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.
Cassandrasays
I hope you go into menopause before your 50s…….
melody – perimenopause often starts in the late 40s, but menopause itself is a thing of the 50s, very generally speaking. I’m 50 and perimenopause only started in the last year. (And does anyone tell you it’s like goddamn puberty all over again, including zits? Not they do not, bastards!)
Evolution favors sluts in general, both of the male and female variety.
Either way, evo-psych doesn’t really work to explain human behavior because we don’t know enough about early human behavior. Comparing to other animals often doesn’t make sense. Our closest living relatives are total nymphos. This may or may not be a good indicator for several reasons. (Comparisons to modern humans on the other hand…. lol)
It is completely likely that everyone was a huge slut, and there is actually a lot of evidence to back it up.
Might help to explain the huge amount of differences in individual preferences. Oh, and it’s likely that early humans didn’t make the connection with babies and sex in the first place. There are still existing cultures where the finer points of baby making are lost or irrelevant to them.
This guy also does not seem to realize that
1. Females who are polygamous might not always be certain whose baby it is, but so what? In terms of evolution all that matters is that reproduction happened. Whether or not the female has one or more mates at a time or in succession amount to nothing.
2. There can be several reproductive strategies within a species so demonizing human monogamy OR polygamy is equally senseless.
3. Having a lot of kids will not, evolutionarily speaking, amount to anything either. The only thing that matters if they survive to adulthood and reproduce themselves.
4. By looking at the female reproductive cycle, it is easy and completely reasonable to come to the conclusion that women who are slutty are likelier to get pregnant. Whether this is with a single committed partner or several, or a non-committed partner(s) is irrelevant.
All that matters is if the individual is capable of raising the offspring – depending on conditions this may or may not call for aid from others. The mother-.father-kids family model is relatively recent, so I don’t assume that it’s the father (or even the mother) who is forced to do baby rearing. Altruism has likely always been a factor in human behavior and evolution.
I could talk about this shit all day. Ehmahgerd, evolushionareh shychologerh!
All this makes me wonder why I bothered to have a vasectomy when my wife turned forty.
Going from MRA logic, she’d have ceased to be fertile some fifteen years earlier, and we’ll just quietly forget about how she managed to have kids at 37 and 39 because evidence schmevidence.
Thanks very much, katz! Mum and baby both doing well, dad still weeping like a schoolboy at the slightest provocation. 😀
LOL! Holy crap. It’s amazing what we find on the internet. hahaha
It takes all kinds. What a weird find.
One man could populate an entire civilization to do what, inbreed? ha