Two new studies reveal fascinating evidence that manwhores are much more attracted to promiscuous women than to less sexually available women. They don’t settle for them, they strongly prefer them. Essentially, men who are oriented toward casual sex deploy “adaptive, exploitative measures against women they perceive as vulnerable.”First, I note that the description isn't of "manwhores", but rather, players. Susan is among those women who like to use the term as a would-be perjorative substitute in a futile attempt to convince young women that men they find attractive are not attractive, which is fine, but it's a completely inappropriate term because a manwhore is a homosexual prostitute, not a man who is sexually successful with women and is not compensated in any monetary form for the services he provides. One could make a much better case for women who provide sex after dinner dates as "womanwhores", but let's face it, that just sounds both ridiculous and redundant. Second, the concept was already covered in all the necessary detail a long time ago on Friends
JOEY: How're you doing?
RACHEL: I'm ok.
JOEY: Ooh, that bad, huh? Look, I can sense when women are depressed and vulnerable. It's one of my gifts.
However obvious, it was interesting in that it supported my contention that female intelligence is not an attraction factor for men, not even intelligent men. This is a myth that women cling to almost as strongly as men cling to the myth of male loyalty and devotion being an attraction factor for women. It's amazing, but men and women alike seem to have tremendous difficulty distinguishing what makes the opposite sex attractive from what makes an individual member of the opposite sex a wise choice as a mate. The two concepts aren't only different, they're barely even tangentially related and in some cases can be outright contradictory.
34 comments:
" It's amazing, but men and women alike seem to have tremendous difficulty distinguishing what makes the opposite sex attractive from what makes an individual member of the opposite sex a wise choice as a mate."
This is, offcourse, not restricted to mate choice but can be seen in every choice people make. Their decisions, even when derived via the strictest logical derivations are based at the foundation on personal preference for as the foundation is built so follows the structure on top of it. I am no fan of Hume but he did aptly point out that reason is a slave to passion and he deserves credit for that for others in that age created grand structures thinking that reason was all conquering in its path to truth.
So, the lesson? Check your passions, observe and analyze what your actual arguments are based on at their core instead of relying only on your gut. And do your best to get to the truth even though our human nature cripples us for it bends the truth like an our is bent when inserted into the ocean.
I don't suppose those studies indicated that non-manwhores were repulsed by promiscuous women...
Well, I prefer my women to be intelligent, but they can be hard to find and all too often they still act with incredible stupidity.
An interesting statistic is that Mensa is approximately 2/3 male. Women in Mensa tend to be really popular.
On message boards.
However obvious, it was interesting in that it supported my contention that female intelligence is not an attraction factor for men, not even intelligent men.
I'm genuinely confused about this, because I'm getting indicators from other sources that female intelligence does matter to some men. One of the writers at In Mala Fide included the "staggering stupidity" of American girls in his rant about why American girls suck, and mentioned there are other places in the world where a man can find gorgeous, thin, and "brilliant" women. My husband also tells me my intelligence was a big factor in his wanting to marry me. I don't think he's just blowing sunshine, because quite honestly I like it better when he talks about what physically attracted him.
So, are you only talking about pure sexual attraction as opposed to what makes a woman a good LTR bet? If so, I can see how female intelligence wouldn't factor in.
Nah. My wife is significantly smarter than average, and that has absolutely nothing to do with why I find her attractive (or why I married her). I married her because we're both introverts, so she will leave me alone every now and again and won't try and socialize me, because we have enough common interests that we can make optimal use of what social time we spend, and because she's not pushy or domineering, unlike every single other woman I've met whose anywhere near as smart.
Intelligence is a threshold for me. Below a certain level, it is an irritant. Once you cross the threshold, though, there is a strong correlation between female intelligence and female bitchiness that is unattractive.
Since I live mostly in my head and surround myself with people with whom I can talk out whatever I'm pondering, I require a certain amount of brainpower. For men who focus on other aspects of life, which is most, I suspect intelligence is not even a threshold, or at least a very low one.
