The tree of knowledge and a girl called John
October 2, 2013 § 52 Comments
I’ve proposed the idea before that modern romance novels and movies are a form of pornography for women, and that the main difference between pornography targeted at women and pornography targeted at men is that the latter is still subject to at least some degree of social stigma, whereas the former is celebrated.
I’ve also suggested that beta orbiting behavior in men corresponds to slutty behavior in women: that some women have “harems” of beta orbiters in much the same way that some men have “harems” of sluts. Again, the main difference is residual societal stigma of the latter.
Men and women are different, so when it comes to matters of moral vice they tend to play different roles in society. In some parts of the blogosphere which discuss our modern sexual dystopia it is often stated, as some kind of big point of existential outrage, that women can get sex any time they want, while men cannot. But this isn’t actually true. A man of modest means can get sex as quickly and as easily as a woman of modest looks, provided neither is particularly picky. She just has to use her looks to attract a cad; he just has to use his money to purchase the services of a prostitute.
So another vicious symmetry in amoral modernity is between the pickup artist (PUA) or cad, and the prostitute. This implies symmetry between the slut and the john: a slut is the female equivalent of a john. Once again the main difference is residual disproportionate disapproval of male bad behavior versus female bad behavior. Fornication and adultery used to be illegal in many or most jurisdictions; prostitution still is.
What further follows is that men going to cads to learn about women is rather like women going to hookers to learn about men. Sure, you might learn a thing or two. But watch what you catch in your filters.
Zippy Catholic 
Well now, that is a very interesting point. The categories do seem to correspond rather neatly to one another.
In some parts of the blogosphere which discuss our modern sexual dystopia it is often stated, as some kind of big point of existential outrage, that women can get sex any time they want, while men cannot. But this isn’t actually true. A man of modest means can get sex as quickly and as easily as a woman of modest looks, provided neither is particularly picky. She just has to use her looks to attract a cad; he just has to use his money to purchase the services of a prostitute.
I don’t think this is actually true. At least it’s false in the sense that the qualities that you’ve compared do not make equals of the two sexes.
For this to be true, then every average-looking chick is a multi-millionaire who can binge every night if she wants; at least until their, oh, 50. Their visages will begin to crumble before that, but there’s always some guy willing to validate them.
50K-a-year-Bob still has to pay the mortgage.
Gross. My second paragraph should begin:
For this to be true, then average-looking chicks are multi-millionaires who can binge every night if they want; at least until they’re, oh, 50.
Is this really true? Can an average looking girl really command sexual attention that easily? I’m asking because sometimes I wonder if there is just a hint of female apex fallacy in the sphere. I know that 7-10 girls get a ton of attention while they are young, but they are by definition above average. Are 4-6 girls really getting that much? Aren’t they more the equivalent of a man making $40-60K?
Anyway, the analogy still balances out, doesn’t it? Because Average Girl still gets rejected once in a while by cads, but Cash Man is never rejected by whores.
Are 4-6 girls really getting that much?
No, they aren’t Sunshine. At least I wasn’t and what attention I did get was driven primarily by intangibles.
There is more than just a hint of female apex fallacy at work.
Unless of course Cane is doing that thing that Deti does, conflating the ability to get someone, anyone to have sex with you as the kind of sexual attention most women want, when it isn’t. It sin’t anymore than a man wants to have to pay for sexual favors.
A lot of manosphere discussion seems to me to be predicated on false equivalences and equivocation.
The precise amount of effort required is beside the point. The manosphere myth is that women can get sex whenever they want, while beta men have to go through years of “grinding celibacy” (by which they mean abstinence).
But that is just false. Both men and women can get sex very easily. They just can’t get what they actually want easily.
Imagine a world in which prostitution was socially celebrated, and in which “john marches” got the same kind of New York Times approval as “slut walks”. We’d have as many betas indulging in commerce with the oldest profession as we do sluts trolling for thugsperm.
Zippy’s argument is invalid because of the imbalances of risks and legality.
