Sunday, March 6, 2011

Piece of Advice #90: Don't sign up to be part of his harem

Modernity has layered the concept of marriage with so much emotion and romanticism that we women tend to forget that, at heart, marriage has always been an economic arrangement.  Women and men exchange sexual freedom and the ability to "trade up" for, in his case, ownership, proximity, and the assurance of parenting his own children as well as regular sex and, in her case, financial support and protection during the vulnerable times of pregnancy and motherhood and eventually old age, as well as investment in her children.

That's the matrimony deal.  Now people being complex, marriage is also a number of other things.  Historically it was often the opportunity to merge powerful families and build up capital.  Sometimes when people have been exceptionally well suited, it has been the chance to live with a best friend and best lover forever.  To less well suited people it was often an inescapable prison.  Marriage is sometimes miserable, more often bearable, frequently - when its players are mature adults - workable, and, on the other end of the spectrum, sometimes very pleasurable.  The same marriage can, in fact, cycle through those states from misery to ecstasy under different circumstances with that marriage still fulfilling its main societal goal: insuring that men stay invested in the welfare of children, their children, the next generation.  Most women don't need a contract to stay invested in their children because they know for certain their children are theirs.  But men, who do not grow their children inside them, need a bit more proof that all that energy they are going to expend is going to their own progeny.  Thus, marriage.

Now, the harem.  Historically, only rich and powerful men have been able to afford to have a harem.  The care of many women and the resulting children is prohibitively expensive, but for men who can afford it, the incentive is sexual access to a variety of women he is attracted to.  Not all harems have been the middle-eastern, guarded-by-eunuchs variety.  Wealthy European men had a string of mistresses instead, but it was the same deal.  For the women involved this arrangement provided financial stability, but usually far less paternal investment in her children.  Her provider usually had a wife and legitimate children, and his time was taken up with them.

The final sex-for-money deal is the brothel.  This transaction is far simpler.  Sexual participation for a set fee.  The wages earned, if generous enough, can be saved up and used for future needs, but this is a 401K deal at best, not a pension.  What's more, brothel work generally excludes a woman from the first two options as men are only interested in wives if their chastity can be counted on and mistresses if they are 1) very beautiful and 2) rather particular.  Men do not invest at all in brothel children as paternity can not/could not be determined.

Women, the only one of the above three options worth pursuing is marriage.  The price of sex has been driven so low by porn and promiscuity that the mistress deal is off the table for all but the fabulously beautiful and well connected, and the fabulously beautiful can and should shoot for marriage anyway.  It's a far better deal.  For many woman who do not understand the economic underpinnings of relationships the dating scene has become a weekly grind of less and less enthusiastic brothel work - for the price of dinner or perhaps even a latte - leveraged against the potential of a future better deal.  But the longer a woman stays in the dating sphere, the less likely she will be able to make that happen.  Because most women are competing for the same successful, colorful, or aggressively sexual men, and those men, having such a supply of sex at no cost are the least likely to offer anything else, especially to women who are older and more jaded.  Why would they?

All of the above came to mind when I was directed to the blog of dating adventures, A Pre-life Crisis.  The author is considered by her friends to be "the brunette 'Carrie Bradshaw'."  She states that she hasn't paid for dinner in a year and dates all of the time.  In an arc of posts about her most recent dating adventures, she describes meeting The Lawyer who is tall, dark, handsome, successful, well educated, athletic, and lives in New York (the author lives in Boston).  They met in a bar when he was visiting her hometown, hit it off, and then a little over a week later she went to New York City to spend the weekend with him and salivate over the designer clothes and accessory shops on Fifth Avenue.  Then, when she got back to Boston, he completely blew her off, finally texting her some generic messages a week or so later.

