[Glock]

Check out this great article by Professor Steven Rhoades of the University of Virginia:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/37...n-e-rhoads

He has a website where he pitches his book on the science of sex differences among men and women. His book provides a lot of scientific vindication of the wisdom of the forum. The site is here: http://www.sexdifferences.net/

Here's a good passage:

Quote:

But, just as important, men settled down earlier in the past because they could not get good-looking and intelligent women to pay attention to them unless they had “prospects.” Men had to be marriageable and ready to commit to a relationship or most women would not have sex with them. Most men in their twenties still want marriage in the distant future, but they see no reason not to partake of the bodily charms of many attractive, intelligent women in the meantime. To bed women in our age, men find that good pectoral muscles (thus time in the gym) can be as useful as good career prospects (time in the library) — though with the shortage of men on college campuses, they may not need either.

I of course don't agree with Prof. Rhoades' view that men are putting off "growing up."

[T and A Man]

Still reeks of apex fallacy to me.

The non-apex men on campus are invisible, thus have no sexual market power

[vinman]

Quote:

The literature on hook-ups shows that what I have observed at the University of Virginia is typical. In the book Premarital Sex in America, Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker report that having more sexual partners is associated with “poorer emotional states in women, but not in men.” The more sexual partners a woman has in her lifetime, the more likely she is to be depressed, to cry almost every day, and to report relatively low satisfaction with her life as a whole. Elsewhere I have surveyed the evolutionary and hormonal factors that lead men and women to react so differently to casual sex.

The higher the cock count the lower her value. The only people that don't believe this are deluded whores.

Quote:

The contemporary mating culture helps explain why men these days take so long to grow up. Sexual mores matter. Today’s lead to remarkably crude men, but also, and perhaps more significantly, remarkably juvenile ones.

This paragraph is horse shit pandering because he made a good point earlier.

Quote:

Men were the providers and protectors and heads of the family; now they’re told they’re half the provider, sometimes less, and half the nurturer of the children — which they recognize as a cruel joke the moment they learn that, when they comfort her, the infant doesn’t stop crying as she does for her breast feeding mother. Working women have achieved important gains from these changes in behavior and expectations, but for men, going from head of the family to maybe half the provider and less than half with children doesn’t sound like a promotion. They may be slower to get with the program.

Not to mention frivolous divorce, and the subsequent rape in Family court.

[soup]

(02-15-2014 11:43 PM)Glock Wrote:  

Check out this great article by Professor Steven Rhoades of the University of Virginia:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/37...n-e-rhoads

He has a website where he pitches his book on the science of sex differences among men and women. His book provides a lot of scientific vindication of the wisdom of the forum. The site is here: http://www.sexdifferences.net/

Here's a good passage:

Quote:

But, just as important, men settled down earlier in the past because they could not get good-looking and intelligent women to pay attention to them unless they had “prospects.” Men had to be marriageable and ready to commit to a relationship or most women would not have sex with them. Most men in their twenties still want marriage in the distant future, but they see no reason not to partake of the bodily charms of many attractive, intelligent women in the meantime. To bed women in our age, men find that good pectoral muscles (thus time in the gym) can be as useful as good career prospects (time in the library) — though with the shortage of men on college campuses, they may not need either.

I of course don't agree with Prof. Rhoades' view that men are putting off "growing up."

Any other points that match up with what we talk about here?

[deathtofatties]

Most men don't get laid in college. 80/20 rule.

A lot of the bad ass players on this forum didn't get laid in college, and that's what inspired them to learn game after college. It's about when you peak and where you peak. Some guys peak in high school, some in college, some in their 30s and 40s.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(02-16-2014 12:26 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

Still reeks of apex fallacy to me.

The non-apex men on campus are invisible, thus have no sexual market power

This.

As an acquaintance of mine would say, "Whenever you see an all-encompassing claim about female sexuality or preferences, always include the word 'Alpha' to get proper context. For example: 'Where have all the good [Alpha] men gone?'"

[dads]

(02-15-2014 11:43 PM)Glock Wrote:  

Check out this great article by Professor Steven Rhoades of the University of Virginia:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/37...n-e-rhoads

He has a website where he pitches his book on the science of sex differences among men and women. His book provides a lot of scientific vindication of the wisdom of the forum. The site is here: http://www.sexdifferences.net/

Here's a good passage:

Quote:

But, just as important, men settled down earlier in the past because they could not get good-looking and intelligent women to pay attention to them unless they had “prospects.” Men had to be marriageable and ready to commit to a relationship or most women would not have sex with them. Most men in their twenties still want marriage in the distant future, but they see no reason not to partake of the bodily charms of many attractive, intelligent women in the meantime. To bed women in our age, men find that good pectoral muscles (thus time in the gym) can be as useful as good career prospects (time in the library) — though with the shortage of men on college campuses, they may not need either.

I of course don't agree with Prof. Rhoades' view that men are putting off "growing up."

In a way, couldn't you equate "growing up" with "coming to terms with reality"? In that sense, I see a majority of our male (beta) peers, clinging on to fantasies like women are all good and they'll find their true love or that their English and Communication majors will lead them to fulfilling careers. I'd find it difficult to disagree with someone who's view is that men are putting off "growing up". Unfortunately though, I'm sure his view is that the guys like the playboys on this forum are the ones who are immature, but mine is another way of looking at it.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(02-16-2014 04:04 AM)deathtofatties Wrote:  

Most men don't get laid in college. 80/20 rule.

A lot of the bad ass players on this forum didn't get laid in college, and that's what inspired them to learn game after college. It's about when you peak and where you peak. Some guys peak in high school, some in college, some in their 30s and 40s.

From experience, I would say in college the 80/20 rule is more like 60/40. Besides the players (usually guys in frats) here is what else I remember...

A lot of guys keep their high school girlfriends or continue to tap into that pool (which I did and now consider natural). Some of the nerdier ones get with the girls we all considered "invisible" - the 3s and 4s - which matches up with their personalities and looks. And others lock into one girl, who they marry.

Looking back at most of my dorm halls, more guys were getting action than twenty percent -- especially when we got beyond freshman year.

Is there any source for the 80/20 concept? If so, I'll eat my words.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(02-16-2014 04:52 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 04:04 AM)deathtofatties Wrote:  

Most men don't get laid in college. 80/20 rule.

A lot of the bad ass players on this forum didn't get laid in college, and that's what inspired them to learn game after college. It's about when you peak and where you peak. Some guys peak in high school, some in college, some in their 30s and 40s.

From experience, I would say in college the 80/20 rule is more like 60/40. Besides the players (usually guys in frats) here is what else I remember...

A lot of guys keep their high school girlfriends or continue to tap into that pool (which I did and now consider natural). Some of the nerdier ones get with the girls we all considered "invisible" - the 3s and 4s - which matches up with their personalities and looks. And others lock into one girl, who they marry.

Looking back at most of my dorm halls, more guys were getting action than twenty percent -- especially when we got beyond freshman year.

Is there any source for the 80/20 concept? If so, I'll eat my words.

Here you go:

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-10656-...#pid165761

Note that the standard female propensity for reducing numbers by 40% unless a lie detector machine was present does not influence the answers, since what we care about is the relative distribution, not absolute numbers.

In other words, 28% of men get 78% of sex. Not 80/20, but damn close. Also, at least half of "good girls" (with 0 or 1 partners per year) sleep almost exclusively with alphas, while the other half indulged occasionally.

That said, you're right that nerdy guys aren't automatically celibate - occasionally they do get lucky with below-average girls or find the rare few who genuinely prefer them. A partner count of 0 per year can still mean having a girlfriend once every 3 or 4 years. But it's dismal life, with many of them falling through the creaks into the involuntary celibacy hell. It's certainly a far cry from the "OMG college = pussy paradise" thought that clueless feminists and white knights parrot.

[Suits]

(02-16-2014 04:42 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

As an acquaintance of mine would say, "Whenever you see an all-encompassing claim about female sexuality or preferences, always include the word 'Alpha' to get proper context. For example: 'Where have all the good [Alpha] men gone?'"

[Suits]

(02-16-2014 05:38 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

In other words, 28% of men get 78% of sex. Not 80/20, but damn close. Also, at least half of "good girls" (with 0 or 1 partners per year) sleep almost exclusively with alphas, while the other half indulged occasionally.

That half of good girls are the ones who aren't fat asses.

[deathtofatties]

(02-16-2014 04:52 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 04:04 AM)deathtofatties Wrote:  

Most men don't get laid in college. 80/20 rule.

A lot of the bad ass players on this forum didn't get laid in college, and that's what inspired them to learn game after college. It's about when you peak and where you peak. Some guys peak in high school, some in college, some in their 30s and 40s.

From experience, I would say in college the 80/20 rule is more like 60/40. Besides the players (usually guys in frats) here is what else I remember...

A lot of guys keep their high school girlfriends or continue to tap into that pool (which I did and now consider natural). Some of the nerdier ones get with the girls we all considered "invisible" - the 3s and 4s - which matches up with their personalities and looks. And others lock into one girl, who they marry.

