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.
Oh glob oh glob more creepy (and ill informed) obession with ‘fertility’ .
I agree with whoever said they have women confused with broodmares. Or any kind of livestock.
Actually, I think some of them may have read something about guinea pigs and become confused by that too. After around 10 month’s a female guineapig’s pelvis will stiffen, making it very difficult and dangerous, frequently fatal, to give birth if the female has not previously had a litter. Therefore you should breed your female guineas as early as possible.
Of course, these guys don’t actually want to have children with all of these hot,fertile teenage girls they want to shag, so I’m not sure why they are so hung up on whether their partners are all fertile or not. I feel kind of sorry for them, as they seem to think that sex just for pleasure is on some level not natural, and they are so hung up on “natural = good (except when it comes to ‘disposable males’ or female choice or polyandry or aging or body hair or altruism or a roughly 50/50 m-f ratio) and it kind of ruins relations with other human beings…which can be quite enjoyable if you don’t assume everyone is beneath you and/or out to get you. (i feel more sorry for the people they deal with ofc).
Finally I was thinking about the sex ratio problem – if men are supposed to be polygamous and women monogamous (I assume they mean one guy for whole life rather than serial monogamy because that = riding the cock carousel if it is a woman doing it) then for that to work you would need to have a large pool of INCEL MEN! so the alpha dudes could have their harems of monogamous women. It would also mean that if a woman was expelled from the harem she would remain celibate despite the large pool of INCEL! men, and possible wasted reproductive years depending on when she left alpha dude. This seems neither likely, nor ‘natural’, nor acheivable, and also exactly the kind of system they rail against… (apart from the ladies not riding the cock carousel I suppose) 0_o No wonder they are all so frothy and angry. Nature is actually misandry!
Was anyone else annoyed that he used “polygamous” when he meant to imply “polyandrous”? Because a woman can’t reproduce with another woman anyway, so what difference would it be if a woman were polygamous?
Maybe I’m being a stickler for grammar, but if you’re trying to sound all “sciencey” then the fool should have at least got that word right. It was a central point to his thesis, after all.
re the “glans is designed to evacuate semen”. Seems it’s not so. I was reading a paper about six months ago on the subject. Someone did some actual tests (models were designed for the computer, and some physical models were made/tested).
Turns out the flare isn’t enough to create the needed “seal’ esp with the lack of flare on the bottom (the fluid dynamics are such that any fluid pulled back, tends to run around to the bottom and pretty much remain in place).
And (relevant to the evpsychers), a penis with the foreskin intact does this even less well.
There is evidence of competition, but it’s in the sperm themselves (some are designed to “hang back” and block the way, others are more like antibodies, and sperm they don’t recognise they entangle themselves with to slow them down, etc.). But even that is, relative to other, really competitive breeding strategies, not all that strong.
It seems that Homo sapiens is a moderately promiscuous species, with a tendency to variably strong pair-bonding.
And yeah… what’s the the “polygamy”. Polyandry, or polyamory (which is a useful, if somewhat ugly word). But even if he’d used the word, he didn’t mean it. Polyandry is a formal set up; i.e. it, like polygamy, is a socially accepted way of organising a relationship.
He didn’t mean that. He meant, “slutting it up, and fucking whomever she wants, ’cause she feels like it,” as if that were a bad thing.
If humans were meant to swim, they’d be able to breathe underwater.
Making it ludicrous to assume that humans can swim, it’s laughably ridiculous to assume humans are swimmers when their own biology isn’t even capable of breathing underwater.
I had some promiscous last night. Bf made it. We find it’s a lot tastier if you cook it in chicken stock instead of water.
These error-filled evo-psych odes to wild-ass guessing always make me laugh, because even if the conclusions they draw were right (lol) it doesn’t actually tell us anything about how modern human beings should behave. We aren’t “meant” to do anything as a result of our biology. Biology doesn’t have intention. If there really was any evidence indicating that a 1 sperm-producer, multiple ovum-carrier mating style for humans has been historically the most effective (in terms of number of offspring who reach adulthood), I would just shrug and keep having the sex I want to have. Who the fuck cares what other humans might have done?
David, it is not true that a man can repopulate civilization even in theory, simply because making women pregnant is not easy. Also there has to be some biological diversity.
Viscaria, you can’t do that! If you dismiss all the biology and evopsych stuff they have no argument whatsoever except that they hate women and want to control them! Therefore it’s total misandry to dismiss their bullshit as bullshit.
