Over at GirlGame, aoefe posted an essay, “Dissonance“, on the contrast of her traditional beliefs about gender and relationships against the truths (and untruths) she has learned in the Roissy-sphere. In one column, she presents what I call the “nice guy” view of relationships; in the other, she presents the most dystopian elements of the Roissy sphere. Obviously, for all of these dichotomies, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I’ll attempt to mediate these incongruities as well as I can.
1. I thought my accomplishments [as a woman] mattered vs. they are inconsequential to men. Achievements matter to men in relationships, but not in the same way they matter to society at large. Why is this? Society values devoted specialists, while in relationships, there’s a premium on well-roundedness. It’s better for one’s spouse to be modestly intelligent, good-looking, charming, and educated than it is for that person to excel at one to the detriment of others. As is a husband’s, a wife’s role is difficult and multi-faceted. She has to be a lover, a mother, a best friend, a spiritual and intellectual partner, and (when her husband is ill) a caretaker– a tough job with a wide array of responsbilities. Integrity and kindness are crucial. So are intelligence, education, ambition and beauty, but diminishing returns have already set in by the time a woman enters the top 1% for any of these. It doesn’t hurt for a woman to have a 150 IQ, but it’s not necessary.
Society, in the external sense, rewards people for being “pointy” rather than well-rounded– for reaching the apex of a narrow discipline. No one gets a promotion for being a great father, or for having a lot of hobbies. Professional athletes are not expected to be belletrists, nor are poets expected to excel on the basketball court. Obviously, there are practical limits on the extent to which one can invest all of one’s endowment into one discipline, but those who excel are often those who reach and push those limits, and they’re rarely well-rounded. This is just an inherent trade-off in life.
The female lawyer is a Roissy stock character for overblown “pointiness”– the woman who has invested the bulk of her time and emotional energy into the rigid, competitive, and rationalistic discipline of law, placing her social and inner lives on the back-burner. This is what’s rewarded (and requisite for any measure of success) in large-firm law (“biglaw”). It is not what most men want in a relationship.
Are a woman’s accomplishments treasured by men? Yes, absolutely. Skill, passion, intelligence, dedication, and artistic talent are major turn-ons. That said, while the difference between a “10” concert pianist and an “8” matter for one who aspires to the world stage, it’s just not an important factor in a relationship. Moreover, sacrificing important virtues for the sake of achievement, as is required in the most cutthroat careers (investment banking and large-firm law) makes a woman undesirable.
2. I thought confidence was attractive vs. confidence in a woman is not required. A woman’s confidence is an asset in a relationship, and a major turn-on in the bedroom. Yes, it is very attractive for a woman to confident, just as it is for her to be accomplished.
The world of “game”, however, is that of the crude sexual market. Sexual market value (SMV) is different altogether from desirability in the context of long-term relationships, to the point that there’s very little overlap. (This is one of the reasons why combat dating, casual sex, and the nightlife scene are among the worst places to look for relationships.) A woman’s SMV is based on her ability to provoke short-term, r-selective sexual desire. Intellectual, personal, and spiritual confidence– all of which matter immensely in long-term, loving relationships– have no bearing on a woman’s SMV. Even sexual confidence, although it makes a woman great in bed, does not appreciably raise her SMV. Her “market value” is largely determined by her looks, although it can be boosted via a certain bitchy social confidence that many men conflate with physical attractiveness, because they lack the self-awareness to recognize its influence.
On a related note, here’s a nasty secret about SMV. It has very little correlation, if any, to whether a person is good in bed. The casual-sex scene is focused entirely on the pursuit of social status, not great sexual experiences. In fact, most people would agree that peak sexual experiences require intimacy, trust, and love between the two partners, and are therefore completely impossible on the casual scene.
3. I thought men enjoyed curves vs. men are turned off by less than slender. We’re all different. I’d say, in general, that I prefer a curvy and slightly muscular build with a BMI around 21-22. On a 5’8 (173cm) woman, this would be 138-145 pounds (63-66kg). Muscle, curves, fat– I like it all, in moderation. My tastes differ from those of the stereotypical male in other ways: I prefer small-to-medium breasts (perky A-cups) and dark skin color. I also find small bellies– the kind that are flat when a woman is standing, but soft and slightly pudgy when she sits– irresistably sexy. We men are all different in what we like.
What’s relevant to a woman’s success on the sexual market is the ratio of the number of men who prefer her body type to the number of women who have it. About 0.5% of men prefer obese women. If only 0.25% of American women were obese, instead of over 30%, they’d be “niche” lovers in a privileged position. Very thin women are in a good position because they’re preferred by such a large percentage of men but, in my experience, many of those are not the best men, just as women who prefer six-pack abs tend to be uncultured. The men who criticize their BMI-20 girlfriends for being “too fat” tend to be jackasses in other ways– misogynists, cheaters, bad lovers, and creeps.
Also, let’s not forget that the men who are most critical of womens’ bodies are those who have very little experience with real women. Men with even modest amounts of experience know that the emotional context triumphs over minor nuances in physical appearance. The Internets harbor quite a few basement virgins with this attitude, but I wouldn’t put much stock in what they think, unless one is interested in dating men like this guy (watch 1:00 – 2:00).
4. I thought aging was natural and acceptable vs. aging is ugly you might as well die. On the sexual market, a woman’s value plummets precipitously in her early 30s but, as I’ve said before, SMV is irrelevant to a woman’s long-term desirability. Desirable men marry women in their 30s and 40s all the time. In fact, most desirable men I know in their 30s and 40s prefer a woman 2-5 years younger than they are, not 10-20.
Men’s preferences for age gaps tend to be correlated to their inexperience, and it’s easy to imagine why. I’m 26, and although maturity is much more important than age, I’d most likely prefer to be with a woman of 23-26. I have no desire to date a 20-year-old. Why? Because I have before, when I was 23. I’ve dated women of every age between 17 and 22, and I’m basically done with those ages. Most of the older men who prefer women in their late teens and early 20s, in my observation, are those who never had the chance to date attractive women when they were young. I have, and I’ve moved on.
A woman whose self-worth is tied to her sexual market value, and to a steady diet of crass male attention, “might as well die” on her 30th birthday, because these benefits are about to recede from her life forever. Women with more mature senses of self-worth generally do fine. If they take care of themselves and age well, they’re highly desired by men their own age (including, if they’re married, their husbands) for long-term relationships.
As for aging being “ugly”, I don’t think so. I know some very good-looking 80-year-olds. They aren’t sexy to a 26-year-old’s eye, but they’re still attractive people. Attractive young people tend to age into attractive older people, even though they don’t inspire carnal lust later in life. Besides, very few people are ugly, even among those who are overweight. Most people I find sexually unattractive, but I would qualify far less than 1% of people I meet as ugly.
Moreover, even beauty itself is not necessarily tied to youth or SMV. Consider Michelle Obama. She’s a stunningly beautiful person, physically and otherwise, but I certainly wouldn’t consider her a sex symbol. Her beauty is derived from her elegance, intelligence, passion, and physical comeliness– not raw sex appeal. As a 45-year-old woman, her SMV (outside of her marriage) is virtually nonexistent, but I’d be thrilled to marry a lady like her, and one who ages as well as she does; and it’s no surprise that her husband, even with the presidency and millions of options, adores her. I bet he’s faithful to her as well; if he weren’t, I’d be angry, because she’s a wonderful woman.
Most men in happy marriages remain in love with their wives, even as they age. Who minds a couple laugh lines on the face one fell in love with? They’re a reminder of times enjoyed together. On that note, shared memories and depths of intimacy achieved are not easily replaced, and keep a wife’s “marital value” buoyant, rendering what happens to her SMV utterly irrelevant.
5. I believed I had value vs. to men I have very little. You do have value, in the world of long-term relationships. If you’re in a happy marriage, your husband will adore and treasure you.
On the casual sexual marketplace, however, people are interchangeable commodities, valued and priced according to a single measure of status. Absolutely no one is exempt from this. For a woman, this is largely determined by her appearance; for a man, it’s based on his “psychosocial dominance”, or Game. People who find this immoral or appalling, such as me, are best to avoid the casual-sex market and the combat-dating racket at all costs.
