“Boomerang Preselection” Is A Red Herring

I’ve read some commentary lately about a supposed “boomerang effect” of preselection – that despite women finding a guy more attractive when he shows he can lay the pipe, there’s a point beyond which a high partner count can become a turn-off. The word “trashdick” is a feature of some of this discussion (although the term appears to have some roots in women trying to find words they can throw around that invalidate a man’s humanity, similar to to how they perceive the word “slut”).

My thesis on this situation is that the “boomerang effect” is not a kink in preselection, it’s actually preseletion in and of itself. I’ll explain the mehcanism of action in a moment, but first we need to cover a few things.

WHAT IS PRESELECTION?

Preselection is an aspect of female sexual attraction that descibes the following phenomenon: a man surrounded by, associated with or otherwise linked to attractive women will be judged as more attractive than a similar man without such associates, or (and this is where it gets really wild) more attractive than himself when not associated with attractive women. In other words, women impute to a man the sexual value of the women surrounding him.

What’s interesting about this is that it requires the female body agendato evaluate not just the man’s attractiveness, but that of the women in his vicinity. Male sexuality doesn’t really require that a man be aware of other men’s market values except to the degree he’s directly competing with them for the same woman. And in fact men on the whole are extremely bad at evaluating a man’s attractiveness to women, and to boot, unlike women who are very concerned about who else is hot, we don’t spend a lot of time trying to construct a sexual-value “draft board” in our own locker room.

Preselection isn’t the only attraction trigger (it would be a degenerate feedback loop if it was) and varies among women, but it’s an important one, since social proof is so important to human psychology.

It’s important to note that preselection goes both ways – a man who is associated with unattractive women will take a hit to his sexual value among women, possibly even worse than if he was simply seen alone.

A Badger Hut reader who used to be a nightclub bouncer has noted several times how his stock with the girls in the club went up and down depending on who he was seen socializing with (most notably, a frumpy acquaintance killed the vibe – she also had a habit of intentionally cockblocking him – and when with a hot girl, he saw all the other gals quickly take notice).

There’s a vague analogy to preselection in the male hierarchy; a man with an attractive girlfriend/wife gets a boost in social status among the men. High-fives all around.

But the analogy isn’t an exact mirror. If it were, a woman paired with an attractive man would be more attractive to the other men in the circle. That doesn’t happen, men have mostly independent, though reliably correlated, attraction engines. It really says the same thing the female “draft board” does – within each gender, sexual value equals social value. For men that means the ability to attract women and get sex; for women, that means the ability to attract a high-value man and get his social value, resources and commitment in exchange for sex.

(It’s interesting to note that despite activist hand-wringing about “unrealistic expectations of female beauty” in media and advertising, men don’t really listen to the media about what’s attractive in women – women are the ones who evaluate other women against standards pushed on them by television and glossy magazines. I guess it’s easier to blame the male leviathan than to do the tough work of telling women not to buy stupid magazines like Cosmopolitan written by other women that have shitty sex tips in them to boot. Although I wager feminists are secretly conflicted about Cosmo because it was one of the first mainstream sources with a pro-sex, pro-single message for young women.)

To be an effective game hook, preselection needs to be used thinly, like Vegemite. It’s about feeding the fantasy that she’s winning over an in-demand guy. There doesn’t even have to be sex involved, but there are caveats; having hot platonic female friends can work, but being a beta orbiter to a hot woman doesn’t work at all. Bumping into an ex by accident and downplaying the obvious to your current squeeze is a move that will pay off. Telling a woman offhandedly “oh that’s the girl I boffed last week” is a little too forward and takes away the mystery. Roissy had a hilarious post about hinting to a woman that you had a stalker.

In truth, since most men are not game-aware, the leveraging of preselection usually happens unbeknownst to the man benefitting from it, essentially forming the backbone of a wholly female-managed subcommunication loop among women about who they do or should find attractive.

SOME WOMEN DON’T DO PRESELECTION

The general observable trend is that a man with SOME sexual experience (I’m talking a handful of partners from the high school to early-20′s life stage) are much more preferred by women of that cohort than men without experience. It’s essentially a social-proof way of communicating that the man has seductive prowess and can close the deal, without casting a guy as a player or an inveterate pursuer of recreational sex. It’s a safe heuristic that women can use to judge a man’s attractive qualities without shooting for a guy likely to be non-committal.

There’s some talk around the Net about female virgin-shaming, but male virgins have been the butt of jokes and pitiable sad-sack archetypes for generations. For emphasis, go to anywhere men and women are discussing the sexual marketplace, and notice how quickly and predictably a woman will try to invalidate a man’s arguments or anecdotes by saying “you’re a loser who can’t get laid.” It certainly seems that in a woman’s mind, the ability of a man to acquire sex truly differentiates real “men” from “extraterrestrial beings who have penises.” I don’t say that to shame women or invalidate their own natures, but it’s important that men understand the degree to which the perception of virility changes how women view them and treat them.

However, there’s an observable pocket of women who really find the idea of casual sex, serial monogamy and other lifestyles that gradually grow somebody’s partner count as disturbing or disgusting or just not for them. The celebrated Manosphere poster “Hope” is one of them.

I consider them for lack of a better term “sexual homebodies” – they want to have a man to love all to themselves, and they are put off by the idea that he’s been giving it away to other people. The idea of the early-mid 20′s “sexual adventure” that a lot of people pursue is an idea they aren’t at all interested in. They’re also not interested in snagging the guy all the other girls want and waving him in their faces, or reforming and settling the adventuresome sexual athlete. The expectations seem to match those they have for themselves, a cherished and idealistic view of sexuality in general.

There is nothing sexually or psychologically wrong with this, not at all; it’s a feature of their personalities, not a bug. But I do find that women who truly feel this way and are willing to enforce it (that is, who are strong enough to break up with men who have had casual sex and hold out for a guy who hasn’t and also meets their other criteria) is pretty small. I really can’t imagine more than 20% of women are holding to this strategy in the long run. Some who try it will eventually compromise on it to get the other things they want in a mate; others will find that when the chips are down it’s not a value they actually wanted.

To some degree, this means finding a diamond in the rough, a guy that girls haven’t been pawing at since he was 19 years old. But these women are fine with that; they certainly don’t mind a guy they have all to themselves because most of the other girls aren’t interested.

I find them a largely silent minority. Almost all of the loud and proud “I’m not going to SETTLE!” stories I hear/read about are the opposite of these women – thrill-seeking carousel riders, who have held out beyond their peak attractiveness to search for commitment or have actively damaged their marital market value with promiscuity, disease, drinking, histrionic behavior or financial incontinence.

We have to add a caveat here that there are some women who claim to be after the low-count guy, but are really on the ever-elusive hunt for “fried ice.” They want, and they say this with their own words, a guy who COULD have a high count but has elected not to – a guy with options who hasn’t exercised them. They want to be chosen by a guy who could have anybody but has held out for his princess. Let’s get serious. Guys with the well-honed physical, social and professional traits to be ladykillers, the “whole package” as girls like to say, are not going to hang the spoils of those traits on the shelf. It’s like expecting a woman who spends hours on her appearance to not use it to curry favor and influence – it just doesn’t compute.

“BOOMERANG” IS PRESELECTION, FULL STOP

Now that we’ve covered these preamble factors, let’s talk about what’s really going on here.

The real subrational power of this “boomerang effect” is the following – beyond a certain partner count, the inescapable conclusion is that the guy is banging unattractive women.

Let me make a non-sexual analogy. I live in a large urban area and love steak. There are probably a hundred places to get a steak around here. Among those who specialize in steak, there’s a few high-class chains and a few one-offs. Then there’s places that just happen to serve steak like TGIFridays, plus Red Lobster where steak is just a placeholder for people who got dragged there but don’t like seafood. Point is, there’s only about ten really high-quality steakhouses, and a few others that will do in a pinch.

Say I meet a fellow steak lover and he tells me “I’ve been to a dozen steakhouses in this town, and that Fleming’s on Johnson Avenue is the best ribeye money can buy. I know the chef there, tell them that Steve sent you and they’ll take good care of you.”

OK, sounds good – he loves steak, he’s been to enough places to know what’s out there, and he’s a coinniseur so he leans toward quality. He’s even curried favor with one of the places because of its value. I may not agree totally with him, but he has value in this space. His opinion is informed and of good taste.

Now instead imagine he’d told me, “man, I must have been to 50 steak joints by now. Now let me tell you where I’d go…” Then I KNOW he’s been slumming it at the Applebee’s or getting the over-fried strip steak at the local pub, the one they serve with chips and a quarter pickle and you’re lucky if they even ask you how you want it cooked.

Even though his sample size is larger, there’s something about his taste and restaurant habits that make me not want to listen to him. He doesn’t have to be a Morton’s snob, but I’m not taking steak advice (a subject critically dear to my heart) from a guy who’s down with any piece of beef they can scrape off a grill.

(This whole discussion recalls the famous Solomon II post concerning McFling’s).

That’s the analogy I see to this “boomerang” discussion. It isn’t some kind of kink in preselection, an event horizon where the laws of attraction spin around in the other direction. It’s simply the fact that he must be picking up a lot of slop off the floor, and that costs him preselection points (because preselection accounts for low-quality conquests).

Behind all the rhetoric about how everyone is beautiful on the inside, women know the score. A few women are positively unattractive. Most women are plain-to-reasonably-attractive in that they have some or another traits that are pretty good alongside average, unremarkable traits elsewhere. A few women are superlatively attractive thanks to a confluence of traits that overwhelm the male hindbrain.

When a reasonably attractive guy has been with a few women, the natural course is to inpute the preselection effect to him but giving him the benefit of the doubt that he’s been landing attractive women. This mental shortcut is made easier if you only see him with hot women – going to tony nightclubs, chatting it up flirtatiously with his friends’ hot girlfriends, at frat parties with hot sorority sisters, at post-work happy hours with who appear to be semi-pro bikini models, always bringing a new hot piece of arm candy to work socials, you get the idea.

There’s only so many really good-looking women, and he seems to have access to the lot of them. But when a guy’s been with 50, 75, 100 (the numbers that supposedly invoke this “boomerang” effect), it’s almost mathematically impossible that his successes are restricted to highly attractive women, and even if it was possible it strains credulity to

“BOOMERANG” COUNTS ARE REALLY HIGH

There’s something we haven’t talked about, and that is that the standards for this “boomerang” thing are totally out of whack. First, the idea that only around 30 or 50 partners does a guy guarantee he’s been slumming it is ludicrous. In fact, I’d wager most medium- to high-count men land their less-attractive quarries at the BEGINNING of their sexual career, when they are getting their sea legs and sex appears to be a scarce commodity so they have to take whatever is on offer.

The other thing is that 50 partners is really an outstanding number of partners, an extremely rare find. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I believe a young male with 15 partners is beyond two sigmas from the mean, meaning he’s in the top 2% of men in terms of sexual performance. A guy with 50 partners is a massive outlier. We’ll get to more about this outlier in a minute.

Another thing to think about is that for women (young women, especially) to posit that 50 or 75 partners is “too high” for them just underscores what kind of promiscuous community they are already a part of. It all sounds like this concept is a cover for “I don’t want a guy more promiscuous than what I’ve done myself.”

HIGH COUNT IS AN INEFFECTIVE PROXY FOR STD RISK

Another argument in this issue is that high-count men are seen as STD risks. It is in this vein that the term “trashdick” is proffered, that their penis is actually diseased.

The thing is, the partner counts we are talking about are way beyond the point at which you’ve hit serious risk for STD exposure.

