If I had to pick a random word to describe women, one of the ones I could choose is “solipsistic.” A definition of solipsism, from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: so·lip·sism
Pronunciation: \ˈsÅ-lÉ™p-ËŒsi-zÉ™m, ˈsä-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin solus alone + ipse self
Date: 1874
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism
The female of the species is a master at absorbing herself in her own thoughts and neuroses and projecting them onto men. In the U.S., virtually all women are suffering from the unmentionable delusion that guys are just like them when it comes to sexual attraction. From career women who lament that their accomplishments don’t give men erections to living lardballs claiming that men don’t want them because of peer pressure, the female is unparalleled when it comes to assigning her prejudices and desires to the male. Even on issues on which men and women are visibly different, such as the effect of aging on sexual market value, women can’t stop digging in their hole of projection, as is evidenced by the myth of “male menopause” and the ludicrous new claim that men have a biological clock. Men rarely engage in sexual solipsism of this sort, and those who do are mocked – otherwise, we’d see a lot more guys acting like this freak.
Female sexual solipsism and projection are the primary reasons why women’s dating advice is useless. Let’s look at some of The Rules again:
Rule 1: Be a “Creature Unlike Any Otherâ€
Rule 3: Don’t Stare at Men or Talk Too Much
Rule 4: Don’t Meet Him Halfway or Go Dutch on a Date
Rule 5: Don’t Call Him & Rarely Return His Calls
Rule 6: Always End Phone Calls First
Rule 7: Don’t Accept a Saturday Night Date after Wednesday
Rule 11: Always End the Date First
Rewrite and rejigger these points in a couple of places, and they would work perfectly for guys. In fact, all of these points exist in the literature of game in some form. The fact that these are passing for rules WOMEN should follow is prime evidence of the deep ignorance of female thought on this subject.
For another example, here’s a great post I dug up from Chuck’s archives:
Last week, I witnessed a female friend trying to give a mutual female friend of ours pointers on picking up our mutual male friend. The female friend’s advice was similar to the stuff that works for guys when picking up girls. She advocated playing hard-to-get, not standing too close to him, and walking away whenever he came near. My advice was this: “Rub your tits on his nose.†Plain. And. Simple.
Virtually all female-targeted relationship advice is flawed in the same way: women advise each other to assume behaviors for attracting men that they respond to when men use them. Of course, no man will ever get the hots for a chick because she plays hard-to-get. As I wrote before:
Women ascertain a man’s sexual desirability through his social dominance, and all of the various trials they put men through, such as shit tests, spring from this reality. Game is made possible through this quirk of women’s psyche; a guy who is not naturally dominant can mold himself into a man that the ladies want by altering his behaviors.
Men ascertain a woman’s sexual desirability through her looks. If she makes your penis hard, she’s a worthy conquest. This ensures that women who aren’t wildebeests and/or hippopotamuses will have an endless stream of dudes looking to bring their battering rams crashing through her iron gates of life, but it has a downside; a woman’s options for improving her sexual market value are limited. The reason a 20-year old co-ed can play the coy coquette and a 35-year old cougar has to force herself onto guys is because the former has qualities men desire (youth and beauty) that the latter doesn’t and can never get back. An unattractive woman who prances about like she’s a 10, like The Rules says that ladies should do, isn’t going to suddenly make men think that she is a 10 – they’ll just avoid her in favor of girls who are still on the same plane of reality. Men instinctively know the difference between fool’s gold and the real deal, and no games played by girls can convince them otherwise.
Furthermore, a man’s willingness to put up with shit from a woman is inversely correlated with how good he is with them. Natural-born alphas, the guys who women want to ensnare, will not tolerate the behavior of a “Rules Girl.†Only gameless schmucks will bother with chicks who won’t pay for dates or refuse to do more “than casual kissing on the first date.â€Â The Rules ought to have been subtitled “Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Beta.â€
Where does the extreme, unprecedented sexual solipsism of modern females come from? I blame the average woman’s complete disconnect from reality. Owing to their status as the gatekeepers of sex, and the fact that their sexual value peaks before men’s, most women, particularly young women, can spend a fair portion of their lives sailing on a cloud of fantasy. If a girl is reasonably attractive and sociable, she can sit back and watch the gentlemen callers pile up. Not only that, the same factors that have enabled unrestrained female hypergamy (legalized abortion, cheap and available contraception, economic emancipation) also shield women from the consequences of their bad behavior. Think of a spoiled brat who has everything he wants handed to him without complaint (lest he throw a tantrum) and who is rescued by daddy whenever he gets himself into trouble. In our modern culture, women are basically spoiled children, and are as equally clueless about the real world.
We men are forced to confront reality from the outset because we are the dominant sex, expected to approach girls and direct our relationships with them. The overwhelming majority of guys have been slapped with rejections from girls from the day their mating careers began, forcing them to analyze their behaviors, actions, and attitudes. The only men who can afford to engage in woman-esque solipsism are apex naturals who the ladies are natively attracted to (see: Tucker Max) – the rest of us grinders have to stay on our toes at all times.
Another factor in female sexual solipsism is increased promiscuity. The indispensable Lupo remarked here:
That may or may not be true: most slutty women I know could take on entire football teams without noticing the nature of male sexuality. They’re that self absorbed in their emotional turmoil, they don’t notice men look at them like a hungry man looks at a piece of meat. Prudes notice more, probably because they had fathers who were decent men.
The sexual double standard arises from the reality that getting sex is easy for women but hard for men. The reason studs are respected and sluts are derided is because being a stud requires skill, talent, and practice, while being a slut merely requires a pulse and a lack of impulse control. The unsung flip side of the double standard, however, is that female virgins are cherished whereas male virgins are ridiculed. A man who can’t get laid signals to the world that he is a loser, while a woman who resists spreading her legs for every scumbag who winks at her shows herself to be a sober, selective person. Because a female’s primary goal is getting the highest-quality man available to commit to her, women who cannot or will not stay in a relationship are poor sources of information on men. The male virgin and the female slut are mirror images of each other in terms of attractiveness to and knowledge of the opposite sex.
While we guys can have a good laugh at women who make poor choices (see that MarkyMark post linked up at the top), the solipsism of the fairer sex will ultimately be their undoing. An exchange I had with Obsidian on LILGRL’s inaugural post at Girl Game:
Obsidian: Here’s my thing, and maybe you ladies can help me out with this:
Whatever happened to the older, wiser Women in the world? The moms, grandmoms, aunties and the like, who pulled younger Women aside and told themthese cold, often brutal, facts of life? Where’d they go? Why don’t we see them around anymore? What happened?
Comments?
Ferdinand Bardamu: The sexual revolution happened. The women who came of age in that era junked the “old knowledge†of sexuality and bequeathed their ignorance to their children. There are exceptions here and there but for the most part, the mothers of today’s young women are just as clueless as they are. As for grandmas and other extended family members, the replacement of the extended family with the nuclear family that occurred post-World War II combinedwith the mass entrance of women into the workplace removed any possibility of the wise women imparting their knowledge to the young’uns. For example, my mother relocated away from her hometown because of her job. We only saw the relatives on holidays and family reunions.
Obsidian: Hey Ferdi, thanks for the comment and also for the heads-up about Sofie’s new blog-home.
