Stuart Schneiderman: Welcome to the Harem:
Schneiderman mentions that the inexperienced "normal men" are not particularly good lovers. I don't think that's necessarily true. It seems to me that those who are nerds who have some time on their hands have more practice at sex than guys into sports, etc. and learn more how to make women happy. Wasn't that mentioned in a movie like Animal House?
Update: Oops, my mistake, commenter Larry J. points out it was "Revenge of the Nerds.
Meanwhile back in college girls are learning to hook up. But, as Charlotte Allen points out, they are not hooking up with just anyone. Not just any man is going to succeed at the hook-up game.
A group of ersatz alpha males seems to have garnered a disproportionate number of women, while the beta and gamma males, nice guys, guys who would make good husbands or boy friends, are left out of the game.
Naturally, they want to be in the game. They do not esteem themselves and are not esteemed by women for their good qualities, so they decide that they want to become pick-up artists.
Much of Allen's article is about how normal men, seeing women blithely go home with pick-up artists, decide that they must devalue their good qualities and emulate these ersatz alpha males.
The interesting part of all this is that a woman who engages in a casual sexual encounter with an ersatz alpha male, only to return to the comfort of the sisterhood, is acting like she is part of a harem.
Schneiderman mentions that the inexperienced "normal men" are not particularly good lovers. I don't think that's necessarily true. It seems to me that those who are nerds who have some time on their hands have more practice at sex than guys into sports, etc. and learn more how to make women happy. Wasn't that mentioned in a movie like Animal House?
Update: Oops, my mistake, commenter Larry J. points out it was "Revenge of the Nerds.
posted by Helen at 1:42 PM
143 Comments:
It seems to me that those who are nerds who have some time on their hands have more practice at sex than guys into sports, etc. and learn more how to make women happy. Wasn't that mentioned in a movie like Animal House?
"Revenge of the Nerds"
I almost hate myself for knowing that.
Anyway, while the young women are attracted to tbe bad boys, they keep on complaining that "all men are scum." They fail to realize that the common denominator in all of their failed relationships is themselves.
By the time these women realize that bad boys are bad for them, they complain that "all of the good men are taken." Of course they are. The good men aren't going to sit around forever waiting for these airheads to get a clue.
TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: Stupid
Any man who WANTS a woman like that is just asking for trouble.
The 'funny' think about it is that such women will blame the man for said trouble.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Who can find a virtuous woman. She is worth more than rubies. -- Proverbs]
Larry has the movie, "Revenge of the Nerds." I'm not sure why he hates himself for it. I loved the name of the hotel, Hotel Corral Essex, which at the end they disable some of the neon lights in the sign and made it say Hot Oral Sex.
I think the nerds do just fine for two reasons. 1) The alpha males, knowing they can get the hottest females, often ignore the less than hot females. 2)Some females, even hot ones, recognize that many nerds will out earn the alpha males in the long run, if interested in finding a long-term mate, go after those with the highest potential earning power.
It's like when Miami University of Ohio plays the University of Cincinnati in basketball. As Miami doesn't (or didn't) allow underclassmen to keep a car on campus, the UC students would hold up and jingle their car keys at the Miami students. The Miami students retorts, "That's alright, That's OK. You will work for us someday."
Larry J.,
Thanks, that's it. I loved that movie.
Did Mr. Schneiderman interview any of these sexually active college women? Where did he get the information to reach his hypothesis? Or is this solely an opinion piece based on what he is imagining what is going on?
Alpha, Beta, Gamma, blah, blah, blah.
There is another man, the Omega. He doesn't play games, could care less about pecking orders, does not make concessions.
The Omega man cares about: money, clothes, and knowing the woman he's with. Period.
The problem these girls have is not with guys or themselves. It's with the law.
Presumptive paternity? Forget about it. No-fault divorce? Not interested. Now what?
Change the culture and change the law. It's very simple really. But apparently it's too difficult for anyone to figure out.
Cham -
There's these things on the intertube webby pages called links. If you follow the link to Mr. Schneiderman's post, you'll see a couple of things.
First, a quote from his post, "Those of us who offer relationship coaching know how to help people find their footing in its shifting sands...", which I assume refers to his dayjob in psychology.
He also has links to two articles about the young adult dating scence which I also assume informed his opinion. Those articles include quotes from interviews with a number of people.
Just because someone expresses an opinion you don't like doesn't mean they are making sh** up.
By the time these women realize that bad boys are bad for them, they complain that "all of the good men are taken." Of course they are. The good men aren't going to sit around forever waiting for these airheads to get a clue.
Actually, some of us aren't taken; we've just dropped out completely because of our experiences with women.
Concerning the article and the women in it, I have only two words: "damaged goods."
Moving on...
Der Hahn,
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that Cham just comments on here to try to make a scene, but without making any real points. This is a really good way to make me ignore anything she has to say in the future. Feel free to do the same.
Chuck,
The rubies look like a better investment right now...
Gawain,
Good points, but until you have a society that looks to the long term rather than the id, it's irrelevant. Looks like we'll have to hit rock bottom before we move upwards again.
Feminism and the Prison Industrial Complex.
The US has no business lecturing China on human rights when the US has a tyrannical gulag of its own.
I followed the links, I don't see much data nor that many interviews.
The best way for a shy or nerdy man to attract women is to hire a woman to act as his pretend woman, then go to where the women are. Like the old expression "it takes money to make money" it is unfortunately also true that if you have a woman, you will attract women. (The reasons for this are probably lost in our evolutionary past.)
But these women -- who hit on a guy who already has a woman and thus appears "taken" -- are they really the type of women a guy would want?
I think that depends on whether he's interested in being considered an alpha or finding happiness with the right woman.
The rule seems to be that if you only need one woman, you're a beta. Betas are losers and that's bad, right?
I wish things made more sense.
In the world of apes and kangaroos, you have your alpha males that have several females. They spend much of their time being territorial and keeping other males away.
The beta males fend for themselves alone. In the world of apes, however, once DNA testing came into vogue it was found that some of the alpha male's females had offspring where it was proved the alpha male was not the father. Upon further study it was found that some of the females would occasionally have late night trysts with a beta male.
Take from that what you will.
Eric writes "But these women -- who hit on a guy who already has a woman and thus appears "taken" -- are they really the type of women a guy would want?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you think about it - and take a good, hard look at reality after your testosterone years of 20-40 have passed ... is ANY woman the type of woman a guy would want?
And I guess the answer is "yes" - for sex.
If you are paying and paying and paying and opening yourself up to future claims against your earnings and assets (i.e. marriage), you are REALLY overpaying for the crap that the media pushes out today as "romance". You are hypnotized by that crap.
And it's even worse if you are paying that much just for sex.
Don't men realize that the this is just a plot to steal their man juice and raise bastard children while extracting most of their income for the next two decades.
Also, I am sure they plan to vote improperly, consume too much useful Oxygen and generally make us miserable just by their very existence.
Oh yeah, and they are all bitches too.
Does that cover it George Clooney or did I miss something?
DIFFERING OPINIONS
"Schneiderman mentions that the inexperienced "normal men" are not particularly good lovers. I don't think that's necessarily true. It seems to me that those who are nerds who have some time on their hands have more practice at sex than guys into sports, etc. and learn more how to make women happy. Wasn't that mentioned in a movie like Animal House?"
The quote was "all they [the jocks] think about is sports, all we think about is sex."
I am going to disagree with the good doctor's assessment above. Part of the nerd experience is social disability, social isolation/ostracism, or a combination of the two. As a rule, nerds don't really have access to the 'fruits of the body,' so they don't have any opportunity to "practice."
However, because nerdity is the mastery of knowledge, nerds are quite good at studying and learning, and figuring how "how to make women happy." In fact, if Neil Strauss' book is to be believed, the gurus of the seduction community are prototypical nerds who have applied their skills to the social arena.
I take Strauss' book with mixed feelings, but his subjects are, to a man, motivated by years harsh rejection or childhood deprivation, possession enormous intellect, creativity, strong work ethic, and a rank insecurity that causes them to both seek constant affirmation of women (and other men) and steep in paranoia that another PUA is ripping off their material. They are performers, who have written and perfected their own material, and are driven by the same artistic egoism that drove many great performers and philanderers.
There's another way to look at Schneiderman - he may mean that "inexperienced normal men" are not good at _romance_, the schmooze factor, as opposed to their performance in flagrante delicto.
I've heard plenty of stories from women about "alpha males" who were lousy at the act itself, sometimes only concerned with their own pleasure and not even caring about hers. That fits the profile of the womanizing narcissist, whether natural or trained. I've also heard plenty of cases of guys making it with bar-hop hotties who are boring with the lights off, also sometimes not caring about whether he is enjoying it.
DIFFERING OPINIONS, PART DEUX
"I think the nerds do just fine for two reasons. 1) The alpha males, knowing they can get the hottest females, often ignore the less than hot females. 2)Some females, even hot ones, recognize that many nerds will out earn the alpha males in the long run, if interested in finding a long-term mate, go after those with the highest potential earning power."
On (1): The trouble with this point is that women's studies and princess mentality syndrome has led many, many "median" women to believe they are deserving of an "alpha male" mate. Combine that with generalized misandry and they are more likely today to spit in a nerd's face.
On (2): Some young women are mature enough to understand that a stable, intelligent. However, many others seek intelligent, professionally accomplished men because it fits some "marriage ideal" they have been sold or pressured into. (An extreme example is the Jewish mother stereotype pushing a woman to find a professional, socially-presentable mate.) These women are likely to bail when they get a BBD - bigger better deal, preferably a man who thrills them intimately as well.
As Marc Rudov notes, women are not "turned on" by a man with money, so if what you are "selling" is being a provider, you are likely to attract a lot of women who are only attracted to what you can provide for lifestyle and not what you bring personality-wise.
"Anyway, while the young women are attracted to the bad boys, they keep on complaining that "all men are scum." - By the time these women realize that bad boys are bad for them, they complain that "all of the good men are taken." Of course they are. The good men aren't going to sit around forever waiting for these airheads to get a clue."
I read a column years ago where a woman lectured the "nice guys": "we may go with the bad boys when we're young, but we settle down and go for the nice guys later, so stay nice for when we want you!"
I said, "eff that." After that I started screening for not just current, but past party girls and club-hoppers. No way do I want to be some second-choice sucker when she's past (or has faded past) her "bad boy" phase.
The trick of the PUA community is that it's like hypnosis - it's not mind control, it only works on people who want it to work on them. That's why PUAs don't troll conservative church services or other houses of locked-up women...they go into clubs and other 'target-rich environments' where people are selling their "goods."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ERRATUM:
"On (2): Some young women are mature enough to understand that a stable, intelligent."
should be continued with "is the linchpin of a happy resilient life."
