“A man is not being respected if the woman he is with has spent her youth, beauty and fertility on someone else.” Um, what?
Vile strumpet! You'll get your comeuppance!
Manosphere dudes – MRAs, MGTOWers, PUAs and whatever other acronyms they will eventually invent – love to tell themselves little “just so” stories about women. One of their favorite stories is the story of the Bad Boy Cock Carousel.
The gist of it: Women in their twenties are at the height of their physical beauty. So they act like entitled bitches, sleeping with every Bad Boy and Alpha Asshole there is and ignoring the humble, honest, hardworking “nice guy” betas silently pining for them.
But once these mean girls hit the age of 27 or so, they suddenly become ugly monsters, and the bad boys stop returning their calls. So then the evil ladies try to glom on to the nearest beta male in an attempt to marry him and steal all of his money.
But the beta males don’t want none of that used-up pussy, and so they Go Their Own Way and everyone ends up forever alone. Or the guys learn “game” and start banging the hotties. Or they just go back to posting sammich jokes on Reddit. I think these are all supposed to be happy endings, because at least the evil bitches get their comeuppance.
Recently, someone posted a n especially creepy version of this Manosphere fairy tale in the comments here; it turned out to have been cut and pasted from a comment on Roissy/Heartiste’s “game” blog by a guy who calls himself PhillyBoy81. It’s long; I trimmed it a little for space.
“[A]lpha males” are doing all the rest of us a favor in the long run. They operate very much like short sellers in the dating market, exposing fraud and helping to discover the true prices of commodities (women).
Yep, we’re on the express train to Doucheytown.
Let’s take a 21-year old chick who’s between a 7/8 (cute to pretty. … She can pretty much get sex whenever she wants it and with whomever she wants to have it with. And that is ultimately her downfall.
Young women (and some older ones) have an overinflated sense of the value of their vaginas. I mean, they have Wharton MBAs paying for exotic trips and they’re drinking Cosmos in the VIP with the Wizards.
Apparently this is just how women in their early twenties live. Who knew?
Since they are able to get such easy access to “alpha” dick, it follows logically that they should also have access to “alpha” wealth, marriage, and the lifestyle that accompanies all of that, right?
Wrong. See, when women gain this enormous sense of pussy power, they swing for the fences. … So, the cute guy with a 3.8 GPA, but no car? Nope, not good enough. The nice-looking pre-med student? “Nah, I’ll just get back to him later. I heard Jude Law’s hotter brother is transferring here this semester.”
This had me worried for a second, but I looked it up: Jude Law does not have a “hotter brother,” or indeed a brother at all, which is good news for all straight men of equal or lesser hotness than Jude Law.
Anyway, back to the evil women:
They invariably end up overplaying their hand. They chase these players looking to get a ring, and then that ring never comes. So now they’re 27. It’s a good thing she kept that pre-med Johns Hopkins student in her back pocket just in case things didn’t work out with the player, right?
Wrong again. In a vacuum, women would have their way. Men beg for sex. Women decide whether to give it to them (and for most guys, they will not give it to you). But luckily, we don’t live in a vacuum. We live in the real world with social constraints, and there are two that work distinctly to a man’s advantage: reputation and age. …
Ladies don’t think … we won’t remember your bitchiness. And don’t think we won’t remember those guys who you ran behind like a cum bucket.
Hmm. I’m pretty sure the only place buckets are gifted with mobility is in old Disney cartoons.
We remember. And we punish.
When a man sleeps with 100 chicks, he’s a stud. When a woman sleeps with JUST ONE guy, that eliminates you as wifey material to ALL of his friends. …
Apparently penises have a sort of reverse-Midas Touch thing going on: every woman who touches one turns into a filthy, used-up slut.
The height of a woman’s value, in terms of her value as a long term partner, is around the age of 27. That is the praecipice. The older she gets, the more her singlehood gets scrutinized by men. Why the hell is she still single? Who’s cock has she been sucking all these years?
Clearly that is the first question every straight man should ask himself whenever he sees a single woman older than the age of 27. (Just make sure you don’t actually ask this question out loud; it doesn’t go over well.)
[L]et’s face it, what virile, successful bachelor wants to entertain a 29 or 30 year old as wifey potential. She’s going to want to become a baby factory right away and rip away the last vestiges of your freedom. I don’t think so. It’s now my time to swing for the fences and bang some of these 21 year olds that I couldn’t bang in college.
Hello creepy older dude lurking in the shadows at the frat party!
In conclusion, a woman’s value is really defined by the type of man who puts a ring on her finger, not the type of guy who will fuck her. It takes a lot of women a long time to understand this, and thus, they overplay their hand. If it wasn’t for the players dogging them out, these women would not get a sense of their true value and start to seek out men who fit within their price range.
It’s all about market equilibrium, yo! SCIENCE!
So that’s the story. It’s a stupid story. It’s not a true story. But it’s the story that manosphere dudes, like young children, want to hear over and over and over.
But I haven’t even gotten to the best part. Our pal MarkyMark, an excitable and somewhat addled Man Going His Own Way, reposted PhillyBoy81’s comment on his blog. In the comments there (as Man Boobz commenter Wetherby pointed out) we find this little gem:
A man is not being respected if the woman he is with has spent her youth, beauty and fertility on someone else.
Yep, that’s right. I’m just going to repeat that, because, wow.
A man is not being respected if the woman he is with has spent her youth, beauty and fertility on someone else.
All women older than 27 or so who date or marry men are disrespecting these men because … they are older than 27. Apparently women age out of spite. Maturation is misandry!
Posted on November 22, 2011, in $MONEY$, alpha males, bad boys, beta males, crackpottery, creepy, douchebaggery, evil women, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, penises, sex, sluts, thug-lovers, vaginas. Bookmark the permalink. 390 Comments.
I’ve mentioned this on another thread, but I keep getting reminded about the guy who, after his girlfriend of over four years (length of relationship, not age) walked out on him, sued her for every penny he’d ever spent on her.
The really creepy thing about this wasn’t so much the lawsuit itself, as the fact that he’d been maintaining meticulous receipt-backed records of, quite literally, every penny he’d ever spent on her, from the moment they first met.
Fortunately, sanity prevailed, the judge threw the case out, and the guy was mercilessly pilloried across the British media (though sadly not so much that I can remember his name, otherwise I’d link) – though true justice would dictate that he never gets so much as a date again, let alone another girlfriend.
Hey, moron. That’s not fraud. Fraud requires deliberate lies. You don’t prove paternity fraud by proving women were mistaken about parentage. Fucking idiots.
To mee it looks like whining that pretty and young women ignore him and sleep with other people and he sees that as unfair because he is entitled to attracive young women because…
I find it laughable actually.
The grapes are sour obviously but his idea for revenge is truly retro, because so many, many women actually don’t want marriage or need a man to support them, that he will be stuck with his finger in his mouth.
The women he wants (but doesn’t likes for their personalities, just for the fact their are young and attractive) will not sleep with him and that will not change, because he will get older and older (men age too!), they will continue not to sleep with him.
I see this as a revenge fantasy and nothing more.
Comparing and contrasting that Reddit pic with the previous post on SCUM, and what gets me isn’t just the fact they’re make offensive jokes. It’s that they can dish it out, but they can’t take it. A woman makes an offensively sexist joke a man doesn’t like: she’s a man-hating feminazi. A man makes an offensively sexist joke a woman doesn’t like: she’s a humourless feminazi.
These men are right, and very wise.
I mean, why would you respect a man if he married someone old, infertile and dull when he had the option of someone soft, funny and not bitter? Dumpster diving isn’t respect worthy.
It’s not about being good, or evil. It’s about making good choices for your future, which women very often fail at. And the world isn’t kind to women who make mistakes. No matter how much you shame men they still won’t find aging women that attractive. Yoing and soft just feels so much better.
The writer of this article obviously has some issues (I couldn’t even understand some of what he was saying, for one), but there’s a grain of truth there. Why would I, as a self-respecting man, want to be with a woman who didn’t think I was good enough for dating or casual sex before, but now that her looks and “dating value” are fading is willing to settle for me?
That’s because the studies are almost certainly measuring different quantities, as Dracula explained for instance. (What an idiot.)
Broseidon: Well, why would ANYONE want to be anyone else’s second choice or to think that they’re being settled for?
The main problem here is that the writer’s perception of the world is narrow and binary in the extreme. According to him, attractive young women are mean and “bitchy” and reject young men, only to return to them when their looks magically “fade” at the pivotal age of 27. Furthermore, it’s only women’s “dating value” that relies on youth and beauty, and women have no interest in their own careers or achieving anything in their life apart from a man and a family. The message seems to be: Women are evil and self-serving and use men for their own ends.
With a winning argument like that, I’m sure you’re a real hit with all your lady friends! Are you in training to become like the litigious douchebag mentioned in Wetherby’s post upthread?
(Sometimes I feel glad to be over the hill — I am guaranteed not to be of any interest whatsoever to the superficial types.)
“Broseidon: Well, why would ANYONE want to be anyone else’s second choice or to think that they’re being settled for?”
True enough. Of course it’s dumb to make generalizations about all women, but I’m sure some of them do take advantage of their looks to date the hot ‘alpha’ guys until they get old enough that the alphas, being just as superficial, don’t want them anymore, so they settle for some poor sap whom they’d never have given the time of day to before, who will worship the ground she walks on, while she’s still dreaming of the alpha(s). I personally wouldn’t want someone like that.
Xanthe: you sound like a real catch yourself. Maybe the article hit a little too close to home? ;)
Again: This whole ‘alpha’ thing is a ridiculous simplification of human society. Reality doesn’t work this way
Oh what a sweetie you are, Bru, trying to play the “have I hit a nerve?” line. Fortunately I am neither in the dating scene, nor am I being fucked by a man, so by the logic of the article it’s a win all round, amirite?
On the other hand, both the article and your comments derived from the same mediocre view of the world (your supposed “grain of truth”) could be a load of horse shit. Who’s to say?
If a specific woman acts like that, turning you down at one point and later comes along and is like “Hey, how about now?”, then sure, I can get why you wouldn’t be interested. But that’s a far cry from “hey hot ladies dating people who aren’t me, you’re doing it maliciously”.
Xanthe: So far you haven’t really offered a refutation to anything, just snideness and cheap shots and “you’re wrong because I say so”, so who’s more full of horseshit here?
Daphne B.: I know, that’s why I said it’s wrong to generalize.
Daphne B’s right. At any rate, Broseidon, from what you’re saying you clearly wouldn’t worship the ground such a woman walked on, so what’s the problem?
If we’re talking about personal experience I know plenty of women who have been put on the back-burner and have been treated as someone else’s back-up plan. People reject other people and settle into relationships all the time, but this kind of behaviour is not restricted to young, attractive heterosexual women.
“Daphne B’s right. At any rate, Broseidon, from what you’re saying you clearly wouldn’t worship the ground such a woman walked on, so what’s the problem? ”
I don’t have a problem, I was just commenting on the situation because it does happen. And you’re right, all kinds of people do this, the article’s author just happened to focus on young hetero women because presumably they are the ones he’s interested in.
thesecond: You do realize that women still age if they’re married, right?
Broseidon: Okay, I’m sure that happens, but I’m pretty sure it’s about as common as polyamory as a relationship structure.
What refutation is needed to the odious notion that a man with “prior” experience suffers no penalty whereas a “pre-loved” woman (ha) is irredeemably soiled and devalued? Mocking and derision is enough.
Maybe those ideas are the rules you’re playing under. Others seem to be playing to different, more rewarding rules…
I’ve wondered the same thing. My fiance looks like a younger Tevye. He’s a digital archivist, teaches himself programming languages in his free time, and collects all sorts of books (from sci-fi to Judaica to classic literature to plays and physics textbooks).
Is he an alpha? Is he a beta that’s been suckered by some used up husk of a woman? Does it matter that I never actually “strung him along” while screwing other guys? (I met him in March 2009 and we were engaged at 1 a.m. on New Year’s. I wasn’t “friends” with him while running around with other people and letting “wait in the wings.”)
Or, maybe, attraction is far too individualized and idiosyncratic to fit into a stupid, superficial little system. It’s just a way to organize one’s sour grapes, really.
Broseidon: I’d argue that the article’s author focuses on young hetero women because he subscribes to a very particular view of the world in which all other women are invisible or irrelevant. Furthermore, he generalizes about the behaviour and nature of these women, suggesting that:
a) All good-looking women are intoxicated by the “power” their looks give them, and therefore treat men badly.
b) All of these women, once they’ve had their fun with “alpha men” (I’ve never seen a convincing definition of this term, by the way) are only really interested in bagging some poor hapless guy so that they can have a family and be financially provided for.
If you simply say “I can see his point, I wouldn’t want to be someone’s second choice either” (or words to that effect), then you ignore a whole host of problems and ideological assumptions, including:
– How “powerful” are these women really if their looks (and therefore their “value”) are deemed to fade at 27? How powerful are they if their value as human beings is contingent soley on their looks and their sexual history?
– Not all conventionally attractive young women behave in this way, but if some of them do, could it in part precisely be because society places such a lot of importance on female youth and beauty specifically?
– The article’s writer actually mentions the double standard (e.g. a man can sleep with a 100 women and be a stud, a woman sleeps with ONE man and is instantly “ruined” for all of his friends) but doesn’t problematize it at all.
Your comment was:
“Why would I, as a self-respecting man, want to be with a woman who didn’t think I was good enough for dating or casual sex before, but now that her looks and “dating value” are fading is willing to settle for me?”
Could we reverse the genders here and say
“Why would I, as a self-respecting woman, want to be with a man who didn’t think I was good enough for dating or casual sex before, but now that his looks and “dating value” are fading is willing to settle for me?”
Yes? No? Your comment carries the implication that a woman’s “dating value” IS, in fact, lowered as her looks decrease and her number of sexual partners increase.
“What refutation is needed to the odious notion that a man with “prior” experience suffers no penalty whereas a “pre-loved” woman (ha) is irredeemably soiled and devalued? Mocking and derision is enough.”
Enough for those who can’t manage anything more, sure, I can’t argue with that.