You may know of one of my oft-repeated phrases:
In the New Girl Order, the biggest losers, will be Women.
NOT MEN.
And the reasons for why I say that, lie in my posts here. Simply put, the “game†is rigged for Today’s Woman in ways that is even WORSE than for you and me. Why? Because a lot of Women are being sold a seriously bad bill of goods…and, like the economic meltdown we’re seeing around us right now, the same will happen on the dating market. Because by design, only a small number of people can obstensibly “winâ€-especially when it comes to Women. Most, the vast majority, will lose.
I feel deeply about this for several reasons. One, because had it NOT been for one of those Wise Women-in my case my great grandmother-I might have ended up a statistic. After a month-long courtship, my mom, who at the time was a 19 year old singlemom and a radiology nurse, was urged to marry my mid-30s aged stepdad. My GGM told me mom straightup, look, I know he’s not all that you want him to be. But he loves you and that child. And you need a father for your son. You’ll learn to love him.
Today Ferdi, those words don’t even exist in the American lexicon-and keep in mind, I’m only 40 years old! My God…how far have we done fell.
Secondly, I have three sisters, and I love them dearly. I don’t want to see any of them serially and repeatedly pumped and dumped…riding the cock carousel into infinity…out there clawing and scratching for the few Alphas out there in a de facto harem…or worse. Don’t get it twisted, I’m a pretty practitioner of Game, but I see its real limitations and real dangers, too, and because I have some skin in the game, so to speak, I am concerned about the sexual market aping the economic one these days. Where there are precious few winners…and a hell of a lot of losers.
Because of the destruction of the “old knowledge” of human sexuality that occurred forty years ago, today’s women are woefully ignorant of the realities of the sexual marketplace. Men are ignorant too, but our status as nature’s guinea pigs gives us more leeway in our personal lives. A man’s sexual market value doesn’t peak until his early thirties, and the decline afterwards can be mitigated with fame and wealth (just look at all of the rich old farts with hot young wives). A woman’s value peaks in her late teens/early twenties, declines slowly during her late twenties, precipitously drops in her thirties, and effectively reaches zero (or close to it) in her early forties. Most women simply do not realize this cold fact until it’s too late, as The Fifth Horseman wrote in the comment section of this post:
Women, by definition, can’t grasp the hard reality of numbers and probabilities. That is why they often are caught by surprise when their attractiveness fades in their mid-30s.
Thus, women end up experiencing a Wile E. Coyote moment, when they suddenly realize men aren’t interested in them to the same degree, and that men 15 years older are going to be the norm for her henceforth.
That is why mother/Gmother mentorship is more important to a woman of 20-25 than father/Gfather mentorship is for a man of the same age.
Women were shielded from their Wife E. Coyote moment by the steady hand of their mothers and grandmothers. You, Sofia, LSB, and Bhetti still probably have this service available to you, but a lot of white urban women do not.
Yes, men never get a big falloff like that (unless they go bald, and even then, there are ways to reduce the impact of that).
But women are FAR more likely to go on match.com and get their ego boosted by the male-heavy ratio there making them think that their market value is higher than it is.
Men are less prone to getting so detached from reality.
The removal of the steady hand of mothers and grandmothers guiding the choices made by young women, has made them vulnerable to bad choices.
Hence, women go around in their 20s thinking that the treatment they are accustomed to will never end, and that an Alpha who sleeps with them will actually marry them (not realizing that she is one of three at any given time). They use Match.com to generate a lot of emails from men, which happen due to the 2:1 ratio there. Women falsely interpret this attention driven from an unnatural ratio as a sign of their value being higher than it is.
Then, women face their Wile E. Coyote moment. They realize their attractiveness has plunge only after it is too late to avoid the fall. They did not see it coming, as the emails from match.com were still flowing steadily as a response to photos of her that are 5 years out of date.
In the old days, grandma knew that a girl’s appeal was temporary, and made sure she got married off long before her appeal dropped. Today, women have no steady hand of yesteryear to warn them of the impending cliff. In fact, the media trys to paint a continued path in the air, in the form of shows that try to normalize cougarhood. Thus, more and more women face their Wile E. Coyote moment (age 34-37).
For this particular ‘Girl Game’ blog, I am cutting them slack, since Bhetti, Sofia, and LILgirl are all 20-22, and have better values than white ‘womyn’ types. Lilgrl is engaged too. So this crowd doesn’t irk me.
But yes, women who cross the age of 28-29 really have to get with it and realize that their time is very limited at that point. Online dating sites make it very easy for a woman to overrate her prospects (due to the ratios I described, and the inherent nature of the medium, where 20 emails from guys can *seem* like a lot, but really aren’t).
The steady hand of mothers and grandmothers was important in keeping a young woman away from cads and married off to a ‘good man’, and already have kids by age 35. Now that this factor is absent, young women are extremely vulnerable to hitting their Wife E. Coyote moment. And they have themselves to blame…
Female fertility drops off a cliff by 35. White women get wrinkles by then. Colored women have skin that lasts much longer (until 45), but fertility is all but gone by 35 no matter what race the woman is.
With the coming economic collapse and the end of the “sheconomy“, one hell of a lot of single, “confident,” “independent” women are going to find themselves suffering on the streets because no man will look to them for anything more then a one-night stand. The biggest winners will be the good girls who had parents who taught them right, few as they may be. In the land of the starving sluts, the prudish virgin is queen.
{ 89 comments… read them below or add one }
3 minutes past the hour: Get laid
6 minutes past the hour: Get laid
9 minutes past the hour: Get laid
The male biological clock >:)
Men rarely engage in sexual solipsism of this sort
BETTER:
Men engage in sexual solipsism of this sort much less than women.
EXAMPLE:
Lots of guys will spend a lot of time in the gym instead of learning game because they overestimate how much looks attract women.
Of course, no man will ever get the hots for a chick because she plays hard-to-get.
There is considerable overlap between what works for one sex and what works for the other. An pretty woman who also knows how to play hard to get can drive a man’s attraction for her into the stratosphere. But you are right, she will have to meet a minimum level of good looks and may have to signal some potential interest first.
Great post.
Another reason the “wisdom of the elders” is no longer heeded is that most people aren’t abstract thinkers therefore what wisdom they have to impart is very concrete and situation specific. Social change has been so drastic over the past few decades that older people don’t really understand the specifics of what their children and grandchildren are going through and thus often can’t really be that helpful.
” one hell of a lot of single, “confident,†“independent†women are going to find themselves suffering on the streets because no man will look to them for anything more then a one-night stand. The biggest winners will be the good girls who had parents who taught them right, few as they may be. In the land of the starving sluts, the prudish virgin is queen”
I think that it was ever thus FB. Sluts were never respected or coveted . Whilst virgins were respected snapped up and married by eager men.
It certainly has much to do with upbringing, I agree. A woman’s place is in the home( runs and ducks for cover) Today’s woman is generally too caught up in career or working to pay off debt.
I was fortunate to have a stay at home Mom who nutured and educated me and my siblings. She was (and still is) a deeply religious woman and instilled in me an abiding moral compass.
She has been a great role model, and I have tried to emulate her in every facet of my life. I gave up work when I was pregnant with my first child.. and I never went back. I am there for my two young kids when they finish their school day.. just as my mother was for me.