I can’t dig it up right now but I read a study awhile back that a woman with four sexual partners has a close to 100% chance of contracting at least one strain of HPV. Now there are about forty strains so that’s a bit of a scare number, but the point is that your sexual risks go up very quickly as partner count rises. The other side of this is that moderately promiscuous and highly promiscuous men aren’t that different in terms of what you can catch from them, compared to a virgin man who is guaranteed to be clean.

Thinking you’re going to slip under the STD radar by banging the guy who kinda sleeps around instead of the guy who does it like a Divsion I scholarship sport is being too clever by half.

Put another way, if women had an intrinsic hindbrain aversion to STD risk, the aversion would set into place at much lower counts than we’re talking about.

I’m not denying that STD risk is serious and should be a serious consideration in one’s sexual choices. I just think the specific talk about “trashdick disease risk” is a rationalization of the pre-existing emotional response, the preselection response we described above.

THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE MOST MEN HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT

Finally, it’s important to message to men that this is probably not an issue they are going to have to worry about.

First, those men with the ability to get to 50 or above probably aren’t reading the Manosphere for advice on how to land women. Most guys learning and practicing game (which itself is a pretty low number) are not going to get up around 50 partners.

Women are absolutely paranoid that game is going to flood the market with an army of attractive, seductive, self-absorbed players against whose powers women are helpless. It’s an overblown apocalytpic fear. The typical pattern is a la “The Game” author Neil Strauss himself – learn some game, get some success, get over your outcome dependence and become confident that you can get a woman if and when you want one, then use these skills to go on with the life you want to lead. For Strauss that meant settling into a monogamous relationship that began at the end of his time as an operating pickup artist.

The incidence of (for example) a Roosh, a guy who becomes a lifetime consumer of recreational sex to the exclusion of anything long-term or more than sexual, is pretty small among game guys. I expect that slice will become even smaller with the explosion of LTR game resources, as guys who have learned game to get women will be able to better keep them if and when they want to.

The majority of the guys I personally know who have picked up game did not do it because they wanted to be players and have an endless lifestyle of casual sex. They did so because they were having zero luck with women and kept screwing up the rare opportunities that came their way, because they wanted to have the skills that made a man attractive and desired as a mate. A period of field-testing their power is normal but hardly an end in itself for any of these guys. They quickly tire of the repeating startup costs to new flings and optimize into a form of game that sharpens their natural advantages and niches and mines prospects from there, taking care to be selective about whom they invite upon their ship.

The idea being pushed by the “boomerang” meme is that a man will learn some game, then become an uncontrollable sex fiend and he’ll never find a “good girl” who will get past his number. It sounds like an attempt to transfer some of the anti-game paranoia back to men, but the bogeyman that a man might go down some irrevocable path where they permanently destroy their LTR value is on the order of telling guys they’ll go blind if they jerk off.

So what happens if you DO find a woman who you otherwise match well with, but disapproves of your partner count (whatever it may be)? I recommend you just chalk that one up to a a good setup that just didn’t work out, like that time in blackjack where you split the pair of tens, drew up to 20 on both hands and then the dealer drew five cards to 21, and the only thing you were left with was the free champagne the cocktail waitress just brought you. There’s no sense in trying to talk her out of a visceral dis-attraction in spite of your other qualities, if that’s what it is.

You can always play the sour-grapes game the promiscuous women play when their own partner count becomes a stumbling block to securing commitment: “I don’t want someone who would judge me for that.” But that’s really just a game, an ineffective way to try to turn the power back to your favor and make it look like you’re rejecting her and not the other way around.

The basic point is that if you are attractive to her – you look good, are interesting and charming, and know how to push her sexual buttons right – it’s unlikely she’s going to stop things on account of believing you’ve had a few too many trips to the sexual buffet. If she does, wish her luck and move on.

IT’S MORE THAN COUNT THAT COUNTS, OR CHOOSE YOUR POND WISELY

Keep in mind there are also correlation factors to high counts which merit their own judgments. An example was floated about a jock frat at a preppy university, where a sorority had “boycotted” the house. The issues there are much bigger than partner counts – it’s the partying lifestyle, the drugs and alcohol, the dominance games, the peer pressure, the philandering. There’s a whole sick structure built into promiscuous communities like this one, much more than just guys who enjoy lots of sexual variety and won’t commit to the poor dears who say they just want a boyfriend who’ll treat them nice (while they choose, every weekend, to hang out with the biggest lowlifes on campus).

When it comes to these situations, both genders need to be accountable for their part in perpetuating it. I’ve been very open about telling men to avoid materialistic, entitled women largely by staying away from the places they prefer to go (beach parties and weekend meat-market bars/clubs).

So I can’t say I have a lot of sympathy for gals who would wear the “I was a rush girl for DTD and all I got was this case of the clap” t-shirt, any more than I do for men who complain “I hung out at Shooter’s all year and all these chicks just mooched free drinks off me.”

Even if you claim to have your finger in the dike, if you are in the scene, you are manifest in perpetuating that scene. It’s facetious to cry for a “kinder, gentler carousel.” Go somewhere else to meet men.

About these ads

46 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

46 responses to ““Boomerang Preselection” Is A Red Herring

  1. Very interesting commentary, 1st glance at the title, I thought you were going to talk about “Boomerang” women. You know, those that keep coming in and out of your life over the course of several years…and why it is so.

  2. Being selected by a guy who has had and presently has many women is one of the greatest feeings there is. To be the one chosen above all others.

  3. (R)Evoluzione

    This is a sterling post, Badger.

    Germane to the conversation, the only high-count men I know, two of them, live in large urban areas, and the anonymity afforded by urbanity precludes *most* of the boomerang effects from kicking in. Both of these men are also adept at masking the “tells” of being a high-count man. One in particular seems to have no end to his successes, yes, even with “good girls,” and yes, he does slum it from time to time. He says he bangs the lightly frumpy and the slightly chunky just to keep his skills up in the down times. (VK calls them “mud turtles.”)

    For myself, I live in a smaller community, so preselection by proxy (rumor) is the order of the day, and I’m careful to only be seen with the classy babes. A bit of a player vibe precedes me, or so I’m told, but my PR machine seems to be managing things quite well.

    On a more meta level–the writing here continues to impress, your wordsmithing is top notch. Keep up the great work.

  4. “That’s not a steak. Why would you call it that on your menu?”

  5. deti

    Thanks for putting some much-needed perspective on preselection, so-called “high N” men, and “trashdick”.

    The Chicken Little cries about Game producing an army of Roissy wannabes, slaying poon left and right, are particularly overblown and ridiculous. The greater fear is Game 2.0 in which Game is coopted and transformed into the service of women.

  6. I ain’t so sure on this one. The only real, achieving pussyhounds I’ve met had pretty low standards. Yeah, they could pull the 8s & probably 9s, but they’d slum it big time if opportunity arose. Chicks I wouldn’t touch with a 10ft pole.

  7. Infantry

    This post corroborates my experience. Even if it was a major disqualifier of guys it could by defused by calibrating and not putting out a hardcore ‘player vibe’ towards good girls.

    Women rejecting men for ‘trash dick’ is just more rationalisation of cognitive dissonance. If they liked the guy they would not discount him for this reason (except in very rare cases as Badger says).

    Like most real or imaginary problems in the SMP it can be defeated by Rule #1 – Be more attractive.

  8. (R)Evoluzione

    Deti,

    Can you ‘splain how Game 2.0 would work–how would women co-opt it? It doesn’t seem to likely to me… I don’t see the damsels in distress co-opting the swashbuckling pirates. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this seems like a bit of Chicken-Little syndrome. I just don’t see it happening.

  9. Candide

    Badger Badger, you’re still holding on to the NAWALT hope…

    I’ll bet you that the majority of those girls saying ewww to “trashdick” would be the first to hop on one if nobody’s watching & judging.

    If you get good at pretending to be non-judgemental, you get to see a lot more behind the silk curtain.

    There’s this guy I know as the Greasy Italian in my circles. He’s Mr Trash Dick, fucks everything that moves. Good looking guy, in excellent shape, but he could be in the show Jersey Shore. Dumb as a rock, and has no class.

    And there’s my housemate (when I was sharing a few years ago). She was studying pharmacy, smart, beautiful girl. Did her best to project a good girl image. She was going on dates with various guys at the time, but never took one home. On paper they sounded awesome (I never met them) but she found flaws with all of them. She appeared to be a choosey virtuous girl, who would never hop on random dicks.

    We were out hitting the clubs this one time celebrating her birthday. It was her and the girlfriends (one she was trying to set me up with), some random gay guy, some beta white knights, Greasy Italian and his bro. The girls spent the whole night trash talking Greasy Italian on his filthy choices of women, the most vocal being my housemate. Greasy Italian mostly sat aside drinking with his bro, saying nothing other than wearing a dumb smile on his face. The girls even talked about we all hitting the back exit and dropping those two without notice, but that plan never happened, for some reason. The white knights were overjoyed at the reduced competition. I’m not sure if other girls noticed, but I was perhaps the only one who smelled a rat, or “the lady doth protest too much”.

    That night, I failed with her friend, so I didn’t stay out too late. The next morning when I got up, guess who came out of my housemate’s room to take a leak? Greasy Italian, same dumb smile on his face. Yes my good girl housemate waited until all of her friends had left to take Mr “Trash Dick” home for a good ride. Nobody knew but me, and since I’m non-judgemental, her secret is safe with me… (other than telling all you guys on the Interweb just cos I like you *that* much). It never became official, but he did come over for another romp a week later.

    Meanwhile, the guys taking her out on dates got nothing, as far as I know.

    —- “We have to add a caveat here that there are some women who claim to be after the low-count guy, but are really on the ever-elusive hunt for “fried ice.” They want, and they say this with their own words, a guy who COULD have a high count but has elected not to – a guy with options who hasn’t exercised them. They want to be chosen by a guy who could have anybody but has held out for his princess. Let’s get serious. Guys with the well-honed physical, social and professional traits to be ladykillers, the “whole package” as girls like to say, are not going to hang the spoils of those traits on the shelf. It’s like expecting a woman who spends hours on her appearance to not use it to curry favor and influence – it just doesn’t compute.” —-

    Ah yes, we see so many of those NAWALTs around, for sure… It’s like they want to own their Dream Man’s dick before they even meet him lolz

  10. Candide

    Having said that, keep your playa rep to yourself. There’s no need to make the Game harder than it already is!

  11. just stick with this: “A gentleman doesn’t count” when asked about partner count.

    sets their hamsters on ‘puree’

  12. deti

    (R)Ev:

    I don’t want to hijack this thread so I’ll keep it as brief as I can.

    Game 2.0 is the notion that game should be used only to make men more attractive to women, so as to increase the supply of acceptable hookups, boyfriends and husbands. It is the concept that game exists and should be used only for the benefit of women. The competing idea is that game exists to create self-actualized men living for their own benefit; and healthy relationships are a byproduct of properly learned and executed game. Pro Male Anti Feminist Tech coined and conceived it. It remains to be seen whether this will come to fruition, however.

  13. deti

    Candide: Good story. Proves the point: A high N man doesn’t suffer much from a “trashdick” reputation, now, does he?

  14. Senior Beta

    So you don’t think Dagonet will make it to 50, huh? Bummer. Like reading the kid’s stories. Especially the last two. But you made an excellent point.

  15. Thrasymachus

    The extent of “boomerang preselection” is much exaggerated. The concept basically relies on a false equivalence. The idea seems to be that just as high-N women are called”sluts” (as much by other women as by men) women reject promiscuous men and consider them to be trashdicks, manwhores and mansluts. In fact, however, there is very little evidence that high-N men suffer any significant disadvantages in the SMP. High-N women are usually obliged to hide or lie about their numbers, but high-N men do not find it necessary or even desirable to do the same.