A final comment on Schneiderman: I am frustrated by the lack of accountability of loose women whenever the PUA phenomenon is discussed. The subtext is "these guys just throw away their civilized nature to become boorish wannabe alpha males."
Does he never discuss the other side of the equation? Men like the company of women. Many men will do whatever it takes to get the company of women. If the women they seek prize a certain set of characteristics that Schneiderman regards as "devalued" or uncivilized, it seems he should talk to the buyers and not just the sellers, since it is the buyers who influence the men to change their behavior.
Personally, I think it's a disappointingly negative statement about modern club-hopping women that they can be so uniformly wooed by these fairly simple and superficial pickup artist shticks.
ON THE "SETTLING" DOUBLE STANDARD
There's been a lot of talk the past decade about "settling," which means marrying someone who is not all that and a bag of chips of a woman's ideal fantasy husband.
In reality, the "settling" discussion is an outgrowth of the fact that in general, women still want to "marry up," and for highly successful women, there just aren't that many men to marry up to.
This obviously reflects some cognitive dissonance. For example, a 41-year old spoiled princess on Millionaire Matchmaker is self-made rich, but still demands to be set up with a man even richer than her, because if she's the richer party "it turns the woman into the man." For this woman, equality's great, except when it's not. She screeched when Patti told her she'd have to date older because Ashton Kutcher is not on every sidewalk, and she walked out of a date with a pretty cool 51-year old man because he was too old. Then she screamed "I won't settle!" (The Cougar phenomenon is just wealthy older women, female Hugh Hefners, buying physical prizes of youth to play with.)
What I find so ironic and double-standardy is no one talks about men settling. As women are expected to marry up, men are by logical conclusion simply expected to "marry down." In fact, it's been developed into a manly virtue to provide for his mate, and if she elects to stop working a husband has no social or legal standing to oppose it (whereas a non-working husband is the subject of social scorn.)
Likewise, if a man were to complain about "settling," he'd be hit with the usual "be a man" or "you're immature" or "don't objectify women" charges. And men are not entitled to demand whatever they want. If a man wants a really hot wife who promises to not get fat or wrinkled, or a home-maker who keeps house and hearth in order, he's a backward pig who can't deal with liberated modern women. But a woman who wants to match men against a checklist is almost never chided for a self-absorbed attitude, for having unrealistic expectations or for objectifying men. The most she might get is an Oprahism about how she better settle so she can use her eggs before they are all gone.
I'm glad I didn't opt into the "hookup-culture" in college. The guys and girls who did... they felt degraded or worn out by it; those I knew and spoke to pretty much expressed that sort of feeling at one point or another. I never sensed that there was some sort of "harem" situation with top-dog males commanding most of the attention; it seemed to be a series of confused fumblings, one weekend after another, by foolish teenagers.
The happiest people were either those who'd actually found a decent stable relationship (with someone they could also consider a friend, not just a sexual partner) or those who were just happy being on their own. I was in the second group. There was no rush.
Schneiderman mentions that the inexperienced "normal men" are not particularly good lovers.
Which implies that "alpha men" are good lovers. Anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. I've know a few "alpha males" who play the pick-up game and they're assholes both out of the bedroom and in it and the rumor mill was that they were terrible in bed because they were so obsessed with themselves (on the other hand, they are picking up women who are obsessed with themselves so....)
I hated Revenge of the Nerds because, being a nerd at the time the movie came out, I knew very well that it was the most absurd kind of fantasy. Nerds usually wind up as 40 year old customer service agents or middle management at best. Bill Gates is an extraordinary exception, not the norm. Nerds are usually nerds because they believe they are, and women aren't attracted to socially inept men who see themselves as weak, unattractive, and gross. They are attracted to confidence and competence, and those are the qualities that players either already have or try to emulate.
Nature or nurture.
Are people born a nerd or is this a learned trait? I think we blame a bit much on biology and not enough on ourselves. I've known a few nerds that with a little effort transformed themselves into confident, interesting, popular and handsome men over a period of 6 months.
If one thinks of themselves as a nerd and there isn't much they can do about it then they can expect not to have good results when it comes to social interactions.
Topher,
Essentially, your big post(s) goes back to the "damaged goods" idea I stated before. And I agree; why would I want a woman who's been with 10-15 other guys? To hell with that. Don't need 'em. Much better staying single and opting out of the hook-up game. Besides, 1/4 of the women in this country have some form of STD. You really want to take a chance on getting herpes from someone? I sure as hell don't.
"I've known a few nerds that with a little effort transformed themselves into confident, interesting, popular and handsome men over a period of 6 months."
I am in total agreement with Cham. Very few nerds have immutable, autistic social disability and you don't need a PUA manual to become good with people.
Provided the person wants to change, it's not hard. Learn some conversation starters and enders. Be interested in other people, show concern for others' lives without looking like a busybody.
Be in charge of yourself, where you go, who you know, what you do. That kind of personal ease and confidence is the key to social attractiveness.
Remember that "chivalry" and being a "gentleman" is only attractive if you have the ability to be a badass; otherwise you are just confirming your wussitude. You don't have to _be_ a badass, just give the idea you could be. With rivals, competitors and girls, don't feel the need to be overly compliant - be ready to stand up for yourself and to walk away; don't throw your pearls before swine.
Say as little as possible about yourself; it enhances mystery and selfless demeanor. (I used to play a game where I timed how long it took before someone asked me my name.) However, express great passion in something, without being a hard-on about it.
A more advanced technique is to always be on your way to something else - always exit with a purpose instead of an awkward snuffy goodbye. This makes you look in charge and also raises your "value" by making you look important and overscheduled.
Expressing personal confidence and masculine energy can be learned and integrated quite naturally into one's presentation without any loss of integrity. It's just that some people feel more comfortable with the acting job at first.
blahga,
It is unreal to consider how much more dangerous it is than even fifty years ago. I will go with PJ O'Rourke's quote: "the sexual revolution is over - the microbes won."
But the harem model exists even in a nerd-dominated culture, and even in a place where the men outnumber the women.
MIT has had that harem culture for at least 20some years now, and I assume more, even when the numbers were 60-40 men-women.
It's not about the numbers. It's about the psychology of 15-25 year old young adults living in coed spaces. They aren't able to handle it. They aren't able to separate from the mating game long enough to establish dating. The only way to tell which guys aren't losers is by signaling, and the signal is that other women are dating the man.
You see, young women think that if the alpha-man with the harem finds them attractive, it's a statement about how attractive the woman is. The woman thinks "I must be lovable/beautiful/charming/interesting/desirable, because he can have anyone, and he wants me."
The young woman doesn't understand that all it means is that he can have anyone, and has.
The culture on campuses for over three decades now has said that monogamy is quaint and too demanding. The women's movement demanded this, but it's the men who enforced it on campuses, because women don't have their hearts in this, no matter how much of a party girl they are. The women think they are moving up some social scale of desirability. They don't realize they have it backwards.
Any guy who wants to spend time figuring women out can be good for her. However, spending the time is not alpha and will end a guy in poor standing among women. At least with the "modern women". It's a catch 22. A true alpha is only interested in one thing, and it isn't women, except as they (especially in numbers) offer affirmation and sex, or whatever goes for sex to an alpha. An alpha should not obsess about anything, just "be".
It all seems pretty lame to me. And, really, it is. The prince wears no clothes and the crowd cheers his finery. Blah.
TO: blagga the hutt
RE: Yeah....But....
The rubies look like a better investment right now... -- blagga the hutt
....rubies are cold comfort in bed.
However, when you find a virtuous woman, you'll gladly trade every gemstone you have for her.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Keep the faith, baby!]
"However, when you find a virtuous woman, you'll gladly trade every gemstone you have for her."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ya think?
Here's an analogy of how I think:
There is a big field with individual dog poops all over the place. Everyone in society and most all of the women on this board and some of the men on this board say that you just have to find the Tootsie Roll among all the dog poops.
Whether this mythical Tootsie Roll exists or not is another question.
So you are supposed to go through it all to find the Big Prize - the Tootsie Roll.
But here's my point: Is it worth it? Is the Tootsie Roll THAT GREAT that you subject yourself to all of the things that men describe here, in addition to forking over one HELL of a lot of money for that Tootsie Roll?
I guess some men are slaves to their sweet tooth and can't consider that there may alternatives. And maybe the Tootsie Roll is mostly about marketing and other candies containing sugar may be just as good or better.
And the last point: Most of the men I see who are trying to brag that they have a Tootsie Roll seem to have a piece of dog poop with a sugar coating.
I have seen men brag about their wives - and she's looking for a Bigger, Better Deal (while the chump works his ass off to pay for her). That's kind of nasty, and that's NOT a good person.
Men rationalize and try to shoehorn their piece of dog poop into a Tootsie Roll wrapper, though.
And Chuck, you are trying SO hard to make people envious of you that you are getting a bit suspicious. It is very important to you to impress others.
The "Revenge of the Nerds" is the orgasmic screams of pleasure heard across America every day and night. LOL I have seen these women Dr. Helen. Walking right by the young man who will be the best thing that ever happened to them, to grab the guy who will ruin their life. It's like watching the blind man trying to walk across the interstate at rush hour. You know what's going to happen, but you are unable to stop it. Like my old buddy who had hunting dogs would always tell me as he trained the dogs. "Some learn right away, some learn after a while and some never learn". I think we humans are like the dogs on the learning curve of life.
Allison, I'm going to print out your comment and save it for when my kids are getting ready for college (at least six years, for the oldest - a boy - but he'll need to hear it too!). Thank you for that...
And Target, geez, I'm glad I'm not living in your world. Bleak place. And bitter place, where a man talking about how highly he values his wife is "trying to make other people envious."
Allison says:
The culture on campuses for over three decades now has said that monogamy is quaint and too demanding.
This is why I wanted to see some more interviews with the college women because this is my guess as to what is happening. Just like the college men, the women are graduating with mounting college debt and the burden of finding a well-paying job after graduation. They have their studies to worry about. I'm not so sure they are all thinking that a monogamous relationship that will lead to marriage is a priority at age 20.
Plus you have this major split in personalities at that age between the genders. Women are highly social, with their phones and their facebook. The men can often get absorbed into video games and less social activities. I don't see the colleges encouraging dating, they are busy with the educating.
I'm not so quick to buy into the whole modern-day harem culture.
"Actually, some of us aren't taken; we've just dropped out completely because of our experiences with women."
Thread winner. Girls aren't raised properly anymore - to be fair, neither are most boys, but a higher percentage of males seem to "figure it out" - and so you have social pathologies like this hook-up culture, which is morally insane.
This is not a new phenomenon. In the 1980s, when I was in grad school, other grad students who dated the undergrads had a term for dating the impressionable freshwomen. They called it "clubbing the baby seals."