The article’s author made that point, not me, and I already said I didn’t understand/agree with everything he said. Oddly enough it does reflect some people’s views. I’ve heard women unambiguously saying that if a man hasn’t had a lot of relationships by a certain age, they wouldn’t date him because there might be something wrong with him and/or they don’t like the idea of being with someone that nobody else wanted. So it’s basically the same kind of discrimination but in reverse.
For me personally it’s not the idea that the woman is ‘soiled and devalued’ but more that she’d be settling for me as her second (or fifth, or twentieth) choice and I’m supposed to accept that cheerfully and without question.
“- How “powerful” are these women really if their looks (and therefore their “value”) are deemed to fade at 27? How powerful are they if their value as human beings is contingent soley on their looks and their sexual history?”
They are powerful in their prime, that is the point. That power being defined by having lots of suitors and being able to choose from among them. More on this below.
“- Not all conventionally attractive young women behave in this way, but if some of them do, could it in part precisely be because society places such a lot of importance on female youth and beauty specifically?”
You’re right, the power comes not from within them, but from the importance placed by men and by society on their youth and beauty. It doesn’t make it any less real, though.
“- The article’s writer actually mentions the double standard (e.g. a man can sleep with a 100 women and be a stud, a woman sleeps with ONE man and is instantly “ruined” for all of his friends) but doesn’t problematize it at all.”
I just talked about this above (one of the annoyances of trying to reply to several people at once) but basically for women it seems to go in reverse, i.e., they will look suspiciously and unfavorably on a man who hasn’t had a number of partners by a certain age.
“Could we reverse the genders here and say
“Why would I, as a self-respecting woman, want to be with a man who didn’t think I was good enough for dating or casual sex before, but now that his looks and “dating value” are fading is willing to settle for me?””
I’d agree and be absolutely cool with that. Did you think I would deny women the right to say it or something?
Are you suggesting that men don’t ever settle for second-best (or fifth-, or twentieth-) either? That would be a huge surprise. As would be the men cheerfully drawing attention to the fact that the unlucky woman they’ve been inconveniently saddled with wasn’t their first choice, so they should be grateful for whatever they get! (That would be a great bit of negging there.)
Gee, it’s almost as if individual men and women have their own goals and agency! Why isn’t everyone entitled to their choice of perfect partner?
To add a bit of context from the original post, this charming sentiment sums up the nastiness that is being served up for second-best (though I think it probably stems from a bit further down the queue than that):
So here’s how the actual reverse gendering of Bru’s quote should go: “Why would I, as a self-respecting woman, want to be with a man who has such an ugly, misguided, and morally reprehensible view of other people’s attributes and worth?”
There, fixed it for you — no need to thank me. (It’s time to put head to pillow.)
Daphne:
Exactly. When my girlfriend went and married someone who wasn’t me, that wasn’t a rejection. That was close to a decade before we even met.
Advanced class: When the girls I knew in high school didn’t go out with me, that wasn’t a coordinated campaign to reject me, it was (with a lone exception) a consequence of my being to shy to make a move.
Honors level: Some if not most of them would have rejected me — frex, there was one crush whose family probably didn’t really like Jews — but since they didn’t have the opportunity, and I have no way of knowing which ones, I can’t really hold it against them now (not that I want or expect the opportunity to arise).
Bro:
If you know she’s settling, fine. I just don’t think that’s the only or even most likely explanation for her having sex with other people previously and being interested in you now.
Bro:
… yes, that’s what “power” means to me.
I think Gillian Anderson disproves the theory that women only get worse-looking after 27. I’ve been re-watching the X-Files on Netflix lately, and she’s way hotter now than she was when she was playing Scully. She just gets more gorgeous over time.
Anyway, PhillyBoy’s theory only makes sense if you assume that:
– all women are “hot”
– no woman actually likes a man or wants to spend time with him, and vice versa; male-female relationships are based solely on a cold exchange of sex for goods and services
– women have no inner lives, but act entirely to please or frustrate men
– women do not like sex with men, and there is no such thing as a woman who likes having sex with women; but men are entitled to sexual services from women
– and in general women are evil and out to get you.
He’s paranoid, entitled, and hostile. How can this guy still be single? You’re missing out, 22-year-old ladies!
“It is interesting that the canadiancrc article put the bare minimum at 10%, again with mandatory dna tests the problem woud be solved.”
Brandon, is that you?
Seconding the “what is an alpha?” question. Is my acquaintance who tends bar, has multiple black belts and is a proponent of “being an asshole” to women an alpha, if he also spends his Friday nights creating My Little Pony modules for World of Darkness? Is the overweight nerdy dude who spends too much time on the Net an alpha if he’s had threesomes with models?
If he was marrying someone who was dull as in had a rotten personality, sure, I might scratch my head at it but for the most part, it is none of my effing business if someone marries a dull person. They are the one who has to live with the person-not me.
Nor is it something I “respect” if someone marries a person that is supposedly soft, funny and not bitter-because a person can be funny, soft, and not bitter at any age, not just young ‘uns.
Actually it is more likely that you will find someone who is less whiny if they are over a certain age, one thing I noticed about my sister who was what we called “high maintenance” was how utterly vacuous, boring and whiny she was despite being nice to look at at 20. Now that she is in her mid-thirties she is a lot funnier and nicer.
Thesecond wrote, “Yoing and soft just feels so much better.”
Dude, if the age you think is “old” is 27, you don’t understand how *aging* works. Your skin is still gonna be elastic and stuff until menopause, which for most people is around 40.
I’m my wife’s second husband, and she left her first because he was boring and unambitious.
Which sounds like something out of DKM’s worst nightmares, but in fact she felt disgusted with herself for ending the marriage – so much so that she let him keep absolutely everything, including the house whose deposit and mortgage she’d helped fund. (There weren’t any kids – if there had been, she’d probably have stuck with him).
She then spent her late twenties and early thirties sleeping on floors, living in assorted communes, and catching up on all the wild sex that she’d missed out on through getting married too early. By the time she met me, we reckon that she’d had between three and four times as many sexual partners as I had.
None of which bothered me in the slightest: as I’ve already said, a partner’s sexual experience can potentially be a major plus, and it’s bizarre to my mind that it’s regarded as somehow shameful. In fact, if anything, the fact that we’d had so much experience of a wide range sexual relationships and less than perfect romantic relationships made us far more certain that we’d met the right person when we finally did meet up in our mid-thirties.
I think the crucial thing was that she’s the first partner I’ve had that I can imagine growing old with.
I think the single most profitable thing that anyone can do in their twenties is use this period of comparative freedom to take a long, hard, laceratingly self-critical look at yourself and how you come across to people. I’ve done it. My wife’s done it. Your sister has clearly done it, and I daresay you have too – and the chances are we’ve all ended up as better human beings because of it.
But if your instinct is to blame others, or some made-up “system” that’s designed to oppress you, or stereotypical ‘alpha males’ and ‘sluts’ that don’t generally exist except in MRA fantasies – essentially, blame anyone other than yourself – it’s no wonder your life is such an emotional mess.
Broseidon:
Ah, yes, the magical power to choose who you sleep with, something only pretty young women possess! I’m almost positive you, also, can choose who you sleep with. Really. I am a young woman and I think I’m pretty (but hey, this is the Internet, so I guess you’ll have to take my word on it) and I have been rejected* by men, so I guess people can even choose not to sleep with people with “pussy power”.
But what really stood out to me here is the words “in their prime.” I don’t at all consider myself to be in the prime of my life. I’m still learning how to do really basic grown-up things, like not subsist on pasta. I have a dream job that I’m pursuing that I’m not likely to have for many years. I dream about being a mom someday. I’m only in my “prime” if my worth is defined by physical measures of attractiveness. Which it’s not. The only people who would think that it is are people who consider me only in terms of how I would please them sexually, not as an autonomous human being.
*Note: I’ve also had crushes or attractions to men and women that I never revealed, which is very much not the same as being rejected by them. If these people later in life realized they were interested in me, and I became interested in them again, that’s not exactly “keeping me on the back burner,” is it?
Um, wouldn’t “settling” just as likely mean that a woman is marrying the first dude to come along, rather than trying out a few and picking her favorite? I know y’all want to sleep only with virgins, ’cause you’re afraid your skills in bed will compare unfavorably with those of other people, but this makes me think you want completely inexperienced women because you would compare unfavorably with other men in all relationship-relevant categories. :D
Historical distaste of female promiscuity may also have had something to do with how married women were thought of as the property of their husbands …
This is an odd conclusion — one that only someone who has no dating or sexual experience (or perhaps someone who is trying very hard to justify and unjustifiable opinion) could come to.
I’ve had five serious relationships in my life, along with other less substantial flings. This in no way indicates that my current boyfriend is my fifth (or 20th) “choice.” That would only happen in a world where the first guy I went out with was (somewhat inconceivably) MY PERFECT MATCH IN EVERY WAY, the next guy I met was coincidentally somewhat less perfect but still NOT BAD, etc. Instead, what’s happened was, my prior relationships have ended for various reasons (he moved away, I moved away, we weren’t compatible in some way, he was an asshole, I was an asshole, etc.), and from those relationships I’ve learned, moved on, and now am dating someone I love every bit as much as younger-me loved my first boyfriend, and who I think is extremely compatible with present-day-me, in no way inferior to any other guy I’ve dated, etc.
It’s weird that you would put him in fifth position simply because I didn’t meet him in my teens.
@Rutee Katreya ‘Hey, moron. That’s not fraud. Fraud requires deliberate lies.’
Hey idiot, not according to the laws of the nations and studies I was quoting. The term parental fraud isn’t mine but a legal term.
