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.
You know who REALLY needs “shaming?” Haters and assholes like Susan Walsh.
Precisely.
A woman may be highly sexually active in a loving relationship. Sluthood has nothing to do with sexual activity or sex drive, although there is some evidence that promiscuous women have higher testosterone.
Based on the photos of SlutWalks in the MSM media thus far, I highly doubt some of these women are sexually active. Just saying. Jaclyn Friedman is on record as trolling for partners on Craiglist, so apparently there is something for everyone.
I’ve never said that sluts steal men away. I don’t see many sluts stealing men out of committed relationships, although a lot of guys do cheat with sluts. To me that’s an indication of the male being unworthy of commitment.
Oh please. I make no allowance for poly relationships. I am straight, I’ve been in a faithful monogamous relationship (marriage) for 27 years. I write what I know, and I won’t be shamed into writing for people who can’t make monogamy work.
Therefore why do you believe in Game ? You really think that guys like Roosh, Roissy or Mystery are “socially dominant” ?
But I have defined it. What a Slut Is: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/06/23/politics-and-feminism/what-a-slut-is/
a. A slut is a person of either sex who regards sex strictly as a physically pleasurable activity. Sex in and of itself does not include an emotional, spiritual or practical component. Love, emotional intimacy and reproduction are sometimes associated with sex, but are in no way necessary or even desirable as a precondition for sexual activity.
b. Sluts generally disavow any biological difference between the sexes. In fact, there is some truth to this among sluts. Female sluts experience less bonding behavior as a result of sex, perhaps owing to having become inured to the experience, or perhaps as a result of a hormonal profile that is more male, i.e. higher than average testosterone levels.
c. Sluts maximize opportunities for sex as they arise in the pursuit of immediate gratification.
d. Male sluts are generally found highly desirable by many women, and prefer promiscuity to a committed, monogamous relationship. Female sluts are generally found temporarily desirable by highly desirable men, and have few opportunities for committed, monogamous relationships. Some female sluts feel fine about this, others feel regret.
Wow. So, let me be sure that I understand what you’re saying, because I want to be clear. Women that you, personally, determine are both slutty and unattractive are either chasing after attractive men for meaningless, slutty hookups… or unlikely to be sexually active due to their unattractiveness? I’m paraphrasing her but is that the gist?
And women are simultaneously sexually selective by biological imperative, but able to exercise choice in sexual partners and, by virtue of exercising these choices, exhibiting unrestrained sexuality? What type of sex, precisely, is indicative of unrestrained sexuality? Sex outside of marriage? Sex outside of a committed relationship? And are the men who have sex under these circumstances also exhibiting unrestrained sexuality, or they acting on their biological imperative?
And when men turn down sex, are they acting against their biological imperative in the same manner that women are when they fail to be appropriately selective?
And is participating in the “hook up culture” a permanent state of being?
“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”
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
“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.”
So, the first chart shows what women could get, and the second one show what women want? But… both show sexual attraction, so that means what they want, right? So, both show what they want?
And women starting becoming attracted to different people after the sexual revolution, then? Before then, a lower attractiveness woman wouldn’t have found a higher attractiveness man attractive?
“Women are attracted to socially dominant men. It’s not right or wrong it just is. There’s no judgment here. It’s biology. ”
So, is this before or after the sexual revolution? And how exactly did this change, if it’s biology?
Maybe your posts could use some actual direct references to your figures, explaining what they mean! Also you should probably try not contradicting yourself. That helps ones arguments, I’ve found.
And are you just completely ignoring the fact that, not too long ago the ‘proper’ pairings had much more to do with social status (as in, money and social class), not attractiveness?
“Men are not choosy about sex. They want to get it in. Women are selective, that’s biology.”
And yes, yes, tacky, I know. But as the biochemist who’s engaged to a biologist, [citation fucking needed].
“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.”
I’ve read your data, and it does not say what you think it says. Even you admit in your post that it doesn’t justify the 80-20 myth. And it definitely doesn’t say anything about ‘biology’.
“Based on the photos of SlutWalks in the MSM media thus far, I highly doubt some of these women are sexually active. Just saying.”
So, how do you come by this conclusion? Do you go around asking them if they’re having sex? Do you think you’re capable of judging their sexual capability based on a random picture? Just sayin’.
Where does social dominance figure on the 1-10 scale of attractiveness. How is it measured and folded into the numerical ranking system?
And you don’t think that sluts steal men away… but they are dangerous competition for women and risky for men?
And, once again:
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?
But I don’t believe that. I believe that human beings employ mating strategies, both short-term and long-term. The deployment of those strategies is influenced by market factors such as the number of men, number of women, sexual mores, and many other things. Women in countries that have a shortage of marriageable men, e.g. Latvia are much more promiscuous than women in countries with a plentiful supply of men. That has been documented by economists using a sociosexual index 😛
The vast majority of women prefer sex with “a favored male.” In fact, many promiscuous women do, but in the absence of a relationship will compromise with short-term sex. A significant portion of women having casual sex on college campuses describe feelings of regret, stress and discouragement associated with hooking up. I won’t provide dozens of citations here – this is all easily Google-able or you can check the Sources page at my blog.
So, emotions play a very important role, but not necessarily in the negotiation of whether and when to have sex.
Sluts are commodities. Women who practice “no sex before monogamy” are the opposite of commodities, as they require emotional intimacy as a prerequisite for sex.
