“If you have sex within 30 days of meeting somebody, you’ve got a 90 percent chance of being broken up within one year,” says Dr. Wendy Walsh, author of The 30-Day Love Detox. Dr. Walsh joins Ali with scientific statistics showing that waiting longer leads to longer relationships, and why “sex is a high-risk hobby for women.”
Sensible advice, in theory. Sex forms relationships that would otherwise fail. I’ve slept with many girls who, if the sex was postponed much longer, the loss of momentum and novelty would have meant no sex. They just weren’t that interesting, or their attention span was too low to sustain our connection, without the help of a hot beef injection to restore excitement. If girls waited, they wouldn’t end up fornicating with men who’d leave them shortly after anyways. Better to secure at least, a man’s agreement to be her boyfriend before sex. With fewer sexual partners in their past, these women might be able to bond better with the men they do want to seriously date and marry.
One problem with Walsh’s approach: it’s based on a fallacious understanding of statistics. Here is the bedrock on which her strategy lies:
The answer of course is slow love. Research supports this. Nearly 90 percent of the fast movers in one study had broken up before one year. However, if couples waited just 30 days before engaging in sex, 24 percent were still together a year later. That’s a one in four chance.
Similarly, she cites the now-popular notion that cohabiting raises the risk of divorce. In both, correlation is mistaken for causation – for instance, thinking it’s raining because the sidewalk is wet. The kind of people who would wait 30 days before having sex are also more likely to be the kind of people that have more stable relationships. The mere act of waiting isn’t responsible for all of the effect of lower breakup rates. A minor point though.
But notice how the advice is framed in terms of relationships. That if a woman wants a relationship, this is what she should do. The inverse of this: if you’re a woman and you don’t want a relationship, fuck as you please. Even if that is not what Walsh intended, that’s how her message will be received, among the nubiles in her audience. Indeed, that’s already how American women operate.
Behold the mind of the American Whore:
1. Woman tires of sleeping with men who show no real interest in her, so she decides she wants a “real” relationship. Quite reasonably, she realizes she must try something different to be successful this time. She settles on the advice of “don’t sleep with a guy early, because it increases the risk of failed relationships,” and decides to apply it.
2. She starts holding out on sex with men who want to seriously date her.
3. She gets bored of these suitors, because they start to seem stale without sex to liven things up.
4. Meanwhile, she hasn’t had sex in weeks. She’s getting thirsty. “I know!” she says to herself, “This is only for relationships! But I just need some sex to tide me over, until I find a nice boyfriend, and not a horndog who can’t even wait a month.” [Note how she will castigate men for things she herself does.]
5. She starts banging men who aren’t going on dates with her, typically men she meets out at bars and clubs. But “this is okay, because I don’t want to date… those guys.” “Girls who have sex on the first date are sluts, and I don’t want to be a slut.” The fact that sleeping with strangers is even sluttier than sleeping with men she briefly dated never even enters her mind. She deigns to never have sex on first dates, yet sees nothing wrong with one-night stands.
6. With her need for sex met by men who aren’t exclusive to her, she has no patience for settling for the man who would have her.
Ironically, the advice of Walsh, presented as something fresh and non-conventional, is actually identical to what many promiscuous women already practice. I have personally had girls tell me that it was “okay” that we had sex quickly, because I was obviously not a guy she wanted to date. So she wasn’t “being a slut” by having sex with a stranger who offered no promise of commitment. Showing serious interest may only hurt your prospects of getting sex – every modern girl dreads the “Stage 5 Clinger,” and she is quick to mistake any man with interest for one.
What Walsh says would be sound, if women truly wanted relationships. But they don’t. In the same way, I wouldn’t mind owning an Audi R8, a luxury sports car retailing for over a hundred grand. But that would mean spending way too much of my savings – I’m not prepared to make such a sacrifice for something so trivial.
It is in this sense that jilted women “want” to have a relationship. They want exciting, virile men. But these men won’t have them as exclusive girlfriends. Hypergamy 101. The men who would will bore them. But these women would prefer the fleeting company of players to the smothering gaze of men taken with her. In economics, this called a ‘revealed preference’ – that one’s actions show what her true preference is.
Walsh, a spinster, is inveighing against drug dealers when the drug addicts and their demand are causing the problem. Probably because she’s selling to the drug addicts themselves – she wouldn’t have many book sales or get much media exposure if she held them responsible. While the addicts may not like the negative symptoms of their addiction to casual sex, like “heartbreak” and frustration, they have no intention of giving the drug up either.
Wendy Walsh, author of The 30-Day Love Detox
Having a relationship with any hope of success, as a woman, means actively rejecting the men who are too attractive to deign to date you. Very few Western women will agree to that. They won’t even bother to ask if there’s any prospect of a relationship, before sex. Among the dozens of women I’ve slept with, not once was I required to be exclusive, or agree to be her boyfriend, before having sex. While some girls do request this, it is on the wane. As men, we feel no ‘frustration’ from sleeping with a girl who won’t date us. Once we’re having sex, we don’t care if she formally considers us her ‘boyfriend’ or not. Instead, we get rejected immediately, or ‘blue-balled’ and ‘cockteased.’
Women are so flooded with stimuli and new sensations that it is impossible to hold her attention even for just a month, without the glue of sex. Return of Kings contributor Tuthmosis said, in a discussion of how the second date is dead:
This is definitely a very recent development. I remember parking my game for a little while for an LTR [long-term relationship], and coming out to a different world. Before that, I agree that if things ended in a make-out, you didn’t even need to push for the bang. There was no reason to push for the bang, unless you were mad horny. There was an ease to the whole thing once you had a verified connection (a kiss, for instance). It was unheard-of to not get a second date if the first one went well. In fact, as long as you kept pushing the ball upfield, you knew you’d get another “first down.” The three-date rule prevailed, and you were satisfied with a second- or third-date bang.
Nowadays, I go for the first-date bang even when I’m not that horny, with full knowledge that if I don’t, I’m going to get flaked on. Even when I do score a first-date bang–and put it down like champ–I might still get flaked on.
Chicks have become dudes.
Contrary to popular belief, the player is not brazenly demanding sex on the first date. He is merely responding to the scenario that the woman has set – if sex doesn’t happen soon, it won’t happen, ever. Aggressively pushing for sex isn’t without risks – aggressiveness would not be used as much, if women could be relied upon to go on further dates, as Tuthmosis suggests. And they did. Why chance upsetting her, when you can simply bide your time and get sex eventually? Well now you can’t, because if you wait, that chance will never come.
In telling women to avoid early sex only when a woman wants a relationship, Walsh is trying to put out a fire with lighter fluid. Her solution may deliver the exact opposite of a healthy long relationship, because it will be misapplied. Walsh herself is 51 – decades past the point of sexual relevance. Walsh could not convince even her 22 year old self to refuse to sleep with men outside of a relationship. No one cares about what 50 year old spinsters and childless divorcees do, just as no one cares about the fates of the vast hordes of low status men of all ages.
And for the women out there who do want to apply her advice in earnest, it isn’t enough. When a woman isn’t rewarding the man with sex, she must find other ways to keep a high value man waiting. First and foremost, she must show that she won’t change her mind halfway through the ‘waiting period,’ lest she bail and waste the man’s time. Secondly, she should make the wait as pleasant as possible for him, to ensure he will stick around. That means looking superb, being a great conversationalist and offering him tasty, home-made meals. Even the most unrepentant player will have trouble saying no to a prude whose idea of a date is inviting him over and making him a nice meal in a dress and heels. Don’t expect Walsh to tell any of that to her audience – that would mean doing something for a man.