$MONEY$ alpha males antifeminism beta males crackpottery evil women hypergamy misogyny PUA reactionary bullshit sex sluts

Susan Walsh: Chartbreaker, Part 2

Happy day!  Susan Walsh has drawn another diagram! Loyal readers of Man Boobz will recall the last time that Walsh, a would-be relationship expert who blogs at Hooking Up Smart, tried her hand at diagram making. It wasn’t pretty. In an attempt to sketch out the economic costs of sluthood, Walsh cobbled together an extravagantly convoluted mess of a flow-chart based on little more than a few bad assumptions and what she insisted was common sense.

This time, Walsh attempts to chart how the sexual revolution has transformed dating, borrowing her argument largely from some dude called Frost who blogs about sex and relationships and PUA bullshit at  Freedom Twenty-Five.

Back in the old “leave it to Beaver” days, Frost argues, virtually all men and women paired off efficiently with partners who exactly matched their level of hotness, as charted on the infamous ten-point scale beloved of pickup artists and other such creatures. Fives married fives, nines married nines, and even lowly ones were able to find true love and hot ugly sex with others as unfortunate as they were. As Walsh puts it, attempting to make all this somehow sound vaguely scientific:

This system worked pretty well in achieving equilibrium with respect to SMV (sexual market value).

Naturally, neither Frost nor Walsh offer any evidence that any of this was true. Which only makes sense, since it, er, wasn’t.

Let’s set that aside for a moment and move on to our current fallen state, post-sexual revolution. Now, apparently, a small minority of hot dudes score all the chicks, from nines on down to threes. Everyone else spends their lonely nights alone with their hands and a choice of vibrator or fleshlight.

Here’s where the diagram comes in. It’s a doozy:

From "Hooking Up Smart."

Now, Walsh doesn’t actually explain how she knows this (or, rather believes it, since it clearly is not true), or why exactly she thinks the sexual revolution is to blame. But Frost does, sort of. With the sexual revolution, he argues,

the social convention of monogamy starts to break down. Women are free to do what they want, and they quickly realize that the men they can persuade to have short-term sexual relationships with are much, much more attractive than the men willing to marry them. Attractive men are free to eschew marriage, and instead maintain a harem of rotating friends-with-benefits and one-night stands. Super-attractive men (professional athletes, rock stars, bloggers) can spend every night with a different coterie of young, attractive women, railing lines off their ass cheeks and banging them senseless.

Sounds great for men. And not too bad for women either, who get to shag NHL players and bloggers instead of their ho-hum husbands.

Wait a minute. “… and bloggers?” Bloggers are now the alpha males? I wish I’d known this sooner!

But every woman who elects to join a harem, must necessarily leave a lonely man behind in the great mating scramble. … The men at the bottom are left to their RPGs and porn.

So there you have the effects of the sexual revolution on men: Great for the few, awful for the teeming masses.

Well, there’s a certain logic to that argument. It’s just not, you know, true.

Walsh and all the manosphere dudes who’ve convinced themselves that 80% of men have been left sexless have it backwards: as a handy FAQ at the Kinsey Institute points out, only about 10 percent of men don’t have sex during any given year. The average frequency of sex ranges from more than 100 times a year for those in their teens and twenties to about 70 times a year for those in their 40s.

But what about the ladies? Frost explains that they suffer too, especially those unfortunate enough to be mega-hotties. Frost seems to base this conclusion almost entirely on the sexual history of one Betty Draper. This seems a very small sample size to me. Also, she’is fictional. But that doesn’t stand in Frost’s way:

What about the top woman? The ultimate hottie? Previously, she had the top man all to herself. She literally could not have asked for anything more, assuming as I do that women naturally gravitate toward sleeping with the one man who is their best option at a given time, while men are only as faithful as their options. Suddenly, her man is beset by hussies, plying him with offers of cheap sex. How does Betty Draper feel about the breakdown of monogamy in her world? …

Now [the top women] must choose between sharing, or settling for a man far below her previous catch. Meanwhile, uglier women can choose between monogamy with a man far above her previous level, or a shared slice of one of the top men. She is unequivocally better off, as the hotter women are unequivocally worse off.

Frost concludes:

The Sexual Revolution harms attractive women, and unattractive men. It benefits unattractive women, and attractive men.

Betty Drapers of the world, unite!

Naturally, none of this is the fault of men. It is, Frost and Walsh apparently agree, the fault of all those mid-level bitches slutting it up with the top men. It’s all their fault that the ladies at the top and bottom are getting left high and dry.

Indeed, it’s high time that the hottest hotties stood up for their rights, Frost argues in a second blog post:

It never seems to occur to the hot girls of the world that the sexual revolution is the cause of their troubles. Without it, the best that a top man could do is find a top woman, and devote his life to her. In our present dystopia,  he can find that top woman, and rip her heart and soul to pieces by maintaining a harem of flings on the side.

If it wasn’t for the legions of female 7′s and 8′s throwing themselves at the male 9′s, the female 9′s could have their men all to themselves. But in the world as it is, they will always be competing with the omnipresent availability of cheap and easy sex.

Were the hot women to regain their hot pride, sluts and feminists alike would quake in their boots:

The greatest fear of the feminists is that desirable women like yourselves will wake up the lies they’ve been fed, embrace their feminine modesty, and cast the harsh light reality on of the fat, shrill, used-up slutwalkers and middle-aged divorcees.

What of the not-quite-hotties? Walsh has some harsher advice for all those “mediocre sluts” out there riding that alpha asshole cock carousel. She writes:

For less attractive women, an objective assessment of market value is essential. That can only be realized by evaluating which men are interested in dating you rather than banging you.

In other words: mid-level ladies, you’re still losers. Eventually, you asses will get fat, your skin will get wrinkly, and the alpha assholes will grow tired of banging you. So what are you poor gals to do? Walsh offers this grim assessment:

These are the hard truths of the Post Sexual Revolution era. There are a few winners, and many losers. It is difficult to see how equilibrium can ever be regained. For now at least, your only option is to think carefully and realistically about your personal life goals. Make sure the choices you’re making get you closer to them.

(Confidential to Susan Walsh: You do know that using terms like “equilibrium,” like you’re some sort of sexual economist, doesn’t actually make your bullshit true?)

Given that everything in Frost and Walsh’s posts here is such unmitigated bullshit, I think I have some better advice for women of all hotness levels (if they haven’t already figured this out for themselves): stop taking relationship advice from a woman who wants you to hate yourself.

And speaking of bad choices: those smileys? Oy. Strive for elegant simplicity, not tacky clutter.

NOTE: Chuck on Gucci Little Piggy has written a response of sorts to this post. I’ve replied on his blog here. But there is something distressing going on there: Someone has posted several rude comments there under the name “Man Boobz.” THAT PERSON IS NOT ME. If any of you are responsible, STOP IMMEDIATELY. I’ve asked Chuck to ban that person and delete the comments.

EDITED TO ADD: Chuck changed the name of the commenter to “not man boobz.” That makes sense to me.

515 replies on “Susan Walsh: Chartbreaker, Part 2”

Since you are standing by your statement, what about the desire to seek out resources aka food and water?

Is the desire in animals to seek out food and water not governed by evolution either?

Hunger and thirst are mechanisms that have an evolutionary basis. Those are easy to test. If you somehow knock out an animal’s thirst or hunger signalling it will most likely die before very long, and that mutation will be weeded out of the population (which is actually also not true of humans necessarily, as we tend to be able to understand the need for food without the signalling. I know of a few people who have actually lost said signalling and still survive as a result of eating disorders).

This does not mean that “the desire to seek out resources”, and the ways in which we do that, are evolved, and certainly not by the same rules. Did we evolve to create corporations? Did we evolve to utilize mass transport? Did we evolve to make those entirely too flashy (and way too small) french gourmet dishes as way of “seeking out resources”?

I recommend that all MRAs and Susan Walsh read the very short chapter on behavioral genetics in Kandel’s “Principles of Neural Science.” It parses what we do and don’t know about human behavioral genetics very nicely. For example, there are certain behaviors that do seem to have a strong genetic basis–like looking in the direction of a sound (blind infants do this), swallowing, or startle reflex. Female hypergamy? Not so much.

Nobby: I don’t know if the diabetes we were treating dogs and cats for when I was working for Veterinary Hospital was type I, or II, but I know they got it.

That would be type II, Pecunium, as far as I could find. Type II may have a genetic predisposition aspect, but it’s a condition you can get purely based on bad diet, as it’s the result of, essentially, your body becoming resistant to it’s own insulin. That’s why it can be reversed (to some extent) by diet change, while type I cannot.

I found no mention of type I in domestic animals. I also found nothing about type I or II being found in the wild, but why that is precisely I couldn’t say. Most likely type II occurs but not often enough for anyone to notice or care.

Er, not sure about that. Type 1 tends to be much more severe as it leads, eventually, to the full destruction of one’s pancreas, and hits much earlier then type II usually. While it’s not usually highly fatal in humans, that’s mostly the result of us having the use of insulin and hospitals, and it can still lead to the loss of extremities and other major issues without proper care.

Er, unless you mean it’s so fatal that creatures who have it to it die before we notice? In that case maybe, but doubtful, if only because you’d expect a few cases to show up in zoos, at least.

Or, of course, it could be the because the genetic propensity exists in animal populations but for some reason we’re the only ones exposed to the proper trigger. This is possible (especially if said trigger is purely biological and linked to our metabolism), but in that case we really won’t know until we get the genes linked to it figured out much better then we do now.

So many people criticizing Susans experience with what women are saying today.

it’s like watching a bunch a salmon trying to swim upstream…

Necroing a 4 year old thread to spout nonsense? I seriously don’t even understand what you’re trying to say.

You know, I’ve often thought that this comment board is practically identical to one of nature’s most amazing long-distance journeys, but I was never able to put it into words before.

You really mustn’t comment on a four year old thread and say it’s a about what women are saying today. I mean, the jokes write themselves, James!

What I don’t understand is: of all the fish out there, why choose the one fish that SUCCESSFULLY swims upstream?!!!

Shadow: Bingo!

It’s actually a pretty accurate description of feminism. Salmon swim upstream, tirelessly fighting against the current, in order spawn, which is completely necessary for the continuing existence of salmon. Feminists fight against sexist societal currents, an endeavor in which we’ve so far been pretty successful, and a necessary act in order to make things better for everyone!

So James is basically saying that feminists continue to fight the necessary fight and that we will ultimately succeed! Thanks, James, for the unintended compliment!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.