Susan Walsh: Chartbreaker, Part 2
Happy day! Susan Walsh has drawn another diagram! Loyal readers of Man Boobz will recall the last time that Walsh, a would-be relationship expert who blogs at Hooking Up Smart, tried her hand at diagram making. It wasn’t pretty. In an attempt to sketch out the economic costs of sluthood, Walsh cobbled together an extravagantly convoluted mess of a flow-chart based on little more than a few bad assumptions and what she insisted was common sense.
This time, Walsh attempts to chart how the sexual revolution has transformed dating, borrowing her argument largely from some dude called Frost who blogs about sex and relationships and PUA bullshit at Freedom Twenty-Five.
Back in the old “leave it to Beaver” days, Frost argues, virtually all men and women paired off efficiently with partners who exactly matched their level of hotness, as charted on the infamous ten-point scale beloved of pickup artists and other such creatures. Fives married fives, nines married nines, and even lowly ones were able to find true love and hot ugly sex with others as unfortunate as they were. As Walsh puts it, attempting to make all this somehow sound vaguely scientific:
This system worked pretty well in achieving equilibrium with respect to SMV (sexual market value).
Naturally, neither Frost nor Walsh offer any evidence that any of this was true. Which only makes sense, since it, er, wasn’t.
Let’s set that aside for a moment and move on to our current fallen state, post-sexual revolution. Now, apparently, a small minority of hot dudes score all the chicks, from nines on down to threes. Everyone else spends their lonely nights alone with their hands and a choice of vibrator or fleshlight.
Here’s where the diagram comes in. It’s a doozy:
From "Hooking Up Smart."
Now, Walsh doesn’t actually explain how she knows this (or, rather believes it, since it clearly is not true), or why exactly she thinks the sexual revolution is to blame. But Frost does, sort of. With the sexual revolution, he argues,
the social convention of monogamy starts to break down. Women are free to do what they want, and they quickly realize that the men they can persuade to have short-term sexual relationships with are much, much more attractive than the men willing to marry them. Attractive men are free to eschew marriage, and instead maintain a harem of rotating friends-with-benefits and one-night stands. Super-attractive men (professional athletes, rock stars, bloggers) can spend every night with a different coterie of young, attractive women, railing lines off their ass cheeks and banging them senseless.
Sounds great for men. And not too bad for women either, who get to shag NHL players and bloggers instead of their ho-hum husbands.
Wait a minute. “… and bloggers?” Bloggers are now the alpha males? I wish I’d known this sooner!
But every woman who elects to join a harem, must necessarily leave a lonely man behind in the great mating scramble. … The men at the bottom are left to their RPGs and porn.
So there you have the effects of the sexual revolution on men: Great for the few, awful for the teeming masses.
Well, there’s a certain logic to that argument. It’s just not, you know, true.
Walsh and all the manosphere dudes who’ve convinced themselves that 80% of men have been left sexless have it backwards: as a handy FAQ at the Kinsey Institute points out, only about 10 percent of men don’t have sex during any given year. The average frequency of sex ranges from more than 100 times a year for those in their teens and twenties to about 70 times a year for those in their 40s.
But what about the ladies? Frost explains that they suffer too, especially those unfortunate enough to be mega-hotties. Frost seems to base this conclusion almost entirely on the sexual history of one Betty Draper. This seems a very small sample size to me. Also, she’is fictional. But that doesn’t stand in Frost’s way:
What about the top woman? The ultimate hottie? Previously, she had the top man all to herself. She literally could not have asked for anything more, assuming as I do that women naturally gravitate toward sleeping with the one man who is their best option at a given time, while men are only as faithful as their options. Suddenly, her man is beset by hussies, plying him with offers of cheap sex. How does Betty Draper feel about the breakdown of monogamy in her world? …
Now [the top women] must choose between sharing, or settling for a man far below her previous catch. Meanwhile, uglier women can choose between monogamy with a man far above her previous level, or a shared slice of one of the top men. She is unequivocally better off, as the hotter women are unequivocally worse off.
Frost concludes:
The Sexual Revolution harms attractive women, and unattractive men. It benefits unattractive women, and attractive men.
Betty Drapers of the world, unite!
Naturally, none of this is the fault of men. It is, Frost and Walsh apparently agree, the fault of all those mid-level bitches slutting it up with the top men. It’s all their fault that the ladies at the top and bottom are getting left high and dry.