That said, a game blog is more likely than most to attract introverted thinkers, so I expect the threshold, on average, to be higher here. But intelligence in the woman does not attract sexually, and only attracts relationally if either it is paired with a lack of domineering attitude, or else with a man who wants to hand over every decision to the woman (which means he is either lazy, or gamma enough to believe she can do no wrong, or both).
Notice that none of these options indicate intelligence in a woman is *bad*. The threshold just means it is mostly irrelevant to attraction. The dominance issues just mean we live in a culture where most women are trained to be bitches. Intelligence is merely justification.
Intelligence matters as long as you meet a guys basic threshold. Some of us don't want to be with ridiculously stupid women but once you hit an acceptable intelligence level any brains above that level doesn't lead to additional attraction.
Simple matter of IQ distribution. Female IQ tends to cluster in the fat part of the bell curve - from 2SD below the norm to 2 SD above. The ratio of male outliers is way higher - 20-30:1 if you get far enough up or down the scale. Mensa membership requirements - passing a test that puts you at around 2.5-3 SD above the norm - are going to eliminate more women than men b/c it's just a smaller population of women living at that end of the distribution. Why don't we have more women physicists and pure math profs? There you go... more politically fun to chalk it up to sexism though.
Sounds to me like the author isn't getting lucky. Manwhore? She wishes. Just... smells like sour grapes to me.
As for picking what is easily available... And? Especially if the "relationship" is being created to be short term. Women choose this too, it isn't like a one way street. They don't call some places meat markets for nothing, everyone knows the score. Oh, and I wouldn't say there aren't any fiscal advantages. I preferred older women for a long time, and while I never got paid I often didn't have to worry about the devil's fee for good partying, sometimes rent and utilities where thrown in too. For the most part, most married women and even many unmarried women do just that themselves... which is why I often can't but think of women as whores. Not always, but I just can't get that out of my head.
As for an intelligent woman? Whether looking for a wife or a fuck, I am looking for utility. Can she cook, can she keep my house clean, can she have children, can she suck the chrome off a bumper hitch and sit back with a beer after? Utility. If intelligence is a part of that, so be it. But if she has a high IQ matters little because what I have seen women who are smart don't usually turn that into product, so a high IQ may be just vestigial of having had a gifted foreFather.
It's amazing, but men and women alike seem to have tremendous difficulty distinguishing what makes the opposite sex attractive from what makes an individual member of the opposite sex a wise choice as a mate. The two concepts aren't only different, they're barely even tangentially related and in some cases can be outright contradictory.
That is what has always made me question whether I am alpha or not. I get with women, or more used to (sort of looking for a right wife now, so it's different). I've got a... respectable body count. But I didn't go after the models, the little local starlets, the virgins, or such. I went after what was available from a rather small pot of available women (if too I sampled some of the forbidden, technically un-available, women too, but strictly on the side and out of sight). I'm still not sure if alphas are supposed to only get gorgeous dames, if it's headcount, if it is somewhere in the middle, or even if it's something else entirely. Then again I don't read a lot of the writing on it, because... why? Some of the writers aren't as good as I am. But they are players, which is different? Fuck, I don't know!
It's in the way that you use it. There are some very average IQ women who have a lot of common sense. They're nice to be around. There are very intellectually gifted women who are morons. A really good LTR prospect is very intelligent, and she uses her brains to exercise common sense and wit.
Most women still have funny (to me) ways of thinking that sometimes make even the smartest women come off as ditzy, just as I suppose a lot of smart men come off as clueless. The brains just tend to operate differently. Hormones?
Ah, I think I understand now. So, intelligence in a woman isn't in and of itself a quality that attracts a man, a la "Wow, look at the brains on that babe," but it is a complementary/mitigating factor. I can buy that.
So, intelligence in a woman isn't in and of itself a quality that attracts a man, a la "Wow, look at the brains on that babe," but it is a complementary/mitigating factor. I can buy that.
Precisely. Consider how much more important male loyalty is to successful relationships, and how it isn't valued at all as an attraction factor. And of course, the smarter the man is, the more likely it is that even relatively intelligent women look like drooling idiots anyhow.
