Dating guru RooshV — whose name conveniently rhymes with “douchey” — is convinced that, when it comes to women, smartness is inversely correlated with hotness. As he puts it in a post today, committing at least one logical fallacy in the process:
Femininity is a quality that pleases men. Therefore from the chart we can deduce that educated women decrease a man’s happiness. … Anything beyond a bachelors at a public university is a near guarantee she’ll possess a large basket of masculine traits that will prevent boners.
The “chart” in question is one that RooshV made up himself, and which contrasts the purported sexiness of less-educated women with the purported unsexiness of more educated women. As he explains:
A good test to see if a girl is over-educated is to add the word “sexy” before her job title. If the resulting phrase ignites arousing images in your head, then she’ll most likely have what it takes to satisfy you.
Amongst RooshV’s “boner inducing” job titles for women: Sexy waitress, sexy teacher, sexy librarian, sexy flight attendant. Amongst the “boner softening” job titles: Sexy IT specialist, sexy anesthesiologist, sexy tort attorney, sexy financial analyst.
There are more than a few problems with RooshV’s little list, not the least of which is that plenty of dudes do in fact get boners thinking of “sexy” female IT specialists, lawyers, financial analysts and other smart women. (I’m kind of partial to sexy professors, myself.) And if you don’t want to take my word for it — and MRAs never do — I invite you to investigate the vast amount of porn involving “nerdy girls” or simply girls with glasses (NSFW link).
Also, if you’re going to base your notions of male and female sexuality on which job titles sound like the best sexy Halloween costume, how can you leave out such classics as “sexy nurse” (a job that actually does require specialized education) or “sexy kitty” (which requires whiskers and little cat ears)? And should we conclude from the perpetual popularity of the latter as a Halloween costume that furry women with tails who shit in a box are sexier than the furless standard models?
Also, if you’re a guy who fetishizes less-educated women, and refuses to date women as educated or as well-paid as you are, you pretty much lose the right to criticize women for wanting you to pick up the check for dinner.
—
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.
>I always thought of a douchebag as being the jerk-opposite of a dirtbag. Like, a dirtbag is scum; a douchebag is someone who treats YOU like scum. Never thought of gender entering into it.
>Don't forget sexy 1920's steel conglomerate tycoon. And frog!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4rUiV_Hh74&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>Does that chick do boob sex?
>Does that chick do boob sex?And how exactly would you expect anyone on this blog to be able to answer that question?Boob sex is awesome, of course, and I heartily approve of it. But I simply have no way of knowing what that woman's opinion of it is.
>triplanetary: Because women are connected to the Universal Female Hivemind, of course.Sally: You can be my sexy environmental scientist any time you like, baby.
>@Clarissa – Don't worry, with a face like that no guy is going to approach you PHD or not
>@Clarissa – Don't worry, with a face like that no guy is going to approach you PHD or notAnd yet another misogynist falls back on the "yeah well ur ugly" argument. Tell me, are you unaware of how trite that is, or are you just comfortable with it?
>I love smart women if they're also good looking and feminine. All of my long-term relationships have been with intelligent women (one went to USC med school).Roosh isn't making a categorical knowledge claim, but rather he is talking about the general trend of education and career-obsessed women to be unfeminine, competitive, and abrasive. I find this uncontroversial; obvious even.
>@lifeisugly, you illustrate an overlooked point here too well. "unfeminine, competitive, and abrasive" In what way are any of these (except to some degree perhaps abrasive) inherently bad? Why the double standard as well? Educated and career-obsessed men are often "unfeminine, competitive, and abrasive", yet I fail to see your complaints that one should not date intelligent or educated men. You start with an expectation that women should be "feminine" (again, this term is a vague one-if it means social standards, some things coded as feminine are good, some bad, some neutral) and that there is some sort of right to push whatever standard of gender or sexual attractiveness you want onto others. Frankly, that is bullshit. Let me give an example of how silly these notions look when applied to less heavily culturally imposed standards of attractiveness. I find it attractive when other people wear heavy eyeliner. There is a trend against this amoung professionals, but a trend for it amoung goths. Now, imagine how silly I would look if I said things similar to RooshV about this taste. "Eyeliner is a quality that pleases people. Therefore from the chart we can deduce that educated people decrease happiness of people … Anything beyond a bachelors at a public university is a near guarantee they’ll possess an unlined eye that will prevent my sexual arousal." Imagine I give this as my justification for why no one should date professionals and for why professionals were unsexy. Would you stop dating professionals? Would you think professionals were less desirable mates than goths? No one has the right to enforce their tastes in terms of attractiveness onto others. Other people do not necessarily have the same tastes. They may not care about your tastes, as they do not exist for the purpose of being sexually pleasing for you to observe. Women do not exist to be cumbuckets for RooshV, that is the concept he seems to be having difficulty with.
>To Darksidecat:Attraction isn't radically subjective. Men tend to agree on what is attractive based on primitive feelings and with little variation. Gender is not an entirely social construct and is not nearly as flimsy as you make it out to be. There is such thing as a more feminine women, and it turns out she's pretty hot. Enforce their tastes? All I see is observation, not enforcement. Women don't exist to be roosh's (or my) semen receptacle. There is this thing called attractiveness though and his blog involves observations on it.
>Oh, and men and women are different. This is why one standard doesn't necessarily apply to the other.
>Attraction isn't radically subjective. Men tend to agree on what is attractive based on primitive feelings and with little variation.Completely, 100% bullshit. Attraction is radically subjective. Do you find 300+-pound women attractive? Based on your comments thus far, probably not. So why are there entire websites devoted to them?Some men like pale skin, some men like dark skin. Some men like big boobs, some men like small boobs. Some men like short hair, some men like long hair. And these variations apply equally to personality.Your claim that men by and large agree on what's attractive in a woman is, to put it simply, complete bullshit.But, y'know, it sure is convenient as an attempt at enforcing patriarchal norms. "Stick to your assigned gender role or no man will ever love you!"
>That's subjectivity, not radical subjectivity. Radical means there are no patterns. It's not the norm to like obese women, it is the norm to like a healthy, thin body. Once again enforce? Patriarchy? Nonsense.More like "somewhat resemble the form of woman or it will be exceedingly more difficult to be loved by a man of quality." Less sexy, I know, but more precise.
>The number of bullshit assumptions you're able to pack into a limited number of statements is honestly pretty impressive.Your subjective desires do not constitute a norm, "healthy" and "thin" do not necessarily correlate, "radical" does not mean what you think it means, "the form of woman" is not something you're in any position to dictate, and "a man of quality" is not some objective standard that anyone has a right to judge besides the individual seeking it.As far as "nonsense" goes, I think you're the master of it here, not me.
>"And yet another misogynist falls back on the 'yeah well ur ugly' argument. Tell me, are you unaware of how trite that is, or are you just comfortable with it?""avpd0nmmng said…Roosh is ugly, has no job and when he's in the US,"But the feminist can do it a few comments above you and not get criticized? lol hypocrites. This is why only beta, weak men listen to anything your kind has to say.
>Oh! triplanetary, Of course there are healthy endomorphs, I'm speaking in general. Inductive logic, you know?You can go on believing there are no regularities in what is and isn't considered a quality mate, as counterintuitive as that position is. My advice to you is to sync up with reality. Swimming upstream is hard for a reason. I can tell from the little bit you've written that you're an angry left-wing type who is constantly fighting the world around her. Relax and repeat after me; "nobody likes a fatty."
>How lifeisugly is wrong, a handy list:–Healthy and thin are not the same thing. When I played sports, I knew lots of girls who worked out three hours a day in season and regarded a square of dark chocolate as "cheating", but were chubby, or (most often) built like rectangles. And they were healthy as fuck.–Radical means "going to the root" or "extreme" (especially for political ideologies); it can also mean "inherent", which is actually the opposite of what you're areguing radical means. Lern 2 English plz.–I am regularly mistaken for a guy by waitresses. I am assured, however, than I am quite boneriffic. Actually, when I cut my hair and cleaned out my wardrobe and went soft-butch, I started getting laid six ways from Sunday, because I am a lot hotter as an honest androgyne than I am as a failed imitation of feminine.–WTF does "a man of quality" mean? Women have different standards for men. I am reminded of this every time I locate a long-haired, hopelessly romantic, nerdy-ass gamer GEM (that I can't fuck because I'm monogamous now! le sigh) who is entirely girlfriendless.–Seriously, if my androgyny means Roosh doesn't want to bang me, good fucking riddance.–Do you even watch porn? There is every fucking kind of body type on YouPorn, from pale skinny chicks with no tits to black BBW with triple E's to (yes) butch women. (Look up Jiz Lee sometime. It's not all lesbians watching her porn.) Sure some of them are more popular, but that is like saying The Dark Knight is a more popular movie. Sure thing, but that doesn't mean there's no room for (500) Days of Summer.