Indeed, it’s high time that the hottest hotties stood up for their rights, Frost argues in a second blog post:
It never seems to occur to the hot girls of the world that the sexual revolution is the cause of their troubles. Without it, the best that a top man could do is find a top woman, and devote his life to her. In our present dystopia, he can find that top woman, and rip her heart and soul to pieces by maintaining a harem of flings on the side.
If it wasn’t for the legions of female 7′s and 8′s throwing themselves at the male 9′s, the female 9′s could have their men all to themselves. But in the world as it is, they will always be competing with the omnipresent availability of cheap and easy sex.
Were the hot women to regain their hot pride, sluts and feminists alike would quake in their boots:
The greatest fear of the feminists is that desirable women like yourselves will wake up the lies they’ve been fed, embrace their feminine modesty, and cast the harsh light reality on of the fat, shrill, used-up slutwalkers and middle-aged divorcees.
What of the not-quite-hotties? Walsh has some harsher advice for all those “mediocre sluts” out there riding that alpha asshole cock carousel. She writes:
For less attractive women, an objective assessment of market value is essential. That can only be realized by evaluating which men are interested in dating you rather than banging you.
In other words: mid-level ladies, you’re still losers. Eventually, you asses will get fat, your skin will get wrinkly, and the alpha assholes will grow tired of banging you. So what are you poor gals to do? Walsh offers this grim assessment:
These are the hard truths of the Post Sexual Revolution era. There are a few winners, and many losers. It is difficult to see how equilibrium can ever be regained. For now at least, your only option is to think carefully and realistically about your personal life goals. Make sure the choices you’re making get you closer to them.
(Confidential to Susan Walsh: You do know that using terms like “equilibrium,” like you’re some sort of sexual economist, doesn’t actually make your bullshit true?)
Given that everything in Frost and Walsh’s posts here is such unmitigated bullshit, I think I have some better advice for women of all hotness levels (if they haven’t already figured this out for themselves): stop taking relationship advice from a woman who wants you to hate yourself.
And speaking of bad choices: those smileys? Oy. Strive for elegant simplicity, not tacky clutter.
NOTE: Chuck on Gucci Little Piggy has written a response of sorts to this post. I’ve replied on his blog here. But there is something distressing going on there: Someone has posted several rude comments there under the name “Man Boobz.” THAT PERSON IS NOT ME. If any of you are responsible, STOP IMMEDIATELY. I’ve asked Chuck to ban that person and delete the comments.
EDITED TO ADD: Chuck changed the name of the commenter to “not man boobz.” That makes sense to me.
Posted on August 4, 2011, in $MONEY$, alpha males, antifeminism, beta males, crackpottery, evil women, hypergamy, misogyny, PUA, reactionary bullshit, sex, sluts. Bookmark the permalink. 509 Comments.
But david! Her post makes perfect sense! Because we all know that all women want deep emotional relationships all the time, and all men just want to get as much pussy as possible.
…right?
Seriously. Does she think only ugly guys want monogamous relationships or something? If you want a monogamous relationship, find someone who ALSO wants a monogamous relationship! ditto casual sex! Why is this so hard?
…Hahahahahaha.
Seriously? Okay, leaving aside the lack of any evidence for their position, and the fact that it’s easily falsified, do they ever sort out whether it’s hot dudes with a bunch of women, or a bunch of mid-level women sleeping with a bunch of hot dudes?
I can’t imagine spending enough time to unpack all the assumptions in their nonsense. It’s like the usual MRA babble, which seems to ignore things which can easily be observed in normal life. That chart… have none of these people ever seen a homely dude with a much more attractive girlfriend? ‘Cause I tend to see that all the time (though in fairness, as a straight dude, I’m biased on the whole male looks vs. female looks thing).
You know, the sad thing is I could leave some variation of my above comment on every post, and it would probably be relevant around 75% of the time.
Well, there’s this:
http://hotchickswithdouchebags.com/
but in all fairness, the guys on that site aren’t really ugly, they’ve just made extremely unfortunate fashion choices.
But, David, they do have evidence! Common sense! Everyone knows it’s better then that silly ‘science’ shit. I mean, look at global warming! All you have to do is look at last winter and BAM! Science is wrong!
Okay, now I feel dirty. I’m going to go do some actual science now, bai.