‘made the misrepresentation [or omission] in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity. ‘
If you knew there was a chance the child wasn’t the man that you said was the father, then you knew there was a chance that you were commiting fraud.
@ xanthe yes I address draculas post about the median and the range, and said that mandatory dna testing would give a more accurate picture.
@bee ‘ Historical distaste of female promiscuity may also have had something to do with how married women were thought of as the property of their husbands …’
Yes quite possibly.
“I know y’all want to sleep only with virgins, ’cause you’re afraid your skills in bed will compare unfavorably with those of other people, but this makes me think you want completely inexperienced women because you would compare unfavorably with other men in all relationship-relevant categories. :D”
Yes, that’s it exactly. You’ve sure got me figured out. Gotta love the sarcastic smiley at the end, too. All that’s missing is a joke about my small penis.
So let me understand this, if a guy said “hey, I dated some hot chicks over the years, but for now I guess you’ll do” you would happily accept this? Remember, if you don’t, it means that you are afraid that your skills in every area of dating would compare unfavorably to those of other women. :D
“It’s weird that you would put him in fifth position simply because I didn’t meet him in my teens.”
Yeah, Bee, this is the oddest thing to me about the “women who have more than one relationship are USED!” argument.
To make this “backup beta” scenario work, I would have had to stay in the same town all of my life and stay friends with the same group of people until I was 27. Which I think is pretty rare nowadays.
I don’t think anyone would like hearing that. But you’re saying that someone saying “I guess you’ll do for now” is the same thing as a person having dated someone in the past and now wanting to date you. That’s the problem.
I’m pretty sure the argument that both Bagelsan and Bee are putting forward here is that trying to have a relationship with you after having relationships with other people =/= settling for you. If a woman is full-on telling you that she’s settling, yeah, she’s probably not the one for you.
Ninja’d by Bee, and rightly, since it was your words I was trying to interpret :)
Another thought: is it viciously misandrist of a woman to change her dating preferences as she gets more experience and moves into different stages of her life? I do not look for the same things in a partner now that I did in high school, so potentially boys who I didn’t find interesting then I might find interesting as men now. If we’re talking about a particular given individual, surely they would have changed in the intervening years as well. Is that somehow terribly unfair of me?
I wouldn’t have dated my current partner when I was in high school, because that would have been creepy as fuck.
So let me understand this, if a guy said “hey, I dated some hot chicks over the years, but for now I guess you’ll do” you would happily accept this?
No, but if my partner said “hey, I’ve dated some hot chicks over the years, but now I’m with you and happy about it,” I wouldn’t worry that I was somehow a “runner-up” because I wasn’t the first girl he ever met. That’s just weird.
“I don’t think anyone would like hearing that. But you’re saying that someone saying “I guess you’ll do for now” is the same thing as a person having dated someone in the past and now wanting to date you. That’s the problem.”
It’s more like someone who wouldn’t give you/those like you the time of day when they were young and hot and had their pick of anyone, but now that they aren’t anymore, deciding that you’ll do after all. That’s the one I have an issue with, and also the one I believe the article’s writer was talking about. His mistake was generalizing this to all women.
Or as another guy rather indelicately put it a few years ago, “I fucked and sucked my way through fifteen counties, but now I want a docile schmuck to pay my bills and not pester me for sex. “
And Wetherby – you sound like a pussy-whipped beta, sorry.
I’m pretty sure the Wizards thing is referring to the basketball team – they’re still around, yes?
This would be limited to situations where you — that is, the guy that this woman wouldn’t give the time of day to — never changed, and are exactly the same as 40 as when you were 18. EXACTLY the same. Most normal people, however, grow and refine themselves. They get educations, they acquire social graces, they learn how to be interesting, and they get rid of the zits. However, if you are the same ignorant, uneducated and clumsy pepperoni-face that you were as a teenager, and a woman who once rejected you now wants to date you, I can see how you have a point. It’s just that, in real life, it’s almost never like this.
Cuz comments like “And Wetherby – you sound like a pussy-whipped beta, sorry” *never* come from the mouth of someone who generalizes all women!
Let me enlighten you as to the male perspective (well, at least, the kind of male that’s relevant to this discussion):
If you study straight porn, you’ll see the physical difference between female newcomers with not much sexual experience and female old-timers who’re very much experienced. The newcomer’s bodies are firm, smooth, and clear; as time passes, and they become oldtimers, their bodies become sagging, wrinkled, and blemished. This is especially true with their genitalia: the appearance of a NC as compared to the appearance of a OT is like that of a grape as compared to that of a a raisin. And of course, there’s the feel: unless the old-timers do kegel exercises, they feel looser and coarser, as compared to newcomers who feel tighter and smoother.
This does not apply to males, as the penis grows bigger (and thus better) and looks/feels superior with experience, in direct contrast to the female experience.
@Molly Ren:
This is far from the first time I’ve said this, but terms like “pussy-whipped”, “mangina” and “beta” (at least in this context) reveal infinitely more about the crass and simplistic worldview of the person uttering them than they do about his intended target.
They certainly don’t reveal anything useful about me, because if my wife – or any other person in my life, regardless of gender – says anything stupid, I call them out on it immediately and in no uncertain terms. Equality doesn’t just mean a willingness to share chores, it means an equal willingness to criticize when the other steps out of line.
@Viscaria:
And this works in reverse, too. Out of curiosity, I once spent a day with an ex-girlfriend to mark the tenth anniversary of our break-up. We had a perfectly pleasant time, but for the life of me, I couldn’t imagine what on earth ever brought us together: we had nothing in common, and I don’t recall the sex being that great either. I suspect our relationship lasted six months purely because of the terror of being single again and the possibility of Never Finding Anyone Else.
“This does not apply to males, as the penis grows bigger (and thus better) and looks/feels superior with experience, in direct contrast to the female experience.”
The penis grows bigger with the number of sexual partners you have? Am I reading this right? Why do guys with small dicks worry so much if it’s a natural size progression? :P
(Whatever, you’re just in this for the lolz, aren’t you?)
Nope — according to actual science and objective reality, it’s the opposite. The penis shrinks with age. So sorry — I’d run and get my tiny violin, but that would deprive me of the opportunity to tell you what other sexual changes you can expect with age. Men begin to gain weight after the age of 35, and for most, that weight gain is irreversible and completely unstoppable. Moreover, men tend to deposit a disproportionate amount of fat in the abdominal area, making the penis appear even smaller and reducing its function (but there is, as I previously mentioned, independent, objective shrinkage as well). Finally, rates of erectile dysfunction (that’s impotence for you, kid) skyrocket in men of 40 and older, and as you can well understand, I’m sure, it doesn’t matter how big your dong is if you can’t get it up.
I hate to tell you, “Whatever”, but life isn’t a porno flick. Come down to earth and learn to live in the real world — then maybe someone will stick with you after your junk becomes small and useless.
I don’t think we can arrive at any sort of common understanding between the world as we see it and the world as people like Broseidon or the original writer being lampooned in the OP see it. They’re such traditionalists that they have an issue with serial monogamy being too much sleeping around for them, where at least half of us are either poly or ‘poly-accepting’ (i.e “it’s not for me but the motivations behind your choice seem to be logically consistent with my worldview”).
The major failure of their world view is based on their idea that women don’t like to have casual sex, so the 10000 ‘alphas’ they slept with before ‘settling’ for a ‘beta’ they must actually have pursued for a relationship, then figured out they couldn’t have one with them so revised their demands downwards. This little thing called Occam’s Razor instead would have us think that maybe if women are just having casual sex, it might just be because they only want casual sex at that point in time, rather than being some sort of elaborate result of some unproven ‘sexual marketplace’ these guys pulled out of their ass. And maybe they weren’t having casual sex with that ‘beta’ not because he was inferior to the other guys, but because he wasn’t the right person for that where he’s the right person for a relationship. Imagine that! It’s almost as though while I’m looking for video game buddies I will go out with videogamers, and then one day if I get tired of that and get really into skydiving instead I’ll end up ‘settling’ for a skydiving enthusiast.
Obviously, they’re fretting they aren’t getting enough yet, and if word gets out that they’re less than the minimum requirement, they never will (for free).
And oh, whatever gave you that idea? ;P
@Whatever, I’m not much of a porn user, but I didn’t know they were old, sagging, wrinkled, blemished women starring in mainstream porn. That’s completely news for me. So is the fact that a bigger penis mean more pleasure for the partner. So is the fact that men don’t age or at least don’t get wrinkles, a less firm body,… So is the fact that porn can be relevant to real life. Silly me who believed that porn was mostly about *watching* sexy people having sex, and only in real life you could *feel* the body of your partner and that experience was more likely to help you enjoy sex that that the mere fact of not having wrinkles.
So, thanks for the enlightening, I guess.
It’s really sad, this whole idea that you’re the best you can be at 20, and everything after is just going downhill.
Whatever’s last point has already been amply challenged, but the rest of his post is equally silly, so…
“Coarser? As in rougher? I suspect if that’s your experience, you just weren’t turning her on enough.”
As women age, we get so annoyed by the whole business of sex we line our vaginas with sandpaper just to make sure dudes get the message.
It’s not just sad, it’s pitifully limiting. I’m sure I was an appalling lover at 20 – I was certainly infinitely more selfish than I am now. And I wouldn’t swap now for 20 years ago in a million years.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Citation needed. Wishful thinking does not count.
I guess this explains the complete lack of need for viagra.
>>It’s really sad, this whole idea that you’re the best you can be at 20
Especially considering if I could go back in time, I’d slap BlackBloc-20y.o. and tell him to cut the bullshit.
Seriously…
I still have no idea what an alpha is. Could someone please define alpha for me?
