When is a slut not a slut? When he’s a dude. So says the (He)artist(e) formerly known as Roissy, in yet another post of his trying to prove that his brand of Pick-Up Assholery is fully proven by SCIENCE!
His evidence in this case? A recent study of speed dating that showed that (straight) women, in addition to being attracted to attractive men (duh!), also seem to be attracted to men with high “sociosexuality” ratings. “Sociosexuality,” for those not fully immersed in the SCIENCE!! of dating, is basically someone’s propensity for casual sex.
In other words, the study found that guys who do a lot of casual dating tended to do better at casual dating.
Heartiste/Roissy puts it this way:
Men who have high sociosexuality (HSS) are more attractive to women because the suite of characteristics associated with HSS suggest prior experience bedding women and possession of mating skills that attract women.
It’s akin to a form of preselection for men, minus the actual women he’s banging being physically present at his side to aid in the alpha judging process that all women, consciously or not, impose on their suitors.
In a very loose sense, high male sociosexuality is male sluttiness.
If you strip out the PUA nonsense about the “alpha judging process,” all this seems fairly self-evident, if not simply tautological. Guys who’ve been with a lot of women will probably do better with women in the future than guys with no experience who view women as strange alien creatures. (Note: In all this, we’re only talking about straight people; PUAs don’t seem aware that gay people exist, outside of their own fantasies of hot bi girl threesomes.)
It’s at this point that Heartiste/Roissy amps up the assholery:
Male sluttiness is not equivalent to female sluttiness. It is more difficult for a man to be slutty that it is for a woman owing to the discrepancy in worth between sperm and egg, so people justifiably perceive male sluts to have higher quality mate value, and higher quality mating skills, than female sluts for whom the act of sexual conquest is merely synonym for being easy.
In other words, it’s bad to be a female slut, but great to be a male slut:
[T]he study results confirm the validity of game when its conclusions find that male sociosexuality is a relatively powerful predictor of attractiveness to women, even to women looking for long-term relationships.
Not only can this SCIENCE!! of game help to get dudes laid – it can basically save the world from evil fat chicks.
It’s vital to readers to get this scientific information validating game out there, because there are a lot of doubters and haters who are blinded by what they won’t see. Sometimes, men need to know that there is an experimental foundation supporting all these seduction techniques and peculiarities of female behavior. It’s not necessary to know this stuff to start gaming chicks out in the field right now, but for men with a cynical bent or shy disposition, it helps to know that there are rules that govern human interaction. It may be the boost they need.
Turning former nerds into wily lotharios will help to put those uppity female sluts in their place:
[A] moment of candor. This blog is first and foremost a source of self-amusement, but it is also a true and real desire to teach and to see men succeed sexually and emotionally with women. Men who become better at attracting women increase their options in the mating market. Men with increased options cause women to behave better. Women behaving better redounds to the benefit of families, and to society.
And by “behave better”, I mean the whole panoply of awful modern female behavior: cheating, cock carouseling, divorcing on a whim, eat pray loving, straycationing, spinstering, attention whoring, voting and fattening up into repulsive dirigibles.
Yep, he did slyly insert “voting” into all that. Sneaky!
So slut it up, fellas! It’s the only way to put those evil lady sluts in their place. And, thereby, save the world from sex-having, vote-casting slatterns.
Is the cock carousel anywhere near the pussy fountain?
It’s too bad about birth control. It makes the sperm/egg supply thing completely meaningless, so guys have to just imagine women lose some sort of intangible magic attribute when they have too much sex.
“She had sex with a dude and now she’s not pregnant and has no diseases! But she’s worth less because… because… because her points went down! Yeah!”
Lulz.
The Fuck? Ain’t that usually confined to the people who are ‘warpigs’ in your cant anyway? Ain’t that exactly what you want?
http://www.americanobesity.org/downloads/Obesity_epidemic_USA_By_DR_Wang_JohnHopikens.pdf
Just kidding, I know he means it’s only repulsive when women do it, not that it’s primarily women who do it. Well, that’s what he means now, anyway 😀
Why do I get the feeling that Roissy thinks ANY study can be twisted, distorted and stretched in such a way that it seems like it supports him?
Also, just the math of this gets to me.
Assuming everyone is heterosexual (and you can’t even begin to speak Roissy’s language unless you do that), the only way men are going to all get laid with multiple women is if women have sex with multiple men! That’s not feminism, that’s not ethics, that’s logic.
(I guess technically you could have just a few women having sex with like a thousand men apiece? But PUAs definitely don’t want that.)
If women jealously guard their purity and men have a conquest a night, you’re going to end up with a whole lot of men left out completely. Who the hell does that benefit?
I suppose the word “conquest” explains it. If a woman is a prize to be won, then winning a very rarely awarded prize is a higher honor than winning a prize she’s given out to thirty guys so far.
It’s too bad this “prize” has to be connected to sex, though, because sex is fun and it feels good for a lot of women, and there’s a lot of different reasons someone might have more or fewer partners. Maybe we could each keep a stock of only two or three gold medals and use those instead. “Never mind how many people I’ve slept with; you’re the first ever to get the medal! Yay you! Go show it off to your buddies! YOU WIN!”
(I still don’t know what’s in this medal system for us, but at least we get to have whatever sex life we want.)
It is more difficult for a man to be slutty that it is for a woman owing to the discrepancy in worth between sperm and egg…
Or it could have something to do assholes, such as yourself Mr. “Heartiste”, perpetuating gender stereotypes with your pseudo-scientific brain diarrhea.
They already did, you just needed him to explain it to your girlbrain.
The dude who sells the books that supposedly tell men how to be in the minority of men getting a conquest a night.
Putting aside that I don’t believe roissy for two seconds, and he’s a hilariously unattractive git (Not the least of which for denying my girlfriend exists), I have a useful quote from Dogbert for this situation. “Beware the advice of successful people. They do not seek company.”
I mean Roissy explicitly does not…
Oh, just noticed something else, regarding Holly’s thought: That minority gets even smaller when you toss out everyone that isn’t hot.
Holly: Bingo. Alpha males get laid, beta males are celibate (and contemptible). And also the sperm/egg thing is presumed to have arisen in the hunter-gatherer environment in which there were totally enough women for men to slut around and not abandon their children and also culture doesn’t exist because shut up that’s why.
Bah, feminists! Your logical points of contention are no match for SCIENCE!
But it is science.
WELL I’M SCIENCIER.
Personally, I prefer the term “sciency”.
Conquests? What am I, a foreign country or something? Dear FSM, is that ever disturbing and dehumanizing. The only time I’m possibly a “conquest” is if I lose a takedown scene.
Getting better at dating means you are better at dating, which means more dates. This proves Game will SAVE THE WORLD.
Also, the lack of the Oxford comma at the end of his climactic list seems to suggest that voting fattens us females up. So for all you gainers out there, get to the polls! (or poles, if you’re voting before or after getting on the cock carousel)
Interesting unmentioned bit in whatever survey-based shit study this is taken from: does it mention if women who date regularly get better at dating? If so, does that mean as men get better at dating so will women, and hence the stalemate in the war of the (straight) sexes will continue ad infinitum until it devolves into one mass orgy of frustration?
One last thing: “Men who become better at attracting women increase their options in the mating market.”
But Game isn’t about attracting women, it’s about tricking inscrutable females. All Game does is give manipulators a device with which to find and manipulate manipulatable women. It’s the same ‘game’ that con men and marks have been playing since the dawn of ever. It relies on a large pool of manipulatable women, which isn’t as large as the con men would like due to voting and equal rights and confidence and such.
It’s not that better Game = more manipulatable women. It’s that taking away voting rights, undermining confidence, refusing to educate, and abusing women creates more manipulatable women. And that’s what these MRAs are really all about, because opinionated, confident, educated, and healthy women will have nothing the fuck to do with them.
Wait, how will PUAs slutting around lead to fewer “spinsters”? If the PUAs are dedicated to not getting married, won’t that lead to more women staying single? That’s fine with me; I just don’t see a connection.
And “Eat Pray Love” is about a single woman going on an international vacation. How will PUAs slutting around interfere with women’s vacation plans?
(I’m kidding, of course. I’m pretty sure that, as with “Sex and the City,” MRAs have no idea what “Eat Pray Love” is about except that it involves women having fun without them.)
My favorite is “scienterrific!”
Roissy just needs “science” to back up his sad, sad, life.
So game and male sexual activity is supposed to fix the evils of spinsterhood? Are they going by the old definition of older than eighteen and unmarried(no civil or religious ceremony)? By that definition, I’m well into my spinsterhood.
Quite frankly, game and the type of male sexuality they promote are sufficient reasons for me to stay a spinster, among the many others PUAs are bound by character to offer.
And to keep going on about sperm and eggs in the age of birth control is just ridiculous. Maybe they refuse to give it up because doing so would undermine the theory of male disposability?
Methinks Roissy needs to take another look at his whole “men are justifiably slutty” thing…
The common argument is that, in the past, males who passed their genes around to more females were therefore more successful. Ok, sure. But now lets look at today’s world; a world where it is socially acceptable to only be married to one person (and harems are considered cultish), a world where more children means more responsibilities for education, food, clothing, etc.
In this world, this world of contraception (as Holly pointed out), sperm and egg don’t matter anymore. What matters is the kid/s that result, and having a whole bunch of kids is actually a huge detriment (unless you are a fundamentalist of sorts).
All this talk about mating and alphas and so forth makes me think that Roissy and his kin really want to live 50,000 years in the past, not 50.
Well, Kirby, they probably would be happier if they could just bash women over the heads and drag them back to their caves.
Yes, sperm is worthless really because it is a constantly self renewing cell. Eggs have a finite amount per ovary. So naturally eggs are much more valuable.
Oh wait, somehow sperm is? Um….
“Bah, feminists! Your logical points of contention are no match for SCIENCE!
But it is science.
WELL I’M SCIENCIER.”
Best laugh I’ve had all week. And I’ve had several from here.
Ok I’m confused.
“It is more difficult for a man to be slutty that it is for a woman owing to the discrepancy in worth between sperm and egg”
is *exactly the opposite* of what I think I learned in school.
Eggs are high initial input value. Spend them wisely. Egg-havers are choosy in their mates.
Sperms are low initial input value. Spend them like the wild oats they are. Sperm-havers favour quantity over quality.
Or maybe I just need another coffee. Or a MRA Bullshit-to-Logical Thinking dictionary.
Eeveerrry sprem is saaacred! Eevry sperm is goood!
Come on, sing along. Maybe if we sing loud enough MRAs will feel a little more positive about themselves.
Really, if sperm is so worthless, what’s the point in trying to spread it around? Last I checked, the only sperm or ova that were worth something were the ones that produced live children. And then the only children worth something were the ones that survived to reproduce, in evolutionary terms. So what does that say really about natures views?
@hellkell:
Isn’t that what Game is all about? 😛 They just use words and lies instead of clubs. The caves are still there though…
Another thing I just had to point out, like a couple others already have:
” I mean the whole panoply of awful modern female behavior: cheating, cock carouseling, divorcing on a whim, eat pray loving, straycationing, spinstering, attention whoring, voting and fattening up into repulsive dirigibles.”
These are supposedly the things that would go away if men were able to sleep with any woman they wanted. The mind boggles as to how this is supposed to work…
Cheating: your male partner can sleep with whomever he wants, and will if you don’t stay true only to him. Why stay with that guy?
Cock Carouseling: This carousel needs cocks to ride on, doesn’t it? Methinks it is those men who have options.
Divorcing on a whim: No marriage, no divorce I guess…
Eat pray loving: I’m gonna guess this is about the same as cock carouseling, in which case see above.
Straycationing: Women will stop keeping cats if men sleep around more? Er…
Spinstering: Unless Roissy wants men to start up big harems, (and why would they if they can sleep with whomever they want?), “spinsters” (unmarried women) would increase due to less men marrying.
Attention whoring: More men sleeping around means women would have to do more to get a man to sleep with her. Even in Roissy’s World (a show I would never watch) this wouldn’t work.
Voting: Women will stop voting if men sleep around more? Er…
Fattening up into repulsiohscrewitalready Roissy is finally off the deep end.
It works like this. Men can’t be sluts because nature geared them with an impossibly bar to reach promiscuity. You can’t blame men for being sluts when that’s apparently what God and nature wanted. Women are easily sluts, because all her time is supposed to go to whoever got her pregnant, to ensure the resulting child is provided for. Because, as we all know, women can’t keep gardens, or domesticate animals or forage for food and water. All those women and girls to old or too young to bear children are completely incapable of lending a hand, because they don’t exist.
And of course, every woman of childbearing age must be perpetually pregnant.