Columns

You have to find someone else. Then you can tell her you have found someone else and can't meet her for these jaunts any more. It helps if this is not another lie, though it needn't be a long term relationship, since it only needs to last long enough to get you out of this hole. Once you are out, you can never go back in.

Or just be completely honest with her and tell her you were caught up in the moment and explain to her how you really feel. This way, it will hurt some, but people move on. Lying never fixed anything the right way. If she's holding onto the fact that it could go to the next level and you are not, it is something that should be talked about or the week-long "dates" should be over with.

I agree with Kari. I was sort of in this position a few years ago and I handled it very poorly. That is the day I discovered that I was a wimp and being afraid to hurt the feelings of someone else (who I really did care about greatly) I would let myself get pulled/pushed into a relationship I shouldn't have been in. I've been working on that ever since. Maybe you need to consider that as well.

Ooooops. Yes, Kari's got it right. Do come clean with her, the sooner the better. Yes, it will hurt her. Yes, she will be pissed off. BUT, if you're honest with her sooner rather than later, she'll have the potential to get over it sooner, rather than later. And no more weeklong "dates". Not fair to her, not fair to you. She obviously wants something more than you do. Let her find it with someone who will reciprocate in the same way.

I have to go with the crowd on this one, it is time to come clean. Ideally, the best time would have been when she tried to buck the status quo, but now the damage has been done. The LW may never get sex from her again, but really, shouldn't all sexual affairs fizz out after 2 years? How he's managed to keep this going this long without saying "I love you" is really a mystery to me.

I doubt this "relationship" is salvageable. By dropping the "L" bomb, I think she is saying she sees LW as more than friends with benefits. By saying it back, (4 times!?! Was the LW really just saving her feelings or unwilling to risk losing out on the week of sex.....) she thinks he feels the same. If he goes back to behaving in his usual way, at some point she'll probably call for "the talk" and then LW better be clear on his message or he's gonna find himself down the aisle, trying to save her feelings.

If these two have had open communication to this point...."this is just sex", LW should have been perfectly comfortable responding with, "I really, really enjoy our time together." But then she might have gone home early...can't help but be suspicious about his real motives. If they haven't talked about what a six year relationship is, he really shoulda seen this coming. Take it as a good learning experience LW and remember her fondly, even though she might call you some nasty things.

"I just like her a lot" You like her or the string free sex? That's the question you need to answer first. If you have any feelings for her beyond good sex then think before you do anything rash. What ever you could have with her will end instantly. Maybe something might go further. If this is all about sex then tell her as soon as possible. Leading her on means you don't give a shit about her in this situation. You have had your fun for six years, time for her to move on.

P.S. The difference between love and like is ? Just curious what everyone else thinks, give the discussion a reference point.

Somebody can like somebody as a person and enjoy having sex with them and not want a thing more, and there's nothing wrong with that. There tends to be a Puritanical notion that this is wrong. It's not.

What this person doesn't want is a relationship with the other person. There's warm feeling but not "I must see you every day and spend the rest of my days with you" feeling. And again, nothing wrong with that.

"P.S. The difference between love and like is ? Just curious what everyone else thinks, give the discussion a reference point."

The distinction I usually make is:

• 
  You like someone if you enjoy having them around you.
  
• 
  You love someone if their happiness and well-being is necessary to yours.
  

Being "in love" with someone doesn't fall into either of these categories by itself. "In love" is more like a natural drug-state designed to keep you near someone long enough to find out whether you would make compatible long-term mates.

Heinlein called love “the condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own.”

That's almost certainly where I picked it up. Thanks for the attribution!

"I must see you every day and spend the rest of my days with you" Amy then doesn't that mean that you do not actually believe in said feeling? I like Heinlein's definition and most of his work. So to use his definition:

He appears to put his desire for the nasty above her feelings. He should end it, the only nice thing to do here, he certainly doesn't love her as per above.

I am interested to hear more about the "I thought we had a no-strings-attached arrangement" part.

Clearly he thought that; did she? I was kind of intrigued that he didn't say something like "We had BOTH agreed this was a no-strings-attached arrangement."

For the record I am not against no-strings-attached arrangements - quite the contrary! It just struck me that the LW used an interesting turn of phrase that suggests it was a mutual agreement without actually saying outright that it was. Hmm.

Do people really go from NSA to "I love you", just like that?

Just generalizing on the fly, Vlad - one example of how a lot of people experience the feeling of love versus like. I typically use Heinlein's definition, among a few others.

He had an agreement with her and she got gooey on him and he was unprepared for it. He didn't wrong her by not wanting her the way she wants him.

"He didn't wrong her by not wanting her the way she wants him." No but when she asked to change the agreement he faked agreeing to it. So in this way he most certainly did wrong her. Now if he was kind of on the stupid side (at the time I had a similar situation I was dumb as shit to the extreme) and just missed the implications of his actions it's a different story. He knew immediately that she wanted more and he freaking faked it.

"Just generalizing on the fly, Vlad" Fair enough.

"Do people really go from NSA to "I love you", just like that?" Define just like that. He may have missed all of the other clues.

Yeah Vlad that's what I mean. I am just guessing that she had a different picture of what their relationship was than he did. I've known plenty of people in NSA relationships - even had one myself a million years ago - and it seems weird that she'd go from total NSA to "I love you" without sending out some clues about her feelings in the interval.

I mean who knows. Obviously I'm just speculating. My my guess is that he either missed, or wilfully ignored, some signs from her about where she thought things were going.

Or hey maybe she means I love you in that same way some of us say it to our friends. Who can say?

PS It also strikes me as odd that a woman would fly across to the other side of the country to get some tasty NSA nookie, with nothing else involved in the relationship at all?

Honestly, women here: how hard would it be for you to find a 'buddy' within a 20-minute drive of your house, if all you were looking for was NSA sex?

I doubt I'd even have to leave my apartment complex.

Ah, now I understand.

He's male. It's obvious the only thing he's interested in is sex.

How could I have forgotten that?

BerthaMinerva: Yes, I think people *can* develop love and/or infatuation feelings during NSA affairs...especially when the time spent romping together is either frequent or lengthy (like, say, a week). That old primate bonding thing. It can happen, often unexpectedly.

But I'm not sure why the majority thinks it so necessary for the LW to "come clean" to his inamorata. Why does he owe her that? It's not likely to do her any good. Why is it on morally higher ground to let her know, "I was lying, I'm just not that into you," when she is probably going to suffer more from hearing that?

I'm with Norman, find (or hire) another FWB, and regretfully let her know that it's over. Simplest way for *her* to be able to move on. (Oh yeah, and I agree with the collectivity that it *needs* to be over, the LW definitely mustn't go back.)

IMHO speculation about whether he said the 3 little words back to her for the nookie is useless. We don't know, we weren't there. Some guys have a horror of female tears. (And how often do we hear about young ladies who, rather than honestly saying "no" to being asked out, will just keep offering busy/tired/not-right-now excuses...for fear of hurting the gentleman's feelings?). There is a politeness reflex that comes from fear of confrontation. It could've been that.

Amy: As usual, enjoying your perspective, esp. the bit about oxytocin. Someone I know once wrote an indy press magazine article about the in-love/limerence phenomenon called "Apes On Drugs". ain't it the truth?

I don't think he should worry about it if he likes her. They might like each other an equal amount, but she calls it love more quickly. He needs to get out his thesaurus & wean her off the word slowly.

"Love is a dung hill, Betty, and I am but a cock that climbs upon it to crow." (Archibald Cunningham)

NSA sex arrangements are GREAT gor both genders - and w/an airplane flight's distance between them and the fact that they only got together one week a year, i'm guessing they both knew the limitations of the situation, that it wasn't a very likely scenario for exploring an actual full-fledged relationship. BUT it does seem that there is a time limit to how long you can do the NSA sex deal w/a person before someone starts developing an attachment. Helen Fisher writes about it in The Anatomy of Love, and i'm sure hundreds of other scientists/authors do as well. putting it really simply, the biochemicals of infatuation ultimately stimulate the biochemicals of attachment if you're still together when the infatuation starts to fade...

The thing about FWB and NSA is that technically you can have more than one of these "relationships" at once. So, getting another fuck buddy isn't exactly the instant solution it would be if she were his girlfriend. She may be willing to continue "relations" anyway, even though he has someone else, unless he specifies that he's seeing this other person exclusively or as his girlfriend. And then she is going to think that there was something wrong with her, and agonize over what she did wrong to make him want to commit to this other woman but not to her.

Ultimately the only way they are both going to get immediate closure is if he is honest with her. Sure it will hurt, but it will be more like pulling a band aid off quickly than slowly picking at it. This way she'll be able to get over it faster and move on quicker than if she spends months trying to figure out why some other woman was better than her.

I don't personally find "I found someone else" any less hurtful than "I don't love you." With finding someone new it almost makes it seem like he was just using you while he waited around to find someone better. And that hurts, IMHO. Plus, It's a chicken shit way out.

BerthaMinerva wrote: "It also strikes me as odd that a woman would fly across to the other side of the country to get some tasty NSA nookie, with nothing else involved in the relationship at all?
Honestly, women here: how hard would it be for you to find a 'buddy' within a 20-minute drive of your house, if all you were looking for was NSA sex?"

yeah it's a long way to go for a little nookie - or a lotta nookie as it were - but having your fling be out of town instead of 20 minutes away helps keep it from easily, quickly morphing into something it wasn't intended to be - he won't start showing up at your door constantly becuz he's a convenient 20 minutes away, and physical distance CAN make it easier to maintain the NSA part of the deal.

in terms of the question at hand, if this was a mutually desired NSA arrangement, i think the point at which one person starts feeling attachment, as the woman did, is the time to re-negotiate. either both people find their feelings have grown deeper, in which case they can explore a relationship if they both want to, or it's time to end the fling becuz both people are no longer able to hold their end of the bargain which was NO STRINGS ATTACHED.

Does a sex vacation without hotel costs really sound like that bad a deal?

sounds like a very viable vacation package. VVVP.

"Does a sex vacation without hotel costs really sound like that bad a deal?" No sounds great but with one caviate. If you both meet in a neutral place like a hotel room there is less closeness thus less of a chance for the whole thing to snowball. It get much worse if the nookie happens in someone's home as opposed to an apartment. I can guess why but it's what I have seen.
I'd like to point out that every successful relationship I know of started out a FWB, actially not it was more like fuck buddies.

vlad wrote: "every successful relationship I know of started out [as]...fuck buddies."

yep. there's really something to this and i'm interested in hearing WHY people think this works. my own theory is that when you enter a fling knowingly and intentionally you are by definition maintaining some sort of independence / differentiation / taking responsibility for yourself - which is the opposite of entering into a relationship with all kinds of EXPECTATIONS of how the other person is supposed to be, how he/she is supposed to "make" you feel (making the other responsible for how you feel) -- which is a set up that i think is guaranteed to fail.

Semi-related question, is there a proper way to respond to someone who has said the "L" word when you aren't ready? In a previous relationship, my bf of 2 months and I were lying in bed and he told me he loved me. I was horrified. I was also surprised as hell. I looked at him and it must have been written all over my face because when I asked him to repeat what he had just said he said "I SAID, what am I going to do with you?" Fast forward 2 weeks and he found another girl. We had a good thing, he just popped that word out a bit too early and I think my dead silence upon that announcement kinda killed it dead (as we say in Texas). So, how do you respond when someone says it and you're not there yet?

i think you need to gently, tenderly, kindly tell them you don't feel the same way. i don't think it's necessary to say explicitly "i don't love you" but beating around the bush and/or not being honest w/someone in this situation only makes things worse.

WHY people profess LOVE prematurely is another discussion entirely...

Wow. Awwwwkwaaaaaard!

So, I essentially see the LW's question as being: how do I get out of this without being the "bad guy."

He can't. He IS the bad guy--saying "I love you" to a woman several times without meaning it. That's not to say he's a bad person--just the "bad guy" in this situation.

So now he needs to own up to being the "bad guy" like ADULTS do. Will he hurt her? Probably. But I would rather a guy just tell me straight up that I caught him off guard and his "I love you too" was a knee-jerk reaction. Then, I could say back to his face, "Fine. Thanks for jerking me around. It's been fun." Otherwise, I'd be sitting there assuming my love was reciprocated, thinking about ways I could change my life so that we could "be together." That wastes my time. And my money buying all those plane tickets.

I approached my situation with my FB in a very roundabout way. After about 6 months of awesome sex, the inevitable started to happen to me, which was, I started to have 'feeeeeelings'! I tried to squash them, but they wouldn't go away, so I said to him, "I'm starting to have feelings". I didn't use the L word or the R word, so as not to scare him, as I didn't want to screw up the great sex. He mumbled the usual stuff about not being ready, wanting to take things as they come, etc. etc.

I never mentioned it again, and tried to squash the feelings again, which wasn't very healthy. I then decided to experience and enjoy them, but never mention my internal experiences to him. I'm happy, he's happy.

I sense that he has an emotional attachment to me as well, but is having a harder time processing and understanding what is going on with himself.

Now I give him his space, never call him, and let him pursue me. It makes for a very comfortable and happy arrangement for both of us, and allows me especially to live in the moment and enjoy him for who he is.

vlad wrote: "every successful relationship I know of started out [as]...fuck buddies."

Really? Out of all of my kabillions of friends in relationships, I can only think of one that turned from fuck buddies into romance (and maybe that's because the fuck buddy part only lasted about a month before both parties realized they were kidding themselves and actually had stronger feelings than that). I know several that started with sleeping together on the first date, or when two friends ended up getting romantically involved, but neither of those situations is a "fuck buddy" situation. I've had a few friends (almost all female) who developed feelings for their fuck buddy, but with the one exception noted above, non of those feelings were reciprocated.

There is something to be said about great sex, that is for sure. Best sex I ever had is with a guy I could never have a relationship with. I told him from the beginning that I was not a relationship type person and sex is the only thing about a relationship I ever miss. I made it CLEAR that sex was the glue in our bond. Still, he couldn't compartmentalize the sex and started having feelings. When he dropped the L bomb, I responded by saying, "You are so sweet." I knew right then that it was the beginning of the end. Later, when he said it again and I didn't say anything, he asked if I had heard him. I said I had and then I asked him if he had heard me when I told him I am not a relationship person. We had a discussion about it, and I told him again why I don't want a relationship right now. Then he asked me when I did want a relationship, if I would be in one with someone like him. I said probably not. And of course he wanted to know why, so I told him. It did hurt his feelings, but I didn't want any confusion. We continued to have sex for a few more months, but it just got worse. He told me one night that he was hoping to change my mind, and praying about it, so I realized I was just hurting him by booty calling. To be honest, in the end, it kinda pissed me off that he changed up on me. He was totally willing and agreeable in the beginning when I said I am in no way a relationship, commitment person...I just want to have sex. He was 100% on board then. He ruined a really great thing, and quite selfishly I haven't had sex that good since. I almost wish I hadn't met him. It was just that good.

The idea of having a sex vacation across the globe sounds divine. I would love to. Where can I sign up? And hotel or your place, I promise I won't fall in love.

I quite like Aristotle's view of love. Although, I think his analysis of happiness applies to love. Briefly, happiness is easily shown to be something other than an emotion. Think of championship Rugby players suffering terrible pains, yet they say it was the happiest time of their life. (Far too little philosophy has examined the human activity of sport.) Same for climbers of Mt. Everest and the like. Ultimately Aristotle concludes that happiness is an activity in accordance with virtue.

Likewise, I think love is an activity and not an emotion. One can experience a panoply of emotional states, both good and bad, in love. I think love is a commitment to a goal with another person. Erotic love contains erotic goals. Philic love contains philic goals. The love agape has universal goals. A 'true love' probably has elements of all three.

My view contrasts with the modern idea of Romantic Love, which I think is absolute horse shit. Indeed, the whole Romantic view of life is horse shit placed on a canvas for sublime contemplation. From the Arthurian Romance to Goethe's Sorrows of Young Werther to the modern Romance Novel, we see people in pursuit of futile emotions. The modern Sex and Shopping genre seems to posit that anything is OK in pursuit of an explosive orgasm --- cheat on your husband, jeopardized your children's paternity --- anything. But this seems to be an error. Love cannot be based on orgiastic emotions for the same reasons Poe says poetry cannot be long: emotional epiphanies are by nature short and they are more provoked by fantasy than by real things.

IMHO, love is a commitment act with another to achieve worthy goals by worthy means. On this view, romantic love is a species of love in which the flourishing of the other person becomes a worthy goal to be achieved by worthy means. They are valued as an end in themselves, not as a means to an end.

He ruined a really great thing, and quite selfishly I haven't had sex that good since. I almost wish I hadn't met him. It was just that good.

