Double Standards

16 10 2010

I’ve said quite a bit about the slut/stud double standard before. Just type “double standard” into the little search box to the right to see for yourself.

I’ve noted that it makes sense biologically. There are multiple reproductive strategies that can be successful for humans (in the pre-historic world in which we developed), but one strategy that is doomed to fail would be for a man to commit to a promiscuous or already pregnant woman, so that is not in our nature. For women, however, committing to (or simply mating with) a promiscuous man may actually be more likely to lead to successful reproduction. The man in the tribe with the most women is probably the strongest and most able provider, and even if he doesn’t provide for all his offspring, the implication of his status is that he has the best genes.

I’ve also mentioned that there is a corollary to the slut/stud double standard, the pure/loser double standard. Men who make it into their twenties without having had sex are simply not attractive to young women. It’s not that they can’t get laid because they aren’t attractive, but that they aren’t attractive because they can’t get laid. When women insult men, as men, they accuse them of being gay, rapists, and virgins (usually not all at once). Male virgins are seen as losers, while female virgins are prized. No man has ever intentionally insulted a woman by calling her a virgins.

One thing I think I haven’t said is that promiscuity in men correlates with high self-esteem while promiscuity in women correlates with low self-esteem, at least according to Dr. Drew Pinsky of Loveline. I’ve tried to find other sources for this on the web, but I’ve only managed to find it in life. As someone who’s listened to that show and dealt with various women for several years, I think I’m pretty good identifying pathological behavior in women and I think promiscuous behavior is almost always pathological in women. It’s like a drug addiction in that it gets worse as it progresses. I wouldn’t say that this is never the case with men, but I don’t think it’s the norm. It seemed a bit silly to me when Tiger Woods was labelled a sex addict. Why? It’s normal for males (in almost all animal species) to seek variety, but is rather pointless in females since they’re incapable of having more than one successful pregnancy at a time.

My motivation for this post comes from Katherine, who asked:

I am confused about your ideas on the double standard. Why is a woman who sleeps around not a good candidate for a long-term relationship, at the same time that a man who sleeps around is not a problem?

A woman who sleeps around is a problem because she’s probably nuts, as I was saying above. I haven’t said that a man who sleeps around isn’t a problem. Maybe it’s less of a problem, but the difference is what is attractive to the opposite sex, and promiscuity in men does not negatively impact their value in the sexual marketplace, as it does for women. Certainly, some women make an effort to avoid players, but this is a relatively trivial matter. I’m writing from and for the male perspective, so it’s not really my thing to offer advice to women, but I would definitely advise them avoid aloof men who can’t be trusted if they want to be in good relationships.

I personally don’t think sleeping around is a good idea for anyone, because it’s empty and kind of upsetting (at least to me). However, I’m not going to hate on anyone who does it – man or woman.

It’s upsetting to you because you’re a woman. I don’t seek meaningless sex (because it’s better when it’s meaningful*), but it doesn’t make me feel bad. The only sex men ever feel bad about is the sex we’re not having.

Why do you think it’s ok for one and not the other?

Ok? I never said anything was or wasn’t ok. Perhaps your confusion is that you conflate the positive with the normative. I don’t think I ever said anything about what is or isn’t ok in some cosmic or moral sense. I’m stating the facts as I understand them to be. Saying that behavior A will result in X for men and Y for women is not the same as saying that behavior A is okay for men and bad for women. That’s all this is.

Roissy aka Chateau recently put things a bit more bluntly in his post about Karen Owen, the infamous Duke slut who made the fuck-list Powerpoint presentation:

Karen Owen has royally fucked up her chances to extract marriage from a good man thanks to her intemperate decision to write about, share and, consequently, archive for the masses for all eternity her insatiable hunger for a variety of lacrosse cock. Try to turn down the knobs on your psychologically-cemented female projection modules for a moment and put yourself in an alpha male’s shoes. What man worth his yarbles in character, money, career, looks, charm and/or social status is going to use Karen Owen for anything more than a hole in which to dump a perfunctory fuck? What high status man would marry a slut with a tap sheet a mile long, her every clitoral flutter registered in loving detail in ASCII, jpeg and png for his friends to read and laugh at?

