Quote from: Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs
Sexual Economics, Culture, Men, and Modern Sexual Trends (http://www.springerlink.com/content/vg7322727mgl1875/fulltext.html)
Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs
At first, our theory was constructed to fit what was already known, making it an exercise in hindsight. It is therefore highly revealing to see how the theory has fared in Regnerus and Uecker's (2011) pioneering studies of the recent, ongoing shifts in sexual behavior in American society.
The value of an economic perspective is abundantly clear in Regnerus's work. Not only does he analyze behavior in terms of markets. In a political democracy, majority rules, and such political principles have often operated in human behavior. But not in sex. In fact, Regnerus shows over and over that when it comes to sex, the minority rules. This is what happens in economics, especially in the dynamics of supply and demand. When supply outnumbers demand, the suppliers (the majority) are in a weak position and must yield ground, such as by reducing their price. In contrast, when demand outnumbers supply, the suppliers (now the minority) have the advantage and can dictate the terms to their liking, such as by raising the price.
In simple terms, we proposed that in sex, women are the suppliers and men constitute the demand (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). Hence the anti-democratic, seemingly paradoxical sex ratio findings that Regnerus describes. When women are in the minority, the sexual marketplace conforms to their preferences: committed relationships, widespread virginity, faithful partners, and early marriage. For example, American colleges in the 1950s conformed to that pattern. In our analysis, women benefit in such circumstances because the demand for their sexuality exceeds the supply. In contrast, when women are the majority, such as on today's campuses as well as in some ethnic minority communities, things shift toward what men prefer: Plenty of sex without commitment, delayed marriage, extradyadic copulations, and the like.
snip...
Sometimes men have sought to improve their chances for sex by keeping women at a disadvantage in terms of economic, educational, political, and other opportunities (Baumeister and Vohs 2004). For example, researchers have found that in New York in the 1800s, surprisingly high numbers of employed women resorted to occasional prostitution to supplement their meager wages (Elias et al. 1998). But in general this male strategy backfired. Women appear to have realized collectively that sex was the main thing they had to offer men in order to get a piece of society's wealth, and so they restricted sexual access as much as they could, to maintain a high price. {Ed: Dont be a slut!} Recent work has found that across a large sample of countries today, the economic and political liberation of women is positively correlated with greater availability of sex (Baumeister and Mendoza 2011). Thus, men's access to sex has turned out to be maximized not by keeping women in an economically disadvantaged and dependent condition, but instead by letting them have abundant access and opportunity. In an important sense, the sexual revolution of the 1970s was itself a market correction. Once women had been granted wide opportunities for education and wealth, they no longer had to hold sex hostage (Baumeister and Twenge 2002).
What does all this mean for men? The social trends suggest the continuing influence of a stable fact, namely the strong desire of young men for sexual activity. As the environment has shifted, men have simply adjusted their behavior to find the best means to achieve this same goal. Back in 1960, it was difficult to get sex without getting married or at least engaged, and so men married early. To be sure, this required more than being willing to bend the knee, declare love, and offer a ring. To qualify as marriage material, a man had to have a job or at least a strong prospect of one (such as based on an imminent college degree). The man's overarching goal of getting sex thus motivated him to become a respectable stakeholder contributing to society.
The fact that men became useful members of society as a result of their efforts to obtain sex is not trivial, and it may contain important clues as to the basic relationship between men and culture (see Baumeister 2010). Although this may be considered an unflattering characterization, and it cannot at present be considered a proven fact, we have found no evidence to contradict the basic general principle that men will do whatever is required in order to obtain sex, and perhaps not a great deal more. (One of us characterized this in a previous work as, "If women would stop sleeping with jerks, men would stop being jerks.") If in order to obtain sex men must become pillars of the community, or lie, or amass riches by fair means or foul, or be romantic or funny, then many men will do precisely that. This puts the current sexual free-for-all on today's college campuses in a somewhat less appealing light than it may at first seem. Giving young men easy access to abundant sexual satisfaction deprives society of one of its ways to motivate them to contribute valuable achievements to the culture.
snip...
If men don't need career success to get sex, then what if anything do they need success for? Some research indicates that career motivation really intensifies for men when they become fathers. Indeed, it has long been known that the transition to parenthood has opposite effects by gender. New mothers withdraw from their work and careers; new fathers embrace work and career with enhanced seriousness and motivation (for a review see Baumeister 1991).
Many of these changes are beyond anyone's control, and so our comments here are not meant to prescribe a radical shift in policies. Still, it is instructive to consider how these changes may affect the future of society.
TL:DR: Changing gender roles in the modern world providing more access to opportunity for women has benefited men--because it has also provided men with greater access to sex. That, in turn, has alleviated one of the main reasons men are motivated to be successful: to get sex.
I did not quote even half the thing btw. It's long.
Its an interesting take on the phenomenon of males growing up later and later in life.
It's beyond my control.
Wut?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 09, 2012, 02:20:03 PM
TL:DR: Changing gender roles in the modern world providing more access to opportunity for women has benefited men--because it has also provided men with greater access to sex. That, in turn, has alleviated one of the main reasons men are motivated to be successful: to get sex.
Correct. It's hilarious, but also sad.
My unemployed male peers still happily get laid. Their women subsequently whine about getting nowhere, but I quickly run away lest they mistake me for an ear. But they should be applauded for fucking and "loving" whoever the hell they want! :D
a load of BS
If all girls were hot this theory might hold some ground.
As it is, I have to concur with Tamas' assessment. All I need to do to prove it is dress in a nice suit or parade in an expensive car.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 09, 2012, 03:43:24 PM
If all girls were hot this theory might hold some ground.
As it is, I have to concur with Tamas' assessment. All I need to do to prove it is dress in a nice suit or parade in an expensive car.
All girls are not hot which intensifies the competition amongst males. The fact that you need to put on the airs of success to get the women you want puts you below average according to the theory in the OP :P
Quote from: Iormlund on November 09, 2012, 03:43:24 PM
If all girls were hot this theory might hold some ground.
As it is, I have to concur with Tamas' assessment. All I need to do to prove it is dress in a nice suit or parade in an expensive car.
I think there's a few Languishite who disprove the theory as well. :cool:
Quote from: mongers on November 09, 2012, 03:48:40 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on November 09, 2012, 03:43:24 PM
If all girls were hot this theory might hold some ground.
As it is, I have to concur with Tamas' assessment. All I need to do to prove it is dress in a nice suit or parade in an expensive car.
I think there's a few Languishite who disprove the theory as well. :cool:
How so?
If they are not getting some then they are just below the average - the theory isnt that males who never see the light of day will get swarmed like some Axe commercial?
I'm pretty sure no broad theory of anything will apply to every person. There are always outliers. Often many, many outliers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on November 09, 2012, 03:43:24 PM
If all girls were hot this theory might hold some ground.
As it is, I have to concur with Tamas' assessment. All I need to do to prove it is dress in a nice suit or parade in an expensive car.
All girls are not hot which intensifies the competition amongst males. The fact that you need to put on the airs of success to get the women you want puts you below average according to the theory in the OP :P
You miss the point. All other factors being the same, money will still improve my (or anyone else's) access to "premium" girls, sexual revolution or not. As another example, it was not so long ago that a poll found that 85% of Spanish women would not start a relationship with an unemployed male.
So yeah ... money still matters.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 09, 2012, 04:00:47 PM
I'm pretty sure no broad theory of anything will apply to every person. There are always outliers. Often many, many outliers.
Yep, but if we applied a standard that a theory needed to explain the behaviour of every single person then we would likely have no theories at all.
Quote from: Iormlund on November 09, 2012, 04:10:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on November 09, 2012, 03:43:24 PM
If all girls were hot this theory might hold some ground.
As it is, I have to concur with Tamas' assessment. All I need to do to prove it is dress in a nice suit or parade in an expensive car.
All girls are not hot which intensifies the competition amongst males. The fact that you need to put on the airs of success to get the women you want puts you below average according to the theory in the OP :P
You miss the point. All other factors being the same, money will still improve my (or anyone else's) access to girls, sexual revolution or not. As another example, it was not so long ago that a poll found that 85% of Spanish women would not start a relationship with an unemployed male.
So yeah ... money still matters.
All other factors are not equal because you are dismissing the wealth of the female. Why would a wealthy female be attracted to a wealth unattractive jerk if she can get with a very attractive but nonwealthy guy. ie she isnt in it for the money.
Now if you happen to have money, are attractive and are not a jerk you probably have a leg up on all competition because have a wide selection of females who will be attracted to you for one reason or another.
tldr - guys who only have money have a smaller pool of females to attract.
I don't know man. I think attempts to reduce human behavior to singular causes are generally ridiculous and result in BS if taken too far.
Hard hitting analysis there. Rings very true when I observe my 21 year old twin sisters and their age cohort.
In fact, it's so factual I have to read some paragraphs twice because they hit so close to home, my eyes kinda blur.
Baumeister is gloriously un-PC in his dissection on Homo Sapiens's sexuality.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2012, 04:42:28 PM
I don't know man. I think attempts to reduce human behavior to singular causes are generally ridiculous and result in BS if taken too far.
yeah, but I am not sure what this analysis has to do with that
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 05:53:08 PM
yeah, but I am not sure what this analysis has to do with that
Reducing it all about trying to get sex. It seems like I had alot more crap going on with me when I was struggling to grow up besides that.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2012, 06:04:06 PM
Reducing it all about trying to get sex. It seems like I had alot more crap going on with me when I was struggling to grow up besides that.
Young men go to the extremes to get sex. Their status-seeking in order to get sex is what can drive civilization forward if positively harnessed.
So if you have to be polite, refrain from killing anyone, even if they deserve it, dress like a fag and endure, say, techno/rap music to have a chance at it, by God you will. On the other hand if you have to get status with an AK-47 and/or a machete, blow yourself up for 72 virgins in the afterlife or drag her to a longboat en route to Iceland in the 900's AD then that's perfectly acceptable as well.
I'm still halfway the article, there are some interesting points and some other that stink like crap from a mile. But what really stood up for me so far is how almost everything the guy quotes to back up his statements are his very own studies. This is so because I say so.
Quote from: The Larch on November 09, 2012, 06:22:17 PM
I'm still halfway the article, there are some interesting points and some other that stink like crap from a mile. But what really stood up for me so far is how almost everything the guy quotes to back up his statements are his very own studies. This is so because I say so.
To be fair he goes out of his way to state his theory as "unproven" and bases alot of his findings on Regnerus. I find him a refreshing middle ground between the hardcore evo-psychs on one hand and the feminist/social constructionists on the other.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 09, 2012, 06:41:47 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 09, 2012, 06:22:17 PM
I'm still halfway the article, there are some interesting points and some other that stink like crap from a mile. But what really stood up for me so far is how almost everything the guy quotes to back up his statements are his very own studies. This is so because I say so.
To be fair he goes out of his way to state his theory as "unproven" and bases alot of his findings on Regnerus. I find him a refreshing middle ground between the hardcore evo-psychs on one hand and the feminist/social constructionists on the other.
I also realized afterwards that this is a contribution to a symposium, not a full blown paper, so the level of scrutiny goes down a couple of notches. It kinda improved a lot by the end, but some sections of the middle seem quite prejudiced against women for me.
Quote from: The Larch on November 09, 2012, 06:44:35 PM
I also realized afterwards that this is a contribution to a symposium, not a full blown paper, so the level of scrutiny goes down a couple of notches. It kinda improved a lot by the end, but some sections of the middle seem quite prejudiced against women for me.
What did you find to be particularly prejudiced against women? What did you like?
Quote from: Legbiter on November 09, 2012, 06:41:47 PM
I find him a refreshing middle ground between the hardcore evo-psychs on one hand and the feminist/social constructionists on the other.
Yeah I don't want to devolve this into some gender warrior thing. Those people are nuts and they have Jezebel to troll each other on anyway. Baumeister is most definitely not in the nutso camp. Plenty of his talks/lectures/other stuff on youtube. Like whether robots can achieve free will.
Still, there are surely lots of reasons for things like lower male participation rates in colleges and stuff like that besides sex.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 09, 2012, 07:00:14 PM
Yeah I don't want to devolve this into some gender warrior thing. Those people are nuts and they have Jezebel to troll each other on anyway. Baumeister is most definitely not in the nutso camp. Plenty of his talks/lectures/other stuff on youtube. Like whether robots can achieve free will.
Still, there are surely lots of reasons for things like lower male participation rates in colleges and stuff like that besides sex.
Having a college degree in a field already inundated with degree-holders brings decreased status and hence less chance of displaying enough mojo to attract women. :hmm:
Might as well be formally unemployed while playing bass in a crappy indie band to haul in easy ass.
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2012, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 05:53:08 PM
yeah, but I am not sure what this analysis has to do with that
Reducing it all about trying to get sex. It seems like I had alot more crap going on with me when I was struggling to grow up besides that.
If you were not thinking about sex as a young man you were indeed an outlier.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 09:59:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2012, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 05:53:08 PM
yeah, but I am not sure what this analysis has to do with that
Reducing it all about trying to get sex. It seems like I had alot more crap going on with me when I was struggling to grow up besides that.
If you were not thinking about sex as a young man you were indeed an outlier.
I think Valmy's point was that he was thinking about other things, too, not that he wasn't thinking about sex.
And I tend to agree with him. Sure, when I was in school, I wanted to be able to afford a cool car and stuff, and partly that was because a cool car helps you get chicks, but, still, I wanted the cool car and other cool stuff for its value aside from being a chick magnet.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 09, 2012, 05:28:47 PM
Hard hitting analysis there. Rings very true when I observe my 21 year old twin sisters and their age cohort.
In fact, it's so factual I have to read some paragraphs twice because they hit so close to home, my eyes kinda blur.
