>
 |
| 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?
>1 in 4 women carry a disease that is sexually transmitted.
>"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." I understand but how do you put this into words that people like David or feminists will understand?
>I'm not trying to be facetious either. We have to find ways to package the information for the average population to understand.
>"The rate of hypergamy is greatly decreased when women have access to greater economic and social means of self-advancement."Wrong: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TQnen_Iq5rI/AAAAAAAAAfg/L_VHE4zgG9k/s1600/ScreenShot029.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TQnfSL6CyYI/AAAAAAAAAfo/9w-350XLDHs/s1600/ScreenShot030.jpg As a self described "anthropologist" you should really consider how unethical it is to make such statements as yours.
>"- Particular men hording women as possessions: harems, polygyny, bigamy, polygamy, having both wives and mistresses."Wow, so men force women into harems…interesting…you had better get the the Playboy mansion ASAP and rescue all the women from the Patriarchal oppressor.
>Gee, who do I believe, an anthropologist or a dude with an axe to grind….
>Hypergamy and female choice in sexual selection is what created the dimorphic disparity between males and females and between males as well. As an "anthropologist" you should know something about gender dimorphism. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S8keElkrzJI/AAAAAAAAAag/onaJ9_eGsPY/s1600/ScreenShot025550.jpgHELENA CRONIN: Philosopher, London School of Economics; director and founder Darwin@LSE; author, The Ant and the PeacockMore dumbbells but more Nobels: Why men are at the top.http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#cronin
>What I don't understand is why a) you put "anthropologist" in scare quotes, and b) why you think poor resolution graphs hosted on blogspot that use "guys" and "women" as variables would be reputable sources. In the first graph, it says that women who are more independent are less likely to mate at all, not that they are more likely to mate up. Read your own sources. Of course the rate of reproduction goes down with education! That means a woman has more access to family planning, probably a larger income, probably a greater idea of her rights, and probably different priorities than raising a family or even coupling. It is the female equivalent of bachelorhood, and it is a legitimate life choice. You show statistics, old ones I might add, which have very little to do with your point. Anecdotally I personally know about 20 couples who are exceptions to your set of rules, but that could be just because I and the people I know tend to see conceive of men and women as human beings, and not as two different warring species.Additionally, I am an academic, so I don't see myself rushing off to "rescue women from their patriarchal oppressors." I was recounting some historical facts, you can take them or leave them. I do Oral History accounts of gender-based violence against men, and I study disability and employment among Maori men in New Zealand, and Mohawk men in Kahawa:ke. 'Rescuing' women from Hugh's harem isn't on my radar–everyone seems pretty content there; however, I marvel that one would extrapolate any truths about human behaviour from that class-privileged microcosm [The Playboy Mansion]. You are aware that TV isn't real life, right?
>Also, I know what sexual dimorphism is–so does every first year undergrad, but I am glad you think you are special for knowing about it too. I am quite sure that biology and hormones (ie. primary sex characteristics, which can vary widely) are responsible for sexual dimorphism, not your strange idea of hypergamy. No one denies that sexual dimorphism exists. You would have to be crazy to not notice that women have breasts and men do not, or that bucks have antlers and does do not. Intelligence gaps have bases in biology and also in socialisation, and refusing to acknowledge all of the variables is bad science.Take these three studies about chess players (I tried to pick the most accessible ones outside of university libraries):http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/7862444.stmhttp://www.physorg.com/news150954140.htmlhttp://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6595Other studies have shown that women play better and more aggressively when they believe they are matched against other women [online], and play more defensively against men. You can see that the rate of success is difficult to measure and contingent upon many variables, not reducible to some dated graph that measures the "intelligence" (an ableist term, http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/23/ableist-word-profile-intelligence/) of "guys" and "women."Here are some exceptions to sexual dimorphism:http://www.isna.org/faq/conditionsRead up! Then maybe you will stop spouting nonsense and calling it anthropology. Those are some fine researchers you are tarnishing with your inability to read graph titles.
>bwec: switchintoglide has already provided an excellent rebuttal to your arguments, such as they are, but I will just add one comment to that:When I asked for evidence, I wasn't asking for evidence that hypergamy — using its real definition of "marrying up" — exists. Obviously it does, though it's less widespread than you think. I was asking for evidence that there is anything to the whole women-only-have-sex-with-alphas-etc manosphere fantasy.
>Sure David….sure…..
>It's really not my problem if you can't read.
>"I am quite sure that biology and hormones (ie. primary sex characteristics, which can vary widely) are responsible for sexual dimorphism"WOW, such profound thoughts! You mean the main correlating variable is hormones and biology…congratulations you win the nobel prize!"Other studies have shown that women play better and more aggressively when they believe they are matched against other women [online], and play more defensively against men."Perhaps women should put on their antlers, so to speak, and compete against males ever more aggressively for territory and resources. I have always thought those "women's power suits" with the pads that give them broad shoulders were amusing. "are contingent upon many variables, not reducible to some dated graph that measures the "intelligence"" How would you, an armchair anthropologist know anything about how intelligence is measured? If you don't know that males are the variable and furthermore are represented at the top and bottom of the curve for selective traits then you have a lot more to do with your studies. It is women like yourselves that censor open discourse in academia because you have no other way to combat truths that stand on their own. What a shame…
>LOL, switchintoglide what a man hating misandrist bigot you are! I just read your post regarding the representation of genetic material in the genome 80 women 40 men being the result of rape and "male hording of women into harems as property" We must rescue the damsels in distress at the playboy mansion at once!!!! Hurry there is not much time, the patriarchal males are holding women captive there lol… Yes it can all be boiled down to those evil evil males….lol… What a disgusting sexist feminist bigot you are. Ahhhh if it were only that simple…you would love it to be true wouldn't you…Poor poor passive and abused females lol. On behalf of my entire gender you are owed an apology aye… How's the Affirmative Action "women first" laws working out for you ladies in the S.T.E.M. fields…pretty good huh.. I noticed they let misandrist bigot arm chair quacks like your self into places you are unqualified to be. Tell me….did you use any of your "women first" laws and women only scholorships to do it???? Sure you did little lady, why not use your gender as an excuse to be provided for and protected by men and government. Don't you feel the slightest bit embarrassed. I would be if I were a woman. How insulting to have to make yourselves superiors by law just to be "equal" to men. As women, you have a MASSIVE inferiority complex….how sad….
>Bwec is sounding sort of hysterical–at this point, I will have to respectfully decline to respond to anything so incomprehensible.Bwec, learn to read, learn to detect sarcasm, and learn that the fact that you have to throw around a string of epithets means that you have already been schooled. Also, I don't think "armchair anthropologist" means what you think it means, seeing as I do a primary fieldwork component in all of my research…By the way, I do have a full scholarship. Thanks for noticing. It's merit based.http://www.loranaward.ca/
>Another point to consider with STD rates w/ men vs women is that women are simply more likely to be diagnosed. The majority of women have regular gynecological exams, which would pick up STDs, while men do not have similar regular exams. STDs also tend to make more symptoms for women, and many go symptom-free in men, so women are more likely go see a doctor or mention to a doctor something that will cause the doctor to test for it. Though thevagrantsvoice had the best post on this.I don't get the comparisons of historical rape and harems to the Playboy mansion. Bwec, you do realize that harems and rape as a weapon of war are historical facts, right?
>@ switchintoglide:Wow you mean you succeeded on your own accord, how thoughtful of you. You made good grades in school, fantastic. I would urge you to consider another field of work. Would you like to continue the debate here? Are you finished with your misandrist bigotry? Come on lets have it out, I'd love to back you into a corner. You are no scientist that is for sure. No respectable person of science would come here and make such blanket speculations and accusations. You really should be a Women's Studies major instead. Anyone who explains human behavior and culture through the lens of male determinism, patriarchy (male oppressor theory) and as the sole product of socialization is a moron.
>You are a moron if you think the 80 / 40 representation is caused by rape…Only a feminist would think such things. Your world view is disgusting.
>You are both ignorant and offensive, Bwec.Back a woman into a corner? Jackass!
>"Anyone who explains human behavior and culture through the lens of male determinism, patriarchy (male oppressor theory) and as the sole product of socialization is a moron."Have you read Switchintoglide's other comments on this site? She/he has argued from a very balanced perspective and said that things are not this simplistic. He/she also self-identified as an anti-oppressionist rather than a feminist. Also, there is nothing controversial about discussing rape in this way, or discussing harem cultures. We cannot be ahistorical just to suit your feelings. Rape has always been prevalent and must be considered. It has nothing to do with having an agenda, and again, Switchintoglide has openly disavowed the agenda you are suggesting is at work here.
>Indeed Bwec…polygamy, for example, is an historical fact. I hear it was quite common, back in the day. I even imagine there were practical reasons for the policy…
>@ahuntPolygyny is practical in societies where there is a lot of conflict, and thus fewer surviving males. Polyandry is practical in situations such as these:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/world/asia/17polyandry.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&ref=asiaWhen there isn't a practical reason for it, that's where it becomes institutionalised sexism, such as with fundamentalist LDS communities.Also, Hef isn't polygynous–he is not married to all of those women.@MYeah, not sure where that whole "male oppressor theory" comment came from. I didn't once say "men oppress women," in fact, I expressly said that is not the case. I think intersectionality, basic history, basic biology, reading comprehension, and sarcasm are a little too advanced for some people on this thread.
>I think Ellen's point about women being more likely to be diagnosed is a good one. Also, a lot of people don't know that herpes is often not included in general STD testing, even when you ask to be "tested for everything." And since men are more likely to be asymptomatic, I think there are a LOT of men out there who have (and spread) herpes but are unaware of it.
>Beta males (and lower) were just not meant to breed in the world of mammals. Do lions complain about this? No. You might as well complain you were born without wings. Get a hobby.
>I don't think you know how to calculate percentages or how these tests are done or how herpes and viruses work. Even if women do have a higher liklihood for being infected, not that such a thing is easily studied in a controlled setting(I would hope not anyways, as it would be incredibly unethical), then it still doesn't matter and only gives credibililty to the idea that womens sexuality should be controlled more than mens because they are larger vectors of societal destability. What are the soon to be costs on our new Healthcare system going to be from women sluttying around??? How many children will be born with herpes, it happens people.A better STD to look at is HPV and how women somehow get it more often than men??? HPV can be contracted from skin to skin contact in much more efficient ways than Herpes. People can actually get it by dry humping or oral sex or simply skin to skin contact. There have even been some cases of getting herpes and especially HPV by sharing wet towels. Now I am pretty sure I know what the feminist arguments will be. They will incorrectly talk about how HPV isn't a big deal and usually goes away on its own…which is bullshit, there is plenty of evidence to show it hides in the body. Then there are the arguments about how men can't be tested for HPV which again is planned parenthood sponsored bullshit. One doctor told me about a very simple test, besides the costly and sometimes not effective blood tests, that can be done to men(but usually never is) to determine hpv infections. It has to do with how a particular acid responds to the hpv cells. The test is to take some lemon juice and a qtip and rub ont he glans of the penis. Apparently the HPV infected capsules or micro tumors or whatever will respond and turn white instead of flesh colored. Why don't STD clinics test for this in men? Why does planned parenthood spread incorrect info on hpv and it's long term effects? Why do women get HPV at higher rates when it's transmitted from skin to skin contact???? HPV causes all sorts of vaginal problems that make a lot of money for people who do the tests and even remove the cysts and so on. It's profitable. Answer 2. HYPERGAMY