The trough fallacy

January 11, 2013 § 91 Comments

So now we’ve noted that data preselection matters.

We’ve also noted that even Game’s strongest proponents consider it approximately as effective as placebo: a practitioner of Game is taught to “next” a woman as soon as he runs into trouble, because there are more fish in the sea.  Here I will note that this is also a preselection filter: if a man looking for a date has to “Game” twenty women to get that date, what we have demonstrated is that his techniques worked on one woman out of twenty.  No doubt other preselection filters apply to the twenty: he met them all at school or what have you.  This further limits our ability to generalize from the results.

This brings us to the sweeping conclusions that some manosphere commenters (NAMCALT!) reach about women in general.

One of the big manosphere gripes is that women engage in what is known as the apex fallacy.  The apex fallacy involves women (and feminist men) forming a stereotype of men in general based on the small percentage of men who are Alpha males, because those are the men who are most visible to women.  The great majority of men are in a very real sense invisible to women.  When women think about men they think about a stereotype, and that stereotype is skewed toward the Alpha males and away from the average man.  This results in women (and feminist men) completely misunderstanding the average man.

What I am suggesting here is that some manosphere commenters may be committing a similar fallacy: we might call it the trough fallacy.  Because of their own preselection filters these commenters view women in general through a stereotype that applies to the preselected population of women that they actually “see”.

§ 91 Responses to The trough fallacy

  • Gabriella says:

    Yep.

  • Dalrock says:

    Zippy I think you are going into the weeds here, and with that in mind I’ll offer a fishing analogy. By the logic of this post, if any given piece of tackle in my tackle box won’t work equally well on all fish, well then fishing doesn’t work. There are two problems with this. The first is that it is just one piece of tackle, and the knowledge of how and when to use it is part of the art. Not all fish will angrily chomp on my rattle trap. But this doesn’t mean that either the rattle trap is a worthless lure or that fishing is bogus.

    The second problem is a bit more subtle. If I’m hungry for fish, I’m going to go fishing, because this is how you get fish. You may make an airtight case that some fish can’t be caught, but I really don’t care. I want fish. So what you have to do instead is show me a better way to fish than what I’m already trying. But your problem here is you haven’t really disproved fishing, you have created a better way to catch a specific type of fish under specific conditions. You have simply improved fishing.

    The thing is, the basic principles remain the same even as the techniques are adapted to the environment and which of the fish’s instincts are easiest to trigger. Thus you very likely will use a different approach and different bait/tackle to catch a catfish than you would a trout. But even here, I’m triggering one of a small set of instincts in the fish. It could be hunger or it could be anger at having their space disturbed, or it could simply be curiosity. Understanding the mechanics of this will make me a better fisherman, but I don’t need to know everything to go catch a trout. I’ll ask the guys who are already pulling them out of the same stream/hole.

  • Gabriella says:

    I work in sales. I know there are two types of consumers- the ones who need a pushy salesperson and the ones who want you to leave them the F alone. The one constant for sales is absolute confidence in your product. The specific strategies can vary quite dramatically. The pushy salesman will swear that his methods work because he makes 1/10 sales. The non-pushy salesman will swear his methods work because he makes 1/10 sales. One guy out there makes 0/10 sales because he tells everyone his product is crap.

    Sales strategy works a little bit as a placebo because it improves your confidence to do more sales and improve your odds in what amounts to a numbers games. If your sure your strategy works then you will play the numbers more often. You get so many customers and you will get a certain number of sales. So the pushy-salesman may be getting 1/10 sales, but he is making twice as many attempts at a sale than the other guy..so it seems he has found a golden strategy. What he has really found is a strategy for getting himself seen by more potential customers…which will eventually result in more sales.

  • electricangel says:

    Zippy, where do you stand on generalization in general? Nassim Taleb would follow Popper and insist that one cannot generalize, safely; attempts to do so will lead to the black swan problem, where observing nothing but white swans leads one to believe that nothing but white swans exist. This is essentially the position that “you cannot disprove a negative.”

    The other side is taken by David Stove, building off of his boy Hume, who offers a spirited defense of induction. While you certainly cannot know at a glance that a snake is poisonous, still your system will cause you to freeze or draw back at sighting one, unexpectedly (babies do this having never seen snakes before.) You are stereotyping, which seems to be evolutionarily efficient.

    I’m guessing you’re more with Taleb and Popper than Stove and Hume, but that would be induction. Care to remove all doubt?

  • Gabriella says:

    I think that Game is really best served as a relationship strategy than as a pick-up strategy.

    Using strategies that take you out of your comfort zone in order to get a girl is likely to lead to a bait and switch scenario. Girl thinks Guy is gregarious extroverted go-getter looking for a girl to conquer the world with..only he is a shy introvert looking for a nice quiet girl who wants to make him pancakes while he plays WOW.

    Game as pick-up is useful to the extent it makes you more visible to the kind of women that can be happy with you as you naturally are. One should not be disingenuous when trying to mate for life. It is a bit like women who stuff their bra as advertisement for goods they don’t have. A little lift is one thing (those are the sorts of little fibs we all expect) but adding 2 cups sizes is just a big lie.

    Game can be quite useful for getting the girl you are already with to be more into you. In this context the lady already knows “the real you” and she has already bought the hardware, so any upgrades to the operating system are just gravy.

  • Zippy says:

    @Dalrock:

    I think I’m OK with the fishing analogy, though I’ve probably been fishing maybe three times in the last twenty years. We used to shoot carp with a bow and arrow when I was a kid. It was fairly easy once you got used to adjusting for the parallax, and in many ways was a lot simpler than fly or bait fishing. Take enough shots and you would eventually land one; and you definitely get better with practice and persistence.

    Lake North America is becoming overrun with carp, which leads some men to conclude that all fish are carp and the right way to deal with them is to shoot them with a bow and arrow and then toss them in the trash, since they make rather nasty eating. In some parts of the lake carp is all you can find, so the assumption even has utility if you are in it just for the thrill of the hunt rather than as a way of satisfying the real biological imperative of getting food.

    You described yourself as traditionalist red pill, I believe, where the focus is on marriage and family and cultivating them to the extent it is possible to do so. I guess I am concerned that treating all fish like carp – which is more the MGTOW/MRA and PUA approach than the traditionalist approach – is counterproductive if we want ultimately to foster the trout population. Those guys over there shooting the carp are allies of convenience of a sort, but we should be concerned if they are indiscriminately shooting trout as well.

    That may have pushed the analogy further than it warrants, but the point here is that it is possible to commit the apex fallacy in negative terms and it seems to me that many PUA and MGTOW commenters (like the one I linked to in the OP) do tend to do so.

