Do you have a type?

15 Dec

In the last post’s comments, the subject of “having a ‘type'” came up, with the dual assertions that (a) men don’t stick to “types” because they find many types of women attractive, and (b) women DO stick to “types” and refuse to date anyone outside of the parameters of the favored type.  Of course, these assertions were from men.

Based on my observation, I think men are more likely to marry their type, but women are more likely to date their type.  This is because men can grow a woman’s interest, whereas women are pretty much stuck with the yay-or-nay of a man’s first impression.  So, while a woman will hold out during her dating years for her ideal, a non-ideal man could slip in and start flirting with her until she decides he’s cute enough to marry.  Men, on the other hand, will only target the women who interest them, and for many men – NOT ALL; do you hear me, INLTs? – this means a type.  (See:  Bruce Willis – his current wife is a total Demi clone.  Or Rod Stewart’s wives:  all interchangeable blonde models.  Or the Sister Wives guy:  his wives are all, um, plump Caucasians.  Okay, I’m sure there’s a better example out there….)

Before the comments get rolling, I think it’s worth defining what a “type” is.  I have always thought of it as more of a suite of physical characteristics along with some personality traits, e.g., “tall, smart, athletic.”  I’ve gotten the impression, though, that men in the manosphere define “type” as the woman’s 463-bullet point checklist, which includes job, salary, car make and model, hairstylist, and feelings about soy.  Most women are not that picky.  If you’re running into this kind of woman, who will advertise this list to all those around her, you’re probably in a bar or on a college campus, and the woman is either quite young or divorced and bitter against her ex-husband.

It’s also worth repeating that “type” is an ideal and often is just what knee-jerks attraction, not what sustains it.  I prefer men with full heads of hair, for example, but a full head of hair is not what’s going to love me when I’m old and shriveled.

Advertisements

44 Responses to “Do you have a type?”

  1. Toz December 15, 2010 at 8:21 am #

    Most women are not that picky
    They are when they’re younger, then they get less picky as they grow older.

    Men vary quite a bit. Usually their pickiness is some formula that goes like this:

    ( how attractive he is to women ) / ( how horny he is ) = ( how picky he is )

    So theoretically, the pickiest man is the one that’s attractive to a lot of women, but has a very low sex drive.

    Women’s formula goes something like:

    ( how attractive she is to men ) = ( how picky she is )

    Roissy wrote a post on how what a woman says she wants has nothing to do with what she actually wants. I’d say that’s pretty accurate.

  2. Badger Nation December 15, 2010 at 9:34 am #

    I predict this thread will not end well.

    We will probably devolve into an intractable debate about the definition of a “type,” and trading anecdotes about women who married a man against their “type” and whether that was caused by maturity, desperation/settling or some other motivation like the guy was too good to quit. Bitter betatude will rage across the comments. Hamsters will run their wheels off their bearings.

    In the name of kicking that off, I’ll re-assert that in my experience, almost every single time I hear a woman talk about “type,” she is talking not about physical attraction or social dominance but about social factors – a man’s job, his lifestyle/income, how he compares to her friends’ boyfriends, how he compares to some former boyfriend or idealized mate, what she can brag about to the family. Basically how he lines up on a resume and thus how he pads hers.

    Most women are not that picky.

    Sometimes Haley reveals a keen sense of social dynamics, and other times she shows a unbelievable lack of clue.

    Again, we have to do the fortune-cookie add-on process and augment any statement about the preferences of women with a critical modifying clause:

    Most women are not that picky – as long as the guy makes her tingle.

  3. AM December 15, 2010 at 9:42 am #

    ehh I would contest your statement that a woman can become attracted to a man over time, while men are either instantly attracted or turned off by women

    women are quick to place men they’re not immediately attracted to in the “friend zone”… and i think it’s common knowledge how difficult it is for men to escape that

    meanwhile, I’ve found quite often it’s actually the man who develops feelings for the girl in relationships that began platonically. I’ve experienced this myself. If the girl is feminine and has a lot of desirable qualities, she starts looking better and better, even if I hadn’t considered her that way before

    Of course, your point of view does hold up once we establish that to most women like you, 90% of men are invisible when it comes to seeking someone desirable. If we only take the remaining 10% then, of which only a small number are immediately put into the “friend zone”, then yes we’ll often see the attraction grow over time (provided he doesn’t do anything beta to kick her hypergamy into gear)

  4. Badger Nation December 15, 2010 at 9:45 am #

    “Most women are not that picky”

    Haley does have a point here, though – a lot of the checklists are rationalized farces caused by what I call “choice addiction” in a slightly different sense than Dalrock uses it.

