Crisis of masculinity

[xdangerousxdave]

To me y'all take things a tad too seriously.

That's it. It's not a crisis of masculinity, it's life in the modern world where cybercommunication substitutes real communication. Oh, plus sexual revolution, plus free access to porn to satisfy oneself at any time.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

There is no crisis of masculinity. There is only a lack of societal acceptance for people who view masculinity as the ability and willingness to punch people who are smaller than you. This evolution of society is centuries in the making and has nothing to do with video games.

Masculinity has never been about "ability and willingness to punch people who are smaller than you". That's absurd. There is a certain male archetype that has always been under scrutiny by betas and always will be.

 

[lizzie]

Your claim that essentially "The men who manipulate women are bad and don't provide" has some holes. For one, why are the women with them if that's true? Secondly, have you considered that it isn't actually manipulation and is actually what women want? Perhaps these men simply know how to appeal to women and the other men don't and there's simply a jealously issue there. I'd say that's a lot closer to the reality.

To the bolded:
There are a good number of stupid women out there, who don't really want control of their own lives, because that would place the responsibility for their own happiness, on themselves. It's not a mindful or deliberate way of behaviors and choosing, but some women seem to have some sort of need not to be in control. Of course there are men who operate the same way- they tend to form relationships with women who are controlling, and who will take care of them.

What you all are basically arguing is that "Women are stubbornly with the wrong men." Sounds like maybe the real answer is the upper class IT types don't know how to deal with women. (and the data shows this to be true).

They aren't with the "wrong men", if they choose them. There is something they need to see and learn in those relationships- if that were not the case, they would not be there.
They may be making poor choices, but it's because that's what they need at some level, at the time.

 

[Slartibartfast]

As a matter of scientific fact, it has been fairly well established that women who are looking primarily for sex tend to overwhelmingly prefer men who fit more stereotypically "alpha" (strong, physically attractive, extroverted, aggressive, interpersonally dominant, etca) archetypes, yes. It has also been established that women looking for more serious relationships tend to go after less overtly "macho" specimens, while favoring more stable and secure "nest builder" types instead - i.e. men more likely to provide reliable positive outcomes for a woman and her offspring on a steady basis, and not chase after other women.

Cads and dads | The Economist

Given that fact, there is a certain element of truth to Ryan's statements.

In today's substantially more "casual" sexual culture, it does tend to be the case that a very small minority of "alpha" men manage to achieve the best sexual outcomes, with the most desirable women, on the most frequent basis. It is also the case that "nest builders" are struggling a bit more, due - in combination - to a culture which tends to actively discourage "settling down" in more serious relationships in one's youth on the one hand, and a devastated economy which makes it rather difficult for young men to build any sort of "nest" to actually attract a mate to settle down with on the other.

Ryan goes off the rails, however, with all the latent hostility, misogynistic rhetoric, and over-generalized political dialogue he attaches to this analysis.

He also uses it to justify some rather amoral and manipulative behavior which I find to be abhorrent. Basically, as long as he gets to be in one of the "alpha" slots himself, he thinks everything's fine and dandy. He really doesn't care what he has to do, or who he has to hurt, to get there either.

"Best sexual outcome" is an interesting statement.

The most satisfying sex I've ever had was with a woman who wasn't classically beautiful but she was the nicest, most intelligent, and strongest woman I've been with and that showed during sex and made things quite satisfying as there was a great connection.

I've had relationships where I've been the dominant one and relationships where I was a coequal. Only one relationship where she was more dominant and I left that one fast because I found the dynamic to be annoying as ****. Also that's a horrible classification anyway. In every single relationship I've been in, there's always been at least one or two aspects I've been more dominant in and always during sex.

The lady I'm dating right now, for example, got out of the marine core quite recently and I doubt I could be overly dominant without a punch to the gut. She has her areas where I take charge though, and areas where we are equal. There is only one type of situation she takes charge and so far that's only for long enough to catch my breath and resume.

Yet with her, I would say my sexual outcomes are quite good.

So far in my life, I've yet to be in a situation where the criteria you mention actually mattered.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I agree.


Most guys these days are less masculine due to social media and texting and gaming culture. That said women are more effeminate and more demanding of masculinity in men than ever before. All women, even liberal women, want and insist upon a hyper masculine man to be serious with. Show me the most liberal Austin Texas or NYC girl you can find I 100% guarantee you she's ****ing the hyper masculine guy and not the IT nerd guy. That's just biology 101 **** at work. You can't ever change that. The introverted she-men are simply going to have to learn to be more masculine if they ever want to elope with any woman above a 6. I don't care if she voted for Obama twice and will vote for Hillary, she's ****ing the 6ft tall guy in jeans, boots and wearing a cross necklace.