I mean, do I care if you're providing me with your ludicrous interpretations of a) American Idol, b) People Magazine, c) Danielle Steele, or d) George Eliot? Regardless, you're not about to discuss Popper on Plato with me.
I'm simply shocked that someone just trolling for physical release would take the path of least resistance. Next you'll be telling me there is gambling going on here.
"manwhores [...] develop adaptive, exploitative measures against women they perceive as vulnerable.”
Men baad and women victims. Where did I hear that before?
The poor girls. They only were all slutty and horny and looking to have some fun, so they went into a bar and got drunk and flirted with some guys, bounced out boring guys, and selected some more solid / confident guys who only wanted to fuck them... the poor things...
Oh wait.
"I mean, do I care if you're providing me with your ludicrous interpretations of a) American Idol, b) People Magazine, c) Danielle Steele, or d) George Eliot? Regardless, you're not about to discuss Popper on Plato with me."
No joke. Today I had two women freak out on me because they asked if I'd want a 20yr old female partner. I said "I'd take an 18yr old no problem."
Out comes the old "What do you have in common?" I said "What do I have in common with almost any woman of any age?"
I don't watch TV or read tabloids (unless you count the UK online papers with pics of bikini babes). That renders me near useless for 95% of all female conversations.
You should have said - "Get her to me at 16, then I can make sure she turns out right..."
Now THAT would have been a freak out.
"What do you have in common?"
I don't have sex with common.
two great responses.
I said "What do I have in common with almost any woman of any age?"
Excellent point. In terms of finding female friends, that is also my lament.
Hahaha Yohami.
Never heard it before. Never ever. Of course they were deviously manipulated by those bad boys. How else would that good catholic school girl go out in a short skirt and end up in a strangers bed?
Common doesn't matter in friends, either. Just force them to do what you like to do, and enjoy yourself. Pretty quickly, they will too. Treat them to the (insert whatever - gun range, golfing, gym, gaming) or something, then treat them again the next week.
By the third time, you'll have a friend. At worst, you'll have a cheapskate friend that you have to treat all the time, but that's unlikely, and isn't even that big of a deal. At best, you'll have a convert and a real buddy.
But you have to go out and literally pick your friends nowadays. The friends of my folks (pre-WWII kids) are all pretty much childhood or college friends who live within driving distance. I can name one childhood friend of mine who lives within two hours of me: all others are thousands of miles away, if not in foreign countries.
Commonality is overrated. You are uncommon right? Make converts with your dazzling presence.
They were looking for LOVE dude. And got deceived, manipulated and abused into getting drunk and having happy casual, still dramatically fulfilling sex weekend after weekend year after year and never having to grow up nor take responsibility for their own lives. The poor things. If only random cocks didnt taste that good.
Female intelligence... Ok, I'll take a shot. I think that if a woman is intelligent enough to understand and follow the male trait for rationality, i.e., 'Here's why you're wrong, babe' or 'This is why I've decided we'll do X instead of Y' - and really follow and appreciate the process - then she's reached an acceptable level of intelligence. At least in my estimation.
Where I think women go off the rails is when their 'vaunted intelligence' is employed overtly in the form of what they believe to be witty banter, but which is actually just shrike sarcasm. In that instance, at least less-intelligent women won't annoy the hell out of you with snark. They'll just nod and pretend to know what you're saying.
Personally, Doom, I think the pure notch-count chase is more of an alpha factor when you're young and spreading your seed (as you should).
When you're hunting to wife-up and settle (and let's face it, when you finally decide to make a family and call off the tail-tally, you're 'settling' for the best female you can score in the market), alpha becomes a reframe from how much ass you can score to how well you command your hearth and home. If you've been alpha fuck-all but go beta when you're in an LTR (or marriage), then it doesn't matter if you were Brad Pitt with the babes - you ended up beta. Period. If, otoh, you did ok with women, but when wifed-up you OWN the situation, dictate the frame, and she submits to your will, you're alpha, no question. Situational, all the way.
I'd never considered that before. Good advice, Daniel; worth a try.
P.S. I'm glad you used "uncommon" and not "special."