Sigh. I have to say, I’m very disappointed with the level of discourse here. I don’t know whether there is a real lack of intellectual rigor, or whether it’s just lost in all the snark. The comment threads at HUS are far more incisive.
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.
Is Susan’s actual last name Xavier? o_O How does she know what ppl are thinking? xD
@susanwalsh:
“Oh please. I make no allowance for poly relationships. I am straight, I’ve been in a faithful monogamous relationship (marriage) for 27 years. I write what I know, and I won’t be shamed into writing for people who can’t make monogamy work.”
Listen, here is how choice and sexual freedom works:
a) You are free to pursue (within reason) people you are attracted to, and you are free to reject those to whom you are not.
b) You are free to live the lifestyle you prefer, and you are free to seek those who share the same interest and avoid those who do not.
c) You have the right to not approve of other people’s preferences.
d) You do not have the right to try to force people who you are attracted to to feel attracted to you back.
e) You are not free to try to enforce your life-style choices upon others, whether through shaming tactics, law, or otherwise.
f) You do not have the right to expect anyone to care about your disapproval of them.
The best advice you could give to your audience is to tell them to talk to potential partners, tell them about their preferences regarding monogamy and everything, and if the two don’t match, move on. No passive aggressive whining about how the “sexual revolution” has corrupted all the good guys, and no treating straight monogamous relationships as the only type of relationship, casting all others as failures.
You are doing your readers a great disservice by not giving them advice that respects other people, and even more so when you give no justification to any of your claims. You are filling your reader’s heads with hatred; at the spectral “sluts” that are ruining all the good men, at men for their biology, and at sexual freedom, which gives them the ability to seek out men in the first place. And you are continuing to contribute to the stigma against anybody who does not share your personal preferences.
Honestly, if you are writing a blog to help women find caring and devoted partners, you are utterly failing, and doing harm on the side.
It’s right up at the top of the website. Misogyny I (we) mock it.
Ppl asking her for cites and to further explain what she means and how she knows things or about which part of biology she believes is responsible for the hardwired differences between men and women, etc is a lack of intellectual rigor. xD
*sigh* I have to say I’m disappointed in the actual Susan Walsh (she even has her own Magyc card for chrissakes xD ). Our regular trolls are…
ok…
maybe not…
>_>
<_<
xD
**cheers kirby**
Lady, are you serious? I read through your comment thread and if “HD porn is better than sex with an average looking woman…” is indicative of this “intellectual rigor,” of your regulars, I’ll think I’ll pass.
Here’s another question though: A woman practicing “no sex without monogamy” verifies her partner’s monogamy how?
Oh please. I make no allowance for poly relationships. I am straight, I’ve been in a faithful monogamous relationship (marriage) for 27 years. I write what I know,
Okay, so wait :3 Are you saying now that you’re writing only from personal experience, and only from what you “know” in your life, and that’s why you discount other types of relationships and other types of ppl? Or are you saying this is biological and general fact (like you were earlier?) xD
Nobinayamu, that quote is classic.
My my!
I appear to have crashed in on a heated debate between the supermodels sometimes go for dorks crowd and the female that created an ENTIRE BLOG just to tell everyone that the hookup culture ain’t romantic.
@Nobby
Correct.
She would have found him attractive, but she would have had a realistic sense of her own sexual market value in relation to his. She would have observed that he was dating the Homecoming Queen.
In fact, she would have taken a look around, and found that Johnny Same Rank as Her is pretty cute. It’s not like brides in the 60s were dragged up the aisle kicking and screaming. They were presumably in love, and marrying men of similar attractiveness.
Re male dominance:
The biology did not change, the number of dominant men did. Women select men that are deemed attractive by other women, i.e. social proof. With the average age at marriage higher than ever before, men and women have ample time to attract numerous partners. Because women will compete for one random hookup with the most dominant males, the social proof is concentrated on those few.
Furthermore, feminism has feminized men and masculinized women. As Stuart Schneiderman said on his blog Had Enough Therapy?:
“Where are all the good men? The women have become the good men they are looking for.”
What do you think it says? I conclude the post by saying that 20% of men are enjoying 80% of the sexual encounters, not 80% of the women. I also state that 20% of the population is slutty, and that they’re basically servicing each other.
Re “citations fucking needed” maybe if you got out of your feminist echo chamber and read the news once in a while you would have a clue. It wouldn’t matter, though would it? You’d just dismiss every new study (Mark Regnerus, Ogi Ogas, etc.) as “junk science.” Yeah, OK.
I never said anything about capability. It’s more a question of desirability. There are a disproportionate number of 1s at SlutWalks. See the recent photo in the NYXs on the Rebecca Traister piece to see what I mean.
@Fuck MRAs
“It’s right up at the top of the website. Misogyny I (we) mock it.”
It should read;
Misandry, we embrace it.
or
Common sense, we detest it.
or
Reality, we deny it.
Re “citations fucking needed” maybe if you got out of your feminist echo chamber and read the news once in a while you would have a clue. It wouldn’t matter, though would it? You’d just dismiss every new study (Mark Regnerus, Ogi Ogas, etc.) as “junk science.” Yeah, OK.
That’s a convenient way of not citing stuff xD
“You are not free to try to enforce your life-style choices upon others, whether through shaming tactics, law, or otherwise”
But what if you’re a serial killer?
Then you kill… serially 😀