incompetencies(in both their mates and consequent offspring) by screening for such potential markers through ‘evolved’ sensory/cognitive biases which select against them(since there would be no way for individual females to reliably assess population averages, weighted observations could act as a hedge against potential defects), thus according higher value to certain directional/quantitative tendencies in male secondary sexual characteristics?

    If so, such biases could become fixed in a female population(persisting in evolutionary time even beyond their ecological justifications) if selection is working strongly enough to focus these directional pressures.

    And there is also the principle of koinophilia, which can be observed as a force of selection that works to preserve some neighbourhood of population normal(handicapping significant trait deviations in either direction – and theoretically setting some upper deviation limit for runaway sexual selection).

    “Specifically, some mathematical models have shown that the preferred male must provide genes that increase the survivorship or mating success of the offspring as compared to the genes provided by less desirable males. And empirical research on lek mating systems, as well as other non resource-based mating systems has confirmed the association between mate preference and increased offspring viability, although the fitness effects appear small at only a few percent. Beauty provided valid cues to intelligence and/or health for faces in the lower but not the upper halves of the distributions of these facial qualities. Thus, low attractiveness (low averageness, low symmetry, or low sexual dimorphism) signal low fitness, as indexed by
    intelligence or health. On the other hand, high attractiveness does not signal any higher levels of fitness than does moderate levels of these attribute. Then mate preferences for attractive faces could not have enhanced reproductive success via choice mates in the top half of the beauty distribution. So maybe humans not only correctly utilize these cues when they are valid, but they also overgeneralize, utilizing these cues in the upper half of the distribution, where they are not valid. Therefore beauty preferences appear to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms.”

    Yes, I am seeing the same thing and I think we are in agreement with this.

    “2) You would have to prove that physical attractiveness is correlated with delinquency and criminal behavior, which is refuted by several studies:”

    Then we have both cited disputing studies.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s