Category Archives: sluts
>On Herpes and Hypergamy
>
 |
| Peggy Olson has no time for pseudoscientific PUA crap. |
Note: As regular Man Boobz comment readers will notice, this post is an expanded version of some comments I made here and here.
An extraordinary number of men in the “manosphere” — whether they’re wannabe Pick-up artists or woman-avoiding Men Going Their Own Way — have a very strange notion of what goes on (and what doesn’t go on) behind the closed doors of America’s bedrooms. (And sometimes in the bathrooms of dive bars.) They envision a world in which a small number of men are having all the sex they want, with any women they want, while the rest of the men out there — at least the straight ones — are condemned to lives of celibacy or near-celibacy.
So who gets blamed for this (imagined) state of affairs? Women. And something called “hypergamy.”
The term refers to the practice of “marrying up”in social class. But the dudes of the manosphere aren’t merely content to accuse women of being mere gold-diggers. They’ve combined the notion of hypergamy with some ill-digested evolutionary psych speculations and convinced themselves that women are in fact a giant gang of nymphomaniacal sexual status seekers, compelled by their very genes to throw themselves at the males on top of the sexual heap — variously described as alphas, jocks, bad boys, and thugs.
And, since men are similarly programmed to spread their seed far and wide — by which I mean fuck anything that moves — these women are getting all the attention from the alphas that their hearts and loins desire, while themselves making beta guys beg for scraps, or, more often, rejecting them outright. Or so goes the theory.
Naturally, those manosphere men who find themselves sitting on the sidelines of this (imagined) orgy tend to build up a great deal of bitterness about this (imagined) state of affairs.
This little mythical tale of alpha males and the hypergamic nymphomaniacs who love them (long time) is repeated again and again on the blogs and message boards of the manosphere. But is there any real convincing evidence for any of this? I haven’t seen any yet.
But in a post earlier this year one of the more influential bloggers in the manosphere, a pick-up guru of sorts who calls himself Roissy, claimed he had found something like the smoking gun of hypergamy:
Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.
As evidence for this claim, Roissy pointed to a survey by the Centers for Disease Control which found that some “21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men.” (That link takes you to the Reuters article Roissy cited in his blog post; the CDC’s press release on the survey can be found here.)
Case closed? Not exactly. Had Roissy actually bothered to read all of the news story he cited, or the CDC press release, or done even a minute or two of Googling, he would have seen the real explanation for the disparity: because of biological differences between men and women — you know, the whole penis vs vagina thing — it’s simply much easier for women to be infected with herpes. As one online FAQ notes (and I’ve put the key parts in bold):
Women are approximately 4 times more likely to acquire a herpes simplex type 2 infection than men. Susceptible women have a higher likelihood of contracting genital herpes from an infected man than a susceptible man becoming infected by a woman. In other words, if a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection. …
Women may be more susceptible to genital herpes infections because:
* The genital area has a greater surface area of cells moist with body fluids (mucosal cells) than men.
*Hormone changes during a woman’s menstrual cycle may affect the immune system, making it easier for the herpes simplex virus to cause an infection.
You’d think a sex guru would know enough about herpes to know this, wouldn’t you?
>Boycott? Make that a MANcott!
>
 |
| Judy Chicago brings vagina to the table. Via lolvantgarde |
Careful readers may have noticed a new blog in my Enemies List, a promising up-and-comer in the world of nutbag misogyny. Yes, I’m talking about BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN, a blog whose purpose is clearly stated in its name. So why should we fellows boycott — sorry, BOYCOTT — AMERICAN WOMEN? Oh, our blog proprietor has got himself a little list:
American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don’t know how to cook or clean, don’t want to have children. …
American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.
So yeah, it’s pretty much the standard-issue anti-American woman crap. And for the most part the posts so far — little missives (allegedly) from different guys explaining why they hate American gals — haven’t been terribly imaginative.
But there are occasional sparks of wonderful nutbaggery. Like the little word-portrait evoked here by John from USA:
So many American woman seem to think that all they need to do is bring their vagina to the table and that I will just give them whatever they want
Vagina? Table? Paging Judy Chicago!
In case you were wondering, ladies, John assures us all that he does “not have a small penis!” But too bad, ladies, he’s taken.
A post from someone named James laments that American women have become
a spoiled, non compassionate sex that I have seen de masculinate their spouses
Mark from the USA, meanwhile, seems to have something of a hair fetish:
Many foreign women have much nicer body shapes, more feminine traits and a lot still have nice long hair, opposed to the boyish low-maintenance short cuts that most American women get by their mid to late teens and never grow back.
Damn those hair-cutting sluts! Also, Mark seems like he’s really not into the whole “communication” thing.
I’m looking for a foreign spouse too, and would NEVER accept an American woman. I don’t even care what country she’s from or if we speak a mutual language. In fact, I’d probably be happier with her if we couldn’t even understand each other, than some American bitch constantly nagging and ragging at me in English.
I don’t think I’ll be boycotting American women any time soon. But I’ll be coming back to this blog for sure.
>Applied Slutonomics: The Vaginal Supply Curve
>
 |
| Vaginal supply and demand. |
Apparently sluts aren’t simply, you know, dirty whores. They’re also sadly lacking a real work ethic. And no wonder, because sluttery is evidently as easy as falling off a log. Onto a bed. Naked. At least according to someone calling himself Reality 2010 on The Spearhead’s message boards.
[I]t takes tremendous effort and or a tremendous talent or a god-given gift to be a ‘stud’ while it takes absolutely zero effort to be a slut. All it takes for a woman to be a slut is to just lie on her back. Wow. What an achievement.
Sluts are apparently also in need of a refresher course in economics. They don’t appear to understand the basics of supply and demand. By giving away their pussy too readily to too many men, they are decreasing its value!
There’s also the fact that a woman’s vagina/body is her one and only asset – (as if you would actually want a woman based on her petty, lazy, confrontational and flaky personality or parasitical worthlessness in the workplace) so to mindlessly give away the one and only thing you have of any value has a much broader pathetic implication than that of gender & sex regardless of whatever it is.
As you can see from the helpful diagram here, increasing the supply of vagina — that is, moving the vagina supply curve from S0 to S1 — both decreases the price of vagina and increases the amount of vagina consumed, bringing us to a new slutquilibrium.
I mean, come on, ladies, that’s pretty basic Slutonomics.
It’s a good thing that vagina is a renewable resource, or else we’d all be fucked. Figuratively, not literally.
>Campus creep out
>
 |
| Damn you, accursed temptress! |
In a discussion of rape on campus over on Love-shy.com, one of the regulars, a college student, complains that people see him as “creepy,” for no good reason. His tale of injustice begins:
Whenever I’m on campus, I’m eyed by the security guards. Not because I’m dangerous, but because I’m MALE.
Being male and a college student seems to be a crime of sorts.
Let’s stop right here. Bullshit. On most campuses, guys make up half the population. Dude, unless you’ve accidentally wandered onto the main quad of Wellesley College with your dick hanging out, or you’re otherwise acting weirdly or suspiciously, campus security guards aren’t going to give you a second look. Either you’re lying, or you’re imagining things, or you aren’t telling us the whole story.
Back to the comment:
What about the women who taunt the men sexually? I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped, but a LOT of women give blowjobs to professors for higher grades, and trade sexual favors, all because they’re HOT.
Uh, ok, that’s not actually true. Unless by “a LOT” you mean “a tiny number.” But it is an … interesting assumption. Also, starting any sentence with the phrase “I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped” is generally a bad sign, in the same way that Richard Nixon saying “I am not a crook” was a bad sign.
On with the rest of the comment:
And since I’m not HOT, I’m automatically seen as a creepy rapist? Fuck that shit. I respect women, I have NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women. I’m also afraid to express myself sexually, for fear of it taken the wrong way.
Thank you, feminist hags, for making me into something I’m not: a criminal!
Ok. Let’s break this down. You “respect women,” yet you complain about them “taunt[ing] … men sexually,” and assume that “a LOT” of them are getting good grades just because they give blow jobs to profs. You’ve “NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women,” yet given a little bit of internet anonymity you’re happy to call feminists “hags,” a gender-specific insult if ever there were one.
I don’t know. Could it be that women — and, heck, maybe even a few security guards — find you creepy because, uh, you’re walking around angry all the time, full of hatred and resentment towards half the population?
Just a guess.
EDITED TO ADD: More on the “creep” issue here.