  • Zippy says:

    @electricangel:

    I think they are both right, though I’d rather die peacefully like Popper than by hanging myself like Stove.

    As I’ve mentioned in other posts, stereotypes are useful information but their utility declines as you get to know an individual better. That is why I compare the background insights of Game to analytical models like the Meyers Briggs test. If I don’t know you then your Meyers Briggs results can tell me useful things about how (say) you might fit in and work with a particular group. If I’ve worked with you constantly for ten years and I am still making decisions based on the fact that you are an INTJ (or whatever) it probably reflects a deficiency in me though.

  • Zippy says:

    @Gabriella:
    Using strategies that take you out of your comfort zone in order to get a girl is likely to lead to a bait and switch scenario. Girl thinks Guy is gregarious extroverted go-getter looking for a girl to conquer the world with..only he is a shy introvert looking for a nice quiet girl who wants to make him pancakes while he plays WOW.

    There is a bit of a paradox here though, because in order for something to become your comfort zone you have to go out and practice it. I agree that Game as a bait and switch is a form of lying and is morally wrong; but on the other hand “fake it till you make it” is a nearly universal practice among successful people.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Gabriella
    I think that Game is really best served as a relationship strategy than as a pick-up strategy.

    Using strategies that take you out of your comfort zone in order to get a girl is likely to lead to a bait and switch scenario. Girl thinks Guy is gregarious extroverted go-getter looking for a girl to conquer the world with..only he is a shy introvert looking for a nice quiet girl who wants to make him pancakes while he plays WOW.

    I agree that a man looking for a wife should be careful how much game he applies, although for slightly different reasons. He needs to understand what she is like at a baseline (post here ). However, game is a fantastic pickup strategy if the man is looking to obtain sex from the large numbers of women offering sex outside of marriage. Who cares if it is a bait and switch, aside from the woman looking for sex without having to submit as a wife? The sin is in the fornication, not in the failure to be a satisfactory boyfriend.

  • Gabriella says:

    If you need to change your comfort zone the new comfort zone will (ideally) be well establish before the hunt for a mate begins. So, for instance, an alcoholic who is sober should feel quite comfortable in his sobriety before he advertises to a prospective mate that he is a sober. That way the new-and-improved-you is the real you and not just the you-of-your-dreams.

    This goes as well for the “reformed” promiscuous women. If they are truly reformed then there should be quite a bit of time between the old them and the new them, so that the new them is quite comfortable being chaste and not just a convenient strategy for appealing to a man as wife material.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    I guess I am concerned that treating all fish like carp – which is more the MGTOW/MRA and PUA approach than the traditionalist approach – is counterproductive if we want ultimately to foster the trout population. Those guys over there shooting the carp are allies of convenience of a sort, but we should be concerned if they are indiscriminately shooting trout as well.

    They don’t have the capacity to turn a trout into a carp, nor to shoot a trout. I think part of the objection to game is the idea that it unfairly suggests that all women have a similar set of attraction triggers. However, we understand this to be true for men and don’t get offended. It isn’t that good men are sexually attracted to women who have nice personalities, and only bad degenerate men are tempted to look at the Victoria Secret catalog. Virtue comes not in the basic attraction triggers, but in how we conduct ourselves. For example, I wrote a comment on Cane Caldo’s recent post describing how a husband can use what I’ll call the “wonder of the walk” to lead his wife. This is a fairly close adaptation of what a pickup artist would use for a bar slut. They make it a point to change venues, to lead her and show that he is the one who knows where the excitement is. But it would be terribly unfair to accuse the wife who responds to her husband leading her on a walk of being a slut. The difference is not in being attracted to a leader. This in itself is wholesome. The difference is in how she is looking to experience this. A wife submitting to her husband and enjoying the experience is different than a woman going to a bar wondering if she will meet a man exciting enough that he will convince her to go home with him.

  • Zippy says:

    @Gabriella:
    If you need to change your comfort zone the new comfort zone will (ideally) be well establish before the hunt for a mate begins.

    Ideally, sure, but in practice for most things you can’t become proficient without practice. How can a feminism-indoctrinated man learn how to act like a man around women without practicing acting like a man around actual women? It is like expecting someone with stage fright to become a proficient public speaker without ever actually doing any public speaking.

  • Gabriella says:

    I guess I would suggest they learn to act like a man in platonic ways. Perhaps he can join the chess club and practice out-alphaing the other chess players. And if all the ladies fall for him he can then practice being chaste despite having options.

  • Zippy says:

    @Gabriella:
    And if all the ladies fall for him he can then practice being chaste despite having options.

    Of course. Fornication isn’t the kind of “practice” I’m talking about. But clearly he may end up marrying one of those ladies who falls for him while he is practicing.

  • Gabriella says:

    In the real world women are not trouts and carps. They are the same kind of fish, they differ in whether they are swimming upstream or downstream. Because swimming upstream is difficult, and swimming downstream is easy..it is rather cruel to make it more difficult to swim upstream by shooting them with an arrow.

    There is a reason the Bible says “Lead me not into temptation”. Enough applied pressure can make even a good person break.

  • Zippy says:

    @Gabrella:
    Because swimming upstream is difficult, and swimming downstream is easy..it is rather cruel to make it more difficult to swim upstream by shooting them with an arrow.

    Agreed. This is a weakness of Dalrock’s approach, in my view: he treats sluthood as a kind of cosmic given, as if it only existed in its irreversible after-the-sin-has-been-committed state, as opposed to something that many young women are lead into by the culture and by cads. The fact that they are lead into sin doesn’t absolve them of responsibility in the least. That isn’t the way temptation and sin work.

    But the reality is that at least on the margins there are young girls who wouldn’t become sluts without prompting. Woe to those who do the prompting (Mark 9:42).

    (Similar things can be said in the reverse direction: merely talking about the female side of it isn’t to pedestalize women).

    I now understand better that Dalrock is trying to foster a very broad conversation, whereas my own tendency is to pick at the fault lines. But even putting on my most ecumenical hat I don’t think it is possible for Christians to get along very well with the carp-shooters.

  • Zippy says:

    Of course in Dalrock’s defense he does advocate slut shaming, which is one of the most effective ways out there to help those young women avoid the temptation.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Gabriella
    In the real world women are not trouts and carps. They are the same kind of fish, they differ in whether they are swimming upstream or downstream. Because swimming upstream is difficult, and swimming downstream is easy..it is rather cruel to make it more difficult to swim upstream by shooting them with an arrow.

    There is a reason the Bible says “Lead me not into temptation”. Enough applied pressure can make even a good person break.

    As I wrote above, they both desire roughly the same thing, the difference is in how they set out to get it. As for temptation, the vast majority of women now postpone marriage to their late 20s or later. This creates a massive temptation, because women 18-28 are the prize of the sexual marketplace. If the most attractive women signal they want sex outside of marriage, this creates a huge temptation for men. Either way, both are sinning and both are tempting the other.

    However, there is the relevant point that women are likely more susceptible to deception and corruption. This is true, but the answer to this is to place these women under a man’s authority. What women want today is to be away from a man’s authority (her husband or her father), but still have the moral protection this would provide them. Cane Caldo wrote about this in his post Advocates Under Authority . Women can’t have both moxie and shelter from their tendency to make rash choices. If you want girlpower and to delay marriage, this is an active choice and rejection of patriarchal authority.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    Agreed. This is a weakness of Dalrock’s approach, in my view: he treats sluthood as a kind of cosmic given, as if it only existed in its irreversible after-the-sin-has-been-committed state, as opposed to something that many young women are lead into by the culture and by cads. The fact that they are lead into sin doesn’t absolve them of responsibility in the least. That isn’t the way temptation and sin work.

    Not really. I take cads as a cosmic given. We simply can’t make the world safe for strong independent women not to be corrupted by their feral sex drives. Slut shaming is in this context kindness and not cruelty (as you note above). This was my point in the Gilligan post, which I was pleased to see that you enjoyed.

    BTW, you may also enjoy: and

  • Gabriella says:

    I am willing to shame divorce, and cads, and those who advocate promiscuity, and shacking-up, and permissive mothers, and wimpy fathers, and choice mommies, and a whole lot of things..but I get seriously squirmy about slut-shaming because as far as I can tell it is synonymous with hymen cult and hymens are just not a reliable indicator of a woman’s virtue.

  • @Gabriella,

    but I get seriously squirmy about slut-shaming because as far as I can tell it is synonymous with hymen cult and hymens are just not a reliable indicator of a woman’s virtue.
    necessary but not sufficient condition, then?

    I think most men would be happy with a chaste woman, not necessarily a virgin.

  • @Zippy,

    I think, with you, that stereotypes convey useful information. I assume, for instance, that a girl out at a bar, drinking, is unlikely to be of highest virtue. I think different things about girls I have met in other locations.

    I think you are correct: use the stereotype for everyone, and you will miss out on those who do not match it. I know several young women of virtue, and I know quite a few older ones as well, women who stood by men in difficult situations and did NOT pull the divorce ripcord. And then I know many more who are not of virtue, and not worth the investment of good men.

    One useful stereotype I had observed myself before the manosphere: women with tattoos are unlikely to be women of virtue. Fishing that lake, almost all will be carp.

  • as opposed to something that many young women are le(a)d into by the culture and by cads. The fact that they are lead into sin doesn’t absolve them of responsibility in the least. That isn’t the way temptation and sin work.

    I think the temptation has existed since time immemorial. What has changed is that we let or encourage young women to go out into bars, and to spend their young, attractive, fertile years in college and grad school. But I would argue the sin takes place when she decides to go to the bar, not when she succumbs to temptation. Best avoided, not fought.

  • Gabriella says:

    Most women lose their virginity before they are old enough to go into bars…most my friends were between 14-16.

    I think we should separate the sexes. Stop co-ed education, co-ed sports, and co-ed youth clubs. That way when two members are spotted together you can’t assume they are just studying for a test.

  • Gabriella says:

    * two members of the opposite sex

  • Svar says:

    “but I get seriously squirmy about slut-shaming because as far as I can tell it is synonymous with hymen cult and hymens are just not a reliable indicator of a woman’s virtue.”

    That tends to be the excuse that sluts use.

  • ybm says:

    Chaste is the compromise.

    Men would prefer to marry virgins Paige. Settling for Chaste women is the compromise men make. Expecting further compromises such as condemning “slut shaming” is not equality of choice.

  • The Continental Op says:

    Stereotypes are just pattern matching, a thing humans do exceptionally well. Not to do stereotypes is a madness only a liberal society would embrace. My favorite is to stay out of black-dominated areas of town. I can’t tell you how many times I saved my life by doing this.

  • Gabriella says:

    That isn’t what I am complaining about. I am talking about the women who lose their hymen through means other than consensual intercourse. In fact, based on a little informal survey I did among female friends it turned out only 1 in 3 lost their hymen by choosing to have sex. Some lost it through non-sexual activity (like gymnastics, riding a horse, etc) and others lost it through non-consensual sexual activity. Either way, the hymen was not indicative of their chastity.

  • Dalrock says:

    Gabriella, you are seriously spinning on this one. You are the only one talking about the hymen. You don’t agree with slut shaming. Own it.

  • ybm says:

    Gabriella says:
    January 11, 2013 at 11:28 pm

    Your point isn’t relevant.

    Whether or not the Hymen is breached is not virginity. I’ll take you in good faith and say you are not intentionally trying to misdirect the conversation by implying a woman who has had oral or anal sex with dozens of men is still a virgin by ANY measure.

    Lastly are implying that 1/3 of your social circle has been the victim of sexual assault as their first sexual experience? If so, you have a significant problem with the mental stability of your social circle as even the most absurd exaggerations made by feminists on the internet is not even close to that percentage.

  • Gabriella says:

    I won’t say that I have come to a point that I can say I am definitely against slut-shaming, but i can say that when I think of slut-shaming I think of the kind David Collard supports where he tells men not to marry a woman unless she has been checked…so my knee-jerk reaction is that it is a method that would have a lot of collateral damage.

    I can’t come out against it totally because I am not sure I know exactly what it entails by the majority of its proponents, and I am sure I occasionally engage in it as well and just don’t think to call it that since I don’t use the word “slut”. So no, I am not going to own that I am against it.. I will own that the idea of it makes me uncomfortable because of the above reasons as well as because I worry that it increases the abortion rate.

  • Svar says:

    How ridiculous. No one is obsessed with the hymen and we are well aware of the fact that some women lose it through non-sexual activity. But you weren’t one of those women and that is what this is about, huh?

    Quit putting words into our mouths, Paige. We care about chastity and virginity, not hymens. Just like Dalrock has pointed out, only you are the only one to bring up the deal with hymens.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    I now understand better that Dalrock is trying to foster a very broad conversation, whereas my own tendency is to pick at the fault lines. But even putting on my most ecumenical hat I don’t think it is possible for Christians to get along very well with the carp-shooters.

    I can understand where you are coming from. The fault lines are extremely important, but I’m not sure they are always productive. Either way, you are welcome to choose which you want to argue on my site.