Except this flies in the face of their other assertion that women are driven solely by material wealth and are all whores. According to that theory it doesn’t matter what the man looks like. If he has money it doesn’t matter if he’s a four or a five, he can have all the ten’s he wants, because they’re more interested in his wallet.
I’ve been reading some of the comments on that post and it makes me a little queasy. So many of those people think that I, personally, am disgusting, used up, and out to steal their boyfriends.
Also, anyone else sick of the “men can’t control their urges” crap yet/
But it’s just NATURAL that men are assholes! Look at all the men who are assholes posting on Susan Walsh’s blog. QED!
The average frequency of sex ranges from more than 100 times a year for those in their teens and twenties to about 70 times a year for those in their 40s.
Wow, I must have been pulling the curve down when I was younger.
Also, doesn’t Mad Men take place (at least, early on) before the sexual revolution? The show beganin 1968, and Don had been cheating on Betty throughout their entire marriage. Even ignoring the fact that the show is fictional, it doesn’t fit with the theory.
Meanwhile, in the Real World…
Before the feminist sexual revolution, it was not exactly unheard of for married men to have mistresses. But married women were heavily discouraged from taking lovers. So one might say that the sexual revolution resulted in women having access to a lot more cock (hence the Cock Carousel of MRA fame).
if *women* are having multiple partners now where men used to be the only gender where that was common, how does that gel with their theory that it is now women only who join harems, depriving poor 6s from their god-given right to pussy?
And how is it that this overweight geek who probably registers at best as a 5 or 6 has been having his own ‘harem’ of FWBs and lovers, if only 8+ are supposed to be getting all that awesome hypergamy?
“assuming as I do that women naturally gravitate toward sleeping with the one man who is their best option at a given time” There’s your trouble. Sure, some people tend to be monogamous and long term and some tend otherwise, but all of those groups of people include people of all genders.
I also love how this is listed as the pre-existing sorting ““In humans assortative mating has been reported for such characteristics as age, IQ, height, weight, educational and occupational level, and physical and personality characters.” Except those things aren’t necessarily related to each other. A person could be hot and nice but works at Burger King and is not so bright (I knew this one guy, I would go out of my way to look at his ass, but damn, you could have a more enlightening conversation with a Furby). Or be fat and rich, or rich and mean, etc. Is it some sort of points system to determine their rank in the 1-10 system?
My facebook friends are glad you found this because they are tired of me forcing them to read Susan Walsh’s blog.
I really like how, in the chart, the male smiley faces in zones 6-1 become progressively angrier, even though they are all having the same amount of sex – none. Shouldn’t they all be meh, like the ladies in the 10 zone, or crying like they have just been audited, like the ladies in the 2 zone?
I am trying to figure out if I am a “Meh” or an “Unfortunate”. Since I’m fat it seems to be the latter, but I also seem to be banging a lot of people, so….?
“For now at least, your only option is to think carefully and realistically about your personal life goals. Make sure the choices you’re making get you closer to them.”
Since one of my life goals is to have a kink-friendly poly household, I see no reason to go back to the days of monogamy. ;)
Also, the women are dressed like the female equivalent of douchebags. It’s not so much “hot chicks with douchebags,” as it is “douchebags with douchebags”.
Hell, I’m probably pulling it down singlehandedly.
Susan Walsh is such a femis!
(Is that word catching on yet? Femis is the new mangina!)
But seriously, what the fudge?!?!?! Talk about serious self-loathing issues.
And I’m going to keep giving myself to Alphas no matter how many Epsilons are asking me out on dates!
This whole greek system bugs me. When you listen to PUA types and their ilk talk about it Alphas are always hot, always jackasses, and never have to work hard to get sex. But the times I’ve confronted PUA types to hammer out what they really mean, they say things that pretty much amount to “alphas are people you’d want to date” Which…. uh….. so dating them makes you a shallow bitch?
When I was a kid and thinking about the year 2011, I imagined robots and cool cars zipping through the sky. The horror show of that chart was beyond my imagination.
The greek system is infuriating because, ultimately, it makes a couple valid observations about class. That’s about it. But if you admit that class exists, these people assume you admit all the extra baggage they bring as well, like alphas universally being hot jackasses for whom ladies will come in droves.
Class is conflated with desirable qualities, which are much more variable than any PUA will admit. So you get a weird scribbly circle of logic, where alphas are the ones getting all the sex because they have traits that lend themselves to getting lots of sex. And therefore they’re rich douchebags.
That whole thing about people dating within their “level?” Generally true, as far as people who share similar interests and lifestyles can be considered within a “level.” The rest? A load of unsubstantiated garbage.
Hrm… I wonder if Walsh would be willing to do her part to make sure all the unattractive men are getting the sex they so desperately need. It’s about the only thing you can do, if you are conscious of this great injustice and want to actually do something about it.
speedlines- Someone (I think it was Amanda Marcotte, or someone on Feministe) pointed out that the phenomenon could just as easily be called “Hot Dudes with Bimbos,” if you look at it from a straight woman’s POV.
Also, this chart is useless (among other reasons) because it doesn’t define the categories. I mean c’mon– examples! Is Mila Kunis a 10? Or is she merely Super Hot, and there are even hotter women squirreled away in yurts in the mountains, coming to civilization only during the New Moon so as not to blind us with their perfect Teutonic features?
Also: A million thumbs up for “femis.”
I really wish people who did this kind of “science-I-just-made-up-in-my-head!” stuff realized that actual research has been done on these issues.
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
This seems to me to have the exact opposite implications of Susan Walsh’s “research”–the most attractive woman are getting nearly all the attention, rather than the other way around.
Why does Ms. Walsh believe that attractiveness is the only quality that people look for in a sexual and romantic partner? While attractiveness is a major one, people can disqualified on account of personality just as easily.
And quite a few people still pursue a monogamous lifestyle – just look at all the shit Dan Savage has taken for thinking that hey, maybe this monogamy thing needs some rethinking.
God in heaven…
You know, I’ve always wondered why “serious” MRM activists don’t completely disavow all the PUA foolishness. “I can’t date who I want to date and I’m lonely” can, legitimately, be a problem. It’s just not, you know, a political problem.
As for Walsh – words escape me. I’ve known women like her in analog and their slavish need for male approval is… strong. Their contempt for every woman who does things differently from them is even stronger.
Hell, I’m probably pulling it down singlehandedly.
Huhuhuhuhuhhuh! Heheheheheh!
The above post to be read in the voice of Beavis and/or Butthead.
@spearhafoc- Mad Men starts even earlier, actually. the first season ends with the 1960 election.
What’s really interesting is that these (I’m assuming) right wingers absolutely love the free market–right up until the free market results in outcomes they dislike. Essentially, they seem pissed off because women are offering themselves on the sexual market place, as it were, and finding lots and lots of takers. They talk about women pricing themselves too high on the sexual market place, but in a truly free market nothing is priced too high as long as it sells.
What Walsh and MRAs seem to want is a form of sexual Marxism: from each according to her abilities, to each according to his needs. Needless to say, it doesn’t work in reverse.
You know, of all the fallacies presented by Frost the one I love best is the idea that people didn’t cheat prior to the sexual revolution. I mean is it deliberate dishonesty, willfull obtuseness, charming naivete?
When someone says something so demonstrably false do you presume that they’re an NWO-style liar, or do you give them the benefit of the doubt and figure that they may have been dropped on the head as a child?
Oh, and I’m annoyed at her implication that RPGs are a haven for the socially inept. Plenty of gamers manage to have fulfilling relationships – many of them even marry! Also, she should go to a kink play party some day. Attractiveness is certainly not as important as, say, skill with a whip or sharing the same kind of kink.
Also, how do QUILTBAG people factor into her idea? Do gay people just not exist? Are they already presumed to be off participating in orgies anyway?
I see what you did there.
@Nobinayamu
Being dropped on the head as a child probably won’t make a person stupid enoug to believe in this shit. My eldest brother was dropped on the head (and suffered brain damage!), and he is way to smart for to follow PUA advice.
I think gay people exist outside her event horizon. It’s like they’re in a different universe that has no contact with hers.
Susan must shake with rage every time she watches an episode of “Ugly Betty”.
(Cancelled show, I know, but what I’ve seen of the show pretty much breaks these “charts” like Mad Men does)
But they should totally be able to bang booth-babes!!!
I mean, I didn’t memorize Tomb of Unknown Horrors and min/MAX my level 95 Tauren just to have some FEMINIST tell me I need to develop some social skills and emotional maturity!!!!
“But they should totally be able to bang booth-babes!!!
I mean, I didn’t memorize Tomb of Unknown Horrors and min/MAX my level 95 Tauren just to have some FEMINIST tell me I need to develop some social skills and emotional maturity!!!!”
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
WHO thinks about life in these terms? It’s so fucking weird and sick. Dividing people up into groups of hotness, worrying about who gets to fuck to whom. I mean…jesus… I’m sorry, but I look around me and I see people of varying of degrees of attractiveness doing JUST FINE, having sex, having relationships, getting married, whatever… I always get the feeling the sad sacks who write this kind of shit are losers in life and love who come up with this shit to make their lonely existences seem less pathetic. Anything so that they don’t have to think “Hey, maybe the reason I can’t hook up is not because of the slutty wimminz, maybe I’m just a horrible human being.” If the stuff they wrote weren’t so damaging and misanthropic, I’d feel sorry for them.
I doff my cap. This comment is fairly overflowing with win.
That’s what she said.
Victoria von Syrus: Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay?
That chart… have none of these people ever seen a homely dude with a much more attractive girlfriend? ‘Cause I tend to see that all the time (though in fairness, as a straight dude, I’m biased on the whole male looks vs. female looks thing).
I’m a straight lady and this has also been my personal experience/observation. Very rarely have I been like, “Argh, why is that hot guy with that not-so-hot girl?!” I always assumed that women were way more likely to cut guys slack on their looks than the other way around.
But I don’t even really think that’s true anymore. Nowadays, I’d say that my observations were confirmation bias. I think these MRA types see what they want and expect to see. Thinking about it rationally, I have to assume that overall, no matter their gender, people have sex with, date, fall in love, etc. with people of roughly equivalent attractiveness. IIRC, sociological studies confirm that people tend to marry people very similar to themselves, in everything from religion to SES. (And, not to get off topic, but forget about looks–PROXIMITY is one of the biggest factors in determining who we end in LTRs with.) If anything, I’d think less equitable and free societies would lead to mismatches, as people might have to disregard or put less importance on their own personal attraction to a potential partner in favor of focusing on their wealth, social class/position, family pressures, etc.
Actually, I bet you could design a decent protocol to test “Levels of Hotness Asymmetry in Adult Heterosexual Romantic Relationships in the United States.” (Batten down the hatches! Incoming Social Sciences sperg!)
Distribute anonymous questionnaire to couples.
Survey Question 1: How physically attractive are you, on a scale of 1 – 10?
Survey Question 2: How physically attractive is your partner, on a scale of 1 – 10?
(Maybe slightly different wording would be better, such as “how physically attracted are you to your partner” and vice versa…)
Now, adding another step where you take pictures of couples and have a bunch of college students rate each partner on a hotness scale, like that jackass from Psychology Today, would be stupid. But I think measuring SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTIONS of beauty is reasonable, as this acknowledges that duh beauty is subjective and influenced by various cultural factors.
I’d hypothesize that for the vast majority of participants, the difference between the numbers in question #1 & #2 would be very small, statistically insignificant. If you included additional measures to your questionnaire, such as tests of self-esteem, body dysmorphia, depression, etc., I’d bet that you’d find something like “High scores on the Beck Depression Inventory are positively correlated with the participant rating their partner’s attractiveness higher than their own.” THIS is where you’d find your hotness asymmetry. And once you controlled for these variables (that is, compared apples to apples, depressed men to depressed women) neither gender would be more likely than the other to “up-rate” or “down-rate” their partner.
Good luck getting funding for such a goofy study, though!
Sorry, I still can’t get quotes to work. This whole part was a quote from Sivi:
That chart… have none of these people ever seen a homely dude with a much more attractive girlfriend? ‘Cause I tend to see that all the time (though in fairness, as a straight dude, I’m biased on the whole male looks vs. female looks thing).
SWGM: Yup. It’s basically a catch-all term for people who fall outside the cis-hetero paradigm.
I like it because an actual quiltbag is either a bag made using quilting techniques, in which different varieties of fabric come together to form a beautiful whole; or a bag which contains one’s quilting supplies, which is a hodgepodge of different tools which are all very necessary to make a quilt. Either way, I think it does well as a metaphor for diversity being a good thing.
So, men don’t want to sleep with the most attractive women out there? Is that how this works? Given any number of women who will sleep with him, a man naturally gravitates to the most mediocre?
Also, any woman ever will accept a casual poly relationship with a man when she wants a committed monogamous relationship, as long as the man is sufficiently hot?
Susan Walsh, kindly return to your spaceship and continue observing our species from a distance. You aren’t ready to interact with us quite yet.
Define Attractive. Also explain the desire for companionship, compatibility, and mutual understanding.
Bah! Blockquote FAIL
Actually ignore all my above posts. I Didn’t see all of Summer_snow’s post. (stupid man brain)
Actually, I rethought the whole “dropped on head” thing and remembered that I dropped (or allowed to fall) my sister on her head more than once as a small child. She’s a doctor now. But I’m with you, Vacuumslayer: the very idea that there are people this obsessed with the sex lives, and love lives, and arbitrary number “rankings” of other people is depressing as hell. Until you recognize the deep well of insecurity from which such people operate. Then it’s actually pretty funny.
Anyway, I went to the link and tried to get through some of the comments. I don’t recommend it; somehow it all just gets stupider. Seriously, there’s a guy in the comments who totally thinks Walsh and Frost are dead-on, balls accurate and is advertising the fact that HD porn is totally better than sex with a “4” or “5”. I cannot even begin to imagine how bad in bed a person -regardless of gender- would have to be to not only think that, but announce that shit to perfect strangers.
His reasoning? Men care far more about the visual when it comes to sex and women basically disregard the visual. And where is he making this definitive assertion? In the comments thread on a piece that definitively asserts that basically ALL women care about are a man’s looks.
I just can’t.
“Plenty of gamers manage to have fulfilling relationships”
INDEED.
“But they should totally be able to bang booth-babes!!!
I mean, I didn’t memorize Tomb of Unknown Horrors and min/MAX my level 95 Tauren just to have some FEMINIST tell me I need to develop some social skills and emotional maturity!!!!”
Honestly, that isn’t what seems to be at the core of nerd men’s general inability to have a relationship. Some of both plays into some folks, naturally, but the real problem seems to be that they have A: created a subculture that precludes knowing much about the regular culture’s social rules and B: have excluded women from that culture.
I feel like none of the people with these theories actually know anyone, or have gone around their neighborhood, or know anything about their coworkers or classmates’ private lives.
Because it turns out there’s this thing called a “couple.”
A lot of people are in one! Even ugly people! Even ugly men! It’s true! And when you’re in a couple, you (mostly) don’t sleep with anyone else! And–the really wacky part, this–some men even want to be in a couple! Even hot men!
Tomorrow, we’ll tell her about this thing called “marriage” (believe it or not, people still do this!) and really blow her mind.
Yeah, Holly, that’ll blow her mind!
It’s like she’s heard of humans but never actually met any.
I have to say, in my personal experience, the “plays RPGs” group and the “has a harem” group are basically 100% overlapping.
@Rutee:
“Honestly, that isn’t what seems to be at the core of nerd men’s general inability to have a relationship. Some of both plays into some folks, naturally, but the real problem seems to be that they have A: created a subculture that precludes knowing much about the regular culture’s social rules and B: have excluded women from that culture.”
They haven’t just excluded women from that culture, they’ve made that culture so incredibly hostile to women that the only way it seems women will be even halfway accepted is to constantly decry feminism, behave like stereotypical males and make sure to remain as feminine-appearing and approachable as possible. It’s not enough to be a woman gamer; you have to be a woman gamer who’s “hot”, who never says anything that upsets the delicate masculine sensibilities of male gamers and never stop anyone from violating your physical or personal boundaries.
Four kids- youngest is 16 oldest is 25. All if I do say so myself very attractive. Except for the youngest all have been in their relationships over two years. My oldest daughter has been with our son-in-law since she was 16 (that would be 9 years now). She from the charts given is at least a 9. Our son-in-law is asian, about 5.7 and comes from a immigrant family without a lot of means. They are not just in love they are best friends with everything in common. They started out with a mutual love of grunge rock and now save their pennies to travel to Michelin restaurants around the world and wineries.
I must show them this chart and explain to my daughter that she should not be with out son-in-law but instead should be riding the alpha cock carousel. I think they would have an issue with that.
In my world the kids are turning out just fine.
Presumably the same ppl angry at Hugo for characterizing video game players as socially inept, are also angry at her? xD
The greatest fear of the feminists is that desirable women like yourselves will wake up the lies they’ve been fed, embrace their feminine modesty, and cast the harsh light reality on of the fat, shrill, used-up slutwalkers and middle-aged divorcees.
Uh oh… you ppl here better watch out… I’m going to wake up to the lies you’ve been feeding me soon! xDD
“used up” o_O How does one use a woman up? xD
I like how she basically made up a theory in order to exclude the top women, flatter women (YOU’RE the 10s I’m talking about! you beautiful woman you!) and then say “you’re being screwed b/c of this! blame feminism!” xD
I mean it’s great too b/c everybody only has our own exps to work w/, so you can always tell somebody who is kinda unhappy, that they’re not getting ENOUGH chances to find a relationship, or find a good one, or etc.. and that there’s this whole group of OTHER PPL out there screwing up the system and having a billion choices for dates xD
@Holly actually I do wonder that a lot.. about how these ppl see the world, what they see when they walk outside, look at a mall… like do they only notice all the women they’re attracted to, and then glare at the back of the heads of the men they’re w/ (FUCKING ALPHA I BET HE ABUSES HER) and just ignore all the other couples out there? xD Or do they rationalize it? xD
Like a bunch of months ago, I saw a rly pretty woman walk in (she had the most awesome hair cut and awesome fashion sense) to the Shopper’s I was in… and the guy she was w/ was fat (*GASP*), unshaven and he was in a worn t-shirt, and not like a biker guy or nething, he just looked like regular dude. And I was waiting in line, and thinking in my head “wow that guy has to have so much game” (this is obv totally tongue in cheek xD ) and then I saw their (adorable!) daughter :D And suddenly IT ALL MADE SENSE, that’s her ENTRAPPED BETA!!! xD
Neways, ignoring the entertainment factor, I wondered, like srsly, is that how MRAs/PUAs see the world? When they see any couples that don’t make sense (to them), they apply those things.. if they see couples that do, then they fit their theory, and etc etc? xD
@summer_snow “So, men don’t want to sleep with the most attractive women out there? Is that how this works? Given any number of women who will sleep with him, a man naturally gravitates to the most mediocre?”
Having seen Ms. Walsh’s picture, I can pronounce her breathtakingly, even stunningly mediocre in the looks department.
If she weren’t a complete crackpot, I would find it difficult to contain my lust.
I don’t care if less attractive women hook up with hot men, or if beautiful women have monogamous relationships with so called omega and beta men. I also don’t care if “alpha” men have polyamorous relationships with a mixture of beta women and other alpha men as long as everyone is a consenting adult. It’s none of my business. Now Walsh needs to make a chart that shows the link between obsessing over other peoples’ sex lives and being obnoxious. I think Walsh’s most annoying part was at the end, where she urges beautiful women to engage in slut shaming. One of the commenters for the article, Jaime, called her out on it, though, saying that slut shaming is a type of malicious gossip that makes the one gossiping look mean.
In my experience, the #1 reason nerd boys don’t get laid is that they have few female friends and don’t ask girls out.
Ami, I don’t think they do see the world. And I’m not making some mocking allusion to mom’s basement dwelling, cheetoes eating, semi-shut ins either. At least, you know, not this time. I really don’t think that they see the world; not the way it actually is. Especially the type that are convinced that men have become second-class citizens, now engaged in a battle for civil rights akin to what minorities endured in the 1960s.
How does one step outside of their home and go any place where people are congregated in their spare and free time, and truly believe that the “battle of the sexes” is legitimately on the verge of armed conflict?
That the only men who can get laid look like Brad Pitt?
That any woman over 25 is dried up hag?
That nothing matters in relationships except looks?
That couples of all types and sexual orientations aren’t out somewhere, right now, laughing and sharing a drink, or a meal, or a movie and gazing fondly into each other’s nonsymmetrical faces.
The only thing that can explain that is looking at the world with nothing but jaundiced misanthropy. Or jealousy. Or both.
@Ami – about pretty/pretty couples, and about pretty/ugly couples: In my darker moments, I suspect that a pretty woman who can’t get a pretty man would choose an ugly one before an average-looker.
I guess I think Beauty and the Beast has brainwashed them. Look inside deep ugliness to find true beauty, not just passable so-so’s with good smiles and clean clothing.
As I said, this is only in my darker moments, at like 4:00am when I can’t sleep and there’s no one around to cuddle. I was a handsome dude in my 20s, but at times like these I begin to think I’m just not sweaty, overweight or homely enough.
Love the casual misogyny (and by love, I mean ‘actually really hate with a passion’) implied by the term ‘used up’.
Newsflash right-wingers: vaginas don’t work that way! There’s not some sort of counter on it that makes it unusable after a given mileage of cock has passed through.
@SummerSnow: I *think* it’s supposed to work like this:
Women would most like to marry a man above their level, but generally can’t. If they can have NSA sex with men above their level, they will do so. If they can’t, they will marry a man on their level.
Men would most like to have NSA sex with women on or above their level, but generally can’t. If possible, they will have NSA sex with women below their level. If they cannot obtain NSA sex, they will marry a woman of their level.
The reason attractive women lose out in this model is because they want to marry attractive men, who are too busy having NSA sex with average women. Since the attractive women won’t consider anyone below their own level, they are forced into spinsterhood.
Nobinayamu, lately when I’ve been in grocery stores or restaurants, etc., I see plenty of couples who look like they’re genuinely happy to be together… and I wonder where MrA’s develop their coldly transactional views about relationships.
@ Orion
But that doesn’t make sense. If the top women are lonely and, as it were, availiable, why wouldn’t top men want to have sex with them instead of less attractive women?
But, of course, this is one of the smallest problems this “chart” has.
BTW, has anyone noticed that every “level” of female hotness has several arrows going out to the same male level? That’s some honest chart right here.
@Raoul, that theory implies a level of calculation not in evidence.
I mean, when you fall in love with someone, do you say to yourself “Well, the hottie down the street won’t have anything to do with me, so I’m going to go for this total uggo because zie must have a great personality”? No! No one does.
People fall in love for all sorts of idiosyncratic reasons, but what most love stories have in common is that the two (three, four, etc) people in question did stuff together and got to know each other.
Take my husband and me, for instance. When we met I was pretty overweight and he dressed like a hobo. Sure, we were both still perfect 10s (still are XD). And yeah, I started biking everywhere & went down to a weight I prefer and he stopped wearing holey shirts & started shaving every now and then, but we had/have characteristics that some people would consider deal-breakers. And yet, here we are. We got together because we were involved in the same community, worked on a project together, got to know each other, fell in love. And no, I hadn’t just been dumped by a snappy dresser and wasn’t on the lookout for someone who would wear the same pants for three months without washing them.
“They haven’t just excluded women from that culture, they’ve made that culture so incredibly hostile to women that the only way it seems women will be even halfway accepted is to constantly decry feminism, behave like stereotypical males and make sure to remain as feminine-appearing and approachable as possible. It’s not enough to be a woman gamer; you have to be a woman gamer who’s “hot”, who never says anything that upsets the delicate masculine sensibilities of male gamers and never stop anyone from violating your physical or personal boundaries.”
Slightly hyperbolic but not enough so, really.
“In my experience, the #1 reason nerd boys don’t get laid is that they have few female friends and don’t ask girls out.”
As far as I can tell, Part 2 tends to end in disaster for most nerds (Regardless of the gender of the target, the asker, and the sexuality of the asker). I’m not sure if nerd culture specifically promotes not learning the normal social games for most people’s dating, or if the sort of people inclined to become nerds aren’t inclined to learn those rules, but either way dating non-nerds tends to end poorly. It doesn’t work if you don’t know the unspoken social rules for interaction on dates that normal people have.
Vermin: Because the top women won’t have casual sex with anyone, even the top men. They WOULD marry the top men, but the top men aren’t interested in marrying the top women when they can sleep around with the average women.
But why would they want to? Why, if they have easy access to 10s, 9s, and 8s, settle for 3s? (Just for the record, I am assuming that everyone everywhere has the same standards of beauty, because that’s what the chart states).
Or is it like two-pronged (nay, three) misogyny – top women are frigid bitches who won’t have sex unless they have the man for themselves alone, middles are sluts, and bottoms… well, we don;t talk about them around here, okay?
The comments on that post are both frightening AND comedy gold.
I love how shaming “sluts” is apparently a necessary function of society, presumably left up to the Betty Drapers of the world, while on the other hand, “shaming” men for anything is, like, the worst thing you can do.
“Calling men who don’t like sluts insecure is shaming language. ”
MRAs and their lapdogs are SO OBSESSED with the term “shaming language” and I think that’s very telling. From now on, I think I’m going to go out of my way to use the most shaming words I can think of when talking about them. They do have SO MUCH to be ashamed of, afterall.