>"avpd0nmmng said…Roosh is ugly, has no job and when he's in the US,"But the feminist can do it a few comments above you and not get criticized? lol hypocrites. This is why only beta, weak men listen to anything your kind has to say.I don't know, I think it's pretty fair to point out that you, someone who rates the value of women on all sorts of superficial qualities including appearance, don't seem to think that women should hold you to the same standard of fuckability.For myself I don't think your outward appearance is relevant to anything. But that's okay, there's enough to criticize just from your writing.
>yes, radical does mean extreme. 8============D
>Addendum to the "lifeisugly is wrong" list:–Fatty fuckers are not even an obscure fetish, fuckass. When you add in the people like me who like an overweight chick with some curves and some heft to her, they're a sizeable plurality. –Oh, I've found some regularities! Social, confident, happy people of whatever gender, who are actively looking for non-platonic relationships, get laid more. I'm just arguing with YOUR regularities.Roosh: I'm not going to shame you for being ugly. I'm going to shame you for being a rapey rapey rapist who rapes and can't get laid except through rape, for he is a rapist. 🙂
>Relax and repeat after me; "nobody likes a fatty."I don't view my reasoning as "upstream" when I deny a statement like this. I actually like heavy women myself. Not BBW territory, but certainly heavier than what the media portrays as typically beautiful. One of the most beautiful women I've seen weighed about 200 pounds. That's my taste.But go on pretending that your taste is right/normal and anyone who doesn't share it is wrong/abnormal. You're right, your line of reasoning is easier. But it's weird that you've gotten it in your head that "intellectually lazy" correlates with "correct."
>And another addendum! I'm going to be doing this all night at this rate. –lifeisugly thinks ascii penises are a counterargument. Lifeisugly is possibly eleven years old? That would explain a lot actually.
>that I can't fuck because I'm monogamous now! le sighHa, I'll never make that mistake again. Polyamory all the way, whoo!
>Lifeisugly: While your acknowledgment that intelligence doesn't automatically render women unfuckable is heartening, I have to take issue with the tired "education makes women uppity" argument.And please don't give me that bullshit about men and women being different — because the reality is that men and women are far more the same than they are different. For example, men and women are the same in that acquiring an education and building a career takes talent, dedication and hard work regardless of one's gender. It is quite offensive, therefore, that the term "career-obsessed" when applied to women is just code for "reluctant to flush her talents and two decades of work and sacrifice down the toilet in order to have more time to cook me dinner, keep the baby from being an inconvenience to me and wipe my ass." If men and women similarly put effort into a career, why is it that men like you consider WOMEN's achievements, aspirations and labor disposable and secondary to men's mere domestic convenience (while MEN's careers must be cherished, promoted and sacrificed for)? Please don't insult us by saying this is so simply because men and women are different, because that would be saying that women have inherently less worth than men and should expect far less consideration. If that's what you actually believe, then we simply have a fundamental disagreement on values, and let's leave it at that.This is the problem with gender essentialists who claim to be moderate: they would "allow" women to have careers as long as women never actually have the temerity to value their own minds, achievements and academic and professional work; as long as they are ready to drop everything and let a chunk of their lives to have been for nothing in order to become full-time maids. And we are allowed to be intelligent as long as we behave as quiescent, simpering globs of protoplasm, and never use that intelligence to disagree with a man or make him think he knows less than we do about something other than childcare and household work.As for differences, note that "sacrificing for the family" by advancing in one's career and increasing one's income is NOT the flip side of "sacrificing for the family" by throwing one's career and achievements away.
>triplanetary: I would if I could, but my boyfriend is monogamous! And I would rather have him than a harem's worth of nummy geekboy cock. 🙁 Amused: WORD. What zie said.