    Part of my perspective is that:
    1) I’ve learned a great deal by listening to men on the other side of the faults. People who teach me something tend to gain my respect, at least on that level. I don’t have to agree with them on everything to respect that they have taught me something. Likewise, they know where I stand and can respect me despite our significant differences.
    2) I have supreme confidence in the product I’m selling. Biblical marriage is flat out the best “product” there is when we are talking about sex, etc. and I’m confident in my ability to sell it both to men and women. A level playing field actually gives me an unfair advantage. Bring it on.
    3) It is hard to sell the product when you are painfully low on inventory. This is the real constraint, and this is why I focus where I do. Very few young women want to marry before their mid to late 20s today, and very few women in general want biblical marriage (or think they want it at least). My focus is on helping the men who want to marry find those women who are good candidates for marriage, and helping men and women already married realize the incredible potential that it offers when the biblical model is followed.

  • Gabriella says:

    No, I am saying 1/3 lost it through some other means. For some it was non-consensual sexual activity and for others it was non-sexual activity such as gymnastics, dance, riding horses, and other such activities.

    I am not re-directing the conversation. I am saying EXACTLY what I think about the issue..I am not even trying to launch an argument that I slut-shaming is objectively a bad idea. I am only saying that *I* am uncomfortable with it and explaining why.

    I have yet to decide whether slut-shaming is brilliant and effective and my own reservations should be disregarded, or if it is a terrible idea for reasons I have yet make a good articulate case for.

    I am NOT saying that the fear of a hymen cult is a good argument against slut-shaming.

  • Dalrock says:

    Clarification: My focus is on helping the men who want to marry find those women who are good candidates for marriage

    I’ve actually written more posts advising women on finding husbands than men on finding wives. Both are extremely important. I have a reputation for being mean to women, but I would challenge anyone to point out where I have given anything but heart felt and truly beneficial advice to women. On one post an MRA reader was furious with me for giving women advice on how to marry. I asked him if he was angry that I gave women good advice, or that they wouldn’t be likely to take it. His answer was “both”. 🙂

  • Dalrock says:

    @Gabriella
    No, I am saying 1/3 lost it through some other means. For some it was non-consensual sexual activity and for others it was non-sexual activity such as gymnastics, dance, riding horses, and other such activities.

    I am not re-directing the conversation. I am saying EXACTLY what I think about the issue..I am not even trying to launch an argument that I slut-shaming is objectively a bad idea. I am only saying that *I* am uncomfortable with it and explaining why.

    This isn’t about the hymen, because as you yourself wrote just above:

    Most women lose their virginity before they are old enough to go into bars…most my friends were between 14-16.

    No one is suggesting that we do hymen checks. The issue on the table is slut shaming, which you are opposed to for reasons you can’t seem to articulate.

  • Svar says:

    The fact of the matter is that virgins will always be first choice over used goods.

    I feel like Paige always brings up this conversation wherever she comments.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Gabriella
    I am NOT saying that the fear of a hymen cult is a good argument against slut-shaming.

    How can you reconcile that with:

    I am willing to shame divorce, and cads, and those who advocate promiscuity, and shacking-up, and permissive mothers, and wimpy fathers, and choice mommies, and a whole lot of things..but I get seriously squirmy about slut-shaming because as far as I can tell it is synonymous with hymen cult and hymens are just not a reliable indicator of a woman’s virtue.

  • Gabriella says:

    The other issue is that I think it makes girls more likely to have abortions, So while it might bring down the abortion rate in the long-term, they would go up in the short-term and I am vigilantly pro-life so the thought of that greatly disturbs me.

    So the best I can articulate is that my issues are ‘
    -slippery slope to hymen checks
    -higher abortion rates in short term
    -the ethics of name-calling and punishing one sex and giving the other sex a pass for the same sin. (i.e. fairness..)

    I am not saying any of those are particularly good arguments but it is enough to give me pause and want to find another method of curbing the promiscuity rate as I can think of a lot if ill effects that slut-shaming could potentially cause.

  • Gabriella says:

    It wasn’t an argument, it is my feeling that slut-shaming leads to hymen checks. When I am launching an argument I try to make sure I have thought of all the angles. In this particular area I don’t have a good argument because I think I need more information before I can consider all the angles.

  • ybm says:

    Gabriella says:
    January 12, 2013 at 12:08 am

    Indeed. And the marriage rate and thus, fertility rate will continue to decline in the anglosphere. As society and culture (of which you ascribe to) is 100% behind prevented sluts from feeling bad about themselves under any circumstances, to the detriment of the virgin women.

    You, and anglo culture have chose to side with the sluts over the virgins, and thus the anglosphere continues to wither into dust with sub-replacement fertility, outmarriage by its most productive men, and family destruction.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:
    But you weren’t one of those women and that is what this is about, huh?

    Gabriella bringing up hymens strikes me as bizarre. But let’s not make this a discussion involving individual’s sex lives or history, or speculations about same, please.

  • Gabriella says:

    The reason I brought it up is because David Collard repeatedly tells men to check their potential wives to make sure she is telling the truth about her virginity. I never see anyone argue that this is a bad idea after he says it, which leads me to believe that they agree it is a good idea.

    I have not sided with “sluts”. That is . Questioning the tactics used in a war doesn’t mean I am on the wrong side in the war. That is like saying that if you are against water-boarding then you want the terrorists to win.

  • Zippy says:

    @Gabriella:
    it is my feeling that slut-shaming leads to hymen checks.

    For what it is worth, connecting the two strikes me as bizarre and irrational. An intact hymen hardly implies that a woman has been chaste, and a broken hymen doesn’t imply inchastity. So it seems to me that you’d have to pile on a large dose of irrationality to make that slope slippery.

  • ybm says:

    Gabriella says:
    January 12, 2013 at 12:20 am

    I get it. You and David Collard have argued about this in the past. I’ve no idea who David Collard is so I’m going to go look him up after I type up this message. Is he an MRA?

    I understand your point, but you have presented a flawed analogy as “waterboarding” is not in opposition to “terrorism” Both can coexist independently to each other in an existent state.

    At the same time virgin and slut cannot coexist at the same time. One can only exist in an individual and thus, there is a clear division between “slut” and “virgin” states that do exist in comparison to your analogy. Hope that explained it.

    You cannot lionize one state without minimizing the other state. They exist in opposition to each other within the human body. One extinguishes the other.

  • Gabriella says:

    It is entirely possible I am irrational on this issue, because I don’t know how representative David Collard (and those who agree with him) are of the general populace. That is why I tend to not fully trust a feeling unless it has a rational argument to support it.

    I do shame promiscuous women, I just don’t go about it through shunning or name-calling.

  • Gabriella says:

    In real life I lecture women on how promiscuity wreaks havoc on society, and I actively encourage chastity.

    I think the only thing I don’t do is shun people who reject my values (because I think friendship is an important part of evangelism) and I avoid any kind of vulgar name-calling. I’ll use the word “promiscuous” but I rarely use words like “slut” or “whore”, etc.