Not precisely college age people (though college is still involved), but still, a natural outcome of a society which doesn't support Beta men:
http://gawker.com/news/money-changes-everything/elizabeth-dewberry-left-robert-olen-butler-to-join-ted-turners-collection-284346.php
I call it Pat Benatar syndrome. The girls who insist on going out onto the ballefield of love, running with the shadows of the night, where they encounter the heatbreaker, armed and ready, and get hit with his best shot, deliverd by his flamethrower. And after all that, he turns a cold shoulder.
Good grief. But it seems they'd rather try again with that guy than the ones who can barely get up the courage to ask them out.
TO: Target
RE: Thinking?
Ya think? -- Target
I don't 'think'. I KNOW. From experience.
I'm married to one.
RE: Analogies
There is a big field with individual dog poops all over the place. Everyone in society and most all of the women on this board and some of the men on this board say that you just have to find the Tootsie Roll among all the dog poops. -- Target
Having stepped in a couple of piles of poodle-poo, I understand and respect your cleve, albeint distasteful, analogy.
But I FOUND the 'tootsie' roll. And as I've said on a number of other threads of this sort.....
....Eat your heart out.
Whether this mythical Tootsie Roll exists or not is another question. -- Target
You seem to be truly 'hopeless'. And that's too bad....but not for me. Rather for you....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Love is the triumph of the heart over the mind.]
P.S. Didn't He counsel us to think with our hearts first, but use our minds wisely?
For the nerds looking for advice, I recommend the indy flick "The Tao of Steve"... it identifies and quantifies the art of seduction.
Mikee -- LOL...and ouch... ;)
GawainsGhost is pretty close with his assessment ... The changes in the laws have changed the "rules" so that it now favors a society for alpha males.
Let's face it, it used to be that a woman might play with an alpha male but eventually settle for the stability of beta male.
However, the women are trying to have it all. They marry a beta male; fool around with an alpha male; dump the beta male while getting the kids, the house, and a nice monthly check.
Betas aren't stupid. They learning the new rules too and not electing to get married ... or delaying marriage ... or marrying a foreign woman.
Topher - "The trick of the PUA community is that it's like hypnosis - it's not mind control, it only works on people who want it to work on them. That's why PUAs don't troll conservative church services or other houses of locked-up women...they go into clubs and other 'target-rich environments' where people are selling their "goods"."
Not true. I've succeeded plenty of times with good, church going, "Christian" women.
You must understand that there is usually no sharp dividing line between alphas and betas. It's more like a sliding scale. You can be a nerd, but still be an alpha.
There are very smart alphas and there are so not so bright ones who still manage.
But today's society is a target rich environment for alphas ... that's just the way it is. Don't hate the alphas who have just learned how to play the game better.
There's a disturbing question over at The Terrorist's Advocate.
Think carefully before answering. It's not meant as a tasteless joke.
TO: All
RE: What He Said
Don't hate the alphas who have just learned how to play the game better. -- Lupus Solus
Don't 'hate' them at all. Rather, pity them.
Remember, don't covet they neighbor's 'whatever', especially in this instance, as all they are doing is digging their own 'grave'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[What part of 'Thou shalt not....' don't you understand?]
TO: God of Bacon
RE: Terrorist Advocate Question
Got a link?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Web site you seek, cannot be located but. endless others exist. - Haiku Error Msg]
Reason #4 to write poetry: It's cold and lonely here, a) without you, b) with you.
My observation is that men appear to be better at "love 'em and leave 'em" than women. I once read that in all cultures, women violating their wedding vows of fidelity were taken more seriously by both men and women, than men violating those same vows. When asked why famous men seem to have sexual relations with those other than their spouse, while famous women don't, the answer was that women prefer to have sex with somebody they love. Men aren't so picky. But perhaps, with feminism's need for females to imitate all things male, females can develop some bad habits formerly reserved for male pigs.
In the end, both genders lose out. Both genders can find partners if they relax their standards. As the t-shirt once said "I need another drink, you're still not good looking."
My advice to nerds-- avoid American females. They are culturally incapable of being satisfactory mates.
I'm not sure that "virtuous" category is exactly what you want in a woman. You might think about a few more characteristics like: Responsible, generous, kind, and hard-working.
On a side note, we are experiencing the mother of all blizzards this week. The plows aren't coming to my neighborhood. Most of the residents of our street are shoveling hourly to keep up with the falling snow. There are a couple of women who live here that haven't lifted a finger but most likely would fall in the "virtuous" category. They are in their homes watching TV while their men (and the rest of us hard-working responsible women) are doing our best to shovel the snow. Virtuous, my ass.
Lupus,
"However, the women are trying to have it all. They marry a beta male; fool around with an alpha male; dump the beta male while getting the kids, the house, and a nice monthly check.
Betas aren't stupid. They learning the new rules too and not electing to get married ... or delaying marriage ... or marrying a foreign woman."
"Not true. I've succeeded plenty of times with good, church going, "Christian" women."
I am not surprised, as many "Christian" people are really putting on an act. I take your statement with as much surprise (which is to say very little) as PUAs who have seduced married women. Some people are dedicated to the groups they choose, and some are just along for the ride. Someone who isn't committed to the morals they espouse, or is thinking about changing their mind, goes looking for an opportunity to defy them.
"You must understand that there is usually no sharp dividing line between alphas and betas. It's more like a sliding scale. You can be a nerd, but still be an alpha."
The top attributes, as in negotiating, appear to be cultivating an air of mystery (don't show all your cards), and the ability to walk away from the table. The thought of losing you entirely motivates many a business partner or woman to sweeten the pot for you.
"But today's society is a target rich environment for alphas ... that's just the way it is. Don't hate the alphas who have just learned how to play the game better."
Yes - the 80-20 rule (or the Primate Principle) says that women compete to mate at the top, men compete to get to the top. Human marriage flattened the ladder to pair up people. This had many benefits (genetic diversity, maximizing male labor capacity, optimal care of children).
However, modern society has reversed sexual binding rules, and made it a bumper crop for alpha males since they can now monopolize the females, who enjoy having new (if shared) access to the top males.
This produces a conflict in feminism, where men in general are denigrated, but rank misogynists like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy are lauded. Despite the hyper-education, natural tendencies still rule who is attractive. And Bill and Ted can advocate whatever feminist politics they want, because it only opens more opportunities for them to charm the ladies' pants off and enhances their power base (while regular guys get hosed by the law.)
PUAs are just "emulating" alphas so they can take advantage. I'm not hating anybody, I just think it's funny in a silly way how the PUA techniques work so well on so many women, when they are so simple. Then again, how many times have you had a female friend dating an asshole, and you've told her he's an a-hole because your male-to-male BSometer is pegging in the red, and she coos "NOOO, he's nice, you just don't UNDERSTAND him!!!" Humans are masters of denial when hormones get involved.
Man, my posts have gotten ridiculously long...gotta work on the pithiness.
TO: Cham, et al.
RE: Virtuous, Anyone?
I'm not sure that "virtuous" category is exactly what you want in a woman. You might think about a few more characteristics like: Responsible, generous, kind, and hard-working. -- Cham
Maybe you'd better RE-READ that business I pointed out earlier.
Enjoy,
Chuck(le)
[There's a LOT of Truth to be found in Old Books.]
Topher,
Just a quick note and then I'm off for the day ... Don't assume that I set out to seduce married women.
Many times I have dated a woman ... sometimes for several weeks before I found out she was married ... One to the deacon of a church!
Women hold no moral high ground when it comes to infidelity ...
Lupus - wasn't assuming. On infidelity, wasn't suggesting otherwise. Party on.
"Provided the person wants to change, it's not hard."
Not true. It is very hard and it takes more than a desire to change. It takes a passion to change. And then it takes a lot of hard work or a serious life crisis. Frequently it takes both. It took me many years of desperately wanting to change, a divorce, poverty, another failed relationship, and finally some divine intervention.
I'm coming late to this discussion, but a couple observations from a 43 yr old nerd:
- The hot chicks often wind up figuring it out. It just takes 'em a while. When they do, the pickup artists suddenly find they can't get the time of day. And the hot chicks? They're still hot.
- Nerds win in the long term. I've never seen a pickup artist with a long-term happy relationship, but I've seen a lot of "members of the harem" who wound up with a nerd, and they're mutually happy 10-20 years later.
--I'm not so sure they are all thinking that a monogamous relationship that will lead to marriage is a priority at age 20.
Well, actually, the demands of school mean they don't want to spend a lot of energy on men and dating and sex.
But that doesn't mean being celibate, because especially at a place like MIT, and most colleges in general, being pursued all of the time is exhausting.
Better to find a stable mate for a term or a year just to make the others stop pawing at you all the time.
So which is best? A stable mate who is monogamous with you? How likely is that? Almost nonexistent--because you can't make this demand as a woman. If you do, he'll dump you for someone else. So women put up with it. And if he's not monogamous but you are, it may still be less exhausting than being pursued.
But they do want monogamous relationships. They want comfort and support and love. These things aren't present, so they take sex and on again off again companionship instead. The idea you'd get this without contributing sex has gone away.
or, more bluntly:
for many women, having to have sex every day while balancing school and the rest of life is demanding. better to be part of a harem where the demand is only there once every 4 days or so.
I think there's too much emphasis on mating as a consumer exercise. Desire is important, but as numerous perspectives here show, it's deceptive. Desire must be combined with much careful reflection and some kind of serious life-purpose within which the mating fits.
All important decisions involve trade-offs, and mating is not exempt. Happiness within marriage, as in general, depends on a kind of opportunism or optimism that makes the most of what one has, thereby transforming it into something far better than one could have imagined it will be.
Ultimately, ego is the enemy of happiness in general, and especially when it comes to connections with others. To the extent that the goal of mating is reproduction, it's worth bearing in mind that we don't choose our children at all, and yet we have to somehow reconcile ourselves to the vagaries of their looks, demands, moods, etc.
I'm one of those guys who made the jump from Beta Male to a pseudo-Alpha. Back in High School and early years of College, I always played the "nice" guy and bent over backwards to do nice things for women in hopes of dating. Well, I found that didn't work. I even had girls tell me I was "too nice". After all I heard about A-hole guys, I was shocked the first time I heard this. Then I began to wisen up. I started to follow advice from a guy called David DeAngelo who came up with a method that follows the rules of attraction: Be Cocky and Funny.
The keys to this were to be Cocky, not arrogant. Confidence is is one of the biggest attractors. The other one was to use humor, as everyone likes to laugh. The idea was to never be self-deprecating, but to actually give the girl a bit of a hard time by picking on small and insignificant things in a playful way. this showed the girl that I wasn't just an "easy" guy but that I had "standards", whatever they were, and she had to work to meet them (but not too hard). Giving girls a challenge changed my world. I went from being girl's best guy friend, to being a veritable force as a male. Other rules were, don't pay for her, let her take care of herself, and no dinner and movies. That means she can buy her own drinks at the bar and if she's lucky, she can get me one! Then, I will buy her a drink as is fair and reciprocal.