[…]

The impolite fact is that a man who wrote an Owen-esque fuck list would not suffer much, if any, penalty in the dating market *or* in the more tightly regulated social market for his promiscuity. Sure, a few femtards would wail at the objectifying of women and the unfairness that ugly but SMRT broads are passed over for alpha bimbo sorostitutes, but in the crucible of real life most normal heterosexual women would be uncomfortably drawn to such a man, and would work for his affections. I’m sure the athletes who are a part of Owen’s fuck list are high-fiving their pounding of Owen’s sperm cavern when they’re not fucking a hundred other groupies scrambling for their attentions.

Bottom line: a male Karen Owen would actually see his sexual market value *rise*, while Owen’s value as a girlfriend and potential wife has undoubtedly fallen. This — plus the raw hypergamy on display by her choice of sexual partners and her ability to effortlessly fulfill that limbic impulse — is the underlying message of Owen’s cutesy confessional. And it’s the message that the legacy media, the middle-aged vicars of vicariousness, and the feminists are trying hard to miss.

* – My concept of meaningful sex might not be the same as yours.





Dear Sanityinjection

3 03 2010

Sanity Injection attempted to inject some sanity into my thoughts on that Weekly Standard article.

Most of what is written about dating – including your article – is an attempt to take something relatively simple and make it complicated.

I can’t imagine what would motivate anyone to think this. Dating and mating are not simple at all. What we see is a highly competitive marketplace where the products try to sell themselves. Some are very bad at it. Some are not. There are a great deal of men who have a very limited success with women and women who don’t understand why the men they like will sleep with them but won’t commit to them. There are marriages that wives inexplicably and suddenly end after four or so years of apparent happiness. A great many people are dissatisfied with their love lives and some of them are extremely so. Much of this suffering, I think, stems from people holding false beliefs, and much of that comes from feminism. I’m trying to get people to see how they’re wrong, and I think Charlotte Allen’s article does a damn good job of that. Considering how quickly you responded, I’m doubtful that you actually read it.

Most people do not interact with the opposite sex based on evolutionary theory or tips from Cosmo.

People do not (not normally anyway) consciously act based on their understanding of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary psychology derives from observing how people interact. Are you saying that biology plays no role? However right or wrong our theory may be, our biology rules us. Why would you think other? Cosmo, and other women’s and girls’ magazines have been played a huge role in telling girls what is and isn’t okay, like sex on the third date.

In fact, whole eons of humanity have managed to successfully perpetuate the species without any expert advice at all, except perhaps from their own friends and family.

It is one thing to perpetuate. It is quite another to thrive. Advanced civilizations did not spring about with people running around doing whatever they feel like. For that, social norms were constructed to persuade people to restrain themselves in order to benefit larger groups.

The chief cause of most of the unhappiness that beglooms the dating world is the ubiquitous lying by both men and women. Women lie to themselves, men lie to women, and that leads to game-playing by both genders. If everyone would simply be honest about what they really want – whether it be casual sex, marriage or something in between – it would be much easier for everybody.

I’m quite honest myself and I appreciate honesty. However, that’s not the problem. People lie to get what they want, or to get more of what they want than they would if they were honest. You can call that cheating, or just accept it. No amount of protest will change it. Women lie to themselves to make peace with their own behavior. This tendency seems biologically driven and it seems to allow them to move on much better than men can. Once again, protest or accept it. It’s not going to change.

Also, being upfront and open about what you want is an idea that appeals to men, but it does not appeal to women. When a woman first sees me, she doesn’t yet know what she wants from me. It is my job to show her. I cannot simply tell her, and I sure as hell can’t ask her. It just doesn’t work that way.

You can talk all you want about alpha and beta males and men acting like men, but at bottom, people are who they are. If a guy is a hand-wringing pussy, no attempt to mimic more dominant behavior is going to work long-term.

There are a great many who disagree with that. I am no natural alpha, but I’m definitely not the chicken-shit social retard that I was at 19. It seems quite natural for men like me to improve socially as they age, even without  intending to. Actively improving oneself can work much faster. Men who are bad with women lack confidence and a lot of confidence can be gained simply by willing it. Think of how men on sports teams (football, in particular) build confidence in one-another by yelling and grunting. “Fake it ’till you make it” is much better advice than the age-old “be yourself.”

I shall quote Roissy:

XI.  Be irrationally self-confident

No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.

You do not need a reason to be confident other than knowing that it works.