Happy day! Susan Walsh has drawn another diagram! Loyal readers of Man Boobz will recall the last time that Walsh, a would-be relationship expert who blogs at Hooking Up Smart, tried her hand at diagram making. It wasn’t pretty. In an attempt to sketch out the economic costs of sluthood, Walsh cobbled together an extravagantly convoluted mess of a flow-chart based on little more than a few bad assumptions and what she insisted was common sense.
This time, Walsh attempts to chart how the sexual revolution has transformed dating, borrowing her argument largely from some dude called Frost who blogs about sex and relationships and PUA bullshit at Freedom Twenty-Five.
Back in the old “leave it to Beaver” days, Frost argues, virtually all men and women paired off efficiently with partners who exactly matched their level of hotness, as charted on the infamous ten-point scale beloved of pickup artists and other such creatures. Fives married fives, nines married nines, and even lowly ones were able to find true love and hot ugly sex with others as unfortunate as they were. As Walsh puts it, attempting to make all this somehow sound vaguely scientific:
This system worked pretty well in achieving equilibrium with respect to SMV (sexual market value).
Naturally, neither Frost nor Walsh offer any evidence that any of this was true. Which only makes sense, since it, er, wasn’t.
Let’s set that aside for a moment and move on to our current fallen state, post-sexual revolution. Now, apparently, a small minority of hot dudes score all the chicks, from nines on down to threes. Everyone else spends their lonely nights alone with their hands and a choice of vibrator or fleshlight.
Here’s where the diagram comes in. It’s a doozy:
Now, Walsh doesn’t actually explain how she knows this (or, rather believes it, since it clearly is not true), or why exactly she thinks the sexual revolution is to blame. But Frost does, sort of. With the sexual revolution, he argues,
the social convention of monogamy starts to break down. Women are free to do what they want, and they quickly realize that the men they can persuade to have short-term sexual relationships with are much, much more attractive than the men willing to marry them. Attractive men are free to eschew marriage, and instead maintain a harem of rotating friends-with-benefits and one-night stands. Super-attractive men (professional athletes, rock stars, bloggers) can spend every night with a different coterie of young, attractive women, railing lines off their ass cheeks and banging them senseless.
Sounds great for men. And not too bad for women either, who get to shag NHL players and bloggers instead of their ho-hum husbands.
Wait a minute. “… and bloggers?” Bloggers are now the alpha males? I wish I’d known this sooner!
But every woman who elects to join a harem, must necessarily leave a lonely man behind in the great mating scramble. … The men at the bottom are left to their RPGs and porn.
So there you have the effects of the sexual revolution on men: Great for the few, awful for the teeming masses.
Well, there’s a certain logic to that argument. It’s just not, you know, true.
Walsh and all the manosphere dudes who’ve convinced themselves that 80% of men have been left sexless have it backwards: as a handy FAQ at the Kinsey Institute points out, only about 10 percent of men don’t have sex during any given year. The average frequency of sex ranges from more than 100 times a year for those in their teens and twenties to about 70 times a year for those in their 40s.
But what about the ladies? Frost explains that they suffer too, especially those unfortunate enough to be mega-hotties. Frost seems to base this conclusion almost entirely on the sexual history of one Betty Draper. This seems a very small sample size to me. Also, she’is fictional. But that doesn’t stand in Frost’s way:
What about the top woman? The ultimate hottie? Previously, she had the top man all to herself. She literally could not have asked for anything more, assuming as I do that women naturally gravitate toward sleeping with the one man who is their best option at a given time, while men are only as faithful as their options. Suddenly, her man is beset by hussies, plying him with offers of cheap sex. How does Betty Draper feel about the breakdown of monogamy in her world? …
Now [the top women] must choose between sharing, or settling for a man far below her previous catch. Meanwhile, uglier women can choose between monogamy with a man far above her previous level, or a shared slice of one of the top men. She is unequivocally better off, as the hotter women are unequivocally worse off.
Frost concludes:
The Sexual Revolution harms attractive women, and unattractive men. It benefits unattractive women, and attractive men.
Naturally, none of this is the fault of men. It is, Frost and Walsh apparently agree, the fault of all those mid-level bitches slutting it up with the top men. It’s all their fault that the ladies at the top and bottom are getting left high and dry.
Indeed, it’s high time that the hottest hotties stood up for their rights, Frost argues in a second blog post:
It never seems to occur to the hot girls of the world that the sexual revolution is the cause of their troubles. Without it, the best that a top man could do is find a top woman, and devote his life to her. In our present dystopia, he can find that top woman, and rip her heart and soul to pieces by maintaining a harem of flings on the side.
If it wasn’t for the legions of female 7′s and 8′s throwing themselves at the male 9′s, the female 9′s could have their men all to themselves. But in the world as it is, they will always be competing with the omnipresent availability of cheap and easy sex.
Were the hot women to regain their hot pride, sluts and feminists alike would quake in their boots:
The greatest fear of the feminists is that desirable women like yourselves will wake up the lies they’ve been fed, embrace their feminine modesty, and cast the harsh light reality on of the fat, shrill, used-up slutwalkers and middle-aged divorcees.
What of the not-quite-hotties? Walsh has some harsher advice for all those “mediocre sluts” out there riding that alpha asshole cock carousel. She writes:
For less attractive women, an objective assessment of market value is essential. That can only be realized by evaluating which men are interested in dating you rather than banging you.
In other words: mid-level ladies, you’re still losers. Eventually, you asses will get fat, your skin will get wrinkly, and the alpha assholes will grow tired of banging you. So what are you poor gals to do? Walsh offers this grim assessment:
These are the hard truths of the Post Sexual Revolution era. There are a few winners, and many losers. It is difficult to see how equilibrium can ever be regained. For now at least, your only option is to think carefully and realistically about your personal life goals. Make sure the choices you’re making get you closer to them.
(Confidential to Susan Walsh: You do know that using terms like “equilibrium,” like you’re some sort of sexual economist, doesn’t actually make your bullshit true?)
Given that everything in Frost and Walsh’s posts here is such unmitigated bullshit, I think I have some better advice for women of all hotness levels (if they haven’t already figured this out for themselves): stop taking relationship advice from a woman who wants you to hate yourself.
And speaking of bad choices: those smileys? Oy. Strive for elegant simplicity, not tacky clutter.
NOTE: Chuck on Gucci Little Piggy has written a response of sorts to this post. I’ve replied on his blog here. But there is something distressing going on there: Someone has posted several rude comments there under the name “Man Boobz.” THAT PERSON IS NOT ME. If any of you are responsible, STOP IMMEDIATELY. I’ve asked Chuck to ban that person and delete the comments.
EDITED TO ADD: Chuck changed the name of the commenter to “not man boobz.” That makes sense to me.
@susanawalsh:
“The chart does not depict who’s having sex, it depicts the nature of female attraction in the Post Sex Rev era of unrestrained sexuality.”
So, are you saying that, back in the good old days, women simply weren’t attracted to people not of their own status? So 5s weren’t attracted to 8s, 3s were only attracted to 3s, etc etc? Frankly, that is an absurd claim.
First, a global scale of attraction simply does not exist. Everyone has their own preferences, and those very wildly. So to attempt to say that such a 1-10 scale even exists in the first place is rather absurd.
Second, even if you assume such as scale exists, in necessarily implies that everyone is attracted to 10s, most people to 9s, less to 8s, etc down to nearly nobody to 1s and 0s. So to make the claim that you say your Pre Sex Rev era represents, that each tier is only attracted to the same level, is nonsensical under your own system.
Finally, true sexual equality is allowing every single person the ability to be attracted to whomever, and to consent to sex with whomever, they choose. Trying to enforce a particular standard of who you may have sex with, or much worse, trying to enforce who people are attracted to, is not free choice; it is the removal of choice.
@Kirby o_O the other thing is that she seems to think we’re calculating our “value” all the time xD And we don’t have wants or attractions ourselves.. xD the reason I’m not sleeping w/ men is cuz I’ve calculated my value and don’t want to “sell myself short”? xD
Men are not choosy about sex. They want to get it in. Women are selective, that’s biology
In what way is it biology? 😀 (DNA? Brain structure? Hormones?)
Men are not choosy about sex. They want to get it in. Women are selective, that’s biology. Men are choosey, however, about commitment, and the vast majority of men prefer a woman of low sexual experience for long-term mating.
Sexual experience has nothing to do with the number of partners. If a woman is married since ten years, she will be experienced. These guys that are afraid of “experienced” women want a virgin.
“Oh, and Rutee, fyi, my pronoun is “he.””
‘kayo. My mistake.
“That would be regulation of the market. ”
Oh god, you’re one of those idiots.
“Women have, since the beginning of time, competed intrasexually to control the supply. ”
How is this remotely plausible as a claim? Women would have to desire absolutely no sex for this analogy to work at all. Do you think absolutely no woman wants to sleep with, say, Johnny Depp regardless of whether a relationship or status comes out of it?
How does this account for gay women? Are gay women colluding with other women because of a desire to keep straight men from having sex or something?
“Men are not choosy about sex. They want to get it in. Women are selective, that’s biology. … No amount of fist pumping and snark here can change that.”
No amount of assertion is going to substantiate any of the 3 parts of this claim (That men aren’t choosy, that women are, or that it is biology). Until you do, your words deserve no more attention, no more gravitas to them, than a clown’s antics. And frankly, I feel I may be doing a disservice to clowns to compare you two wannabe intellectuals to them.
@susanwalsh:
“Who’s trying to enforce sexual pairings? That would be regulation of the market.”
True, that would be a regulation of the market. And though you don’t explicitly talk about enforcing anything, you do paint the picture that women are choosing men based on the wrong criteria. And then you have quotes like this:
“Indeed, that is the exact perspective I held when I began writing Hooking Up Smart. I pictured a world in which all the men get all the women to have no-strings sex with them and refuse to commit.”
This I consider trying to enforce sexual pairings, though “enforce” may be the wrong word. You believe that women are making the wrong decisions about who they sleep with, and you focus on men being able to sleep with all the women they want. You are trying to change that with your blog.
“Men are not choosy about sex. They want to get it in.”
Tell that to the countless MRAs, PUAs, and so forth who would not bang a fat chick. Tell that to your own chart, where men “chose” to only sleep with women of their own caliber. You are not just wrong with this statement, you are going against your own espoused views.
If women are biologically compelled to be sexually selective, how can their sexuality be “unrestrained”?
Kirbywarp, I love how she claims that she isn’t trying to enforce anything, while she encourages women to denounce other women as “sluts” in her comments section. And, naturally, not a single citation to back all of this good, old-fashioned, folksy wisdom.
Nobinayamu:
Yeah, her evidence is linking back to her own blog… And I wouldn’t be surprised if she tries to play the chart off as something non-serious and made up. But simply putting [citation needed] over and over loses its appeal after a while, no matter how desperately it is needed. Cause the kind of people who repeatedly make assertions without evidence are also the most likely to simply brush off any requests for evidence, thinking “I know I’m right.”
But contradiction! That is something no one can deny! At least, one can only hope.
Women have, since the beginning of time, competed intrasexually to control the supply.
Have you ever even read a history book Ms Walsh?
“Oh, and Rutee, fyi, my pronoun is “he.””
‘kayo. My mistake.
Nbd, amiga. (I’m glad we could resolve this so neatly while you and G.I. Piggy had to do three whole rounds of “What could the gender of someone with a Kinsey-6 girlfriend possibly be!”)
I’ve found these two statements in susanwalsh’s blog:
*Sigh* Block-quote fail…
The first two big paragraphs are supposed to be quotes, the sentence before and the three after are mine…
These are not the sluts I know. Slut, in common usage, is one who is highly sexually active, no matter their motivations. It is these people who are marching in slut walk, and it is these people who are being shamed (for having too much sex, and in some instances having any sex at all outside of a monogamous marriage). Your redefinition of the word “slut” makes your argument extremely misleading.
Hell, virgins march in slutwalks too. And married monogamous people. And asexuals. Because the word “slut” has no meaning beyond “I disapprove of you!” and can therefore be applied to anyone regardless of their feelings, gender or sexual experience. It’s a fantastic catch-all term for calling someone a terrible, immoral person without having to define or prove anything — which is why Susan can’t coherently define it. Yelling “slut!” is just the misogynist version of a toddler yelling “NOOO” at everything they don’t like. It doesn’t mean anything about the target of the yelling, it just means the misogynist needs a snack and a nap. :p
(Also, I’m fascinated by the “science” of 20% sluttitude here… is there an immunoassay for sluttiness? Is it based on skirt length? Is there a ratio of sex:enjoyment, and enjoying yourself over a certain amount makes you a slut? Tell me, wise Dr. Susan! I thirst for knowledge like sluts thirst for cock and married women thirst for divorce and MRAs thirst for RealDolls. :D)
“(Also, I’m fascinated by the “science” of 20% sluttitude here… is there an immunoassay for sluttiness? Is it based on skirt length? Is there a ratio of sex:enjoyment, and enjoying yourself over a certain amount makes you a slut? Tell me, wise Dr. Susan! I thirst for knowledge like sluts thirst for cock and married women thirst for divorce and MRAs thirst for RealDolls. )”
See, she said that sluts are the ones who aren’t emotional about sex, meaning they would enjoy it much less. Like I said, it makes no sense.
I have married monogamous friends who marched in slut walk o_O Slutty slutty monogamous married friends! xD
And elderly ppl marched.. and virgins (as noted above) and all SORTS of ppl, incl men xD
The thing is that the media is always only interested in getting shots of young white cis abled women in short skirts b/c of the name of the march xD (and also you can’t assume a person’s sexual history by that.. esp since ppl wore them essentially as costumes in the march xD )
So the people who have the most sex are the people who enjoy it the least?
Huh.
Katz, I read a quote where a gay marriage opponent was arguing that gay sex must be much less satisfying than heterosexual sex, because gay men have so much more of it.
Yeah.
Wow. So … women are products and men are consumers, but — BUT!! — women who interact with lovers without emotion are inferior products. Oh, Susan, Susan. The world is full of idiots who describe everything as a market transaction and believe themselves to be terribly clever. You think you are being clever, Susan? Well, I certainly don’t exclude the possibility that an idiot may impress other idiots with her idiocy, but from my perspective, your efforts at playing a cold, steely-eyed realist are laughable. Still, reducing everything to a terse merchantile transaction is very fashionable on the internets these days, so have fun. One thing, though: you really can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you believe relationships ARE merely terse merchantile exchanges, then emotion is simply irrelevant, and everyone’s in it is just to “scratch an itch”. If emotion does play a role, then your whole “market place” and women-as-commodities shtick goes out the window.
@Kirbywarp
Not at all. Women are attracted to socially dominant men. It’s not right or wrong it just is. There’s no judgment here. It’s biology. My point is that by offering no-strings sex, women can snag a highly desirable male for sex. Commitment is another matter entirely.
I guess you didn’t read my post. Only the top males can have sex regularly with the woman of their choice. As for women’s choices, the blog is explicitly geared to women and men who seek relationships. Being promiscuous dramatically shrinks the pool of potential mates for women. Targeting manwhores is also bad strategy, because they are loathe to commit to one woman. That is the premise of the blog – devising and pursuing a strategy to find a committed partner.
You misunderstand. The first chart in the post shows the women men were able to get before the Sexual Revolution – women of a similar level of attractiveness. The second chart only shows what women want, not who’s actually having sex. Both charts address female sexual attraction.
Susan, when you go out into the world and look around at people presenting as couples you don’t notice that something like 90% of the time they’re about equally matched in looks? Really?
Nothing has been thrown out of whack by the sexual revolution and women’s “unrestrained sexuality.” And your charts are silly and don’t legitimately address anything of the sort. They’re reflections of your own biases and assumptions.
Yeah, Rutee, don’t diss clowns! Clown is an ancient and noble art form.
I wonder if there are feminist clowns. You know, like there are Christian clowns who teach biblical messages as clown routines. Can anyone think of how to express the concept of privilege in mime?
@susanawalsh
You’re in an intellectual wasteland here susan. These people call reality a social construct, are repulsed by facts, and generally disagree with everything. There could be a blizzard outside and if any non-feminist said it was cold outside, they’d prattle on endlessly about cold being relative, or some people have greater resistance to cold, or anything but agree.
A little hint. Don’t make any grammar mistakes. Thats how they gauge smartiness.
@Nobin
They are free to have sex with as many attractive men as they can snag for a hookup. The culture supports it. So women who are less attractive can be very selective in the moment – as long as they don’t ask for anything in return. Hot men justify these hookups by saying that “beauty is only a lightswitch away.”
Where I’ve analyzed the CDC data in depth. As far as I know, I’m the only blogger ever to have reviewed all data sources to establish who’s having sex with whom. Check it out, you might learn something.