It chills me to the bone to think that many women today engage in such slut like behaviour.. More so than I ever imagined, judging by the comments on this and other blogs that I have read.
I have a vivacious 13 year old daughter , and hubby and I doing our darndest to instill in her good and decent virtues. To be chaste and pure. To save herself for marriage..
Just as her mother and her grandmother before her, did..
Sadly.. a quaint notion in this day and age.
Again more of this solipsism bullshit.
Self absorbed =/= solipsism.
The dictionary definition isn’t even accurate.
Meh. It’s probably a case that uppity gals are Betas just like the uppity guys. Some guys think that just because they’re breathing they can eventually score the Alpha gals and some gals think they’re special enough to score the Alpha guys. Both would prefer to chase the unattainable than settle down with the ho-hum achievable (which is simliar to the David Alexander method).
From career women who lament that their accomplishments don’t give men erections
Remember that season of The Bachelor a few years back, where the bachelor was a doctor, and one of the female contestants, who was a doctor as well, lamented “my eggs are rotting!” She also kept talking about the fact that she was a doctor, as though she thought it was unfair that he wasn’t impressed by that. (That was one of my first glimpses of sex-realism: I remember some blogger writing, “news flash ladies–we don’t care about your resumes!”)
Another important example of this is how women judge other women’s attractiveness by the same standards by which they judge men’s (personality, style, etc.) Thursday wrote a good comment explaining this. I’ve seen this so many times in my own social circles, where girls will get all jealous around the girl who dresses and does her hair really stylishly and wears lots of makeup, but whose raw materials are only so-so, and then be utterly flummoxed when men display interest in the jeans-sneakers-and-ponytail girl-next-door who just has a prettier face and better body.
The dismal prospects of women age 35+ are overstated because men age 35+ are abundant. Although 40-year-old men might prefer a 25-year-old woman, few are capable of attracting one due to the stiff competition from 25-39 year-old men. Also, compared to woman his own age, a 35-year-old woman looks good to a 40-year-old man.
The sexual double standard arises from the reality that getting sex is easy for women but hard for men.
For this statement to be true, that condemnation of promiscuous sexual behavior is linked to the degree of difficulty in obtaining sexual activity, then an Alpha male like Tucker Max, who is celebrated for the ease with which pimps high-value whores, should be strongly denounced. And inversely, a fat-assed, retarded freak with bad acne and a malodorous gina who manages to score much dick should be venerated like a lowly beta male, who through the desperate use of game is able to score pussy on a regular basis.
But alas, this is not the case. Tucker Max is held in high esteem for the obscene amount of pussy he so effortlessly pulls. And people are repulsed by YouTube videos that show an ugly ho receiving admittedly disgusting male attention.
Wile E. Coyote moment!
Remember the term….
Maybe I should have qualified, saying that men don’t engage in HARMFUL sexual solipsism. Going to the gym is no substitute for game, but it still helps on a secondary level – all else being equal, a guy who is fit will beat out a guy who isn’t every time.
“The dismal prospects of women age 35+ are overstated because men age 35+ are abundant. Although 40-year-old men might prefer a 25-year-old woman, few are capable of attracting one due to the stiff competition from 25-39 year-old men.”
You’re forgetting the promiscuity factor. If a critical mass of single women over thirty are sluts (which is increasingly becoming the case), men will perceive that most of them are sluts and will not bother with them beyond a fuck in the bathroom.
“For this statement to be true, that condemnation of promiscuous sexual behavior is linked to the degree of difficulty in obtaining sexual activity”
I’m talking about in a general sense, not an individual one. It is generally easy for women to get sex and generally difficult for men to do the same, which is why Tucker Max is lauded (because only a small number of guys can do what he does) and the “retarded freak” is laughed at (because sluts are a dime a dozen).
Indeed. Plus, the dismal prospects of women who are 35+ are very much there, because their main goal still is MARRIAGE, which very few men will entertain with a woman too old to have kids.
Sure, 45 year old men will date a 35 year old woman. But marriage is usually not on the cards.
A woman who wants to have kids better get married no later than 31-32. Period.
Although 40-year-old men might prefer a 25-year-old woman, few are capable of attracting one due to the stiff competition from 25-39 year-old men.
Not true. A high-status 40 year old with Game will do better than a Game-ignorant 25 year old.
There is considerable overlap between what works for one sex and what works for the other.
No. No way.
stratosphere. But you are right, she will have to meet a minimum level of good looks
Minimum? A 6 is never, ever competitive with a 9, no matter what she does, or what ‘Rules’ she tries to employ. A 6 does NOT have access to the guys that a 9 in the same location has access to.
“Sluts were never respected or coveted .”
No, but in the past, sluttiness had tangible risks associated with it (STDs, pregnancy and resulting poverty) that are greatly diminished today.
Totally. It was never possible in any earlier human society for any woman to have sex with 10 or more men, and still manage to get married to a high-status man.
A prostitute was always at risk of violence, social ostracization, etc. High-class women did not sleep with large numbers of men pre-marriage.
FB, a good point that is not made often enough.
There is no incentive to be a “good girl” in the slut culture. You will be presumed a whore, and there’s nothing you can do to prove otherwise.
Marrying your high school sweetheart is really the only way to avoid this, and unfortunately most of those people do it for all the wrong reasons. For the rest of us, it’s Go Fish or Russian Roulette.
You, sir, are incredibly funny.
The biggest winners will be the good girls who had parents who taught them right, few as they may be. In the land of the starving sluts, the prudish virgin is queen.
“You can recognize these supposed nonplayers [consciously not playing power games] by the way they flaunt their moral qualities, their piety, their exquisite sense of justice. But since all of us hunger for power, and almost all of our actions are aimed at gaining it, the nonplayers are merely throwing dust in our eyes, distracting us from their power plays with their air of moral superiority. If you observe them closely, you will see in fact that they are often the ones most skillful at indirect manipulation, even if some of them practice it unconsciously. And they greatly resent any publicizing of the tactics they use every day. [We Girl Gamers are generous to you.]
If the world is like a giant scheming court and we are trapped inside it, there is no use trying to opt out of the game. That will only render you powerless, and powerlessness will make you miserable. Instead of struggling against the inevitable, instead of arguing and whining and feeling guilty, it is far better to excel at power. In fact, the better you are at dealing with power, the better friend, lover, husband, wife, and person you become.”
Robert Greene — 48 Laws of Power
I remember this paragraph and others as making the scales fall from my eyes, giving myself a fundamental shift in perspective in a way that made things click. There is no such thing as not playing games. We are all playing games. All our actions are a strategy on many levels, from evolutionary to spiritually.
In terms of moral and good actions, I feel like I understood this basically. I feel like they are most often the best strategy for me. It gives me happiness, it gives me power over people, it keeps my options open. I found it very difficult to understand an action that could be called evil: not only is it a further strike against psychological health but it is also high risk, socially unacceptable, etc. To me, there is no other real and smart option.
Robert Green’s essential and enjoyable reading. He’s so adept at showing you how to see clearly. The way to think he teaches is priceless.
Remember: like all else, goodness is a strategy and you gain (selfish!) rewards from it.
all of us hunger for power
Greene assumes way too much here. Some people are genuinely motivated by a desire to do good.
A good overview of our labyrinthine relationship with morality is Robert Wright’s The Moral Animal.
