Nobody knows what dating is anymore.

5 Jan

Happy new year, everyone!

It occurred to me recently (and earlier) that one of the (many) big problems in dating is that no one knows what dating is anymore.  No one knows what it means.

Dating used to mean a man and a woman going out to a restaurant or some other activity to get to know each other and to foster romance.  Now it means…whatever the person thinks it means.

In Christian circles, dating can mean anything from formal courting to hook-ups (and hook-ups can mean anything from kissing to sex).  In non-Christian circles, some people think it’s not dating unless sex is involved, and anything else is being “Just Friends.”  With no clearly defined meaning of dating, it’s no wonder that everyone is confused.  If you see a guy and a girl spending a lot of one-on-one time together, I could think they’re dating but someone else could think they’re just friends.  If someone asked YOU if you were dating someone, you could answer one way, and the other person could get a completely different idea of what you mean, all because the two of you are coming from completely different points of view as to what dating actually is.

How are we supposed to have any meaningful dialogue about dating when no one knows or can agree on what it means?  Meanwhile, those of us who are still trying to date just get more and more confused….

68 Responses to “Nobody knows what dating is anymore.”

  1. redpillsetmefree January 6, 2014 at 5:05 am #

    There’s no point to dating any more.

    The old rules don’t apply, so you can’t expect the old system to.

  2. deti January 6, 2014 at 7:12 am #

    What I think is most telling about the “no one knows what dating is now” is that these sentiments are expressed on a Christian blog. There’s almost no difference at all now between Christians and everyone else on these matters.

    “Christian” notions of intergender relationships, dating, sex, marriage and divorce closely mirror the ambient culture. Most single women professing Christ will cop to having had sex. Whether single, married or divorced, most Christian women’s attitudes toward sex, marriage and divorce are thoroughly infused with modern feminism, and reflect pretty much what the culture does. The single woman expects Prince Charming – rich, successful, handsome, dashing, daring, devout, and sensitive. Marriage is hedonic, and exists to provide happiness, wealth, and mind-blowing sex all the time. Divorce is readily available to anyone who wants it for any reason. Political and moral stances on abortion are pretty much the only thing that separates Christian women from nonChristian women.

  3. Chris Dagostino January 6, 2014 at 8:05 am #

    Deti makes valid points all around.

    For me, Christian dating should be a relaxed, chaste activity where one believing man and woman get to know each other over some nice food and moderate alcohol. But because of rampant immorality, it’s also a “weeding-out” process too.

  4. RJ January 6, 2014 at 9:26 am #

    There is no ‘dating’ in the traditional sense. There is no courtship at all. There is only ‘hanging out’ within your social circle until you hook up with someone. Then, as it was explained to me, you have sex and then have ‘The Talk’. If you want to stay with that person, *presto* you are now ‘in a relationship’. If you don’t then you keep ‘hanging out’ until you hook up with another member of your social circle and do it all over again.

  5. Laszlo January 6, 2014 at 10:17 am #

    Welcome to the land of Progress.

    “Now it means…whatever the person thinks it means.”

    So there is the “bad” part of this, which is to say that women as a whole, encouraged via our progressive “culture” have lowered the price/value of sex, decoupled it from not only emotional investment but nearly any other contextual investment.

    Read any popular women’s magazine, this position is not only encouraged, but it is the starting point, i.e. “women can have sex on their terms, aka “like men” aka “like apex men” aka without conditions or implications. Women who cling to norms/values that may involve a greater level of investment – be it an actual “date” or three or marriage prior to sex are pricing themselves out of the market. A market that puts sex as a qualifier and not as a component of a defined, committed relationship – marital or otherwise.

    Yet those very same women, refuse to counter the progressive culture in any meaningful way. In fact they prefer to shame men for their participation in a sexual marketplace, that women make/define BTW, in place of anything that might cede sexual power or counter the “progress” of feminism.

    This same dynamic is true for most of these quandaries of social-sexual relationships. Women through both passive and active measures continue to uphold what they really want; they continue to demonstrate what is more important, more valuable. E.g. sex with attractive men is more valuable, a higher priority than “Dating” less attractive men; Maintaining no-fault divorce is more important, a higher priority than shoring up men’s growing reticence, resistance, and outright indifference toward marriage by ceding the disproportionate and usurious risk imbedded in marital and family law. Life “experience”, travel, education, career, adventure, etc. are more important than marriage – until she decides otherwise. That’s all fine. But there are costs.

    Whenever a woman says that “dating” is dead, what I really hear is that the top men don’t have to adhere to conditions of her choosing in order to get the physical aspects of a relationship – or other benefit(s) that she cannot control or exchange on terms she deems acceptable. Be it from her or from her competition. And that is not “fair”.

    The language of “dating” and “relationships” is muddled because that is how the message that women and men are equal in all of this can survive the inconvenient truths, dangerous logic, and annoying consequences. The loose language reflects the loose constructs of the market. As such, men and women are both free to extract – be it in part or whole, the emotional, physical, situational, provisional, conditional, and potential benefits as they see fit.

    That’s what women wanted. They continue to support this. They want the freedom to decide those things, to change those at will based on her current situation, the man in question, etc. But she doesn’t want the cost/risk of that to work against her agenda. But the price of her freedom is men’s corresponding freedom to establish and act upon their their own cost/benefits, which may not match her own. To expect those things to work to her advantage – heck, even to a neutral position, is as unnatural as, say, the cultural obsession with “Equality” (of outcomes). Shaming men to adhere to her terms is not going to work.

    So women who, say, hold their physical intimacy above the rest of the market must face the work or sorting through the undefined landscape – one she likely enjoyed when those ambiguities worked to her advantage. And she must accept the risk of defining those things in hard-n-fast terms and timelines within a market that favors fast-n-loose.

    But lets be realistic, relationships have always had to be defined by its participants. We are no longer in a society that involves multi-generational input, external controls from family and community, shaming or reputation risk, etc. So it is up to the man and woman alone to navigate. Isn’t this a good thing? Otherwise we’d all have to shame sluts and that would just be judgmental and offensive. Otherwise we’d have to hold people accountable for their decisions. That would be inconvenient.

    So the good part. If “dating” means whatever the person thinks it means, we are more free to “Date” as we see fit. So define it. Enforce it according to your own criteria. Make those things known and then uphold congruence between your words and actions.

    There only two people who have to “agree what it means”. Certainly that is better than all of that universal morality and external social meddling of the past, the patriarchy, etc. What we are all experiencing is the downside of too many choices. Men are being told to simply “Man Up”. So what are women being told?

    There are plenty of men who go on actual dates, who are happy to discuss “what this means”, “where this is going”, “what I want/expect/desire”, etc. I don’t think this is the problem.

  6. Ashley January 6, 2014 at 10:49 am #

    I have a friend who has never actually dated (by your definition) before. She always just meets a guy and jumps straight into a serious relationship with him. Without even knowing much about that kind of guy he really is beneath the surface, she will push for commitment. And what baffles me the most about it all is that she has actually found men who are willing to move that fast. “Where does she find these guys?” I have always asked myself. Needless to say, with each and ever guy, she didn’t find out until later on that he’s not at all the type of man she wants. But instead of filtering early on by dating and finding the type of guy she actually wants before she commits, she takes whatever guy is willing to go straight into playing house with her and then tries to change whatever she doesn’t like about her later on down the road.

    Now, she finally kicked her no good ex out her door about a month and a half ago, and she’s not having much luck with finding someone to commit to her asap, so now she’s like, “Oh shit, I guess I actually have to date around? Ashley, how do I do that?” So now I’m trying to coach her on how to date.

    Anyway, enough blabbering. Very good topic and conversation to raise!

  7. Omega Man January 6, 2014 at 11:11 am #

    These so called Christian women turned me off the Church for the longest time. No matter what they may publicly profess regarding their faith, their legs will be in the air within a half hour of meeting that hot guy. That and their thermo-nuclear rejections were enough to turn me off the Christian dating scene forever.

  8. deti January 6, 2014 at 11:30 am #


    Good points.

    A few thoughts of my own:

    I really think Christian women having sex is a function of (1) how serious they are about their Christian faith; (2) the poor instruction and even worse accountability; and (3) their mothers were the same way. Premarital sex is just “no big deal” in current modern day American Christianity.

    Another big thing going on with some Christian women and premarital sex is that some of them are doing what they’re perceiving they have to do in order to get the “best man they can get”. They understand an exchange is at play; they understand they have to give up sex to get commitment. And they’re losing at the game of “chicken” they’ve signed up for – men are gaming them and holding back the commitment/investment; telling them to give up sex for even a chance at commitment. It’s a game of chicken because it’s a “who’s going to give it up first” issue. Men are increasingly saying “I’m not giving up anything until sex is on the table” or “I have no commitment or investment to give you”. Women are increasingly saying “If you have nothing to give me, forget it” and “I’ll give up sex for a chance at commitment from an attractive man”.

    And these women are doing it – for the attractive men. They would rather give up the sex for a longshot at commitment with an attractive man; than to parcel out some physical affection for a less attractive man who will offer commitment.

    Another problem is that there are a lot of unattractive men out there who put up with all of this; mostly because they don’t know any other way to deal with women other than supplication, pedestalization, and negotiation. These Christian men have been told all their lives to be nice, to give her whatever she wants, and to be devout and reverent; and they will have “nice Christian girls” falling all over themselves wanting to date and marry them. Then when they confront their abject failures, the Churchian powers that be tell them they are obviously not being nice enough.

    And so, the beat goes on. Christian women hot enough for sex with attractive men; but not worth any level of investment. Christian women willing to give it up to an attractive men for long odds at commitment. Unattractive men left in the dust. Attractive men cleaning up, in the bars on Saturday night and in the churches on Sunday morning.

  9. Laszlo January 6, 2014 at 12:32 pm #

    That has been my experience. I learned everything I needed to know about Christianity re: sexuality in my Protestant youth groups 2x per week growing up. I was a “good” christian young man who garnered virtually zero interest from the women. I was so “nice”. Moms loved me, daughters shunned me.

    Years later, over beers with one of my best friends (forged during those years) we would laugh about how he (tall, handsome, aggressive, and of more, shall we say “relative” values) hooked up with nearly all of the attractive girls in our group over a relatively short period of time.

    It wasn’t until I was in my late 20’s and would return “home” to visit my parents that a few of these women suddenly showed interest. Of course by that time I was a still-fit former college athlete, semi-retired army officer, and appropriately credentialed professional. Still, quite “nice”, and blue-pill, but that Christian ideal had sailed. My friend, by the way, is a fine man, but basically cuts grass for a living and probably hasn’t had a “real” date in a decade. He owns his own business, but landscape maintenance doesn’t get the tingles going and for the last several years he has basically shrunk his business in favor of more free time for himself. He’s one of those guys who has resigned himself to bachelorhood and thus no need to break his back.

    That all said. It is still up to women to recognize when they wish to eat cake. They must first decide why they are dating: for sex or for marriage. The rest flows from there.

    My takeaway now is that Christian church-going women are just more complicated versions of “regular” women. The relativism, opportunism, and conditions are easier to navigate w/o the Church as the third parent exerting influence in all areas but for the ones that might actually steer her to the truth or provide her with the introspection needed to carve a decent path in the relationship landscape.

    I’ll take a morally strong, grounded, honest, and self-aware agnostic who goes to the church of yoga over the God-given entitlement and often sudden retrenchment into some kind of situational morality just because she decides its time to get married (have a wedding).

    I do feel for these women too. I’ve got a sister who stuck to her guns and ended up alone. But there are a multitude of safety nets, enforcement measures, and extraction politics that shore up her decisions. Men have no such things, which is part of why they tend to view the SMP through a much more cynical and binary lens. And also why women will continue to fail to see the power they actually have to get what they want until they spend time looking through that same lens.

  10. deti January 6, 2014 at 1:36 pm #

    This is pertinent to the original post:

    As usual, the Churchian author blames young men for not being “responsible” and “intentional” enough, and not “leading” women.

    What’s striking about this and Haley’s original post, is the demand that men invest and commit, and that men do so FIRST. The woman need not do anything except show up. Notice in Haley’s original post, that “Dating” was going to a restaurant or some other activity to get to know each other. What does that entail in Christian standards? The man investing time and money. He sets up the date; he arranges and selects the place; he pays for the food and or the activity. Clearly implied here is an obligation on the man to make the decisions and the monetary outlay. The woman need do nothing except say “yes” and show up.

    In the “we’re just talking” piece, men are blamed because they aren’t leading or showing enough initiative; they aren’t “serving” the women around them. Again – the men are called on to invest and commit themselves, before there is even anything for them to invest in and commit to. It is always, always the man’s fault. He’s not investing enough. He’s not being forthcoming enough with his displays of commitment.

    This is why men are demanding that women show they have some skin (heh) in the game – to show some level of investment and commitment, to show they are serious about guys from whom they’re demanding a show of “seriousness”.

  11. Seth Connor January 6, 2014 at 3:53 pm #

    Everyone knows what dating is, just nobody agrees.

    To me now it is much the same as the blue pill days. I plan on paying for visiting the women, sponsoring the dates and putting forth the energy and attention. The aspect that makes it work and worth it, however, is the women. I know that if a woman is rude, cold, or unappreciative that they will be shunned by her peers. Their reaction to seeing such behavior will be much the same. There will be a script I have to follow, to establish a relationship in binding terms while still not “cheating the woman out” of the romantic aspect. With all the preparation and oversight, it’s my battle to lose.

    As for the (few) good western Christian women…sorry girls, it’s stated above: Your peers have set a new market for you and made you mostly invisible…kind of like good men, lol.

  12. Aunt Haley January 6, 2014 at 8:09 pm #

    No matter what they may publicly profess regarding their faith, their legs will be in the air within a half hour of meeting that hot guy.

    This kind of cheap hyperbole is why Omega Man is Omega Man.

  13. Aunt Haley January 6, 2014 at 8:12 pm #


    What’s striking about this and Haley’s original post, is the demand that men invest and commit, and that men do so FIRST. The woman need not do anything except show up.

    Why would it make sense for women to invest first when men are the ones with the instantaneous attraction? Most of the time, a woman can’t tell if a man is attractive until he actually DOES SOMETHING. It makes no sense to go around investing themselves when they have no idea if what they’re investing in is even attractive to them. In contrast, a man knows immediately if a woman is at all attractive to him because all he needs is to see her, so his investment in trying to attract her isn’t a waste of time (in the sense of pursuing something you have no interest in).

  14. John January 6, 2014 at 10:34 pm #

    Aunt Haley, why would dating be a permanent thing throughout the ages? Dating existed for a period of time in certain cultures that incentivized it. What is the incentive to dating nowadays?

    Did people in the time of Jesus date? Did Isaac date Rebekah? Ruth date Boaz? Jacob date either of his wives?

    Dating has never been the norm for the vast majority of civilization, Christian or otherwise. Why should it last? Maybe if you make a good case for it. But human beings respond to incentives and changes in social dynamics. The shift away from dating is a result of that response.

  15. jack January 6, 2014 at 10:37 pm #

    Girls hate dating more than guys do. Dalrock correctly explains that our society has conditioned women to be endlessly shopping, endlessly selecting, endlessly rejecting.

    His post on “searching costs” is spot on. I’m tired of buying dinners, moving furniture, and being a shoulder to cry on. I’m tired of listening to their stories, supporting them emotionally, and being a friend.

    If you are not in the market for a marriage in the VERY near term, then dating is not a word that holds any meaning whatsoever. A word with such a broad meaning is a word that has no meaning at all.