    Now, can it be said that not being hard enough on a vice by someone else’s standard is the same as supporting a vice?

  • Gabriella says:

    Zippy- I think a rational person should find the idea of hymen checks irrational and bizarre (I did, before I heard of them). But because you are so rational you might over-estimate how rational others are. Or, perhaps..I underestimate how rational others are because I have run in to a few too many crazies. It is hard to tell whose perspective is more indicative of how most people actually think.

  • Gabriella says:

    [Redacted – this will not become a forum where people discuss their personal sex lives — Z]

    So, I guess I wonder if there is a statue of limitations on slut-shaming? At what point is a slut no longer a slut? Or does that title follow her til she is dead?

    These are questions that leave me uncertain as to where I stand in the slut-shaming debate.

  • Gabriella says:

    Ok..but you erased the important part. Svar is an example of slut-shaming in action as he is judging my credibility by what he suspects to be my sexual past. Is this representative of what slut-shaming would be like on a wider scale?

  • Zippy says:

    @Gabriella:
    The idea that our decisions have irreversible consequences has been discussed here before. See here, for example.

    I suppose I have a fairly broad understanding of slut shaming. I don’t picture a bunch of people lined up and wagging fingers at particular women. But it absolutely must involve creating a social environment where slutty behaviour is considered shameful; and it is hard to imagine accomplishing that if we aren’t even willing to use the terms “slut” and “slutty”.

    Like just about everything though what to do in a particular situation depends a great deal on the circumstances.

  • Zippy says:

    @Gabriella:
    he is judging my credibility by what he suspects to be my sexual past. Is this representative of what slut-shaming would be like on a wider scale?

    No. It is an example of the ad hominem fallacy.

  • Zippy says:

    @The Continental Op:
    Stereotypes are just pattern matching, a thing humans do exceptionally well. Not to do stereotypes is a madness only a liberal society would embrace.

    Agreed. But we also have to beware the reactionary problem, wherein we respond to untruth with an equal and opposite untruth. The utility of a stereotype decays as we get to know individuals better.

    My favorite is to stay out of black-dominated areas of town. I can’t tell you how many times I saved my life by doing this.

    Yes. And it can’t be chalked up to poverty, since I’ve never had any hint of trouble strolling through a Chinatown.

  • CL says:

    I left a comment at The Occidental Traditionalist yesterday that I think is relevant to this post:

    I think there is a bit of an apex fallacy among men too. It depends a bit on how you define ‘alpha’, and the men described as the rides on the ‘alpha carousel’ might be more appropriately termed ‘rutting pigs’. Defining manliness as correlated to the number of Petri dishes into which a man has stuck his member is using women as the measure. Apart from that in and of itself being unmanly, it’s just gross.

    There aren’t that many genuine alphas (men of virtue, by older standards) and going by approximate numbers alone, it’s just not possible for the majority of women to be ‘riding the carousel’ or chasing these faux-alphas. The men who complain of this, it seems to me, are concentrating on the 8-9s and ignoring the 6-7s, who, like decent betas (i.e. average men) make better husbands, would make better wives.

    I think this apex fallacy for both sexes is also borne of concentrating on the upper middle class college cohort, where dad’s credit card rules, but maybe I’m mistaken. It all seems rather a caricature to me.

    In conclusion, the carousel and its riders are basically trash who deserve each other. Whores and rutting pigs.

    ChesterPoe pointed put that it is also a concentration on urban 8-9s, which is a good point to add.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    No. It is an example of the ad hominem fallacy.

    Doesn’t this by definition require that svar be trying to invalidate a logical argument in the process? I don’t see any logical argument being advanced on the topic by Gabriella. As I read Svar’s comment, he was attempting to explain why Gabriella is so passionate in her opposition to slut shaming even though she doesn’t have anything logical offer. The closest I see to a logical argument to Gabriella is the claim that this leads to a “hymen cult”, which Gabriella has herself claimed she isn’t claiming (and I have no idea what that means). Ad hominem doesn’t mean trying to explain why someone else is incoherent.

    The utility of a stereotype decays as we get to know individuals better.

    Would svar be less off base if he had made his statements regarding a commenter who had a history of defending his own promiscuity? Would you for example consider it entirely irrelevant if a self confessed player was arguing incoherently that players shouldn’t be shamed? Or might you point this out?

  • […] this is not substantively different from feminists griping about the stereotyping of women, and I actually did point out that the more radically anti-women elements in the manosphere are engaged in their own version of […]

  • Zippy says:

    @Dalrock:
    Ad hominem doesn’t mean trying to explain why someone else is incoherent.

    Ad hominem means claiming that a statement is wrong (or right) because of the kind of person who makes the statement. Gabriella asserted an intuition against slut shaming. Your objection was perfectly valid: that her intuitions (she called them feelings) are not an argument, and that she had made mutually contradictory statements. Svar’s objection was that she is wrong because she is (he proposes) a slut. That is classic ad hominem: what she is or is not has nothing to do with the soundness (or lack thereof) of her contention.

    So far none of us have answered her legitimate concern over the affect on abortion decisions. I’m still mulling it, myself. “What would effective, morally good slut shaming look like in detail” is a reasonable question.

    Would you for example consider it entirely irrelevant if a self confessed player was arguing incoherently that players shouldn’t be shamed?

    I would point out that “you are a player, therefore you are wrong” is an ad hominem, sure. “Your statements are incoherent, therefore you are wrong” is not an ad hominem.

    I’ve said before that one of the things I find distasteful in manosphere discussions is the constant harping on everyone’s presumed motives in the discussions, made doubly annoying[*] by the attempt to apply the “Game” models to same. Mind you this is pervasive on the Net in general, which is one reason I limit my own reading and participation to areas where it isn’t pervasive, and my impression that it is especially acute in the manosphere could be the result of my own curation in terms of what I normally read.

    This may be entirely a personal quirk. Human beings are always speculating about each others’ motives and psychology, and it likely isn’t avoidable to some extent. But I still avoid it when I can, and I’m fortunate enough that that is very often.

    [*] By “annoying” I think I mean time-wasting: things that waste time and bandwidth, making the overall discussion less valuable.

  • Gabriella says:

    I think Dalrocks idea of effective slut-shaming is making sure that a person who fits the definition of “slut” should lose all credibility in society. A “slut” (and I believe he defines it as any person who is not a virgin on their wedding night) should not be able to get married, nor should they be ever trusted..perhaps they shouldn’t even be employable. They should be shunned by family, friends, Church, and the community. I’m not quite sure what should be done with them (perhaps sent to work in a brothel?)

    And David Collard extends this idea further..not only should a slut be treated with contempt by all facets of society, but in order to know who is a slut and who is a virgin in sheep’s clothing one must take certain measures to insure the woman does not lie (and he decides that hymen checks are worth the collateral damage of certain innocents getting painted with the slut-brush).

    My biggest problem with all of this is it seems that there is no method of redemption and so a woman who commits such a sin is basically societal trash. My understanding (based on my readings in the manosphere) is that changing society to sufficiently shame sluts would require that they should have the same stigma as a person who commits murder, or rape, or any number of heinous crimes against a person and society.

    I’m sure to some the above seems like a whole lot of hyperbole, and to others it is just good common sense.

    If there is some way for sluts to become redeemed sluts…even if it is a rather painful process…I could probably get behind it. But if the modus operandi is “Once a Slut, Always a Slut” I’m going to see it as rather inhumane way of dealing with sin.

    And..even if I were (hypothetically) a slut and that is motivating my objections, it stands to reason that I can have a valid concern as to the humaneness of my punishment even if I am deserving of some sort of punishment.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    I’ve said before that one of the things I find distasteful in manosphere discussions is the constant harping on everyone’s presumed motives in the discussions, made doubly annoying[*] by the attempt to apply the “Game” models to same. Mind you this is pervasive on the Net in general, which is one reason I limit my own reading and participation to areas where it isn’t pervasive, and my impression that it is especially acute in the manosphere could be the result of my own curation in terms of what I normally read.

    I’m in general agreement with this, which is why I prefer to address the arguments of those on the other side of the “fault line” we discussed earlier instead of their lifestyle/sexual morality. However, given your different preference there, I’m not sure I fully understand your perspective on the question. Either way, my initial preference to address logical arguments with logic starts to fade if someone shows a persistent unwillingness to offer logical arguments. I see consistently engaging in discussion without offering anything approaching a logical argument as far more of a waste of time and annoying than those who call this out when it happens.

    So far none of us have answered her legitimate concern over the affect on abortion decisions. I’m still mulling it, myself. “What would effective, morally good slut shaming look like in detail” is a reasonable question.

    I assumed it was specious on its face. This is an appeal to not call out bad behavior out of fear that the bad actors will act even worse. Logically it is no different than not enforcing the law against robbery because robbers might take hostages, etc.

  • Zippy says:

    @Dalrock:
    I’m in general agreement with this, which is why I prefer to address the arguments of those on the other side of the “fault line” we discussed earlier instead of their lifestyle/sexual morality. However, given your different preference there, I’m not sure I fully understand your perspective on the question.

    If a commenter were advocating sluttiness it wouldn’t be an ad hominem to argue against it. If commenter were stating that sluts are doing God’s work (as many commenters have stated of PUAs) it isn’t an ad hominem to object to that view as despicably wrong.

    This is an appeal to not call out bad behavior out of fear that the bad actors will act even worse. Logically it is no different than not enforcing the law against robbery because robbers might take hostages, etc.

    That is the way I lean on it also.

    As a human problem though I don’t want to make the mistake of oversimplifying a complex issue. We are talking in a sense about policy, or an idealization of what we think social behavior ought to be. If I were king and could punish abortion as murder I could also institute a regime of slut shaming, the two going together, then the policy is obvious. If I had one wish left with a genie and could only affect one or the other the decision becomes less obvious.

    Don’t get me wrong: in no case should slutty behavior be coddled or condoned, period. But I am still mulling over the “what does it look like in detail” question, and sometimes my slow brain can’t be rushed.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Gabriella
    I think Dalrocks idea of effective slut-shaming is making sure that a person who fits the definition of “slut” should lose all credibility in society.

    This is a shadow game where you make accusations and I dance. Feel free to point out anything I’ve actually written which you disagree with and point out where I’m wrong. If I were you I would start with my post titled

    Don’t use me as your straw man. I’m right here… Defend your position. Why are you against slut shaming?

  • Zippy says:

    Gabriella:
    If there is some way for sluts to become redeemed sluts…even if it is a rather painful process…I could probably get behind it. But if the modus operandi is “Once a Slut, Always a Slut” I’m going to see it as rather inhumane way of dealing with sin.

    Part of the problem is the false dichotomy between a totalizing “redemption” which means the removal of all earthly consequences and a mindless unforgiving approach which leaves no room for reform. Either side of that dichotomy is destructive to individuals and society.

    Our Oprahfied society unquestionably leans toward the totalizing redemption side of the dichotomy. In my old “irreversible vasectomy” posts we argued endlessly about whether the penitent man who had a vasectomy is morally required to live with abstinence as a consequence of his decision, or not.

  • Zippy says:

    @Dalrock:
    Feel free to point out anything I’ve actually written which you disagree with and point out where I’m wrong. If I were you I would start with my post titled Slut!

    Agreed. If you are going to attribute an idea to a particular person, quote where he actually asserts that idea. If you want to argue with a general unattributed idea, feel free to do so but be aware that many may see it as a straw man.

  • The Continental Op says:

    The utility of a stereotype decays as we get to know individuals better.

    Or by getting to know someone better, he reinforces the stereotype.

    Or, he may fit the stereotype, but the stereotype is not a full-bodied characterization; by getting to know him, you flesh out the man. But the stuff pertinent to the stereotype still fits.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Zippy
    If a commenter were advocating sluttiness it wouldn’t be an ad hominem to argue against it. If commenter were stating that sluts are doing God’s work (as many commenters have stated of PUAs) it isn’t an ad hominem to object to that view as despicably wrong.

    That isn’t what I had in mind. Saying PUAs or sluts are doing God’s work is simply asinine. I don’t typically respond to such statements because I assume ordinary readers can easily spot the error, and those who can’t aren’t likely to be persuaded otherwise. My site has over 55 thousand comments, and given that this is the Internet I would say it is a conservative estimate that 20% are to be charitable, poorly thought out. If I respond to all or even most of the dumb things people write, my entire life would look like this: http://xkcd.com/386/ So while I reserve the right to point out where something is wrong, I try not to become a slave to it. Likewise it was a pet peeve of mine when my readers kept attributing a comment made on your site to you.

    What I was getting at was something different. To take this away from the current discussion (and honor what I believe is your intent to close the door on the exchange between Svar and Gabriella), lets assume that Roissy or Mentu were commenting on my site making a solid logical case for society having a vested interest in enforcing norms around marriage. Would you feel the need to point out that you disagreed with their lifestyle in the course of agreeing with their argument? Or would you simply say “Roissy is right when he says [quote], and moreover…”. This is what I was getting at with people being shocked to see an Orthodox Christian and a player reinforcing each other’s arguments but not addressing their general disagreement on sexual morality at that moment since this isn’t the topic of discussion.