    When someone has a lot of options, they tend to get into a micromanaging mode of thinking where they constantly hunt for the next better option. To take it out of the dating arena, think of something like a menu. With lots of options, plus substitutions to those options, one tends to go over the whole menu with a fine tooth comb, looking for that exact combination that makes you say “OOH! That’s what I REALLY want!” It’s hard to notice the cheesesteak and say “I’ll have that” without taking stock, and maybe tasting (there’s a metaphor for you) a bunch of the choices.

    Whereas if you simply have a limited slate of options and you could take it or leave it, you find a way to live with the imperfections of what’s available.

    Young middle-upper class women have been raised with the idea they can have it all, so they try to. It is only recently women have tried to warn their younger compatriots that choice addiction (picky-six) can ruin your life.

    Think Meg Ryan’s ordering schemes in When Harry Met Sally. And the Natalie Keener checklisting scene in Up In The Air (can’t find the clip, but she’s gotta have a man who drives a jeep, has a dog, is a certain height range etc).

    (On an unrelated note, it is worth noticing that Natalie shames George Clooney’s character into wanting a “commitment” with his layover lover Alex, which backfires when he shows up at her house and finds her there with her family and no desire for “commitment” to him.)

  5. Julie December 15, 2010 at 10:59 am #

    The reason I had a long list was mostly because, with every relationship failure, I learned…and learned. So my list had a lot of things on it about him needing to be emotionally healthy, not moody, empathic, etc.

    I’d say that when I was younger, in retrospect, when I said “type”, it was all about him being an alpha. As I got older, it was about him being attractive, but also being able to relate on a deep level to him emotionally and spiritually.

  6. cathydinas December 15, 2010 at 12:15 pm #

    I think “type” is a comment characteristic that or pattern in the people you find attractive. Just because you have a solid list doesn’t mean you’ve dated that person. My type is tall (at least 5’11+, slim to medium build and great teeth. That is been the common link (physical only) to the men I’ve found attractive.

  7. Thag Jones December 15, 2010 at 2:15 pm #

    I think the concept missing here is the deal breaker. Rather than endless lists of this or that attribute that, when put together, form a non-existent mutant, it’s probably a good idea to focus on absolute deal breakers, because we all have them and it’s not unreasonable to have them.

    It may seem petty to someone else (say, you can’t stand lip smacking at the dinner table), but if something is important to you then it is, so long as you don’t mind narrowing the pool with each deal breaker. Those things you might find mildly annoying in a date will suddenly become unbearable once you’re married.

  8. CAB December 15, 2010 at 3:53 pm #

    meanwhile, I’ve found quite often it’s actually the man who develops feelings for the girl in relationships that began platonically. I’ve experienced this myself. If the girl is feminine and has a lot of desirable qualities, she starts looking better and better, even if I hadn’t considered her that way before

    Yeah, this definitely happens. I think my “standards” have gone up as I’ve gotten older (in particular since I finished school and started making pretty good money), but I’ve definitely fallen for girls who were just friends at first, had the dopamine wear off due to time / it not working out, and thought, “Huh, I’m really surprised I fell for her; looks-wise, I could do better. Maybe a lot better.”

    But guys are definitely able to become quite attracted by a girl’s non-physical traits… which can work out really well if she’s kinda cute (e.g., guy thinks he should be aiming for 7s but still finds 6s attractive, and she’s a 6), or just get really awkward if she isn’t (i.e., he cares about her, but really doesn’t want to see her naked).

  9. Badger Nation December 15, 2010 at 4:37 pm #

    “But guys are definitely able to become quite attracted by a girl’s non-physical traits”

    Yes. While guys are definitely programmed for looks, the “guys only care what a girl looks like” is something of a myth, a lot of it propagated by the looks-heavy wings of the game/PUA community. In fairness to the PUAs, it’s usually an attempt to de-program both men and women from the “a guy should love me for what’s on the inside, so it shouldn’t matter if I get fat and fugly” line of thinking.

  10. Aunt Haley December 15, 2010 at 6:51 pm #

    Badger–
    I predict this thread will not end well.

    And that makes this thread different from the others how, exactly? ;)

    Thag–
    It may seem petty to someone else (say, you can’t stand lip smacking at the dinner table), but if something is important to you then it is, so long as you don’t mind narrowing the pool with each deal breaker.

    Making any sort of smacking noise while eating is a deal-breaker for me. I shouldn’t be able to hear you chewing when I’m in another room. Heavy nose-breathing is another huge turnoff.

    CAB–
    I’ve definitely fallen for girls who were just friends at first, had the dopamine wear off due to time / it not working out, and thought, “Huh, I’m really surprised I fell for her; looks-wise, I could do better. Maybe a lot better.”

    Well, that can happen to women, too. I think this is the source of a lot of seven-year-itches. The dopamine wears off and people start thinking, “Gee, I really could have done better and can still do better. Maybe marrying for ‘love’ wasn’t the best idea….”

    which can work out really well if she’s kinda cute (e.g., guy thinks he should be aiming for 7s but still finds 6s attractive, and she’s a 6), or just get really awkward if she isn’t (i.e., he cares about her, but really doesn’t want to see her naked).

    Men in the latter situation should probably just eject from the friendship, because ten bucks says the woman is secretly in love with him by that point and is on course for a heart-crushing disappointment.

  11. Lover of Wisdom December 15, 2010 at 8:29 pm #

    Haley—

    “Making any sort of smacking noise while eating is a deal-breaker for me. I shouldn’t be able to hear you chewing when I’m in another room. Heavy nose-breathing is another huge turnoff.”

    I have a Chinese colleague in my department who is female and makes the worst smacking noise when she eats. What makes things worse is that she will sometimes come into my office to talk while she eats her lunch. Gross!

  12. CAB December 15, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    Haley, agreed on both counts. It’s too bad that most people’s definition of “love” is essentially a naturally-produced high, and once that’s gone, it’s time to find it again!

  13. Aunt Haley December 15, 2010 at 9:35 pm #

    Lover of Wisdom–
    I have a Chinese colleague in my department who is female and makes the worst smacking noise when she eats.

    It’s bad in both sexes, but especially so in women. Ugh.

  14. ExNewYorker December 15, 2010 at 10:54 pm #

    I think Badger Nation put it best:

    “Again, we have to do the fortune-cookie add-on process and augment any statement about the preferences of women with a critical modifying clause:

    Most women are not that picky – as long as the guy makes her tingle.”

    The men our hostess shows as examples of marrying their type happen to be the 20% minority of men who have “options”. Of course they’ll marry their type, they have the option to do so!

    I mean, my type was Maria Sharapova, but it was highly unlikely that would come to pass…

    For a majority of guys, we think we have “our type”, but the reality is that when a cute girl outside “our type” comes along, it’s not that unusual to switch our attraction to “our new type”. Read Mansfield Park for a good example of this “type switching”.

    Women, on the other hand, seem to be much more attached to their “type”. If it weren’t the case, the “bad boy” attraction would just be a myth. Though as Toz mentions, this does seem to become a little less so as women get older (but it’s an unwelcome realization for them that is akin to pulling teeth). And even then, 5 minutes of alpha is better than 5 years of beta…

  15. y81 December 16, 2010 at 7:58 am #

    “women are pretty much stuck with the yay-or-nay of a man’s first impression”

    That’s certainly not the way I was when I was single, and I don’t think I’m unusual. Only a small percentage of the women I met went into the “definite no” category, leaving 90% who might be candidates for a romantic relationship, if (i) they manifested some IOI, (ii) the timing was right (like I didn’t have some other consuming interest, romantic or otherwise), and (iii) some deal breaker didn’t develop in the early stages. So I ended up marrying a girl I had known rather distantly for several years before we started dating. I am certainly not the only one of my friends of whom that is true.

    Though the cynic would note that when I first met my wife, she was very thin, close to her modeling weight, but then she gained about ten pounds, which made her breasts much bigger, which made her more my “type.” :)

  16. Julie December 16, 2010 at 8:39 am #

    I would just like to say something about women being drawn to alphas.

    It is definitely true, and hard on betas. However, it is also hard on women, especially because you end up in a situation where the men who are most attractive are the worst for LTRs. It’s awful to feel passionate attraction to a minority of men–I don’t know many women who wouldn’t get in there and change whatever DNA that causes this. I’m sure it probably evolved back when being with anyone other than an alpha was extremely physically dangerous.

    Women are not like this in order to hurt men.

  17. Hope December 16, 2010 at 10:18 am #

    My type has always been nerdy, geeky, highly intelligent, computer-literate, emotionally open and non-conventional guys. Most of my boyfriends have been STEM majors, video gamers, and started out as friends. My husband is no exception to this type, although he is probably the best example of an awesome nerd.

    People have told me that I’m a weird exception to the rule, but I have honestly never dated nor even had crushes on the typical athletes or frat boys. It really is a hardwired response, because I feel turned off rather than attracted to that type. Incidentally, if we’re talking percentages, I’m probably attracted to a smaller overall percent of the population than 20%. Smart, nerdy guys just happen to be over-represented online.

  18. The Man Who Was . . . December 16, 2010 at 10:57 am #

    1. An attractive enough (non-Christian) man can often overwhelm a woman with how sexy he is, get her into bed and get her attached whether or not he is specifically her type.

    2. However, a man who isn’t trying to get a woman into bed before marriage will have to meet a lot more of a woman’s criteria before marrying her.

    Men have preferences too and a girl being your type will definitely be an incentive to actually risk being rejected by her. So, as first choosers, men will usually end up with something like their type no matter what.

  19. y81 December 16, 2010 at 12:24 pm #

    “Men have preferences too and a girl being your type will definitely be an incentive to actually risk being rejected by her. So, as first choosers, men will usually end up with something like their type no matter what.”

    This can cut both ways. Being strongly attracted to someone can make you act needy and desperate. I was often more successful with girls for whom I didn’t have strong feelings initially.

  20. jen December 16, 2010 at 4:54 pm #

    I’m with Julie about alphas. I have experienced attraction to a guy I KNOW isn’t good for a LTR. It really is almost impossible to resist. Even tho the logic is right in front of your eyes. And it isnt a conscious thing at all. In fact, for me, when it was going on, I had a terrible time dealing with it.
    But we were talking about types-by which I assumed “physical type” was meant. For me it was always a tallish darkhaired quiet guy. NOT the guy everygirl would look at when he walked into a room. But a guy with a bit of a boil UNDER the surface. I did date quite a few of those kinds of guys. Married a, funny, outgoing blond in the end….. go figure

  21. Aunt Haley December 16, 2010 at 6:50 pm #

    Julie–
    Women are not like this in order to hurt men.

    So true.

    Man Who Was–
    So, as first choosers, men will usually end up with something like their type no matter what.

    If a man has five traits that he likes in a woman, he may marry a woman with only four of them and be perfectly happy, but he probably won’t marry a woman with only one. A man who likes tall, slender blondes may marry a tall, slender brunette or a short, slender blonde, but he will not be nearly as likely to marry a short, plump brunette.

  22. jack December 16, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    “It is definitely true, and hard on betas. However, it is also hard on women, especially because you end up in a situation where the men who are most attractive are the worst for LTRs.”

    This is not that different than women who are only attracted to ice cream, cookies, and nights in front of the TV set.

    It is all about sensuality. The sensuality of eating fattening foods, and the sensuality of mindless entertainment.

    “It’s awful to feel passionate attraction to a minority of men–I don’t know many women who wouldn’t get in there and change whatever DNA that causes this.”

    Don’t worry, it is the same for guys – only about 10% of women really give us an intense carnal reaction.

    Consider the overeating girl again. Should we just give up on that as well and lament that the poor girl is just wired to want to eat cupcakes? Or do we say that people have a responsibility to eat right and get some exercise?

    I think that you want to place the responsibility for this on “genetics”, thus eliminating any need for women to mature and realize that they better be a female alpha in order to get a male alpha.

    Personally, I think that the reason American women are so hung up on getting an alpha is that they get all their cues from movies and TV, and inter-female competition to have the most envy-inducing man available.

    “I’m sure it probably evolved back when being with anyone other than an alpha was extremely physically dangerous.”

    Rationalization. Once again, you are desiring to rid yourself of responsibility to exercise self-control and maturity. “The genes made me do it!”

    We have bred a couple generations of women to think they are so strong and empowered, but in effect are weaker than nearly all women of previous generations.

    Weak because they have DECIDED to become helpless slaves to their cravings and lusts.

    I could never risk marrying a woman who used a rationalization like that. If she can blame “nature” for her alpha-chasing, then she can use “nature” to explain why she cheated on me as well. Too risky.

    The problem is not some “gene” that was conditioned. The problem is original sin, and prideful self-centered women who were not properly taught by their mothers and grandmothers about the reality of dating, marriage, Godliness and honor.

    That is why a smart guy will never marry a high-number girl.

  23. Julie December 16, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    Jack, I DO think women have a responsibility to grow up and mature and not just follow their emotions.

    But I also think there are deep unconscious biological underpinnings to our attractions. It is helpful to understand these as we navigate the relationship scene. Like you said, people aren’t taught much anymore by previous generations, and many of the Baby Boomers taught and modeled terrible lessons.

    People CAN make wiser choices, but it is not easy to manufacture passion where there is none, or chemistry when there is little. Women can decide to value other things more, but that’s hard in a society that equates love and passion.

  24. Brendan December 17, 2010 at 7:08 am #

    I would just like to say something about women being drawn to alphas.

    It is definitely true, and hard on betas. However, it is also hard on women, especially because you end up in a situation where the men who are most attractive are the worst for LTRs. It’s awful to feel passionate attraction to a minority of men–I don’t know many women who wouldn’t get in there and change whatever DNA that causes this. I’m sure it probably evolved back when being with anyone other than an alpha was extremely physically dangerous.

    Women are not like this in order to hurt men.

    Yes, of course, we know that. This is why I have pointed out numerous times to men, especially younger men, that it is pointless to dislike women as a group because of their natural attraction vectors. It’s just how women are set up to be attracted — to a minority of men.

    In the current structure, you can either try to be one of that minority through self-improvement and deploying Game to some degree, or you can try to “get lucky” or you can sit things out. All are respectable approaches, from my perspective, for individual men. But changing women isn’t going to happen under the current setup.

    People CAN make wiser choices, but it is not easy to manufacture passion where there is none, or chemistry when there is little. Women can decide to value other things more, but that’s hard in a society that equates love and passion.

    This is true, but it’s also why “hard monogamy” (i.e., the social taboo against extra-marital sex and the strong social encouragement of marriage and discouragement of divorce and adultery) was a better system than the current one. Hard monogamy is definitely *hard* on women in terms of their attractions. Women (for the most part, outliers aside) are naturally attracted to a relatively small minority of men. They cannot. however, all have those men in monogamous relationships. The options, therefore, are (1) “de jure”/hard polygyny, where women “share” sexual access *and* support of a small minority of men (presumably the most dominant of the males), (2) “hard” monogamy, where men and women are paired together in lifetime bonds based roughly on their relative sex and other rank and (3) “de facto”/soft polygyny, where women share sexual access to a small minority of men, either by means of serial monogamous bonds that are easily dissolved or outside such bonds.

    Models (1) and (2) have coexisted in many societies around the world for some time — that is, the wealthiest, most dominant men have polygynous situations while the rest of the society is characterized by hard(ish) monogamy, and, of course, some men go without completely due to the existence of the polygyny (and historically it was probably hoped that the number of such men would be limited due to war and disease and so on).

    Model (3) is what we have today, where relationships are fluid and indeterminate, and based largely on desire/passion/chemistry on the part of men and women alike. When that happens, because most women’s desire/chemistry/passion is naturally focused on a minority of men, the relationship system breaks down for the *rest* of the men to whom women are much less naturally attracted. The combination of models (1) and (2) solves this by having hard monogamy be an element. But our current model doesn’t feature this, which is why commentator Robert Wright (no men’s rights guru he) has termed our current arrangements “soft monogamy/de facto polygyny”.

    It’s not really a stable system, I think, over the long term, because it is set up based on a disequilibrium — basing a system on human desire/passion/chemistry when the desires of one sex are so limited vis-a-vis the other creates significant problems of stability over the medium to long term.

    In this way, the social “architecture” of male/female relationships is kind of zero-sum, or at least has significant zero-sum aspects to it. A system based on “love conquering marriage” (as put by some feminist commentators), which is largely based on female desire, is very suboptimal for men, because that desire is tightly focused on a minority of men. A system based on “hard monogamy pairing people on rough parity of rank” is suboptimal for women because it means many women are paired with rough rank peers for whom they have little to no attraction/desire/passion because they fall outside the minority of men to whom most women feel such desire. What has happened in the last 50 years or so is that the model has shifted from one that was balanced in favor of the interests of men to one that is balanced in favor of the interests of women, generally speaking. That doesn’t mean that all women are happy with the current system, but it does mean that the current system gives more power, weight, and force to female desire than the previous one, despite how narrow that can be, and despite the results of that.

    The broader question is “what is the best system for society and for children”? Unfortunately I don’t think it’s possible to come to an unbiased conclusion about that, because men and women have a huge conflict of interest about answering that question. However, I do think it’s important for men to understand that women’s desires are what they are — they aren’t subject to much change. What matters are the social structures around relationships and how they intersect with that — the social structures are subject to being changed, as they have done in the past 50 years or so. As for now, though, it’s set up for the benefit of female desire, and men who can capitalize on that structure somehow (e.g., Roissy and his equivalents in the various sub-markets of women — that is the nerdy equivalent of Roissy, the jock equivalent of Roissy and so on, the equivalents of milking the current system in a way that is contextually effective in the various submarkets of female desire).

  25. jack December 17, 2010 at 7:21 am #

    “But I also think there are deep unconscious biological underpinnings to our attractions.”

    Maybe.

    Maybe it is just appetite.

    When girls get approached by a non-alpha. they would do well to remember that Mr. Beta would also to prefer to have a stunningly attractive, deeply feminine woman with a perfect body and an angelic face.

    So when Mr. Beta approaches an average girl, that means he has already accepted his realistic value.

    Then, to have Average Girl treat him as an unworthy suitor because of her “genetic need” for a higher status guy?

    We have raised a couple generations of American women who are so poisoned by the princess fairy-tale story complex that they likely would not have made good wives even if they had tried to grow out of it.

    Once poisoned, they continue to be toxic forever. Like I have said over on Boundless, we these generations are going to be like the Isralites, we are going to perish in the desert, and not enter the promised land of marriage and family (many of us, anyway).

    A later generation will hopefully learn from the corrupt hyper-sexualized, hyper-romanticized lunatics we have now and decide to rebel against that.

    In the meantime, the few remaining good men are likely to feel as I do, and remain stubbornly out of the marriage market.

    But every time I hear some woman moaning about how she cannot find a man, my heart leaps with joy.

    The tears of a former alpha-chaser who winds up lonely is a beautiful thing.

  26. jack December 17, 2010 at 7:43 am #

    Brendan-

    Good points, but I feel that you should include the optimal/suboptimal analysis adjusting for age.

    The soft polygyny is optimal only to the degree that ta woman is young and/or attractive herself.

    It is very suboptimal for young men unless they are in the upper 20% or so.

    After a woman “hits the wall” in Roissy-speak, her ability to attract nearly any man is greatly diminished.

    At that point, and I can attest from personal experience, they lower their standards substantially.

    The current system is definitely a good deal for older men who want to party like they never could in college.

    As a 40-something, I have options that I never dreamed of. My Christian faith, unfortunately, keeps me from test driving women left and right. But I could. Yes, they are older and not nearly as attractive, but variety can make up for a few wrinkles and a little bit more weight gain.

    Anyway, the strict marital bonds were a Godsend for the older wrinkled woman with no beauty left to offer.

    Over time, most women will lose all sexual appeal. The reason God or Darwin (whichever you prefer) gave women youth and beauty was for them to obtain investment from a man. Properly chosen, this man would see them through ’til death do us part.

    Men CAN rise in value over time, I.e. old guys with trophy wives. Shallow, yes, but possible. Other than Demi Moore, how many old women have we seen with young guys in a committed relationship?

    So I would take a different view than you, in that I think strict monogamy gives both sexes the best TOTAL deal.

    The man gets a reasonably attractive girl when young, and thus can spend his time being productive and creating wealth, rather than desperately chasing girls and failing, or giving up and figuring that there is no hope, retreating to the Xbox in the basement.

    The girls have to give up their peak sexual power (which they would have only abused foolishly anyway), but they get a lifetime investment from the kind of man who will protect, provide and be an engaged father.

    Strict monogamy works like a trust fund with a higher age limit.

    It gets foolish, hormonally challenged young people past the years where they can do the most damage to their futures.

    After they mature and endure some hardships together, and after they realize that life is not a novel or movie with them in the lead role, they begin to see, admire, and VALUE the oh-so-average person that monogamy “forced” them to marry.

    Go watch “When Harry Met Sally” and see the interviews with all the old couples. Note how happy they seem.

    Alpha-chasers, those women were not.

  27. Brendan December 17, 2010 at 8:09 am #

    That’s true enough, Jack. I think my model works when discussing behaviors at the “prime mating age”, when market values are highest. It’s true that this changes over the course of a lifetime as one’s sex and relationship rank changes, and one adjusts (or not).

    Personally I agree that hardish monogamy as a social convention is more beneficial overall to society. However, I’m not certain that I would agree with that if I were a young woman in the prime mating age, however.

  28. Julie December 17, 2010 at 8:31 am #

    Brendan, you certainly explained that well–it’s pretty depressing stuff. How much hope do you have that people will start to make better decisions at earlier ages now that all of this is being talked about more? And now that we can see the fallout from delayed marriage, single motherhood and divorce more clearly?

  29. Brendan December 17, 2010 at 9:55 am #

    Julie —

    Unfortunately I think we have a long way to go, still. Current trends show marriage retreating in the broad demographic pretty substantially (that is, outside of the college educated who make up around 20% of the population of the US), which is what you’d expect from the de facto polygyny system, eventually. The trends are accelerating and not reversing at this point, really.

    I would expect that that pendulum will swing back at some point, certainly. I don’t expect that to be in the foreseeable future, however, as it seems we haven’t swung fully out to one side, yet. And when the pendulum does begin to swing back, there will upheavals around that, just as there were in the 60s/70s when the pendulum began to swing in earnest in the direction it is still heading.

  30. Julie December 17, 2010 at 10:00 am #

    At least those of us who are parents, or work with youth, can give better advice if we’re more aware of how things are nowadays.

  31. Aunt Haley December 17, 2010 at 1:43 pm #

    jack–
    Go watch “When Harry Met Sally” and see the interviews with all the old couples. Note how happy they seem.

    You know that those scenes are scripted and played by actors, right?

  32. Racer X December 17, 2010 at 2:20 pm #

    Yes, I have a type: at least moderately attractive, feminine, intelligent, down to earth, and loves sex. Long hair and a lovely GNP are nice too, but not essential. Other than that I am fairly flexible.

  33. Thag Jones December 17, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    GNP? I’m pretty sure you don’t mean gross national product, so I’m stumped.

  34. Badger Nation December 17, 2010 at 2:39 pm #

    Maybe he’s talking about seducing female heads of state?

  35. jack December 17, 2010 at 5:25 pm #

    “You know that those scenes are scripted and played by actors, right?”

    Finally speaking to me again? That’s good, I almost had to fork over $3/min to a phone-sex operator to tell me that I was bitter and that’s why women will avoid me forever. The lengths I must go to.

    Anyway, wrt to the old folks, sure they’re actors, but they accurately represent the attitude of that generation; how many old couples have you met like that that? I have known plenty.

    That was what I wanted – a relationship where I was CHOOSING to be with someone forever. The decision to “never forsake”, to use biblical terms. This type of relationship requires one to marry sooner rather than later, and with a minimum of baggage.

    You can tell from the way these old people stay together that they toughed it through the hard times and it built character. These were not people who ran off and divorced just because they were not feeling it anymore.

    They just don’t make them like that anymore. There is greater honor and satisfaction in being one who runs the race, endures to the end, and fulfills the vow they made.

  36. rob December 17, 2010 at 8:38 pm #

    GNP? I’m pretty sure you don’t mean gross national product, so I’m stumped.

    Well, someone will say it eventually. GNP means glorious natural pelt. The default grooming of the lower ladyparts.

    I cannot believe I de-lurked to say that.

  37. nothingbutthetruth December 18, 2010 at 5:15 am #

    Jack, come to the Third World, where I live. There are plenty of women whose objective is to get married and have a traditional family. They are good wives and mothers.

    They are used to the local men, who treat them like dirt, so when they find an American man who treat them with respect, they are grateful and don’t let him go.