A slut sleeping with a guy is virtually risk free on the surface. All she has to do is have a pulse, a respiratory rate, and put herself out there, and some guy will want to sleep with her. Might not be the best guy; might not be the richest or hottest guy; but she’ll get someone. She won’t face anything like the rejection rate a man does. All she needs to do is make the guy wear a condom and the risks of pregnancy and STDs are sharply reduced. Importantly, there is nothing illegal at all about what she’s doing.
Not so with a john wanting a prostitute for sex. He’ll eventually get a disease (probably herpes or HPV). Sex with decent halfway clean hookers costs good money, and lots of it. Prostitution is illegal. He keeps it up, he’ll eventually get pinched for solicitation and all the legal and financial consequences that flow from it.
Zippy claims the effort required is irrelevant. Umm, no, it’s VERY relevant. For her it’s free of risk, cost and penalty. For him it’s high risk of disease and social stigma, high cost in money; and high penalty if he gets a disease or the law catches him. Moreover, it’s the easiest thing in the world for a girl to get some guy to sleep with her. It’s a bit more difficult to hire a hooker and escape undetected.
Zippy says that it’s hard for men and women to get what they actually want. I assume from this he means a committed long term relationship in the form of sacramental marriage. Well, no, I don’t see this as particularly difficult for a woman either. If she puts forth some effort she can find a suitable marriage partner when she wants, on her time table.
There’s a delay in marriage, true. Women and men are marrying later. But women are not marrying later because they can’t find any men willing to get married. They are marrying later because they can. They are marrying later because they have found out that if they are halfway decent looking, they can still go to college AND grad school AND travel AND work their shitty jobs a few years AND ride the carousel if they want, and then when they’re ready, they’ll still find some guy willing to marry them. Is this optimal in the end? No. But it’s the choice more and more women are making. At least this is what I see and have seen.
Don’t take my word for it. Dalrock has collected all the statistics on this you would ever need.
Elspeth says that she’s a 4-6 woman who didn’t get lots of attention. But then, isn’t she doing what she and Little Godwin, er, Zip, claim that I do, which is invalidly extrapolate my experiences and what I see to the general population? Isn’t that being a bit “provincial”?
And Elspeth, consider this: Could it possibly be that it wasn’t that you weren’t getting lots of attention; it’s just that the guys you wanted attention from weren’t giving it to you, until SAM showed up? So that the average geekazoids fawning over you doesn’t count as “attention” because those guys are invisible to you? Can you at least consider that as a possibility?
I’ll concede that if I ask a bunch of plain Janes in their 30s and 40s what junior high and high school was like, I’ll hear lots of stories about lonely Saturday nights and how she loved Biff the jockhead footballer from afar. But if I drill down I bet I’ll also hear about how Jimmy and Tommy liked her, but they were “just friends”; and about how Harry the Horn Player in the marching band kinda sorta liked her and she kinda sorta liked him but she just wasn’t “feeling it” and he wasn’t particularly assertive. And, if Harry had been a bit bolder and more assertive, he might have won Jane’s heart.
ZIppy claims that manosphere thought is based a lot on false equivalencies and extrapolations. Could be. It could also be that Zippy is speaking from his limited experience, much as he accuses his interlocutors of doing. If that’s the case and he was spared the indignities written of here, I’m glad for him. I really am. But for every one Zippy, there are ten or a hundred Jimmys and Harry’s who weren’t so fortunate or strong.
Deti:
Zippy’s argument is invalid because of the imbalances of risks and legality.
I discuss that, as well as social stigma, in the OP. And it is easy enough to live in a jurisdiction where prostitution is legal.
You are definitely committing a form of the apex fallacy, and are as lacking in self awareness about it as a teenage girl.
Elspeth
I doubt must women want attention in the form of casual sex. But from what it appears to me there are a lot of women outside the church who, when faced with a choice between marriage to her SMP or MMP counterpart; and casual axe with a series of men a few points above her, will choose the latter. Because they can.
And the Christian SMP from where I sit looks a lot like this but with maybe less sex going on. Christian women by and large find no church men attractive and so if they date, they do so with the players, cads and secular men bold enough to ask them. Yes, those church men have their self mastery down pat– they have no choice.
Little Godwin:
It is precisely those risks and imbalances that invalidate your analogy.
I presume the “apex fallacy” you accuse me of is presuming that any girl can get whatever she wants when she wants it. Go look at dalrock’s stats on marriage. It’s really not that difficult to figure out.
That’s the problem, though. Harry doesn’t do anything but orbit around her in an icky fashion, so she isn’t aware that he likes her. Maybe she would like him back if he really pursued her, but he doesn’t. So she’s dateless on Saturday night and just figures it’s because no one wants a girl who isn’t particularly pretty. So when you come right down to it, she can’t get male attention because the ones she’s willing to pursue won’t have her and the ones she might like well enough if they pursued her, don’t.
I’m speaking from experience here. I was an average looking girl and had a part-time job in high school; after my first year in college, I went home for the summer and went back to that part time job. My manager there told me, “Remember, (name)? He was so crazy about you. It’s too bad he didn’t come back this summer since you’re here again.” And I was like, “Why didn’t he ever say anything to me? I would have gone out with him!” All he would have had to do is approach me and ask me to go to a movie or something, and I’m sure I would have. But he never did.
If the objection is that prostitution is illegal and expensive then the objection goes away when prostitution is made legal and cheap.
That is obviously not a satisfying answer; and this points to the flaws inherent in Deti’s framing.
By the way, my personal example above is about getting a date, not getting a sex partner. I was not sexually active in high school.
And pondering it a bit more, the boy that I did end up dating during my senior year in high school (and getting engaged to but not marrying) was someone I’d met at that same job. In considering him and the other guy, I would say the other guy was actually slightly better looking. So really, average young men’s problem seems to be more of an issue of lacking confidence to pursue. The guy I ended up dating was the one who had the nerve to ask me out.
“I’m speaking from experience here. ”
How provincial of you. One can draw no conclusions from your experience. Or mine. Or Zippy’s.
Deti:
The problem isn’t people drawing on their experiences. The problem is that you universalize your experiences, discount the experiences of anyone who says that theirs are different, and then adopt the pose that nobody has anything to say that counters your narrative (“Beuller?” etc.)
It is quite childish, really.
Welp, all we really have are personal stories and observations. Very little really useful social science research ever seems to get done. But if we can amass our personal stories and observations, we can at least construct some theoretical frameworks and imagine what kind of research could be done to confirm or refute our ideas.
Zippy:
I have never claimed my experiences are universal. What I have done is claim that some things are generally true based on my experiences and those of others. I’m not the only one who has noticed the things I write about. There are some things that are generally true. What you do is point out exceptions and then claim the exceptions disprove the general observable fact.
I don’t discount the different experiences of others until I probe into them. Even then, their experiences are what they are; and more accurately, what they perceive them to be.
You simply don’t like the use of humor and hyperbole as illustrative devices. What you see as childish, I see as simply humorous and hyperbolic. But no matter. If I have to drop the humor and hyperbole to discuss things with you, I’ll adopt a dry professorial persona that will be more to you liking.
Deti:
I have never claimed my experiences are universal.
No, you just claim that they are pervasive and then rationalize away anything that conflicts with your story. The hamster is strong with you.
Your hamster is similarly composed of great fortitude, zippy. You claim men must learn self mastery which is fine as far as it goes. But you stop there, and then don’t suggest any actual tools beyond mastery of sexual urges for the purpose of relationship management. Platitudes won’t do, zippy; men need application of the scriptures you and I both adhere to.
It isn’t enough to give some of these men food. We have to show them what to eat and, for a while, how to eat it.
I’ll take my leave because I’ve made the points I wanted to make. I’ll derail the thread no further.
Thanks, Zippy, for your indulgence. It’s a credit to you for letting me have my say at your place.
@ Deti:
I’ve actually never denied that other men were interested in me. Good men, in fact that I admit I was not as interested in. If I were being generous I would (if I had to) categorize myself as a ‘6″ at age 21. Still not sure how I ended up married to a guy that random women say boldly to me is “really handsome”, but it is what it is.
Thing is though that the very, very few other men who were interested in me were not unattractive, or even particularly geeky. Just not as bold and unapologetically masculine. That meant more to me than his looks, which definitely didn’t hurt.