Baumeister is gloriously un-PC in his dissection on Homo Sapiens's sexuality.
I keep thinking that Baumeister is the guy who runs the Bauhaus.
Quote from: dps on November 09, 2012, 10:59:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 09:59:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2012, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 05:53:08 PM
yeah, but I am not sure what this analysis has to do with that
Reducing it all about trying to get sex. It seems like I had alot more crap going on with me when I was struggling to grow up besides that.
If you were not thinking about sex as a young man you were indeed an outlier.
I think Valmy's point was that he was thinking about other things, too, not that he wasn't thinking about sex.
And I tend to agree with him. Sure, when I was in school, I wanted to be able to afford a cool car and stuff, and partly that was because a cool car helps you get chicks, but, still, I wanted the cool car and other cool stuff for its value aside from being a chick magnet.
CC already knew that Valmy wasn't saying he didn't think about sex.
Horrifying how backwards things were back in the day.
These days you don't even agree to go out with a girl till you've had sex, back in the day you had to marry them without a test drive. brr.
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2012, 11:50:43 PM
CC already knew that Valmy wasn't saying he didn't think about sex.
Well he hid it well because he said I was saying exactly that.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2012, 02:26:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2012, 11:50:43 PM
CC already knew that Valmy wasn't saying he didn't think about sex.
Well he hid it well because he said I was saying exactly that.
That's how you pull off a troll, right?
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2012, 02:26:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2012, 11:50:43 PM
CC already knew that Valmy wasn't saying he didn't think about sex.
Well he hid it well because he said I was saying exactly that.
That's who you pull off a troll, right?
I don't understand anymore.
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2012, 12:03:32 AM
Horrifying how backwards things were back in the day.
These days you don't even agree to go out with a girl till you've had sex, back in the day you had to marry them without a test drive. brr.
I'd suggest that how you do things (or see others around you do things) don't accurately reflect what people in general do. I'd even generalize that to most scenarios - not just dating. ;)
Quote from: The Brain on November 10, 2012, 09:27:04 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2012, 02:26:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 09, 2012, 11:50:43 PM
CC already knew that Valmy wasn't saying he didn't think about sex.
Well he hid it well because he said I was saying exactly that.
That's who you pull off a troll, right?
I don't understand anymore.
I've fixed it for you. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:27:17 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2012, 12:03:32 AM
Horrifying how backwards things were back in the day.
These days you don't even agree to go out with a girl till you've had sex, back in the day you had to marry them without a test drive. brr.
I'd suggest that how you do things (or see others around you do things) don't accurately reflect what people in general do. I'd even generalize that to most scenarios - not just dating. ;)
No sex before marriage people are very much in the minority in Europe and Japan at least.
If you took this article seriously, you must think that poor people didn't have sex before the 21st century. Ridicoulous
Also: the "princess rides the stable boy" (then marries the prince) is the most cliched common romantic story since eternity.
And the examples could be continued. It's bollocks.
Quote from: Legbiter on November 09, 2012, 06:53:35 PM
Quote from: The Larch on November 09, 2012, 06:44:35 PM
I also realized afterwards that this is a contribution to a symposium, not a full blown paper, so the level of scrutiny goes down a couple of notches. It kinda improved a lot by the end, but some sections of the middle seem quite prejudiced against women for me.
What did you find to be particularly prejudiced against women? What did you like?
IMO it severely underrates women's contribution to society, it paints them with a huge brush claming that they're little more than parasitic freeriders, which again IMO is outstandingly wrong. My hunch is that they're trying to be controversial on purpose, though.
I liked the description of sexual and gender dynamics in terms of supply and demand, what they call sexual economics, which seems quite thought provoking.
Quote from: The Larch on November 10, 2012, 12:30:01 PM
I liked the description of sexual and gender dynamics in terms of supply and demand, what they call sexual economics, which seems quite thought provoking.
Nothing we didn't already figure out for ourselves in junior high school.
Quote from: Tamas on November 10, 2012, 11:42:39 AM
If you took this article seriously, you must think that poor people didn't have sex before the 21st century. Ridicoulous
Also: the "princess rides the stable boy" (then marries the prince) is the most cliched common romantic story since eternity.
And the examples could be continued. It's bollocks.
Do all Hungarians confuse fairy tales with sociology?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 10, 2012, 02:17:10 PM
Quote from: Tamas on November 10, 2012, 11:42:39 AM
If you took this article seriously, you must think that poor people didn't have sex before the 21st century. Ridicoulous
Also: the "princess rides the stable boy" (then marries the prince) is the most cliched common romantic story since eternity.
And the examples could be continued. It's bollocks.
Do all Hungarians confuse fairy tales with sociology?
Probabaly. It is also interesting to note those for whome this article hits close to home.
I don't work or have much sex, so it ain't me.
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2012, 11:36:39 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2012, 09:27:17 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2012, 12:03:32 AM
Horrifying how backwards things were back in the day.
These days you don't even agree to go out with a girl till you've had sex, back in the day you had to marry them without a test drive. brr.
I'd suggest that how you do things (or see others around you do things) don't accurately reflect what people in general do. I'd even generalize that to most scenarios - not just dating. ;)
No sex before marriage people are very much in the minority in Europe and Japan at least.
Which says nothing in regards to must have sex before date as you posit it.
Quote from: dps on November 09, 2012, 10:59:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 09:59:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2012, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 05:53:08 PM
yeah, but I am not sure what this analysis has to do with that
Reducing it all about trying to get sex. It seems like I had alot more crap going on with me when I was struggling to grow up besides that.
are you guys really that dense or really that inept with women?
Of course there is a lot going on. But if anyone here didnt have a huge sex drive when they were in their late teens early 20s they were outliers. Pretty simple point.
If you were not thinking about sex as a young man you were indeed an outlier.
I think Valmy's point was that he was thinking about other things, too, not that he wasn't thinking about sex.
And I tend to agree with him. Sure, when I was in school, I wanted to be able to afford a cool car and stuff, and partly that was because a cool car helps you get chicks, but, still, I wanted the cool car and other cool stuff for its value aside from being a chick magnet.
I would actually say that money matters much more today than, say, 200 years ago, when it comes to getting a good looking partner.
At least in a class society, poor guys could hope to marry a pretty girl within their own class. In a classless society, there is no stigma for a rich upper class guy to marry a poor lower class (but pretty) girl so money matters even more
Amusing article, more like trolling than serious.
I agree with Valmy - men go for success for more reasons than to get sex, and success still "counts" in terms of getting sex these days anyway - people who live in mom's basement playing video games are not, article withstanding, getting laid with great abandon in general. Article fails at both supply and demand.
Quote from: Martinus on November 10, 2012, 03:54:12 PM
In a classless society, there is no stigma for a rich upper class guy to marry a poor lower class (but pretty) girl so money matters even more
So you're positing a society that doesn't exist then?
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 03:59:55 PM
Amusing article, more like trolling than serious.
