I had to take a break, for work reasons. I’m 6 weeks from a major deadline and have been running on all cylinders. The blogging has been put on the back burner, and my mind is mostly elsewhere right now.
Sometimes I find myself in a state of utter doubt and agnosticism. I’m not talking about religion, but life in general– beliefs, values, ideals. I step back from cocksure arrogance to deep introspection and questioning. It’s not a problem– it’s a good thing– but it makes it difficult to write with authority.
This difficulty provides an interesting insight into our society. We overvalue confidence, not just from writers and opinion people, but in general. Confidence is usually a good thing, but sometimes it isn’t, and when it’s not, it fails us badly. The 2007-08 stock market crash was brought about my overconfident traders, rating agencies, and investors. It wasn’t a shock to anyone who knew much about financial markets. Yet people were surprised when the market tanked, having bought into the lies of overconfident bullshit artists in finance and real estate.
Look at the popularity of characters like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly. Although their views match those held by many within their target demographic, it’s not their ideology and opinions that make them cultural “forces to be reckoned with”. It’s the confidence with which they say, not what they say. The same is true of large-company CEOs. For the most part, it’s not their executive vision or managerial skill that makes or breaks their careers. It’s the confidence that they project.
Of course, no discussion of overconfident bullshit peddlers is complete without discussing the phenomenon of “game”. Roissy defines game as “psychosocial dominance”. That’s a reasonable working definition, but I’d call it, instead, “sociosexual confidence”. Game is the ability to project confidence in a sexualized social environment. Confidence in other areas of life is neither necessary nor especially relevant. Most “nerds”, for example, exhibit strong cerebral confidence, reasonable social confidence in general, but a lack of sociosexual confidence. This, more than “social ineptitude”, as most nerds are socially normal, prevents them from getting women.
Confidence is a good thing, usually, but why is it a requirement for certain interactions? Answer: many, if not most, people are very weak. They get their opinions from the loudest and most authoritative-sounding source. Unsure and confused about sex, they sleep with those who are able to convince them that others find them desirable. Unaware of what’s worth doing and what’s not, they would rather have 9-to-5 jobs that are an extension of the school-driven “here’s work, now do it” model than accept that they’re out on their own, left to figure things out for themselves. (Note: you’re on your own even if you work for a large company and have a boss; you also have a boss even if you work for yourself.) We all need motivation, but weak people tend to lack the ability to generate it intrinsically; they get it from the confidence of others.
As for strong people; are they always confident? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no. Strong people tend to be confident, but not uniformly, and not naively. For example, those who are highly intelligent (intellectually strong) tend to have cerebral confidence, but are not always completely sure of their knowledge. Some of the smartest people I’ve known have been the most humble. I would say, in general, that strong people tend often to be self-aware, which makes them often confident in their ability but without assumption of superiority, dominance, or infallibility. Thankfully, most of life admits a middle ground. For example, it’s possible to believe that one is capable of fulfilling a job without assuming that it will be easy and require no effort. It’s also possible to believe that one is generally intelligent without assuming that one is always “the smartest guy in the room”.
However, with sociosexual confidence, I’m not convinced that most people perceive a middle ground, which we’d consider “high beta”. To be seen as “alpha” requires the overreaching, aggressive, and unrealistic style of confidence. It requires an unfounded sense of superiority, which the more sensitive and introspective people can’t feign.
You’ve made an important distinction here. There’s an enormous difference between real confidence and bravado. You suggest that sensitive and introspective people can’t fake an unfounded sense of superiority (nor do they enjoy trying).
I would add that sensitive and introspective women can spot a fake, and won’t buy it. The real thing? Yes, that will get us every time, but it’s much better when it’s soft-pedaled by a man who is truly secure in his appeal.
Me, I’ve been reading along here following on a comment you made recently on Susan’s HUS blog. So forgive me for placing this here and just wondering about it aloud. It’s just a continual ‘wonderment’ to me (here & elsewhere).