Okay, then, by that measure, I was definitely alpha. What's the mantra? We are dogs, if you can't piss on it or eat it, fuck it? Sommit like that.
As for the wife, that is yet to be seen. The thing is, if I can't manage her I ain't buying marriage. I think, for me, the pivot point is getting a woman to marriage without having sex. That is my goal and what I think power will initially be based upon. If I do, the gig is lost. If I maintain control, and keep her on the hook, I'll own her. Well, that's my working theory on it, or part of it. Then again, I've already promised not to marry a woman I bed before marriage. So I have a back door. Everything looks easier on paper though. Fuck!
"The thing is, if I can't manage her I ain't buying marriage. I think, for me, the pivot point is getting a woman to marriage without having sex."
Im confused. Are you a conservative lesbian... trying to get full commitment from a female provider, before you let her taste paradise?
Heh, nope. I don't even go down on a woman, piss on that. The deal is I have become religious. The other thing, for me... it's... a trick I've never done. Controlling my sexuality, limiting it, while keeping a woman engaged. It is for religious purposes as well. I've attempted to keep as celibate as possible until marriage, at this point. No, I don't have sex, or wet dreams, I just plain masturbate when all else fails. Still, I want to... do this. It's a goal. I even want to get the potential wife in a position where she is hot and bothered and... walk off. Never done that, want to. I've got a shower and cold water if absolutely necessary. And a vehicle to drive if that isn't enough.
No, this is a new trick, perhaps the last one, for an old dog. Heh.
Another explanation is that intelligent men like a bit of a challenge. Dominating an intelligent woman, especially via playful intellectual argument, can be fun. For a time.
As Vox has said, if you find a woman who sets great store by her intelligence, it is hilarious when she finds herself truly and completely outgunned.
You should have said - "Get her to me at 16, then I can make sure she turns out right..."
Yeah, but legally-speaking...
But that and your "common" retorts are going into the toolbox regardless.
If God exists, then I wonder why He created this state of affairs regarding this contradiction between what is initially attractive on one hand and what is truly good in mate selection on the other. Maybe the falleness of the world is one answer or perhaps also God wants to highlight those who actually make good choices rather than just following their tingles. I have no idea, really.
It wasn't created this way. Read the first part of Genesis. Adam and Eve sinned against God's only commandment (fell) and brought all this junk on themselves and their offspring (including us).
The current creation is far from perfect and is groaning for the day all this will be changed.
Ah, my bad. Little did I know that women have always known best that the way to win a man's heart is to show him how good you are at sucking him off the first night you meet him. Best to get practice!
Sorry, holiday weekend, I'm late to the party. I'm afraid the point of the study has been overlooked here.
Pablo is correct - men who were not promiscuous did not find the slutty women attractive. They rejected them for both short- and long-term sexual mating regardless of whether they had recently "mated."
Furthermore, some of the men - those who were the least agreeable and who suffered from "deficiencies in warmth and empathy" found promiscuous women especially attractive. In fact, they were sexually aroused by cues such as drunkenness, sleepiness and stupidity. The study examines the various male mating strategies - apparently, some men are hard-wired to go for sluts, while others are hard-wired to go without rather than sex them up.
I'm confused. Did you imply that men do not find intelligence attractive? I'm sorry if I'm confusing what you said. I've always selected intelligence highly as one of the main traits I need to be satisfied with partners. This goes for all of my experiences, from casual sex to relationships. Nothing is more oft putting to me than a girl that isn't intelligent. Many of my friends feel the same way.
I think Susan makes a lot of odd claims about men and promiscuity. She seems to greatly look down on it. There doesn't seem to be much grey area in any of her articles admitting that some promiscuous men treat women very well, have wonderful relationships, and genuinely care about the people they are with.
It kind of pushes my buttons when I read it. The blog article that she specifically talks about this stuff kind of exploits the girl in the picture at the top who is drunk and has been written on. Unless she is a model that's a pretty rough thing to do to a girl (post her drunken written upon self on the top of a blog article....)
Anyway, yeah, I was just hoping you could clear up that point for me. Maybe I misread.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.