« Those Democrats be crooked |
| What's going on in Greece? »
This article reports on a study of UK women which found that "by the age of 21, women have had an average of nine sexual partners."
December 09, 2008 | Permalink
women's sluttiness and a country's general circling of the bowl seem to go hand in hand.
coincidence? nyaaaaaahhh.... could be!
"The study of 2,000 women in the UK, commissioned by More magazine, found that by the age of 21, women have had an average of nine sexual partners; two more than their male partner."
what this means is that the top 20% alpha males that these extraslutty women are sleeping with are seeing incredible amounts of action. more action than the alpha males of countries where women are less promiscuous.
the beta males are still unscrewed. so solly!
December 09, 2008 at 03:47 PM
how does getting a regular dose of cock make one a slut?
December 09, 2008 at 04:02 PM
Correction: British girls are ugly sluts.
Off-topic but probably off interest to readers of this blog:
"The quality of a man’s sperm depends on how intelligent he is, and vice versa"
December 09, 2008 at 04:05 PM
"how does getting a regular dose of cock make one a slut?"
it's not the dose of cock, it's the variety of injectables that makes the slut.
December 09, 2008 at 04:13 PM
'countries where women are less promiscuous' you should change that 'countries where women are REPORTED TO BE less promiscuous'
Under the sheets I don't know why this number would be different in other countries, or that much different, say same partners for men and women by the same age.(Of course some get more, others less, others none)
Sexuality is never reported or talked about in the open. That this is reported in the U.K only says women are more progressive and speak more about their sexuality, probably less religion involved.
But to think its about alphas being more alphas in the U.K is bullshit, its about women not feeling any remorse social or religious about who are what they do in bed.
Next thing you'll confirm is those reports saying men masturbate more than women is due the amount of betas in the population(Its probably the same number). Or that Iran has no gays due to a lack of alpha gay males.
Sexuality ballpark figures should be the same in pretty much the whole world, except they are always skewed for whatever axe the reporter or media outlet has to grind.
December 09, 2008 at 04:16 PM
Britain's young men are also the most socially dysfunctional white men in the Western world.
It seems very clear to me now that the reason for traditional Christian sexual morality in the West was to not just protect emotionally weak women from falling into bad relationships, but to keep young men disciplined and socially adjusted. Morality was a civilizing force on young men who would otherwise be out causing havoc.
With British women acting like sluts, British men never have to mature emotionally or intellectually.
The Undiscovered Jew |
December 09, 2008 at 04:17 PM
"With British women acting like sluts, British men never have to mature emotionally or intellectually."
Not that we're much better mind you, but British yob culture doesn't have an equal here in the US, or anywhere in Continental Europe, aside from maybe Albania.
The Undiscovered Jew |
December 09, 2008 at 04:21 PM
****but British yob culture doesn't have an equal here in the US, or anywhere in Continental Europe, aside from maybe Albania.****
@The Undiscovered Jew
Agreed. UK yobs are frighteningly devolved creatures.
December 09, 2008 at 04:25 PM
Why a heterosexual man that has difficulty getting dates and sleeping with girls, like some people I see in this blog, consider a problem that women are sluts? The girls get easier to land.
Why men that sleep with lots of chicks are considered the studs and the girls are considered sluts?
Is there any sense for women to be the gatekeepers of sexuality in an age of effective contraception? Take the pill, use an IUD and use condoms (there are at least 7 choices of contraceptive methods I can remember just now) and probably sex would have no long-term consequences.
I doubt if there is any limitation for women get as sexual as men. For men, that should be a good thing.
Bruno Brazil |
December 09, 2008 at 04:46 PM
"Britain's young men are also the most socially dysfunctional white men in the Western world." The Prehistoric Jew
Britain has produced the most geniuses of any culture on Earth--from Newton to Peter Sellers.
December 09, 2008 at 04:48 PM
Men will soon wake up and realize that the vast majority of western women are not marriage material. Once this happens nobody no our fertility rates will drop so low that we won't future populations. Feminism is what will destroy the west.
December 09, 2008 at 04:59 PM
I can't type right, I apologize. I think you got he jist of what I meant.
December 09, 2008 at 05:00 PM
rightwingnut - "Sexuality ballpark figures should be the same in pretty much the whole world, except they are always skewed for whatever axe the reporter or media outlet has to grind."
While your broader point, that, on balance, men and women will have (in fact, the reality is that they have to have) the same average number of opposite sex partners; in this particular case, the caveat is that an upper-age cut-off of 21 is applied to the test population.
If carefully considered, it is quite likely that the typical girl starts having sex at a younger age than does the typical boy (teenage girls tend to have older (>21) boyfriends, unlike the reverse*), and teenage girls have a greater opportunity to cash in on their nubile sexuality than do boys (far more old perv’s willing to shower the teenage girls with gifts-for-sex than there are “cougars” looking for teenage boys).
Thus, while a average of two more sex partners for 21-yr old women than their male counterparts may seem to be out of line with what one would expect to find, I do believe that this particular study has managed to take advantage of the greater openness and honesty of the “sluts” in the UK to get at a far more realistic picture of the sexual imbalances between the genders in teen to young adult years.
* No, Gannon, I’m not baiting you here. Just pointing out that it is more likely that a woman 21 or younger will have sex with a man older than 21 than the reverse case; thus skewing the comparative results when that age-based cut-off filter is applied.
December 09, 2008 at 05:01 PM
Who trusts trash prole mags to do good social science?
""Our results show that after decades of lying back and thinking of England, today's twenty-something women are taking control of their sex lives and getting what they want in bed," said More magazine editor Lisa Smosarski."
This magazine is probably staffed with sluts like this one that want to justify their own trashy ways.
Richard H |
December 09, 2008 at 05:01 PM
"what this means is that the top 20% alpha males that these extraslutty women are sleeping with are seeing incredible amounts of action. more action than the alpha males of countries where women are less promiscuous"
again this alpha-male crap? Another of this blog´s weirdnesses, besides a certain argentine that loves teen girls.
Sincerely people, come on. Does it actually make sense the idea that 10% of all men are sleeping with all the women? Gimme a break! Do you really think that a bigshot (Cravath partner, congressman, i-banker, real estate champ, industrialist, state governor) has time to sleep with 50 women at the same time?
The dating success is much like a gaussian: a low tail (5% of men that can´t get anything), big middle (monogamous) and a top tail (5% with a mistress or two). Of course a BMW or a fat wallet help you get dates, but it doesn´t mean that they concentrate lots of women. The average Joe can get a date, even if it isn´t the foxiest girl.
I doubt that too many women have the chance to be with an alpha, even if they want that, because they are a very little proportion of the population (5% of men). I have also to remember that a nerd with a BMW but no game or persistence to approach women also has to rely on call girls.
Bruno Brazil |
December 09, 2008 at 05:03 PM
Half Sigma, there's some sample biasing going on here. The type of girls that respond to a More magazine survey may not be representative of the national population. In fact sexual surveys, such as Red Book, often overestimate the typical number of sexual partners. The truth is that the typical Western woman has 1-4 lifetime sexual partners according to most reliable surveys that have been done, with 1 being the modal number.
According to the exhaustive and more representative survey conducted by the UK Office for National Statistics:
"Nearly half of 16- to 19-year-olds said they had not had a sexual partner in the past year, while most other adults had slept with just one person in the past 12 months. Even among 20- to 24-year-olds, only 14 per cent of men and 3 per cent of women said they had slept with more than one person in the past year."
These results are consistent with other large scale sexual surveys that have found young Americans and college students also tend to overwhelmingly be monogamous or abstinent. The truth is only 15-20% of young Americans have multiple sexual partners in any given year - and I would guess that'd fall to <10% when you adjust for prostitution. Given the UK is 90% white (5% Asian), I'd say the above results are probably about on target.
If you look at stats on STD infection and teen pregnancy, you will also see that UK whites and U.S. whites are essentially identical on these measures as well.
There's been a definite loosening of sexual mores in the West since the 1960s, but I've seen no evidence that promiscuity runs rampant in the UK or the U.S. or anywhere else. By all indications, monogamy is the norm with promiscuity being a fringe behavior.
Agnostic has a good post up on GNXP on how the media has massively overhyped our promiscuity "epidemic" and has a lot of stats up.
December 09, 2008 at 05:08 PM
Posted by: Brutus | December 09, 2008 at 04:48 PM
I never questioned the past accomplishments of GB, I merely pointed out how TODAY their youth seem to have gone off the rails.
The Undiscovered Jew |
December 09, 2008 at 05:15 PM
Agnostic did you see this little article in the Washington Post? Being a man who is enthralled with IQ, I think it’s mentioning that Obama’s cabinet members are almost all graduates of the ivy league schools. Bush people on the other hand, were not. According to this article, Karl Rove never finished college and Dick Cheney dropped out of Yale to finish up at Wyoming University.
chic noir |
December 09, 2008 at 05:24 PM
British girls are highly moral -- they're just listening to moral authorities who you refuse to recognize as holding moral authority in the UK.
James Bowery |
December 09, 2008 at 05:41 PM
As dicey as this one magazine poll is, even the real scientific surveys seem to agree that Britain leads the Western world in sex partner numbers.
Never in history has the prospect of so much sex with so many offered so little temptation ...
Rain And |
December 09, 2008 at 05:42 PM
Whenever I read infuriatingly stupid news from Britain I hope that the Pakistani immigrants hurry up with their breeding and swamp the Brits out already.
December 09, 2008 at 05:58 PM
Sigma, what motivates your misplaced obsession with alpha males?
Alphas are usually pushy bores that definitely do not partake of the primo nookie.
December 09, 2008 at 06:09 PM
"Does it actually make sense the idea that 10% of all men are sleeping with all the women? "
Dude, I am from Brazil just like you and I guarantee that the same thing happens here. Maybe not 10%, 20% would be more reasonable. Think of any trendy nightclub in Sao Paulo or Rio, and I can assure you that at least 60% of the guys won´t even APPROACH the girls. Maybe in the favelas (slums) the number of "alphas" is much higher, and I believe so. This is why you see such scenes of blatant promiscuity in their parties. But among the white upper class in the 20-30 age bracket (I´m 25), at most 25% of men are fucking 75% of women.
December 09, 2008 at 06:11 PM
Yeah, I agree with Lucas. And Brazil is also famous for not enforcing Age of Consent laws, although in theory you need parental aprovement for dating 14-17 year old girls. I remember sawing on the streets young adult guys with girls in their early teens, so please a little bit of realism.
December 09, 2008 at 06:23 PM
James Bowery chimes in with another non sequitur.
fish 'n' chips |
December 09, 2008 at 06:25 PM
Last month there was a debate in TV between an evangelical pastor and a funk (hip-hop) singer, Mr Catra, who said that he had at least 10 women (who could be described as girlfriends, each knowing about the others) at any moment. To the pastor´s outrage. Mr catra answered that he is helping the girls since "we all know that there are much more women than men". For every Mr Catra, there are at least 9 celibate men in this country.
December 09, 2008 at 06:26 PM
"Agnostic did you see this little article in the Washington Post.......I think it’s mentioning that Obama’s cabinet members are almost all graduates of the ivy league schools. Bush people on the other hand, were not."
Here we go again, another "racial IQ differences don't exist" liberal telling everyone how much smarter liberals are compared to conservatives!
Wade Nichols |
December 09, 2008 at 06:47 PM
Posted by: Wade Nichols
Please read the article first,then comment.
chic noir |
December 09, 2008 at 07:00 PM
Think of any trendy nightclub in Sao Paulo or Rio, and I can assure you that at least 60% of the guys won´t even APPROACH the girls.
A posh nightclub isn´t a sample of anything. Picking up at trendy nightclubs gives an excessive advantage to the alpha, because there are only rich spoiled girls and you have to spend a lot on overpriced drinks there and to flash luxury clothes to get attention. If you are the son of a banker and can get out of an Audi A3, ok. But if you aren´t, you won´t make out with anybody and you shold try different places.
Bruno Brazil |
December 09, 2008 at 07:05 PM
"This is the life" and 9 people aren't so many people ?
if you're 19 (under 21 would be on average 19 for 16-21 girls), 3 years going out thrice a week + holidays, that's sum up in 600 occasions of meeting people ... I think there is a good potential to go up to 30 people for an wide open minded socialized person.
"Oh the wind whistles down The cold dark street tonight And the people they were dancing to the music vibe And the boys chase the girls with the curls in their hair While the shy tormented youth sit way over there And the songs they get louder Each one better than before"
Bruno from Paris, France. |
December 09, 2008 at 07:16 PM
"because there are only rich spoiled girls and you have to spend a lot on overpriced drinks there and to flash luxury clothes to get attention. If you are the son of a banker and can get out of an Audi A3"
a posh nightclub is a sample of the upper class. The girls aren´t spoiled. The "sex and the city" mindset isn´t as strong as say, the UK, and it is quite easy to become known as a slut in a country where there is a shame factor for that.
The other points are much better answered by Roissy.
December 09, 2008 at 07:19 PM
fish 'n' chips perhaps we shoiuld have Mr. Catra arbitrate our little dispute.
James Bowery |
December 09, 2008 at 07:45 PM
I'm skeptical. It hardly sounds like a scientific survey, for one thing.
"It also found a quarter of young women have slept with more than 10 partners in the first five years since losing their virginity, compared with 20 per cent of young men."
Think about that. The average is nine, but only a quarter have slept with more than 10 partners. Maybe a handful have slept with more than 50 or so and they're bringing up the entire average.
Also... "But if a woman met someone she really liked, 56 per cent would make him wait "a month or more" before she would have sex with him."
That doesn't exactly sound like slutty behavior to me. Of course, maybe even in Britain one-night stands aren't that socially acceptable.
December 09, 2008 at 07:58 PM
Look at the behavior posted:
Women/girls have sex based on impulse. If they really "like" a guy they make him wait, as opposed to just jumping in to bed with whoever catches their fancy. They also poach their boyfriends from other girls, and half have cheated, half of the cheaters more than once. Meanwhile 99% would dump a cheating boyfriend.
What does that scream?
Women have it, men don't, and women exercise their market power by sleeping with a few Alpha guys. The 80-20 rule, 80% of the women sleeping with 20% of the men, seems to apply.
Of course, for a healthy, happy relationship to be created, each partner must be able to trust the other not to cheat, and this is particularly important for men otherwise you get "spread your seed" stuff in behavior.
Nightclubs Bruno Brazil are where middle/upper class people go to mate. There is no other venue. It's why they make money so well. Bars and nightclubs are it, as other social institutions dedicated to bringing young men and women together have withered away. Under female market power.
December 09, 2008 at 09:13 PM
This is a scholarly approach to the subject. As a woman, I urge all you male-chauvinist pigs read it.
Kay S. Hymowitz
discusses this story
Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age
by Kay S. Hymowitz
Liberation’s Children: Parents and Kids in a Postmodern Age
by Kay S. Hymowitz
KAY S. HYMOWITZ
Love in the Time of Darwinism
A report from the chaotic postfeminist dating scene, where only the strong survive
Earlier this year, I published an article in City Journal called “Child-Man in the Promised Land.” The piece elicited a roaring flood of mailed and blogged responses, mostly from young men who didn’t much care for its title (a reference to Claude Brown’s 1965 novel Manchild in the Promised Land) or its thesis: that too many single young males (SYMs) were lingering in a hormonal limbo between adolescence and adulthood, shunning marriage and children, and whiling away their leisure hours with South Park reruns, marathon sessions of World of Warcraft, and Maxim lists of the ten best movie fart scenes.
It would be easy enough to hold up some of the callow ranting that the piece inspired as proof positive of the child-man’s existence. But the truth is that my correspondents’ objections gave me pause. Their argument, in effect, was that the SYM is putting off traditional markers of adulthood—one wife, two kids, three bathrooms—not because he’s immature but because he’s angry. He’s angry because he thinks that young women are dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging. He’s angry because he thinks that the culture disses all things male. He’s angry because he thinks that marriage these days is a raw deal for men.
Here’s Jeff from Middleburg, Florida: “I am not going to hitch my wagon to a woman . . . who is more into her abs, thighs, triceps, and plastic surgery. A woman who seems to have forgotten that she did graduate high school and that it’s time to act accordingly.” Jeff, meet another of my respondents, Alex: “Maybe we turn to video games not because we are trying to run away from the responsibilities of a ‘grown-up life’ but because they are a better companion than some disease-ridden bar tramp who is only after money and a free ride.” Care for one more? This is from Dean in California: “Men are finally waking up to the ever-present fact that traditional marriage, or a committed relationship, with its accompanying socially imposed requirements of being wallets with legs for women, is an empty and meaningless drudgery.” You can find the same themes posted throughout websites like AmericanWomenSuck, NoMarriage, MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way), and Eternal Bachelor (“Give modern women the husband they deserve. None”).
The reason for all this anger, I submit, is that the dating and mating scene is in chaos. SYMs of the postfeminist era are moving around in a Babel of miscues, cross-purposes, and half-conscious, contradictory female expectations that are alternately proudly egalitarian and coyly traditional. And because middle-class men and women are putting off marriage well into their twenties and thirties as they pursue Ph.D.s, J.D.s, or their first $50,000 salaries, the opportunities for heartbreak and humiliation are legion. Under these harsh conditions, young men are looking for a new framework for understanding what (or, as they might put it, WTF) women want. So far, their answer is unlikely to satisfy anyone—either women or, in the long run, themselves.
Now, men and women have probably been a mystery to one another since the time human beings were in trees; one reason people developed so many rules around courtship was that they needed some way to bridge the Great Sexual Divide. By the early twentieth century, things had evolved so that in the United States, at any rate, a man knew the following: he was supposed to call for a date; he was supposed to pick up his date; he was supposed to take his date out, say, to a dance, a movie, or an ice-cream joint; if the date went well, he was supposed to call for another one; and at some point, if the relationship seemed charged enough—or if the woman got pregnant—he was supposed to ask her to marry him. Sure, these rules could end in a midlife crisis and an unhealthy fondness for gin, but their advantage was that anyone with an emotional IQ over 70 could follow them.
Today, though, there is no standard scenario for meeting and mating, or even relating. For one thing, men face a situation—and I’m not exaggerating here—new to human history. Never before have men wooed women who are, at least theoretically, their equals—socially, professionally, and sexually.
By the time men reach their twenties, they have years of experience with women as equal competitors in school, on soccer fields, and even in bed. Small wonder if they initially assume that the women they meet are after the same things they are: financial independence, career success, toned triceps, and sex.
But then, when an SYM walks into a bar and sees an attractive woman, it turns out to be nothing like that. The woman may be hoping for a hookup, but she may also be looking for a husband, a co-parent, a sperm donor, a relationship, a threesome, or a temporary place to live. She may want one thing in November and another by Christmas. “I’ve gone through phases in my life where I bounce between serial monogamy, Very Serious Relationships and extremely casual sex,” writes Megan Carpentier on Jezebel, a popular website for young women. “I’ve slept next to guys on the first date, had sex on the first date, allowed no more than a cheek kiss, dispensed with the date-concept altogether after kissing the guy on the way to his car, fucked a couple of close friends and, more rarely, slept with a guy I didn’t care if I ever saw again.” Okay, wonders the ordinary guy with only middling psychic powers, which is it tonight?
In fact, young men face a bewildering multiplicity of female expectations and desire. Some women are comfortable asking, “What’s your name again?” when they look across the pillow in the morning. But plenty of others are looking for Mr. Darcy. In her interviews with 100 unmarried, college-educated young men and women, Jillian Straus, author of Unhooked Generation, discovered that a lot of women had “personal scripts”—explicit ideas about how a guy should act, such as walking his date home or helping her on with her coat. Straus describes a 26-year-old journalist named Lisa fixed up for a date with a 29-year-old social worker. When he arrives at her door, she’s delighted to see that he’s as good-looking as advertised. But when they walk to his car, he makes his first mistake: he fails to open the car door for her. Mistake Number Two comes a moment later: “So, what would you like to do?” he asks. “Her idea of a date is that the man plans the evening and takes the woman out,” Straus explains. But how was the hapless social worker supposed to know that? In fact, Doesn’t-Open-the-Car-Door Guy might well have been chewed out by a female colleague for reaching for the office door the previous week.
The cultural muddle is at its greatest when the dinner check arrives. The question of who grabs it is a subject of endless discussion on the hundreds of Internet dating sites. The general consensus among women is that a guy should pay on a first date: they see it as a way for him to demonstrate interest. Many men agree, but others find the presumption confusing. Aren’t the sexes equal? In fact, at this stage in their lives, women may well be in a better position to pick up the tab: according to a 2005 study by Queens College demographer Andrew Beveridge, college-educated women working full-time are earning more than their male counterparts in a number of cities, including New York, Chicago, Boston, and Minneapolis.
Sure, girls can—and do—ask guys out for dinner and pick up the check without missing a beat. But that doesn’t clarify matters, men complain. Women can take a Chinese-menu approach to gender roles. They can be all “Let me pay for the movie tickets” on Friday night and “A single rose? That’s it?” on Valentine’s Day. This isn’t equality, say the male-contents; it’s a ratification of female privilege and, worse, caprice. “Women seemingly have decided that they want it all (and deserve it, too),” Kevin from Ann Arbor writes. “They want to compete equally, and have the privileges of their mother’s generation. They want the executive position, AND the ability to stay home with children and come back into the workplace at or beyond the position at which they left. They want the bad boy and the metrosexual.”
This attraction to bad boys is by far guys’ biggest complaint about contemporary women. Young men grew up hearing from their mothers, their teachers, and Oprah that women wanted sensitive, kind, thoughtful, intelligent men who were in touch with their feminine sides, who shared their feelings, who enjoyed watching Ally McBeal rather than Beavis and Butt-Head. Yeah, right, sneer a lot of veterans of the scene. Women don’t want Ashley Wilkes; they’re hot for Rhett Butler, for macho men with tight abs and an emotional range to match. One popular dating guru, David DeAngelo, ranks “Being Too Much of a Nice Guy” as Number One on his list of the “Ten Most Dangerous Mistakes Men Make with Women.” At a website with the evocative name RelationShit.com (“Brutally honest dating advice for the cynical, bitter, and jaded” and sociological cousin of DatingIsHell.net), the most highly trafficked pages are those dedicated to the question of why women don’t like good guys. A website (and book) called Hot Chicks with Douchebags rubs it in by offering pictures of jerks—we know by their ripped jeans, five o’clock shadow, gelled hair, and bling—standing next to adoring, bikini-clad blondes.
According to a “Recovering Nice Guy” writing on Craigslist, the female preference for jerks and “assholes,” as they’re also widely known, lies behind women’s age-old lament, “What happened to all the nice guys?” His answer: “You did. You ignored the nice guy. You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy.” Women, he says, are actually not attracted to men who hold doors for them, give them hinted-for Christmas gifts, or listen to their sorrows. Such a man, our Recovering Nice Guy continues, probably “came to realize that, if he wanted a woman like you, he’d have to act more like the boyfriend that you had. He probably cleaned up his look, started making some money, and generally acted like more of an asshole than he ever wanted to be.”
Adding to the bitterness of many SYMs is the feeling that the entire culture is a you-go-girl cheering section. When our guy was a boy, the media prattled on about “girl power,” parents took their daughters to work, and a mysterious plague seemed to have killed off boys, at least white ones, from school textbooks. To this day, male-bashing is the lingua franca of situation comedies and advertising: take the dimwitted television dads from Homer Simpson to Ray Romano to Tim Allen, or the guy who starts a cooking fire to be put out by his multitasking wife, who is already ordering takeout. Further, it’s hard to overstate the distrust of young men who witnessed divorce up close and personal as they were growing up. Not only have they become understandably wary of till-death-do-us-part promises; they frequently suspect that women are highway robbers out to relieve men of their earnings, children, and deepest affections.
As the disenchanted SYM sees it, then, resistance to settling down is a rational response to a dating environment designed and ruled by women with only their own interests in mind. “Men see all of this, and wonder if it’s really worth risking all in the name of ‘romance’ and ‘growing up,’ ” a correspondent who calls himself Wytchfinde explains. “After all, if women can be hedonistic and change the rules in midstream when it suits them, why shouldn’t men? Why should men be responsible when women refuse to look into the mirror at their own lack of accountability?”
So, men like Wytchfinde conclude: No more Mister Nice Guy! They will dump all those lessons from their over-feminized childhood and adolescence. They will join what the Boston Globe has called the “Menaissance.” And they will buy titles like The Alphabet of Manliness (K is for Knockers, Q is for Quickies), The Retrosexual Manual, Being the Strong Man a Woman Wants, and actor Jim Belushi’s recent Real Men Don’t Apologize.
By far the most important philosopher of the Menaissance is Charles Darwin. The theory that human sexual preferences evolved from the time that hominids successfully reproduced in the primeval African grasslands can explain the mystery of women’s preference for macho—or alpha—males. At the same time, evolutionary theory gives the former wuss permission to pursue massive amounts of sex with an endless assortment of women. Finally, the emphasis that Darwinism places on natural selection encourages him to adapt to the brutal current sexual ecosystem. Culture, in both its feminist and Emily Post forms, hasn’t won him any favor with women, so he will embrace Nature in all its rude harshness.
For one illustration of dating à la Darwin, consider what’s known as the Seduction Community. The Community is a loose network of dating coaches, gurus, and their followers whose philosophical origins lie variously in Darwin, Norman Vincent Peale, and hyperlogical geekdom. Women want alpha males, the Seduction Community agrees; with some effort at self-improvement, any man can learn the game—Game, as it is reverently known—that will turn him into a Pick Up Artist (PUA). A highly skilled PUA can get any woman, even an HB10 (Hot Babe who is a perfect 10; Game has more acronyms and rankings than the Department of Defense does). It’s impossible to know just how many wannabe PUAs there are out there, but judging from the multitude of websites like AlphaSeduction, Fast Seduction 101, Grow Your Game, SeductionTutor, and The Seduction Chronicles, as well as chat rooms, conferences, ads for seduction gurus, boot camps not just in the United States but all over Europe and parts of Asia, and books, including Neil Strauss’s 2005 best-selling The Game, their numbers are considerable.
Game is best understood as an SYM attempt to bring order to contemporary dating confusion. “Things don’t make sense anymore, that’s why we need pickup,” one commenter on Fast Seduction 101 explains. It teaches the ordinary nice guy—in Gamespeak, the Average Frustrated Chump (AFC)—how to reinvent himself to survive in a ruthless dating environment. That means desensitizing the AFC to rejection and, alas, building up his jerk quotient. Teachers encourage clients to project confidence and sexual energy, what is called, depending on the guru, “cocky funny” or “amused mastery.” In The Aquarian, a New York–based music magazine, Kevin Purcell describes his experience at a Game workshop: “One of our first tasks was to walk around the hotel silent, repeating in our heads ‘I don’t give a fuck what anyone thinks about me.’ This mentality, it was assumed, would help lower the wall of anxiety and make us less prone to the pain of rejection. Like soldiers responding to a drill sergeant, when asked ‘What are you?’ we were instructed to loudly proclaim, ‘A fucking ten!’ ”
Sealing the deal for Darwinists is their quarry’s biological clock. The main reason that young educated adults are increasingly marrying in their late twenties and thirties is that women are pursuing education and careers, but ironically, the delay works to men’s advantage. Once they get past their awkward late teens and early twenties, men begin to lose their metaphorical baby fat. They’re making more money, the pool of available women has grown, and they have more confidence. “I could get a woman now, but when I’m 30 or 35 I could do better,” Bryson, an otherwise nice-guy 24-year-old from D.C., tells me.
Darwinist dating may explain the litany of stories you hear from women about the troglodytes in their midst. “We can be slovenly from the start,” one interview subject told Amy Cohen in her dating column for the New York Observer, “because we can get laid anytime we want.” Remember those women who want a guy who will open the car door for them? They may be lucky if they find one willing to add “please” to “Pass the ketchup.” Women complain that instead of calling to ask them out, or even make plans for a date, men simply text, “Heading downtown. Where r u?” as they walk to the subway. That may be deliberate. “There is no longer any reason to answer the phone when a woman calls you or return her call when she leaves you a message,” insists one dating pro at World of Seduction. “What should you do? Text message, of course.” Text messages, he argues, deflect unnecessary personal involvement and keep women on edge. Game goes even further, actually encouraging men to “neg” their “target” women—that is, to undermine their confidence subtly by ignoring or mildly insulting them. The hotter the woman, the more essential it is to neg her.
Indeed, the Darwinists wonder, why pretend we’re interested in anything other than sex? Jillian Straus recalls meeting a man at a Hamptons pool party who, early on in their conversation, asked: “So, are you getting any?” One of Cohen’s lessons in contemporary politesse came on a first date with a man who asked her how many guys she had slept with and whether she owned a vibrator.
Darwinian mores, or anti-mores, also explain the brutal status jockeying that pervades the contemporary dating scene and that makes the high school cafeteria look like a feminist utopia. Check out DarwinDating.com, a matchmaking website “created exclusively for beautiful, desirable people.” Members rank your picture on a scale of one to five and vote on whether to let you join their honored ranks or throw you into the slush pile of “saggy,” “hairy,” “sweaty,” “nerdy” rejects. My 28-year-old daughter tells me of a friend, a Yale alum and Stanford business school graduate, who asked her, apropos of nothing, “If you ranked women from one to ten, one being Ugly Betty and ten being Elizabeth Hurley, what number could I get?” Jillian Straus describes a 34-year-old sales manager from Dallas who says that his current girlfriend meets just six out of his ten requirements for the perfect girlfriend. When they go out together, he’s constantly looking for an “upgrade.”
Men are convinced that they are no worse—and probably a good deal better—than women in making these calculations. With good Darwinian logic, though, they believe that women tend to do their reckoning on the basis of wallet size rather than pulchritude. “Girls are really good at that kind of math,” one jaded twentysomething man writes to me about his entry-level salary. In a review of the movie Sex and the City, the English author Toby Young remembers the five years he had lived in New York: “Attractive single girls not only dropped their ‘dates’ at the slightest whiff of a bigger, better deal, they routinely betrayed their girlfriends, too.” (As his only half-facetious name suggests, Carrie’s Mr. Big is pure alpha—rich and, as if proving the conclusions of recovering nice guys everywhere, a bit of a jerk.)
It would be easy enough to write off the dating Darwinists as simple renegades against female empowerment. Easy, but misleading. Menaissance men think that women’s equality has brought real benefits, though they might not agree with women about what those benefits are. “We can have sex with as many women as we want and not have to worry about making any of them pregnant,” one of my more upbeat respondents, an SYM named Curtis, writes. “Men are having more freedom and fun than ever before in all of history as a result of this, because if there’s one thing every single man can agree upon, it’s that having sex with as many women as possible is a great thing.” Seduction artists even say they prefer savvy women who understand Game as a male version of cleavage-revealing tops. Attracting the opposite sex is, well, a game—an intricate and thrilling game.
Moreover, the Darwinists have not just hard-luck stories on their side, but hard data as well. Forty years after they threw off the feminine mystique, women continue to prefer bigger, stronger, richer men, at least as husbands. They almost always marry men who are taller than they are, men who are several years older than they are (though the age difference has declined in recent decades), and men who earn more than they do (though that number, too, has declined a bit). Most of the women interviewed by Jillian Straus say that they’re looking for a man who can be the primary breadwinner. A June 2008 New Scientist article reports on two studies that even suggest that women are biologically attracted to “jerks”; researchers speculate that narcissistic, risk-taking men had an evolutionary advantage. Can anyone doubt the reason the gyms swarm with so many guys bench-pressing 250 pounds? Sculpted pecs are to today’s SYM what plumage is to the peacock.
No, the problem with the Darwinian tenor of the Menaissance is neither antipathy to women’s equality nor a misguided reading of female nature. It is an uncompromising biological determinism that makes no room for human cultivation. We are animals, the new Darwinians seem to say; get used to it. They define manhood as alpha-style toughness and unsentimental promiscuity. And in that spirit, they cultivate manipulation, calculation, and naked (in both the literal and metaphorical sense) self-interest. “Nature doesn’t care about hurting people’s feelings,” explains dating coach Mike Pilinski. “It cares ONLY about reproductive success.”
From one vantage point, they are right. Manipulation and self-interest suffused relations between the sexes even when gentlemen strode the earth; a few pages of Edith Wharton should disabuse any doubters on that score. But human beings rely on culture to tame natural selfishness. After all, we have prohibitions against grabbing a neighbor’s steak off the grill or kidnapping his daughter, to give just two examples of behavior about which Nature also doesn’t care. For this reason, successful human cultures expect far more of their men than muscle and promiscuity. If Darwinian daters fail to understand this, you can’t entirely blame them. They see that when the old dating and courting regime fell, it left a cultural vacuum with no rules for taming or shaming the boors, jerks, and assholes. What do they have to lose?
Nevertheless, you might ask, are there really so many dating Darwinists on the prowl? Is dating really hell, as the website would have it, for the majority of contemporary SYMs and Fs? Probably not. It’s a safe bet that for all the confusions and humiliations of dating, most men will still try to be nice guys who say “please” and avoid asking a woman about her sexual history until, say, the third date. And if the past is any guide, most of them, even the most masterly PUAs, will eventually find themselves coaching Little League on weekends. In a national survey of young, heterosexual men, the National Marriage Project, a research organization at Rutgers University, found that the majority of single subjects hoped to marry and have kids someday.
However, it’s also a good guess that a significant minority of SYMs are the sort you wouldn’t wish on your friends and relatives. Twenty-two percent of the men in the National Marriage Project’s survey were “relatively hardcore marriage avoiders,” mistrustful of women, and highly skeptical of lifelong commitment. The years they’ve spent prowling the dating savanna only reinforce their cynicism. Neil Strauss, the author of The Game, says that during his PUA years, he saw enough lies and infidelity to make Darwin look like an optimist. “Losing all hope is freedom,” snarls the blogger at Eternal Bachelor.
In fact, some people would wager that the Darwinian answer to dating chaos is our future normal. “I have lived in many places, countries, and cultures,” Douglas Gurney from Montgomery, Alabama, writes. “This is a worldwide phenomenon. The behavior of men is simply a response (which is actually a quite logical one) to the changing behavior of women. Simply put, men are a breeding experiment run by women. You reap what you sow—and when a man can sow all he wants and leave the reaping to others, well, why not?”
Kay S. Hymowitz is a contributing editor of City Journal and the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Her latest book is Marriage and Caste in America.
Copyright The Manhattan Institute
Sally Go Round the Roses |
December 09, 2008 at 09:16 PM
'Sally Go Round the Roses' what is that plagiarized rant all about?
I could have answered your urgency call for 'all you male-chauvinist pigs' without having to scroll all the way down...OINK,OINK,OINK! Its depressing to see a spinster how can't express her own opinion(rage) on sexuality.
December 09, 2008 at 09:40 PM
"This is a scholarly approach to the subject. As a woman, I urge all you male-chauvinist pigs read it."
Um, there isn't much in there for us male-chuvinist pigs to disagree with. The culture is anti-white male, feminism has made women and dating unbearable and most men don't like it.
Richard H |
December 09, 2008 at 09:50 PM
The 80-20 rule, 80% of the women sleeping with 20% of the men, seems to apply.
This statement forgets common sense data: the majority of people will get married or enter a cohabiting relationship in a moment of their lives.
Do you know any country where more than 30% of all men have not married at any moment by age 45?
Bruno Brazil |
December 09, 2008 at 09:54 PM
About 18 percent of men ages 40 to 44 with less than four years of college have never married, according to census estimates. That is up from about 6 percent a quarter-century ago. Among similar men ages 35 to 39, the portion jumped to 22 percent from 8 percent in that time.
If 20% of men had harems, there would have much, but much less marriage than the data suggest. The world would be overpopulated by now. Common sense, people.
Bruno Brazil |
December 09, 2008 at 09:57 PM
What also exists is a concentration of male atention to a very narrow group of women: 18 to 34 years old and beautiful. Men from all age ranges go after them, the 40something and the 20something.
A man´s dating life is far more ample than that. But women can only get male attention in this age interval, even though they live 80 years.
Bruno Brazil |
December 09, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Some suggestions that were effective for me. Pick the ones hat are more fit to your interests. But go there systematically and have no fear to approach women. Try with ugly ones and develop you game gradually. My suggestions are:
1-bookshops (if you want a nerd girl)
3-singles cruises (these are the best, because there are far more females than males)
4-marriage agencies (I didn´t do it because I am not interested in marrying now, but a friend of mine has success in there)
Bruno Brazil |
December 09, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Sheep in Newcastle as sleeping easier at the news
December 09, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Feminist -- Hymowitz made a big mistake. Men are not upset about not knowing the rules. They know the rules -- Big Men get most of the women. And hate it.
Moreover, Bruno, I've blogged on this extensively. First, men and women both have strong preferences for a man 6-10 years older than the woman. Declining birthrates means men have to compete against more men for fewer women. Not as bad as the "Bare Branches" but certainly bad. Next, data from the US Census Bureau shows rising age of women, and men, getting married, It shows vastly increasing illegitimacy rate -- 41% White, 70% Black, and over 50% for Hispanic. Compared to 4% in 1965. Most births (over 50%) in Britain are illegitimate. The same as in most Northern European nations.
Wow. Male concentration of women "attractive" 18-34. WHO could imagine that? Because everyone knows Darwinian natural/sexual selection works to move men to ugly 50 year old women. Meanwhile women can and do select mates up to ten years older with greater financial resources.
You've made my point -- women have the market power and use it while men have little to no market power. That's not a recipe for social peace. Among my many points, a lot of guys with no wife or girlfriend are going to vote AGAINST women/children's issues, not give a damn about women, and be reliably against Affirmative Action (Australia is now proposing discrimination AGAINST Straight White males).
Moreover, your suggestions are not very good for most men.
Volunteering is dominated by older women past 50. Great if you are plus 65 looking for older women. Not so great otherwise. Yoga classes are dominated by gay men and women, any guy participating is going to be thought "gay" ... women select on basically, who looks the hottest and most dominant in the bar at 11 pm. That's how people and particularly women go to making decisions when faced by a plethora of choices.
Bookshops, Malls, and Singles Cruises are not particularly great. Among other things -- women don't like being approached in Bookshops and Malls, Singles Cruises are dominated by packs of women.
Like it or not, the default place for meeting women open to approach and dates/sex is bars and nightclubs. That is it. There is nothing else.
December 09, 2008 at 11:00 PM
People that post entire articles into blog comment sections instead of just fucking leaving a link need to be banned from the Internet.
Rain And |
December 09, 2008 at 11:39 PM
"Why a heterosexual man that has difficulty getting dates and sleeping with girls, like some people I see in this blog, consider a problem that women are sluts? The girls get easier to land."
Bruno Brazil, thank you for pointing this out. I suppose it's because these guys think they are SO special that women should only want to sleep with them. They really need to get over themselves. You listening, Half Sigma?
December 09, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Brazil is such a promiscuous place because so many Brazilians have some Black African ancestry and Blacks have a higher libido than other ethnic groups, even to the point of being largely unable to control or contain their sexual impulses (see: AIDS epidemic in Africa; absent Black fathers; children of different men born to the same mother; etc).
In Britain, some of the women there are major sluts because their lives are empty due to the fact that the country is in most parts a depressing, gray, industrial, culturless, boring, uptight, and overcrowded police-state hellhole with no future. However, even then these British sluts have to binge drink themselves in to a sloppy oblivion just to loosen up before they start screwing a bunch of guys; many parts of the UK are currently experiencing a major binge drinking epidemic (look it up) and this is clearly fueling a promiscuity epidemic among women as they attempt to fill the empty hours of their depressing lives with alcohol-fueled sex: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3183317/.html
This phenomenon is also beginning to happen a lot more in the cities of America as well, which demonstrates quite clearly that both the USA and UK are degenerate and declining powers (they won WWII for this?). Because once a country's women start to slip this low, much of the hope has left the place.
December 09, 2008 at 11:47 PM
"women's sluttiness and a country's general circling of the bowl seem to go hand in hand.
coincidence? nyaaaaaahhh.... could be!"
Then why don't you move to Iran or Iraq? They are real nice and conservative over there.
Goddamn, some of you guys are the biggest retards ever to walk the earth... :)
December 09, 2008 at 11:47 PM
"British girls are highly moral -- they're just listening to moral authorities who you refuse to recognize as holding moral authority in the UK."
This is an excellent observation.
December 09, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Those British chicks love to screw. I had a friend who lived in the UK for a few years. When he was about 19-21, he was dating some young teen and her parents were cool with it. This girl was all over him and one day asked what he would like. He said to screw her and her sister, and for them to screw each other. The rest, as they say, is history. Crazy.
Regarding dating, it is magic when it happens. I still remember the last date before I met my wife, whom I never dated, just bummed around with, then married. My last "real" date was was 8 years ago and I remember it like yesterday. I saw her drinking coffee in Borders and went for it. She was an amazing beauty. A very womanly and genteel half Korean/half white 19 year old. We had a few amazing dates before I had to relocate. The slow build up over those few weeks was amazing. It's a shame that it's a dying practice.
December 09, 2008 at 11:56 PM
By measures of STDs and teen pregnancy, the UK is actually quite a bit less promiscuous than the U.S. Too many of you are arguing on anecdote.
December 10, 2008 at 12:53 AM
"Then why don't you move to Iran or Iraq? They are real nice and conservative over there."
why would i do that? sluts make my job so much easier.
you seem to be unable to grasp the distinction that what i find personally good may not necessarily be in the best interest of society.
December 10, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Resident Cynic -- the issue is not "guys can't get dates, call women sluts."
The issues are:
1. Women's high number of sex partners is a social ill -- it prevents monogamous marriage (this is a problem, but lesser, for men as well) through degrading the effect of the hormones that cause bonding and emotional intimacy released during sex. The high rate of divorce can be attributed to too many partners (critically among women) that prevents deep emotional attachments, particularly with delayed marriage both lowering attractiveness for both partners (to form deep lasting bonds and "mental pictures of the partner") and far too many past partners with whom greater intimacy was shared.
2. The main problem -- too much MARKET POWER by women leads to women complaining as they age out of attractiveness they must "compromise" on the quality and attractiveness of men while men complain of no dates. Men are NOT holding out for "better" women, rather women are complaining their MARKET POWER does not last.
3. It is the signal stupidity of gays, women, and "Big Men" liberal yuppie types to think that it is wise social policy to have lots and lots of men priced out of relationships with women one way or another. It does not matter if Half Sigma, or myself, or Roissy have sex or not. It certainly DOES matter as a social consequence if there is a significant group of young men not married and raising a family.
The decline of Britain, which in as Dalrymple notes in some of his latest postings, had a society in 1950 where old people routinely walked outside after dark, with unlocked doors, to today's horrors of "Baby P" with a 17 month old infant beaten to death by the mother, boyfriend (not the father) and 36 year lodger (who had a 15 year old girlfriend) did not happen overnight. Details at City-Journal dot org.
Britain did not become a violent, crime-ridden, abusive hell-hole because "people turned evil" or socialism or feminists or Marxists or any of that. [Note Dalrymple is talking exclusively of the White underclass, and the White middle class that apes it. No immigration issues at hand. Everyone is White.] No. It became that way because unbounded female choice (and unbounded "Big Men" MALE choice) created generation after generation of single mothers who chased a variety of the most dominant (which is criminal in lower classes) men, enabled by the pill and condom.
Human sexuality is both creative and destructive. In order for a society to function, and not have as in West Africa, the White British underclass (and increasingly, middle class), or Black US ghettos, a bunch of men fighting over women in a "soft" polygamy where the victor is the hardest hard man thug (who never, btw, works), or the "hard" polygamy of Saudi harems, RULES, boundaries, limitations, customs, manners, and social demands and expectations MUST limit human sexuality.
Otherwise you swiftly get the war of all-against-all. Like Fletcher Christian and his band slaughtering each other on Pitcairn Island over the few women. It's almost as if ... I've blogged about it.
Remember -- Britain went from stiff upper lip to Baby P in less than fifty years. That's what you get with a society of single mothers.
December 10, 2008 at 01:29 AM
Not reading 50-odd comments. Here's the main problem:
"commissioned by More magazine"
Go to their website for their mission statement: "Celebrating women over 40." That is: designed to delude. Therefore, no one working there knows jackshit about how to design, collect, or analyze data.
It's hard to screw up a ranking, though, so it probably is true that English girls are sluttier than Australians. But having 9 partners by 21? It's probably not that bad.
December 10, 2008 at 01:33 AM
9 is a lot by 21. My impression is most women in America are about 5 or so by 21. There is anecdotal evidence that the UK is the one industrialized country which has disintegrated morally moreso than the US. This just backs that up. From what I hear, the women are basically all binge-drinking whores. In the US it's only 80%.
December 10, 2008 at 01:42 AM
WRT Iran and Iraq.
Iran has as a matter of public record hung (sadly) 16 year old girls for "adultery."
Even this, the most repressive regime one can imagine for women, has not changed female behavior. The TFR (you can check it at the CIA World Fact Book) is below replacement at 1.7. Women there are wild, under the burqa, and engage in various acts unthinkable under the liberated Shah (who allowed women far more social and political freedom).
The Iranian rates of STDs are quite high, even by Muslim standards, according the UN. Prostitution is a huge problem as is human trafficking for those purposes, again according to the UN, a place not known for being either anti-Islamic or wanting to poke fingers into Iran's eyes. Figures come from official Iranian sources, and many suspect the ACTUAL numbers are quite higher.
What has changed in Iran?
The pill and the condom allow women to control their own fertility. It is a transformational piece of technology, as revolutionary as the stirrup, the moldboard plow, the three crop rotational system, and the potato. The way in which people live is completely different pre- and post-contraception (as basically, a nearly 100% effective commodity that is cheap, cheap, cheap).
Women are going to have sex, a lot of it, with a very few men (who hit the female criteria of status, power, and high testosterone). They are going to form single mother families (if they form any at all). Sex is not democratic, and as Michel Houellebecq pointed out, ultimately destabilizing as it creates classes of winners and losers.
This is true even in IRAN. Which can always get worse, and likely will. Next stop: Saudi style treatment of women as outright slaves.
We either accept huge destabilizing waves as men either compete over women violently, or simply opt-out with video games and pr0n and don't defend civilization, or we change fundamentally how we manage human sexuality.
What do you think drives Iran's otherwise insane policies and picking fights with distant and tiny Israel or the US? Duh. It's the competition over WOMEN. Creating a need for a foreign enemy.
December 10, 2008 at 01:48 AM
"why would i do that? sluts make my job so much easier.
you seem to be unable to grasp the distinction that what i find personally good may not necessarily be in the best interest of society."
You'd go to Iraq because their conservative women means that their society will be strong. You'll be safe there since our "loose" western women will eventually result in the wrath of Allah smiting us from Earth.
Or perhaps the truth is more complicated than your retarded observation. Take a quick survey of the planet pal, and see how well all the countries with conservative views on women are doing. Hell, take that survey in the U.S and you'll get much the same.
Anyway, strike out the Allah/God part and you sound EXACTLY like some religious nutjob with your stupid views on women and society. I'm no feminist or feminazi sympathizer, but I gotta call a goddamn spade when I see one.
December 10, 2008 at 02:36 AM
I agree with those who are skeptical over the magazine. I've often looked at women's magazine to understand the modern Western female, but I've learned that magazines are not helpful.
They lie on a monumental scale. Nothing's true. It's all wishful thinking and denial. The lies are often so grotesque, weird and counter-intuitive to experience that I can't believe anyone to truly believe them. If this is what women want to read, they really prefer myth over reality.
What stands out are the lying covers.
- "Leave him, you'll be happy!"
- "Everyone has affairs."
- "We don't need men anymore!"
- "Just quit your job!"
- "EQ more important than IQ"
- "Why have kids? -- Just travel!"
- "Don't marry, have a LAT relation -- best of both worlds"
- "What's your excuse for not having one-night-stands?"
- "Sexuality is a continuum -- with gays on one end, straights on the other and the rest in between."
And on and on the nonsense goes.
December 10, 2008 at 02:58 AM
Why market fluidity is such a bad thing ?
if you're relationship with someone doesn't resist comparison with the market despite the value all bonds you've created in your couple, why is it your interest and in the society's interest that it should last ?
you're idealizing "The little house in the prary".
Bruno from Paris, France |
December 10, 2008 at 03:19 AM
To summarize market's rationale as you see it :
they are 2 men for one woman in the market (18-50 versus 18-34) and 80% of women chase 20% of men. So you've got 20% of men with 2 choices on average and 80% with 0.125 choice.
So if you want those common-men having 1 Partner every year on average, top-men should have 16 and common-women 8.
Fluidity seems to be a good thing.
Bruno from Paris, France |
December 10, 2008 at 03:30 AM
"By measures of STDs and teen pregnancy, the UK is actually quite a bit less promiscuous than the U.S"
The NAM % of the population is also much higher in the US. And the whites in the UK don't include a massive christian/conservative component as in the US. I would be surprised if white girls in the US were slutier than in the UK
December 10, 2008 at 06:42 AM
"Brazil is such a promiscuous place because so many Brazilians have some Black African ancestry and Blacks have a higher libido than other ethnic groups"
The promiscuous adjective assumes that lots of sex is a bad thing. Sleeping around, in my opinion, is not a problem. Why lots of sex would be a problem in a society with condoms and contraceptives?
As far as I know, "sluttiness" is not a problem for a man like me that enjoys women. They get easier to land.
About whiskey and places to meet women, go there, try my suggestions and don´t whine. They work. All you need is to esssentially go to places where there are women and talk to them. They arent in caves. If you approach lots of them, one time you´ll get dates. Women are accostumed to get men after them and you wont be the first random guy to chat them up.
I don´t know your ability level with women and you could be a nightclub pro, but, for a beginner, dating a fat ugly 40-yr old with acne and lots of children is quite an accomplishment. It is the first step to better women and you don´t need to stay with her forever. With practice and more confidence, you develop your game and climb to better ones. It´s just like the workplace: you climb from the bottom.
If you need women, I met my g-friend in a bookshop.
Bruno Brazil |
December 10, 2008 at 06:53 AM
Since when is a Beta a loser? I believe correct term for a bloke who can't get women is an Omega Male.
Beside British women are sluts -they're bitches. You know the joke - if a woman sleeps with every guy, she a slut but if sleeps with every guy but you then she's a bitch. ;)
December 10, 2008 at 07:01 AM
this blog is a sausage fest.
December 10, 2008 at 09:25 AM
Some noted that the poll in which U.K. girls are revealed as sluttiest is flawed because these girls might be honestly reporting their number of partners, which coul dbe no different than the number of partners that girls of other nationalities might have.
Even if that's so, this still shows the U.K. girls as sluttiest, because they don't care enough to be discrete about their number of partners.
Also, ResidentCynic says: "Anyway, strike out the Allah/God part and you sound EXACTLY like some religious nutjob with your stupid views on women and society."
He's making a common liberal mistake in assuming that the Isalmic conservatism is what's wrong with them, and not the fact that they are a different civilization that's displacing ours.
ResidentCynic sounds like an American circa 1943 who'd say that that Americans are just like those Japanese nutjobs because they too have brave soldiers.
December 10, 2008 at 09:39 AM
resident stale debater:
"You'd go to Iraq because their conservative women means that their society will be strong."
since when does polygamy and cousin marriage = conservative?
"You'll be safe there since our "loose" western women will eventually result in the wrath of Allah smiting us from Earth."
your premises are... unsound.
"Or perhaps the truth is more complicated than your retarded observation."
or perhaps the truth bugs you.
"Take a quick survey of the planet pal, and see how well all the countries with conservative views on women are doing."
have high rates of single motherhood and increasing hypergamy in the west been
a. the status quo for generations or
b. a trend of the past 40 years?
"Anyway, strike out the Allah/God part and you sound EXACTLY like some religious nutjob with your stupid views on women and society."
accurately observing human nature requires no belief in supernatural power.
"I'm no feminist or feminazi sympathizer, but I gotta call a goddamn spade when I see one."
you are a useful beta tool of your masters.
December 10, 2008 at 10:30 AM
"this blog is a sausage fest"
And in other new discoveries, scientists have announced that the sun rises in the east.
December 10, 2008 at 10:38 AM
You can ignore this sort of survey. Sloppy, unscientific, useless. Interesting to see how many people outside the UK love having their stereotypes confirmed, though. Theodore Dalrymple is greatly to blame; I love his writing and sympathize with his views, but he exaggerates tremendously. Yes, there's a lot to worry about, and a lot to be frightened of and depressed about, such as the Baby P affair; but you can discount Dalrymple by about 75%, I think.
Graham Asher |
December 10, 2008 at 10:42 AM
"by the age of 21, women have had an average of nine sexual partners."
That's not even remotely plausible, not even if "sexual partner" is defined very loosely. In America, for example, "[t]he median number of _lifetime_ female sexual partners for men was _seven_; the median number of male partners for women was _four_." (source:MSNBC) The figures from the rest of the West are not, I believe, radically dissimilar to those of America, so it's clear that the people surveyd in the UK study are unusually promiscuous.
December 10, 2008 at 12:33 PM
JL - "In America, for example, "[t]he median number of _lifetime_ female sexual partners for men was _seven_; the median number of male partners for women was _four_." (source:MSNBC)"
But the MSNBC numbers are no good either. How can we be sure? In a properly constructed study, in a population where genders are roughly equal in number, and when lifetime opposite sex partners are honestly enumerated, and where "sex acts" are uniformly defined, men and women will have to same average number of opposite-sex sex partners.
Since each and every time a man has a different woman, a woman also has a different partner.
I've tried to get into the statistical/mathematical expalainations on other forums, where, sadly, far too many were simply not smart enough to grasp the simple reality behind why it has to be that the average numbers will be th esame for the genders.
If you're having trouble grasping why this is, try working with a small hypothetical set, say ten men and ten women. Try pairing them up in various ways, note the total number of unique partners for each, and compute averages. Do it several times, and I beleive the logic should become clearer.
December 10, 2008 at 01:12 PM
Not completely off-topic, and of potential interest, consider an excerpt from this item:
"Men who spent more (saved less) and who were more likely to shell out more than they earned reported having more sexual partners in the past five years and desired more future partners than other guys in the study.
Specifically, the 25 percent of men who were most conservative about spending had an average of three partners in the past five years and desired about one partner in the next five years. The 2 percent of men with the riskiest financial strategies had double those numbers."
With apologiews to Roissy, I beleive that there are elements of what I'd call "soft-postitution" that play every bit as big a role in regards to men "scoring" as does having "game".
December 10, 2008 at 01:41 PM
Posted by: rightwingnut | December 09, 2008 at 09:40 PM
Kind sir, what would possibly give you the impression that I am a spinster. I happen to be 33, successful, and hot. You not.
Sally Go Round the Roses |
December 10, 2008 at 02:33 PM
No, surely all this means is that British woman are too stupid to know when its a good time to lie.
December 10, 2008 at 06:29 PM
On pain of shamelessly pimping my own blog, I crunched the numbers for a simple model and was able to account for the difference in the number of sex partners merely by a preference of younger girls for older guys.
December 11, 2008 at 01:23 AM
May I suggest to "Sally Go Around the Roses" that she simply post a link to the article in question, rather than cut and pasting the entire article into the blog comments section.
December 11, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Thanks, McGraw. I was hoping to read a comment about the sample being biased.
December 12, 2008 at 05:14 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.