So although you write & express yourself very well Cless, I’m mystified over your oft stated requirement for a ‘more chaste’ or ‘less [sexually] experienced’ woman. That’s a bit more complex than you might care to imagine or present here in various guises & scenarios. Your ‘theorizing’ here with regards to this issue alone is pretty telling, and yes, more than a bit unrealistic. But yes, it’s your life goals, so you perhaps might want some ideas of how to achieve this end within the framework of reality that exists.
So sure, there are plenty of men & women who abhor ‘casual sex’, even as they’re engaging in behaviors that might easily be seen & described as same. As the Alan Guttmacher Institute might tell you most 26 YO women are already ‘sexually experienced’. Yes, even the deeply religious folks too. Now some, perhaps around or under 10% may have never quite had penetrative ‘penile/vagina sex’, but most will have some sort of sexual history & experiences that include variations of scenarios that even very chaste & ‘morally upright’ women think of as being ‘perfectly acceptable’ for yes, even a ‘casual /friendly relationship’. Specifically? For some, yes this will include BJ’s for BF’s & ‘other interested parties’ or even regular FWB’s having anal sex, sometimes just ‘because it’s fun’ too. Now all those findings takes many, many detailed social survey questions and teams of well qualified researchers to try and ‘tease out’ from respondents who are guaranteed wholesale anonymity their ‘real complete & relevant’ sexual histories here.
That’s the real point here. Within almost any real relationship imaginable? Especially the ones that are or might be described loving? People will lie to you about this. Especially to escape your judgment of them, or the possible detrimental consequences of such ‘strict judgments’ upon them & their behavior. Especially if the stakes are as high as you constantly describe they are here for you. They’ll lie. To cover up the ‘truth’, forget & repress the ‘real details’ to suit their own ends. All day, every day. For years, nay decades if necessary. And indeed, again, yes, even successfully lie to themselves about it too. That’s the true nature of the beast here. And this has little to do with the ‘ills of modernism’ you describe, or the myriad issues with the current, yes supremely toxic media miasma. It’s the nature of the animal, and has been since, well the dawn of time. (Google: ‘Sex& deception’ try the Plant kingdom first, then work your way up!)
So imagine if you will Even the utmost strictest sex secluded populations that happen to absolutely Prohibit Sex upon pain of prosecution? Say for example between Priests & their short/long term GFs/BFs or younger under age parishioners? We know from similar surveys that about 1/4 of the Currently serving Catholic Clergy are sexually active. About 1:3 have admitted in yes, repeated surveys of ‘ever having’ an ongoing ‘serious’ sexual relationship while serving as a Priest. Now you might say, ‘Gee that’s not too bad, look! Two thirds are actually Keeping their vows! But no, the numbers are tragically quite similar to like populations of ‘cloistered’ (or semi-socially isolated for one reason or another) men almost anywhere in society.
Now you also describe yourself as fairly unforgiving here. “Any one-night stands are a deal-breaker, as is anything that smells of sex with an “alpha”. I really dislike such men and view it as disloyalty for a woman to sleep with one. I’d prefer a woman to have had 2-4 loving relationships before me, with no sex outside of those, and for all of those relationships to be conclusively over.” And further: “I’m pretty judgmental of a woman’s past when it comes to the person I’m going to marry.
I definitely do not sleep around. I’d rather be celibate for over a year than have sex outside of a relationship– and I can say this, because I’ve made exactly that choice on multiple occasions”.
Now the way you see it, this is wholly laudable & admirable, and has the benefits of protecting you (and others) against disease, heart break & a ‘fallen world’ filled with the flotsam of ‘slightly soiled’ embittered, alpha played out exhausted but confused damsels that litter the worlds of our collective imagination. (Yeah, they’re out there too). Fine. That’s your story, stick to it. Stand by your morals. However expecting the same of your potential spouse? If ever remotely possible to be determined? Would probably be among the most deleterious & toxic thing you might do for a budding Trusting & loving relationship.
Why? That’s the nature of love. At some point? You’ve got to trust. And too many peculiar questions about a vague enough but probably eminently forgettable past will yes, ruin any possible serious ‘relationship of equals’ you might desire with perhaps upwards of 90%+ of applicable female population.
