SPOILER WARNING: In this post, I’m going to reveal plot details of two romantic comedies, (500) Days of Summer and Adam.
Romantic comedies are expected to be upbeat. They center on the courtship, relationship, and love that emerges between two people. The source of conflict is a person’s natural resistance against love– a confusing, hard-to-find, and exhaustingly powerful emotion– and the formation of relationships. There’s usually external resistance as well; the man and woman might be of different social classes or races, one or both might be involved with the wrong person at the time, or the parents may disapprove of the relationship. These obstacles threaten to derail the relationship but, in the end, “love conquers all”, and there’s a happy ending. That’s what makes this genre romantic comedy, not romantic drama or tragedy.
Two of 2009’s more inventive and interesting romantic comedies have been Adam and (500) Days of Summer, and neither had a happy ending. The first of these, Adam, is about a man with Asperger’s syndrome, who is (as we’d expect) a bit socially awkward. Actually, he’s good-looking and his social ineptitude is mild-to-moderate as far as Aspies go, but never mind that. The conflict is obvious: Adam says the wrong thing sometimes, Beth is faced with the task of training him, and her father– a stereotypical sleazebag alpha-male– disapproves of the relationship. They fall in love anyway. Adam, laid off at the start off the movie, finds a job in California due to Beth’s social training. He’s proven himself remediable and able to learn basic social skills. Beth plans to come along with him to California, but she wants to know why he wants her to be with him, so she asks him, point-blank. He obviously loves her, but he says the wrong thing, which is that he’s nervous about moving alone. She pulls the stereotypical female “I can’t do this” and dumps him, and he goes to the west coast alone. Some men, apparently, are just too awkward– too broken– to deserve happy endings.
(500) Days is set in Los Angeles, an unusual choice for a romantic comedy, because rom-coms need visible seasons to hint at the passing of time. When the characters meet in a model romantic comedy, the trees are green and it’s warm enough to see the female lead’s shoulders. They’re wearing light jackets when they start formally dating. The leaves turn red, suggestive of fiery passion, around the first time they have sleep together. Snow is falling and people are shivering when the conflict reaches its climax. (The wintry setting is conducive to, say, the male lead’s 10-mile trek through a blizzard to prove his devotion.) Spring begins shortly after the conflict’s resolved, and mention of a September wedding date rounds the story out to a 15-month courtship. Visible seasonal cues allow this to happen in the space of 90 minutes.
(500) Days takes a different approach, being set in a city without visible seasons. It tells you what time it is, with a counter informing the viewer where in the film’s 500-day plot each scene fits, and taking liberties with non-linear time. Very early, we learn that Summer is not a very nice person. On day 290, she breaks up with the male lead, Tom Hansen, for a vague and unclear reason. “Stupid female reasons” is how most men describe this style of breakup. As the film back-fills days 1 to 289, we learn why: Summer’s a capricious girl, her fancy as ephemeral as the season she’s named for, and she never was that much into Tom. Being a complete beta, he is, on the other hand, obsessed with her.
He collapses utterly after she dumps him, although it’s not clear what there was to Summer other than a pretty face, and his work and social life fall to pieces. He encounters Summer a few months later and she invites him to a party. Showing a typical level of class for an American woman, it’s her engagement party, held only three months after she trashed him. The woman who claimed love was fleeting– never permanent or “true”– has a ring on her finger after her first helping of alpha-cock. Well done. Summer gets the traditional Hollywood happy ending, while Tom loses his job and requires several grueling months to rebuild himself.
Tom’s 500 days end on an ambiguous note. He’s rebuilt himself into a confident man, now applying for positions in architecture, his dream career. At his first interview, he meets an attractive woman named Autumn. The film’s odometer resets to Day 1, and although this is supposed to be a “happy”– or at least acceptable– ending, it seems evident that he’s in for the same ride again.
In both films, we see a caring, kind man fall in love with an attractive and charming but ultimately selfish woman, and she fails him miserably out of weakness and caprice. This is what a 2009-era romantic comedy must have in order to be believable. Why? Because the vast majority of American women, at this point, are so morally bankrupt that most people in their 20s can’t imagine things being any different. It would be impossible for young people to suspend disbelief when watching a rom-com where the female lead knew what behaviors and choices are acceptable, and avoided those that are not. It would be “sappy” and unrealistic, because it’s so far removed from actual experience– at least, as life is lived now.
The glowing counter-truth is that “happily ever after” actually exists in the real world. It’s not a fantasy. A relationship without any problems and arguments is obviously unrealistic, but people fall in love every day. Some of them stay in love for 10, 20, or even 50 years. This is why rom-coms are romantic comedies and not fantasies; they’re plausible (if sanitized and contrived) depictions of a real-life courtship and marriage. In love, the happy ending can be realistic, because it actually happens to more than a few people. The problem: most American women aren’t up to the task, and everyone knows it. Summer, dumping her beta lover and shortly afterward getting hitched to an alpha, with no apology, proved herself to be a typical American woman. The same holds for Beth in Adam, unceremoniously leaving her boyfriend after he said the wrong thing.
There’s “happily ever after”, but there’s never been an “easily ever after”, and there never will be. Life, love, and relationships take a lot of work. “The spark” isn’t going to be there in the first 45 seconds, and every relationship is going to require work, but there are good reasons not to abandon the relationship at the first sign of difficulty. These truths, unfortunately, are lost on most under-40 American women, due to their obsessive and selfish need for instant gratification. Even Hollywood can’t believe otherwise anymore.
Do you hold men at all responsible for the present lack of “happily ever after”? I certainly agree that women often bring a sense of entitlement to their relationships. I also think that most women today have gotten into the nasty habit of nagging their men when they are even slightly displeased. Build up? Admire? Forget it.
However, I also think that “men” have abdicated their role as men. Just look at some of the old classics. Watch Cary Grant or Clark Gable. They didn’t politely ask for respect. They took it. “Men” nowadays don’t do that. They don’t hold women to the same standards of decades past. As you say, Tom Hansen exhibited beta tendencies. He shouldn’t have.
By the way, I highly recommend “The Proposal.” It is one of the few films made in recent years that has an alpha male lead.
I do. Men allowed a winner-take-all sexual market to emerge, and the alpha shitheads perpetuate it. Men definitely share a big portion of the blame for society’s lurch into polygamy.
Most people lose, of course, in this winner-take-all sex market. College students, for example, are actually having less sex now than before the morals were destroyed, because even though there are a lot more hookups, there are fewer relationships. The same holds even more true of people in their 20s. Most people find the hookup scene to be intensely degrading and dissatisfying, but a class of brutish men and slutty women has managed to put it in place as a rather permanent fixture.
What we have now is a world where most of the decent men have been scared into hiding, and many of the remaining assertive men are aggressive, overbearing jerks. Men and women both can be blamed for this (men for behaving badly, and women for rewarding it).
In the old days, there were few of what we’d consider alpha males today, and they weren’t respected. They were womanizers and philanderers. What would be called “high beta” today– a responsible, kind man with a beautiful, intelligent wife– was the top of the hierarchy. So these men were able to develop the confidence necessary in order to be a proper man. The problem now is that the alphas have fucked everything up to the point that even the high betas are in an insecure, compromised position– yes, we can easily get sex, and even relationships, but desirable women are fewer and more out of reach, and many superficially desirable women have been damaged by the alphas to the point of being worthless from a marital perspective. (My view: one alpha cock or one-night stand = no ring, and we stop wasting our time right now. No exceptions. I actually ended a date on the spot once when the woman admitted to having a one-nighter.)
Remember, 500 days is basically autobiographical. One of the writers had a relationship pretty much like that one. The movie was, in part, a dig at the RL woman in question, as well as a kind of contemporary morality tale for young men about young women today. So the reason why it seems to ring true to reality today is because it was very much based on the real experiences of one of the writers.
I think this is overblown. It’s not true that all men, prior to 1960, were like Gable or Grant. The difference between then and today is that the mating market was regulated, to a large extent, by social shaming and expectations. There were always cads and sluts, of course, but they were shamed, their life relationship prospects were limited, and they were semi-outcasts as a result of their behavior. The current setup is based on shamelessness –> when you get rid of shame, the entire market frees up, and it very quickly becomes focused on the alpha male cads.
Women, as we are seeing today, when left to their own devices without social shaming will tend to prefer alpha cads. This isn’t because most women are pursuing casual sex as an end in itself. It’s rather because women are trying to snag one of the alpha cads to commit to them — to “tame” their own alpha cad so that they can get both the “gina tingle” that the alpha cad engenders in them as well as the committed relationship they want. It’s only over the course of experience and years (much of which can be embittering for them) that women realize that most of these alpha cad types are not interested in committing to them or anyone else, and have instead been using them for sex. Thus disillusioned, some women will then finally begin looking towards other men for relationships, but some will see this as “settling” (after all, they used to sleep in alpha cad’s bed), while others will have learned their lesson and realize that their attraction to the alpha cad type is dysfunctional, even if it is visceral.
The pre-1960 mating market did not permit women to try to tame their own personal alpha cad because it shamed the casual sexual behavior that appears to be an inherent part of the taming process (given the preference of alpha cads for casual sex). Once you get rid of that shame, you get rid of much of the disincentives for young women to at least not *try* to do this when they are at their highest pure SMV. This is then reinforced by the large role played by pre-selection, because pre-selection tends to focus female interest on relatively few men who are desired by most of the women. When you’re attractive, 24 and female, “it’s worth a try” doesn’t seem to be unreasonable, if you think there is actually a chance that you can be the “lucky” girl who tames her own personal alpha cad as a husband.
So, no, I don’t think it’s about men not being assertive. It’s about the market fundamentally having changed, and changed in such a way that most men are disfavored, at least in their 20s. No real way around that at the moment. I think, though, that one thing you younger guys need to keep in mind is that things change a lot once you hit 30ish. Women eventually *do* wake up to the fact that the idea that they will actually be successful in taming their own personal alpha cad is more fantasy than reality, and that if they want a life relationship they need to recalibrate. Of course, some of these women will be damaged by what they did in their 20s — but the rate of that varies. One thing that’s certain, though, is that your own SMV as a male goes up around 30 in a fairly noticeable and dramatic way, whereas in the current setting the vast majority of guys in their mid-20s have nothing much to offer the women they would be interested in dating.
Yes. Nothing can be realistically done to end all casual sex, but its pervasiveness can be curtailed by bringing back proper shame.
True, but there are also good women like Hope who were probably never into alpha cads. I remember that, in high school, there were the nerdy girls who had better tastes in men– some of them even dated, and fell in love with, the outcasts and the betas. This seems to indicate that some young women aren’t naturally evil. In college, many of the nerdy girls get drunk and corrupted, but some stayed decent.
What would you say about the woman who were never into alpha cads? That’s what I want, not the “reformed slut” who committed sexual treason against decent men in her 20s. How would you recommend a man find them, and what percentage do you think they are?
Fair, but I really don’t want those women at all. In my mind, only the desperate are going to want these “reformed” alpha-chasers in their 30s. I’d rather be single than marry someone who got split open by an alpha jerk. I don’t expect to marry a virgin, but one night with an alpha, or a single one-night-stand of any kind, is disqualifying.
These women certainly exist. The percentage, I think very much depends on where you are. My guess is that in Manhattan it’s not a high percentage, given the local culture. At least that’s how I remember it from when I lived there in the 90s. The closer you get to flyover country, I think the better the percentages are in terms of women who have avoided the alpha types.
Unfortunately, my main recommendationso for increasing the chances of finding one are probably not going to sound very practical. The first is to get away from Manhattan and similar places. I realize full well that this is easier said than done, in light of other factors such as career and one’s own preferred living environment. The second is to look in the churches and religious communities, because while the culture has infected these as well, the percentage of girls who are alpha-avoidant is higher there than in the general public. Again, I realize that this isn’t very practical for people who don’t belong to a religious community already.
I remember that, in high school, there were the nerdy girls who had better tastes in men– some of them even dated, and fell in love with, the outcasts and the betas.
That was me in high school. It was funny because I was a ueber-popular cheerleader and my boyfriend (for almost 2 years) was this artsy-skater type who liked to draw anime-style, write poetry, and practice on his guitar. He’s brilliant, by the way. He went to college on an art scholarship and does computer graphics for a games company now.
Nobody understood what I saw in him and he constantly had to deal with jock-jerks harassing him. But he was wonderful. He’s cut from the same cloth as my husband. We still keep in touch.
This seems to indicate that some young women aren’t naturally evil. In college, many of the nerdy girls get drunk and corrupted, but some stayed decent.
And some of us have a one-night stand when we’re 18 and naive and just moved to the “big city” and then wisen up fast. I think you’re being too strict with the chastity-policy. You’d eliminate a lot of women that way. Like %80.
I don’t expect to marry a virgin, but one night with an alpha, or a single one-night-stand of any kind, is disqualifying.
Ouch, you are harsh! It’s your right to be but I think you might accidentally toss out the good with the bad.
I tend to agree, in a big city. The thing is, Cless, one night stands — at least one of them — are so common now among young women that you really are leaving most of them out of the picture if you exclude for that. In all likelihood, you’d probably never know anyway (many women will not discuss sexual history in that level of detail, even with husband type people), but even if you did, it’s a very high standard given today’s environment.
I think it’s closer to 40%. The median woman has a lifetime total of four sexual partners, all in long-term relationships. There’s a silent majority of men and women who aren’t having casual sex.
It’s obviously a case-by-case matter. By “one-night-stand”, I mean a bar or party hookup. If she sleeps with a male friend once and it never turns into a relationship, then it’s a mistake, but I wouldn’t call it a “one-night stand”. She was seeking, in earnest, to find love. She failed, but that’s utterly forgivable. We’ve all made mistakes like that.
It’s the intentions that separate sleazy casual sex from chaste sex, not the relationship status.
Regarding alphas, if she didn’t know that he was an alpha at the time, and if she’s not longing for his “alpha” brutishness, it’s generally okay. A woman who knowingly sleeps with an alpha (e.g. a man who sleeps around) is committing sexual treason– providing aid and comfort to the enemy– but if she was unaware of his alphaness and mistook him for a nerdy beta, then– again– that’s a forgivable mistake.
One thing that’s certain, though, is that your own SMV as a male goes up around 30 in a fairly noticeable and dramatic way
True.
And then there are those of us who decided to skip over all the mess and date older men. May I note that a lot of women despise us because we’re not “playing fair”.
Thank you for the props, but honestly I was not a “good” woman. Yes, in high school I was nerdy and into other nerdy men and outcasts, dated them, and was always hanging around them, but I would not say that this is an indication of a “good” or “evil” nature.
I was a terrible girlfriend. Just downright awful. I made every guy who fell for me miserable. I was emotionally unstable and a big neurotic ball of stress, psychological damage and drama. I was threatening suicide every other week along with a lot of clingy and needy behavior, mixed with a great deal of private teenage angst.
I think it would have been better for those guys to not have dated me, especially back then. I’m pretty sure you would agree that at any rate, my behavior was not good at all. Be careful with generalizations about girls who are into nerdy men. It’s not all about sunshine and goodness.
It took me a long time (10 years of “dating” since I was 15 years old), lots of hard lessons and and some close encounters with my own mortality to become capable of being a good partner in a healthy relationship. Things are not always black and white, not always about beta vs. alpha or modern social dynamics. What seems is not what is.
Those are very unpleasant behaviors, but it sounds like your intentions were still good, and you were just suffering intensely. That’s an enormous difference between you and the sleazy alpha-seekers. Women like you are always working to improve themselves and become better people.
Be careful with generalizations about girls who are into nerdy men. It’s not all about sunshine and goodness.
Co-sign.
I was a terrible girlfriend with my second boyfriend. Just because I was smart enough to be attracted to these guys doesn’t mean I was always suitable for them.
I didn’t clean up my act until my cousin started dragging me to church with her. Her verdict: “Girl, you need Jesus.”
🙂 I didn’t become religious, but I did become spiritual. Similar but not exactly the same — more metaphysical and esoteric beliefs. I do find a lot of good teachings in Christianity along with other world religions.
It’s all good. 🙂
My cousin actually dragged my introverted, Catholic self to her Pentecostal services. After I got over the initial shock at all the clapping and shouting and stopped seeing the gospel choir as entertainment the message got to me.
I just couldn’t hang there, though. The flood of stimulation did me in in the end and I crawled back to my quiet mass where I can nap in the pew without anyone noticing (jk!). But I have to admit, nobody can smack some sense into you like a Protestant. LOL.
I think this sort of info (Novaseeker nailed it) needs to be more widely understood. Certainly, it would have helped me to understand it back when I was single and looking. The culture doesn’t help with all its “don’t settle” messages and insistence that you’ll have intense chemistry with “the one.” I think both genders need to understand that in the majority of cases, the person who will commit to you is someone who has parity with you (no, I’m not a Debbie Maken fan but she uses this word and I think she’s right). It seems like a lot of the heartache comes from people attempting to secure commitments from those who are of a higher sexual desirability to the opposite sex than they are. Women need to be encouraged to give men a chance even if their initial attraction is only mild–they need to give it a chance to grow. Men need to ask out women with whom they have parity. And men (especially those you call alpha) need to stop flirting with, dating, sleeping with women who they have no intention of ever commiting to.
The “intense chemistry” is important, but it takes time to build. Expecting it in the long-term is fine, but requiring it in the short-term is a bit ridiculous, especially since the short-term variety is usually lust and infatuation.
Yes! I fully concur with you.
I’d agree with Novaseeker, B&G and Hope. People do mistakes and young people especially since they have no experience of life. The difference between “good” and “evil” people is, in my point of view, that previous ones learn from their mistakes but latter ones don’t. If you wish to find a person who hasn’t done some major mistakes during her teen years (probably sexual – biggest mistake we women tend to do involve men…), you probably need a very, very wise person or a girl who has been very protected either by her parents or by her surroundings (living in a small, maybe religious community etc).
And what comes to sex with alphas, it’s not always that young girls really desire these alphas but that alpha males know how to use girls’ vulnerability for their own advantage. Many girls are very eager to please and long for acceptance and if a man knows how to play these girls he can persuade them to have sex with him. I think it is quite a lot to ask that a girl at her 15-20 could recognize these cads and avoid them. Not all of them are so obvious like one might think.
I never made those kind of mistakes (sexual) as a teen. Mainly because I think that I was protected because of a very young look and body type so guys didn’t view me in that way and I was very wise.
I don’t understand that whole one night stand thing. Is it purely horniness or lack of self-esteem?
Horniness + alcohol/drugs + immaturity + emotional damage
The ultimate combination.
I think if you’ve done it once it becomes progressively easier to repeat it. At which point you start to lose your ability to pair-bond and you are permanently messed-up. Then you enter the damaged beyond repair group (DBR) and are a hopeless prospect.
Later y’all.
Good point! I think alcohol/drugs may be a huge component too.
I’ve never done this but I know plenty of women who actually get drunk before they even leave the house. Too “relax” themselves. They can’t face the scene sober.
I can understand drinking a beer to loosen up, but getting drunk for that purpose makes no sense to me. In my experience, being drunk converts anxiety into emotional instability, depression, and mild psychosis, which are far worse.
I can understand drinking a beer to loosen up, but getting drunk for that purpose makes no sense to me.
Me neither.
Although in Sweden it has an economic reason: alcohol is expensive so if you want to have a good buzz going by the end of the night it’s cheaper to drink before you leave the house. Then you can nurse the same glass of vodka all night at the bar.
I disagree. Good people learn from their mistakes because they want to increase the benefit and reduce the harm to others. Ignorant and weak people don’t learn from their mistakes because they won’t or can’t. Evil people judge “mistakes” differently (according to how an action benefits the self only) and they do manage to learn from their behaviors, but they have selfishly harmful, malignant, or even sadistic intentions. Women who enjoy and encourage alpha behavior fall into the mildest category of evil– “selfishly harmful”– while the alpha men are that with a sadistic streak.
This is a good point. If she didn’t know he was an alpha cad, and that was never part of her attraction to him, then I wouldn’t count her as a bad person. Forgivably foolish, but not evil. That said, 15 is an icky-icky young age for any woman to lose her virginity. I’d be extremely cautious about marrying a woman who lost hers in high school. (I’m “class of 23”.)
I see what you mean and yes, that sounds more correct than my version.
I find it too quite a young age for losing one’s virginity but there are some exceptions. Some actually start relationships very early age and lose their virginity with boyfriend. I knew a girl who started to date her boyfriend in high school (I thinks she was 15 at the time) and had sex with him, but they were together for years and split up only after they had been studying couple of years in different universities. I see nothing bad in that.
And what comes to sex with alphas, it’s not always that young girls really desire these alphas but that alpha males know how to use girls’ vulnerability for their own advantage. Many girls are very eager to please and long for acceptance and if a man knows how to play these girls he can persuade them to have sex with him.
This was me. 18 years old, moved out of my parents’ house for the first time, living in a new country (Germany), lonely. Easy prey, basically.
Afterward he went out “for a smoke” and just kept on going. Found out later that he was some other woman’s baby-daddy and was dating another woman at the time he was trying to get with me. I was as dumb as a rock.
I went through a “men are all assholes” phase and then I met my 2nd boyfriend. And I already told you how that turned out. Surprise, surprise.
Took me a while to get my head on straight after all that.
So, I guess I’ve never had a one-night stand but I’ve done the alpha-thing. I got really close to a one-nighter once but managed to sober up in time. Alcohol is not exactly chastity’s best friend, IYKWIM.
If you didn’t know he was an alpha, because he presented himself as a nerdy, nice beta, then it’s not an unforgivable sin. I don’t want to marry a woman whose sexual drive points toward alphas but who “reformed” herself later in life. That’s gross.
That said, I’m tolerant of honest mistakes, because we’ve all made them. When I was 21, I dated (very briefly) a woman who turned out to be an awful person, but I didn’t know any of this at the time, because she was great at presenting herself as an innocent, slightly nerdy and sweet girl.
If you didn’t know he was an alpha, because he presented himself as a nerdy, nice beta, then it’s not an unforgivable sin.
Have I been absolved? LOL.
Yeah, I had no idea. Like I said: dumb as a rock. My cousin actually introduced me to him and he got on my good side by joining a salsa course with me (and being a fantastic dancer, BTW). It took him three weeks on best-behaviour but there were still obvious signs I should have caught on to:
— He didn’t introduce me to his friends or take me to parties
— He didn’t tell me about himself but instead peppered me with questions
— He exoticized me a bit; talking about my appearance in relation to my race.
— He never dated me on the weekend (he was with his son) but never explained why and would act pissed off if I asked
— He plied me with alcohol every time we went out
— He got intimate WAY too fast
— He was patronizing and would bring up my age and inexperience if I complained about something he had done or said
etc., etc.
To tell you the truth, he was just so gorgeous and charming that I gave him the benefit of the doubt over and over. Now I know: if it looks like a rat and smells like a rat, it’s probably a rat.
I have to give my cousin credit. She was absolutely mortified when she found out what had happened and she and her friends completely ostracized him. You aren’t allowed to do that alpha-mess over there and go unpunished. Especially not within your circle of acquaintances.
It’s all about Anstand with them.
That said, I’m tolerant of honest mistakes, because we’ve all made them.
Oh, okay. Then you’re not as harsh as I thought. You were starting to lose cool-points there for a while. 😉 Nobody wants a religious fanatic but nobody wants a chastity Nazi either.
I don’t want to marry a woman whose sexual drive points toward alphas but who “reformed” herself later in life.
Well, of course not. That would be asking a bit too much, I think. I wouldn’t want a man like that, either.
Honestly, I think we’ve all made these sorts of errors. I’ve been taken for a ride despite obvious red flags. I had a short-term “girlfriend” who broke up with her boyfriend two days after meeting me (red flag #1) and called me by his name (red flag #2) on a couple of occasions. She also dated a popular-jock type guy in high school (red flag #3) to whom she lost her virginity at 15 (red flag #4). She dumped this guy and immediately started dating boyfriend #2, who she dumped just after meeting me– “boyfriend-to-boyfriend” behavior (red flag #5). I can’t say she was “gorgeous and charming”. I was 21, inexperienced and desperate and generally thrilled to finally have “a girlfriend”, so I ignored all the flamingly obvious evil signals.
I later found out that she was still technically dating her 2nd boyfriend (attending college in another state) the whole time, and was cheating on him with me. They didn’t break up until three months after I was gone.
I fell for another one last winter: a 28-year-old who said it wouldn’t be cheating to be in a relationship and kiss another guy on the lips. She got physical fast with me, and I had always been the advancer in previous relationships, so I became infatuated very quick. She turned out to be utterly insane.
It’s amazing what a person is able to overlook in a compromised position.
I would only have sympathy for this if the girl told me that I was more “gorgeous and charming” (but also that she was wiser and wouldn’t let me get away with shit, regardless of my charms.) I’m too old to waste my time in dead-end relationships, so I stop seeing a girl around the 2-month point if she doesn’t flat-out tell me, honestly, that I’m more attractive and better physically than all of her exes and flings (and I don’t ask, since that would defeat the purpose). Mistakes are one thing, but I don’t want another man casting a shadow over my relationship.
Cless:
Respectfully, in the big urban centers and the immediate suburbs I think the other posters are right. Finding a girl who did NOT have a one night stand will be hard and it would mostly be among those below a “five ” in attractiveness.
I’d suggest other criteria if you are forced to search in those types of environments. Check out how she treats the males in her life from her father down. Esp, did she treat betas decently AT LEAST after high school? Look into her mental state. Hell, look if she tries to build things or if she is more associated with drama and destruction.
If a girl passes those tests she is probably a quality woman even if she had some “indescretions” in college.
I don’t mind a girl having a few serial lovers and one or two one nighters (easy enough to do on a college campus) if she meets those other qualifications I gave you. I have no religious reason to want to shame people for being sexual or who they sleep with.
It’s not religious for me. It’s a matter of propriety and loyalty. If a woman was unwittingly played by an alpha cad– she thought he was a nice, nerdy beta, and she slept with him believing it would turn into a loving relationship, and she was wrong– then she made an honest mistake and that’s completely forgivable. I can’t say I haven’t made such mistakes. If she knowingly slept with an alpha, that’s not.
The alpha pigs are destroying women and society for their own disgusting, selfish benefit. They are at war with us, and a woman who rewards their appalling behavior by sleeping with one is committing an act of sexual treason– providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
Cless, you’re going way too far here. This “no one night stands, no alphas, no exceptions” rule is just not viable. Inevitably you’ll be stuck adding loopholes to a rule like this (you’ve already been doing this, saying that in certain cases it’s forgivable, etc.).
Your last paragraph there — alphas destroying society, aid and comfort to the enemy, etc. — it’s just too much. It ain’t THAT bad.
To the extent that they’re destroying women and/or society, it certainly isn’t intentional. The guys I’ve known who’ve slept around a lot (and I mean ~50 partners) often don’t even realize how atypical they are in terms of success with women. They’re often literally unable to understand how a guy like me, or many of the other guys I know, might have trouble getting sex and/or a girlfriend. They often have no idea what they’re doing right. It’s quite possible that a lot of their success is plain old “path dependency”, where success breeds success and failure breeds failure. These guys are often fairly boorish (not all), but that’s about it. They don’t strike me as evil monsters, just guys with certain social talents who are responding pretty rationally to the opportunities and incentives that society provides them.
It’s generally unreasonable to expect people to act contrary to their own self-interest. Don’t complain that they’re “pigs” for being selfish; fix the incentives so that their selfishness will be directed into less distasteful channels.
Trust me, women who don’t do one-night stands are out there. I’m a firm believer in the laws of attraction.
A former closet heterosexual, my sex life is very private.
Cindy Crawford had a talk show once, she had a small group of famous women on her show and she asked them who had a one night stand. Cindy was the only one to raise her hand. Could be the others were holding back but in this day and age many women are very open, too open, about their sexual exploits. So it shouldn’t be to difficult finding someone compatable.
I used to attract alpha’s, I left a lot of alpha’s frustrated. I just couldn’t get into them. They would bring their best game too. I thought it was funny. I wasn’t trying to be a bitch, I just wanted something more meaningful. I certainly enjoyed being, wined, dined and pursued though.
*Off Topic*, maybe you could do a post about Alpha/Beta friendships. In my experience it’s been both rewarding, frustrating and the most difficult to maintain.
href=”http://www.hentaicrazed.com/index.html” >Naruto Hentai Videos for more.