Tuesday, February 9, 2010

She's A Nice Place To Visit (But I Wouldn't Want To Live Her)

There is a lot of excitement in the PUA / Game community over this article in The Weekly Standard. Long at 12 pages, but worth the read. It is an important piece of mainstream awareness of Game and rightly celebrated as such.

At the moment though I can hardly digest it all. I worked a 12 hour shift today finishing around 830pm, and will be up at 430am to make sure I am in and starting at 6am tomorrow. Family to support and all that don't you know. Sounds terribly lame, but I am happy and very well taken care of in the department of nookie. A good marriage is simply outstanding for a man, though my greatest advice to men seeking marriage is to be outstandingly careful who you choose to make that commitment to.

Which comes to my one great worry about the Game community...  it focuses solely on winning sex within the context of the wider hook up culture that has developed and the hook up culture is driven / dependant on... well... sluts who are dumb enough to have sex with someone they've only spent seven hours with.

While I can assure you I am quite secular in my outlook, I find myself having a quite traditional viewpoint on whether or not to marry a woman who has had multiple partners and one night stands. I just don't see a hook up girl maintaining a marriage without incidents of casual betrayal occurring along the way. Or simply leaving the relationship on a whim. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. And because I can taste the vomit in my own mouth, I think I might have just accidentally quoted Dr Phil.

As I've said before, bringing home a woman from a bar is like getting a cat from an animal shelter, as long as you have money for shots you're good to go home with pussy, just don't complain when she bites you, pisses all over everything and then runs away.

What makes up a perfect female 10 in the hook up world is related to, but not identical to what makes up a perfect female 10 in the marriage world. Yeah I get beauty, really I do. But you can be a one trick pony in hookup world and be a star, but the transition to marriage ability may just not be there.




If you're taking an evolutionary psychology point of view on things, the goal is always not so much to be having sex, but to have children and to propel your genes into the next and future generations. I'm not reading very much in Game writing that suggests much along the lines of PUA peeps interested in this front. Which considering how much Game depends on evolutionary psychology as a theoretical underpinning, is really quite strange. You may very well be banging hot babes, but if the hot babes are all on birth control or aborting your babies... your final score in the eyes of evolutionary psychology is no different than if all your semen circles the drain in the shower.

Which is not to say that married guys cannot learn a great deal about women from the Game community. They can, and I have. Just quite different goals when all is said and done. I'm more about the babies, just not so much about the bathwater. (wink)
Posted by at 12:31 AM
Labels:

25 comments:

  1. > sluts who are dumb enough to have sex with someone they've only spent seven hours with.

    Can you go into detail on that please? I've had sex after knowing someone for less than seven hours, and it is often fun, and sometimes leads to great relationships. It isn't obvious to me why that is dumb behavior (for either of us).
    ReplyDelete
  2. That is a great question and one that probably deserves a longer response in time.

    However the short answer is that the number of sexual partners a woman has before marriage damages her Sex Rank in terms of how marriagable she is, and many studies show the more sex partners a woman has before marriage the less happy she is with both her marriage and marital sex.

    Plus if you are going to legally join yourself to a woman and risk potential divorce at some point, marrying someone that isn't impulsive enough to go from zero to vaginal sex with a man she has just met seven hours ago is a requirement for your piece of mind.

    I've no doubt hooking up does lead to "great relationships", but I'm talking about marriage here and a lifetime of outrageously good sex.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for your reply. I didn't quite get that "dumb" was the right adjective from that, but I'll watch out for the longer response.

    Have you written about polyamory? It seems to me that two of those three objections don't apply to polyamorous girls.
    ReplyDelete
  4. I've not written about polyamory per se. I've written about monogamy more often and argued that it benefits the majority of men in comparison to poly relationships.

    Polygamous societies are extremely aggressive and dangerous to men in general.

    Basically your Sex Rank has to be outrageously good for women to being willing to share a man with another woman.

    The other side of the coin is the relationships where the woman sees other men aka Hotwife or Cuckold. Those relationship always end by either her stopping or leaving him for a lover. So I don't advise that lol.
    ReplyDelete
  5. > The other side of the coin is the relationships where the woman sees other men aka Hotwife or Cuckold. Those relationship always end by either her stopping or leaving him for a lover.

