Susan Walsh, the slut-shaming, chart-making dating guru behind Hooking Up Smart, has made yet another chart! This time, it’s a flowchart attempting to diagram “the anatomy of a hookup.” While not quite as impressively incoherent as her infamous flowchart trying to explain the dire economic costs of sluttery, or as plainly incorrect as her diagram purporting to show that hot dudes get all the sex, this one is impressively daft nonetheless. I suggest you click here to see it full-size.
Well, I’ve followed all the various little arrows around on the chart, and as far as I can tell, her point is that if you have sex with someone, this may not result in true love for all time. There’s a shock. In other words, all these little boxes and arrows are intended to draw our attention to the fact that, as Cliff Pervocracy has put it, “every relationship does either end or continue. I salute your tautological genius.”
The other thing to notice about Walsh’s chart is that she apparently can’t conceive that people can remain friends, or even become friends, after sex. As Walsh loves to remind her female readers, having sex with someone doesn’t automatically make them fall in love with you. But it doesn’t make them automatically hate you or want to have nothing to do with you either.
So I present to you a somewhat more simplified hookup flow chart, which nonetheless manages to cover the possibility that people who hook up with one another can sometimes become friends afterwards.
Super Obvious Note: All friendships and relationships may at some point come to an end, or change into something else.
Despite the clear flaws of Walsh’s chart – it’s a strange mixture of obviousness and obliviousness — many of Walsh’s readers hailed it as a work of genius. One anonymous commenter wrote:
I don’t think there has ever been a better visual representation for the hookup that shows its futility from the woman’s point of view.
Sassy6519 agreed:
That diagram looks as pleasant as trying to cross a minefield.
And that, of course, is the real message Walsh is trying to get across with her (probably deliberately) muddled chart: hookups are scary!
As Walsh put it in a comment:
The point of the chart is really to highlight the odds of getting to dating via a hookup. Studies say 12% of the time. All those yellow and red boxes are just a visual representation of those odds.
Of course, in Wash’s vision, not “getting to dating” is apparently as bad for women as getting an STD, or finding out the guy you’re fucking is a feminist, or something.
Ian Ironwood agreed with her analysis, more or less, but urged his fellow dudes to exploit the situation for their own advantage:
Men are starting to learn their own value in the dating world. They’re beginning to learn Game and use women’s desire for a relationship as leverage. And that means that they’re raising their expectations (which sucks for feminists, who are constantly trying to lower women’s expectations of themselves while raising it for men) and getting a lot more canny about just who they want to spend their lives with.
Men are, indeed, the keepers of commitment. It’s the masculine equivalent of our “virtue”, our ability and willingness to ally ourselves with one woman (or just a few). Those fellas in the Puerarchy who are still hooking up like mad, y’all are the rest of that leverage. With Game-savvy PUAs pumpin’ & dumpin’ like it’s on sale, they provide a bleak alternative to pursuing commitment with a quality dude, which means his value as a high-status male goes up with his willingness to commit. But that also means his expectations of his future bride go up as well.
Guys, recognize your value to women, and use it to your advantage. Remember, a woman in a crappy relationship enjoys higher status in the Matrix than a woman without a relationship, all things being equal. They crave the validation they get from their female peers in the Matrix more than they even crave the romantic connection. That provides a tremendous amount of leverage for the dude who understands that.
Other dudes, nonetheless, still feel that women are too icky to deal with. Herb put it this way:
[I]f there is one lesson Game types and MRA should be pushing it is this:
“A man needs to be ridden by a woman as much as a bicycle needs to be ridden by a fish.”
And yes, I changed it from “have” to “ridden by” for a reason. In the combat dating era, especially in marriage 2.0, men are saddled and ridden too often.
You don’t need a woman in your life to be a man or be complete. …
If you physically need sexual contact there is no shame in deciding the way women have organized the current SMP is a losing game and just turn to the world’s oldest profession (which too many women let themselves become even if they don’t realize it)
You know, if you’re running a dating site ostensibly to provide useful information for young women, and your most enthusiastic commenters are either PUAs hoping to use that information to better exploit women, or MGTOWers looking for more excuses to denigrate and dismiss all women, maybe you’re doing something wrong.
Friend-of-Man-Boobz Ozymandias tried to inject some good sense into the discussion over there. Unfortunately, very little of it stuck.
EDITED TO ADD: I added a quote from Walsh.
@MollyRen: I know many women do that, but I think it’s terribly rude. Everyone knows that “can I buy you a drink?” is something a guy says to flirt with you. If you’re totally not interested in the guy at all, you should decline the drink. I’m NOT arguing that accepting the drink is like signing a contract to have sex with the guy, but it IS like saying “yeah, I’m kind of interested in you too” – you shouldn’t imply that when it’s not true, just to get a free drink.
I mean, the guy who bought me drinks that night was a douche who couldn’t take no for an answer, so I don’t feel sorry for him in the slightest, but the fact that somebody comes up to you and goes “can I buy you a drink” doesn’t automatically make him a douche and doesn’t automatically mean that it’s allright to just take the drink and walk off and laugh at him.
@Ms. Quackers
[blockquote]That’s the interesting thing about Walsh, she wants women to regain power in this “sexual market place” and actually reinforces this hypergamy idea. Basically she wants women to stop giving it away for free and make men work harder and prove themselves to women, wine and dine them then commit to them, THEN its acceptable to have sex. Isn’t this what MRAs are against? how is it she can gain so much approval from MRAs and PUAs? do they actually want to buy women dinner, work harder and pay for a house in order to get sex? how is that liberating? it makes no fucking sense.[/blockquote]
That’s because what MRAs, and especially PUAs, desire most fervently isn’t freedom from having to buy women dinner or otherwise pay for sex. It’s that they want freedom from uncertainty. Once a drink, dinner or date is paid for, it should be automatic that the guy is going to get sex, and on his terms as well. The notion that they might put out any form of effort, and not get sex in return, terrifies them on a deep and profoundly fucked-in-the-head level.
Yeah, I love that “woman-as-orgasm-vending-machine” mentality. That type of guy should just invest in a RealDoll and leave humans alone.
If you liked it, should’ve put an onion ring on it.
@Amnesia: If you liked it, should’ve put an onion ring on it.
*SPITS COKE ZERO*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*hands you internet*
Ithiliana already gave you one internet, but that was so excellent that I think it warrants a bonus. +2 internets to you!
Cliff:
And, further, that women don’t like orgasms or cuddling, they just demand them to weed out men who aren’t worthy.
I think I’ve seen MRAL or someone equally sensible make more or less that very argument.
Invoking secret motivations is a great answer to everything that seems to go against whatever theory of human behavior you’re trying to defend. The only thing as powerful is its somewhat baffling cousin “you don’t actually know what you really want.”
“The notion that they might put out any form of effort, and not get sex in return, terrifies them on a deep and profoundly fucked-in-the-head level.”
You probably just proved why men are likely better accountants than women. Credit = Debit, get it?
“That type of guy should just invest in a RealDoll and leave humans alone.”
And yet it is women , especially feminists , who are more prone to shaming men when they do decide to take that route . Such hypocrisy!
Oh, Jesus Tapdancing Christ, the Matrix again. *Headdesk* It’s like those morons saw one movie aimed at teenagers, and have been imagining themselves to be Neo or that other guy ever since. I wonder, did these guys cut school, like, all the time? Because besides the fact that the idea behind “The Matrix” is completely unoriginal, its “science” is patently ridiculous.
Or was that “shaming”? In which case, let me run and get my tiny violin.
MRA’s should be the ones to complain about “shaming”. A man who “invests” in a RealDoll because he is a sad loser incapable of normal human interaction does better than a similar man who goes on an internet rampage against “teh bitchez” — but he is still a sad loser incapable of normal human interaction. Plus, it’s not an either/or situation: we usually “shame” guys who both get a RealDoll AND continue to be a nuisance to actual women. Tell you what — if he’s not THE most horrible and pathetic he could be, we’ll give him credit for that. ‘Kay?
@Amused
You know, if they’re not harming anyone and not being misogynist, then I don’t think they are “sad losers”. And as for the “incapable of normal human interaction” bit, that’s kinda ableist, there are people that have trouble relating to others that are nonetheless not assholes, so I think it’s not right to shame them for simply not being “normal”.
Okay, Myoo, change that to “incapable of normal human interaction through their own fault and not due to a mental or neurological atypicality that’s beyond their control”.
P.S. I only hope no one is going to theorize about them being autistic. Because, highly offensive as it is, such discussions generally gain traction.
ABNOY: “The notion that they might put out any form of effort, and not get sex in return, terrifies them on a deep and profoundly fucked-in-the-head level.”
You probably just proved why men are likely better accountants than women. Credit = Debit, get it?
No, could you explain this to me? Use small words, if you have to; I’ll be patient.
Because this is stupid. Interpersonal relations aren’t a monetary exchange. If the effort isn’t worth the candle, don’t do it.
If someone is trying to buy sex with “dates and drinks and trinkets” and it’s not working… they should stop.
Just as one isn’t entitled to a raise, or a promotion, because one buys the boss a drink at a social function, or gives him a present over the holidays, and sends a card on his birthday, one isn’t entitled to sex when one buys some random woman a drink.
The “debit” is all in the head of the person who buys it. No transaction has actually been initiated.
So, if you think you can, explain to me why I’m wrong. What obligation one person gets to impose on another with the act of buying an unsolicited object, and gifting it to them.
Myoo: While I agree the phrasing wasn’t ideal, I think Amused’s direction avoids the egregious problem of saying those who get RealDolls, etc. are losers, ipso facto.
It read to me as if someone who has failed to figure out how to interact with people, and decides to actually go their own way. I don’t think calling them “losers” is a great way to do it, but it’s not quite the same.
ABNOY:
What credit? What debit?
ABNOY, what credit and debit are you talking about? The whole idea is that women aren’t sex vending machines. Unless it’s been overtly negotiated, the effort doesn’t create a debt.
I hate to compare women to objects, but for the purposes of illustration: Say I see you out somewhere and I like your watch. Can I give you $500 and take it off your wrist, without bothering to discuss it with you?
Though again, among well-adapted people, sex isn’t about transactions at all. My point is that even on your own terms your apparent reasoning is flawed.
I wonder what the ABNOYs of the world would think if someone (male or female) were to buy them a drink.
Would they feel they had to put out for that person?
I think they’d feel furious at this humiliating attempt to emasculate them.
No, no, stupid woman, I’m supposed to be purchasing you.
Do all sandwiches need to end in marriage?
If you liked it, should’ve put an onion ring on it.
Read this quote to my husband with no context. He is now bemused.
“sex isn’t about transactions at all.”
You’ve just contradicted the entirety of human history, right there! Why do you think prostitution is called the world’s oldest profession, eh?
“My point is that even on your own terms your apparent reasoning is flawed.”
Yeah right … not! Clearly, either truly “(non-feminized) men are from Mars, women are from Venus” or “(liberal) Americans are different from the rest of us” or both.
“Would they feel they had to put out for that person?”
Depends on how attractive they are vis a vis how drunk I am 😀
There’s a pretty big difference between “there is nothing transactional about X for most people” and “it is impossible for X to involve a transaction.” It is obviously possible for pretty much any activity to be done in exchange for money. That doesn’t mean most activities usually ARE. Someone could decide they want to pay you to poop, but that doesn’t somehow mean pooping is transactional in normal circumstances.
So, yes. If you hire a sex worker to have sex with you for money, that is absolutely transactional. I don’t believe anyone is arguing that it isn’t. What we are pointing out is that most people are not, in point of fact, sex workers by trade, and your “credit/debit” nonsense has nothing to do with how sex works for people who are not sex workers (or for sex workers outside of their work, either).
Yeah right … not!
A Michael Bluth-worthy retort.
ABNOY:
That’s awesome, you just admitted being a thief.