What I learned is that women say they want a decent man, but what they really want is a decent man they are attracted to, which are two entirely different rule sets.
So, now I no longer lavish women with dinner, dates, drinks and praise, but rather casual encounters, a sense of competition, and an air of superiority. I also now ride a sportbike, which definitely helps.
The man who would make a good husband just doesn't get the blood flowing. A guy in a highly dangerous, life threatening, overpowered machine does. However, I still retain the qualities to be that "nice guy" and ideal husband for the one that I pick to be with. So far, most of the girls I'm attracted to don't fit that category.
TO: All
RE: What aodonnell Said
Ultimately, ego is the enemy of happiness in general, and especially when it comes to connections with others. -- aodonnell
And THERE you 'have it'.
Want a good marriage?
In such a relationship, for it to be successful, each member MUST think that the other person is more important than themselves. In other words, total unselfishness BY BOTH PARTIES.
It's hard to come by. Especially these days, with everyone being selfish feeders on anyone they come across.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Selfish: Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others. -- The Devil's Dictionary]
jay wrote: "and finally some divine intervention."
I can relate.
Trey
TO: Light
RE: Heh....
The man who would make a good husband just doesn't get the blood flowing. A guy in a highly dangerous, life threatening, overpowered machine does. -- Light
....you've brought the discussion 'full circle'.
The point here being that women are attracted, by nature, to the daredevil who has 'survived'. [Note: As for "highly dangerous, life threatening, overpowered machine", does a paratrooper in a HercieBird, flying through enemy anti-aircraft fire qualify?]
What's my point? I'm the para. Women were 'attracted' to me. After I was married to them (twice) they beat me up in a court of law. Taking my children and my money.
Then I 'wised up' and waited. Now, after the watchful 'wait', I'm happily married to that woman described in Proverbs 31.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Who can find a virtuous woman....]
P.S. She was one of three women seeking my attention. One was a pagan. One was a atheist. The 'winner' is the honest-to-God Christian.
Charles ... Don't confuse a PUA with an Alpha. Alphas may indeed be good PUAs, and often are, but the reverse is not necessarily true.
The thing about an Alpha ... he rarely loses the attraction.
Light - You're pretty much dead on tho I still have enuff old-fashion ways about me that I usually buy dinner ... especially if I asked her on date.
Chuck - Airborne! Jumping out 130s puts you on the right path.
It's unfortunate that you had to get beat up twice by the morons in black robes.
That's what I was talking about earlier ... the laws and the attitudes of those morons in blacks robes need adjusting ...
,,,after age 60, things for all sorts of guys and women begin to settle down a bit.
TO: Lupus Solus
RE: Airborne!!!!
Chuck - Airborne! Jumping out 130s puts you on the right path. -- Lupus Solus
Indeed. ESPECIALLY if you get yourself 'qualified' as a 'Jumpmaster'.
That one-minute door-check is a total 'rush'. Not to forget the 'rush' you get from the jumpers when you come in from that and give a 'thumbs-up' to the assembled paras.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A worse drop-zone I shall never see. But only God can make a tree. -- Jumpers Remorse]
Let me get this straight. Everyone talking about Alpha's, which are in fact psuedo-Alpha's because they can't maintain a long term relationship, they treat women like crap, have only one set of values (It's all about me) and their only goal is to get laid. In reality a real Alpha would eat their lunch. The real Alpha has values, morality, and treats people in general with respect until it is determined that that respect in no longer warrented. They have an internal moral compass and steer their lives by it while the psuedo-Alpha sees no further than the head of his d!ck. So, women are falling all over themselves to get rejected or laid and thrown away by the psuedo-Alpha and they ignore or are not woman enough for the real Alpha. God we are screwed!
Sorry:
http://theterroristsadvocate.blogspot.com
Aurelian, I can't get it straight. I would like to see a definition of human alphamale and betamale. Does anyone have a link from a reputable site?
Aurelian,
Your missive sounds like the "Real Man[tm]" shtick. We've heard that one before.
I have to agree with Cham, I can't keep straight Schneiderman's concept of the real alpha, the "ersatz alpha male" and the pickup artist (a level below the ersatz alpha male?)
Chuck,
"....rubies are cold comfort in bed.
However, when you find a virtuous woman, you'll gladly trade every gemstone you have for her."
Who gives a shit about the bed when you can get the clap? As far as that kind of woman, I'm absolutely convinced that they don't exist.
Lupus,
Not hating anyone. Just don't give a rat's ass. If the alphas want to get herpes or worse, like Topher said, party on.
Charles,
Go back and read what I said about "damaged goods." Not really sure I want to sleep with someone monogamously who's been with 10-15 guys already. I've already figured it out. Why should I wait for someone else to get their shit together? It's all about the "id" baby, all about the "id."
Allison,
Monagamous relationships are supposed to be hard. That's what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. I think there's more to life than one mindless screw after the other.
Aurelian,
Yes, you're essentially right.
Did I miss anyone with my responses?
This crap has been going on for ages (I will be 50 in April). It is ALWAYS going to be harder for the person, man or woman of character to find a long term mate because a) they have a standard and are sticking to it, b) does not fall into the "everyone has someone, why not me", which is really a variation of "It's all about me and c) they compromise for nobody. It is easy to get laid if you want to sink low enough and some men and women have no problem being submarines. Psuedo Alphas are just players and scum I would willingly put my foot so far up their ass they would taste boot leather for a week. A real Alpha is an anchor in a storm. (There are Alpha men and women, psuedo alpha men and women, etc).
blaga the huff:
As far as that kind [virtuous] of woman, I'm absolutely convinced that they don't exist.
Hey blaga, have you noticed that this website is run by an apparently very nice and thoughtful woman?
I'll also nominate my wife as someone who is more precious than jewels.
For that matter, I am aware of several wives of men I knew and have known for many years who did not play the 'screw the alphas, settle with a beta' game.
Both sexes are capable of moral thought an decision making. Good Luck with your search.
Lupus-- Honestly, having been a keen observer of human nature my entire life, I've never met an alpha who actually meets all of your criteria. Frankly, by that definition, there are no alphas - only pseudo alphas.
Blahga--You didn't write anything about "damaged goods". You dropped the term (twice), but that's it. Never said anything substantial.
Frankly, it's also called "character". It's what gives you something to talk about.
"Chicks dig scars". Frankly, so do guys. It means you've done something, lived a life, not sat around being Miss Purity.
Whenever the subject of sex is the issue, we run into a basic conflict. That is, men and women are different. Surprise. The phrase “men like sex, women don’t” is categorically not true- however, a close and more complicated analogue of that aphorism matches millennia of human history: “Most men are biochemically driven to seek sex for its own physical sake, and most women are content to accept and even enjoy sex with a particular partner, when in the mood, for the sake of the relationship.” You can find 3 sigma exceptions in both tails of the probability distribution, but that statement describes the essential situation for the vast majority of the population. If you boil it down, it says that men are looking for sex first and women are after love first.
So these hook-up women described in the articles are looking at a “particular partner”, and are “in the mood” because “the relationship” offers certain perceived benefits- be they enhanced self-esteem from capturing the alpha male, feeling attractive and superior to other women, sometimes even pure occasional desire; after all, most women do produce a little bit of testosterone during fertile years. For other women, for example wives married to beta males, the drive can be avoiding feeling guilty for rejecting hubby, or rewarding the old man for good behavior (prostitution paid off by a different currency).
Fast forward these women in the articles about 10 years to the point after they have married and had a baby or two and they will be quite different- as one article puts it, passion begins to die as soon as she feels secure about her man: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-400480/Passion-dies-soon-woman-sure-man.html
The real trick, for a husband who got married and thought that having committed to be faithful and supportive, he would now have a fulfilling love life with the girl of his dreams, is, now that you’ve figuratively speaking “bought the cow”, what do you do about the fact that it basically no longer gives milk except for those rare days when she is actually “in the mood”? After all, an hour of sex every week, split among three evenings or so, is altogether too much to ask of a wife.
Unless he is fortunate enough to be married to Helen Gurley Brown:
http://store.bottomlinesecrets.com/article.html?article_id=27032
“Keep your sex life alive. If only one of you is in the mood, do it. Even if sex isn’t great every time, it’s a unique form of communication and togetherness that can help you stay together with a good degree of contentment.”
The fact that there are as few divorces as there are indicates that there are a lot of decent guys out there who are simply stoically coping with the bad bargain they made.
Aberman,
"Hey blaga, have you noticed that this website is run by an apparently very nice and thoughtful woman?"
I think the articles on this site are very interesting, which is why I read them. As far as her assertion that men need to be defended, I'm not sure I agree with that. Men can take care of themselves, it's simply a question of choice. I see a lot of guys read these articles and simply whine. My answer to all of what is shown here is to not date, period. You do that, you won't have to worry about laws, culture or anything else for that matter. is it a tad radical? Yep, but it seems to be the best way to deal with it. As for the site, I've seen plenty of guy sites which post similar material. I know nothing of Dr. Helen's personal life, nor do I want to (or anyone else's for that matter). For all I know, she takes all of this info and wraps it all into a psych research paper. One never can tell.
"I'll also nominate my wife as someone who is more precious than jewels."
Well, good for you. I would stress, however, that in the long run, rubies are probably the better option. No maintenance required, at least other than stashing them away in the bank...
"For that matter, I am aware of several wives of men I knew and have known for many years who did not play the 'screw the alphas, settle with a beta' game."
That you know of. You're telling me that you know everything of all those womens' lives?
"Both sexes are capable of moral thought an decision making. Good Luck with your search."
Everyone is certainly capable, yes, but how many actually follow through on it? That's the real question, isn't it? As far as searching, it's not for me. I turn my back on all the "game."
Charles,
"You didn't write anything about "damaged goods". You dropped the term (twice), but that's it. Never said anything substantial."
Damaged goods refers to women sleeping with 10+ guys (which many, many do) and then "settling down" for another guy later on in life. The question is why someone who stays the course would want to have anything to do with a woman (or conversely a man) who's like that? But it happens. This is why you have all of these commercials for drugs that deal with STDs. Hey, if you want to have a life like that, be my guest. I hope this clarifies my point.
"Frankly, it's also called "character". It's what gives you something to talk about."
I believe that character has much to do with this whole process, yes. Again, I'm not sure how much character is left in most people anymore. Doesn't seem like it.
""Chicks dig scars". Frankly, so do guys."
So the clap is an honor scar? Well, I suppose one could look at it that way. A little odd...
"It means you've done something, lived a life, not sat around being Miss Purity."