If evolution drives women to produce offspring meaning “get knocked up,” logically we would be having sex with multiple men over the short span of time where we might be fertile. Since we don’t know when we’re fertile, and we can’t tell by looking at a dude if he is both fertile and compatible with our bodies, the logical response for a woman seeking to get pregnant is to have sex with multiple men within the three or so weeks between periods, in the hope that one of them will be fertile, compatible and ejaculate at the right time to cause pregnancy.
And biologically women are mostly capable of having sex much more frequently than men (lie back and think of England, all we have to do is receive, most women have no refractory period between orgasms either, although the role of orgasms in causing pregnancy is unknown if it even exists at all).
There I just made more sense and was more scientifically accurate than anything this douchecanoe has ever said.
(I apologize for both the heterocentrism and cissexism inherent in this argument.)
I read ‘heterocentrism’ and ‘heliocentrism’ then because I used it in the other thread. That was confusing.
@thenat
You mean the sun doesn’t revolve around heterosexuality?
SittieKitty: Ah, yes, a diagram of a uterine sling makes about the most sense!
“although the role of orgasms in causing pregnancy is unknown if it even exists at all”
Pulling this from my ass, but wouldn’t it make sense that her enjoying it makes her more likely to do it again, therefore increasing the odds of pregnancy? Or maybe it’s just a curious side effect of embryos having undifferentiated genitals.
I’ve been fertile for 10 years already and I’m only 23……..My mom hit menopause in her 50s……so…….ummm…..Is he saying my mom started getting her period in her 40s?
re polygamous
As far as I’ve understood, polygamous can mean both polygynous and polyandrous. So if polyandrous is a subset of polygamous, it will still be technically correct.
“Polygamy” is actually correct(ish) – it refers to a marriage with more than two people involved. “Polyandry” specifically involves multiple men, and “polygyny” multiple women. In the real world polygamy is usually one man, several women, because yay, patriarchy, but the term itself is non-specific. Although he doesn’t appear to actually be talking about any form of marriage, so “polygamy” would still be inaccurate.
Please tell me I’m not still going to have to worry about contraception in my 50s. That particular worry can’t go away soon enough as far as I’m concerned.
The idiot decided to blame dyslexia on promiscuous women in the comments… As someone with dyslexia, I’m rather peeved. Let’s see if he actually responds to me calling him out on his bullshit.
I don’t know how to block quote, so regular quotes:
“Sleeping around leads to dyslexia and autism? You’re kidding, right? Find me some legitimate research that indicates such a connection.
In my family’s case, dyslexia quite clearly runs in the family, at least through my maternal grandfather. My grandfather, mother, one aunt, two uncles, at least one cousin and I are all dyslexic. (I would estimate about 50% of my mothers family. The severity differs, and not every family member has been tested for learning difficulties, so it’s hard to be exact.)
As someone with dyslexia I have read a lot about the subject. I can assure you, I have NEVER come across any research that indicates female promiscuity is at all related to dyslexia.
As for the other hazards you list, they are universal. Last I checked men are just as guilty of spreading HIV and other STIs as women are. (More so if you consider the spread of HIV amongst gay men. Lesbian women are relatively HIV free oddly enough.) It should be obvious to everyone that, for the very reasons you list, NEITHER men NOR women should be promiscuous.”
Hopefully this does not offend the polyamorous. I am referring in part to his arguments against promiscuity (STIs and AIDs! Oh my!) and in part to my own opinion that monogamy (or at least serial manogomy) is the best way to go about things. Then again, I’m demisexual and a bit germophobic so I know I’m more then a little biased.
Wait, is he suggesting that having multiple sexual partners causes dyslexia in someone who didn’t previously have it, or that the children of women who have multiple sexual partners somehow develop dyslexia as a result.
Both ideas are nonsense, obviously, I’m just curious which specific kind of nonsense it is.
@Argenti – indeed. However a woman does not have to have an orgasm to conceive. (I’m being ridiculously reductive about this whole thing, clearly.)
It causes their children to be dyslexic and/or autistic. Not sure how this supposedly happens.
You know the old saying that too much masturbation would make people go blind? Maybe it’s like that, but with only certain letters when you read, so…
Eh, fuck it, I can’t get this to make any sense.
Maybe it’s “too much evopsych PUA wank makes you an idiot”?
Not to flog a dead horse, but seeing as my wife gave birth to our oldest child 22 years ago and our youngest child last week, I’m feeling fairly secure in calling bullshit on the “10 years of fertility” thing.
Congratulations, rodafowa!