And, all else being equal, a female 10 who’s not a bitch will beat out a female 10 who is a bitch (for a relationship).
I agree. Tood, I like you, but stop being an idiot. We’re not talking about girls getting guys who are out of their league — we’re talking about girls getting guys who are in their league to COMMIT.
I was replying to Thursday.
we’re talking about girls getting guys who are in their league to COMMIT.
You and Bhetti are the only ones I heard say this. I am not sure the others ladies agree.
Actually, Lilgrl, it would be interesting to see which parts of Ferdinand’s main article you agree and disagree with.
Maybe even write that up on GirlGame.
In general, it should be expected that women are looking for commitment. They are not looking for casual sex, this is you being (heh) solipsistic in thinking that what is the goal for one sex is the same as the goal for the other sex. Yes, lots of women are delusional and confused these days, but that doesn’t divorce them from the fact that they are women, and, whether they like it or not…they’re looking for commitment.
Even the alpha-chasers are looking for alphas to commit. Sure, it’s probably not going to happen but that is absolutely not the point.
This. Is. True.
*a note: Ferdinand, it would be cool if you would disable these nested comments.
Aha! So therein lies the problem.
I agree with this :
we’re talking about girls getting guys who are in their league to COMMIT.
But how does a person know what his/her league is? I have written about how match.com + media messages can mislead women into thinking that they are in a higher league than they are.
Also, a man with Game (even LTR Game) jumps a few leagues ahead, so this also disrupts the subjective ranking of ‘league’.
So the first question the GirlGame charter should address is how a woman can best estimate her league, without aiming either too high or too low.
Only then can step 2, which is getting a man of her league to commit, be addressed.
Well, Ferdinand wrote the exact opposite :
“Of course, no man will ever get the hots for a chick because she plays hard-to-get. ”
I take a middle ground. A woman playing ‘hard to get’ only works in her favor if the man has zero Game. A man with Game quickly sees through that, and can counter it in half a dozen ways.
Man’s Game > Women’s ‘Rules’ Game > Man with zero Game.
I know. Thus, we can conclude that I was disagreeing with Ferdinand.
Interesting. I think my boyfriend and I are in the same league.
In terms of looks, intelligence, etc. We’re not exactly the same, but the ways in which we differ are very much explained by our differences in sex.
So…now what?
Bhetti,
Yea, I’ve greatly enjoyed Greene’s work. You might wanna checkout his Art of Seduction and The 51st Law which he co-authored with rapper-turned Hip Hop mogul 50 Cent. Both good reads.
Also, can’t forget The Prince and Balthasar Gracian’s Art of Worldly Wisdom.
The Game, is the Game…
The Obsidian
Thursday, what I took away from it is that it doesn’t matter what your motivations are, you are making a power play regardless of them.
Greene loves phrasing everything from the perspective of the word ‘power’ in this book. Hunger for power to him ultimately means success in whatever you’re endeavouring to do, although I’ve read this admittedly a long time ago so he might’ve impressed differently.
Thank you for the recommendation; the title’s seductive and familiar (others have done too) so I’ll keep it in mind.
Interesting. I think my boyfriend and I are in the same league.
Are you sure?
Don’t answer that. The question itself shows how subjective the concept is.
Also, what about the time axis? Two people may be in the same league at one instance, but what about 10, 20, and 30 years from now? One partner can rise, or fall, in ‘league’ relative to the other. An Alpha who marries a second time (Reagan, McCain, Ted Kennedy) usually chooses a wife much younger (10, 17, and 22 years younger respectively with those 3 men).
Mmm…are you sure they’re all Alphas?
Mmm…are you sure they’re all Alphas?
Yes. That is an easy one.
Ted Kennedy is forgiven by feminists even for murder of a woman. That is alpha (even if it is appalling).
McCain = alpha. He was 42 with his own kids already and his wife was 25, pretty, and very rich. Yet Cindy dreamily said “I am surprised that HE would be interested in me..”
Reagan = alpha through and through
Ask any knowledgeable guy here.
The Fifth Horseman:
This would have been news for Marozia and Alberic of Spoleto 1,100 years ago, to take only one example.
The modern sexual degeneracy is not a historically unprecedented phenomenon. What really has no precedent are the modern medical advances that significantly reduce the more visible consequences of sexual misbehavior, and the prevailing liberal and feminist ideology with its unprecedentedly delusional view of human sexuality and differences between the sexes. However, periods of general decline in standards of sexual behavior, as well as whores that successfully brokered for power and prestige, are not a particularly rare historical phenomenon.
Well said. I do think that men want “good girls” as wives. I also think that people in power are people who want power — regardless of their sex. Take that as you will.
Kathy –
Take these comments with a whopping serving of salt.
Not necessarily. Especially today — many a guy has passed me over for any type of relationship because I’m fairly “prudish”. In a world where sluts abound, a true virgin will actually have a much harder time (than she would have before) convincing men to stay in relationships (which will lead to marriage) if she’s not sleeping with them.
But what if a 6 turned out to be a 9?
I don’t mind.
Sheesh, you people have been busy.
LILGRL:
“Ferdinand, it would be cool if you would disable these nested comments.”
Everyone’s a critic…
The Fifth Horseman:
“Well, Ferdinand wrote the exact opposite :”
Actually, I agree with Thursday and LILGRL. As Thursday mentioned, however, the man has to ALREADY be significantly attracted to the girl for “playing hard to get” to work. It MULTIPLIES attraction, and does not, as many women think, create it.
LILGRL:
“Not necessarily. Especially today — many a guy has passed me over for any type of relationship because I’m fairly “prudishâ€. In a world where sluts abound, a true virgin will actually have a much harder time (than she would have before) convincing men to stay in relationships (which will lead to marriage) if she’s not sleeping with them.”
The men who reject prudes on that basis are looking for easy sex, not for marriage and/or children. When they want to settle down and sire a brood, I can guaranteed they’ll go for the madonna and not the whore.
This is, of course, in the far future, when the current socioeconomic system that discourages marriage and encourages casual dating collapses.
According to the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad384.pdf), here are the number of male sexual partners for females within the past year (1999-2002 data):
Age: None, 1, 2 or more
20-29: 15.1, 66.0, 19.0
30-39: 9.4, 79.6, 11.0
40-49: 16.1, 78.4, 5.6
50-59: 33.9, 61.6, 4.4
Conclusion: women experience little difficulty finding a sexual partner until age 50, and the overwhelming majority of women are not particularly promiscuous.
Do you know what the term “critical mass” means? I wrote this in the post I linked in my previous comment:
“And before the usual suspects start with the whiny refrain, “not ALL women are like that,†let me state that not all women have to be lying sluts for men to steer clear of them. Much like how introducing a critical mass of lead coins into circulation with gold coins will devalue currency, a critical mass of women who slut it up and lie about it to their men will encourage men to avoid them like dysentery. It only takes a few wormy apples for people to toss the basket aside.”
Of course, this ‘analysis’ does not account for married women, who have a husband chained down.
Thus, Wilbur’s claim does nothing to disprove the facts.
Of course, Wilbur is one of those guys who thinks women would never lie about the number of partners in a survey.
Eh. I lose interest quickly.
Hard to get = easy to ignore.
“Hard to get” also won’t work unless the girl is at least, say, 1-2 points above any other girl he has ever had.
Imagine such tactics working at all on a man who has become accustomed (even for a brief time) to a steady diet of 8+’s.
Not gonna happen.
–
Ferdinand – LILGRL is correct; the “nested comments” format is a motherfucker. It causes old and new comments to become interwoven, and so strongly discourages readers from re-visiting past threads.
It will pass from “nuisance” to “dealbreaker” if your threads start to pass 50-60 comments.
I have seen very attractive, but not spectacular girls get their hooks into experienced players by playing the coquette. It can happen to you. “Fuck, she’s my Kryptonite.”
Of course women have generally no problem finding sex partners, if they want them, at any point up to around 50. What happens, though, is that the “quality” of such partners varies greatly. A 44 year old woman will have much less quality partners than she did at 24, but if she is in reasonable shape she can still find a sex partner.
Finding someone to marry — well, that’s a different story. Men will sleep with a woman who is older and reasonably in shape much more easily than they will commit to her, never mind marry her.
So, I see the statistics are being not very telling. Much of the % in the 30-50 range will be married, so of course they will report one partner, even if the sex is rare, as often happens in marriage. And the divorced or single ones can also get “sex” if they want it, provided that they are reasonably in shape and willing to provide sex. But trying to get another man to commit at that age — a quality man — is very, very hard. A woman who divorces around 40, does not want to sleep around, and wants a man to marry or commit to her has a much harder time pulling that off than she did at 26.
Yeah, as Ferdinand says, it is an accomplishment for men to get sex. Tucker has achieved something here as well. Much more so than a woman who was equally sexually alluring would have “achieved” by having a similar tale of her “exploits”, generally speaking.
The reason studs are respected and sluts are derided is because being a stud requires skill, talent, and practice, while being a slut merely requires a pulse and a lack of impulse control. The unsung flip side of the double standard, however, is that female virgins are cherished whereas male virgins are ridiculed. A man who can’t get laid signals to the world that he is a loser, while a woman who resists spreading her legs for every scumbag who winks at her shows herself to be a sober, selective person. Because a female’s primary goal is getting the highest-quality man available to commit to her, women who cannot or will not stay in a relationship are poor sources of information on men. The male virgin and the female slut are mirror images of each other in terms of attractiveness to and knowledge of the opposite sex.
Bingo! That is the crux of why women are so messed up in their empty heads, ROFL.
What’s considered “hard to get”?
If I answer all his phone calls on the first ring, doesn’t that look desperate? Like he doesn’t have to “earn” me? Don’t men like the “chase” and a bit of “mystery”?
Isn’t it better to answer his calls on like the 3rd or 4th ring, and then only if he calls once a day? If he’s calling 4 times a day, why answer every call?
I think being too available sends out the message that you have no life other than this man and that you could possibly become OCD over him and stalk him.
Question: where is the incentive these days for a woman to be a “good girl”?
Where is the reward in a culture that does not value marriage and family?
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
That’s your feminine solipsism talking. WOMEN like the “chase” and “mystery” – men don’t care for that crap.
Here’s a better idea: TELL him, to his FACE, that you don’t want him calling four times a day instead of this passive aggressive bullshit. Let him know up front that you’re interested, but you don’t want him smothering you.
When it comes time for marriage and family (and it will), the good girls get first pick of men.
Thank you FB,
I agree completely.
And have to add:
Where is the reward in a culture that does not value marriage and family?
The option to fully cash out if the marriage does not work, while keeping the family by your side.
The reward is having no consequences for your actions.
About the calling/answering thing, it is women who want men who are busy, men who are a chase, men who are options.
Men want a woman who wants, appreciates, and cherishes them, without other men in the picture to validate her attractiveness.
“Men want a woman who wants, appreciates, and cherishes them, without other men in the picture to validate her attractiveness.”………….
I thought men wanted “hot babes” who were eyed by every man in the room and made the man feel proud that he was envied by his brothers got he nabbed the hottest babe?
Women get very jealous when their men eye other women and even more jealous if those women eye back. Women are the ones who want to be exclusively cherished without the threat of competition.
I think perhaps you got it all backwards.
“When it comes time for marriage and family (and it will), the good girls get first pick of men.”…………..
No, when it comes time for marriage and family – the HOT BABES still get picked!
There are many “good girls” out here but many of them are probably 4-6s on the 1-10 scale of beauty.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
YOU have it backwards. Because male sexual attractiveness is based on social dominance (a trait that is not easily discernible in most cases), women are attracted to men that other women find attractive. Female sexual attractiveness is based on physical beauty, which any man can discern for himself without the opinion of others.
But hey, thanks for validating the thesis of this post.
Since when did hot babe != good girl? Hot babes are more likely to be good girls, because only alphas can seduce them. Girls in the 4-6 are more likely to be sluts, because they are “within reach” of both alpha and beta men.
I disagree. Women who are sought after more sleep around more because they have more oppurtunity. Hot babes get hit on by other hot babes (males).
Hot dudes and hot dudettes are sleeping with each other ALOT. Visit any University campus.
Plain Janes and Joes might sleep around less so because let’s face it, even they plainies want hotties too.
This is how it was when I was in school and from what I see, it’s still like that.
Who makes up the majority of porn queens? Plain Janes or Hot Babes?
Personally, I’ve never wanted men that alot of other women wanted. I found the arrogance of such men to be unbearable. They knew they were a hot commodity on the market and hence developed a superiority complex.
I like humble, simple men – who are cute.
Maybe I’m an outlier but I don’t think so.
Women who are sought after more sleep around more because they have more oppurtunity. Hot babes get hit on by other hot babes (males).
1. Having more than one very attractive man as a partner is largely superfluous for a woman.
2. Hot women are more able to extract commitment and exclusivity from very attractive men.
Therefore, hot women will be, on average, much less likely to sleep around.
However, hot women do suffer far less of a hit to their long term market from slutty behaviour, so those who do want to slut it up often do so in epic style.
There are many “good girls†out here but many of them are probably 4-6s on the 1-10 scale of beauty.
Why would the “good girls” need to be plain looking?
If their “”"niceness”"” is a function of their lack of attractiveness, then their “”"niceness”"” is merely instrumental, and not inherent to their nature. This is the type of “”"nice”"” woman who, after a few years of marriage, manages to lose some weight, get some breast implants, and then divorces her husband because of her increased sexual market value.
Beware of such “”"nice”"” women, folks.
“Who makes up the majority of porn queens? Plain Janes or Hot Babes?”
Plain Janes, actually. Plain Janes with fake tits. Hot Babes go into legitimate acting or modeling.
I love the comments of Dont think dont tell,
disagree. Women who are sought after more sleep around more because they have more oppurtunity.
Who makes up the majority of porn queens? Plain Janes or Hot Babes?
wow… Just wow. What kind of brain can connect the real life sexual market’s functioning to porn…?
Connect the idea that men want hot babes in porn (which is actually not true. Just look at the amateur porn craze) to porn babes are hot babes because hot babes are slutty.
If I made a mistake there, here is another option
Connect the idea that men want hot babes in porn (which is actually not true. Just look at the amateur porn craze) to hot babes in real life having a porn life.
Yes, there are slutty hot babes, in my opinion most of the attractive women not married (and faithful) are sluttying it up nowadays because they have the option to do so without a price.
Hot girls are limited by the lack of attractive men.
The only reason the average may not be sluttying it up as they want to is that they also want the hot dudes. But we are again talking about epic sluttying, nothing less than the hot babes.
Average girls are limited by their entitlement to higher grades of men.
Just this weekend had to witness an under average colleague of mine, something I would not tap with a borrowed dick, leave the bar with a handsome, well build, clever looking well dressed way over average man…
Even attractive men (who are not epically attractive (dont think dont tell: am not talking about looks)), are not even remotely close to the options that these women have sexually.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
You’re correct. Thing is, the women who are sought after more are the Plain Janes. Why? Because most men find most women attractive enough for a fuck (for a relationship, on the other hand…), Plain Janes are beset upon by both hot alpha guys and Plain Joes (the latter of whom don’t even bother with apex women because they figure they don’t have a shot).
Those hot dudes also have Plain Jane booty calls on the side. Every guy who can assemble a harem has already done so. Hogamus higamus, men are polygamous…
You’re right about the Plain Joes (betas), but see above points on beta women.
What the hell does an industry designed to cater to male fantasies have to do with the real world?
The problem is that what women say on this subject is notoriously unreliable.
You’re like most women – your mouth writes checks your pussy doesn’t cash.
Z.G., you are in agreement with me about the hot babes slutting it up to epic proportions NOWADAYS because society accepts it.
As far as what “porn” has to do with the real world – the borders have been blurred thanx to the internet. Pole dancing is now a fitness class at most gyms in the USA where in other, more traditional countries, it would be considered scandalous.
Ordinary women with day jobs are currently being encouraged by our culture to slut it up and porn it up. Husbands and boyfriends often suggest making home videos, and when they don’t suggest it, their wives/girlfriends will.
Things have changed a lot and due to the glorification of porn in the media (Girls Next Door, etc), porn of some type (amateur or professional, soft or hardcore, low or high key) has now become acceptable in the minds of many otherwise ordinary women with day jobs.
The lines have been blurred.
For every female hot babe out there, there is a male hot babe whom she can bed.
Even if we analyze conservatively…. like let’s say in a 4 year college period a hot babe has only 2 legitimate boyfriends per year (jock or popular type dude), that’s a total of 8 men she has slept with by the age of 22.
Now let’s say between 23 and 27 when she is out working in the real world and popular jocks are no longer in her social circle and she has expanded her repertoire to other types of men, perhaps men in the same professional field as she, and she has a very conservative number of 1 boyfriend per year, that adds another 5 men to her sexual resume, that’s 13 men by the time YOU meet her (when you are 38 and looking to settle down with a “nice” hot babe ten years your junior.)
And these are conservative calculations for “hot” women in the United States.
I didn’t even take into account the number of betas with game she met at bars that she may have been reduced to sleeping with every once in a while to relieve a “dry spell”.
And, as you men go to such painstaking lengths to convince us — game has levelled (or almost levelled) the playing field for beta men. Due to consistent practice of game, even men who otherwise would’ve NEVER had the chance to bang hot babes, are now being given the oppurtunities.
Therefore the hot babes are not only sleeping with their male counterparts, they are IN ADDITION, sleeping with betas with game every now and then too.
I think the desire to put “hot babes” on pedastals and fantasize about them as having had less sexual partners than 4-6s is just you guy’s way of trying to convince yourselve’s of something that is too good to be true.
And remember, if you do ever manage to settle down into a LTR with a hot babe, she will never tell you her real number of sexual partners.
There will also always be a gnawing suspicion in the back of your mind that she could be cheating on you.
But all of this is just part of the “pay-off” you have to be willing to exchange in order to marry a hot babe.
Whoever gets married in this day and age is a fool.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
The median number of lifetime sexual partners for American women is 3. Women aren’t as slutty as you think they are.
One boyfriend per year is not “conservative” in light of the facts. And I’m looking to make babies with a hot chick who is 15 years my junior.
A “beta with game” who can bag hot chicks is otherwise known as an alpha.
The number of men who have risen themselves to that level is still too small to have any discernible effect on society.
That is not “putting them on a pedestal,” you dolt, it’s the truth. One of my colleagues, Chuck Ross, explains this in better detail:
“Women in the middle of the attractiveness scale have a leg up, if you will, in the sexual partner tally because they are “available†to more men. A 6 might be willing to date down and hook up with a 5, and there’s an equal chance that a male 7 might date down to her. She has the benefit of being “attacked†from both sides.”
I will explain it to you one more time:
1) Men are unchoosy. The average guy is attracted, to some degree, to 80% of the women he encounters. Contrary to what some guys claim, we will fuck just about anything when it comes down to it.
2) Women are choosy. The average chick is attracted, to some degree, to 20% of the men she encounters.
3) Men are polygamous – they have a need for sexual variety and will screw as many women as they can get their hands on. The more, the merrier, and unless the man in question is a celebrity, it is impossible for all of his lays to be 8s, 9s, and 10s.
4) Women are hypergamous – they prefer men who are higher in status then they are. They tend to be loyal to one man at a time.
5) Most men are betas. Most men do not have game. They are therefore incapable of nailing women higher on them on the attractiveness scale and will settle for what they can get.
6) Women, being choosy, generally will not settle for men below or at their level if they can help it. The more attractive the woman, the choosier she can be.
7) Therefore, higher echelon women are generally less slutty (epic exceptions exempted) because only alphas have the seduction skills necessary to bed them. Women of middling attractiveness are more slutty because they can be and are seduced by both skilled alphas and unskilled betas.
I don’t see how I can make this any clearer.
Not if you have game!
Ferds,
Remember, 80% of men and 99.9% of women will never, ever comprehend Game. They just don’t reside high enough on Maslow’s hierarchy.
All your great points will be totally lost on DADT, as well as on Justin and Todd White.
“The median number of lifetime sexual partners for American women is 3. “…………..
LOL!
Not anyone under the age of 50!
3 is the number of men that extremely cautious and conservative women who do not go to bars and nightclubs sleep with. Believe me.
If they are your average bar hopping American under the age of 50, they are lying. Straight up lying.
I know NUNS (literally) who have slept with more men.
Open your eyes boys, open your eyes.
Any stats on the average number of sexual partners for female University students in the United States of America circa 2009?
Read the comments section here;
http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-women-have-four-sexual-partners-in-lifetime/
(and appearantly it’s 4, not 3)
Dumbass:
Irrelevant. We’re talking about women in general.
1) That is a blog post, not a scientific report.
2) The statistic mentions AVERAGE partners, and median != average. Learn. To. Fucking. Read.
3) If you’re trying to disprove a scientific study with an bunch of internet comments, you’re even more retarded then I thought.
Nice try, cunt.
Hi Ferdinand, Here’s something that can help.
Here are some figures from the Center for Disease Control. (From 2002)
Go to the bottom of the page and it will give you a very good breakdown on the lifetime no of female partners.
Executive summary. White Females 3.8, White College Educated Females 3.3.
Dont read dont think :
I dont know what you got against hot babes, but I said that the average janes are slutting it up to at least the same extent as the hot babes.
“The only reason the average may not be sluttying it up as they want to is that they also want the hot dudes. But we are again talking about epic sluttying, nothing less than the hot babes.”