I agree with Valmy - men go for success for more reasons than to get sex, and success still "counts" in terms of getting sex these days anyway - people who live in mom's basement playing video games are not, article withstanding, getting laid with great abandon in general. Article fails at both supply and demand.
You sure? Women are increasingly the main or sole breadwinner of two-adult households.
Older men increasingly get themselves on disability rolls.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 10, 2012, 04:21:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 03:59:55 PM
Amusing article, more like trolling than serious.
I agree with Valmy - men go for success for more reasons than to get sex, and success still "counts" in terms of getting sex these days anyway - people who live in mom's basement playing video games are not, article withstanding, getting laid with great abandon in general. Article fails at both supply and demand.
You sure? Women are increasingly the main or sole breadwinner of two-adult households.
Older men increasingly get themselves on disability rolls.
Put it this way. Guy A and guy B are both average looking. Guy A lives in mom's basement and plays video games all day. Guy B went to university and ended up in a high-paying profession. Which is going to have the better success with attracting women?
For that matter, living in mom's basement and playing video games is not a lifestyle that results in a lot of health self-respect - and having self-respect is as big, or bigger, a motivator as getting laid (not to mention that the two are related: self-respect=confidence=more attractive to women). That's on top of simply being able to afford one's own place, a car, toys, vacations, etc. - also a big motivator, right?
Another major error in the article is that it discounts the effect of prostitution. It has never been the case that men in the 'good old days' "had to work hard and get engaged" to have sex. Rather, men had to get married to have social respect. They could get laid by paying for it - and by and large, they did.
Figures I have seen claim that in the 1950s, the rate of men who had used the services of a prostitute were as high as 60-75%. Today, the figure is much lower - 15-20%.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 10, 2012, 04:21:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 03:59:55 PM
Amusing article, more like trolling than serious.
I agree with Valmy - men go for success for more reasons than to get sex, and success still "counts" in terms of getting sex these days anyway - people who live in mom's basement playing video games are not, article withstanding, getting laid with great abandon in general. Article fails at both supply and demand.
You sure? Women are increasingly the main or sole breadwinner of two-adult households.
Older men increasingly get themselves on disability rolls.
Put it this way. Guy A and guy B are both average looking. Guy A lives in mom's basement and plays video games all day. Guy B went to university and ended up in a high-paying profession. Which is going to have the better success with attracting women?
For that matter, living in mom's basement and playing video games is not a lifestyle that results in a lot of health self-respect - and having self-respect is as big, or bigger, a motivator as getting laid (not to mention that the two are related: self-respect=confidence=more attractive to women). That's on top of simply being able to afford one's own place, a car, toys, vacations, etc. - also a big motivator, right?
That assumes there is some big shortage of sex/women. If there is now plenty more sex to go around, then the basement guy is now getting laid regardless of housing/job while the well-paid is getting laid, too.
The self-respect thing is the other supposed change/trend: that men are not shit upon or don't care if they are not working anymore.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 10, 2012, 06:11:46 PM
That assumes there is some big shortage of sex/women. If there is now plenty more sex to go around, then the basement guy is now getting laid regardless of housing/job while the well-paid is getting laid, too.
The self-respect thing is the other supposed change/trend: that men are not shit upon or don't care if they are not working anymore.
Most basement dwellers still have standards, thus there is an artificial shortage.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 10, 2012, 06:11:46 PM
That assumes there is some big shortage of sex/women. If there is now plenty more sex to go around, then the basement guy is now getting laid regardless of housing/job while the well-paid is getting laid, too.
The self-respect thing is the other supposed change/trend: that men are not shit upon or don't care if they are not working anymore.
No, the
original theory is based on the conception that there
used to be some big shortage of sex/women (because women conciously or not restricted access to sex). This theory discounts the fact that while "respectable" women did not have (much) sex before marriage, men could have as much as they want - and did - through prostitution. The old "double standard" in action.
It has never been the case that men could not get laid if they were useless layabouts. They could not get social respectability, they could not get married to women of social status (unless they were lucky, charming, or good-looking). but they could get laid. That's still true today. Only difference is, they are much less likely to overtly pay for it.
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
The difference is not (and never has been) that the layabout could not get laid while the guy with the well paying job could. The difference is that the guy in the high-paying job can attract a women who is either of the same social class, or who is more attractive than he would get in his social class. It's the quality, not the availability.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 10, 2012, 04:21:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 03:59:55 PM
Amusing article, more like trolling than serious.
I agree with Valmy - men go for success for more reasons than to get sex, and success still "counts" in terms of getting sex these days anyway - people who live in mom's basement playing video games are not, article withstanding, getting laid with great abandon in general. Article fails at both supply and demand.
You sure? Women are increasingly the main or sole breadwinner of two-adult households.
Older men increasingly get themselves on disability rolls.
Put it this way. Guy A and guy B are both average looking. Guy A lives in mom's basement and plays video games all day. Guy B went to university and ended up in a high-paying profession. Which is going to have the better success with attracting women?
For that matter, living in mom's basement and playing video games is not a lifestyle that results in a lot of health self-respect - and having self-respect is as big, or bigger, a motivator as getting laid (not to mention that the two are related: self-respect=confidence=more attractive to women). That's on top of simply being able to afford one's own place, a car, toys, vacations, etc. - also a big motivator, right?
That's a false alternative though. Replace guy A with a hipster who spends all his day in a corner coffee shop or playing frisbee with other "adults" and your hypothesis may fail, simply because guy A has more opportunities to meet and attract women than guy B who is spending all his waking time at work.
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2012, 05:44:50 AM
That's a false alternative though. Replace guy A with a hipster who spends all his day in a corner coffee shop or playing frisbee with other "adults" and your hypothesis may fail, simply because guy A has more opportunities to meet and attract women than guy B who is spending all his waking time at work.
Maybe the thing is that women are deep down evolutionarily looking for a provider- and survival is fucking easy in this day and age, any retard can do it. For the evolutionary mental trigger a minimum wage layabout is just as good as a rich investment banker.
Or perhaps women are more than biological machines and think with their brains and figure out they will be better of (especially if they themselves are successful professionals) with a hotter younger guy even if he is not bring tons of money home, than with a richer alpha who spends all his days and evenings at work and usually has some serious psychological issues.
Most of my female friends seem to be following that pattern.
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2012, 11:02:15 AM
Or perhaps women are more than biological machines
That was unexpected from you. :P
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2012, 09:17:22 AM
Maybe the thing is that women are deep down evolutionarily looking for a provider- and survival is fucking easy in this day and age, any retard can do it. For the evolutionary mental trigger a minimum wage layabout is just as good as a rich investment banker.
That would only partially explain the "I'm leaving you for an unemployed drummer because he's an artist" schtick at age 22 for the "I'm leaving you for a senior vice president at T Rowe Price" at age 32 evolutionary process. :D
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Besides Raz, exactly who here is unemployable?
Quote from: dps on November 11, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Besides Raz, exactly who here is unemployable?