That all said I think in some form or another these issues among humans have always been present. 25% of the men get 95% of the quality *****. That will never change because those 25% of men are the manipulators, the most dedicated to getting their genetics spread. Again, biology 101. The 25% will focus on spreading their genetics, the other % will focus less so on it hence will get less *****.

IT Nerds can't be hyper-masculine?

 

[csbrown28]

Do you believe that our society is facing masculinity crisis due to overload of porn and video game content? Instead of communicating with people and learning how to live a real life many young people isolate themselves in their rooms. Playing games while chatting with your friends may seem like a nice substitute to the real life communication, but it's a completely different thing. Maybe that's why there are so many feminists out where because they can't find men capable to raise their potential children?
There is a research conducted by a leading Stanford psychologist who shares that point of view.
Porn and video game addiction leading to 'masculinity crisis', says Stanford psychologist - Science - News - The Independent
Is there any possible way to reverse the trend? I don't want to live in an effeminate society where gender roles are completely wrecked.

The problem I see with video games, texting or any other activity that takes a substantial and significant amount of time away from in person "play". Play ins't just a game, but practice for dealing with other people.

That is, when I played hockey or stick-ball in the park after school, there were no adults, no referees, no authority to determine the rules. Kids had to learn how to play nice. If during the course of play one person says the pitch was a strike (usually denoted as a box on a brick wall) and another says it wasn't, the game is now in jeopardy. If all the kids playing couldn't resolve that difference it might be that the game ends and no one would get to play. For me, I learned early on that I enjoyed playing more than I enjoyed winning and I hated when games broke down into yelling, bickering, or worse fighting. Does that make me effeminate? I'm not sure, but if video games and cell phones are having an affect on this generation, imo, that's it.

As a parent my wife and i go to lengths, not only to kick our kids out of the house to go play outside, but we also offer to bring other kids to our house so they can interact with their peers face to face.

 

[Gardener]

We do not have a deficit of masculinity, but we certainly have a surfeit of narcissism. If we are losing anything in our culture that matters, it is the sense of commitment to others and not the rigid system of role-playing.

In general, people with very limited imaginations demand others fit into a neat, little box. They wish to limit others because they demand a world that is unambiguous, finite and easily explained. They derive comfort from a world with rules, regulations and rigid social mores because of an innate need for order. Men are restricted to one role and women another. People with minds that are more open accept that life is not so cut and dried, however, and do not need to impose such limitations. For them,. the quality of the individual is what counts, and their value as a person is not defined by how strictly they adopt the expectations placed upon them by society, but by how they develop their own unique abilities.

I would sure rather live in a society filled with the latter than the former.

 

[Gathomas88]

"Best sexual outcome" is an interesting statement.

The most satisfying sex I've ever had was with a woman who wasn't classically beautiful but she was the nicest, most intelligent, and strongest woman I've been with and that showed during sex and made things quite satisfying as there was a great connection.

I've had relationships where I've been the dominant one and relationships where I was a coequal. Only one relationship where she was more dominant and I left that one fast because I found the dynamic to be annoying as ****. Also that's a horrible classification anyway. In every single relationship I've been in, there's always been at least one or two aspects I've been more dominant in and always during sex.

The lady I'm dating right now, for example, got out of the marine core quite recently and I doubt I could be overly dominant without a punch to the gut. She has her areas where I take charge though, and areas where we are equal. There is only one type of situation she takes charge and so far that's only for long enough to catch my breath and resume.

Yet with her, I would say my sexual outcomes are quite good.

So far in my life, I've yet to be in a situation where the criteria you mention actually mattered.

While I would say that, on average, most men prefer to be the more "dominant" partners in their relationships, and that most women prefer that as well (with obvious exceptions and 'give and take' here and there), that's really not what we were talking about to begin with.

We were talking about the kinds of traits women tend to favor in men.

When it comes to sex, and sex alone, the simple fact of the matter is that all evidence seems to indicate that more hyper-"masculine" archetypes do tend to be overwhelmingly preferred - i.e. the proto-typical "jock," "player," or even Jersey Shore style "douchebag." Where relationships are concerned, slightly more subdued (by which I don't mean to imply 'submissive') men tend to be preferred, along with a certain level of social and economic status which a woman deems to be a "respectable" match for her own status and desires.

I highly doubt that, all things being equal, this is a state of affairs which you have been able to avoid entirely in your love and sex life thus far.

 

[Ryan5]

You just have a lot of men who can't accept how women are so they create fake moral dilemmas and get all upset about those fake morals that nobody actually was adhering to anyways.



Truly show me the supposed "Conservative Moral College girl" (or any girl from 16-25) who isn't out having sex with your run of the mill 6ft tall jock Esq looking guy. I would put a lot of money on that you'd have a very hard if not impossible time finding such supposed moral women who were "saving it for the good moral non player guy".


What a pure crock of idealistic internet banker kid Esq bull****.