I said the average are not sluttying it up as much as they want to…
I know it is not really clear what I mean by that. I will not try to explain now, there is too much to reply.
But then, I am not interested in the Average Jane (at least not any long term), so what they do is the problem of most of my friends, who are not able to get a above average girl…, and would happily date the Average Jane. Hell, most of them being above average men, still are not able to get even average girls… And are not willing to listen to what I got to say. fifth is so damn right.
Most of what you say above is women’s doing. Women think they would be sexy doing the sommersault vault on a pole dance.
you know what is sexy?
Opening the door to your man coming from soul killing work and hugging him while telling him how lucky she is to have him.
Not reducing herself to a cheap prostitute.
Women have no fucking clue.
The pole is so that SHE feels sexy… There is no consideration in what he wants…
A stripper pole in my bedroom? Fuck me.
Human sexuality 102:
For every woman out there there are hundreds of more attractive men she can bed. Unlimited number of same level men and lesser level men do not even need mentioning.
Since women at least in short term are not able to look at anything past “preselection”, this beta that she is reduced to is actually the alpha in her perception. Blame it on her selection criteria rather than some men doing taking their balls’ destiny into their hands.
For the few who learn game, the field is not leveled, it is just less imbalanced. Unless you are in the top 1-3% of men, you will never have the short term sexual power of a somewhat attractive woman.
Men know this, women know this, women want to keep it like this.
And Average Janes are sleeping with an additional number of beta men who have not learned game but due to circumstances (alcohol, party, social circle, accidents etc) appear attractive to them.
I’ve seen so much…
What do you think? The Average Jane is as faithful as your guardian angel?
FBardamu:
Seriously I do not believe that in the currently 20-35 age group.
Maybe it is because I am in North Europe, but this number of men is what I see women burning through latest in a span of few years. And those are the slowest.
Virginity lost at 16, the woman now 25… 3 partners is in my opinion a lie. Median, or average. Maybe if she got married by 17.. Then could be lower than three. Good luck finding that woman.
Not counting Las Vegas, Spain, the trips to France and Italy. The stop over in Greece. The few drunk encounters.
The numbers here are different anyway, they range from 5 to 12.. Still low. the slowest girls even do not stay without a shag for a year..
Pierce Brosnan.
The guy with puppy eyes who got busted with that fugly prostitute, Hugh Grant.
Even celebrities are diving.
Sometimes I only talk to about the girls in my interest range.
It does not matter tho, even 1s and 2s have options if they are females.
So many obese women in the north I see with at least physically attractive men.
Do not underestimate the collective hive mind of womenfolk forever working on giving the illusion that sex is on a scarce supply.
Any woman has the knowledge that they will need to play down their numbers because doing it so collectively will prevent the loss of value for sexuality.
If women would be telling their real numbers, men, as a group, would no more be able to bond.
Bond = investment.
You ride the village bicycle, you do not buy or rent it.
That the village bicycle was ridden not by ordinary men, but by the guys who are having bicycles rain from the sky adds to the insult when the bicycle demands you to pay for exclusivity.
Whatever the statistics say, I do not believe the number 3, or 5, or 7.. In the 20-35 group of the independent and strong western woman.
Z.G. qouting Fbard:”The median number of lifetime sexual partners for American women is 3. Women aren’t as slutty as you think they are.”
Z.G.: Seriously I do not believe that in the currently 20-35 age group.
Maybe it is because I am in North Europe, but this number of men is what I see women burning through latest in a span of few years. And those are the slowest.
Virginity lost at 16, the woman now 25… 3 partners is in my opinion a lie. Median, or average. Maybe if she got married by 17.. Then could be lower than three. Good luck finding that woman.
Not counting Las Vegas, Spain, the trips to France and Italy. The stop over in Greece. The few drunk encounters.
The numbers here are different anyway, they range from 5 to 12.. Still low. the slowest girls even do not stay without a shag for a year..
It does not matter tho, even 1s and 2s have options if they are females.
So many obese women in the north I see with at least physically attractive men.
Do not underestimate the collective hive mind of womenfolk forever working on giving the illusion that sex is on a scarce supply.
Any woman has the knowledge that they will need to play down their numbers because doing it so collectively will prevent the loss of value for sexuality.
If women would be telling their real numbers, men, as a group, would no more be able to bond.
Bond = investment.
You ride the village bicycle, you do not buy or rent it.
That the village bicycle was ridden not by ordinary men, but by the guys who are having bicycles rain from the sky adds to the insult when the bicycle demands you to pay for exclusivity.
Whatever the statistics say, I do not believe the number 3, or 5, or 7.. In the 20-35 group of the independent and strong western woman.”"
…………………………
EXACTLY!
Z.G. and I are in complete agreement.
Hot babes, plain janes and obese women —- all of ‘em have slept with plenty more than just a paltry 3-4 men by the age of 80, if they were born post 1950 that is.
Now, why don’t you call HIM a “cunt”, Fbard?
You were raised in a rude, low-class and cultureless society if you use that type of language with strangers on the net by the way.
Talk about not being able to handle debate or competition, you can’t even handle the obvious truth of what is right before your eyes without showing your lack of upbringing.
Low class Americans.
Learn some manners, even if you have to exchange your parents to do so.
z.g:
Remember, attempting to extrapolate the greater social situation from your own limited social milieu fails the scientific sniff test. If I went merely by what I saw here in the Capital District, then the entire U.S. should be a veritable Gomorrah, but that neglects regions where traditional values and religion still hold sway (yes, they still exist – I’ve visited them). Though, from what I understand, northern Europe is more feminized then the U.S. So perhaps the situation is different over there.
The median is 3 according to my link, the average is 8. This would suggest there is a sizable minority of women slutting it up, but they aren’t the majority.
Outliers. Most celebrities still hook up with hotties.
Women do lie about this sort of thing, but there’s no coherent conspiracy. Slumlord’s link shows a study by the CDC in which the median number of partners for women aged 15-44 is 3.3 – same as my link. If lying was as organized as you claim (most liars are incapable of telling the exact same story twice), the numbers should be completely different. “Collective hive mind” is giving the simpler sex far too much credit.
Retard:
Any port in a storm…
I won’t, because he’s not a brain-damaged twat like yourself.
Resorting to shaming language after being intellectually eviscerated? You truly are a pathetic cunt.
I’ve demolished every point you’ve made, and you continue to flail like the moron you are. That said, I have enjoyed making an example out of you for the studio audience.
Manners are reserved for people who deserve them, not blockheaded, lying bitches who can’t recognize when they’ve lost an argument.
Ta-ta for now, Toots.
No reply to Dont think dont tell. Woman speak.
“the median number of partners for women aged 15-44 is 3.3 “………
At first you said 3 was the median number for women over a lifetime. Now here you say between 15-44.
So after 44?
Women are on the prowl well into their 40s, 50s, and 60s in the USA.
In fact, bars and clubs are full of single women in their 40s (either never married or divorced.)
Women in their 40s, 50s, and 60s are prowling online by the millions.
So which is it – ?
Lifetime median or youth to early mid-age median?
RE: The disappearance of the “wise” woman
I’ve seen this pattern in the workplace where the older women hold the younger women in contempt.
My pet theory is that these older women started working in the 70′s/80′s and had to claw their way up through the ranks during feminism’s early days.
They resent the younger women who can jump right into a job today and make it look easy.
One thing that should be noted is that men don’t physically or emotionally peak until the mid-20′s. They are an estimated 7 years behind women as far as maturity goes. Traditional societies have always recognized this, with low divorce rates as a results. A woman that prefers young males does so for many reasons, but reality is not one of them. A man in his 30′s should be past the point of wanting to deal with petty dramas. Thus the silly sluts have little interest to him. After all, a man who has built a business or ascended the job latter should not be interested in sharing his hard-one assets with a woman that has little but fleeting sexual interest to offer. If women are smart they will realize that boy toys are just that
I find this whole discussion amazingly depressing primarily because the idea behind it is that a woman is only as good as her pretty face and attractive figure. Is this because men assume that a woman is essentially unknowable until it is too late and so decisions must be made based on what can be objectively ascertained (to the point that appearance can be rated objectively)?
I am nearing 40 and am aware that my expiration date has passed but would like to think that I still have some usefulness to my husband. Or is my value as a woman just in how I look – something I was basically born with and could, at best, only alter? And if I gain weight, does that constitute a bait and switch from the vows I made at the altar?
Here’s the thing – growing up as a girl, I know the prettiest girls in the class weren’t always (or, really, ever) the nicest, the humblest, the kindest, or the most interesting. Power corrupts, you know?
Rachel,
I find this whole discussion amazingly depressing primarily because the idea behind it is that a woman is only as good as her pretty face and attractive figure.
Men would like there to be more to a woman than this, but feminists have ensured that there rarely is. That is why you see men quickly say foreign women are better than American urban women, even if looks are equal.
would like to think that I still have some usefulness to my husband.
If you are cooking for/with him, praising him rather than putting him down, and letting him make the spending decisions, then yes, you are.
The ‘value’ of a woman is not only how she looks. But her *attractiveness to men* is about 95% based on her looks.
Rachel:
Are you a team? Forget who “leads” who or whatever that doesn’t really matter for all marriages – what does matter is that you nurture each other, often (but not always) done by the woman taking on the more domestic role and the man the provider or defender role. And one of the things that you should ask yourself is indeed what TFH alluded to above: Do you spend time cutting him down or building him up? And of course he has the same responsibility to you. Lastly, while not everyone wants them, if you bore his children and have done a decent job raising them your value to him should be above gold.
You both can and should do some things to age gracefully, but the most important stuff is the in the paragraphs above, and not how hot you look to his buddies or your female friends.
Well, I seem to be settling into a time-warped 1950s housewife experience which is not quite what I expected when I got my Master’s degree in the 1990s. When we adopted my son we decided I would stay home with him, both because we felt it was best for any child and because he had had no parent for the first 9 months of his life and bonding quickly and fully was, in my mind, so important.
In any case, he’s in school now full-time. I’d assumed I’d go back to work then, but then the economy crashed, and I’m re-evaluating. Honestly, I don’t want to go back. The office politics were often excruciating to me. I had to fight not to gossip and get sucked down into negativity. And while my job required copious amounts of higher education, it was often repetitive and rarely super fulfilling either. I liked it. But I don’t mind what I’m doing now either. I taught myself to cook last year and have been doing organic gardening and canning. I volunteer at my son’s school and do technical editing for a website. Our family would have more money if I went back to work, but our quality of life would go downhill fast. No more home-cooked meals at the family table, lunches on the go at fast-food places, no mom at home in summer or when a child gets sick. Dirty laundry built up. The dogs would never get walked, and I would gain weight without the exercise. The house would be messy all the time, as I know my husband would not pick up the slack. And this would drive me nuts and make me grumpy. I think human beings naturally fixate on what is “fair” or what would be fair, but I find that the farther I meander from what is “fair work” for me, the happier we all are. It’s easier for me to be supportive and positive to my husband and child when I realize that my job/life is very good even though it’s not lucrative or high status.
As far as spending goes, I pay the day-to-day bills and do the tax paperwork, but we make the money decisions together. I would definitely not say that he’s under my thumb there. I am a lot better at saving/not spending money than he is, but this is also helped by the fact that I have time (since I am home) to bargain grocery shop, to garage sale, to go to the library instead of the bookstore, to repair or sew clothes instead of buy them new. That is a hidden cost to working – not having the time to seek out less expensive alternatives.
I have to say – this decision I’m making now not to work – it goes against expectation, and I think that if I continue, other women will see me as lazy and repressed or as not living up to my potential. I don’t know about men.
Rachel:
You are not sitting on your can eating bonbons all day. You are doing nothing wrong, esp. since all of you are happy. Yes, it would be best to try to find time to update your job skills a bit more as in this economy theres always the chance that hubby’s gambit won’t work out. But that’s really it. My advice is to remind yourself of how happy you are and keep on doing what you say you are doing regardless of any pressures by the larger society.
“And if I gain weight, does that constitute a bait and switch from the vows I made at the altar? ”
Not necessarily. If your body maintains its proportions, then it might be ok. Once the belly sticks past the breasts and the waist gets bigger than the hips, you’ve changed your proportions enough so that you have baited and switched on your husband.
Oh, and don’t give the standard line “well, my asshole husband got fat, too.” Please, that doesn’t wash because men are so much more visual than women and it’s likely he saw that you let yourself go and so he took the lead from you.
I dunno. Where I come from, a guy with any class does not call a woman a ‘cunt’ online or anywhere else. There is no excuse that justifies it. When saw that, I just said ‘wow’. You may not agree with what a poster says, but there are ways to say it that don’t make you look quite as bad.
Wallace:
Where do you come from? Victorian England?
The poster “DADT” has a reputation in these parts for being an obnoxious troll. She’s been banned or otherwise run out of every venue she comments in. If she isn’t a cunt, the word has no meaning.
HA How ridiculous, I think you’re the deluded one here.
Wow. I could not agree more.
I had an old-fashioned and conservative mother and grandmother, but they stopped short of informing me of the “Wyle E. Coyote” part.
I learned that the hard way.
Luckily, I caught on just in time and by thirty-six married a gem of a man who loves my four children as though they are his own.
I accept that he will always find young women attractive, and though it stings a bit when he glances, I know he loves me and will likely always be faithful unless I give him reason not to be.
I listened to my parents advice and have been seeking a nice guy, however, nice guys don’t seem to exist. Men just want to hook up and I tell them all no. Alphas are jerks right? So I stay away.
There are all these guys who SAY they are nice, but actually they seem to really not have any respect for women. I’ve had a few guys say how nice they are, but when they weren’t that nice to me, didn’t call when they said they would, cancelled dates, it became obvious that I was better off being alone than being in a relationship with a man who isn’t really interested enough to act like a gentleman. I never go home with them and cut those loose very quickly.
I would have to say that it’s the men who are solipsistic and self-absorbed. And when I detect it, I don’t have much patience for it.
I found these comments as idiotic as “The Rules”. You have simply proved that men in general knows as little about women as women know about men. These ideas about what men want in a sex partner maybe valid, but few intelligent men use their penis to select a wife/life partner. The biggest difference in the 21st century is that now more women select spouses based on sexual expertise, and more men select their spouses by their ability to enhance the family’s economic position.
{ 45 trackbacks }