Quote from: dps on November 11, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Besides Raz, exactly who here is unemployable?
:zipped:
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 12:28:05 PM
Quote from: dps on November 11, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Besides Raz, exactly who here is unemployable?
Quote from: dps on November 11, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Besides Raz, exactly who here is unemployable?
:zipped:
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 12:28:05 PM
Quote from: dps on November 11, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Besides Raz, exactly who here is unemployable?
Quote from: dps on November 11, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Besides Raz, exactly who here is unemployable?
:zipped:
Ah, a binary tree.
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 12:28:05 PM
Quote from: dps on November 11, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Besides Raz, exactly who here is unemployable?
Quote from: dps on November 11, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Quote from: The Brain on November 11, 2012, 03:49:08 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 06:27:26 PM
I do not believe for a second that men who are unemployable have in general the same sense of self-worth as men who are employed.
Calls for a Languish poll?
Besides Raz, exactly who here is unemployable?
:zipped:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 11, 2012, 11:28:33 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 11, 2012, 09:17:22 AM
Maybe the thing is that women are deep down evolutionarily looking for a provider- and survival is fucking easy in this day and age, any retard can do it. For the evolutionary mental trigger a minimum wage layabout is just as good as a rich investment banker.
That would only partially explain the "I'm leaving you for an unemployed drummer because he's an artist" schtick at age 22 for the "I'm leaving you for a senior vice president at T Rowe Price" at age 32 evolutionary process. :D
Again, my experience with female friends is actually entirely the opposite.
Younger, inexperienced women are looking for a sugar daddy. Older, secure women are looking for a boy toy.
In a perhaps somewhat oversimplified way, this has been true for my female boss, two of my female best friends here in Poland, and virtually every active Languish female poster.
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2012, 01:36:40 PM
Again, my experience with female friends is actually entirely the opposite.
No, I don't suppose they would dump you.
If sexual politics were less about "women do this and men do that" and more about let's not make huge generalisations and treat each other like we'd like to be treated ourselves, the world would be a better place.
Quote from: Brazen on November 11, 2012, 01:40:15 PM
If sexual politics were less about "women do this and men do that" and more about let's not make huge generalisations and treat each other like we'd like to be treated ourselves, the world would be a better place.
Sweeping, unrealistic generalizations is what we do. :P
Quote from: Brazen on November 11, 2012, 01:40:15 PM
If sexual politics were less about "women do this and men do that" and more about let's not make huge generalisations and treat each other like we'd like to be treated ourselves, the world would be a better place.
Nice sentiment, but has that happened in any area of life ?
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2012, 11:02:15 AM
Or perhaps women are more than biological machines and think with their brains and figure out they will be better of (especially if they themselves are successful professionals) with a hotter younger guy even if he is not bring tons of money home, than with a richer alpha who spends all his days and evenings at work and usually has some serious psychological issues.
Most of my female friends seem to be following that pattern.
:thumbsup:
Perhaps more to the point, more mature women are financially independent and the money or career aspect of a partner doesn't even come into the equation.
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2012, 01:41:22 PM
Sweeping, unrealistic generalizations is what we do. :P
Duh. www.languish.org
Mature women are... how to put this... not very firm and bouncy.
Quote from: mongers on November 11, 2012, 01:43:55 PM
Nice sentiment, but has that happened in any area of life ?
In any group of friends, I'd hope.
I have no idea if I'm intimidated by intelligent women.
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2012, 01:36:40 PM
In a perhaps somewhat oversimplified way, this has been true for my female boss, two of my female best friends here in Poland, and virtually every active Languish female poster.
So 5 people. And of course the inactive Languish female posters go against that trend. :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2012, 05:44:50 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 10, 2012, 04:21:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2012, 03:59:55 PM
Amusing article, more like trolling than serious.
I agree with Valmy - men go for success for more reasons than to get sex, and success still "counts" in terms of getting sex these days anyway - people who live in mom's basement playing video games are not, article withstanding, getting laid with great abandon in general. Article fails at both supply and demand.
You sure? Women are increasingly the main or sole breadwinner of two-adult households.
Older men increasingly get themselves on disability rolls.
Put it this way. Guy A and guy B are both average looking. Guy A lives in mom's basement and plays video games all day. Guy B went to university and ended up in a high-paying profession. Which is going to have the better success with attracting women?
For that matter, living in mom's basement and playing video games is not a lifestyle that results in a lot of health self-respect - and having self-respect is as big, or bigger, a motivator as getting laid (not to mention that the two are related: self-respect=confidence=more attractive to women). That's on top of simply being able to afford one's own place, a car, toys, vacations, etc. - also a big motivator, right?
That's a false alternative though. Replace guy A with a hipster who spends all his day in a corner coffee shop or playing frisbee with other "adults" and your hypothesis may fail, simply because guy A has more opportunities to meet and attract women than guy B who is spending all his waking time at work.
What you are forgetting is that these days, it isn't actually necessary to hang out in coffee shops or bars all day to meet women. I'm not a big fan of it, but the fact is that people advertise for sex and relationships in a straightforward manner - they advertise on Internet dating sites.
Even a busy professional can do that.
For women, the man-child types who have no responsibilities are not that attractive. It has nothing to do with women being grasping harpies out for a meal ticket, or the rest of the usual woman-hater's screed. It is simply that such guys tend to come with a lot of unattractive personality characteristics - not to mention the inconveniences involved with dating someone who can't pay their own way. A guy who has no intention of working is usually one who is shamelessly living off of someone else, for one; for another, they are far more likely to be drunks or druggies (pot is bad for this) or have psychological issues.
All things being equal of course. If your frisbee playing man-child is 23 and looks like a male model, bets are off.
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2012, 11:02:15 AM
Or perhaps women are more than biological machines and think with their brains and figure out they will be better of (especially if they themselves are successful professionals) with a hotter younger guy even if he is not bring tons of money home, than with a richer alpha who spends all his days and evenings at work and usually has some serious psychological issues.
Most of my female friends seem to be following that pattern.
In that situation, which one is actually an alpha male? Not the one who didn't get the girl.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2012, 03:30:20 PM
What you are forgetting is that these days, it isn't actually necessary to hang out in coffee shops or bars all day to meet women. I'm not a big fan of it, but the fact is that people advertise for sex and relationships in a straightforward manner - they advertise on Internet dating sites.
Even a busy professional can do that.
For women, the man-child types who have no responsibilities are not that attractive. It has nothing to do with women being grasping harpies out for a meal ticket, or the rest of the usual woman-hater's screed. It is simply that such guys tend to come with a lot of unattractive personality characteristics - not to mention the inconveniences involved with dating someone who can't pay their own way. A guy who has no intention of working is usually one who is shamelessly living off of someone else, for one; for another, they are far more likely to be drunks or druggies (pot is bad for this) or have psychological issues.
All things being equal of course. If your frisbee playing man-child is 23 and looks like a male model, bets are off.
