A man’s interest in women tends to be more deterministic and almost formulaic. If she’s attractive, he’ll want to have sex with her. If, on top of this, she has a pleasant and interesting personality, he’ll want to spend more time with her. If she furthermore has compatible character and goals and treats the man well then there’s a very good chance he’ll want to date her seriously and eventually marry here.
If she isn’t interested in him, he’s likely not going to stop being attracted to her, and if she isn’t rude about it he’d likely entertain a relationship with her at a later point if she did start to be interested and treat him well. Chumps or not, most men don’t have tons of attractive-enough women after them and so they tend to be open to what they deem a good thing, even if she didn’t deem him a good thing quite as quickly.
Men remain open.
Women, on the other hand, seem to be far less deterministic in when and whom they feel attracted to (unless the man is one of the few highly attractive and charismatic men that can have his way almost whenever he wishes). You could take a man that on paper should be attractive to her and have them interact and he does “everything” right and there is still almost a certain randomness to whether she will feel attraction or not, whether she will be interested or not. Perhaps only 1 in 3 such men will actually stir her interest, and if you were able to go back in time and repeat the experiment it might be a different one of the three that sparked her interest.
I think this is due to women, generally speaking, being more picky and careful about who can fertilize her eggs, as opposed to men who are programmed to find most young women attractive enough for a fast f*ck, and a good deal of them attractive enough for a relationship. Whereas men are always scanning and weighing women in the balance and many of them are found not wanting, women are NOT scanning and are not interested in the men around them, even in some that they could be interested if the right things happened.
Now, of course, the highly attractive man can break through her haze and trigger attraction and make her actively want him. And the lesser man can also at times, through approaching her in the right way…and the more he hones his inner and outer game the higher his low odds will climb. But I think most women walk around in a bit of an oblivious haze and most men simply don’t register very much on their radars, unless they’re overly attractive or repulsive.
So men need to take steps to be noticed by women, and in a way that fosters attraction. But the odds of success are still rather low and there is a certain random component to it. I’ve had experiences where women didn’t notice me or respond much to my flirting, only to later take notice of me and strongly want me. Now, I’m not saying that men should get oneitis and hold out hope for any one girl. Or if you actively put yourself on her radar and she rejects you then most of the time that’s probably that. But I am suggesting that many times guys don’t put themselves on the woman’s radar really and so they haven’t yet been judged by her, even if the guy thinks he has been trying to talk to her. In such cases and in the spirit of spinning plates, he shouldn’t rule her out, though he shouldn’t invest a lot of thought in her either. But at some point she or others of the many women a man knows might just get in that right frame of mind and he might bring some good game that day and things might just click.
And once it clicks in her…her window of opportunity for you is open.
All of a sudden she sees you in a different light. And she has you in mind. She’s starting to feel some interest, some nascent attraction may be budding. (I think women have far less men in their mind at one time than men do women and so women are probably open to a smaller set of men than vice versa.)
Her window is now opening or open to you and you need to take action relatively soon or she will likely think you aren’t attracted and unless you somehow caused a huge imprint on her she will close her window at some point and then it will be very difficult to open it later, barring some significant change in your charisma, game, status, etc.
Keep in mind I’m writing this more for the average guy who tends to have mostly path 2 opportunities, not for the highly attractive guy that’s swimming in female attention. Of course, the easy answer is to just say to men to be attractive, to get really good at game and so on. But most guys, even with a lot of effort, won’t become highly attractive and so I think my advice here is very useful for the more average guy.
I’m painting a picture of women not being interested at one moment in all the guys she theoretically could be. Rather, one or a few at a time are given a chance in the sense of her actually feeling attraction and allowing herself to act on that (and yes, there are some boy crazy or promiscuous girls that will be the exceptions to this).
There’s some randomness in who she will feel attraction for and open her window to and then there’s an uncertain amount of time that she will keep that open.
This is the time that an average man needs to strike. This is the time for him to recognize her indicators of interest (feeble as they may be since women tend to overestimate how obvious they’re making it) and take action. This is the time to escalate the flirting, to initiate time together, to escalate physically in appropriate amounts as she responds positively to your time together.
Men can’t just assume that a woman interested will always be interested. Of course, there are some exceptions to that, such as alpha (or greater beta) widows or women that have a huge crush on some famous man, or for whatever reason gets oneitis for some man she’s never been with. But those are the exceptions and average guys rarely fall into those categories.
I’ve personally experienced this also, where I delayed too long and what was once flirty interaction became her losing interest, not because I became unattractive but simply because I waited too long to make a move. (Of course, in other situations, I’ve done unattractive things and killed things, and there are a few women out there that to this day that I find attractive and are still into me, in spite of my not taking any action for various reasons.)
And once in a while, windows can be reopened but for the most part you have that one shot. I once had sex with a woman and dated a bit, then she ignored me for a while and so I stopped thinking about her, then we met again a year later and went out again and had sex again. (Yes, perhaps I should have permanently nexted her the first time but that’s a different issue. I’m simply pointing out that windows can occasionally reopen.)
To summarize, a woman that could be interested in you may take an instant liking to you or it may take some time and there’s a bit of randomness in when and if she will feel attraction. You can swing the odds in your favor by upping your value and your inner and outer game. Also, be talking with multiple girls and don’t get too ego-invested in or infatuated with any one of them at this point. Don’t become their beta orbiter. Rather have a strong inner core, value yourself, love yourself, psychologically be more of the star that the planets and asteroids orbit around or simply fly by if their velocity is too rapid (even if they’re never interested in you, this attitude keeps you from getting sucked into beta-orbiting them).
Keep in touch with these multiple girls that you could be interested in and watch for signs that they’re becoming interested. Once you get some indication of interest then you know that you aren’t just some invisible man anymore but that you have been preselected–by her–and her window is starting to open. Now is the time to take action and get to know her better, beyond whatever impression and knowledge you have of her, to see if she actually is someone that’s worth your time.
Acting when her window is open or opening is key. Waiting too long for her to do all the work will likely lead to her assuming you’re not interested and her closing it (unless you’re the exception).
One can go out and hope to find some girls that are sending IOIs but since a lot of women are in the haze during the day or have their bitch shields on at night, waiting for an IOI can sometimes take a long time and that leads to men having to simply break the ice if they’re trying to meet strangers.
Of course, one can simply do the shotgun strategy and approach lots of girls that aren’t necessarily sending you IOIs and see if they are willing to open their windows in that moment.
But it’s much easier to get in an already open window instead of going door to door and knocking on shuttered windows. Some of those open windows will be among the women you know in social circles, at work, at church, wherever. Be observant for those signals, don’t be a needy beta orbiter which will dry up any chance of them ever coming, and then act on them when they do.
@Han:
Excellent, solid, thoughtful and sensitive post. Bravo!
Tagging…
O.
@Han,
If I may, I’d like to bring forward a comment from the “Lupita” discussion that I had originally made over at Very Smart Brothas last Fri; itt goes right to the heart of what you’re saying, I think. Would love to get your and the rest of the forum’s thoughts in relation to your topic here; I’ll post it in the next comment…
O.
@Ms. Rachmo:
“Wait stop. Pause. STOP EVERYTHING! I think you just agreed with me that Black women will be fine and continue to attract great guys and that these Black Relationship Experts are full of BS. I THINK THAT HAPPENED! You know what I’LL TAKE IT!”
O: LOL. Nice!
You may recall back in March, my giving a Special Report of my evening spent with Mr. Paul Carrick Brunson – his recent visit to my hometown of Philly? I attended one of his “flow dating” functions, and I had a very good time.
Over at J4G, I discussed in greater detail my evening and what I observed; because of the nature of flow dating, everyone had to chat to a set number of people, and you had to record the results of your chats on a sheet of paper. One of the ladies that I mentioned in my report, noted that my sheet was completely filled out, and that most of the ladies on it I would have no problem with chatting with again; hers on the other hand, HAD ONLY A FEW NAMES ON IT.
I noticed this with at least half a dozen other Sistas in attendance; nothing scientific, and Mr. Brunson and I have discussed this a bit and will do so in greater detail very soon in the near future, but we both concluded that Women are just more picky than are Men. Nothing wrong with that, per se, and I for one get all the reasons for their extreme pickiness.
Here’s the thing though:
EVERY SISTA IN THAT VENUE COULD, IF THEY WANTED TO, GOTTEN THEMSELVES A MAN THAT NIGHT.
Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
And yet, there were ladies there, with barely filled out forms, despite the fact that, “by law” they HAD to chat with “x” numbers of Brothas?
My point?
That, there are MANY mating options for the vast majority of Sistas out there, THEY JUST AREN’T THAT INTO MOST OF THEM. They want a certain type of Guy, and hey, that’s alright with me. It’s just (1), they’re in very short supply (I’ve written about this too, but NO LINKS); (2) following Econ 101, said Guys are able to get away with a heck of a lot more than the rest of the guys, have more choices, etc.; and (3), said Guys aren’t likely to want to settle down the way most of these ladies want.
Again, none of this is wrong, per se; what IS wrong, is that so many Sistas keep trying to blame any and everything under God’s Sun for why they’re wired the way they are, and do the things they do.
Perhaps the single biggest lesson for me coming out of that evening with Mr. Brunson was, that the idea that if there were just enough Brothas to go around, everything would be alright, is a LIE. Sistas are looking for a very specific type of Brotha, and they are in very short supply.
Say what you will about the BREs, but their only catering to a burgeoning market, because they sell a lot of Sistas the hope that they too can find and lockdown their own Mr. Big…and there are no signs of that industry slowing down.
None at all.
OK, your turn!
O.
http://verysmartbrothas.com/kim-kardashian-and-sympathy-for-slow-learners/#comment-1377105453
http://www.justfourguys.com/special-report-an-evening-with-paul-carrick-brunson/
It’s not that I disagree with what you say about grabbing the moment, that’s pretty sensible, I think.
BUT
I’d just add that when moving on that attraction your moves ought to be limited to those commensurate to the fact that the attraction has just fiinally happened and clearly, demonstrably wasn’t visceral.
A woman that, for some arbitary (hamsterbatory?) reason finally decides that you aren’t quite the also ran she previously felt unworthy of relationship and has presumably, belatedly, come to the opinion that maybe you are worthy of exploring as a potential
pack-horse/beta providermate…well…is this a woman in which to invest? IDTSIt’s a very bad idea to be the more interested party in a relationship where your investment is high, even more so when the woman has already made plain her bedrock lukewarmishness in you.
Somebody (around here? Han? Deti?) has made the point that you should only ever even consider marriage to a woman who is head over heels in love with you. On top of that, I’d like to see a reason for marriage (for the man) in addition to that (and there aren’t many).
I guess that the TL;DR version is
A woman that slowly warms to you is most likely a woman slowly realising that you might be her best option after all…hardly something to bet the farm on
Especially as such a woman is likely to be perimural (close to the wall) and/or has a squawking egg alarm. Once she has your kids (your financial balls in her purse) she may well feel free to explore ‘better’ options (Eat, Pray, Love). Whether those options exist or not (Eat, Prey, Provide a green card for a gay foreign guy / demonstably worse option than the first hubby) doesn’t mean she won’t can your arse while going to look for them (there are plenty of single mummies who frivorced in expectation of a glorious future, who remain alone – in fact one of my sisters saw this happen. her social group all learned from the mistake of that woman)
Perhaps it’s one of the Hollywood tropes that men fall for too; that one can suddenly find twu wuv in an old friend? I might believe it in a 20 year old woman, but a 30+ year old (especially an ex-carouseller who failed to nail an Alpha)? nope…
just an opinion…
p.s.
I have no idea at all whether my sister or any of her social group were considering divorce (she lives a long way from me and as far as I know her marriage is solid), however, the fact that I even heard of this other woman who ended up in a much smaller house with her two daughters without long term male interest (while he ended up remarrying someone younger, tighter, hotter whilst being unblameable even by women)…it proves that a big lesson was learned by the group. LMFAO
I guess that this proves the AWALTers wrong; women can learn about cause and effect / consequences. It just might require the lesson be brutal, clear and close at hand.
(I continue to believe that NAWALT and in particular my sister is a smarty. You may believe as you wish, I just offer this true anecdote for your consideration)
Well done, Han Solo. This is a thought provoking, well written post. It lines up with my experience as well.
To paraphrase the inimitable Morpheus, when a girl is giving you the green light, you need to step on the gas and gun it. You need to go for it, and you need to go now. If her window is open, you need to step through it, and do it now. If you hesitate at the moment of truth, if you wait, you will likely lose, and the opportunity will be gone forever.
This:
“And once in a while, windows can be reopened but for the most part you have that one shot *** I’m simply pointing out that windows can occasionally reopen.”
Yeah, windows can occasionally reopen. But a lot of that has to do with chance, coincidence, being in exactly the right place at exactly the right time, and dumb luck. And, consider well whether you will really want what is on offer:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/08/rooting-through-garbage/
Iron Rule of Tomassi #7
It is always time and effort better spent developing new, fresh, prospective women than it will ever be in attempting to reconstruct a failed relationship. Never root through the trash once the garbage has been dragged to the curb. You get messy, your neighbors see you do it, and what you thought was worth digging for is never as valuable as you thought it was.
Even if you could go back to where you were, any relationship you might have with an ex will be colored by all of the issues that led up to the breakup. In other words, you know what the end result of those issues has been. It will always be the 800 pound. gorilla in the room in any future relationship. As I elaborated in the Desire Dynamic, healthy relationships are founded on genuine mutual desire, not a list of negotiated terms and obligations, and this is, by definition, exactly what any post-breakup relationship necessitates.
@Obsidian
Yes, your speed-dating experience is interesting, how the women filled out few names. Whether they’re overly picky or only able to focus on less at a time than men or some other reason is interesting for debate (I think it’s probably a mix of all of them).
Here’s this post I did on how women are more picky than men in speed dating:
http://www.justfourguys.com/women-are-more-picky/
“Whereas men are always scanning and weighing women in the balance and many of them are found not wanting, women are NOT scanning and are not interested in the men around them, even in some that they could be interested if the right things happened.”
“Now, of course, the highly attractive man can break through her haze and trigger attraction and make her actively want him. And the lesser man can also at times, through approaching her in the right way…and the more he hones his inner and outer game the higher his low odds will climb. But I think most women walk around in a bit of an oblivious haze and most men simply don’t register very much on their radars, unless they’re overly attractive or repulsive.”
____________
This is an excellent insight, Han, and one that men often forget. It’s a great description of the dynamic that’s often going on here. I think you’ve hit on something again here, that’s key for men to understand what’s going on.
Men are constantly looking for sex partners. Constantly. All the time. Because men are driven to have sex, and lots of it, and with as many women as possible. Women just don’t seem to approach it this way. Most women just seem to loll through life and let their sex lives and love lives happen to them. And many many women do this, simply because they can. They don’t have to work to try to make something happen with a guy they like or might be interested in; because guys are constantly doing things to try to get noticed.
Men’s sex visions seem to consist of a radar screen and an advanced sensor system in which women are in constant view. There are many “blips” on the screen, and some are stronger than others; and some are closer than others; and some are easier targets than others. But we men are constantly tracking multiple women.
By contrast, women’s sex vision probably looks something like a first person shooter video game, in which men are simply invisible until a guy “pops up” or walks across the screen. She cannot see anything until a man does something or says something to enter her field of vision. Usually, there’s only one, maybe two men who are “on the screen” at any given time. And the man has to do something to get onto the screen. He has to move, or stand up, or say something, any one of those things “get her attention”.
@Swithers
You raise a good point, that men need to make sure she really is into him and not just settling for something as she feels the clock is running out.
Not sure if you saw this recent post
http://www.justfourguys.com/men-on-path-2-analysis-and-advice/
but we talked a lot about the path 1 (quick attraction) vs. path 2 (attraction built more slowly) vs. what I’ll call path 3 (settling for someone, she’s not into the guy but wants kids or beta bucks or whatever).
So I would say that path 2 is real but fraught with danger and the man has to really be sure she is attracted to him and that he’s not on path 3. He has to rein in his neediness and tame the male hamster: the eternal optimist! lol
@Deti:
“Men’s sex visions seem to consist of a radar screen and an advanced sensor system in which women are in constant view. There are many “blips” on the screen, and some are stronger than others; and some are closer than others; and some are easier targets than others. But we men are constantly tracking multiple women.
By contrast, women’s sex vision probably looks something like a first person shooter video game, in which men are simply invisible until a guy “pops up” or walks across the screen. She cannot see anything until a man does something or says something to enter her field of vision. Usually, there’s only one, maybe two men who are “on the screen” at any given time. And the man has to do something to get onto the screen. He has to move, or stand up, or say something, any one of those things “get her attention”.”
O: This…BOOM!
O.
“But I am suggesting that many times guys don’t put themselves on the woman’s radar really and so they haven’t yet been judged by her, even if the guy thinks he has been trying to talk to her. In such cases and in the spirit of spinning plates, he shouldn’t rule her out, though he shouldn’t invest a lot of thought in her either.” This is THE way to look at it for most guys. iow, don’t take her disinterest personally, because it can *easily* change. Perhaps this is what old men and all women kept trying to communicate, poorly, to me over the years.
Excellent post, Han.
Reminds me of an adage I once heard:
A faint heart never laid a pretty lady
Or, if anyone is familiar with the British SAS:
Who dares, wins
“But it’s much easier to get in an already open window instead of going door to door and knocking on shuttered windows.” I have visions of prowlers with crow bars.
#3
Well, yeah. And, of course, no reply was given by the broads. How surprising.
I suppose the only way such dating events could prove satisfactory to them if there were roughly 10 men present for every woman. Then all women could find at least one man they find “eligible”.
Frankly I find such broads irritating and lame. But they are all around the place, and they are more and numerous and shrill. They’re polluting the Internet and television. It won’t stop. You have to be a dumbass to actually listen to them.
It’s like when tradcon women complain online that their young, pretty and chaste daughters literally cannot find male suitors at all. Are these people for real? Meh.
@deti
Thanks. And it’s a good description by Morpheus.
And I agree with Rollo’s rule that it’s better to invest in new women than try to rekindle old flames. That rule would apply after having had a relationship with a woman, and broadly speaking, when a man has gotten on her radar and been rejected. Better for him to move on. If for some reason she has a change of heart then it’s on her to make a serious effort to win him back.
One of the key things I’m trying to point out (and you did too) is that women do walk around with few men on their radar and so any given man is likely to NOT be on her radar at that moment and thus he shouldn’t give up until he has put himself on the radar (optimally doing so when he senses her to start to open her window but just rolling the dice and approaching and hoping she’ll open it can work with less frequency).
By having multiple women that he’s interacting with (socially, at work, etc.) he can act non-needy and wait for the one or more of them that do start to notice him and become interested. Of course, he should probably also supplement this with some shotgun approaches on women that he won’t regularly see as well (via bars, online dating, day game wherever he is out and about, night game, wherever else).
I guess this would imply two strategies:
1) Environments where you will see the women often (work, school, social groups, church, etc.): Act in an attractive, non-needy manner and wait for an IOI or a higher-probability chance of approaching her. Here, being too eager and chasing too many girls can ruin your chances by getting shot down by one and then others pre-deselect you, or you simply get the the negative side of the reputation of being a wannabe player and turning the herd against you–once one woman says “eww, no,” that will have a large influence on many of the other women in the herd.
2) Environments where you’ll likely never see her again: Take a more shotgun, roll-the-dice approach. You have little to lose in terms of the awkwardness a failed approach could cause in category 1. It’s still a good idea to look for IOIs and focus more there…or since IOIs are scarce, talk to the woman or somehow get her attention, get on her radar, and see if she is responsive. Don’t get thrown off by her being shy for the first few minutes. And unless you totally sense she’s not interested, take a step forward and see if she reciprocates and accepts: ask her number, or do a mini-date right then or relocate to another part of the bar or dance floor.
#8 “By contrast, women’s sex vision probably looks something like a first person shooter video game, in which men are simply invisible until a guy “pops up” or walks across the screen.” maybe. I think the “oblivious haze” is most accurate most of the time. One thing I happen to know is that when a woman is walking around truly horny, which does happen but rarely, then STILL she’s not scanning most men as sexual interests, i.e. she still is just “Most women just seem to loll through life and let their sex lives and love lives happen to them.” The difference is that for even for a truly horny woman then the background objects, the bushes she brushed against, the lamppost she was touching, the dog with the fire hydrant, the bus seat pressing in somewhat slippery and grimy ways against her rear end, are as sexual or moreso to her than the dozen men in the bus with her, except that one guy.
Not that I have much of a dog in the fight (maybe just a couple of silicone puppies?), but this looks like fun in the making
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/12/trannies-vs-drag-queens
#16 “One of the key things I’m trying to point out (and you did too) is that women do walk around with few men on their radar and so any given man is likely to NOT be on her radar at that moment and thus he shouldn’t give up until he has put himself on the radar (optimally doing so when he senses her to start to open her window but just rolling the dice and approaching and hoping she’ll open it can work with less frequency).” This. This is reality, and it is the most hopeful thing I’ve read in quite a while. I don’t consider it merely common sense or platitudinous, nor bad news like Swithers seems to think of it. It’s cautious optimism in the face of repeated experiential observations.
re: getting on the radar. Throw out lots of chaff.
@jf12
A request: could you somehow more clearly mark the start of where you’re talking and the quoted part ends? It’s hard to find. Putting your words on a new line or bolding the first part of your response would be very helpful.
@Sumo
Thanks. Good quotes. Similarly, you can only score if you shoot.
@jf12 IOW, I’m reading your comments and am pointing out how you could facilitate me (and others) in doing so.
I don’t post much but am going to make a comment today… the thing you have to realize is if you are approaching women from the 1. – PUA/Player standpoint or 2. – Serious Relationships…
1. PUA/Player
If your out to hook up with as many girls as you can WHO CARES how much they like you or what they see in you. As long as you don’t invest too much financially/emotionally, it doesn’t matter how interested she is as long as you can still get a hook up. If you are doing it right, you will be hooking up with other women while her interested level is rising and if she loses interest in you there will be other girls you are talking to anyway.
2. Serious Relationships/Marriage, etc.
After being in the game for a while I’m realizing it’s MUCH easier to get hook ups and flings than to get a girl seriously interested. Why? For a hook up you don’t have to be the BEST option… just good enough at the moment. The problem is when you try and get serious with her and she never really had that in mind.
I think most guys should just adpot the PUA mentality… they go wrong when they try to get serious/commitment and the girl ain’t bout it. If your always spinning plates though it doesn’t really matter how much one of them likes you…
I can pretty much get behind everything said in this post without criticism (which is rare for me – I am a nit-picker).
#16 re: Strategy 1) “chasing too many girls can ruin your chances by getting shot down by one”
In the church environment, what I’ve seen most effective all too often is that As Soon As the attractive new guy starts attending and all the girls are aflutter, he simply picks the easiest girl first, uses her to some closing point, then dumps her quickly. He then churns his way through a number of the girls, each one for maybe a week or two, until the pastor has had enough, and then the guy moves on to a new congregation. Meanwhile, none of the girls will give any of the regular guys the time of day.
Tagging…
#25
Lol. That’s funny stuff right there. Man, Churchianity is so lame it’s not even surprising anymore.
The premise of this ties in neatly with an observation. It’s a whole lot easier for a motivated woman to find a man than for a motivated man to find a woman. NOw, I know why. There aren’t that many motivated women while all the men are motivated.
Marky Marks’s contention that it’s easier to find someone for short term than long term is, sadly, all too true. They do set the bar lower for short term.
Jf12’s contention that the new in church gets a lot more attention than the regular guys is also unfortunately true.
jf12:
“none of the girls will give any of the regular guys the time of day.”
That happens at churches whether the “attractive new guy” shows up or not.
Also, i’ve never seen or heard a pastor say anything about the “attractive new guy” porking his way through the single girls in his congregation. Never once. No one says anything about it, even though all but the most oblivious know that’s what is going on.
@ deti
They don’t have to work to try to make something happen with a guy they like or might be interested in; because guys are constantly doing things to try to get noticed.
It depends. If a man isn’t actively looking (say he’s married over 40), but a woman near him is looking but doesn’t know that he’s married, then the woman might try to attract his attention (say she’s 30+). You know, if a man acts aloof then that will have the same effect as a man who isn’t actively looking and may elicit female attention. So, approach women platonically; act generally and indirectly sexual, but treat all women as orbiters; don’t sexualize any directly and wait for IOI’s. This will only work in a low-energy social environment. A high-energy environment will contain men who are actively securing the attention of HV women, so they won’t be looking at aloof guys as much.
@ FuzzieWuzzie
Exactly. This whole shtick (in red pill circles as well as elsewhere) about men being the gatekeepers of commitment is simply false.
#29 It may depend on the denomination, but in a traditional conservative congregation if someone disappears and is never seen or spoken of again, then chances are the pastor simply doesn’t want scandal getting around. If a person is being sent off with good wishes, then always those good wishes are made manifest to the congregation, with explicit send-offs and later follow-ups. Roughly 120% of the time if a new guy suddenly disappears, then yes the pastor had the talk with him.
#28 “There aren’t that many motivated women while all the men are motivated.”
Yes. Supply and demand.
#31 I don’t understand. Women who insist on commitment *are* selecting for men who therefore gatekeep commitment, but women who don’t require commitment aren’t selecting for commitment-minded men anyway. Similarly the women who insist on commitment are gatekeeping sex, obviously, while the other women don’t keep their gates.
What changes in a hookup culture is that fewer women bother gatekeeping sex, enlarging the harems of a few men, while a large number of other men erroneously keep thinking their commitment is worth something to women.
Windows have frames.
Guys,
THIS is the whole point of PUA material… if 90% of guys (even decent looking ones) sat back throughout their lives they would simply get VERY few offers of interested women unless they are extremely attractive/charismatic/high value etc. Women simply aren’t that interested in most men and since they can provide for themselves will forego marriage until 35+. If you approach it from a PUA perspective you wouldn’t be wasting your time in a church with a bunch of entitled women hoping to ‘get lucky’. Learn game, dress better, and go out looking for horny women at bars because theyre standards are way lower than the average entitled church going princess.
@ Han 16
I like your distinction between regular and short-term situations as regards windows of feminine interest. I was reminded of this just now when I went out to get fast food and saw a gal working there with whom I have some chemistry. We hold each other’s gaze and smile when we see each other. She squints at me and I probably squint at her, too. This has been going on for months. The situation is occasional, so it’s neither regular nor short-term. This window could close at any time, but clearly windows aren’t necessarily of brief duration.
#31
Roughly the top 75% of women, so to speak, are gatekeepers of sex, whereas roughly the top 25% of men are gatekeepers of commitment. So there’s a significant imbalance there.
#36 “Women simply aren’t that interested in most men”
This is the key observation upon which we can all agree. Upon grasping it more firmly, we see we actually have ahold of hypergamy, the unifying thread of redpill understanding.
These were my thoughts on who the gatekeeper of commitment is. Basically, women at their peak SMV are significant gatekeepers of commitment and more so than most men. It’s really on the top men that can be seen to be much more firmly in the role of commitment gatekeeper. And as women age into their mid 30’s then some of the power starts shifting over to non-apex men.
http://www.justfourguys.com/are-men-the-gatekeepers-of-commitment/
I would agree with this. I remember being shocked at the idea that a guy who is being friends w a girl actually likes her. That made me ponder back over some of my male friends in a new light. It never occurred to me they might be interested and they never made the interest known and so nothing ever came of it but they were all great guys and I likely would have dated them but bc I didn’t understand the probably liked me, I just accepted the friendship at face value. Another friend who eventually fessed up to his interest said he had been flirting with me for two months before I noticed. Obviously he was playing it way too safe bc I did not perceive our interactions as flirty at all! Hope that girl take on this helps in some way…
Gentlemen, it’s very simple, your window of opportunity opens on day 7 and closes around day 16.
http://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/350px-menstrualcycle2_en-svg.png
http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/25/your-friend-menstruation/
I don’t know of any existing experiments, but I’d be willing to wager that the “see you in a new light” epiphany is the result of her having been unimpressed with you during the secretory phase of her menstrual cycle, but then reconsidering (the opportunity of) sex with you in her proliferative phase.
Also I wouldn’t recommend waiting too long to try to escalate from friend to more or the girl may get so attached to the friendship that she will worry about dating said friend and possibly losing the friendship if things don’t work out.
In short what to a guy seems like an obvious “I like you” may not be obvious enough! Better to be obvious obvious.
@rollo and how will he figure that timing out? Or wait, maybe I don’t want to know! Lol.
There are studies that say when a woman is ovulating they tend to dress more provocatively and act more flirty so maybe watch for such signs?
@42 Rollo
Good stuff on menstrual cycles.
I once had a gf and foolishly broke up with her. For a while she didn’t want to talk to me since I was the one that broke up–fair enough.
However, after a few months it seemed like about once a month she would agree to meet up with me and make out passionately and get to 2nd base (we were both more or less practicing Christians at the time so we didn’t go beyond that). I wish I would have written down the dates but it wouldn’t surprise me if she was in her hornier phase when she did want to meet up with me.
Same thing with another religious girl where I didn’t want to LTR her but every so often she’d want me to come over and play board games in her room. We’d play a couple of rounds of whatever game and then get down to making out. Carried away, she’d enjoy it but then her guilt mechanism would kick in and she’d say something to the effect of, “Why am I always so bad with you?”
I think that for both girls, the guilt mechanism (and perhaps common sense) ruled things for most of the month but then when they got hornier they would want to meet up with me.
I can’t prove it but there did seem to be a sort of monthly cadence.
Oh and I almost did not read this post, as I thought the title implied it was another “wall” article! Lol! Couldn’t take that today!