Hmmm...so, slamming away at 20-30 women (or men) in your life is "living?" I don't call that living, I call that being a whore. Take what you will from that. Purity, however noble, is highly unlikely for anyone. However, is it really all that unreasonable for people to actually, I dunno, moderate their behavior? We're humans, and while we are animals, we're more than that.
Blogger blahga the hutt said...
Aberman,
"Hey blaga, have you noticed that this website is run by an apparently very nice and thoughtful woman?"
I think the articles on this site are very interesting, which is why I read them. As far as her assertion that men need to be defended, I'm not sure I agree with that. Men can take care of themselves, it's simply a question of choice.
Can they really? Lions lose in single combat with tigers, but lions in packs beat groups of tigers: lions live in packs, tigers don't. Women will join ranks to control men, while men think "they can take care of them selves". Well, a single man might be able to "take care" of himself when faced with a single woman, but women do the collective thing better than men.
Witness women working together to change laws to favor women. Or the group of disparate women who gathered to confront the White House about jobs for women. Many more men lost their jobs in the recession than women, but women made sure that at least, if not more than half, of the stimulus money went to jobs traditionally held by women. More men in number and percentage of workforce lost jobs than women. And the jobs men lost tended to be with substantial wages: family supporting wages. But women got as much money, or more, than men in the stimulus package. That's that pack mentality working for women. We men need to be grateful that there are some women, such as this blog, who are willing to entertain an evenhanded conversation.
The Psychology Department of the local university is investigating why women leave the ranks of working engineers. Is it because male engineers are all misogynist pigs, or because women with the skill sets necessary to be successful in engineering can use those skills to be successful at other occupations? Many of which pay more than engineering? And most women simply don't like that kind of work? Nothing sexist, just this is what one group of people tends to like.
Several years ago, researchers noticed that most childrens adventure books had a boy as the hero, and there was a scarcity of books with girls for heroes. So the effort was made to write more books with girls as the main character, to inspire as those little girls who needed inspiring.
Researchers know that girls will read books with boy heroes, but boys usually won't read books with girl heroes. Boys usually lag behind girls in acquiring reading skills. But the push was made for more books which centered on girls. We have a problem with boys learning to read, but we'll write books we know they probably won't read, just so we can boost the self-esteem of girls. Thanks. We wonder why girls do better in school? We have transformed the system to favor girls, and wonder why boys aren't interested in investing of themselves in school.
I guess once we get a "Mens Studies" department on campus, we can figure that out, but not for white men. They can take care of themselves.
Chuck - All the way! I never hit a tree (not that I had as many jumps as you!) but I have had guys walk across the top of my chute! lol
---
Definition
I'm sure that the good doc could give a psych definition of an alpha male but I'll go with something like this:
He is almost always a leader if not THE leader of a group. He is usually intelligent and confident. He knows what he likes and dislikes. He's doesn’t care if you think he should be different. He feels secure enough that he doesn't have to try and please other people instantly. This is the guy you’d want with you if you were lost in the woods because he would keep his cool and get you out of there.
The true alpha is a leader whether in business, sports, or in the military. He loves all women but wants intelligence and independence in a woman he chooses to be his partner because he wants an equal, not a subordinate. A true alpha is not threatened by strong women. He admires them.
An alpha is also usually very successful with women. Because he is successful, he ignores any pressure to "settle down". He'll remain single as long as he wishes. If a woman tries to push the relationship further than he is ready, he's not afraid to walk away from it. He dates women on his terms.
Here's the rub. The "old-fashioned" society rules were fashioned in such a way as to push an alpha into marriage with one woman rather than play the field with many. Thus there were plenty of women for betas as well.
The rules have changed and it is now not only open season for alphas to stay on the prowl, but it is to their advantage not to get married early or get married at all. For that matter, it's even more advantageous for betas not to get married … marriage is no longer a safe bet for men. It's a high risk deal!
The courts are killing marriage as an institution.
And, like I said before, there is no sharp line between an alpha and beta ... A pure guess would be that about 10% or less of men are "true alphas" and the rest are some sliding scale combination of alpha and beta personalities.
We need to distinguish between an alpha male and a thug.
The thug is the type who thinks he has something to prove. He gets road rage, is abusive, and fights with guys in bars. While some thugs may actually be the alpha male of their pack, not all alpha males are thugs. Alpha males, on the other hand, know that they are smarter and better than others and they don't need to constantly prove it by confrontations.
Sounds like you spend an awful lot of time worrying about that crap, Lupus Solus.
So, I get alpha male and beta male in regards to wolf packs, or dog packs. But I'm not quite sure animal mating procedures apply to human interactions. That last alpha male thing sounded like it was written in a womens studies department. It almost sounds romantic. Why don't we classify movie stars in particular roles as being alpha or beta. Like "The Dude" in the Big Lebowsky. Was he alpha? and Walter? What about John Wayne, in any film? Sean Penn, in any film? Leonardo Di Caprio, in Titanic, was he alpha or beta? He got the girl!
Don't forget, that among some primates the males will kill children which are not their own, so females will mate with as many males as possible, so all the males will think that little cutey is their child. I guess some women use that one. And among some primates, the alpha female gets to make pleasure noises during mating, and the beta females don't get to make as much noise. Well, maybe that one is used as well. But really, do alpha male and beta male really apply to humans? Men may or may not be in a pack. The be the alpha dog one must be willing to kill all competitors. So perhaps, in gangs that is the case.
The reason "Where the Wild Things Are" was written by one male about another is that men are much more likely to feral than women are. For that reason feral women are much more shocking than feral men, since many men are half way there any how.
How can you tell a bachelor has fixed a special meal for dinner? He takes the dirty dishes out of the sink before eating.
Milwaukee,
"Women will join ranks to control men, while men think "they can take care of them selves". Well, a single man might be able to "take care" of himself when faced with a single woman, but women do the collective thing better than men."
That was my point and I probably should have made that clearer. Men need to rely on men to handle this; i.e. take care of themselves. This can be singularly or collectively. Running to women solve the problem isn't going to do it and is a horrible strategy, although some do seem to advocate just that.
But at the same time, you can only help yourself. Women can't rule if you want to be around them or not. That is your choice in the end. It's simply a matter of willpower. My personal opinion is that those who sleep around with tons of women, the so called alphas, are in fact the ones with the weakest willpower, since they can't control themselves.
You want to change things? Then you may need to sacrifice a little.
I keep hearing an awful lot of nonsense about alphas, betas and the law of the jungle, but humans are also reasoning creatures (some more than others apparently). We're the only ones who can do this. To simply ignore the reasoning state and follow the "id" every time is pure idiocy and contributes nothing to civilization in the long term.
Does this mean hate women or be super bitter? Nope.
After reading all this, I can truthfully say:
Thank gawd I'm
1. happily married
2. to a fine woman
3. and old, so I never have to date anymore.
Milwaukee,
"How can you tell a bachelor has fixed a special meal for dinner? He takes the dirty dishes out of the sink before eating."
Speak for yourself. I happen to be a great cook. In fact, it's probably a great skill to have when you're single.
Kim,
Good for you. I'm 36, so dating isn't so much a big deal for me anymore either. But it's fun watching the Millenial guys wring their hands over this nonsense.
'But I'm not quite sure animal mating procedures apply to human interactions. -- Milwaukee
Do they apply perfectly? No. Do they apply? Bet on it. It's visible all around us and in ourselves if we look in the mirror with our eyes open (which often is unpleasant in a metaphorical sense more than a physical one).
While there are lots of exceptions, it's easy to observe what the 'main sequence' of each sex tends to be attracted to in the other, especially initially, and it's fairly consistent. It's also, to a considerable extent, self-defeating for a human being.
There's a reason why most religions and most time-tested wisdom draws a sharp distinction between 'doing what comes naturally' and 'doing what is right'. They are often incompatible on myriad levels.
This is true of both sexes, though in different ways. Women, on the _average_, are attracted to money, power, status, and of course looks too. Men are attracted, on the _average_, to looks, youth, fertility, and availability.
Not very pretty, is it? Either one? And it's not even _close_ to the whole story. But it's not untrue, either. We see the effects of it all around us, all the time.
Margaret Thatcher did not become a sex symbol when she became Prime Minister. A rich old man is much more likely to marry a 20 year old woman than a poor old man is. The high school quarterback can be a total jerk and still attract pretty girls who would never tolerate such behavior from the head of the chess club.
As I said, the basic, default programming for both sexes is not nice. Decent behavior is in much learned, and more a product of civlization than nature.
That's why every time society veers down the road of Rousseau-style primitivism, enshrining 'feelings' as the sovereign guide to life, things go off the rails.
This has happened in Western civilization on a semi-cyclic basis, every few decades or centuries, and it generally ends in a sour taste for everyone involved.
"I'm ust not 'in love' with him or her anymore!"
So what? Being 'in love' is totally different than love, which is less a feeling than a verb. Being 'in love' is just a feeling, and it doesn't amount to much, but popular culture enshrines it as something sacred, even as it stokes up expectations for both sexes totally at odds with reality.
Think about it: most people know, without a doubt, that to attempt an action-movie car chase or to use kung-fu against a gun-wielding assailant is suicidal.
Yet a _lot_ of people of both sexes internalize the concepts of male/female relationships pitched by Hollywood, the porn industry, the romance industry, etc, and expect life to actually work that way, breeding deep disappointment and resentment, which is too often taken out on their mates or former mates.
'Why don't we classify movie stars in particular roles as being alpha or beta. ... What about John Wayne, in any film? Leonardo Di Caprio, in Titanic, was he alpha or beta? He got the girl!' -- Milwaukee
Interestng point, since it touches on one of the big strains on relationships today.
The movies (and other popular fiction, but the movies are probably the template) hold up utterly unrealistic fictional characters for our entertainment. That's fine, in and of itself, it is entertainment, after all, and as long as we remember that it's OK.
But when popular culture becomes as all-pervasive and permeating as it is in our society, and the counter-influences are removed as has often been the case in recent decades, things change. It becomes very easy to internalize unrealistic depictions of human behavior and relationships, and then wonder why life never works that way.
Most successful movie archetypes appeal to some fantasy-template on some level, whether crudely or subtly. Most of John Wayne's characters, for ex, embodied a common male fantasy of one sort, the self-image of the calm, in-control and effective tough guy.
Totally unrealistic on almost all levels, of course. There's a saying, or used to be, in the military to the effect that there's the right way, the wrong way, and the John Wayne way, the last being by far the worst in real life.
It's irrelevant whether Leo DeCaprio was alpha or beta, since that entire movie was based around a template for a common female fantasy, he was a cypher or a prop for that fantasy, like the leading men in most romance novels.
If you observe a movie carefully, you can generally discern what fantasy templates underlie it, and from there you can figure out what audience the studio thought might be willing to pay to see it.
(Sometimes this misfires totally, of course, but it works more often than not.)
As with John Wayne, so with romantic comedies. Try to imagine what would happen to a real-life guy, even a handsome, strong, smart one, who tried to behave in real life the way Wayne's characters (or Clint Eastwood's, or Steven Segal's, etc) usually behave on screen.
Likewise, try to imagine people doing in real life what they do in romantic comedies or romance movies. Looks just as silly, doesn't it?
Yet people do internalize expectations out of the fantasy brew of pop culture.
Somebody asked for a definition of an alpha male and I gave it my best shot! lol
I'm open to other suggestions.
Johnny1A ... I'd say you're pretty spot on. It ain't pretty but it is what it is. Those who chose to ignore take a high risk of being taken to the cleaners.
Hey, take it easy on the Duke ... He's still my hero and I still love watching his movies!
Let me throw out another concept that hasn't been touched upon so far ... the predatory female.
All of those who have been savaged in court have met her. Some have been lucky to recognize her early.
Too many men want to place women on a pedestal and worship them ... You'll pay the price if you're one of them!
Somebody asked for a definition of an alpha male and I gave it my best shot! lol
I'm open to other suggestions.
Johnny1A ... I'd say you're pretty spot on. It ain't pretty but it is what it is. Those who chose to ignore take a high risk of being taken to the cleaners.
Hey, take it easy on the Duke ... He's still my hero and I still love watching his movies!
Let me throw out another concept that hasn't been touched upon so far ... the predatory female.
All of those who have been savaged in court have met her. Some have been lucky to recognize her early.
Too many men want to place women on a pedestal and worship them ... You'll pay the price if you're one of them!
Blagha: You young pup. ;> I'll presume you're still single, from your comments.
Me? No, together 15, married 11.5. I can speak from experience. ;)
One of the things you're missing is that you have to be able to absolutely trust your spouse that there will be no surprise visitors, no "extra guests", no cheating. Now, maybe you can do that. I'll gather, again, from your comments that you have never found someone who measured up to that standard.
But I've found that being married to someone who knows from experiental data that she's got steak at home, and that there's a lot of hamburger out there, works out very satisfactorily.
By the way, love your leaps of logic. Too bad you seem to wind up with every woman being either virginal or a whore, based on your stated criteria. And that every woman who's slept around some must have had the clap, or some such.
Lupus-- Suffice it to say, I disagree with some parts of your definition. Start with the observation that there really _is_ a difference between an alpha and an arrogant sonofabitch. It goes downhill from there.
Charles,
"Blagha: You young pup. ;> I'll presume you're still single, from your comments."
In a society that prizes adolescence and worships the idea of looking forever 22, yes I'd say I'm pretty old. Yes, I'm single and I plan on staying that way. I've seen too many people around me fall into the marriage trap.
"Me? No, together 15, married 11.5. I can speak from experience. ;)"
I'm happy for you. Let me know if it goes past 30-40 years, then we'll talk.
"One of the things you're missing is that you have to be able to absolutely trust your spouse that there will be no surprise visitors, no "extra guests", no cheating."
I'm not missing anything. I'm aware of what you speak of. My parents have been together for over 40 years. I just don't believe that the younger generations have the ability to have those kind of relationships any longer. Look at most of the younger people out there. It's a colossal mess.
"Now, maybe you can do that. I'll gather, again, from your comments that you have never found someone who measured up to that standard."
My belief is that when you get into a marriage, there is to be no cheating or any of that garbage. However, I've seen too much around me, whether it be anecdotal, blog/written or other miscellaneous evidence that suggests otherwise. We currently live in the world of the Freudian Id (even if I don't espouse to that kind of behavior). I see and hear way too many women who will jump ship at the earliest opportunity. Hell, I've read horror stories about women who confide in others that this is their "practice marriage." It may not be every woman, but it's a high enough percentage that I simply turn my back on all of it. No regrets...
" But I've found that being married to someone who knows from experiental data that she's got steak at home, and that there's a lot of hamburger out there, works out very satisfactorily."
What?...
"By the way, love your leaps of logic."
It's hardly a leap of logic. See above.
"Too bad you seem to wind up with every woman being either virginal or a whore, based on your stated criteria. And that every woman who's slept around some must have had the clap, or some such."
Ok, I would love to hear what your ideal type would be. How many men (or women for that matter if you want to reverse things) does it take for a woman to be "damaged goods?" I'm sorry, but when I hear statistics like 1/4, that sounds to me that's what they know about. My guess is that it's probably a higher percentage. Sleeping around does increase the chances of catching something. The more people you sleep with, the more likely you'll get something. Did the AIDS virus teach us nothing? I await your response.
Well, this has been an interesting discussion, particularly on the topic of what an alpha male is.
In primate societies, for example gorillas, he's the biggest, strongest male. This is established through dominance displays. Actual fighting or violence rarely occurs in nature. Rather through ritual displays of aggression. Once dominance is established, by the other male displaying acquiesence (not submission, which is another topic), the alpha male's hair turns silver, indicating his position in the hierarchy. Hence, the silver-backed gorilla is the alpha.
Thus, in a gorilla society, there are a few alphas, some betas, and more gammas. The alphas are awarded first choice of food and females, the betas second, and the gammas third.
How does a beta become an alpha? By winning a dominance display against an alpha. There is no other way. This is where the omega comes in.
Since he does not participate in the hierarchy, but remains outside of it, the omega lives on the edge. Suppose a natural disaster or disease wipes out all the alphas. The betas now have no way of establishing dominance, so they just sit around wondering what to do. The omega will then start causing trouble, by say throwing rocks or sticks at the betas, making them think another beta or a gamma is provoking them. Aggression displays ensue amongst them until a few betas establish themselves as alphas, and the hierarchy is reestablished. The omega then goes on his merry way.
I'm not so sure human society is organized in this way, although some aspects of it certainly are. Like a football team, for example. There are starters (alphas), backups (betas) and practice squad guys (gammas). The omega would be the guy who starts a fight in training camp to get the other guys motivated to play.
I agree that some men are natural leaders, and thus are deemed alphas. Other men are facilitators, and thus are deemed betas. More men are followers, and thus are deemed gammas. Like in the military, with generals, officers and infantry.
But being an alpha has nothing to do with getting laid. It has to do with leading men.
The problem in today's society is with women, their sense of entitlement and pretense to superiority. The men who enable this behavior are not chivalrous but ridiculous. Throw in the problems with the law and the court system, and all the romantic fables around which society is built get thrown out the window.
The omega is his own man. Know money, know clothes, know woman. He lives his own life without pretensions. Unless he needs to stir things up so the alphas, betas and gammas can get their act together, he just simply goes about his business. And doesn't care one wit about whatever stupid label others try to place on him.
I received a comment from one of his majesty's penis garages on my Columbine 101 weblog. What an airhead!
http://columbine101.blogspot.com/2010/01/ryan-tuckers-enabling-females.html
God of Bacon's link (read it) makes a good point - just as with every hot woman there's a man who's tired of her, for every violent, sociopathic man there appears to be at least one woman who will make excuses for him and say "noo, he's a good guy, you just don't understand him the way I do!"
What a bunch of morons. I gradually discovered that a surprising number of women are actually turned on by this sociopathic behavior, the macho displays of dominance - it's a modern playout of the primate thing.
I didn't think Chris Brown had any right to batter Rihanna (although no one talks about how she beat him with a shoe while he was driving his car) but I can't muster much enthusiasm to watch her Diane Sawyer interview and wring my hands over the whole thing when I read stuff like this:
"London, Dec 9 – Singer Rihanna, who was assaulted by her former boyfriend earlier this year, says she loves “high-risk” men and would never date a “nice” guy as with them the relationship becomes perfect and boring.
...
But Rihanna still says she prefers high-risk guys and will never consider romancing a man she considers a cream puff, reported imdb.com.
“I love the high-risk (guys). I don’t like cream puff, corny guys. Usually they are the nice guys, the ones that won’t hurt you. They’ll pull out the chair for you and the whole nine yards. Everything is perfect and boring. I like the risk, I like the edge. That’s the thrill for me,” she said."
Lots of violent criminals in prison get tons of mail from women. Ted Bundy and Charles Manson got mail by the sackful - including serious marriage proposals, nude pictures and all the rest.
If you go by the animal world with regard to "alpha males", these are the true alpha males. A guy with "F#ck You" tattooed on his forehead who spends his time doing bench presses in the prison courtyard and making more homemade tattoos. Someone who will use all of his remaining teeth to bite out chunks of your flesh in a fight.
He's the alpha male.
Not the mostly young guys who think they are the alpha males and who seem to obsess over it in their attempts to come to terms with their own masculinity.
It's not even "leadership", because that is heavily context dependent. I saw the president of a fraternity in college - who was absolutely a leader in his little area - suddenly morph into a big-mouth jerk who no one took seriously in his first real job out of college. He was viewed as a brash idiot, and no one would have thought of following him.
Humans are not dogs. The genetic stuff that is left over in the brain - the stuff that makes some women cream their pants about a violent felon - is overcome in most grown-ups.
The childish women (the "big prize") and out-of-control violent men ("alpha males") deserve each other.
My daughter is a 20 year old college student. Can't tell you how many first (and last) dates she went on where the guy expected sex at the end of the night. You want to defend that and blame it on the woman?
She has been dating a guy since June, the nicest guy who gave her a ring as a promise that he wouldn't preasure her into sex until she was ready. I guess you probably think that's wimpy behaviour on his part, bowing to what a woman wants. Okay, lambast me, but not all woman only want dirt bags nor do they want to put out 2 weeks into a relationship.
You probably think that my daughter is a control freak when it comes to sex. I taught her to respect herself and that sex isn't something to be taken lightly. I think both men and woman are screwed up on these issues.
"My daughter is a 20 year old college student. Can't tell you how many first (and last) dates she went on where the guy expected sex at the end of the night. You want to defend that and blame it on the woman?"
I don't know the situation, so I'm going to ask factual, non-rhetorical questions. Does the man pay for the date? Does your daughter ever pay, or offer to pay? Does she demand that "I won't date a man who doesn't pay for the date" or think it's "the man's job" to pay for the date?
I don't know your daughter, but I've heard all of these from enough women - even nice, friendly ones who aren't entitled princesses - that I don't think they understand how unfair it is for men to be expected to fork over money to a woman with the only reward being "the privilege of spending time with me." If it's "the man's job" to materially provide from the first moment of the relationship, at some point even reasonable, non-sex-crazed men are going to wonder what kind of return they are to expect from their investment. That being said, I don't do the dates-for-sex provider game...that's another reason I don't do expensive dates early on, it keeps me from getting into a reluctant feeling that I'm entitled to a return on my investment. I pay on balance, but I don't play the sugar daddy.
Again, I don't know your daughter, but I am curious as to how she's presented herself in dating. If she's an equal partner out to find someone to relate to, then she's just dated a few boorish guys and that's bad luck that will turn around. But if she's marketing herself as a "prize" to be "bought," the sex-for-money attitude of the guys who date her does not surprise me.