  • NobleHipsterSlayerOfDeath says:

    SSM had a wonderful post on the invisibility of men: http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/watching-shadows-come-into-focus/

    Avoids the hypergamy talk that inevitably turns nasty. It’s just a nasty sort of truth for some guys.

  • Gabriella says:

    Hmmm… I’m not entirely sure if I got that from Dalrock or from Dalrock’s blog… I think I tend to assume Dalrock agrees with his commenters if he doesn’t explicitly disagree. I apologize if I assumed wrongly.

    Dalrocks blog and Spearhead and Voice for Men are the most prominent MRA sites and if I waded through the posts and comments I could come up with references where the proper punishment of sluts is described.

    I’m not sure it is worth it though as I am getting the impression that the people commenting here wouldn’t agree.

    Which means I really don’t know what proper slut-shaming actually is.

  • Dalrock says:

    @Gabriella
    Hmmm… I’m not entirely sure if I got that from Dalrock or from Dalrock’s blog… I think I tend to assume Dalrock agrees with his commenters if he doesn’t explicitly disagree. I apologize if I assumed wrongly.

    I appreciate that.

    My biggest problem with all of this is it seems that there is no method of redemption and so a woman who commits such a sin is basically societal trash. My understanding (based on my readings in the manosphere) is that changing society to sufficiently shame sluts would require that they should have the same stigma as a person who commits murder, or rape, or any number of heinous crimes against a person and society.

    My preference would be to find a way to slut shame which didn’t make formerly promiscuous women uncomfortable (from a secular social point of view). The main goal would be to help young women understand that there really is a cost to promiscuity, and often a higher cost than there is for the man. I explain this in the post I linked above. What tends to especially animate me are men or women who are harming children, and men or women who are weakening marriage. This is why I allow Doomed Harlot to comment on the site, and only challenged her on her frequent and over the top professions of sluthood in a teasing way, and only then to point out that she didn’t practice what she preached (at the time at least).

    I think the keys for formerly promiscuous men and women are that they 1) Repent, and 2) Own the consequences of their past choices. Deti has an extensive list of steps in this regard, and I’d probably be more lenient than him. However, I think he is on the right track. I also think this is harder for women than for men, especially because the consequences tend to be greater for the women. Making this much worse is the tendency to not call wives out who push the consequences on their husbands, as SSM and I discussed at length on a recent thread. This is problematic both to the woman herself (she isn’t called to truly repent) and to the husband and ultimately the marriage. As a counter example, no one would shy away from calling out a man who wasn’t able to perform sexually because of his addiction to porn, and no one would advise him to “work together with his wife to find a way to make sex enjoyable for the both of them”. Yet this is exactly how former promiscuous women are handled, as SSM and I both showed.

    At the end of the day it comes down to the fact that we have sluts literally marching down the street they have become so emboldened by our silence, and yet there is this taboo of using the term by those who claim to represent biblical sexual morality.

  • Gabriella says:

    FWIW- I am not sure Sunshine Mary represents the average female very well.

  • Gabriella says:

    Dalrock- I can agree with that.

  • Svar says:

    My point in pointing out Paige’s sex life, which by the way she has freely shared in the past, was to explain why exactly she has refused to shame sluts but not cads. The hymen stuff is a made up thing that she is saying that we, who value virgins over sluts, do as a way to make us look irrational and discredit our preference for virgins.

    She has completely hijacked this conversation and she is incoherent and self-contradictory. That is why she has little to no credibility. Not because of her past sex life but because, as Dalrock pointed out, her inability to use logic.

    Another thing that I am pointing out by bringing up her past sex life which btw she has shared freely, is to point out that her guilt is driving her to make us say that her past is okay and that she is on the same level of a woman who married as a virgin.

    I am only acting like this to her because she does this everywhere and doesn’t know when to be quiet and just leave. She acts as if she is some highly intelligent intellectual even though she is self-contradictory as Dalrock has pointed out several times and incoherent and illogical.

  • Zippy says:

    @Svar:
    I appreciate the fact the you folks know each other and have similar discussions involving personal details elsewhere.

    Just. Not. Here.

  • Gabriella says:

    Svar-
    I consider myself of average intelligence. I think Zippy and Dalrock are much smarter than I am. The only reason I participate in these threads is because I know that I am saying and asking what other people are thinking, but are afraid of looking stupid if they do. I am not afraid of looking stupid as I think even stupid people can have a unique and interesting perspective.

  • Svar says:

    “I am not afraid of looking stupid as I think even stupid people can have a unique and interesting perspective.”

    That is what I call wishful thinking. Stupid people have stupid perspective. It is unique and it may even be interesting, but ultimately it is stupid and a waste of time.

    I’m glad that you’re not afraid of looking stupid. You must be proud of yourself.

  • Gabriella says:

    I think you are wrong about that.

    My kids are not yet as smart as me but they still occasionally say some insightful things. Their perspective is unique, which means they might see angles I don’t see.

  • Svar says:

    Once again, wishful thinking. You come on to sites and bring your useless perspective wherever you go. Like how you brought your crap on to Patriactionary back when I was a member.

    You’re ideas are about as useless as you. Hymen checks, really? Go back to TC where you can talk about how hot Eminem and other assorted trailer trash is.

  • Zippy says:

    I’m not interested in chasing commenters away because of history at other sites. Behavior here matters to me, however.

    On the substantive question, leaving aside personal characterizations it is common for the wise to learn from the simple: I would go so far as to say that it is characteristic of wisdom to be open to learning from the simple. The gaze and manner of a Downs child holds profound wisdom for those willing to see it, and children teach their parents all the time.

    Svar, I understand that you and Gabriella have interacted elsewhere, and I am in no position to pass judgment on those interactions. You could be perfectly justified or wildly off, but here is the thing: I don’t care. I want to not be in such a position, because I’m not in this for the cage matches.

  • Gabriella says:

    I think it is up to the individual blog hosts to decide when I am annoying, as different people have different thresholds.

  • Svar says:

    I’m sorry, Zippy. I’ll tone it down.

    “The gaze and manner of a Downs child holds profound wisdom for those willing to see it, and children teach their parents all the time.”

    Believe it or not, I will agree with you on this. But I will not agree that someone who is illogical i.e. someone who tries to connect something normal like wanting a virgin bride with something bizzare like hymen checks has anything important to say. Unique, yes. Interesting, yes. Important, no.

    But I will tone it down. It’s just that I find Paige to be annoying because she brings up the same stuff everywhere.