    It is true that a small number of women are genuinely turned off by male promiscuity. Moreover, smart women are wary of pump and dump hookups, so high-N men try to avoid giving off a player vibe. Beyond that, however, very few women will reject a man for a LTR solely because he has a high count, as long as they believe that he is sincere about wanting one. By contrast, men often walk away from LTR’s with women whose numbers they consider to be too high.

    The key point to note is that, generally speaking, a man CANNOT achieve a high N unless he is attractive to women. To be sure, not all men who can achieve high counts do so. The late Paul Newman was probably as attractive to women as Warren Beatty, but his numbers were much lower, simply because he was married for most of his adult life. Nevertheless, a woman who excludes high-N men from consideration is reducing her range of attractive options quite substantially. And one cannot assume that low-N men are necessarily more moral or more LTR-oriented than high-N men. Many betas would rack up high numbers if they could, but are simply not attractive enough to women to achieve this.

    For men, a high N is a sufficient though not a necessary condition of attractiveness to women. By contrast, any woman could achieve a high N if she wanted to. A high N for a woman says a lot more about her personality – in particular, her willingness to engage in casual sex. That difference, more than anything else, accounts for the sexual double standard.

  16. B: “We have to add a caveat here that there are some women who claim to be after the low-count guy, but are really on the ever-elusive hunt for “fried ice.” They want, and they say this with their own words, a guy who COULD have a high count but has elected not to – a guy with options who hasn’t exercised them. ”

    This reminds me of my personal alpha criteria, let me know if you agree. It follows on Mike C’s “an alpha can find a new girl” idea. An alpha must have all three:

    1. Option with women.
    2. Cognizant of these options.
    3a. Exercises those options now; 3b. Has exercised them in the past, but stopped out of his own volition (not pressured); or 3c. Has never exercised them out his own internal moral code.

    Fried ice is category 3c, the rarest of the rare. Most women seem to be happy with 3b (the flipped player).

    If any of these three are missing, then he is a greater beta at best.

    Comments?

  17. Candide

    “Candide: Good story. Proves the point: A high N man doesn’t suffer much from a “trashdick” reputation, now, does he?”

    I’ve got plenty more. One of my own:

    I was working my Game on this geeky but cute blonde (a HUSsie type ;) ). We are both from the same social circle where I had dated quite a few girls. None of them is low quality, so I didn’t have the “trash dick” rep but it was still “too many” for some girls, including this one. She knows all of them, obviously. We were out drinking one night with a group of friends. I hit on her, she said she didn’t want to be my next number, then spent the next couple of hours giving me shit about it. She tried to put me down for everything, yet she was still engaging me and lapping up whatever I said, so I knew it was on. And it was… right up till the last minute, in her panties and no bras, she still said “I don’t want to be your next number”. Which was when I threw in some sweet talks to seal the deal.

    Now, even without my anecdotes, you can always go by this. Have you seen any single guy at all finding the manosphere for help with dating start with something like “Man, I slept with too many women and now I have a rep and no woman will touch me! Help please???” That’d be a joke times three.

    Nope, every single one of them finding these sites for help has been a well-behaved beta who is too discerning (apparently) to sleep around.

    The rep is an easy thing to overcome, as long as you are attractive, have good references (from previous girls), can show that you’re discreet (no strings, no gossip), and you actually enjoy their company instead of treating them like a notch.

    What’s hard / impossible to overcome is to have a rep for being unsuccessful. The loser stink cannot be washed away within the same social circle. If you have it, you must leave to rebuild somewhere else.

    Some HUSsies may say they will never date a guy with a rep, but do you really want to date a HUSsie? lol

    Besides, when you have a rep (and good references ;) ), girls may not *date* you, but they will still sleep with you if nobody finds out. ;) You are Mr Doesn’t-Count when she runs the number through her head as she answers the number question from Mr Right.

    Also, you always have the other option of spinning previous conquests as “just sex” (which is true), and she is the only one who has captured “your heart”.

    “a guy who COULD have a high count but has elected not to – a guy with options who hasn’t exercised them”

    Women, like good salesmen, have a nose for suckers.

  18. Infantry

    ‘Have you seen any single guy at all finding the manosphere for help with dating start with something like “Man, I slept with too many women and now I have a rep and no woman will touch me! Help please???”’

    Exactly. You just don’t hear guys complaining about this unless its in isolated ‘oneitis’ style accounts. It’s likely he’s botched his game and she is rationalising his trash dick as being the reason that he is unattractive. Most guys with game would shrug and move onto the next girl. As most high N guys have game, the problem largely fixes itself.

    As for whether AWALT in just needing to be approached by a high N guy that is attractive enough to get them to turn from their ‘no trashdick’ rule… well you might as well ask if a guy saving himself for marriage could be seduced into fornication by a hot enough woman.

    Guys saving themselves for marriage are rare. Guys still saving themselves for marriage AFTER being tested by a very hot woman are rarer still. I believe this more or less applies to girls with a ‘no trashdick’ rule.

  19. Infantry

    Besides, when you have a rep (and good references ), girls may not *date* you, but they will still sleep with you if nobody finds out.

    I missed this. Its an important distinction. Sex and relationships are two different things. There could be a lot of ‘apples and oranges’ arguing over at HUS.

    I once had a natural friend. Very attractive, low impulse control, can’t hold down any meaningful job that isn’t unskilled labour. Highly charismatic, but narcissistic. You get the idea.

    I watched him regularly pick up high quality ‘good girls’ from clubs. 7-9′s with professional careers. Doctors, Accountants etc. He’d sleep with these girls either on the night or within the week.

    He would try to convert them into relationships and fail every single time. I suspect the girls would quickly realise he wasn’t relationship material and dump him. He could have kept these girls for FWB if he changed his tack, but that’s another issue.

    Now this guy didn’t have a rep, so it doesn’t quite relate to preselection. Its still an annecdote of high quality girls being willing to go for casual and also willing to discard attractive alphas who aren’t ‘relationship material’ long before they would ever consider introducing them to their friends.

    As always, look at what they do, not at what they say. I suspect many HUS girls aren’t aware of what their friends actually get up to. A lot of ‘good girls’ girls go for casual, but keep it on the down low EVEN from their close friends to protect their reputations. One could argue that ‘good girls’ have more to lose and thus would be more likely to resort to operate by stealth.

    Within social circles there is more pressure for high quality ‘good girls’ not to date the trashdick guy. They might be willing to (quietly) hook up with him, but not to suffer the shame of publically being his girlfriend.

    tldr; Girls will sleep with guys they will never consider for a relationship. There is more pressure not to date high N guys then there is not to sleep with them.

  20. Candide

    “Girls will sleep with guys they will never consider for a relationship. There is more pressure not to date high N guys then there is not to sleep with them.”

    Yohami can attest to the stunningly successful strategy of disqualifying yourself for a relationship with your target girl, so you can get into her panties sooner.

    If you unwittingly qualify yourself as good boyfriend materials, you’ll get to wait for a very long time until your blue balls turn purple.

  21. wingwoman

    I ask for std tests not notch count lol. Game over (Game 2.0 goes something like have serious explict conversations, listen to actions not words, and trust but verify). There is no fucking way to know the real number. Bed skills aren’t always a good measure because one ltr or a porn habit can make up for not much variety in number. So basically everyone is paranoid about numbers and it’s dumb. You can hook up one time with a trashy person and get something or been screwing nothing but virgins (unlikely) and probably be clean (you can get stds via ones mother during birth by the way). HPV usually clears up by the way it’s the nasty things like herpes or HIV that people don’t want with a very visceral fierceness.

  22. Big Pimp,

    I tend to try to get old lovers out of my life entirely, but I’ve thought about doing a post on the Eddie Murphy film “Boomerang.”

    This Is Jen,

    “Being selected by a guy who has had and presently has many women is one of the greatest feeings there is. To be the one chosen above all others.”

    I think this is something that guys just don’t really grok, and it’s weird to me because we guys thrive on competition so much. That feeling of out-competing others for our mate doesn’t seem to be nearly as strong among guys, who as I’ve said would probably be just as content finding a diamond in the rough, a girl few other guys were hot for but who really lit our engines.

  23. “The key point to note is that, generally speaking, a man CANNOT achieve a high N unless he is attractive to women.”

    That is really the kink in this “boomerang” argument – a guy with high numbers has them because he’s attractive.

    Senior Beta,

    Dagonet’s quest is formidable. He’s making great progress, but his will be a long road over several years most likely.

    Age and environment count for a lot. A handsome, charming guy in a frat or party scene in college can easily bag a new notch every other week and climb towards 50 in two or three years (also helps that there’s constant new blood being churned in the scene). A young adult out in the world is at the bottom rung of his environment and must carefully control his venue to get efficient results, but he has an advantage in energy and youthful appearance and vigor.

    REvoluzione makes a great point along these lines, bringing up urban atomization and anonymization.

    “I ain’t so sure on this one. The only real, achieving pussyhounds I’ve met had pretty low standards. Yeah, they could pull the 8s & probably 9s, but they’d slum it big time if opportunity arose. Chicks I wouldn’t touch with a 10ft pole.”

    That’s really the long and the short of it…eventually, a guy runs out of 8-10′s and has to fish in a brackish pond. Only very famous or wealthy men can assure a long stream of beautiful women to choose from.

  24. Candide,

    More brilliance, thanks for the commentary.

    “Having said that, keep your playa rep to yourself. There’s no need to make the Game harder than it already is!”

    Preselection is best used extremely sparingly, or you look try-hard, so it’s really best if men keep quiet about their sexual exploits. All the better to maintain that mysterious edge that women love.

    “Which was when I threw in some sweet talks to seal the deal.”

    Oh please do tell! For the sake of the younguns here…

    On another note. As I said in the post, I do think there’s a lot to be said for the environment of a guy in . The original environs in which I heard about this “trashdick” epithet was hardcore fraternity partying. Such a scene has a lot of factors alongside promiscuity that impact the value of the men and women involved.

    A guy who can be classified as “sleazy” (a personality profile that includes overbearing dominance, incongruent confidence, discordant kino, cheesy lines, bizarre fashion, and a palpable sense of cartoony salesmanship) will be easily shelved in a young woman’s mind as “not selective” = banging ugly broads = not worthy of Princess’ carnal masterpiece. This despite the fact he’s bagging her friends by the dozen. By contrast, a guy of good game knows how to play the push-pull, to hang back and flip the “it just happened!” switch in her brain, avoiding the sense that he’s doing any seduction at all.

    Guy #1 will get the “trashdick” rep, guy #2 is every coed’s forbidden pleasure.

    “Have you seen any single guy at all finding the manosphere for help with dating start with something like “Man, I slept with too many women and now I have a rep and no woman will touch me! Help please???” That’d be a joke times three.”

    In the interest of accuracy, if I recall correctly, the old player-blogger known as Vincent Ignatius decided to settle down with one of his gals, and was worried that his writings would incriminate him and drive her away (maybe she had found his blog already). I believe he sought public advice from Susan Walsh about it. Never heard how it turned out.

    Gals might admire a guy who’s bagged a lot of women, but girls shirley don’t want it shoved in their faces.

  25. “tldr; Girls will sleep with guys they will never consider for a relationship. There is more pressure not to date high N guys then there is not to sleep with them.”

    Another stake in the heart of the “girls just want a nice boy to sit on the couch with them and only sleep with the douchebags because they are trying to get a boyfriend” narrative.

    “Yohami can attest to the stunningly successful strategy of disqualifying yourself for a relationship with your target girl, so you can get into her panties sooner.

    If you unwittingly qualify yourself as good boyfriend materials, you’ll get to wait for a very long time until your blue balls turn purple.”