    Oh, that's odd. That contradicts what I've read elsewhere. Wikipedia cites a study that shows no difference in marital stability rates between exclusive marriages and open marriages (though I'm having trouble finding the original study online). Did you get this idea from a study, or is it your impression from the polyamorists you've encountered?
    ReplyDelete
  6. I spend a lot of time on wwww.talkaboutmarriage.com and it's basically accepted that those that play with multiple partners have things turn quite sour either sooner or later.

    I was going to point you to wwww.varietalsex.com as a resource that dealt with multiple partners as a positive thing, but admitted that there was also a huge number of relationship failures stemming from it. They just took the site down a few days ago.

    The hotwife leaving the husband risk is made plain in the porn as well. It you read Penthouse Letters which is quite strong on the whole wife watching thing has many letters where the plot goes "she was timid, she tried it, it was hot, she liked, it got really hot, then she left with her lover and I'm alone".

    In terms of just possible outcomes - if your wife is having sex with another man she will either stop having sex with him, or stop having sex with you. Rarely will two males continue to have sex with the same female without forcing the issue for the woman to choose one. By even allowing your woman to have sex with another man, you have sent her and her future partners a huge weakness signal and eventually she will have sex with a man her Body Agenda finds better than you, and you'll be losing your wife is short order.

    Letting your wife have sex with another man is the absolute most Beta thing you can do. She'll fuck an Alpha and you'll be toast.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Could it be that normal variations in human traits make some people suited to polyamory, though? Just as some people have a greater or lower sex drive, or are more or less prone to anger or depression or excitement or any other emotion, maybe some people have a psychological make-up suited to polyamory. Perhaps it is an option for people who aren't susceptible to jealousy.

    That would explain why many people think polyamorous relationships are unstable (because they would indeed be unstable for them), and would explain why some polyamorous relationships you've heard of have failed, while the polyamorists I've met are happy. Have you read the bio page of the PUA4LTR blog? The authors are polyamorous, and they seem to be doing well.

    The same action can be alpha or beta depending on how it's framed. "Cuckold me" is beta. I've seen polyamorous guys with the attitude that acting on jealousy and possessiveness is a weak, insecure ways to behave; they feel above it, and don't feel threatened by the prospect of competition. It seems a powerful frame to me, and the relationships seem strong.

    I mentioned earlier that the Wikipedia polyamory article had a broken citation, but I've found what it tried to link to: http://www.polyamoryonline.org/articles/psychological.html#top

    "A follow-up study (Rubin & Adams, 1986) found that after several years, there was no significant difference in marital stability (i.e. breaking up vs. staying together) between those couples who had been polyamorous versus those whose marriages had been exclusive."

    If polyamory tends to destroy relationships, that is a surprising result. Of course there could be something wrong with the study, but I'd give it more credence than a confirmation-bias-prone intuition.

    I think your theory, though it applies to a great many people, is imperfect; it doesn't account for people who are suited to polyamory. (And so, to return to the original subject, having sex quickly is not necessarily dumb behavior, depending on one's goals and temperament.)
    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm willing to consider poly people as an sexual orientation of sorts, but then like homosexuals I don't really have a problem with them and whatever they want to do. It's not really my concern and outside the scope of my blog.

    I'll stand on my viewpoint that casual sex does damage womens long term Sex Rank. The overwhelming majority of men simply do not want to marry heavily used goods. Any sort of sexual disease or infertilty resulting from sexual diseases can markedly damage a woman's marriage chances.

    I'm pretty sure the majority of hook up girls aren't thinking they are doing something "poly".
    ReplyDelete
  9. Fair enough. Thanks for bearing with me on that side tangent!
    ReplyDelete
  10. Athol, regarding polygamy, you left something important out. I don't know how much exposure you've had to the poly community, but let me put it this way. Yes, there are the occasional high value men who can convince two or more 9s to share. More often, there are women who don't even get ranked by the PUA community (remember, 5 is as low as it goes because no self respecting PUA would ride a moped) who are willing to share because it's the only way to get a 6 or a 7 to commit.

    As far as Sex Rank value and promiscuity, I suspect there's a bell curve to it. A woman who never puts out for anybody is seen as a prude, and men worry that she'll go back to not putting out after marriage. (There are a lot of women who willfully portray a higher sex drive than they really have to try to get a guy to marry them.) They also worry that she'll be bad in bed, or that she's scarred from some sexual event in her past. Most men really, really don't want to marry a girl who's been raped or otherwise abused.

    On the other hand, most men feel like a woman who has had an inordinately large number of partners (but does that mean 10, or 30, or 50?) can't keep her legs closed, and will cheat. I think there's also the feeling that how can I really believe her when she tells me I'm special, but she's had fifty other guys who were special, too?

    I know for me, and most of the guys I've talked to about this, there's a happy medium. We want a girl who has worked out her sex chops, knows how to give head, and knows how her body works. That means she's had some partners. I guess the real variable is how many is too many and how few is too few. I haven't seen consistent results in any metastudies.
    ReplyDelete
  11. I've had some exposure to the poly thing. Actually it's really only in the last year or so that I'm come to the conclusion that monogamy is as important as it is.

    Let me ask you this then... why would sucking ten different cocks make a girl any better at sucking my cock?

    Why would having her first 100-200 sexual experiences with 10-20 men be any more valuable for experience than her having her first 100-200 sexual experiences with me?

    The assumption is also that those first sexual experiences are good ones as well. Some are going to be awful.

    Do you really want to be married to someone who deep down considers you to be only the 5th best person they ever had sex with? Who sometimes dreams of #1-4 when you are on top of them?

    Who would leave you in a minute if #1 Facebooked them?
    ReplyDelete
  12. Well, Athol, the simplest answer would be variety. If you grew up cooking only Italian food and learning from just your mom, you'd be really good at Italian food the way your mom made it, but if someone asked you to whip up a nice Canard aux Framboises, you're going to be in a real pinch.

    You make a solid point, of course. A person can certainly be experienced and good at sex with only one partner, but it is also remarkable just how much difference there is between partners. You've heard the apocryphal story of the guy who breaks up with his girl because she did something on him she learned from her lover, right?

    From another point of view, variety is also good for assuaging insecurities and doubts about "normal." Of course, if you really are below average, or abnormal...

    I guess I'm kind of unusual in that I go on the assumption that if someone is with me, it's because the person they were with before me wasn't as good as me. So... I don't worry too much about her thinking of others. I figure if she's exhausted, breathing like she just ran a marathon, and so forth, I've probably done well enough.

    Look, I'm not trying to convince you that there's something wrong with you or your wife because you haven't slept around. It certainly sounds like you guys do great. This isn't about the exception. It's about the rule, which is that in general, girls with a little experience are better in bed.
    ReplyDelete
  13. It's counter-intuitive that the sex is better with fewer partners, but I have defintely read studies that indicate greater marital happiness and sexual satsification by wives the fewer lifetime partners they have.

    I'm going to have to hunt those up again.

    Importantly - I don't see this as a "moral" failure to have slept around etc. I'm simply saying this is what the science seems to be saying.

    And of course having had sex with mutliple people, you can't unsleep with them. So practical applications of this viewpoint are difficult after the fact.
    ReplyDelete
  15. I think, regarding evolutionary psychology, that our instincts have not yet evolved to take contraception or abortion into account.

    So having sex with sluts is still rewarding. :)
    ReplyDelete
  16. From reading blogs like Roissy there does seem to be a lot of revulsion in the Pick Up Artistry community towards promiscuous women, particularly in regard to relationships. Which is odd because most of these guys are dedicated to using their free time to raise the average partner count of the female population as high as possible.
    ReplyDelete
  17. Oh my Lord, was that article a wake-up call! It revealed everything that's wrong with both men and women in the shallow aspects of sex and game. The old pendulum, it can never stay in one place; it swings from one extreme to the other, knocking many dead in its path. In the old days, men were called to be responsible and women had to look for responsible men. Then the sexual revolution occured; women didn't want to be the only sex limited in sexual acts, and they trampled on good men and used them in newborn feministic rage and entitlement. Too, young men were taught to be so wary of hurting women that they were molded into doormats. So, good men were brushed aside, and NORMAL healthy male assertiveness and leadership was demonized. So women were set loose, yes..but sexually unsatisfied, for no woman likes a weak man (to say nothing of emotionally unsatisfied, since this type of loose woman had no marriage in mind anyway). The fallen nature of women sought out men who didn't care about them, who were jerks, in misguided desperation for what looked like male strength, both sexually and mentally. Then, men began to realize that overly nice guys didn't get anywhere, maritally or sexually, so something happened, something double-pronged. On the one hand, many men began adapting methods of strength and assertiveness again, and the results of this in good game speak for themselves; such men gain lasting relationships if they retain personal strength. But the second prong was a negative one: men who didn't care about women or marriage bought into the weak desire of confused women for a warped image of male strength, and abused it by manipulation, coercion, and often deception and emotional abuse. With the latter aspect of game, you have the Roissy's, the amoral and even dissolute (and no, he's certainly not alone). But with the positive aspects of game, practiced by earnest men looking for companionship, you have men re-discovering their inner strength and how it benefits women in every way. Whether a man is good will be revealed in how he uses game, leadership, and what his plans are for treatment of women.

    It's not so new, really; the smooth-tongued man with empty appeal has been around for centuries, while the eternally attractive leader-male has always been a prize. Likewise, "free" women who use their independence for amoral sex will always get the same reward such loose men do, though often more immediately harsh. My God, how we've messed things up.

    The saddest thing of all, and the most telling image, is that which the article gave of the difference between then and now in how we see an alpha male: once a true and sacrificial soldier, now a creepy smooth-as-slime "mystery" man. But again, it's not that new; it's just a mistake more widely made. May God help us.

    Thank you Athol, this is the most illuminating post bar none. I feel like the entire curtain's been lifted and thrust aside.

    Jennifer
    ReplyDelete
  18. Jennifer - I'm growing on you huh. :-)
    ReplyDelete
  19. :) I guess so. Not all of your stuff is to my taste, but your good points are that you acknowledge everyone's different, you respect your wife, you make it clear you're doing what you do because SHE likes it, and you're one of the honest guys who encourages doing what's natural and works, not manipulating or being dishonest to a woman. That wins my respect and general trust in your discretion.

    Jennifer
    ReplyDelete
  20. Jennifer - I've noticed you crawling all over the blog for the last three days. So when are you going to ask your question that you are trying to find the answer to?

    You're welcome to email me it. athol.kay@gmail.com
    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Athol, I just now saw your last post; thanks for the kind offer :) I don't recall mentioning having a specific question; did I?? Or did you sense that I had/have a specific question?

    I came with many questions about game, and many have been answered here and elsewhere since July (basically, it's a nebulous concept with some universal definitions and rules of attraction, and whether manipulation's involved will depend on the gamer/women/situation). I get the basic concepts all right, but take every individual article I see online with little to great amounts of salt.

    Jennifer 6
    ReplyDelete
  22. I agree with the poster who said that he thought polyamory was highly Alpha. Although I'm a recent reader of your blog (and bought your book a few days ago), I think it should be obvious that a man who allows his wife the freedom to explore relationships with other men must be pretty secure in her love. I'm referring here to poly only, not the "hotwife" culture, which I had never heard about until recently.
    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon - Allowing other men to have sex with your wife is a major display of weakness. It reduces her attraction to you.
    ReplyDelete
  24. (I'm the same anon as at 11:31)

    Yes, I understand that's your position. I don't agree that is necessarily how it is in every case. It certainly did not work that way in our previous experience with poly.

    By the way, I agree with a lot of your other points and am starting to implement them. She has noticed and commented that I was "different", and I've told her something about the MAP. She's on board with that.

    Although the past few days have been pretty high Beta, as she has been ill. I've been very supportive and she appreciates that.
    ReplyDelete
  25. As a poly wife, I just want to express my disagreement that being allowed to have sex with other men is a display of weakness. He is secure and powerful enough to know that I will not leave him for some other man whatever their rank. Further, there is a lot more than just having sex with someone else (that is swinging, COMPLETELY different!) My boyfriend is an avid reader of yours and he was the one who told me about your blog which I have since passed on to my husband. On the whole, I like many points that you make; however, your understanding of polyamory seems very limited (easily understandable given your lack of experience with it). Please accept that polyamorists also have long-term stable relationships. Polyamory is not better or worse than monogamy. It is merely different. I appreciate that you believe in monogamy, but please respect others beliefs that polyamory is not only an relationship option, but that it can be just as healthy and stable.

    A relationship is a relationship is a relationship. Whether you have 1 partner or 3, there is still the same fundamental relationship principals.
    ReplyDelete

Thank you for commenting, much appreciated.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Athol and Jennifer Recommended