It’s important to note that “Game’s” tenets are often self-confirming biases. People with such a dismal view of human nature tend to find themselves surrounded with low-quality people, and the behaviors they encounter confirm their negative stances. “Game” is calibrated toward sociosexual success with low-quality people, the reason for this being their sheer number. In truth, the quality of people is not distributed like a bell curve. It’s shaped much more like a pyramid, and those who desire lifestyles of high-frequency sexuality must target the wide but dismal base of it.
6. I was mate selective because of personality type vs. I am hypergamous due to biological drive. “Hypergamy” is a difficult word to discuss, because it means different things to different audiences. There’s good hypergamy and bad. For women to desire men for their character, intelligence, integrity, ambition, and integrity is a great form of hypergamy, and one that impels society to grow. For women to desire men based on their sociosexual dominance or because those men are desired by other females (preselection) is bad hypergamy. The word hypergamy is used pejoratively in the Roissy-sphere, but largely because the style of hypergamy seen in the world of casual sex, Game, and combat dating is the disgusting and immoral variety. Hypergamy doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing.
It’s virtuous for a woman to be selective, but vicious for her to be picky. The distinction is as follows: the selective woman places a high value on intimacy, love, and men worthy of her affections. She gives her body and heart only to men who earn them, but does not reject men prematurely. The picky woman is one who rejects men for trivial reasons, such as poor fashion sense or a lack of Game.
7. I thought men were just men vs. men are alpha, beta, omega and zeta. The sexual marketplace, and the reversion to pre-monogamous sexual norms, created these artifacts. Alphas are the men who succeed in this nightmarish world, much like the rats and vermin that inhabit ruined environments. Betas are men, leaning toward monogamy, who are desirable for long-term relationships, and who succeeded in the previous regime, but are shortchanged by this one. Gammas (or omegas) are the men who succeed at neither, and often make fools of themselves attempting to become “alpha”. Zetas are analytically connected to the distribution of the prime numbers.
8. I thought racism had died out vs. racism is alive & well. The world of casual sex and combat dating is hellish, bringing out the worst in people. It’s also one of the most superficial social environments on earth, focused intensely on physical presence. This means that race will undeniably have a major role in it. For woman, race has a strong but complex effect on her SMV. For example, the obnoxious alphas often desire racial variety for the sake of “collecting” a complete set of racial categories, but they prefer to date blonde white women for the status benefits afforded. By contrast, the betas, who are significantly more desirable for (and desiring of) long-term relationships, tend to be very open to dating women of all races, and many are dating interracially. Love is far too beautiful to be rejected on such trivial grounds.
Racism is dying out, slowly, but this society has a long way to go. Interracial love, relationships and marriage are bringing down racial barriers rapidly, although the dehumanizing and ruthlessly competitive environment of casual sex and combat dating is one of the last places we’ll see racism disappear.
Fantastic! I don’t have better words but thanks.
Wonderful. Couldn’t have said it better.
The Internets harbor quite a few basement virgins with this attitude, but I wouldn’t put much stock in what they think, unless one is interested in dating men like this guy (watch 1:00 – 2:00).
Oh, my God. I’m aching from laughing. That is so nasty.
Racism is dying out, slowly, but this society has a long way to go.
I don’t think “racism” will ever go away. Any more than self-interest contra communists, or familism contra Plato.
Interracial love, relationships and marriage are bringing down racial barriers rapidly,
Whether this is true, is one thing. In my casual observation, BM-WF dating peaked in the mid-90s and declined heavily after that. Both in terms of frequency of observation and in society’s tacit attitude on this subject.
Exceptions to this apparent decline include lower-class/obese white females and top-percentile black males.
The other thing is — does one find large-scale I.R. a desireable thing in and of itself. In my aesthetic sense, I like to see the different flavors and colors of ice cream assorted separately. I like diversity, with its peaks and valleys of beauty.
And to me, I.R. on a large scale would be akin to throwing all ice cream flavors into one big blender. Enjoy!