    This has been a recent development in my game, and has produced masterful results. The tragic, disappointing fact of the matter is that many women will string guys out in dating, not because they are unattracted and want free stuff, but because they ARE attracted, but don’t want to screw things up with their potential “boyfriends.” Covered in depth here:

    http://www.girlschase.com/content/how-get-girls-last-post-youll-ever-need

    This means guys pursuing girls who are attracted, but skittish about allowing things to get “too intense too quickly.”

    That’s why you have to hit the buttons of spontaneity, emotional (dopamine) connection, sexual adventure, sensual exposure and dynamic leadership, and put the financial and comfort aspects of your game away for a bit.

  26. P Ray

    The idea of Hope not finding men with high partner counts attractive is immaterial.
    Because Hope is married.(and she is Chinese, lives in Sydney, married to a Caucasian)
    What is disturbing is the idea that a married woman can now find other men “attractive enough for sex” if he doesn’t have a high partner count :)

  27. Candide

    My sweet talk? It’s been a few years, I don’t remember the exact words, but it was something like I’m not one of those guys after a conquest, I enjoy the company of women and everyone I’ve been with is special to me, what we share is always treasured. Which is all sincere, except for maybe the word “special” lolz! The key is sincerity though, I do believe every word I said to her. I really don’t hate girls pulling that kind of bullshit ASD, that’s how they roll.

    I call this “the heart of an artist” game (it belongs to every woman and no woman), which I learned from my natural uncle, a writer / film director, who’s bagged women from all corners of the globe and fell in love with all of them. This is a very different kind of “love” to the oneitis love that a beta guy has for a woman. It explains how an artist can get away with sappy romantic shit that the average beta cannot. The average beta is dead serious about his romantic love. The artist loves as an inspiration for his arts. It’s intense but fleeting, just like a woman’s love. ;)

    You brought up an important word “sleazy”. I’ve got many haters (mostly chumps / white knights, and a few uglies) trying to sling that fistful of mud my way many times, but it never gets close. There are some important things a guy must know to counter such haterade:

    1. Be classy

    A sleazy guy looks low class. Be well-groomed, be a sharp dresser, look classy, talk like a well-educated gentleman. Haters can’t get the sleazy tag stuck on you, because the way you carry yourself totally contradicts this. In fact, my haters look positively sleazy and even creepy! It’s like a homeless bum accusing a suited up man of being a thief. Now that might be true, but who do you think people will believe?

    2. Befriend the poon police

    Every social circle (since tags like sleazy or trash dicks only apply in social circles) has poon police. They are the cockblockers and the arbiters of the “sleazy” and “creepy” tags. Often they are older women with overpowering personality (mama hens) and gay guys. If you offend them or they don’t like you, you’re toasted, no girl in that social circle (other than the weirdos) will go near you. The chumps may say shit about you, but without the poon police’s approval, it’s just mindless haterade that backfires on them, so don’t worry about those.

    The poon police in my circle have very high opinions of me, I’m like their adorable yet naughty little brother so any hate or gossip against me gets shut down pronto. They don’t approve of my not being in a serious relationship, but hey, a beloved little brother is one that’s flawed and needs so much care & love… Run Game on them, be bold and disagree (i.e be challenging) but stay on the flattering side.

    3. Be unapologetic when haters say shit to your face

    Stand your ground, agree (but never admit) & amplify (but stay classy, don’t get to the tit for tat name calling). Never ever defensively deny or apologize. Just spin the words to make them appear petty.

    4. Be discreet

    Explains itself. Never brag, even to your bros – you never know, they’re often your biggest haters.

    Let the girls do all the advertising for you through their Secret Girls’ Network.
    #####

    Regarding Vincent Ignatius, the problem was not that he bagged too many women, it’s that he wrote about his exploits and his honest thoughts on those women. See the “discreet” clause.

  28. Candide

    July 17, 2012 at 4:04 am

    My sweet talk? It’s been a few years, I don’t remember the exact words, but it was something like I’m not one of those guys after a conquest, I enjoy the company of women and everyone I’ve been with is special to me, what we share is always treasured. Which is all sincere, except for maybe the word “special” lolz! The key is sincerity though, I do believe every word I said to her. I really don’t hate girls pulling that kind of bullshit ASD, that’s how they roll.

    I call this “the heart of an artist

    ————————————————————

    This is truly an art. I was dating a guy, way back when in the mid 90′s, who I truly believed was sincere. Someone else I knew had played an online joke on me pretending to be a stranger, so I did it to him, only he signed off before I could tell him it was me. Long story short, that communication went on long enough for me to see that he was saying the exact same things to the new me as he was to the old me.At the risk of makng myself sound coo-coo. it went on so long, in fact, that I actually became jealous of myself! But dang! he was so good at it!

  29. Kathy

    “However, there’s an observable pocket of women who really find the idea of casual sex, serial monogamy and other lifestyles that gradually grow somebody’s partner count as disturbing or disgusting or just not for them. The celebrated Manosphere poster “Hope” is one of them.

    I consider them for lack of a better term “sexual homebodies” – they want to have a man to love all to themselves, and they are put off by the idea that he’s been giving it away to other people. The idea of the early-mid 20′s “sexual adventure” that a lot of people pursue is an idea they aren’t at all interested in. They’re also not interested in snagging the guy all the other girls want and waving him in their faces, or reforming and settling the adventuresome sexual athlete. The expectations seem to match those they have for themselves, a cherished and idealistic view of sexuality in general.”

    Yes! Yes! Yes!
    Thanks Badger for acknowledging this ..I have not seen this excellent spot on description anywhere else in the manosphere.
    In fact, I have been told on numerous occasions that these kinds of women do not REALLY exist.. That I in fact was a liar because I said that I was not interested in the guy that other girls wanted.. The thought of ever going out with a high partner count bloke made me physically sick.. Exclusivity was what I wanted.. I wanted a man who wanted me as much as I wanted him, and who wanted no other.. I found him, and we have been happily married for 16 years, now.

    I think in my case it has a lot to do with my upbringing.. My( deeply religious )mother always taught me to save it for marriage..My parents,still after all these years have a good strong and loving marriage. Both were each other’s first..

