Feminism and the problem of harassment and sexual morality

[ThePCWife]

A more interesting question, in my opinion, is what percentage of males compose the “desirable” category and what their response rate is versus the averave male.

I think we can all agree that the 6’4" “alpha” male has a significantly higher chance of scoring in a cold-approach scenario than the 5’6" balding “beta”. Which is actually where the isea of Game and Pick-Up theory came from. It is a strategy for the 80% of men who don’t have women chasing them.

And one of the earliest things they found was the most obvious and what you are touching on: rate doesn’t matter as much as pure quantity. An “alpha” with the success rate of 50% who only goes after ten women can be matched by the intrepid PUA “beta” with a 5% rate who goes after 100 women. Since the name of the Game was quantity, strategies had to be developed to get through the interaction in the fastest possible manner and reach either acceptance or rejection as early as possible in order to fit in more attempts.

Game theory also has shown that baseline acceptance/rejection doesn’t really change according to time spent trying… Or at least not often enough to justify the opportunity cost. If a girl is not down, almost nothing will change her mind, so it is best (from their perspective) to push the limits as far as you can to determine her feelings at the earliest possible moment. Now, men have always used these strategies to some degree (hence the “cat-calling”) but only recently has it really been approached scientifically and en masse.

And what they’ve found is that respect and “good behavior” are negatively correlated with positive response. Feminists and Christians don’t like to admit this, but the near universal rule is that women do, in fact, like the bad boys. The few exceptions to the rule don’t really justify a change of strategy as far as Game goes.

So it’s not really a question of “do women like this” as much as “do most women respond to this more often than they respond to something else?” The answer is a conclusive “yes, the Game theorists generally have it right”.

So really, women are largely to blame for all this. If they responded to nice guy behavior then the Game theorists would be working “beta Game”. They don’t, so Game theorists work “alpha Game” and unfortunately for everyone, that means cocky attitudes, lewd behavior, and a large, superficial net.

Cold approach is not the norm for most relationships or dating. You’re also completely wrong about the “six four alpha” and his success rate in cold approach. Most women do not in fact like bad boys. Otherwise that would be reflected in their selection of marriage partners. Yes, I know that “game theorists” (lol) have squid ink about that one, but in reality-land, most women are not signing on for 40+ years and usually 2/3/4 children with someone they loathe because women do have options. They don’t have to be married to someone gross or else starve. So no, most women, even secular ones, are not wasting their time and bodies with bad brad. They’re going with laid back dave, who is mellow, but not “nice” (read: entitled and demanding).

 

[starshiptrooper]

Right, because there is absolutely no difference between the men women choose to sleep with and the men they choose to marry.

 

[ChunkMonk]

And here we run into the problem of anecdotal evidence. Let’s say you and your friends are about 20-30 women. The average PUA approaches more women than that on a weekly basis, hardcore PUA’s can pull that on a Saturday nighy, easily. Quite simply, their experience is so much broader than yours that one is more inclined to trust their evidence.

Of course, there is also a problem with different populations having different attitudes. I’m going to assume you probably surround yourself and associate with relatively like minded women. Meaming you are probably not sexually promiscuous and neither are your friends.

The Game theorist also selects his population, but in the opposite direction. He specifically targets promiscuous women and girls. And he works fast. If he gets signals that this will take “more effort than it is worth” then he is going to break contact and move on.

Though, and this is going to be unpopular, the fact seems to be that Game really does work on most women to some degree or another, hence the popular PUA sarcastic use of NAWALT (Not all women are like that). Basically, they’ve seen the “exception to the rule” fall for their strategy too many times to trust the existence of very many exceptions. This also comes from the growing popularoty of “married Game” where married men adapt Game theories with their wives and girlfriemds and get similar results.

And like I said, the PUA isn’t worried about what the woman likes or doesn’t like. In fact, he knows most women DON’T like it, and he uses this to his advantage, by signalling that he is so “alpha” and rad-cool that he doesn’t care what they want or like. And women do, in fact, respond to these techniques and attitudes.

The big problem is obvious. Catholics should be chaste. Game is largely focused on the opposite goal. So as far as morality goes, there is no question that a lot of Game is very, very bad. Buuuuuuuuuut, there is also a lot of Game that is very important for men to learn, because it really is a very experimental psychological science that has brought a lot of insights into women’s triggers and behaviors. So it’s kind of a double-edged sword. Men should learn Game theory to know what they are dealing with, but should generally not use the majority of it.

 

[DarkLight]

I was not aware that anyone here was claiming that walking up to a woman and making a remark about various body parts or what you want to do to her later is a socially acceptable approach.

It’s what I mentioned at the start. You might be surprised how many guys try.

I think we can all agree that the 6’4" “alpha” male has a significantly higher chance of scoring in a cold-approach scenario than the 5’6" balding “beta”. Which is actually where the isea of Game and Pick-Up theory came from. It is a strategy for the 80% of men who don’t have women chasing them.

I think what this is actually getting at is that, for most people, the cold approach scenario is a strategy that’s going to cause a whole lot of women to feel harassed while having a very, very low actual success rate. This is going to be especially true if you’re not approaching in places where most people are looking for social interaction - a cold approach at the bar or club is going to have a much higher success rate than that same approach at the bus stop or grocery store.

(I’ve also seen a lot of the pick-up artist types count as “successes” scenarios that most women would call “sexual assault”. E.g. purposefully getting a woman drunk, or putting her in a threatening situation.)

But simply put, it becomes a problem when guys take the attitude that the fact that 1 woman might respond positively means they then have the right to approach 100+ women, a large majority of whom are going to consider it harassment or even threatening, just in order to get that chance with 1 woman. At some point being selfish is just bad behavior even if it does get you what you want.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Exactly. The average US woman has 7-10 sexual partners in her lifetime (depending on the study and generation) (self reported I might add, so this will deflate the number). That means her husband reflects around 1/10th of her sexual preferences.

And it is important to remember the existence of “beta Game”. Game theprists also figured out that a woman’s sexual preferences generally change throughout her life. In the early 20s she is usually looking for fun and social desirability, so the best approach for them is classic “alpha Game”. Late 20s into the 30s are generally looking for a life-partner, so signalling money and long-term interest are more important in those stages.

It is a horrible thing, but I know a lot of men are taking adbantage of the “beta-game” aspect these days and cleaning up by specifically targetting women who are signalling long-term. Basically, (and I recognize this is evil) they pretend to be that long-term prospect, convince the woman to get sexual to secure a relationship, and then delete her number, block her texts and move on after a few weeks.

These Game theorists are very smart, and they have a personal interest in the results, so it makes sense that they generally are right about their conclusions.

 

[ThePCWife]

Right, because there is absolutely no difference between the men women choose to sleep with and the men they choose to marry.

No, not really. Women who can secure marriage are overwhelmingly not field-players. Even if they sleep with more guys than futurehusband, it’s with an eye to marriage. The fling thing is mostly media creation and mostly done by women who aren’t interested in marriage. Yes, the birth cohorts of the free love era of the 60s to 80s (people who were 20something adults then) represent a different pattern, but it’s a blip and things are reverting back to old norms despite the massive sexualisation of society.