Well yeah, but like Brazen said, the money isn't entering into it for the ladies anymore. They have their own and can support themselves. So the guys are turning to other ways to attract them. Like P90X and stuff I guess.
For the same reason guys don't particularly care how educated or rich a woman is, women have become the same with guys.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2012, 03:30:20 PM
What you are forgetting is that these days, it isn't actually necessary to hang out in coffee shops or bars all day to meet women. I'm not a big fan of it, but the fact is that people advertise for sex and relationships in a straightforward manner - they advertise on Internet dating sites.
Even a busy professional can do that.
The problem with internet dating sites is that it skews people's own perception of their dating value, and creates unrealistic expectations in other partners. What you get, basically, is a Powerpoint presentation - no vibe, no eye contact, no body language and pheromone, only words on a screen and (usually badly framed) pictures taken out of context.
The dating game being as it is, men tapdance and women do the choosing. Even unattractive and plain women get tons of messages from men of all kinds of mating potential on dating sites because the best strategy for the average man is usually to send shotgun messages and milk any contact who replies back. Consequently, it gives these women the pick of the litter, and the false belief that they can obtain a better partner that they could actually do in real life because the fact that they receive tons of messages validates them as "attractive female".
In any case, if a professional rely solely on dating sites to find partners, it's more because he is either a socially awkward or is too afraid of rejection and "losing his time". People who are serious about finding a partner are ready to take the necessary steps to meet new people in real life, which means going out, being socially active, having fun, speed dating, and so on.
I've done a couple of internet dates. I find it helps you find people who have some similar interests and you're able to screen out undesirables. I've been in enough Buddha-laden living rooms in Richmond to know that if a guy talks about 'just being himself', or 'being spiritual' then it'll be a date of biting my tongue and trying to resist the urge to club him with the menorah in the window. Luckily online those people put that on their profiles and I know not to bite - similarly I'm sure they look at my profile and think I'm not for them.
It could be different for straight people but it's useful for Mark Gatiss gays and the like, because that's not necessarily what you'll get on the scene even if it's still a very good night out :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 10, 2012, 03:19:22 PM
Quote from: dps on November 09, 2012, 10:59:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 09:59:33 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 09, 2012, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 09, 2012, 05:53:08 PM
yeah, but I am not sure what this analysis has to do with that
Reducing it all about trying to get sex. It seems like I had alot more crap going on with me when I was struggling to grow up besides that.
are you guys really that dense or really that inept with women?
Of course there is a lot going on. But if anyone here didnt have a huge sex drive when they were in their late teens early 20s they were outliers. Pretty simple point.
If you were not thinking about sex as a young man you were indeed an outlier.
I think Valmy's point was that he was thinking about other things, too, not that he wasn't thinking about sex.
And I tend to agree with him. Sure, when I was in school, I wanted to be able to afford a cool car and stuff, and partly that was because a cool car helps you get chicks, but, still, I wanted the cool car and other cool stuff for its value aside from being a chick magnet.
Ok I have no idea what you are saying because you fucked up the quotes so bad. BUt one pretty significant issue in getting me to work really hard to be successful was just because I did not want to lose face in front of my peer group. They were all high achievers, or at least appeared to be at the time, so I had to fit in. I had no idea really who I was or what I wanted back then and I tended to view myself based on what my friends thought. That was a big deal and didn't have much to do with sex.
I have no idea where you are getting this idiotic idea I said I did not have a big sex drive.
Quote from: Drakken on November 12, 2012, 12:06:14 AMThe problem with internet dating sites is that it skews people's own perception of their dating value, and creates unrealistic expectations in other partners. What you get, basically, is a Powerpoint presentation - no vibe, no eye contact, no body language and pheromone, only words on a screen and (usually badly framed) pictures taken out of context.
Well right that is why you use it to meet people in person. But I found it a fast way to get in touch with people who wanted the exact same thing I wanted. That sort of compatibility is vital, or at lest was for me.
QuoteThe dating game being as it is, men tapdance and women do the choosing. Even unattractive and plain women get tons of messages from men of all kinds of mating potential on dating sites because the best strategy for the average man is usually to send shotgun messages and milk any contact who replies back. Consequently, it gives these women the pick of the litter, and the false belief that they can obtain a better partner that they could actually do in real life because the fact that they receive tons of messages validates them as "attractive female".
I don't know if that was really true even back when I was doing it back in 2006-2007. There were at least as many women as men on it by that point. I certainly got messaged plenty by women.
QuotePeople who are serious about finding a partner are ready to take the necessary steps to meet new people in real life, which means going out, being socially active, having fun, speed dating, and so on.
True but if you really are serious I would think you would use all your tools.
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2012, 11:02:15 AM
Or perhaps women are more than biological machines and think with their brains and figure out they will be better of (especially if they themselves are successful professionals) with a hotter younger guy even if he is not bring tons of money home, than with a richer alpha who spends all his days and evenings at work and usually has some serious psychological issues.
Most of my female friends seem to be following that pattern.
Do people just not choose partners just because they like them?
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 01:56:01 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2012, 11:02:15 AM
Or perhaps women are more than biological machines and think with their brains and figure out they will be better of (especially if they themselves are successful professionals) with a hotter younger guy even if he is not bring tons of money home, than with a richer alpha who spends all his days and evenings at work and usually has some serious psychological issues.
Most of my female friends seem to be following that pattern.
Do people just not choose partners just because they like them?
They like qualities they are attracted to. This changes as you grow older - you like different people now than you liked 15 years ago.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2012, 03:30:20 PM
What you are forgetting is that these days, it isn't actually necessary to hang out in coffee shops or bars all day to meet women. I'm not a big fan of it, but the fact is that people advertise for sex and relationships in a straightforward manner - they advertise on Internet dating sites.
Even a busy professional can do that.
For women, the man-child types who have no responsibilities are not that attractive. It has nothing to do with women being grasping harpies out for a meal ticket, or the rest of the usual woman-hater's screed. It is simply that such guys tend to come with a lot of unattractive personality characteristics - not to mention the inconveniences involved with dating someone who can't pay their own way. A guy who has no intention of working is usually one who is shamelessly living off of someone else, for one; for another, they are far more likely to be drunks or druggies (pot is bad for this) or have psychological issues.
All things being equal of course. If your frisbee playing man-child is 23 and looks like a male model, bets are off.
It's not that women are attracted to man-child types per se. The thing is, we tend to discuss these traits in a sort of "all things being equal" sense, but this is not the case in real life, as people are different and it is very rare that you find two people who are equally into you and who differ by just one characteristic or quality.
I always say this works like GURPS character creation - people usually have various pros and cons. Younger women and/or women who are not financially independent are more attracted to stability - thus older, well off guys are considered more attractive. More financially independent women do not value financial stability as high - so they are more attracted to guys who may be not as rich, but who usually happen to be more relaxed, have more time for them, and are usually more good looking/younger (again I am not saying that rich guys can't be good looking or relaxed but supply/demand works here as well obviously). Noone ever finds an ideal partner - just a partner with whose faults you can live because they don't bother you. For financially independent women, a guy who is more fun to be around and is hotter is better than a guy who has more money.
I noticed that usually the only thing that prevents this switch is the appearance of children - because this usually prevents the woman in a relationship from becoming financially independent as she stays at home to raise the kids. In such cases the switch happens when the children grow and move out of home. If there are no children present, I don't think I know a single marriage of my two people from my generation (which originally followed the pattern of a woman marrying a stable, financially secure guy) which survived.
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2012, 02:18:41 AM
They like qualities they are attracted to. This changes as you grow older - you like different people now than you liked 15 years ago.
I guess. But only because I have a better idea of who I am and what I want. But I don't know if liking young hot people is sign of advanced age.
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 02:30:05 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2012, 02:18:41 AM
They like qualities they are attracted to. This changes as you grow older - you like different people now than you liked 15 years ago.
I guess. But only because I have a better idea of who I am and what I want. But I don't know if liking young hot people is sign of advanced age.
Are you deliberately obtuse? Everyone likes young hot people. We choose older non-hot people because of certain qualities in them we find attractive. Once this attraction is removed, it's back to cradle robbing.
And I don't think this is a "better idea of who I am" - people change. You are not getting wiser or more reasonable - you just redefine your priorities.
Incidentally, I find it funny that it's mainly the unattractive guys with stable jobs and younger wives here that are so vehemently arguing that women are not attracted to hot guys. :lol:
Even if the only woman who posted so far disagreed.
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2012, 02:37:12 AM
Incidentally, I find it funny that it's mainly the unattractive guys with stable jobs and younger wives here that are so vehemently arguing that women are not attracted to hot guys. :lol:
Even if the only woman who posted so far disagreed.
Valmy has a younger wife? :huh:
This thread is a wonderful collection of highly subjective personal viewpoints and broad generalizations from those viewpoints. The discussion itself renders all posts irrelevant including the original article.
"The social trends suggest the continuing influence of a stable fact, namely the strong desire of young men for sexual activity. As the environment has shifted, men have simply adjusted their behavior to find the best means to achieve this same goal."
Homosexuality has to be the way forward here :hmm:
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2012, 02:37:12 AM
Incidentally, I find it funny that it's mainly the unattractive guys with stable jobs and younger wives here that are so vehemently arguing that women are not attracted to hot guys. :lol:
Even if the only woman who posted so far disagreed.
Wait there is somebody arguing that people are not attracted to hot people?
Though women have often claimed up and down that looks are not that important to them, including one on this board. I never really bought it frankly.
Quote from: Tamas on November 12, 2012, 02:51:43 AM
Valmy has a younger wife? :huh:
So you think I am unattractive Tamas? :grr: My wife is basically my age, I wanted somebody around my age.
But obviously Marty was not referring to me. -_-
All snarkiness aside, I think a lot of experienced women realize that classic "Alpha" type men are often assholes with severe personality issues, and choose different men in their second (or third or fourth) try.
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2012, 04:15:47 AM
All snarkiness aside, I think a lot of experienced women realize that classic "Alpha" type men are often assholes with severe personality issues, and choose different men in their second (or third or fourth) try.
See, this is why I am saying that theories like that are worthless because they are too generalized.
I could take what you wrote, and remark that women switch from craving "alpha" males to settling with plain providers not when they have enough of being abused, but when they feel they are nearing the end of their prime.
A further thought on the matter is that women's preference may turn towards more physically fit individuals as we reach our middle years, as the same noodle-armed intellectuals that read us poetry in our teens might not survive the first heart attack or bout of pneumonia.
The wealth of the society in question is surely of importance. In wealthy Western countries the majority of men can be effective economic providers, as can the majority of women. Yes, there are people out there who want more, but many people just want "enough".
Incidentally, I think gay men (or perhaps equally well gay women but that's the area I know nothing about) are perhaps a better group to study these tendencies as you do not have to provide for actual (or imagined) gender differences...
And despite the lack of such differences, age difference is more frequent than not, with all the sugar daddy/cougar/boy toy/trophy wife mechanics in place.
So perhaps, ultimately, the conclusion is that gender roles started to disappear and the dynamics now works both ways when it comes to heterosexual couples and not just with men being always "providers".
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2012, 05:06:56 AM
Incidentally, I think gay men (or perhaps equally well gay women but that's the area I know nothing about) are perhaps a better group to study these tendencies as you do not have to provide for actual (or imagined) gender differences...
And despite the lack of such differences, age difference is more frequent than not, with all the sugar daddy/cougar/boy toy/trophy wife mechanics in place.
So perhaps, ultimately, the conclusion is that gender roles started to disappear and the dynamics now works both ways when it comes to heterosexual couples and not just with men being always "providers".
What your theory misses is that some women, even if they have/can get a good job to provide for themselves, are still just golddiggers who want a rich husband.
Of course, I suppose that there are gay men like that who are just looking for a rich guy to take care of them.
Quote from: dps on November 12, 2012, 08:53:18 AM
Of course, I suppose that there are gay men like that who are just looking for a rich guy to take care of them.
You suppose? :angry:
Quote from: dps on November 12, 2012, 08:53:18 AM
What your theory misses is that some women, even if they have/can get a good job to provide for themselves, are still just golddiggers who want a rich husband.
Of course, I suppose that there are gay men like that who are just looking for a rich guy to take care of them.
So there are no straight men who'd like a rich woman to look after them?
Quote from: Drakken on November 12, 2012, 12:06:14 AM
In any case, if a professional rely solely on dating sites to find partners, it's more because he is either a socially awkward or is too afraid of rejection and "losing his time". People who are serious about finding a partner are ready to take the necessary steps to meet new people in real life, which means going out, being socially active, having fun, speed dating, and so on.
Meh. I like it.
Quote from: Brazen on November 12, 2012, 08:57:30 AM
Quote from: dps on November 12, 2012, 08:53:18 AM
What your theory misses is that some women, even if they have/can get a good job to provide for themselves, are still just golddiggers who want a rich husband.
Of course, I suppose that there are gay men like that who are just looking for a rich guy to take care of them.
So there are no straight men who'd like a rich woman to look after them?
Admittedly, there is probably more social stigma with being a "kept man".
Quote from: Brazen on November 12, 2012, 08:57:30 AM
Quote from: dps on November 12, 2012, 08:53:18 AM
What your theory misses is that some women, even if they have/can get a good job to provide for themselves, are still just golddiggers who want a rich husband.
Of course, I suppose that there are gay men like that who are just looking for a rich guy to take care of them.
So there are no straight men who'd like a rich woman to look after them?
Sure there are.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgen%2F857579%2Fthumbs%2Fo-MARY-KATE-OLSEN-SARKOZY-570.jpg&hash=0d5b493302ea6b12b33415be3569326524e63796)
Quote from: Brazen on November 12, 2012, 04:37:30 AM
A further thought on the matter is that women's preference may turn towards more physically fit individuals as we reach our middle years, as the same noodle-armed intellectuals that read us poetry in our teens might not survive the first heart attack or bout of pneumonia.