I’ve only skimmed the comments past Elspeth’s at 7:57am. The value of doing so seems limited. The only reason I am even addressing this is because I have now twice been accused of committing an apex fallacy. Horse-hockey.
From the strictly moral perspective, I agree with equating sluts and johns.
Let’s keep in mind that Zippy’s stipulation is the ability to procure sex. It’s not about getting the particular sort of relationship that either sex wants from anyone; whether hookers, PUAs, or others. The fact that men want “hot” or women want “cool” is irrelevant based upon what was actually discussed in the OP; which was getting sex.
IF prostitution were legal, or the laws against relatively unenforced, and the social stigma removed, then we could compare apples to apples. Zippy’s notion that the realities are comparable is ludicrous because this is not the case. That’s why he has to say “IF prostitution were legal”, and, “You can MOVE to a place where prostitution is legal.” Seriously? Driving to the local bar is equivalent to MOVING to Nevada? One costs five bucks in gas. The other is a life-change.
We might differ on what composition of visage and figure makes a 4-6. Regardless, the idea that average women cannot easily acquire sex at the local watering hole is ridiculous. Again: It may not be with the Alphas that are preferred, but it is available. The converse is simple not true for prostitutes and johns. I can’t differentiate between the legit massage parlors, and their sketchy cousins; while nearly any woman can find a willing mate at almost any bar.
Unless of course Cane is doing that thing that Deti does, conflating the ability to get someone, anyone to have sex with you as the kind of sexual attention most women want, when it isn’t. It sin’t anymore than a man wants to have to pay for sexual favors.
Take it up with Zippy. He’s the one who equated it. To wit:
A man of modest means can get sex as quickly and as easily as a woman of modest looks, provided neither is particularly picky. She just has to use her looks to attract a cad; he just has to use his money to purchase the services of a prostitute.
Moving to Nevada and paying hundreds of dollars a pop ain’t the same ballpark as walking to a pub and saying, “Buy me a drink, sailor?”, and putting your hand on his thigh. Yes, female 4-6’s can do this.
Perhaps what you meant to say, Elspeth, is that Zippy shouldn’t have equated the two because the reality is that it’s not even remotely as quick and easy to get a prostitute, as compared to a cad. Cads don’t even need a Craigslist ad.
Finally, none of what I am saying has any bearing on Deti’s comments except as that I acknowledge that he was part of the discussion that spurred this post. I don’t believe he’s been honest in his motives, intentions, or explanations; so I see little value in engaging that part.
The bold text at the end should only comprise the word “reality”.
Let’s keep in mind that Zippy’s stipulation is the ability to procure sex.
You’re right, as usual. I stand ocrrected.
“corrected.”
Cane:
On what basis do you conclude my comments are dishonest or in bad faith?
@Deti
On what basis do you conclude my comments are dishonest or in bad faith?
On the same basis that anyone believes anything that anyone says: We weigh what is said against what we know about the person; especially in light of the preponderance of statements that person has made on the same or similar subjects.
More specifically: I don’t believe your claim that you used hyperbole purely for the sake of illuminating the plight of Beta men, and that your personal experience and considerations of the matter were, at most, secondary. That taints the whole conversation, as far as I’m concerned.
There are probably several factors driving your decisions, but upon which I will not publicly speculate.
Cane:
From the strictly moral perspective, I agree with equating sluts and johns.
That’s something, then.
I’m not making any sort of exact comparison of effort required, because such a comparison is impossible even in principle.
Would you find it more agreeable
if I said that acquiring sex is far easier for men than folks like Deti claim it is in their histrionic polemics, precisely because folks like Deti arbitrarily exclude acquiring sex through prostitution – the long standing practice of low status amoral men – from their rhetoric?
@Zippy
That’s something, then.
Haven’t you heard? I’m a dragoon in your employ. While I’m thinking about it: I deserve a raise.
I’m not making any sort of exact comparison of effort required, because such a comparison is impossible even in principle.
My criticism (which is a minor point) is that you’re not even making an approximate comparison. For good or bad: The balance of powers so favors women and their proclivities (moral and immoral) that cads and their buyers are allowed, while the pros and their johns are banned. The comparison can’t be made because half has been rather successfully outlawed. You tried to make it anyway. shrug
[A]cquiring sex is far easier for men than folks like Deti claim it is in their histrionic polemics, precisely because folks like Deti arbitrarily exclude acquiring sex through prostitution – the long standing practice of low status amoral men – from their rhetoric?
No, because, again, what was a very long-standing practice has mostly been pushed underground, and therefore made expensive, and difficult to procure.
That’s my disagreement, and it’s pretty specific.
Let’s talk about where we agree, which is the first half of the last statement I quoted:
[A]cquiring sex is far easier for men than folks like Deti claim it is in their histrionic polemics
This is true. I often wonder if there was ever a time of peace where getting laid was any easier. There are SO MANY sluts out there, and there are SO MANY sissies out there that any average man can Game a girl into bed.
A friend dragged me to my first house party not long before my 16th birthday. I saw two girls from my church making out with guys I knew they weren’t actually dating, and that no one at church knew they were even interested in.
I was dreadfully sorry to contemplate that I left that party in physically pristine condition, and I resolved not to let that happen again. To that end I made a mental catalog of what those losers had that I did not, and then I rectified the discrepancies: I started smoking, drinking, pierced my ear, and–in what proved to be a ladykilling coup de gras–shaved my head, and I was already wearing the soon-to-be hot JNCO jeans when only the brothas were. This was 1993; just before shaved heads and baggy pants were the rage.
It worked. A couple weeks later I woke up at a strange house, and while I had went to bed alone, I woke up spooning with a young girl who had decided her boots and her pants were made for walking.[1]
The point is: After those minor superficial changes, I suddenly appeared to women in my peer group. That’s all it takes. Average guys (I won’t belittle others’ places by pretending to be average) could repeat this easily, and have some success with other average women. To move this concept to my current peers, I wouldn’t start smoking or pierce my ears. Instead I would by shirts with good tall collars, and well-made shoes…which I do. Beyond that it’s just a numbers game: How many women do I need to talk to before I find one that makes poor life choices?
So, any man who has the life experiences with women that Deti laments has no one to blame but himself. Either change (which is very easy and superficial), or stop lamenting.
[1]For the record, I did not have sex with her. I was in some serious discomfort, but also terrified. In addition: She was a younger sister of one of my teammates, and I did not want to have that conversation.
Cane:
I think folks are putting a lot more emphasis on legality than it deserves objectively. Acquiring pot or speed is in many was easier than acquiring certain prescription drugs, for example.
Be that as it may, I take your other point.
@Zippy
I think folks are putting a lot more emphasis on legality than it deserves objectively.
Perhaps. Keep in mind what that looks like from the perspective of someone who doesn’t like to break the rules, though; who has not only a healthy aversion to jail; but an inordinate amount of fear of being laughed at.
Also, I totally forgot why I chose to tell that personal story: I whole-heartedly agree with your basic premise that femporn is everywhere, and is having an monstrous effect on the way we find mates. What I tapped into with the smokes and earrings was some romantic story in those girls’ heads. Suddenly I fit a stereotype those particular girls held as desirable. I wasn’t actually “improved” in any way. To the contrary: I was the only guy I knew who sneaked out the house to play Dungeons and Dragons with his friends…a hobby I would never even whisper in the company of women because I knew it would shatter the illusion.
American men would complain a lot less about american women if prostitution was legal. But then again it’s illegal thanks to women and there desire to deprive men of sex in order to make their own options better.
This debate is pointless. What men want are wives, not one night stands. A man getting married today is playing with fire and everyone knows it. I’d marry a marginal girl tomorrow if I knew I’d still be married in 40 years.
Cane:
I expect that some women feel as reluctant to tart it up in a bar to hook a cad as some men feel to do something technically illegal.
>>So really, average young men’s problem seems to be more of an issue of lacking confidence to pursue. The guy I ended up dating was the one who had the nerve to ask me out.
Ever wonder why it’s so hard for guys to ask girls out? Men are actually deathly afraid of it. I’ve done a bit of research on this subject I believe it steams from thousands of years of arranged marriages. The only time a man would make an approach on a women would be to commit adultery or to defile a virgin both of which generally got your killed quick in most cultures. This is why men wait for interest indicators from women in this unnatural sexual market.
(The point being that subjective reluctance doesn’t translate into objective difficulty).
>>(The point being that subjective reluctance doesn’t translate into objective difficulty).
So being afraid of heights doesn’t make it very difficult if not impossible to work on radio towers?
Jake:
Not in the objective sense I meant in the OP, no.
@Zippy
Sorry, you’re just wrong on this one. Yes, the vices carry equal moral weight. No, it is not the same reality. If it were, we would say that the choice to become some cad’s receptacle is the same reality as becoming an actual prostitute; which no one says about their daughters. In no way does our culture treat it in such a fashion, and therefore women do not feel the stigma.
@Zippy,
Actually it does. People tend to fumble and perform poorly when they’re afraid. Our mental state effects the real world more than logical types like you want to believe. And when it comes to fear in approaching a girl or marrying one women can sense that fear and it will make the man less attractive to her. Men operating in secure systems where they don’t have to deal with fear are much more effective than men who are afraid.
The entire history of warfare has been about training men to suppress their fears better than the other side. The first army that breaks and runs looses no mater the actual losses both sides.
Cane:
But I didn’t say that it was “the same reality”.
I said “can get as quickly and [objectively] easily”. That may overstate the matter: it may be objectively more difficult to buy a steak dinner than a cheeseburger. But the objective difficulty is, as an engineer might say, of the same order.
Also you’ve mixed up the correspondence. Cad is to slut as hooker is to John, so you should be comparing the cad to the hooker not the hooker to the slut.
Jake:
I quite agree with your last comment. It just wasn’t what I was talking about in the OP.
@Zippy
“Same reality” might be a poor shorthand for what I’m trying to convey. I mean something like the totality of the psychological, emotional, and social stresses to be considered and dealt with when making a moral choice. A similar example of the disparity I’m trying to elucidate is the difference between when a breadwinner contemplates divorce from an unhappy marriage, and when the wife of a breadwinner does.
I purposefully mixed the correspondence to illustrate a point on the differing attitudes that are split solely along the lines of the sex of the offender. The error of prostitution lies equally on both sides, does it not? Let’s not ask me; let’s ask johns and pros, or the police, or the courts, or…well, nearly anybody.
If A=B, and B=C, then A=C…unless you’re talking about my Betsy. Then she was tricked by a bad man, or forced into the white slavetrade, whathaveyou.
Cane:
Well, it is clear where my post was unclear, if you will, because when I said “just as easy” I meant “objectively just as easy”, by which I did not mean “identical” or “viewed the same by society” or “as palatable to the modern psyche”; and by “just as” I meant in the same ballpark, not exactly and in every case.
I even touched on the fact that society looks down on bad male behavior much moreso than bad female behavior several times in the OP.
When you mix up the correspondence you destroy the complementarity. The town dipstick is no better than the town receptacle; they just do it for a different payoff, one characteristically male and the other characteristically female.
I still heart you.
Hah!
Within minutes of reading Zippy’s post, this popped up in my RSS feed: http://boingboing.net/2013/10/02/bet-you-didnt-know-that-dino.html
[…] The myth of the PUA. Related: Game and truth. Related: The amoral symmetry between PUAs and prositutes. […]
[…] But, as guys, you have to take the risk of the first move. If you don’t the girl will not know that you like her. Most of the time we do assortively mate, but one of the things that drops men down the mating marketplace is lack of confidence. Look for the quiet nice girl with average to good looks. Chances is that she will say yes to a date… because, as SSM notes she kinda sorta likes you. […]
[…] That leads me to another common phenomenon, which is that many men seem to deliberately seek out and choose basket case women with lots of problems. You know you have seen it too: the girl with daddy issues and a troubled past, and the white knight who rides in to the rescue. Why do men do this when they must know that they are asking for trouble? […]
[…] pursuing the good in sex and marriage. I’ve noted before than modern people can get as much sexual stimulation as they want: what has become increasingly difficult is pursuing the good in sex and marriage, not pursuing […]