OK, this is one thing I just don't understand about women. What is it that's missing in sex with a person you actually care about? Why isn't it great, too?

Invariably, one encounters women who long for the lusty sex of yesteryear, and they are with men (sometimes married to them!) who don't achieve that grade. Why?

Sorry for the sequence of posts, but this thread has many different issues.

Somebody can like somebody as a person and enjoy having sex with them and not want a thing more, and there's nothing wrong with that. There tends to be a Puritanical notion that this is wrong. It's not.

I dunno about that. As Anne Campbell says in A Mind of Her Own, men have evolved a 'slut defense' to counter cuckolding behaviors in women. It's true that "there's nothing wrong with" women sleeping around, but men have evolved to more-or-less exempt a slut from permanent relationship status.

Uh, if you don't want a relationship to begin with, you aren't worried about being considered not relationship material.

And sorry, but do you really need to reference a book to know that guys don't want wives or girlfriends who sleep around?

Uh, if you don't want a relationship to begin with, you aren't worried about being considered not relationship material.

True. But I'm addressing this statement: "There tends to be a Puritanical notion that this is wrong. It's not."

The slut defense is not an irrational Puritanism. It's a rational double-standard. Women can't be cuckolded. Men can. Double-standard. Rational.

And sorry, but do you really need to reference a book to know that guys don't want wives or girlfriends who sleep around?

In the feminist circles I've been exposed to, yes. However, you are fully rational about relationships, and I get your point. I referenced the book to explain the slut double-standard in terms other than "Puritanism." In particular, I appealed to a theory we both find authoritative: evolutionary psychology.

"Invariably, one encounters women who long for the lusty sex of yesteryear, and they are with men (sometimes married to them!) who don't achieve that grade." She doesn't look as good as she did in high heels and a skirt for starters. She went with the stable guy who tend to be less adventurous. The same sex every day will get boring no matter how good it is. If he (both really) won't try new nasty things in the sack it get boring. No women wants to marry the "man slut", the "man slut" has more experince and thus is better in bed.

"Women can't be cuckolded." Have you looked at the definition of cuckolded? It specifically states that it refers to men only. The term is also meaningless in the modern day as there are paternity tests which I think everyman should before they sign the birth certificate. I think it should be required for the man to sign the birth certificate.

from dictionary.com:
cuckold
noun 1. a man whose wife committed adultery
verb 1. be sexually unfaithful to one's partner in marriage; "She cheats on her husband"; "Might her husband be wandering?"

Middle English cokewold, the ancestor of Modern English cuckold, is first recorded in a work written around 1250. The verb, c. 1589, is from the noun.

the notion that only men could be cuckolded is from the year 1250. notice the lack of gender specificity in the verb; by the year 1589 someone at (theoretical) websters, inc. had figured out that there's no moral difference between a wife cheating on her husband and a husband cheating on his wife. it's now the year 2008.

double standards are not rational; they're illogical.

just as men don't want wives or girlfriends who sleep around, neither do women want husbands or boyfriends who sleep around. a man slut is no different than a woman slut.

I'm with Trina -- "just as men don't want wives or girlfriends who sleep around, neither do women want husbands or boyfriends who sleep around" -- and I can see a pretty clear evolutionary reason for it. Cavemen who immediately ran off to diddle other cavewomen were not going to be there to help raise the cavekids. We're looking for a dude who will be there for us.

The term is also meaningless in the modern day as there are paternity tests which I think everyman should before they sign the birth certificate. I think it should be required for the man to sign the birth certificate.(vlad)

The existence if paternity tests doesn't render the term 'cuckold' nonexistent. Jeeesh.

In most states, a cuckolded man whose wife becomes pregnant with another man's child is legally responsible for the child. Husbands can be forced to be responsible for children conceived in adultery against them. In most states, the existence of a DNA test disproving the husband's paternity is irrelevant. The law assigns paternity to the husband in all cases.

I agree that paternity tests should be mandatory. Feminist groups oppose mandatory DNA testing. In California, feminists have successfully restricted the rights of fathers to DNA test their children. Tennessee has instituted mandatory paternity testing before a child support decree. 27 percent of tests show the husband is not the father. Unlike most states, Tennessee will alter child support decrees after proof that the husband isn't the father.

You may erroneously think the term is meaningless, but many (perhaps millions of) men are forced to pay for children that aren't theirs. This is modern cuckoldry. It isn't a nonexistent issue.

The issue is particular to men because women cannot be deceived by their husbands about the maternity of their children, and then be held legally to account for it.

double standards are not rational; they're illogical (trina)

Are you sure you know what logic is? It's about the grammatical relations that obtain between statements in order to avoid contradictions. You make a universal claim (because it's a claim of logic) that double standards are inherently contradictory. A single counter-example suffices to disprove your claim. Rapists should be treated differently than non-rapists. If that counter-example is not persuasive to you, then please provide a formal or informal logical proof of your logical claim.

A double standard is treating one class of people differently than another class of people. Are there unwarranted double standards? Sure. I rail against them all the time. does that mean that all double standards are unwarranted? No, That would reach beyond the strength of the facts, an error of informal logic. A double standard is warranted when group differences can give significantly different outcomes. Surely this is true of sexual relations: men don't get pregnant and women do.

just as men don't want wives or girlfriends who sleep around, neither do women want husbands or boyfriends who sleep around. a man slut is no different than a woman slut.

Well evolutionary psychologists disagree with you. The whole history of most cultures disagrees with you. The everyday evidence of male and female behavior belies what you write here. The slut double standard has been one of the most enduring feature of male-female relations.

It's a very peculiar argument to make in the first place. It's clear that the physical pressures of mating and survival channeled men and women into different evolutionary behaviors towards sex. For example, a behavior often touted by women is that a man should pay for everything because women are evolutionarily conditioned to respond differently than men to "providers." But then why would we expect men and women to respond the same way to sexual promiscuity? To presumptively believe it so is shortsighted, if not outright illogical.

Men quite rightly view sexual promiscuity differently than women precisely because men can be deceived about paternity while by and large women can't.

I can see a pretty clear evolutionary reason for it. Cavemen who immediately ran off to diddle other cavewomen were not going to be there to help raise the cavekids. We're looking for a dude who will be there for us.

But you ignore lots of contrary evidence. Females of all higher order primates use a cuckolding strategy. They dally with more physically desirable males and dupe a "provider" into caring for it. Males have evolved a slut defense that prefers non-promiscuous females as a means to reduce the rick of cuckolding.

I'm not making claims about what women think, but about what men think by and large. It's perfectly rational for a man to treat female promiscuity differently --- that is to have a double standard.

A usual, women want evolutionary psychology when it benefits them, but they want 21st century feminism when it doesn't. Now that's an unwarranted double standard.

Oh Christ. Not this thread too. Honestly, Jeff, you and Jason (see the Give Fleece A Chance thread) must talk your dates to death.

Honestly, Jeff, you and Jason (see the Give Fleece A Chance thread) must talk your dates to death (Gail).

Gail, I'll take you seriously. Perhaps I'm spamming the comments. I'm responding to statements by others, but sometimes even a response is indecorous. Sometimes it's better to just agree to disagree. Is this what you mean?

my point is that the attitude that it's ok (even good) for men to be sluts but bad/immoral for women to be sluts is unacceptable. if two people agree to be monogamous, they should both honor that agreement. if a man or a woman is not in a monogamous relationship, either one, regardless of gender, should be able to have sex with whoever they want to whenever they want to.

fear of being "duped" by women into supporting someone else's offspring, fear of "golddiggers" taking advantage of your fearfully guarded assets, fear that your woman will dally with a male "more physically desirable" than you, fear that a woman you CHOOSE to fuck will get pregnant and expect you to take half the responsibility for the pregnancy...it's all fear of women.

Males and females both have their own agendas when it comes to sex. Any questions, watch Animal Planet and see how things work!

Women are stupid if they try to behave the way men want them to, because they'll be unhappy, and the guy will get bored pretty soon anyway. I think our primate sisters are very good at being sneaky, and fortunately, males aren't very attentive, so it would appear that is the way things work.

here's what i've read: in terms of pure evolution, survival of the species, females mate w/multiple males because if their offspring have varied genes, instead of all the same DNA combo from the same two people, more of them are likely to survive. and males mate w/multiple females to spread their genes as far and wide as possible. that's not to say that plan is workable these days but therein are the biological/evolutionary roots of adultery...

QUESTION FOR AMY:

this stream is so far off topic that you may have abandoned it long ago, but if you are still here: you frequently refer to our hardwiring for things like seeking beauty/fertility in women and ability to provide resources in men -- what do you say about monogamy and the hardwiring for philandering?

If a man is deathly afraid of 'his' woman cuckolding him, he will choose a woman who has no interest in sex, either with him or anyone else. Then he will complain that his woman won't have sex with him, and feel justified seeking it outside of what his woman thinks is a committed relationship. She will inevitably find out about his cheating, leave him, and he will start the cycle over, trying to find another naive woman, perhaps this time one he can dupe on a long-term basis.

It's a no win situation for any woman who is with a guy who is as insecure as this, especially if she has a healthy sex drive. The guy has to realize that with a great reward (awesome sex) there comes risk (that of being cuckolded) and be able to suck it up and take the risk.

Trina, I know you asked Amy, but I think monogamy on a long-term basis is not hard-wired. If a couple is determined to be monogamous, it could happen, but then the relationship is work, more like a job than pleasure.

for years i've been trying to come up with a clear picture or idea (or like minded partner - past boyfriends haven't been able to deal w/the idea of not sharing the same bed every night or of leaving me alone for two or three days at a time) of some kind of coupling set up that is OTHER THAN MARRIAGE, which does not involve living together, sharing finances or spending 24/7 together, which allows lots of space and independence but which is committed and monogamous. the reality of the divorce statistics and adultery statistics point rather plainly to an apparent unrealisticness/impracticality of traditional marriage, and maybe even of monogamy...??

chrissy, it sounds like you don't buy into monogamy, so have you figured out some kind of relationship terms/definition that is workable w/o it? amy & gregg's situation sounds ideal - i just wonder, theoretically, along w/the idea that it's a solid commitment until it no longer makes both partners happy, does that include "until one of them cheats?" and is it assumed that one of them will inevitably do so becuz of human hardwiring? -- "them" being people in general -- i'm not trying to be nosy about amy & gregg in particular.

If a man is deathly afraid of 'his' woman cuckolding him, he will choose a woman who has no interest in sex, either with him or anyone else.

Typical false dichotomy. He'll choose a woman who has shown self-control and a responsible attitude toward his "providership."

my point is that the attitude that it's ok (even good) for men to be sluts but bad/immoral for women to be sluts is unacceptable

No it isn't. Men rationally prefer women who have not exhibited slutty behavior. Women rationally don't care about male sluts. I've provided ample reason and evidence for this.

...Women are stupid if they try to behave the way men want them to...fortunately, males aren't very attentive, so it would appear that is the way things work (chrissy)

And here we arrive at the basic conflict between the modern woman and the modern man. Women think men should do what women want, but women shouldn't do what men want. Some men, me included, think it's a misandrist world view.

"Doing what men want" is equivalent to doing things that make a man happy and secure. You shouldn't be surprised that men dump women who hold that belief.

...The guy has to realize that with a great reward (awesome sex) there comes risk (that of being cuckolded) and be able to suck it up and take the risk (chrissy).

Ah. The old, easily refuted, "man up" argument. Sure there is risk for a man, and therefore he's very rational to attempt to mitigate that risk. Hence the rational man will eschew slutty women in favor of women who have shown more control over their mind and bodies. Since women can't be cuckolded, they will have much less reason to mitigate the risk. Instead women will fret over the "provider" issues.

For women, evolution puts primacy on self-control. For men, evolution puts primacy on boldness.

for years i've been trying to come up with a clear picture or idea (or like minded partner - past boyfriends haven't been able to deal w/the idea of not sharing the same bed every night or of leaving me alone for two or three days at a time) some kind of coupling set up that is OTHER THAN MARRIAGE, which does not involve living together, sharing finances or spending 24/7 together, which allows lots of space and independence but which is committed and monogamous (trina)

Trina, this is precisely what most women want --- a provider to whom she has no responsibility. In my view, it plays utterly against a man's evolutionary drives. As a woman it's great, you get a "provider" who will presumably pay for your entertainment on dates and such, who will be there to "protect" you at those difficult moments. If a man was to commit to you under these circumstances, he would be utterly insecure. To overcome his evolutionary drives, he will dump you or place you in the 'slut' category. To a man you will appear to be an unsuitable mate, or you will become just another booty call --- and booty calls women don't get "provider" protections.

I means come on! At least try to see it from a man's perspective here. The modern woman's desires are out of step with evolutionary drives a and practically inconsistent.

When a man agrees to "provide" for you, your unilateral actions can cost him time, treasure and social repute. A man has every rational reason to ensure the women for whom he provides act in his interests just as he acts in hers.

Let me give you an example. Since my early years, my sister has been under my protection. My father enforced this by spanking me, even as young a five years old. My sister repeatedly abused this protection. In one case, she slapped a guy hitting on her. This lead to a fight between me an him. After taking a rather bad ass kicking, I told my sister that my protection isn't free! If she wants my protection, then she has to follow my rules. I would no longer allow her unilateral acts to affect my well being.

Chrissy states it outright: a man shouldn't act to mitigate his risk by selecting a responsible partner, he should just "be able to suck it up and take the risk." I think most women think this way. Men should just accept women's behavior as a given, and men should accommodate themselves to women.

This flies in the face almost all of a man's evolutionary drives. Like I did for my sister, I'm the sorry male who has to bring you the bad news: you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Jeff, I think your bad experiences with your sister when you were growing up have really made you distrust women. It's too bad. It sounds like no matter what a woman says to you, you will NEVER trust her.

Since your measure of a woman's worth is her sexual track record, not her emotional maturity, you will probably only be able to date a virgin. I hope you find one, and get yourself out of the dating pool, which you clearly find very stressful.

trina, I think Amy & Gregg's arrangement sounds good, and it is workable as monogamous.

I personally would prefer to keep separate living arrangements, but agree to sexual exclusivity. This assumes a high degree of intimacy and trust between yourself and your boyfriend, and the confidence to talk about any problems that come up, if you're not happy, or if the relationship is dead. You both have to have the guts to tell each other if you want to have sex with someone else, and either agree to an open relationship, or end it. There's no excuse for deceit.

I think after the initial honeymoon phase wears off, you can both get bored of the sex, so you have to make sure to keep it fun. If you're both really sick of each other, it's not a crime to break up.

What a great article! Some lessons here for both genders!

Jeff, I think your bad experiences with your sister when you were growing up have really made you distrust women (chrissy).

If you care about what men think, you should try to grasp this one point at least. Just because a man disagrees with you, doesn't mean something is wrong with him. American women have a disturbing tendency to equate honest disagreement from a man with psychological problems in a man. In informal logic, this error is called the psychological fallacy. Of all the difficulties that plague discussions between men and women, this one is the most damaging.

I've given reasons for my disagreement with you. Passing things off with faux psychology isn't helpful.

It sounds like no matter what a woman says to you, you will NEVER trust her (chrissy)

See, these kinds of unqualified judgments are typical of the American woman's habitual use of the psychological fallacy.

Since your measure of a woman's worth is her sexual track record, not her emotional maturity, you will probably only be able to date a virgin (chrissy).

And here we see the ultimate aim of the psychological fallacy: to make a dishonest claim. Usually, it takes the form of a misstatement of the opponent's position, or a claim of fact not in evidence, or tawdry insult. In this case, it's all three.

I've not claimed that a woman's sexual track record is a measure of her worth, but a measure of the reproductive risk evolutionarily implanted in male hardwiring. To make things clear, consider for contradiction this erroneous claim. Chrissy, you are obsessed with acquiring a "provider" male. Then you think that a man's worth is solely the amount of money he gives a woman. The basic error here is to take a claim about evolutionary risk and turn it into a measure of worth. Like almost all applications of the psychological fallacy, it's quite dishonest. Usually, it's meant to be.

I hope you find one, and get yourself out of the dating pool, which you clearly find very stressful (chrissy).

Ah. This is just plain insult. Let it stand in glorious testament to your lack of reasons.

"Just because a man disagrees with you, doesn't mean something is wrong with him." -- Jeff

Hear Hear. I sometimes felt that disagreement was treated as a crime, in and of itself.

i wrote: "...some kind of coupling set up that is OTHER THAN MARRIAGE, which does not involve living together, sharing finances or spending 24/7 together, which allows lots of space and independence but which is committed and monogamous"

chrissy wrote: "...separate living arrangements, but agree to sexual exclusivity. This assumes a high degree of intimacy and trust between yourself and your boyfriend, and the confidence to talk about any problems that come up, if you're not happy, or if the relationship is dead. You BOTH [my emphasis] have to have the guts to tell each other if you want to have sex with someone else, and either agree to an open relationship, or end it. There's no excuse for deceit."

JEFF, PLEASE NOTICE THAT NEITHER OF US IS LOOKING FOR A MAN TO BE A PROVIDER. we've both said we choose to live alone. that means we are self-supporting, self-providing. it doesn't work, in this context, for you to keep using these arguments which are based on the premise that the only possible way of coupling is for a woman to be dependent on, beholden to and obedient of her provider-man, wherein the man is sole provider and chest-beater in exchange for the woman "following his rules" as you demanded your sister do.

it is an inaccurate use of evolutionary psychology to claim it as the justification for giving men permission to be sluts while denying such behavior to women. there are reasons BOTH genders have strayed over the eons, namely to increase genetic variety to insure survival of more offspring for the propagation of the human species. and now there are reasons both genders frequently employ their rational brains to override their animal tendencies and choose to be monogamous w/each other.

neither men nor women are restricted, anymore, to traditional, outmoded man-as-provider, woman-as-dependent model of how to be together. these days fewer and fewer women - and men - are choosing traditional marriage. now we have what anthropologists call peer marriages, non-marriage partnerships, "commuter marriages" where the partners live separately, all kinds of alternative arrangements between two self-supporting, self-defined individuals who love each other and are wholly committed to each other.

Thanks trina, that sums it up.

If a woman provides for herself, a man can't use money to control her. Since he is not a provider, and therefore the woman is not beholden to him, he can't make her do what he wants. Therefore she will always be classified as a slut or booty call, according to Jeff's 'logic'.

This is why I said that Jeff should stick with a virgin, or at least a woman who is a true dependent, both emotionally and financially, so that he feels in control. And the virgin thing would just make things simpler, it was not meant as an insult, just an accurate assessment of an ideal match.

You are confusing two issues: how we ought to act, and how we are in fact conditioned to act.

it doesn't work, in this context, for you to keep using these arguments which are based on the premise that the only possible way of coupling is for a woman to be dependent on, beholden to and obedient of her provider-man, wherein the man is sole provider and chest-beater in exchange for the woman "following his rules" as you demanded your sister do (trina).

Huh? All over Amy's blog I've done nothing but argue that there are other ways of coupling besides a 'provider' type relationship. However, almost every women here has argued that men must still play to the vestigial, evolutionary female preference for provider behavior. For example Amy wrote,

Trust me, these women are checking to see if you're a "provider." How many of these women are eager to date sexy homeless men?

To be fair here, Amy isn't necessarily making a normative claim, but rather making an observation of fact. (I do think she is making a normative claim, however.)

I've consistently argued these points:

• Men can adopt roles consistent with female evolutionary drives that do not entail being a provider.
• One of those roles is the rake. Females have adapted to following a cuckolding mating strategy. The evolutionary drives condition females to mate with a provider and fuck a physically desirable rake.
• Just as Amy makes the undeniably true observation that women are adapted to seek provider males, I can also make the undeniably true observation that men are adapted to avoid slutty women as mates.
• While slutty women are discarded as mates, they are still potential sexual partners. So, women can fulfill a different evolutionary role, just as men can.
• But men and women cannot have it both ways. If a man adopts the rake role, he cannot also adopt the provider role. If a woman adopts the slut role, she cannot also adopt the mate role. It goes against our evolutionary drives. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
• One way of trying to have it both ways is to claim independence and then demonstrate dependence by expecting others to always pay for dates.

As for the chest-beating stuff. I agree. I'm showing the negative aspects of women seeking provider behaviors in men. It comes with baggage. Trust me. I have no desire to provide for a dependent female. Most every man I know thinks the same way. Please, please stand on your own two feet and pay for a date now and then.

it is an inaccurate use of evolutionary psychology to claim it as the justification for giving men permission to be sluts while denying such behavior to women (trina)

Why? If the women here can use it to justify female preference for provider males, then why can't I use it to justify male preference for non-sluts as mates? The evolutionary science is identical in each case. Explain your objection more fully. The slut double standard is undeniable, has been durable throughout recorded history, and is supported by the same evolutionary psychology that you've used. Why shouldn't I consider your lack of reasons an irrational prejudice?

neither men nor women are restricted, anymore, to traditional, outmoded man-as-provider, woman-as-dependent model of how to be together (trina)

But according to Amy, and I agree, we are still conditioned to behave as our ancestors did. You are confusing two issues: how we ought to act, and how we are in fact conditioned to act. Amy thinks we should realize that we can't change these evolutionary drives. I agree. Hence, we have females with preferences for provider behaviors in males, and males with a preference for non-sluts for mates. In each case, I think men and women can choose from among several evolutionary conditioned roles, but neither men nor women can play several contradictory roles at once. You can't have your cake an eat it too.

Therefore she will always be classified as a slut or booty call, according to Jeff's 'logic' (chrissy)

Except for the scare quotes around the word logic, exactly. A durable, mating-style relationship will depend upon harmonizing with evolutionary drives. This will necessitate provider behaviors in a male, and at least the pretense of a measure of chastity in a female. You may find this distasteful, but it is true.

This is why I said that Jeff should stick with a virgin, or at least a woman who is a true dependent, both emotionally and financially (chrissy)

But I'm arguing against males fulfilling the provider role. Men should instead fulfill the rake role which doesn't entail shelling out loads of cash to a woman, allows her to be independent, eliminates his insecurities, etc.

I'm also saying, in accord with Amy, that most women will want a male to engage in provider behaviors. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If a woman wants a provider, she can't be a slut because provider type males will tend to dump her, and she will have to conform to his rules. In this sense a virgin does approach a man's ideal, just as a billionaire approaches a female's ideal.

Though you err when you start making recommendations about my preferences. Personal stuff like that is insult, and it's not really warranted. I'm polite even in disagreement.

I think I've discovered a source of confusion in this debate, and I think it's my fault. I just wrote,

If a woman wants a provider, she can't be a slut because provider type males will tend to dump her

But I should have written, "If a woman wants a provider, she can't have been a slut because provider type males will tend to dump her." The slut issue one of sexual history, not cheating in a current relationship.

I've noticed that even with a guy who is just a fuck-buddy, and who obviously thinks of you as a slut, he is still surprised when (and if) he finds out that you're also having sex with other guys. The no-strings-attached condition only seems to apply to their behaviour, not yours.

I've talked to a few previous FBs about this, just so there wouldn't be any confusion, and they were shocked that I would even think of having sex with other guys. Meanwhile, they were keeping their options open, hoping to get laid elsewhere, and would wind up being faithful by default, only because they couldn't get any anywhere else.

These guys were trying to have their cake and eat it too.

The no-strings-attached condition only seems to apply to their behaviour, not yours.

Yes. He has evolved a slut-defense that affects even his choice of casual sex partners.

These guys were trying to have their cake and eat it too.

No. The standard is evolutionary psychology, not feminist ideas of equality.

Men and women are different, have different drives, and therefore different standards. By and large, men aren't capable of seeing a slut as a mate, even for a short time. By and large, women aren't bothered or are glad to have a relationship with a 'stud' who's bedded lots of women before.

It's only "having one's cake and eating it too" when one tries to fulfill two incompatible evolutionary roles, not feminist defined social roles that were made up out of whole cloth anyway.

If a woman lives a slutty lifestyle, then she will live a life of short-term relationships at best. It's the attempt to live a slutty life, and then expect males to forgo their evolved behavioral and emotional responses --- that is inconsistent with evolutionary psychology. Likewise for the male, the attempt to be a lazy, classless, slacker, and then expect females to forgo their evolved behavioral and emotional responses --- that is inconsistent with evolutionary psychology.

It is easy to confuse the question. When it comes to evolutionary drives, feminist egalitarianism is a fantasy. As I've said many times before, most women want men to behave like 18th century gentlemen, while women behave like 21st century feminists. Men reliably fail to fulfill this expectation, and women equivocate back and forth between evolutionary psychology and feminism. Then women look around in bewilderment and wonder why men act so strangely. It's obvious, and it isn't strange at all.