I am sure we can talk about all sorts of theories but I thought we were addressing that men's struggles to grow up come from the fact it is easier to get sex.
QuoteSo there are no straight men who'd like a rich woman to look after them?
Well obviously so...or whatever is keeping these guys from working hard in their careers.
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2012, 05:06:56 AM
So perhaps, ultimately, the conclusion is that gender roles started to disappear and the dynamics now works both ways when it comes to heterosexual couples and not just with men being always "providers".
'Started'? Pretty sure this has been going on for awhile now. Everybody except the pretty well off need both partners working.
But I am not sure what that has to do with the phenonmenon we are discussing in the article. Do gay men also have a hard time growing up and working hard in their careers or whatever if they have sex?
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 10:11:58 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2012, 05:06:56 AM
So perhaps, ultimately, the conclusion is that gender roles started to disappear and the dynamics now works both ways when it comes to heterosexual couples and not just with men being always "providers".
'Started'? Pretty sure this has been going on for awhile now. Everybody except the pretty well off need both partners working.
But I am not sure what that has to do with the phenonmenon we are discussing in the article. Do gay men also have a hard time growing up and working hard in their careers or whatever if they have sex?
It's easier to find casual sex but it's harder to keep a relationship going (compared to heterosexual couples).
Quote from: Martinus on November 12, 2012, 05:06:56 AM
Incidentally, I think gay men (or perhaps equally well gay women but that's the area I know nothing about) are perhaps a better group to study these tendencies as you do not have to provide for actual (or imagined) gender differences...
And despite the lack of such differences, age difference is more frequent than not, with all the sugar daddy/cougar/boy toy/trophy wife mechanics in place.
So perhaps, ultimately, the conclusion is that gender roles started to disappear and the dynamics now works both ways when it comes to heterosexual couples and not just with men being always "providers".
Gay men traditionally did not make good analogies for straight relationships for the simple reason that,
in the past, gay relationships were not as public and socially-acceptable as straight ones and so were not subjected to the same social pressures (this is I think slowly changing what with gay marriage and all).
What the article in the OP misses, in large part, is the significance of these social pressures to the average person.
For example, most men work hard, not just to "get sex", but because they wish to have high social status (or put less baldly, they wish their families and friends to think well of them). In the past, social status was gained by women by "marrying well", but can now be gained by professional accomplishments, just like men, etc. For middle-class types at least, there still exists a certain amount of stigma associated with obviously unbalanced-in-status relationships.
Gay men, being subject already to middle-class social disapproval (again, traditionally and this is changing - in my city for example it is only true among the minority these days), are going to have a very different dynamic.
Quote from: Tamas on November 12, 2012, 04:21:22 AM
I could take what you wrote, and remark that women switch from craving "alpha" males to settling with plain providers not when they have enough of being abused, but when they feel they are nearing the end of their prime.
And in fact you'd be very correct. A significant amount of women now spend their hottest years riding around on the cock carousel until the Wall beckons and they jump off into the arms of a moist-eyed herb, there to provide a family and retirement from the carousel before the last remaining eggs dry out. Those who fail to exit on time, or misjudge their jump, splatter badly/turn into cat ladies, and serve as a warning to the next generation.
With men you get the same effect via the WOW basement dwelling introvert demographic that disease, accidents, violence and war used to take care of before.
What this means is a bonanza for the man with enough mojo to give women what they want.
Discussions about sex and relationships here always seem to have a tinge of bitterness about them.
Quote from: Warspite on November 12, 2012, 05:52:07 PM
Discussions about sex and relationships here always seem to have a tinge of bitterness about them.
No I think the real bitterness is with those here who aren't discussing it. :whistle:
Quote from: mongers on November 12, 2012, 05:53:58 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 12, 2012, 05:52:07 PM
Discussions about sex and relationships here always seem to have a tinge of bitterness about them.
No I think the real bitterness is with those here who aren't discussing it. :whistle:
Treat the queens like whores, and the whores like queens.
Fin.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 12, 2012, 05:55:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on November 12, 2012, 05:53:58 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 12, 2012, 05:52:07 PM
Discussions about sex and relationships here always seem to have a tinge of bitterness about them.
No I think the real bitterness is with those here who aren't discussing it. :whistle:
Treat the queens like whores, and the whores like queens.
Fin.
Don't you treat me like a whore. :angry:
Yeah, sure...the lips say "no", but the eyes say "spank me like a naughty, naughty 5th grade math teacher".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 12, 2012, 06:15:24 PM
Yeah, sure...the lips say "no", but the eyes say "spank me like a naughty, naughty 5th grade math teacher".
You'd better check yourself, before you wreck yourself.
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 06:19:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 12, 2012, 06:15:24 PM
Yeah, sure...the lips say "no", but the eyes say "spank me like a naughty, naughty 5th grade math teacher".
You'd better check yourself, before you wreck yourself.
He said a math teacher, not a P.E. teacher.
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 06:19:45 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 12, 2012, 06:15:24 PM
Yeah, sure...the lips say "no", but the eyes say "spank me like a naughty, naughty 5th grade math teacher".
You'd better check yourself, before you wreck yourself.
Naughty, naughty actuary?
Yeah mentioning DGul really does it for me. <_<
How does that work for older women? "Pretend I'm your teacher. Undermine my authority"?
Quote from: Warspite on November 12, 2012, 05:52:07 PM
Discussions about sex and relationships here always seem to have a tinge of bitterness about them.
Well it is sort of hard for anybody to discuss these issues without it bringing up their particular past ;)
Quote from: garbon on November 12, 2012, 06:50:49 PM
Yeah mentioning DGul really does it for me. <_<
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.4chon.net%2Fr9k%2F653828%2Fsrc_1327926837495.jpg&hash=774125c0af59990890659e6ebe54ef4065e9f82b)
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 10:12:27 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 12, 2012, 05:52:07 PM
Discussions about sex and relationships here always seem to have a tinge of bitterness about them.
Well it is sort of hard for anybody to discuss these issues without it bringing up their particular past ;)
When most people describe their relationships, it only reinforces my own feeling that I won the damn lottery. :P
Quote from: Warspite on November 12, 2012, 05:52:07 PM
Discussions about sex and relationships here always seem to have a tinge of bitterness about them.
Are you surprised?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 13, 2012, 02:08:45 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 12, 2012, 10:12:27 PM
Quote from: Warspite on November 12, 2012, 05:52:07 PM
Discussions about sex and relationships here always seem to have a tinge of bitterness about them.
Well it is sort of hard for anybody to discuss these issues without it bringing up their particular past ;)
When most people describe their relationships, it only reinforces my own feeling that I won the damn lottery. :P
Well, it's a trade off. I noticed that people with more fucked up relationships here also have more attractive partners on average.