>
 |
| 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?
>I married a woman making three times what I make, and now I don't have to have a job.Is there a word for that? I mean, other than "awesome?"
>Raul -The only thing more awesome is when you divorce her and reap the sick alimony benefits.
>Also, a better case for hypergamy would probably be made by pointing out the fact that "throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced."
>Wow, I just looked at roissy for the first time. I'm putting the over/under for the number of times this guy has ever had sex at 4.5. Discuss.
>You're projecting. Discuss.
>Dr. Deezee: Doing a bit of searching to find the sources of that 80%/40% claim, I found this:http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-family-tree/Among other things: the 80%/$0% numbers are basically made up, though it is apparently true that we have twice as many female ancestors than males. But there's no clear evidence this is due to the hypergamy that Roissy was talking about. The guy who came up with the genetic data says a lot of it could be the influence of a few extremely successful male reproducers:males have had a higher variance in reproductive success than females. As a consequence, more different females have contributed to the modern gene pool than males. Rather spectacular examples of this phenomenon have been inferred from historical times using genetic data. Asian conquerors (such as Genghis Khan and Giocangga) and their male relatives appear to have made a vastly disproportionate contribution to modern Asian populations. Niall of the Nine Hostages seems to have had a similar effect on the gene pool of the British Isles. These types of events, where one person (or set of related individuals) experiences tremendous reproductive success, can have an effect on the gene pool that lasts for many generations. Also, how many of these pregnancies were the result of rape, or otherwise the result of male choices and male actions rather than female preferences? We don't know. In other words, the 80%/40% thing doesn't really prove much of anything, at least not until we know a lot more about what was actually contributing to it.
>yeah, I was suspecting the rape-and-pillage thing might play a role. A single mongol warrior could fuck his way through, and impregnate, thousands of women, but a single woman can, at the very most, get pregnant a dozen of times before dying (more in the modern world, significantly less in the ancient world), so such effective invaders could indeed have crowded out plenty of men-genomesand then there's the "lost boys of the FLDS" version: the patriarchs exile the weak competition and keep women to themselves, without the women getting a say in this.
>An extraordinary number of men …..have a very strange notion …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 you think, this extraordinary number of men are all wrong? David, that's a BIG problem for many straight men looking for a nice woman – as a young woman, who have a choice generally, but as a young man you have only a choice, if you are rich or at least your parents are rich, if you are something 'special' (even in a negative sense) or you own something special etc.. -As a fact, for an ordinary young man living in Northern America and Europe who is working everyday and has otherwise no support, the chance to find a good relationship is rather small.Of course if you are the right guy – which means rich, age not important – you get everything you want, this includes Western women…http://omg.yahoo.com/news/hugh-hefner-84-engaged-to-playmate-24/53006?ncHugh Hefner, 84, Engaged to Playmate, 24and this is our example from Europe, divorce does not disturb him – he is rich anyway.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201256/Bernies-ex-buys-jet-celebrate-divorce.htmlBernie Ecclestone's ex-wife Slavica buys a £36.5m jet to celebrate divorce (and it's bigger than his)For sure a young man who has nothing…he is and will be always a nothing.A young woman, who has nothing needs only to find the right man… for both, marriage and divorce.
>People enter into satisfying relationships every day in Western countries. If you have a problem finding anyone *in all of the West* who suits your standards, it is your standards that are the problem.Also — and I know your thing is just to post articles that have no real bearing on the matter at hand and to basically act as though logic doesn't exist — if your standard is someone who looks like a Playmate and *values her looks* above all like Playmate does, then of course you're going to lose out. The ignorant privilege in your statement is just…a real thing of wonder.
>"The ignorant privilege in your statement is just…a real thing of wonder."What privilege?Feminists seem to throw the male privilege conspiracy left, right and centre. But being the average white male, I certainly don’t feel any privilege what so ever towards any other group in the society I live in.How can one be privileged when they don't even feel it or see it? It must be a pretty big privilege heh
>It is not a conspiracy, and it is actually not a term unique to feminism. I have privilege; you also have privilege. If you're genuinely interested in understanding why privilege is often invisible to those who benefit from it, here is one link that explains it somewhat:http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/
>LOL, I love the finallyfeminism101 blog. I remember when feminists on Reddit were trolling the MensRights Reddit with that "winner;" I felt like making the same kind of assertion ("It seems like an awful lot of you are confused about rape, here's a link to clear it up") and linking to the ED article on rape. One day, maybe.
>"Privilege is: About how society accommodates you. It’s about advantages you have that you think are normal. It’s about you being normal, and others being the deviation from normal. It’s about fate dealing from the bottom of the deck on your behalf."Instead of reading the rest. Do you deny that women have such privileges? Such as, how it's normal for a man to be expected to pay for the date. It's normal for a woman's life to be placed before a man's life in a "life and death" situation. A man hurting a woman is more serious than a woman hurting a man.These are just a few examples. But a group such as feminists talking about how males are privileged is laughable.Both genders may have some privileges, its not just the evil menz
>Frankly if people are going to be talking about feminism as much as the MRAs and MRA-sympathetic guys who post on this site talk about it, it might actually be a good idea for them to know what they're talking about.
>"Instead of reading the rest. Do you deny that women have such privileges? Such as, how it's normal for a man to be expected to pay for the date. It's normal for a woman's life to be placed before a man's life in a "life and death" situation. A man hurting a woman is more serious than a woman hurting a man."There is actually a link to a whole discussion on that in "the rest" if you're genuinely interested in knowing where people are coming from. And as far as your examples, I don't think those are positive things (men paying for dates, etc), though I will say that even though it can be used unfairly the idea that a man hurting a woman is *more serious* than a woman hurting a man is based on nothing more than the reality that a man, having more natural upper body strength and a general size advantage, is capable of doing more harm to a woman than a woman is to a man *with just their bodies alone*.
>"As a fact, for an ordinary young man living in Northern America and Europe who is working everyday and has otherwise no support, the chance to find a good relationship is rather small."what crap. for example, the percentage of unmarried men 30-35 years of age in Germany is was only 29%, and shrinking with age; and that's in a country in which young couples forgo marriage and just live together more and more often, and in which gay marriage doesn't exist. The total percentage of the households consisting of couples was 74%. The average number of persons-per-household in that year was 2.17, with one-person-households being as common as two-person-households.and that's from a report that bemoans the "new" living arrangement, so if they'd fudge the numbers, it would be downwards, not upwards
>the "man paying for the date" thing is unique to American dating, which I already mentioned is fucking evil. It's not nearly as common in europe, where people hang out and generally split the check except in the rare cases when one invited the other, which makes sense, since I don't think anyone except a movie producer can get away with "I think you should buy me dinner".
>The man paying for the date thing doesn't even happen anymore among the people I know here in the USA. Not to say it doesn't happen, just that in the circles I travel in it's a totally antiquated notion.
>sorry, above that should have been the total percentage of the population being coupled up was 74%, not of households
>"it might actually be a good idea for them to know what they're talking about."Then why direct them to feminism101? 😉
>Because there is no remedial-level blog 😉
>"Then why direct them to feminism101? ;)"Because "M" prefers to just direct people into misleading links instead of having a participating debate or a proper discussion.I am sure M believes feminism101 is the best of all sources on the internet but I am sorry to make her cranky, it’s crap!
>Nah it's actually the remedial thing.
>Jadehawk said… "As a fact, for an ordinary young man living in Northern America and Europe who is working everyday and has otherwise no support, the chance to find a good relationship is rather small."what crap. for example, the percentage of unmarried men 30-35 years of age in Germany is was only 29%, and shrinking with age Complete nonsense and a good example how to present incorrect data from a feminist point of view.Maybe you are using data out of an 'internet online translator'?http://www.bpb.de/wissen/IZ8910,0,Haushalte_nach_Zahl_der_Personen.htmlAlmost 39 percent in Germany are now living alone, recently polls show that 43 percent of all young men up to 40 year old are refusing marriage, family, children (again).SINGLE means in German language ('ledig') = NEVER been married.For calculating the number of people who are NOT living together with a partner, you have to consider both, the divorced men AND the single men.Further you should know that Germany has almost 500000 legally registered female prostitutes. They are considered as single, doing a normal job as everybody else.I wonder however if you consider them as good female partners for a long-term marriage.It is not easy at all for a young man to meet a nice woman for a long-term relationship in Central Europe especially not in rural areas. You have no idea, really.
>nicko81m said… ….. "M" prefers to just direct people into misleading links instead of having a participating debate or a proper discussion.Misleading is a form of feminist rhetoric. About a proper discussion, it's about me, me, me and me…http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/darwin-woman-attacks-taxi-when-driver-rejects-offer-of-sex/story-e6frfku9-1225977018692That's a good example about feminist rhetoric.This woman was only 'a bit amorous'.If you do the same as man to a woman, you will be arrested immediately as a violent sex-offender molestering a female taxi-driver.There is no consideration for men in feminism, even not for old men, sick men, not for young boys, orin this case for male victims of a crime committed by a female.