The Wisdom of Mike C.
June 26, 2012Sometimes the conversations there can bring about a powerful understanding into the discrepancy between the though processes of the sexes.
This one is brought to you by Mike C. at comment 398
Here’s the setup up. The concept of ‘spinning plates’ was brought up by myself and a few others in this thread. Susan and Co. take umbrage at the idea of men working multiple women at the same time until a firm offer of exclusivity comes up by the female. Jimmy gets the ball rolling by asking Susan:
“can you honestly argue that it doesn’t place him in a more advantageous situation than if he were sexually pursuing either girl exclusively from the get go?”
Susan replies:
Of course it does, and he can generally pull it off only by lying by omission. Since you claim that many women don’t mind, why not be up front about his activities and what he is looking for? “Just so you know, you’re not the only person I’m doing this with.” Heck, according to your theory, this should be a DHV.
They have a few back and forth before Jimmy ends on:
@Susan
You seem to be advocating exclusivity before a committed relationship is even established.followed with
@Susan
Just curious, is it a lie by omission if a girl doesn’t announce her count to a potential bf before he commits to her? After all, that’s information that will help him make an informed decision… Using your standard
It’s at this point where Mike C. jumps in and really lays it all out on the table for all to see with eyes wide open. His ability articulate this succinctly is breathtaking. Enjoy the read, it’s after the jump.
Author: Mike C
Comment:
Susan,I’m going to address two things in this comment….your response to my response to the question you posed, and this concept of “lying by omission”.
Let me take the “lying by omission” first. Really, the expression is nonsensical. Lying implies false words being spoken, not the absence of providing information. I think Jimmy’s point about a woman not revealing her partner count was an excellent point that forced you to think more deeply about it rather then thinking viscerally about what you think a woman is entitled or not entitled to know. The issue isn’t lying or deception, but what is a person’s ethical obligation in terms of revealing information to another person. I think there are some black and white situations like if my basement structure is rotting I am ethically obligated to tell a potential buyer before selling the house, or if someone has AIDs and knows it they are ethically obligated to tell a potential partner about having the disease. Other things are more grey. Did you know that investment advisors and brokers are NOT held to the same standard of revealing information. A broker does not have to reveal he may have some financial incentive to sell a particular investment to a client IF the investment is deemed suitable. I could go on and on an on an on and on rattling off example after example of various levels of revealing information.
So the crux of the issue becomes one of what to reveal and not reveal in the current SMP as it stands. And it isn’t a copout to suggest that. Ethics change depending on the environment, and sort of what the overarching rules of the game are. I would argue although I won’t fully develop the argument in this comment that the complete unleashing of young female sexuality free of parental oversight, societal shaming, norms and restrictions radically altered the landscape and with it completely changed what the ethics of male obligations are.
The norm of this SMP is EXCLUSIVITY does NOT exist until formally established. Full stop. Anyone operating under a different premise has had their head in the ground that last 20 years. You can no longer assume that if I am dating you I am only dating you and vice versa. Introducing the issue of whether sex is or isn’t taking place is a false issue, and simply reflects the differing priorities of men and women with men valuing sexual access much more highly (which is why as I think Ian pointed out a guy is going to value an existing FWB more highly than a potential good relationship that may NOT develop).
Regarding your questions. First, good job on leading the witness 🙂 I stand by my differentiation of the situation. To your question about emotionally escalating with other guys, would it have bothered me? Probably, yeah. Would it have led to a different future outcome? I don’t know.
I think the particulars are unimportant. To me the crux of the issue, is the VERY REAL DIFFERENCE in the nature of male investment versus female investment. After all this time, and my many attempts, I still think you don’t really grok this. I would point you to some of Lokland’s comments, and to one comment VD made about some of the mental issues when he committed and basically took all other women off the table permanently. When a man commits to a woman (presumably a quality good one) he most certainly gets something. But he loses something as well. I suspect I will never be able to get you to understand what I am saying by that. Where I am going with this?
The point is I don’t want to, and I suspect most guys do not want to commit to any woman who has played a game of making him compete for her, either her emotional attention, sexual attention, whatever. If I had to compete to win her even really from Day 1 with other guys instead of her being really into me than I am going to have reservations about choosing her as the one that I forsake all others for the rest of my life. This gets to the issue of emotional escalation, and frankly I don’t know how a woman could sincerely emotionally escalate with multiple guys simultaneously unless there was something wrong with her emotionally. On the flipside, the situation isn’t parallel with men because I don’t think the issue is one of immediate, exclusive investment but the acid test comes more down the road in how willing the guy is to cut off./break off with all other women for good. I’m really not sure if I am articulating this perfectly but I suspect guys like Jimmy and Ian know exactly the gestalt of what I am saying.
At least to me, it seems like you want to enforce some standard of “fairness” that really is only fair from the female perspective and female priorities such as a committed monogamous relationship being 1000x more valuable than sexual access. Clearly, sexual access is important to men. Its why prostitution is the world’s oldest profession, and you really have little to no male prostitution except for homosexuals. Your framework of what is “ethical” is guided by the idea that a woman has to get a committed, monogamous relationship on her terms, conditions, and timeline with little to no consideration that a guy is going to value regular, ongoing sexual access to the extent possible. I’m not saying you are wrong, but at least be aware your ethical framework is at least in part guided by your objectives and what you see as the optimal good outcome.
Sphere wisdom.
I aim to let it spread like a cleansing pathogen, a virus that kills only one organism…
(H/T Mike C.)
[UPDATE]
Thought this little ditty would be pertinent to the discussion. From OKC users i just spotted:
M3 
Is this recent news – a current thread over HUS?
Pretty recent. I don’t think it’s her latest thread.. can’t be sure tho, i’m having trouble accessing her site right now. Server time outs. You can follow the thread here http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/06/22/relationshipstrategies/the-10-most-important-things-i-learned-from-dating-men-i-didnt-marry/comment-page-3/#comment-131331
Mike C’s comment is on point.
Still, it sounds like the same shit from about a year ago. No progress over there.
Yup.
Mike C really has a good handle on the issues of the SMP, and a sharp ability to understand both male and female perspectives and imperatives. Brilliant guy.
Yesterday afternoon, SW put up a post specifically to respond to MikeC’s comment above.
Yes, and i’m still following all the comments from the new thread in my email.. and it still seems that the message isn’t really changing. Girls, spin yer plates on multiple dates while you look for Mr. Right. Guys, if you like her or you ‘think’ she likes you, drop everything and go exclusive now, or you’re a scumbag playah.
At least that’s the jist i get from the back n forth. What’s your take on it?
Just discovered this blog. Great stuff.
I’ve always considered Mike one of the wisest people in this sphere. The guy has no agenda and just tells it like it is.
Thanks Jimmy. I wanted to give you props as well and failed to fit it into the post adequately. Someone at HUS remarked you have an amazing ability to get the male point across without coming off as ‘angry’ or ‘agenda driven’. You’ve got an amazing ability to say things without antagonizing and forcing the ladies to address it solely on merits rather than emotional hysterics, which you should be commended for. Glad to have you around, your insights are always respected and welcomed.
I don’t know, M3. I’m not sure it’s as stark as you make it out to be. What I do see is something of a failure to acknowledge how “concealment” fits into dating strategies. Women have been using concealment or selective honesty or simply “don’t ask don’t tell” for years.
I’ll give you a personal example. In college I sometimes dated a few girls at a time. There wasn’t even sex going on. Inevitably one would find out about the other and dump me. She thought I was lying to her because I had not actively disclosed I was spending time with another girl.
But my full disclosure was often used against me. I would often go all in on a girl, and tell her how much I liked her and wanted a relationship with her. She never told me about her other men. What usually happened was I would get dumped for the other, hotter, more intriguing man, because I was “a guy to marry” and she didn’t want to “get serious” — this after fucking a few times.
Finally, I give you a poignant comment from Jonny at 122 on the current thread:
“Why do men lie or omit? Because women don’t value honesty and women do omit by lying themselves. Men who tell the truth are penalized.”
Amen.
The winning strategy for me has been to date many girls and be open about it. Yeah Im “dating around”, “I have eight girlfriends… you can be number nine”, “not looking for anything serious, but Im open to it if it happens and feels right” etc.
Pure win.
It’s hilarious how women will date multiple men at once, then get mad when they learn that some of those men are dating other women. As though it’s mathematically possible for lots of girls to spin several plates without some guys doing the same.
+1 to Jimmy’s comment. Mike C knows his stuff.
Jimmy is fantastic at moderating his tone so he can still operate over at HUS. I’m aware of the commentary over at Yohami’s site re: HUS and how many guys get booted off HUS for various reasons.
I enjoy commenting over there and getting input from the girls, but I don’t ever think guys and girls are going to create an agreed etiquette for operations in the current SMP where we can all get our needs met. The best we can do as men is look after ourselves and aim to break the least amount of hearts in the process.
As for HUS, I tone down what I say over there so as not to offend the natives.
What I do see is something of a failure to acknowledge how “concealment” fits into dating strategies. Women have been using concealment or selective honesty or simply “don’t ask don’t tell” for years.
Agreed. Women use plate spinning themselves on a much grander scale ala orbiter collection. As for concealment, women invented it.
Today, I think most of the SMP in the West operates under “don’t ask, don’t tell”. It’s only really the low N, traditional girls that really have any legitimacy expecting committment pre-sex. The problem is that you can’t identify these girls before dating them unless the stars align and you meet them through your social circle (pre-screening prior to ‘dating’).
For me personally I volunteered full disclosure only once. I slept with a girl after 2 dates and unprompted told her ‘I’m seeing other people’. Massive drama ensued, and that was the end of that.
The winning strategy for me has been to date many girls and be open about it.
Yohami’s got the ‘best practice’ game modus operandi down pat. That’s how its done and how I’ve done it in the past.
Yesterday afternoon, Obsidian left a comment on that “Ethics of Concealment” thread at HUS that essentially said women lie all the time in the SMP but are never called on it; and that men are called out all the time for lying. Wudang left a long comment talking about female concealment.
I left a post amplifying O’s comment that essentially said men have responded to the lying by MGTOW, measuring female interest by pushing hard for sex and limiting commitment and investment.
Those comments disappeared from the thread and were replaced with Susan saying she wouldn’t allow the thread to be derailed by “male hamsterbation” about lying; and essentially saying you can’t justify lying by saying others do it too.
That may very well be, but the three deleted posts painted in my opinion an accurate picture of female behavior in the SMP: female lying, obfuscation, telling half-truths, bringing a second man along and releasing a first man; spinning plates, keeping beta orbiters, and lying about things such as attraction level in order to secure resources and commitment. There’s nothing wrong with simply expositing about what happens in the SMP. It’s not justification; it’s explanation.
Hey Infantry, thanks for stopping by.
Yeah, it’s polite to keep decorum while commenting on someone elses blog. Personal attacks are never called for and vast generalizations should be avoided. We all know NAWALT, it just gets tiresome as a whitewash excuse against observable behavior. Even if the ladies at HUS are smarter than your average bear, they try and paint a rosy picture of real world women that doesn’t square with what drove the men to find HUS on the internet in the first place.
I try not to offend them either, but some hamsters must be sacrificed for the greater good of all.
It’s sex and the city lifestyle, have all the boys vie for girls attention while she’s getting her alpha fix on the side and telling no one and enjoying the fabulous life of a single.
Guys, you’re a fiendish brute if you are seeing multiple women and sleeping with them too.
If they don’t come out and tell you they are not seeing anyone else and expect the same because commitment is on the table, you are not obliged. Even then you’re still not obliged unless the woman has qualified herself as worthy of dropping whatever you have on the side. Unless you’re feeling something more is there, there’s no reason to stop spinning your plates.
I caught that in my email feed. It’s hard to miss a 3 paragraph post done entirely with the CAPS LOCK button obviously on.
I really hate when she deletes shit. Unless it’s a personal attack or character assassination or death threat, there’s no reason to delete shit. Christ, i’ve seen racial and anti-semitic jew hating stuff left up in a thread of hers where she and Doug1 went at it back in January i think. Not that i care either way, just saying there’s no consistency in her nuking. I guess it’s more ideological than anything.
I think she’s off her rocker sometimes. I’m sure i can dig those comments out of my email and repost them here. I really should. I can vouch for the whole beta-orbiter thing, i was kept as one for a good chuck of my life by 2 women who knew damn good and well what they were doing.. there was no ‘hamsterbating’ about it.
Thanks for the report!
Full disclosure was always used against me. I mistook that whole ‘women want honesty’ thing WAY too literally. So i’d wear my heart on my sleeve.
I made it much easier for them to stab with their knives. At least if it’s in your chest, they have to get through the ribcage unless they angle it just right. Bitches know exactly where to stab.
I would not say Susan’s off her rocker. Quite the contrary. She is tamping down hard on what she perceives as “misogyny”. I don’t agree that criticizing what all know to be one negative characteristic of both men and women (the propensity to lie and attempt to evade detection for it) is misogynist. I don’t like it when she deletes comments either, particularly by Wudang, who I think offers smart, well-articulated comments, but, it’s her house and her rules. She can fashion the debate how she wishes.
She is also tailoring her site to appeal to women, her key demographic. That’s what she wants to do, and I can’t fault her for it.
Of course it’s her site to do with as she pleases. IMO tho, i don’t think she’s doing a service to the women by redacting comments that could help women understand a position from the other sides pov. I didn’t see Wudangs comment, but if it’s as poignant and inoffensive (not misogynistic) as you say it is, Susan keeps her audience from gaining knowledge about their place in the SMP and keeps the hamster wheels lubed.
I don’t begrudge Susan’s mission. I don’t approve the way she goes about it censoring posts, especially when other well known trolls were allowed to roam unmolested.
Right, M3. Susan deprives her female readers of insights into the male mind when she deletes comments like Wudang’s and Obsidian’s. It’s controversial and might even be in-your-face? Well, yes, but often that’s how we learn.
And: deleting controversial on topic comments lends support to Susan’s critics who say she can’t handle debate — a position I don’t agree with, incidentally.
Susan is trying to shame everyone — but especially men, of course — into “playing nice” in this SMP, to create a kinder, gentler carousel for women. But let’s face it, that’s just not going to happen.
What are the odds that one — just ONE — player who’s knee deep in pussy is going to stumble across HUS, read Susan’s posts and think: “Whoa dude, here’s a middle aged woman telling me that I shouldn’t lead girls on, that I should be honest and not spin plates. I guess I’d better stop, so this middle aged woman will stop judging me. Of course this will make it harder for me to get laid, and I might have to go through some tough dry spells, but I’ll figure something out.”
Not. Gonna. Happen. You’d have better odds by trying to convince Obama to resign the presidency and endorse the Republican party in the fall.
If Susan really wants to help young women, she needs to help them understand the SMP situation as it is, rather than as she thinks it should be. It’s better for people to understand what they’re up against in this SMP than to just pretend the issues don’t exist, or to believe that dishonest SMP behavior is something you can shame out of existence by blogging about it.
It is simply a fact that women fudge and lie about their sex partner counts, in an effort to boost (or at least not further damage) their SMVs. It is not misogynist to say so.
It is simply a fact that women are not always above board about their wants or desires for a particular relationship with a particular man — sometimes because they are actively dishonest; other times because they don’t even know themselves. It is not misogynist to say so.
It is simply a fact that men are known to lie to get sex. It is not misandrist to say so.
It is simply a fact that men will spin plates and have sex with as many women as they can. It is not misandrist to say so.
Just be aware that speaking nice at HUS isn’t enough to save you from a ban hammer. I’ve gotten banned twice, not for things said at HUS, but at things said OTHER places. One at Vox’s, one at Dalrock’s.
Susan sees only friends and foes. There are no people just trying to make their way – there is only her ‘moral way’ and her ‘cad way’.
What I don’t get is how it can be derailing a thread that was originally speaking about this very thing. If she wants to post on that, she should to be prepared to talk about it. Otherwise she’s just leading her readers on
M3, if be interested in the deleted comments. Even if you don’t want to post them to your site, email em to me at leapofabeta(at)gmail(dot)com
I like Susan. But i won’t silence myself or abide her silencing of others. If she has a problem with any of my views or opinions, she can ban away. It wont change my actions.
As you should. I’m just saying don’t be surprised if she has a ‘my house, my rules’ mentality that also invoves banning you for criticizing her in your house under your rules.
I’d like to see them too if you don’t mind.
If/when i find them ill put them up on a new post under ‘sphere wisdom’.
Hey Mike…just caught this post. I appreciate the words from you, Badger, Jimmy, etc. The time I spent bouncing was invaluable from the perspective of simply being able to observe reality day in and day out for a good length of time. Of course, some women would argue those are just “bar girls/sluts” and NAWALT.
Anyways, I think Susan actually raises a good question about ethics in dating/mating/current SMP, but at least to me the post was a little to convenient in timing, and I think Obsidian actually nailed it with the comment that it is primarily about women having their ox gored.
I actually suggested to Susan writing a post about ethics a long, long time ago especially as it relates to a woman’s ethical obligations. Never. Saw. That post.
But as soon as it became about men “spinning plates” and having a sex partner while dating another woman, then all of sudden ethics became a front and center issue.
I’ll address the comment deletion in the other post specifically related to it.
Raising ethics questions is good.. but Susan needs to understand it cuts both ways and if you bring it up, you better look long and hard in the mirror because there’s another side to it.. the male side. You guys did a phenomenal job articulating it, i couldn’t do you guys justice. So i simply quote you guys on my own blog 😉 but seriously, you guys have such powerful insights, if i help them get spread, it’s a win in the long run.
Glad to see you swing by. I’ll meet you in the next post!