This is a bit of a rant inspired by some of the discussions of my recent post on Susan Walsh.
Let’s say you’re a young, horny, lonely heterosexual guy. You’re walking to the store to buy some, I dunno, pretzels, and you see the woman of your dreams walking arm in arm with some hideous toad of a man. You say to yourself: how is it that a nice guy like me can’t find any girl who will return my phone calls, while ugly boy here seems to have won the girlfriend jackpot? If you’re Joe Jackson, you write a song about it:
Pretty women out walking with gorillas down my street
From my window I’m staring while my coffee grows cold
Look over there! (Where?)
There’s a lady that I used to know
She’s married now or engaged or something so I’m told
Is she really going out with him?
Is she really gonna take him home tonight?
Is she really going out with him?
‘Cause if my eyes don’t deceive me,
There’s something going wrong around here
A lot about the world seems desperately wrong when you’re young, horny and alone. But maybe in this case there is something that you’re missing. Maybe the ugly dude is charming as fuck. Maybe he’s a brilliant thinker. Maybe he’s awesome in bed. Maybe she’s shallow and materialistic, and she likes him just because he’s rich. Or maybe there’s nothing redeeming about the guy – intellectually, sexually or financially — and the woman in question simply has horrendous taste in men. It could be any of these things.
But here’s the thing: no matter how wounded you feel, whom this woman goes out with is really none of your business. She doesn’t have to have a good reason to be going out with him. It’s not your call. The world doesn’t owe you a hot girlfriend, and this particular woman has the inalienable right to go out with whoever she chooses, even if you personally feel ill at the thought of them doing it. Women you find attractive aren’t obliged to date men you think are appropriate for them.
A lot of guys in the manosphere seem to have hung on to this young-man’s anger and sexual jealousy. But instead of somehow turning their resentment into a catchy song, and then moving away from the rock world to a more jazz-inflected sound, these men cultivate their resentments. And talk about them endlessly.
Soon they’ve developed the uncanny ability to demonize any woman who makes any romantic choice – other than picking them. If a “hot” women is dating an ugly dude, well,
He must be rich! All women are filthy golddigging whores! She’d never give a decent, hardworking beta like me a second look!
If the same woman is dating a conventionally handsome man, the reaction can be just as strong:
She’s a shallow bitch! They always go for the alphas! She’d never give a decent, hardworking beta like me a second look!
Weirdly, a lot of manosphere dudes also get angry about the sexual and romantic choices of women they aren’t interested in at all. If a woman they don’t think is all that hot is with a conventionally handsome man, it’s still the woman to blame:
Ha! She’s punching above her weight class, looks-wise. I guess any bitch can get laid, while a hard-working beta like me doesn’t even rate a second look. But eventually he’ll dump her and I will laugh and laugh. Live it up now, bitch, because you’re going to end up alone with a bunch of cats!
This is the thing that’s weirdest to me. Getting worked up about a woman you like who’s dating a loser? I can understand that. I did that, a lot, in my twenties. But quite a few manosphere dudes – and women like Susan Walsh who are manosphere-adjacent – seem somehow deeply affronted by the notion that any women could hook up with a man either lower or higher on that universal 10-point hotness scale so beloved by PUAs and other manosphere dudes.
Walsh speaks of “equilibrium” in the “sexual marketplace” (or SMP as she and her fans like to abbreviate it), and seems to consider any deviation from it to be a moral failing – of the women involved. (The slut-shaming is strong with this one.) Her idea of “equilibrium,” as I mentioned in my last post on her, is one in which fives date fives, tens date tens, and female sixes and sevens know better than to try to get the attention of male eights and nines by wearing low-cut dresses and “slutting it up.”
But here’s the thing. If you’re going to try to mix economic terminology into your dating advice, it helps to actually know what the terms mean. Market equilibrium, as Wikipedia handily summarizes it,
refers to a condition where a market price is established through competition such that the amount of goods or services sought by buyers is equal to the amount of goods or services produced by sellers. This price is often called the equilibrium price or market clearing price and will tend not to change unless demand or supply change.
Guess what? Insofar as the dating world is a marketplace, it’s already at equilibrium. Potential daters size up their prospects, and make a guess as to who is and who isn’t “in their league.” Those who are aiming too high (setting their price too high) and not hooking up with anyone (selling themselves) may end up lowering their standards (lowering their price) to make a sale (get laid). Some products (people) appeal to a wide demographic; others to a nice market. Some have better marketing then others. Some products look good at first glance, but turn out to need a lot of repairs. All this is mighty familiar to students of economics. This is how markets work.
Of course, the dating world is even more complicated and messy than economic marketplaces. But in a lot of ways it really does act like one.
The interesting thing here is that Walsh and her followers aren’t thinking like capitalists at all. Essentially, they’ve decided that they know better than the SMP they so love to talk about, that their imaginary 10-point scale should predict who chooses whom better than those who are actually doing the choosing. That’s not capitalism; that’s a Soviet style command economy. It’s not the way marketplaces work, and it’s not the way the dating world works.
Guys: if no one is buying what you’re selling, you could try to change what you’re selling so that it appeals to buyers more. Or if you are confident in your product you can simply wait until a more discerning buyer shows up.
Or you could sit by yourself stewing in your own bitterness and blaming everything on the bitches. Much like the jealous narrator of David Bowie’s classic Queen Bitch, only much less sexually ambiguous. And, frankly, much less appealing. In this song, Bowie manages to make sexual resentment somehow glamorous.
I would like to apologize for talking about this song and bitter manosphere dudes in the same sentence. But I’m still posting the video. This is Bowie, in 1972, performing it live, and fucking killing it:
You can already put your penis in something.
Whether you can share your penis with another human being has a lot more to do with how you treat them than with whether you have a guitar.
And also, whether you want to. Because when someone shares themself with you, you inevitably share back. You… well, you don’t always sound like you’re ready for that.
@kariface — Agreed! He’s too, I dunno, square-jawed and blonde and corn-fed or something. (But if MRAs were always whinging about how all the ladies love John Cho or Donald Glover, for example… then I would have nothing to say in my defense. Om nom nom!)
MRAL, once you succeed in your quest to ‘put your penis in something’, then what? What will be different from how things are for you now?
Well, full disclosure, I liked Brad Pitt pretty well in Fight Club. But I think that was just spillover lust from all the excellent homoerotic sexual tension in that movie. ^^
Or as NWO advises, you can stay as you are and continue to be miserable, lonely, angry and depressed. Your choice 🙂
There’s an option that I don’t think everyone has considered.
Not everyone “deserves” to have a “mate”, to the extent that one doesn’t “deserve” romantic access to an individual that finds them repellent.
There is no inalienable right to sexual companionship. No one, man or woman, has a duty to adjust their standards. Where the hell did anyone get the silly idea that they have a right to happiness, even? Nobody has a right to be happy. Nobody has a duty to change for you.
To say “deserves” is a gross simplification, but if nobody likes you then you don’t deserve companionship.
Wait wait. Who’s having sex with a guitar now? Ouch.
Totally parsed this as “blackberry tablet” being a kind of cologne.
Oh man, I did too.
Sooo …
I feel like I have some good advice for Mr. Al, but that he would dismiss it if I gave it. See, in the last few days I’ve been super popular for some reason. Usually at work, which is IMO the WORST PLACE EVER to hit on someone. And by that I mean, a customer hitting on an employee (although the reverse is bad too). The guy wasn’t terribly creepy (borderline), but was full-on SAD in his hitting-onniness. Also, I have shit I have to do … LEAVE ME ALONE. He stood there a good 20 minutes, talking about my looks, asking personal questions, and telling me what I should do with my life. It was obnoxious.
Anyway, then a couple of days later a guy at the supermarket sees me wearing a shirt for a uni and it turns out he went there too (and it’s thousands of miles away, so that’s why he commented on it). We had a pleasant little chat, shook hands, and walked away. That was it. It was such a pleasant exchange, not creepy at all.
Male/female interactions don’t have to have a purpose and don’t have to be creepy. Supermarket Guy (both guys gave me their names, but we’ll just leave it at that) found a thing we had in common, we talked about it, and that was it. I came away with good feelings even though I felt like shit (been feeling like shit all day, unfortunately). If he’d tried to give his email or anything like that, I would have at least felt receptive to it. It doesn’t have to do with appearance (Supermarket Guy was bald and I would say he was only slightly more attractive than Work Guy, maybe because Work Guy always had this stupid grin on his face–NEITHER of them was Brad Pitt). It has to do with what they say, how they act, and the context of the situation.
(Seriously, just … do not hit on people who are working. Most of the time the only reason they aren’t telling you to go get stuffed is because they can’t.)
Where the hell did anyone get the silly idea that they have a right to happiness, even?
Probably a misinterpretation of that whole “pursuit of happiness” thing.
Like my second amendment right to keep and arm bears.
[quote]Hang out on blogs less and in the real world more (no digs at the other people here–we don’t have hopeless love lives).[/quote]
Alternatively, stop expecting a woman to fall into your lap if you do nothing but complain about women. You’re not the Unlucky Everydude in a romantic comedy.
I don’t really care if you choose to put some effort into attracting a girlfriend or not (And it’s always work when you’re specifically going out advertising in hopes of getting a return. This is not a matter of ‘men do all the work’, unless you think makeup applies itself, very nice clothes take care of themselves, a figure is always self sustaining…), but it’s perfectly valid to choose not to and not have someone to date. I did it for years, and I have friends who continue to do so.
“And once and for all–STOP USING THE GREEK SYSTEM! IT DOESN’T REALLY EXIST!”
now that’s just silly, the system exists, it’s just bullshit that isn’t borne out by reality.
😀 😀 😀
“Like my second amendment right to keep and arm bears.”
I will end you. To protect AMERICA.
“Also, I saved up and bought a guitar, and maybe that will help me put my penis in something.”
If it was just about “putting your penis in something,” you shouldn’t have spent the money on the guitar. You could have gotten a prostitute.
Do you know why people are groupies? It’s because rock stars have confidence when they’re onstage. If you take a look at most classic rock stars (the ones that are famous for having a ton of groupies), most of them weren’t conventionally attractive. They use their music to connect to people and that’s what relationships are about, connecting and making yourself vulnerable.
I also agree that Brad Pitt is overrated. I thought Edward Norton was much sexier in Fight Club. I also have a thing for Rick Moranis, Bill Murray, and when he was alive, Chris Farley. None of those guys look like underwear models, but they all have the appeal of being funny and affable. If I were single, I would probably be willing to date the shirtless guy from the picture at the top, if he was smart and fun to be around.
MRAL, I think it’s great you’re seeing a therapist. I didn’t realize that, because I haven’t had Internet access, or even a home, for two months. Hopefully the therapist can help you stop being so paranoid. I really doubt women are making fun of you behind your back. Any women that are aren’t worth caring about. Whenever I’m in bathrooms chatting with my friends, we’re usually just touching up our makeup and talking about what a good time we’re having. My friends are not the type of women to make fun of other people, especially not for the way they look.
Sending hugs to Ami.
MRAL, a woman is not “something.” A woman is someONE. In aspiring to have sex with a woman, you hope to put your penis in a person. Part of your problem–a friggin’ huge part–is that you keep denying the personhood of women and think of them as some cosmic vending machine. Instead of figuring out how to interact with people, you’re trying to scrounge up the right change. It doesn’t work like that.
Yeah, if you want some-thing to put your dick in, you should invest in a fleshlight.
I think Brad Pitt was pretty hot in his prime *shrug*. There were loads of other actors I’d do first tho. Also now he’s way old for me, and I don’t see him as a sexy older guy like Alan Rickman or something.
By all means, listen to NWO. You too can be a bitter, hateful, friendless 50 year old man who hates his job, hates his life, and imagines that 14 year old girls at the beach are coming on to him. Misery does, indeed, love company.
Or you can notice that what everyone is saying, is don’t change yourself because you think you’ll be able to “…stick your dick into something…” Work on liking yourself. If you like you, there’s a far greater chance that someone else will like you too.
And that doesn’t have anything to do with gender.
“Note the recuring theme, make yourself more attractive and feel good about yourself. Because it’s all about you. Not so much on changing your personality to please a man is there? Oh no, no, noooooo! No woman should ever change for a man. You whinney and moan about a few beauty aids. Never have I heard what women are prepared to give or sacrifice for a man. But ya sure demand men give and sacrifice.”
Yay! You give the best advice, NWO. I take it that’s a no on the pickle thing, then. Duly noted.
Let’s assume I’m already attractive, and all I have to work on is my tendency to whinney and kick the stable boys. Moving on to personality!
How can I please a man, NWO?
What do you think I ought to sacrifice for a man? What part of my personality ought to change? Should I change myself for a specific man, or just for men in general? What if I’ve got some traits that are appealing to some men and unappealing to others – do I flip a coin? Do I go by the national averages? Do I have to tally up their sexual histories and date the ones who had less girlfriends?
What if I can get into a relationship without sacrificing? Is that okay, or should I just pick something random to sacrifice as a token? Is there a scale of boyfriend quality vs amount of sacrifice necessary? Am I sacrificing to him or the God of Getting Me A Boyfriend? Can I use my vanity as an altar? Should the sacrificing schedule be monthly, or does it fall on important holidays? Do I have to give up pickles?
There is no man, woman, creature or thing anywhere, in any universe, who is worth giving up pickles for.
Nice songs, but why leave this one out?
What is it with these guys who insist that “alphas get all the ass”? That has not been my experience at all. From what I’ve seen, jocky frat boys spend most of their time trying to “con” or sweet talk somewhat impressionable, somewhat insecure conventionally “cute” (not even beautiful, really, but decently put together and average looking with fake tan and super straightened hair) teenage girls into having a sloppy, dissatisfying, drunken one-night stand with them. This behavior does not, to most women, smack of debonair machismo and sexual skillzzz. It just seems immature and kind of lame. They do have some success, but it’s with a very small circle of stereotypical cheerleader/girl nextdoor types. And it tends to last about as long as college does.
Besides, the guys I’ve known who get the most ass (in terms of frequency and variety) are all “artsy” types; DJs, musicians, painters, etc. Not exactly big burly ruby-playing he-men. Guys with talent who are outgoing or at least have a passionate interest in something beyond getting laid, who don’t reek of desperation, get laid more easily with more different types of women than any jock I’ve ever met. My brother was a jocky frat boy, and he and most of his friends are already married and settled down at 25, while my bohemian friends are by and large still out getting laid left and right. I think being a traditionalist when it comes to gender norms and female sexual purity is more likely to be a strike against you in the dating game than anything. Most jocks suffer from their extreme conservatism in this regard.
I think the main obstacle for people like MRAL is that their expectations are skewed by stuff they’ve seen on TV and in the mainstream media. They’ve built their Alpha He-man fantasy on top of quicksand, if you look at the numbers, though. The average woman has sex with 3-5 different people in her lifetime. The stats for men vary widely, but if you take the average of the widely available stats, men in an average lifetime sleep with, drum roll, somewhere around 6 women. Even if you assume a lot of people are batting 0, and some women are having a lot more sex than others, that means *most* people are not all that promiscuous- despite the impression we get from popular media. If you’re 25 and still haven’t gotten lucky yet, you’re probably not as alone as you think you are.
The other problem is that MRAs take evolutionary psychology as a kind of foundational, gospel truth, when it’s actually one of the most speculative, wishy-washy, least rigorous biological sub-disciplines. But that’s another post altogether…
Whether MRA man or not, you cannot rely on a woman or (I guess the same could be said about a woman and a man) to make you happy. These guys whether “alpha” “beta” judging each other based on which kind of female they are with is a sign they are not at peace with themselves. These guys depicted seem to have a need for female approval and society approval (like the stereotypical “Trophy wife). Until all men learn to go inward and be at solitude and peace with themselves alone -then they will never be at peace and judging each other by what females they are with. If men learn to be at peace alone and not depend on a women to “fix them”. or make them look good in public or use them for whatever, the men will be much better healthier partners in their relationships with women. The dating world has become much more superficial and judgmental these days. People still rely on someone to fix them make them happy. Until one is happy with oneself alone in solitude you can never truly be happy with someone else.
That I abs agree w/.. MRAL, if you’re not happy w/ who you are, you’re not gonna be happy w/ a hotter g/f or a nicer car, or a bigger house, or etc etc : They won’t solve your problems and make your life wonderful.. and esp since a g/f is an actual human being, it’s unfair to expect a person to do that too :
Holy shit, Samuel said something that made sense.
I mean, yeah, it has a sort of nasty subtext, but still.
As long as this is primarily just an MRAL attention thread, I must do something that should really be ignored by everyone everywhere forever, and that I should never do but…
SQUEE Shaenon Garrity posts on a site I do. I loved Narbonic so much 😀 😀 😀
@summer-snow
“How can I please a man, NWO?
What do you think I ought to sacrifice for a man? What part of my personality ought to change? Should I change myself for a specific man, or just for men in general? What if I’ve got some traits that are appealing to some men and unappealing to others – do I flip a coin? Do I go by the national averages? Do I have to tally up their sexual histories and date the ones who had less girlfriends?”
My guess is you can’t be anything like the know it all bitch you come off as on manboobz. But my advice for starters would be to deny any association with feminism, I mean no man wants to be despised for being a man. Second if you talk anything like you’ve typed here I’d say shutting up on occasion would do a world of good. Lets put it this way, what do you offer? I mean really, allowing a man to bask in the greatness you’ve been indocrinated to believe all women are, isn’t really offering much.
So basically, this is advice on how to get NWO xD
I find it funny that NWO complains about all this stuff about feminism and women all the time but it rly applies to him xD Like how women are all bad and men are all good to him xD (women = bad, men = good) or how he’s always the eternal victim in any encounter w/ a woman he’s ever had xD And now “what do women have to offer me on a date”? xD
Like he goes on and on about how women see men only for what they have to offer, but it turns out actually… that’s how he sees women xD
I’d love to know what advice NWO has for me to improve but I’m pretty sure it’s “jump off a cliff and die” xD