    It took me a long time to realize that I was the male version of an indiscriminate slut; I would befriend women, assist them with “guy stuff”, be a shoulder to cry on, buy them dinner, and essentially provide the full suite of male attributes with the idea that sooner or later, a woman would recognize my honorable attributes.

    As we all know, this is a major fail.

    I feel that I am at the final breaking point, a crisis of faith. I wonder if I made a mistake in not taking the sex that was offered to me, and that I refused under the idea that I was being honorable toward those women. Women who dishonored me by taking everything I offered and then friendzoning me. Don’t get me wrong, I am not expecting women to be attracted to the terminal beta behavior I was exhibiting. Rather, I am blaming them for using me for “guy stuff” freebies even though they were not interested. I especially regret all the things I did for that early-30s single mom that recently screwed me over.

    Never again.

    As a Christian, I am regrettably not able to enforce the three-date rule for sex. Of course, the non-Christian men are able to get this from the Church girls with at least occasional reliability.

    Someone please cue the shaming language, if you will…

    In fact, I would not be surprised if *someone* chimes in with the augmented form of shaming language, which usually takes the form of triumphalism over the fate of Christian men who find themselves on the outside looking in. Alas, many of us are long past the point of feeling the pain of such long knives. I understand – empathy for men is not within the suite of female attributes. Any man deserving of sympathy is, ironically, unworthy of sympathy. Heh. Isn’t all irony bitter? Am I “whining”? Depends on who you ask.

    Of course, one of the most identifiable attributes of the female mind is that they think that they can put relentless pressure on a system without it breaking.

    I feel like my willingness to play by the Christian rulebook with regard to sexual mores is in an increasingly nebulous state.

    Push long enough, and a man pushes back. The next girl who indicated willingness might just find that I take her up on it. After all, it is not like there are any chaste women left for marriage.

    If you can’t lick ’em, join ’em.

  16. jack January 6, 2014 at 11:21 pm #

    Here’s an idea, too. Haley, why don’t you publish your “number”?

    I promisepromisepromise to keep mine at least one less than yours. That ought to keep me well within the boundaries of righteousness.

  17. GI_JANE January 7, 2014 at 1:02 am #

    1. You all forgot to mention the struggles of unattractive women. 80% of the e-mails in online dating are going to 30 % of the women.

    2. All the men here are complaining about women setting themselves up with progressive stuff and a reworked out SMV and I agree but I don’t think women or Christian women do so knowingly.

    3. There is a lot of contracting information out there, sleep around like a man, sleep with only men who are “worth it”, save yourself for marriage, men don’t like women who put out too easily, he’ll probably not date you unless you sleep with him, be yourself, lose weight, etc.

    4. However SOME women benefit greatly from this phenomenon, SOME men do so as well, both those groups are in the minority. Everyone is trying to date 1 or 2 girls/alphas in the class, all others get left.

  18. jack January 7, 2014 at 7:29 am #


    1) I have great empathy for the women who have not been blessed with much natural beauty. This is a sad situation, since unattractive men can at least increase their attractiveness with learnable behavior. In fact, I have trained my attraction triggers to be more open to those women, and my only real physical requirement is that they be reasonably fit. This is within almost everyone’s control.

    2) I think you are generally correct about the unknowing aspect of some women. All these women know is that they appear to have the upper hand because they mistake the sex/dating market for the commitment market. They also don’t even think about the men they are rejecting while young. Their attitude is “I’ll drive sports cars now, and buy a sedan when I’m older”. The problems is that the solid young men (the sedans) have feelings, and they resent being settled for after young women are done playing the field. A real Christian, though, knows that they are sinning, one way or another.

    3) Even the unsaved are starting to get the memo that sex without commitment is a bad idea.

    4) I would go so far as to say almost no women benefit. A large number of women seem to be winning while younger, because of the sexual access to alpha males, but they lose out in the long run. And the upper-level women now have to wait for their alpha males to be done sleeping around until they get a ring and a proposal, if at all. This is why the most promiscuous of women are usually the average-looking ones. They are the ones who can temporarily get alpha attention by being promiscuous.

  19. Omega Man January 7, 2014 at 7:57 am #

    “No matter what they may publicly profess regarding their faith, their legs will be in the air within a half hour of meeting that hot guy.

    This kind of cheap hyperbole is why Omega Man is Omega Man.”

    @Aunt Haley,

    Perhaps you consider it a cheap shot, but for me it’s a fact based on bitter experience.

    My moniker is based on what I was and I use it to remind myself from whence I came. Still, your response is typical, in that you refuse to acknowledge the pain of others if it does not fit your narrow gynocentric worldview. Professing a faith outwardly if not inwardly does not give Christian women the right to be monstrously cruel to some hapless young man who only wants to talk to her.

    I was once a young, impressionable young man who wanted nothing more than to love someone. Sure I was awkward and a bit geeky but I had been told to just be myself and some girl would like me for who I was. Nobody would even look at me, let alone talk to me. Still I went to the Church youth and young adult groups and observed what was happening. I saw young Christian women cheat on their boyfriends, or ditch them in the most inhumane way. I eventually tired of the shenanigans and drifted away to concentrate on my studies and later my career.

    A really big eye opener for me was when after a period of years, I drove my dad to church in my brand new Corvette (my mom wasn’t feeling well at the time).

    Well you should have seen it. I got “Hi how are you?”, “We missed you”, “Why don’t you come back to our gatherings”, etc… in general more attention than I could shake a stick at. I could barely conceal my contempt. These women who still single by the way, were now throwing themselves at me. They wouldn’t have given me the time time of day ten years earlier.

    As for my life now, I’m still married and have been for quite a few years. Needless to say, I did not meet my wife at a Christian group.

    What’s really ironic is my son who was quite religious for a teenager used to go to the youth groups at our church. After a while he just stopped going and when I asked him why, he told me straight out that the women were all wh§&%$. Maybe re-virginated wh§&%$ but wh§&%$ nevertheless. My son who has a good job, is athletic and quite handsome prefers to spend his time either hunting and fishing or riding his motorcycle.

    I’m sorry if this offends you but it is what I’ve experienced and what my son has experienced. It is probably not the whole truth but it is at least partially true for the church groups we attended.

  20. deti January 7, 2014 at 8:01 am #

    “Why would it make sense for women to invest first when men are the ones with the instantaneous attraction? Most of the time, a woman can’t tell if a man is attractive until he actually DOES SOMETHING. It makes no sense to go around investing themselves when they have no idea if what they’re investing in is even attractive to them.”

    A woman needs to show that she’s interested. She needs to show IOIs in a man she’s interested in. That’s the kind of “investment” women need to start showing. That’s the kind of “skin in the game” she needs to demonstrate. Yeah, I’ll be the first to admit there aren’t a lot of attractive Christian men out there. But there are some. It’s just that – all together now – you Christian women don’t want those men.

    Women keep saying they want good men; Christian men, kind men, devout men. I’ll believe it when I start seeing Christian women throwing out IOIs at those men that even idiots wouldn’t miss. I’ll believe it when I see Christian women dating, marrying, having sex with, and bearing children by, those men.

  21. deti January 7, 2014 at 8:21 am #

    “You all forgot to mention the struggles of unattractive women. 80% of the e-mails in online dating are going to 30 % of the women.”

    Lulz. Online dating is a weird, distorted caricature of the SMP and tells us very little about what really goes on.

    I second jack’s comments. I have a lot of sympathy for the truly unattractive woman. But, the unattractive woman still has more options than the unattractive man, if she is young (say, 25 and under).

    I have yet to meet a woman, even a plain or unattractive one, who couldn’t use her youth, femininity, and domestic skills to get a decent man as a husband. A woman might be unattractive, but if she’s young, she still has good skin, clear eyes, shiny hair, and hopefully hasn’t started gaining a lot of weight. She should market herself as a wife to men a few years older. Once she marries, she can make it her life’s mission to care for, love, and respect that man.

    Even plain looking women have vastly more dating opportunities to meet men. Most women I know and knew – even plain ones – were getting asked out once a month or every other month. Do the math. For nine years of life, from 16 to 25, if she gets asked out once a month, that’s 108 different men who’ve expressed interest in her. Don’t like that? Cut it in half and it’s still 54 different men who wanted to date her. Still don’t like it? Cut it in half again to 27.

    Does anyone here mean to tell me that a woman can’t find a man when 27 different men express interest in her over a nine year period? Seriously? Out of those 27 men, NOT ONE of them even comes close? If that’s the case, then the problem is not the men approaching; it’s the women doing the rejecting.

  22. deti January 7, 2014 at 8:30 am #

    @ Omega:

    I don’t doubt your story. Just the latest iteration of “Alpha F**ks, Beta Bucks – the Christian Edition”.

    The true irony is that your son has actually increased the odds of him finding a wife now that he’s stepped away from church singles groups and ministries, and spends his time on his own pursuits. The last place he’ll find a Christian woman is in church, I’m afraid.

  23. jack January 7, 2014 at 8:35 am #

    A lot of times women will throw IUDs at the men…

    Indicators of Unmistakeable Disinterest. Or perhaps disgust, even.

    I think basically that Haley is asking the men to take all the risk, and jump off the cliff without knowing whether they are jumping into water or rocks. So, he jumps, and it turns out rocks are on the menu today. After the nuclear rejection, the local scavengers (church girl gossip group) come by to feast on the carnage, smirk flag flying high.

    Of course, there are some men who are Dark Triad enough not to be dissuaded by this “gauntlet” approach to Christian dating. And these are the men who are currently enjoying the attention and affection from these women.

    I’ve had my fill of supplying red meat to the insatiable egos of church girls. Unless and until humility returns, and these women stop seeing themselves as some sort of prize, I will continue to date unsaved women, who are far easier to get along with, and haven’t had their pride polished to sheen with the daughter-of-the-king foolishness.

    Thank the Lord for The Wall, it is nature’s revenge against haughty women.

  24. Deti Fan January 7, 2014 at 12:42 pm #

    “Why would it make sense for women to invest first…..”

    Because men are done, and women never do, so if you do invest first and accept the costs of showing initial interest, then you’re more likely to have a relationship with a Christian man who won’t pump/dump you, as you’ll stand out from the crowd of narcissistic bitches that think they’re too good and self-important to treat men well.

  25. Laszlo January 7, 2014 at 12:47 pm #

    “Most of the time, a woman can’t tell if a man is attractive until he actually DOES SOMETHING.”


    While I understand that male attractiveness has depth and dimension (through the female lens) that differ from female attraction, this is simply not true. Yes, there are actionable, contextual, and situational conditions that can enhance (or diminish) how attractive a man is to a particular woman, but this is in addition to his physical presence, not in place of.

    Male physical attractiveness, his visible level of dominance in most settings, his social savvy, attire, “presence”, “aura”, “confidence”, etc. require very few qualifying actions on his part. Women can plainly see how tall, handsome, and to a large extent socially dominant and “at ease” a man is in the majority of settings. Your “DOES SOMETHING” is second order; valid, but it is not a condition precedent to his attractiveness. His suitability as a date or BF or husband, perhaps, but not whether or not he is attractive. The majority of those actions are going to come well after he has already established himself as attractive enough to merit her attention.

    When it is convenient, the female attraction triggers are so complex, layered, contextual, and subject to a man’s ability to create his attractiveness. Then, when it is convenient for some other point, his attractiveness (her triggers) are all quite plain to see.

    I don’t think you will convince men here that they are not “doing” enough re: Dating. But I also don’t think that investing more and taking initial and increasing risk on the woman’s part amounts to a whole lot of work or modifications on her part. As Deti points out, a little bit of focus on IOI’s, fostering the approach, expressing willingness to engage and invest, and building awareness of what the average man faces in the “Dating” market goes a long way. But that is a bridge for women to build. Most men are done.

    If women want to truly “Date”, they will have to learn how to communicate that they value this approach and the men who pursue it much, much greater than their current behavior indicates. And yes, it must come through their actions, not their words. So in this you are correct: something must be DONE.

  26. deti January 7, 2014 at 1:23 pm #

    “But I also don’t think that investing more and taking initial and increasing risk on the woman’s part amounts to a whole lot of work or modifications on her part.”

    Well said, Laszlo. Seriously, how much freaking effort does it take for a woman who claims to be serious about dating and finding a husband to:

    1. Avoid having a sour expression.
    2. Smile a little.
    3. Dress nicely.
    4. Not put out a “stay the hell away from me” vibe.
    5. Not recoil in shock and horror when a man comes up to you and talks to you.
    6. Go up to a man and say “Hi. My name is _______. How are you?”
    7. Not report some unattractive guy to your pastor for asking you out.
    8. Not nuclear-reject a man.

    Is this really too much to ask of a Christian woman who claims to be serious about finding a Christian man for dating and marriage?

  27. deti January 7, 2014 at 1:32 pm #

    This is starting to resemble threads I’ve been on in the past.

    1. Woman says “how do we do ___________________ with/for/to men in the dating world?

    2. Men come to thread and provide literal step-by-step choreography for women on how to initiate.

    3. Women protest with all sorts of reasons and justifications why they cannot/should not/ will not do any of the things that men suggest.

    Just forget it.

  28. sunshinemary January 8, 2014 at 4:06 pm #

    @ Laszlo
    I respectfully disagree with your assessment of what attracts women. Looks are good, sure, but we are less visual than men are. Haley is right; we need to see you do something before we know if we are attracted. The thing is, all the stuff you listed:

    his visible level of dominance in most settings, his social savvy, attire, “presence”, “aura”, “confidence”,

    involve him doing something. We don’t see that level of dominance just by looking at you. We have to observe how you interact with us and others. We have to spend some time around you to catch the “presence” and “confidence”. Not months and months, but maybe a few social gatherings or something.

    It is not true that women instantly know within five minutes of meeting a man whether or not we can be attracted to him. I mean, once is a while we might know instantly if we are attracted to a man, but not usually.

  29. deti January 8, 2014 at 4:28 pm #


    Hmmm. You seem to suggest a woman needs time for attraction to slow cook, kind of like in a crockpot. (LOL)

    Anyway, I disagree. If you’re correct that a woman needs a few interactions to determine attraction, then how do you explain women going home from a bar with a man within a few hours of meeting him? Those women don’t need days or weeks. They needed only minutes, hours. And they’re not in the habit of getting picked up by men they aren’t attracted to. And we can’t say this only works with sluts. I’ve seen this same thing with Christian women too.

    Once again – attraction is, or it isn’t. If it is not there from the get-go, it’s never ever going to be there.

  30. innocentbystanderboston January 8, 2014 at 9:43 pm #

    Wow. Dating sure has changed a lot in the last ten years. I guess I’m glad I don’t have to worry about that anymore. Sympathies to all of you, its a minefield out there.

  31. sunshinemary January 9, 2014 at 11:54 am #

    If you’re correct that a woman needs a few interactions to determine attraction, then how do you explain women going home from a bar with a man within a few hours of meeting him? Those women don’t need days or weeks. They needed only minutes, hours. And they’re not in the habit of getting picked up by men they aren’t attracted to.

    Once again – attraction is, or it isn’t. If it is not there from the get-go, it’s never ever going to be there.

    They don’t necessarily need a lot of interactions with him. Especially if he is physically attractive, using game is probably enough to fake that social dominance that trips women’s attraction triggers. But there has to be a chance for her to observe him and/or interact with him at least a little…and in fact, she might not realize she’s attracted to him until they have interacted a few times.

    And we can’t say this only works with sluts. I’ve seen this same thing with Christian women too.

    That’s where I disagree with you very strongly. I can agree that sometimes (not always), intense physical attraction is there instantly. I don’t why, but I know that it is true. When I was in college, I met a young man at a party and let him kiss me within five minutes of meeting him because I was so attracted to him. But I declined his offer to go back to his room with him because only sluts have sex with a man they’ve just met. So, sorry, but it really is just sluts who hop in bed with a man they’ve only known for an hour or two.

    Hmmm. You seem to suggest a woman needs time for attraction to slow cook, kind of like in a crockpot. (LOL)

    Aw, knock it off, will ya? :) That’s a totally different discussion.

  32. Dalrock January 9, 2014 at 12:13 pm #

    Dating used to mean a man and a woman going out to a restaurant or some other activity to get to know each other and to foster romance.

    Why “foster romance”, and why should we value this (or mourn the loss of it)? Dating to foster romance is no less nebulous than the current hookup culture.

  33. jlw January 9, 2014 at 12:59 pm #

    Poor prole women used to marry some omega males, now they don’t need to anymore.

    At the very bottom of the human male hierarchy are the irrecoverable social failures, the “omega males.” I’m a middle-aged virgin omega. It’s easy to be one, just be (a) extremely undesirable to others without the chance or work ethic to improve and (b) have high standards upon which you won’t compromise. (In other words, have caviar tastes and a pizza face. You’ll be wanking for life in no time.) People used to tell me that I had to set my standards lower and accept the 1s-2s in my league. Sorry, I’m as attracted to them as I am men.

    No one writes about us guys; we are largest group at which no one has ever taken a serious look. We are the least sexually desirable males and therefore are the ones who are unable to find a women for a healthy normal relationship because our desirability is too low given the existence of less women than men, the omega’s own standards and, in some places, men marrying multiple women. (There are about 105 males born for every 100 females.)

    In modern times, women would rather become the second trophy wife of an older alpha male or never marry at all, than settle for an omega male.

    Irrecoverable omega males will be lonely and womanless their whole lives and as an added punishment pay taxes to support the children of women who don’t notice their existence, or, if they do, see omegas only in a monetarily predatory way.

    So some questions for the experts:

    What are some characteristics of irrecoverable omegas?

    What becomes of them?

    What should irrecoverable omegas do to wring the best out of life?

  34. innocentbystanderboston January 9, 2014 at 1:21 pm #

    So some questions for the experts:

    I am no expert, but as a married alpha, I’ll try and give some advice.

    What are some characteristics of irrecoverable omegas?

    Zero muscle tone. Short, definately. Maybe fat. Certainly an ugly face. Very lo IQ.

    You can do something about muscle tone. Workout sir. I hate it but I must (3 times a week, free weights.) You can do something about fat, no carbs sir. Carbohydrates must be earned and Omegas have not earned them.

    You can’t do anything about height, ugly face, or low IQ.

    What becomes of them?

    This world is tough for them. No marriage. I wouldn’t even plan on it. I am certainly not going to ask you to settle for a woman you aren’t attracted to…

    What should irrecoverable omegas do to wring the best out of life?

    Work, save, accumulate. Hoard wealth. And vacation OFTEN!

    I would give some of your earnings to God, but if I were you, I’d fill my time with work. Fill it. Work your normal, mundane office job, during the day, and in the evenings be an assistant manager in a restaurant. That way you can eat (all week) for free (pretty much) and you don’t have time to sit around in your home staring at the tv or telephone and worrying about all the women you aren’t dating. You have no time for that. More to the point, you work 65 hours a week, you are always on your feet, you lose weight. You’ll feel better about yourself and you’ll be less Omega.

    When you do get vacation, do NOT sit at home. Fly to Florida, go on a Caribbean cruise. You can do that super cheap nowadays so get a passport and start preparing. Go to Europe. Go to Hawaii. Fill your time. You have an advantage. You are un-encumbered. You have no attachments, that IS your advantage. Do not squander it.

    This is (at the same time) the worst AND the greatest time in the world to be single. You are alone, but you don’t have to be lonely. Only people who are alone with nothing to do are lonely. Don’t be that guy. You have too much to do to worry about dating and marriage. Be THAT guy. Good luck and God bless.

  35. Kevin January 9, 2014 at 4:29 pm #

    I don’t focus so much on what the definition of dating is as to what do I want to accomplish from it. I want to draw the woman out, let her talk about herself by showing genuine interest in her. That usually means the man gives before he receives anything back, the woman doesn’t always respond right away. I forge ahead with my own goals which is seeing if this woman is worthy my time and effort. I’ve tossed aside what the church has said with its dating sermons series and definition of terms. That is one reason the dating scene is so grim in most churches.

  36. earl January 9, 2014 at 6:09 pm #

    Before dating there was a structure and process to relationships. Usually it involved the community and families…courtship.

    With a feminized society…there is no structure or process. You make up the rules as you go along. It is nothing more than whatever you want it to be…and that’s why people are confused. People can’t connect with others very well anymore…because everybody has a different idea of what a relationship is.

    Oh and by the way…if a guy does actually nut up and state what he wants, most of the time it isn’t what the woman wants and that nukes any chance of anything happening. That’s why you have to stay vague until the woman finally decides what she wants out of it.

  37. T January 9, 2014 at 6:33 pm #

    I get the feeling reading all this, that plain-looking, Christian men (betas?) are chasing beauty-queen status, Christian women only.

    Maybe these men ought to start chasing their ‘match’, which is plain-looking women, such as themselves.

    This isn’t being rude, it’s just the humble truth.

    It has been pointed out that both mainstream TV and porn often pair a plain-looking guy with a beauty queen, to attract more men.

    The trouble with men in real life, is that they think they can get said beauty queen, when their own looks aren’t that great.

    And therein lies the cruelty. It’s time for plain-looking, Christian men to be more realistic.

    If they were more humble in this regard, they would be happier.

  38. T January 9, 2014 at 7:12 pm #


    We’re supposed to feel sorry for you?

  39. LA January 9, 2014 at 8:10 pm #

    @T: guys typically get the better end of the bargain in terms of looks, and if they wait long enough, they can even get a better bargain in the church because, at least in America, “quality” girls at church far outnumber “quality” guys.

  40. jlw January 9, 2014 at 9:05 pm #

    @innocentbystanderboston: Thank you. Straightforward, non-clichéd advice, that.

    @T: Good question. I wouldn’t if I were you. But I am largely without empathy.

  41. DOSOMETHING January 9, 2014 at 10:22 pm #

    The BIGGEST problem that I’m facing as a committed Christian mid-20’s man, is finding Christian girls who are serious about their walk with the Lord, and yet also open to talking. The Church and culture has placed yokes of bondage on my generation in regards to dating. The only place to meet Christian girls is after church or in a Bible study, or on Facebook. All three of these require building vast amounts of relationships with people I don’t need in my life right now. I have a solid network of friends and acquaintances, but in order to meet even 15 cute Christian girls that are available and open to talking, I have to go to many churches. It’s frustrating.

    I think it comes down to the fact that females in the Church have a bullet point list of Brad Pitt Christian man-traits they want. And it’s just unreal.

  42. an observer January 9, 2014 at 11:42 pm #

    just the humble truth. It’s time for plain-looking, Christian men to be more realistic.

    Most plain men know full well their averageness in the smp. Multiple rejections from average women assures that.

    We’re supposed to feel sorry for you?

    Empathy is too much to ask from women; we know that.

    dating scene is so grim in most churches.

    Young men get no respect. But instead of moping about over the top hypergamy, young men need to pull back from investing time, money and attention into women who only want a healthy crop of beta orbiters, the emotional tampons for her latest failed sexcapade on the carousel.

    work 65 hours a week, 

    Excellent advice for younger men. Go to night school, study part time, educate yourself. Just dont sit around. The twenties is a great decade to spend on self improvement, for your own sake. Might as well make good use of it.

  43. earl January 10, 2014 at 4:02 am #

    “1. Woman says “how do we do ___________________ with/for/to men in the dating world?

    2. Men come to thread and provide literal step-by-step choreography for women on how to initiate.

    3. Women protest with all sorts of reasons and justifications why they cannot/should not/ will not do any of the things that men suggest.

    Just forget it.”

    Women don’t want to have their problems fixed…they just want to vent at their lot in life and be left alone.

    Just get it guys…you do the improving for yourself and the side effects will be the benefit of others. If a lady is deemed worthy, invite her into your life.

  44. Omega Man January 10, 2014 at 4:05 am #


    As an ex-Omega I can say that your state of affairs are largely of your own making. For me that was a very hard lesson to learn. I was tall but pudgy and completely non-athletic. Even with good clothes I looked dumpy.

    I was at a very low point in my life, romantically speaking, although professionally I was able to get a few promotions and so career wise I was flourishing. I realized that unless I did something for myself, I would be alone for the rest of my life. I started to diet and work out and within 2 years things started to change dramatically.

    The thing you have to realize is that changing yourself is not just hard, but 20 times as hard as you originally imagined. Sticking to the new routine was hard, and many times I slid back.

    I finally started dating again, although due to my previous experiences, I avoided the Christian singles crowd. I met a good woman who would become my wife and partner in life. She was the daughter of divorce but she made it clear to me that if I wanted her, then there would be no outs in that is we married we would be married for life. She has stuck to those vows and so have.

    When the children came we drifed back to church, and continue to attend, although my son who was initially keen on the Christian youth groups soured on the experience.

    The whole point is to make a commitment to yourself and see it through. Everything else will follow. Of course learning GAME will help you immensely.

  45. jack January 10, 2014 at 7:47 am #

    As a former low beta, with a dash of gamma, I can say only one thing:

    Knowing now what I do, I can’t blame women for not being attracted to my “nice guy” personality (which was genuinely how I was – not an act).

    So I can accept that I had to wait until I took the red pill.

    The problem is that the Christian women didn’t save much of their virtue for the Christian men. It is one thing to marry a woman in her late thirties and knowing that you did not get to experience her in her more youthful years.

    But it is quite another to know that she was biding her time by fornicating with unsaved men while she waited for the Christian wage mules to get their act together.

    And so, I will not commit to any woman who wasted her youth and beauty.

  46. Novaseeker January 10, 2014 at 10:00 am #

    @jlw —

    Someone in your position has basically a few choices: (1) improve your attractiveness, (2) recalibrate your attraction, or (3) accept being single. Take your pick. (3) is the path of least resistance, certainly, but may be the right one for you. You do have other options though they require work to change yourself, which is hard — doable, but you need to really want to do it in order to see it through.

    @others — I think there is such a thing as an “attraction floor” for men and women alike whereby regardless of one’s *own* objective attractiveness level, members of the opposite sex of the same rough level of attractiveness are simply not attractive to them — that is they themselves are below the “floor of attraction” and so their attractiveness peers are unattractive to them. (Note this isn’t a male 5 only being attracted to female 8+ (something which doesn’t really exist — difference between preferring the 8+ to the peer 5 and not being attracted at all to the peer 5), but rather the case of a male 2 not being attracted to a female 2). I don’t think this applies to everyone — people are different — but I think it applies to a good many. For people who find themselves in situations like that, if they are not happy about it (i.e., not happy being single), they need to get themselves to be at least as attractive as their attraction floor so that they can be attracted to their attraction peers. Again, requires work on self-improvement. But I do think that for people who have an attraction floor which is above their own level of attractiveness it is very hard if not impossible for them to recalibrate their own attraction (i.e., the floor below which they find people unattractive). What they can do, however, is make themselves more attractive, and closer to, or ideally on par or above, their attraction floor.

  47. T January 11, 2014 at 6:54 pm #

    LA: But I thought the big complaint was betas can’t get anyone at all. What gives.

  48. Inlone January 11, 2014 at 9:00 pm #


    I consider myself to be an omega too, but paradoxically I’m not sure how to define it.

    But I don’t think it’s “Zero muscle tone. Short, definately. Maybe fat. Certainly an ugly face. Very lo IQ” because I have only one of those traits (short). After all, there are short, weak, dumb, ugly dudes out there who still do get girls because they have the right sort of badass devil-may-care alpha atitude that makes some women tingle.

    I think one common omega characteristic is the BELIEF that you’re an omega, or that there is something fundamentally wrong with yourself compared to “normal” people. So, I guess my idea is that Omega is more a state of mind than a checklist of discrete, quantifiable traits.

    By “a state of mind” I don’t mean that it isn’t real or that it’s something we can just get over if we put our minds to it. I think a common trait among omegas is some sort of damage that’s been done to their personality, some dysfunctional development, and it holds them back. And it might always hold them back.

    There’s a famous pickup guru named Owen Cook (aka Tyler) who talks about omegas as “hardcase newbies” who CAN do things to improve their lot but he cautions that it’s long hard slog and that the “hardcase” will always have something of that twitchiness or weirdness or social awkwardness in him.

    I wish I had some advice for you, but I’ve tried so many different things to try and improve myself for over 30 years now, and I’m still all alone because my omega-ness is so deeply internalized. However, I think I’m finally coming to terms with it and learning to accept it as I enter middle age. Accepting yourself as you are is one healthy thing you can work on, if you haven’t. It might bring some peace.

    Another thing I’ve learned is that other people don’t necessarily have their shit together as much as I’d always assumed. And that having more people in my life won’t necessarily make me happy or at peace.

    Good luck with everything.

  49. jlw January 12, 2014 at 9:33 am #

    Hi folks on this Sunday morning!


    Very astute list of choices. For a difficult few with very low SMV and high standards, option (3) is the only route. Fortunately, there numbers are small and for them, there are other things to do in life. As the equally astute Deti noted on another site:

    “After going through a soul-searching process and intentional analysis, if a man still ends up being a hard match or is still in the bottom 10 to 20%, and he does not want to do further work to attract a woman, then he should find pursuits other than marriage.

    1. Devote himself to a religious order (uncommon).
    2. Invest time in hobbies.
    3. Invest time in work and career building.
    4. Devote time to his family of origin, including nieces and nephews.

    If a man has made a conscious decision to remain celibate because he either doesn’t want to do the work or does the work and he is still a “hard match”, then he should do so knowingly and intentionally.”

    Some people can do the work and still not get the MOTOS to which they are attracted. No dating for them, but at least there are other things to fill their life. I’ve done it – I’m a tenure professor of law with a successful outside consulting practice. Good money, but not rock star money or fame, so no women to which I’d be attracted. But it’s a good life otherwise. It would be nice if there was a middle-aged omega mentor for frustrated younger omegas. It gets better, fellas!

    I also agree with your “attractiveness floor” thought. Some people cannot get up to a level of attractiveness that attracts people they, in turn, think are attractive. They need to look elsewhere for meaning in their life.


    I’ve been teaching for years now and what I see among the mid-20s students I’m around is assortative mating based on sexual market value. I simply don’t see short, weak, dumb, ugly dudes out there matching with attractive women. I see 8s happy with 8s and 2s either settling for 2s or giving up. Decades ago when I was young, I was a 2 (in the SMP) who simply couldn’t raise my SMV high enough to get the 6+ MOTOS to which I was attracted NO MATTER WHAT. So I followed Deti’s third choice and made a go of my life in other areas. Maybe that’s what Haley should do.

  50. jack January 16, 2014 at 12:01 am #

    There is one other avenue of “omega”. I had so many opportunities to bang the women I was dating, and I went from “acceptable beta” to “thinkofyouasafriend” omega precisely because I was not willing to cross the sexual boundary line with those women.