Looking back at most of my dorm halls, more guys were getting action than twenty percent -- especially when we got beyond freshman year.

Is there any source for the 80/20 concept? If so, I'll eat my words.

You know, it all depends on the school too. Some schools have a (Greek) culture that amplifies social hierarchies and funnels more poon to the top dogs -- guys in Frats/Sororities, Sports teams, etc... While other Universities/Colleges are focused more on academics/research and have a more middle-class crowd with more commuters. Also, schools near the city are VERY different from schools in a small town.

Also, just to clarify on the 80/20 rule, I'm only talking about guys that get worthwhile action from decent girls (7 and up) and not just any dork that lands a fatty.

[deathtofatties]

(02-16-2014 05:38 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

That said, you're right that nerdy guys aren't automatically celibate - occasionally they do get lucky with below-average girls or find the rare few who genuinely prefer them. A partner count of 0 per year can still mean having a girlfriend once every 3 or 4 years. But it's dismal life, with many of them falling through the cracks into the involuntary celibacy hell. It's certainly a far cry from the "OMG college = pussy paradise" thought that clueless feminists and white knights parrot.

[tylerdurden1993]

What's overlooked especially on here is the advantages of social circle game at college/university. Its the single easiest way to get laid in college. You could do hundreds and thousands of cold approaches like Gio and it only leads to a few prospects, or you could have a good social circle with lots of female "acquaintances" and get a few bangs a year out of it by just being there. I don't particularly have a good social circle but ive known people who do get exclusively laid through social circle at college and do quite well.
With who has sexual power at campus here is my report, Alpha males>Attractive women>Beta males>Unattractive women>Omega males

[deathtofatties]

(02-16-2014 10:49 AM)tylerdurden1993 Wrote:  

Alpha males>Attractive women>Beta males>Unattractive women>Omega males

So concise. I almost put that in my signature. The Sexual Hierarchy is found every where, at all times.

[Teedub]

(02-16-2014 10:49 AM)tylerdurden1993 Wrote:  

What's overlooked especially on here is the advantages of social circle game at college/university. Its the single easiest way to get laid in college. You could do hundreds and thousands of cold approaches like Gio and it only leads to a few prospects, or you could have a good social circle with lots of female "acquaintances" and get a few bangs a year out of it by just being there. I don't particularly have a good social circle but ive known people who do get exclusively laid through social circle at college and do quite well.
With who has sexual power at campus here is my report, Alpha males>Attractive women>Beta males>Unattractive women>Omega males

Where you at Uni mate? PM if you don't want to share publicly.

[Basil Ransom]

The article is terrible, the author is a blind pussy worshiper. If women didn't want hookups, they'd be behaving differently.

As a woman, getting the best, highest value boyfriend who will actually commit to her takes a lot of work. It means leaving your house every day in a presentable fashion, not wearing Uggs and North Face jackets, glasses and no makeup. It means being pleasant, and setting aside lots of time for sex with him, which WILL cut into her studying and socializing hours. Fewer girls nights out, less hard drinking and drugs to keep your value up for your long term man.

COLLEGE GIRLS DON'T WANT THAT. It's too big a sacrifice for them. They've done the cost benefits calculus and decided to hookup instead. Bitches love to complain. How often do you hear a woman tell you how easy her life is? Hell, everybody likes to think they have it uniquely harder than everyone else. The author never gets past the superficial silly lies that women tell themselves.

And around high status men you can bet girls will be incredibly crude. But yes, let's go on listening to some married jerkoff who sits in an office all day and hasn't gotten fresh pussy since the Vietnam protests.

I got laid well in college, all this shit was obvious. The girls who sincerely want relationships find them, it's not hard. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the guy who is so drunk he pisses on you after your first fuck is not going to be your future boyfriend. If girls want it, they get it.

Women want a sympathetic ear, and this author is looking for a predetermined answer that women are unhappy with hookups. So they engage in a mutually beneficial exchange, women bray to a man who will listen, and the man gets to cite these females' discharges as proof of his point.

(02-16-2014 05:38 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Also, at least half of "good girls" (with 0 or 1 partners per year) sleep almost exclusively with alphas, while the other half indulged occasionally.

You've misread the data, it doesn't say that. It doesn't have that much detail. The number of men and women who report 0 partners in the last year is the same.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(02-16-2014 12:02 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 05:38 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Also, at least half of "good girls" (with 0 or 1 partners per year) sleep almost exclusively with alphas, while the other half indulged occasionally.

You've misread the data, it doesn't say that. It doesn't have that much detail. The number of men and women who report 0 partners in the last year is the same.

Here is how I got this conclusion: assuming a relatively enclosed environment and the comprehensiveness of the study, there are far more men with high partner counts (4-5/year or more) than women with high partner counts, and their partner counts for these top men are larger than those of top women too.

Therefore, in order for these top men to have a lot more sex than the top women, at least some of their bangs must come from the girls with low partner counts. There's simply no other source that could fuel the partner counts of top men.

[Vitriol]

(02-16-2014 12:02 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Women want a sympathetic ear, and this author is looking for a predetermined answer that women are unhappy with hookups. So they engage in a mutually beneficial exchange, women bray to a man who will listen, and the man gets to cite these females' discharges as proof of his point.

The author has never learned the basic truth that women would rather complain about their problems than actually solve them. So he buys into the tone of pretty much all material written by women; namely that nothing is ever their fault, they don't make mistakes, and men should be blamed for the bad decisions women make in the dating game.

Women don't outnumber men by such a large majority on college campuses that there aren't enough available men for most of them. They just couldn't care less about most of the guys they come into contact with on a day to day basis and would never consider them as romantic partners.

[StrikeBack]

(02-16-2014 12:02 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

How often do you hear a woman tell you how easy her life is?

Was just telling a whining female relative the other day how easy her life is, not only compared to the rest of the country/world, but her very siblings in her own UMC family.

Indeed I've never heard of a woman who admits how good she's got it.

And yep heard it from too many young uni-aged girls that having a relationship (with a high value man, no doubt) is too much work, which is why they'd rather doll up and get drunk every now & then to hook up, then spend the rest of their time being slobs, instead of being on their best behaviours daily.

[puckerman]

Every college is different. A few colleges are still overwhelmingly male--specifically, the "nerd schools" like MIT, Cal Tech, or Case Western Reserve. Girls who are considered "unattractive" in high school suddenly find that they get a lot of attention when they go to these schools.

There's no doubt that most colleges are mostly female though.

[TripleG]

That UVA professors article is bs and stereotypes. I think it can only be applied to liberal arts schools like UVA with more females than males. I agree with the previous poster in that too much depends on the school you go to. I do not think at all that university is easier for guys to get laid in than for women, and on the contrary our sexual value is very low if we are "a dime a dozen". As someone who finished a very difficult major at a big engineering school I can definitely say that the 80/20 rule applies, that is 20% of the guys get 80% of the women. To me I only have two things to thank college for and that is great education and job but boy were those 5 years full of tough work and depressing celibacy

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(02-16-2014 06:26 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

(02-16-2014 12:02 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

Women want a sympathetic ear, and this author is looking for a predetermined answer that women are unhappy with hookups. So they engage in a mutually beneficial exchange, women bray to a man who will listen, and the man gets to cite these females' discharges as proof of his point.

The author has never learned the basic truth that women would rather complain about their problems than actually solve them. So he buys into the tone of pretty much all material written by women; namely that nothing is ever their fault, they don't make mistakes, and men should be blamed for the bad decisions women make in the dating game.

Women don't outnumber men by such a large majority on college campuses that there aren't enough available men for most of them. They just couldn't care less about most of the guys they come into contact with on a day to day basis and would never consider them as romantic partners.

"The author has never learned the basic truth that women would rather complain about their problems than actually solve them."

Allow me to take this off on a tangent: the above is why you want to avoid patronizing female doctors, physician's assistants, and women in any other health-related job that requires a woman to use detective/problem solving skills.*

Never in my life have I seen so many do so little as when I was married and my wife insisted on only female docs. After a back injury, she learned the hard way this is not the way to get better -- when woman after woman threw up their hands. It was only when she went back to male docs her problem got solved.

I'll buy the feminist idea that women would rather talk and men feel the neurotic need to solve problems (which was once discussed in a college classroom as a "flaw" of men's). But that said, everyone else should listen to my reasoning that men's "neurotic need" to solve problems is why you don't go to a female when you want to get better. (Not to mention that beyond all that. women doctors tend to take an even worse attitude with male patients: "You're a big boy, deal with it.")

* Nurses are OK, because they're usually just carrying out marching orders.

[R Smoov]

College has that reverse totem pole form of hierarchy

For guys:
Senior > Junior > Sophomore > Freshman

For girls:
Freshman > Sophomore > Junior > Senior

[Glock]

(02-17-2014 09:45 AM)Rosca Wrote:  

College has that reverse totem pole form of hierarchy

For guys:
Senior > Junior > Sophomore > Freshman

For girls:
Freshman > Sophomore > Junior > Senior

What is truly interesting is that this hierarchy is a microcosm of the arc of human life broadly.

Women in college have already experienced, on the smaller college scale, the blossoming and fading of their marketability.