Most manosphere misogynists lean to the right. But every once in a while I’ll run across an MRA who considers himself a man of the left. Today, while perusing the Spearhead, which generally appeals to some of the more reactionary MRAs and MGTOWers, I ran across a most intriguing example of the Manosphericus lefticus.
“Davani” describes himself as “a socialist and a supporter of women’s rights,” explaining that
the last thing I want is some kind of uneducated, barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen woman who I can’t even have a conversation with on any intelligent topic.
But Mr. D is a most unusual sort of socialist-feminist indeed. You might call him a Socialist of the Penis. Or, rather, a Socialist for the Penis. As he explains,
I am all for egalitarian culture (e.g., expanding women’s rights), but only if the women themselves are egalitarian. In the US, much more so than anywhere else, they are not.
So what exactly is wrong with these American women, in Davani’s mind? Well, he reports sadly,
The women here are very shallow, and use their rights to penalize, rather than include, the majority of “average” men who don’t make the cut in terms of their looks. Susan Walsh, the author of “Hooking Up Smart,” reports that on US college campuses, 80% of the girls have sex with 20% of the guys.
Oh dear, not this again.
In effect, giving American women contraception enables them to jump on the sex carousel but not with most guys — only with a small number of ‘alpha males’ at the top. This is the problem right here. Moreover, this is at no cost to themselves, because they can abort any pregnancy, while discriminating against the “lesser” males.
Davani is outraged by this blatant elitism on the part of women. He would prefer a far more egalitarian form of pussy distribution – from each, according to her pussy; to each, according to his penis’ needs.
[I]n other countries, women wouldn’t use contraception to essentially eliminate 80% of the guys. Family planning would benefit BOTH the guy and the girl. The girl isn’t looking to hook up with the top athlete or celebrity, she’s also very interested in other, regular guys, who have other good qualities, even if they don’t necessarily pass the “looks” test.
But in America, alas, women have become monopoly capitalists of the vagina.
American women are more shallow and discriminatory in their preferences than most other women, and this has to be taken into account. “Feminists used to get support from men by promising we’d all be getting laid for free” — in a normal society, yes; in this country, only the 20% at the top would be getting laid for free in this context.
So, false advertising, as well.
To the barricades, men! Vive la penislution!
MoneyBall, dude, I value beauty very highly indeed, especially in terms of deciding who to date, and you are still creeping me out.
Aaaaaaaaand here’s NWO with the latest dispatch from Fantasyland.
Oh, I bet MoneyBall’s creepy views seep through in life. I’m sure there is much eye rolling when he leaves a room.
Well, at least he’s not trying to sell his system that you can use to raise your “value”, available for purchase on his website.
…Yet.
Cassandra,
You are misinterpreting me. No where have I said that people (or myself) just go and start assigning people “grades”. It is far more subtle than that. It’s choosing to not continue dating someone because they lack employment (no job = less value) or not marrying a girl because she has to much debt (more debt = more risk = less value),
It’s not just walking around dolling out numbers or letters to people.
Goddamn, MoneyBall is serving up Br_n realness.
Tell me, MB, what are your thoughts on contracts, gold, and spankings?
In case you’re missing the boat here, running an actuarial assets/liabilities analysis on your dating partners is, in fact, creepy and manipulative as all hell.
How about you just date someone who you can trust to manage her own shit, and then manage your own shit?
Based on my personal characteristics, I’ve calculated that fewer than one in a million people would be interested in dating* me, not taking into account my preferences. There are about a million people in a one-hour travel radius of me, three million in a two hour radius. If I don’t want to be celibate, I can’t be particularly choosy; as it is, I’ve resigned myself to celibacy.
I don’t understand why this is controversial.
*Note: not the same as screwing. My time on OKCupid has proven that there are many men who would be willing to gratify themselves with my body as long as they didn’t have to pay attention to me otherwise.
My sister is ‘model pretty’ and back before she got married she hated the dating scene because it was obvious to her that a lot of guys just wanted a trophy (arm candy) and didn’t give a shit about her as a person. Why would anyone consider having more people around looking to use you to prop up their own self-esteem as advantageous? It’s no more advantageous than the rich person who now has a bunch of admirers who see them as a walking checkbook that they have to sort through. Bleech.
Why can’t you just say “I prefer to date people who are gainfully employed/who have their finances in order”? Why the need to add the extra dose of clinical creepiness?
@Nepenthe
I respect you and all, but seriously, what possible “calculation” could tell you who would be interested in dating you without you actually knowing them? People just don’t work like that.
MoneyBall I think the thing that’s offputting about your rhetoric is not that you’re asserting objectivity, but that it seems like you’re using a numberline-style method of evaluating someone’s worth.
you say that it’s subtle, but it still boils down to someone being of greater or lesser value. It’s an unsettling way to talk about people.
Maybe this is me being a writer rather than a STEM person, but I would have no idea how to go about building a mathematical model to determine the percentage of people around me who’d be willing to date me. How would you even figure out what your parameters were? Where are you getting the data you need in order to figure this out?
Even if it wasn’t weirdly clinical and creepy and just kind of not how human interactions tend to work, I’m still not seeing how you’d come up with hard numbers.
@nwoslave: “Every single man in the world wants a woman whose had sex with only him, because that means she’s sexually loyal and emotionally loyal to him alone.” lolololol Wait, were you serious? I know lots of guys and I hate to tell you, only the insecure ones think like that. Besides, in this universe guys who like swinging and being cuckholded exist so even at face value you are full of shit as usual.
Ugh,
That’s my point! If I am managing my own shit, then I want to be with someone that can manage her own shit. Thus, I would not date/marry someone that doesn’t have their financial shit in order.
She might be a great person but since I value being debt free and managing my finances appropriately, she clearly doesn’t pass that test. I don’t want to take on the negative consequences of her financial mis-management.
It’s also that not everybody assigns the same level of importance to the same traits. I know some people for whom “finances are in order” is a non-negotiable requirement, and others who don’t care about that at all. It’s not just that it’s creepy, it’s also that it’s trying to universalize things that aren’t actually universal.
For real, humanity does not have a stellar track record in the “assigning unspoken value to people” game, I feel we should pretty much take that off the table until the end of time.
Cassandra,
By the frequency in which one gets approached in public. Usually there is some light flirting involved to separate between “friendly conversation” and “I’m interested”.
What I personally value in a partner has absolutely no bearing on another person’s objective value.
Therefore, what some git values in a date has absolutely no bearing on my value as a person, and some wanker’s idea of my ‘dating value’ has no value whatsoever to me because, well, I don’t give a crap.
Why do some people find this so hard to understand?
(happily partnered with someone who gets it)
Ordinary human dating preference.
Creepy as all hell. See where that post went off the rails? When you talk about “being a trustworthy person” as “passing a test,” which apparently includes debt freedom and whatever the hell you think she would have to do to “manage her finances appropriately?” See what happened there Instead of saying “My finances are my business, her finances are her business, and I need someone I can trust to never make her business my business,” it’s “I need someone who manages her finances in exactly the way I say to pass some unspoken test that will determine her value relative to other human beings.”
Cassandra,
And people are free to have different values to different traits.
“Every single man in the world wants a woman whose had sex with only him, because that means she’s sexually loyal and emotionally loyal to him alone.”
Actually, Owly, no, that’s not true of all men.
“If women are being disloyal sluts, what possible reason could there be for men to treat women as anything else? ”
First, sexual experience with more than one person =/= slut.
Second, do you expect men to have sex with only one person in their entire lives? If not, you’re being, as usual, a hypocrite. Or are you saying it’s okay for a man to have more than one partner, but the women he leaves must then never have anyone else? Methinks the maths won’t add up.
Third, people (ie. all genders and combinations of partners) don’t live in your rigid and bitter mindset. People actually mix and match and enjoy each other’s company, sexually and otherwise, and gain from each others’ life experience. However I realise the idea of happy relationships between equals is alien to you. I presume, given your hostility to more than half of humanity, you’d be quite incapable of forming one. I’d feel sorry for you, but I’m more relieved for all those who are spared your company.
So you’ve been following people around with a clipboard, noting down the number of times they’re approached? And you’ve figured out a way to separate out which traits accounted for which approaches? Please, share with us the name of the journal in which this fascinating research is going to be published.
By that rubric, everyone who works outside the home has more value than people who work at home! Since they’re, you know, meeting more people.
Also, how fucking creepy does your worldview have to be to think that approaches by strangers in public are the primary way of meeting sexual partners? Or are a decent metric for attractiveness?