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.
@Sharculese Unfortunately I have not read that work, but it seems interesting from a quick glance. Do you want to elaborate on where she goes to far? If I know the actual argument I can try and give you an opinion on it.
I will say it starts out on a very good note. Something that is a major problem with a purely evolutionary reading of behavior and sexuality is that if genes only care about their own propagation, we would not have gay people. It would have been weeded out of the gene pool millenia ago. So seeing someone using that point of view is interesting and welcome.
Come to think of it, Baumeister has no connection between his theory and any data, and he provides no methods to test his theory. That’s pretty shitty for even a purely theoretical paper.
And Baumeister is the “Mitochondrial DNA proves women fucked more than men in the past” guy, so believe it or not but I have no reason to think he’s using the statistical data he’s citing correctly.
Oh, jeeze. I should have spent more time on this paper instead of taking it as decent on face value. My bad, Rutee. This is fun:
“The development of the theory was treated as a separate task from the empirical assessment, and we developed some aspects and predictions that were not able to be tested against the available data.”
aka “When putting this together, the right had did not know what the left hand was doing. Truly!”
Also “The second part of the article presented a broad range of empirical findings and they were generally consistent with many aspects of the exchange theory, though some aspects of the theory remain essentially untested. “
Aka “the parts we had data for fit the theory (Which, we assure you, was not created using the data), and the bits we don’t have data for aren’t tested. Therefore, we’re right.”
yeah, basically her argument is that darwin’s theory of sexual selection is based on a really outdated idea of binary identities for males and females than any real science, and that it doesn’t account for the observable diversity of gender types. i’m still in the first section, where she’s doing a survey of different family and reproductive structures, homo-/transsexuality among animals, and species with multiple distinct forms within one sex (which she calls different genders of the same sex). for example she’s very critical of the idea of ‘female mimics’ poaching fertilization from ‘true males’ and proposes an alternate theory where a species involves an intermediary gender that acts as a go between for males and females in exchange for opportunities to engage in reproduction. so, she incorporates the idea of an economy of reproductive opportunity that allows for these distinct genders, but she also stresses that this isn’t necessarily transferable to humans, and i haven’t gotten to what she has to say on human sexuality.
it’s all very interesting, and makes a lot of sense, but it seems sometimes in describing these gender dynamics that she reaches very conclusory, almost evopsych positions. i think her answer to that criticism is that it’s intentionally a work that blends science with politics, and that she’s trying to show that her framework is equally explanatory and more plausible than a framework based on sexual selection, but it can be disconcerting in what is facially a scientific account.
My bad on the journal, it’s not JUST Evopsych. It’s not totally worthless. But it is more or less the only place Evopsych can be published.
to be more clear on what i mean by conclusory, using the example i provided- she does a good job of knocking down why the idea of ‘female mimics’ doesn’t make sense in species that hunt by sight and can lock onto small insects through several meters of lake water, and in fact have totally different mating rituals depending on whether the other fish is female or a ‘female mimic’, but she doesn’t really go into why her theory is a better fit. granted, it’s a work for a lay audience, but it’s still frustrating.
@Sharculese Hmm, that’s tricky. Thing is, an evopsych-like take does make more sense on simpler creatures, especially those that do not work on social frameworks (which tend to fuck with standard evolution quite a bit). Rudimentary brains necessitate genetically encoded behavioral patterns that are evolutionarily tested (and, naturally enough, testable). Aka instinct. So i think much would depend on how she handles the human aspects. Evopsych makes the constant and glaring mistake of assuming that human behaviors are heritable and controlled under standard evolutionary rules, while simultaneously offering no actual experimental tests (mostly because these are impossible, given the claims). So, yeah. Let me know how it shapes up! I may look to see if my library has a copy, it should. Sounds like a good read.
@Sharculese Ah, sorry, you ninja’d me there. I can see how that would be annoying. I would hope mostly it’s because that is not the meat of the work, and she’s just pointing out the errors of the standard models instead of attempting to prove her own theory right at that time. Hopefully it’ll shape up.
thanks for the explanation. yeah, i’ll let you know when i get to the section on humans.
If it’s so widely understood, then surely the proof is easy to find and show us? 😀
Like the world being round is widely understood, but b/c it’s proven… there being a Christian god is widely understood, but it’s unproven…
Ami being awesome is also widely understood…. and that requires no proof… but unless Susan is now writing about how awesome I am… that’s not the same thing XD
Also… hey… did I just see Rutee, Nobby, etc talk about stuff and admit they were wrong in parts and discuss it more? Amazing what an echo chamber this is! Such echoes! xD
Also apparently that was not Susan’s final post after all xD
Rutee:
That journal is one that publishes theoretical papers. But you keep asking for data, data, data to prove many of these assertions. I’d argue that neither side could come up with enough definitive data to disprove the other. That holds true for the EvoPsychers and the social constructionists. That the data is not there does not disprove anything just as the lack of data or information that disproves the irreducible complexity of the eyeball does not disprove the theory of natural selection.
As it stands, sexual dimorphism in primates is universal. Males are larger than females, a fact which stems from sexual differences. This has social fallout. Men and women have different natures, or – since that’s such a scary word for the social constructionists – tendencies to which they are more easily attuned to carry out.
Biology does not insure destiny, but it sure makes it easier.
That the data is not there does not disprove anything just as the lack of data or information that disproves the irreducible complexity of the eyeball does not disprove the theory of natural selection.
so, i normally don’t like playing ‘count the fallacies’ but it’s worth pointing out that on the last page alone, gl piggy has employed ad populam, burden shifting, and appeals to authority. and now apparently he’s playing ‘absence of evidence of is not evidence of absence’. and apparently he doesn’t get the difference between falsifiable and non-falsifiable theories. what’s next, appeals to nature?
Men and women have different natures, or – since that’s such a scary word for the social constructionists – tendencies to which they are more easily attuned to carry out.
…
…
welp.
Wait, so it’s completely permissible to make random, unprovable assertions because “I don’t think you can come up with enough data?”
And the irreducible complexity of the eyeball is, in fact, disprovable. That posits that the eyeball is too perfect and complete in it’s current form to have evolved, and thus did not. However, that posits the theory that one cannot find a valid evolutionary path to the eye. This is not the case, as we can find many structures of proto-eyes that contain features of the current eye, such as many iterations of the main protein Rhodopsin.
Ami:
the role of sex as the base motivating factor of organisms mixed with the dimorphic differences between the male and female sex leads to behavioral differences. it seems that feminists believe in evolution when it suits their political purpose of overturning the so-called patriarchal Judeo-Christian tradition, but they drop the pretense whenever it butts up against their biological beliefs.
the expressions of these differences can be muted and wrung out of the population, but this takes an active effort i.e. indoctrination.
to tie this all back in to the original discussion: women’s sexuality is highly valued for biological reasons (holdovers that predate birth control). women prefer to expend that resource in the most efficient manner i.e. when the man appears to have good genes or high provision potential. since those men are equipped to take on more than one partner, this leaves more men than women left high and dry.
hey gl piggy i know you dont stop to read posts that arent about you you you, but right above your latest fact free screed we were discussing a work by a stanford evolutionary biologist (it’s a lay work, yes, but her theories have also been published in Science) arguing that the importance of binary differences between the sexes to evolution has been dramatically overvalued) so im not sure why you’re sitting here stamping your feet screaming ‘you have to accept my version of events because its FAAAACT’
ps: throwing around sciencey-sounding jargon doesn’t make you sound smart, it just makes you sound insecure
“But you keep asking for data, data, data to prove many of these assertions. I’d argue that neither side could come up with enough definitive data to disprove the other. ”
ATTENTION MRA NINJA ASSASSINS: GUCCI LITTLE PIGGY HAS MET HIS FALSE EQUIVALENCE QUOTA. YOU DO NOT NEED TO EXECUTE HIM.
Have we not danced this dance enough yet? What few claims have been made by us have been very weak, and substantiated by evidence that at least meets the strength of those claims (That is to say, weak evidence). You’ve made a number of very strong claims, and you can’t fucking substantiate them AT ALL. We’re not the same.
“That the data is not there does not disprove anything just as the lack of data or information that disproves the irreducible complexity of the eyeball does not disprove the theory of natural selection. ”
Putting aside that the claims of irreducible complexity were disproven, the theory of evolution by natural selection *has been substantiated repeatedly*. I’m pretty sure there are, and I am not exaggerating, more than million papers that each help establish its accuracy; the theory has predictive power, and using it has provided successful, ACCURATE predictions. That’s a lot different than the theory you’ve provided. The burden of proof is not on me to until you actually substantiate your claims. That’s how science works. I don’t have to treat something as worth disproving until there’s evidence for it.
sharculese:
whatever you say.
Also, GL piggy has completely missed my link above to a piece which quite soundly bashed sexual strategy theory (the theory that women are inherently more selective along economic and genetic lines). And continues to posit it as fact. While whining that we don’t listen to evidence.
it is the social constructionist whose weightiest argument against evo psych is that it can’t be true because that would imply that discrimination and objectification have some basis in biology. but arguing that something can’t be true because it might imply an ugly outcome doesn’t prove that the initial argument was incorrect. again, an argument without an argument.
While whining that we don’t listen to evidence.
he seriously just stick his fingers in his ear and told me he can’t hear me. it would be precious if it weren’t in defense of something so toxic
it is the social constructionist whose weightiest argument against evo psych is that it can’t be true because that would imply that discrimination and objectification have some basis in biology.
The weightiest argument about evopsych is that it generally makes totally untestable claims that only work to reinforce the prejudices of those making them (and the pseudoscience junkies who rely on using SCIENCE as a bludgeon to enforce their retrograde worldview) but keep telling yourself fairytales, i guess?
No, GL Piggy. Evopsyche makes a claim: behaviors are governed by evolution. That claim needs to be substantiated, and has not. Not even your article even tries to substantiate it! It says, quite clearly, “some aspects of the theory remain essentially untested“, and offers no new data of it’s own. One does not need to disprove a theory until evidence has been posited, i.e. the theory has been tested! Scientists do not go around all day having to prove that little demons aren’t playing tennis with atoms. Unsubstantiated claims are useless until substantiated.
Also, Sharculese has mostly covered it but I want to be a little more explicit:
Evopsych has made a specific, unverified claim that it proposes is not only how the world works, but how it should. It posits that sexual interactions should be judged based on a market worth model. Heck, your paper even expresses confusion that people don’t like and always accept this model. Social constructionists strongest attack is not “this is bad and thus wrong”, but “this leads to a damaging social model that reduces over half of the world’s population to cows who’s worth is measured by the tightness of their vaginas.” In the absence of evidence to this claim, evopsych is yet saying that women should accept second class status because of this.
GL Piggy, what I find funny is that you take from evo-psych everything that prove you are right and reject everything else. There was an article in Slate a few months citing Baumeister saying that sex is cheap and young men have the upper hand in bed, even when they’re failing in life because since women are independent, don’t need high-status men anymore and have sex with everybody, including slackers. the article conclude by saying : “Societies in which women have lots of autonomy and authority tend to be decidedly male-friendly, relaxed, tolerant, and plenty sexy.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2286240/pagenum/all/
Evo-psych just shows that MRAs are a bunch of whiny losers. 🙂