If you read manosphere writers like Roosh or Heartiste/Roissy, you really wonder in which world they live in. It looks as if they describe some bizarre fantasy. As you may know, just like the seduction community beforehand, the manosphere believes in the alpha-beta dichotomy. You're either an alpha with a harem of willing women, or you are a loser who doesn't get laid at all. A popular phrase in those circles is that 10 % of men fuck 90 % of the women, which directly relates to the myth of the cock carousel. It boils down to the following claims that are slightly exaggerated for effect:
a) 90 % of women are sluts and fuck all the time.
b) Most men don't get laid at all. There's just 10 % of them who fuck all the women.
c) Once women are past 30, their "sexual market value" immediately drops to zero, and they all panic, hoping to find some "beta chump" who will marry her.
Since Roosh and Heartiste write for the constantly sexually frustrated guy, they have to give him good reasons why not getting laid isn't so bad. They do attract a lot of people who have barely any success with women, and Roosh's own dismal track record appeals to them. If their idol hardly ever gets laid, then their own situation can't be so bad, after all. Of course, it's important that the typical PUA/manosphere follower believes that he is part of a "silent majority."
Of course, if you look around, you realize that the world doesn't just consist of promiscuous women and thirty-somethings who think of nothing else but to get married. Yes, it is true that some women are promiscuous. However, if you are an "alpha" and bang a ton of chicks, it is not the case that you learn that they have all been with dozens of guys before. A lot of girls you'll meet will be fairly inexperienced. This is also reflected if you dig up statistics. With a count of sexual partners in the two-digit range, you're already a statistical outlier. Heck, even virginity beyond one's teenage years is not uncommon. In Western society, sex is all around you. Yet, this is just a fabricated illusion, and in reality, things are quite tame. Here, have a look at findings from a Durex study from 2010, based on a survey of 15 to 20 year-olds in Europe:
The mean value of sexual partners is not all that shocking. It's easy to look at extremes and think that they are representative of society. Yet, teen pregnancies are certainly not common, and neither is it common that a young woman fucks a different guy week after week. They get tired of that too.
Based on the "statistical sample" I took when I was playing the field, I can tell you that many girls are pretty insecure. They may have had a boyfriend or two, or maybe a one-night stand. As an amusing anecdote, I'll mention that once a girl said to me that I seem so experienced and certainly have been with many women. I then asked her how many women she thought I've been with, to which he replied, "Ummm... something like five or seven or so." In her world, this counted as "very many", but keep in mind that she had claimed to have been with three or four guys in her life. For girls who pursue relationships, those are plausible numbers.
The PUA community and the manosphere try to create an image of the polar opposite, though. They believe that women go out and party literally all the time, and are willing to have sex with any man as long as his "game" is good enough. The PUAs claim this because they want to sell their bullshit bootcamps, while the manosphere writers want you to think that all women are sluts. But let's just look at people who party hard for a moment. In my experience, this is only ever a temporary phase. There are plenty of people who never go to clubs, and instead meet their sexual partners through their social circle. (No, not on the street either, dear PUAs.)
You can literally see how often someone goes out. Only very few people manage to adopt to a subculture, and even in mainstream clubs plenty of people --- men and women --- have absolutely no clue how to dress. The reason is simply that they are out of touch with those environments. As consequence, most are just there and bascially invisible. Even if you go to "hipster" clubs, you'll notice that at best 10 % of the people really matter. The rest is just a backdrop. This isn't a value judgment. The guys can still be cool in their own way, and the girls attractive. However, just looking at them reveals that they probably don't go out a lot and if they dress up, they just half-assedly copy something from a recent music video or whatnot.
I do think that TV shows like Sex and the City have fucked up a lot of women, and made them pursue a lifestyle that wasn't in their best interest. Most women, however, are very aware of their biological limitations. If you have female friends, then you know that if they are single, finding a boyfriend is a very high priority, and if they are in a relationship, then they obsess about whether he is the "right" guy.
So, what about the "cock carousel" then? I see little truth in it. Most people lead very conservative lives, and prefer to have sex in committed relationships. If they are single, a long time may pass until they get laid. This, too, applies to men and women alike. Statistical outliers don't change anything. Women are normally very aware of their biological clock, meaning that they sooner or later will want to settle down. Yes, some women are a bit late, and may find themselves going after any half-decent man and hoping he'll take them.
The idea that a woman's "sexual market value" drops to zero once she's hit 30 is equally absurd. Sure, if she's overweight, uneducated, and crude, she'll have a hard time finding a mate, but it would be the same if she were 10 years younger and had the same negative attributes. Of course a woman's fertility goes down, which is why women, if they want to have kids, are under greater time pressure than men. Nonetheless, an attractive 20 year-old is quite likely to still be very attractive ten years later, just as an attractive 30 year-old guy can turn into a still good-looking 40-year old.
But why then do manosphere writers mention the problem with "sexual market value"? My suspicion is that the main purpose is to depict a revenge fantasy. They write for sexually frustrated men, and those should feel assured that even though they don't get laid right now, once all the women they lust after turn 30, those will become undesirable --- and thus they will get their revenge because then those women might pursue the "betas", who can then turn them down. In short, it's a complete fantasy, and if you spend some time thinking about it, it's just sad.
I don't completely agree with you on point A, but I do think that Roissy/Heartiste and Roosh's sometimes extremely negative attitudes toward women hurt rather than help their readers.
ReplyDeleteI think you're correct on points B and C, but I think that they are also somewhat correct in their observations. My guess is that Roissy/Heartiste has become obsessed with these concepts by reading books on evolutionary psychology such as the Moral Animal by Robert Wright and conservative cultural commentary like Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind.
Point B: With the advent of feminism, pre-marital sex was no longer taboo and non-monogamous sex became mainstream. In Victorian England for example, with the exception of prostitution here and there, a man would generally settle down with one woman, end of story. Jump a couple hundred years. If you are an "alpha" male in today's day and age, you can satisfy the sexual desires of multiple women simultaneously. Say one man can dominate the sex lives of 5 women. Assuming a 50/50 gender split, there are 4 poor chumps out there with no access to women as a result.
Point C: From an evolutionary standpoint, men are genetically inclined to be more attracted to women at peak fertility (early 20's) rather than a woman nearing the end of her biological life cycle. Sure there are bangable chicks in their 30's, but a male will simply have a natural preference toward younger women. Just human nature.
In Victorian England, it was common for "gentlemen" to have mistresses or make use of the services of prostitutes, while in the lower classes, promiscuity was relatively common. Your assumption about the alpha male doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Have you ever been involved with just two or three women simultaneously? Raise the number to four or five, and you won't have the energy to get anything else done in your life anymore. I'd be surprised if anyone could keep this up for more than a week or two.
DeleteYour point on male preferences is moot. I'm sure you could easily find 10,000 chumps who would love to bang Scarlett Johansson. This doesn't mean that any of them actually will. Besides, hanging out with your average 18 year old is a tiring experience, and you'll probably prefer taking a more mature woman as your partner.
What I always love about these replies is that they are NEVER about their own experiences, and always about someone they have heard of, or a friend of a friend, or the mythical "alpha male".
DeleteHow many guys can tolerate an 18 year old girl for long enough to have sex with her? I certainly can't. Then this point "one man can dominate the sex lives of 5 women" - dude seriously, have you ever even had sex, forget "dominating the sex lives of 5 women"? I find the amount of effort it takes to "dominate" the sex life of one girl tiring, forget dominating 5 women! At two chicks, it seriously starts to affect all other areas of my life.
Next time, please go out, think for yourself and reflect on your own experiences. It will do you a world of good!
Aaron S.:
Delete"Have you ever been involved with just two or three women simultaneously? Raise the number to four or five, and you won't have the energy to get anything else done in your life anymore. I'd be surprised if anyone could keep this up for more than a week or two."
There was one commenter on another blog by the handle of Eurosabra who swore up and down on the tendency of proficient "game" users to form "soft harems" (mainly "D-List celebrities and their groupies" in his purported experience) to solve the "20% of men get 80% of women" problem (the most common version of the meme Aaron S. mentions, because it is a mutation of the Pareto principle):
"Alphas go out 4 times a week, and assuming Mystery or Ross Jeffries-level skill, score each night, and that takes care of the four to one ratio, with double and triple booking on the same night for repeat business as needed. Heck, explicitly negotiated threesome, plus an FWB, plus a GF fulfill it as well, which is why newbie PUAs never got any sleep at Project Hollywood when the gurus were at play. That's what a PUA roster does. Gatekeepers are not "shut out", by definition. Some women may choose celibacy, and 20% are passed over, or never enter a venue with alphas, or reject all offers as unsatisfactory. Nondating women also self report less, probably."
Mystery and Ross Jeffries?(!). Makes me wonder how that might have actually happened.
And there's always the anecdotes you can find, fictional or not, about "soft harems" people fall into:
http://www.myfirsttime.com/storys/185/18530.html
http://www.myfirsttime.com/storys/369/36997.html
Even if they are real, there's nary a trace of "alpha" in these.
Aaron S.:
I'm sure you could easily find 10,000 chumps who would love to bang Scarlett Johansson. This doesn't mean that any of them actually will. Besides, hanging out with your average 18 year old is a tiring experience, and you'll probably prefer taking a more mature woman as your partner.
When you say "doesn't mean that any of them actually will" do you mean to say that none of the 10,000 chumps could actually "game" her successfully, or that her actual personality would would turn most of them off? I don't keep up with celebrity news much.
And some 18-year-olds actually have the maturity to make good long-term relationship prospects--too bad most of those often don't have enough "game."
No, this statement was in the context of relative market value and that preference alone doesn't count for much. If you've got the choice between not ever banging Scarlett Johansson or pursuing some cute girl next door who's giving you "fuck me" eyes, it's probably a good idea to pursue the latter. By speaking of "chumps" I meant to imply that they have absolutely no chance. Why would Scarlett Johansson bang some random dude who's got nothing going for him?
Delete"Relative market value"--heh heh, so many men think they can be the next Jack "I've got ten bucks in my pocket and nothing to offer you" Dawson from James Cameron's Titanic and land themselves a Rose Calvert.
DeleteWhile this isn't impossible (just look at who Anne Heche chose during her "rebound" period after Ellen DeGeneres) because there are people of character in any SES level, people from one SES level don't normally rub shoulders with those of "lower" SES levels, right?
Didn't you say once that the "better nightclubs" do their best to filter their clientele, since letting any old schmoe who can pay the cover charge is a recipe for disaster?
As for "Fuck me eyes," the manosphere has turned that into a problem too, with their focus on false rape accusations, which according to them are pulled out any time a woman engages in uncoerced sexual activity but regrets it any time later.
Speaking about clubs who cater to the moneyed: they turn away a ton of women too. It's quite fascinating to see those "confident" mediocre looking women who thought that a glitzy dress and a ton of makeup would get them into any place walking off with a defeated look on their face.
DeleteRead "Farewell to Alms" by Gregory Clark if you want actual historical data on sexual trends in Europe pre-1800's, particularly England (among other things, it's a book of economic history). Yes, chastity outside of marriage was the norm, average age of marriage for a woman was mid twenties, for a man mid thirties, marriages lasted for life. For a more recent look at data from an Americo-centric pov read "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray. Prior to the sixties in America pre-marital chastity was overwhelmingly the norm.
DeletePass whatever value judgments you want, but for centuries the west was much much more chaste until relatively recent history.
(Out of wedlock birthrates are also on the rise in america since the sixties, as are the rate of failed marriages, decreases in voluntary labor force participations... lots of interesting stuff to chew over.)
PART ONE:
ReplyDeleteThank you for writing this piece Aaron, it needed writing. Like a lot of manosphere/pua myths, this too is based on conflations and distortions based on a few semi-truths, which can often easily lead someone to buying into the absurd theory some puatard (Roosh/Roissy) concocted.
For example...
Puatard myth: 20% of men fuck 80% of the women
Objective semi-truth: 20% of men have 80% of the casual, uncommitted sex.
My experiences with having many hot, attractive female friends and a large social influence - is similar to yours.
Most of them only ever do the "party & have one-night-stands" as a one-off-thing or as an experiment.
For example she'll spend 3-4 years in a committed relationship, and after a nasty breakup she'll be like "fuck this shit, I wanna be single and fuck every dick that moves"...
She'll perhaps have 1 or 2 one-night stands, realize she's really a relationship girl and then she'll go back down to "nope, sex and the city was wrong, I do want a relationship and love..." and then she'll go back to finding a boyfriend she spends 4-5 years with.
With most women on the planet, the party&fuck phase is a one-time thing, it's not a way of life. It might last a few weeks or a few months, and even then being inexperienced at casual sex, she'll only have 1 or 2 of those before she goes back to relationshipping...
NOW (the semi-truth part) -> Being that most women are inexperienced at casual sex, they can't have it EVEN WHEN THEY WANT TO. I.e. they feel insecure about how to get it, they don't know how to signal they want to be propositioned for sex, they don't know if the guy will be any good, and they just plain prefer doing it with a guy who's experienced with it (otherwise they sex won't be as good).
All of this leads to a circumstance where most of the time, they only get picked up by a playa (someone who has specialized in reading cues, knowing how and when to escalate etc etc). So there is some truth that there is quite a bit of inequality when it comes to casual sex.
If you have a large niche of say 200 women and 200 men... You will find that there's 2 guys who have had like a 100 one-night-stands each, a dozen guys who have had like a dozen one-night-stands, and then all the other guys have either ZERO one-night-stands.
That 80/20 disparity does seem to hold up from my anecdotal observance. The part where PUA-tards turn this semi-truth into an absurd myth is where they say this is going on every day (that each individual woman is doing this all the time), where in truth it's just that women only do this at rare (vulnerable) points in time.
And the reason that a few guys get most of this vulnerable-time pussy is simply because these few guys have dedicated themselves to mastering the craft of reading cues and knowing how and when to escalate quickly (not because of some mythical alphaness).
PART TWO:
ReplyDeleteHOWEVER (back to the point)...
Most sex had on this planet (like 99.9% of it) is had within relationships
(partners have sex hundreds or thousands of times, whereas casual sex is 1-3 times in most cases)
When it comes to relationships, there is no 80/20 dichotomy, in fact all the stats show men and women are about equal in ability to get relationships and in the number and kinds of partners they have.
(of course the men have to do a lot more work in the front end where as women get to be lazy and wait for the men to initiate everything)
But the point is in the end, men have the same ability* to get a partner that women do. I.E there is not much of an inequality when it comes to relationships. Most men have as many relationships as most women and as each other (as much as other men). Men who have no relationships ever are super-rare, as are men who get many more relationships than the average. Both are outliers. Most men in the population are close to the arithmetic average. (unlike with casual sex where the arithmetic average is unrepresentative because some men can get ZERO casual sex and others can have hundreds of casual lays)
(note I used the word "ability"... men still have to do more work and take more risk to realize the ability)
OH (another semi-truth)
ReplyDeleteThe reason it's easy to believe the myth of the "nerd revenge" where women suddenly plummet in value and men become desirable is because of ANOTHER CONFLATION.
What happens is that women have the same problem men have. When women are younger they have CGA (cue-giving anxiety) or (interest-showing-anxiety).
Yeah I just came up with those terms and they suck, but the point is just like men have escalation anxiety and approach anxiety, women have just as much anxiety with their end of the deal (showing signs of interest, displaying desire for a man etc etc).
For a young woman to HINT at wanting to be asked out is AS SCARY as it is for a young man to ask her out.
So when 18-year old nerds see this whole period of no woman showing interest in him, he concludes he's undesirable... and then 10 years later the same women DO show interest in him... he concludes he's more desirable (and there is SOME truth to it, as men accumulate status, confidence etc over time) the MAIN factor with women his age is that the women have become more confident.
They might have been AS interested in him 10 years ago, they just had shyness about showing interest and flirting themselves.
And if he finds women younger than him show him more interest (say 20 year old chicks show more interest in his 27 year old self than they did when he was 20), it's because he too acts more confident, calm, composed and flirtatious than he did when he was 20.
"They might have been AS interested in him 10 years ago, they just had shyness about showing interest and flirting themselves."
DeleteIt's not the only reason (the girls could lack the maturity to see the value in those who aren't "stereotypically alpha"), but I sure wish we didn't have all the awkwardness around. It's such a ripe source of wrongheaded speculation. If we could be upfront about our intentions and receive honest answers every time it would be much easier.
Then again, how often do women paint people who give unwanted but harmless approachers the "creep treatment" anyway? The internet is a great place to ruin someone's reputation, and there are websites devoted to splashing the faces of those even suspected of harassment around the 'net.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not defending women's behaviour in their teens and twenties, I'm known for ranting against women's laziness and spoildness in their youth to the point of being accused of being a virgin...
DeleteI'm just offering an understanding for why it "seems like" women are uninterested in you when you're in your twenties and then all of a sudden when you're in your thirties they seem all interested.
Another way to say it is:
"It's not that women are more interested in you after having "rode" the mythical cock carousel... It's that they become less lazy and spoiled over time or... they do less interest hiding as they mature..."
It might seem like semantics, but it's a crucial difference from the distorted manosphere view.
The problem is when we are young we are discouraged a bit in our sexuality to delay us from fucking around too soon. Young girls are restricted by slut shaming to the point of being afraid to show interest and also fear of being raped.
DeleteAnother major problem i have noticed myself is as a woman i feel my gaze is restricted because as soon as you start to look at men there is a risk they will come over and expect you to be interested in them, this effect is worse when you are younger and improves as you get less attractive with age as you get to look more and not have them notice and come over as quick.
You are deflating your numbers in 2 ways:
ReplyDelete1. Using 15-20 year olds. Lots of virgins, especially males.
2. Women's notch count goes up x2 with an inoperable lie detector: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/sexsurv.htm
The biggest sluttiness divide is between Asia and developed western countries.
Basically, though, I agree that there is a PUA caricature and your evaluation of the present is more accurate, numbers aside. I have my doubts about your historical perspective. And you have completely missed the importance of the sociological angle, which concerns writers like Roissy.
Koanic,
Deleteeven if the numbers were twice as high it wouldn't matter. Statistical samples are inherently unreliable. The point was that virginity is not uncommon, and that most women have very few sexual encounters. Even if the median was 20, it would still be a far cry from manosphere phantasies of a "cock carousel".
The Durex study I quote mixes men and women. While women may deflate their numbers, men quite possibly exaggerate them a bit, especially in light of peer pressure. For instance, the numbers for Germans seemed a bit high, based on my personal sample according to which German girls were less experienced than girls from other nationalities I met (I know that this is just anecdotal evidence). However, it seems that virginity has a greater stigma attached to it in Germany than in some other countries, which may make some people lie about it.
I'm not sure I follow about the "sociological angle" since I mention the target audience of Roissy and Roosh. What exactly do you mean?
"While women may deflate their numbers, men quite possibly exaggerate them a bit,"
DeleteThe study or a related one covers that, it's approx 2x for women vs 3% variation for men.
If you do not understand the importance of the sociological "cock carousel" idea as part of "enjoy the decline", you do not understand Roissy. The concept does not mean, "women are always having sex so it should be easy". Roissy doesn't think the carousel operates that fast on partner count. You are missing the emotional impacts of high partner count for women.
The Durex numbers you quoted mixes boys and girls. I doubt Roissy would be surprised to hear there are still plenty of 15 year-old virgins in Europe. Fisher and Alexander looked at 18-25 yr olds, i.e., young men and women. The men in that study did not, in total, inflate their notch counts in response to social pressure. In fact they reported slightly lower notch counts when they thought their responses would be monitored but they were not led to believe they were connected to a lie detector (3.7 vs. 4, presumably insignificant, worth mentioning only because it contradicts the statement that men will tend to exaggerate their notch counts). Women, on the other hand, clearly lied (2.6 vs. 4.4). That's a substantial difference which calls into question many reported statistics of this kind. Also, just speaking as a man, it should tell that when a woman confides in you that she's had x number of sex partners, you can generally multiply that number by 1.7 if you really want to know.