  • Svar says:

    On the topic of Down’s children, Zippy, let me share this sweet little piece by fellow Catholic Tom Piatak:

    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2012/12/08/a-daughter-of-mary-and-target-for-herod/

    Within that piece, there is an equally sweet piece by another fellow Catholic, The Western Confucian, an American Catholic living in Korea and married to a Korean Catholic woman:

    http://orientem.blogspot.com/2008/09/anne-de-gaulle.html

    In it, The Western Confucian tells the story of Anne de Gaulle, the beloved daughter of the French freedom fighter Charles de Gaulle.

    I have a feeling that you’ll enjoy these pieces.

  • Zippy says:

    Thanks, Svar.

  • Dalrock says:

    Zippy,

    If it isn’t too late to try to get this thread back on track, I’m curious what you think of my point that the basic attraction triggers are the same across women (leader, etc), just like they are for men. What I’m getting at is I don’t see any proponents of game claiming women are immoral for being attracted to certain traits, and there is broad agreement that women don’t just want attraction, they also want comfort. Do you think any of this is wrong?

  • Mike T says:

    @CL

    There aren’t that many genuine alphas (men of virtue, by older standards) and going by approximate numbers alone, it’s just not possible for the majority of women to be ‘riding the carousel’ or chasing these faux-alphas.

    In other words, you deny intrinsic gender differences.

  • Mike T says:

    I couldn’t find it, but there was a study floating around the manosphere a while back about how STD rates in NYC are higher among women than men. The conclusion they came to was that a minority of men were having sex with a majority of the single/available women. Maybe Dalrock can find it. I think I saw it at his site.

  • Mike T says:

    @Gabriella

    I think the only thing I don’t do is shun people who reject my values (because I think friendship is an important part of evangelism) and I avoid any kind of vulgar name-calling. I’ll use the word “promiscuous” but I rarely use words like “slut” or “whore”, etc.

    Using one of SSM’s examples, there was a single mother at her church who kept going back and forth between husbands, getting knocked up and moving on. Serial monogamy is a widely accepted as a serious sin even in churches that tend to support remarriage on flimsy grounds. The Bible says that such people are to be removed from the Body of Christ until such time as they repent.

    This can be done in a firm, fair way that shows no nastiness or all the way up to branding the person with a scarlet letter. However the act of removing them from “polite Christian society” is taught in scripture and tradition.

    You asked at what point such a woman becomes no longer a slut? When she has a Mary Magdalene like commitment to chastity. That is her future husband can tell by all accounts of her conduct from the point of breaking with her past to the time they say “I do” that no credible person could accuse her of unchastity and she has reached a point where her past won’t cause frigidity or any other problem in marriage. Until then, she has no moral right to marry.

  • Zippy says:

    @Dalrock:
    I’m curious what you think of my point that the basic attraction triggers are the same across women (leader, etc), just like they are for men. What I’m getting at is I don’t see any proponents of game claiming women are immoral for being attracted to certain traits, and there is broad agreement that women don’t just want attraction, they also want comfort. Do you think any of this is wrong?

    There are two issues here.

    First, the post is not focused on Game as much as it is on generalizing. The last paragraph summarizes the point and links to an example.

    Second, I do think that the idea that “the basic attraction triggers are the same across women (leader, etc), just like they are for men” is somewhat problematic. The reason is that in my view, women’s attraction triggers are more socially constructed than those of men. (I could come up with an evo-psych just-so story why that is the case, but I try to keep my comments as reality-based as possible).

    I discussed my developing views on the subject in this post and in this one.

    The basic idea is that female attraction is not isomorphic to male attraction, just with different triggers. Women are much more “herd oriented” than men, if you will, so their physical attraction is much more socially calibrated than men’s. That’s why things like ‘social proofing’ work so well: the fact that other women find a particular man attractive isn’t just a validation or pre-screening or whatever: it literally makes the man in question more attractive.

    A term like “cool” captures this enigmatic social quality as well as any, and once you’ve seen a few decades pass by it becomes clear that female attraction does not have the fixity of male attraction. What two decades ago would have been considered a pansy fag who women would shun is today surrounded by fawning chicks.

    Part of what follows is that in different social milieus women will find different kinds of men attractive. What is attractive in one culture is despised in another, to at least some extent – and we are talking about geniune, physical attraction in women for men.

    In a nutshell, all alpha is contextual.

    This could be overstated, of course, and the whole line of discussion is slightly off topic — not that there is anything wrong with that. I think there is a mix of ‘social determines sexy’ in both men and women. But for men the mix is very diluted (men across all cultures are mostly attracted to the same women), while for women it is quite concentrated. So at least provisionally I don’t agree that “the basic attraction triggers are the same across women (leader, etc), just like they are for men.”

  • Mike T says:

    In a nutshell, all alpha is contextual.

    I don’t think this is quite right. Normal women, the world over, do not find weak-willed, hand-wringing uber-unmanly men to be alpha. There are certain requirements which are universal. Independence of character being one of them. I would say that alpha is 75% culture, 25% universal.

    So at least provisionally I don’t agree that “the basic attraction triggers are the same across women (leader, etc), just like they are for men.”

    Adjusting for culture, though, an alpha in one culture will have an advantage in most other cultures. A Yakuza boss would probably clean up with white American women who are inclined toward “thug loving” as he is the Japanese equivalent of a Mafia don. His advantage would not be perfectly translated across racial and ethnic boundaries, but he would likely outclass easily what are called “lesser alphas” by many Gamers like Roissy.

  • Zippy says:

    Mike T:
    Normal women, the world over, do not find weak-willed, hand-wringing uber-unmanly men to be alpha.

    That’s a good point, but what that says is that there are things that can make a man universally unattractive. “Avoid acting like a coward” Game focused on avoiding self-defeating behaviours thus probably has some universality to it, and perhaps that is the 25%.

    But avoiding being repulsive isn’t the same thing as achieving attraction, and one might even argue that cowardice has a contextual element to it: Rooster Cogburn could suffer from stage fright if he were put on X-Factor.

    In any event I agree that there is a mix of ‘universal’ and ‘culturally conditioned’ in both men and women. Again it is just that this mix is highly concentrated in one direction for men and in a very different direction for women.

  • Anymouse says:

    Another commenter from TC representing, and I have to say that we are pretty cool people. I have certainly never discussed how attractive I find Eminem, ahem.

    Anyways, for slut shaming to have meaning it would really need to radiate from the family or other authorities. That will require some action on the part of fathers to actively deny support to the errant daughter, and be willing to accept punishment as a consequence for receiving that support. We also need to be willing to socially damage the cads out there who support or engage in the deflowering of their neighbors daughters.

  • […] may pull a temporary innovative greatness off, but that just sets us up for a variation of the apex fallacy applied to self assessment on the part of leaders in general. Once we’ve set the precedent […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading The trough fallacy at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: