slumlord,

"Yes there have always been problems, but human behaviour tends to hover about a mean. In modern times that mean has shifted markedly downwards."

I was trying, without much success, to suggest a more nuanced and optimistic world view. Would you really go back to the fifties? No Internet and as a doctor you'd be without the advances in trauma care that allow many people who would have become murder victims to simply be assault victims. There have been tons of advances in medical technology since the fifties and I can't list them all here.

"Peasant man stands miles above not in only in behaviour but personal happiness. Dalyrmple has written about this as well. The people produced by the worst poverty in Bangladesh seem better people than the welfare proles produced by PC culture. The human degradation of the underclass in the West has to be seen to be believed, the total loss of self respect, the personal and moral filth, the utter transience and savagery of their affections and the total helplessness in regard of their circumstances. Quite literally unnatural sub-humans whose existential states seems to be one of permanent misery. It is a world without dignity,kindness, love and care; Societal atomisation complete."

I agree with you that values, not financial problems, are what cause the problems for the working class. I don't know about Australia, but Steve Sailer believes that one reason the American working class is not quite as far gone as the British one is due to America's higher rates of religiosity.

"The horror is though, that the values which produced such sub humans are being eagerly assumed by the middle and upper classes. This is a book length topic so once again I suggest you read Dalyrmple, who provides an excellent analysis of the situation. Human nature isn't pretty, but now it's damn ugly."

Dalrymple is an atheist, and to my recollection you are a conservative Christian possibly a Catholic. Do you think a more religious society with bishops et al putting the breaks on sexually explicit movies and TV is the answer? Do you think that any social leaders, however well-intentioned, can stop Internet porn without turning into outright fascists that stomp on free speech? Do you think Roissy and pals would welcome such a development?

"When he grows a pair(gets the courage to leave), the difficult to understand manipulation stops. Abused women are beta females.

Roissy has written of masculine men who were psychologically beta, similarly many attractive women are beta females. They choose the psychological equivalent to the femme fatale, the bad boy."

The kind of woman is who is preferred at Roissy's is very beautiful but becomes deeply "in love" with a man who rejects marriage and monogamy. Do you see such a woman as alpha? Do you see such relationships as good for society?

For the most part I agree with you about abusive relationships but not all abusers present themselves as sexy bad boys. Some present themselves as appealing trustworthy nice guys and it is only after the wedding that Hyde part of their Jekyll personality comes out.
Think of all the gold diggers who convince whip smart self-made millionaires that they're in love with them when they are just after money. Scott Peterson was so good at hiding his true nature that Laci's family initially supported him when she turned up missing.

"But in my experience, if you choose sluthood, it's very likely that the choice is going to lead to psychological damage and unhappiness."

Yeah, a man like Roissy is the soul of peaceful contentment. Mate, I remembered that you were a conservative Christian doctor in Australia yet seem to have remembered nothing about me. Where's your bedside manner? Go through the archives at Roissy's and you'll find that I constantly state myself to be anti-feminist, pro-traditional family, and that I am tempermentally disinclined toward promiscuity and to the extent that I am judgemental towards it I condemn both men and women equally.

"Consider this a community service."So You didn't tell me what you were doing to change society. Is lecturing 'sluts' the extent of it? Thanks, but I don't need the help. I for the most part don't associate with people who spend their lives on the pickup scene but the ones I have known (particularly women) have had very high rates of alcohol and drug addiction. So if you really want to steer people toward healthy relationships I think you'd get better returns raising awareness about substance abuse and working in rehab clinics rather lecturing over the internet in another country.

"I don't know where you got the impression that I hate sluts, I don't. I just wouldn't marry one(I didn't), neither would a lot of other guys"

You personally don't seem to hate sluts, you can't tell me you haven't noticed such statements on Roissy's blog.

"She is dying a spinster or she is going to marry a beta, which of course is worse. Feminism is dead.

No, being in a non-marital relationship with a cheater like Roissy or dougjn would be worse than going to my grave alone. You've treated depressed women who don't marry, but you've never treated depressed wives of unfaithful husbands?

(imported from previous thread)

...when the good girls get the good men, the bad girls will be shamed into submission."

*sigh* It's always about manipulating, bullying, or beating a woman into submission over at Roissy's. That's why I stopped going. Specifically chic noir innocently noted that she found Christie Brinkley more beautiful than the run of the mill teen that her husband cheated with. She and agreed that, classic beauty aside, men far more prefer youth for flings. After the fact Thursday, of all people, rantingly and irrationally accused chic of trying to shame men about being drawn to teenagers. I've been to Thursday's blog and he is actually quite civilized for a Roissy contributer and I saw that he'd never say such a thing on his own site but that the atmosphere that Roissy creates encourages random attacks on women simply because they are there.

As I mentioned I am not the screwing around type, however if I were even marginally into that your rubric that promiscuous must be "shamed into submission" would have me running to Adams Morgan to grab nearest Simon Baker lookalike (can you feel me chic?) for a night and then moving on to Tom Brady. I can understand why you don't respect sluts but I don't see why women weak enough to be alphaized into submission are any more worthy of it.

"Strive to be an alpha male and reward the good woman with your love and fidelity"

Yeah, Roissy and the majority of his commentators will be loving, faithful husbands one of these days. Real soon.

Dougjn,

"Just what are that chances that a girl who's had 50 sex partners, or 150, is going to remain faithful in marriage?"

The French have a saying that no man checks behind the bedroom door unless he has hidden there himself.

Question: if you had a daughter would you introduce her to a man who didn't want to get married and who insisted on sleeping with other women throughout the relationship?

Finally, when disagreeing commentators opine that Roissy and his footmen hate women you guys always laugh and say that the reason you learn game is because you love women. Now, the nature of love is a vast, complicated subject but I think most people would agree that love falls into at least two categories: love that comes from your own needs and love that comes from your desire to give.

Now, love that comes exclusively from your own needs can be a wonderful thing since it causes children to love their parents. But between adults it is the basis of unhappy, unstable relationships. All men (and all women) have needs but mature men love their wives and girlfriends enough to empathize and sacrifice on the latter's needs. By sacrifice I do not mean that he give up his dignity or masculinity but that he stop behaving like a single guy. A proud "alpha" who demands to play around while expecting his girlfriend to remain faithful certainly loves the sex, attention and companionship that she provides but he doesn't love her in any meaningful sense.

Posted by: hello on March 22, 2009 11:06 AM

Chic,

"Sad thing is, she will be someone mother one day and your friend someone’s dad."

Sterilization was made for such people.

"The lose women are some guys daughter and granddaughters. Men seem to forget this convenient little fact."

Irrational woman though I may be I have yet to meet a man with a response for this argument.

"Men will always find ways to blame women for every thing that goes wrong in their lives."

Actually most of the men have been better at taking responsibility for their mistakes whereas the women are more inclined to blame men for everything. I think the Roissy's lackeys are not representative *getting down on knees to thank God*

Slumlord,

"Agreed, but he can't do it all by himself. A woman has to help him out."

Yeesh, we've been over this a million times. When a PUA bangs a slut each partner is 50% responsible for that sordid act of fornication. The fact that Roissy et al dwell so much on the woman's responsibility suggests to me that they are more troubled by their player lifestyle than they let on.

"Falling out of love is such a piss poor excuse, especially when there are children."

I agree.

"No, people will work harder to stay in the marriage when they get punished for breaking their publically proclaimed vows."

Does that include a self-proclaimed alpha male whose wife divorces him for adultery?

Posted by: hello on March 22, 2009 11:21 AM

Posted by slumlord
means SMH
Forgive me for that. It means shaking my head.
HelloSome present themselves as appealing trustworthy nice guys and it is only after the wedding that Hyde part of their Jekyll personality comes out
This is very true hello and slumlandlord. I know someone who had a husband who changed up on her. Sometimes men become abusive when under extreme levels of stress. The current economic situation for many families in which the husband is out of work is one that may play a large role in mentally stable men becoming abusers.
would have me running to Adams Morgan to grab nearest Simon Baker lookalike (can you feel me chic?
Hello he has grown on me but he is a cutie. He has a teenage daughter btw.

Specifically chic noir innocently noted that she found Christie Brinkley more beautiful than the run of the mill teen that her husband cheated with. She and agreed that, classic beauty aside, men far more prefer youth for flings
Ah, I can still recall that verbal whipping like it was yesterday. The thing that really threw me about the debate was Thurday and Agnostic being upset beside I didn’t think that teenager was beautiful. Facially, Christie Brinkley(lines and all) is by far the better looking of the two women in my opinion.

but that the atmosphere that Roissy creates encourages random attacks on women simply because they are there. Exactly hello exactly. I’ve notice this too. You, Nicole or I can post something and the male commenters will disagree with venom but if a male says the same thing they are hit with a lighter switch. A few of the longtime readers have mentioned how the quality of comments have declined.
SlumlandlordFalling out of love is such a piss poor excuse, especially when there are children."
Hello I agree.
So do I 100%

Posted by: chic noir on March 22, 2009 4:09 PM

Chic Noir--

NO looks are number one or two for most women, golddiggers excluded.

No looks truly are, as opposed to claimed to be when it's really masculinity by any objective standard, only for a small minority of women past the teeny or tweenie stage, most of whom either haven't had an overwhelming sexual exerience esp. of the male penetration orgasm kind, or aren't all that sexual. Though most not terrifically sexual women still love the sexual seduction of a highly masculine man more than they appreciate the finest looks.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 23, 2009 1:27 AM

hello--

Yeesh, we've been over this a million times. When a PUA bangs a slut each partner is 50% responsible for that sordid act of fornication. The fact that Roissy et al dwell so much on the woman's responsibility suggests to me that they are more troubled by their player lifestyle than they let on.

Absurd bullshit leftist thinking. For you to claim you're not a feminist is even more absurd. Maybe you have some disagreement over some issue (abortion?) but your whole mode of thought is thoroughly feminist.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 23, 2009 1:43 AM

Hello

Does that include a self-proclaimed alpha male whose wife divorces him for adultery?

You mean after she's given him very, very little sex for six years of marriage, a light switch turned off after getting married, and that of a very, very poor, lying there quality, despite his efforts? Well maybe a bit better after the most devoted oral, but that's not reciprocated or only in the most perfunctory and hurry up about it and never finish that way, way? Which is the palest sex he's ever had more than one night in his whole life?

When other women desired him hugely? And in his large experience sexed him enormously better, and his wife did too before the marriage, perhaps out of her late 20's marriage panic?

And when he's been very loving and kind to his wife in an alpha kind of way and outside of sex (huge elephant) they're very affectionate and very close and talking to each other deep friends and she's sometimes adoring? Do you think there's a problem? That therapy in a pretty rad feminist environment (NYC in the 90s, liberal Jewish wife) wasn't gonna and didn't solve.

Is that what you mean? Are women never responsible? No it's always the man's fault. Well I got fed up. Finally. Took one hell of a long time. Way too long for my own good. But still a lot of me loved her. Not the bedroom her but the rest of her. And we didn't have kids. That's big.

If she'd let me have discrete adultery while still loving her and wanting to have sex with her if she did, I have no doubt I'd still be married to her. I'd be worse off experience and sex wise, but still married. Cause I'm loyal to those I really love. Very.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 23, 2009 2:02 AM

I remember driving my grandma to an appointment to get her hair done more than 20 years ago when I was a teen. I didn't notice a young lady standing at corner, so I drove on. My grandma delivered a slight punch to my arm and asked, "How will you ever get married if you don't let a girl cross the street?"

It certainly would be amusing for Roissy or some other guru of the game to draw a timeline covering grandma to present day.

sN

Posted by: sN on March 23, 2009 5:51 AM

dougjnn,
*shrug* Call me a feminist if you will,though that would certainly surprise the people that know me in real life. Is it feminist for a woman to not want to submit to any random man that walks by?

I notice that you didn't answer me question. Would you want your daughter to engage in the kind of relationships that you have with women?

Posted by: hello on March 23, 2009 6:47 AM

So, dougjnn, are you saying that even if your ex-wife had been more interested in having sex with you, you would still have wanted her to allow you "discrete adultery"? Your last comment was not clear on this point. Anyway, if I'm right, then that's not what I call loyalty. You can go on about the differences between men and women all you like, but the fact is that women are every bit as disturbed by adultery as men, even if it's in a different way and for different reasons.

Regarding hello's *feminism*, it's a hard thing to be accused of feminism when you know that any feminist group in the world would exclude you immediately if they knew your thoughts regarding abortion, gay marriage, "affirmative action", planned single motherhood, mass daycare programs, and the expansion of the welfare state. That's why I don't call myself a feminist, and that perhaps is why hello doesn't either.

Posted by: aliasclio on March 23, 2009 9:05 AM

I fear that the word "feminism" is now coming to mean any assertion in any way at all of any female perspective on anything. Feminism used to be (among other things), the denial of the obvious, pervasive and significant differences between men and women. Now, in the hands of some supposed defenders of evo-psych, it's become an all-purpose put-down directed at women precisely for being, well, women. For daring to actually demonstrate, and unapologetically, the very diversity that earlier feminists made such repellent fools of themselves for denying. Isn't this a good thing?

Why is it that women demonstrating their evo-bio-womany-diversity by making these woman-y remarks, showing woman-y interests, insisting on having woman-y perspectives on things, drives the evo-psych game theorists buggy?

I mean, c'mon guys. What did you expect? If I get to think with my dickeroo, then why can't women think with their wombs?

Evo-psych sauce for the goose must perforce be evo-psych sauce for the gander.

Stop whining about getting your shrivelled stones stepped on by women who STILL know how to play Game better than you do. No matter how many times you read MM or The Game, you'll still be sweating women's power over you, because the whole evo-psych thing--the very truth of the frickin' thing!--means we have to approach them. That means we take the risks in opening...and no technical proficiency in running scripts will ever change that.

No technique will ever work even most of the time, or for long. Because women will still be women, and that means they will still have something we want--them!--and there's just nothing we can do about it. There are no techniques short of the administration of rohypnol that will MAKE women let you f*ck them. The whole repellent pathetic fantasy over at Roissy's is that if you stand the right way (contraposto/antipasto or something!), pitch your voice the right way, run the right kind of witty playful alpha-y script in the right witty playful alpha-y way, then you will "push her evo-buttons" like she's some kind of sex dispensing machine ("please insert another quarter [joke, story, neg, contraposto shift in stance] to receive your [coke, diet coke, dance floor blow job, evening of hot wet rodgering]".

I say to heckeroo with Game, and let's get backing to wanting, lusting for--and even loving!--the infuriating desirable creatures in something like an unself-conscious way, and recognize that this means--given the very truth of evo-psych! The very truth of it!--that we're going to get hurt.

Oh well. Damn.

Life, unfortunately, is a bitch. I'm still glad I'm alive to get all bitch-slapped around. I mean, consider the alternative.

So c'mon baby. Hurt me. I can take it. I'm a man after all, and that's one of the things we do well.

So hurt me, women. Hurt me good. And then make it up to me. I can take that too.

Posted by: PatrickH on March 23, 2009 12:05 PM

It's interesting that some of the Game proponents are actually touting it as a way to find a good wife, as if that was done by finding the most attractive female that is just slightly dumber than you are.

If you guys had any sense you'd want a wife who is smarter than you, but who is on your side.

How you do that with the Game method, I don't know. A lot of the pro-game guys seem to me afraid of women, underneath all the Alpha/Beta talk. You don't seem ready for an equal, which is the only way a marriage can work. Are you just looking for a woman that you can easily dominate?

Isn't that ultimately what an Alpha is, or is there more to it than that? To me it seems really beta to want to be an alpha. Why not do what you want? Why does getting in the sweet spot in this imagined hierarchy have to run you life?

"For the pussy" is the obvious answer, but it doesn't fly with me. I've had more sex then Roissy. And all with one girl! Lucky for me she's the best girl ever. And she's 100% mine, never was a slut and knows exactly what I like and she's always happy to give it. I want her as much now as I did when I first saw her at age 14.

In any case, why the obsession with ranking? I don't judge myself based on some societal standard, but compared to what I think I'm capable of. You PUAs or Gamers seem like a senseless herd, a mob, each one waving his "I'm an Alpha!!!" flag.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on March 23, 2009 1:39 PM

PatrickH:

I agree with your sentiments. I think the digs at women by Gamers are over the top. Women are only reacting to what they get from us and we act in similar in turn. It's a fucked up tango we're a part of.

What most men of my generation are frustrated with are the men "above" them. They are angry at the more alpha males because they are more relatively beta. They don't express this anger towards those men instead aiming it at women because the women are easier targets and the weaker sex. Plus they hold the goods that we seek.

FWIW, Style in "The Game" speaks a lot on combatting the AMOG (Alpha Male Other Guy) in a "set". It's a way to one-up that guy in order to land the "target".

Posted by: Chuck on March 23, 2009 3:31 PM

So maybe part of what Game represents is a "Revenge of the Nerds" thing, is that right?

...

Can anyone explain to me what dougjnn and hello are disagreeing over? I sometimes get the feeling that it's this statement: "Evo bio suggests that guys who make conquests will tend to be seen admiringly, where galz who have lots of sex partners will tend be seen as cheap." Is that it? Or am I missing something?

I can be mighty slow ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on March 23, 2009 4:02 PM

Hello

I notice that you didn't answer me question. Would you want your daughter to engage in the kind of relationships that you have with women?

The kinds of long term relationships I've had? Yes, for the most part.

I would not want my daughter to be a slut, no. I'd talk to her about the downsides of being one, re: her ability to truly long term bond in a long term relationship and have true sexual satisfaction there even if it doesn't greatly hurt her ability to attract a really high quality relationship or marriage partner, though it will.

I wouldn't want her to be a stripper / lap dancer either, though I have gone to those places on occasion.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 23, 2009 4:42 PM

So maybe part of what Game represents is a "Revenge of the Nerds" thing, is that right?

No Michael. Roissy's site does have a lot of misogynists who want to use it as some form of idiotic revenge. Game is not misogyny, its a tool that can be used for good or bad.

As for feminism ,well that's a mixed bag. As I said before what feminism started off as (totally legitimate) and what it's morphed into(anti man, anti human, anti west) are two different things. Clio's feminism is not the feminism of Wymyn's studies.

Hello Hello.

I'll reply to your comments later today if I can. I tried yesterday but lost two long posts.(Not your fault Michael)

Posted by: slumlord on March 23, 2009 4:56 PM

dougjn only for a small minority of women past the teeny or tweenie stage, most of whom either haven't had an overwhelming sexual exerience esp. of the male penetration orgasm kind, or aren't all that sexual

Ouch

Posted by: chic noir on March 23, 2009 5:08 PM

So...this is what the big huhbub was all about! Hiya folks, glad to be here.

Whew!-LOTS of comments! Took me the better part of the afternoon to read em, and my head's still spinning. But I just wanted to post up a few comments right quick.

It occurs to me that Game discussions, be they those that obtain at Roissy's place or anywhere else, are something that are a bit of a fishbowl kinda thing; I cannot recall such discussions taking place in venues where Black folks or Latinos are in abundance. Of course, the response will be that males of these groups have fewer problems along these lines; yet, when we consider the impact of Feminism on both Black and Hispanic Women, it is hard to deny that they've benefitted almost as much, and in some ways, even moreso, than their "SWPL" Sisters. So, from an amatuer sociologist standpoint, the juxtaposition raises some very interesting questions that I hope some intrepid souls here wouldn't mind taking up.

I think its very important to keep in mind that Roissy's is bit one take on Game, etc, and that the blogosphere is fairly diverse in this regard. Having said that, I too share a kind of simultaneous attraction/repulsion to him and his musings. Without a doubt is a very talented writer, and his rhetorical barbs strike at the fleshy underbelly of our Boy Meets Girl dance and mythos in ways that even the most stout-hearted of us are willing to admit.

In any event, it seems rather clear to me, that the all-powerful Feminist Lobby hasn't seized us in equal ways. This is something I for one would like to explore.

Anyone, er..."game"?

The Obsidian

Posted by: Obsidian on March 23, 2009 5:32 PM

CHUCKPatrickH:
I agree with your sentiments.
Me too.
I think the digs at women by Gamers are over the top. Women are only reacting to what they get from us and we act in similar in turn. It's a fucked up tango we're a part of. agreed, at times I’ve wondered if most of these men aren’t confused sexually. Whenever I would make mention of bisexual men all hell would break lose.

@dougjnn- a few things about male appearance.
Have you seen that pic of Rose? Notice how well that tight leather jacket fitted him. Looks like he spray painted the thing on. Facially I would give him 6.5 but body I would give him an 8. If he had a beer belly you better believe he would have a much harder time pulling women.
I remember having a debate with him a few months ago about male appearance being important. IIRC, Rose said that male beauty isn’t important. Have you watched the show Millionaire Matchmaker(Bravo)?

There was a very tall 6’4 good-looking millionaire who has/had trouble with women. He, Andrew, is very shy who If I’m not mistaken, is one of my spectrum bros. During the meet and great, most of the women piled around the good-looking guy. The other guy who was very outgoing more masculine but not good-looking had to put in much more work to pull in the women. Even when it became apparent that the better-looking guy is a bit different, the women were sort of willing him to be normal and/or trying to make themselves like him. If he was average or below average looking you better believe those women would have abandoned him a heck of a lot sooner.
http://www.bravotv.com/the-millionaire-matchmaker/season-2/videos
Go here to and click on Andrew and Whitney’s date.
Also check out the bringing in the big guns video. That guy was a 40 something year old with a very nice body and a decent face( a little anemic looking). He wanted a twenty something after being dumped by his 18 year old girlfriend. Harold from the video Harold and Michelle’s date featured another late 40 something who wanted to date a 20 year old. Most of the younger women in Patti’s stable were put off by the age difference. Keep in mind that these two 40 something’s have above average looks for their age, tall, and millionaires. So where does that leave 45 year old Joe of average looks and average money.

Posted by: chic noir on March 23, 2009 5:57 PM

Mu So...this is what the big huhbub was all about! Hiya folks, glad to be here
What big huhbub?

Posted by: chic noir on March 23, 2009 6:00 PM

dougjn,
Every marriage, happy or unhappy, is an entity unto itself. You and she clearly weren't right for each other and are better off apart. Some people simply aren't monogamous by temperament and shouldn't make promises they can't keep.

If you and I disagree it's because I find your excoriation of sluts to be hypocritical since you are their brother under the skin. I've heard the evo-bio argument and while I accept evo-bio as science I think there is much more to the human story. I think people should live based on compassion, fairness and philosophical consistency, not judgements from the Paleolithic. Now, a lot of men have a visceral distaste for promiscuous women that is hard to shake, and that is understandable. However, shameless slut-shaming, especially when you're a manwhore yourself, is unkind self-indulgence.

Posted by: hello on March 23, 2009 7:15 PM

Chic,

"agreed, at times I’ve wondered if most of these men aren’t confused sexually. Whenever I would make mention of bisexual men all hell would break lose."

I've met men who enjoyed sexual release with women but couldn't stand them in any other context as well as being extremely homophobic. It suggested an emotional landscape completely dominated by masculine men.

Regarding looks I don't agree that only sexually inexperienced or immature women are very interested in looks. In my observation highly sexual women, especially when in the mood for NSA sex are even more demanding about a man's looks than their dispassionate sisters. Yes they do like masculine seduction but a good looking man is still highly valued over a plain one and an ugly man is at a definite disadvantage.

Posted by: hello on March 23, 2009 8:15 PM

Hello--

If you and I disagree it's because I find your excoriation of sluts to be hypocritical since you are their brother under the skin. *** Now, a lot of men have a visceral distaste for promiscuous women that is hard to shake, and that is understandable. However, shameless slut-shaming, especially when you're a manwhore yourself, is unkind self-indulgence.

I find your failure to LISTEN to what I've told you about my views towards sluts quite frustrating. It's frustrating because I don't dismiss you but find you interesting.

I've said I've had a number of affectionate fuck buddy semi relationships with sluts -- meaning I've liked being around some of them outside of seduction and straight to the sex. I've also said I think it's a very bad idea to fall in love with sluts especially big time sluts even if or maybe especially if they're very hot (pretty/beautiful), and especially so for any kind of beta including a good higher status provider beta who may end up being their settling target come marriage time. That's not hating them; that's calling a spade a spade.

Sluts are fun to play with, bad to commit to. But play with can mean more than just a one night stand (though sluts are of course the prime candidates for that. I don't think I've ever done that to a relative good girl. I'd feel far to guilty. Even if the sex wasn't good. I try to make it good for awhile, often with success. )

The higher percentage of twenty something sluts in our big cities though means more bad news for marriage or other committed relationships down the road. It's bad for our society, overall. It's especially bad for highly productive and socially important higher status better beta type guys. They lose out to bartenders and out of work actors and so on these days and the slutified women who bang them in numbers will not much bond with their higher income higher beta marriage choices. Bad marriage sex, bitchy wife, cheating wife, divorce, divorce theft.

Guys wanting to bang attractive sluts among other girls and attractive enough to women to do so in some numbers, aren't what create sluts. Those guys have always been there in every age, but current slut levels haven't. The reasons for the increasing slutification lie elsewhere. So don't blame Roissy, much less the much older me.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 23, 2009 10:02 PM

Hi everyone. Michael, it's nice to see you starting this type of discussion. I've been trying to get people outside the seduction community interested in studying it for years, rather than obsessing over whether pickup works (some aspects of it work spectacularly; some don't), what's "wrong" with women who "fall" for it, and whether it is ethical (some aspects of it are, some aren't, and some are in a grey area).

I think it's a shame that awareness of the seduction community is being prompted by the writings of Roissy. While entertaining, Roissy's views are not typical of the seduction community, to echo one of Thursday's various excellent comments. He is like a distillation of some of the worst tendencies of the community, such as ideological adherence to an oversimplified interpretation of evolutionary psychology, and an accompanying excessive cynicism towards women. For instance, he appears to condone hitting women in some situations; well, I'm not 100% sure what his current view are, but he doesn't contradict people on his blog who do think it can be justified to hit women, who I argued with starting here. If Roissy came to my local lair and starting saying shit like this, I suspect he would be run off pretty fast.

I have a lot to say about the significance of the seduction community, most of which will have to wait for another time.

Posted by: HughRistik on March 23, 2009 10:26 PM

For now, there is one point which has come up several times that I find interesting, such as this quote from PatrickH:

True enough, as long as Game is not a mainstream phenomenon. Once all the clueless but smart, decently social-skilled guys get their Game on, the advantages it gives disappear.

Game is really a positional status sport, and the advantages it gives are positional. The pie ain't getting any bigger, and there are only so many places atop the greasy pole (or places to put the greasy pole, pardon my language).

I basically agree that if all guys have game, at first glance it seems like nothing would change, because the male hierarchy would return to the way it used to be. Two responses come to mind:

1. This might not be true. It depends on how female preferences work. If female attraction is proportional to masculine traits, then giving all men game wouldn't change the male rank order. But my reading on the subject suggests that female attraction to masculinity may be more of a threshold effect, where you need a certain amount of it to get on women's radar, but once women can "see" you sexually, then other qualities that usually take a backseat to masculinity actually start to matter more (e.g. intelligence, sensitivity). If so, then giving all men game would shake up the male hierarchy, because more men would be able to achieve the level of social skills and dominance necessary to get on the playing field.

To agree with Thursday again, there are many men out there who have great potential with women which is merely being obscured by slight social skills deficits or feminism-induced passivity and shame about their sexuality. If you give these guys game, will they eventually by trumped by the naturals if game becomes universal? I don't think there is a clear-cut answer to that question, and I think it depends on the individual. These guys also have a potential to be more well-rounded than naturals who are merely hypermasculine, which will make them more attractive as long-term mates.

2. Even if it's true that universal game would simply return us to the old male hierarchy, something still might change: that hierarchy could become compressed, and there would be a smaller distance between the "haves," and the "have-nots." I think this would be a good thing.

Imagine if there was a cultural movement getting women to exercise in the gym every week. The early adopters would have advantages over other women, which would soon disappear once it caught on. Once all women are exercising, then the rank order of each woman's attractiveness is going to return to around where it was before the craze. The relative attractiveness of women will remain the same, but the absolute attractiveness will be higher and a smaller percentage of women will be considered undatable by men.

Some aspects of skills with women are relative (e.g. status), while other are absolute (e.g. ability to initiate). Right now, men with the lowest success with women are those with something like love-shyness. There are many men out there who can't even kiss or ask out women who are showing blatant interest in them. Pulling these men up to being able to date women at all, and be able to initiate things on a basic level, would be a great improvement.

I would like to see a world where even the guys on the bottom know what to do with women, even if their choices are limited, rather than being taught to repress their desires, lied to and deprived of basic knowledge about women's preferences that both naturals and actual psychology researchers know very well. I would like to see status and attractiveness in males be more evenly distributed, rather than such a rigid caste system that exists in many subcultures, because of some males ending up the receiving end of destructive feminist, chivalrous, or sensitive-new-age-guy brainwashing.

Posted by: HughRistik on March 23, 2009 10:29 PM

Hello hello

Would you really go back to the fifties?

Technology and morals are two different things. The Taliban have stone age morals and are quite adept at using modern weaponry. Turning back morals does not mean turning back technology. My pessimism is not temperamental, it's objective the situation is really that bad.

Dalrymple is an atheist, and to my recollection you are a conservative Christian possibly a Catholic. Do you think a more religious society with bishops et al putting the breaks on sexually explicit movies and TV is the answer?

One doesn't need to bring religion into this at all. That's the advantage of Dalyrmple, he brings a realistic secular perspective to the current social situation and comes to the same conclusion as the religious. You don't need religion to see that something is profoundly wrong with our culture, common sense is enough. It's enough to see that maybe some form of censorship is not a bad idea. But as to it's application, that's a different discussion altogether. BTW Orwell--whom I greatly admire--aimed all his life to tell the truth, he was profoundly conservative when it came to sexual matters even though his world view was at the polar end of mine.

I can understand why you don't respect sluts but I don't see why women weak enough to be alphaized into submission are any more worthy of it.
*sigh* It's always about manipulating, bullying, or beating a woman into submission over at Roissy's

You are right that many of the promiscuous have alcohol and drug problems. Most of these girls are lonely and want to settle down, alcohol and drugs provide a temporary relief from their sorrows but bring problems of their own. You've got to treat the loneliness first if you expect any progress with the addiction. You don't understand the problem.

An alpha woman does what she damn well wants to do, with the pick of any man she wants. This does not of course mean that she automatically makes the right choices. Many people can forge their own unique path to misery via their freely chosen choices. Choosing to screw around (and urged on by militant feminism) is a bad choice.

Most women aren't natural sluts, they slut around as a way of finding love(bad strategy). If we assume that a woman wants to eventually settle down in a permanent relationship, then her slut status is going to be a disincentive to a man in forming a permanent relationship with her. The more she sluts around the less likely she is to find a quality man with which to settle down with, unless she deceptively hides her slut status(Not a good way to start a marriage).

If you read between the lines at Roissy's you will see that virtually all men(even the non misogynists) agree that sluts have lower status than non-sluts. The old truism that a man won't respect you if you are easy. is eminently verified at Roissy's.

Gotta get back to work. More later.

Posted by: slumlord on March 23, 2009 10:55 PM

Hello--

BTW, let me make it clear that I'm not nearly the player that Roissy is. I have pretty high numbers but over a much longer time span. I've spent far more time in my life since professional grad school in committed relationships than just playing around. But there have been some wild playing around, with a fuck buddy for base or not, etc. times too.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 23, 2009 11:36 PM

MB:

Just wanted to take a moment and second Thursday's suggestion that you read Robert Greene's "Art of Seduction" and grace us with a review. You're the right man for the job.

P.S. Hello, I love spinners. Easier to throw around the bed. ;)

Posted by: Tupac Chopra on March 23, 2009 11:36 PM

Hello-

So then I guess the problem you really have with actually hearing what I've had to say about sluts is that YOU were a slut before marrying??

Sure seems like.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 24, 2009 1:03 AM

PatrickH's comment above is great, a classic even. Life kicks you around, life wins the game in the end, you have to roll with it. And women are a big part of life. Standing apart and thinking you're going to be in control of it all isjust a recipe for bitterness and disappointment. If you want to make a relationship with a woman last, she *will* have the upper hand at times. There's a give and take that you can't avoid. The obsession with control and the fear of being "beta" at Roissy's place is just a sign of insecurity. If you're secure you can take the ups and downs.

If you read between the lines at Roissy's you will see that virtually all men(even the non misogynists) agree that sluts have lower status than non-sluts. The old truism that a man won't respect you if you are easy. is eminently verified at Roissy's.

ummm, this is because that crowd is a small and screwed up minority. Look for instance at this study , where "chastity" is consistently ranked as one of the least important issues in mate choice by men from the 1970s through the 1990s. (Interestingly, it was more important in the 1930s, showing how culturally fluid these kinds of things are).

Posted by: MQ on March 24, 2009 2:10 AM

Tupac!

*hides under desk. slowly lifting head, peering around*

Good he's gone.

dougjnn,
I'm not married and I've never been a slut. However, there are many women like you who have a year or two in college or grad school when they run around and have adventures. Some are seriously damaged and end up as alcoholic cougars who are incapable of love and trust, but many just go through a phase and then move on to marriages and monogamous LTRs and a settled life. Not unlike you.

If we disagree it's because you pronounce sluts a bad marriage risk because they are likelier to be unfaithful. If you added contritely that your own infidelity broke up your marriage and you don't advise a man to risk undergoing that kind of betrayal I'd have no problem with your argument.

But you say that a man should take all precautions to avoid being cheated on, and then you try to justify your own adultery. You say that your wife refused to have sex with you; would you support a woman cheating if her husband sexually refused her? Check the link below as it is more common than I at least thought.

Anyway, adventure is a part of youth but I have a low opinion of geniune playas, hoes and sluts of both genders (yes Tupac, I mean you). Your divorce is your business and although I can't agree with your open (on one side I'm sure) relationships if you've decided in the wake of a painful divorce that monogamy isn't for you you're very wise not to marry.

LINK

Posted by: hello on March 24, 2009 3:20 AM

Hello hello

You personally don't seem to hate sluts, you can't tell me you haven't noticed such statements on Roissy's blog.

The commentators at Roissy's blog are a mixed bag. Some are outright misogynists, some are there for the show, some are actually quite perceptive and thoughtful.
The task of the discerning mind is to separate the shit from the clay. But to be fair, not all the female commentators that chip in are examples of mental health.(some are on the other hand brilliant. Hello omw!)I imagine quite a lot of the "hate" that is seen is probably more of a reflection of observers perceptual biases rather than any objective "hate".Sort of like the same mental processes that accuse Steve Sailer of "hate" speech when he raises politically incorrect issues.

Yeah, Roissy and the majority of his commentators will be loving, faithful husbands one of these days. Real soon.

No they won't. Past performance is generally an indicator of future behaviour. Smart women will not give him their affections, unfortunately there are not a lot of smart women; He seems to get laid fairly regularly. Look, men are quite simple really. Behaviours that reward them with sex will get reinforced. Men will change their behaviour in response to women's preferences. That's what game is all about, doing what is necessary to attract a mate; finding out what makes women happy It's no use being a faithful, noble and committed man if the players are getting all the sex. It's an evolutionary dead end.

If women could be sexually wired in the same way as men the world would resemble a gay bath house. It would be a world of non stop sex. The only reason the world does not respond to this is because women are not wired like men. Women set the tone and flavour of a society by rewarding with sex and commitment the men who exhibit their preferred behaviours. If the dating scene is ugly at the moment, it's because the psychologically ugly are getting all the rewards.

This is why Militatnt feminism is one of the most corrosive forces in our society. By indoctrinating women through culture and media with its' beliefs, it changes the pattern of male behavioural reward towards types that the feminists deem acceptable: Beta males and players. Slutting around encourages the players while rejection of traditional males encourages beta behaviour. The beta males behaviours are at odds with female "hard wiring" and thus lead to unhappiness while the player is unstable marriage material. Both types undermine marriage and stable families which are the foundation of any stable society. If you want loving, faithful husbands then only have sex with loving, faithful men. The players will shape up real quick.

Actually most of the men have been better at taking responsibility for their mistakes whereas the women are more inclined to blame men for everything

and

The fact that Roissy et al dwell so much on the woman's responsibility suggests to me that they are more troubled by their player lifestyle than they let on.

Roissy et al, utter a reality when they say women are responsible for their actions, something you admit most women seem quite adept at denying it. And I quote:

Yeesh, we've been over this a million times. When a PUA bangs a slut each partner is 50% responsible for that sordid act of fornication

Dougjnn:

You mean after she's given him very, very little sex for six years of marriage, a light switch turned off after getting married, and that of a very, very poor, lying there quality, despite his efforts?

The medieval schoolmen whould have faulted you for the adultery and her for the frigidity. I think it's high time to assert the concept of conjugal rights in the analysis of marital fault. Those old celibate monks would have taught that a woman who "switches off" her sexual appetite unreasonably sins against the marriage. Too many women think that sex in marriage is some form of optional extra that they can make an effort at "when they feel like it"; dismissive of their husbands needs. Too many men are made to feel "brutes" for wanting it. Sex is intrinsic to marriage, its privation a fault, if its deliberate then its a sin. You were wrong to cheat on your wife, but not as wrong as a man who cheats on a committed and loving woman.

Posted by: slumlord on March 24, 2009 7:56 AM

MQ

I've a had a look at your study and the predictions made by the evidence presented don't stack up with reality. From the study it would a appear that a fat chick with a "great personality" will do better at finding a mate that an attractive woman with a mediocre personality, as the study states that people rate personality factors greater than appearance. This is patently false. The study, as a predictor of mating behaviour is worthless.

As far as I can tell celibacy was defined as virginity which I agree most people do not place as high a value as they did previously. But not valuing virginity does not mean valuing sluthood or considering sluthood irrelevant on the scale of factors when choosing a mate. I would direct you to this study": which reviewed the literature on peoples prefrence with regard to their potential mates sexual experience.

"The results indicated that chastity, regardless of whether it characterized a potential date or a potential spouse was rated as significantly more desirable than both moderate and extensive sexual experience. Furthermore, moderate sexual experience was desired more (or was considered less undesirable) than extensive sexual experience. These findings are consistent with other person perception studies, which have also generally found that low levels of prior sexual experience are considered more desirable in a mate than are high levels (O'Sullivan, 1995; Sprecher et al., 1991)"

Yes the study has some limitations but confirms what commone sense predicts. I think its safe to say

Nice girls are alpha. Sluts are not.

Posted by: slumlord on March 24, 2009 8:18 AM

MQ

Look for instance at this study , where "chastity" is consistently ranked as one of the least important issues in mate choice by men from the 1970s through the 1990s.

The study you reference was done exclusively among college students. That's usually a left liberal environment. If it was an elite or elitish college, as tends to be the case for these social science studies, it's more skewed.

Our entertainment media has been on an absolute culture war against the desirability of female chastity for many decades, since the sixties at least. Chastity is by now associated with prudery, a low sex drive, and lousy sex in marriage, thanks to these messages.

If chastity was associated with a catholic school girl practically pawing the earth she wanted to have sex so much, but somehow had held out until marriage, (as it much more tended to be, in, e.g. the 1930s) you'd get very different results.

Also feminist programming has worked. (And in fact that's a lot of the reason for Roissy's popularity - reading him and some of his confident alpha commenters is an antidote.) Lots of men don't realize how important avoiding a slut for long term relationships not to mention marriage is. But they almost always very quickly realize how important it is once they here a bunch of successful with women guys telling them that. It's like gut level knowledge that's been suppressed for many by the feminist entertainment media programing machine. And schools etc.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 24, 2009 9:47 AM

slumlord--

Too many women think that sex in marriage is some form of optional extra that they can make an effort at "when they feel like it"; dismissive of their husbands needs. Too many men are made to feel "brutes" for wanting it.

Her feminism DIRECTLY bolstered views like this on her part.

You were wrong to cheat on your wife, but not as wrong as a man who cheats on a committed and loving woman.

I don't feel like I was at all. Not remotely. If I hadn't made a lot of efforts to thaw her post marriage frigidity, and had just ignored her sexually and gone off and had affairs before such efforts, that I would have felt guilty about, given that I genuinely loved her. Her post marriage frigidity was due I'm convinced to a combination of a very low native sex drive when she wasn't in a need to get married panic, and no belief on her part that she needed to try really hard to get into something that didn't immediately feel compelling to her.

All in, given this and the zeitgeist that fed this given her beliefs, what I think I really should have done was to divorce her after about two years. Or deliver an absolute ultimatum then. Except I'm about certain that wouldn't have worked, or worked for long. Hello is right that our sex drives weren't compatible and that we needed to divorce.

Remember we didn't have kids. I think marriages without kids should be a lot more easily dissolveable. I also don't think women should have to be paid off by men when this sort of marriage does dissolve, particularly for the reasons mine did (her frigidity really), but generally as well. Why should they be in this modern equal work opportunities world?

Posted by: dougjnn on March 24, 2009 10:51 AM

I've a had a look at your study and the predictions made by the evidence presented don't stack up with reality. From the study it would a appear that a fat chick with a "great personality" will do better at finding a mate that an attractive woman with a mediocre personality, as the study states that people rate personality factors greater than appearance. This is patently false. The study, as a predictor of mating behaviour is worthless.

wrong -- "mutual attraction/love" is ranked first in all the surveys. So attraction is ranked as extremely important. Guys aren't as attracted to fat chicks. It's actually impressive that appearance is ranked so high even after taking into account personal attraction/love -- this is saying that people value good looks even in addition to being highly attracted to their partner, so they might reject someone they were highly attracted to who wasn't good looking enough for them.

As far as I can tell celibacy was defined as virginity which I agree most people do not place as high a value as they did previously.

chastity does not imply virginity, and chastity and celibacy (having no sex) are different too. There was no definition of "chastity" given in the survey, it can reasonably be taken to simply mean the opposite of promiscuity.

I would direct you to this study": which reviewed the literature on peoples prefrence with regard to their potential mates sexual experience.

That's a good study, and in fact it replicates and confirms the finding from the study I cited. The part you quote is from a portion of the study that simply asked participants but how much they preferred different levels of sexual experience, it didn't ask them to rank how important sexual experience was relative to other factors in mate choice. They did say they generally preferred less promiscuous partners (interestingly, this was equally true for men and women -- women were turned off by male sluts too). However, when people were asked to actually rank the importance of various factors in mate choice, promiscuity was ranked as very unimportant relative to other factors. Here's what the study found:

Although the other traits are not the focus of this study, both genders rated mutual attraction, dependable character, pleasing disposition, and emotional stability as the most desirable traits in the list. As we predicted, the sexuality item was rated low in desirability relative to the other items. Specifically, this item was 18th (last) in desirability when it referred to moderate or extensive sexual experience; however, it received slightly higher relative desirability ratings when it referred to chastity.

The bottom line here is that the evidence is clear -- normal people (i.e. people who don't obsessively follow Roissy) don't think partner's past sexual history is an particularly important factor in mate choice. They do prefer more "chaste" or less promiscuous partners, but it's just not that a big deal for them. (STDs excluded, I would imagine). This accords with my impression from, you know, hanging out with normal people. Certain folks here and at Roissy are in denial about this because their ideology requires slut-shaming. This may be because they fear and resent women.

The study you reference was done exclusively among college students. That's usually a left liberal environment.

some obvious denial here, of the liberals under my bed variety. In the 1956 survey, "chastity" was ranked as 13th in importance out of 18 mate choice factors. Had the liberal conspiracy already eaten the brains of Americas young back in 1956? More recent surveys were done at UT Austin, where chastity was ranked as 16th and 18th out of 18 mate choice factors. Texas state schools are not generally known for their liberalism.

Posted by: MQ on March 24, 2009 2:51 PM

slumlandlordThe beta males behaviors are at odds with female "hard wiring" and thus lead to unhappiness while the player is unstable marriage material. check out ricky raw/T’s post about dating amongst the Dutch. Very different from what you will find in your average American or Australian city.

dougjn Our entertainment media has been on an absolute culture war against the desirability of female chastity for many decades, since the sixties at least. Chastity is by now associated with prudery, a low sex drive, and lousy sex in marriage, thanks to these messages. Yes but that is not the fault of most feminists. Even those who are sex positive for the most part don’t find the behavior of the Paris Hilton types to be aspirational.
.
slumlord--
Too many women think that sex in marriage is some form of optional extra that they can make an effort at "when they feel like it"; dismissive of their husbands needs. Too many men are made to feel "brutes" for wanting it.
I think there are a host of factors why women become or are frigid:
1. They grow bored with you and things become too routine
2. She is angry wit h you about other things and takes her frustration out on you by with holding the goodies.
3. The average women simply doesn’t have the same level of desire to have sex as the average man. I’m not a biologist but I would think this is because there are only a few days in a month(ovulation) when a woman is fertile unlike a man who can any day of the month. Talking with my female friends and older sisters, most of us notice that we feel warmer a few days before and after or monthly visitor. for the most part, during the other days of the month, we are not much interested in getting any action.

Posted by: chic noir on March 24, 2009 4:33 PM

chic noir

I think I can safely say I've had sex with a whole lot more women than you have.

There is a wide variety in the degree of sexual libido among different women. In my experience this is correlated with their ability to have organism from penetration, but that's not a 100%, or one to one, correlation. Sometimes that's a mental block that can be overcome. A block against "letting go" to put it in a vanilla way, or sexually submitting, to be more accurate about the feelings involved. I talk to my lovers about such things, i.e. their sexual histories sometimes. Patterns emerge.

Some women's low libido can definitely be awoken. All or almost women have less of a push sex drive than most men, and more of a pull sex drive. I.e. the more really good sex women get, the more they tend to be pulled to want it. Conversely if they go without sex for awhile many women (certainly not all) forget about wanting it and don't. Especially after hormonal changes after e.g. the late stages of pregnancy and having the kid.

While for most men the pull effect is only true to a degree. Or you could say that just looking at pretty women in real life or via images especially but not necessarily in revealing or undressed states is plenty of pull for men. Instead they feel a compelling hormonal push even or often especially if they haven't had sex for some time. The "pressure" builds up.

In part this difference is because great sex for a woman is way better than great sex is for a man. In fact great sex for a man is heavily vicarious. It's joy in controlling her (programmed betas will say "making her happy or pleasing her") and making her crazy and how crazy she gets, together with how hot this girl going crazy is.) Although I've learned to be able to make most girls go crazy, some get a whole lot crazier a whole lot more easily.

But some women just aren't very orgasmic. And even women who can e.g. have oral orgasms sometimes just have very low libidos. It's hormonal mostly and maybe nerve wiring in some cases, but can also be attitudinal. A fear of letting go and yes a fear of sexually submitting to a man. When you combine both those things and have 2nd wave feminist ideological opposition to changing the second, even if the woman isn't at all bitchy or bossy etc. but rather in fact pretty much follows her strong man in most things, it's a big sexual problem.

To take this even further, some of the things I've found that drive most women most crazy, though many have to be lead into it in stages, are borderline or full on D/s stuff on occasion or often. If that's anathema to her worldview that avenue of thawing is closed off too.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 24, 2009 6:51 PM

Chic Noir--

She is angry wit h you about other things and takes her frustration out on you by with holding the goodies.

Why is it that men don't do the same thing -- except under extreme circumstances? Really horny women don't much either, or not for long -- if you're satisfying her horniness.

When this is true, and I now believe it can be, I think Roissy's right, it's almost always for game related reasons. I don't mean failure to study PUA techniques. I mean failure to practice natural game and avoid the beta servitude to your wife or relationship partner that feminism and our feminist influenced mass media advocate.

Leaving really big and obvious things aside, it's failing to be her strong but also playful, teasing and fun leader, far more than things like not taking out the garbage enough, not to mention not apologizing enough (which is exactly the wrong advice). That was not my problem with my long ago ex. I may not have known conscious game as it's been formalized over the last decade or two, but I did very much believe in strong but fair, caring and fun male leadership in a relationship, certainly for me. I wasn't perfect in that; e.g. I probably did apologize too much not knowing game philosophy and still residually American feminist programmed, but I got these relationship game things right for the most part.

I'll give you a trivial example. There was this big feminist meme going around in the 90s (and it's still around a little) that it was some kind of very telling test of your mate's egalitarian (feminist) sensitivity whether he always put the toilet seat back down after taking a piss. I thought that was complete horse shiit from the get go - even if you accept the premise that a man should always seek to not be in any way "unequal" (which I don't). If a man just leaves it the way he last used it (since he uses it both ways) it's going to sometimes be "no work" for her, and sometimes require her to move it. Same if she always leaves it down. Sometimes he'll have to move it, sometimes not. Even steven. The feminist way she never has to move it but he often does. But of course the 90s feminists were trying to get men to kow tow to their women in yet another way. That very submissiveness that was so urged upon them turned their wives or live in gf's off yet another notch, if they complied.

Posted by: dougjnn on March 24, 2009 7:18 PM

chastity does not imply virginity,

Umm...err..check this out.

Hang on MQ,let's quote a bit more of that study.

"What people say they desire in a relationship as they consider each trait separately from the others may not correspond to what they would actually seek or settle for in the real marketplace of dating and marriage. In real life, people make compromises, and a partner's presumed sexual past may become unimportant relative to more desirable and salient characteristics. For example, although our participants expressed a preference for chastity over sexual experience in a potential partner, they may have responded quite differently if they had been given an actual choice between a chaste but unattractive person and a sexually experienced, physically attractive person"

The value in any scientific study is in its conformity with reality. Now in your quoted study, which was also looked at by mine, attractiveness was divided into two categories. Psychosocial attractiveness and physical attractiveness. The conclusion of that study was that people ideally rate psychosocial factors above physical attractiveness. What this study predicts is that in the real world a "great attractive personality" trumps looks. If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you. I don't disagree with the study because I find its conclusions objectionable, but rather other scientific studies and common sense refute it. The authors in my study had at least the common sense to realise that what people say they do and what they actually do in real life may be different.In the real world physical attractiveness rates higher than personality factors in mate selection. Do an elementary search on the internet. Go to any bar, which girls or guys are getting the most action, the ones with the great personality?
Your study has its value in tracking the change in peoples ideals over time, but not in any predictive power of human behaviour. Here is an interesting article for your pleasure.

My quoted study on the other hand asked people a simple question. Do you prefer partners with lots of sexual experience or little sexual experience? The answer confirmed what common sense and experience would predict, that people value less sexual experience higher than more.

How important though is this finding in the real world?

Given two identical women who differ in sexual experience only, the one with the less experience will be more desirable than the one with more.

However in the real world women aren't identical, what we can conclude however that a woman with a given set of features will make herself objectively less attractive by sleeping around with more men.

From a male point of view however sleeping around is only one of the variables that influence mate choice. A chaste 10 is more attractive than a slutty ten, but a slutty 10 may be more attractive than a chaste 5, since human attractiveness is a summation of all positive and negative features. Beauty forgives. But as a woman's looks are a depreciating asset, personality, character and previous sexual experience assume greater significance as she gets older. Slutty older women are less attractive, once again as common sense and experience indicate.

Do men care about a womans sexaul past? You would seem to indicate that it doesn't matter. But most of the "normal" guys that I hang out with would be concerned if a woman had an "excessive" past. It is not an irrelevant feature in mate selection. Being around the block too many times is a definite turn off.

Posted by: slumlord on March 24, 2009 7:39 PM

An example of when game works too well.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03242009/news/regionalnews/police__connecticut_woman_handcuffed_sel_161127.htm

read text^^^

view video^^^
http://www.nypost.com/video?vxSiteId=a89dc16f-1771-485a-8c76-3ebbf3072361&vxChannel=NY%20Post&vxClipId=1458_478777&vxBitrate=300

I'm sure Roissy would call this guy a wuss for sounding like such a beta during his call to 911.

Posted by: chic noir on March 24, 2009 9:02 PM

dougjn And even women who can e.g. have oral orgasms sometimes just have very low libidos
&
A fear of letting go and yes a fear of sexually submitting to a man.

This is me(75%).

though many have to be lead into it in stages, are borderline or full on D/s stuff on occasion or often
Ah hell now I'm curious as all get out. Are you writing about the type of stuff that Johnny 5 likes?

Posted by: chic noir on March 24, 2009 9:08 PM

slumlord,

"Turning back morals does not mean turning back technology. My pessimism is not temperamental, it's objective the situation is really that bad."

Good for you if you can turn back morals, though my reading of history shows that eras tend to be package deals.

"You don't need religion to see that something is profoundly wrong with our culture, common sense is enough. It's enough to see that maybe some form of censorship is not a bad idea."

Who save the religious could form a political coalition to make censorship happen? They haven't been able to do it in America which is much more religious than Australia. Censorship in the rest of the Anglosphere tends to revolve around racist language, so I don't see a politically viable way to censor smutty popular culture.

I can understand why you don't respect sluts but I don't see why women weak enough to be alphaized into submission are any more worthy of it.
*sigh* It's always about manipulating, bullying, or beating a woman into submission over at Roissy's

"You've got to treat the loneliness first if you expect any progress with the addiction. You don't understand the problem."

Well the guys drink a lot too. Part of it just the fact that they spend so much time in bars, but even a guy like Roissy gets shot down sometimes and alcohol helps them cope with rejection or fear of rejection. The more sensitive or insecure a guy is the more drink he'll need to function. A lot of girls become promiscuous after being sexually abused, and drink and drugs help to dull that pain as well as their new promiscuity. So you're right that substance abuse is a vicious cycle here. But how will they get anyone better than a decadent PUA without treating their alcoholism.

The more she sluts around the less likely she is to find a quality man with which to settle down with, unless she deceptively hides her slut status(Not a good way to start a marriage).

If you read between the lines at Roissy's you will see that virtually all men(even the non misogynists) agree that sluts have lower status than non-sluts. The old truism that a man won't respect you if you are easy. is eminently verified at Roissy's.

"I imagine quite a lot of the "hate" that is seen is probably more of a reflection of observers perceptual biases rather than any objective 'hate'"

Since I see the majority of true sluts to be damaged people worthy of compassion I think that the shallow, unimaginative denouncement of them that goes on at Roissy's is at the very least crude and mean.

Yeah, Roissy and the majority of his commentators will be loving, faithful husbands one of these days. Real soon.

"Smart women will not give him their affections, unfortunately there are not a lot of smart women;"

I have to quibble syntactically and note that whatever their IQ girls that hook up with Roissy are probably unwise.

He seems to get laid fairly regularly. Look, men are quite simple really. Behaviours that reward them with sex will get reinforced. Men will change their behaviour in response to women's preferences. That's what game is all about, doing what is necessary to attract a mate; finding out what makes women happy It's no use being a faithful, noble and committed man if the players are getting all the sex. It's an evolutionary dead end.

If women could be sexually wired in the same way as men the world would resemble a gay bath house. It would be a world of non stop sex. The only reason the world does not respond to this is because women are not wired like men. Women set the tone and flavour of a society by rewarding with sex and commitment the men who exhibit their preferred behaviours. If the dating scene is ugly at the moment, it's because the psychologically ugly are getting all the rewards.

This is why Militatnt feminism is one of the most corrosive forces in our society. By indoctrinating women through culture and media with its' beliefs, it changes the pattern of male behavioural reward towards types that the feminists deem acceptable: Beta males and players. Slutting around encourages the players while rejection of traditional males encourages beta behaviour. The beta males behaviours are at odds with female "hard wiring" and thus lead to unhappiness while the player is unstable marriage material. Both types undermine marriage and stable families which are the foundation of any stable society. "If you want loving, faithful husbands then only have sex with loving, faithful men. The players will shape up real quick."

If you're just one woman there;s

Actually most of the men have been better at taking responsibility for their mistakes whereas the women are more inclined to blame men for everything

and

The fact that Roissy et al dwell so much on the woman's responsibility suggests to me that they are more troubled by their player lifestyle than they let on.

"Roissy et al, utter a reality when they say women are responsible for their actions"

by responsible do you mean "morally culpable" or literally as in they allow it to happen? I will agree with you for the latter but not the former. Assuming women don't rape him a player is morally culpable for his own actions. The fact that women voluntarily sleep with men doesn't seem to be such a great rhetorical statement, since as I said some women have lousy taste.

It sounds as though you want women to collectively use their sexuality as a bargaining chip to get men to behave better. It's an old idea, as in Lysistrata, but I've never read of it working for long in the real world. In the old days men could legally control women and impel them to give up the goods when they were uninclined, but even without such patriarchal controls men's desire for nonmarital sex is so strong that there can be substantial rewards for women willing to engage in it. Think of them like sexual strikebeakers. You say that in a more traditional society women would be shamed into chastity but prostitution is called the world's oldest profession for a reason.

The link below is a hobby blog about women in 18th century Britain, though it is indeed feminist. A feature called "tart of the week" shows the story of a woman who was a courtesan or outright prostitute, and many of them were middle class or even aristocratic women whose husbands could not or would not support them thus leaving them with no other alternatives to starving. Many of the women did choose their husbands badly, though some matches were arranged and again for many women marriage to whatever man was availble was the only way to eat. It also shows couples sticking together through numerous adulteries and wives furthering their husbands' careers by sleeping with powerful men.

Now, classing up girls will certainly diminish the exploits of PUAs, but a world where women plotted the use of sexual power to create a family and child friendly society never existed. Women have contributed in these areas, but while clothed.

Posted by: hello on March 24, 2009 9:10 PM

The value in any scientific study is in its conformity with reality.

Research tells us about reality. In this case, the research is telling us that your and the other Roissy types obsessive hangups about womens' sexual history is atypical and abnormal.

Now in your quoted study, which was also looked at by mine, attractiveness was divided into two categories. Psychosocial attractiveness and physical attractiveness. The conclusion of that study was that people ideally rate psychosocial factors above physical attractiveness.

Wrong, you're gearing up to deny reality here. The study split attractiveness into chemistry, with all that entails (including attractiveness) and more abstract judgement of attractiveness separate from chemisty. What you call psychosocial facors very much includes attractiveness.

The conclusion of that study was that people ideally rate psychosocial factors above physical attractiveness.

Now you're claiming that male attraction to and chemistry with women has nothing to do with physical attractiveness. That's a very weird claim that does not accord with common sense. The number one most important factor for mate choice in the study is labeled "attraction/love". Are you seriously claiming that male attraction to women has nothing to do with how hot they are?

What this study predicts is that in the real world a "great attractive personality" trumps looks.

no, it says that the full mix of mysterious factors that create chemistry -- the mix of looks and hotness with behavior and emotion -- is more important than pure beauty. Realistic enough to me. Haven't you ever met a woman who you could see was pretty hot but you just didn't like very much?

I don't disagree with the study because I find its conclusions objectionable, but rather other scientific studies and common sense refute it.

On the contrary, you're making it clear that you just can't deal with the conclusions of the study. First, the very study you cited confirmed this study. People just don't find partner promiscuity to be a particularly important factor in mate choice. They mildly prefer less promiscuous partners, but it's not a big deal compared to other things. Second, common sense confirms it too. Normal people do not make a huge deal about partner's sexual history. It never comes up in early dates, it normally doesn't come up for weeks or months into a relationship, and it's often a bit of a joke when it does.

I don't think you even see questions about it in personal ads, etc. I bet it would be extremely difficult to find a male personal ad asking for "women with ten or fewer lifetime partners", but ads are everywhere that ask for intelligent women, fit women, cute women, women of a certain age bracket or literary taste, women with particular hobbies, etc.

This slut shaming stuff is just not a big deal to most adults who are out of high school and comfortable with the opposite sex. Roissy is a site for men who are not all that comfortable with women. Which I understand, believe me, women can fuck you up for sure. But indulging your fear and resentment of them can fuck you up even more.

My quoted study on the other hand asked people a simple question. Do you prefer partners with lots of sexual experience or little sexual experience? The answer confirmed what common sense and experience would predict, that people value less sexual experience higher than more.

sure, sure, I buy that. All other things equal people would probably prefer the somewhat less experienced partner -- or, actually, the partner closest to societal sexual norms (which in our society would be, not a virgin but not too many partners). But it's just not very important and not a very big deal. How many guys would refuse to marry a woman who he otherwise was attracted to because she had ten previous partners instead of three? Not many.

Posted by: MQ on March 25, 2009 12:35 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?