DeleteSo how many cocks does it take to make up a cock carousel? I honestly think 20 (or 34 since we're being honest) is pretty carousely, especially for a young woman. A few boyfriends, a few hook ups, a few flings, a friend with benefits, an it's complicated: that might describe the typical sexual history of a young, unmarried woman, but it won't add up to 20, much less 34.
Watch Hugh Grant react to Andie MacDowell's recount up to 33:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_uKO6LIWLA
There's some honesty in that scene, and also some b.s., namely the idea that a woman can sleep with several dozen guys and, when she's ready to settle down and marry, still enjoy the same fantastic romantic prospects that a younger, less promiscuous woman would. This is the fantasy Roissy's idea of the cock carousel addresses. It's a good metaphor and great cultural criticism.
I can think of another movie quote to add here, from Kevin Smith's 1994 movie Clerks:
Delete"I'm stuck in this pit, working for less than slave wages. Working on my day off, the goddamn steel shutters are closed, I deal with every backward ass fuck on the planet. I smell like shoe polish. My ex-girlfriend is catatonic after fucking a dead guy. And my present girlfriend has sucked 36 dicks."
The fact that the last line was reserved for last really does make you realize just how much being "just another cock on the round" can wound some men's pride.
There's also a line from Gary Oldman's Immortal Beloved, from the character of Johanna Reiss, where she says:
"Yes, I have had lovers. But that is not a crime."
But that's so hard for many manosphere bloggers to believe.
It doesn't make sense.
DeleteA sexual encounter has both men and women. Averages should be equal.
1 guy has sex with 100 different women. 99 men are virgins. Average for the guys is 1. Average for the women is 1.
Where does the averaging discrepancy come from? Players are excluded from research?
Statistics itself is unreliable since you only take a sample of the population. Second, you rely on self-reports of people. Men may slightly inflate, while women deflate their numbers. Third, you're forgetting that people can have same-sex encounters. Imagine you had 100 men and 100 women. The 100 women are all hypersexual lesbians, and have 99 sexual partners each. The guys sit at home and watch porn. Average for the guys: 0. Average for the women: 99.
DeleteAlso, there is a difference between the mean and the average. If you had three guys, one of which is a virgin, the other has banged 2 chicks, and the third is Gene Simmons and has banged 10,000., then the average is about 3,300. Yet, the mean is 2.
Actually, you're talking about the mean/average and the median :)
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average#Calculation
Mean: sum of all counts divided by number of counts (3,300)
Median: middle value (2)
There's also the mode, the most common value. A lot of biological and sociological data has a normal or gaussian distribution, which entails that mean, median and mode are all the same; there are some high and some low extremes and most people are in the middle.
If mean and median differ, the distribution will have a tail. For example, # of sex partners will have a certain right-tailed structure because you can't go lower than 0, but you can go quite high.
But fundamentally, in most studies, the means and medians of the numbers of sex partners are the same, for both genders, which implies that most people, men and women, have a handful of sex partners, and there are a very few virgins and a very few extremely promiscuous people on either gender.
You're right. Thanks for the clarification. I was indeed talking about the median, not the mean.
DeleteThank you for covering and debunking this. This is a common delusion, tied up with the belief that women hold all the sexual agency/power in heterosexual relationships and men (barring PUA skills) hold none.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the "SMV drops to zero after 30 years of age for women" is driven by those who see older women continually ignored at these clubs/bars and then believe that they never get laid or back in an intimate relationship. Is that what you've seen yourself?
There are real-life ways that one's SMV can be forcibly lowered to zero, however. This can be via getting acid thrown in your face (or otherwise being horrifically disfigured), or having your reputation irrevocably stained (justifiably or not), or becoming a mental vegetable, etc. Funny how I've never seen manosphere bloggers mention those.
And "neither is it common that a young woman fucks a different guy week after week. They get tired of that too"? I remember how Neil Strauss's seminal book talked about he got tired of the PUA lifestyle, but I haven't heard of a similar female account talking about this. And even if there were, it wouldn't likely convince the manosphere bloggers, consumed as they are by the notion that women can make men into puppets just with the prospect of pussy (there has even been academic interest in this, what with Catherine Hakim's "Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital" book).
When you see an older woman in a club, it's normally the kind of girl who was at best semi-attractive when she was younger and had more sex than others because she made herself more easily available. Now she's 35, wants an ego boost, and goes to the club again, but her looks count for nothing anymore. Of course she can't compete in that kind of environment. Most clubs cater for the young, after all.
Delete"who see older women continually ignored at these clubs/bars"
DeleteAlthough I don't frequent mainstream clubs and bars too often, my general experience tells me that even borderline hideous girls get hit on a very high amount. Not necessarily at the beginning of the night, but certainly so towards the end. It may not be the type of guy she wants, but they are definitely not ignored in my experience.
"it wouldn't likely convince the manosphere bloggers"
One of the key ways how PUA and manosphere maintain their delusions is that anything you say which goes against what they are saying, is classified into "women only show their real face to an alpha male", "you are a faggot", "you will only see this when you get elite skillz", "this is supposed to be hard", "no pain, no gain", "women lie all the time" or some shitty theory about how women only fuck alpha males, or some shit about beta chumps etc.
So what is going to happen is that if ever women say anything about how they really don't fuck random dudes every week, people are just not going to believe it. As an example, I talked about this comment from Chris that according to what he asked, college girls by their junior year have "experienced just about everything".
Whenever I have asked my female friends, the selection of whom have studied in colleges pretty much all round the world, they all said the same thing what Sleazy and Alek are saying - that they and most of the people they know have had a couple of boyfriends, maybe a hook up or two but that's really about it. There are really a few girls who are very promiscuous on which every PUA/dating coach bases their theories.
One sticking point the MRA bloggers often use is hypergamy, exemplified here:
Deletehttp://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/hypergamy-doesnt-care/
It's point that easily sticks because a man who feels betrayed by a woman who leaves him for another will more likely believe the other man was more alpha than he was than look at his own flaws. And yet there are plenty of MRA blogs that would have you believe that a woman in a heterosexual relationship is looking to trade up during every waking moment, unless her current man uses "game."
Reading the manosphere can make me feel more empowered than reading feminism! Its clear the manosphere bloggers are talking from their dicks.
DeleteI am glad you wrote this article. This problem is not just a manosphere or the PUA community thing. Most people who have been involved with reading any form of cold approaching stuff online have this problem. It's almost like a virus, which people catch which renders them incapable of reflecting on their own experiences.
ReplyDeleteLook at this article from Chris from GLL, who might seem like one of the more legit dudes out there:
http://www.goodlookingloser.com/2012/08/29/hot-women-only-want-to-fuck-the-hottest-guys/
I quote a paragraph from it:
"When these hot girls become college Juniors and Seniors, they have a decent amount of experience. They generally have experienced just about everything- super hot guys, hot guys, average guys, good sex, bad sex, oral sex, big cock, small cock, one-night stands, committed relationships, and all levels of personality/coolness. They’ve heard about the experiences of their best friends too."
By his own admission, of all the chicks Chris fucked (he says all were hot, which is what he refers to here) a bunch of them were certainly virgins, and others were fairly inexperienced. Yet, if you read that article or the above comment, it seems like hot girls by the time they are juniors and seniors, have "experienced just about everything".
All these problems would auto resolve if people actually went out, made friends with normal people and actually used their own heads to reflect on their experiences rather than blindly believing random internet dudes.
In the real world, if one made friends with average girls, they would realize that average girls get super excited when they are going on a date, when they get a somewhat decent guy they just don't want to let him go, they never hook up with random strangers, that they are normally very insecure about their bodies and getting naked with a guy (which they would not be if they had done so 100s of times with diff guys as PUAs think they do), that they keep complaining how it's not easy to meet a decent guy etc.
It's almost like every goddamn theory they come up with, is based on some 1% of the population.
"Average girls get super excited when they are going on a date, when they get a somewhat decent guy they just don't want to let him go, they never hook up with random strangers, that they are normally very insecure about their bodies and getting naked with a guy, that they keep complaining how it's not easy to meet a decent guy etc."
DeleteI think the main sticking point is how women's attraction to men doesn't work on the "HB 1-10" scale (seductionmyth.com explains that it works on "types" instead), so this divide engenders all the crapola about Alphas, "gina tingles," and whatnot. Here's one manosphere blogger who recommends men learn game en masse:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/12/02/a-secret-the-kgb-couldnt-have-kept/
The "keep complaining how it's not easy to meet a decent guy" bit--this runs headlong into how so many "Nice Guys" don't get laid, never mind how "nice" can be very hard-to-define term. It also runs into the observation that "if I'm genuinely decent, why can't I find a genuinely decent girl? shared by many men. It could just be as simple as "approach anxiety" on both sides, but a snarl like this still fuels conclusions like "women don't and can't love like men do" as demonstrated by the following blog entry:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/are-the-vast-majority-of-women-truly-incapable-of-experiencing-recriprocal-love-and-attraction/
It's lovely how such an ugly situation can result from elementary misunderstandings, huh?
Not just average girls, either. It's good girls and great girls, too.
DeleteBeautiful women with good attitudes and healthy self-esteems get super excited when they are going on a date with a guy they like. It's not easy for any woman to meet a great guy, no matter how hot she is. That's why, when a great woman likes a guy - and he is a great guy - she will do everything she can to keep him (and keep him happy) and avoid anything that could even remotely sabotage the relationship.
In many ways, beautiful women have it harder than average ones when finding a great guy because the signal to noise ratio is so high. For a great guy, those women will hold on even tighter, and become even better women in order to keep him into her.
This is where all of the PUA's and manosphere guys have completely missed the big picture on girls chasing guys...
If YOU (speaking generally) are a great guy for her - meaning she likes you, she is a better woman with you, she enjoys life with you, you respect each other and support each other - she will do everything she possibly can to keep you in her life and keep you happy, satisfied and enjoying your life with her (read: lots sex, smiles and fun minus the drama, BS and foolishness).
They think that getting women to chase involves being more alpha, telling a cool story, or being higher value than her. They think it's a trick.
Really, it's all about finding a great woman who is into you and then being the kind of guy who makes her life better and makes her a better person. It doesn't matter how hot she is or how much 'value' you think you are supposed to have.
She has to be a good woman (loyal, trustworthy, honest, etc.) and you have to be the guy who she wants to keep. You can't fake that no matter how alpha you act.
---
Side note: I'm sure some of you already realize exactly why their theories about women are so skewed towards the messed up kind of women that give good women a bad name.
It's because THEIR attitudes towards life and women repel any decent, sane woman with even a modicum of self-esteem. The only women who they ever have experiences with are the leftovers. The women who lie, cheat and disrespect themselves and anyone else in their life. They never get to experience the joys of being with truly wonderful women because those women are smart enough to stay away from PUA's and misogynists long before those guys even know they were disqualified.
All their theories about ALL women actually are based on a tiny fraction of women. The women who they succeed with.
For the same reason that I know that beautiful women who are honest, trustworthy, open-minded, flexible and giving; who never bitch or complain and never cause drama; who are highly sexual with me and completely loyal when I'm not there; who would rather go make money for and with me than spend time in a club getting hit on by random dudes; who are respectful and also worthy of respecting...
...the same reason I (and probably many here) know that THOSE women exist is the exact same reason why they believe that they don't. Those women truly don't exist in their world.
-Jack
@Jack - I feel a huge reason why most PUA folks run into these issues and come up with stupid theories is actually derived from the very idea of approaching random chicks in the first place, especially in hostile environments.
DeleteHonestly, if people just learned to make friends with girls, and got to know them over time in friendly environments, honestly, 90% of the issues will literally become non-issues to begin with.
Needing to tell a cool story, needing to be in "state", requiring great body language, great voice, sexy stereotyping, needing to be extremely aggressive, dealing with her "ASD", dealing with bitchy friends, keeping a high energy level, isolating her from friends, coming up with a cool date plan, scheduling dates on weekdays, thinking girls are incapable of being nice and genuinely loving, thinking they only want "alpha males" yada yada yada - all this is a direct result of trying to hook up with random strangers in hostile environments.
All this happens because girls never really get to know you, never really get comfortable with you, so they act unnecessarily hostile. I literally see it with my eyes. Girls who I would count among the sweetest and most genuinely compassionate people I know, act extremely hostile and bitchy after one too many guys approach them (some very creepily so), when all they really wanted to do was say, catch up with an old friend.
Jack: Good stuff there, but the problem of making your interest unequivocally known and not coming off as a creep remains, which is where all those PUA routines try to insert themselves. And about "she will do everything she possibly can to keep you in her life and keep you happy, satisfied and enjoying your life with her"; I personally find this hard to believe. If this were true, then why do so many women play games and keep the status of the relationship in a haze? Why does it remain so hard for great guys and great girls to find one another?
DeleteJohnny: I'm not sure "hostile environments" is the right term. Maybe "environments not conducive to socialization" would be a more accurate term. On the street, people almost always have somewhere they need to be, so starting up a convo with a "pressing reason" is often seen as rude. On the other hand, a situation like striking up conversations with fellow passengers on an hours-long Greyhound bus ride can yield surprising results, because otherwise you're bored out of your skull.
As for "one too many guys" approach them, where exactly did you see this taking place? Out on the street?
@Fifth - You are right. Environments more conducive to socialization is a better term. People being hostile/friendly is a result of how easy is it to socialize.
DeleteRegarding "one too many guys" thing, basically I meant any lounge/bar/club. The one particular incident I had in mind was that recently I was visiting a female friend we were meeting up after a while. During the night at different points, some guys were creepily standing around us, some people tried to chat her up, one even tried to make fun of me hoping it would somehow win alpha brownie points with her! At some point she just snapped, and just badly insulted a guy.
@Johnny – I can understand how you feel that approaching random women might lead them to those theories.I can also respect that you have probably had a lot of success with women by becoming friends and getting to know them over time.
DeleteSince I prefer approaching women randomly (it suits my lifestyle and time commitments better), I’ll speak from that experience.
My experience leads me to believe that unhealthy attitudes towards women has no correlation to where/how those guys are meeting women. I’ve met a lot of truly wonderful women by simply approaching them, randomly, in a large number of situations and settings.
Similarly:
- I’ve known guys who approach women randomly in lots of settings who have very healthy attitudes towards women and have found incredible girlfriends and wives from it.
- Guys who have met women through friends or by becoming friends who have very healthy attitudes towards women and have found incredible girlfriends and wives from it.
- Guys who approach women randomly who have extremely negative views towards women and only end up with train wrecks of women.
- Guys who meet women through friends or by becoming friends who have extremely negative views towards women who only end up with train wrecks of women.
If their unhealthy attitudes towards women isn't a result of approaching them randomly, then where does it come from? My guess is that it's simply due to unhealthy attitudes towards women that would manifest no matter what they did but I don't know for sure. Don't really care.
In defense of approaching women randomly, while being polite, respectful, accepting no as an answer, being conscious of when she is uninterested, and moving forward only if she is interested and has the same goal as me:
How and where you meet the women doesn’t matter much at all, in my experience. The main factor is whether or not there is mutual chemistry, mutual interest.
If she is interested (and the guy doesn’t mess it up by getting pushy or overstepping his welcome), then most women won’t act hostile, especially if the guy approaching her is polite and respectful of her, her time, her friends, her friends time, and is overall classy and tactful about the whole situation. Hostility rate in my experience has been about .0001%, or 1 in ever 10,000 approaches.
If the interest is not there and the guy is still being pushy and missing all the – usually instantaneous – signals that she has no interest in him, I can understand exactly why any girl, great or average, would act hostile, b*tchy or rude. I probably would too if I were in her position. How else can they respond to guys who won’t take no for an answer?
For me, taking ‘no’ (and its variations) as a respectable answer from women – whether I met them on the street or through friends – solved almost all of the “women acting rude or b*tchy” issues” I ever encountered when I was younger or when I tested all the different tactics out there. All of issues came from continuing to interact with women who weren’t interested in me. If she is interested, those issues never seem to come up (except on the very rare occasion that the girl actually is b*tchy or rude).
It’s not about whether you approach in a hostile or friendly environment or not, it’s about whether she’s into you or not. If she is, then you being pushy (along with all those other things you listed) is completely unnecessary. It's just a matter of making the relationship as much fun as possible for two people who are into each other (this is why I like fun date plans, just like I enjoy doing fun things with friends). If she’s not into you, then you being pushy (along with all those other things you listed) won’t help anyways (including the most awesome date plan in the world). Girls get approached more in bars/clubs than they do in coffee shops so naturally those places will appear more hostile (women have to deal with a higher quantity of pushy guys), but in my experience, the location really doesn't matter much. Just whether she's interested or not.
-Jack
@Fifth Season – "I personally find this hard to believe. If this were true, then why do so many women play games and keep the status of the relationship in a haze? Why does it remain so hard for great guys and great girls to find one another?"
DeleteI can see how it might be hard to believe for some people.
Perhaps the most important skills I have ever developed are assertiveness skills and relationship communications skills; things like setting boundaries in the relationship, setting the right expectations, avoiding setting the wrong expectations, going slow in the relationship (I’m not referring to sex), negotiating acceptable terms for the relationship at all levels, respecting her choices and being willing to walk away from a bad deal, or respecting her decision to do the same if she feels the need, handling potential problems or gray areas upfront instead of waiting for them to bite you in the ass, being able to see beyond a woman’s beauty and interest in you and recognize whether she is trustworthy, loyal, honest, drama-free, etc.
These are skills that have as much relevance 10 years later with a woman as they do from the very beginning.
It takes two people to play games and/or keep the relationship in a haze. In my experience, when I learned how to be more straightforward, honest and assertive in my relations with women, women started becoming much easier to understand, much easier to relate to, and much easier to have smooth, drama-free relationships with.
I don’t know your situation or your relationships with women so I can’t comment on why it might seem like women play games or keep the status of the relationship in a haze with you. I can only speak from my own experience. In my experience, women don’t play games and the relationship status is completely clear. On the occasions where there might be communication breakdowns, we solve those *together*. Most of them can be handled up front.
I don’t entirely know what you mean by games, but I know that when I used to think women were playing “games” with me, it was almost entirely a result of poor communication and poor boundary setting and/or not correctly seeing that a girl really wasn’t all that into me or me being too pushy, aggressive or needy (all variations of the same thing) and not giving her enough space. Most dating advice (and movies, TV and media) out there teaches guys to chase after a girl, which is typically counter-productive to building a mutually fulfilling, happy, drama-free relationship.
(continued)
@FifthSeason (continued from above)
DeleteAs for the relationship status, it’s simple (for me). I invite women on dates, using that word specifically. There is no question about whether we are dating (which means we are also free to date other people). During this stage, I only see her once a week, no texting or phone conversations between dates, no weekend dates (usually) and I keep dates shorter than 5 hours. Why? Because it makes it very clear to her that we are not bf/gf (setting expectations). These are also the boundaries I am comfortable with for women who I’m not exclusive with. Guys can set the boundaries that work for them.
Some women have questions about those boundaries. That's fair. You don’t need excuses for why those are your boundaries. Respectful women will respect your boundaries, as long as they know what they are.
Some women will want to clarify the relationship. In that case, I am straightforward with her about the relationship status (and I never, ever sugar-coat it to try to get her to stay or to try to avoid guilt. You gotta own your boundaries and decisions).
If she wants more of my time, or wants to be exclusive, I give it a week or more to evaluate whether she is the right girl for me to be exclusive with. If not, I let her know. Some women leave at that point. Some women stay and make themselves better. I respect either choice and I never try to get her to stay. I make sure she is 110% okay with the situation.
If she is a great woman and I decide to move to the next stage with her, then we set terms. If we are both 110% in agreement on the terms of the relationship, great! Now we both know exactly what the status of our relationship is and we both know our boundaries. If the relationship progresses further, it continues along a similar pattern.
It has been a long time since I have had any relationship haze or game-playing.
As far as great guys and great girls finding each other, I have no doubt that we probably have extremely different definitions of both of those terms (great guys, great girls) so I hope you'll keep that in mind. In my experience it’s not all that hard for great guys and great girls to find each other. It might take time (not always) and patience. But it’s not hard if guys and girls are willing to meet as many people as possible, searching for the right match for them, while wasting as little time as possible on people who aren’t a good fit. That applies to much more than dating and relationships as well.
-Jack
@Jack:
DeleteI see, it's just that you wouldn't see all those advice columns and women-catering magazines all talking about "how to define the relationship" or "get a commitment" if there wasn't relationship haze around.
As for great people finding each other, the vast majority of us are average, and thus averagely decent. But online dating and dating coaches wouldn't be thriving as much as they are now if so much trouble didn't exist in this process.
**In Response To The Discussion Between Jack And Johnny About Cold Approaching**
DeleteJack... Your comments almost come off as condenscending to average guys, almost feministic in nature
I'm assuming that unlike most guys entering the community, you ALREADY had some success with women (at least a few makeouts here and there) and probably some lays and relationships too. In other words, you already had the basics down BEFORE you started doing cold-approaches, no?
See, your entire paragraph about women and how you oversimplify it as the most basic thing in the world read like it was written by a natural (someone who picked up calibration/escalating/mating skills very early in life and has no concious recollection of it).
Those platitudes about "oh, if you just respect boundaries, no chicks is ever going to be mean to you" are almost insulting. Most akward and inexperienced guys are NOT overstaying a welcome due to "disrespect". It's a mixture of inexperience (lack of calibration) a brain flooded with anxiety and outcome dependence. This is the typical guy who discovers the community.
What Johnny says refers to the average guy who WILL trigger a lot of mean and rude responses due to akwardness (and no, lack of social skills is not disrespect, not everyone was as lucky as YOU mr jack)... You picked up calibration early in life, good on you. But don't shame and demean men who didn't and make them feel even worse. Those guys are out there cold-approaching, having NO BAD INTENT whatsover and they wonder why they get bitchy responses. Consider it color-blindness.
For the average guy reading PUA-crap Johnny's advice is to FIRST get some experience and calibration and mating success under your belt in social circles, because women are a lot more FORGIVING. Akwardness in cold-approaches triggers a negative loop where you get nastier and naster responses leading to nastier and nastier attitude on your part, leading to even nastier and nastier responses, to where you develop this irrational belief that women hate you. This is what Johnny is reffering to.
Awkwardness and lack of calibration in social circles doesn't have negative consequences and leads to friendships, and eventually if you go to enough social contexts that have women, your awkwardness will subside, you'll naturally make female friends and hook up with a few and get a lot of positive feedback. This is what Johnny means. That social circles are a great way of building success upon success until you build an identity and belief system that women are cool, and nice, and you'll also have calibration.
After a guy does this, he may find he no longer even desires or cares about cold-approaching anymore. He may find he is satisfied with the amount of lays gotten in circles with ease. And if he DOES want to try cold-approaching, he will then find it easy and have the same effortless and easy experiences that you report.
I hope that clarifies things...
@Jack
DeleteI think Alek made some great points about what you write is definitely not from the perspective of an average guy.
Another point is that, my experiences just simply don't agree with what you write that where you meet a girl is irrelevant. Most girls in my experience respond very awkwardly to unfamiliar dating situations. Most girls are just not comfortable being approached by strangers, no matter how smooth you are.
Even when a girl likes you on the street or a bar, a lot of the times because of the non-familiarity of the situation, and the general high level of distrust women have of strangers, ensures nothing will happen.
Heck, I now feel women in your social circle, especially single ones, agree to go out with you even if they are not very attracted to you. Like literally, this thing seems to work in the reverse. Where strangers are concerned, women need a lot of things to be right before they will go out with you, whereas in your social circle, if a woman is comfortable with you (which most should be), she will often times go out with you even if she isn't particularly interested, simply because they don't like the idea of turning down guys too much in a social circle.
If anyone thinks game or having the balls to cold approach doesn't work, just look up videos from simple pickup or VitalyzdTv on youtube.
ReplyDelete'Nuff said
So you seriously think that getting a phone number is the same as fucking a chick? That Vitalyzd dude ended up in jail as a direct result of his complete lack of social calibration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us2kv0kzYxM
DeleteWay to go!
Seductionmyth.com calls it the "Get-laid-quick" scheme, as though with the right schooling and practice one could get lays as easy as Luis Fernando Lopez in the video game Grand Theft Auto 4 (the game depicts him as able to screw any chick on a club's dance floor if he dances with her well enough, in the club's bathroom).
DeleteAs unrealistic as this all is, the PUA trainers/gurus will likely never be at a loss for people lining up to learn their "skills."
The PUA market is shrinking. For evidence, look no further than the lack of big "releases" or "super conferences", and the fact that many of the B team are trying to reposition themselves in the wider self-help industry.
DeleteMaybe the PUA industry is indeed shrinking, but their target market ("average frustrated chumps," "incels," "beta males," or men who otherwise have no luck/success in the sexual arena) has and always will be there, and will still be looking for advice. The perception that "women are gatekeepers and the only way to get in is via deceit" will likely remain prevalent for a long time.
DeleteI am not so sure PUA's are doing badly. I have noticed that most dating advice for men in magazines and other places is coming from them. They are in fact considered experts just because they say they are experts.And guys like Dr. Nerdlove who are basically peddling warmed over PUA advice are actually excepted by a lot of groups that hate PUAs like for instance feminists. Their advice has in fact been normalized in the culture. The smart ones are simply positioning themselves as dating experts for men.
DeleteVitaly is doing pranks, he ended up in jail as a result of the prank that has nothing to do with picking up chicks, as can be seen from the video you linked
ReplyDeleteHe is just crazy mofo, simple pickup is better example :)
And no getting a phone number is not the same as fucking a chick, but looking at sp videos lots of girls were interested, they were not just giving up numbers to get rid of them
Well, Vitaly seems to have a poor concept of decency and is too focused on providing "shock value". I see little more than a rehash of mainstream game in Simple Pickup, which means that the same criticism applies.
DeleteSimplepickup guys are attractive, and young. They are in their prime lookswise. They look good, so they can get away with retarded PUA stuff. It's finding a correlation where there is none.
DeleteDon't forget the crazy cuckolding theory in the Manosphere. Every month when your wife ovulates she is secretly plotting to get knocked up by an alpha male and have you raise the kid. That's why "married game" is so urgently needed.
ReplyDeleteBeing cuckolded by a woman and then being forced to pay child support for a resultant child not genetically related to the payer is one of the manosphere's worst fears. It's easy for them to become fixated on anything that seems to confirm the "sexy son hypothesis," even though it's best to examine just what kind of woman are you dealing with on an individual case-by-case basis.
DeleteIn addition to the cuckoldry during ovulation myth, the Manosphere also promotes this concept of "social contract".
ReplyDeleteThey say there used to be a universal social contract that women used to understand. It went like this: If men were law abiding, dutiful and productive, women had a social duty to provide these men with affection, love, respect and sex in the form of reciprocating their romantic interests. That an individual woman might not be "feeling" a particular man who showed interest in her was of no consequence. There was a "social contract" that was followed.
The worst part about that "cock carousel" myth is that, basically, they criticize women for doing what they would like to do themselves, i.e. fucking around a lot. It's just jealousy. Like an ugly prostitute who would be calling a hot one a "whore" because she has more success than her. Misogyny at its "best".
ReplyDeleteAlso, dear Manospherians, if you want to stop women fucking who the fuck they want, then stop trying to become players because you'll increase the size of the "carousel", and stop fucking women altogether because I don't really want my children to live in a world where YOUR genes have been passed on.
The PUA community has that covered, in their pithy slogan "Don't hate the player, hate the game," as though their vision of the dating/relationship world was "the only game in town," and the only way to "get some" is to become another "cock on the round." They also like to say that men who used this mating strategy in the past had the most offspring.
DeletePart of the attitude behind all this comes from the common perception that women "can get sex whenever they want," so why shouldn't men?
An interesting angle to this is that the PUA/manosphere "thinkers" yet again cherry-pick their theories. The more general theoretical framework --- in academia, not the manosphere --- is referred to as r/K selection theory:
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory
In short, you can either optimize for evolutionary success by having a lot of offspring and investing very little in them, hoping that some will make it, simply due to the high number of kids you father, or, alternatively, have very few children and invest a lot to provide them with the best chances in life. I'm tempted to say that human society is built on the latter idea.
The problem is that players don't really want any offspring. The only place their semen is going to is inside of a condom because they're all scared of having to pay pensions for the raising of their children. So they're only having sex for pleasure and, for the most part, the "glory" they will have amongst other players.
DeleteI see nothing wrong with that though. The human race is not on the verge of extinction, and I'm not religious so I don't think sex should only be used for procreation. I also believe it's important to test women sexually to see if you're compatible, to break boundaries between you and her and to avoid being trapped into marriage by a manipulative bitch who could very well end up beating you or torturing you psychologically.
If you allow me to make a dubious comparison PUA-style, it's like listening to a lot of music to see what quality music sounds like and what you should consider to be a revolutionary band. At first you'll be attracted to whatever sounds catchy and makes you feel good (mainstream music like Simple Plan may contain good melodies) but then you will begin to pay attention to technical prowesses, the legacy of the band, the originality of the music, the quality of the lyrics and of the arrangements as well. Of course you can still enjoy mainstream pop music, but you'll think more critically, see the bigger package and prefer good music which also makes you feel good over music that just sounds good but isn't anything special. Sorry for that but I'm just a big fan of music. For women, it would be to learn how to differentiate beautiful women from high-quality women (beautiful, intelligent, not a psycho, whatever you want) for example.
But when they criticize women for having the same behavior, it becomes evident that they're not as successful as they'd like you to believe, and are utterly misogynist because of their frustration or whatever reason they have to hate women. And the fact that they misuse evolutionary theories to justify sleeping around doesn't make it any better. We may be animals, but we are not rats or insects and if they really got every girl they sleep with pregnant their children would most likely not be as mentally stable as children who've been raised normally. Also, wouldn't it increase the risks of consanguinity to have 100 children with 100 different women ?
Some men today actually have had 100 children or more with 100 or more different women--those men have donated their sperm to sperm banks and are considered "prime donors" by women looking through the catalogues. It's gotten to the point where there are now organizations to try and track down how many half-siblings a donor-conceived child might have. Some are even trying to end donor anonymity as well, so tormented they are of not knowing half of the reason for their existence.
DeleteAnd there are plenty of R-selecting species, such as frogs, rats, and fish. They seem to be doing fine, though I must say that environments where r-selection seems to be in force among humanity (such as at-risk neighbourhoods or failed states) usually aren't bastions of happiness.
"And there are plenty of R-selecting species, such as frogs, rats, and fish. They seem to be doing fine, though I must say that environments where r-selection seems to be in force among humanity (such as at-risk neighbourhoods or failed states) usually aren't bastions of happiness."
DeleteBut none of those species are as long lived as humans, and none of those species are apex predators like humans. Also, none of those species are viviparous. One female can lay thousands of eggs, while it's rare for humans to give birth to more than one child. Also, the clutch doesn't even have to be supervised by the parents. The young develope on their own.
Humans aren't R selecting species by nature.
The cock carousel is not necessrily a myth. Not if you understand the concept. It's an exaggeration. It doesn't mean women are 'riding the carousel' every week. It means that 'bad boys' get a disproportionate amount of women - ranging from below average to hot' than do the 'betas' (regular guys). If a woman, by 30, has slept with 12 men, 5 will be 'betas' (likely boyfriends) and 7 will be 'alphas' ('jerks', 'assholes', 'bad boys', 'alphas' - take your pick).
ReplyDeleteThen these women want to 'settle down' and meet a 'good guy' (a regular guy that doesn't mind 'bad boy leftovers').
Secondly, it is reasonable to criticize women for this behaviour precisely because almost any woman can have casual sex when she wants. For men, it's not the case. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Men, as a rule, tend to find promiscuous women unappealing for a long term relationship.
Essentially, women 'waste' their best years (20s) 'chasing badboys'. Then they look for 'nice guys' when they are used up. This is not excessive hyperbole. It is applicable.
I think you have to take Roissy, et al., as an exaggeration of reality. It's not necessarily a distortion. They do not indicate one can pick up girls easily and effortlessly. Think of them as using 'poetic licence' to tell a story that is not particularly flattering about women but which has a lot of validity.
- Apollyon
Sorry, but women can't have casual sex whenever they want. This is obvious to any guy who has ever been in a position to turn down the sexual advances of women, and by that I don't mean some manosphere mental masturbation, but literally saying now to a woman. That this is part of reality is apparently completely unknown to sexually frustrated men. Sure, she may then hope that some other dude takes her home, but if he doesn't turn her on like you do, then she'll rather go home alone. (Some women, though, fuck random dude's out of an inferiority complex because having any cock inside them makes them forget about their pathetic existence, but those are quite rare.)
DeleteThe Manosphere thinks that because many women could troll a bar and wait until closing time when the 5 most undesirable men are still stumbling around and her chances of being drunkenly propositioned by one of them is at least 1 in 5, that this is somehow a fortunate, glorious reality that increases womens' pride in the fact that "we can get sex whenever we want it".
DeleteMost women would not even consider such a thing in a million years.
"Most women would not even consider such a thing in a million years."
DeleteI believe that distortion comes through the difference in sexual desire between the genders (how much testosterone and whatnot). It's a common refrain in the manosphere that "women have no idea what sexual scarcity is like or what it's like to be sexually frustrated with the intensity of a man's sex drive, since all they have to do get laid is say yes."
Apparently these men never considered that women might have standards, too. These might be irrational in some cases, but it's their right to have standards nonetheless. A satire about this concept and how it comes off to uninformed heterosexual men can be found at the blog pervocracy.blogspot.ca with a couple choice lines excerpted here:
*[Heterosexual] women are not, inherently, attracted to men. A woman would certainly never pursue a man or initiate contact with him; at best she accepts applicants and judges them harshly.
*Women get an enormous thrill out of rejecting men. It's like having an orgasm while winning an Oscar and eating chocolate-covered bacon. God it's good. When a man submits his Application To Get Laid to a woman, she looks for any excuse to reject him, because she's just itching for that thrill. A woman's ideal evening is rejecting fifteen men and going home alone, and it's up to a man's luck or skill to break that streak.
A related manosphere concept is the "Alpha Widow," supposedly because Alphas make such an impression on women (and they supposedly make impressions on ALL women given their "game") they can't conceive of future relationships without "alpha men." Apparently a woman's ability to learn from their mistakes about the very real negative qualities "Alphas" exude never occurred to these men.
"I believe that distortion comes through the difference in sexual desire between the genders (how much testosterone and whatnot). It's a common refrain in the manosphere that "women have no idea what sexual scarcity is like or what it's like to be sexually frustrated with the intensity of a man's sex drive, since all they have to do get laid is say yes."
DeleteApparently these men never considered that women might have standards, too."
Those same men also have standards. You don't see them trolling the places the extremely obese fatties gather, do you? With their 1-10 scale and obsession with ratings womens' looks and Roosh's "Fat Jihad", etc, these men are nobody to talk about "sexual scarcity".
They could also "bottom feed" they way they suggest women do.
So unless they are willing to chill until closing time at a bar and approach the most unattractive woman still loitering around, then they need to shut their damn traps!
And what about their incredulous jealousy over Justin Bieber, a mere teenager, because pre, pubescent and adolescent girls 10-16 find him attractive? They say its a Feminist Plot because in their natural, non-feminist-media-brainwashed state, girls 10-16 would find "older" bald, fat, wrinkled men as the masculine ideal and proper repository of their fantasies!
So unless they are willing to chill until closing time at a bar and approach the most unattractive woman still loitering around, then they need to shut their damn traps!
DeleteWell, there are those men who don't mind "whale watching," or who say "Pussy's like pizza; even when it's bad, it's good."
Unfortunately, this post has not debunked the cock carousel meme. When you survey 15-20 year olds, of course you will have low numbers. Mine was 4 at 18, but had gotten to 26 when I got married at 28. Most HS age people just don't score that much. Just like w/ binge drinking and pot smoking, casual sex frequency explodes in college (BECAUSE MOM AND DAD AREN'T THERE. FINALLY!) and for the first few years, but then tapers off as people pair off and grow up.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the idea of damaging some of the women I slept with w/r/t later pair bonding, God alone knows. I sincerely doubt having had a few, or even a dozen, cocks ruins a women for marriage. Unmasculine, weak husbands ruin women for marriage.
I've been married 13 years now, and have a tranquil life w/ less than a dozen arguments in that time. Learn game. Why? Not to seduce women. Fun, but ultimately meaningless. Rather, to understand her attraction triggers. Learn what turns her on and then apply it to your wife. Game teaches you to be a better man, a masculine man, which is needed in this era. Just read Athol Kay and you'll be fine.
Dude, in Europe a BSc lasts three years, which normally covers the age 18-21. I thought college was when those sluts all fuck around and ride the carousel. :P But, seriously, you've picked the wrong angle. I am not familiar with any study that shows an average (!) of more than seven or so sexual partners in a life time. The point is that people don't score that much no matter whether they're in high school, college, or working. If there was a cock carousel that 90 % of women ride, then surely there would be some evidence for this.
DeleteThe cock carousel mostly refers to women in the US and sorry, Aaron, but if you don't live here and interact with many women then you aren't at liberty to say what our women are and aren't doing.
ReplyDeleteExamples that support the myth from my own experience (I from a very conervative eastern state):
1. Back in highschool, I had a Spanish class with mostly freshman girls. I remember them gossiping on several occasions about hooking up different dudes. Only like 2 out of 12 girls admitted to being virgins and felt like losers for it (they were less attractive). Several of them had already had a handful of partners at 14 years old and one even flirted hardcore with me even as she was dating Mr. Dreamy football guy.
2. My younger sister (16 years old) has been with at least 5 guys, 2 of which she admittedly hooked up with when drunk.
3. My aunt (29 years old) used to boast about her being with well over 50 dudes and even a high amount of girls. She was once gangbanged by 3 black guys when she was teenager and she occasionally gets hammered and cheats on her boyfriend of 5 years to this day.
4. Every girl I've been with (3 girls) has admitted to having a high number. Hell, I lost my virginity in a drunken threesome with my friend's girlfriend when we were 17 years old. The last girl I dated tried to get me to commit by bragging about all her notches.
5. My best friend has knowingly been cheated on by his girlfriend of 7 years at least 3 times. Once she had to get an abortion. Last time we got real drunk together, he passed out and she hinted at wanting to fuck in which I denied.
If you want to refuse the myth still, then I'll list more examples.
I agree with most of what you say about game being bullshit, but in the US, women are definitely sexually liberated and quite a few are taking advantage of it. It's disgusting the amount of cock American girls are taking.
Whatever studies you have are flawed in this regard. Consider this myth un-busted. The Manospherians aren't wrong here IMO. 7 - 10 guys in a lifetime? LOL!!
Again, you have to live here to be able to comment on the subject of the cock carousel.
Nice try, but the plural of anecdote is not data. Do you think the girls in the "bible belt" all have triple-digit counts? However, if you were only surrounded by Christian virgins, then you'd assume that sex before marriage was a myth spread by mass media. This is why there is a point in conducting studies that take into account all of society.
DeleteAlso, there is a big difference between a party school like ASU and, say, MIT:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/massachusetts-institute-technology/353744-mit-sex-omg-over-50-have-had-sex.html
'Do you think the girls in the "bible belt" all have triple-digit counts?'
ReplyDeleteI didn't once mention anyone having a triple-digit count. However, I'm in Southern WV which is technically part of the bible belt. Funny that you'd mention that since...
6. My younger cousin who is from a VERY Christian family has been with at least twice as many partners as me (and no, we don't fuck our cousins here).
I know my 'plural of anecdote' doesn't prove anything, but it's my personal experience and I can't deny what is right in front of me.
Besides, it's a well-known fact that the US has the highest amount of statistical data for teen pregnancies (WV had an explosion in the last few years making it one of the highest....look it up!). Hmm, I wonder why. Albeit it has supposedly dropped in the last decade, but I'd hypothesize that more families are choosing to put their sexually active daughters on birth control, which in turn probably makes them more liberal with their fucking.
So yes, Aaron, there are stats out there to prove that USA girls are getting it on, on average more than other girls from different countries. Though, 90% of girls doing it is an exagerration I can agree on.
Like I said, I've been in the states most of my life and there really are plenty of promiscuous women here, even in the bible belt.
You're making the same point again.
DeleteRegarding teen pregnancies: According to..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy
..."[the US teen birth rate] reached a historic low in 2010: 34.3 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19." Ah, nothing like some proper data to refute insubstantial arguments.
If you look at that same wikipedia page, it also says the following: "The teenage birth rate in the United States is the highest in the developed world, and the teenage abortion rate is also high. The U.S. teenage pregnancy rate was at a high in the 1950s and has decreased since then, although there has been an increase in births out of wedlock."
DeleteI assume Pickernanny (what does that name mean by the way?) is talking among the developed world when he says United States has highest teen pregnancy rates. Therefore even if the pregnancy rates hit a historic low in 2010, he can argue that America's historic low are still disturbingly high. On the other hand, one could argue that the data still refutes the cock carousel theory because the 1950s were when teen pregnancies were at their highest and they've been declining since then. But on the flip side to THAT, in the 1950s far more of those teen pregnancy rates were among married couples. It was far more common for teenagers especially in immigrant communities, bible belt, and red states, to be married (especially if you count 17 or 18 as a teen).
The issue is more complicated than I think the Wiki page allows us to answer. For example, even though the teenage pregnancy rate has declined, how much of that decline is due to a decline in teen pregnancy within the context of teen marriage and how much of the decline is due to a decline of single mother out of wedlock teens? Perhaps teen pregnancy declined among married teens, but the amount of unmarried teen pregnancy has gone up or held steady?
Also, given the prevalence of teen pregnancy in America, I know a lot more parents have decided to take a stance of trying to educate their teens about sex and birth control, figuring if they can't stop their teens from having sex they can at least keep them from getting pregnant. Thus it's not uncommon for many parents to give their teen daughters birth control injections that last 3 months at a pop or put them on the birth control pill. Thus teen sex could be rising sharply while teen pregnancies drop.
Also, does teen pregnancy stat only count pregnancies brought to term or does it include aborted pregnancies? If it doesn't included aborted pregnancies, then it could be a case of the reduced teen pregnancy rate being offset by a higher teen abortion rate.
This part of the Wiki jumps out at me:
Consequently, the statistics do not include women who became pregnant at least shortly before their 20th birthdays, but who gave birth, experienced a miscarriage, or had a voluntary abortion on or after their 20th birthdays
So the increase of teens on birth control and teens who get voluntary abortions is not included.
lol at wiki facts!
ReplyDeleteMy point is there're still more teen pregnancies in the US than in any industrialized country in the world by a long shot. That can't be refuted. Any decline is mosy likely due to birth control and statistically, birth rates always drop in a down economy anyway. (http://www.socionomics.net/stocks_sex.html)
So can you really disagree that US females have on average more sex than females in other in countries? I think that's a valid argument. It's no wonder either with our sex culture.
Feel free to check the sources of the Wikipedia page yourself. If there are differences, which may or may not be the case, they are far from justifying claims of a "cock carousel". Even if US women had twice as many sex partners as women elsewhere, it would be nowhere near the scenario manosphere writers fantasize about.
Delete@Grizzly
ReplyDeleteThx for chiming in. Pickernanny doesn't mean anything.
@Aaron
I said what I wanted to say and even though I agree the cock carousel is exaggerated, I believe American girls have a lot of sex in general and are much more hypergamous than say EE girls. And yes, I may very well be a bit bitter from my life situation and foul experiences with some women (my words).
On an unrelated note, I'm curious as to what your MBTI type is...I'm guessing you're an INTP. They sure are a skeptical and innovative bunch. Care to share?
I'm of course skeptical of the MBTI, too. However, you did guess correctly.
DeleteIt IS a revenge fantasy. That was so on-point! I had to back away from the manosphere because the hatred of women was just getting scary.
ReplyDeleteAs a middle-aged woman, I get a kick out of the SMV and revenge-fantasy thing. I met a man in his 40s, attractive, etc. who claimed I would've never gone out with him when we were younger because he was fat. I told him he would've never gone out with me because I was fat, too. A lot of times, fat people won't date fat people (looks equivalent). Now we are two available middle-aged people who are similar in attractiveness now. Who cares? When I was a teenager and young adult who couldn't get laid, I'd boo-hoo and cry about it, then I'd read bodice ripping novels and eat a quart of ice cream. That's what most women who can't get laid do. They don't start blogs ripping apart men for not dating them. True there are radical feminist man-hating blogs, but usually they're written by lesbians who don't want a guy anyway.
ReplyDeleteSomeone made this point, "Girls are not party favors given out to all the nice guys."
The revenge fantasy only works when you turn down someone you actually knew in high school or college. At least in the US, how many people still live in their same neighborhoods? This guy was from Texas - I was from Illinois. We never knew each other until last year. Not only that, the 30 year old "with no sexual market value" may actually be hotter now than she was in high school. If I actually wanted to be with the potbellied, greasy-eyed guys sporting beer cozies that used to be the hot studs in high school, then I would have a revenge fantasy. I don't. I just feel sad for them. I would prefer to be with the man who had been a nerd who was now an attractive man of character, despite the slight revenge fantasy in him.
I definitely am because I lost weight, got into great shape. I'm definitely older looking, but definitely better looking. Some women have lost their looks. The same with men. The idea is that a man can get any young hottie regardless of his age is wishful thinking. The older potbellied man with the young hottie on his arm is a father walking with his daughter.
Those guys who have this revenge fantasy, in their teens, twenties and thirties, if they haven't nabbed a woman now, then it's likely they won't ever. SMV for men dwindles as well.
I believe the just of the carousel theory is derived in smv in a society where women embrace sexuality and are open to casual relationships. I hate how some women hear the phrase women can get sex whenever they want and there first response is by who? Some guy we dont want. The truth is the more reciprocal a woman is for a one nighter or even fwb she has very easy ability to snag a guy above her. By two to three points. No one is suggesting women are obligated to bang any shlub who shows interest. I believe thats why the carousel theory holds some weight. Due to womens easy ability to sex well above there weight class, alot of women get distorted values of who they can date. This isnt all womens fault. But in a more traditional society where woman forced relationships and time before sex Would happen you Wouldn't have all these douche bag guys lowering there standards for fwbs and quick hitters messing up womens attraction calibrations. Hence while a girl is young she may stay on the carousel because she finds guys who will give her casual attention more desirable than those offering commitment. All the while trying to convince herself she isnt trying to date out of her league. Most guys are just commitment phobic assholes and she hasnt found mr right yet.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I follow. If you are in demand you would not settle for a woman that is older and/or much less attractive than you are. It's one thing for some chick to get used by the local stud for a night because she made it very easy to him, but quite another for her to keep him around. She'll find that it will be next to impossible. Women learn this rather quickly, since they tend to be much more focussed on relationships than men.
DeleteMost guys are just commitment phobic assholes
DeleteNo.
"Due to womens easy ability to sex well above there weight class, alot of women get distorted values of who they can date."
Delete^^This. This is why you commonly hear women, especially women in their 30's and 40's, lamenting about there being no more 'good men' left. Their promiscuity, which got them access to higher value men, gave them an overestimated sense of their own mate value. Assuming of course that mate value is an accepted concept here. If not, we can just keep the rose-colored glasses on and pretend we're all in it "for their personalities".
Just because a guy lowers his standards doesn't mean there is no attraction. Esp the higher you go up the scale. True. A male five isn't going to be very interested in a female two. This is generally for women who are fives and above. The average female five nowadays presents herself as a 6 to a 6 and a half via makeup and generally has no problem finding male 7s and 8s who know its guaranteed to go down that night. Seriously tho. If as a guy you can't admit to knowing most women will lower their standards for casual sex I can see why you have a hard time wrapping your head around this. I see it all the time. Tell you what. Conduct an experiment. Get on a dating site. Use a picture of an avg looking guy. Try to talk to nothing but average to slightly below avg looking women. You will be ignored and rejected with vitrol. Because she is getting plenty attention from male 6 7 and 8s. Not for relationships tho. But must women either don't understand that or don't want to except it. There was a study done on ok cupid where the sexes rated each other. Men rating women was very natural. Girls rated anywhere from 1 to 10. A bell curve. Women rating men. 80 percent of men were rated below avg by women. How could that happen. Kinda falls in line with the 20 percent of men fuck 80 percent of women thing too.
ReplyDeleteNo, it means that women are only interested in 20 % of men, not that those 20 % fuck anything that moves. Guys who are in demand tend to have standards about whom they have sex with.
DeleteAnd yes women do realize they can't keep these men around. Some realize it and recalibrate. Some ignore it and stay on the carousel trying to convince themselves its not cause the guys above her. This is just how men are. Most men are happy to get serious with a girl they feel is an equal. But aloooot of women go around screaming why are men such pigs who only want sex. The answer is simple. The men you want to date only want sex from you. Its a hard pill to swallow. But that's how a lot of women stay on the carousel. They just can't accept they can't date the best looking men who show interest in them. Again. Not totally women's fault that their attraction reflex gets thrown out of whack. But it happens. Some women realize this and find happiness. Some refuse to accept it finding bitterness. I'm not a red pill guy or buy into everything the manosphere pumps out. I just believe there is def some truth to this. I was on a dating site. I consider myself slightly above avg. I could not land an avg looking girl on pof or okc under the age of 30. I am also under 30. I then even started messaging girls I'd never date. Still only maybe had a ten percent reply rate. Makeup and guys lowering standards for sex really give women under 30 some pretty unrealistic standards. And yes. I've had several gfs so I know my value. And never tried to exceed it on dating sites.
ReplyDeleteNo ones saying those guys dont have standards. Just that their standards for a girl theyd sleep with vs a girl they would commit to are two totally different things. Ive had guy friends who could pass as abercrombie models shag girls id rate a 5 because they had a crazy nice ass. Thats another thing ive noticed in guys. When it comes to sex forget smv and overall ratings. If theyre looking for a hookup, booty call, fwb, they will start breaking down individual body parts when deciding if a girl is fuckable. Its crazy counter productive behavior tho. I wish guys would stop sleeping with girls they wouldn't date, and girls would stop allowing themselves to be used for masturbation substitutes. There would be alot more respectable marriageable women to go around for us all. Thats another thing that seems so contradictory to me coming out of the manosphere pua boot camp. They view all women as sluts. Heavily promote gaming and fucking anything with a pulse you can get it up for, then whine that American women are sluts and not marriageable lol. Like when do men step up and accept their role played in turning our women into hypergamic, hypersexual sluts. Its guys who give women under thirty astronomical smv that isnt equivalent to theyre mmv. So as guys, if youd like more respectable, pure, virgin type women around who arent going to be used up and miserable in marriage because the guy they can marry doesn't stack up to the guys willing to pump and dump her.Stop doing that shit. Get your dick under control and view women not as holes, but mothers, sisters, daughters, equals and even the smv market out and get rid of the carousel. But until men as a whole start treating all women with the respect of their mother, and woman you wish to marry, stop bitching. Some guys want the best of both worlds. Plenty of sluts around to catch cum and father youre illegitimate bastard kids, and the virgin to marry to be their, and thirs alone slut in the bedroom, after theyve fucked there fill of sluts of course. Cause who cares about them, and the poor bastards they marry. typical American behavior. You want to shit in the village water supply, but also your own fresh sparkling clean supply of water. guys are as responsible for the way women have become as women. So change your ways, or drink your shitty water and keep your mouth shut ._.._.._.._.._.._
ReplyDeleteWell that was a refreshing read, although I now give up trying to figure out what the fuck is going on.
ReplyDeleteBack to doing things my own way.
Here's my take on the whole - "She rode the cock carousel in her 20s, got burn out, and now she's interested in me, the beta chump" thing. Unless you live in the same town as you did in your 20s, most of the time you're not going to meet the same women . Thus, you would have no idea what she did in her 20s. The same with men. I'm a female, and years ago in my teens, no guy in my high school gave me a second glance. Now these same guys are hitting me up on Facebook. FYI, my SMV increased in my 40s. Having said that, I wasn't interested in these guys not as a revenge fantasy because I didn't hate them for not originally liking me (People like what they like), but my tastes changed as well.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that humans are non-monogamous in terms of sex drive,in terms of actual logistical convenience and options, most people partner up with one person over an extended period of time. I think too, that a men's extremely high sex drive came not merely from a drive to sow his seed, but to override the disgust of having to mate with his sister. Folks had limited options back then so you had to be extra horny.
Your smv may have increased in your forties if you lost like a hundred pounds or two but I doubt it raises compared to yourself in your twenties. Even if in your eyes you are more attractive now most guys will bang a chubby to fat 18 yr old over a in shape 40 yr old. Maybe you are an exception but I doubt it. Women's smv generally is all downhill after thirty. As is most guys. And even if you live in a diff town the wisdom that comes with age tells you women are pretty much the same everywhere. And there's a little bitterness that comes with knowing most girls slut around in there 20s and completely ignore their rmv equals until 30 is on the horizon and none of those other guys have offered commitment yet. Which is why a lot of guys are just checking out. If a guy can't get the best of his female equal and father his own children with her in her peak smv years why bail them out when there smv is declining and they have a couple trophy kids. And will now view settling down with their equal as settling or lowering their standards. So u will never get the royal treatment in bed she gave the guys who just used her. Juice just isn't worth the squeeze. And how the majority of american women are now spending their youth is becoming more documented and made more aware to men.
ReplyDeleteI also believe saying humans are non sexually monogamous is a cop out. I just think women pass on monogamous relationships because the guys offering those arent the alphas offering fwb and no strings attached fun. And how do you win the alpha sweepstakes if you dont throw your hat err underwear in the ring. I cant speak for all men but i consider myself very naturally monogamous. I never wanted random hookups. Drunken flings. Std checkups. Wild parties. I wanted one woman i was attracted to whom i could trust and respect. Journey life with. Take vacays with. And yes have drunk and experimental sex with. I just think American hookup culture and feminism is trying to destroy the evil patriarchy and encourage women to believe theyre not supposed to be monogamous and to slut it up a bit. Pay no attention to the soul crippling guilt and remorse you feel being passed around sexually like a blunt at a bob marley concert. Thats patriarchy brain washing guilt lol. I think most women who sleep around in their youth do absolutely want commitment and monogamy. They just want it from the hottest men willing to sex them up. And there is no popular mainstream source telling young women this. Men lower standards for casual sex. spending your youth throwing your vagina at every guy out of your league will not lead to commitment. Smv charts show men will generally move three full numbers down the attraction scale for casual sex and semi faux relationships, but will generally pair bond with a girl equal to themselves eventually. I believe thats what women cant digest. because a woman cant fathom wanting or needing sex so bad as to have it with someone you would never consider dateable physically alone. Of course there in lies the problem. Casual sex and male attention comes so easy to women from men out of their league they are hardwiring themselves to have absolutely no attraction to their male equivalents. So they dont even know they are on the carousel. Mix in the fact that make-up has come a long way since the rosy red cheeked bozo the clown look of the 80s and early 90s. So you have females advancing their actual attraction numeral one to one and a half points via false advertising having no problem getting casual attention and affirmation from males two to three points above an already inflated smv. In what world without paying for it is a male five getting sex from a female 7 8 or 9. Wheras any female five can put make-up on, appear to be a 6 and join a dating site or any social media site and get flooded with attention from male 6 7 8 and the occasional 9. Is it any wonder why for half the American female population 70 percent of the male population is invisible. Including their male equivalent and anyone below. Like the lady two messages up who claims she was ignored in high school. Where male hormones run rampant. My guess is the guys who were interested were just invisible to you. You just noticed johnny six pack qb wasnt interested.
ReplyDeleteI concur. This is my experience as well.
DeleteTruer words have not been spoken. That's why I am MGTOW. I bought a Real Doll and I couldn't be more sexually satisfied. Paying 6000$ is better than losing house, paying alimony, child support, and also considering all the nagging, bitching, manipulations, sex witholding, etc from women who, quite frankly, are no longer that attractive since I bought the RealDoll.
ReplyDeleteThe issue comes when talking to a fair number of girls who I have been interested in or actually got into a relationship with. Many of them say 10+ partners and this is when they are not even 25.
ReplyDeleteIn the end I learned the hard way that it even if you think you know someone for well over a year they can still easily lie after 4 months apart about no unprotected sex with other partners. Just was lucky that it was only Chlamydia. A few others said they had had a misscarage or abortion one of whom actually had 3.
Long story short human nature can make people do dumb things and if they get board after you put a lot into them so much can be lost. This is in part why the MGTOW movement has come to be. The risks just are not worth the rewards and women are not being held to contend with same level of consequences for their actions that men are.
You know the 80–20 rule? 80 percent of the women right the cock carousel. 20 percent of the men have access and use woman. That is the reason why the majority decided to turn down marriage.
ReplyDeleteFrom personal experience, I don't believe 20% of the men do 80% of the boning. I believe that 20% of the men have 80% of the hookups. As has been said before, most sex takes place in relationships. I've had the most sex of all of my friends, and I'm short, awkward, shy, balding, and not at all rich (I'm an INTP, too, Aaron). How do I do it? I've had the same girlfriend for almost 4 years. The friend who does hookup, however, is tall, athletic, and outgoing. You want to know how long it takes me to have as much sex as he does in a semester? Less than a week. I've done my share of fucking around. I've think I've done it with roughly 16 women and gotten pretty intimate with like 20. How? Literal whores. I'm telling you, if you're a dorky bookworm with a hankering for pussy and you're not opposed to parting with a little cash, you can go from being another cock on the carousel to running the carousel. Yes, I am a nice guy, the genuinely kind but shy type. Gripe at me all you like about how no real man would pay for puss, or hookers don't count, or how no truly nice guy would hire a prostitute.
ReplyDeleteNow, about the cock carousel as a concept, I do follow the idea of it being a kind of revenge fantasy by guys who never got any from the girls they wanted when they were younger. I also do concur that most people period do quit casual sex by the time they're in their late 20's; either they're settled down or they've decided to have a string of lovers. And yes, people, particularly women, who remain libertine into their 30's tend to at least attempt to settle down for good right quick. Time for them is running out in terms of attractiveness and fertility, but also in terms of time and money that can be put into romance; having a mortgage and a career eats up the kinds of time and money that go into courtship. Champions of the cock carousel like to imagine themselves as being the last working pony on the carousel when the poor serial rider finds herself out of mounts.
I have found evidence of behavior that would support the cock carousel idea. Here: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/note-nice-guys-couldnt-stand-now-cant-get-enough-h2l/#comment-2319462
If you don't read it, it's a woman who slept around with bad boys in her youth, got married, had kids, got divorced, and is now dating a nice guy whom she said she wound have absolutely not considered. And she's playing precisely into what manosphere talking heads say about women riding the cock carousel until they dry up in their 30's desperately settle down with a nice guy -- alpha gives them fucks, beta gives them bucks. I have problems with this article, but the worst is that I think it sounds like a nightmare scenario for the man. He's in his 30's, not too much romantic success, finally finds someone who's run out her prime and is about to crash in value, and he'd better be damn grateful he even got her with all her drawbacks. He's going to be stuck raising two kids who aren't his, helping her with her mortgage to a house he has absolutely no say in, she's at the end of peak childbearing age and is about to drastically drop in attractiveness and fertility while she is already drying up by the day. While she may bear him some children of his own, they are also increasingly likely to have some serious birth defects. This is what the author is trying to tell nice guys their happy ending scenario is, but to me as a man, it sounds hellish, but for this chick girls who rode the cock carousel, this is a near perfect endgame -- she had her fun, got fucked by the hot guys she wanted, had children by her choice alpha male, and then found a sexually undemanding beta man to take care of her and her spawn with minimal investment in him on her part and low odds of ever needing to bear his less desirable offspring.
"From personal experience, I don't believe 20% of the men do 80% of the boning. I believe that 20% of the men have 80% of the hookups."
DeletePlease explain the difference between 'boning' and 'hookups' because failing some difference this sentence does not make any sense whatsoever.