 

[Paschendale]

You just have a lot of men who can't accept how women are so they create fake moral dilemmas and get all upset about those fake morals that nobody actually was adhering to anyways.

Truly show me the supposed "Conservative Moral College girl" (or any girl from 16-25) who isn't out having sex with your run of the mill 6ft tall jock Esq looking guy. I would put a lot of money on that you'd have a very hard if not impossible time finding such supposed moral women who were "saving it for the good moral non player guy".

What a pure crock of idealistic internet banker kid Esq bull****.

I'm pretty sure the real issue is the expectation of women to be completely homogeneous and all act a certain way. Turns out women are just as varied and unique as men and make choices about all sorts of things, including sex, for lots of different reasons.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

You just have a lot of men who can't accept how women are so they create fake moral dilemmas and get all upset about those fake morals that nobody actually was adhering to anyways.



Truly show me the supposed "Conservative Moral College girl" (or any girl from 16-25) who isn't out having sex with your run of the mill 6ft tall jock Esq looking guy. I would put a lot of money on that you'd have a very hard if not impossible time finding such supposed moral women who were "saving it for the good moral non player guy".


What a pure crock of idealistic internet banker kid Esq bull****.

Everyone's sleeping around, eh?

Actually - less than half of all teens report to have had sex - a drop since the 1990's . . . source - too lazy to go find it again.

 

[Ryan5]

Everyone's sleeping around, eh?

Actually - less than half of all teens report to have had sex - a drop since the 1990's . . . source - too lazy to go find it again.

Everyone? No. There are a great many introverted and or (let's be frank) physically unappealing types (mostly among men, physically unappealing women can still get sex easily enough) that aren't getting much if any sex. This represents a large group there's no denying that. Hence the "moral dilemma types" and their rantings. (Stuffy ugly looking banker kid and or IT guy with big income yet never talked to an attractive woman for more than 2 minutes in life).









Nor do I buy the idea that "millennials are out getting pregnant". Among middle and up class whites that is not the case. Every University of Texas student I've slept with in my apartment A: was on birth control pill and B: Even when on birth control pill they insist on using condom 90% of time (so double protection) and C: White Liberal Millennials are so radically pro birth control that the very idea that they're out getting pregnant is laughable. White millennials are far more sexually safe than any previous generation by a very large measure. Radically so even.


Now among the small % of white millennials that do in fact get pregnant EVERY single case I've ever seen of that has always been some "Stereotypical ultra conservative smalltown minded girl who thought she found Mr. Perfect @ 18." It is NEVER a liberal, modern white girl who gets pregnant. It is ALWAYS some rural or inner city white trash lost type. Other than that rare % the high teen and under 30 pregnancy rate is entirely due to Latinos and African Americans (and small % of white trash that I mentioned).

 

[Slartibartfast]

While I would say that, on average, most men prefer to be the more "dominant" partners in their relationships, and that most women prefer that as well (with obvious exceptions and 'give and take' here and there), that's really not what we were talking about to begin with.

We were talking about the kinds of traits women tend to favor in men.

When it comes to sex, and sex alone, the simple fact of the matter is that all evidence seems to indicate that more hyper-"masculine" archetypes do tend to be overwhelmingly preferred - i.e. the proto-typical "jock," "player," or even Jersey Shore style "douchebag." Where relationships are concerned, slightly more subdued (by which I don't mean to imply 'submissive') men tend to be preferred, along with a certain level of social and economic status which a woman deems to be a "respectable" match for her own status and desires.

I highly doubt that, all things being equal, this is a state of affairs which you have been able to avoid entirely in your love and sex life thus far.

My initial impression is that I would go for a higher quality of woman than one who simply responds to base instinct. If that's the kind of woman some want, that's cool as it floats their boat. If that's the type of girl or guy a person wants and nothing more, than that's OK, not everyone has a great deal of emotional and spiritual depth. That's probably all they can do.

Personally, I can have better out of life and I get better. Finding a beautiful woman to have sex with isn't exactly a challenge. There are beautiful women all over the place and if I only wanted what you describe then I would simply find one that was obviously rebounding. Simple and basic understanding of body language can cause one to find someone like that with only a cursory search. Plus people like that, its usually a simple thing to get under their shields with the right amount of bumbling to make them think you are trustworthy because you are too stupid or honest to use a line.

But I ask, what's the fun in that? Where's the challenge? Where's the fulfillment? Where's the satisfaction? I don't see any of that coming from such a simple scenario. I may as well be jerking off at that point. Sex is easy, relationships are there things are fun and where the real rewards are

 

[Gardener]

My initial impression is that I would go for a higher quality of woman than one who simply responds to base instinct. If that's the kind of woman some want, that's cool as it floats their boat. If that's the type of girl or guy a person wants and nothing more, than that's OK, not everyone has a great deal of emotional and spiritual depth. That's probably all they can do.

