Novaseeker has recently been trying to figure out where young men stand in the current mating game, and although I hadn’t given it much thought, preoccupied as I am with other issues, I came across another little gem from Jezebel, where I can count on finding some honest discussions of what young women are looking for these days.
Evidently there is a TV show called “NYC Prep,” which appears to be a new sort of Beverly Hills 90210 for aggressive, New York elite types. One of the characters, Camille, gives her take on dating, explaining that she wants to “hook up” with a somewhat dumb, but attractive party boy for a “one time thing.”
Jezebel celebrates her choice, expressing approval of the young woman’s attitude:
On last night’s episode, Camille became instantly likable while on a date with a guy she found boring and unintelligent. She openly mocked him, but went home with him anyway because he’s “good looking…and seems like a one-time thing.”
Here’s the article and video clip:
NYC Prep: Finally! A Teen Girl With Some Perspective On Dating
How liberating…
Frankly, from what I saw on the video clip, I would have found the girl smug and annoying at that age. I dated some of these ambitious young women (but I preferred them better looking than Camille), and they apparently chose to spend time with me for the same reason Camille chose her one-night stand. Although they liked how I looked, when they found out I was more than a match for them intellectually, they generally expressed dismay. One of them began shouting “NO!” over and over when I looked at a vocabulary list from her English class and easily defined the words she didn’t understand.
So I find it kind of disingenuous when young women say they want a bright guy for a steady boyfriend, even as they continue to “hook up” for nights of fun here and there. What I see is women who do not really want a steady boyfriend, but rather an endless series of casual encounters as they pursue social status through academia or work. And then, of course, once they feel that craving for a child, they’ll try to hook some sucker into making it possible for them to do so without giving up their precious world of indulgence.
I really feel bad for the young men out there who have to navigate these treacherous seas. The more I see of this stuff the less hope I have for an easy resolution.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Derek // Jul 15, 2009 at 4:37 pm
It’s even worse with some of the poorer girls I have dated… thugs and drugs are the order of the day.
2 miles // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Welmer,
I posted the following at Randall Parker’s Parapundit blog, and I think it expresses myself on the modern condition between the sexes to reasonable completion:
“miles said at July 14, 2009 11:26 PM:
I sometimes would love to SCREAM at people to MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND why we are witnessing the devolution of families.
We have simply subsidized women having children, being/becoming single, and chasing their dream men folks. Its “paid for” by the father & the taxpayers.
Many men would probably act in similar ways if the laws were reversed. Imagine if you could dump your wife, but you knew you’d get the kids at least half the time……but SHE PAID YOU CHILD SUPPORT equalling a third of her income for the next 12 or 13 years (and she was practically made to work). That affair at the office doesn’t look so bad now does it? Imagine that you knew if worse came to worse, you could still get a free roof over your head via the government because you had a couple of kids, and get some AFDC checks sent to your door, and get access to some free education or retraining. Imagine if society APPROVED of you ditching your wife and told you that YOU were the “victim” in all of this…
…….also imagine that women magically became more like men in sexual promiscuity, and the top 20% of women really liked to have sex every day (when single), and didn’t mind sleeping with men who were merely in the top 50% of attractiveness, so that you knew that it would be pretty easy to have sex with a couple of women who were considered “8′s” every week even though you were only a “6″ yourself. Does your formerly “6″ wife look so good now? Imagine knowing that even though you were a “6″ that you were very confident that you could go out to the bars every weekend and whisper in a female “8′s” ear, “lets go back to my place for a whole night of fun”, and that 75% of the time that “8″ would say, “sure, lets go”. Pretty nice insurance there, right?
The people who were behind the laws being passed many years ago, the real initiators who have long since pulled-off and are now unseen, knew EXACTLY WHAT THE OUTCOMES WERE GOING TO BE. Destroying the family and having a “legalized community of women” is written about in the Communist Mannifesto by Marx. Cultural Marxists can’t come out and say that is what they want for society, but can merely pursue the same goals under the banner of equality and freedom (for women). Single women get indignant as hell when one merely suggests that these laws be rolled back. The same will wonder when they are older why there sons are so slow in starting families and why they dont have any grandchildren. Women do not have the same future time orientation as men and Matriarchies run themselves into the ground, but our matriarachy has thousands of nukes, a great navy, and overwhelming air power and many spy satellites (given to us by “good” guys that sluts generally find boring), so its probably not going to be conquered from the outside anytime soon. The birthrate will be below replacement, the quality of people will lessen, the social service load will continue to increase. We will find we are rewarding “thug” genes also, and will henceforth get more of them.”
3 novaseeker // Jul 15, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I think what this is based on is the fact that women do not *need* men any longer. That doesn’t mean women do not *want* men, but generally this is going to happen on her terms, not yours.
So for these upwardly mobile women in their 20s, as NPR reported last month, increasingly that means “for sex only”. The women in that NPR story were very much like the one portrayed in your post, Welmer — they openly told the reporter that they eschewed relationships and dating, and simply pursued men who were sexually attractive for short term sex-based relationships. And they seemed content enough with that. There is seemingly a generation of women that has grown up in the era of female academic dominance, and is accustomed to viewing young men as toys for sex, and otherwise not to be taken seriously.
The terms shift if and when these women wish to have children. Some of them opt for single motherhood, but others will try to find a suitable mate beginning in the 30s. It’s not easy going, because to be honest after years of casual sexual relationships, it’s just not that easy to shift into relationship mode. And, many of the men who may be the ones she wants (again on her terms) at this point in her life are not thrilled with her, given her sexual odometer.
I also don’t see an easy resolution. Nothing in the current situation will be easy to change, because it’s all based on some key laws and social changes that have inured to the benefit of women … and are very unlikely to be reversed anytime soon. In that sense, what Miles wrote is correct — the incentives are simply not there for women to behave in ways that encourage social stability, but are instead designed to foster short-term thinking and self-indulgence.
4 Lukobe // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:05 pm
That guy is almost more attractive than the girl.
5 miles // Jul 15, 2009 at 9:19 pm
One more thingy I forgot to mention that delays marriage and responsibility (both sexes):
Its hard for people to give up the excitement of “being on the prowl”, and people get “addicted to the high” of new relationships. The rush of sleeping with different people is also hard to give up. Movies and TV shows glamorize those dramatic single years, and married life thereafter looks boring by comparison.
There are going to be a lot more Maureen Dowds in another decade. Former hot-chicks who cannot understand why they no longer arouse romantic intention in men. When women get past their reproductive years, I think men are practically hardwired to devalue them sexually, even if they are milfs.
6 z.g. // Aug 15, 2009 at 6:41 am
Camille, gives her take on dating, explaining that she wants to “hook up” with a somewhat dumb, but attractive party boy for a “one time thing.”
I am one of the intelligent ones passed over for the dumb boys. Though, I made up for it with arrogance and aloofness, so did not pay a too high price for being dumb.
And even though at the moment I am not seeing women who would enter the category that fits the beahvior below, I would have no problem thinking this way, behaving this way. And would expect the person to respect her choice of value for her vagina.
So, if I know a woman has been banging dumb boy, or been favoring them because the quality men are too good (meaning quality, not nice(tm)) to fuck, if she lands in my bed one day, she can sure expect to be sent away in the morning with a “Thank you babe, that was a great nite”, and nothing else.
See,
I, and guys like me, have been shown by women what women reward.
If we were walked over for the dumb guys because we were too much of quality to just fuck, when she wanted fun, well, now we are exactly the quality for which she is just good for a fuck. We are too much of a quality for her to date.
Few words on that after the next quote,
But pretty much,
These ladies fucked their values away.
I really feel bad for the young men out there who have to navigate these treacherous seas.
You see, once a young man finds sentences that make sense, he does not navigate these water on their terms.
Examples:
“Past usage of a vagina dictates its present and future worth”
“It is a free country. You are free to choose what you do, and I am free to choose how I respond to that/how I judge that/ what I think of your choice”
It is simple,
Men need to feel ok with passing judgement and holding to their own standards.
Leave a Comment