How to creep out the entire internet, lovelorn banker edition
Try dressing as a nun. Then maybe he'll go away.
Dating can be tough. It can be especially tough if your personality is a mixture of petulance and insecurity. And even tougher if you think you can argue someone who’s not interested in you into a second date with an angry, accusatory, sometimes hilarious, sometimes deeply unsettling 1600-word email. And no, I’m not speaking hypothetically here.
The email in question, written by a young investment banker named Mike to an unfortunate woman named Lauren after one less-than-great date, was posted on Reddit a couple of days ago, and has already gotten a lot of internetty attention, but some of you may not have seen it, so I thought I’d give it a little fisking anyway. Settle in; it’s going to be a long and bumpy ride. (Note: What follows below is most of the email; I’ve cut out a few passages here and there.)
Hi Lauren,
I’m disappointed in you. I’m disappointed that I haven’t gotten a response to my voicemail and text messages.
Well, we’re off to a not-so-good start. Perhaps she is, as they say, just not that into you?
FYI, I suggest that you keep in mind that emails sound more impersonal, harsher, and are easier to misinterpret than in-person or phone communication. After all, people can’t see someone’s body language or tone of voice in an email. I’m not trying to be harsh, patronizing, or insulting in this email. I’m honest and direct by nature, and I’m going to be that way in this email.
Gosh, I wonder why Lauren didn’t get back to him.
By the way, I did a google search, so that’s how I came across your email.
Google-stalking – always a nice touch. There’s no better way to charm a nice lady than by tracking down her personal information online.
I assume that you no longer want to go out with me. (If you do want to go out with me, then you should let me know.) I suggest that you make a sincere apology to me for giving me mixed signals. I feel led on by you.
Uh, what? She’s ignoring you, dude. She doesn’t want to go out with you. Seems to me she’s sending you a pretty unmixed message here.
Should she have responded to your voicemail and/or texts? In an ideal world, perhaps, but she may have sensed that you’d react precisely how you’re reacting now, and didn’t want to have anything more to do with your creepy, entitled bullshit.
And now Mike the banker makes his, er, “case” for why she should go on a second date with him:
Things that happened during our date include, but are not limited to, the following:
-You played with your hair a lot. A woman playing with her hair is a common sign of flirtation. You can even do a google search on it. When a woman plays with her hair, she is preening. I’ve never had a date where a woman played with her hair as much as you did. In addition, it didn’t look like you were playing with your hair out of nervousness.
You were flirting!! Hair-twirling = sex! If you don’t realize it you can google search it!!!
-We had lots of eye contact during our date. On a per-minute basis, I’ve never had as much eye contact during a date as I did with you.
Eye contact is an Indicator of Interest. IOI! IOI! If you didn’t want to bear my children why did you look at me, with your eyes????
-You said, “It was nice to meet you.” at the end of our date. A woman could say this statement as a way to show that she isn’t interested in seeing a man again or she could mean what she said–that it was nice to meet you. The statement, by itself, is inconclusive.
Well, not really. This is what people say to be polite at the end of a disappointing date, when they don’t want to see you again. If she wanted to see you again, she would have said something about making plans for a second date.
-We had a nice conversation over dinner. I don’t think I’m being delusional in saying this statement.
We had a conversation! You did not flee in horror! Therefore you must have my babies!!!
In my opinion, leading someone on (i.e., giving mixed signals) is impolite and immature. It’s bad to do that.
And sending someone who clearly wants nothing to do with you a long, creepy, accusatory tirade is polite?
Normally, I would not be asking for information if a woman and I don’t go out again after a first date. However, in our case, I’m curious because I think our date went well and that there is a lot of potential for a serious relationship.
Dude, you do understand that she has to actually like you too in order for there to be a relationship?
I think we should go out on a second date. In my opinion, our first date was good enough to lead to a second date.
You cannot argue someone into a second date! That’s not how it works.
Why am I writing you? Well, hopefully, we will go out again. Even if we don’t, I gain utility from expressing my thoughts to you.
Gain utility? Really? DATING IS NOT MICROECONOMICS!
In addition, even if you don’t want to go out again, I would like to get feedback as to why you wouldn’t want to go again. Normally, I wouldn’t ask a woman for this type of feedback after a first date, but this is an exception given I think we have a lot of potential.
Well, banker dude. You’re getting some feedback now. All over the internet.
If you don’t want to go again, then apparently you didn’t think our first date was good enough to lead to a second date. Dating or a relationship is not a Hollywood movie. It’s good to keep that in mind. In general, I thought the date went well and was expecting that we would go out on a second date.
So your argument is that she should go out with you, even though she doesn’t want to go out with you, because life isn’t perfect and you’re probably the best she really deserves?
Way to sell yourself, dude.
If you’re not interested in going out again, then I would have preferred if you hadn’t given those mixed signals. I feel led on.
Well, she’s not really responsible for you thinking that every woman who twirls her hair in your presence wants to have your babies.
We have a number of things in common.
