About these ads

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.

About these ads

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.

  1. “… why wouldn’t women trade off one asset that benefits them over the other half of the population?”

    Jesus, man. Do you actually tell your girlfriend that you think the best thing about her is her pussy?

  2. “why wouldn’t women trade off one asset that benefits them over the other half of the population?”

    Hey, you know, men have one thing that women don’t have! It’s a penis. Is that just worthless in comparison to a vagina? Huh, never figured you for a man-hater, GL.

  3. hey nobby, since it’s on topic, kind of, and you seem to know what you’re talking about, i was wondering if you had any thoughts on joan roughgarden. i recently picked up evolution’s rainbow on a whim, and although her argument as a whole seems plausible, it also feels like she stretches it too far at points.

  4. “Economics attempts to explain the consequences of unlimited wants versus limited resources. This applies to money, land, capital, labor.”
    Aware of what the voodoo tries to do. It turns into pseudoscientific religion in most cases, worshipping the Power of the Market and hailing the rationality of both it, and the actors within it. I recognize that Economics is not the first field to use “Rational People” as its foundational myth, and that in particular, the Law does as well, but Economics is the field that makes actual truth claims about reality that could be tested.

    “This also applies to sexual and domestic relationships.”
    [Citation Needed]

    “I’d argue that most people wouldn’t mind having half a dozen people at their beck and call for sexual relationships whenever they want them, long walks whenever they want them, phone calls, child rearing, etc, with the caveat that those half dozen people were completely kosher with the idea of sharing one partner.”
    You’d argue this based on? I mean, it might be true, I don’t really care, but it isn’t substantiated by saying you’d argue it.

    “The CDC data showed that (unsurprisingly) sexual activity is skewed to a certain degree. There can be no qualification that the skew is “high” or “low” or “just right”. ”
    Ah, I see, no wonder you come to the conclusions you do, you’re an idiot. A study about sexual activity focuses on, believe it or not, SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND ITS OCCURENCE RATE; the CDC data [b]ONLY[/b] discusses sexual partner counts and the percentage of people who have performed a particular sex act. That is [b]NOT[/b] actually a stand in for the amount of sexual activity; As I said, if a married couple has only had sex with each other, and they do it EVERY DAY, that’s 1 partner, and 365 sex acts. If someone has 15 partners in a year, and only screws each once, that’s 15 partners and 15 sex acts. It doesn’t say you’re wrong, but it doesn’t substantiate your claim either. You haven’t provided evidence for the claim that sexual activity is skewed to the small minority of men.

    And really, it doesn’t provide evidence that men suffer in dating unless WOMEN don’t share this status as well, but we’re focusing on the initial premise first. If you can’t even substantiate it, I see no reason its conclusions should be bothered with.

    “Of course, my limited analysis doesn’t prove that or anything nor did I claim that it did. But that skew mixed with statistics which show a mismatch between the median number of sex partners for men and women (I’ve seen 8 versus 5, 5 versus 3, and 8 versus 3 – not sure which is correct) proves – insofar as those statistics are correct – that more women are screwing above their so-called station. ”
    Wait, men having more sex partners over their lifetime proves that more women fuck above their station? Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, as well as the data supporting it. It means more men have fucked different people, nothing more and nothing less.

    “Dramatic much? Can you really not entertain the notion that gender differences might inform social outcomes? ”
    Funnily enough, whining about how this can be ‘debated rationally’ isn’t a substantiation of your claim.

    “Further, peer-reviewed journals accept the economic concept behind the SMP.
    Here’s a paper from Personality and Social Psychology Review which is a top-ranked peer-reviewed journal.

    http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdf
    It doesn’t have data. It’s evo psych, so I’m not surprised by this like I would be for real science.

    Also, I notice that this is a journal specifically of Evopsych, peer reviewed only by other evopsychologists. You know what other circle of cranks has a worthless journal only reviewed by other members of their crankitude? Astrobiology.

    “So you are out of step if you think that applying economic principles to the sexual realm – thereby discussing the “SMP” – is wholly junk. ”
    Because you can find a dude in a non-journal with no data who does it? No, that’s not how it works. Especially since the dude doesn’t seem credible; he’s not well-cited, which means people outside his junk field can’t actually find anything useful.

    “You’d have to clear this up for me. First, men and women aren’t that similar? At least you’re acknowledging sex differences.”
    Oh my god. When you buy 1000 kg of Iron and 200kg of crude petroleum, you’re pretty much buying the same thing from whoever, there’s no way to make them different. There might be 100 dudes and 100 women available and looking for sex, but that doesn’t make those people similar. You can’t actually talk about supply and demand if there’s not really a discrete supply of similar things.

    “And I’m not sure I understand the way you’re looking at the SMP. A grocery store is a gigantic market full of different types of goods – different types of food versus household items, magazines, toiletries, etc – fighting for position in a given person’s budget. ”
    But there’s a supply of cabbage, a supply of toilet paper…

    There’s not a supply of Rutee. There’s just me. And I’m not really that similar to other women, even in more narrow subsets. Nor are you that similar to other men, even in more narrow subsets. You can’t talk about supply and demand if there’s no supply to speak of in the first place.

  5. The fact that Piggy should back up his assertions is widely understood.

  6. @Sharculese Unfortunately I have not read that work, but it seems interesting from a quick glance. Do you want to elaborate on where she goes to far? If I know the actual argument I can try and give you an opinion on it.

    I will say it starts out on a very good note. Something that is a major problem with a purely evolutionary reading of behavior and sexuality is that if genes only care about their own propagation, we would not have gay people. It would have been weeded out of the gene pool millenia ago. So seeing someone using that point of view is interesting and welcome.

  7. Come to think of it, Baumeister has no connection between his theory and any data, and he provides no methods to test his theory. That’s pretty shitty for even a purely theoretical paper.

    And Baumeister is the “Mitochondrial DNA proves women fucked more than men in the past” guy, so believe it or not but I have no reason to think he’s using the statistical data he’s citing correctly.

  8. Oh, jeeze. I should have spent more time on this paper instead of taking it as decent on face value. My bad, Rutee. This is fun:

    “The development of the theory was treated as a separate task from the empirical assessment, and we developed some aspects and predictions that were not able to be tested against the available data.”

    aka “When putting this together, the right had did not know what the left hand was doing. Truly!”

    Also “The second part of the article presented a broad range of empirical findings and they were generally consistent with many aspects of the exchange theory, though some aspects of the theory remain essentially untested. “

    Aka “the parts we had data for fit the theory (Which, we assure you, was not created using the data), and the bits we don’t have data for aren’t tested. Therefore, we’re right.”

  9. yeah, basically her argument is that darwin’s theory of sexual selection is based on a really outdated idea of binary identities for males and females than any real science, and that it doesn’t account for the observable diversity of gender types. i’m still in the first section, where she’s doing a survey of different family and reproductive structures, homo-/transsexuality among animals, and species with multiple distinct forms within one sex (which she calls different genders of the same sex). for example she’s very critical of the idea of ‘female mimics’ poaching fertilization from ‘true males’ and proposes an alternate theory where a species involves an intermediary gender that acts as a go between for males and females in exchange for opportunities to engage in reproduction. so, she incorporates the idea of an economy of reproductive opportunity that allows for these distinct genders, but she also stresses that this isn’t necessarily transferable to humans, and i haven’t gotten to what she has to say on human sexuality.

    it’s all very interesting, and makes a lot of sense, but it seems sometimes in describing these gender dynamics that she reaches very conclusory, almost evopsych positions. i think her answer to that criticism is that it’s intentionally a work that blends science with politics, and that she’s trying to show that her framework is equally explanatory and more plausible than a framework based on sexual selection, but it can be disconcerting in what is facially a scientific account.

  10. My bad on the journal, it’s not JUST Evopsych. It’s not totally worthless. But it is more or less the only place Evopsych can be published.

  11. to be more clear on what i mean by conclusory, using the example i provided- she does a good job of knocking down why the idea of ‘female mimics’ doesn’t make sense in species that hunt by sight and can lock onto small insects through several meters of lake water, and in fact have totally different mating rituals depending on whether the other fish is female or a ‘female mimic’, but she doesn’t really go into why her theory is a better fit. granted, it’s a work for a lay audience, but it’s still frustrating.

  12. @Sharculese Hmm, that’s tricky. Thing is, an evopsych-like take does make more sense on simpler creatures, especially those that do not work on social frameworks (which tend to fuck with standard evolution quite a bit). Rudimentary brains necessitate genetically encoded behavioral patterns that are evolutionarily tested (and, naturally enough, testable). Aka instinct. So i think much would depend on how she handles the human aspects. Evopsych makes the constant and glaring mistake of assuming that human behaviors are heritable and controlled under standard evolutionary rules, while simultaneously offering no actual experimental tests (mostly because these are impossible, given the claims). So, yeah. Let me know how it shapes up! I may look to see if my library has a copy, it should. Sounds like a good read.

  13. @Sharculese Ah, sorry, you ninja’d me there. I can see how that would be annoying. I would hope mostly it’s because that is not the meat of the work, and she’s just pointing out the errors of the standard models instead of attempting to prove her own theory right at that time. Hopefully it’ll shape up.

  14. thanks for the explanation. yeah, i’ll let you know when i get to the section on humans.

  15. If it’s so widely understood, then surely the proof is easy to find and show us? :D

    Like the world being round is widely understood, but b/c it’s proven… there being a Christian god is widely understood, but it’s unproven…

    Ami being awesome is also widely understood…. and that requires no proof… but unless Susan is now writing about how awesome I am… that’s not the same thing XD

    Also… hey… did I just see Rutee, Nobby, etc talk about stuff and admit they were wrong in parts and discuss it more? Amazing what an echo chamber this is! Such echoes! xD

    Also apparently that was not Susan’s final post after all xD

  16. Rutee:

    That journal is one that publishes theoretical papers. But you keep asking for data, data, data to prove many of these assertions. I’d argue that neither side could come up with enough definitive data to disprove the other. That holds true for the EvoPsychers and the social constructionists. That the data is not there does not disprove anything just as the lack of data or information that disproves the irreducible complexity of the eyeball does not disprove the theory of natural selection.

    As it stands, sexual dimorphism in primates is universal. Males are larger than females, a fact which stems from sexual differences. This has social fallout. Men and women have different natures, or – since that’s such a scary word for the social constructionists – tendencies to which they are more easily attuned to carry out.

    Biology does not insure destiny, but it sure makes it easier.

  17. That the data is not there does not disprove anything just as the lack of data or information that disproves the irreducible complexity of the eyeball does not disprove the theory of natural selection.

    so, i normally don’t like playing ‘count the fallacies’ but it’s worth pointing out that on the last page alone, gl piggy has employed ad populam, burden shifting, and appeals to authority. and now apparently he’s playing ‘absence of evidence of is not evidence of absence’. and apparently he doesn’t get the difference between falsifiable and non-falsifiable theories. what’s next, appeals to nature?

    Men and women have different natures, or – since that’s such a scary word for the social constructionists – tendencies to which they are more easily attuned to carry out.

    welp.

  18. Wait, so it’s completely permissible to make random, unprovable assertions because “I don’t think you can come up with enough data?”

    And the irreducible complexity of the eyeball is, in fact, disprovable. That posits that the eyeball is too perfect and complete in it’s current form to have evolved, and thus did not. However, that posits the theory that one cannot find a valid evolutionary path to the eye. This is not the case, as we can find many structures of proto-eyes that contain features of the current eye, such as many iterations of the main protein Rhodopsin.

  19. Ami:

    the role of sex as the base motivating factor of organisms mixed with the dimorphic differences between the male and female sex leads to behavioral differences. it seems that feminists believe in evolution when it suits their political purpose of overturning the so-called patriarchal Judeo-Christian tradition, but they drop the pretense whenever it butts up against their biological beliefs.

    the expressions of these differences can be muted and wrung out of the population, but this takes an active effort i.e. indoctrination.

    to tie this all back in to the original discussion: women’s sexuality is highly valued for biological reasons (holdovers that predate birth control). women prefer to expend that resource in the most efficient manner i.e. when the man appears to have good genes or high provision potential. since those men are equipped to take on more than one partner, this leaves more men than women left high and dry.

  20. hey gl piggy i know you dont stop to read posts that arent about you you you, but right above your latest fact free screed we were discussing a work by a stanford evolutionary biologist (it’s a lay work, yes, but her theories have also been published in Science) arguing that the importance of binary differences between the sexes to evolution has been dramatically overvalued) so im not sure why you’re sitting here stamping your feet screaming ‘you have to accept my version of events because its FAAAACT’

  21. ps: throwing around sciencey-sounding jargon doesn’t make you sound smart, it just makes you sound insecure

  22. “But you keep asking for data, data, data to prove many of these assertions. I’d argue that neither side could come up with enough definitive data to disprove the other. ”
    ATTENTION MRA NINJA ASSASSINS: GUCCI LITTLE PIGGY HAS MET HIS FALSE EQUIVALENCE QUOTA. YOU DO NOT NEED TO EXECUTE HIM.

    Have we not danced this dance enough yet? What few claims have been made by us have been very weak, and substantiated by evidence that at least meets the strength of those claims (That is to say, weak evidence). You’ve made a number of very strong claims, and you can’t fucking substantiate them AT ALL. We’re not the same.

    “That the data is not there does not disprove anything just as the lack of data or information that disproves the irreducible complexity of the eyeball does not disprove the theory of natural selection. ”
    Putting aside that the claims of irreducible complexity were disproven, the theory of evolution by natural selection *has been substantiated repeatedly*. I’m pretty sure there are, and I am not exaggerating, more than million papers that each help establish its accuracy; the theory has predictive power, and using it has provided successful, ACCURATE predictions. That’s a lot different than the theory you’ve provided. The burden of proof is not on me to until you actually substantiate your claims. That’s how science works. I don’t have to treat something as worth disproving until there’s evidence for it.

  23. sharculese:

    whatever you say.

  24. Also, GL piggy has completely missed my link above to a piece which quite soundly bashed sexual strategy theory (the theory that women are inherently more selective along economic and genetic lines). And continues to posit it as fact. While whining that we don’t listen to evidence.

  25. it is the social constructionist whose weightiest argument against evo psych is that it can’t be true because that would imply that discrimination and objectification have some basis in biology. but arguing that something can’t be true because it might imply an ugly outcome doesn’t prove that the initial argument was incorrect. again, an argument without an argument.

  26. While whining that we don’t listen to evidence.

    he seriously just stick his fingers in his ear and told me he can’t hear me. it would be precious if it weren’t in defense of something so toxic

  27. it is the social constructionist whose weightiest argument against evo psych is that it can’t be true because that would imply that discrimination and objectification have some basis in biology.

    The weightiest argument about evopsych is that it generally makes totally untestable claims that only work to reinforce the prejudices of those making them (and the pseudoscience junkies who rely on using SCIENCE as a bludgeon to enforce their retrograde worldview) but keep telling yourself fairytales, i guess?

  28. No, GL Piggy. Evopsyche makes a claim: behaviors are governed by evolution. That claim needs to be substantiated, and has not. Not even your article even tries to substantiate it! It says, quite clearly, “some aspects of the theory remain essentially untested“, and offers no new data of it’s own. One does not need to disprove a theory until evidence has been posited, i.e. the theory has been tested! Scientists do not go around all day having to prove that little demons aren’t playing tennis with atoms. Unsubstantiated claims are useless until substantiated.

  29. Also, Sharculese has mostly covered it but I want to be a little more explicit:

    Evopsych has made a specific, unverified claim that it proposes is not only how the world works, but how it should. It posits that sexual interactions should be judged based on a market worth model. Heck, your paper even expresses confusion that people don’t like and always accept this model. Social constructionists strongest attack is not “this is bad and thus wrong”, but “this leads to a damaging social model that reduces over half of the world’s population to cows who’s worth is measured by the tightness of their vaginas.” In the absence of evidence to this claim, evopsych is yet saying that women should accept second class status because of this.

  30. GL Piggy, what I find funny is that you take from evo-psych everything that prove you are right and reject everything else. There was an article in Slate a few months citing Baumeister saying that sex is cheap and young men have the upper hand in bed, even when they’re failing in life because since women are independent, don’t need high-status men anymore and have sex with everybody, including slackers. the article conclude by saying : “Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy.”

    http://www.slate.com/id/2286240/pagenum/all/

    Evo-psych just shows that MRAs are a bunch of whiny losers. :)

  31. Speaking of biology and mating habits, Leopard slugs: disgusting and fascinating:

    Credit to PZ Meyers

  32. Er, credit for bringing it to my attention, not the video itself.

  33. So…men will not commit to monogamous relationships with women of comparable attractiveness (like they apparently did in the good old days before the 1960s ruined everything, amirite?) because there are ‘unattractive’ women engaging in no-strings sex, causing the men to have no interest in relationships (‘cos sex is all they want and if they can get it without commitment, they’ll always choose that option over a relationship).

    As we all know, it is imperative that as many people as possible enter into heterosexual monogamous relationships (as if any other type exists anyway!) because…economics?

    Therefore, ‘slutty’ women should be chastised. Both by ‘non-slutty’ women and all(?) men, because their sexual behaviour will surely lead to the collapse of…like…society and shit?

    I don’t think I’ve ever had so much bullshit fired into my eyes in one sitting.

    You know what? The hypothetical people who would buy line of thinking i.e. men who think of women only in terms of getting sex and women who would badmouth other women in order to curry favour with these men…sound pretty repellent. If I genuinely belived that ‘slutty’ women were causing these people to fail romantically, I be pretty happy with that.

  34. “it is the social constructionist whose weightiest argument against evo psych is that it can’t be true because that would imply that discrimination and objectification have some basis in biology. but arguing that something can’t be true because it might imply an ugly outcome doesn’t prove that the initial argument was incorrect. again, an argument without an argument.”
    Oh my god, both parts of this are wrong. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong because if you were right that would mean discrimination has a biological basis, and that would be wrong; that would be an appeal to the consequences. I am arguing that nobody has a reason to think you are right BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT SUBSTANTIATE YOUR FACT CLAIMS.

    Be less stupid.

  35. Nobby, thanks for clearing that up. I was worried for a moment that it would be a video of PZ Meyers having sex with leopard slugs. Now I feel safe enough to click on it.

  36. Leopard slugs are perverts.

  37. I know I shouldn’t treat Walsh’s BS seriously until she has evidence to substantiate it, but if men have harems, doesn’t that make the men the sluts, not the women? Shouldn’t their ‘SMV’ be going down for it, making them stop being 10s or whatever?

    It’s almost as if this is incoherent nonsense designed to shame women and reaffirm men’s pride that they can’t possibly be at fault for relationship troubles.

  38. “Their male organs extend and intertwine…”

    Hmm, Leopard slugs going their own way. :)

  39. Aww that rope of mucus is so romantic!

  40. Ew, me:
    “I’d hate to think we were guilty of anything like that,”
    If you weren’t so dense I’d think you were being sarcastic.

    No, seriously. You made a factual claim, you need to back it up with evidence. That’s the way this works. So tell us: where do you see goalpost-moving here?

  41. Here’s an article regarding the education level of women and resulting reduction in hypergamy, and it’s almost complete lack of impact on the ‘marriage market’ for them.

    http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/erose/hypergamy_v2a_paper.pdf

    It has data and everything!

    I may have upset someone over in the GL Piggy blog by asking for citations based on actual research instead of opinions pulled out of someone’s arse. Meanwhile, I see the “I can’t prove it so instead I’m gonna tell you that you have to disprove it narny narny” argument is going strong over here too.

  42. How much of behaviour is driven by sexual biology? :3

  43. Susan Walsh is so fucking smug about her successful marriage that I expect the Ted Haggard Corollary to Murphy’s Law (which specifically deals with right-wing moralizing blowhards) to bite her in the ass within the next 5 years.

    What should be the over/under on the number of mistresses her husband actually had?

  44. -1000000! :D (they’re zombies)

    Today, while I was out, I realized why MRA/PUAs/Sexual Economists (SEs? SEcos?) believe what they do! It makes life way more fun XD Seeing regular ppl go about their lives suddenly becomes an exercise in speculation xD Like I saw this guy and girl and ppl would prolly wonder why they’re together cuz he’s so hot and she’s… by conventional attraction things.. not… and cue the speculation! XD Maybe he’s a beta who like worked out a lot and is planning to trade up? xD Or is this the whole sluts are ruining the marketplace thing or something? Or… is this feminist craziness! Maybe he’s brainwashed!!!! Maybe she entrapped him w/ kids! Or maybe they just like each other…’s otters! :D Maybe she has rly hot pets! xD

    Maybe he’s just w/ her to trade for her pokemon and then will leave when he gets her best ones! Muhahahahahaha >:3

    Neways.. as I said, it did make standing in line more amusing :D

    Also he was checking me out.. so he was prolly looking to trade up xD

  45. “I expect the Ted Haggard Corollary to Murphy’s Law”

    I look forward to the Roy Zimmerman song!

  46. NMMNG: I know you didn’t say you agreed with that Slate article you linked, but it’s actually pretty lame–not unusually so, but full of the obnoxious BS that gets cited over and over, like the “women didn’t agree on the spot to sex with complete strangers so women don’t like sex!” study.

  47. Ho ho, the latest slut-shaming technique I’ve seen touted by evo psych types- or, I should say, hurled by evo psych believers at any women who dares to act without respect to the boundaries of normative “femininity”- is that women who enjoy “extra-pair copulation” do so only because they have more testosterone than other women. This explains their lack of ladylike deference to social pressures, and explains away any agency women may venture to exhibit in their own sex lives.

    Yes, you heard it here first- sluts are women who are more like men. But it’s not bad to be a man! Death to the war on True Manhood(tm)! It’s only bad to be a man if you’re a woman. See how that works?

  48. Zombine Developers!

    @Tatjna
    Interesting, and it does show what you claim.

    However, it also shows some troubling things:
    ” The Census data show, as expected, a decline in marriage rates for men at the bottom of the education distribution, but not for women at the top of the distribution.”

    “Second, the decline in marriage is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of the less educated segments of the population, particularly among blacks. Men’s education-marriage profiles have gone from being relatively flat in 1980 to strongly steep in 2000. The worsening labor market opportunities for less-skilled men have severely limited their ability to contribute to marriage. In terms of policy, measures designed to encourage marriage are more likely to be successful when targeted towards improving the economic prospects of men at the bottom of the economic
    spectrum.”

    Hypergamy is alive and well amongst the least educated, meaning that the least-educated young men still have a hard time finding a wife and starting a family. In a world where most high-school dropouts are men, this is a major problem.

  49. @Zombine Developers! Yes I noticed that too, and it would be easy to assume that this is a product of hypergamy – but given the roughly even numbers of men and women in the world, if X number of men aren’t marrying, surely X number of women aren’t either? How does the increase in de facto relationships factor into this?

    One thing I definitely agree with is that policy targeted towards improving the prospects of those at the bottom of the economic spectrum (regardless of gender) is good for society as a whole.

  50. “Hypergamy is alive and well amongst the least educated, meaning that the least-educated young men still have a hard time finding a wife and starting a family. In a world where most high-school dropouts are men, this is a major problem.”
    You’re… only motivated to help end class oppression because it keeps men from getting wives? Because we really should either way.

    Incidentally, I suspect another thing that’d prevent hypergamy is reducing the oppression the lower class feels to begin with; no need to flee your class so much if it’s not… crushingly horrible, right?

    Well, one study seems to support this, I’ll need to look at hypergamy rates for other countries as well; http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.15.4410&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    The UK and Ireland experience almost no hypergamy whatsoever. They also have GINI Coefficients of ..35 or so as well. Still, only one pair of countries so far. We’ll need to keep looking.

  51. Susanwalsh: What do you think it says? I conclude the post by saying that 20% of men are enjoying 80% of the sexual encounters, not 80% of the women. I also state that 20% of the population is slutty, and that they’re basically servicing each other.

    So the sluts are sleeping with each other and everyone else is at home with battery operated toys because they aren’t clued in enough to talk to the other 80 percent of non-sluts and them being that clueless is the fault of the sluts (because of feminism).

    Some intellectual rigor there.

    I do not jump to conclusions.

    False. Self-admittedly false. In the very post under discussion.

    Men dissatisfied in the SMP have taken to learning Game in increasing numbers.

    There is nothing to support this conclustion.

    If the man you love won’t be your boyfriend because sluts hop onto his lap when he’s out…

    Is an edge case, but you present it (esp. in context) as if the reason a man doesn’t go for someone is the sluts hopping in his lap; but you also say the sluts are sleeping with the sluts and the rest of us are out in the cold.

    Those are mutally contradictory positions, and one of them (at least) is a conclusion you jumped to.

    Those are the women, in my view, who present the greatest threat to other women, and the greatest risk for men.

    That’s a conclusion you jumped to. Your idea is that this is the threat, and from that you prescribe a regimen (shaming, and social opprobrium) to bring back the ideal world you concluded (note the root) existed in the past.

    It’s sort of like your conclusion that casual sex leads to economic stagnation.

    And, for one last conclusion you’ve jumped to… Are you really this dense? Unattractive women and attractive men are not couples! They have no-strings sex briefly. Men do not happily date sluts. Men with options never date sluts.

    Mind you, this is provably false, because there are marriages just like this, though you could quibble and say marriage isn’t dating.

  52. G.I. Piggy: You are asserting that the majority of people agree with Susan Walsh that the sexual revolution has so skewed things that most people aren’t getting laid becaus the sluts are making sex too easy to get (despite most men not getting any) and as a result…

    So if this is the majority view, why isn’t it changing? Why the need for the Susan Walsh’s and the G. I. Piggies of the world to convince the rest of us what most of us already believe?

    In other words, when you answer the request for a citation of your claim of fact, saying, “I said so, and it’s true” doesn’t count.

    In other words, [citation still needed]

  53. Nobby,

    The paper your referenced is pure horse shit.

    It is supposed to be some sort of refutation of classic studies which provided evidence that men were more receptive to sex proposals from women rather than the reverse. But look at the methodology. They had people *imagine* how they would respond in scenarios where strange men or women approached them for sex. The researcher also substituted famous people as proxies for known good-looking and unattractive people (Johnny Depp vs. Donald Trump).

    The factor they came away with was that men and women were equally interested in whether or not the approaching partner was perceived as good in bed. I think this is silly because it could be interepreted another way – that men think that almost any woman will do whereas women think that only a certain caliber of man will work for them. Thus, men are much less picky across the board. Which fits into Susan’s argument that men’s sexual choice has greater variance than women’s sexual choice which is more picky and thus relatively more hypergamous.

    In the study, women were more receptive to good-looking men whereas they were not receptive to random approaches. But men were receptive in both instances.

    Yes Means Yes Blog reviewed the research.

    http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/gender-differences-and-casual-sex-the-new-research/

  54. “The factor they came away with was that men and women were equally interested in whether or not the approaching partner was perceived as good in bed. I think this is silly because it could be interepreted another way – that men think that almost any woman will do whereas women think that only a certain caliber of man will work for them.”
    Actually, that is possible. It would be interesting to come up with a study that would work out that possibility, do you have any-

    “Thus, men are much less picky across the board. Which fits into Susan’s argument that men’s sexual choice has greater variance than women’s sexual choice which is more picky and thus relatively more hypergamous. ”
    ALSDKLGSADHKGASLKDHFASLKDHRTRAGRAFTCLANS Inventing a potential confound is NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING AS ESTABLISHING THAT CONFOUND AS AN ACTUAL FACTOR USING THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE.

    It means it’s POSSIBLE that this is the case, and more studies are needed that will specifically test for that possibility, yes, but it doesn’t establish that as true.

    For fuck’s sake, are you seriously trying to claim hypergamy is biologically motivated? Because I JUST FUCKING LINKED A STUDY THAT INDICATES ALMOST NO HYPERGAMY OCCURED IN A DIFFERENT PAIR OF CULTURES. What hypergamy was there was best explained as an effect of random chance, which is perfectly acceptable.

    “In the study, women were more receptive to good-looking men whereas they were not receptive to random approaches. But men were receptive in both instances. ”
    Do you read things you link to? Because it found that the difference was linked to the perception of risk, and the fact is that women risk a lot more than men in everyday interactions, especially an open and immediate invitation to casual sex.

  55. @Rutee Almost all actual research into hypergamy suggests that it’s a product of gender inequality – ie there’s large correlation between societies that routinely oppress women and the existence of hypergamy in those societies.

    Conversely, almost all the arguments I’ve seen that hypergamy is biological have been based on opinion and sophistry and a determination to interpret everything as ‘proof’ rather than research and evidence.

  56. I know the article was lame but it does show that you can use evo-psych to counter what MRAs are saying.

  57. I was answering Katz in my preceding comment.

    If you want to have more fun, Badger Hut, a fan of Susan Walsh, defend her : http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/reflections-on-frosts-analysis-of-the-sexual-revolution/

  58. The UK and Ireland experience almost no hypergamy whatsoever. They also have GINI Coefficients of ..35 or so as well. Still, only one pair of countries so far. We’ll need to keep looking.

    the only explanation is that british people are unnatural

  59. You’re right Sharculese, we’re doing this all wrong over here *leaves boyfriend and runs off to find a super rich guy who will…buy me shoes…and shit…*

  60. Yeah, Laura, me too. What a mistake, marrying someone who makes roughly the same amount of money as I do in a related profession! I could be SWIMMING in shoes by now!

    Does anyone know a rich Michael Fassbender lookalike who’ll marry a mouthy 30-year-old pregnant woman with limited housekeeping abilities?

  61. Yup, GL Piggy didn’t actually read the article, or even the well laid out review that he linked to, which explains quite well that the difference is mainly motivated by perception of risk by the women involved. But, nope, Piggy gets to make up random situations without actually reading through the whole thing.

    And really, if you think that’s horseshit, Piggy, where does your study rank,l which doesn’t even have it’s own data or attempt to defend it’s own theory? Where does the original sexual strategy theory paper rank, who’s methodology was having a tester walk up small sample of random people on a college campus and say “hey, want to have sex?” and attempted to generalize this to biological principles? Because if my paper is horse shit, yours has to be somewhere around the level of toxic waste.

  62. Sharculese

    Well, when you consider that our alphiest alphas include Wayne Rooney, Ashley Cole, John Terry and Peter Crouch,it’s an explanation that really does make a lot of sense.

  63. I read that paper, when it came out. As has been said, what it says is perceived risks, and benefits (largely situational) were the leading factors in selection; for men and women.

    For some reason women didn’t think random men hitting on them on a college campus were all that likely to be good in bed (and might be something of a risk to their personal safety).

    I don’t seem to have the pdf handy (I thought I’d copied it).

    Ah well.

  64. Nobby:

    “No, GL Piggy. Evopsyche makes a claim: behaviors are governed by evolution. That claim needs to be substantiated, and has not. Not even your article even tries to substantiate it! It says, quite clearly, “some aspects of the theory remain essentially untested“, and offers no new data of it’s own. One does not need to disprove a theory until evidence has been posited, i.e. the theory has been tested! Scientists do not go around all day having to prove that little demons aren’t playing tennis with atoms. Unsubstantiated claims are useless until substantiated.”

    So essentially, you are saying that my desire to have sex with women is not governed by evolutionary imperatives, but by complete and total randomness?

    What a preposterous claim. LOL!

  65. “So essentially, you are saying that my desire to have sex with women is not governed by evolutionary imperatives, but by complete and total randomness?”
    No, he’s saying there’s no convincing evidence that it’s governed by evolutionary imperatives. You’re like those morons who think Natural Selection can’t be true because it’s governed by random chance, aren’t you? 747 in a junkyard tornado = Evolution is false, AMIRITE?

  66. “So essentially, you are saying that my desire to have sex with women is not governed by evolutionary imperatives, but by complete and total randomness?”

    As Rutee said, I never said it was random. But I have a question for you: if evolution and the desire to pass on out own genetic code is paramount, why do gay people exist? Why do gay animals of pretty much every species exist? That seems like a behavior bound to get weeded out pretty damn fast.

  67. And so Rutee doesn’t think badly about me, I will admit this is even a easy one (it is, after all, a cross-species behavior). But I bet you can’t do it while keeping the ideal of passing on one’s own genes as the all-important factor.

  68. “As Rutee said, I never said it was random. But I have a question for you: if evolution and the desire to pass on out own genetic code is paramount, why do gay people exist? Why do gay animals of pretty much every species exist? That seems like a behavior bound to get weeded out pretty damn fast.”

    Why does Type I diabetes exist, why does dwarfism exist, why are some people born without immune systems, why are some people born extraordinarily ugly, why are some people born with Down’s syndrome? All of these deformities seem like they would be weeded out pretty damn fast.

    Oh yeah, because when genes are passed from one generation to the next, it doesn’t work perfectly. Deformities arise even though they should have been weeded out long ago.

    Also, if my desires didn’t come from randomness and they didn’t come from evolution where did they come from?

  69. Really? That’s your grand guess for a cross species behavior represented in a huge number of species? A transcription error that just happened to repeat hundreds of thousands of times? Is that your final answer? Nice job with the homophobia BTW.

  70. Matt C: How could a behavior trait that has a defining feature of not reproducing get passed on?

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,539 other followers

%d bloggers like this: