Categories
$MONEY$ 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 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Shora
10 years ago

But david! Her post makes perfect sense! Because we all know that all women want deep emotional relationships all the time, and all men just want to get as much pussy as possible.

…right?

Seriously. Does she think only ugly guys want monogamous relationships or something? If you want a monogamous relationship, find someone who ALSO wants a monogamous relationship! ditto casual sex! Why is this so hard?

Sivi
Sivi
10 years ago

…Hahahahahaha.

Seriously? Okay, leaving aside the lack of any evidence for their position, and the fact that it’s easily falsified, do they ever sort out whether it’s hot dudes with a bunch of women, or a bunch of mid-level women sleeping with a bunch of hot dudes?

I can’t imagine spending enough time to unpack all the assumptions in their nonsense. It’s like the usual MRA babble, which seems to ignore things which can easily be observed in normal life. That chart… have none of these people ever seen a homely dude with a much more attractive girlfriend? ‘Cause I tend to see that all the time (though in fairness, as a straight dude, I’m biased on the whole male looks vs. female looks thing).

Sivi
Sivi
10 years ago

You know, the sad thing is I could leave some variation of my above comment on every post, and it would probably be relevant around 75% of the time.

speedlines
speedlines
10 years ago

Well, there’s this:

http://hotchickswithdouchebags.com/

but in all fairness, the guys on that site aren’t really ugly, they’ve just made extremely unfortunate fashion choices.

Nobby
10 years ago

But, David, they do have evidence! Common sense! Everyone knows it’s better then that silly ‘science’ shit. I mean, look at global warming! All you have to do is look at last winter and BAM! Science is wrong!

Okay, now I feel dirty. I’m going to go do some actual science now, bai.

Andrea Vaughn
10 years ago

Except this flies in the face of their other assertion that women are driven solely by material wealth and are all whores. According to that theory it doesn’t matter what the man looks like. If he has money it doesn’t matter if he’s a four or a five, he can have all the ten’s he wants, because they’re more interested in his wallet.

Shora
10 years ago

I’ve been reading some of the comments on that post and it makes me a little queasy. So many of those people think that I, personally, am disgusting, used up, and out to steal their boyfriends.

Also, anyone else sick of the “men can’t control their urges” crap yet/

cynickal
cynickal
10 years ago

Also, anyone else sick of the “men can’t control their urges” crap yet

But it’s just NATURAL that men are assholes! Look at all the men who are assholes posting on Susan Walsh’s blog. QED!

Captain Bathrobe
Captain Bathrobe
10 years ago

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.

Wow, I must have been pulling the curve down when I was younger.

spearhafoc
spearhafoc
10 years ago

Also, doesn’t Mad Men take place (at least, early on) before the sexual revolution? The show beganin 1968, and Don had been cheating on Betty throughout their entire marriage. Even ignoring the fact that the show is fictional, it doesn’t fit with the theory.

BlackBloc
BlackBloc
10 years ago

Meanwhile, in the Real World…

Before the feminist sexual revolution, it was not exactly unheard of for married men to have mistresses. But married women were heavily discouraged from taking lovers. So one might say that the sexual revolution resulted in women having access to a lot more cock (hence the Cock Carousel of MRA fame).

if *women* are having multiple partners now where men used to be the only gender where that was common, how does that gel with their theory that it is now women only who join harems, depriving poor 6s from their god-given right to pussy?

And how is it that this overweight geek who probably registers at best as a 5 or 6 has been having his own ‘harem’ of FWBs and lovers, if only 8+ are supposed to be getting all that awesome hypergamy?

darksidecat
10 years ago

“assuming as I do that women naturally gravitate toward sleeping with the one man who is their best option at a given time” There’s your trouble. Sure, some people tend to be monogamous and long term and some tend otherwise, but all of those groups of people include people of all genders.

I also love how this is listed as the pre-existing sorting ““In humans assortative mating has been reported for such characteristics as age, IQ, height, weight, educational and occupational level, and physical and personality characters.” Except those things aren’t necessarily related to each other. A person could be hot and nice but works at Burger King and is not so bright (I knew this one guy, I would go out of my way to look at his ass, but damn, you could have a more enlightening conversation with a Furby). Or be fat and rich, or rich and mean, etc. Is it some sort of points system to determine their rank in the 1-10 system?

Hide and Seek
Hide and Seek
10 years ago

My facebook friends are glad you found this because they are tired of me forcing them to read Susan Walsh’s blog.

I really like how, in the chart, the male smiley faces in zones 6-1 become progressively angrier, even though they are all having the same amount of sex – none. Shouldn’t they all be meh, like the ladies in the 10 zone, or crying like they have just been audited, like the ladies in the 2 zone?

Molly Ren
10 years ago

I am trying to figure out if I am a “Meh” or an “Unfortunate”. Since I’m fat it seems to be the latter, but I also seem to be banging a lot of people, so….?

“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.”

Since one of my life goals is to have a kink-friendly poly household, I see no reason to go back to the days of monogamy. 😉

spearhafoc
spearhafoc
10 years ago

but in all fairness, the guys on that site aren’t really ugly, they’ve just made extremely unfortunate fashion choices.

Also, the women are dressed like the female equivalent of douchebags. It’s not so much “hot chicks with douchebags,” as it is “douchebags with douchebags”.

Wow, I must have been pulling the curve down when I was younger.

Hell, I’m probably pulling it down singlehandedly.

Tabby Lavalamp
Tabby Lavalamp
10 years ago

Susan Walsh is such a femis!

(Is that word catching on yet? Femis is the new mangina!)

But seriously, what the fudge?!?!?! Talk about serious self-loathing issues.

And I’m going to keep giving myself to Alphas no matter how many Epsilons are asking me out on dates!

Shora
10 years ago

This whole greek system bugs me. When you listen to PUA types and their ilk talk about it Alphas are always hot, always jackasses, and never have to work hard to get sex. But the times I’ve confronted PUA types to hammer out what they really mean, they say things that pretty much amount to “alphas are people you’d want to date” Which…. uh….. so dating them makes you a shallow bitch?

Alfred Royce
10 years ago

When I was a kid and thinking about the year 2011, I imagined robots and cool cars zipping through the sky. The horror show of that chart was beyond my imagination.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
10 years ago

The greek system is infuriating because, ultimately, it makes a couple valid observations about class. That’s about it. But if you admit that class exists, these people assume you admit all the extra baggage they bring as well, like alphas universally being hot jackasses for whom ladies will come in droves.

Class is conflated with desirable qualities, which are much more variable than any PUA will admit. So you get a weird scribbly circle of logic, where alphas are the ones getting all the sex because they have traits that lend themselves to getting lots of sex. And therefore they’re rich douchebags.

That whole thing about people dating within their “level?” Generally true, as far as people who share similar interests and lifestyles can be considered within a “level.” The rest? A load of unsubstantiated garbage.

Hrm… I wonder if Walsh would be willing to do her part to make sure all the unattractive men are getting the sex they so desperately need. It’s about the only thing you can do, if you are conscious of this great injustice and want to actually do something about it.

johnnykaje
10 years ago

speedlines- Someone (I think it was Amanda Marcotte, or someone on Feministe) pointed out that the phenomenon could just as easily be called “Hot Dudes with Bimbos,” if you look at it from a straight woman’s POV.

johnnykaje
10 years ago

Also, this chart is useless (among other reasons) because it doesn’t define the categories. I mean c’mon– examples! Is Mila Kunis a 10? Or is she merely Super Hot, and there are even hotter women squirreled away in yurts in the mountains, coming to civilization only during the New Moon so as not to blind us with their perfect Teutonic features?

johnnykaje
10 years ago

Also: A million thumbs up for “femis.”

balloon burial
balloon burial
10 years ago

I really wish people who did this kind of “science-I-just-made-up-in-my-head!” stuff realized that actual research has been done on these issues.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/

This seems to me to have the exact opposite implications of Susan Walsh’s “research”–the most attractive woman are getting nearly all the attention, rather than the other way around.

Victoria von Syrus
Victoria von Syrus
10 years ago

Why does Ms. Walsh believe that attractiveness is the only quality that people look for in a sexual and romantic partner? While attractiveness is a major one, people can disqualified on account of personality just as easily.

And quite a few people still pursue a monogamous lifestyle – just look at all the shit Dan Savage has taken for thinking that hey, maybe this monogamy thing needs some rethinking.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
10 years ago

God in heaven…

You know, I’ve always wondered why “serious” MRM activists don’t completely disavow all the PUA foolishness. “I can’t date who I want to date and I’m lonely” can, legitimately, be a problem. It’s just not, you know, a political problem.

As for Walsh – words escape me. I’ve known women like her in analog and their slavish need for male approval is… strong. Their contempt for every woman who does things differently from them is even stronger.

1 2 3 21
%d bloggers like this: