Quantifying Sexual Market Value

Men age like wine, women age like milk. – Unknown

There is a general consensus in the manosphere that young women in their early 20s hold all the power in the sexual marketplace, but that this changes as women start to age and men enter their peak in their 30s. This is easily observable by simply taking a look at the sexual and romantic dynamics around you. This observation also has significant acceptance in popular culture, as the well known quote above suggests. Nevertheless, it continues to recieve pushback in the media, especially from feminists and aging “independent” women who spent their 20s living rather irresponsibly.

I decided to quantify the average male’s and average female’s sexual market value (SMV) with age. My metric is simply the probability that the person will be getting laid at least twice a week. The amount of sex a person is able to have should be directly related to SMV. I used survey data from the National Survey of Sexual Helath and Behavior.

smv

 

The survey respondents were broken up into men and women in their early 20s, late 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70+ (not shown).

The difference in SMV between men and women in their early 20s is statistically significant, as is the difference between men and women in their 30s, and the difference between women in their late 20s and women in their 30s.

This graph clearly demonstrates that women in their early 20s are achieving significantly more sexual success than their male counterparts. However, men are able to catch up in their late 20s, and the tables turn going into the 30s.

This has important implications for the sexual marketplace. It means that young women are the likely gatekeepers to both sex and committment, but that this trend reverses in the 30s.

My method of using frequency of sex as a proxy for SMV might be in doubt. To validate my proxy, it is useful to look at another data source. The online dating site OKCupid took a look at what percent of the opposite sex are looking for a person of a certain age.

OKCupid data should be taken with a grain of salt, as online daters are not representative of average people. Nevertheless, the similarity between the two graphs is striking, suggesting that both metrics are directly related to SMV.

Finally, as one last proxy, I decided to directly use the main measure of female SMV: female fecundability per menstrual cycle. However, while this measure is valid for measuring SMV for ONS, it does not adequately reflect relationship SMV. Relationship SMV has to take into account future value as well, so I calculated Present Value with a discount rate of 20%, compounded continuously. This corresponds to an average relationship duration of 5 years (i.e. 4-5 relationships by age 40, starting at age 15-20 – which seems roughly typical of most females). Here is the graph:

femalesmv

 

The relationship SMV (labelled LTR-SMV) clearly matches the other graphs. Furthermore, it gives us insight into teenage female SMV.

Rollo Tomassi at Rational Male has a differing graph of SMV based on his personal estimation. While his evaluation of female SMV with age matches both these graphs quite closely, the same cannot be sad of male SMV. However, the difference is that he is measuring potential SMV, rather than actual SMV, and he believes that older men who maintain a proper lifestyle can maximise their SMV to far higher levels than younger men can.

By age 36 the average man has reached his own relative SMV apex. It’s at this phase that his sexual / social / professional appeal has reached maturity. Assuming he’s maximized as much of his potential as possible, it’s at this stage that women’s hypergamous directives will find him the most acceptable for her long-term investment. He’s young enough to retain his physique in better part, but old enough to have attained social and professional maturity.

Thus, what we’re seeing here is the SMV that is actualized by the average male, whereas Rollo’s SMV is what a man could theoretically achieve with good inner game.

To sum up the data here though, women in their early 20s have the greatest sexual market value. Men’s market value rises as they enter their late 20s, matching that of their female peers, and continues to stay high into the 30s as female SMV declines significantly.

196 thoughts on “Quantifying Sexual Market Value

  1. 1
    Liz says:

    @SN: ” The amount of sex a person is able to have should be directly related to SMV.”

    No so sure about that. Without separating the groups based on married/ not married and with small children and/or pregnant versus no small children, it’s kind of an apples and grapefruit comparison.

  2. 2
    manangbok says:

    I would have to agree with Liz regarding the statement: ”The amount of sex a person is able to have should be directly related to SMV.”

    I’m not so sure, as well.

    It’s like jumping to point A to point Z when one says, “Person A is having sex > 2 times per week hence his/her sexual market value is more superior to Person B who is having sex ‘only’ once a week.”

    It … doesn’t … follow.

    For example, for a married woman who just gave birth … one cannot expect her to have sex >2x per week. Even is she looks like, say, Zooey Deschanel (?)

    Or a guy who just came from Afghanistan with PTSD … even if he was George Clooney … would probably be too emotionally banged up to contemplate having sex 2x/week. Though, I must say, some guys have used sex as coping mechanism for their emotional problems :)

  3. 3
    Tilikum says:

    Liz,

    first rule is “no single moms”. they have little value and shouldn’t be calculated. married shouldn’t be calculated either unless you are talking a female with designs and a hypergamistic streak burning bright enough where she is willing to roll a grenade into her families tent.

  4. 4
    Liz says:

    Speaking for myself, I looked good enough to make the Elves of Rivendell weep and envy in my twenties, and I was having far less sex then than I am now.
    Little kids and babies don’t tend to make one amorous.

  5. 5
    Retrenched says:

    IMO the best measurement of one’s SMV would be the number of people of the opposite sex, excluding prostitutes, who would want to have sex with them under the right conditions. Admittedly that’s a bit harder to quantify than actual sex partners, as many people, and especially women, don’t take advantage of all or even most of the sexual opportunities they have. And understandably so; young women would have no time for anything else if they did. Whereas most men have a shortage of sexual opportunities – relative to women, anyway – and will take what they can get, for the most part.

  6. 6

    I decided to quantify the average male’s and average female’s sexual market value (SMV) with age. My metric is simply the probability that the person will be getting laid at least twice a week. The amount of sex a person is able to have should be directly related to SMV.

    Including married people in this might artificially elevate the female SMV. Married ladies in their forties and fifties may be having regular relations with their husbands, but that doesn’t mean their SMV is high enough that a lot of other men would want them. It’s the wife goggles effect, I suppose. I think when my husband looks at me, he sees my 44-year-old face through the filter of the 22-year-old woman he married.

    Limiting the data set to single, non-religious people might show a lower female SMV.

  7. 7
    Han Solo says:

    There is no direct study of people’s sexual value so in the absence you look for proxies. And proxies usually have many other factors lumped into them (which ideally you try to remove). So, the plots that Nemesis provided are simply proxies and many other factors go into them but sexual value is part of it and they give somewhat of an idea of men and women’s sexual value vs age.

  8. 8
    Tasmin says:

    I don’t know abut the “…amount of sex a person is able to have should be directly related to SMV.” Perhaps it ‘should’ be, but it really isn’t. The importance of that, however, is in the fact that male SMV can only truly be assessed fully through active measures while female SMV can be assessed almost fully through passive means. So right away we have a significant portion of the male SMV reliant on situational, contextual, comparative, and dynamic conditions while the bulk of female SMV can be achieved through a serious of photographs. As such, male SMV is really a function of both potential and kinetic components.

    This is in part why the sex as SMV proxy might be troubled. Since most of the male SMV is effectively irrelevant or unknowable without actively deploying it in the SMP, a man may never really know his SMV and nor will women unless he continually tests it on/with her. A man who does so, will be maximizing the kinetic and could very well be having a lot of sex even though his real SMV – or taken to the next level MMV – could very well be lacking in potential, e.g. the guys at Penn who are getting banged by alpha females who want high (physical) value sex but actually despise these men for lacking many other attributes. So are these men actually high SMV? In this regard it is similar to the SMV lift that women get because men will have sex with them, but would never GF or wife them up.

    When SMV is viewed together with MMV, though understandably the concept of MMV is equally as muddled, the bulk of male SMV is reliant on the corresponding receptors in the target female population. Accordingly, some men’s peaking SMV may really be as much about how women’s attraction is shifting into recognizing and valuing more of the potential as opposed to the kinetic components of his SMV as it is about his actual SMV. Essentially, her receptors are changing – not necessarily his “value”, like some kind of rising tide. So is his SMV then a false reading? IDK.

    Further, if his target population of women, his circle, have doped-up receptors for thuggery or conversely some doped up churchian provider ideal, a lot of his value designators will be just floating in her synapses with nowhere to go. I’m speculating of course because there is also the idea that SMV like the alpha-beta circle-jerk can be entirely stripped down to whether or not women want to bang you, relative to what you have to invest/exchange in order to get her sex. The less they require of you, the less you have to do in oder to have sex, the higher your “natural” SMV is…Or something like that.

    Chateau has some survey/measure of male and female SMV. The majority of male SMV is situational; he must prove, qualify, establish, project through his actions. Physical (height, weight, muscle/fitness) is important of course but the bulk of the survey relates to what he would do, say, how he holds himself in a dynamic (and assumably competitive) environment. Her SMV is pretty much about appearance – physical attributes and her availability.

    Regardless of whether or not his particular survey is robust or practical, the theme is consistent. Men must approach, take action, do something in order to not only suss out their value but exchange that value in all the right ways to get to sex. And that unrealized value then falls into the potential, which is meaningless until/unless women have the receptors attuned to it. A tree falls? How do we account for the potential?

    Men are pinging away and must be constantly reading the returns and adjusting accordingly – all while having some measure of physical packaging that is traditionally appealing (tall and handsome) enough. His SMV to sex path requires tap-dancing through a room full of mousetraps. If he’s short and flabby, he’d better be some kind of Danny F*cking Kaye; if tall and handsome he can have two left feet though he’d better be “charmingly” bad. And if either one is attempting the tango – however good or bad – at the clubdrug daterapefactory down on broadway, he’s not going to be recording very many sexual wins.

    We can hold up photos of men so women can do the “yeah” or “nay” as to DTF, but in the wild of the SMP it just doesn’t play that way. I guess I get stuck on the potential, embedded value aspects of male SMV. If his vale only exists at the time of clearing the transaction, then how do we also account for (discount?) the fact that a lot of the sex men have is with women of lower SMV? A “6″ man can put up a lot of numbers with “4″ women, but then how does that sex proxy attribute to his SMV?

  9. 9
    Travis says:

    Off topic, but is it just me or has HUS completely jumped the shark? I used to love reading the excellent discussions over there in the comment threads. Now, it’s dead. Susan seems to have switched to full on blue-pill echo chamber mode. Sad. Thankfully, you guys seem to be filling the void quite nicely. Keep up the good work.

  10. 10
    Han Solo says:

    @Manangbok

    “Though, I must say, some guys have used sex as coping mechanism for their emotional problems”

    It’s not like women don’t use sex ever to cope with emotional problems. Never! When they’re feeling unloved, with low self esteem, they never seek or welcome some male sexual validation. No, never.

  11. 11
    Ted D says:

    “Thankfully, you guys seem to be filling the void quite nicely. Keep up the good work.”

    Thanks for the kudos! Truth is, part of the reason I looked into rolling a blog was the insistence from that side of the fence that our discussion had no place there. So, we decided to make that place. I’m glad to see that others find it useful if not entertaining. ;-)

    “It’s not like women don’t use sex ever to cope with emotional problems. Never! When they’re feeling unloved, with low self esteem, they never seek or welcome some male sexual validation. No, never.”

    I’d go so far as to say that a certain subset of men actually LOOK for these types of women simply because they can often be “had” with minimal effort. Sad thing is, I suspect that these women are the ones that take “being used” the hardest, since they already suffer from self-esteem issues. And they are the most likely candidates for a Pump and Dump by a cad.

  12. 12
    Han Solo says:

    @Tasmin

    Having sex is largely a function of wanting it and being able to get it (and with whom is an important part of each). Broadly speaking, men want it and so by measuring how often they’re able to get it gives some measure of their SMV. Of course, in such a simple statistic as in the chart above, we don’t know with whom they’re having it.

    In terms of women, they are very able to get it casually but it’s not so easy to get it in the situation they want (in a relationship with the man they want, often said man is relationshipally unattainable due to some of the women’s hypergamy). We know that women are (on average) at their hottest in their early 20′s so more men will want sex with that age group than others (meaning higher SMV). So more demand for her sex at that age, which means she can also most closely get sex with the kind of man she wants and in the kind of situation she wants (whether she chooses to do so is another matter).

    Perhaps Nemesis should have worded things with a few more caveats and so on but I think he’s just meaning these various proxies as rough indicators, though he can clarify what he really meant.

    So instead of saying,

    “The amount of sex a person is able to have should be directly related to SMV” he could have said “The amount of sex a person is able to have with whom they want is related to some extent to SMV.”

    Anyway, I think people are being too nitpicky and should see these things in broad-stroke terms as opposed to a precise metric of SMV.

  13. 13
    Han Solo says:

    Tasmin,

    Also, you raise a lot of good points about how to define male SMV, so I didn’t mean to sound dismissive by saying people are being too nitpicky.

    I agree that the male SMV is basically only discovered under the heat of “battle.” Men who don’t engage and escalate are left in the land of potential, mounds of dough that have yet to see their final form that only passing through the fiery oven reveals.

    But for those who do try enough, I think that a reasonable approximation of SMV is to look at the hottest woman he can get with some reasonable frequency. So the really hot woman he lucked out with once wouldn’t determine his SMV, nor would the less attractive women in his N distribution. Perhaps a quick estimate would be to take the 90th percentile woman (just throwing out a ballpark number) he has had sex with (or hypothetically could…though that’s fraught with delusional danger). Then, of course, you have the issue of casual vs. LTR vs. LTR-exploring sex.

  14. 14
    Han Solo says:

    @Travis

    It’s not just you. It has turned very blue pill. The latest is the delusion that self esteem will make women more attractive to men than her looks. Yeah right. Just more delusional crap trying to let average or ugly women think they can get some man that’s out of their league.

  15. 15
    Ted D says:

    Well, self esteem goes a long way towards protecting a young woman from a P&D by a cad, simply because she is less likely to seek validation through sex with hot men.

    However, I don’t see high self esteem as an attraction trigger at all. I will admit that having high SE may modify a woman’s behavior, which in turn CAN become attractive. (if she is comfortable and confident in herself and her sexuality for instance) but it isn’t like men are actively looking for a woman with an inflated ego.

    If nothing else, it all really boils down to “inner game for women”, so to speak. Just as a man tends to be more successful when he believes in himself and his abilities, a woman tends to be more successful with the same set of beliefs. People like other people that have their shit together. But it isn’t going to make a 6 into an 8.

  16. 16

    SN, for what it is worth, noted evolutionary psychologists Pawlowski and Dunbar (of “Dunbar’s Number”, fame) did a study of age vs. mating market value for both genders back in ’99. They found that female values peaked at around age 25 while male values peaked at around 38. The intersection or relative power shift between female decline and male ascendancy occurred at about age 32-33. It should be noted that women in their early 20s had peak values substantially higher than peak men did, but the decline was dramatic at age 30. The male market value increase and eventual decrease was more gradual.

    In class last night we continued our mating/attraction study and recreated a well-known experiment. The female students were asked to rate a hot young guy in a Burger King uniform vs. a plain-looking middle-aged guy in Savile Row finery. There was a pause and then they picked the suited plain guy (an expected resulted). They rationalized these decisions by finding physical flaws in the BK guy and finding things to like about the suited guy (“he has intelligent eyes”…”I like his confident look”).

    If an Option C was allowed that created a 007—hot guy in suit, he of course was overwhelming and almost instantly picked.

    The boys were asked to rate a hot young girl in a BK uniform vs. a plain-looking middle-aged woman in a power suit. The response was instantly and completely in favor of the hot BK server (as expected).

    If an Option C was allowed that featured a hot female in a power-suit, the men deliberated longer and the results were split about 50/50 (i.e., about 50% of the men preferred the hot BK vs. the hot executive). I would say that the physically hotter guys tended to pick the hot executive; the less-hot guys may have felt that the status/educational differential they had over the BK girl made her more accessible to them based on their most likely *successful* strategy/value proposition in the mating market—”provider/protector”. This is the more interesting problem for men and my guess would be that the longer processing time reflects the man’s internal weighting of his own best-fit mating strategy towards the female presented.

    The top 7 men chosen by the girls to reflect extreme male physical attractiveness were, in no particular order, Taylor Kitsch (32 yo), Channing Tatum (33 yo), a veteran Brad Pitt (49 yo), a veteran George Clooney (52 yo), Gerard Butler (43 yo), Chris “Thor” Hemsworth (the pup of the all-star stud team at age 30), and Joe Manganiello (age 36), for an average age of 39.

    PJ: One girl did list Idris Elba. He is 41 years old.

  17. 17
    Han Solo says:

    “Feeling secure in your ability to do anything you set your mind to, including charming the guy behind you in line.”

    That’s totally delusional. People cannot just do anything. There are real limits. And trying to charm the guy behind you will likely end in a P&D if he’s out of the woman’s league or a cad or a hard-core player (though not all players are into P&Ding).

    But I do agree with women showing more interest in guys that are in their league and of similar intentions to her own.

  18. 18
    Han Solo says:

    I left this comment on the deti thread but it’s relevant to this conversation too:

    I think the key thing to think of is that for most men, there’s a looks threshold above which he’d have NSA/casual sex but where she’s not hot enough for him to give up all other sex for her. Imagine he’s a 6 and she’s a 4. Well, there are probably some other 4′s he could get sex with too so he’s not going to commit to her. And I doubt that in most cases her personality will be such to get him to commit either (though it can happen from time to time).

    Now, there will be another looks threshold where women come into LTR/marriage consideration. So for the male 6, let’s say his LTR looks threshold is a 5.5 (but that’s just an example, it could be some other value). Since, for this particular man, 5.5 is good enough then he may very well prefer a 6 that just gets him emotionally and intellectually and so on over the 7 who doesn’t and who, for whatever reasons, may just be thinking she needs to get married or may even really like him.

    But I think that less compatible 7 would be chosen over a very compatible 5 in looks who is below his LTR threshold.

  19. 19

    I think that if female self-esteem reflects a rational process in which the woman can A) accurately describe what men are attracted to; and B) knows that she is indeed in possession of these traits, then her C) high mating confidence is a natural derivative or byproduct of her SMV self-knowledge and that would be overwhelmingly positive for her.

    If the woman bypasses this formula and chooses to fake high mating confidence without A and B to back it up, then she is in the same boat as a delusional PUA. The difference is that female attraction triggers are in many cases complex enough and reliant on non-superficial/cosmetic attributes enough that a PUA who shows irrational self-confidence *may* in fact prove to be socially influential, at least in the short term. I wonder if this is true for women when it comes to relationships (as opposed to, say, sexually aggressive cougars or “alpha trophy hunters” looking for hook-ups with men outside of their normal SMV range).

  20. 20
    Han Solo says:

    Bastiat, I think your 3 point process would result in good self esteem for her and implicit in it is she knows what kind of men she can attract for an LTR and what kind for casual and goes about her goals fully knowing. But it’s a big ‘if’ and the more I read about dating advice for women and talk with female friends the less I think that women realize what “what men are attracted to.”

    It’s a very common thing I see in dating advice for women, that her personality and self esteem and boundaries and whatever else are what will get the man and precious little attention on the elephant in the room–her looks.

    A lot of such dating advice seems to be trying to sell women the hypergamous dream of getting an out of her league Mr. Darcy by having a sassy personality and feeling great about herself.

  21. 21

    BB:

    I love that experiment (Burger King uniform vs the suit).

    “irrational self-confidence *may* in fact prove to be socially influential, at least in the short term. I wonder if this is true for women when it comes to relationships”

    I think it often is, ironically. We’ve all seen the weakling husband with the pushy, controlling wife. A lot of these women (you see it a lot in the ghetto and the trailer park) think they’re the shit, despite all evidence to the contrary. (For instance, if a woman is fat and ugly, and men don’t approach her, she can either think (a) she’s not desirable, or (b) men are intimidated by her; most of these kinds of women choose b.)

    Somehow or another they manage to mentally beat some poor sap into submission and get him to marry her. They are probably meant for each other. He needs the discipline that she provides (and the occasional sex that he otherwise would not get) and she needs the validation of having a partner.

  22. 22
    deti says:

    What I find interesting about the charts is the comparison of peak, plateau and decline for the male and female SMVs.

    As expected, the female peaks in the early 20s, does not plateau, and then steadily declines.

    The male peaks around mid to late 20s, then more or less plateaus for about 5 to 7 years, then starts declining around age 33 to 35.

    The decline for men in the graphs is roughly the same grade as that for women; just delayed about 7 years.

    I expected the plateau to stretch to the early 40s. I also expected the decline not to be as sharp as for women; I thought the male SMV decline would be more gradual.

  23. 23
    Sir Nemesis says:

    Certainly, the proxies have their limitations.

    The sexual-frequency data will be affected by such things as pregnancy, waiting-for-marriage, and distance-separation. However, the ability to be desired enough to have sex twice a week is an important ability, especially at a time when people of both sexes complain about their partner not being up for sex often enough. Thus, one can surmise that it might be significantly affected by sexual market value, and on a population-wide level, it will indicate shifts in sexual market value with age.

    The OKCupid data has two limitations. First, it is measuring what people say they want, not what they actually want. Second, the population skews younger so that could result in result in an over-rating of younger people and under-rating of older people.

    However, the close match between the two proxies indicates they’re measuring something in common – the underlying SMV. Throw in the third measurement of female discounted value fecundability and you’ve got a very compelling result.

  24. 24
    deti says:

    Re the HUS Self-esteem as female attractant article:

    I’m all for girls and young women having a healthy self-esteem. Yes, it’s more likely a girl with LSE is prime target for a P & D from a cad; she wants the validation that sex with a high value man will give her. So healthy self-esteem (i.e. she has enough self-respect not to fall for a cad’s bullshit) is a good thing.

    But where Susan goes off the rails is asserting that self-esteem will cause or contribute to a man being attracted to her. No. It will not. Once a man is attracted to her, that self esteem may keep him with her; but it is not an attractant. Attraction for men is mostly looks; with a distant second being her kindness and pleasant nature.

    Attraction is don’t get fat, be pretty, and be nice. In that order. Nowhere included in there is “love yourself”. Again, HSE is important for all around good adjustment as a human being. But it’s not an attractant.

  25. 25
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ ssm

    Including married people in this might artificially elevate the female SMV. Married ladies in their forties and fifties may be having regular relations with their husbands, but that doesn’t mean their SMV is high enough that a lot of other men would want them. It’s the wife goggles effect, I suppose. I think when my husband looks at me, he sees my 44-year-old face through the filter of the 22-year-old woman he married.

    Limiting the data set to single, non-religious people might show a lower female SMV.

    Certainly, this will affect the data. However, the problem is that women who’re still single in their 40s are not representative of most women, so their average SMV will not be representative of average overall SMV for women in their 40s. Also for the same reason, the survey I used has extremely small sample sizes for unmarried middle aged people.

  26. 26
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ deti

    I think self-esteem can increase attractiveness slightly by helping a girl “be available”.

  27. 27
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Bastiat Blogger

    SN, for what it is worth, noted evolutionary psychologists Pawlowski and Dunbar (of “Dunbar’s Number”, fame) did a study of age vs. mating market value for both genders back in ’99. They found that female values peaked at around age 25 while male values peaked at around 38. The intersection or relative power shift between female decline and male ascendancy occurred at about age 32-33. It should be noted that women in their early 20s had peak values substantially higher than peak men did, but the decline was dramatic at age 30. The male market value increase and eventual decrease was more gradual.

    Fascinating! Here’s the link for everyone:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689672/pdf/10081164.pdf

    It’s shifted 5-10 years relative to what is seen in my proxies. Wonder whether this is a difference due to different proxy (specifically, where OKCupid skews younger, this will skew much older), or it measures a shift in preferences over the past 10 years.

    Interestingly, the same thing was done in Brazil. The age difference in SMV peaks seems to be amplified massively there:

    http://www1.appstate.edu/~kms/classes/psy3100/Documents/Campos02.pdf

  28. 28
    Han Solo says:

    @Nemesis

    Yes, it can make her more flirty and “available” so that will definitely help but it’s not going to make a huge difference in her SMV, maybe 1/2 a point. It will get her noticed a lot though because most women go around with a sullen look and try to act invisible to men and are weary of creeps. So for a woman to do the opposite and be outgoing and flirty and show that she likes men and particularly the man she’s talking with will make a huge difference in getting men to feel like she won’t launch a sexual assault lawsuit, per Tom Brady SNL skit.

  29. 29
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Travis

    Off topic, but is it just me or has HUS completely jumped the shark? I used to love reading the excellent discussions over there in the comment threads. Now, it’s dead. Susan seems to have switched to full on blue-pill echo chamber mode. Sad. Thankfully, you guys seem to be filling the void quite nicely. Keep up the good work.

    It has gone full-fledged blue pill. Most of the good commenters at HUS have abandoned ship to the HUSsies and relocated here.

  30. 30
    deti says:

    Sir Nemesis:

    Female availability isn’t an attraction factor. Availability is just the female’s relative level of dedication and commitment to finding and being in a relationship. It’s how busy she is time-wise; and how emotionally accessible she is.

    A man will pursue a woman he’s attracted to until he determines she’s not available for whatever reason. But her availability or lack thereof only affects whether a relationship or encounter of whatever duration could or does occur. It affects her openness and receptiveness. To those extents, availability is an important factor in whether she’s relationship-ready. But, it has nothing to do with whether he’s attracted to her.

  31. 31
    deti says:

    Hmmm. Nemesis and Han are talking about extrovertedness and being outgoing. Social availability.

    I was talking about time devotion and emotional readiness.

    Yes, the “availablility” Nemesis and Han are talking about will affect a woman’s SMV because it has to do with her “being nice”. Men overwhelmingly perceive flirtiness, being engaging, and talking to men as “being nice” which is attractive.

  32. 32
    Morpheus says:

    Sir Nemesis, good work. SN is a great addition to the team here although the number is now thrown off. :) Not renaming the blog though.

  33. 33
    Morpheus says:

    HS @ 14

    “I agree that the male SMV is basically only discovered under the heat of “battle.” Men who don’t engage and escalate are left in the land of potential, mounds of dough that have yet to see their final form that only passing through the fiery oven reveals.”

    Absolutely true. You only know how good a mountain climber you are by actually getting out there and successfully climbing and seeing what difficulty level you fail at.

    Throughout my time discussing SMP/mating type issues, this seems like one of the most difficult for women to grasp. It probably has something to do with men being the pursuers and women being the passive recipients of male approach and pursuit.

  34. 34
    Morpheus says:

    I & I @ 16

    Whatever else, I’ll say that PJ comes up with some interesting usernames

  35. 35
    Morpheus says:

    Once you’ve reached that place, amazing things will happen. People, including men, will want to be around you. Trust me, I routinely punched above my weight when I was single owing to this one quality. I more than held my own against prettier women because I knew I had a lot to offer and acted that way.

    There is an alternative interpretation here, and I’ll just leave it at that.

  36. 36
    Morpheus says:

    BB @ 19,

    Great stuff. I really enjoy hearing these reports about experiments where you force choices to be made, and observe the actual real choices people make under constraints. These types of experiments are a thousand times for informative and telling than some hypothetical surveys without real choices to be made.

    I wonder how many people would actually answer a survey and say “Yes, I would be a sadistic SOB”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

    Interesting excerpt:

    The results of the experiment favor situational attribution of behavior rather than dispositional attribution.

    My own sense is that much mating/dating/sexual behavior is situational rather than dispositional. In other words, people are responding to the environment, and the incentive structure a particular time and environment affords. I think women are perhaps even more situational in that they adapt to their opportunity set which changes because of their shifting SMV. It seems to me situational attribution probably does a better job of describing empirical reality instead of a dispositional view that conveniently sorts people into two camps, the “unrestricted sluts/cads” having casual promiscuous sex, and the “restricted” who only want monogamous relationships.

  37. 37
    Morpheus says:

    Response to an e-mail that I want to throw out there….I’ve been pondering a theory.

    I first started thinking about this because of a work/boss situation, and then with a hard look in the mirror realized it applied to myself to some degree, and now I see it elsewhere as well.

    If you have a situation where person A is very critical of some behavior, some habit, or something person B does, it is because person A has the same flaw, behavior, themself, and thus dealing with it, or witnessing it, reminds them of the part of themselves they hate the most so they redirect that hatred/negative feelings at someone else or at the least externally.

    So for example, the boss who harps on being organized, keeping projects on track as a flaw in your work performance may in fact be disorganized and lack planning himself. Your failure reminds him of his own failures.

    Similary, the person who makes a crusade of railing against cads and sluts may have been a very promiscuous person themself.

    I’ve noticed this pattern enough in people to think there is something to this.

  38. 38
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Morpheus

    Sir Nemesis, good work. SN is a great addition to the team here although the number is now thrown off. :) Not renaming the blog though.

    Haha. It adds a certain humorous quality to the blog name.

  39. 39
    Han Solo says:

    Morpheus, I think there is something to that in some cases, that the critic is guilty of the thing they rail against. But there are also many cases where that’s not true.

    Also, related to your point on dispositional vs situational, I think that there is a spectrum of innate disposition and then that is further influenced by the environment. Which is bigger, I don’t know. Probably the environment since if you make the environment restrictive enough then people won’t do what they might want to or make it permissive enough and some of the “restricted people” will even do some shit once or twice.

  40. 40
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ BB

    Re: student responses

    Just for fun, would you be able to post a link to the images? Want to see what kind of reaction I have to the hot BK and hot executive comparison.

  41. 41
    Morpheus says:

    Morpheus, I think there is something to that in some cases, that the critic is guilty of the thing they rail against. But there are also many cases where that’s not true.

    Oh, for sure. No doubt. I wasn’t arguing that critics are always guilty of the same behavior. I just think it is almost unexpected and counterintuitive. You’d think if person A has a flaw or exhibits a certain behavior they would be more sympathetic to person B with the same flaw or behavior, but instead they often become the worst critic. I think this probably happens when person A is really bothered by the behavior himself and has unsuccessfully tried to change it. In that case, you and that behavior become like holding a mirror.

    Also, related to your point on dispositional vs situational, I think that there is a spectrum of innate disposition and then that is further influenced by the environment. Which is bigger, I don’t know. Probably the environment since if you make the environment restrictive enough then people won’t do what they might want to or make it permissive enough and some of the “restricted people” will even do some shit once or twice.

    No doubt. I strongly agree that all sorts of attributes are “hardwired” into people but it becomes a matter of degrees and then the environment and incentives. A good example of this might be how military service changes the behavior patterns of many young men who were previously delinquents and troublemakers.

  42. 42
    Han Solo says:

    Morpheus, yeah, it is interesting that the critic is guilty of the same behavior as often as is the case. I guess that asshole Hugo Shwyzer is a good example.

  43. 43
    Tasmin says:

    “Feeling secure in your ability to do anything you set your mind to, including charming the guy behind you in line.”

    This business about “punching above my weight” is a recurring theme at HUS to the point of it being a bit of a tell as to the endgame. Be it ‘building better betas’ or ‘taming the alpha’ it is really about getting those women closer to realizing their entitlements. HUS is constantly alternating between contradictory positions with the only commonality being essentially how to be more strategic in converting hypergamy into an annuity.

    Confidence is an interesting attribute in women. I’ve got mixed feelings about it, but that is mostly because I detest high ego in women. And these days, self-promotion is such a commonality that I often don’t have the stomach to dig through the detritus to figure out what is behind that ‘confidence’.

    Personally, the type of confidence I find ‘attractive’ has less to do with her job or status but is more about how she carries herself in the company of others; it is about how confident she is in her own skin, which is to say, being a Lady and not some cocky SVP of PR in an expensive suit with a revolving door to her crotch. To me confidence is too easily lumped into the Empowerment movement, which is in turn, part of the Entitlement movement.

    I see it all the time. The ‘confidence’ decays into the: “I don’t need a man”, as in I don’t need to do anything, the world (men) should come to me. Essentially, men are mere bit actors in the movie staring her. When she does chose to lead with her confidence in the pursuit of a man, it is almost always a ‘punching above her weight’ scenario. I’ve been on the receiving end of a couple of these situations and it is entirely frustrating. I’ve been blindsided and/or cock-blocked by women who are so ‘confident’ that they just can’t see themselves in any kind of truth or reality. Its a slippery slope for them.

    As for HUS I thought I recall her touching on the issue of young women having been oversold this kind of unbridled confidence and how it can impair their ability to properly assess their own value, their willingness and interest in giving of themselves, and ultimately their happiness; the paralyzing effect of too many options.

    In any case, a bit of confidence is nice, attractive, but I’d bet that a lot of men see true and healthy confidence – or lack of – as a measure of how much work/energy she will take/require versus how much energy she can create/contribute to the pairing. The trick about female confidence is that it can easily press that bit of vulnerability that men like/want/need out of the equation. Men may not benefit from showing chinks in their armor, but I think women certainly can.

    The 3-prong approach suggested by Bastiat makes a lot of sense to me, but this is something I have found to be extremely rare, if for no other reason than most women just don’t understand or seem to even care what men are really attracted to – or think. They are allergic to those truths. But with all of the noise in the SMP these days it is hardly a surprise. Too much of the strong independent woman’s confidence comes from either areas that are of little interest/value to her potential mates and from male attention – particularly ‘punching above her weight’ sexually that when they attempt to utilize that same confidence in securing a mate—Husband, he is unlikely to see her confidence anywhere near as positively. Thats why Bastiat’s take makes a bit more sense than the blanket nicety of “…charming the guy behind you…[because of] …your ability to do anything you set your mind to…”

  44. 44
    Morpheus says:

    Tasmin @ 48,

    It really is about being entitled. The presumption is the woman being entitled to a “quality” man for a relationship/marriage (however we want to define quality) rather than actually working on herself to bring equal value to the table.

    Re confidence..that is one of those squishy words that means a lot of different things. I’ve actually tried to get my fiancee to be more confident in certain situations and a bit more bold and take charge. There are times when I am not around or for whatever reason she has to “handle the situation” and I’d like her to push back more. Something simply like calling the managers where we rent and saying “Look, this is how it is going to be”. So I’m actually not opposed to a woman with confidence and some boundaries, but once that crosses some line of being difficult with me or testing me then hey “ce la vie, there is the fucking door and don’t let it hit you on the ass on the way out”. Like men trying to balance alpha and beta, I think there are not many women who balance a confident take charge attitude with knowing when to be more soft and feminine and deferential. I know personally I’d rather err on the side of the woman who sometimes lets some boundaries get overrun by the world over the woman who lives 24/7 in “Grrrrlllllpower, hear me roar” mode.

    As for HUS I thought I recall her touching on the issue of young women having been oversold this kind of unbridled confidence and how it can impair their ability to properly assess their own value, their willingness and interest in giving of themselves, and ultimately their happiness; the paralyzing effect of too many options.

    If I wanted to be cynical, I’d say that the strategy consultant has weighed her alternatives and decided on the MESSAGE most likely to appeal to CUSTOMERS and her blog readers are customers, not participants in an exchange of ideas. The key to repeat business is to not piss off customers by telliing them something they don’t want to hear. Women are fascinating. The vast majority I believe would rather be told something that makes them feel good and plays to their preconceived notions than be told something that makes them “feel bad” yet ultimately may be more productive in solving their problems. But as the old joke in the relationship goes, women don’t want you to solve their problems, they just want you to listen so they can emote.

    Just out of curiousity, how active are you out there right now? Looking hard, just kind of taking it easy. Based on what I’ve read, I can’t see you as the MGTOW type so I’ve got to assume you are active somewhat. What have your recent experiences been like?

  45. 45
    Ted D says:

    There are more than four guys on that beam in the logo picture. :-p

    To me the concept of Just Four Guys was/is more about its roots than where it ends up. Personally I hoped from the beginning other men I’ve come to know online would want to come here and contribute, but I was hoping for comments. I’m humbled and proud that several have showed interest in doing more, and excited at the responses and discussion created by those efforts.

    We were just four guys that wanted some frank discussion on topics we were passionate about. But we were never alone. We may end up with dozens of contributors, yet the concept will always be the same. And wherever it arrives, it started with just four guys.

    /derail off ;-)

  46. 46
    Morpheus says:

    We were just four guys that wanted some frank discussion on topics we were passionate about. But we were never alone. We may end up with dozens of contributors, yet the concept will always be the same. And wherever it arrives, it started with just four guys.

    Ted, I think I just felt a tear drop……is that beta? :) Just kidding

    Seriously, I’m proud so far of what we are doing. Obsidian that relentless pitbull kept pushing to get this thing going (if I am ever in battle, I want him in the foxhole with me). You (Ted) put in the effort to get all the IT stuff up and running. There is no house without a foundation. And Han has cranked out one top-notch piece after another and worked to get exposure. Sir Nemesis has put in a lot work to improve various things as well. And I’m glad to see many of the commenters who’ve shown up.

  47. 47
    BuenaVista says:

    HS #25: “A lot of such dating advice seems to be trying to sell women the hypergamous dream of getting an out of her league Mr. Darcy by having a sassy personality and feeling great about herself.”

    It stands to reason that say, a 6, is going to be much more aggressive in manifesting her “sassy personality” and “high self-esteem” when angling for a 7 or 8, if she’s been instructed that looks don’t matter. So trigger attraction with kewl spunk and nab that guy who’s out of her league. (High five! Like! You go grrl!) It can also be extremely unpleasant on the receiving end. I think I’ve been reading and hearing this stuff my entire adult life.

    I suppose it would work with a weak 4 to 6 male, whose planning to have his wife drive the car for the next 50 years. But there it would be because she passed his eye test, he’s being graced with a woman moving down market with middle market goods, and flipped his “control me” trigger by moving directly to the substitute domineering mommie test. Oh, and because he never heard of hypergamy. Today’s HUS subject is bizarre. If all that self-esteem-over-looks pabulum were true we’d all look like Stevie Wonder. We could just stand there, blind, and revel in the flowing sass. So much flowing sass.

    All in all, it sounds like a great SNL skit.

  48. 48
    BuenaVista says:

    Still shaking my head. I thought having decent self-esteem is good advice on the order of “wear shoes”, “don’t pick your nose”, and “double negatives go over poorly the second time around the faculty lounge.” It’s just advice to be self-aware, healthy, and vaguely human. I have this image of a world awash in sassy, spunky females charging at men with the car salesman’s phony bonhomie. Yikes. I changed my mind, I think I’ll ride my bike.

  49. 49
    BuenaVista says:

    The education of a young man: two bachelors on vacation.

    Father: “Well, son. I get to choose the movie tonight. Liz Hurley, Renee Russo, or Nicole Kidman?”

    20-something son: “Never heard of them. Which one has the highest self-esteem? They don’t get naked do they? I hate that.”

  50. 50
    Tasmin says:

    @Morpheus
    I’ve figured out pretty much the same thing re: confidence in women. I was in a LTR with a very confident woman and while it was nice to have more of that take-care-of-business confidence in a partner, which freed up a lot of energy and time for the both of us, it became problematic because I find that female ‘confidence’ is a lot like status and thus subject to the same kinds of projection, hypergamy, and dominance seeking. IOW, she had a PhD in ‘confidence’, me: just a BA.

    Of course there is affirmative action in this too, male confidence is just average if he can muster enough to confront and resolve what is needed, but if a woman exhibits those same qualities, she is somehow rocking it. This is rife in business, though I was always lucky enough to be in fields that cut to the bone so it wasn’t much of a factor.

    In any case, I too error on the side of preferring her to have a bit of need or doubt as long as it isn’t coming from other deep rooted issues that bring a whole host of other challenges (work and drama) – been there too. But in the case of my high-confidence take-care-of-biz lady, I was never confident enough relative to her own swagger. On paper I was the man, but in reality I just couldn’t get myself to indulge in the ego-swell, the career/status/identity relationship, the conversion of business success into general purpose confidence. I could always take it or leave it. Ill-placed indifference I guess.

    And I agree, “confidence” is slippery. Flat out cocky works on most women as long as the other conditions are right. But I’m just not the personality type to fake-it-till-I-make-it so cocky is off the table. If I was, I would have been in sales and trading and not principal transactions. And by now I’d be on my boat drinking milk from fresh-cracked coconuts between rounds of shooting skeet and free-diving.

    She once said she would be ‘fine’ without me. She thought she was telling me that she was strong, independent, thinking that she was taking some pressure off of my strong provider drive, but in reality she was demonstrating that she didn’t need me, that I was a very nice addition, option, but that she ultimately would never be vulnerable, weak, or needy. Fine, but for the fact that those dual CEO/Captain models are so very tricky to pull off. Regardless, she was right. Sort of. While one day she no longer wanted me, turns out she had found a man with a swagger that managed to overshadow hers. He (apparently) brought the kind of confidence-dominance she was craving. The fact that he just happened to be quite wealthy, older by a nice margin, and a kind of captain of industry sort was just a bit more gravy lol.

    As for where I am at re: the SMP, it is fair to say ‘not active’. I’m a keen observer and quite social, so I’m engaged, ‘out there’ enjoying myself and taking note of how things seem to work, but in no way am I actively doing anything to pursue women or engage in the dating industry. Toe in the water, sure. Always ‘looking’, but rarely directly engaging.

    I’m still working on that confidence, which is now even harder given that I divorced my old high-finance kinda world, and that scarcity mindset tends to rear up in those vacuums of confidence. And honestly I just don’t have the will right now to sort through a population of women that demonstrates very little overlap with what I consider to be interesting/important/valuable/meaningful. I do my best to put myself into settings and venues that work better for me, but it is still about the event/activity and not about mining for poon. I’m not into casual or pua or building harems or spinning nana’s china, but I’m pretty jaded on what remains of actual ‘dating’ too. For fear of sounding like those ‘where are all the good…’ I just do what I can to stay sharp, fit, social, active, and open-hearted/minded and go about my business.

    I’m at a tough age (40) and my career trajectory is that of a paper airplane with a wing on fire. I’ve got limited cash flow to throw around in the social scene so I have to pick my times and places carefully. But a man without that trajectory – hell at my age, without the W2, is in no man’s land. I’ve got a lot of takes on the SMP that I won’t bore you with now, but the short of it is my optimism is fleeting – at least when it comes to women. Indeed, I’m no MGTOW, but I often find my hand unconsciously playing with the ripcord.

  51. 51
    BuenaVista says:

    Morpheus: #42:

    Totally agree. In the SMP, a common shit-testing challenge is “No players need apply.” This, of course, is preparatory to the later, breathless protest back at the house of “I am not a slut.” Same coin.

    In the workplace I stopped working for other people after four years of tap-dancing like the town drunk in an old western, having his toes shot off by the bad guy bully. This served several purposes, including a 7x improvement in shareholder value. Inevitably I saw that my insufficiencies were, in fact, significant business issues that did, in fact require addressing. Why? They existed before I arrived, were ingrained in the culture and structure of the company, and had never been addressed by the ceo/founder. I resigned within 60 minutes of receiving the executed acquisition contract, and the subsequent (merged) unit saw revenues decline by 50% in the first six months. After two years the founder/ceo was thrown out and his next two startups failed. I know this sounds like grandstanding but it happened.

    Or, we can just look at Bo Pelini. Nobody with that level of self-regulation failure has any self-confidence, or any certainty of what to do. So RAGE. This personality type is also the type of executive who hires sycophantic cronies (Pelini’s staff is extremely weak, and he even installed his brother as DC before he had to leave town for boffing students and a leading booster’s daughter-in-law.)

  52. 52
    OffTheCuff says:

    That HSE article reads like it is straight from Cosmo, at least to me, and at first.

    There is a grain of truth, though – is that low-self esteem *can* be a huge turn-off. Someone who is constantly negative really does flip something in my mind, to the point where I wouldn’t want to bother. That’s more correct to say than, perhaps, high self-esteem is attractive by itself.

    Perhaps the difference is intentional, and she’s wording it that way to be more receptive to female ears. Or perhaps it is straight-up blue-pill, where a good looking girl with decent self-image really thinks she needs to be even more confident, to boost attractiveness rather than realtionship worthiness,

    Much like Roissy is maligned for writing hyperbole for betas, maybe she’s doing the same thing ..; writing for already-attractive LSE “beta” women and feeding them some crypto-blue pill stuff to feed their ego, making them think this will make them hotter, when they need to simply close their legs and stand up for themselves to avoid Cad Duplicity.

    Or not. Hard to tell.

  53. 53
    Candide says:

    “It’s a very common thing I see in dating advice for women, that her personality and self esteem and boundaries and whatever else are what will get the man and precious little attention on the elephant in the room–her looks.”

    If a woman doesn’t know that there is an elephant in the room, she IS the elephant.

    Also, there is nothing that wakes up our inner protector instinct like a woman who’s vulnerable and doesn’t think all that highly about herself (as long as she doesn’t reach the line of being a lost cause). Men want to be needed, men want to be the hero.

    A woman with very high self esteem? Perfect candidate for love her then leave her. We will feel zero guilt. Why would we? She seems so confident in herself! She’ll be fine! She’s like that warrior chick or witch babe we bang for fun during the intermission of our hero movie (so the audience can stop bitching about the lack of T&A), as we journey to save the vulnerable hot princess babe from the dragon & ninja warlord.

  54. 54

    […] Just Four Guys (fast becoming my most lurked blog) had an interesting article on Quantifying Sexual Market Value: […]

  55. 55
    Jason says:

    Thanks, interesting read.

  56. 56

    […] Men age like wine, women age like milk. – UnknownThere is a general consensus in the manosphere that young women in their early 20s hold all the power in the sexual marketplace, but that this changes as women start to age and men enter their peak…  […]

  57. 57
    Liz says:

    #19: Interesting, Bastiat. Not surprised about the Burger King versus the suite in either case. But it would be interesting to see why guy the ladies preferred when the man in a suit is compared to something less lucrative but perhaps more stereotypically “manly” (soldier, construction worker, ect).
    Also curious…which top 7women did the men chose to “reflect extreme female physical attractiveness”? I’d be very surprised if the age averaged 25.

  58. 58
    Liz says:

    @32: That figure one chart was pretty interesting.
    Shows this huge difference between the sexes at age 40 and then a steep decline for males to where they hit the same level as women 5 years later. Same for women between 30 and 35. Not sure I buy that value changes so much over any adult five year span of time.

  59. 59

    Liz, someone brought that same issue up re: a military uniform, and stated that she would be more attracted to a hot Marine in dress uniform than to a plain guy in a nice suit. I suppose that this scenario would make the handsome military man potentially both a good Sperm Donor (physically hot, athletic,confident, etc.) and a good Protector (combat training, leadership, bravery), while the suited-and-booted businessman would only have the Provider offering. The low status of the BK outfit seemed to be the deal-killer for women.

    What do you think?

    The male picks were less convergent than the female ones, and only three women were picked by more than one man: Brooklyn Decker (26), Kate Upton (21), and Jennifer Lawrence (23). Other independent selections included MILF pornstar Julia Ann (43), Christina Hendricks (38), “Glee” actress Melissa Benoist (24), Amanda Seyfried (27), pornstar McKenzie Lee (34), and Jessica Biel (31).

  60. 60
    Liz says:

    #64: I’m not surprised some might prefer the military man. I’d actually be surprised if most of them didn’t. Would also be interesting to juxtapose basic BDUs and/or flightsuit instead of dress uniform (I mean, truly, who wouldn’t look hot in Marine service dress?). I’ll bet the military guy would still come out ahead, though it might be closer.

    Interesting about the three top female picks, too. I never would have guessed that. I guess the young ‘uns win afterall. Kate Upton is chubby, Jennifer Lawrence seems a bit manly to me.

  61. 61

    Liz, those three girls weren’t runaway winners—they were the only ones who picked up more than one vote! Unlike the female picks, the male selections were all over the place.

    Re: Jennifer Lawrence. She has grown on me a bit, but I think Jennifer Lawrence is probably most popular among a certain subset. For example, both of the guys who preferred her had a bunch of sci-fi/fantasy genre actresses on their lists (the blonde in the last Star Trek movie, Daenerys Targaryen, etc.).

    The guy who liked Julia Ann also liked Salma Hayek (47) and Monica Belluci (48).

    How Kate Upton won many to her cause:

  62. 62
    Liz says:

    #66: Lol! Definitely impressive.

    I think she went on a diet before that one. She was at least 30 pounds heavier on that last swimsuit illustrated cover.

  63. 63
    photoncourier says:

    Liz…men in military uniforms….what would really be interesting is to identify a subset of women who are very anti-military in their opinions…wait a couple of months…and then get their quick reactions to otherwise-comparable men wearing and not wearing uniforms (yeah, use dress uniforms for this test.) Would the archetype overcome the political opinions?

  64. 64
    BuenaVista says:

    On BB’s attraction variables test, an anecdote:

    I tested a friend of mine last night with the BK hunk/beta-accountant-in-a-suit choice (as I understood it from BB’s post). I specifically noted that it was a choice between a great looking dude her age, 6’3″, 195 lbs., and a guy of indeterminate age, probably around 40, 5’9″ 160 lbs. She’s 23 and a recent social sciences/education graduate who studied, lived and works in a very rural part of the country. (So this is a girl who neither has the financial advantages of BB’s cohort, nor the social experience of the red-hot millennial hook-up circuit.) She had a couple of drinks in her. I didn’t offer pictures, just described the two men as neutrally as I could.

    With zero hesitation, she chose the man 20 years older than she, whose manly virtues (as I interpret them) are that he has a job, some indication of education, and an ability to buy a sack suit at Jos. A. Bank. She said that he would be someone she could rely on and interact with above his shoulders. She noted, “Of course I would, I need someone who will protect me and my children.”

    More interesting to me is that she simultaneously presents herself privately as an overtly sexual being. Or, as I see it, she dresses more like a hot BK model than an assistant director, HR. Last night she was wearing yoga pants, a loose, low-cut tank top that revealed her bra from several angles, which was patterned (camo, actually) and thus chosen to draw eyeballs. Physically, I would describe her as Kate Upton-womanly, though not, as Liz suggests, 30 pounds overweight. I’d say 15. (In this culture, that’s thin.) In the local SMP with boys her age she’s probably a 7. In Nolita she’d be a 5-6. Her last boyfriend was about 5’10″, twenty pounds overweight and unathletic, a biologist, a nice guy who one evening explained that he was good with women because he learned through living with his single mom to just let them direct him. He also has a disability from severe head trauma (he was deployed a few years ago with his Guard unit) that affects his balance. He’s an SMP 6 now, maybe. But that will go up as he gets his promotions. I would guess she’ll marry someone like him in the next few years and move to Omaha or Des Moines, moving from the farm to the cubicle farm.

    So I next asked her what she thought men valued most in a woman, in regard to attraction. I used Deti’s three plus Susan’s new dependent variable, self-esteem. I listed them in this order as:

    a. face
    b. weight
    c. self-esteem
    d. being nice

    This was more challenging for her, apparently. Also, it’s extremely dicey to ever discuss weight with a woman, at least for me and in my explanation I did somewhat gloss over the weight deal as we had previously been discussing my Paleo regime and current fitness efforts. My de-emphasis of the weight item may have corrupted the exam.

    Her rank ordering of male attraction cues shifted a couple of times, but seemed to settle on:

    a. face
    b. being nice
    c. self-esteem
    d. weight

    While she hasn’t gotten the memo that the way to capture her beta-accountant was with SASS!, she did seem fully indoctrinated in the beauty-is-unrelated-to-my-eating-habits ethic. Or else she may be of the mind, as am I, that discussing a woman’s weight is right up there with discussing personal grooming preferences. Don’t know. Also, she was puzzled at the distinction between “being nice” and having “self-esteem.” She did not think “being nice” involved being assertive or pushy or self-congratulatory; she thought that having self-esteem was a bit of a non-issue, as to her it meant “being healthy upstairs.” Exercise complete, we went back to our pool game, which I continued to lose.

  65. 65
    BuenaVista says:

    Liz, #67: I like to look at Upton as much as the next guy, and especially if she is dancing like that. But her midsection from both front and back these days is a horror show. Often she appears to have no waist. I can’t help but cringe a bit at the impact a couple of children are going to have. (This, of course, is a high-class problem I will never have.)

  66. 66

    OT: has anyone seen this documentary before about that syphilis epidemic among high-schoolers in Georgia a long time ago?

    youtube.com/watch?v=7LBh32C0Qpk

    I’ve read about it on Wikipedia before and recently found it posted on youtube. I couldn’t help but notice that it’s massively blue-pill, and there’s kind of a misandrist undertone to it. The subject itself is red pill though, of course. Sadly there’s a part in it about Christian pop that’s massively boring.

  67. 67
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Liz

    Also curious…which top 7women did the men chose to “reflect extreme female physical attractiveness”? I’d be very surprised if the age averaged 25.

    Certainly. Most women don’t become famous actresses until their 30s. That’s why the “before and after makeup” pictures are so effective – they have to hide their aging with careful makeup and lighting.

  68. 68
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Liz

    @32: That figure one chart was pretty interesting.
    Shows this huge difference between the sexes at age 40 and then a steep decline for males to where they hit the same level as women 5 years later. Same for women between 30 and 35. Not sure I buy that value changes so much over any adult five year span of time.

    There is a margin of error on that graph. I suspect once the sampling error is removed the graph would show a slightly somewhat decline (as seen in the OKCupid graph).

  69. 69
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ hoellenhund2

    I’ve read about it on Wikipedia before and recently found it posted on youtube. I couldn’t help but notice that it’s massively blue-pill, and there’s kind of a misandrist undertone to it. The subject itself is red pill though, of course. Sadly there’s a part in it about Christian pop that’s massively boring.

    Haven’t watched it myself. I do recall my mother talking about it after she watched it on Netflix though. From what I could tell, it sounded very blue pill in its presentation. On the other hand, when you think about it, girls sleeping around with a bunch of cads (the kind of cads that’ll be effective transmission vectors for syphilis) is as red pill as it gets.

  70. 70
  71. 71
    Han Solo says:

    He’s probably thinking, “best favor you ever did me, what was I thinking before?”

  72. 72
    Sir Nemesis says:

    O/T: Linus Torvalds sure knows how to hold his frame: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1307.1/03558.html

  73. 73
    Liz says:

    #77: You’re a troll and an idiot.

  74. 74
    Liz says:

    Can we kick PJ away forever please? Can’t you figure out the ip address she is posting from and disable it?

  75. 75

    This is such an important post. I can’t emphasize that enough. All betas, gammas, and omegas should be forced to read it. That’s something as an alpha I struggle with. I feel we have a duty to evangelize the red pill to these less fortunate non-alphas.

  76. 76
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ Liz

    She has ways around that, but I have a few tricks up my sleeve too. We’ll let her engage in the special ADMIN thread, but stop her from commenting elsewhere.

  77. 77
    Sir Nemesis says:

    Pure red pill goodness right here:

    http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1307.1/03727.html

    wrote:
    >
    > Oh, FFS, I just called out on private email for “playing the victim
    > card”. I will repeat: this is not just about me, or other minorities.
    > I should not have to ask for professional behavior on the mailing lists.
    > Professional behavior should be the default.

    Bullshit.

    The thing is, the “victim card” is exactly about trying to enforce
    your particular expectations on others, and trying to do so in a very
    particular way. It’s the old “think of the children” argument. And
    it’s bogus. Calling things “professional” is just more of the same -
    trying to enforce some kind of convention on others by trying to claim
    that it’s the only acceptable way.

    [ Since you seem to want to keep this in public, I'll just
    cut-and-paste from my reply, so you have already seen this part of my
    argument, it's only slightly edited because now I'm no longer typing
    on my cellphone ]

    The thing is, different people act and react differently. On both
    sides. And I think we should recognize that and also *allow* for that.
    And sometimes it means, for example, that people interact primarily
    with certain people that they like more – because they are a better
    “fit”.

    I think we actually do it very naturally, simply because we are human,
    and this is how people interact in real life too. Sometimes we do it
    consciously – the way we have people at various companies that act as
    go-betweens – but most of the time we do it just because humans are
    all about social interactions and we don’t even think about what we do
    and why.

    For example, you work mostly through Greg. I don’t think either of you
    *planned* it that way, but it’s likely because you guys work well
    together.

    See what I’m saying? People are different. I’m not polite, and I get
    upset easily but generally don’t hold a grudge – I have these
    explosive emails. And that works well for some people. And it probably
    doesn’t work well with you.

    And you know what? That’s fine. Not everybody had to get along or work
    well with each other. But the fact that it doesn’t work with you
    doesn’t make it “wrong”.

    This isn’t all that different from working around language issues etc
    by having certain people work as in-betweens on that front.

    And where we differ is in thinking either side has to necessarily
    change. You think people need to act “nicer”. While I think it’s
    *natural* that people have different behavior – and different
    expectations. We all have issues somewhere and don’t all like each
    other. There are certain people I refuse to work with, for example.
    They may be good engineers, but they just aren’t people I can work
    with.

    And hey, I don’t actually think we’ve personally even had any
    problems. And I realize that you may react very strongly and get
    nervous about us having problems, but realistically, do you actually
    expect to like all the other kernel engineers?

    And equally importantly, not everybody has to like you, or necessarily
    think they have to be liked by you. OK?

    So as far as I’m concerned, the discussion is about “how to work
    together DESPITE people being different”. Not about trying to make
    everybody please each other. Because I can pretty much guarantee that
    I’ll continue cursing. To me, the discussion would be about how to
    work together despite these kinds of cultural differences, not about
    “how do we make everybody nice and sing songs sound the campfire”

    Do you think you might be interested in *that* kind of discussion
    instead of the “you are abusing me” kind of discussion?

    Because if you want me to “act professional”, I can tell you that I’m
    not interested. I’m sitting in my home office wearign a bathrobe. The
    same way I’m not going to start wearing ties, I’m *also* not going to
    buy into the fake politeness, the lying, the office politics and
    backstabbing, the passive aggressiveness, and the buzzwords. Because
    THAT is what “acting professionally” results in: people resort to all
    kinds of really nasty things because they are forced to act out their
    normal urges in unnatural ways.

    Linus

  78. 78
    Sir Nemesis says:

    And there is more:

    http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1307.1/03799.html

    On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:15 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
    >
    > One thing you should keep in mind in your discussion is what can happen
    > if people get too polite with each other.
    >
    > I have seen this happen at two large companies I worked for. Early on, flames
    > are acceptable and expected as response to someone publishing bad code which
    > breaks everything for everyone. Then, at some point, it is not acceptable
    > anymore to flame, and one is expected to be polite and friendly at all times.
    > “Your code breaks the build for every platform. Would you please kindly
    > consider fixing it ?”
    > Result is that code quality suffers, to the point where images don’t even
    > build anymore.
    >
    > I hope the Linux kernel never gets into that stage. To avoid that,
    > I am willing to be cursed at by Linus if I am the responsible party.

    Didn’t Jim Zemlin show some research where there were two groups:

    One that did a bunch of brain storming where no idea was a bad idea

    The other required you to defend your idea while the others bashed it.

    The results always showed that the second group not only did a better
    job, but also faster and more efficient.

    I’m afraid if we worry too much about politeness, we will fall into that
    first group.

    – Steve

    Seriously this is a case study on the feminization of the workplace.

  79. 79
    Sir Nemesis says:

    It gets better:

    http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1307.1/03756.html

    Sarah will bring the brownies.

    Linus

  80. 80
    BuenaVista says:

    On Torvalds:

    I used to write for a couple football blogs. Left when it became clear that there is almost a physical law operating on the ‘net now. From an anarchic contest of ideas, sometimes bawdy and profane, the net is now increasingly democratic. Thus the nature of things inevitably produces more Sarahs than Linuses. The Sarahs then invoke “don’t hurt my feelings, my ideas and blurts are just as good as yours, and if you don’t, you are something-ist.” The Linuses, nostalgic for anarchic conflict and thought, try for a bit, and say, “No, they’re not as good, so shut up and try harder.” The Sarahs reveal their gross numerical superiority. “Hater! You think you’re so superior!” Gradually, the Linuses withdraw: “I don’t have time for this shit.” There’s a tipping point, and the forum becomes a loser-fest of telegraphic nothings.

    I think it’s a little like the contrast between the kinds of discussions we would have over beers in the campus tavern, carrying over from the evening seminar. And a C-track high school english class, where they’re reading Rowling because Catcher in the Rye presents retrograde gender constructions, and the teacher goes around the room asking, “And how did today’s two-page reading assignment *make you feel.*

    The manosphere is curious for it’s self-policing, as we saw today. Of course the very subject matter encourages assertive behavior, rather than fan-boy mobism.

  81. 81

    Re: female advice on male attractiveness cues. I personally believe that a lot of the advice that women tend to give other women in terms of SMV enhancement-type stuff is heavily pre-filtered in order to make sure that the advice given would not result in higher female intrasexual competition if it was to be actually deployed in the mating market.

    So a recommendation from one woman to another may avoid really, truly, almost absurdly obvious stuff that men are known to like (this direct approach is reviled as “pandering to men”) in favor of things that other women would find acceptable if they were moving in the targeted female’s social sphere and observing her appearance/behavior. Perhaps this is related to the reason why successful erotic chick-lit fiction frequently features a relatively awkward, non-alpha-sexy female who is barely described physically being fanatically pursued by at least one extremely good-looking, wealthy, sophisticated man who is repeatedly and lovingly described in chiseled, washboard-abbed physical detail (Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, the Anita Blake novels, etc., etc.).

    This is not always true, of course, and some women seem to be hard-nosed analytical realists who offer extremely good advice to both women and men. But the edited, anti-competitive frenemy stuff apparently happens regularly enough that many “alpha” women I know have learned to be wary of the advice or recommendations that they receive from other women where pure SMV/attractiveness to men are concerned. Doing things that guys find particularly exciting in a sexual way can be seen as a kind of defection or an aggressive price-war trigger or mate-poaching threat or something similar.

    When women’s magazines do request input from men on SMV-related topics, the male writers seem to usually be either homosexuals or deceptive terrorists like (Prof. Schwyzer.

  82. 82
    DME says:

    I can easily see how self esteem and general confidence could have a large effect on mating results for women, Despite not being a primary attractor in and of itself. You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take and so on. Dating and the marriage market comes down to selling yourself, And ultimately one of the biggest components of sales is realizing that what your selling has value.

    If self esteem is the difference between being in the game and watching the game, Then thats a huge effect right there.

    If confidence is the difference between a baggy sweater and mom jeans, Or a pushup bra and a plunging neckline…

    I think you guys underestimate the effort women put into dating. I think you have a little apex fallacy of your own going on. Most women can’t just sit back and rake in the bounty of male attention, They have to be at least a little proactive. Both in maximizing appearance and in putting themselves into social situations where they can be approached. Women aren’t getting guys coming up to them in their living rooms…

    Take a look around next time your out and about and see how many women you can find who you think, with the right clothes, hair, makeup or whatever, could be 7′s or 8′s. I bet it’s more than a few. It takes some measure of self esteem to put your best foot forward, To deal with the possibility of failure, rather than just frumping along hoping for the best. That goes for women as much as men.

  83. 83
    BuenaVista says:

    I assume 82, which is opinion in search of evidence, is another PJ distraction.

  84. 84
    finndistan says:

    Many are looking at this from the point of view of “Women’s SMV will decline, men’s will rise and surprass the women’s over time; so this is wrong”.

    This is the wrong approach.

    For a man to have the potential SMV of a young nubile girl at any point in his life, he has to be Gene Simmons, any high level sports star, the Prez, etc, if I need to take it to an exaggeration.

    Gene Simmons, the legend claims 2000 notches, forgot the name, the NBA star another few thousand etc. Do you personally know anyone who can ever reach that number, given at least some level of attractiveness on the women?

    Now, how many women can reach thousands in their lifetime given they have the intention. 1, 2, 3.. counting, 10, who are at least in their hundreds, 20.. ok that blondie, this brunette… almost any attractive girl can reach thousands given the inclination and time, with attractive men.

    What happens is a relative decline in the woman’s SMV, and a relative increase in a man’s SMV.

    You do not compare yourself to the apex. You compare yourself to yourself.

    For a woman of 20: This is your peak, use it or lose it.
    For a man of 20: This is your bottom. If you work hard, it will only get better. Work it or never reach it.

    For a man wanting the same sexual power that his high school female mates had in their early twenties is absurd and counterproductive.

    Also we should not confuse Sexual Market Value for women with Relationship Market Value for women. The second takes an even larger dip as the baggage of the soul is heavier than the baggage o the vagina as time passes by.

    The Man’s SMV and RMV increase in tandem, if he improves, while the woman’s SMV and RMV dip, with the RMV jumping down the cliff.

    And since by the time the SMV and RMV has dipped, the woman enters settling mode, which one is more damaging to her?

  85. 85
    St Swithunus says:

    @SirNemesis
    “Seriously this is a case study on the feminization of the workplace.”

    yeah, your stereotypical invade a male place then start demanding that the tone of the place change to suit women. Which wouldn’t be a problem except that female workstyles don’t work as well for men. “Oh isn’t this a nice place to be, maybe we’ll get round to doing the job sometime” vs “let’s get the work done”.

    I vote for Linus, I’d happily work for a guy that gave honest feedback.

  86. 86
    DME says:

    “BuenaVista says:
    September 20, 2013 at 3:44 am

    I assume 82, which is opinion in search of evidence, is another PJ distraction.”

    Nah. Just the radical notion that the problem, like most, is more complex than “Gah… women are all whores”, or “Ugh… Men are all pigs”. Hot people put effort into being hot. The number of people for whom “sexy” just comes natural is vanishingly small. More people putting more effort into being attractive means more aggregate happiness for everyone. More self esteem means people are more likely to value themselves enough to put in the work required. Good for everyone, men and women.

  87. 87
    BuenaVista says:

    DME, you have a serious problem with straw man argumentation, which of course is a waste of time to engage. Here’s it’s also quite insulting. But if you think a man looks across a train platform and says, “Now there’s a woman with self-esteem”, you are spending time with men I’ve never met. Self-esteem is a second order attribute, like honesty or diligence. It’s invisible on first blush.

  88. 88
    DME says:

    I didn’t say anything about it being a primary attractor in and of itself. I said it is necessary to have some measure of confidence in yourself to succeed in the dating game. Men need it to approach, women need it to open themselves to be approached, or to give signals that an approach would be welcomed.

    Just as their are men who lack the confidence to approach women and to do the things necessary to make themselves attractive to them, Their are women who lack the confidence to signal interest to men and to do the things that make them attractive to the men they want. Confidence or self esteem doesn’t have to be a primary attractiveness criteria to have a large effect on your smv. Guys don’t look across train platforms and say “Now there’s a woman with self esteem”. They do say “Now there’s a woman who takes pride in her appearance, and does the best she can with what she’s got”. Or more likely “Wow she’s hot”.

    Still not a controversial statement.

  89. 89
    BuenaVista says:

    I need sleep and an alarm clock, in order to have time to dress and head out for the day, rested and scrubbed. Sleep and an alarm clock are necessary to Game. I drink water. Water keeps me alive and improves my skin: water is essential to Game.

    I’m not feeling elevated by these observations and this conversation. Perhaps you might re-read Deti’s post.

  90. 90
    DME says:

    Well I was more addressing the discussion of the HUS post, which I imagined would be obvious, but hey…

  91. 91
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ DME

    Nah. Just the radical notion that the problem, like most, is more complex than “Gah… women are all whores”, or “Ugh… Men are all pigs”. Hot people put effort into being hot. The number of people for whom “sexy” just comes natural is vanishingly small. More people putting more effort into being attractive means more aggregate happiness for everyone. More self esteem means people are more likely to value themselves enough to put in the work required. Good for everyone, men and women.

    Poor choice of words or Freudian slip?

  92. 92
    DME says:

    Maybe poor choice of words. I just get a little annoyed at all the snarking and blame casting on both sides of the equation. I read both manosphere sites and feminist sites and the parallels between mens and womens experiences kind of pile up. The “Women are just hypergamous whores. They should be glad to just have a dude with a job”‘s, parallel the “Men are just shallow pigs. They should be glad to have a woman, who cares if shes 300 lbs”. The experience of the average men and women gets kind of lost in the shuffle, as both sides focus on the experience of the most attractive members. Most women aren’t just casually using up men and throwing them away, and most men aren’t fucking their way through entire cheerleading squads.

    In my eyes the biggest contribution of the “red pill” community, is to disseminate a more accurate picture of male and female attraction vectors, and to encourage people to take ownership of their own problems. I see more people realizing that others are going to treat them just about as bad as they allow themselves to be treated, and that, yes, they are going to have to put in some work to get what they want, as an unalloyed good. And I don’t see this as a gendered truth.

    As to HUS, I think Susan learned a lot from reading Mathew Hussey, who is a genius at taking red pillish truths and coaching them in ways that women find more palatable. I think it’s much easier to deliver some pretty bitter medicine if you mix a spoonful of sugar in there, and more so for women. Susan has stated that she started the site to help young women find the relationships they want. If she thinks the new version of HUS is a better way to do that, then hey it’s her business. I personally enjoyed hus for the discussions in the comment threads, so when she made the switch I started reading here.

  93. 93
    Han Solo says:

    @DME 82

    I can see how self esteem (or whatever other factors) lead a woman to upping her looks and personality and getting into environments where suitable men are and making herself available and open for conversation with such men and being willing to go out will have a large positive effect on a woman’s dating results. So I agree with you there.

    I disagree with your belief that men, or we men commenting here, think the following,

    I think you guys underestimate the effort women put into dating. I think you have a little apex fallacy of your own going on. Most women can’t just sit back and rake in the bounty of male attention, They have to be at least a little proactive. Both in maximizing appearance and in putting themselves into social situations where they can be approached. Women aren’t getting guys coming up to them in their living rooms…

    In fact, I’ve often said (at other places where there was more focus on girl game) that even small improvements in looks, personality and being approachable and more realistic in who a woman’s expecting to date or marry will have large positive benefits for her dating life.

    We certainly realize that most women that put little effort into their appearance or meeting men will not just have lots of men fall into their lap.

    I’ve often said that girl game consists of 4 main things:

    1) Improve your appearance
    2) Improve your personality
    3) Make your expectations realistic; more in line with who you can get for an LTR/marriage than who you can get for a fling, assuming that the LTR is the woman’s goal; a woman can usually have sex with higher SMV guys than she can LTR or marry
    4) “Market” herself by getting out of the house and being approachable wherever she goes and lowering the bitch shield or the shy shield and showing interest and flirting with guys that are reasonable candidates (not out of her league and not pure cads or players).

  94. 94
    Han Solo says:

    @Bastiat 81

    Yeah, I agree that there’s the avoiding competition factor going on in their advice, probably subconsciously, often. There’s also the part of her herd or not dynamic where a woman will sweeten her words and evaluation of an ally and sour them for an enemy. So the female 6 will be told by her female friends that she’s so pretty (or an 8 in the ‘sphere’s crasser dialect haha) and that’s she’s so fat and has a big chin by her enemies (or a 4).

  95. 95
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    I really wish we wouldn’t harsh on the HUS 2.0 too much. It’s her website, it’s her mission, she can do what she wants with it. Personally, I think it is not very effective, and defintiely not effective for blue-pill guys at all, and I think basically all useful conversation in the comments has ceased.
    BUT
    BUT
    BUT
    HUS was absolutely essential in my own self-improvement. A lot of the Game websites treat guys like me pretty harshly. Susan did not. She was extremely encouraging of Beta traits. For all her faults, and everyone has faults, she helped me out a lot.

    On to the post, this definitely reflects what I see. On the other hand, most of the guys I know have essentially decided to drop out of the market. They aren’t players in any sense of the word. They have been so throughly reject by girls that they put in no effort anymore.
    Such a shame.

    Other funny story, one of my good buddies went out on a first date with a girl he met on Match. He liked her and said “well, she does have a few extra pounds….”
    Showed me a picture.
    Definitely “thick”
    I told him he shouldn’t see her anymore.
    Lots of girls punching above their weight and it pisses me off.

    Han, I’ll email you some pictures….there’s a sizable SMV discrepancy on this one, lol. What’s your email?

  96. 96
    DME says:

    Well I am certainly happy enough to be wrong. I do agree with you re. your 4 points, though I think #3 is the toughest sell. I’m not sure anyone has come up with a great way to market that idea to women. Mathew Hussey probably comes closest, in some of his youtube videos he comes perilously close to giving women the straight dope but still manages to couch it in femcentric language. You should check out his youtube channel, it’s a great example of selling to your audience.

  97. 97
    Han Solo says:

    @ADBG

    Yes, she can do what she wants, of course. It’s just a shame to me since it used to be such a great place for discussion. And ironically enough, HUS was the main source of me taking the red pill, mostly in the comment section, where, even though a more purple-pill was the official tone back then, reddish pill ideas were definitely allowed to be discussed. And sites more tolerant of beta are needed that help beta men (most men are betas and they’re never going to stop being betas–cogs in the machine–but they can grow spines) to see the light and let go of the antigame and add in some positive game and add a little alpha.

    Too bad about your friends dropping out. Perhaps they’ll re-enter in 5 or 10 years once their female cohort’s SMV has dropped a bit and their marriage/LTR focus has increased.

    As to your friend, I actually wouldn’t necessarily discourage him. The odd thing is that starting low can actually really help a guy learn more about women, develop some confidence and even suboptimal preselection can strangely enough help the guy appear more attractive to other women, both because of the preselection and because it helps him to relax more and be more confident and present himself in a better light. Now there’s a limit too. If a guys dating someone 3 or 4 points below him then he might want to reconsider. But if that’s the only woman he can get then she’s probably not actually 3 or 4 pts below him, although she might be if he really busts his ass to improve his value.

    Emails can be found in the contact us page. Mine’s hansolo@justfourguys.com

  98. 98
    BuenaVista says:

    I’m sure I’ll regret this. Nobody is talking about what is the “toughest sell.” People are talking about science, evidence, hypotheses, proofs. If feminists want to discard #3, who cares? That’s like saying the sound barrier is a “tough sell”, because control reversal is counter-intuitive. Tell that to the pilot. He would prefer the aerodynamical truth to ideology. It’s his ass.

    So therefore you think we need a better way to “market” something that doesn’t exist, and is already disproven. Basically, you’re repeating pop feminist culture talking points that have no basis in behavioral science, or even fit into any theory of behavioral science. Thus I’m not sure what your point is, other than receiving attention.

    I should think that even a modestly equipped human would wonder, if “self-esteem” is such an attractor, why porn stars are high value SMP icons to BB’s class. There are very few classes of human with lower self-esteem than a porn actress. They’re walking catastrophes.

    And … Straight and level, no less. Forgive the airplane porn.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/FA-18_Hornet_breaking_sound_barrier_%287_July_1999%29_-_filtered.jpg

  99. 99
    Han Solo says:

    @DME

    Yes, #3 is one of the tough parts of girl game, realizing that the hottest man she can fuck for a night or a month is most likely hotter or much hotter than the man she can marry (though exceptions exist).

    One somewhat successful way I’ve found to get the subject of #3 across to women is to play into their perception that men that reject them are assholes. And who tends to reject them or P&D them? Well, one big category is out-of-their-league men. So you get talking about some guy who she thought was an asshole and you can ferret out a bit of whether he was cheating or dating others or quickly hooked up with someone after breakup (which implies he has lots of options similar to her and implies he’s of higher SMV) but you just get the info at that point and don’t try to make a point of it. Then you find out the other guys that are really interested in her and IME they always have some, unless they’re literal hermits or outright butt-ugly 1′s, and you figure out why she’s not interested in those guys. Then at some point you make the shift and say, “so out of all the guys interested in you, including some sincere, good guys that really want to treat you right, you chose the asshole???” And you say it with a mock-shocked voice and a bit of a smile like you’re on her side but you’re also shaking your head in mild “shame” and rolling your eyes. She should kind of laugh or have a sheepish grin if you’re doing it with the right tone of voice and body language and say something like, “I know! I’m such an idiot.”

    Once she recognizes she was going for an asshole while rejecting the nice guy you can eventually move into examining what she liked about the asshole and didn’t about the nice guy and at some point you can point out the other women of presumably similar SMV to her that the asshole was flirting with or had after him and that he was probably just wanting her for sex (that’s an idea that most women agree with!). The trick is to use things that they’ll easily agree with and recognize and go about it slowly, with humor, so she can recognize and accept, and you always have to make it clear you’re on her side, part of her microherd and not trying to destroy her (avoid triggering a woman’s fight or flight mode).

    If she doesn’t get it clearly enough then you can say that she should give the good guys that would really be excited about her a chance instead of just going for the hot asshole that doesn’t value her. Whether or not you say she was going for someone out of her league is optional, depending on the vibe you’re feeling with her.

  100. 100
    BuenaVista says:

    For me, incidentally, the coolest thing about this pic is revealed when you blow it up, and see the aviator staring calmly at his lead as he blows M1. If lead was another F-18, he took this picture with one hand while penetrating the mystical barrier. A long way from Yeager and Crossfield at Edwards. I met Crossfield a couple of times at Leesburg, VA, where he was also based, before he flew his Cessna 210 into a thunderstorm and lost the wings. Crossfield was the preferred test pilot, as he was disciplined, scientific, and rigorous. Yeager was just a good stick and fearless. And no, I don’t fly into any black clouds any more.

  101. 101
    Han Solo says:

    @BV

    That is a sweet picture.

    And to mix metaphors, it made me think of what happens when a woman tries to go beyond her LTR barrier and a big higher-SMV cock penetrates her pussy like the jet poking through the condensation cone or cloud.

  102. 102
    BuenaVista says:

    Well, control reversal, obviously.

  103. 103
    DME says:

    @BV

    I don’t know who kicked sand in your vagina princess, but if the discussion is about a broken smp, then yes solutions matter. If one of the solutions is to for women to turn their attentions to in their league guys, well then you might have to sell them on the idea. All this ramble about aerodynamics and the sound barrier is a nonsense argument.

    You want to talk about porn stars? How many pornstars do you see getting married to high profile, high value dudes? If they are in fact “smp icons” they are doing a shit job of leveraging that into mating success. I don’t think they count getting fucked by a succession of dudes for money as the triumph you seem to think it is. Plenty of dudes would fuck a porn star, how many would wife it up? If womens mating goal is to secure the best male possible, then doing porn is a stupid fucking way to go about it. They may be smp icons to men, but they are not exactly aspirational tales for women.

    Also I don’t know how many times I have to say I don’t believe self esteem is an attractor in and of itself, before even a modestly equipped human like yourself gets it. It may not be an attractor, but is sure is helpful in avoiding things that are definitely unattractor’s. Like getting fucking gang banged by 20 dudes on camera.

  104. 104

    “As to HUS, I think Susan learned a lot from reading Mathew Hussey, who is a genius at taking red pillish truths and coaching them in ways that women find more palatable. I think it’s much easier to deliver some pretty bitter medicine if you mix a spoonful of sugar in there, and more so for women.”

    Show me just one example from the past 3 months – hell, make that 6 if you want – of Walsh making a meaningful effort to deliver pretty bitter medicine to female readers.

  105. 105

    “Most women can’t just sit back and rake in the bounty of male attention, They have to be at least a little proactive. Both in maximizing appearance and in putting themselves into social situations where they can be approached.”

    In other words, they have to put on some makeup (that can’t take more than half an hour), put on some dress in which they don’t look ugly, and go to any venue where many “eligible” men are likely to be present. Yeah, that’s SO MUCH necessary effort.

  106. 106

    “Susan did not. She was extremely encouraging of Beta traits.”

    Well, duh. Of course she is. Her mission has been to Build a Better Beta from the onset.

  107. 107
    DME says:

    Well, examples from the last 3 months…

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/09/05/relationshipstrategies/four-ways-determine-whether-man-trust/

    Talking about promiscuous, exciting men as being emotionally damaged, Thereby spinning it as him being too fucked up for a relationship, rather than the girl just not being able to get him.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/09/04/relationshipstrategies/male-personality-trait-must-avoid-mate/

    One about the importance of “A tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than spontaneous behavior.” and “We’ve long understood that the ability to sustain relationships depends on personality traits, most notably agreeableness and conscientiousness. Those traits are also highly correlated with a restricted sexuality, i.e., lack of sexual promiscuity.” distinctly beta traits. Selling women on the idea of the beta as the real prize, rather than suggesting that they are just not hot enough to get the alpha dude, and should settle.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/08/14/relationshipstrategies/dating-as-an-extreme-sport/#more-12190

    Post about high risk dating strategies, like trying to get a dude who’s out of your league…

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/08/06/relationshipstrategies/designerlabelsmatingstrategy/

    A kinder, gentler way of saying “Guys don’t care about your fucking handbag, stop being such a label whore, and stop expecting your boyfriend to buy you shit.”

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/08/02/relationshipstrategies/not-pretty-enough/#more-12074

    More about not going after guys you are not pretty enough for.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/07/24/relationshipstrategies/the-definitive-survey-of-infidelity-in-marriage-and-relationships/#more-11957

    Talks about girls keeping their number down. Albeit in a oblique way.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/07/17/hookinguprealities/kate-taylor-2/

    Slutting it up is not empowering, it is indicative of low value. Spun through the lens of “Look all these other girls aren’t doing it either”. Trying to harness herd mentality to convince women to opt out of slut culture.

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2013/07/15/politics-and-feminism/feminisms-marketing-strategy/

    Feminism is lying, slutting around is not going to get you what you want.

    Thats through July 15th

    Maybe I am giving Susan too much credit, but it seems that rather than embrace a blue pill philosophy she has simply gone more covert in dispensing red pillisms. Though with a definite femcentric focus. Forgivable given her stated goal is to help young women.

    “Most women can’t just sit back and rake in the bounty of male attention, They have to be at least a little proactive. Both in maximizing appearance and in putting themselves into social situations where they can be approached.”

    In other words, they have to put on some makeup (that can’t take more than half an hour), put on some dress in which they don’t look ugly, and go to any venue where many “eligible” men are likely to be present. Yeah, that’s SO MUCH necessary effort.

    They have to compete for attention with other women, without going too slutty and ruining their reputation. They have to watch their weight. 22 year old models are not just gifted with incredible genetics that enable them to eat whatever they want. They eat like 1200 calories a day, and fuel themselves with diet coke, coffee and cigarettes. When they are not popping ephedrine tabs and other diet pills that is. If they don’t want to go that route they have to watch what they eat even more carefully and exercise. Yes they have to apply makeup, thats maybe 20 minutes to a half hour in the morning, plus a couple reapplications spread throughout the day. Many have elaborate and involved skincare regiments, not to mention the haircare. Guys like long hair because it signals health and fertility. Well convincing it to send out those signals regularly takes effort, and quite a bit of money.

    Look, guys have it rough a lot of the time. I am a dude too, I know this. But it’s not such great shakes having the vast majority of your smv tied up in one trait. It’s great for those women who are most naturally beautiful, who have to put in the least amount of effort for the most results. But it’s not so great for those less blessed.
    Imagine knowing that there is only one thing you can do to increase your dating success, and it’s not something that comes naturally to you. You put in a decent amount of work for marginal results, and are faced with an ever increasing effort vs reward curve. Putting in more and more time and money for increasingly small increments of improvement. And knowing that no matter what you do, all that effort is going to fail against the inevitable march of time. That you have a very limited window in which to leverage whatever success your efforts have bought you.

    While I agree that the pendulum of power has swung to far towards women, it’s ridiculous to think that most of them are leading some charmed existence.

    Why shouldn’t Susan pursue a “build a better beta” strategy? If may turn out to be the optimal strategy for women, giving them the best balance of what they want. It might not be best thing for men… But she is a woman, why would she not be on team woman?

    Sorry for the long ass post.

  108. 108
    Han Solo says:

    Putting more than one link in a comment often causes it to be treated as spam.

    DME, I just happened to look at the spam and rescue your comment so in the future probably just put one link per comment.

  109. 109
    Han Solo says:

    @DME

    “Talking about promiscuous, exciting men as being emotionally damaged, Thereby spinning it as him being too fucked up for a relationship, rather than the girl just not being able to get him.”

    I can see the attempt here to make it seem like those guys are damaged so that women won’t try to go for them but I think the old “he or she is damaged” accusation gets thrown around too much. This is an example where too much blame is placed on the man for not liking the woman (totally logical if he has higher value) and not enough plain talk of the type, “he’s just not that into you.”

    The post about not being pretty enough at least did present the fact that these guys were being honest that they didn’t feel their gf’s or whatever were pretty enough and were just settling (something men often have to do). That part is red pill. But it was presented more in a “look at how superficial these guys are and it’s so hard to be a woman the way these men are” way. Look at the lame analysis by the so-called Doc-Love,

    “How much of your desire to have a supermodel on your arm is based on needing the respect and approval of other people to compensate for your own lack of self-esteem? Or, is this just the way you’re built and you need to honor that?”

    Why all the need to make it about his ego? He simply doesn’t find her as hot as he’d like and he has to decide if he can do better or not and then live with it. And if the woman is finding him not as excited to be around her then she needs to woman up and break up and find a guy (likely a lower sexual value guy) who will be excited. That’s why so much dating advice for women is fucked up these days. Instead of just saying that the guy isn’t excited about her because she’s trying for a guy that’s out of her league, they invent all kinds of shit about how he’s afraid of commitment or too invested in his ego or whatever. And due to the hypergamy of many women, the simple fact is many men have to go down half or a whole point if they want an LTR.

    I certainly can understand the frustration that many women can feel about the fact that looks is the most important component of their sexual value but just sending sympathy isn’t going to help things much. They need to realize that they either up their looks (and since a large number of women are fat and frumpy and don’t have optimized style, there is room for improvement), their personality, and/or lower their standards to more realistic levels; and they need to get off their ass and talk to men and flirt.

    I don’t think we’re saying that women lead a charmed existence. Just that if women would get realistic about their own SMV that they could very likely find a man of similar S/MMV (or at her percentile) that would be quite excited about her.

    I seriously think that one of the biggest problems in the SMP/MMP is that too many women have inflated expectations, based in part on the kind of men (higher value) that show sexual interest but not LTR/marriage interest.

    I have no problem with Susan trying to get women to realize that they need to go for a better beta or whatever since most women will have to go for a beta if they want anyone at all. I suspect going forward that her message will be pretty blue-purple since it won’t be full-on pro-feminism and victimization, which is still better than full-on blue but not as good as it used to be when it was red-purple. Unfortunately it started shifting bluewards. But whatever. That ship has sailed. I personally think that women can get much better advice from men on how to be attractive to men but the women have to steel themselves to receive things a lot more bluntly. I, of course, in real life am often less blunt, when I choose to be, and know how to give advice to women in ways that sincerely build up their ego and make them know I’m on their side so that I can offer the plain truths they need to hear. At JFG, talking in a more male-centric atmosphere, I just say it more bluntly.

  110. 110
    DME says:

    Well I’m encouraged that women seem to be getting better advice re. weight loss and fitness these days. Most of the “diet” plans these women have been trying for years are frankly pants on head retarded. More women seem to be getting into body building style nutrition though, which is a very good thing.

    I believe both men and women have a “floor” of attraction. Women for status and dominance, and men for looks. As feminism raised women’s status relative to men, it also raised that hypergamous “floor”, and as the obesity epidemic gained steam it reduced the number of women who could clear men’s “floor” for appearance. I think feminism’s main competition for “what fucked up the smp the most” is probably government subsidies for corn. High fructose corn syrup is in everything now, and it’s making us fat as fuck. The American average has probably dropped 2 points in smv in the last 50 years. The competition for the remaining hot people is getting fiercer all the time.

    While I agree that women would be best served by going to men for advice on what men want, that means very little if you can’t convince them to stick around to hear it. Someone is going to make a lot of money marketing red pill style advice to women. But they are going to need to find some way to make it palatable, as well as fluff it out enough to make it a full fledged product and not just a postage stamp sized piece of paper with like 3 things written on it.

    1. Be hot
    2. Don’t be a cunt
    3. Stop fucking dudes your not hot enough for

  111. 111
  112. 112

    “Talking about promiscuous, exciting men as being emotionally damaged, Thereby spinning it as him being too fucked up for a relationship, rather than the girl just not being able to get him.”

    How exactly is that bitter medicine? It’s just the same old tactic of blaming men for women’s problems, something you expect from the Feminine Imperative. The same, tired old nonsense about so-called “manwhores”, and the false parallel between them and sluts.

    The fact that the girl just not might be able to get him? Yeah, in most cases, THAT is the bitter medicine.

    “Selling women on the idea of the beta as the real prize, rather than suggesting that they are just not hot enough to get the alpha dude, and should settle.”

    No. The obvious message is to delay marriage while concentrating on building a career, limit interaction with alphas to “it just happened”/”I was drunk/it was a birthday party/etc. so it doesn’t count”-type ONSs and short flings – because, you know, otherwise you’ll get burned by those horrific psycho nonhumans – and then snag a beta for marriage. Again, how is that bitter medicine? It’s just telling women what they want to hear.

    “More about not going after guys you are not pretty enough for.”

    Did you bother to read the article to the end? It’s standard blue pill. Its real message is: yes, you are indeed pretty enough, and men who refuse to accept this are jerks.

    Yeah, she’s right about handbags. I’ll give her that. However, if that counts as bitter truth nowadays, well…

    “Feminism is lying, slutting around is not going to get you what you want.”

    It’s the same old nonsense about only 20% of women ever climbing onto the carousel, plus giving de facto feminist women more excuses to call themselves non-feminists.

    “22 year old models are not just gifted with incredible genetics that enable them to eat whatever they want. They eat like 1200 calories a day, and fuel themselves with diet coke, coffee and cigarettes.”

    Wait a minute. The issue at hand has absolutely nothing to do with models. Why are you mentioning models? Dafuck?

    “Why shouldn’t Susan pursue a “build a better beta” strategy?”

    That’s up to her. Who cares? From a female-centric view, it makes sense. However, she should not pretend that she wants to help men, that she gives good advice to men, that men in fact should listen to her instead of the entire Manosphere because it’s just a bunch of lying, cynical, misogynist vermin. But she is, in fact, saying all this. She’s actually so bold and shameless that she actually says she’s combating misandry. I kid you not, she said that in one of her earlier comments.

    “It might not be best thing for men… But she is a woman, why would she not be on team woman?”

    Again, she’s not admitting that. She’s a liar. She says Team Woman doesn’t even exist, that it’s nonsense invented by misogynist vermin. She paints herself as the best friend of men. She alleges that reading HUS is the best thing a beta chump can ever do if he wants to be good with women.

  113. 113

    “I have no problem with Susan trying to get women to realize that they need to go for a better beta or whatever since most women will have to go for a beta if they want anyone at all.”

    There’s a small problem. She isn’t saying that building a better beta is one path men can shoose in this environment. She’s saying that it’s the only acceptable path, and any man who disagrees is a misogynist dipshit who should be outed by hackers to the entire world, lose his job and become a social pariah.

  114. 114
    Han Solo says:

    @hoellenhund2

    Yeah, the exaggerated angst about betas going dark triad and all that is nonsense. Most guys are good at heart and so adding a slight shaving of self interest and Machiavellianism would actually make them more attractive to women, more successful with women, and more willing and able to set and protect appropriate boundaries so they don’t get taken advantage of.

    And the simple fact of the matter, that is usually hand-waved away as just the 10 or 20% of women that are the most unrestricted or psychologically damage, is that most women do like some version of the alpha, the sigma, the badboy, or even the greater beta or any plain old guy that’s out of their league.

    That’s what it comes down to, many women like what they like and keep going for guys that are out of their league or not suitable for LTRs and keep getting burnt.

    Anyway, with the new tone and reboot, I think less and less men will be reading there so it doesn’t really matter what she says about how men should act.

    It will be interesting to see if she and some of the commenters will keep on railing against the sphere even though few spheremen comment there anymore.

  115. 115
    Sir Nemesis says:

    @ DME

    I think feminism’s main competition for “what fucked up the smp the most” is probably government subsidies for corn. High fructose corn syrup is in everything now, and it’s making us fat as fuck. The American average has probably dropped 2 points in smv in the last 50 years.

    Ahh the joys of Trader Joes.

  116. 116
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    DME,

    The advantage of women is that they have most of the negotiating power at a young age, and while their SMV is tied up in a single trait, most young girls ARE quite pretty, naturally, and really do not need that much of a touch-up. They won’t be stunners, but being a decent cutie is absolutely within the reach of most of the girls I know.
    On the other hand, guys have to work damn hard to scratch anything together and have to adopt a whole set of personality traits that are absolutely at odds with how they are socialized.

    It’s great to a guy. I’d rather be a guy than a girl. As long as you put in some work you can set yourself up for a damn decent life.

    As far as I can tell, though, your run of the mill girl is going to have an easier time, as long as she puts in basic filtering and employs basic strategies to find a decent guy. Thus, I am not terribly sympathetic to the girls who fuck up.
    Although I am not terribly sympathetic of a lot of the guys who refuse to take advice or put in any effort.

    Also, re: Build a Better Beta
    The meme is that women are co-opting Game and trying to turn it to appeal to female interests, rather than actually creating self-fulfilled men who have their own thoughts and directions and morals. I would not be part of this whole “Build a better Beta” thing because, despite the name “Beta,” I am highly invested in MYSELF and have no fear of walking away from any situation that makes me uncomfortable, and have no interest permanently subduing my own interest to cater to someone else, just because she is a woman.

    Re: beta and alpha
    Reading an Alger Hiss biography. For those who don’t know, this dude was a probable Soviet spy operating in the US government for quite some time. Quite interesting from a SMP perspective. His mother and father married at 19 and 22 respectively, but the mother was a domineering woman that basically drove the father to suicide, leaving her a single mother.
    Oldest daughter: merit-badge collector that never married
    Second Oldest Daughter: Ultra-hypergamous girl that married a 17 year her senior stock broker, until he went broke, and she also committed suicide.
    First Son: Womanizer, until he died
    Alger…had one-itis hard for a woman who married a divorced man, and then divorced again 4 years later (single mommy too!), then got involved with a married man and had an abortion, then finally married Alger, though the two were more like brother-sister….she even described Alger as “brotherly” when they first met.
    Oh, also she absolutely dominated the relationship, including at one point leaving Cambridge because she was bored and living in New York City for 3 years, where she joined the Socialist Party (which she later lied about).

    In any SMP analysis, Alger is a lame-ass whipped Beta boy who had a thing for being dominated by women, cause that’s what how he grew up.

  117. 117
    DME says:

    While women may have an enviable pole position in the smp, they have an unenviable lack of staying power. I’m sure not lining up to wife some aging slattern. There in lies the tragedy. Young women have most of their smp power front loaded, before they have the judgement or ability to utilize it effectively. A few mistakes, a little too much time wasted on the wrong dude, then they are pretty much fucked. I would liken it to the American oil boom. Incredible natural resource largely squandered for lack of foresight.

    I still think you are underestimating the level of effort women put into mating/dating. I grew up with about 30 female cousins, most of whom are around my age bracket. I saw first hand the the shit they tried, stupid fad diets and fucking terrible hairstyles, horrible gaudy clothes, gossiping and tearing down rivals, etc. etc. I think both sexes are just getting bad information, thus most of their efforts are going to waste, if not actually harming them. A beta orbiter is putting effort and energy into a strategy, it’s just a bad strategy and wasted effort. Similarly a girl who adopts a sassy independent woman frame, gets a skrillex haircut and spends a fortune on a coach bag is attempting a strategy, just not a good one. Most men and women could get a lot of mileage out of some fairly small tweaks.

    I’m not trying to dispute that women have an early smv advantage, provided they utilize it effectively. If she spends her twenties fat because she never got any decent weight loss advice, then there is probably no recovering from that. She has wasted the most important resource she will ever have in securing a mate. A man has room to make mistakes and different avenues through which to attain status, as well as a much longer window in which to do it. As for the same aged guys operating at a smp disadvantage relative to their same age female counterparts… Well young girls have been hooking up with older guys for most of human history.

    Your characterization of the “Build a better beta” meme may be correct, but I don’t think it matters. Full on self actualized red pill manhood may be the optimal strategy for men. It is also almost certainly always going to be a small minority. If the “build a better beta” strategy increases aggregate female relationship satisfaction, and leads to less acrimony, fewer poor choices and less divorce and single motherhood, then it will be good for men as well. I don’t expect most of the men to whom it will be applied would have been candidates for the type of red pill manhood you talk about, so nothing is really lost, other than some signal to noise ratio re. those ideas.

  118. 118

    “I’m not trying to dispute that women have an early smv advantage, provided they utilize it effectively.”

    It doesn’t matter if they utilize it effectively or not, the advantage is there anyway. Their male counterparts normally have nothing to utilize to begin with. THAT’s a disadvantage. By the way, why are we assuming that these women would even want to “utilize it effectively”? Most young women reject the idea of assortative mating and early marriage/LTR.

    “If the “build a better beta” strategy increases aggregate female relationship satisfaction, and leads to less acrimony, fewer poor choices and less divorce and single motherhood, then it will be good for men as well. I don’t expect most of the men to whom it will be applied would have been candidates for the type of red pill manhood you talk about, so nothing is really lost, other than some signal to noise ratio re. those ideas.”

    This is nothing but another manifestation of the mentality of male disposability. You might as well have said “these beta chumps are worthless twats to begin with, they may as well spend their lives serving women and propping them up”. You know what? Most men are probably indeed incapable of understanding and utilizing Game in the current SMP which is terrible for them. But the majority of them are darn well capable of red pill manhood. They are capable of understanding that they aren’t necessarily doomed to serving the Feminine Imperative just because they were born with penises.

  119. 119

    “The meme is that women are co-opting Game and trying to turn it to appeal to female interests, rather than actually creating self-fulfilled men who have their own thoughts and directions and morals.”

    This isn’t a “meme”, this is a fact. Just look around yourself. And women aren’t the only ones doing it. Blue pill men are doing it as well.

  120. 120
    DME says:

    Most men are going to want to get married. Most men are going to want to have kids. Most men are going to want to do these things with a woman. If the “build a better beta” strategy helps them to be happier and more secure in their marriages, and increases the chance that they are going to get to be in their kids lives for the longterm, why is it such a terrible thing? If even a “red pill light” gives them some of the tools they need to extract the greatest possible satisfaction from their lives, I think thats a good thing.

    Society as a whole can be seen as a vast machine, you feed in lives and peoples time, you get out civilization, with all the increased safety and security for the majority that implies. The fact of the matter is that most of the lives that have been spent in it’s upkeep have been men’s. It is also fact that 100% of those lives have been gestated by women. A dude can impregnate a women and go off and die for Queen and country 15 minutes later, that woman has to stay alive for society to acrue any benefit from their coupling. Sperm is cheap, eggs are not. Thats just the biological reality on the ground.

    Now we don’t have to be slaves to our biology, but this is an ingrained and possibly integral component of our society, and maybe our biology. It’s not an attitude that will be banished easily or quickly. In the interim some of the men who hold to this idea, which is most of them, might be best served by the “red pill light” version. If they won’t adopt the complete package they may at least go for the cliff’s notes version. Sad to say it may be easier to sell them on the idea if it comes from women. At least that way they have a chance to acquire some of those tools, and possibly tumble a little further down the rabbit hole than the women in their lives might like.

    The full on mgtow or “going galt” strategies are a viable choice for any man, and useful political tools to force change in misandrist policies, but they will by necessity always be a minority. If the majority of men were to adopt these lifestyles it would quickly move from “going your own way” to “struggling to survive in a rapidly collapsing civilization”. The majority of men will never be alphas. It can not and will not happen, and would not to be tenable basis for a civilization if it did. I won’t say the manosphere should embrace the “build a better beta” movement as I think that would dilute a lot of the message. But I think ultimately it’s better that a red pill light exists than everyone just drowning in blue pill thought.

    As to women delaying marriage and riding the carousel and so on. This sucks for men. It sucks really badly. But it’s not a great strategy for women either. If they hold on a little too long, then they end up with a mate of much lower quality than they might have gotten earlier. If they have been using contraceptives then they have no alpha seed, and decreased beta bucks. If they have kids in tow they are getting an even lower quality mate than they might once have gotten, and will probably end up having a kid or two with him. The careerist delayed marriage strategy is shit for everyone, men, woman and the children that result from these union’s. This is one of the greatest single problems that has resulted from feminism. For both men and women.

  121. 121
    Liz says:

    #115: Love Trader Joes. But NASALT (not all states are like that). Haven’t had access to a Trader Joe’s in the last three moves.

    FWIW, corn subsidies aren’t making people fat anyway. People don’t buy a bag of corn chips instead of a bag of carrots because the corn chips are cheaper, they buy it because they want the corn chips. People were far thinner twenty years ago, and they still had agricultural subsidies. Added extra hormones, however, will make one fat (case in point, the negative effects of too much soy for men). I know reports have tried to discredit this effect (consider cui bono). It’s bunk. It is patently obvious hormones are going to effect the body in profound ways, they already do naturally. Add more (especially during teen years when those hormones are out of whack anyway), it’s a foregone conclusion.

  122. 122
    DME says:

    Basically I see the Better Built Beta’s as the farm team for the Red Pill Rogues.

  123. 123
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    DME,

    True, there are a lot of disadvantages to being a girl. And there’s a lot of upside to being a guy if you work on yourself and realize your potential. All told? I’d much rather be a guy than a girl.
    However, I say this as a 26 year old male with a strong circle, career, red-pill knowledge, and pre-selection. 6 years ago I was little more than a leper.

    Young girls are still rock-stars, relatively speaking, and it’s tough to feel too bad for rock-stars when they get f’d over because of their own stupidity or stupidity of their friends. “oh no I have hepatitis B!” Gee, sucks for you.
    Particularly when you were the leper they were stepping over.

    Hoellenhund,
    Not trying to use meme to prove or disprove the idea. Memes are just how ideas spread.

    Re: Build a Better Beta
    The problem, from a manosphere perspective, is that you are simply molding men to shape women’s purposes, rather than actually building up man. Not only is it immoral to use a person like that, whether it will work is doubtful. The reason successful men are working is in part because of their abundance mentality and other personality attributes that are hard to port over when your primary focus is trying to get a Beta guy chained to a girl.
    You can see this attitude with the obsession over “Inner Game” and “Real Man” and all that nonsense. The idea is to take the seemingly least threatening aspects of Game, make it seem like they are all-important, port that over to men, and then shame everyone who does not conform.
    Please see this, which I stumbled upon via a certain now-blue-pill website….
    http://justmytype.ca/11-differences-between-dating-a-boy-vs-a-man/
    Wow. All the problems with guys are just because they are immature. A REAL man is entirely non-threatening. Therefore Inner Game can remove the threat from men and make them more attractive.
    Yay!
    That’s the idea behind “Build a Better Beta”
    In practice, Inner Game is absolutely the most dangerous aspect of Game, because a confident man cannot be shamed into obeying a misandrist cultural norm.
    Effectively, they are not Building Better Betas at all. They aren’t capable of doing it. They would be better off trying to turn Beta guys into preening alpha-types, so at least they LOOK good, rather than talking about “inner game” and all that nonsense they don’t understand, but that breaks the narrative of girls not being incredibly superficial and going after guys with no concern for character, and we can’t have that….
    They are doomed to fail, because they do not understand Men. That means they do not understand Betas. Betas are still Men. They are not Women with Penises.

  124. 124
    DME says:

    I think we may be working off different understandings of what “build a better beta” means. I see it as

    Confidence and assertiveness=GOOD
    Abundance mentality and plate spinning=BAD
    Understanding womens attraction triggers=GOOD
    Utilizing women’s attraction for dark triad traits=BAD
    Self-improvement=GOOD
    Self-actualization=BAD
    Focus on improving relationships between the sexes=GOOD
    Focus on issues specific to men=BAD

    I just think that an effort to co-opt manosphere concepts, represents a significant crack in the armor of feminism. “First they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win”. We have progressed past the point of the manosphere being ignored, past the first salvoes of shaming language, into the beginnings of a bargaining stage. If red pill ideas are being disseminated, even if in a watered down form, some men are going to follow those threads. Those threads will lead them through MMSL , to Red pill room, to Alpha game and Roissy and all the rest. If your idealogical opponent is willing to do some of your work for you, why not let them? Even the men who don’t follow those threads, or who follow them just enough to get what they want, may have the quality of their lives significantly improved.

  125. 125
    Han Solo says:

    @DME 124

    Interestingly enough, it was HUS where I got most of my red pill info from, mostly from the comments section. Eventually, I started reading some of the other sites to some extent and then even more once the railing against the sphere seemed to become excessive and I wanted to find out for myself if they were as extreme as portrayed. Some of the commenters at the various sites seemed particularly rabid but overall the dark side of the sphere being attacked seemed exaggerated.

  126. 126

    Let’s clarify a few things: nobody ever said that the majority of men, or even a large minority of men, will a) go galt b) go their own way c) become alphas d) stay bachelors.

  127. 127

    “Most men are going to want to get married. Most men are going to want to have kids. Most men are going to want to do these things with a woman.”

    Yes – more or less. I wouldn’t say most men knowingly want to sign up for Marriage 2.0. I’d say almost all betas, plus a sizable minority of alphas, want, sooner or later, some sort of stable, sexually exclusive relationship with a woman, one that involves cohabitation and children. But I wouldn’t say more than that.

    One problem is that BABB doesn’t simply entail “turn betas into husbands”. It entails that they never pursue any sort of tactic that contradicts the long-term goals of so-called restricted women. In other words, as you said in one of your comments above: no spinning of plates, no “dark triad” tactics, no negging, no instilling of dread, no demonstration of disinterest, no DHVs etc. It basically means the entirety of male sexual behavior should be channeled, manipulated and regulated in order to facilitate the Feminine Imperative.

  128. 128

    “Now we don’t have to be slaves to our biology, but this is an ingrained and possibly integral component of our society, and maybe our biology. It’s not an attitude that will be banished easily or quickly.”

    That’s a given. However, the minimum we as educated men owe betas is to explain them the reality of their social condition, namely that in every society men have been the disposable sex and women have been the perishable sex, and this will not ever change. We can shit all over betas as much as we want – Roosh and his ilk does it all the time, women have been doing it for thousands of years. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t at least have the opportunity to understand the social structure they will have to face throughout their lives.

  129. 129
    DME says:

    “That’s a given. However, the minimum we as educated men owe betas is to explain them the reality of their social condition, namely that in every society men have been the disposable sex and women have been the perishable sex, and this will not ever change. We can shit all over betas as much as we want – Roosh and his ilk does it all the time, women have been doing it for thousands of years. But that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t at least have the opportunity to understand the social structure they will have to face throughout their lives.”

    I don’t disagree with any of this. And I don’t have any desire to shit all over betas, further I expect that most of the hatred comes out of some externally directed self loathing. I think we just differ slightly in the particulars re. the most efficient way to disseminate that information. Also I still don’t think we have any real consensus of what exactly constitutes “build a better beta”. Are the more marriage oriented game sites somewhere on that spectrum? MMSL? Red pill room? Or is it exclusively more purple pill sites a la HUS, and various purple pillish dating “experts”?

  130. 130
    DME says:

    @Han Solo #125

    You may be the posterboy for the sort of discovery process I’m talking about.

    I think the manosphere has the same problem as radical feminism, or modern conservatism for that matter, in that it houses some elements that are much more extreme than others and can be pointed to as proof of it’s ill intentions. Any political or social movement is going to have it’s polarizing characters, feminism has just done a better job of spinning and hiding away it’s dirty little secrets. Likely the result of 30-40 years more practice.

  131. 131
    Han Solo says:

    @DME

    Except the difference is that the manosphere is based a lot more on the truth than feminism. When you learn the sphere stuff, yeah, you have to add in some NAWALT and so on but it seems much closer to the truth than feminism’s men and women are equal except men are evil.

  132. 132
    Morpheus says:

    Also I still don’t think we have any real consensus of what exactly constitutes “build a better beta”. Are the more marriage oriented game sites somewhere on that spectrum? MMSL? Red pill room? Or is it exclusively more purple pill sites a la HUS, and various purple pillish dating “experts”?

    Ha. We don’t have consensus on a lot of things. Here’s my take on what constitutes “build a better beta”. It is creating a man with just enough confidence, assurance, boldness, autonomy, leadership to create some attraction but not too much where he starts to question or push back on anything femcentric. The key with build a better beta is that the man still recognizes and goes along with feminine primacy.

    One thing I am not entirely sure of is whether for most women they simply don’t see male interests as equal, or if due to solipsism they simply assume men have the same interests they do as well.

  133. 133

    Going along with what Morpheus has described, my personal take on “Build A Better Beta” was that it was meant to generate a man who still largely subordinated himself to female strategic interests and lifestyle preferences (sure, he occasionally may be granted a concessionary weekend of deep-sea fishing or whatever), but had just enough Game/dominance to continually re-sexualize the relationship and make the woman feel desired and attractive, and just enough alpha in him to continually strive for success at work.

    In other words, he was still a “workhorse” template male whose concept of masculinity was defined through a solipsistic female lens, but he could successfully compete with other men in an aggressive, high-T workplace (without becoming a man-possessed workaholic and growing emotionally distant). He also had enough SMV to be relatively sexy without crossing the line into Playboy Capability and making the woman feel insecure about him being targeted by mate-poaching by other, excited females. He was also sort of inert and limited in terms of philosophical sophistication or ability to reflect on his own best interests; I suppose that he outsourced these concerns to his wife.

  134. 134
    BuenaVista says:

    My experience with the” better betas”, with Murray’s “cognitive elite” in DC and NYC, is that they also fulfill an important social role for the wife. The wife has been highly educated, an environment that is friendly to (if not catering to) her desires to compete with men and demonstrate her innate superiority. Then she marries, works part-time or quits entirely (BB’s “call option” on Harriet Nelson’s lifestyle bundled with a bank account sufficient to fund $30K per year pre-schools and summer houses on an island off Massachusetts). So where does she now, again, fulfill her habitual dominance of men, given that school is over and the affirmative action workplace has been discarded? Well, at home.

    The better betas stand around at parties while their wives deliver the unceasing, demeaning, patronizing snark that establishes their control and disappointment in their men. This is a version of the traditional concern that a man’s sexual nature must be tamed, only now the ‘beast’ being tamed is a lawyer, consultant or banker who makes $750K a year, and has hands like a 15 year-old girl.

    My last serious girlfriend is in a bit of a mid-life crisis, because she knows that none of her friends like their husbands, she freely admits that they are openly contemptuous of them when the girls all get together, and the better betas she’s been dating since me are quivering men desperate to marry her. (I learned this a few months ago over lunch, when we were discussing Vox’s sexual hierarchy, and I advised her to find a greater beta much like her father, who is a Ph.D/academic/consultant. I later sent her the taxonomy itself, which turns out not to have been very kind.) Her ex-husband is a noisome, attention-whoring alpha who is currently fucking a bimbo with a high school education — the kind of guy who took a company public and then ran through $250 million in two years and had to declare bankruptcy, while blowing up the marriage with escorts and bimbos. She’s done with that sort of guy. The sigma variations strike her as oddly demanding of emotional, sexual and other forms of communication that are destabilizing within the haute-bourgeoisie, and dangerously disinterested in following the social rules of Sidwell Friends and the Chevy Chase Club.

    She said, “Well I can’t marry another DXX (ex-husband), and I can’t believe I actually did. And I can’t marry a beta like the ones I’ve been meeting: these Accenture partners are so desperate they’ll marry a streetlamp and the sex is mortifying.” She’s the rare woman who is both educated yet wishes to have a husband to admire and love. Her N-count is 5, or was, when I knew her. It might by 6-7, now. (She’s 44, incidentally.) She either needs to join the circle of cackling contempt for a better beta husband, which I don’t think she’s capable of, or she’s going to be alone for a long time. Here OKC profile just says she’s looking to meet “friends”, not date short- or long-term.

    So I’m of the opinion that a better beta is one who understands that his role is not just to surrender intellectual and sexual authority to his wife, but to also make manifest her competitive social superiority. That, after all, is what they learn through 20 years of schooling and the subsequent 5-10 years they spend in the workplace.

  135. 135
    Vitor says:

    I have been avoiding this subject for quite a while, as I had already read a lot about it in the sphere and we all know how it is true to some extent, with regard to women’s sexual attraction cues. But I could not help it: today looking up for a work in Farlex free dictionary, I have just found out that the “nice guy” phenomenon has become encyclopedic: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Nice+guy Highlight:

    A third view is that while “nice guys” may not be as successful at attracting women sexually, they may be sought after by women looking for long-term romantic relationships (however, “nice guys need not lose all hope, with studies showing that while women like ‘bad boys’ for flings, they tend to settle down with more caring types”…)

    For certain guys cannot enforce women to trade sex for niceness, but for sure women cannot enforce either guys (nice to not) to feel attraction or feel flattered about carousel riders and single mothers looking for a nice guy to settle down. A SMP standoff which were always there. The only problem, however, being that it goes against feminist tenets of having free lunch (and gifts, favors, etc.) in the SMP with no accountability or consequences.

  136. 136
    Han Solo says:

    Since we were talking about HUS on this thread, I have to give credit where credit is due and say that today’s posts about women improving their looks and realizing they’re not going to appeal to every man that they might want is a good message for women.

  137. 137

    I agree. Very nice post by Susan.

  138. 138
    Morpheus says:

    I agree. Very nice post by Susan.

    I agree as well. Sometimes she really hits the ball out of the park which makes it all the more vexing when she is completely off-base. Sometimes I think she runs push-pull Game with her posts.

  139. 139
    DME says:

    Well thank you guys for sharing your perception of BABB. It seems like a fine line to walk, a little bit too much one way, and your husband becomes contemptible. Too far in the other direction and he’s at risk of going off the reservation.

  140. 140
    Morpheus says:

    DME, I’m just curious…are you a man or a woman? FWIW, I’ve found your commentary interesting. I don’t entirely agree but I appreciate a different take well articulated.

  141. 141
    Morpheus says:

    BV @ 134

    My experience with the” better betas”, with Murray’s “cognitive elite” in DC and NYC, is that they also fulfill an important social role for the wife.

    My sense is *some* women have a “checklist” mentality to life. Being “successful” is about checking as many of those boxes as possible, especially as it relates to competition within the herd. From this framework acquiriing the better beta husband is just one more box to check off the list, but certainly NOT before achieving higher education and a certain amount of career success. I suspect that if you analyzed SAHM types, you’d see that those with higher educations and some career experience see themselves as superior to maybe a less educated woman who chose the SAHM route earlier.

    The better betas stand around at parties while their wives deliver the unceasing, demeaning, patronizing snark that establishes their control and disappointment in their men. This is a version of the traditional concern that a man’s sexual nature must be tamed, only now the ‘beast’ being tamed is a lawyer, consultant or banker who makes $750K a year, and has hands like a 15 year-old girl.

    One thing that would be interesting here…is to what extent is this patronizing contempt for husbands more prevalent amongst the “smart” girl set. I’ll admit I’m purely speculating, but I’d throw a wager it is far more common amongst “smart” girls with advanced degrees from higher-tier institutions. Point being, you’ll have some women try to sell you HARD on the virtues of a “smart” girl as a life mate, when that population is likely to have a higher base rate of insufferable entitled bitches.

    She’s done with that sort of guy. The sigma variations strike her as oddly demanding of emotional, sexual and other forms of communication that are destabilizing within the haute-bourgeoisie, and dangerously disinterested in following the social rules of Sidwell Friends and the Chevy Chase Club.

    Sometimes I think the great conundrum for women is that what they want is an oxymoron. They want to mix and match the best attributes of the alpha, sigma, and beta in the same man not realizing not realizing that the good and bad of the various types are inextricably linked. The good and bad are two sides of the same coin.

    I later sent her the taxonomy itself, which turns out not to have been very kind.)

    Just curious, why do you say this?

    Here OKC profile just says she’s looking to meet “friends”, not date short- or long-term.

    Ha. I see that on a 44-year old, and I’m thinking cougar just looking for casual sex.

  142. 142
    Morpheus says:

    Going along with what Morpheus has described, my personal take on “Build A Better Beta” was that it was meant to generate a man who still largely subordinated himself to female strategic interests and lifestyle preferences (sure, he occasionally may be granted a concessionary weekend of deep-sea fishing or whatever), but had just enough Game/dominance to continually re-sexualize the relationship and make the woman feel desired and attractive, and just enough alpha in him to continually strive for success at work.

    In other words, he was still a “workhorse” template male whose concept of masculinity was defined through a solipsistic female lens,

    I couldn’t have articulated it any better. I think you have captured the essence of the “build a better beta” concept. I think the two key qualities are the subordination of interests to the feminine and being the “workhorse”. I think many women can truly be happy and fulfilled in their roles as wife and mother. Nothing wrong with that. But I think most men need more…something else besides husband and father. Not that those are bad….they are not, but they leave a man incomplete I think. A man needs his “mission” whatever that is.

    I think what scares many women and you see this in the writing of some female bloggers is the concept of a man who views himself as an autonomous agent not controllable or able to be influenced by feminine strategic interests. You see this in the literal visceral frenzy some women get worked up into when you talk about things like “spinning plates” or “instilling dread”. The criticism about ethics is a ruse, if it were about ethics than women would be equally critical of the woman who extracts resources from the man she has no attraction or genuine interest in. The real issue is the exercise of optionality.

    He was also sort of inert and limited in terms of philosophical sophistication or ability to reflect on his own best interests; I suppose that he outsourced these concerns to his wife.

    LOL. That is too funny…the line about outsourcing, but I think you are right.

  143. 143
    Morpheus says:

    And the simple fact of the matter, that is usually hand-waved away as just the 10 or 20% of women that are the most unrestricted or psychologically damage, is that most women do like some version of the alpha, the sigma, the badboy, or even the greater beta or any plain old guy that’s out of their league.

    That’s what it comes down to, many women like what they like and keep going for guys that are out of their league or not suitable for LTRs and keep getting burnt.

    This may come across as self-aggrandizing, but I’m reminded of one girl. This was the late 90s and I was in my mid 20s and arguably in the best physical shape of my life. I was actually still living with my parents (yes, I was paying rent, as the job I landed out of college was 10 minutes from their house). My younger sister was still living there as well and routinely had friends stop by. There were times when I happened to be shirtless when her friends were over. Anyways, long story short, her most unattractive friend took a quite strong liking to me. We ran in similar social circles and I really was the “nice guy”. I knew I’d never be her boyfriend in a million years, so I never did much of anything beyond just some flirting here and there. Interestingly, to this day, she was one of most overtly sexually aggressive women I’ve been around in terms of talk and kino and PDA. At the same time, she was actually a virgin at that time.

    Anyways, she ended up visiting my campus during grad school, and basically just flat out said she wanted me to take her virginity. Truth be told, I was in a bit of a slump after really fucking up a few good prospects, and I said basically what the hell…at this point we had known each other for like 2 years.

    She actually circled in and out of my life a number of times over the years, not too long after I got divorced. This may sound bad, but she was the only girl I’ve been with where I actually had to turn the lights completely off. I”m not particularly proud of everything with her, but at the same time she was always aggressive. We’d sometimes hang out in public, and it would always make me uncomfortable if she would try to do anything physical with me in public…I didn’t want anyone thinking she was with me.

    To be honest, I’m not entirely sure if she really thought she had a chance of being my girlfriend if she just kept up the persistence, but I don’t remember her ever having a boyfriend. I suppose one could argue I gave her some signs during the periods of time I would fuck her, but at the same time I never did anything else that could be remotely construed as boyfriend material.

    I think many/most? women don’t understand (because of projection) that some men will in fact “fuck down”

  144. 144
    Morpheus says:

    She isn’t saying that building a better beta is one path men can shoose in this environment. She’s saying that it’s the only acceptable path, and any man who disagrees is a misogynist dipshit

    Yup. Truthfully, we were actually on pretty good terms up to the point she literally went rabid with all this “Cad, Dark Triad, Sociopath” nonsense. It was the demonization of men who simply wanted to speak with a strong male POV that was very offputting. It will be interesting to observe with the reboot if she can focus exclusively on her self-professed target audience of young women who I would bet a million dollars don’t give two shits what “Sphere” bloggers are talking about.

  145. 145
    Han Solo says:

    Morpheus, one of my past gf’s was in law school and thought that her university studies would make her a better mom.

    I think that many women do want men to be the workhorse, and some level of the feminine imperative rules. Not necessarily bad for most men historically since it gives them a wife and kids but in today’s femcentric society it is often a setting that emasculates the men.

  146. 146
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    The Build a Better Beta model does not apply to all Betas, obviously….

  147. 147
    Jimmy says:

    Anyone remember the blog “The Better Beta”? Can’t remember the name of the guy who wrote it, but from what I recall, it had some pretty good stuff.

    But I agree that the newer “Build a Better Beta” model is unrealistic in that it expects guys to just mix and match all the good qualities from each category. That’s a razor thin line to walk. As Morpheus said, many of those qualities are opposite sides of the same coin.

    My rule of thumb is, when in doubt err on the side of a little too much alpha… Higher margin of error, and easier to recover from mistakes.

  148. 148
    Han Solo says:

    @Morpheus & Jimmy

    That reminds me of how in one discussion at HUS the women wanted the tolerance of a higher-N guy like myself towards their N or past partners but the low N of the guys that were more bothered by a high N or who was in her past. lol

  149. 149
    Liz says:

    @ 141 Morpheus: “One thing that would be interesting here…is to what extent is this patronizing contempt for husbands more prevalent amongst the “smart” girl set. I’ll admit I’m purely speculating, but I’d throw a wager it is far more common amongst “smart” girls with advanced degrees from higher-tier institutions. Point being, you’ll have some women try to sell you HARD on the virtues of a “smart” girl as a life mate, when that population is likely to have a higher base rate of insufferable entitled bitches.”

    I think women essentially want the man to be in charge in general. So obviously if the man is dumber than the woman and she has to make the “smart” decisions she will start to harbor contempt for him. I would.
    Perception is more important than reality…her IQ might be higher, and her education level might be higher (education level is not a very useful basis for measuring intelligence anyway) but he must come across as bright (which would manifest itself in intelligent conversation, doing “smart” things, making generally wise life decisions, ect).
    Smart women and dumb men are less compatible as life partners even than people with vastly different SMV values. Intelligence is probably worth 4 points on the SMV scale. I’d caution men not to marry stupid women either. This is a person that you’re going to be around, will raise your children (especially important if your career takes you away for long periods of time), you’ll need to turn to in life crises, and so forth. Just being around an idiot for 5 minutes can be grating, imagine spending a lifetime with one.

    Anecdote: A physician friend married a very sweet, very lovely girl a couple of years back. She wasn’t very smart. She wasn’t able to hold a job once she didn’t need to, but wasn’t intelligent enough to keep herself mentally occupied without employment (they had no children yet, still don’t), so he bought her and ice cream shop to run (his quote, “She needs a job even if I have to buy her one”). She proceeded to gain about 40 pounds the year subsequent, having eaten most of the profits. Because she wasn’t very bright.
    I have anecdotal examples beyond counting of similar things (from childrearing issues to finance).

  150. 150
    Starlight says:

    “I think women essentially want the man to be in charge in general.”

    I agree with this sentence of yours, Liz.

    I must say though, my theory from observation (I might be wrong or biased) is that intelligence matters more to women than men whilst men value a woman’s beauty more than her intelligence. I know of plenty of men who married someone very beautiful yet far less intelligent, but able to hold down a decent conversation easily.

    Women value intelligence or physical ability a lot as those traits showcase strength. A handyman, someone who is fit or very bright will be able to protect the family, get a decent job, etc. Whereas a beautiful woman has great genes which will be passed onto the family.

    That is just my perception.

    Side note: I am aware that beauty alone doesn’t get any one far. Being pleasant and whatnot is important, too.

    Question to all of you:

    Men are visual creatures, thus I am curious: Would you / could you marry someone or be with someone long term who is fabulous in every way; except she scores about three points less than you in beauty as well as sexual attraction? How important is beauty to you?

  151. 151
    Han Solo says:

    @Liz

    lol I guess he should have bought her a gym to manage and teach Zumba classes at.

  152. 152
    Augustus says:

    I think women essentially want the man to be in charge in general. So obviously if the man is dumber than the woman and she has to make the “smart” decisions she will start to harbor contempt for him. I would.

    Perception is more important than reality…her IQ might be higher, and her education level might be higher (education level is not a very useful basis for measuring intelligence anyway) but he must come across as bright (which would manifest itself in intelligent conversation, doing “smart” things, making generally wise life decisions, ect).

    My answer might be out of context here, because I didn’t read the discussion. But I want to make some observations:

    1. I think women essentially want the man to be in charge in general. If they are so intelligent and superior, why do they need so? What about the resolved and accomplished 21st woman who is in charge of her life, choices, destiny and knows what she wants? What will she give in exchange for that responsibility of guessing and supplying for her needs? Superior beauty and exceptional sex? Traditional housewife traits, such as taking good care of the children and her husband; good cooking and laundry skills, etc.?

    2. So obviously if the man is dumber than the woman and she has to make the “smart” decisions she will start to harbor contempt for him. How could her know the difference between her perception of her own IQ and her real IQ? I think this is a major problem nowadays. Women THINK they are so intelligent, superior, etc. when in fact they are not. Most women have a hard time even landing a good husband, in spite of the fact that men are still the sex chasers, and not the inverse, which gives them tremendous power, at least as long as they’re relatively young and beautiful. So let’s recap: she is smarter than her husband, however she expects him to be in charge and make the important, right decisions. Why would she dispute her husband’s choices if she wants him to be in charge? How could she possibly know that his choices are not the wisest ones? Which criteria are used, if he is supposed to be “on charge”? Her own wishes? What she wishes equates with “smart and wise choices”?

    Nothing personal and very likely out of context. But I think this is a major problem: most women think they are smart, but they are not. If they are complaining about husbands and men, at least they’re telling us that they couldn’t even be intelligent enough to choose a good husband; or at the least she prioritized other traits than the ones she’s complaining about.

    I think most women will be excelling if they are just able to keep good average and natural beauty and have good housekeeping, housewife and child bearing skills. Traits which are lacking, I think.

  153. 153
    Liz says:

    #151 Nutshell: If the woman thinks she is smarter than the man, whatever the reason, it isn’t going to work.

    Most women aren’t smart, this is a true statement. Most people in general aren’t smart. Another true statement. There are a lot of retards and I’d again caution against marrying stupid (whether you’re a woman or a man).

  154. 154
    Liz says:

    Just to add per this part: “Nothing personal and very likely out of context. But I think this is a major problem: most women think they are smart, but they are not. If they are complaining about husbands and men, at least they’re telling us that they couldn’t even be intelligent enough to choose a good husband; or at the least she prioritized other traits than the ones she’s complaining about.”

    I’m smart enough to have been married a long time. To a person I think is smarter than I am (though he says he thinks I’m smarter, but that’s definitely not the case). Successfully through lots of life ups and downs and several kids. If my marriage were a mutual fund, my fund would be pretty much always on the profitable end, regardless of the market. I believe my record for success would indicate I know what I am talking about.

    Of course, I might be a cat rancher or sensitive ponytail weenie or somesuch, it’s all anonymous afterall..it just seems to me what I’m saying here makes enough sense to almost be self-evident. The author of the book ‘Tipping Point’ explained that he can tell if a marriage is going to endure or fail within only a few minutes of talking to the couples, based not on what they say but on body language alone while they are saying it. And his assertion is proven very very accurate. Body language of contempt, like eye rolling, are big signs the person doesn’t respect their partner. If you think your partner is stupid, you simply aren’t going to respect them. It’s all relative, of course. Einstein would have a hard time finding a partner he could relate to, I’m sure. My in-laws both have IQs over 160 and they could not have been with any other person but each other. Most of us have a few more options, but I wouldn’t deviate very far.

  155. 155
    Augustus says:

    #151/152:

    Most of us have a few more options, but I wouldn’t deviate very far.

    I just think that most men would be better off not marrying feminists (self-professed or not). Not likely your case, otherwise you would not be hanging around here so long. Even a stupid woman can make a good wife, if she likes kids, respects her husband and is pretty enough. :)

  156. 156
    Liz says:

    Might as well offer a counter-anecdote about a situation when I was dating a guy who seemed to think I was too stupid for him.
    He was the first guy I ever dated (didn’t actually have sex with him, but he was my first kiss and we went to third base), I was sixteen and he was eighteen. We were engaged, but I gave him the ring back after a few months.
    He was incredibly condescending. For example, we’d watch a movie, and he’d arbitrarily stop the video and turn to me and say, “You don’t understand what is happening in this movie, do you?” Then I’d say I did, and he would say something like, “No, it’s far more complex than that (and explain whatever)” It was always that way, him telling me I was an idiot (indirectly), and me trying to be nice (because I’d never had a boyfriend before). Eventually I’d had enough. This irrespective of what our individual IQs were, he thought I was stupid and treated me like an imbecile. It woulnd’t have been a good match.

  157. 157
    Liz says:

    #154: Just saw this response.
    As long as you REALLY like her, Augustus.
    I think it’s mainly about valuing that person, for his/her strengths.

  158. 158
    Augustus says:

    This irrespective of what our individual IQs were, he thought I was stupid and treated me like an imbecile. It woulnd’t have been a good match.

    You make a very good point here. Both men and women should have a healthy dose of self-respect.

  159. 159
    BuenaVista says:

    Morpheus, #141:

    It was “unkind”, in the sense that it upset her to see the contradictions and trade-offs she’ll need to make in order to resolve on her next husband. And Vox’s takedown of the blowhard alpha is a letter-perfect description of her first husband. So she’s staring at a clearly defined world, as represented in that taxonomy, that she didn’t know existed. Trust me, this sort of thing is disconcerting after you turn 40.

    She’s the opposite of a cougar. It sounds quaint, but she may be the most virtuous woman I have met in 10 years. I think she’s paralysed with the realization that most of her assumptions about marriage and her blowhard ex-husband are simply, categorically, wrong. I suppose, usually, she will settle for a reasonably handsome beta with reasonably masculine qualities. And be nice to him. Sometimes I wonder if she will bother and simply stay single. She’s somewhat isolated now socially, because she’s attractive and the society wives are afraid of her. Her newfound sigma skepticism has her questioning the whole private school world. Everything’s shifted. It’s not just men that get poleaxed by the sexual marketplace.

  160. 160
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    For the record, for all the happy talk about Rommel and how awesome he was, he regularly ran out of fuel, ammunition, food, etc. When he first reached El Alamien he only had 13 operational tanks. Amazing he had even gotten that far, but he was exposed to one hell of a counter-attack, especially as the Brits could resupply themselves and the Germans couldn’t, what with Malta and all.

    In the end, Rommel was so throughly crushed, that he had to abandon a huge chunk of his army. In the desert. With no water.

    Yet he was remarkable. He openly defied direct orders on numerous occasions to accomplish feats none thought possible. For example, in the opening battle against France, he was ordered to hold fast, lest the French flank him and encircle him. Instead, he raced to the sea, pushing the Allies all the way back to Dunkirk, where they were forced to retreat with practically nothing.
    Same story when he came to Africa, thinking he could chase the Brits all the way past the Suez.

    Asking Rommel to “slightly” change his thought processes is unthinkable for a mere uninformed civilian. Sure, I can point to his mistakes, but asking him to consider strategy differently, would involve changing his whole way of thinking about the world. Would we have deprived the Wehrmacht its decisive victory in France, for instance, if Rommel was a dutiful follower of every order, more concerned with securing flanks and supply routes than glorious offensives?

    Discussion about molding Betas into Alphas and vice versa strikes me as extremely similar to discussing how we could “mold” Rommel into something else, just by adjusting a few levers. It’s unthinkable.

    Not only that, but the Build a Better Beta folks seem not to understand the fundamental social role of Rommels and Betas. You could not have a society consisting entirely of Rommels. You need Betas that are inspired to follow Rommel’s orders and one guy on top who is held responsible for his actions if he fails, but is still a risk-taker.
    That’s how the social system works.
    Similarly, Alphas serve a functional purpose, as do Betas, as do Sigmas. That’s why we have all of them. Trying to re-craft Alphas into Betas or Sigmas into Deltas or whatever is utterly nonsense, it’s tinkering with the social order to suit the needs of women.
    And that brings us to the point, it is tinkering with the social order, without any concern or caution, to suit the needs of women.
    Now instead of having a social order defined by Rommel on top with Beta officers commanding Delta men augmented by highly-intelligent Gamma men developing weapons and the occasional Sigma charming the pants off the enemy women, you have a social order defined by Delta men not doing much, Betas chumming along, Rommel more interested in fucking women, Sigmas REALLY interested in fucking women, and Gammas left out in the cold.
    All because of a brutal SMP.
    Solution?
    Blame the men, who have not changed at all. Therefore Beta men must be more like Rommel, Delta men must be more like Beta Officers, Rommel must restrict himself, and all other sorts of other social manipulation.
    All of this done under the delusion it can recreate the Wehrmacht, without women having to change a single thing.
    That’s the issue with Build A Better Beta.
    It is agentic, self-centered, and delusional.

  161. 161
    Morpheus says:

    ADBG @159,

    Good stuff…you have always have good military/geopolitical parallels

    That’s the issue with Build A Better Beta.
    It is agentic, self-centered, and delusional.

    But it isn’t “fair”. Every young woman no matter how attractive is entitled to her “better beta” with just the right pinch of alpha. Deltas and gammas….you’ve got to be kidding me why would any woman want one of those. I’m reminded of Lokland who used to repeatedly point out the simple mathematical reality that most women are going to have to partner up with deltas and gammas or be alone.

  162. 162
    Morpheus says:

    It was “unkind”, in the sense that it upset her to see the contradictions and trade-offs she’ll need to make in order to resolve on her next husband. And Vox’s takedown of the blowhard alpha is a letter-perfect description of her first husband. So she’s staring at a clearly defined world, as represented in that taxonomy, that she didn’t know existed. Trust me, this sort of thing is disconcerting after you turn 40.

    Ha. You forced a pair of the “They Live” glasses on her…which is one of my favorite 80s movies…always like Rowdy Roddy Piper.

    She’s the opposite of a cougar. It sounds quaint, but she may be the most virtuous woman I have met in 10 years. I think she’s paralysed with the realization that most of her assumptions about marriage and her blowhard ex-husband are simply, categorically, wrong. I suppose, usually, she will settle for a reasonably handsome beta with reasonably masculine qualities.

    Based on your description of this woman, I think she is the type that could really still pair up well if she is realistic about the type and AGE of guys who are likely to want to seal a permanent deal with her. I think the temptation for some older yet still fairly attractive women is to “outkick their coverage” and they eventually get dumped ala Demi Moore when those SMV numbers potentially diverge substatially.

    She’s somewhat isolated now socially, because she’s attractive and the society wives are afraid of her.

    Ha. What are they afraid of? Mate poaching?

  163. 163
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Thank you kindly, Morpheus. I was reviewing some African Campaign stuff this week, as I was in a discussion with a friend about Rommel’s merits.

    It just shocks me that while women are permitted exploration and development and “mistakes,” men are simply expected to get it right, and get it right pretty much all the time. And we should blend all the positives of each “type” of man without any concern of integration or loss of identity or emotion, but only the positives as WOMEN see them, not as men them.

    NAWALT of course, but when relationship discussions come up….

    A Definite Beta Guy I am, but I do not act like a “good Beta” that simply follows the desires of a girl. That’s not what being a Beta is about AT ALL. It’s a recognition of what your SMV can realistically get, even after your improvement, and focusing on relationship improvement instead of acting like a playboy. Relationships are, of course, two way streets, not simple one-way transactions designed for the benefit of women.

    The descriptions of the Accenture guys and the criticism of beta husbands makes me cringe. Maybe a joke at my expense once in a while? Collective hen clucking? Oh god. Have never experienced it from the fiance. If I did, it would result in an immediate “cut that shit out” conversation.

    Then again, as my best friend says, I am definitely the one that wears the pants and calls the shots. Seems to be good for everyone.

  164. 164
    Morpheus says:

    The descriptions of the Accenture guys and the criticism of beta husbands makes me cringe. Maybe a joke at my expense once in a while? Collective hen clucking? Oh god. Have never experienced it from the fiance. If I did, it would result in an immediate “cut that shit out” conversation.

    Then again, as my best friend says, I am definitely the one that wears the pants and calls the shots. Seems to be good for everyone.

    BTW, congrats! I didn’t realize you were engaged…is this the same girl from a year or two ago?

    There was this time…I think it may have been 3-4 years ago, and the now fiancee…very soon to be wife and I wanted to try a new restaurant near our place. Anyways, we get there and it is crowded and have to wait in the lobby to be seated. I kind of zoned out and next thing I know she is already walking and snaps her fingers at me like I am a dog that she is trying to call. There were other couples waiting and they all looked at me and her. I have to tell you I was literally fucking shell-shocked because it was such uncharacteristic behavior on her part. Anyways, I got up, and followed over to the table. I literally was in shock at what just transpired. I think I sat there maybe 1 minute or 2 before I said “I don’t feel like eating, we are leaving now”. Once we got out of the restaurant, I didn’t yell or pout. I simply looked her dead in the eye, and said in the most matter of fact, stern way “Don’t ever fucking do that again” I then got in my car and drove home without saying another word. Walked in the house, sat my ass in my chair and started watching TV. Still not another word to her. Very soon she came over and started apologizing profusely.

    The problem is most guys simply put up with too much bullshit. You don’t have to be an asshole. But I think you have to establish that you have a zero tolerance policy for bad behavior. Bad behavior simply won’t be tolerated, and don’t give me any of this “emotional” woman crap. But you got a couple of things at play. Most guys operate from a scarcity mindset which means they are not sure their woman is replaceable so they will put up with enormous amounts of bullshit in exchange for reliable female companionship and sex. Secondly, our culture has ingrained that women have this license to misbehave terribly from time to time and an “understanding” guy will just accept it.

    A guy has to establish the right frame upfront early in the relationship, and he has to be able to maintain the position credibly that he can walk away. I’m reminded of the Cold War MAD policy, mutually assured destruction. The Soviets knew if they launched an attack, we would retaliate with a massive counterstrike. They backed down during the Cuban missile crisis because they knew we weren’t fucking around.

  165. 165
    DME says:

    MAD assumes both parties are rational actors. It doesn’t work on crazy. So choose your counterpart carefully I guess.

  166. 166
    Morpheus says:

    MAD assumes both parties are rational actors. It doesn’t work on crazy

    Good point!

  167. 167
    Han Solo says:

    @Starlight 150

    I personally couldn’t marry someone 3 points lower in looks than me. Perhaps 1 point but she’d have to have a great personality. I want someone at least 0.5 points lower than me, or higher.

  168. 168

    “zero tolerance policy for bad behavior” only brings the desired result if you have already established your status in her eyes as a man with options from the beginning. Otherwise she’ll just get snarky and say shit like “you’re just butthurt”, “you just have to shield your fragile little ego all the time, don’t you?” or some other crap. If she already sees you as a pathetic beta from whom such behavior is not to be expected, you’re pretty much toast.

    By the way, both sides backed down at the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Just saying. Don’t fall for rightist propaganda.

  169. 169

    “Trying to re-craft Alphas into Betas or Sigmas into Deltas or whatever is utterly nonsense, it’s tinkering with the social order to suit the needs of women.”

    The funny thing is that it women wouldn’t be satisfied with it even if it worked. Women always establish a sexual hierarchy among men and only find a small segment of them sexually desirable. This is universal truth. The BABB approach assumes that if betas just work hard enough on themselves, women one day will magically find, say, 50% of men sexually desirable instead of 20%.

  170. 170

    “DME, I’m just curious…are you a man or a woman?”

    DME is obviously a woman. No man speaks of “your husband” and shit. And her arguments here are exactly the kind of stuff you expect to hear from a woman.

  171. 171
    DME says:

    Lol, no I am a dude. And my arguments are what you might expect from someone who doesn’t believe in mustache twirling villains, or villainesses. There is no team good and team evil in all of this, there is just what works and what doesn’t.

  172. 172
    DME says:

    Re. #169

    I know Roissy has argued that increasing prevalence of game will act like greater aggregate female beauty, and will lead to women finding a greater percentage of men attractive. No one actually knows the answer to this question, but arguments exist for both sides.

  173. 173
    BuenaVista says:

    Morpheus, #162:

    1. “Based on your description of this woman, I think she is the type that could really still pair up well if she is realistic about the type and AGE of guys who are likely to want to seal a permanent deal with her. I think the temptation for some older yet still fairly attractive women is to “outkick their coverage” and they eventually get dumped ala Demi Moore when those SMV numbers potentially diverge substatially.

    “‘She’s somewhat isolated now socially, because she’s attractive and the society wives are afraid of her.’

    2. Ha. What are they afraid of? Mate poaching?”

    1a. Perhaps she will marry. She’s the perfect wife. It’s certainly common, ime, for a woman with her basket of experiences to find an “acceptable” option, and marry precipitously.

    She may be a sigma widow, however. And her ex-husband truly scarred her. Those are the two hurdles to be overcome. She doesn’t have to deal with unrealistic expectations in the SMV, however. She’s totally fine with older men, prefers them actually. But then again, she’s had a post-marital sexual awakening, and this too is presents a contradiction for her, or so she told me this summer. Basically, her inherent taste in men would have been better served had she chosen a simpler life with an athletic professor, or some such, in a college town. But she’s chosen, and inhabits, the DC/Sidwell/nonprofit arts world. I get a few emails from her that become plaintive as she describes her emerging disquiet and discontent with everything she’s been building (socially) for 20 years.

    2a. Yes, though the women would never put it that way. It remains a social convention in the toney social set for an attractive divorcee to be deemed Trouble with a capital T by most of her peers. There’s no sisterhood when a new, attractive option hits the street. My friend looks better in a bikini than most college girls, and she brings a sizeable divorce-dowry. She treats men well and they know it. Her peers should not be in bikinis, by and large, and treat their husbands like little boys with big checkbooks. They manage their social and physical declining values through bid-rigging, social crony-capitalism, cartel construction.

    In general, I think women are far, far more competitive with each other than most of us realize. We’re just not like that in our romantic lives. We compete in other matters.

  174. 174
    BuenaVista says:

    ADBG, #160:

    Patton also outran his logistical tail in the final assault on Germany, while Monty and his deliberate crawling force got the gasoline. Sherman’s innovation probably started this style of rampaging, independent force projection, but of course he simply had to live off the land (and did) while Grant built a railroad to keep his men fully supplied.

  175. 175
    BuenaVista says:

    Starlight, #150:

    “Question to all of you:

    Men are visual creatures, thus I am curious: Would you / could you marry someone or be with someone long term who is fabulous in every way; except she scores about three points less than you in beauty as well as sexual attraction? How important is beauty to you?”

    That would only work with an essentially asexual man, which many are, I suppose, but if he is 3 points higher and she is not a 2, and he has a functioning libido, his options all day long are going to drive him mad. It’s simply impossible to perform sexually after even a month, let alone for a lifetime, with a woman who is not sexually desirable. And forget it as you get older. You won’t even get it up, no matter how many pills you pop, much less seek the physical intimacy with your spouse that is essential to any good relationship.

    The mother of my youngest child surprised all of my friends because (depending on taste) she was a point or two below me; she even said that, when she was having one of her rare honest moments. But she has an IQ over 170, and is the smartest female I have met in my life. That created fascination for me, and I dug her long legs and Norwegian (my ethnicity) eyes. The ob-gyn was making jokes in the delivery room about how we looked like cousins, and I swear, when I picked her up on the blind date and she opened the door, I admit my first thought was, “Run away, she’s a dowdy version of your mom.” I suppose I’m admitting to an unexplored incest fetish, but there you are, and I’ll deny it if pressed. I do admit to having a thing for robust Norwegian girls from the upper midwest. I’m enjoying Minneapolis this week.

  176. 176
    DME says:

    “I do admit to having a thing for robust Norwegian girls from the upper midwest. I’m enjoying Minneapolis this week.”

    Small town Minnesota and northern Wisconsin should be like the promised land for you then.

  177. 177
    BuenaVista says:

    #150, cont’d.

    Whereas my first wife, whom I met at 19, and is now 56, was a model and actress who takes very good care of herself. Her mother, who also was a NY model, was sexually attractive well into her late 60′s, when she decided to start eating for recreation. DME’s comments about butthurt losers aside, and I am not arguing with him, just noting them with great skepticism, my ex- did terrible things to our family and particularly our children when she was nearing the Wall and went Eat Pray Love and pressed the hypergamy button. But she and I take care not to be alone together. The zing is still there for me, no matter the epic divorce circumstances, and all the history in the runup. Her husband, who is one of those beta dudes with soft hands and a steady $750K per year, walked out of son #1′s graduation dinner midstream, because she wouldn’t stop talking to me.

    Further, I think women as they age become very, very aware when then are chasing out of their physical attractiveness league. (Maybe a 20-something still believes the stuff about beauty being a social construction and inessential to desire, but not a woman who has been single in her 40′s.) They self-handicap and flake at an astonishing rate, and I’ve stopped dating them. I was reminded of this yesterday when I broke protocol and accepted an online date from an athletic, educated someone six years younger. Immediately upon my accepting the date she wrote and said she was no longer dating, deleted her profile, and cancelled our assignation. It was she who had initiated with me, and asked me out.

    I do think greater betas, even those who are 3 points lower than their women, make the best husbands if a longterm marriage is a woman’s goal. I’ve advised my 25 year-old daughter that her first love, who is a hardworking Big Finance guy now and still a close friend of hers after 10 years, kinda short and chubby, is great husband material. She laughed pretty hard at that one. We live in a strange world of cross-purposes, and SMV point deficits do not, apparently make the heart grow fonder. But at least a woman, who outstrips her mates SMV significantly, can fake some measure of sexual attraction and perform the rudiments of wifely duty for a homely man carrying desire for her.

  178. 178
    BuenaVista says:

    DME on small towns, etc.: Rather, the upper midwest is like Russia steppes in more ways than one. All the beauties move to the big city. For 1000 years Moscow has been *the* marriage market, which is why you can’t walk down the street today in Moscow or SPB and encounter 5x the number of genetically superior women than you see even in NYC.

  179. 179
    DME says:

    Well I can’t say I have that much experience in the bigger cities down there. I have spent a lot of time in small towns, both in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and saw a lot of pretty girls. They do tend to skew young though, so maybe rather than just hitting the wall young, the pretty ones up and move to the city when they get to a certain age. My family skews very heavily to robust Norwegian women, and robust German women, so maybe that explains my affection for physically fit girls.

  180. 180
    Liz says:

    #160 ADBG: I really enjoy reading military history, and the North African campaign of WWII is a particular favorite of mine. Although every military experienced a logistical resource crunch at one time or another, Rommel’s resource crunch during the African campaign was grimmer than most.

    You might enjoy this article, ‘Hans Klein Recalls His Time in Erwin Rommel’s Afrika Korps’:
    http://www.historynet.com/hans-klein-recalls-his-time-in-erwin-rommels-afrika-korps.htm

    ( I was a subscriber to WWII magazine for several years. I also recommend the book “foxes Desert’ by Paul Carell)
    :-)

  181. 181
    Liz says:

    Oops…That should have been “Foxes of the Desert” for the last bit.

  182. 182
    Liz says:

    #177 BV: “I’ve advised my 25 year-old daughter that her first love, who is a hardworking Big Finance guy now and still a close friend of hers after 10 years, kinda short and chubby, is great husband material. She laughed pretty hard at that one. We live in a strange world of cross-purposes, and SMV point deficits do not, apparently make the heart grow fonder. But at least a woman, who outstrips her mates SMV significantly, can fake some measure of sexual attraction and perform the rudiments of wifely duty for a homely man carrying desire for her.”

    She can’t fake that for very long. You can’t live a lie for the sake of ‘safety’. Come on now, you were young once, too, yes?

    My mother tried to do the same thing to me when I was young…I had a very good friend, who did absolutely nothing for me but he worshipped me and was ‘nice’. She told me sex wouldn’t matter anyway by the time I was 30. Hahahaha!! My friend did indeed do very well for himself…do I regret not marrying him? H-E-double hockey sticks, no. Then again, my husband and I have done far better….but I’d still rather live with him in a trailer park than that “sensible match”. You only go through this life once.

    She and my dad (RIP) were 20 years apart in age, and she was uber-hot. He spend all of his life jealous of tons of rivals (though she hated sex so I don’t know what he was worried about). I don’t envy him or her, it was a very poor match. What looks good on paper and what actually works are often far different, and sexual chemistry is huge (as I suppose you know, judging by your stories about your ex).

  183. 183
    BuenaVista says:

    Hey, Liz. Perhaps there’s an observation here: “She can’t fake that for very long. … though she hated sex so I don’t know what he was worried about”.

    Well, I have no idea if my daughter likes sex, as you note, some women don’t. I also don’t intend to find out. But like all children of a precipitous and unexpected divorce, she and her brother remain traumatized by the loss of their family, and I think both are irrationally, and unusually, desirous of reconstituting it in adulthood. And we do discuss this, frequently. I recently wrote my son, a writer and extreme athlete, with his mom’s looks, a Dear Son letter. I told him as clearly as I could that his 20′s were the most important years in his artistic development, and he would be risking subjugation to the cubicle farm if he couldn’t safe-harbor his domestic desires for a few years and never, ever believe four words he’s going to hear, if he hasn’t already: “I’m on the pill.” I expect it will be a month or two before I hear form him again.

    Daughter is living in the young professional fast lane in NYC, also has her mom’s looks and athletic ability, and she is dating 30-something guys whose behavior is well documented in the sphere. They have the looks, prestige and money that she filters for, and they have more options than god. It’s worse, too, that there is a 30% surplus of women in NYC. She’ll have to resolve her priorities alone, which in any event include home and children. I’m a big believer in marrying young, which I know is unfashionable, but I never regretted it for a day and still don’t. Brad is gold, from the LTR standpoint, zing aside.

    These musings are irrelevant, though. Apparently there’s no zing with Brad, who is condemned to her friendzone. I did apologize to her this summer about the time, when she was off at college and he was at Notre Dame, and she asked me to fly her out to South Bend for a weekend. I said sure and then made a stupid, derogatory remark about Brad’s physical stature. And oh, did she remember that comment. I was a very bad dad that day. I think I will apologize a few more times for that faux pas. I’d be thrilled if she fell in love with a guy who’s a 6 or a 7, and delighted at the prospect of pulling the wagon for 50 years.

  184. 184
    BuenaVista says:

    Liz, and ADBG, I highly recommend Keegan and V.D. Hanson (Face of Battle, The Savior Generals) on Sherman’s innovation in warfighting. (I also commend Keegan’s portrayal of Grant, a personal hero.) And continuing on studies of the moral fabric of democratic forces succeeding in blitz warfare, Hanson’s Soul of Battle is very good on Patton, I think.

    I recognize you two probably read these popular histories long ago, but if not, they are lead-pipe locks.

  185. 185
    Liz says:

    I haven’t read either, BV, thanks!
    Just added the Face of Battle to my Amazon shopping cart.

  186. 186
    Windy Wilson says:

    @ Buena Vista, Re: “I’ve advised my 25 year-old daughter that her first love, who is a hardworking Big Finance guy now and still a close friend of hers after 10 years, kinda short and chubby, is great husband material. She laughed pretty hard at that one.”
    Is the phrase “great husband material” that embarrassing? I thought of the scene in “Brave New World” when the whole room laughs embarrassed when the Savage mentions his Mother.

  187. 187
    BuenaVista says:

    I didn’t use the phrase, Windy, but probably something more respectful like, “Guys like Brad make great husbands.” The laughter was more at the prospect of Brad as a romantic partner. He’s friendzoned and de-sexed, in her mind. Also she probably laughed because it freaked her out to have me broach the subject.

  188. 188
    A Definite Beta Guy says:

    Actually, have not read that book yet. Thanks for flagging it, BV!
    So many wonderful books to read, so little time…

    Morpheus,
    Thanks for the props on integrating the military and geopolitics. Gotta work in my favorite subjects somehow, right? :P
    In seriousness, though, I think it’s useful sometimes, because societies evolve under pressure, and the biggest pressure is usually direct military competition with nearby powers. Ex, For all we talk about Rome, it evolved entirely differently from the US. Rome was a small state embroiled in centuries of constant war, all the while sucking in culture and know-how from the Greeks and the Etruscans.
    The way that society evolved, and the Republican principles it created, are a direct result of that competitive pressure. If the plebians refused to fight, for instance, Rome would fall, so the Plebians would simply camp out until they got what they wanted.
    Class struggle at its finest.
    The US, with little external competition, operates entirely differently. Expecting us to operate in an “equal” fashion is silly…goes back to Han’s post about evolution and how we live in a time of plenty that allows hypergamy to be unleashed.

    Thanks for the congrats on the engagement. Yup, indeed, same girl. She’s high quality, agreeable, and great at self improvement. I’m quite happy with my decision so far.

  189. 189
    BuenaVista says:

    Geopolitics and warfighting:

    Davis pins political roots to the demonstrated superiority of western democratic or republican armies: the fact of individual investment in the act or war proving to be a force multiplier in all circumstances. This is at the heart of Keegan’s analysis of the entirely unlikely English victory at Agincourt (the French nobilty denied their freeman the personal authority to own a longbow; the English created a culture of the independent yeoman, and essentially a corps or guild of men whose entire bodies were transformed by a lifetime of training on these massive bows. There simply was no such technology or class of men from which to draw in France, and compete the English yeomen. And so then it rained arrows at Agincourt: the French were mired in the mud unable to move in their armor: the longbow was a was a weapon that could be deployed from safe remove. He sees it as a technology advantage born of political innovation (empowered free men); the arrows (to me) were 15th century cruise missiles or drones. In war, Davis says, choose the side with maximal freedom.

    He also states that is explains the most savage wars: two nations with democratic foundations will fight savagely and without surcease: they are fighting for their culture. Alternatively we have Gulf War I and entire units of conscripts abandoning their country at first opportunity.

    I’m not an historian or a military man but these are very compelling narrative histories that seem to explain much. They’re written wonderfully.

  190. 190
    Liz says:

    #164: Morpheus, I don’t know how I missed this before…Wow. That was a heck of a shit test.
    Sure that wasn’t her way of coyly asking for a rear entry? LOL!

  191. 191
    Starlight says:

    Thanks guys for answering the question. It shed some light into matters; interesting to read what you had to say!

  192. 192
    Silicon Valley Warrior says:

    Don’t get married.

    If men went one or even two generations refusing to get caught up in this beta trap by refusing to get married under any circumstances, things would change. Women can still have babies though sperm doners and raise kids themselves or with help from their families ( good luck with that ). Who knows. Women may offer certain men sex to have babies. You just need an iron clad contract protecting you from any financial obligation.

    Men pay for sex regardless. If you think marriage is a free way to get sex, you aren’t looking at the financial and emotional cost.

    My guess is that men will still find ways to get sex. Just don’t get married.

  193. 193
    Liz says:

    #192: You believe fatherless children are the future?
    Women would teach them well and let them lead the way….
    You’re right. Things would certainly change.

  194. 194

    […] A lot of that original post’s intent gets misconstrued, usually as the result of bruised egos still invested in blue pill social conditioning, but also women who are understandably threatened by the prospect of having their long-term sexual strategy chronologically laid bare for men to prepare themselves for. I’ve restated this repeatedly, but this graph was never the result of some scientific analysis, rather it was the result of observation and correlation. And I daresay (even to my surprise) that my graph lines up scarily close to most ‘statistical’ studies. […]

  195. 195

    […] SMVs” are equal.  At best, it’s a very rough proxy for SMV plus a lot of other stuff, as it was used by JFG colleague, Sir Nemesis, and, at worst, it’s simply a combo of allowable age ranges and who gets messaged on […]

  196. 196
    Butter the Beta says:

    Please check this one out and tell me what you think.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmasd12TXbs

    Thank you in advance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>