Whatever: Bigger penises are not better than smaller penises. I actually have a slight preference for smaller penises– they’re less likely to hit my cervix when I’m being fucked hard.
Male attractiveness depends on much more than the penis. Admittedly, attractiveness is a very individual thing. But for me personally, I would rather fuck a skinny, femme boy with prominent hipbones, a few tattoos and piercings, a sweet smile and a Daddy-doesn’t-love-me haircut– and a small penis– than any number of men with large penises and body types I find less attractive.
The vagina is a MUSCLE. It does not actually loosen the more sex you have. That is like saying that if you hold more things your hand will no longer be able to hold pens.
Has anyone ever given a super scientific explanation for why having sex with 100 men damages a woman’s body (and I’m not just talking her genitals; I swear these dipshits think sluttiness causes wrinkles and love handles) in some magical way that having sex 100 times with one man does not?
And Wetherby – you sound like a pussy-whipped beta, sorry.
So, all this has fuck all to with being happy in your relationship, having your emotional and intellectual wants met, and having a creative, passionate and rewarding sex life. It’s entirely about impressing douchebags.
Seriously, if you use descriptors like this in earnest, the only thing you could insult me (and men like me) with is your approval.
Oh dear. I’m nineteen. This is the best sex I’m going to have in my entire life? o.O I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m quite satisfied, but I’ve only just started to explore kink, and I’ve only gotten to eat two pussies in my life, and I have had a grand total of ONE orgy, and :(
“The penis shrinks with age.”
Jesus Christ, if I wasn’t already long accustomed to m…editation, I would be seriously depressed right now, goddamnit.
“I hate to tell you, “Whatever”, but life isn’t a porno flick.”
The saddest time of my life, sexually speaking, the moment I realized that years ago…
“Come down to earth and learn to live in the real world” —
But I’m already living UNDER the earth (whooops, TMI for me)…
“then maybe someone will stick with you after your junk becomes small and useless.”
But on the other hand, you’ve given me yet another reason to continue to keep on going my own way. What self-respecting straight male would willingly expose his proud ego to the stressful aggravation of such intense humiliation from a sexy female’s withering scorn? Only a psychopath or an emo (and in this current cycle, I am neither for the moment)…
Interesting though, nobody repudiates what I observed (as a general rule) about female bodies in porn vis a vis the effects of sex. Well, there’s no use denying the facts of life…
@Holly: OXYTOCIN!
http://io9.com/5606765/myths-about-the-love-hormone-oxytocin-that-could-ruin-your-love-life
In other words, nope, just pseudoscientific garbage.
I still have no idea what an alpha is. Could someone please define alpha for me?
I don’t think it has any objective meaning. Near as I can figure, it basically means, “Men that self-described ‘betas’ are jealous of.”
If you aren’t hot, why are you expecting a hot partner? Not that it’s impossible, but it’s a rather ridiculous expectation.
Because your claim is so poorly evidenced that there’s no reason to take it seriously XD
Whatever: It’s okay. Real sex isn’t a porn flick. Real sex is BETTER than a porn flick. :)
Sex doesn’t cause aging, dude. Even virgins age. And a lot of women in their forties and fifties are hella attractive. (Jaclyn Friedman! *sigh*)
Blackbloc:
The problem with this worldview is that it’s so despairing and nihilistic – it assumes that as you age, things will get worse, partners will be harder to come by, and people like David K Meller are valid role models.
Absolutely. Both my wife and I slept around in our late twenties and early thirties, sometimes with wildly unsuitable people that we just happened to fancy at the time (though usually not for much longer). It was fun, and we had no regrets – but none of these people were remotely suitable as life partners, so the question only arose when we met each other.
True, by this stage we’d hit our mid-thirties, we were actively looking for a long-term relationship, and we both wanted kids, but we certainly wouldn’t have settled for second best – it’s in neither of our natures. In fact, my wife was totally upfront with me about the disaster of her first marriage, because she was very keen not to make the same mistake second time round – far from wanting someone “pussy-whipped”, as Broseidon so charmingly puts it, she wanted the exact opposite!
To me, this is no more than a statement of the glaringly obvious, and I imagine it is to you too. But I’m amazed at the number of people who either think it’s untrue or a startling revelation.
But Broseidon used beta as an insult. And apparently, alpha is an insult too. Which goes back to my previous position that the more I hear from these people, the less I understand.
So self-described betas are okay, but if you call someone else a beta it’s not? what the hell?
My wife told me about the one time she had sex with someone who really was hung like a donkey, and she said that it was one of the most awkward, embarrassing and often painful sexual encounters that she’d ever had. It didn’t help that the guy obviously thought that having a big cock meant that he didn’t have to bother with anything else, such as decent technique, or showing any interest in his partner, or trivia like that.
I suspect this is the kind of guy that MRAs like to think of as “an alpha male”.