Personally, I can have better out of life and I get better. Finding a beautiful woman to have sex with isn't exactly a challenge. There are beautiful women all over the place and if I only wanted what you describe then I would simply find one that was obviously rebounding. Simple and basic understanding of body language can cause one to find someone like that with only a cursory search. Plus people like that, its usually a simple thing to get under their shields with the right amount of bumbling to make them think you are trustworthy because you are too stupid or honest to use a line.

But I ask, what's the fun in that? Where's the challenge? Where's the fulfillment? Where's the satisfaction? I don't see any of that coming from such a simple scenario. I may as well be jerking off at that point. Sex is easy, relationships are there things are fun and where the real rewards are

I wish I could like this more than once.

It has been my experience that those who are into sex, but not relationships are dealing with a lot of insecurities. Despite the bravado, it is the intimacy of an actual relationship that frightens them.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

While I would say that, on average, most men prefer to be the more "dominant" partners in their relationships, and that most women prefer that as well (with obvious exceptions and 'give and take' here and there), that's really not what we were talking about to begin with.

We were talking about the kinds of traits women tend to favor in men.

When it comes to sex, and sex alone, the simple fact of the matter is that all evidence seems to indicate that more hyper-"masculine" archetypes do tend to be overwhelmingly preferred - i.e. the proto-typical "jock," "player," or even Jersey Shore style "douchebag." Where relationships are concerned, slightly more subdued (by which I don't mean to imply 'submissive') men tend to be preferred, along with a certain level of social and economic status which a woman deems to be a "respectable" match for her own status and desires.

I highly doubt that, all things being equal, this is a state of affairs which you have been able to avoid entirely in your love and sex life thus far.

Not my experience at all.

You know who I find tend to pull the most women? I mean, numbers that quite honestly shock me?

Creative people doing related but pay-the-bills jobs. Graphic designers, specific areas of IT, journalists, marketeers. Those kinds of folks. White collar, sure, but not making crazy money or anything. Not the sorts of professions where acting like a meathead is appreciated, either. You're expected to be able to function in a team.

There are a certain percentage of them that just really get laid a lot.

I have theories on why that is, but there's one thing I can tell you they definitely are not: they are not "bros" or "alpha males," whatever that means, and they are generally very nice and respectful people. Weirdly, the sorts of people a woman might like to settle down with if they'd just turned out a bit differently.

Well-adjusted? Not by a long shot. But nice and respectful.

I find the supposed "alpha males" tend to strike out a lot more often than not. Most have a count lower than me, and certainly much lower than the types of people I discuss above. It's an increasingly intelligent and egalitarian society, and they're rather archaic specimens, for want of a better. Not much demand for them by anyone anymore, whether the woman in question wants a hook-up or a hubby.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I wish I could like this more than once.

It has been my experience that those who are into sex, but not relationships are dealing with a lot of insecurities. Despite the bravado, it is the intimacy of an actual relationship that frightens them.

The sad thing is, those people will probably never know how good sex can actually be either.

Good sex takes time, exploration, discussion of fantasies and limits, a lot of attention and even patience. The human body is a map of pleasure points and reflexes that can be orchestrated far more than simply directly going for the genitals.

The tip of the finger on the small of the back or even along the bottom of the rib cage can elicit some rather fun responses. Hell, even the act of breathing can be rather provocative.

How the hell will you learn the fun stuff from one night stands?

 

[Radical]

Do you believe that our society is facing masculinity crisis due to overload of porn and video game content? Instead of communicating with people and learning how to live a real life many young people isolate themselves in their rooms. Playing games while chatting with your friends may seem like a nice substitute to the real life communication, but it's a completely different thing. Maybe that's why there are so many feminists out where because they can't find men capable to raise their potential children?
There is a research conducted by a leading Stanford psychologist who shares that point of view.
Porn and video game addiction leading to 'masculinity crisis', says Stanford psychologist - Science - News - The Independent
Is there any possible way to reverse the trend? I don't want to live in an effeminate society where gender roles are completely wrecked.

Yes, more and more men are turning to porn instead of screwing their neighbors wife. Aren't those adulterers more manly? They embrace the risk! I bet their beards grow quicker for it.

On a serious note, porn and video games have nothing to do with masculinity.

 

[Gathomas88]

My initial impression is that I would go for a higher quality of woman than one who simply responds to base instinct. If that's the kind of woman some want, that's cool as it floats their boat. If that's the type of girl or guy a person wants and nothing more, than that's OK, not everyone has a great deal of emotional and spiritual depth. That's probably all they can do.

Personally, I can have better out of life and I get better. Finding a beautiful woman to have sex with isn't exactly a challenge. There are beautiful women all over the place and if I only wanted what you describe then I would simply find one that was obviously rebounding. Simple and basic understanding of body language can cause one to find someone like that with only a cursory search. Plus people like that, its usually a simple thing to get under their shields with the right amount of bumbling to make them think you are trustworthy because you are too stupid or honest to use a line.

But I ask, what's the fun in that? Where's the challenge? Where's the fulfillment? Where's the satisfaction? I don't see any of that coming from such a simple scenario. I may as well be jerking off at that point. Sex is easy, relationships are there things are fun and where the real rewards are

I don't disagree, of course. Though.... I'm afraid that I can't claim to share your level of intuitive understanding when it comes to "body language." I could, in point of fact, probably give the new Avengers films' Captain America, or Benedict Cumberbatch's character from the Imitation game, a run for their money when it comes to either my lack of "game," or my rather shoddy instincts for flirtation. :lol:

Generally speaking, if I'm going to get "laid," it requires a woman who was already interested beforehand, and is persistent enough to be willing to overlook my (very much unintentional) bumbling. Any woman who tries to play "hard to get," is most likely just going to wind up frustrated, as I won't have the slightest clue what to do with it. lol

In any eventuality, however, this is all somewhat besides the point. We're not discussing what either of us might happen to prefer, but rather, what is. Where that is concerned, it's kind of hard to deny that a very specific kind of guy most often tends to get the girls in any given bar or club.

Hell! This is something I've even experienced to a certain extent myself. Flabby, baby faced me basically gets ignored by women. Moderately in shape but baby faced me gets only occasional attention. When I grew out my beard (and was also in fairly decent shape), however, I was getting hit on basically every time I went out.

Nothing really changed as far as my behavior was concerned. I tend to be pretty passive in those kinds of environments either way regardless. The only difference was how "masculine" I was perceived as being by third party observers, given the superficial indicators available. Frankly, if I was the kind of guy with either the inclination or the personality to capitalize on that, I'm sure I could have been quite successful in procuring short term sexual liaisons.

However, even then, I can pretty much guarantee you that the same would not have also been true of any attempt to start a actual relationship under such circumstances, as women are looking for intrinsically different things where such matters are concerned. They don't just want a "hunk." They want a reasonably stable and "respectable" guy who can potentially serve as a provider and father (regardless of whether they're consciously aware of the latter two or not).

Beard and muscles or no, the simple fact of the matter is that it's going to be a rather rare woman who's willing to look past the admission "I live at home" when looking for a steady boyfriend. If she is willing to do so, it is probably because her own self-perceived status is rather low as well.

This is simple human nature, as far as anyone can ascertain, and has been since time immemorial.

Men are drawn towards raw physical beauty. Women are also drawn towards physical beauty, but ultimately tend to view personal stability, social status, and material standing as being more important when looking for long term mates. :shrug:

 

[Gathomas88]

Not my experience at all.

You know who I find tend to pull the most women? I mean, numbers that quite honestly shock me?

Creative people doing related but pay-the-bills jobs. Graphic designers, specific areas of IT, journalists, marketeers. Those kinds of folks. White collar, sure, but not making crazy money or anything. Not the sorts of professions where acting like a meathead is appreciated, either. You're expected to be able to function in a team.

There are a certain percentage of them that just really get laid a lot.

I have theories on why that is, but there's one thing I can tell you they definitely are not: they are not "bros" or "alpha males," whatever that means, and they are generally very nice and respectful people. Weirdly, the sorts of people a woman might like to settle down with if they'd just turned out a bit differently.

Well-adjusted? Not by a long shot. But nice and respectful.

I find the supposed "alpha males" tend to strike out a lot more often than not. Most have a count lower than me, and certainly much lower than the types of people I discuss above. It's an increasingly intelligent and egalitarian society, and they're rather archaic specimens, for want of a better. Not much demand for them by anyone anymore, whether the woman in question wants a hook-up or a hubby.

Well, as long as we're throwing around non-representative anecdotes here, several of the police officers I presently work with are some of the single most sexually "prolific" men I think I've ever met. They're all handsome, extroverted, well muscled, tattooed, gun shooting, and motorcycle riding Alpha Male "good ole' boys" to a tee.

Saying that there is not a real "demand" for such men would strike me as being just a tad premature, to say the least.

As far as the IT guys are concerned, there could be any number of reasons for that. After all, in case you've forgotten, Ryan here actually works in the IT field (as well as PeterGrimm, I think?), and claims to be rather prolific himself. How do you know that most of the guys you're praising here aren't actually a lot like him both in their methods and their attitudes, but are just particularly skilled at masking that fact in front of women?

The one hyper-promiscuous guy who happened to work in IT I met was basically a straight "Pick Up Artist" who briefly tried to take me under his wing. He was, admittedly, a bit less overtly "masculine" than the other guys I mentioned above, but he made up for it in other ways. Largely, he did so by creating a persona centered around flaunting his monetary worth (drove a slightly used Audi V8 sports car/convertible, wore only expensive clothing, took obsessive care of his physical appearance, and etca), and by being supremely self-confident. The guy would literally go around snatching random women out of crowds so he could flirt with them.

It was nuts! :lol:

Either way, however, it's hard to deny that IT, journalism, and marketing all carry a certain "high status" aura about them. It's like being a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. Even if they're not especially wealthy, people tend to take notice - particularly women where men in such positions are concerned.

While, as Ryan is correcting in noting, that is not enough to guarantee success, it can be a rather essential piece of the puzzle. It is especially so when the person in question was already reasonably attractive to begin with, or the socially attuned sort to be rather adept at seduction on an intuitive level. Modern social networking technology only makes it that much easier.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't disagree, of course. Though.... I'm afraid that I can't claim to share your level of intuitive understanding when it comes to "body language." I could, in point of fact, probably give the new Avengers films' Captain America, or Benedict Cumberbatch's character from the Imitation game, a run for their money when it comes to either my lack of "game," or my rather shoddy instincts for flirtation. [emoji38]

Generally speaking, if I'm going to get "laid," it requires a woman who was already interested beforehand, and is persistent enough to be willing to overlook my (very much unintentional) bumbling. Any woman who tries to play "hard to get," is most likely just going to wind up frustrated, as I won't have the slightest clue what to do with it. lol

In any eventuality, however, this is all somewhat besides the point. We're not discussing what either of us might happen to prefer, but rather, what is. Where that is concerned, it's kind of hard to deny that a very specific kind of guy most often tends to get the girls in any given bar or club.

Hell! This is something I've even experienced to a certain extent myself. Flabby, baby faced me basically gets ignored by women. Moderately in shape but baby faced me gets only occasional attention. When I grew out my beard (and was also in fairly decent shape), however, I was getting hit on basically every time I went out.

Nothing really changed as far as my behavior was concerned. I tend to be pretty passive in those kinds of environments either way regardless. The only difference was how "masculine" I was perceived as being by third party observers, given the superficial indicators available. Frankly, if I was the kind of guy with either the inclination or the personality to capitalize on that, I'm sure I could have been quite successful in procuring short term sexual liaisons.

However, even then, I can pretty much guarantee you that the same would not have also been true of any attempt to start a actual relationship under such circumstances, as women are looking for intrinsically different things where such matters are concerned. They don't just want a "hunk." They want a reasonably stable and "respectable" guy who can potentially serve as a provider and father (regardless of whether they're consciously aware of the latter two or not).

Beard and muscles or no, the simple fact of the matter is that it's going to be a rather rare woman who's willing to look past the admission "I live at home" when looking for a steady boyfriend. If she is willing to do so, it is probably because her own self-perceived status is rather low as well.

This is simple human nature, as far as anyone can ascertain, and has been since time immemorial.

Men are drawn towards raw physical beauty. Women are also drawn towards physical beauty, but ultimately tend to view personal stability, social status, and material standing as being more important when looking for long term mates. :shrug:

Lol. Based on that, at some point, some lady is going go snatch you up and not let you go.

Your future is going to be a lot of fun I think

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Well, as long as we're throwing around non-representative anecdotes here, several of the police officers I presently work with are some of the single most sexually "prolific" men I think I've ever met. They're all handsome, extroverted, well muscled, tattooed, gun shooting, and motorcycle riding Alpha Male "good ole' boys" to a tee.

Saying that there is not a real "demand" for such men would strike me as being just a tad premature, to say the least.

As far as the IT guys are concerned, there could be any number of reasons for that. After all, in case you've forgotten, Ryan here actually works in the IT field (as well as PeterGrimm, I think?), and claims to be rather prolific himself. How do you know that most of the guys you're praising here aren't actually a lot like him both in their methods and their attitudes, but are just particularly skilled at masking that fact in front of women?

The one hyper-promiscuous guy who happened to work in IT I met was basically a straight "Pick Up Artist" who briefly tried to take me under his wing. He was, admittedly, a bit less overtly "masculine" than the other guys I mentioned above, but he made up for it in other ways. Largely, he did so by creating a persona centered around flaunting his monetary worth (drove a slightly used Audi V8 sports car/convertible, wore only expensive clothing, took obsessive care of his physical appearance, and etca), and by being supremely self-confident. The guy would literally go around snatching random women out of crowds so he could flirt with them.

It was nuts! :lol:

Either way, however, it's hard to deny that IT, journalism, and marketing all carry a certain "high status" aura about them. It's like being a doctor, lawyer, or engineer. Even if they're not especially wealthy, people tend to take notice - particularly women where men in such positions are concerned.

While, as Ryan is correcting in noting, that is not enough to guarantee success, it can be a rather essential piece of the puzzle. It is especially so when the person in question was already reasonably attractive to begin with, or the socially attuned sort to be rather adept at seduction on an intuitive level. Modern social networking technology only makes it that much easier.

There's some statistical backing for my observation as well. Writers and marketeers are known for having some of the highest partner counts. If I recall, writers actually take first place. :lol:

I'm not surprised, given where you live. But you have to keep in mind that the places I tend to be, women actually have choices, and have generally been raised to have some sort of self-esteem as a sex. Neither are particularly true down in your parts. Other things -- often affecting both sexes rather equally -- are not so great in this culture. But the reason why women wind up getting drag-netted by those kinds of guys where you are is fairly plain to see, and it's not because "that's how women are."

How do I know these guys aren't quite like Ryan and Grimm? Well, firstly, because Ryan and Grimm aren't real. People who are that good at masking their personalities usually have a degree of self-awareness that Ryan and Grimm completely lack. I mean, if you want to take steps to hide your sociopathy, you first have to be aware of it and willing to admit that your own behavior is responsible for the reactions you get, do you not?

Frankly, I simply don't believe them. I could claim to be a "rocket surgeon" on the internet, and what's it matter? People who are that lacking in self-awareness and basic responsibility for their actions don't suddenly turn into Don Juan's in RL. If you can't even understand how your actions lead to the reactions you get when you have the opportunity to sit down and read it as slowly as necessary, there's no way you're going to suddenly get it in real time where you have to keep up with the clip of conversation. :shrug:

Apart from that, as you might guess, I have known quite a few of the people I mention, and been good friends with some. I have had to deal with this issue on my own staff (journalists -- don't even get me started!). And when I was a bit younger and a little mired in the same things they are, I slept with a couple of them. Honestly, I've made worse choices, certainly. I even stayed friends with them. They were perfectly good lovers, and are still perfectly good friends. Just a little ****ed up about other things.

I doubt it's a status thing. They pull people in the same professions -- often at the same workplace -- who certainly don't need anyone else's prestige or money. I don't often see them aiming down.

That's what's weird about them. They tend to hook up with people they want to date, and then not date them.

Let me know if you're interested in anything outside your confirmation bias, because I think you might actually enjoy this topic if you would just allow reality to be complex.

 

[Gathomas88]

Lol. Based on that, at some point, some lady is going go snatch you up and not let you go.

Your future is going to be a lot of fun I think

We'll see, I suppose. That was certainly how things worked out for my father. :lol:

 

[Gathomas88]

I'm not surprised, given where you live. But you have to keep in mind that the places I tend to be, women actually have choices, and have generally been raised to have some sort of self-esteem as a sex. Neither are particularly true down in your parts. Other things -- often affecting both sexes rather equally -- are not so great in this culture. But the reason why women wind up getting drag-netted by those kinds of guys where you are is fairly plain to see, and it's not because "that's how women are."

----

Cut for length

First off, I live in Charleston, South Carolina - a highly, highly "gentrified" city with like four different colleges, a nationally ranked medical university, one of the most cosmopolitan cultural scenes in the South East, and more money floating around than you can shake a stick at (Bill Murray lives here for a large part of the year, in point of fact, and Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively were actually married on one of our historical plantations) - not some third rate little hick town. I can assure you, the women here have plenty of "choices." If they want to find some skinny jeans wearing hipster, man bun toting hippie, or some Liberal bleeding heart, there are plenty available.

The simple reality of the situation, however, is that a Hell of a lot of them (and the very good looking ones at that) choose the "Alpha" kinds of men I described anyway. It's not desperation. It is legitimate preference. It might very well be a rather unwise preference, and it certainly isn't one shared by all women, but it is ultimately the "preference" of the women who choose to pursue the kinds of men I mentioned all the same. :shrug:

Secondly, I'm not unfamiliar with the tactics you described in your post either. One of the cops I work with actually employs a rather similar technique.

The local PD used to be able to get overtime pay if they would basically "moonlight" as security at the department stores in our facility while in uniform. This fellow - ironically enough, named "Ryan" :lol: - would basically use it as a means of chatting up all the pretty young women working behind the make up, perfume, and jewelry counters.

Over the course of the nine months or so I've been working here, I think he's bagged about four or five of them (and possibly more), all under the pretense of "dating." He just doesn't "date" them for much more than about a week or two at a time. Furthermore, if you do ever happen to get him started on the subject of women, his opinions really aren't all that different from our own Ryan. He'll actually cover about 75% of the same talking points.

That is, in point of truth, exactly why I'm not so quick to dismiss the claims of people like Grim or Ryan on here. I know guys very much like them in real life. In my experience, they're not exactly struggling.

They also tend to keep the rather "politically incorrect" sentiments they're so infamous for on here to themselves in mixed gender company, which is exactly how they sucker so many women in to begin with. lol

Thirdly, the fact that women very often choose to "hook up" with someone working in the same profession as themselves doesn't diminish my claims regarding the importance of perceived male status in female sexual selection. It actually rather handily reaffirms them. After all, the women in question here are going after journalists, marketing specialists, IT guys, and writers, not the janitors, maintenance men, mail clerk boys, or low rent office peons.

Do you think these men we're discussing would be similarly disinclined to go after an attractive secretary, or barista, when it comes to seeking out female companionship?

In my experience, no. They would not. :lol:

By choosing someone in the same profession as themselves, women are largely simply acting to assure that the man they're going after isn't someone they perceive to be "beneath" themselves. Men, by and large, tend not to have such hangups, especially not when sex is all they're after.

I will grant you, however, that the less overtly masculine, but more socially attuned "man who acts like he wants a relationship, but is really just after sex instead" is an interesting twist on things, which is probably something legitimately more likely to be found among the somewhat less "rough and tumble" and more "bourgeois" ranks of the young professional class than anywhere else. While I imagine their type was probably a bit more common back in the days when "serial monogamy" was the more obviously "en vogue" cultural expectation, they seem to have adjusted to the "hook up culture" era just fine as well.

It might have actually made things easier for them, all told, given that so many modern young women seem to be rather confused as to whether they really want a relationship, or just an on-again/off-again **** buddy that they can make time with in the interim, themselves.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

First off, I live in Charleston, South Carolina - a highly, highly "gentrified" city with like four different colleges, a nationally ranked medical university, one of the most cosmopolitan cultural scenes in the South East, and more money floating around than you can shake a stick at (Bill Murray lives here for a large part of the year, in point of fact, and Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively were actually married on one of our historical plantations)
(clipped for length)

I have been to your part of the country and I have lived in cities of that size. All I can tell you is "it's all relative." I am sure you have been to many places less gender progressive than Charleston in the US, but you don't live in the same world I do by any stretch, and women don't have the same view of themselves by any stretch, and places that size are the perfect size for all the worst things in dating (Minneapolis is the same in that particular regard). Your "progressive" is my "1950's," and I would sooner commit myself to being a cat lady than try to date anyone in Charleston. I just wouldn't get along. Dressing like a hipster is easy, but thinking totally outside your culture is a completely different thing. So we just need to accept that we have different standards of what counts as enlightened gender dynamics, when discussing this.

And what's hard about this is that you're using "choice" to describe women who you said are literally being grabbed and simply failing to put up a fight. I'll tell you something: all of us, no matter how progressive, have that experience. 'K? It's not because we were ok with what was happening. It was because we were kind of intimidated and decided it was easier to go with it. Every woman has that experience.

Here's the difference between where you're coming from, and where I'm coming from: Where I come from, women find their voices as they age in order to stop situations like that -- usually by their early 20's. Where you're coming from, they don't. Ever.

I never said someone with Ryan's view may not pull regularly, especially in the kind of environment you're in. What I said is that in order to do that, they have to understand how their personality can get in their way so that they can put on a good enough front when they're trying to get laid. The reason I don't believe Ryan or Grimm is because neither display the self-awareness to accomplish that.

If they want to go after the women with less money and lower ranking jobs, then why don't they do that very often? I mean, they're around. I'll tell you why they don't, and it's yet another thing you don't understand about the culture I'm talking about: they want a woman who likes her career as much as they do. It's something they consider important in terms of having things to talk about and sharing common ground. They don't see what they'd have in common with a woman who doesn't care about the thing she spends 40 hours a week doing, or wants to just stay home all day eventually. To them, that's not someone they could have fulfilling conversation with.

And finally, I wouldn't use the word "tactics" to describe the demographic I'm talking about. Some people in this milieu of society do use tactics, but I really don't think that's it. I would use the word "hang-up."

I really think they just don't know how to express that they like someone -- either men or women. In a way, sex is an easier way to get intimacy needs met: they can just wind up falling into it without a conversation or having to ask for what they want. I've been on the listening and observing end of plenty of guys who hooked up with someone they wanted to date, but just never managed to make the words come out of their mouth. And women too -- this one goes both ways.

I mean, keep in mind, even in this very cosmopolitan world, 90-odd percent of men say on surveys that their goal is to find a nice woman and/or have a kid or two. My experiences generally support that. And yet, at the same time, some of them are well into their 30's and still haven't managed it.

You're right that a lot of women are confused about what they want. I think a lot of men are too. Why? Well, man, what a cluster...

Our concept of what it means to be partnered has something to do with it. It struggles from a pretty bad image problem, largely inspired by your part of society.

Our concept of what counts as intimacy (emotions do, sex doesn't) has something to do with it.

The on-going push-pull between the old strong-and-silent stereotype and the new more open man has something to do with it -- often they just open up in some areas more than others.

The affliction of the creative mind probably has something to do with it too, I think. All the world's a stage, and every new character is greener grass... in theory.

So, again... come on now, you might enjoy this.

 

[xdangerousxdave]

- the age of Internet
- the next step of sexual revolution
- wait, I thought bookworms always were...