    Moreover, an American man with some skills can have a much better lifestyle here than in America. I earn a salary three times bigger than the one I earned in America and life is much cheaper here.

    The solution for men who want a traditional wife and family is simply a plane ticket. Let the American women chase the uber-alphas. They won’t miss you and, when you know real women, you won’t miss them either. So everybody ends up happier.

  38. knepper December 18, 2010 at 6:34 am #

    It’s a tempting offer, NothingBut. But that means abandoning the American woman to her fate, rather than fighting the good fight. I know many will say she deserves it. But the enemy here is not women, but an evil philosophy called feminism (a branch of a larger evil philosophy variously called liberalism, humanism, marxism, etc.) Both women and manginas are held captive by it. I would like to believe that there is hope for American women, and that many of them are beginning to see the destruction and the solution. I was born in this country and I’m not willing to see her go down without a fight. And it is a life-or-death struggle, as far as I’m concerned.

  39. Thag Jones December 18, 2010 at 6:35 am #

    Rob, lol. OK, thanks. Time for a 70s bush revival?

  40. y81 December 18, 2010 at 8:14 am #

    GNP, huh. New one on me (the phrase, not the thing). I am guessing that our hostess will not add that to her glossary.

    BTW, I think Haley is a little harsh with Jack. People, including Haley, often cite movies as examples of what they claim are real social phenomena. I don’t recall anyone pointing out that the scenes in “How I Met Your Mother” are scripted and therefore prove nothing about how WOW enthusiasm is a severe DLV.

  41. jack December 18, 2010 at 10:59 am #

    Haley has never treated me the same since I accused most Christian girls of wanting Jesus in Brad Pitt’s body.

    (It may not be true in her case, but it is a definite affliction of a majority of Christian gals.)

    It’s either that or my constant whining about a lack of virgins. Guilty – I have been ringing the virgin deficit bell a bit much lately, so I will tone it down a bit.

  42. Aunt Haley December 19, 2010 at 8:45 pm #

    rob–
    I cannot believe I de-lurked to say that.

    Believe it, sir!

    nothingbutthetruth–
    The solution for men who want a traditional wife and family is simply a plane ticket.

    Yes, but for most men, leaving their homeland (and families, culture, job, standard of living, and everything else they know) just to find an “agreeable” wife is not a reasonable proposition. Don’t hate on the men who stay.

    y81–
    People, including Haley, often cite movies as examples of what they claim are real social phenomena. I don’t recall anyone pointing out that the scenes in “How I Met Your Mother” are scripted and therefore prove nothing about how WOW enthusiasm is a severe DLV.

    I used HIMYM to illustrate my point (that WoW enthusiasm is a DLV), NOT to prove that WoW enthusiasm is a DLV, i.e., WoW enthusiasm is not a DLV because HIMYM said it was, but rather that HIMYM provided a summary of my thoughts and observations of that issue. jack, on the other hand, appeared to be using When Harry Met Sally as evidence to prove his point.

  43. detinennui32 April 9, 2011 at 10:00 am #

    Type is important for attraction. But it’s not enough. I dated three girls who were exactly my physical “type” – pleasantly plump, generously proportioned breasts, and nice hourglass figures. The first latched onto my former betaness and said “no thanks”. At the time I had no clue why. Thought I was doing everything right – sucking up to her, asking her what she wanted, deferring to her on everything, pedestalization, telling her “but I LOOOOOVE YOOOOOUU”. Now you know, friend.

    The second was a Roissy nightmare. Flaky. Endless testing. Entitled, self-absorbed, selfish, it’s-all-about-me princess. Rationalizing. Special little snowflake. When I broke up with her after 4 years (!) she was stunned. No one had ever dumped her. She had always done the dumping.

    The third lapped up all the pedestalization. But, her issues reared their heads. Body image issues (read: weight problem) and inability or unwillingness to face it. No friends from wayback. Clingy. Needy. Paranoid. Sibling issues. I didn’t know it, but had a big hamster, working overtime.

    So type gets you in the door, but doesn’t keep you there. And ladies, handle or at least be working on and addressing your issues if you have any. If you need help, get it. I’m your boyfriend/husband. I’m not your therapist.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Linkage is Good for You: Come for the Cheesecake, Stay for the Prime Steak Edition - December 19, 2010

    […] Aunt Haley – “Do You Have a Type?” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s