Now, despite the fact that this woman's lifestyle and materialism conflict heavily with my own values, I write this out not to mock or excoriate her, but because pursuing men who won't commit to them is becoming a common experience for women.  This guy, this sexy, young lawyer guy isn't going to start something serious with her.  Even if distance were not an issue, he's the kind of guy women will travel from out of state on their own dime to gift with sex.  That's nice work if you can get it.  He's twenty-seven, is unlikely to want children right now, and has no other incentive to offer something more permanent to a woman.  Additionally, she sounds very expensive.  He's undoubtedly up to his hairline in student loans, but whatever successful lawyer cash does come his way after bills are paid he probably doesn't want to go straight to Armani, Harry Winston, and Versace.  Bagging him as a husband would be quite a coup for her, but, let's face it, he's not going to be faithful anyway.  Men with those kinds of options seldom are.  It would be far, far better for her to take a good hard look in the mirror, tally up her assets realistically, and then look again at the line of men taking her out to dinner.  Odds are that, among that number, there's at least one guy who would not use her for sex, toy with her emotions, and would eventually be willing to commit to her.  He might not be a tall, dark, handsome, hockey-playing lawyer guy, but to this middle-aged married woman's eye, Lawyer Guy is not so great.


  1. The kind of women who actually need to hear these bits of advice will:

    1. Not read them.

    2. Not take heed even if they do read them because it's "different" for them.

    Write some screenplays, Grerp! Get your message out in a form digestible to today's chickies. Entertaining chick flicks starring the "it girls" and giving a moral lesson.

  2. The sad thing is that we often come to this realization later in life. In the deep darkness of a sleepless night, we wonder about Robert, who wasn't all that good looking, but was a genuinely nice guy. Or Bill. Or Jack. Not the ones that got away, but the ones we pushed away.

  3. Well, marriage is nice work if you can get it, but realistically is marriage going to be an option for most young women? At Dalrocks place it can be seen that marriage rates have continued to fall (esp for second marriages)and I'd say this is because it is a poisoned institution at least as far as men are concerned.

    What advice do you give to your female readers in neutralizing a man's worries about losing his lifestyle and funds or worse his kids to a divorce? I take it as a given that political action to try and restore the contractual aspects of marriage or even remake marriage (perhaps a series of different types of enforceable contracts for different tastes?) is off the table?


  4. Clarence - this is one area in which I would give different advice to men and women. To men I would say be very, very careful and only proceed if family life is most important to you. To women I would still advise caution, but I would say to remain chaste, marry younger rather than older, and do the best job you can. Actually, it's important for both to give as good spouse value as they can.

    I'm not as savvy as Susan Walsh on dating, but speaking for myself, I'd rather live life on my own entirely independently than be a part of a harem.

  5. Grerp,

    Carrie Bradshaw on SATC HAD a good guy around for a while; his name was Aidan. She blew him off in favor of Mr. Big-what a surprise. If the show had reflected reality though, Mr. Big would not have married Carrie, because he would have had more options. Why should he have married when he had ten other hotties waiting in the wings to be part of his harem?


  6. Katz and Karenranny,

    Well said remarks. I myself finally came to these painful resolutions at the old age of 25. Where I come from that is old. My grandpa referred to me as an old maid. After a few years of fine tuning, and facing the cold hard facts I finally got married at 27. I wish there was a way we could get this through other womens heads sooner.

  7. When the pursuit of the 'gina tingle is the priority, being put in a harem is often the result.

    Perhaps #91 should be "Don't let your vagina pick your next man."

  8. This is a fabulous post Grerp.

    Women have devalued sexual access so much that it's laughably easy to get sex these days.

    It's funny, we warn kids about not getting into vans with strangers who have candy. But women will get into anyone's car that has a food supply.

  9. Clarence - I wouldn't outright call it a poisoned institution. Life is full of risks. It's easy to talk about the financial and legal risks, but on the flip side men can also suffer if they are injured or become seriously ill and have no support network to help see them through. That can lead to financial and legal devastation as well. If I were single, I'd be on the lookout for a younger woman, one not yet ruined by forays into the single/hookup culture, and give her reason to respect the union. The statistics can paint a grim picture, but the failure rate is nowhere near 100%. Moreover, included in the statistics we rarely talk about as it's easier to bash bad choices there are women who are not as enamored of modern trends as the NAWALT maxim suggests.

    As to the harem angle, I sometimes think that is overblown as well. There have been times when I've known women were interested in me, regardless of the ring on my finger, but I not only love my wife as a partner, I genuinely like her and enjoy the specific companionship she provides. The lure of 'some strange' has never been anywhere near powerful enough to cause me to jeopardize my marriage. I am not saying I'm an awesome Mr. Big millionaire type playboy, but there are plenty of men like me out there, who are desirable if not at all apex alphas and who will settle down for the right woman. Of course, our existence does cause some women to constantly keep searching in all the wrong places, e.g. the already attached, and with exactly the wrong checklist. Those women end up the real Carrie Bradshaws, i.e. part of a harem, while the women who still have their feet on the ground don't generate much press and don't live lives that make for juicy plots.

    Maybe I'm just overly optimistic, but as a parent I have to believe that strong values and good examples mean that not everyone has to wallow in hedonistic misery.

  10. Ulysses:

    Marriage is a poisoned institution. Even if your marriage stays together (and take out dual income educated households and the odds are not as good as you think they are)you have all the other ways the state can intervene to set the terms of your marriage and how you raise your kids. There's plenty of real horror stories about CPS both when it acts too soon (e.g naked kiddy pics in a bathtub) or doesn't act (e.g. repeat complaints but girl ended up starving to death anyway)at all. From the divorce industry to the governmental aspects of the "wars" on domestic violence and child abuse, marriage is an invitation for the state to come into your life and run it for most of the rest of your days. I'm also going to put out two more things:
    A. A good marriage can add to man's life span and happiness but a bad divorce can lead to suicide. Many of the "pro marriage" studies, specifically do not deal with divorce.
    B. There is never any kind of guarantee you will die cared for instead of alone.

    The only men I can recommend marriage for are those that want children no matter what, and those who will have a partner earning a lot on her own, whether or not she brings home most of the money.

    Sorry that you don't like it, but marriage is dying except among the more well to do, and is increasingly becoming irrelevant to a larger and larger percentage of the population.


  11. Clarence - Let me try this again since I got trigger-happy and apparently surfed away before hitting "post."

    You cite Dalrock, but his latest piece examines falling divorce rates. He does offer, briefly in the intro and more in the comments, the caveat that falling marriage rates are probably a contributor. I consider that a buttress to my argument. If you find a marriage-minded woman, then your odds of not going through a divorce are increasing.

    I'm not an advocate of manning up or get married just because, but I cannot get behind the just say no sentiment when I look at such data.

    Besides, if you accept that threats from the state are governing your decision making, then you are accepting that the state is still running your life, just from a different angle.

  12. As an aside: I can't wait for POA #100!

    From one young 25 year old guy's opinion, as a (Capital-D) Devote Roman Catholic, marriage is just too dangerous in today's climate. God doesn't want any unneeded martyrs.

    I am extremely cautious when it comes to interacting with females I'm sorry to say. I would love to settle down, and have a family, hell my mom recently put an offer on another small house with visions of grandchildren running around it.

    In all honesty, I've found one (1!) girl who I would ever seriously consider marrying. And she's not American. She's Filipino, barely speaks any English. I've met one Anglo-woman, but she's barely on the radar.

    I've been seriously burned in the past, and after someone gets burned, they're very reluctant to touch the stove again.

    If a young woman wants to waste away her prime years, who am I to stop her? I don't think I should be required to pick up the slopping seconds 10-15 years down the road though.

    --A nameless guy who is trying really hard to win "Most Boring and Average Guy in the World" Award.

  13. I do believe that marriage is still a viable institution, albiet a risky proposition. Like many things in life seldom does one find reward without risk. Personally, it has be great for me in many ways to include financially. I married when I just turned 23 and my wife was 22. There is no other decission a person will make that will affect their long term stability, hapiness,and financial status than selecting the right personn to marry. Like many investments there are no garuntees, but you can put the odds in your favor. I am a fan of marrying younger rather than later and not deal with a lot of baggage. Marry a virgin if you can and as close to one as possible if not. Find someone who shares your value system and has similar beliefs. Not an easy task for certain. Great post.

  14. MarkyMark

    Oh I never was a huge fan of the show but I occasionally watched till Aidan happened. After that I hated that Carrie too much to bear to see her. Such a sweet guy treated on such a crappy way and then on the second movie he doesn't even hates her. The man is a saint.

    Stephenie Rowling.

  15. Grerp, would you advise women to settle down with a man they aren't actually remotely attracted to, just because they are tolerable/'good enough'? Just curious.

  16. Anon 12:53 - No I wouldn't. He deserves a partner who admires him for qualities he has, as does she. Besides, if she's just using him for her own purposes (children, a more prosperous future), she'll probably only stay until she's got what she wants. Even the time she's with him won't be happy - because a woman who has no admiration for her man won't be happy, and that unhappiness will radiate.

    Posterity only cares that we reproduce. Most of us know nothing about the happiness or sadness of our great-great-grandparents' lives. It no longer matters if they picked well. But it mattered then to them.

    What I would argue is that back then people were more realistic. Neither of my grandfathers was particularly "sexy." The one I knew personally was quite short, light-skinned, and bald by his 25th birthday. He came from poverty. His father was a day laborer who never got anywhere because he couldn't resist telling off his bosses. But my grandfather was some kind of hard worker. He saved his meager wages and bought his own acreage in the middle of the Depression and worked 18-hour days regularly to get it going and running. He hustled and eventually prospered, and he was good to my grandmother, kind and, in some ways, quite sweet. But he was not particularly romantic and he never spent a dime he could hold tight in his hand.

    This type of man would not get many hits on today. But I think my grandmother felt lucky to have him. She missed him when he was gone and talked about him regularly.

  17. Ulysses said:
    Besides, if you accept that threats from the state are governing your decision making, then you are accepting that the state is still running your life, just from a different angle.

    Excellent observation. Another thing, if lots of women these days are ruled by the 'gina tingle', how many guys are letting 'Mr. One Eye' do the thinking? That's a big part of the problem from our side. Neither women nor men can have it both ways.


  18. "Excellent observation. Another thing, if lots of women these days are ruled by the 'gina tingle', how many guys are letting 'Mr. One Eye' do the thinking?"

    I agree with this but to a point. The men who are 'letting One Eye' do the thinking are primarily men who may not have favored marriage anyway. Alpha Males aren't the ones who bear the brunt of Feminism, they benefit from this situation. It's Beta Males, the marrying types, who are the ones who suffer.

    In the past, there where social controls which kept women chaste, yes, but also to keep men in line as well. In this day and age, those controls are frowned upon, as we all know. What precisely is to be gained by being a 'nice guy?' now? Nice guys grow up and watch the @$$holes getting a string of beautiful women while they get friend-zoned over and over, and this isn't even getting into the issues marriage has for men. Where is the incentive to be nice and keep 'one eye' in check?

    If there is anything which I find interesting while being on the Manosphere, it's the amount of p!ssed of Beta's I encounter who have given up nice and now embrace 'jerkdom'. This of course is after years of getting sand kicked in their faces so the choice becomes obvious.

  19. It's worth noting that while sheikhs neutered the rivals for their harem, European rulers managed to get them sent off to war to woo foreign women or get killed. Signing up for a harem in any country is just a great way to get men and women both abused and killed.

  20. "Sorry that you don't like it, but marriage is dying except among the more well to do, and is increasingly becoming irrelevant to a larger and larger percentage of the population."

    Not in Oz, Clarence. Marriage rate on the rise, so too the birth rate. How about a sea change mate? ;)

  21. Omnipitron,

    If these beta guys need an incentive to be "nice," it sounds like they weren't really that "nice" to begin with. You make it sound as though women have a choice between open jerks (alphas) and secret jerks (betas).

    In the world I live in, most guys seem to be pretty darn nice, including and perhaps especially the ones who are successful with women. The thing that makes some men more attractive than others (assuming we control for good looks) is confidence. Confidence is sexy. But you can be confident without being domineering or selfish.

    I know you will tell me that I am wrong, that women secretly want to be dominated and abused by jerks. But that's a steaming pile of manure. It's a self-serving story that lonely men tell themselves to make themselves feel good about being rejected by women. It's a lot easier to believe that women just don't appreciate what a good guy you are than it is to take responsibility for poor social skills or to accept that there may be features of your looks or personality that are less than attractive to the people you want to sleep with or date or marry. (And no, I am not trying to "shame" you. I don't think success with the opposite sex need be the measure of a person's worth.)

    I realize that being rejected is very hard. (Newsflash - women get rejected too.) On the other hand, it is not the same thing as having sand kicked in your face. It is not something evil women are doing TO you. Part of being mature is accepting that other people have a right to live their lives in ways that may not include you.

    Don't forget that this goes for women too. If I suddenly found myself single, I wouldn't have a right to blame hot guys for not wanting to date my 40-year-old ass or for failing to appreciate how nice I am.

  22. A big problem is that these women are delusional. Our culture of self esteem has taught women they are beautiful, special, and just perfect in every way. Congratulations woman, for being YOU. Don't ever change!

    This has warped the minds of many women into thinking they can bat above their average...and plenty can. But as you said, the biggest mistake is thinking that just because a guy will bang you, that he will date you.

    I feel very happy that even though I was mired in cultural pollution in college I learned the distinction. And seriously, it seems that competing for a super alpha is just so gosh darned EXHAUSTING. I don't have the stamina for it. Never did. And I hated the way women would just compete for the guy, fawning all over him. It's embarrassing.

    These women are really going against their own self interest. When they are busy riding the alpha train they are missing out on a time when they could be getting the very best mate for them. Good men get snatched up.

    What did they get in return of giving up their best years? Some interesting memories? Bragging rights? Women aren't men. Chances are they ended up with a lot more broken hearts than fond memories.

    And for the record, there are some incredibly good looking, successful, smart, cool, sweet, funny guys that aren't alphas. And they're probably married.

  23. OT here - so I managed to get in a feminist flame war (on a Christian site no less!) for having anti-feminist views. The flamers were old boomer Christians of a denomination that is egalitarian. Rather than dig through the previous 90 pieces of advice, do you have any posts on this phenomenon? It is a tactic of self-preservation, how not to get in a flame war with feminist Christians.

  24. As to pensions also consider the obvious "race to the bottom" incentive: every childless old cat lady drawing a traditional pension is in effect being supported by the working children of other old widows, which they paid a lot of effort and money to raise.

  25. «The price of sex has been driven so low by porn and promiscuity»

    NOOOOOO, that is an incredibly large mistake. The price of sex has always been essentially zero (disregarding the risk of contagious diseases).

    What was expensive was the risk of having to make a large and long term investment in childbearing and childraising, which was strongly tied with sex.

    CONTRACEPTION, not porn or promiscuity, have been the largest change, as it has allowed girls to have sex without the risk of having to invest in a pregnancy.

    Consider 10 girls, 1 hot high status man, and 9 average men. If there is a risk of pregnancy with sex securing *in advance* the (legally enforceable) support of one of the men is very important and the 10 girls know they cannot all be supported by the 1 hot high status man, and the first one to have sex with him for free is unlikely to be the one to marry him, and she bears the risk of pregnancy while all the others are still available, so the *last* to put out gets a man. And that was why there were "demi-vierges", who were promiscuous orally or anally as this did not lead to risk of unsupported investement in pregnancy.

    The result is that 95% of girls were (vaginally) virgin at marriage until 50-60 years ago, as none of them could not *afford* to deter long term commitment by any potential men by all screwing the same hot ones.

  26. There is another large factor as to pregnancies, and it is that in the past girls invested in pregnancies (with men) because the long term return was to be cared for by the children (for women traditionally the youngest daughter). Now that women can significantly outlive men and inherit a man's estate and pension and they have their own pensions they no longer need to invest in children, and this has led to another extensive drop in pregnancies, again driving down the price of sex.

    The only developed countries where the natality rate is not very low are those that not only make old age cheap with pensions, thus reducing the economic value of having children, but that also make pregnancies cheap with extensive mother support services. But this again drives down the cost of sex, as then girls don't need any specific man even when they get pregnant. But it is better than the alternative.

  27. karen said:

    "The sad thing is that we often come to this realization later in life. In the deep darkness of a sleepless night, we wonder about Robert, who wasn't all that good looking, but was a genuinely nice guy. Or Bill. Or Jack. Not the ones that got away, but the ones we pushed away."

    as much as i want to sympathize, i shouldn't. there should be bad feelings and regret about such things. as you write this Karen, millions of women are making the same stupid moves deliberately. knowing better all along. there is no learning form mistakes of others. this torment is self-inflicted and imposed upon men and society gets to deal with the fall-out. if one considers that it is difficult to sympathize.

    it's good that you realize now, but why now? many even wait 'til their sex appeal is completely gone before realizing what they knew all along.

    you do what you do because it is "cool." it's really that simple.

  28. @Doomed Harlot: I realize that being rejected is very hard. (Newsflash - women get rejected too.)

    My response to you is the same I gave to my LJBF A long before I quit dating. A was complaining she had to date 100 men once to find one worth dating twice.

    My response was I have to ask 100 women out before getting one date and still have the 100/1 ratio on ones worth asking out again.

    When she said "so, it's a little harder" She is a classic "I'm demand equality and still expect to be treated like a princess" feminist who expected men to approach her all the while complaining about lack of dates.

    My response to that was, "that's 10,000 approaches...why should I waste 30 years asking women out at the rate of one a day to find one worth marrying."

  29. @ Doomed Harlot

    You make me shake my head, really you do. Sigh, my reply to you is far too long to post here, but know this, all you have done is prove once more why men are correct in forgoing marriage. And no, I'm actually happily married so I'm not some loser who is simply angry at getting rejected.

    I know you are a strident feminist, you had said so on another blog. You won, but not the way you think you did.

    You know what, there was a group of guys who actually listened to what it was that feminism had to say and actually tried to change for the betterment of women and soceity. Would you like to know where those guys are now? Check The Spearhead, those would be Feminism's leavings.

    I don't think they are happy about it though.

  30. Omnipitrin, I am quite sure I never said I was a "strident" feminist. I may have said I was "hardcore" or "uncompromising." I would not have used the word "strident." That is your characterization.

    Herb, I definitely understand that it is extremely difficult to approach members of the opposite sex for a fling or a date or any kind of romantic/sexual proposition. I know because I have done it plenty!

    Of course, that still doesn't mean that being rejected is the equivalent of having sand thrown in your face, which is the proposition I was adderssing.

    Also, if you want women to take more of the initiative in romantic relationships, then feminism is your friend. Feminism is about getting rid of arbitrary gender roles. As a young feminist, when I was in my teens and early 20s, I absolutely took the initiative whenever I was interested in a member of the opposite sex. So I know it's hard from first-hand experience! But I did my part, working up the nerve, taking the initiative, making my move, and taking my lumps when necessary. I put myself out there, rather than passively waiting for men to notice me, and I did this because I am a feminist, not a princess.

    Also, don't forget that there is humiliation on both sides under the old customs. The man is humiliated when his efforts to initiate are rejected. The woman is humiliated when she pines away for a phone call that never comes. Between the two options, I would rather be the one taking action rather than just moping helplessly, which used to be the female role.

  31. @DoomedHarlot: Also, if you want women to take more of the initiative in romantic relationships, then feminism is your friend. Feminism is about getting rid of arbitrary gender roles.

    Which part of "I'm a feminist but still expected to be treated like a princess" did you fail to understand. That's a direct statement by the most hardcore/strident/uncompromising feminist (defined both by herself and by my observation of her...especially after the 'restraining order' ad argument) I've ever know while eating a dinner I paid for after a night at the ballet I'd paid for with season tickets everyone in our social circle knew I'd bought two specifically to take dates.

    BTW, she didn't consider it a date, just her in "You thought this was a date?". Maybe the flowers I bought her were a clue it wasn't one.

    As for feminists asking women out well it's never happen. I'm sure you'll take that as proof I'm just a bitter loser and maybe you're right. Or maybe the bitter part is the wife who when she "got sexy" (ie, weighed less than I'd ever know her to weigh prior) and decided she could do better. Hell, that's probably just more proof I'm a loser.

    But based on my observations:

    1. Feminists are, for the most part, the biggest princesses I've met. Most of the women I know who are independent reject the label anymore (and before you go all feminist means is a woman has equality, forget that...language is a moving target and feminism/feminist has drifted pretty damn fast, although that could be a product of the mass communications age more than society).

    2. Based on what most women consider desirable and how men who they don't become desirable I'd rather be a loser. If women as a whole want rich, sexy, unfaithful assholes there are plenty. I stopped asking women out long before my 10,000 (actually, you'd expect to find a second date worthy person at 5,000 or so assuming random distribution).

    Where are all these mythical feminists who are assertive and ask men out and are okay with men whose overall social status is less than them?

  32. As for feminists asking women out well it's never happen

    Should be "As for feminists asking men out well it's never happened to me."

  33. Also, don't forget that there is humiliation on both sides under the old customs. The man is humiliated when his efforts to initiate are rejected. The woman is humiliated when she pines away for a phone call that never comes.

    For the record, I don't think pining by the phone is humiliating. At the worst, it's disappointing. In the first instance, you are really putting yourself out there, in the second you have the ego-salving option of telling yourself you never wanted his phone call anyway.

  34. I enjoyed this article. Lots of good, down to earth advice in it.

  35. "Omnipitrin, I am quite sure I never said I was a "strident" feminist. I may have said I was "hardcore" or "uncompromising." I would not have used the word "strident." That is your characterization."

    BTW, it's Omnipitron, kay? Funny, you said that you where a strident feminist on Dalrock's blog, my mistake at taking you at your word, once more, thank you for making my job easier. Shall I take the time to go through your comments and graft your exact wording or will you stop right now? FYI, if you are going to state you are equal to men, we are going to use your words against you if you ever try to state something false. In other words...don't step.

    This is what happens when you try to have you cake and eat it too. You can't. It's high time you learned this lesson, yeah?

    "Of course, that still doesn't mean that being rejected is the equivalent of having sand thrown in your face, which is the proposition I was addressing."

    Bull, you don't give a rat's heine about what men are facing or else you wouldn't be trying to throw crap in our faces now. Do yourself a favor, you are no longer ahead in this argument, but if you stop trying now, you won't leave yourself more behind.

    "So I know it's hard from first-hand experience!But I did my part, working up the nerve, taking the initiative, making my move, and taking my lumps when necessary."

    So do I, which is why I know you are full of it. Hey, I've worked in a bar on and off since I was 21, I now know when a woman is making a full court press and to be honest, most guys haven't the foggiest. Here is the deal which you miss; is that when a guy doesn't make a move AFTER a woman works to be noticed, a woman feels just as rejected as when a guy makes a move and she rejects him.

    I learned that the hard way, then again, I can honestly say I was paying attention. I can tell you right now, you haven't been.

    "Where are all these mythical feminists who are assertive and ask men out and are okay with men whose overall social status is less than them?"

    Here is where you make yet another mistake. This is just me, but I haven't been proven wrong yet. ADHD does have SOME benefits. The relationship between a man and a woman in some cases can relate to the relationship between MEN and WOMEN. In essence, men have tried to listen and alter themselves foe women, but women haven't noticed or cared to be honest.

    Yeah, I've been there and done that so it isn't as if I don't know what I'm talking about. The whole reason why I'm still with my wife is because she listened and tried to see things from my perspective. As I have tried to see things from hers for years.

    I can tell you right now, you don't DH, so please don't bother with your tripe about how men haven't measured up. Men tried to, not realizing that by doing so it would make them seem like less than men by the very people they where trying to please.

    If peeps like you where really about equality, you would have heeded the words men have stated and realized that there was an issue here beyond them, but, alas, you didn't.

    Surprise, surprise.

    However, there are some women who do ask lesser men out (Tim RobbinsSusan Sarandon, Ashton Kutcher + Demi Moore) and as Amy Alkon said, men in the main DO NOT like being asked out by women.

    It changes the dynamic between the sexes.

    Here's is the deal. The Game doesn't change just because your womyn studies prof says it does. The game stays the same until evolution changes it. Trust me I know, I listened to womyn's media and didn't get married until I started listening to men.

    Now, you can either listen to what the men have stated here as a problem, or you can ignore these men, just like other spouses have ignored theirs and then wonder in a few years why their spouses are so angry.

    It says more about you than anything else.

  36. "For the record, I don't think pining by the phone is humiliating. At the worst, it's disappointing. In the first instance, you are really putting yourself out there, in the second you have the ego-salving option of telling yourself you never wanted his phone call anyway."

    Grerp, you're awesome, thank you for being you and trying to see things from the other side. One of the things I have realized over the years is that just because it may seem easier for one gender, doesn't mean that it actually is.

    Another thing which hit me upside my head was the issue women had with trying to get a guy's attention. Not enough and the guy may not get the hint. Too much and they guy could think you where a slut.

    At the end of the day, men and women wage the same war so to speak, we just wage it in different ways. Maybe waiting by the phone may not have been agony for a guy, whose to say that it wasn't agony for the girl who put herself out there?

  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

  38. Herb, this is the reason why I have mucho respect for you and Grerp and a small amount of others. You could have let sleeping dogs lie but you didn't. I appreciate you stepping up and correcting me, you really didn't have to do that, and it takes INTEGRITY, in order to do this.

    This is what I respect in some posters.

    Grerp; I hope you don't take my post as an attack. I simply don't think that what a woman goes through in some cases isn't as painful as what a man goes through. Sure waiting by the phone may not be as painful for guys doesn't mean that it's not as painful at it could be for women.

    It means more than you know that you actually try to see things from a woman's perspective.

    All the best for 2011. Omnipitron

  39. Omnipitron - No, I didn't see it as an attack at all. I remember waiting by the phone, and it was kind an emotional experience, esp. when I stubbornly refused to acknowledge reality. But asking someone out and getting turned down feels far more intense. I've experienced both. I once asked out this guy in my Poli Sci class. I had a big crush on him. It was very spur of the moment and awkwardly done. I asked him if he was available at a specific time, and I think he genuinely wasn't. But he didn't ask for a raincheck either. I didn't get that bold again for, maybe years? I was so embarrassed. I am not terribly comfortable with women as aggressors in these types of interactions and especially not comfortable with myself as initiator. I think my introversion play a big part.

    For me personally, it was also hard to turn someone I wasn't interested down as I really didn't want anyone else to feel that same way I had.

    Thank you for your kind words and for reading. My best wishes to you as well.

  40. Men shouldn’t whine about how hard it is to ask women out. That is part of the relationship between the sexes. For one thing, it does give men the initiative whether or not to pursue a relationship.

    It is *expected* that men will be turned down. It is men that are available to have sex with willing females. It is women that are selective about with whom and when to have sex. For a woman to explicitly pursue sex with a man and be turned down is a major insult to her value as a desirable woman. Even in an ongoing marriage or a sexual relationship it is “normal” for a woman to decline the man’s “advances” as in “not tonight”. For a man to decline sex in reversed roles is much more problematic.

    Women are usually quite good at hinting. One thing that a woman can do is offer events that are not dates so that her dignity is preserved and hopefully the man will pick things up from there; for example, a spontaneous invitation to a current cup of coffee or lunch – something that is ambiguous as to whether it is a date or not.

    On a related topic a woman should be “hard-to-get.” I don’t mean game playing; I mean deferring sexual intercourse. If a woman turns a guy down so that he asks her out again, she runs the risk of not being asked out again. On the other hand, a woman who gives herself away sexually early and easily is not valued and very likely will be pumped and dumped. If a man doesn’t want to wait and work for “it”, then the woman should accept that the man is just trying to pump and dump and she should look for the next male candidate. Finally, as was mentioned, a woman has an option of satisfying her male partner as a way station to actual intercourse.

  41. "Men shouldn’t whine..."

    Sigh...just one thing Anon. When women are up in arms about the future and their lack of prospects, remember that these wonderful terms you use for men can be used right back at you.

    When the economy is failing and women are desperate, let's see just how many women will accept men telling them "Stop whining about your needs. You don't need men anyway right." You reap what you sow, I suggest you start caring about men now, by then it will be too late.

  42. Not a lot of discussion of option 3.

    Prostitution is a very reasonable career, with a couple of caveats.

    Caveat one: you need to be emotionally mature enough to *stay off the drugs*. It brings in a lot of money, fairly quickly, with little effort. To make a life at being a prostitute you have to keep an eye on the bottom line, long term. That means staying away from drugs, clothes, cars, all the frivolous ways of wasting money.

    Caveat two, and this is rather harder for a lot of women to accept: most women are not particularly good at sex. Having a hole is just not enough. Being young doesn't last. A financially successful whore likes men, likes fucking. Repeat business is the key to making it in "the business".

    But, with those two taken care of, it's a perfectly ok way to make a life.