    My N# would be well over 50 if I had acted on my opportunities, but even with the CHRISTIAN girls (hi, Haley), I went from viable to invisible once it was clear I was waiting until marriage.






  51. jack January 24, 2014 at 1:43 am #

    There it is:

    Basically, it’s all over.

    There is not much left for those of us on the outside of this. The most important thing I have learned is to avoid being a friend to women, because this enables this dynamic. From now on, only a real girlfriend gets anything from me. To many beta males are supplying friendship, help, emotional support, etc. After the most recent Christian chick who used me for fun and entertainment, help, and coaching, I’m done.

    I have one remaining thing to focus on, and that is reaching as many men as possible and persuading them to do likewise.

    Beta orbiters and friend-zoned men enable the psychotic, and compulsive alpha-chasing among modern women, functioning as a sort of emotional welfare for these chicks.

    Gotta starve the beast, so to speak. Along those lines, I have to say that I get a sense of justice watching my non-Christian player buddies cleaning up. Would that I could gain an indulgence from morality long enough to participate in this, but no can do.

  52. Frank Wunder January 24, 2014 at 6:55 pm #


    Well said and ditto on just about everything you wrote.

    One question and I don’t believe there is a right answer to this, but insight is invaluable:

    Given the current trends that face a Christian man or woman who make the choice to stick to their guns and choose the hard path, how does one best deal with the whining dog of despair that nips at my heels?

    Or more simply put: it’s sad to be in the minority. Best way to deal?

  53. jack January 25, 2014 at 1:36 am #

    The thin gruel of schadenfreude will have to do.Washed down with the occasional spinster tear, when a proud woman forgets herself long enough to display one. Grab that tear while you can, before it sublimates away in a whir of haughty rationalization, or is wiped away by a beta orbiter.

    And remember men, we are only waiting for the women to join us at the bottom of the cliff they threw us off. Oops: …”the bottom of the cliff from which they threw us”. (bitter misogyny is no excuse for poor sentence composition.

    So, as their egos (and looks) plummet earthward from the formerly stratospheric heights of their former SMV-drunk delusions, we can only bid them welcome to the Abyss of Sexual Invisibility.

    You’ll get used to it ladies, and eventually learn to like it. No more catcalls from construction workers, no more swatting away the swarms of beta niceguys so malnourished for female attention that they will beg scraps at your door.

    Just a long, quiet autumn of peace, into the winter of age.

    And the men who are finally on board with your wishes: “let’s just be friends”.

  54. deti January 29, 2014 at 6:54 am #


    If you want to know why no one knows what dating is anymore, here’s why. It’s because women wanted increased flexibility and dating options, and got them. Men are now seeking increased flexibility and options in their dating lives as well. Men are finding two routes: either (1) casual sex along the same lines as women; or (2) opting out altogether because they’re frozen out anyway, thus freeing up their resources for minimal work, hobbies and leisure.

    Note that last sentence of Novaseeker’s below. Men are finding out that preparing to be a protector/provider is a great way to repel women.

    Ladies, I’ll say it again: You keep SAYING you want “good men”, “good Christian men”. But by your actions, you prove over and over again that those men are not at all what you want.

    If you want such men, then you will have to date them; marry them, have sex with them, have their babies, and stay married to them.


    Morpheus at Just Four Guys had an interesting insight. I’ll put the money quotes here:

    “Women wanted and fought for increased flexibility and optionality regarding their relationships and dependence on men. They got it. I’m reminded of the proverb, Be careful what you wish for as you will get it. I think what many women didn’t understand or anticipate was that men would also look to gain increased flexibility and optionality regarding their relationships to women especially the interplay between commitment and sex. It actually took men quite awhile (and not all have) to respond to the new set of rules. “
    “The vast majority of complaints from women…”man up”, where all the good men, why do men just want sex, etc. etc. etc. really all amount to being pissed off and butthurt that some men are aggressively pursuing flexibility and optionality in this SMP. You see this in “relationships” where maybe a man is “seeing” a woman without any sort of defined relationship or commitment while having sex with the woman and then the woman feels “wronged” when no formal commitment materializes.”

    Novaseeker on the same thread:

    “*** “liberation” in general looks very different for men than it does for women. Women were liberated from their expected roles (i.e., wife, mother, homemaker, etc., and cultivating/prepping for these roles). It stands to reason (although clearly not what women seemed to expect, based on how flabbergasted almost all of them are currently) that men would also thereby be liberated from their own expected roles (protector, provider, and cultivating/prepping for these roles). So while for women liberation looked like getting a job and getting ahead to avoid being dependent on a man (and gain sexual and relationship flexibility through that), for men liberation looked like not killing yourself to become a great provider, slacking, focusing on getting what you want (i.e., getting laid on your own terms) and the like. You simply could not liberate one sex from traditional roles without de facto the other sex being liberated as well, eventually.

    “This has apparently shocked most women, which is deliciously ironic in many ways. The reason is that they don’t understand male motives. Men are not driven by the desire for security — women are. So women will work to achieve security for themselves (while also expecting a man in their life to provide at least as much security, and most certainly preferably more, than she can for herself). Men, by contrast, are driven either because they are naturally ambitious***, or because they want to attract a woman. If they do not need to do it to satisfy the latter, they will not do it — they can live with much less in a crappy bachelor pad as long as they have enough for rent, X-box, internet, and food/booze. Quite a few guys can get laid without being a protector/provider or showing these traits — we see that everywhere. And for the guys who can’t get laid, there is internet porn, there are hookers on demand on the internet and so on. The incentives/motivation for the average dude, who is not naturally ambitious, to get off his tail and become a provider/protector are just not there for many guys. This is why we are seeing young men and young women diverge in terms of “success” (when viewed by who has the higher paying cubicle job) — women are motivated by their fear of a lack of security, which they still have under the current circumstances, whereas men are motivated by doing what it takes to get laid — and today that doesn’t require protection/provision — in fact, prepping to be a good protector and provider is a great way to NOT get laid.”

  55. Novaseeker January 29, 2014 at 8:31 am #

    There is one other avenue of “omega”. I had so many opportunities to bang the women I was dating, and I went from “acceptable beta” to “thinkofyouasafriend” omega precisely because I was not willing to cross the sexual boundary line with those women.

    This is a good point. It describes my life prior to when I married. My lack of willingness to progress things physically cost me, eh, 3 girlfriends during and after college (that was all of them, to be clear). One of them married the guy who practically had sex with her in the back of the bus (on a university school trip which I, her boyfriend at the time, was not attending …). They’re still together as far as I know so probably was meant to be, but regardless of that “learning” I was still of the same mind regarding sex and relationships outside of marriage (and still am) for moral reasons. But, it has a huge impact on what happens when it comes to girls/women.

  56. deti January 29, 2014 at 8:56 am #

    “ There is one other avenue of omega. I had so many opportunities to bang the women I was dating, and I went from “acceptable beta” to “thinkofyouasafriend” omega precisely because I was not willing to cross the sexual boundary line with those women.”

    Interesting. I was willing to bang girls; but I also wanted to get serious with most of them once I’d banged them. The usual trajectory of my college dating career was: Meet attractive girl, attraction is established, move rapidly to sex, demonstrate boyfriend status, profess love, girl says words to the effect of “I don’t want to get serious” and “I just want to be friends”. What was actually going on was girl either (1) losing attraction because commitment was offered so soon and/or she was feeling pressured to be a girlfriend; or (2) wanting to keep her options open.

  57. jack January 30, 2014 at 12:10 am #

    Male commitment = end of female options once commitment is agreed upon.

    Women love the offer of commitment, not the act of reciprocating it.

  58. jack January 30, 2014 at 12:12 am #

    And I am now wishing that I had banged the ones I saw as possible marriage material. Churchian morality notwithstanding.