Oh dear, sounds like we’ve got another “logical” argument coming up here.
I’ll name a few things: First, we’ve both very intelligent. Second, we both like classical music so much that we go to classical music performances by ourselves. In fact, the number one interest that I would want to have in common with a woman with whom I’m in a relationship is a liking of classical music. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with a woman if she didn’t like classical music. You said that you’re planning to go the NY Philharmonic more often in the future. As I said, I go to the NY Philharmonic often. You’re very busy. It would be very convenient for you to date me because we have the same interests. We already go to classical music performances by ourselves. If we go to classical music performances together, it wouldn’t take any significant additional time on your part.
Um, what?
I have no clever remark to make here, other than that Lauren is probably going to have to avoid going to the Philharmonic ever again, on the off chance she might run into banker Mike.
According to the internet, you’re 33 or 32, so, at least from my point of view, we’re a good match in terms of age.
YOU ARE RIGHT AGE. INTERNET SAYS SO. THEREFORE YOU MUST DATE ME.
I could name more things that we have in common, but I’ll stop here. I don’t understand why you apparently don’t want to go out with me again. We have numerous things in common.
Also, you both require oxygen to live. Lauren, can’t you see that you and banker Mike are soulmates?
I assume that you find me physically attractive. If you didn’t find me physically attractive, then it would have been irrational for you to go out with me in the first place. After all, our first date was not a blind date. You already knew what I looked like before our date.
Banker Mike: You said you wanted feedback. Here is some feedback. She was apparently not horrified by your physical appearance. It may be your horrible personality that needs some work.
Perhaps, you’re unimpressed that I manage my family’s investments and my own investments. Perhaps, you don’t think I have a “real” job. Well, I’ve done very well as an investment manager. I’ve made my parents several millions of dollars. That’s real money. That’s not monopoly money. In my opinion, if I make real money, it’s a real job. Donald Trump’s children work for his company. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so. George Soros’s sons help manage their family investments. Do they have “real” jobs? I think so.
You’re fighting a losing battle here, dude. Just as you cannot argue someone into liking you, you cannot argue someone into being impressed that you manage your parents’ money.
In addition, I’m both a right-brain and left-brain man, given that I’m both an investment manager and a philosopher/writer.
And I’m the Queen of Denmark.
That’s a unique characteristic; most people aren’t like that. I’ve never been as disappointed and sad about having difficulty about getting a second date as I am with you.
Oy. As if this email wasn’t stalkerish enough already.
I’ve gone out with a lot of women in my life. (FYI, I’m not a serial dater. Sometimes, I’ve only gone out with a woman for one date.)
This last bit I have no trouble believing.
I suggest that we continue to go out and see what happens.
I suspect that Lauren has already played out various scenarios in her head already, and that none of them end well.
Needless to say, I find you less appealing now (given that you haven’t returned my messages) than I did at our first date. However, I would be willing to go out with you again. I’m open minded and flexible and am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I wish you would give me the benefit of the doubt too.
So now you’re being noble and “open minded” for trying to pressure a woman who wants nothing to do with you into a second date?
If you don’t want to go out again, in my opinion, you would be making a big mistake, perhaps one of the biggest mistakes in your life.
Now you’re just making my skin crawl.
I spent time, effort, and money meeting you for dinner. Getting back to me in response to my messages would have been a reasonable thing for you to do. In addition, you arrived about 30 minutes late for our date. I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if a man showed up thirty minutes late for a first date with you.
Here’s a solution, dude: How about she never goes on another date with you, ever. Then you won’t ever have to worry about her being late ever again.
If you’re concerned that you will hurt my feelings by providing specific information about why you don’t want to go with me again, well, my feeling are already hurt. I’m sad and disappointed about this situation. If you give information, at least I can understand the situation better. I might even learn something that is beneficial.
I hope you find the feedback that the internet has now provided you to be helpful.
If you don’t want to go out again, that I request that you call me and make a sincere apology for leading me on (i.e., giving me mixed signals).
Now we’re back on this again.
In my opinion, you shouldn’t act that way toward a man and then not go out with him again. It’s bad to play with your hair so much and make so much eye contact if you’re not interested in going out with me again.
Damn you, foul strumpet, and your devious hair-playing ways! Google it! GOOGLE IT!!!
I would like to talk to you on the phone.
I think you’ve pretty much guaranteed that this will never, ever happen.
Even if you don’t want to go out again, I would appreciate it if you give me the courtesy of calling me and talking to me. Yes, you might say things that hurt me, but my feelings are already hurt. Sending me an email response (instead of talking on the phone) would better than no response at all, but I think it would be better to talk on the phone. Email communication has too much potential for misinterpretation, etc.
Not much to misinterpret here, Mike. You’ve made it absolutely crystal clear that you’re an undateable creep.
Let me be serious for a moment. Forget about Lauren. Hell, forget about women in general for a while, and work on yourself. Get some therapy; you can afford it. Work through your bitterness, your petulance, your highly unattractive mixture of entitlement and insecurity. Stop being a “Nice Guy” and learn to be genuinely nice.
And don’t ever, ever, ever write another email like this one.
Posted on December 8, 2011, in creepy, evil women, men who should not ever be with women ever, nice guys, threats. Bookmark the permalink. 1,020 Comments.
DAVID, WE NEED AN IP ADDRESS CHECK; THE PERSON CALLING THEMSELVES “MONSIEUR SANS NOM” IS A FABRICATION. VARIATIONS OF THE SAME CONTENT-FREE BULLSHIT ARE BEING POSTED REPEATEDLY ON MULTIPLE THREADS; WHICH SUGGESTS TO ME THAT THIS PERSON IS CLEARLY WHORING FOR ATTENTION.
There, fixed that for you. :-)
Holly Pervocracy (December 9, 2011 @4:04pm–
Has the right idea, in my opinion, although “Holly Smith”; something that would make your moniker seem as real as possible to internet strangers, possibly borrowed from a dead relative or rather obscure historical figure, might be better.
Well, I’ve been a victim of Identity Theft, it was a bit of a headache. (And yes, it’s a serious problem) But that was due to my spouse not exercising due dilligence with our social security numbers and PINS. You aren’t gonna get my social or PIN from googling me. Actually, good luck getting ME googling anything but zhinxy. If my name was rarer, it would likely be a different story. There’s nothing magical about the internet that means you using your name there makes it SO MUCH MORE likely to be stolen than… the many, many real life instances you’d be using your name.
Well, naming my blog The Smithocracy would be a little off-message.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t use a nym if you want to, or that it’s a bad idea. It can be a very good idea depending on what you’re doing. But that it’s DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER DANGER is kind of overblown. Also, why should the name seem “real as possible?” Why should I be Isabel R. DeCleyre, say, instead of zhinxy? what does it gain you or lose you?
Meller: Can I laugh now? Because the simple fact of the matter is yes, Identity fraud is a problem.
And no, just having my name won’t do it. You need things which aren’t so publicly available, and which can be kept from being available; because some of the common identifiers in security identifiers are personally choosable. With the exception of legally required forms (which are, when federally required all subject to the Privacy Act of 1974), one can use any birthdate one chooses. No one is going to pore over your records to find out your mother’s maiden name, or your city of birth.
You can choose a date/name/city which don’t attach to the legally required forms which are used in the situations where identity fraud is common. Go ahead, figure out who I am (because my online name, while mine, isn’t the exact form on my birth certificate), dig up my birth records, find out my mother’s maiden name. Try to use those to open a bank account, or get a credit card.
You will fail. Same for accusations of felonious behavior. My legal name (the one which would be required to generate the papertrail to point things back to me, isn’t the name anyone actually uses for me. Someone would have to know it, and have animus against me. It’s possible, but it’s not trivial and not using my name on the internet isn’t going to do it.
This was part of my job in the Army (interrogation and counter-intelligence are linked fields, and exploiting weaknesses in identity security is part of the job). So, while one needs to be careful, I’m doing that (and probably better than most).
Clearances… are harder to lose than you think. One pretty much has to be specifically arrested; which will have fingerprints; someone who tries to pretend to be me to avoid charges, is going to find out they fail; because my prints are on file (and they come up when a simple fingerprint search is done. A couple of friends have been burgled and they got follow up phone calls from the cops about me; since my prints were collected by the forensic teams).
I am having fun, apparently more fun than you are (after all, the object of my affections actively cuddles me in return).
“It’s pretty hard to get identity theft from the name alone”
So it is–try the Socialist inSecurity Number attached to that name–the “mark of the beast” that follows you EVERYWHERE!! the name is secondary, the mark of the beast (or the US government) is the PRIMARY problem!
@ zhinxy
Tru story! I was all, like, “come at me, bro!” And he was all, like, “no, I’m sparticus!” So I was all, like, “This is SPARTA!!!” Now, he’s all, like, team-Edward-emo-pants
Okay, I don’t like the social security system either, but regardless, it’s not that easy to get your ssn. I don’t fill it in on blog comment forms.
Also, it’s so nostalgic to hear ssns as the mark of the beast. Everybody’s talking about chips now.
Well, yeah, that’s why I don’t use “Oprah Winfrey 292-23-1384″ as a forum name, but I thought that was pretty obvious.
Also, hahahaha “Mark of the Beast,” you’re freaking hilarious.
Meller: to find that one has to have access to databases which use it, and have the secondary information to find it.
I am more likely to be hit at random than with intend; e.g.. someone who breaks into the system and steals pages of raw data, or gets hold of an unencrypted drive from a bank (those people whom you assure me will engage in best practices because they are all about profit, as opposed to “de ebil guv’ment” which has things like the Privacy Act of 1974, because they have no interest in doing things well; as they have no profit motive).
Is identity fraud a problem? Again, yes, but not because I use my real name.
Also, if you have my number but NOT my name and look up my social security number in my birth states systems, say, pretending to be an employer, you don’t get my name. Just a validation that a person with that number exists.
I did get identity-thefted once and it screwed up my credit for a long time, but that was because someone stole my personnel file from my workplace so they had my social security number and my address and everything.
It wasn’t because someone found out my legal name.
(I suppose my legal name is actually “OPRAH WINFREY,” and “Oprah Winfrey” is my sovereign name.)
So it is–try the Socialist inSecurity Number attached to that name–the “mark of the beast” that follows you EVERYWHERE!! the name is secondary, the mark of the beast (or the US government) is the PRIMARY problem!
this is like your saddest persecution fantasy yet
Also, the fact that I present myself realistically as a single mom that receives food stamps, needs to use the free clinic, has no credit to speak of and who lives with her mother probably means that any time I use my real name, the identity thieves POINTEDLY DON’T STEAL MY NAME.
“It also found a quarter of young women have slept with more than 10 partners in the first five years since losing their virginity, compared with 20 per cent of young men.”
This is where the cliche “lies, damned lies, and statistics” comes from. That’s a 5% difference. OMG, call in the morality police!
“An average of nine partners by the age of 21? I would like to know how they selected their sample, please. I completely believe that some people can achieve such lofty heights, but to be the average for all UK women? That seems…suspect. Either UK high schools enforce strict sex quotas for girls to keep those numbers up, or some lucky ladies are having a lot lot lotlotlot of sex. ”
Hmm? The majority of girls I went to high school with would have been somewhere in that ballpark, and that was 20 years ago. I’m honestly baffled as to why anyone is surprised by this. The boys were about equally prone to random hookups – who do people think the girls are hooking up with?
“Well then, better safe than sorry, am I right? After all, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Ah, but I guess delayed gratification is just too difficult, huh?”
Oh, look, a cliche word salad. Can’t say I care for the tinge of bitterness in the dressing.
“There are too many man-haters, feminists, and just plain hateful women out there anyway, who see you, and your sex drive, as the enemy! There are also too many oversexed, nymphomaniacal, give-it-up-to-anyone (except you) uber-sluts out there as well! Modern women are either, as a rule, hopelessly frigid, with man-issues to boot, even downright lezzies, on the other hand, are nowadays hopelessly oversexed and human STD transmission factories. Use at own risk–even with condom!! Of course, long before you can cultivate a “relationship” with uber-slut, she is off and running with somebody else, sometimes a whole bunch of somebody elses…”
The entirety of the angry misogynist attitude towards female sexuality, summed up in one hilariously florid and hypocritical paragraph. This, gentleman, is why we don’t take you seriously.
Heck, I had someone, somehow manage to get the Canadian government to flag me as an illegal alien.
I was heading north to visit my cousins and the border patrol refused me entry claiming I tried to sneak across the border near Sumas WA.
But since there wasn’t really any reason to go back to Canada in the past couple years, I haven’t fought it.
Mostly because the consulate was more interested in cleaning off their desk than helping me clean up record.
“Sooner or later, the message will get through to women, and they will realize that feminism and “unisex” is a blind alley, they will take pleasure and pride in their natural genetic based XX type femininity, and love and harmony will return to relationships. But a lot of women need to learn a lesson first!”
Actually the message I’m getting from the men I actually interact with in real life is that I’m doing just fine the way I am. In fact, most of them seem to be doing OK too in terms of relationships. You’re the only one suffering here, and it’s your own fault, because you’re demaning something that’s impossible.
Crimp, Douglas. “How to Have Promiscuity in an Epidemic” AIDS: Cultural Analysis, Cultural Activism First MIT Press Edition, 1988 (Fifth Printing, 1996).
It is the moralistic anti-sex sexist, homophobic, racist, etc. assholes who have not learned the proper lessons of the AIDS epidemic. The queers, the sluts, the prostitutes, the drug users, etc. have been learning and teaching in the face of your wall of ignorance.
Promiscuity is not the enemy. People with AIDS and people with HIV are not the enemy. Anti-sex bigots are the enemies. Bitter hateful misogynists are the enemy.
I use CassandraSays all over the internet, so it’s not truly anonymous, though it’s not my real name. Anyone who actually knows me irl could figure out that I’m me from my comments. Which is fine, because I’m not saying anything that I don’t actually believe and that I’m not willing to stand behind, I just want to create a small distance so that, say, my Dad doesn’t have to read about my interest in kink. I can see how if you say stuff like Meller does then you’d want to be 100% anonymous, though, because that sure would be an awkard conversation over Christmas dinner with your female family members.
“So, Tom, tell me about these Houses. Am I going into one? I had a boyfriend before your cousin, you know.”
Re the “average” number of partners by 21: Are we talking average, median or mean.
One wonders 1: How that compares to lifetime average for women in the UK, and what the skew is (i.e. if the average is 12, how are those 12 partners arranged as a curve over time), as well as 2: what is the randomness of the sample.
The evidence is that the use of average isn’t being defined; leaving one to assume it’s the same, “average” as the net worth of a room with Cassandra, Ozy and myself, shared with Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and the Duke of Westmoreland (or, for that matter, the average of the dinner I had with the Duke of Westmoreland and about 100 members of HM Army and some Canadian Soldiers).
Which makes the “study” useless as a means of actually determining anything about the sexual behavior of the UK as a whole.
“So it is–try the Socialist inSecurity Number attached to that name–the “mark of the beast” that follows you EVERYWHERE!! the name is secondary, the mark of the beast (or the US government) is the PRIMARY problem!”
That nearly made me spit tea on my monitor. Please warn people before you’re going to say things that are hilariously insane, Meller.
My subjective impression, having lived in both places, is that young people tend to have more partners in the UK than in the US, on average. I’m just not sure why that’s supposed to be such a big deal. Now if none of them are using condoms, then maybe I’ll be more concerned.
“because you’re demaning something that’s impossible.”
“The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get even less than what you settled for” – Maureen Dowd, one of contemporary western feminism’s American high-priestesses
Maureen Dowd was suggesting that people deserve to have their collectible dolls come to life? Wow, I want some of whatever she was having that day.
Do you really think most feminists consider Dowd a heroine? I’ll come out right now and say she’s an opportunist and I hate her guts? I’ve read a lot of negative things on her, too. I’d say she’s a high-placed “media safe” version of feminism, but that’s as far as I’ll go.
Maureen Dowd was suggesting that people deserve to have their collectible dolls come to life? Wow, I want some of whatever she was having that day.
–If she was really claiming that, I might like her, though. ;)
Just some of Big Feminist Blogs and telling Maureen to stuff it, without having to do pretty much any digging –
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/03/shut-up-maureen-dowd.html
http://feministlawprofessors.com/?p=777
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/03/30/dear-maureen-dowd/
…Jesus, the trolls are just BARGING INTO THIS PLACE! GAH!
Lack of social stigma on promiscuity, much less widely available birth control and safe sex practices is great for those who want to practice chastity for religious or philosophical reasons, by the way. It separates those who do it out of genuine conviction and/or love of their religious teachings from those who do it purely to avoid social stigma or the consequences of disease and childbirth. Totally great. Unless it isn’t about the arguably very great beauty of a person deciding to follow the dictates of their religion and save something precious to them for a person they love, and just punishing people for doing things you consider bad? Oh shit. Sorry.
maureen dowd is an idiot, a tool, and a bad writer.
like i think in her own mind she might be a high priestess of feminism, but that goes along with the fact that in everyone else’s mind she’s a narcissistic clown
Regardless of the fact that Maureen Dowd is hardly a feminist hero, the quote itself is a platitude. Sometimes it’s wise to settle and sometimes it’s not.
If what you feel you deserve is for every woman on earth to be a living china doll, then I’m gonna go ahead and say it’s wise to settle.
“gets hold of an unencrypted drive from a bank (those people whom you assure me will engage in best practices because they are all about profit,” –
Well, I think for Meller this actually might run into the fact that the fractional reserve bankers are all evil pawns of the new-world-order. Only full reserve gold-storers would be honest…
Totes, bro. Dating imaginary people is the in thing to do I hear…
I didn’t want continue talking about because Amused politely ask to stop. Then you attacked me and when I answered, you ignored what I said. I said I have avoidant personality disorder and that I am socially awkward (and maybe I have Asperger’s). I have read a lot about personality disorders because of my problems and I never said that all Asperger’s are dangerous or should be marginalized. I know enough about personality disorders and mental problem to know that many guys in the manosphere have mental problems or psychological problems – they are not ordinary assholes. And furthermore I have read a lot of blogs and forums of angry former customers of PUAs and most of them are socially awkward and many admit that they have Asperger’s and all of them said that learning PUA techniques was a disaster for them and made them worst. I’ve been reading shyness/dating/PUAs forums since 2007 and I’ve seen it too : guys that are virgins and socially awkward (and some have Asperger’s) start reading PUA and MRA insanities and then they become worst and they end up on the Spearhead. I don’t understand why someone that care about people that have Asperger’s don’t care about them joining groups that hurt them.
But I guess you will continue to ignore what I’m saying …
Well, I think for Meller this actually might run into the fact that the fractional reserve bankers are all evil pawns of the new-world-order. Only full reserve gold-storers would be honest…
zhinxy obviously if the fed were abolished obviously banks would immediately start keeping full reserves. because… that makes… sense
Whoa. What if everyone on this board is fake because the existence of human identity is just a comforting fiction we create for ourselves to preserve the illusion of a Cartesian duality in the face of the existential bleakness of our growing suspicion that consciousness itself is nothing more than a series of soulless chemical and electrical reactions so speaking of separate consciousnesses is meaningless?
What about that, huh?
Sharculese: yeah, because fractional reserve banking never existed before, and in the days when Specie was KING, there were never any wildcats and banks never failed.
@pecunium
totally. all banking problems begin with the fed and will end with the fed.
The advice and *tactics* of PUAs are just like everything else in the self-help industry: Bullshit gimmicks designed to make $ and/or gain social status by shameless self-promoters.
Well, yep, I’m with you there.
PSSST – We actually do have the ultimate in full reserve for commodities at my local bank, they call it a safety deposit box, but nobody wants you to know that.
(I’m going to have to explain to meller again that I do want the fed abolished and don’t support it just because I don’t subscribe to leprechaun economics, aren’t I?)
Maybe it’s me, but I don’t find that difficult to believe. I have had over ten partners, and I’m, 21, and only one of those was in high school. All but like 4 of those happened within the space of a year.
Though I have a tendency to flip the bird at social norms on slut shaming, soo…
Exactly my point. Sure, it is entirely possible, and I’m sure more than one person in every high school/college gets the job done. And you can consider yourself special for having done so i.e., NOT average.
But we’re talking about the average for a giant, diverse population. There is going to be a huuuugggee variance in experiences – from people with zero partners for whatever reason good or bad, to people with a a few, to people slutting it up for whatever reason – good or bad. To move the average number of sex partners of the whole population of HS girls to nine seems like quite a feat, because there’s two ways that graph can look: a pointy Gaussian curve centered on 9, which means low variance (basically everyone fucks approximately 9 people by 21) or a low, broad curve centered on 9 (some people are blowing their genitals out to make up for the virgins and slackers). And there are so, so many more young people being virgins and slackers than we tend to believe.
So the fact that you got 10 in by 21 (which I am envious of, by the way, my own youth having been wasted on not fucking) is interesting, but only one raindrop drop in the flood. There was this really fantastic study that asked college students to describe their own sex lives and to compare it to what they thought the average was. It was something like most students reported 0-2 partners a year, and they felt they were in the minority and everyone else was screwing like mad. Really, though, only about 20%-ish of students had complicated sexy lives, and the remaining 80% had sex lives more comparable to their parent’s than to anything shown on MTV Spring Break. In that light, I would suggest that for most people your experience isn’t the average, it’s the dream goal. Unless the UK really is just nothing but people trained from a young age to be screwing all the time, in which case I will try to get a job there immediately.
So I am calling bad statistics. Their sample size is plenty large, but there are a million other ways to fuck it up in a manner conveniently interesting to your client’s readership.
Though on that note, I think the “Meller is a Leprechaun” theory actually might have more legs than the Meller is a Vampire, theory. The poor guy just ended up on the wrong side of the rainbow, and all the frilly diminutive lasses be gone, and they be passing round some green scrip instead o’honest gold!
Nomoremisterniceableist – “But I guess you will continue to ignore what I’m saying …”
We saw what you said, and it was ableist. Stop martyring yourself and just apologize. Or at least drop it.
Dating imaginary people is so yesterday, you can date all kinds of imaginary things these days http://clione.halfmoon.jp/hatoful-boyfriend/index.html XD (Meller should check that one out too, it looks like it would be right up his alley)
Last I checked, no one had to check in with me before doing things. Not even MrB – he’s an independent human being who makes his own fucking decisions, and so are most, if not all, adult Aspies. If a person were to ask my advice, I’d make all the usual points about the MRM and PUAs, but if someone is determined to do something, I have no power to stop them.
Things like ‘x group should not do y – for their own good’ is skirting perilous close to denying thinking adults their right to self determination.
No more mr nice guy: I didn’t want continue talking about because Amused politely ask to stop. Then you attacked me and when I answered, you ignored what I said. I said I have avoidant personality disorder and that I am socially awkward (and maybe I have Asperger’s). I have read a lot about personality disorders because of my problems and I never said that all Asperger’s are dangerous or should be marginalized
I looked up avoidant personality disorder and the symptoms are very similar to my problems…
But even more relevant than that, I wonder if avoidant personality disorder is another name for MGTOW??? (or WGTOW in my case).
Actually, I fucked up there – typing too fast before breakfast. The distribution of sexual partners doesn’t have to be a Gaussian curve, but the distribution of multiple samples of average partners will be. So this ‘average’ could be on the right side of a bell curve of averages.
There are other distributions besides the bell curve, but for this data they’d all start at zero, peak at some number, and go back down, but not necessarily symmetrically with how it went up.
Actually, David could delete all three of these most recent comments from me, because that was some sloppy ‘splaining on my part.
no more mr nice guy –
Please stop with the Internet Diagnoses. This does not help people with actual, clinical diagnoses, which are determined and treated by professionals. This also does not help people who are ambushed by complete assholes who do not have any mental disorders whatsoever. One can be ass without being mentally ill or autistic. One can also be mentally ill or autistic without being a dick.
Plus, there are enough creepy people out there in the world who ignore social cues so that they can get what they want. These people are manipulative assholes regardless of anything else they may or may not have going on. What we have in evidence is that Mike Investment Banker is a douche. We do not have any other evidence that indicates any disorders, unless you think Asshole Syndrome is in the DSM-IV.
Re the curve: The Guardian reports the following numbers:
How many sexual partners have you had?
None 3%
1 15%
2 11%
3 10%
4 9%
5 9%
6-10 20%
11-15 8%
16-20 6%
20+ 9%
The average Briton has had 10 sexual partners. There is a distinct gender split with the average among men almost double that of women (13 and 7 respectively). The 35-44 age group is the most promiscuous (average of 13) while over-65s have had the least number of sexual partners (average of 5). People in Wales are the most promiscuous (13) while those in Yorkshire and Humberside have the fewest sexual partners (6). Only 23% of Britons have had more than 10 sexual partners (32% of men and 15% of women).
The majority of those who have been unfaithful to their current partner have cheated on more than one occasion. Only 33% of those who have been unfaithful to their partner say infidelity occurred ‘only once’. Women are more likely to have strayed on just one occasion – 40% of women who have been unfaithful say it has only happened once compared to 29% of men.
So a wider poll shows an expected bell curve, with the peak of the bell at 10. The poll Whatever referred to says that the “average” for women aged 21 is at the higher end of of the average for the entire population. This Guardian Poll also says that 15 percent of the population hasn’t started to have sex by the age of 21, so their “average” is based on 85 percent of the population, which means the skew is even more outside the expected deviations; even accepting the potential for greater sexual activity on the part of their readership.
Which of the following best describes how frequently you have been unfaithful? (asked of those who have been unfaithful)
Only once 33%
Rarely 25%
Occasionally 27%
Regularly 15%
Men are more likely to have been unfaithful than women (22% and 13% respectively). Londoners are the least likely to cheat (7%) while the Scottish are most likely to be unfaithful (34%).
Which contradicts the report in Whatever’s survey.
The Telegraph says that a study showed the average for women aged 24 is 5.65.
That was based on an actual study, commissioned by Lloyds Pharmacy, so I have a greater belief in its probable accuracy.
Kyoso K, I’m not sure quite how to put this but…in my experience, there actually were a whole lot of kids during my high school and college years who those kinds of numbers would have applied to. It’s not nearly as unusual, statistically speaking, as you’re making it out to be, and the insistence that no really most girls don’t actually do that isn’t sitting well with me, especially in a space like this.
And The Guardian agrees.
6-10 20%
That’s not an insignificant number of people – it’s one in 5. Hardly rare birds.
Cassandra: Not rare birds, but if one is five is in the 6-10 range, then an average of 10 says the sample is skewed, or the results are being misrepresented.
I definitely think that the results are being sensationalised. I just don’t care for the “they’re so unusual!” stuff. They’re really not THAT unusual, and it feels slut-shamey.
I mean I had more than that, but I know I was a rare bird; given both the lower average in the US, and my different social environment.
It’s a mixed bag, one in five is a non-trivial number. What it says is the readership of More(?) is a more sexually active/adventurous group than the population at large. I wasn’t trying to say they were unusual, merely that the group being measured isn’t representative of the population at large.
DKM said@1.02pm:
“There are too many man-haters, feminists, and just plain hateful women out there anyway, who see you, and your sex drive, as the enemy! There are also too many oversexed, nymphomaniacal, give-it-up-to-anyone (except you) uber-sluts out there as well! Modern women are either, as a rule, hopelessly frigid, with man-issues to boot, even downright lezzies, on the other hand, are nowadays hopelessly oversexed and human STD transmission factories. Use at own risk–even with condom!! Of course, long before you can cultivate a “relationship” with uber-slut, she is off and running with somebody else, sometimes a whole bunch of somebody elses…”
So back we are to gross generalizations. In fact, some of us have no partners at all, while some of us have many. This happens because a. We are individual human beings b. We have the right to choose with whom and when we have sex c. We all have widely differing sexual needs and preferences. Personally, I prefer to be completely monogamous but I’m there are lots if people who can feel happy and comfortable with multiple partners or serial monogamy. As far as I’m concerned it’s all good as long as everyone is happy, of age and knows what’s going on.
Also: if some of us are unfortunate enough to catch an STD, then it must have been transmitted to us by a previous partner, who is statistically more likely to have been male. They don’t show up by magic; you have to have to catch them, a small fact that you seem to have overlooked.
“This is not intended to be a counsel of despair, but maybe we men should look into self-sufficient (fantasy/masturbatory) alternatives.
There are beautiful glossy, full color prints of paintings of sweet old-fashioned girls, suitable for framing. There are collectable dolls, some of which are quite lovely. They are not (yet) cybernetic, but if you are gifted with imagination, you can give them very feminine names, personalities, etc. If you want to cuddle with something warm and soft, fluffy plush toys can do until something better comes along. These are, or course, like little lady lovely collectable dolls, NOT as good as real women, when women were worth something, but they ARE better than nothing!”
Now that’s just sad. You’ve painted yourself so far into that corner that you’ll never get out.
You do realize, I hope that most men would not see this as an acceptable alternative and would rather have a living, breathing partner. Just because you have a doll fetish doesn’t mean that all men share it.
“Sooner or later, the message will get through to women, and they will realize that feminism and “unisex” is a blind alley, they will take pleasure and pride in their natural genetic based XX type femininity, and love and harmony will return to relationships. But a lot of women need to learn a lesson first!”
You may not like “modern women” but lots of men do like us for a variety of good reasons. Indeed many of us have husbands and long term partners who are quite happy with us. I know you have a little fantasy of us dying unwanted and alone in gutters ( You seem to have a thing about gutters) but that seems unlikely. Indeed, I don’t think feminist women are going to end up that way more often than non-feminist ones. You, however, do seem likely to end up that way (though probably without the gutter) and I just hope that you consider your misogyny to have been worth it.
Pecunium@8.56:
That’s interesting and really put’s paid to Whatever’s claims. What was the sample size?
Meller: So it’s perfectly okay for your to say horrible things about women in general, and feminist women in particular, but point out that the majority of sexual assaults and domestic violence are committed by men (an actual, verifiable FACT) and we’re suddenly demonizing every single man on earth. The double standard, it burns.
ps: never had an sti, never transmitted one, never cheated on my husband, never whored around. you really need better insults, because these are really flying off the mark.
I still think that “fuck you, I have my dolls and my plushies and if you don’t become what I want soon you’ll be sorry!” is the most hilarious tantrum from an adult that I’ve ever witnessed.
I don’t think that there aren’t many people with lots of partners, but I think the variance is so large that just saying ‘average’ is pretty meaningless. And I find it suspicious that the ‘average’ for under-21s approaches and/or exceeds values provided for the average lifetime partners for people slightly older.
Lots of people do have pretty vanilla lives, and promoting an ‘everyone’s actually doing it but you, and like crazy!’ is no better than saying ‘no one’s doing it so you’re a slut.’ If the distribution is bell-curvish and roughly 50% of the population is above/below average, then both sides can get that message no matter what the number is. If the variance is large, and we pretty much know it has to be, then any one person can take that number, apply it in the context of their own lives, and feel good or bad or lonely or superior or whatever. So I don’t really care what the number is, as long as it’s accurate and presented well enough. Two things I suspect More magazine considers of less importance than selling magazines.
Also, ‘me and my friends all boned like crazy’ is exactly why we have to pay attention to how the sample was drawn. Because for every you, there could be an equally large group saying ‘man, I never got any.’ My high school had really prudish groups, groups of friends that spent the whole 4 years in one giant partner-swap, girls who liked to go and party with the college guys, and religious girls. Everyone one of these subgroups was big enough to think they represented the ‘average’ and everyone else was weird.
Soapbox aside, they asked a bunch of teens and young adults about their sex lives and got a number that is extremely plausible yet shocking (!) enough to make for great seamy magazine reading. 18-year-old me would have selected ’25+’ on that survey just to fuck with them. I stand by my original request of wanting to know exactly how they picked their sample before I decide to repeat this statistic as a fact.
I definitely think that the results are being sensationalised. I just don’t care for the “they’re so unusual!” stuff. They’re really not THAT unusual, and it feels slut-shamey.
I don’t think it’s fair to equate saying “that number sounds above average” with “that number sounds so unusual,” but I get how it might feel that way.
And, honestly, speaking as someone who didn’t have sex until adulthood, the counter-argument actually feels virgin-shamey to me – but I recognize that that’s not the intent. I think there’s just so many stupid messages about sexuality in our society, especially aimed at young people, that basically everyone ends up feeling sensitive about the issue in one direction or the other, because whether you have “too many” partners or “too few,” there’s always someone out there willing to tell you how terrible that supposedly makes you.
Cassandra: So true! That’s somewhere on the level of holding your breath until the other party gives in. Or you faint from lack of oxygen. My 1.5yo nephew throws better tantrums than that, and he’s not quite talking yet!
It’s the depiction of people who have a statistically not all that unusual number of partners as ‘me and my friends all boned like crazy’ that I’m objecting to. You really don’t see how that plays into damaging narratives about women and sex? There are a whole lot of people who want to push the idea that women should have as few sexual partners as possible, and that language plays right into their way of thinking.
On Meller, the thing is that in order for his tantrum to be effective women have to care deeply if he and men like him abandon us in favor of dolls and plushies. I see no evidence of that being a realistic expectation.
no_more_mr_nice_guy babbles bullshit about aspies and will continue to do so because he has no incentive to be respectful towards an unrecognized, politically unapproved group. I do grow tired of liberal hypocrites(like his ass) who constantly make fun of asperger syndrome while crying a river about “justice for the homos and the wimminz”………>_>
To clarify, notice how I never said “wow, you people who weren’t having sex in high school are so unusual!”, especially not to anyone in particular? But that is being said, in the opposite direction, even though in fact the numbers seem to be somewhat similar in terms of 10-ish partners versus 0 partners.
I can think of more than one politician from the 19th century that would be very surprised to hear this.