No more straight, silky hair, no more creamy skin, no more non-brown eyes, no more thin lips or noses. I suspect that Humanity wil resist such a trend, if it ever comes about.
although the dehumanizing and ruthlessly competitive environment of casual sex and combat dating is one of the last places we’ll see racism disappear.
I’d argue that a freer market in terms of dating is dehumanizing to categories of people who had been left behind: east Asian men, black women to a huge extent, and to a lesser extent, non-alpha men of any race, and non-beautiful women of any race.
“Racism” in this context is another word for “order,” which reduces the hypercompetetive casual dating environment.
I suspect that Humanity will resist such a trend, if it ever comes about.
Yeah, like in Brazil. LOL.
Go to Munich and you can see that resistance is weak. Or, should we say, resistance is futile.
I think you are underestimating men’s penchant for novelty. When the new Census figures for IR marriage come out I think you’ll see a further climb in their numbers. That is my official prediction. Let us all note that here.
Futile? hah. Communists said that too.
Didn’t you make a point in another thread about mixing different bright colors of paint into a brownish mess?
Futile? hah. Communists said that too.
I was channeling the Borg, actually.
Didn’t you make a point in another thread about mixing different bright colors of paint into a brownish mess?
You actually read the boring crap I write? Darn. Touché.
Must remember: don’t contradict oneself in posts as people read my boring crap. LOL!
I do like diversity but I don’t think it ends with racial mixing, it just changes. Each individual person becomes more interesting-looking. I see it in my (very IR) family. All kinds of fascinating combinations.
The individual traits don’t actually disappear they just pop up randomly instead of sticking to one group. It makes things more interesting, not less. IMO, anyway.
Yes! I noticed in Mexico that the people were very good-looking, especially the women, and it’s the mestizaje that is the cause of this. You do see more interesting combinations, such as natural blondes with medium-brown skin.
Oddly enough, although Latin America doesn’t have the American concept of “race”, it still has a “white” beauty standard, presumably for historical reasons. The women in commercials look more like Spaniards than like most Latinas. I find this odd, because I found to the brown-skinned women, on average, to be a lot more attractive.
Agreed. Recessive traits like blue eyes and red hair may become a lot more uncommon, but they’re extremely unlikely to disappear altogether.
Yes! I noticed in Mexico that the people were very good-looking, especially the women, and it’s the mestizaje that is the cause of this.
Mexico is a Spaniard-white (with an admixture of German & Slavic) to Indio continuum, with a negligibly-small African presence.
You do see more interesting combinations, such as natural blondes with medium-brown skin.
How do yo uknow they are natural? And aren’t you basicaly saying that a tanned European is where it’s at, beautywise?
it still has a “white” beauty standard,
Looking at your avatar, so do you, assuming you picked it because you think it’s a cartoon-version of what you like in women’s looks. A pixieish blondie.
presumably for historical reasons.
Why not presumably for natural/biological reasons?
The individual traits don’t actually disappear they just pop up randomly instead of sticking to one group.
But they will never pop up together as a whole. Heidi Klum’s descendents will NEVER look like Heidi Klum. They will look like Africans, with an occasional instance of straightish hair or ashen skin.
Ice cream in a blender, heavy on the chocolate.
Recessive traits like blue eyes and red hair may become a lot more uncommon, but they’re extremely unlikely to disappear altogether.
But why make them uncommon in the first place?
I’m just saying that it’s one of many possible combinations.
Cless Alvein is a pseudonym. That’s him and Mint, his love interest.
I don’t have a strong ethnic preference, to tell the truth. I like black and Latina women, but I also love “dirty blonde” Eastern European girls– I dated a Polish girl who was gorgeous. I tend to favor the exotic, but I don’t have a specific or monolithic beauty standard.
If there were a “natural” reason for everyone to be attracted to light skin, everyone would have it. This is obviously not the case.
In Latin America, the rich tend to be whiter because, going back centuries, the wealthy would seek to bring over a wife from Iberia instead of marrying the locals. Anyone who wants to have an empire (e.g. Spain) has to put its own women on a pedestal.
Her children may not, but her second- and third-generation descendants might, and nothing prevents her children from being beautiful in other ways.
Personally, I also have no expectation that my descendants, especially 3-6 generations down, will look anything like me. I hope that my children, grand-children, and so on will marry smart and good people, so they share my values and intelligence, but I don’t care if they’re white or black or (most likely) some shade of brown.
When I shuffle off this mortal coil and reincarnate into another body, there’s a high chance that I’ll have darker skin than I do in this existence. That doesn’t bother me in the least.
No one has the specific goal of making blondness or blue eyes extinct. On the other hand, preserving the commonality of these features isn’t very important– it’s more important to marry the right person than to preserve certain recessive genes. I have gray eyes. If I marry a non-white woman, then these genes are unlikely to be expressed in my children. That’s a very tiny price to pay in exchange for marrying an amazing woman. And amazing women are rare; if you filter on race, you might find yourself out of luck.
I wouldn’t advise anyone to marry IR just because a person might feel he or she “should” marry someone of another race. That’s ridiculous. On the other hand, if I meet an amazing person, and she’s of another race, I have no good reason not to marry her.
I resisted talking about spirituality on the other post, but I have to comment on this one.
I think there is a lot of scientific dogmatism about the physical reality we “know” of, when thousands of years ago the idea of atoms or the very concept of these computers we are communicating on would be laughable.
I believe that our souls are able to choose the bodies that we incarnate into, and that our lives are guided to a certain extent by our souls in order for us to learn lessons.
Not sure how much literature on near-death experience you have read, but I think it is interesting that a common theme is for one to be given a “life review.”
It’s good to know of another obviously intelligent person who is spiritually inclined. Makes me feel less kooky.
How do you know they are natural?
How do you know that a white woman’s blond hair is natural? You don’t. There will be blonds as long as there is hydrogen peroxide. LOL.
Heidi Klum’s descendents will NEVER look like Heidi Klum.
You don’t know that. It depends on the future mix and genetic lottery. My daughter is the spitting image of my German grandmother. She looks nothing at all like me or like my husband. My son is the spitting image of my husband. Neither of my children look at all like me. At all. In public people assume I’m the baby sitter.
The manager of our gym actually got called to action the first time I came to pick up my daughter from the nursery (there had been a shift change). I had to pull out ID and baby pictures. It really ticked me off because this older blond woman came and picked up an Asian-looking child and nobody blinked.
And how do you know that Heidi Klum’s descendants would look like her if she married a white man? What if he looked like this:
Her decedents would only be highly likely to look like her if she married a man who looked like her.
Or do all white people look alike?
Race and genetics are two totally different topics. One is scientific and the other is anthropological.
But I’m not partial to blond hair anyway. It often has an unattractive yellow or orange tinge.
Based on this post, I thereby conclude, Cless and Aoefe should totally get together!
>.>
People often mix the issues of race and culture together.
Not wanting to marry or have romantic relations outside your race is fine and shouldn’t be something you’re condemned for.
On the other hand: those of different cultures romantically mixing together is very problematic for them personally in ways they don’t discover until the damage is done and occasionally society as a whole. It shouldn’t be encouraged or at least celeberated in its own right.
Problematic or interesting. Is your glass half-empty or half-full?
Let’s not forget that immigrants that have integrated into the native communities often bring dynamism and ingenuity that would not be present otherwise. People left to their own devices and sheltered into their respective groupings tend to become… dull. It’s the mix that makes things interesting and drives wealth-creation.
So what we were going to do?
I don`t know, what`cha wanna do?
Look mate, first I say “what were going to do?” then you say “I don`t know, what`cha wanna do?” then I say “what we`re going to do” then you say what`cha wanna do” let`s do something.
Ok. What`cha wanna do?
That reminds me of a British friend of mine who got all excited about a 2-week conference he was attending in Iceland (he was a bioinformatician). All of the beautiful blonds you could want. For two whole weeks. Yay!
I came to pick him up on his return and when he arrived at the gate he just stood there staring at me for a moment, walked over and gave me a big hug and a kiss and said, “God, you have no idea how badly I’ve needed to see a black woman.” Whenever somebody mentioned Iceland after that he’d turn green and comment, “Nearly everybody there is white. It’s like somebody went mad with the photocopier.”
Oh, come on, that is mythology. Western Europe was much more monolithic than it is now when it was ruling the planet. And creating tons of wealth. These things are not related.
Ruling the planet? When was this? There has never been a time when the majority of the planet’s population was under Western European rule. Sorry.
That is American-style history for you.
*sigh*
You know what I meant. The West colonized much of the rest of the world, to one degree or another, and generated massive amounts of wealth thereby, regardless of how much of the population was directly under European control. And they did so without being ethnically diverse in ways that “count” in the West today (i.e., different kinds of whites are not considered to be “diverse”).
Your original point about diversity generating wealth is bunk, viewed historically.
And don’t forget that western Europe’s hay-day was fueled by trade. It was not a “we’re going to bunker down and keep ourselves to ourselves” kind of place. And only those directly involved in trade truly benefited. Most Europeans were poor farmers working land they didn’t even own.
If I may be allowed a rant now:
I find it humorous to hear Anglos go on and on about western European dominance. So proud of all that as if their actual ancestors had any part in it.
Well, I know that both my German/Slavic and my African ancestors were a bunch of half-starved slaves digging in the fields. And that is the truth. I have plenty of wealthy Anglo ancestors, too — probably more than the average white person, if I may be so blunt — but I’m not even going to claim them. Nasty old men.
But I’m going to put away my Angry Black Woman and pull out the Angry German one. While Anglos were busy raping the planet, my people were busy doing inconsequential things like… oh, I don’t know… inventing movable type, reforming the church, perfecting classical music, creating the first social security system, inventing the internal combustion engine, and clarifying the laws of planetary motion.
Nothing worth mentioning like… enslaving whole nations, wiping out the natives of two whole continents with your pestilence, and creating a flourishing market for human scalps. Y’all must be so proud.
You’re absolutely right. Why would you want to dirty up such a gleaming history with some brown folks? White pride and all that jazz.
I’ll ignore your rant.
Of course wealth was fueled by trade. Who denies that? I certainly don’t.
What I took issue with was your suggestion that ethnic diversity drives wealth creation. That was not the case in Western Europe. Trade is not the same thing as immigration and the ethnic diversity that this creates.
I’ll ignore your rant.
I’d almost rather you didn’t. What about my premise that my fabulous western-European genes and $5.00 will get me a Happy Meal?
What I took issue with was your suggestion that ethnic diversity drives wealth creation.
Of course it does. We just differ on what constitutes ethnic diversity. I don’t actually believe in a concept of “race” so it is irrelevant to me.
Obviously, you do believe in race or else you wouldn’t refer to your own in your handle.
That’s a carry-over from Abagond.
I don’t believe in “race”, just ethnicity. For me, being black is about ethnicity, not some genetic/biological concept of race.
Trade is not the same thing as immigration and the ethnic diversity that this creates.
There was actually a lot of intra-European immigration. That is one of the definitive marks of Europe. That is why Europe is now such a genetically monolithic continent. The people have moved around and intermarried to such an extent that everybody is closely related to everybody else. In comparison to Africa where the distinct ethnicities remained largely separate and which is a hotbed of ethnic diversity now.
Hmm…
Am I the only one that finds arguing geopolitical irrelevancies mildly… stimulating?
Gotta go.
Hybrid vigor wins out in the end. Can’t fight biology.
Well, that’s true. But hybrid vigor isn’t limited to race. It would apply to any genetically-diverse pairing.
Although I am black and my husband is white (per racial categories) a lot of our ancestors are from the same Germanic tribe. Therefore, hybrid vigor doesn’t apply as much to our children as to, say, an Ethiopan+Ghanian or a Spanish + Russian pairing.
But I suppose Seal + Heidi would count. LOL.
Nice post Cless. I enjoyed reading a balanced male perspective. By balanced I mean emotionally balanced, mainly hehe.
Roissyland finds it so easy to throw away ideas of bonding to another human, your perspective takes it to the next level.
Also, I really appreciated hearing about how you feel like you already dated 20 year old hot girls. I haven’t understood for a while why the guy I’m seeing (who I am fairly sure used to be quite a player) likes me. I’m thinking he’s also been there, done that with the easy girls. At least I hope…!