I was talking with a friend of mine last night about the mechanics of guys getting laid in social circles, versus the mechanics of girls doing the same. He's one of those guys that the community would call a "natural". We concluded the following:
If you're a guy and you sleep with one girl in a social circle, it gets easier to sleep with all the rest of the girls.
If you're a girl and you sleep with one guy in a social circle, it gets harder to sleep with the rest of the guys.
As he put it, "The more girls who know about your exploits without knowing names and without you telling them, the easier it becomes to get sex."
As I put it, "Boys like to feel like they're special, like they're planting a flag in an unclaimed piece of territory. And once you've hooked up with one of them, his friends will pay lip service to the idea that he has some claim to you."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Hitori,
Really dig most of your stuff. I was wondering if you've read or have heard anything (that is from intelligent friends, not the press,) about 2 books:
1. Fooled by Randomness
2. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
Both are by Nicholas Taleb
They seem like books that might provide insight into blind spots in thinking. I am a little bit weary though b/c they do deal with multiple topics (business, war, etc.) and the author seemed arrogant on Charlie Rose. Any insight would be appreciated.
Lastly, and you don't have to answer this if you feel it'll "out" you, but are you a grad student or a professor??? Your writing on masf is at times quite academic and verging on mental masturbation (that's not a diss, just an observation).
Sometimes I wonder if you're a psych professor sitting in his leather chair at an Ivy stroking his beard and laughing as you propose your often unique slant on things pu related. Just wondering...
-SLV
SLV:
I haven't heard of either of those books, but I'll be sure to look them up.
To answer your second question: no, I'm neither a grad student nor a professor. I've done a lot of academic writing at the undergrad level, though, which rapidly becomes obvious when you skim over my longer and more theoretical posts. As you noted.
Re: Psych professor stroking his beard in an ivory tower armchair - that'd be amusing, but I'm not a man -or- a professor and psych isn't my field. ASF is just a hobby. If you cast the net wide enough, actually, there are a handful of community guys out there who have met me face-to-face.
I'm curious as to which bits strike you as mental masturbation.
-Hitori
Regarding mental masturbation:
When i was a freshman (2 yrs ago), we had to read a bunch of academic articles about some interesting and some not so interesting topics. Some of the authors were SOOO verbose that you wanted to shoot yourself in the head. Some of the topics covered were, imo, retarded, ex. the rise of some obscure female music movement in a specific neighborhood in NYC around 1983 and what it meant about female politics in Reagan's America.
As a result, I have incorrectly come to associate academic writing with mental masturbation (fallacy of positive correlation). Hence, when i read some of your archived shit when I was sick in bed one day, I saw academic writing and jumped to mental masturbation. (perhaps it was your feminine sexuality post).
I guess a real mental masturbation post would be answering questions that would never ever happen; going into highly theoretical aspects of pu that are incredibly unlikely, such as:
"Hitori's guide to slammin' pussy on the international space station"
or
"Fuck finding food!!!! THE LAST POST YOU'LL EVER NEED in order to convince your girl to try anal during a nuclear holocaust"
Sure, one's game would need to be fine tuned for these possible scenarios, but to actually devise a way to do so would be mental masturbation.
So i guess i mispoke, though it was fun analyzing my thought process.
Duh i know you're not a man... I think it'd be funny though if one of masf's elite was a housewife in Deluth or an eskimo in a retirement home that's trying to pass his time.
-SLV
This makes an enormous amount of common sense.
Do you think it's really "harder" for a woman? Or harder for a woman not be viewed as a slut? (absolutely loathe that word)
Good to see you back.
Interesting:
If one were so inclined you could look at this through an evolutionary lense. Alpha male = leader of the pack = access to the women.
Re: Men claiming lip service to the fact that a previous hook-up has some claim to a woman - I think much of that stems from insecurity on the part of the men. In alot of social circles there seems to be a certain heirarchy of the men with a clear difference between men who are successfull with women and those who are less so.
If a man has is the first in the social to hook up the girl, especially as a result of the "snowball effect" you describe if he has hooked up with her friends - unfortunately the other men's insecurity takes over and they allow this primitive evolutionary scenario to play out and slot themselves into the Beta role. This manifests itself with an unspoken assumption that the man has something they dont (masculine drive) in terms of pleasing a woman. Since the man was the first one in the social circle to take the initiative they may be correct. (The beta males often get their fix of feminine energy by discussing and hanging out platonically with the female and turning off their sexuality/acting out the provider role if they know they cant compete on a "lover" level.)
On the other hand, I find that women are less likely to have this insecurity in terms of going where another woman has gone before. This can play out in a good way (secret society + discretion) if the girls are HSE and cool or in a bad way (drama and competitive cattiness) if a woman in the social circle is LSE.
In situations where the girl has hooked up with more than one in the social circle I find that it has to be a situation where the men are extremely socially savvy and not brainwashed with M/W complexes or you get the sort of fraternity "bragging" that DC just mentioned.
Another couple of thoughts on the girls vs. guys in the social circle: The way it was phrased here makes it sound very much like a matter of societal indoctrination; the old "every woman wants a bad boy and every man wants a virgin" scenario.
This, however, has an interesting basis in practicality. In effect, if a guy has laid a lot of the ladies in your social circle, and you haven't heard that he's a total dud, he's likely worth your time. Thanks to the frat-boy style boasting mentioned by a previous poster, the effect is often reversed in the male social circle. No matter how good she was, she's now going to be labeled a slut if she sleeps with more than one guy in the circle. In my experience, guys don't like to be associated with sluts, at least not when others will find out. If there's no chance of their crew finding out (e.g. they're on vacation in another state/country), then naturally all bets are off.
Thanks for the lucid blogging!
definitely check out the nicholas taleb books about randomness and unpredicatability.
regarding the double standard, i would say that it will still persist as long as women keep upholding it! yes right, women actually go after womnanizers, never heard about a women going after a virgin or a guy that was very tame.
furthermore, i heard even more women calling other girls sluts than males calling other women sluts. It seems that even women cannot trust other women and are very jealous/caty around eachother sometimes.
they want the challange of the badboy and they know that the badboy has the plumbing in bed.
I see women as addicted to how a man makes them feel and the emotional highs and orgasmic extacy he provides them.
that's the way I see it.
it's just how the rest of the world sees things.
Post a Comment