  30. P Ray

    ^ If you’re not actively participating in encouraging young women of dating age to choose wisely, you’re part of the problem in my opinion.
    Why is it that the women of the manosphere that talk about good values from men … are always in an existing relationship, or “past it” by other mens’ consideration?

  31. Guestopher

    I just get annoyed when I see all of the guys bragging on Heartiste or wherever about laying ten 9′s each month. Whatever dude. First of all, there just aren’t enough 9′s for that unless you’re somewhere like New York.

    Even then, a guy would have to be spending most/all of his time finding receptive women. And even then, a guy with true inner game and his stuff together knows that keeping 2-3 attractive women in steady rotation and supplementing those extended prospects with short-term flings with 0-3 new women each month is optimal. You’ve gotta have other things going on in your life.

  32. Guestopher

    “Why is it that the women of the manosphere that talk about good values from men … are always in an existing relationship, ”

    P Ray, it’s very simple. These women have a much easier time finding stable, committed, healthy, and HAPPY relationships than other women. A much better question would be why would they still be single if that’s what they are really after? They are always snapped up really quickly by great, average guys who are extraordinary in their own way. There just aren’t enough of those women to go around. Most women just don’t have this viewpoint even when they’ve decided to settle down after losing a significant portion of their SMV.

  33. P Ray

    Guestopher:
    The point I’m trying to raise, is that those women sound like they’re saying “I got mine, y’all just follow what I did”.
    Conveniently ignoring that the culture has changed in that time – I am VERY sure that given the current dating scenario, they wouldn’t be married.

  34. This is jen

    guestopher,
    while I do believe there is a certain amount of luck involved, it’s not only luck that gets us well married. It takes being the kind of woman men want, and not falling into the “everybody’s doing it” crowd. this is also what we teach our daughters.

  35. Opus

    I think this an excellent post- although some of the Americansims are a bit lost on me – and I have read it twice now, but what intrigues me is its opposite: the girl with the high partner count. Are we to assume that she has been slumming it with every deadbeat and loser – rather than being picked-up by one Alpha-male after another? I think so; although sometimes in the Androsphere one gains the impression that the only guys getting sex are Alpha McStud and Harley McBadboy. With the high partner-count female that cannot be true. Nevertheless just as the high partner-count male will gain a reputation for low standards the same applies to a woman. What I mean is: a woman may be forgiven for on occasion having falllen prey to the charms of an Alpha, but she will not obtain the benefit of the doubt if it is clear that she will sleep with anyone.

  36. Opus, there are easily enough Alphas in cities with population of millions to get a girl into the hundreds. Those girls don’t sleep with omegas and betas (the latter only if commitment or resource is on offer).

  37. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: 7-22-12: Holmes Killer Edition | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  38. Pingback: Notable manosphere conversations: « Random Xpat Rantings

  39. This post got you added to my blogroll.

  40. will

    So this has nothing to do with the “trashdick” thing, but for pre-selection, in my experience the men you are rolling with matter much more than the women. That is not to say the women don’t matter, I agree with every point up there. But I think (haven’t paid close enough attention in the past to be sure), when I have been out with a bunch of great guys with so-so girls in the group I have done better than when I am out with so-so guys, but great girls. I think this makes sense as at least I have always felt that men determine each others social status and women fallow along with it.

  41. @offthecuff ” or 3c. Has never exercised them out his own internal moral code.”

    I’ve long argued that such a moral code castrates the mans options, making them null and void.

    A very big part of what is attractive about the man with options is not just preselection, it is his bad boy moral code. If you refuse to cheat, then you can’t cheat.

    It gets tricky because women do want BOTH things. It’s difficult for us logical either or men to grasp. Its not that she wants a man who wouldn’t cheat but could, it’s that she wants fried ice. Both a man who could and would, but who wouldn’t.

  42. @Will ” think this makes sense as at least I have always felt that men determine each others social status and women fallow along with it.”

    Girls seem to feel this way. The hot are careful to congregate with the hot.

    That’s one good thing about having a hot girlfriend when out at the disco. She’ll attract a crowd of hot girls to dance with her.

  43. “but for pre-selection, in my experience the men you are rolling with matter much more than the women.”

    I think you’re observing two slightly different things.

    Pre-selection is, by definition, related to the attractiveness of the women you keep company with.

    However, you also gain from social proof in other ways. One is by simply looking sociable, you gain value. Another is that you can impute the non-sexual value of those around you via social proof. This is what happens if you are in the entourage of a band, or an athletic team or something. You get status by association, and status has a separate trigger in the female attraction hardware than female preselection. (Both of these things are probably in play with the groups of dudes).

    “That’s one good thing about having a hot girlfriend when out at the disco. She’ll attract a crowd of hot girls to dance with her.”

    It is amazing how, after all the complaining that men are too hung up on looks, the standards of beauty are unrealistic, etc, women will without fail congregate towards and give status to the hottest woman in a situation. Hot women have superlative value among women.

  44. “I just get annoyed when I see all of the guys bragging on Heartiste or wherever about laying ten 9′s each month. Whatever dude. First of all, there just aren’t enough 9′s for that unless you’re somewhere like New York.”

    That also annoys me, I know from meeting some of the hardcore gamers that we’re all getting most of our payoff in the 6-8 range. I think guys are loath to admit their lower-quality lays and also don’t want to talk about their failures, so most of what they do talk about is the relatively rare successes with exceptionally attractive women. Most of the gamers I keep contact with are pretty realistic about what a man can hope to gain from game.

    I can say from personal experience that keeping more than one woman in a regular rotation along with your regular life is a tough job. You have to be really on top of your game, and really committed to the idea that the constant variety is worth the logistical challenge.

  45. lavazza1891

    Women want safe thrills but not knowing that the thrills are safe, because then it’s not as fun and exciting. But if the thrills become dangerous or hurtful, she will deny having wanted thrills at all. Fried ice indeed.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s