>
 |
| Links |
A couple of interesting posts on topics near and dear to readers here:
Amanda Marcotte takes on “Nice Guys,” and the oft-repeated notion that women seek out abusers and assholes to date:
My counter-theory is that Nice Guys® group together traits like confidence with aggression, so they can convince themselves that confident men are always assholes, and thus that they’re being unfairly deprived of pussy by women who are sick fucks that enjoy being abused. Are some confident men abusive assholes? Absolutely; look at Charlie Sheen. But are all confident men? … [W]hat I can say is I’ve known many men who are great husbands/boyfriends and are also confident … Some shy men are also very nice people, just shy. But many shy men are inconsiderate fuckwits or even wife-beaters. I just don’t think there’s a strong correlation between “alpha”-ness and basic human decency.
And a couple of posts on some new research on gender and casual sex that challenges a lot of manosphere myths about women and hypergamy, suggesting that: 1) women, in general, are as interested in casual sex as men, so long as they feel they will be safe and 2) women, in general, aren’t so addled by their alleged hypergamous proclivities that they actually find Donald Trump to be attractive. In fact, the study suggests, women considering casual sex are driven by a desire for, er, hot sex with a dude who won’t kill them and who they think will be good in bed, not by a desire to get their claws into some random rich dude. Or, as the paper itself puts it:
Sexual strategies theory clearly predicts that higher status proposers should be accepted by women more readily than low-status proposers. The fact that status did not predict women’s acceptance of casual sex offers is therefore a problem for SST. Neither status, nor tendency for gift giving, nor perceived faithfulness of the proposer (nor, more precisely, the interaction of any of these variables with gender) predicted whether a participant would agree to the sexual offer, contradicting SST.
Here’s a brief summary of the research. And here’s a more detailed (if a bit convoluted) discussion from Thomas on Yes Means Yes, from which I got the above quote.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>gee who would have thought, women want their sex partners to not be creepy assholes. What a concept
>"And a couple of posts on some new research on gender and casual sex that challenges a lot of manosphere myths about women and hypergamy, suggesting that: 1) women, in general, are as interested in casual sex as men, so long as they feel they will be safe"It seems she's correlating the desire to have casual sex with men who they find physically and emotionally attractive as being evidence that woman don't desire to marry up in their long term relationships? Are you sure you want to stand behind this?Please tell me your definition of casual sex that makes this theory work?"2) women, in general, aren't so addled by their alleged hypergamous proclivities that they actually find Donald Trump to be attractive. "Doesn't prove they wouldn't jump on the chance to be with him if the opportunity arose.
>kratch go read the study, then you may comment
>Kratch, have you seen Donald Trump? YUCKNow if Carrot Top came wandering by…
>I read the pandagon post earlier today and it was so great. Especially this part, which applies so well to some of the commenters here:"If your reaction to hearing that a woman is in a relationship with a man who smacks her, kicks her, and calls her a “fat twat” is not to say, “Oh my god, that’s terrible! I hope she gets help!” but instead to say, “Damn, there’s one more woman whose pussy I’m not penetrating, woe is me,” you are not a sensitive man. On the contrary, you are a self-absorbed narcissist! The lack of dick-dipping in your life should be taken not as evidence that women love assholes, but that they avoid at least one asshole—you—like the plague. "
>MRAs just can't grasp that women aren't all Lady Macbeth. A woman's choice of a casual sex partner is not a purely strategic consideration in a long-term plan to defraud men for child support. These notions that women are more sexually attracted to rich men are based on the misogynist belief that women don't actually like sex, they just use it as a tool to manipulate men.Or to put it simply, sometimes I see a woman and think, "My, she has a nice body. I daresay I would enjoy sexual intercourse with her." Thus it's not too much of a leap to imagine that a woman sometimes looks at a man and thinks, "My, he has a nice body. I daresay I would enjoy sexual intercourse with him." MRAs deny the latter possibility because in their narcissistic minds, that should mean women would be jumping all over their cocks.It seems she's correlating the desire to have casual sex with men who they find physically and emotionally attractive as being evidence that woman don't desire to marry up in their long term relationships?Strawman strawman strawman. The study is about casual sex, not long-term relationships.
>"Strawman strawman strawman. The study is about casual sex, not long-term relationships."Hypergamy is about long term relationships, about "marrying-up" and/or finding a long term spouse if higher socioeconomic status. therefore this study says nothing about hypergamy, which is contrary to David's statement. it is not a strawman in the least, you are just focusing on the wrong part.
>Oh, and on an unrelated note, I'm finding myself extremely attracted to those two female Links, to a degree that I'm not certain is healthy.
>@ DarksidecatSeems to me it means that particular guy isn't enough of an asshole.Random Brother
>@Kratch: Most people, man or woman, marry within their socioeconomic class. If you looked around you, you would see that fact confirmed in most of the couples of your acquaintance. If someone (man or woman) had married up, they would be noticeable because they're the exception. So if women really all had strategies to marry wealthy men, they would be pretty ineffective. There are some women and men out there who marry for money, but they're pretty rare. Yeah, men too: George Washington proposed to every rish heiress he met until he found one who said yes. And he's not the only male gold-digger out there.Also, give me a break. I'd like to see what would happen if a woman like Martha Stewart or Oprah got interested in one of you guys. In the words of Sanchez in The Touch of Evil: "what was I going to do? Tell her, no darling, I can't marry you, you have too much money?"
>@Richard: If you're so obsessed with sex that you can't even meet the baseline for basic human compassion, you should see a doctor. Or rather a psychiatrist.
>Obligatory "lesbians exist too" comment. Sometimes people forget that fact in these discussions about what women want.
>Kratch, guys in the manosphere are constantly confusing one-night-stands and regular dating that's why they believe that women that have sex with guys like Roissy or Roosh ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubMNBQwvV0I ) are hypergamous. They believe these guys are living in a harem. In the case of Roosh, I can guarantee that these women are not hypergamous, they're probably blind. 🙂
>@ girlscientistWow a completely shame based statement with no facts! And from an *AHEM* girl scientiest! I am shocked I am.Random Brother
>girlscientist: "Most people, man or woman, marry within their socioeconomic class."Maybe not in Britain:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12112283"According to a new study more women are are marrying for money than did in the 1940s. The author of the report, Dr Catherine Hakim, tells BBC Radio 5 live "there is this myth that women invariably choose to have a relationship of total equality".Speaking to Victoria Derbyshire, Dr Hakim continues: "More and more women are choosing to marry men who are substantially better educated than them, and therefore have higher earnings capacity.""
>Aishlin, I wonder how Nice Guys and MRAs make sense of lesbians? Let's say that women only see sex as an tool to scam money by entrapping those with "high social status" (it's evolution). But but but in a lesbian relationship, that would mean that the woman with "high social status" CHOSE to be with someone with "low social status"!!1!!1
>@Richard:No, it's based on your (factual) comment:Seems to me it means that particular guy isn't enough of an asshole.This comment can have two interpretations:1) You're so desperate for sex that you're willing to continually look to the world like a Walmart shopper fighting for a Tickle-Me-Elmo on sale at 5 A.M. on Black Friday. 2) Beating and abusing another human being means nothing to you because you're a sociopath.In the first case, you should see a doctor because there is clearly something wrong with your hormone levels. In the second case, go see a psychiatrist to get a formal diagnosis and help so that you can avoid the impulse-driven downward spiral that is usually the fate of low-functioning sociopaths.
>@wytchfinde555:It's difficult to say from the interview (which is 2 minutes long), but another interpretation is that men want to marry women who are less educated than them because they want to keep the dominant role in the relationship (if you hold the purse-strings and your partner has no job prospects, they are less likely to leave you and it gives you much more power over them).Sorry to say this, but Dr. Hakim seems hellbent on preserving existing gender stereotypes. In her view, women can be either career-oriented and achievement-driven or they can be caring and family-oriented? No mother ever cares about her job or her career? It looks to me like, once again, they got Dr. Lazy PhD to spout some BS platitudes on the radio.
> but another interpretation is that men want to marry women who are less educated than them because they want to keep the dominant role in the relationship (if you hold the purse-strings and your partner has no job prospects, they are less likely to leave you and it gives you much more power over them).That's a good point. Misogynistic men, and even just middle-of-the-road non-feminist men in general, tend to be disinclined to marry a woman more successful than them. At best it's an issue of discomfort with women who don't fit the gender role, and at worst, it's, as you said, a power thing.
>@ triplanetaryhttp://www.divorcesaloon.com/2010/09/10/new-york-cornell-university-study-shows-that-divorce-rates-are-higher-for-women-who-make-more-than-their-husbands-higher-infidelity-rates/"Latest divorce news: Study reveals the obvious: both men and women like it better when the man is the main breadwinner in the family""The study clearly showed that divorce rates are higher for men who make less than their wives. First of all, men whose wives make more money than they do were more likely to cheat on their wives. As the Daily Mail put it, it’s probably because they can’t resist all the “yummy mommies on the playground.” But these men also exhibit a sense of powerlessness and “gender identity threat” when their wives out-earn them. And so they cheat to reaffirm that they wear the pants in the family, according to the study.Also, when a woman’s income far outpaces her husband’s she is also more likely to cheat on him, and to be dissatisfied with him as a husband, according to the research done in the study.All of this increased the odds of divorce for that couple and so the rate of divorce is actually higher for couples in this control group.The opposite is not true, however. When a man out-earns a wife, the marriage is less likely to end in divorce and she is less likely to cheat on him. It can also be inferred from the Cornell study that if the parties make roughly the same income, the problems of infidelity, dissatisfaction and cheating still exists. Something in the male DNA (and probably the female too), needs for the man to make more money and to be the main breadwinner for the man to feel powerful, in control, and, frankly, to feel more like a man. When a man feels like a man in his relationship, he is less likely to cheat; and he has wife who is happier and also less likely to cheat. And feeling like a man seems directly related to how much money he brings home. We can mess with nature all we want. Some fundamental things are never going to change."Aw, pesky reality keeps getting in you little ladies way.So sad.I have to add this because you seem to need everything spoon fed to you.It's better for a man to marry someone who is less likely to cheat on him, so if a man gets married, marrying someone who earns less would be better than marrying some "strong, proud, independant" career woman who'll cheat on him and bring home some bastard child and claim the child is the husbands. Get it?Or can you not even understand this?Random Brother
>@ girl scientistWell if we are doing the whole pop psychology thing, then the reason you don't like what I said is either1) You were rejected by men as a teen and therefore threw yourself into womyn's studies, leaving you even less capable of making logical choices and you should get therapy, lose weight, and shave your legsOR2) You have some form of mental disease which makes you even less intelligent than the average feminist, meaning you likely need help getting dressed, tying your shoelaces and bathing yourself and you should focus on things that you may be able to understand like how to get toothpaste out of the tube.Random Brother
>@ David Spam filter@ triplanetaryWomen who make the same or more are more likely to cheat on their husbands, making them unsuitable for marriage. Random Brother
>@richard:Alas, I'm an asexual analytical chemist. In light of this new data, how do you interpret your findings, o wise one?
>@ girlscientistWow. Another feminist weirdo/degenerate. How many nutcases are feminist gonna put under their tent?I can't believe you were telling, ME, someone who is normal, to get help. You're the one who needs to seek help, and a whole lot of it, dear.We've got you, Kave the milk boy, that one chick who always talks about how much casual sex she has, one of the chicks on this site shaves her head bald. And lets not forget the groveling psuedo men, manginas. Ugh. Feminist freak show. I guess being normal and a feminist is a non starter.Random Brother
>@richard:Out of curiosity, how do you define normality?