"Okay, lambast me, but not all woman only want dirt bags nor do they want to put out 2 weeks into a relationship."
Not going to lambast you - you are absolutely correct. However, there are enough of the "other" women that it is uncommonly refreshing to meet a woman who's not that way.
"You probably think that my daughter is a control freak when it comes to sex."
Not at all. All these people hopping into the sack with whoever are engaging in medically risky and sociologically dangerous behavior. We don't have to be puritans to encourage and expect sound sex judgment from our young people; AIDS and herpes have shown what happens when too many people are doing too many people.
"You want to defend that and blame it on the woman?"
-----
What's to defend or blame? Some men want sex and she doesn't. Then she doesn't have sex. So what.
She can be a control freak if she wants. She doesn't ever have to have sex in her life.
But men who don't see things like her don't have to be with her. I'm not really even sure what your point is.
Kelly,
Again, my point is not to blast anyone - just to show how they are multiple ways to view each situation, and that the overall environment is one that outliers and iconoclasts have to navigate and manage carefully.
The general expectation that men shouldn't presume to pressure women into sex (and that he's a "bad man" if he does so), but that women can harp on men about "fear of commitment" is a double standard, and an inequitable one at that.
Not to mention the women I hear from who don't like to initiate sex (that's also "the man's job"), and so ALL their action comes from the man "pressuring."
kelly:
Kudus for raising a daughter properly. If only there were a lot more women like your daughter, there would be a lot more men like your daughter's current boyfriend.
That sounds like a cop-out for men, but the fact is, the sexual revolution was started by women and the current battle for what society will look like will be mostly fought by women.
By the way, the fact is that the leaders of the women's movement--from Betty Friedan to Gloria Steinem and onward--all had one thing in common: no healthy relationships with men in a long-term committed relationship. And today, I doubt you'll find any leader of any Woman's Center at any university who has raised children successfully with a husband. Why anyone chose or chooses to rely on these people as experts or leaders is completely beyond me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"You want to defend that and blame it on the woman? "
I won't blame anything on "the woman" (singular), but social behavior is learned from averages, the overall behavior of a group determines what is a "reasonable investment" by the other group.
As an example, I was talking to a woman who complained that a guy at a party kept talking to her and hitting on her even though she repeatedly emphasized she had a boyfriend. After telling her that if she was really serious she should have dropped the conflict-avoidance and told him to just go away (I posited she liked the attention), I said: "Guys have met enough women who say they have a boyfriend, but still go home with the club guy, that it's worth it to them to keep hitting on a girl who says she has a boyfriend."
Other arguments I had at the ready are: 1. Infidelity is such a huge problem that being "coupled" has been devalued. 2. Lots of people have a "need" to be with someone, and so keep their bf/gf while they look for a better offer. 3. Lots of women say they have a boyfriend when they don't, just to get guys to go away. (This is called a "sh** test" designed to weed out beta males and rule-followers.)
The overall behavior of the two genders creates opportunities, and so to some people it's worth the risk to hit on a "coupled" woman or man, push for nookie on the first date, push the man to pay for everything whether you like him or not, etc.
"no healthy relationships with men in a long-term committed relationship."
They would probably say that commitment is so beta-female.
it is interesting to see everyone ego protect in discussions like this.
neil strauss wrote the book for all those guys who are sitting on thier couch wishing they could just talk to women and have them respond in a positive way.
the pua carries mints because he can offer a girl one....and tell her not to crunch it because it`s hard...better to just suck it.
she makes her own mind up how to act from there.
is this hypnosis?. she`s going inside and talking to herself about sucking something hard.
conversations like this are enjoyable for both parties.
the true alpha doesn`t offer his friend`s wife a mint.
and many beta men don`t like women enough to give them pleasure in conversation, or in bed.
part of social awareness is realising that pleasing others is the key.
hint; women find nit-pickers boring.
"the true alpha doesn`t offer his friend`s wife a mint."
Is this more of the "Real Man" discussion?
"and many beta men don`t like women enough to give them pleasure in conversation, or in bed."
Are you saying beta-males are in the closet?
"hint; women find nit-pickers boring."
That goes both ways, which is a big reason career women who fret about "settling" haven't found someone...men easily pick up on when they are being checklisted, and the nit-picking drives them away because they know they'll never measure up.
topher; i`m saying that there are men who have had bad experiences with women, things like being rejected, humiliated or betrayed...and carry the resentment forward and put that on any woman as if she was the one causing them pain.
the methods in the pua culture give men the flexibility to have conversations with they women they choose, and ask the difficult questions. like; where did you get the house you live in considering you work in a shoe store....
beta men aren`t necessarily in the closet, in fact they aren`t anywhere unless they learn some social balance. a woman hates to be approached by a nervous guy who in unsure of himself...no matter what his qualifications or income. if he can`t create a pleasurable conversation, or at least hold up his end, hse`s not going to go much further.
and regarding nit-picking, i meant showing how many facts he knows and correcting her if she fails to "know" facts like him.
and simply put, the alpha will not prey on his friend`s wife...there are literally thousands of other desirable women within a few mile radius in most urban/suburban areas wanting conversation. your friend`s wife made a promise.....
and about being check-listed....walk away. don`t even say goodbye.
the pua code says a few simple things.
don`t date, don`t pay for drinks and be master of her world. make her feel things. and remember, you don`t want anything from her, this is just practice.
for the average frustrated chump, or beta male, the idea that you can comfortably talk to an atractive woman is a fantasy...but the fact is that with practice you can emulate alpha confidence and have a woman find your company desirable.
and what`s the harm in that?
better than the four "b"s.
bragging, buying, bullying and bullshitting.
The real Alpha has values, morality, and treats people in general with respect
No, the *real* alpha is large and in charge, or dies at the teeth of a bigger alpha because being a beta is unacceptable to him. He would rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.
Morality ain't got jack or shit to do with it.
And before all the internet-tuff-guying comes out - you'd be surprised what someone with no scruples could do to make you violate every principle you hold dear to serve him.
macciavelli talks about dealing with a conquered population. he knew that dying at the hands of a rebellion was stupid. typical pseudo-alpha would rather die that think about tactics and strategies.
a big dog is only that. big.
if he`s also stupid he will die at the hands of a smarter apha dog.
You keep telling yourself that, Doc, if it gives you comfort.
peter, i`m aware of the fact that there are those who would cross all sorts of lines to get what they want...and i wouldn`t be in the least bit suprised.
thier sociopathology doesn`t make them alphas.
hitler died on fire in a ditch.
Blagha said:--Allison,
Monagamous relationships are supposed to be hard. That's what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. I think there's more to life than one mindless screw after the other.
Blagha,
You confuse my statement of how it is for approval. Of course monogamous relationships are difficult. The problem is that men can have sex with impunity in a society where abortion and birth control define life. The woman can't demand a man to behave properly and wait for marriage, because he can move on to someone else who he can screw. She is expected to be on the pill, and abort if that pill fails. It is her problem, and there is no companionship to be had.
That is the EXPECTATION of women in college.
Which means there is no civilizing factor on the men. Which in turn has meant women have become less civilized themselves.
And that's a devastating truth of our society. In a world where women are expected to have sex to gain companionship, because there is no marriage providing that companionship, many will opt for the harem, which lowers the pregnancy risk and the emotional and intellectual commitment as well.
Allison - "Which means there is no civilizing factor on the men. Which in turn has meant women have become less civilized themselves."
I'm afraid you've place the cart in front of the horse here. Men have historically responded to what women have demanded of them in order to gain access to sex.
The feminist inspired and driven sexual liberation of the 70's saw women start to shake-off the "oppression" of social constructs that had long "oppressed" them, and found themselves free to express their sexuality - believing that abortion rights & the pill freed them of any consequences.
You claim that: "The woman can't demand a man to behave properly and wait for marriage, because he can move on to someone else who he can screw."; but you fail to note that this is every bit as true for the women - and, frankly, quite a bit easier since women need only be merely willing to have sex (while men must pursue and impress).
Long story short, after years of sexual liberation and wasting their best years chasing after those elusive sexual-market alpha males, women are finding themselves unhappy and unfulfilled.
And, it even reaching down to young women of college age now.
So, what to do? Well, typically, just as you are doing, women look at the disaster brought about largely by women, and declare, "It's all the fault of men!"
It's not like you women would ever be willing to tackle the tough job of taking responsibility for your (collectively) own mistakes, now is it?
Allison..."many will opt for the harem, which lowers the pregnancy risk and the emotional and intellectual commitment as well."
Why does it lower the pregnancy risk?
David asks (of Allison) - "Why does it lower the pregnancy risk?"
Perhaps she's suggesting that being in a harem-like arrangement decreases the the number of sexual encounters, thus lowering the overall pregnancy risk.
Oh course, what she really trying to do is to find some "men made them do it" explanation for the readily observable tendency for women to willing "share" alpha males, rather than have to settle for some nice guy who is their natural sexual/romantic marketplace equal.
Allison - "That is the EXPECTATION of women in college."
the whole whiny "men make them do it tone" resonates throughout her post. As if women were entirely incapable of choosing to NOT participate in the sexual free-for-all.
Whahh!! They have to put out, or the alpha male will find another who will!
Whahh!! They have to use birth control!
Whahh!! The only way they can get away from the pressure to have sex is to be amenable to and accepting of the interests of men who are their natural equals, who would be more likely to respect them, be more willing to wait, and even to love them. That would be soooo boring! A fate worse then death! Women have it soooo hard in college!
Boo-F'in-hoo!
Kelly,
"My daughter is a 20 year old college student. Can't tell you how many first (and last) dates she went on where the guy expected sex at the end of the night. You want to defend that and blame it on the woman?"
I'm glad your daughter is like that. There are so very few out there who have that kind of willpower. Unfortunately there are an awful lot of girls her age who do exactly the opposite (I work at a university, so I see these type of girls all the time).
I don't think I ever defended men acting like that. When I said freudian id, I meant society; men and women. But I also see an awful lot of women passing the buck to the guy. It's not always the male's fault.
You're right; sex is not to be taken lightly. However, we have such an adolescent society which glorifies casual sex as the norm.
Allison,
Let's break your post down...
"You confuse my statement of how it is for approval. Of course monogamous relationships are difficult."
Well, I'm glad we agree on something.
"The problem is that men can have sex with impunity in a society where abortion and birth control define life."
Really? They can have sex with impunity? With who? You're making a strange assumption that women have no choice in the matter. Of course they do. We, as a society, have chosen of our own free will to create this. We collectively made this bed. Now we can lie in it.
"The woman can't demand a man to behave properly and wait for marriage, because he can move on to someone else who he can screw."