Which is not to say that men are consistent. Hell no. Men are very inconsistent. In fact, I blame most of this stuff on men. Men are scared shitless of women these days. Men aren't telling women the truth, but instead telling them what they think women want to hear. Stuff like, "I don't care if you fucked King Kong last week honey, we're together now." What the fuck ever. Why do men say stupid stuff like this, even though everyone knows it's not true? Because men think women are attracted to guys who act like gals. Because women want it to be true, then they don't have to have moderate their sexual behavior.

This is a personal experience, so take as you will. I pissed off a gaggle of a dozen women just last night at my book club. I told them brazenly that I only date independent women who have a life of their own. If I invite, I pay. And I expect a woman to invite too, or they get a polite escort to the curb. A couple of women played the sex card, but I just told them the truth. Sex for men is free, cheap and easy to find. I want more than a sperm receptacle. I want a relationship.

Most of the women got upset. But after the meeting, two of them chased me down and gave me their numbers. I thought one was going to orgasm on the spot. Many heterosexual women don't like pussies. Even chivalrous pussies who roll over for women.

Most women want an 18th century gentleman, preferably riding a white horse, in shining armor carrying a bucket of shiny Araby gold. Fine. I don't want those women. I like pioneer-style women who can ride, hunt, shoot, and partner with a man. My experience tells me that women like that can out fuck, out reason, and outlast a feminist woman anytime and anywhere. Those kind of women aren't looking for a "gentleman" but a roughrider to go kick ass with. They are a large minority of women, but they are easy for men to find if guys would only stand up for themselves and tell women the goddam truth. The sorry fact is that most men really are pussies, and lots of women seem to be specifically looking for them. I say enjoy. I'm in another game altogether.

My bullshit detector has been buzzing ominously lately, and it just went off with a vengeance. Jeff, your bookclub story rings so false I laughed out loud when I read it. Sorry. If you were as swimming in women as you claim to be, you wouldn't be spending hours posting incredibly long and repetitive misogynistic rants. Sigh. I'm sure this post will prompt another one. My apologies to Amy and the thread in general.

Here's the book club link.

It's kinda strange to be called 'misogynistic' when I've not made any anti-woman statements. I've lived in the UK and in Hong Kong. Unlike women in those places, American women have a weird tendency to explain a man's disagreement with them by assigning bad motives or a flawed psychology or some irrational bitterness. Pretty much, I just think some of the ideas discussed here are incorrect. If anything is repetitive and tiring, it's the constant ad hominem directed at me.

You apologize to Amy. If Amy wants me to stop posting on any topic whatsoever, I will obediently comply. This is her property not mine. I'm not a troll, but I am an enthusiastic advocate for my own ideas.

I do have an unconventional and (I think) exciting life, but I'm not swimming in women. I'm in Dallas where women want to be bought, and I don't buy women. It's significant that these two women are not from here. It was just a fortuitous happening.

So they are both tramps, with problems dealing with intimacy. I say this, because obviously for 6 years they both had no parter, or else were unfaithful for that week.

After the magic week is over, and you are safely a continent apart, tell her, and stop using.. I mean seeing... her. She is frittering away her prime years in this idiotic relationship.

Jeff, just so that you know, you give the impression of being very angry, hiding your anger behind your intellect. If your goal is to become a rake, or even have a long-term relationship with the frontiers-woman of your dreams, this anger has been sensed by a few women on this blog already, and will be sensed by most women you encounter face-to-face.

I'm just saying this as an observation, completely aside from your posts above, which I'm sure you feel are logical and correct. You will have to agree that you don't want anything to get in the way of your male goals, and this will definitely scare women off.

Just this alpha female's opinion, that's all ...

you give the impression of being very angry, hiding your anger behind your intellect...this anger has been sensed by a few women on this blog already, and will be sensed by most women you encounter face-to-face

This has the ring of sincerity about it, aside from the pot-shot at frontiers-women. I'll go out on a limb and take it seriously.

In my experience (admittedly anecdotal), women think any overt disagreement is angry. However, it's just not possible to determine a person's emotional state across the medium of blog comments. Women still try the impossible. Then they must equate reasoned opposition to their ideas with neuroticism. When stated plainly like this, it is easy to see how very fallacious it is. There is anger here, but it is usually on the part of women not me.

It happens in face-to-face conversations, too. Men often accord women a social deference in speech. Many women have come to confuse this deference with a moral superiority. On the contrary, the deference men give women was born of old beliefs in the irrationality of women, of old beliefs in female inferiority. Those beliefs were and are wrong. That old deference is leaving the scene. When women present ideas and make claims, they will be scrutinized decorously and with reason. Unfortunately, many women think that any scrutiny or any disagreement is a grave social breach. Not so.

There exists a large minority of women who grasp this. Indeed, these women detest the sycophancy that most women expect. These are women with whom one can reason and relate. They have something to give, and are therefore easy to give to. In my opinion, they are superior women.

You will have to agree that you don't want anything to get in the way of your male goals, and this will definitely scare women off.

Now there is one misconception about dating that I find almost universal among women. Women commentators on dating are gynocentric; they see dating from only the woman's perspective. They fail to grasp the evolutionary mating strategies are both cooperative and competitive. These commentators think that dating strategies for men revolve around attracting women. This is false.

The sexual revolution has given men opportunities with many, many women. The problem for men has changed. Women, American women most especially, date men for whom the have no romantic intentions. One of my friends (who is a woman, and yes I have many) calls it "dating for dinner." I call it "professional dating." There is also a kind of women who dates men, but doesn't really like them. Amy has written about this in some of her columns.

I have a woman friend who lives in France. She thinks American men play hard to get. When she gives an American man that "come hither" look, the men usually don't come over. But American are not playing hard to get. The need more evidence of interest from a woman. They have become accustomed to women who exhibit romantic intentions but are really not interested.

A man's problem is definitely not to attract a woman, but to repel the women he doesn't want. Men have to learn how to avoid the professional dater and the man-hater.

Which brings me to your point about scaring women off. This is my precise intention: I scare off inferior women. ('Inferior' meaning inferior for me.) This has allowed me to avoid spending time and treasure on women who aren't really interested in me. I haven't even met a professional dater in years --- they run for their lives. On the other hand, women who actually like men and who are bored with lapdogs, find be rather attractive.

In my opinion, men shouldn't be afraid of scaring off women they never wanted in the first place.

"I told them brazenly that I only date independent women who have a life of their own. If I invite, I pay. And I expect a woman to invite too, or they get a polite escort to the curb."

Hey Jeff, can you clarify this comment? I may be alone here (aside from Norman, anyway), but I'm not sensing 'anger' in your comments - I'm enjoying them. But we have had conversations several times on this board about women asking men out. Amy doesn't recommend it, and I tend to agree, unless she's already gone out with him a few times. (Once you're in that 'regularly seeing each other' stage, it can be more 50/50.)

You seem to have given the evolutionary psychology issues some thought, so I'm wondering how you square your evolutionary conditioning with having a woman ask you out. You mean you never get the idea they are pushy or desperate? Or slutty? Isn't there a hard-wired male instinct to be the pursuer? When a woman has to take the initiative to ask YOU out, don't you secretly feel like a pussy for not asking her first? And no, don't take that personally - I'm just speaking theoretically.

Smarty, you make a pretty good point in your first paragraph. Yeah, it has been six years, and neither one of these two people has had a significant other in that entire time? Good point! I'm guessing one or both of them cheated on someone during that period. Assholes.

But setting that issue aside for a moment, I'm not sure I agree with this comment: "She is frittering away her prime years in this idiotic relationship." Hmm, well, maybe. If you assume she has been secretly harboring a desire to have a monogamous, committed, loving relationship all this time. Most people want that, or at least they think they do. But how do you know? Maybe she doesn't give a rat's fat ass whether she has a serious boyfriend or not. Maybe she doesn't want to get married or have kids, is really busy with other things in life, and her once-a-year hookup with this guy has always been enough for her. And then, after six years, she found herself having feelings for him because she's human.

But frittering away her prime years? Maybe I respond to statements like this with kneejerk annoyance, because I used to get similar comments in reference to my mythical and completely nonexistent "biological clock." I have never wanted kids - even in the extremely rare instances where I interacted with kids I liked, I never in the very least wanted any of my own. In fact, as far back as I can remember, I have been totally dead-set against it. It took me forever to even grasp the concept that some people actually enjoy parenthood - I guessed that most people must become parents because they were too dumb to use birth control, or because someone sold them a bill of goods about the "miracle" of parenthood and they were self-important and delusional enough to buy into it. I don't think that anymore, but I still got my tubes tied three years ago with no regrets.

Anyway, I found that with the desire to reproduce removed from the equation, I can do pretty much whatever the hell I want with my life. There's no schedule or timetable to worry about - I don't ever have to get married, and if I ever feel like it's something I want to do, there's no reason why it can't be when I'm 60. Those Life Script dummies will say I'm frittering away my prime years too, and it always makes me feel like I'm surrounded by idiots.

You seem to have given the evolutionary psychology issues some thought, so I'm wondering how you square your evolutionary conditioning with having a woman ask you out. You mean you never get the idea they are pushy or desperate? Or slutty? Isn't there a hard-wired male instinct to be the pursuer? When a woman has to take the initiative to ask YOU out, don't you secretly feel like a pussy for not asking her first? And no, don't take that personally - I'm just speaking theoretically (Pirate Jo)

Well, to be technical, the women I mentioned didn’t ask me out but rather gave me their number. In evolutionary terms, they are aping chimp females (pardon the pun): presenting me their backside.

Don’t’ be surprised that women want to keep their enclave of dependence. If you could realize massive economic benefits, like having most of your lifetime entertainment free, you’d be touchy about losing it too. That’s why you see all this posturing and anger directed at men who challenge the economic and social rules of dating. Women aren’t reacting to some hardwired instinct, but to a socialized sense of entitlement to other people’s money.

IMHO, women are afraid to ask out men because they are too weak to handle the rejection that men routinely deal with. In our culture, women hardly ever hear the word 'no.' In many cases, women think they shouldn’t ever hear the word 'no.' This makes women far too delicate to handle the real world work of finding a decent relationship. Then it’s left to men to do the risky and costly work, as in so much else in life.

Unfortunately, most men have taken the advice of women on relationships. They have failed to grasp that evolutionary mating strategies are not symmetric. Men’s strategies are different than women’s strategies. And the strategies are just as competitive as they are cooperative. Lots of women put themselves at the center of the mating ritual. To them evolution is about creating males that will suck up to them until they are broke and broken. Bullshit. Evolution made males dominant not females. Men are capable, even optimized, for risk-taking and achievement. (It’s not all good though. Men also inhabit the sewers of thuggish, uncivilized behavior.)

What does evolutionary psychology have to say about women asking men out? Let’s first point out what men want, as evolutionary actors. For short-term relationships, men want women with youth, beauty, and sexual availability. For long-term relationships, men want women with youth, beauty, and sexual inexperience. Men are reluctant to commit because it reduces their ability to copulate and spread their genes. It’s up to the woman to entice the man to commit. There are just too many other sexual options available for men.

When a woman asks a man out, she betrays her sexual experience. She shows she’s a slut. She will be relegated to short-term relationship status. Using evolutionary terms, a woman who asks a man out is showing that she is ready, willing, and able to cuckold. She’s a slut, what else would you expect?

Do I think that men are programmed to be pursuers? Yes. But women are also hard-wired to be pursuers. Women and men simply pursue in different ways. Women have powerful evolutionary drives to select the best mate. They invest a lot in mate selection, much more than men. Women compete for men just like men compete for women. However, because men have come to believe the tripe women tell them about relationships, men have lost all power in the dating game.

Commitment between a man and a woman isn’t a one way street. It’s not just men who have to prove themselves. Women must show that they will be sexually responsible, loyal, and giving. Women must show sexual responsibility to men because of the risk of cuckolding. Women must show loyalty because of the evolutionary dominance instinct in men. Women must show that they are giving to demonstrate the ability to care for a man’s offspring. These are deep-seated evolutionary drives.

Mostly, the modern American woman fails to demonstrate any of the three. And women wonder why men seem so "insecure" these days. Women have tried to convince men that dating is all about proving themselves to women. Not so. It’s mostly about women proving themselves to men.

As long as women fail to fulfill their dating responsibilities, they’ll continue to attract lapdogs, doormats, and neurotics. As long as men allow women to ignore their responsibilities, they’ll attract man-haters, professional daters, and prostitutes.

When a woman has to take the initiative to ask YOU out, don't you secretly feel like a pussy for not asking her first? And no, don't take that personally - I'm just speaking theoretically

A friend pointed out that I didn't answer this question.

Answer: no. The ability to attract the advances of slutty women is the mark of a dominant male. Even women looking for provider males will stick to their chairs when this guy comes around.

If you are a male seeking a woman for a relationship (like me), this can cause problems however. Women can come to think of you as a "player," i.e. a fellow who won't be around when times are tough, a bad provider. On the other hand, by rebuffing the advances of slutty women, you show a superior capacity to stay with one woman even under temptation.

Do I feel like a pussy when women ask me out? No, I feel like a sexually dominant male.

Per Jeff: "IMHO, women are afraid to ask out men because they are too weak to handle the rejection that men routinely deal with."

Also per Jeff: "When a woman asks a man out, she betrays her sexual experience. She shows she’s a slut. She will be relegated to short-term relationship status. Using evolutionary terms, a woman who asks a man out is showing that she is ready, willing, and able to cuckold. She’s a slut, what else would you expect?"

Shit, we can't win, can we? We're weak or we're sluts, and Jeff here is Mr. Dominant Stud. Pirate Jo, really, you can't see why many of us see a hostile woman-hater here?

Personally, I like men who like women, and who don't lump all women (especially "modern American women") together into one big amorphous lump and make blanket assumptions about them. I like men that don't ramble on for hours and hours in a repetitive fashion. I like playful, witty, intelligent men. I'm guessing
Jeff and I wouldn't hit it off.

"IMHO, women are afraid to ask out men because they are too weak to handle the rejection that men routinely deal with."

I have never been afraid to ask men out, and did it with great regularity in my early 20's, never figuring out why my love life was such a dud. Then I wrote up a little survey, "Our Date: A Customer Satisfaction Survey," and gave it to a bunch of guys I'd dated. Turns out that men don't really take to being pursued; what they like is not getting rejected. They devalue women who pursue them. It's a woman's job to let a guy know by flirting with him that he'll likely have a chance with her.

Come on, does a woman who not only asked men out, but gave out "Our Date: A Customer Satisfaction Survey"...and follows bad drivers to 7-Eleven, photographs them, and puts them on her blog really sound all fraidy to you?

They devalue women who pursue them. It's a woman's job to let a guy know by flirting with him that he'll likely have a chance with her (Amy Alkon).

I 100% agree. But it still doesn't change the fact that women can't handle the rejection that men routinely deal with. I'm not complaining. It's just true.

Come on, does a woman who not only asked men out, but gave out "Our Date: A Customer Satisfaction Survey"...and follows bad drivers to 7-Eleven, photographs them, and puts them on her blog really sound all fraidy to you (Amy Alkon)?

Hehe. No, no she doesn't sound 'fraidy. But don't you think you've made my point? Surely you know, as women go, you're at least five standard deviations from the mean.

Shit, we can't win, can we? We're weak or we're sluts, and Jeff here is Mr. Dominant Stud. Pirate Jo, really, you can't see why many of us see a hostile woman-hater here (Gail)?

Eh. So, are you gonna start accusing me of being a racist and a Nazi too? No one believes these vacuous charges of misogyny anymore. Women have abused them to silence men just like the race hustlers abused charges of racism. Everyone recognizes it for what it is: you're pissed off and need to shut someone up. If you could see me now, I'm shrugging my shoulders in indifference.

who don't lump all women (especially "modern American women") together into one big amorphous lump and make blanket assumptions about them (Gail).

Jeeesh. The anti-generalization thing again. There is a distinct American culture of dating. I generalize based on that culture. You can dispute the generalizations but not the legitimacy of generalizing.

I like playful, witty, intelligent men. I'm guessing Jeff and I wouldn't hit it off (Gail).

Oh now I get it. This blog is all about you and I hitting it off! I just now realized it. This all revolves around me trying to appeal to you. I guess I should have told you a beautiful story that starts with a tragic event, leads to you leaving your husband and children, we have bodice ripping sex, but then you leave me because you still love your husband and children, so I ride off into the sunset knowing I'll never again meet such a great woman, ever.

Not. Life's not a romance novel. I'm not Dirk Bentley. I'm not here for you. I don't care one whit if your panties are in a wad. I don't care if my writing gives you terrible vaginal cramps and morning sickness. Abort it if you want. Really, I don't care. I'll even pay half the cost, which is more than you probably do on a date, toots.

Amy: "I have never been afraid to ask men out, and did it with great regularity in my early 20's, never figuring out why my love life was such a dud"

Amen. Ditto here. I'm not afraid. Did exactly the same thing in my 20's. I just found it worked better to let them ask me out. And my relationships are 50-50, financially and otherwise -- it's only the first date or so that I let them pay, and then only if I'm interested in them.

Jeff-- your assumptions are just plain wrong. I love that you can't even acknowledge that you've set up a no-win situation for women -- they're sluts if they ask you out, and weak if they don't. Trust me, I don't want you. I'm just exposing you to those on this site who don't yet have you figured out.

I totally get where Smarty is coming from, and even where Jason ("Fleece" thread) is coming from, although he goes on a bit too long and gets a bit too busy with his calculator for my tastes. They want equal relationships and so do I -- we just have a difference on how to get there and what to do on first dates. That's where most of the men and women that read Amy are coming from. You are another matter entirely. You don't have any interest in equality. You are a refugee from the woman-hater-feminazi sites, and I can spot you from a mile away.

(By the way, Smarty -- great point on the LW. I'm sure at least one of them was cheating on someone over the last six years. I didn't think of it until you pointed it out.)

And my relationships are 50-50, financially and otherwise -- it's only the first date or so that I let them pay, and then only if I'm interested in them.

Then what are we disagreeing about? This is exactly how I think it should be.

Is it my style? Do I not give you the deference you deserve? Am I not treating you like a lady? Are you acting like a lady? Can't stand up to direct argument in the manly style? Cry me a river, Gail.

I love that you can't even acknowledge that you've set up a no-win situation for women -- they're sluts if they ask you out, and weak if they don't.

Hey, I didn't make up evolutionary psychology. But I don't evolutionary psychology for this, I just need modern psychology which pretty much verifies gender stereotypes as biological facts. Evolutionary psychology just tells us how those facts came to be.

You keep writing this: "your assumptions are just plain wrong." But you never state which assumptions are wrong. Care to step up to the plate, Gail? Let's argue about the facts instead of your emotional reactions to my writing.

You are another matter entirely. You don't have any interest in equality. You are a refugee from the woman-hater-feminazi sites, and I can spot you from a mile away.

Once again, you commit the psychological fallacy. You are inventing a fantastic villain on the other side of the keyboard --- because you can't win the argument.

It's a typical female rhetorical strategy. Even with the nice perfumed packaging of your writing, it's still illogical horse shit.

I won't tire of pointing it out. Sorry for stepping up onto your entitled pedestal to tell you the truth. Eh. Not really. I'm not sorry.

Jeff, I don't think you're a villain. I just think you're pathetic. I don't need to waste any additional time explaining why your statements are sexist, misogynistic, self-contradictory and wrong. Your posts, particularly the last couple, speak for themselves. I've made the few points I wanted to make, and don't feel the need to debate every sentence of your posts. You might want to try the same approach. But perhaps you are trying that approach -- I note that you still haven't bothered to explain just exactly what a woman can do, under your rules, to prove that she is both strong and relationship-worthy if she is "weak" if she doesn't ask you out, and a "slut" if she does.

I don't need to waste any additional time explaining why your statements are sexist, misogynistic, self-contradictory and wrong...I've made the few points I wanted to make, and don't feel the need to debate every sentence of your posts (Gail).

I'm only asking you to clarify what assumptions you think are wrong. It looks like you are now running away from your claims. I'm not surprised.

I note that you still haven't bothered to explain just exactly what a woman can do, under your rules, to prove that she is both strong and relationship-worthy (Gail)

We see another typical female rhetorical trick: refuse to clarify your position while insisting that others clarify theirs.

You are quite wrong. I have said precisely what evolutionary psychology has to say about male preferences. Here's a recent quote from my posts,

Women must show that they will be sexually responsible, loyal, and giving. Women must show sexual responsibility to men because of the risk of cuckolding. Women must show loyalty because of the evolutionary dominance instinct in men. Women must show that they are giving to demonstrate the ability to care for a man’s offspring. These are deep-seated evolutionary drives (Jeff).

In a conversation with a written record, it's a lot more difficult to lie about what people have said, Gail. Frankly, it's stupid to try.

But this does point to one of the enduring contradictions in female thinking. The simultaneous desire to be dependent and to be independent. Women want providers, which is to say that want men who will provide for them. This is a relationship of dependence.

Women want a man to do for them what they don't want to do for themselves. Independent people neither need nor want to be provided for. And indeed most women have an earnest desire for independence.

Gail, if you find untenable the contradictions between weakness and independence --- join the club. I do too.

But the contradictions aren't in the ideas of men, but in the ideas of women who want men to behave like our evolutionary ancestors while they (the women) behave like emancipated sex kittens.

Do you want independence? Prove it. (From what you write, you do. Most women don't.)

Do you want a provider? Get used to being looked upon as weak. (From what you write, that's not you do. But it is most women.)

Jeff, now I'm confused. I just came back to this thread and now see what appears to be two completely contradictory comments, both from you:

"Don’t’ be surprised that women want to keep their enclave of dependence. If you could realize massive economic benefits, like having most of your lifetime entertainment free, you’d be touchy about losing it too."

And now this one:

"Independent people neither need nor want to be provided for. And indeed most women have an earnest desire for independence."

Which is it?

Pirate Jo, now I'm confused, too. I think this excerpt pretty well explains it.

But this does point to one of the enduring contradictions in female thinking. The simultaneous desire to be dependent and to be independent.

I keep asking the same question: which is it? What do women want? Dependence or independence? It seems that women harbor contradictory desires. There's no contradiction in pointing out a contradiction, only in advocating one.

To amplify a bit, if women really want independence, they'd have put up equal time, money and social risk. But they haven't. If they really want a secure dependence, they'd have been content with secure subservience. But they haven't been.

It seems to many men, me included, that women have contradictory desires. These desires cannot be satisfied in any possible world. By fulfilling one desire, they are logically bound to dissatisfy another. Hence, women live lives of perpetually unfulfilled desires.

It's awful to contemplate an existence of perpetual dissatisfaction. But in any case, men can't fix it, and they shouldn't try.

This means that men have to offer women a choice: chivalry and subservience, or equality and independence. Men shouldn't subsidize the contradictory desires of women. If women won't actually act independent, men shouldn't treat them as equals.

For guys like me, who despise dependence even in women, this means holding women accountable for sharing the risks, costs, and benefits of a relationship. Only a minority of women can handle that. Most get very, very, very angry at the prospect of an accountable independence.

I had a typical first date last Thursday. She was a very accomplished medical writer, running several peer-reviewed medical journals, and managing lots of people including men. She won't pay her way, yet she wanted me to validate her independence. When I told her that I was willing to pay for everything, but --- she can't ever argue with me in public, she gets no choice in our social activities, and she has to attend to my personal needs like dry cleaning and such --- well, let's just say she blew a fuse.

In the end, she admitted that's what a traditional relationship looks like, and she wants me to be traditional while she's not. I tried to convince her to be independent: we'd do nice things for each other and keep it equal. She balked. She couldn't handle it. She said she "deserved" a man who was willing to pay her way. When I asked what I, as a man, deserved, she said "you get more access to me!" In other words, by paying her way, I get the opportunity to pay her way even more! So much for "independence."

This kind of self-centered silliness perplexes and astounds many men. It's like Aristotle said, you can't reason with someone who doesn't accept the Law of Non-contradiction. All you can do is continue to point at the contradictions until they either get it, or they resign themselves to stupidity.

As a necessary qualification, I also admit that a very large minority of men can't handle independent women. They aren't prepared to negotiate, just like my date last Thursday.

WOW! Amy quotes Heinlien, too?!?!?

Swoooooon...

Wow the original guy's (Pinocchio)comment seems to be interesting to alot of people, including me. I haven't read all of the comments-- I'll be referring to Pinocchio's post. If Pinocchio could just broadens his view of the phrase "i love you" he'd have more options available on how to respond. Like he could have said, "Cool, thank you!" or he could have smiled or he could have said nothing. Or, he could have inquired as to why she loves him. He assumes he knows exactly what she means in saying it(maybe he does). I make this comment because I've said "I love you" to guys after and during enjoying them (and meant it)even when I didn't want to marry them or live with them. Those were situations where I had, like Pinocchio, long-term but sporadic sexual friendships. It is a wonderful feeling to have love for the person you're doing and feels good to to say it. I did't expect dude to say it back. There is a very funny scene in American Pie that is like Pinocchio's dilemma. Check it out P.