‘Wait a minute!’ you say. ‘This is Very Important to me! Sure. As it was very important to almost every seriously patriarchal culture in history. Chastity in women has forever been their ‘highest trading value’. Not quite their beauty, wit or intelligence. But their chaste loins as yes, breeding stock. ‘Wait! You cry. ‘This has nothing to do with breeding [yet], it has to do with all the poor, tired deluded alpha played out women I meet!’ And I Allow for “2-4 loving relationships before me, with no sex outside of those, and for all of those relationships to be conclusively over”. ‘I’m not a monster!’ ‘I’m all for Equality!’ Yes, and that’s the point here. You? Can hold yourself to a ‘higher standard’. You can hope to expect the same from any ‘potential spouse’. But they’re Not You. And if you really, truly loved them? You’d be somewhat more forgiving. Really.
And truth be told? Mention those ‘strict & rigid’ requirements to most women today? And they’ll think that you’re pretty crackers. Well most of them. Even the really seriously chaste ones? Will perhaps come to secretly resent you for your ‘rigid requirements’ here. It’s almost as if you were ordering an ornate silver engraved armored breast plate for your favorite charger.
But again you might protest, ‘I’m Not looking for the common here, I want and desire the exceptional & uncommon!’ Yes. And they still can not be made to order, despite what all the internet dating sites might tell you. (They might come closer than ever before in human history, but still fail!) That’s the true nature of life. It comes as it comes, and our expectations of it & reality are constantly being blasted to bits by the stuff we see around us. Our experiences & history. Need not always be as ‘toxic’ as imagined. Even a ‘bad example’ can show you the path to enlightenment by mere avoidance. And an appreciation of the difference of what true loving means and amounts to. And yes, some of this? Has been known for ages too.
But ‘nuf said. I wish you well on your quest Cless. There are ‘seriously chaste’ women out there. And ones with very limited sexual experiences. They do not now constitute a large population, especially among the college educated. (And BTW, this has been true for at least the last 50 years too). And although they might not fit your bill for your other ‘requirements’, many will be fairly conservative and yes, often religious. This seems to perhaps be the type that you’re after. But most of this very small & self limited population? They’ll still likely lie to you about their extent of prior sexual involvement, if they think that it might unduly disturb you, and they have a natural desire to yes, please you. There’s no real crime in this. It’s perfectly natural.
Bottom Line? If you’re going to find anyone, let alone a woman who’s not going to lie to you? Ever? Especially about something so possibly consequential? It’ll be in some sort of heaven perhaps, but not upon our terrestrial & earthly haunts here with these pesky humans. Really. Cheers & Good Luck! ‘VJ’
I would add that sensitive and introspective women can spot a fake, and won’t buy it. The real thing? Yes, that will get us every time, but it’s much better when it’s soft-pedaled by a man who is truly secure in his appeal.
Agreed.
VJ, I agree. Cless is too rigid there. In truth, he’d probably even weed out most of the conservative religious women. Sometimes you just have to check out the market and go for the best of the available selection, KWIM? Women are having to do the same, you know. The male population doesn’t exactly express the ideal either.
Well us old married farts know all this, but getting anyone else to listen? That’s always been the trick, right? Cheers & Good Luck, ‘VJ’
Yes, but a really savvy guy can tell when a woman is lying about past promiscuity. I happen to agree with mostly with Cless on this: a woman with too much mileage is simply not committment material (anal in an FWB as just having fun? are you shitting me?)
I know people make mistakes when they’re young, so I’m willing to say that any sexual promiscuity before the age of 25 is largely forigven—you’re young and stupid at that age. But if you’re still in FWBs and giving BJs to “other interested parties” at the age of 27, that’s a completely different story. And you can always tell a girl who’s sexually experienced, even if she’s lied about it. I know, if only because before the age of 25 I had a pretty storied sexual history myself. I know the signs and I’ve had enough experiences with women to trust my gut instincts when it comes to them.
The women Cless is waiting for are rare—but I think they’re worth the wait, even if you never find one. Because the alternative would be to validate the behavior that these women engage in their late 20s and 30s. And I’m not sure that does anyone any good. And let’s not forget, that settling has a higher cost to men…divorce. If you settle with a formerly promiscuous woman who’s ability to pair bond has been compromised I really believe that she is more likely to divorce you, and for a guy that could losing his children, half his assets and being saddled with crippling alimony.
The cost is simply too high for us to settle. Chastity (post-age 25)—or bust.
I agree with you fully, although I’m less forgiving of “youthful” indiscretions. I think that a woman’s ability to pair-bond is damaged by promiscuity at 18 as much as at 28.
Mistakes are one thing. If a woman ends up in a de facto FWB relationship that she thought was a legitimate relationship (e.g. she considered him a boyfriend, he did not reciprocate) that’s not a big deal. Her intentions were good, and a man took advantage of her naivete. Not a huge mark against her. If she actively sought out casual encounters when she was young, that’s a dealbreaker regardless of her age.
What are the signs of a promiscuous woman? How do you tell? I’m not very experienced at all, so I’m afraid by “slut-dar” is probably not as keen as yours. Generally, promiscuous women seem to be manly, stand-off-ish and a bit mean-spirited, but I have no idea if this tell-tale “slut signal” can be masked; I’m sure some women are good at hiding it.
I wouldn’t say manly, stand-off-ish or mean-spirited. The easiest way to tell is how *fast* they are. In other words, a promiscuous woman, if she is attracted to you, will go to bed with you very quickly. She may also drop hints that she *wants* you to bed her very early in the “relationship”. For example, date one (assuming you’re even dating … with a really fast woman this may happen shortly after *meeting* her) may result in a makeout session on the couch which she herself escalates by removing clothing, roving around with her hands and so on, escalating things from making out towards increased passion and sex. The key here is the *timing* — that kind of behavior is not an indicator of promiscuity if it happens later in the relationship — it’s the timing of it that is the issue. A women who is not promiscuous will not escalate like that at a very early stage in the relationship, whereas women who *are* promiscuous will do so if they are attracted to you, because they really want the sex.
It’s good advice but I’d counter the reasoning:
They do it because they have no idea how to relate to men with their clothes on. They think if they don’t put out at breakneck-speed, they’ll be tossed to the curb. They are DBR.
On Novaseekers terms I’m a promiscous woman. I went to bed with a man BEFORE we even dated and that happened after our second meeting in some party.
Now I’ve been in a serious relationship with that same guy for seven years and never cheated on him or anything.
So, everything turnd out well for this promiscous woman and her boy friend…
Number of partners does increase divorce rates, that’s a stastical fact (and it applies as much to men as to women). And sluttish behavior has no excuse. My issue is with the idea of “absolute limits” on number of partners. Just won’t fly. The older she is, the more partners she’ll have. If she’s a virgin at 28, she’s a rarity.
If you were looking at the 21-year-old’s it would be one thing. It’s a whole different story once you get past 25. The relationships (and the damage) just add up over time.
Number of partners does increase divorce rates, that’s a stastical fact (and it applies as much to men as to women).
Can you give me a link for this? I don’t disagree with you– in fact, I agree– but it’d be great to have a peer-reviewed study to this effect that I can throw in the face of the people who say it doesn’t matter.
The older she is, the more partners she’ll have. If she’s a virgin at 28, she’s a rarity.
“Number” is definitely age-graded. For example, 6 is an acceptable number for a 30-year-old woman– it’s plausible that they were all in the context of loving relationships– but not for a 21-year-old.
Here’s a good synopsis of the statistics behind it. If you go to the last page there’s a good overview of studies and books you can read.
Click to access Waiting.to.Marry.08.plenary.pdf
Yep, might as well ‘take on orders’ for the Priesthood. At least that way you’ll likely intercept more of the ‘younger stuff’ before the perdition of the DB/ Alphas circus of degradation & shame. What you’re telling us & the world is that no non virgin adult woman of your age is quite ‘good enough’ for the likes of your sterling characters & dispositions. Which again is fine. They are indeed out there. Get ’em while you can though, eh? After about 26-28? They’re pretty rare. And of course they’ll likely almost never quite fit any of your other criteria either. If this is what’s Most paramount in importance to you in a mate? You’ll have to give up on plenty of the other parameters that might go into a better fitting spouse or a quality LTR of equals. So don’t even bother with the numbers and all the probing ridiculous questions. Just go for the virgins, the ‘near virgins’ or the ‘re-virginized’. The latter category for the ‘fallen’ who have realized their mistakes and have tried to set a new course.
But all this is much mere speculation. No one can tell really how many blokes (or women) you’ve slept with. There’s no visible marks on the soul, no hellish brands secreted away on a deeply hidden part of the anatomy that will tell the tale. You will (hopefully, eventually) have an adult woman before you who you’ll care about, perhaps even deeply, and you’ll be loathe to ask her these highly personal & embarrassing questions. And she, even if she loves you deeply, may never tell.
And BTW? The most innocent & the pure of heart will often seem the most ‘guilty’, even recalling their most minor ‘transgressions’. That can and is often read by others as a ‘sign’ of a ‘sluttish past’, when nothing could be further than the truth. She just might feel inordinately guilty for what little she might have done. So down this wicked path of demanding ‘satisfaction’ and some mythic proof of yes, ‘purity’ nothing good can come. You’ll likely never know it when you’ve got it. Not appreciate it fully when you do & happen question it’s ‘authenticity’ to the severe detriment of your position & relationship then too. Meanwhile the real ‘devious sluts’, can lie their & your asses off and you’d never know it. They might eventually ‘tire’ of the charade, but you’d be far well gone by then.
But no one has such ‘exquisite’ ‘slut-dar’. Those ‘manly, stand-off-ish and a bit mean-spirited’ women? Might be trannys, gay or merely PO’d at the moment. Ask them (or other more comely, gentle lasses) again to repeat their sexual history to you in detail, while you evidently take detailed notes or record them for posterity? (To grade with your detailed ‘system’ later?) They’ll only get more so too. Like I said, perhaps with a ‘Roman collar’ you might just survive all this. People can be awfully forgiving sometimes. Without one? You’ll likely be dead by 30 something. Killed by one of those errant but secretly angry chippies who dares to think that ‘what’s private’ is Hers & Hers alone, and no one needs to know much more about it. Sort of like 60-80% of the population on any given day, actually. Your mileage may vary. But I’m making the conservative case here that You might survive. Reproducing is a bit more iffy, but check back in a few more years yet! Cheers & Good Luck, ‘VJ’
Which is a deal-breaker, and rightly so. Relationship history — yep, all of it — is a critical thing that someone should be willing to share. For people to wish to hide their relationship history is like a job applicant asking to hide their employment history — it’s taking the most relevant information off the table. Of course, you’ll say that “the most relevant information is how the person is behaving in front of you”, but that’s only half-true –> a person has the right, in my opinion, before getting truly deeply emotionally involved with someone, to understand the past, because the past *does* impact the present. Those experiences, those damages and so on impact who the person is today, and individuals have the right to be able to decide how much they want to deal with in the other person. Hiding that information, information which is some of the most relevant information one can know about a potential life partner, is not acceptable. If someone cannot feel comfortable sharing this information, then there is already a well of secrets inside of them, and that well will only grow during the course of the relationship — what else that is “uncomfortable” will she not share after you marry her? The make-out session with her co-worker (after all, it’s not *that* important, right? It’s only kissing, and I’m not going to leave my husband, right? If I told him it would only hurt him…) or that one night-stand with her boss on the business trip (after all, it was only one night, and I would never do it again, and telling my husband would only hurt him …) and so on. If someone feels a need to hide their relationship/sexual history, that is a huge blinking red flag, because they will likely withhold related information in the future as well. Buyer beware.
So I agree with Cless in terms of the history being relevant. That’s a separate issue from the actual *standards*, however — one person may be fine with 4-6 partners by the late 20s, one person may be fine with 30+ partners by then (hey, at least she’s experienced in bed!!!) — that’s a personal issue. But having the right to have standards at all taken away from you by another person’s need for “privacy” about some of the most relevant information concerning themselves is simply not on. Cless is quite right to take the approach he does, and no, it doesn’t mean he will end up celibate.
Sexual history is totally relevant and if she’s not honest about it, toss her. Marriage is serious business and honesty is important. Full disclosure: sexual history, financial status and habits, medical history, etc.
I must say, though, that a lot of relatively chaste women are ashamed of their sexual past (even if it was just one LTR) because their own personal standards are so high. And I’ve met slutty women who give off the impression of being virginal. So, I agree that it’s hard to tell.
I agree fully.
I always tell a girl upfront that I don’t expect her to get into any detail about what happened in LTRs, and that as long as she hasn’t had sex outside of those, I have no problem with her history, as long as the LTRs are tasteful.
I also bring up my history first, so as to indicate that I’m not going to be judgmental of the chaste woman with 1 or 2 LTRs.
Once Again: 1.) You’ll never be able to tell. 2.) They’ll never tell, or more likely will never tell all & conform their answer to your desires. (If they’re still there & care). And 3.) If these are Not the case, and either one of your demands for a ‘purity test’ are properly understood by any woman outside of the context of oh, say some cultures with rigid and much separated sexual roles & largely arranged marriages? You’re likely to be assaulted. Repeatedly. Both verbally and physically. We can only assume that you’ll survive this to slowly learn some lessons. Or not.
Number of sexual partners is perhaps fairly important given certain contexts in many relationships, including marriage. So is ‘relative IQ’ and ‘highest educational achievement’ (College/Uni, Grad/Professional school). The Latter are much easier to discern and reasonably easily discovered, and have as much or more bearing on any real issue that might concern you in a potential mate. Why not start there and slowly work up to the various ‘purity requirements’ that you seem to be obsessed about? It can only tell you Part of the story, even if you get that story.
But gents, your obsessions here are very telling, certainly highly unusual in & for older women, and thus are very unlikely to be even moderately fulfilled the way you state them. In short, this really amounts to a self imposed sentence of a lifetime of singledom. Whether you recognize this or not. Stick with the proud & clear virgins if this is what’s of paramount importance to you. Then put a divorce lawyer on retainer, as you’ll need them when you then go on to still stupidly question even your ‘chaste’ wife on ALL of her suspicious sexual history prior to marriage. Then consider perhaps seriously consider moving to Saudi Arabia where they might understand such ‘natural’ obsessions with a woman’s absolute ‘purity’ a bit better. You’ll likely need to convert too. Sorry!
Cheers, ‘VJ’
A very silly perspective, in my opinion.
I knew my ex-wife’s entire sexual history before we were married — and, no, it wasn’t “made up”, and no, she wasn’t “offended” at all — in fact she wanted to know mine as well. This is baseline information. Then again, I grew up as a Roman Catholic — perhaps that has something to do with it.
My girlfriend and I also have shared our sexual/relationship histories with each other — of course the list is longer, but that’s to be expected, as we are older. The issue of “don’t bother with the list because the person is older” is dumb as nails, in my view. If anything the list is *more* important as the person is older because you are trying to assess what has been the “driver” behind their relationship history.
Let’s just stick to logic & systems theory here, OK? The longer the list & the history? The more chance for errors, forgetting, misstatement & misattribution. How important is that? Well you tell me. One missing prick? Might be very important indeed. Might be that wild Bi boy/crazy dude she saw ‘back then’ and who’s given her something special. Either physically or psychologically. (Just to use a random example). But even beyond financial history or even medical history, this is the one category of self & personal history that’s held the closest, the most often lied about & over, and the area in which self delusion most often comes into play.
As far as ‘baseline’ information? I think you’d be utterly surprised to know and realize how deeply deception plays a profound role in human & even animal & yes, plant reproduction. And there really is little you can do to prevent it or even to accurately ‘detect’ it in ‘real time’, other than simply ‘trusting’ in what you’ve been told. Cheers, ‘VJ’
I do think it’s legitimate to be concerned about whether the person you are with has been promiscuous. There are both physical and emotional consequences, and they are relevant when considering an LTR. If you know the person you are interested in has a high number, it makes sense to get to the bottom of that, if you can. Most women are anxious to avoid racking up a pile of conquests, as they fully understand that is compromises their market value.
One’s sexual history is very important. It’s not difficult to deceive someone, but I do believe those choices will come home to roost eventually.