Well, actually, she can. It does happen from time to time. Is it very difficult? Yes, but by no means impossible. Thank you for proving my point about the freudian id.
"She is expected to be on the pill, and abort if that pill fails. It is her problem, and there is no companionship to be had."
Well, you can thank feminists for that little gem. Go to any feminist website and they practically worship the friggin' pill. Bear in mind that it is the liberals who go apeshit whenever abstinence is uttered.
"That is the EXPECTATION of women in college."
Hmmm...expectations, eh? Aren't we being a tad dramatic? Your sentence implies that there is no choice in the matter whatsoever. I thought women had all of these freedoms now? It's a brave new world, right?
"Which means there is no civilizing factor on the men. Which in turn has meant women have become less civilized themselves."
I see. So women prance around in bars (or other places) scantily clad and it's the man's fault? You really buy that feminist idea that they're wearing what they're wearing because they want to "express themselves?" Really??? Here's a radical idea; maybe women shouldn't act like a bunch of sluts to put themselves in that position?
"And that's a devastating truth of our society. In a world where women are expected to have sex to gain companionship, because there is no marriage providing that companionship, many will opt for the harem, which lowers the pregnancy risk and the emotional and intellectual commitment as well."
Uh, so who exactly started the Sexual Revolution in the 60's again? Females wanted this situation! They wanted to be free to do whatever the hell they wanted whenever they wanted! You wanted this insane asylum, you got it! Now all of a sudden, you want to change your minds! Too freaking late! Maybe you should try to take some responsibility for yourself once in a while.
As slwerner said, I see an awful lot of piteous whining on your end. Time to grow up.
The fundamental disconnect is that these women see sex primarily as a means to an end, and for men it is the end in itself. As long as the goals are different, conflict will dominate.
It's really a miracle that marriage survives.
Whatever Dane....
I see quite a bit of subtle shaming by some of the female posters here.
Sorry, girls, if a woman wants to have sex and I want to have sex with her, then I will have sex with her without marrying her and without promising a stake to my income for the rest of my life and without paying her.
It's interesting to see the underlying assumptions that some women have. They don't even realize it themselves, but it comes out in subtle ways.
I don't think it is all that complicated. College women are having sex because they are horny and want to have sex. They aren't having monogamous relationships because they don't want to have monogamous relationships.
Cham- that is utter nonsense. There may be a very few purely libido-driven female college students, but they are in the tail of the distribution, by every bit of research ever done on the differences between men and women. Go read Steven Rhoads' meta-analysis, which grabbed every authoritative study on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Differences-Seriously-Steven-Rhoads/dp/159403091X
Your statement is representative of the wishful thinking of a 14 year old boy.
Kurmudge,
I'll bet that you are in a relationship with a woman in which the money is heavily flowing from you to her.
You just sound like that type.
Cham,
What a perfectly juvenile answer to make (hardly surprising though).
"hey, I'm horny, so I should just screw now."
Wow, talk about the perfection of the Freudian Id.
The question is, how far does this childish mentality go.
"hey, I have to take a dump, so I'll just let loose here on the sidewalk."
Ridiculuous? Yes. But that's essentially what you're advocating. To hell with any reasoning skills, just follow your pure animal nature. I don't think civilization has advanced as far as it has on pure animal instinct. I gotta laugh out loud at your rationalization (or the lack thereof) though...
Kurmudge:
Women tend to do what they want to do. If the wanted to have relationships they would be chasing the men that want to have relationships, the mysterious and plentiful unattached beta male.
I think it is wishful thinking that the majority of college women really want to have a serious monogamous relationship with any man but they are forced into sexual slavery to these equally mysterious and less plentiful alphamales. Some men would like to think women are all secretly miserable and unhappy but none of them are willing to admit it. Shhhhhh!
Target- you lose the bet. My wife of >30 years is still slim and desirable, and for the last decade or so has made more money than I do. No cash flows either way- it is simply not an issue with us, everything is "ours". Nor does she step out.
We are probably some kind of miracle, like Glenn and Helen. I am simply here stating the reality of male and female biochemistry and how modern feminism has messed things up.
Marriage is extremely easy to succeed at if you follow simple rules. Of course, most tend not to follow those simple rules:
He: converse with her every day (that means both listen and talk about her subject of choice), don't be a jerk, don't be a lazy slob. She: screw his brains out several times a week, don't double in size, don't be a shrew.
Do that, and you will do fine.
Yep Kurmudge-
It's always simple. We just want to make it hard.
Kurmudge: you really need to save your wisdom for a book: how to make your marriage a success. Men: you need to act like you are listening; women: let him screw your eyes out. I hope you read what you write! Give me a break, marriage is a little more complicated than that.
Chem: are those college women engaging in meaningless sexual encounters these days different from how they behaved in previous years? If so, how and why? What series of events caused these changes?
Yes, I'm willing to agree that many men are dogs who will mate with any woman willing. But not all men are, or were, like that. But women previously were a little more restrained, and for good reasons. But society has tolerated those boundaries being broken and now we see sexual free-for-all. In the end, society has lost something vital and important. And I suspect that many individuals have as well. I remember a quote from somewhere to the effect of "even a 19 year old male can figure out that endless sex, without a meaningful relationship, is a very empty experience."
As the t-shirt says "I need another drink, you're still ugly."
Allison: "That is the EXPECTATION of women in college."
I will back this up. It's not that "the men made them do it" - women in today's campus-health environment are absolutely inundated with information and provision of barriers, birth control hormones and abortion. (From other women.) It's pretty clear that the "health educators" expect these women to use the products, and it is presented as the standard of care, no different than tylenol and antibiotics.
It's even more pervasive if they are in a sorority that is involved with women's health advocacy, or they go near the women's center or women's studies department.
thier sociopathology doesn`t make them alphas.
hitler died on fire in a ditch.
Only the second response to demonstrate Godwin was right.
Well, when all else fails, fall back to argumentum ad hitlerum, eh wot? Except ... I never claimed *he* was an alpha.
The word we are looking for is "strawman."
Well, overall a pretty good discussion but we seem to have hit the point where we're going in circles.
Let's see if I can sum this up ...
There appear to be a few men who have been fortunate to have found their soulmate ... so to speak. But I've noticed that they seem to be slightly older and probably came from a generation that wasn't quite as promiscuous.
Another group of men have tried the marriage route and have been burned at the stake by the courts.
Some think that all Alphas are jerks and that nice guys win in the end.
Some blame the women's promiscuity on the men ... specifically the Alphas.
Others blame it on the women themselves.
Still others blame on the feminazi culture.
Whew, I probably missed a few but in the end ... IMHO and as I said ... absent forcible rape, women are the gatekeepers to sex.
No PUA or Alpha or Beta or Gamma or Omega is going to get anywhere near it if she says no.
Is sexual promiscuity a problem? If so, what are the effects? Problem for whom? What will happen if men and women don't spend vast amounts of time, money and effort working on getting coupled up and married, especially if they don't plan on having kids?
I know what a problem looks like: War in Darfur, Earthquake in Haiti, Global hunger, ruthless dictatorship in North Korea. Is this one?
not a strawman. inhtis case a human example of those who will destroy themselves in thier assertions. pyrric victory, and all that.
granted, in the animal world, there are those who will get their throats torn out in a pissing contest, as there are in the human sphere...but there are those who can see the pattern and can cope with thier own will-to-control, dominate and survive...and show some restraint in the process.
Man: Know money. Know clothes. Know woman.
boy: no money. no clothes. no woman.
Woman: Know money. Know clothes. Know man.
girl: no money. no clothes. no man.
It's really not that hard to figure out. What's going on is the infantilization of adults.
It has nothing to do with alpha, beta, gamma, which are arbitrary designations. It has to do with grown ups acting like children.
Make a man. Make a woman. Make a commitment, and make it work.
But don't waste your time and money on some stupid, spoiled little girl or boy. It isn't worth it.
Milwaukee, give me a break, you are smarter than that statement implies. Of course marriage is more complicated than that- there are thousands of points that can impact the relationship. Many founder on the shoals of finance, for example. I was pointing out the foundation elements that are most often overlooked, and can encompass all of the detail. It is like saying about contract law, "you gotta have a meeting of the minds and flow of consideration, and two willing-reasonable parties." Is there more? Sure- myriad details, depending on the agreement. But not being a jerk means you don't blow all the family cash on your favorite toys, in the same way a meeting of the minds describes offer, acceptance, counteroffers, etc.
Looking over this discussion overall, I am struck by how blatantly selfish are the assumptions. Sex is all about getting getting getting- guys (alpha, beta, gamma, whatever) getting laid and playing whatever game is necessary to do so, girls selling sex (and we recognize that doing it can sometimes even be fun for her in the process, so that the payment isn't as painful as some payments are) for prestige and envy of those who lose the alpha males to them.
I'm back at marriage- we are selfish by nature, happy marriage requires unselfishness in spades. As I said a while back, it is almost a miracle that there are any happy marriages. Taking care of the sex part, in a marriage, is the most rewarding, and probably the easiest thing, yet those who are the gatekeepers tend to use that leverage. Modern feminism has taught women that they should only do what the feel like doing when they feel like it. Because men and women are generally different in that area (how many women go to the porn theater alone wearing a raincoat because they are desperately horny?)
Given that, the human race is doomed.
"Given that, the human race is doomed."
No, merely Western Civilization. We're the ones who are below replacement rate. Feel free to look at the demographics for Western Europe if you don't believe me. What will simply happen is that we'll end up being overrun by another culture/civilization which doesn't share our values.
Gawain's right. We're rapidly becoming a civilization of children.
Cham, that should answer your question as to why it's a big deal. By all means, keep playing that freudian id.
You people hopefully realize that all your concerns about Western civilization and the future of the human race and of planet Earth fall under the category of "social engineering".
It's just social engineering from the right.
You all get busy making sure that we are going to have representatives of planet Earth right up to the point that the Sun burns out or explodes.
That's certainly an important task, and no less important than the task set by the left-wing social engineers.
You are all Al Gores of the right!
In the meantime, I am amazed myself that I finally agree with Cham on something.
not a strawman. inhtis case a human example of those who will destroy themselves in thier assertions. pyrric victory, and all that.
Such is the nature of Alphas. Look at the wolfpack - the beta-as-alpha -pro-tem goes back to being a beta when the alpha takes over. When the bigger alpha takes over, the former alpha foes rogue.
If you can abide being second banana, you are not an alpha.
This comment has been removed by the author.
No, JG, it would be "social engineering" if there were some kind of behavior compulsion here. There is a difference between observing and commenting, and compelling a certain type of conduct.
Drug control and child support laws are social engineering. Health care insurance mandates are social engineering. Amateur blog punditry is just free speech. The distinction is not that difficult!
You use the term "social engineering" as if it were something bad.
Post a Comment
<< Home