@Bloom, easy,..men actually do this instinctually, however it takes half a lifetime of feminization to condition him not to follow that instinct.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/downloads/dress_to_impress.pdf
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/downloads/Haselton_Gildersleeve_2011_Men_detect_ov.pdf
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/unify_uploads/files/gildersleeve%20et%20al.%202012%20hormones%20and%20behvior.pdf
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/downloads/ovulation_voice.pdf
What’s even more interesting is how men will manifest mate guarding behaviors as a result of their subconsciously picking up on these ovulation cues right as his paired woman begins her proliferative phase.
Honestly… The reason men in past generations found partners easily was because women were told they needed a man and they needed to be mothers… the career opportunities also weren’t there for them back then. It wasn’t because they loved/were attracted to men in the past.
@Rollo Tomassi
What if there is a situation where a girl is kind of rude but then opens up to you/gets aggressive on her period? Does that mean she just sees you as sex material but isn’t getting the emotional/beta bucks satisfied by you?
#49, good question. I’ve actually experienced the “red wings” effect in my past with at least 4 or 5 different women.
I could speculate a couple of things; first a menstruating woman (particularly women in their SMV peak years) may have had a frustrating lack of success with having sex with her object Alpha during her pre-ovulatory phase and her ‘horniness’ may be caused by the residual buildup of testosterone that’s yet to flush. The guy may be a new sexual opportunity and she’s using him at that time for sexual release. Kind of a female ‘blue balls’ effect.
Second, the guy she’s banging may be of so high an SMV in comparison to her own the biological opportunity to secure an Alpha of his calibre supersedes her menstrual predispositions.
There are some studies that suggest that overweight women tend to become pregnant more quickly and consistently than ‘normal weight’ women. Whether this is a statistical thing I don’t know, but the logic is that lack of sexual opportunity (for being fat) predisposes them to pregnancy. If its your one shot, even biology has to make it count.
@Bloom 41
Men can miss IOI’s as well. I frequently am late (like the next day) to recognizing convo IOI’s, which is an autism thing. I do better at recognizing facial cues.
Convo IOI’s are more obvious if they actively engage the other person and require a response from the other person. If the subtle attempt fails to get a sexual response, be more obvious. Of course, if the other person shows that he/she is feeling awkward, that is some sort of response. Awkwardness might not be negative if the other person is shy–they might still be interested. In that case, some followup questions might be necessary for clarification.
Just my 0.02.
#42 ” the “see you in a new light” epiphany is the result of her having been unimpressed with you during the secretory phase of her menstrual cycle, but then reconsidering (the opportunity of) sex with you in her proliferative phase.”
which works for an alpha. I’m not sure women ever see a beta as an alpha, even when the women are horny. The fact that so many women mislead so many betas to think so, is the primary evidence that I have against it being so.
#49 in my limited experience, of being treated very poorly by most women most of the time, and being treated especially poorly (usually) when the women are horny, I have to say that a woman treating you better when she is unfertile is the surest sign that she sees you as beta.
“And once in a while, windows can be reopened but for the most part you have that one shot.”
It’s my experience, conversely, that a woman’s window *never* closes unless one of a few things happens:
a. she finds someone better
b. the man didn’t provide her a unique or apex experience of some sort
c. the man, in the previous iteration, departed the scene with angry words, complaint or some other self-diminishing unpleasantness
d. the man declines in relative physical or financial attractiveness
Gloss on above:
a. Hypergamy makes the world go round
b. This is more than Roissy #14; it could be any unusual quality of value to the woman
c. Never explain, never complain
d. This should never happen for a man, and in fact he should improve in relative appearance to that of a woman, giving the disparity in how SMV curves are different for men and women
Once admitted to a woman’s intimacy, providing benefits while remaining a challenge (a challenge to lock down, control, even understand) would seem to create a lifelong open window with any woman who does not simply find someone better.
A trivial example of this would be Facebook look-ups even decades after original contact. Also, the open-window phenomenon would seem to increase over time because men accumulate more options (relatively, v. women) over time.
@47 rollo, huh! Interesting…
@ 47, I can also tell if a chick is pregnant before she begins to show.
Marky Mark at 48,
In past generations, marriage, for women, was a path to status and a necessity. Now that women can find careers, the provisioning aspect is optional. That’s how betas were rendered sexually obsolete.
I don’t quite know how to turn things around but, the presumption of male demand is the Achilles heel of the sexual/marriage marketplace.
I don’t think things will turn around at all… you think women would like to quit working and have to go back to staying at home with some boring beta and his kids??? Not gonna happen… most likely scernario (that is currently happening) is women age and never marry to end up dying alone. I think even most betas wake up in their 30s after starting to get some women and realize having a girlfriend/wife isn’t all that great. There is a lot of sacrifice to keep a woman around long term even for alphas the sex isn’t worth it.
FW, ‘presumption of male demand':
Well, in the under-40 set the ratio of marriage dropouts is 27-8, male female. So there’s an enormous deficiency in the supply of willing male partners for marriage.
It’s hard for me to believe that men flip once they’re older than 40, and suddenly discover a desire to be married. Instead, I would view that 40+ male cohort as even more skeptical about marrying, especially if they’ve experienced divorce.
While a woman today is encouraged to view marriage differently than prior to 1970 — perhaps, from our perspective, in terms of a lifestyle choice — it’s pretty clear that female demand for marriage (relative to male) is much higher than that of males. So I would turn your observation upside down, were I to fit it to the current data.
Marky Marki and Buena Vista,
Maybe I need to take Werner von Braun’s advice and “go back to ze drawing board”. However, it is my contention that the SMP/MMP is flawed at its foundation. Something is very definitely wrong.
We might be close to stumbling on it.
@Rollo 50:
“Manosphere meltdown in 5, 4 3, 2, 1…….
FWIW, while I do believe that women are more sexually receptive around ovulation, I’ve always found notion of women craving thugs at that time of the month just bizarre.
Elsewhere on the net it is being postulated that women are also hornier just before menstruation due to failure to mate with an alpha and the attendant frustration thereof. Just because I’m feeling generous today, I’ll point out that the pelvis tends to become engorged with the fluids that are discharged during mensuration in the days before the flow actually begins. That fluid engorgement exerts pressure on the nerves in the pelvis making them more easily simulated. Horniness ensues.
Occam’s razor and all…”
O: I think you’ve got a Stan! Hi Ms. J 2.0!
O.
Any decent looking woman can get a guy to hook up/date her but it’s totally different getting a marriage from a guy. That’s why you see frustrated single hot women… b/c they think their looks will get them commitment from any guy… but look at the vast majority of women that get married. Most aren’t spectacularly attractive just ‘ok’ with good personalities to get along with.
I think one thing the Manosphere doesn’t understand is that the vast majority of beta males have extremely low confidence and aren’t throwing themselves at top tier 1 women all the time.
#54 so, what you’re saying is, once a FWB, always a FWB? I think I know of several cases of this. The generic working strategy for a man nowadays, even a soul man, seems to be to maintain separate living quarters, only visiting for sex.
“I likely would have dated them but bc I didn’t understand the probably liked me, I just accepted the friendship at face value.”
Seems that you just might be describing beta orbiters and friend zoning. The FZ is not always an active maneuver on her part; it can happen just as the default position when a woman does not see a man as an attractive, sexual being. If the initial attraction phase does not place him firmly in the attractive, sexual category, friendship is easily rationalized as the prize post facto.
The man complies for a variety of reasons – of course being beta is more than enough. But also keep in mind that being beta, nice guy, or whatever means that there is (was) probably no path 1 playbook for him anyhow. Taking it slow, friends first, etc. is how the male sex drive and corresponding power was/is subordinated to her wants and managed according to her needs. IOW, the blue pill.
Even in our sex-pozzie empowered times this remains true – as long as it serves the FI. A man must not make her feel uncomfortable or objectify her as a sexual object, unless/until she decides it is the right time, place, pace, situation, and she decides that he is worthy (hot enough).
Pretty much the same as 20 years ago, but the difference is that now he also must demonstrate his sexual power as the aggressor in order to pique her initial attraction triggers, to compete with unleashed hypergamy within an SMP entirely oriented toward sex-first, then escalate according to her unique set of unknown conditions, all while being able to intuit her ideation of the prize via her random-generator, be it just sex, commitment, friends first (those days are behind me), marriage, or some path TBD.
Essentially he must present the jagged and raw male sexuality to gain entry to the contest, all while knowing when and how to hone down its sharp edges – experiential savvy accumulated by very few men in reality, and kindle his intuition and situational awareness to carry her agency when she tires of it; both teasing and taming the hamster, when appropriate.
What you are describing about those boys is path 2 attraction (at best) and the typical approach of the sexually invisible men who occupy that space. If you had found them attractive and believed them to be sexual beings worthy of investment, I suspect the “face value” proposition would have been quite different. The prize would not have been (just) friendship. If a woman truly finds a man sexually attractive she will work to keep him out of the friendzone even if his own actions are steering him in that direction. “Likely would have dated” is not the same as “I found them sexually attractive.”
Men miss some IOIs, as do women, but I’d reckon its pretty rare for a woman to miss IOI’s from proximate males who she finds to be attractive enough to date/bang. Especially over time. Unless it is a path 2 prospect.
There are completely invisible men and there are sexually invisible men. The line may oscillate between those two conditions but rarely does it do so between a sexually invisible man and a sexually attractive man.
Folks often look back to the past through their current lens, which for women is more like the one that their mothers were looking through when they were saying “what about Jason, he seems like such a nice boy” as opposed to the actual 16-22 y/o version which falls somewhere between “Who?” and “Eeeew, Mom!” and “We’re just* friends”. *not to make friends seem worth less than something else of course.
Sure, Jason could have been more aggressive and perhaps could have cut a path 2 route, but again, if those man friends were all that, there would have been more angst than indifference on your part, i.e. “why won’t he make a move” as opposed to working from behind the blind-spot and holding friendship as paramount, with never-a-thought until hindsight. Certainly there was some boy(s) who gave you butterflies. These guys don’t strike me as being on that list.
Some speculation on my part and nothing personal as to your exact anecdote, but I read it to be along the lines of “I think nerds are hot” and the after-the-fact halo of hindsight. Afterall, you said they were “great guys”, not “attractive”. Just some snow-day meanderings. Carry on.
#64 Excellent work, Taz, but I’d add one item. Almost always, when a woman says a friend-zoned man never made a move, she means he never made a move she could take seriously.
@ jf12 65
Great observation! Hamsterized. Of course, if he did make a move that couldn’t be rationalized, he becomes creepy.
Taz yes all good points. In most cases it’s probably safer for a guy to assume a woman friend wants to be “just friends” than to assume she’s just not thought of him in that way. However, my ex husband and I, for example, were just friends for a year and I was HIGHLY attracted to him and was always looking for signs he felt the same but could not bring myself to broach the subject (this was when I was early 20s). We were both attending a college church group and much of our time together was in that setting, so a lot of group time. Although in retrospect he wasn’t picking me up every Wed. and Sun. to take me to these functions just because he felt sorry for me because I didn’t have a car at the time. (Duh!) I finally could not stand it anymore and told him I was in love with him and he said he was in love with me. Happily ever after ahead, right?
Ok about time I go here I suppose…
Sadly, while he didn’t drink at the time, he did start drinking after we married and it escalated over many years to full blown alcoholic, verbally abusive, emotionally abusive, and final straw physically abusive and that was it. Bloom walked after many, many years of trying to make that work. The physical abuse, in a drunken fit, in front of my child, that was the deal breaker. He’s clean and sober now, but I don’t think he would have done that had I not divorced him. We had other issues (I was way over focused on my education and career and being a good little feminist). He’s getting remarried to a gal he met at his church recovery group next weekend. I wish him well and hope they will be very happy.
So yes, girls can be secretly in love with their friend. Not that it always works out…
jf12/theasdgamer
Indeed the men who walk the line of invisibility are required to tread lightly, which assures that his intentions can be cast off, mined for their utility, or shelved for later consideration per her desires – with minimal effort or discomfort for her.
His position originates in the assumption of the negative, where he must work to remove the plausible deniability of his intentions; the alpha (for lack of better wording) begins in the assumption of the positive where he might (but not always) need to provide her with plausible deniability of her own intentions.
We can see why these guys are so easily overlooked, not seen as serious, or why their IOI’s are so illusive, especially to attractive women who largely process things based on the direct and aggressive approaches of the most attractive, preselected men, who are granted the right to approach accordingly.
Mr. Smith update. He invited me to dinner at his place on Sat, ribeyes on the Traeger. On his desk in the living room was a well worn bible. We made out a bit after dinner and while we have great chemistry and such, he did not try top get past second base. Then he said he doesn’t believe in premarital sex. And he’s invited me to meet his parents next Friday, two weeks after we met. So who knows? Fingers crossed he’s as good as he seems….that sure would be lovely!
Bloom,
I hope that no one beats you up for confessing. At least there are barriers to men as far as getting out of hand on this. They do have to show up for work five days a week. It’s a lot worse when a stay at home wife goes down this road. That could be a big reason that I never married. My Mom.
@ Bloom 69
He invited me to dinner at his place on Sat
He isolated.
On his desk in the living room was a well worn bible.
Macchiavel game.
We made out a bit after dinner and while we have great chemistry and such, he did not try top get past second base.
He escalated. Third base on date two.
Then he said he doesn’t believe in premarital sex. Riiiiiight. Macchiavel game.
And he’s invited me to meet his parents next FridayDoesn’t this seem a bit…soon? Macchiavel Game.
Sex by the third date–just sayin’. Something will come up before meeting the parents, I betcha. Sorry.
“I was HIGHLY attracted to him.”
Yep, more than just a “great guy”, right? The relationship took time, the attraction did not. The attraction was paramount, the relationship flowed from your undeniable attraction, not merely the strength of his IOI’s. And you did not let him fade into FZ despite his rather subdued approach. Thats part of my point.
There are great guys who women will put on the shelf, still in their cases (they hold their value better unopened aka don’t wan’t to risk ruining a great friendship) and there are those great guys who women will tear out of the package and play with as soon as possible. Sure it took a while, but you got your Christmas morning and he fed your butterflies the entire time.
As for the rest, just an awful experience no doubt. I’ve seen it up close. Too many have. Good thing we can be rather resilient creatures. Fair well with Mr. S.
#60 re: SMP vs MMP. Remember when we were talking about Path 1 vs Path 2? I’m thinking there is broad agreement here, neglecting what women say, that men ought to pursue Path 1 for both SMP and MMP, if they can, because women who are quickly sexually interested in a man are far more likely to be good sexual partners, both STR and LTR. Path 2 seems to work best when the man only has to wait for her to finish the disinterested portion of her cycle, and then suddenly “overnight” he is almost like following Path 1 albeit with a two-week lag.
I don’t know of any man, with any experience, here who is actually advocating Path 1 just for SMP and “reserving” Path 2 for MMP.
If guy is flirty with me without expressing verbal interest, such as a simple “I like you”, I just assume he is flirty with every woman. If a guy treats me like a friend and nothing special, I assume I am a friend, and he has a friendly personality.
#69 “Then he said he doesn’t believe in premarital sex. And he’s invited me to meet his parents next Friday, two weeks after we met.”
These sound good on their own for being what you want to hear, but isn’t this the guy with a lot of rich girlfriends who buy him expensive things? It’s hard to shake the feeling that he’s saying a lot of things and seeing which things work.
@Ms. Stephanie:
Fair enough; but, couldn’t it be possible for said guy to say “I like you” to every girl he meets? Please explain?
O.
@Obsidian,
Physical cues of attraction such as nervousness, eye contact, flirting only convey so much non verbally. If I see a man who is flirty towards me and flirty to all women, I just assume that is his personality. It is nothing that distinguishes me from other women. Same with Mr. Friendly, if he is friendly towards all women and treats me exactly the same way, I think he is friendly. Without men singling out a woman, treating her differently, or conveying somehow “I only have eyes for you”, a woman will move on. A woman can be attracted to many men, but a woman wants the man who convinces her to fall in love with him.
#77 “a woman wants the man who convinces her to fall in love with him.” This is the usual situation: she’s not terribly attracted to him at first, and he has to prove himself to her. Then something clicks biologically inside her, then they get married (or move in together). Two years later, the honeymoon is over and she is no longer attracted no matter what he does or doesn’t do. It’s a shame.
@jf12
I don’t believe couples fall in love once. I think a couple has to be able to fall in love with each other multiple times. My grandmother who was married for 40 years told me she fell in love with my grandpa numerous times in their marriage.
@ theadsgamer, if you are right, I will be surprised but I guess I will know on Friday if parents do not materialize
@ Fuzzie thanks. I was glad to have an education and a job so I could make that choice. My neighbor, 85, his dad was an abusive alcoholic, my neighbor was a big support to me at that time, said, “Women now are lucky they don’t have to just live with it.” Sorry to hear about your mom. Virtual hugs! My ex and I have a good co-parenting relationship and this was some time ago, so everything is ok now and I am hopeful for the suture.
@ Taz yes, the attraction in that case was instant. I have another friend, engaged now, who I did not find immediately attractive (online date) but our friendship continued and he and I spent a lot of time together and were kind of like “dating support buddies” exchanging stories and such. Friends only although lots of people said we’d be great together. One time he was here late last summer helping out at a wedding and I looked at him and thought he was really handsome and was very attracted and wondered why I hadn’t felt that at first, not long after his evil ex resurfaced so I didn’t act on it. They are now getting married in July. Poor guy!
Bloom,
I am a little worried about Mr. Smith. I do hope that he is not just telling you stuff that he thinks you want to hear. While it may cost opportunities, I am the camp of “honesty is the best policy”.In the meanwhile, let’s see if you meet the parents Friday. That will tell.
“Hopeful for the suture” freudian slip?
@Obsidian #61, Heheh,.. Giggles will have to come up with something better than a report on a completely unlinked study that still doesn’t counter the findings of 20+ years of empirical studies indicating that women’s menstrual cycle influences mate preference.
All the USC cognitive psych study alleges (there’s no link to the study) is that women have the capacity to ‘override’ the instinctive mating behavior that their biochemistry predisposes them to.
I think Dr. Martie Hasselton might disagree with that presumption.
So it’s not that women’s biochemistry doesn’t in fact predispose them to wanting Alpha Fucks in their proliferative phase and Beta Bucks in their secretory phase, it’s that social pressures and personal conviction might be a buffer against their innate hypergamy.
Oh really? Ya think? Exactly what I expect from a cognitive / humanist psych school.
SS: hey, nice to see you… you here to mock us bitter losers from HUS? Well, tell Jackie I say hello.
The great thing about religion is that you can “not believe” in premarital sex and still do it anyway. Only the greenest of the green would assume that Not Believing is the same as Not Doing.
@Offthecliff,
Not my style personally. I would rather debate the ideas than attack the person. Also, you do know my ties with HUS are very loose? Or at least I thought before the sudden recognition.
@ Fuzzie oops, that was future, not suture. I will be careful re: Mr. Smith for sure. Just talked to him in fact, no mention of his parents Friday but he sugested I could sleep over at his place so we could leave first thing to go clamming the next day. Ummm, yeah….not. I will see him in the morning! I did not mention meeting the parents, we will see if he arranges that…good test!
Off the Cuff true re not believing and not doing, point taken. Two different things!
Ok theadsgamer, so how does a girl recognize a truly good guy from a guy playing good guy?
I obviously need some pointers.
@Rollo:
Yea, I know right? OK, so what’s the beef against Haselton? I mean, why is Auntie railing so hard against the whole ovulation thing? What’s the value add? I mean, so what if it’s true – she’s not cheating on her Man, right? And no one else over at you know where is cheating on their Man – right?
So – WHY are they so deeply concerned about this? What gives?
O.
I’m going to say this once and only nce, so everybody please listen up:
Ms. Stephanie is a guest here at J4G; she is here at my personal request and invitation. There will be no personal attacks on her, especially in relation to HUS. She is NOT their representative. She does NOT speak for them. She speaks for herself as a writer and blogger, and it is for this reason I have invited her to this venue – to discuss HER ideas, and to debate THEM, on their merits, in the spirit of intellectual honesty and spirited, but respectful, debate.
IF you have “beef” with anything Ms. Stephanie has said in THIS forum, by all means have at her; but ANY comments alluding to HUS in relation to Ms. Stephanie will be removed. Just putting that out there right from the rip. Discuss her ideas. Leave everything else at the door.
O.
I don’t even watch my cycle that closely but maybe I will log it to see if this theory holds true, at least for me personally, not that I will post results here (tmi!)
Yay O! It’s getting thin on the ladies here, much appreciated!
I cannot represent woman kind all on my own. (Not that it is about me.)
Liz, where are you? Star Child? Emily? Come back!!!
And if Mr. Smith put out a well worn bible as an act, oh Lordy is he gonna hear it! Humph!
There are lines, people! Lines one does not cross. Fake religious piety is one of them!
(Door slam. Dishes fly. Nuclear mushroom cloud ignites.)
Oh he better NOT!
Heck, I’m fine with the entire HUS contingent showing up here, and will continue the respectful civility (ok, ok, except for Plain Jane) that only earned me being banned in the first place.
But, I am going to assume they all despise me, which is why I asked. That’s not an attack.
Bloom,
As for “sleepovers”, you do have your kids as a legitimate reason to stay home. I understand that they are not yet old enough to self-supervise.
With this exchange between Off the Cuff and Stephanie Shepard, does this mean that we’ll more HUSsies coming over here to say things they wouldn’t dare say over there? This may get interesting.
@Ms. Bloom, @Rollo:
I thought you two and everyone else in the forum would enjoy the following series of YouTubes featuring Prof. Martie Haselton, since she seems to have caught the ire of you know who and since Han’s topic DOES have significant tie-in; here’s Prof. Haselton on Good Morning America:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KAoaTbXfOuY
More coming up…
O.
I do not and will.never understand the men and women being friends stuff. She going to break me out of a mexican prison? Help me butcher deer, cut trails to the deer stand? Figure out why my dead lift is off? Clean up my pistol work? Help replace the breaks on my cobra?
Blooms example screamed emotional tampon and weak man.
Bloom, why do have to represent women? Thought you were trying to break away from the herd?
If you’re a man and you have a lot lady friends you aren’t seeing nekkid, might be best if you reevaluate your life decisions.
“With this exchange between Off the Cuff and Stephanie Shepard, does this mean that we’ll more HUSsies coming over here to say things they wouldn’t dare say over there? ”
I didn’t even read HUS until after the falling out. I primarily write about economics and socioeconomic trends.
@FW:
Actually, our position here at J4G has always been one of inclusiveness of all points of view, so long as they were’t being off the wall, trolling, et al. And yes, we get to determine precisely what that is.
So, we would welcome the HUS crew, including the founder of the feast, to come on over for a chat; in fact, we will give them the floor to make their case without interruption, before we proceed to rhetorically dismantle it, LOL. We do this on the basis of sound reason and evidence – nothing else.
So, if any of the “HUSsies” are reading along out there – andwe know that you do (Ms. J 2.0) – you have my personal invitation to come right on over, and we can have a reasoned and respectful debate, again with you having the floor unimpeded and without interruption to make your case.
But, be forewarned: we will not coddle you, nor will we bite our tongues on the supposition that you might cry if you don’t like what you hear. At J4G we treat Women as grown adults, with the capacity for reason and debate just like anyone else.
Anytime you’re ready ladies – bring it…
O.
LOL at scfton, maybe all those online dating responses asking me to go hunting were legit in a guy mind?
Once at 17 I shit talked after nailing a can on the first shot at the range with my friend and her dad, talking all survivalist late 80s smack talk. The next day he pulled into my driveway with a deer in the back of his truck. And we went back to their house. I watched him skin it. And I decided maybe I would have to be a vegetarian survivalist! LOL. Ummm yeah. I felt like an idiot!
As promised, here’s another YouTube featuring Prof. Martie Haselton, a second interview she did on Good Morning America, dated Jan 2006. Please note that Auntie’s heroine, Prof. Helen Fisher, is in the video and pay close attention to what she says(!). Finally, notice the next segment on GMA – slimming dieting tips that help the ladies lose a dress size or two(!).
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KAoaTbXfOuY
O.
@ Bloom 87
Ok theadsgamer, so how does a girl recognize a truly good guy from a guy playing good guy?
There are no good guys. You play by rules. Let’s assume you want to be chaste. You don’t go to a man’s place alone with him or bring him to yours. If you feel lust, you get away from him. Generally, meet him in group contexts. Stay in public places. Don’t let yourself get isolated. No touching sweaty things without engagement. If he wants sex soon, require marriage sooner.
With respect to courting Mrs. Gamer, we spent lots of time at dinner parties together and went out dancing with her group. Holding Mrs. Gamer’s hand was a Big Deal. Eventually we even kissed! Shock! Mrs. Gamer had only kissed one man before me–her ex bf. We dated a few times and went on walks on the beach; I proposed at night during a walk on the beach.
There was a period of time where we had a long distance relationship and talked by phone almost every day and wrote letters. This was when long distance calls were expensive. Mrs. Gamer footed the bill for those, for the most part. After graduation, I followed Mrs. Gamer to her new city and got a job there. Good thing, because there was a guy she was interested in and she and a woman roommate went out shopping with him once. That was over once I got there.
@ Ton
If you’re a man and you have a lot lady friends you aren’t seeing nekkid, might be best if you reevaluate your life decisions.
So, in your view, married men either tomcat or don’t have lady friends?
Stephanie Shepard,
My apologies for calling you a HUSsie. Given that you called Off TheCuff Off the Cliff, I presumed a history.
Would you link your site to your user name? I did try to find you and failed.
And here’s Prof. Haselton giving a very interesting address at the Magic of If conference in 2012 – check it out:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6GGl9Ux26Ag
O.
Fuzzie Wuzzie,
“My apologies for calling you a HUSsie. Given that you called Off TheCuff Off the Cliff, I presumed a history.”
Lol, no history I just overlooked the screen name. Would have been a nice play on words within the context had it been intentional.
I don’t have a website to link to right now. I had a website last year but ended it. I am in the middle of developing a new website. Right now I am working on the content, set up, and fund raising through crowd sourcing. When I officially launch my new site I will include it.
@ Obsidian I will watch the videos tonight when I have some free time!
@ Stephanie, welcome! Thank God you are here! (Hugs) Help me explain the female mind, please!
#79 I’d like to believe in re-falling in love, but, like Rollo, I’m certain it’s not merely unlikely but MUCH more difficult than falling in love with another person.
FWIW men tend to stay in love until women force them to fall out of love through years and years of guff. Women, on the other hand, fall out of love with a man excatly like falling out of love wit a brand of toothpaste. Sadly for men.
Haselton is great. I’ve actually used her decision theories industrially. Okay, actually I helped a young woman engineer write a proposal to implement in a testbed model, then I funded the proposal, and now it is actually implement in a production setting.
#96 “If you’re a man and you have a lot lady friends you aren’t seeing nekkid, might be best if you reevaluate your life decisions.”
Very true. I ponder why I’m married, etc.
Bloom,
Don’t throw dishes! Mr. Smith may surprise us all and be the genuine article. Should he fail, we’ll all hand you kleenexes. The only certain way to keep your heart from being broken is to not put yourself out there.
Been there, done that.
@Bloom,
Thank you and I will at least try to help lol.
@jf12,
You’re right, it is more difficult to fall in love with the same person than a different person. But not entirely impossible. I think you over simplify women falling out of love. I found women tend to compromise until they no longer can. Anytime I fell out of love it was a choice. It didn’t happen suddenly, but it was a choice.
Heheh,..anyone “commenting” at HUS is simply an accomplice to Aunt Giggles marketing herself.
Yeah, yeah, it’s her blog and she can do what she wants there, but her censorship is just an indictment of the weakness of her premises. If her points had any merit she wouldn’t be such a coward about them standing up to critical review. And any of the 6 or 7 commenters she still allows to agree with her are just as cowardly because they’re equally as uninterested in any real debate.
@Rollo
“Yeah, yeah, it’s her blog and she can do what she wants there, but her censorship is just an indictment of the weakness of her premises. If her points had any merit she wouldn’t be such a coward about them standing up to critical review.”
Funny… Roosh does the exact same thing at Return of Kings. Does that make it an indictment of the weakness of his premises? If his points had any merit he wouldn’t be such a coward about them standing up to a critical review…
@Ms. Stephanie:
If indeed Roosh runs ROK the way Ms. Walsh does HUS 2.0, YES, I’ll go on record in saying that he’s not fostering an intellectually honest environment, where ideas can be debated on their merits.
O.
@Obsidian
He bans women and homosexuals. He also bans commenters who reply to women or homosexuals. While at the same time promoting anonymous writers without transparency.
@ SS
Funny… Roosh does the exact same thing at Return of Kings.
Red herring. You’re not starting off well here.
Stephanie Shepard,
In keeping with my persona, would you allow me to comment and share this link?
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-67-overvalued-stock-market.html
@Ms. Stephanie:
While I respect the right of Mr. Roosh to run his forum in any way he sees fit, I want it know that I am diametrically opposed to it on principles in line with American Democratic norms. I find it repulsive to bar or otherwise ban people based solely on who they are, not the basis and merits of their arguments or ideas.
O.
@theasdgamer
“Red herring. You’re not starting off well here”
Why? Is it not hypocritical to condemn HUS censorship while endorsing ROK censorship? I don’t care for the censorship on either sides, does harm in the long run because unpopular ideas stay relevant past their due date.
@Fuzzie Wuzzie
Can you rephrase your sentence. I am not sure what you are asking?
@Obsidian
I agree. I am aware many are banned on HUS smart. Just the same way I am banned on ROK. I am glad J4G has open commentary. Should be some interesting debates.
@ SS
Why? Because you’re avoiding the issue. It’s called a red herring. Rollo brought up HUS because you post there, which makes it relevant. J4G is also relevant. RoK is not. However, you brought up RoK, which was a red herring. I know, this is linear thinking, but this is a blog for men, so women posting here need to indulge our weakness for linear thinking and our allergies to logical fallacies.
“Why? Because you’re avoiding the issue. It’s called a red herring. Rollo brought up HUS because you post there, which makes it relevant.”
And Rollo has an author page and his disqus contains commentary on both ROK and RooshV. It is relevant because it makes him a hypocrite.
Stephanie Shepard,
Captain Capitalism’s post was, to put it mildly, bearish. Would you allow it?
@FuzzieWuzzie
I just got the aha! moment with the bearish part, but what does it have to do with captain capitalism?
Yes, regrettably so, because I believe for the better part that RoK’s authors deserve to have their ideas tested in an open forum. Granted that’s hard to do when RoK agitates readership with click-bait articles they know will provoke a response from people who only need a cause to rail against, but that’s their model.
To my knowledge RoK doesn’t promote itself as a marketplace of ideas, but to your point yes, I disagree with the censorship. In fact I think opening it up would increase site traffic for them.
You’ll also have to consider that RoK and HUS are entirely different formats. RoK has many different authors with many differing motivations for their writing, rather than one author who consistently disallows commenting and critical review. If you want to challenge any RoK author’s point on twitter or another forum their info is there for the offing, Aunt Giggles rarely leaves the safety of her echo chamber.
I should also add that I’ve never read Roosh or any RoK author suggest that anyone writing under the condition of anonymity should “have their right to free speech revoked” as Susan Walsh has insisted (conveniently after her sponsors and the HuffPo instituted a no-anonymous posting policy) on several occasions.
To attempt to silence a man is to pay him homage, it’s an acknowledgement his arguments are difficult to answer and difficult to ignore. Aunt Giggles will never see the irony in this, because she’s not an honest agent with any interest in bettering people’s lives or any real interest in open discourse.
@ SS, RT
I appreciate the clarification about how RoK is relevant. Is the censorship congruent between RoK and HUS? It seems to me that the censorship at RoK is based on the person, while that at HUS is based on the idea. Isn’t idea-based censorship more baneful than person-based censorship?
In any case, SS is out of the HUS echo chamber, so, really, the question is moot.
I thank both SS and RT for their contributions to the question and helping clarify the issue.
Well the way I see it, if I had tried to comment at either of these two websites, I guess I would have been banned, yes? So good thing I landed here! (High five!)
It’s been most enjoyable, inforamative, intellectually stimulationg, offensice, uplifting, etc…Carry on….
Cookies or a drink, anyone?
Oh and why did I bother to comment here, when I very rarely comment on an online website at all? Because I recognized *freedom of speech* was recognized here.
Yep. That’s why. Freedom of speech is a damn fine thing. Like the rest of the constitution. Yep yep.
Stephanie Shepard,
In line with Captain Capitalism’s post, what if I argueed that, as an asset class, thae stock market was hopelessly inflated because too much money was being thrown at it to be spead over insufficient value?
Would you allow that to pass?
I’m trying to keep this mild. The way things are going, all the boys here are going to “dogpile” on you. The last time I saw this happen to a female commenter elsewhere, I offered to link a bagpipe video as a peace offering.
Should I get one ready?
@FuzzieWuzzie
I appreciate the thought. Also, yes I agree with Aaron on the coming bear market. My former website was on his blogroll and I have published his youtube videos in the past.
Well, before the arguments turn to “no true Scotsman” allow me to present true Scotsmen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dNLsybtpxk
Adam Smith would agree.
@Rollo
“You’ll also have to consider that RoK and HUS are entirely different formats. RoK has many different authors with many differing motivations for their writing, rather than one author who consistently disallows commenting and critical review.”
This is why I do not blame the individual authors for the censorship. I target Roosh specifically because he is the one who bans. I wrote one article on HUS I am not responsible of how the site operates, so I wouldn’t expect the ROK authors themselve to be responsible for the direction of the site.
“Granted that’s hard to do when RoK agitates readership with click-bait articles they know will provoke a response from people who only need a cause to rail against, but that’s their model.”
This bothers me with any website. ROK take it to the next level by publishing shock value content and cutting off the commentary to select groups. Granted they do this less now. And the authors did loose a prospective audience because of the bands and the click bait. I always believe content is king. If ROK content is good they shouldn’t be using click bait gimmicks.
Ms. Stephanie, with all due respect, your’re engaging in hyperbole. Walsh, by her own account, has already banned roughly 160 – yes, one hundred and sixty! – male commenters, in all cases for the terrible crime of making her single, ageing, luckless, plain-looking female readers feel offended, for frustrating their ability to freely engage in misandrist, ignorant and completely unimpeded hamsterbation with their fellow feminist sisters. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that she was the editor of Pravda in another life. Have you ever heard of Mikhail Suslov? Look him up. Walsh is now a female version of him. Now her comment sections are entirely composed of the same 5-6 women kissing one another’s asses, patting one another on the head and making it clear that no nasty man will ever „judge” them for anyhing on HUS, that their lack of success in dating is never their own fault. If a man shows up in the comments and he isn’t doing his 100% to kiss women’s asses, he’s instantly banned.
There’s no way you can say with a straight face that RoK is a parallel to this. There are lively debates there in the comment sections among numerous people, and commenters are free to criticize the site’s contributors. There are normally hundreds of comments to every article. Hell, I could show up there, openly agree with Hanna Rosin on something and still not get banned. Roosh had a very simple and legitimate reason to enact a slightly more strict commenting policy: whenever stupid men start replying to a female commenter, it’s bound to completely derail the conversation and ignite a flame war. It’s a tool to make the place more civil. I don’t know why homosexuals are banned, but my guess is that behavior there was out of the line, without exceptions. Then again, it’s not my concern. It’s their website, they moderate comments any way they want, just like Walsh moderates comments any way she and her minions want. What I do know, on the other hand, is that Roosh never bans anyone just because his commenters were made to „feel offended”, or because the truth is too bitter and harsh for some of his commenters to swallow. Don’t pretend that he has anything in common with Walsh.
“While at the same time promoting anonymous writers without transparency.”
Well, well, what a curious statement we have there. What exactly are you trying to get at, Ms. Stephanie? That people shouldn’t be able to blog and comment anonymously, because that impedes the ability of the Cathedral Inquisition to attack and publicly excommunicate all heretics who refuse to toe the anti-heterosexist, anti-cisgenderist party line, and turn them into pariahs locked in a virtual Gulag?
#58
True. The average Western woman’d rather get tortured and killed by Al Qaeda than sign up for Marriage 1.0 with a „boring” beta. Whenever tradcons and feminists are confronted with this fact, of course, they’re quick to point out that the average beta doesn’t want to return to Marriage 1.0. either. Because, you know, that sleazy bastard just wants to have sex and not be financially responsible for any woman. What they forget is that his motives for that are completely different. He knows women can have economic independence – the evidence is all around him. Why should he assume the role of sole breadwinner then? It literally makes no sense. Plus Marriage 1.0 existed in a world where women’s value as human creatures was artificially inflated. The true extent of women’s moral, intellectual and other limitations was never revealed to young men. TFH has written about this extensively. Of course these young idiot betas thought Marriage 1.0 is a great idea. But times have changed and women have shown their true colors. Can anyone blame young men for deciding that Marriage 1.0 was never a good idea after all? No.
[…] A man’s interest in women tends to be more deterministic and almost formulaic. If she’s attractive, he’ll want to have sex with her. If, on top of this, she has a pleasant and interesting personality, he’ll want to spend more time with her. […]
Good morning everyone!
In keeping with my presentation of background info on Prof. Martie Haselton, here’s a Wiikipedia entry on something she came up with Prof. David Buss on, called Error Management Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_management_theory
Check it out, and holla back your thoughts!
O.
And here’s Prof. Haselton, doing an interview with NPR(!) back in 2011, called “Scent of a Woman”:
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2011/03/02/scent-of-a-woman
Check it out, and holla back with your thoughts!
O.
I’ve been tooling around the Internet looking for pieces that are critical of Prof. Haselton and so far have found nothing, so I want to hand off to our readers:
If you happen to find anything along these lines, please post up the links! I want to be as fair as possible here, because, you know, Streets Is Watchin’. *you know who you are*
O.
O., I read the Wiki article on Error management and found this gem:
approximately “97% of women” state
The article relies on women telling the truth, but we in the manosphere believe that it’s a woman’s actions, not her words, that we should believe. Hence, Haselton’s theory still lacks serious data collection, which should look at the behavior of women, not their words.
@Ms. Stephanie:
I’d be very interested to get your feedback and thoughts in response to in my comment at the top of this thread, it’s #3; I’ve also included links that further explain my position. In light of your presentation today, I think my comment above raises some very interesting questions. Thanks!
O.
@Theasdgamer 141:
That’s a very fair and astute point; people do have incentives to lie #TheBradyEffectIsReal
O.
Bloom 67:
“However, my ex husband and I, for example, were just friends for a year and I was HIGHLY attracted to him and was always looking for signs he felt the same”
And yet, you divorced him.
“He’s clean and sober now, but I don’t think he would have done that had I not divorced him.”
So you take credit for his sobriety and turning his life around? Interesting.
“I don’t believe couples fall in love once. I think a couple has to be able to fall in love with each other multiple times. My grandmother who was married for 40 years told me she fell in love with my grandpa numerous times in their marriage.”
Sounds like “men have to court women all the time” and “men have to constantly prove themselves to their women” drivel to me.
Once a woman decides to marry, that’s IT. He doesn’t have to prove himself further. He’s already done what no other man would do for her – he offered and gave and kept commitment. He wifed her up. After that he has NOTHING more to prove.
@ deti
Sounds like “men have to court women all the time” and “men have to constantly prove themselves to their women” drivel to me.
Please check out my post on Sexual Macrodynamics which addresses this question: http://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/sexual-macrodynamics/
@ Deti no I don’t take credit for his sobriety, he has done that. I do think I enabled his addiction not understanding it. I wish I could go back in time and do many things different there but I cannot.
@ O.
Thanks for the kudos.
Whether people have incentives to lie is irrelevant. What matters is that research has been done to find out when men and women lie. Men exaggerate their sexual experience and women minimize theirs. Further research has shown that women lie to minimize their risk; they are less risk-tolerant than men are, which is why women tend to lie more than men. Men are more likely to be machiavellian and psychopathic than women and those men tend to lie a lot. However, it would be a distribution error to average their lies across all men.
#145 because feewings.
I’m relatively certain my wife falls in and out of love with our cats several times a day. It means women’s love is worth nothing.
I was thinking more along these lines:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/the-endless-courtship-fantasy/
This is EXACTLY the whole point of game… it is in women’s interests for most men to ‘tread lightly’ and maybe when she’s out of options she will give him ‘a shot’… game teaches you to invest little, keep a lot of irons in the fire, and an be aggressive IN THE RIGHT PLACES (ex. not church or work).
And to the girl who said she ‘probably would have dated those guys’… do you think if it was George Clooney or Brad Pitt she ‘probably would have dated them’? Hell no… you can bet she would have thrown herself at them/made her interest very obvious.
@ deti
“By contrast, women’s sex vision probably looks something like a first person shooter video game, in which men are simply invisible until a guy “pops up” or walks across the screen. She cannot see anything until a man does something or says something to enter her field of vision. Usually, there’s only one, maybe two men who are “on the screen” at any given time. And the man has to do something to get onto the screen. He has to move, or stand up, or say something, any one of those things “get her attention”.”
Yes and no.
In the current SMP/MMP feminism has jacked up things to the point where such men are uncommon. Thus, the observation that a man must do something to “pop up on her radar” because there are actually very few masculine men.
I think when men were held in higher esteem 1950s and prior there were many more men who were considered attractive and on the radar given 90%+ marriage rates and the vast majority of those marriages sticking together and being happy. I suppose you could argue that the marriages sticking together might have been about convenience, money, or you don’t divorice, or whatever else but you cannot deny that most of the marriages in those 60-70+ years of age have stood the test of time and many are happy.
Basically, don’t assume that how a woman views things now is what is/was normal. It’s only normalized to a post-feminist society.
SS: “Funny… Roosh does the exact same thing at Return of Kings. Does that make it an indictnt of the weakness of his premises? If his points had any merit he wouldn’t be such a coward about them standing up to a critical review…”
It does. Which is why it puzzles me that HUS wants to be more like Roosh and Jezebel, rather than less.
I saw the writing on the wall when every single post regardless of topic became a critique of Roissy et al… sites that I don’t even subscribe to, or comment, and have no desire to debate at… yet I was lumped with them because I might passively agree with, oh, 4% of what they say.
There is no functional difference between Roosh and Jezebel, other than how mainstream they are. Zip.
Ps I thought offthecliff was an amusing typo. I may even adopt that moniker…
#152 “Basically, don’t assume that how a woman views things now is what is/was normal.”
Better word for normal: natural. The natural, feral, state of women is to hold men on low esteem.
#153 Roosh and Jezebel and HUS are default blocked by many filters.
On SS’s objection to RoK’s same-sex bias: I’m not sure what that has to do with this blog. HUS doesn’t have a same-sex filter, but rather a same-POV agenda.
Which is fine with me, though it was surprising to learn that — during a period in which I didn’t post, and then attempted to post — I was moved from the allowed commenter column to the disallowed.
Anyway, everyone gets to decide how to run their own properties, and this one happens to encourage discussion of any stripe. If anything, as you are discovering, you and other women receive disproportionate attention here. So Roosh’s or Susan’s commenting policies are really quite irrelevant, here. They’re red herrings.
@Obsidian, heheheh,..
Saw this at Giggles:
https://twitter.com/haselton/status/462337424333352961
Susie doesn’t like getting called to the carpet much, don’t expect it to be around long.
@Rollo, Everyone:
Actually, you have impeccable timing, good sir! FOr I have just been contacted by Prof. Martie Haselton via Twitter. I present the exchange below:
Obsidian,
Martie Haselton replied to your Tweet!
Obsidian
@ObsidianFiles
@haselton this lady says your research is weak: hookingupsmart.com/2014/05/12/rel… your response? – 13 May
Martie Haselton
@haselton
Follow
@ObsidianFiles idiological bias likely in these critics; Psych Bulletin paper supports the opposite of what she says: lnk.nu/sscnet.ucla.ed…
I’ve also sent a request to interview her for J4G so as to deepen the conversation along the lines Ms. Walsh over at HUS as opened.
Wish me luck!
O.
#159 “I’ve also sent a request to interview her for J4G” to make us all swoon. We may need to print up fanboy tshirts.
I caught that Obsidian. Well done.
So we can believe Hasselton’s 20+ years of studies, or Walsh’s lying eyes, heheh,..
Build a Better Beta meltdown in 4, 3, 2, …
@Rollo:
Again, right on cue, LOL.
Apparently Madam Walsh is aware of my posting of Prof. Haselton’s appearances in the media and talks she’s givien via YouTube, and hasa referred to us as “fools”, LOL. Let’s see what she says in response to what Prof. Haselton has said about her, on the record (Prof. Haselton has called her an ideologue, and an uninformed one at that, providing links to more detailed information than Ms. Walsh either possesses or is aware about).
Also: Mr. Jeb Kinnison has made some interesting remarks about EvoPsych and “Red Pills”, so I have just contacted him via email, sending him about half a dozen links to pieces I’ve written and inviting him to discuss the matter further. Let’s see what happpens…
O.
@Han: Very good post, in complement to the path 2. I don’t have time to go through all the discussions, so I will just throw in some thoughts.
I think the need to take steps to be noticed by women are of paramount importance because, well… they’re expecting it. They view it as a man’s job. Then the idea of spinning plates is also important, to avoid being to focused on a single girl and also the importance of taking a rejection or lack of interest for what it really is and moving on until she sends some indication of interest, etc. But I won’t get into the details of this discussion of “how-to”. What I’ve been thinking is that the whole concept of “game” seem to be structured around three main components:
1. Approaching as the foundation of game (51%?) and “spinning plates”, i.e., moving on if there is no interest;
2. Being a chatty, fun, charismatic, entertaining, etc. The “chatty clown“;
3. Being attractive, i.e., unique, differentiating from the crowd, a leader, powerful, etc., i.e., “unlike other clowns“.
As I see it, a lot of guys will resort to cold random approaches and fake no. 2 and 3, either through mimicking and sometimes outright lies, which eventually might lead to an internal disconnection or schism between what he is and what he is doing to get it (the dark side), leading to aversion of the “target”.
So, also having in mind the average guys, I think the important elements of a more genuine approach would be:
1. Make sure of the qualities he’s looking for in a girl (feminine, virgin, modest, beautiful, slim, intelligent, long hair, loves children, long term investment, natural and light makeup, etc.).
2. Approach and get noticed. It could also be a low-key tit-for-tat strategy. Typically he will be rejected, because that’s what women do anyway: reject and have fun.
3. Spin plates and if she sends some IOIs, take action. If she resorts to push-pull tactics, spin plates again or discard her (not aligned with standards of no. 1, etc.).
There are some random factors and the guy might even get IOIs of other girls he didn’t approach, because his approaching and spinning plates will signal to girls he’s “available”.
It could certainly be improved upon, more elaborated, etc.
#162 good thoughts. I especially endorse the observation that “Typically he will be rejected, because that’s what women do anyway: reject and have fun.” Women do enjoy their positions as deciders.
But since I am an extraverted nerd, I’ve always been a “unique” chatty clown which has pretty much been a one-way ticket to the friendzone, broadly speaking. Chat is girl game, basically.
For some reason a lot of women think their open window is reserved for burglars.
http://www.kctv5.com/story/25404845/naadir-tharpe-to-leave-kansas
Roosh didn’t elaborate much in the referenced post about what it means to be a chatty clown. Robert Greene’s Art of Seduction offers a better understanding, such as in the chapters The Charmer, The Charismatic and The Star. Obviously most guys are not natural chatty clowns in such a sense and even some self-proclaimed naturals or players claim a success rate of about 1% after 1000 cold approaches. So there is nothing much to worry about being friend zoned, because most guys are just friend zoned, which is after all, a friendly rejection. I have been as well. Everybody does. It can only become a self-denigrating and masochistic problem if you don’t move on… All the best.
#165 I’m certain I would have preferred being the strong silent handsome type, or just handsome.
Still, as they are not chasing men, one would have to do something to appear on their radar (approach), then is rejected (for their fun), some push-pull game (again for their fun and entertainment), and one moves one (spin plates, also somewhat for their fun, entertainment and emotional stirring/fluctuation), until some of them make their window open, as the show is on (“Women do enjoy their positions as deciders”)?
Interesting, I read the exchange between Susan Walsh and Martie Haselton. Apparently she didn’t mean to say ovulation had no effect, when she said it had no effect. She meant the effect is not so large that it supports the idea that a feral female marries a beta for bux and prowls for alpha fux while ovulating (which is what red pill is saying?..). I guess what is a robust effect in Haselton’s scientific statistical world, is only a minor effect in Walsh’s social world.
Just a semantic argument, or word twisting? You know, I’ve seen it before. Someone says something, but then they realizes it looks kind of bad, and instead of saying “Yes, I really meant that, and still agree with it” or “Yes, I said that, but made a mistake by doing so”, they go “No i didn’t say that, I said something else”. There are better ways to go about this.
*The exchange was on Twitter.
if windows don’t last, then paradoxically a man who makes a strong first impression must escalate fast or risk getting put in the FZ. e.g. I know several handsome men with low confidence who get disqualified once they fail to live up to initially (sky?) high expectations. not saying looking good or first impressions ain’t important (see Gladwell’s Blink for a thorough breakdown), but pressure may be higher. follow through is critical.
#170 re: fast escalation. I think so. In our recent discussions we called this Path #1: quickly escalate immediately. And Path #2, originally conceived to be slow escalation, instead turned out to be merely delayed Path#1: quickly escalate after a delay of not escalating for a couple of weeks.