    In fact, the behavior of Christian women has brought me to a point of seriously questioning whether my views on Biblical sexual morality were wrong all along.

    I’m ready to start the Sunday Morning night club.

  59. deti January 30, 2014 at 7:02 am #


    It isn’t so much that your biblical views on sexual morality were or are wrong.

    It is just that men give too much attention to women who don’t want it or deserve it. Had I to do over again, a lot of friendzones would have been met with backturns. And I would have done no favors for any women who weren’t my GFs. It really is all about holding back investment until there is some indication the investment will be returned.

  60. Deti Fan January 30, 2014 at 7:55 am #

    You’re close, Jack, but still off a bit.

    Since women intentionally delay “serious” relationships and marriage until their late twenties or thirties (not wanting to “settle” for “boring” men), and view their teens and early twenties as a free-for-all season with plenty of time to kill on “fun” times and “fun/exciting” relationships with no commitments of their own (read: lots of sex with the most attractive men they can find who will sleep with them, and still hoop those men will make commitments to those women), then….

    ….commitment = another “option” to throw in her egg basket of other “options” because they don’t want (or even care about) commitment from any average men or even some very attractive men. They are living in a fool’s dreamland (intentionally avoiding reality), and playing a fool’s game of lottery against every other woman for the 1 or 2 MOST attractive men out there. They think they “deserve” it because they WANT it.

    They don’t care about annoying things like reality or logic, their own objective market value, or their much less desirable likely outcomes, and so choose to plan accordingly. No, they only live and operate under the Feminine Imperative, Hypergamous drive to chase after that which their hearts WANT. They only know that they WANT the MOST attractive man out there, that 1 in 500 billion odds pursuit that they know they likely won’t win, but WILL WANT TO TRY PURSUING ANYWAY. They would rather go down in a blaze of UNLOVED/UNWANTED/LOTTERY LOSER GLORY than ever try to have a normal relationship with a less than “perfect” attractive man, or heaven forbid an average man. (Ok Cupid showed that women rate 80% of men as “below average”) And of course that means lots of “fun” sex with as many attractive men as they can find, trying to secure all those (top 5-10%) commitment “options” into their egg basket of all their possible “options.

    Even if they are offered commitment by a lot of men, that’s not enough for them. They don’t even care! They only WANT to return their own commitment to THE MOST ATTRACTIVE MAN in their egg basket collection of “already offered suitable options.”

    Their entire dating strategy is based on securing commitment from a bunch of men and discarding all but the most attractive of them. But if the most attractive option fails, they will still entertain a slightly lower option while they continue their hunt for what they really WANT.

    This is why commitment/loyalty don’t have any value to women, because they will always WANT THE MOST ATTRACTIVE “option”, even if they are in a “committed” relationship.

    A man thinks a commitment is for life (his word is his bond, and he will be bound by it), but a woman thinks a commitment is for the moment, or at least until she THINKS SHE WANTS ANOTHER “MORE” ATTRACTIVE MAN, and then that “committed” relationship she was in is placed back into her egg basket of possible options, so she can play that game of lottery again.

    Women live by their feelings, emotions, and WANTS, and all they know or think about is “That guy is really attractive, and I WANT him.” Even if they know they shouldn’t pursue him, and they know it will end badly, they have to try because it is what they WANT.”

    The fact that some woman somewhere won that game of lottery is all the proof she thinks she needs to believe “it could happen for me too,” and so against all reality, logic, or wisdom, she will RATIONALIZE, and sacrifice everything in her life to play that foolish game to win the most attractive man out there, all because she is hypnotized by her own Hypergamous WANT for him.

    A woman’s commitment is only as strong as her temporary, moment-by-moment attraction to a given man.

    She WANTS everything, and She WANTS nothing. She doesn’t even know what she WANTS, but she will tell you she’ll love you forever.

    Never confuse a woman’s words, “I love you!,” with “I want to marry you!,” because even her words “I love you!,” don’t mean anything. She’ll swear to God that she loves you, then change her mind the next day, and the only things that changed during that time was the date on the calendar and her emotions. You can’t trust a woman’s words, and much less her commitment, because the only thing she is truly committed to is her own emotions.

    And Jack…… nightclub for you! Wrong answer! Try again!

    Didn’t you watch 8 Mile?: “There’s no such thing as halfway crooks!”

  61. jack February 3, 2014 at 11:40 am #

    So be it then.

  62. Chris Dagostino February 4, 2014 at 8:01 am #

    To compliment what Jack has been saying….

    God blessed my finances in a big way a year ago, and I decided to send a Christian lady friend of mine a generous check just for the hell of it. A short time before this we had had lunch and discussed the anal-pain that is tuition debt, so I thought I’d help out and give her some random spending cash. 

    Not too long afterward, she sent me a PM on Facebook a few days later saying how the check was “haunting” her because she thought there were ulterior motives on my part. I assured her that there were no strings attached and that I was a guy with unusual self-control who didn’t always have “that” on the mind. I don’t think she believed me, because now she seems to be avoiding me even after she said she’d get back to me about hanging out again. 

    Ladies–believe it or not, some of us male pigs aren’t always after sex. Don’t let gender stereotypes rob you of the most basic and platonic of friendships.

  63. jack February 5, 2014 at 4:12 pm #

    Not to criticize, but I would no longer do what you did (I was once the kind of guy who would, and who did).

    Besides, all it does is enable them in their friend-zoning.

    If men stopped playing provider for the women (I as guilty of it too), then the women wold have to seek provider males.

  64. an observer February 16, 2014 at 7:29 pm #

    Had I to do over again, a lot of friendzones would have been met with backturns. And I would have done no favors for any women who weren’t my GFs. It really is all about holding back investment until there is some indication the investment will be returned.

    This is a good description of something that in retrospect, wish i could have applied as a younger man.

    If men stopped playing provider for the women (I as guilty of it too), then the women would have to seek provider males.

    This applies across all the domains of interaction. Unsolicited gifts of time, money or emotional support would not be given anywhere near as freely.

  65. Seth Connor February 17, 2014 at 8:51 am #

    So…I’m back from Ukraine, and I have to report on what dating is.

    Over in Ukraine there are scammers, party-girls, and girls who are not serious. For the most part, however, the women are actually that, “normal” women. Offering your arm as you walk isn’t an act of rape, but an appriciated gesture (and a necessity due to the prevelance of high-heels). Opening the door, taking the coat and other acts of chivalry are noticed and *gasp* appriciated! Furthermore, there are what I refer to as “female acts of chivalry”. The women whom you are dating will fuss over your garnments (“You look cold.”), pour your drink, and make your plate even if they aren’t feeling chemistry with you. Even if they don’t like you, they enjoy the attention and your masculine energy, and their feminine energy empowers you.

    If they do like you…watch out! They understand the male basis of attraction and will do things like send you pictures of themselves (tasteful, professional ones), become jealous if they catch you looking at other women, stand close to you and try to catch your gaze often. Example picture sent to me is below:

    The difference in these dates compared to anything I have observed here in America is twofold: 1. I am allowed to display and use my masculinity. 2. Women know how (indeed, spend time practicing) to display femininity.

    While the girl I connected with decided to pursue another person in the end, I can’t ever see myself going back to American dating. I enjoyed myself so much, I actaully tried to get some dates here for the first time in years. None of the women wanted to…unless they were over 32. It’s fine, I’m going back to Ukraine in May, and I’ll keep going back until I find my half.

  66. Red March 16, 2014 at 4:27 am #

    Lazlo, if it’s for marriage it is, by definition, for sex.

  67. Red March 16, 2014 at 4:35 am #

    Men who are talking about premarital sex: wrong website.


  1. Women in a post-feminist world: Domesticity, Femininity, Fit Friday, and this week’s Recommended Reading. | Sunshine Mary - January 10, 2014

    […] e. Haley notes that Nobody knows what dating is anymore: […]

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: