So I’ve been reading a bit more in the Evo Psych literature — some of the alleged classics in the field that most Manospherians seem to have either read or absorbed by osmosis. I’m learning a lot about the dubious “science” underlying many of the Manosphere’s most cherished beliefs.
But I’m a little worried for my own intellectual safety, because I see so much clear evidence around me that reading too much Evo Psych can turn one’s brain to mush.
Consider the example of rmaxgenactivepua, the Evo-Psych-addled gentleman who writes the blog “Rejecting Modern Women: Pickup & Advanced NLP & Charisma Behaviourial Conversational Strategic Technologies.” Specifically, consider the recent post of his that asks the grammatically confusing question: “Is It Possible For Women To Be A Healthy Promiscous [sic] Woman?”
I’m just going to quote the whole damn thing because, yikes:
To definitively answer that question, is a woman biologically designed or hardwired to be promiscous
Are there any biological co-factors which support a womans ability to be promiscous?
A womans vagina is a massive breeding grounding for std’s, making it highly unsuitable & dangerous for sleeping with multiple men
Women have a highly short period of fertility. only 10 years of fertility, less if theyre in bad shape
Women have a limited amount of eggs
Plus women dont have the emotional blocking abilities of men
The real kicker is, women are only capable of having one mans child at a time
If women were meant to be polygamous, they’d be able to carry multiple children of multiple men
Making it ludicrous to assume women are polygamous, it’s laughably ridiculous to assume women are polygamous when theyre own biology isnt even capable of reproducing polygamously
Men on the other hand are designed from the ground up to impregnate millions of women, they reproduce over millions of sperm a day, & can impregnate 100′s of women
In fact one man, men are so efficient at reproducing with hundreds of women, one man could repopulate an entire civilisation if he wanted to, thanks to his production of millions of sperm
One woman on the other hand, couldnt populate her own ass, let alone a shoe box or a cat litter tray …
Proving a woman isnt anywhere near designed to be a slut, FACT
Well, yeah, I guess if you make up a rule that states women can’t have sex for pleasure with multiple partners unless they’re biologically capable of giving birth simultaneously to children sired by all these different partners, then women aren’t designed to be “sluts.”
Then again if you can simply make up your own rules like this, you can prove pretty much anything. If I decide that men can’t be polygamous unless they are simultaneously holding their breath underwater and on fire, I guess I’ve proved that men can’t be sluts either.
FACT!
Oh, and while it’s true that a cis man with healthy sperm could (in theory) repopulate an entire civilization, there are some women who are giving men a run for their money in this department.
Yeah, um, my mom has 15 siblings, and since, of the 16 total kids, there’s only one set of twins, I’mma go with women are clearly fertile for more than 10 years and also that MRAs are full of bullshit.
Who would have guessed!
If cis men were meant to be polygamous, they wouldn’t need so much down time between ejaculations. FACT. (Or a totally arbitrary piece of biology I’ve decided to ascribe meaning to).
Also…only 10 years of fertility? Hot damn I WISH only a decade of fertility…I so do not want kids and I’m really not a huge fan of getting my period. I’m about 15 years into this “fertility” bit and I haven’t even hit the age of “getting pregnant becomes more dangerous,” yet. I’ve probably got another 20 years before I end up completely unable to get pregnant.
I like the “10 years of fertility” bit when compared to the fact that MRAs and PUAs usually assert that women are at peak fertility as teenagers. All those women who give birth past their mid-20s are clearly medical miracles.
It’s such a fantastic paradox that PUAs rely on the very people they despise (women who like having sex) for their own sense of status and self-worth.
“Is it possible for women to be a healthy promiscuous woman?”
No. No it is not. You see, “women” is plural and “woman” is singular. “Women” cannot become a single healthy “woman,” despite what “Frankenstein” would have you believe. We simply do not have the technology or advanced medical knowledge to combine multiple women into one woman. Though what that has to do with promiscuity, I don’t know.
Is it jut me, or should people use proper grammar and basic coherency when making a “because science!” argument?
Also I thought this might be up y’all’s alley: http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/10/ada-lovelace-eight-inventions-women-erasure-credit
Yeah, women never invented anything. Makes you wonder how many more women weren’t given credit…
Don’t be silly. Language and communication are things women are good at. Manly men’s brains are too busy thinking about nuclear physics and mammoth hunting to worry about communicating properly.
Holy fuck, the stupid, it burns. 10 years fertility?
Let’s not tell this dink what happens to men’s sperm over time, he’ll fucking plotz.
Are they not aware that men and women are the same species? With men and women each being approximately 50% of the population there is no way for all women to be monogamous while all men are polygamous. Because of this, and the facts presented, clearly men should not be promiscuous either! Either that or biology *really* messed up somehow and the ratio of women to men is supposed to be more then 2 women to every 1 man.
Like this guy could populate his own ass. His head is in the way.
Due to the phenomenon of heteropaternal superfecundation, it is entirely possible for one woman to be carrying children with two different fathers. FACT.
I don’t know what it means, exactly, because I’m not a 1337 5ci3n7i5t, but although I always thought it was something that only happened on parodies of soap operas, it’s actually a real thing.
Has anyone pointed out the risk of genetic disorders from a less than perfect speciman of man? Which, genetically speaking, is pretty much all men and the reason (or, at least, one of many, many reasons) you don’t reproduce with your siblings? Genetic diversity is necessary. So, no, one man couldn’t repopulate an entire civilisation. FACT
Also, how do I populate my ass? It’s a bit barren, something I never noticed until just now.
So basically, a fertile cis woman can only be pregnant with one fertile cis man’s child at a time, therefore it’s inadvisable to have PIV sex with multiple people. Also, logic is unimportant.
200 years from now, 30% of the earth’s population will be Duggars.
Also, are penises somehow magically immune to harboring STDs? How does this doorknob think they spread, unless women are having and lots of lesbian sex?
Also also, promiscuity has nothing to do with baby making abilities. The vagina is perfectly designed to accept multiple partners. The uterus and ovaries are just neutral bystanders when it comes to sex.
Also too, his username reads like “magenta mangina”.
Sparky, glad I read your comment ‘cos that’s exactly what I was going to say re: grammar!
Some researchers claim that human sperm production is higher than is needed not only for monogamy, but also for polygyny. Their argument is that it developed in a situation where everyone, male or female, was constantly getting their freak on, and the most abundant producers were the ones most likely to pass on their genes. There’s also an argument that human penises do a great job of forming suction in human vaginas that gets, um, pre-deposited sperm out. The book I got this out of goes on to argue (with other evidence) that humans evolved for single-female, multiple-male sex. (I’m using male and female to denote biological sex, not gender).
To populate an ass:
Step 1: Determine if the atmosphere is capable of sustaining life. If so, continue to step 4, if not, go to step 2.
Step 2: Terraform.
Step 3: Get bored, wander off, get a cup of coffee with cinnamon vodka.
Step 4: Are you sure? Go to step 2 anyway.
Step 5: Lie and tell people it’s populated. No one is going to check.
Anyway, I sometimes kind of love when people break out stupid ev-psych arguments, because human biology is far more interesting than they allow.
My cat is excellent at populating shoe boxes and cat litter trays.
Here’s a prime example of Heteropaternal superfecundation:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/150463.php
Tch tch, yet another reason for human males not to trust human females, tsk tsk
That guy is either a fool or a saint for letting himself become a cuckold like that. I’d leave that cheater immediately, if that were me.
It’s the ability to literally block emotion attacks.
Imagine this:
“INCOMING SADNESS”
*karate chops sadness attack in half and then avoids feeling sad*
…I kind of want that power. Too bad it doesn’t exist.
Oh aye? Tell my grandmother that; ten kids (and maybe miscarriages, I wouldn’t know) over twenty years; she was 45 when her youngest, my mum, was born. She’d probably have been really pleased if she’d only been fertile for ten years!
(And what’s the bet the scumbag writing this thinks he should be allowed to rape girls the minute they get their periods?)
Make up your mind, genius, is it millions or hundreds? Though I’d like to see you try to impregnate millions, I’m seeing it as something to go in the Dumb Ways to Die posters.
Also, from the ground up? What, has he got sperm-bearing feet? Ewww.
Nope. Multiple births from different fathers are possible, if rare.
Given nobody actually lives in any of those areas (except PUAs etc with their heads up their arses), why does it matter? And given the overpopulation of our species, not-reproducing seems a pretty good idea to me.
Isn’t women’s limited period of fertility and a number of eggs an argument for promiscuity?* After all, I shouldn’t miss out on any chance to reproduce before my ten-year window closes. If I spend that short time with only one man, and he happens to be infertile, my limited-edition eggs have gone to waste. I’d better slut it up before I turn 30 and my uterus falls out.
*Not that it’s really an argument either way–the limited egg supply seems to be a common trait in mammals regardless of their reproductive strategy–but whatever.
I’m a little stymied by women’s lack of “emotional blocking abilities.” Is he suggesting women cannot control their emotions? Ugh, I have no idea what he means. These are the kinds of cryptic, unsupported assertions I have to deal with in my students’ papers, which is why I occasionally must fortify myself with a glass of wine (or two) in order to read them.
Was it Ogden Nash who coined the rhyme, “Higgomus, higgomis, men are polygamous / higgomis, hoggamus, women monogamous?” Which basically sums up this kind of evo-psych balderdash.
The problem with evo-psych, as someone else has pointed out, is that they start with a cultural norm that is specific to their own culture and then look for behavioral evidence (also culturally determined) to “scientifically” explain why it is “hard wired” in all humans.