Categories
crackpottery evil women hypergamy MGTOW precious bodily fluids PUA sluts vaginas

>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?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

102 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Raul Groom
10 years ago

>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?"

Dr. Deezee
10 years ago

>Raul -The only thing more awesome is when you divorce her and reap the sick alimony benefits.

Dr. Deezee
10 years ago

>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."

Raul Groom
10 years ago

>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.

Dr. Deezee
10 years ago

>You're projecting. Discuss.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>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.

Jadehawk
10 years ago

>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.

Yohan
10 years ago

>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.

M
M
10 years ago

>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.

nicko81m
10 years ago

>"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

M
M
10 years ago

>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/

Dr. Deezee
10 years ago

>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.

nicko81m
10 years ago

>"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

M
M
10 years ago

>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.

M
M
10 years ago

>"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*.

Jadehawk
10 years ago

>"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

Jadehawk
10 years ago

>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".

M
M
10 years ago

>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.

Jadehawk
10 years ago

>sorry, above that should have been the total percentage of the population being coupled up was 74%, not of households

Dr. Deezee
10 years ago

>"it might actually be a good idea for them to know what they're talking about."Then why direct them to feminism101? 😉

M
M
10 years ago

>Because there is no remedial-level blog 😉

nicko81m
10 years ago

>"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!

M
M
10 years ago

>Nah it's actually the remedial thing.

Yohan
10 years ago

>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.

Yohan
10 years ago

>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.

Andrea
10 years ago

>The 80% vs 40% thing is utter bullshit. According to information from the CDC's National Health Interview Survey of 2000, the numbers are 74%/62% for people ages 22-44, and 86%/84% for people over the age of 45. It took me ten seconds of googling to find the stats.Eoghan, way to ignore the actual post, which points out that women are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to be infected with herpes than men, and a woman is far more likely to be infected by a man than vice versa.And I just want to confirm M's experience as well regarding dating. Not only is it much more likely to occur in groups of young people going out all together, but myself and all of my friends have always gone dutch and split the bill.

witman
10 years ago

>Those women certainly didn't get herpes from uninfected men so your point is moot David!

Christine WE
10 years ago

>Eoghan is an idiot and is also banned so feel free to ignore him. His post will be deleted as soon as David sees it.

witman
10 years ago

>Yes Andrea,Let's completely ignore the fact that those women who are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract herpes got it from the same % of men with herpes.The fact that they are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract herpes only serves to highlight the case that they are all vying for the attentions of the same small percent of males and it bit them in the ass (so to speak).

M
M
10 years ago

>I wish Yohan's comment about my providing links to longer discussions of clarifying concepts so that I don't have to write the same thing over and over to people who aren't actually invested in learning about feminism as "misleading" right before he linked some one-off story with no bearing on the discussion were satire. I definitely laughed!

Nymeria
10 years ago

>Yohan I just wanted to pop in and say your links are always hilarious. FEMINISTS ARE ALWAYS MISLEADING. HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF FEMINIST RHETORIC: http://www.news.news-WOMAN-HITS-PUPPY-WITH-CAR-DOESN'T-CARE

witman
10 years ago

>Nymeria,I can't find that story. Was it a joke?

ScareCrow
10 years ago

>Herpes is a bad example.Chlamydia is the most common venereal disease.It is THREE times as prevalent in women than men.Lemme guess – women are also more susceptable to Chlamydia too eh.

witman
10 years ago

>@ScareCrow,And the good girls who aren't practicing hypergamy are just spontaneously generating new cases of Chlamydia.Bad feminist math on this blog.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>witman — That link for the puppy story works fine on my computer. Yours must be broken. But seriously: STDs are generally more easily transmitted to women, due to the different biology of men and women:Many STIs are transmitted more efficiently from males to females. For example, the risk of genital herpes transmission from a male to female partner is 19%, whereas it is 5% for transmission from female to male[21]. After a single episode of sexual intercourse, a woman has a 60% to 90% chance of contracting gonorrhea from her infected male partner, whereas the risk for a man from a woman is 20% to 30%[22,23]. The reasons for this difference may include greater exposure in females as a result of pooled semen in the vagina and greater trauma to tissues during intercourse.http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/4/s1/s26This may not be the case with chlamydia,, which seems to be transmitted equally easily (though younger women are more likely to get it for biological reasons):http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec96/niaid-03.htmHowever, lots of people simply don't know they have chlamydia. The greater number of women who report it may be because women get screened for it more often:Of overall chlamydia diagnoses reported in 2008, the rate of infection among women was almost three times higher than the rate among men: 607.0 cases per 100,000 population compared to a rate of 233.9 among men. This is thought to be due to the higher number of women screened for chlamydia. http://www.avert.org/std-statistics-america.htm

Yohan
10 years ago

>Nymeria said… Yohan I just wanted to pop in and say your links are always hilarious. Hilarious = inconvenient for feminists, about what feminists do not want you to know.Interesting, feminists never have any link as a reference to back up their claims.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Yohan: "Interesting, feminists never have any link as a reference to back up their claims."Interesting, that this comment comes immediately after a comment in which I provide three links to back up my claims. Granted, those links weren't to a random news story about some crazy woman doing some crazy thing, so I guess they don't count.

Yohan
10 years ago

>witman said… Nymeria,I can't find that story. Was it a joke? http://www.wfsb.com/news/25941881/detail.htmlYes, almost like a joke. The female driver found it totally funny. At least at the beginning.Maybe not so funny anymore after being arrested and charged for her behavior.

witman
10 years ago

>David,I'm posting in both threads because they are both relevant. I am not disputing the fact that women are more susceptible to STDs, I am pointing out the fact that they are contracting them from a very small subset of the male population.This means that twice as many women had intercourse with and contracted Herpes from a small subset of the male population who have Herpes. On average, each man with Herpes would have banged two of the infected broads.

Nymeria
10 years ago

>Yohan, are…are you seriously suggesting that a woman running over a dog with her car (which, by the way, I made up, as a joke!) is some..feminist..plot that all women should be held accountable for?

Yohan
10 years ago

>I did not refer to your link, David, which was psted about at the same time. I saw it after I posted my comments.I do not understand what you really want to say with your links, and one of them is from 1996, pretty outdated for medical care.Maybe you want to say that women will be easier infected with STD than men? And? What's your point or your advice to these women? Or to men?witman said… Those women certainly didn't get herpes from uninfected men so your point is moot David! Nothing else what I can add to Witman's comment.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Yohan, you are ignoring the real enemy — evil feminist car-driving dogs. http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/hernando-man-run-over-by-own-truck-after-his-dog-puts-it-in-gear/1104156Notice that this dog deliberately targeted a MAN. Obviously feminism is to blame.

Yohan
10 years ago

>Nymeria said… Yohan, are…are you seriously suggesting that a woman running over a dog with her car (which, by the way, I made up, as a joke!) is some..feminist..plot that all women should be held accountable for? You see, it really happened… a female driver was running over a dog, and newspapers are reporting it, how misogynistic…Sometimes it's not even a dog, but only a man. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/fairfax/woman-finds-body-stuck-under-c.htmlshe thought she had run over a "mannequin" of some sort and continued driving ——————some..feminist..plot that all women should be held accountable for? Seriously, only feminists – female and male, regardless their gender – should be kept accountable for their hateful actions against men.Most women, worldwide seen, are not feminists, they often even are suffering because of feminism. Why should they be kept accountable?You see, this is the difference between 'misogyny' and 'anti-feminism'.

loveablenerd
10 years ago

>That red herring, the fact that women are more likely to get herpes than a man, was completely debunked on your comments on the other blog… by the simple logic that it doesn't matter how easily they got it from an infected partner, they STILL had to scrog an infected partner… that means twice as many women sleeping with half as many men… the only men who had the herpes to infect them with.However, the real lynchpin proof of hypergamy is the anthropological evidence that it is the natural order of human sexuality, from the pre-civilization days.According to Dr. Baumeister, a prominent social psychologist who teaches at Florida State University, "The 'single most underappreciated fact about gender, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did."You can google the details. The genome doesn't lie.

Nymeria
10 years ago

>Well, I'm glad my view that 'anti-feminism' was wildly deluded has been disproven.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>lovablenerd, gosh, it's not as if we actually discussed that EARLIER IN THE COMMENTS or anything.http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-herpes-and-hypergamy.html?showComment=1293692903431#c7423981420501536545

Pam
Pam
10 years ago

>The fact that they are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract herpes only serves to highlight the case that they are all vying for the attentions of the same small percent of males I am not disputing the fact that women are more susceptible to STDs, I am pointing out the fact that they are contracting them from a very small subset of the male population.Your conclusion, the same in each of your posts highlighted above, is based on doing the math assuming that the conclusion that you're "proving" is already a given fact. Same with loveablenerd's that means twice as many women sleeping with half as many men. You're assuming that the smaller percentage of infected males is highly localized within a very small segment of the entire male population, rather than being more widely dispersed throughout a larger segment of the entire male population. If more widely dispersed throughout a larger segment of the entire male population, with members of this larger segment being or having been sexually active with more than one partner, and the females being or having been sexually active with more than one partner, as well (and that doesn't sound too far-fetched to me), the math still works.

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>Witman, try this example.Let's say you have a population of 10 men and 10 women–and everyone in this population is having sex with everyone in the other population. Every single one of the 10 men–not just a single 'alpha male' will get to have a turn with every single one of the girls.The first man up for the girls has herpes. Assuming the rate of transmission to females is 40%, he gives 4 out of the 10 girls herpes.So now the other 9 men get to have sex with all the girls. However, the chance for a guy to get infected is one-fourth of that, only about ~10%. So by the end of it all, about one more guy will have gotten herpes, making the population of herpes-infected men probably 2 (or 3 if we're unlucky). Twice as many women infected as men, in this scenario, is more or less what we'd expect if women were having sex with everybody instead of being hypergamous and only having sex with a small number of alpha badboyz.This may prove women are just slutty, but this does not prove that women are "hypergamous." Hypergamy means they're only having sex with a very small subset of the male population, while in this example they're having sex with *everybody.* Yet the numbers in my free-love example came to be more similar to that we see in real life (roughly twice the amount of women have herpes than men). Your problem is both in how you and Roissy define hypergamy and the specific ratio of the chances of male to female transmission of the disease (women are four times more likely to catch it). If women really were hypergamous, i.e having sex with ONLY a small number of men, many of whom happen to have herpes, while leaving the rest of the men out in the cold, since women are four times more likely to catch the disease, there should be *four times* the number of herpes-infected women as there are men–for instance, if 20% of women are infected with herpes, only about 5% of men should be (1/4th of that number). In reality, however, about 10% of men are infected with herpes; the ratio is two to one rather than four to one. This indicates that many more men are actually getting lucky in the present regime than would be expected if women only went for the very top of the badboy heap. This means women aren't quite as "hypergamous" as you say they are.

witman
10 years ago

>Actually that is not my definition of hypergamy. My definition is that women marry up. I simply stuck with the definition that was being used for simplicity.I would hate to be the 10th guy!

thevagrantsvoice
10 years ago

>My definition is that women marry up. Well, okay, but whatever you want to call it, the point I made is that the statistics do not support the assertion that a large number of women are having sex with only a small number of men. If this was true, there should be four times as many infected women as men, the fact that there are only twice as many indicates that a significantly higher proportion of men are getting lucky than you or Roissy would claim.I wouldn't want to be the 10th guy either, but then again, that was just an example…IRL there's probably some guy out there who's 50th in line…and enjoying it too. D:

1 2 3