Wednesday, December 29, 2010

On Herpes and Hypergamy

Peggy Olson has no time for pseudoscientific PUA crap.
Note: As regular Man Boobz comment readers will notice, this post is an expanded version of some comments I made here and here.

An extraordinary number of men in the "manosphere" -- whether they're wannabe Pick-up artists or woman-avoiding Men Going Their Own Way -- have a very strange notion of what goes on (and what doesn't go on) behind the closed doors of America's bedrooms. (And sometimes in the bathrooms of dive bars.) They envision a world in which a small number of men are having all the sex they want, with any women they want, while the rest of the men out there -- at least the straight ones --  are condemned to lives of celibacy or near-celibacy.

So who gets blamed for this (imagined) state of affairs? Women. And something called "hypergamy."

The term refers to the practice of "marrying up"in social class. But the dudes of the manosphere aren't merely content to accuse women of being mere gold-diggers. They've combined the notion of hypergamy with some ill-digested evolutionary psych speculations and convinced themselves that women are in fact a giant gang of nymphomaniacal sexual status seekers, compelled by their very genes to throw themselves at the males on top of the sexual heap -- variously described as alphas, jocks, bad boys, and thugs.

And, since men are similarly programmed to spread their seed far and wide -- by which I mean fuck anything that moves -- these women are getting all the attention from the alphas that their hearts and loins desire, while themselves making beta guys beg for scraps, or, more often, rejecting them outright. Or so goes the theory.

Naturally, those manosphere men who find themselves sitting on the sidelines of this  (imagined) orgy tend to build up a great deal of bitterness about this (imagined) state of affairs.

This little mythical tale of alpha males and the hypergamic nymphomaniacs who love them (long time) is repeated again and again on the blogs and message boards of the manosphere. But is there any real convincing evidence for any of this? I haven't seen any yet.

But in a post earlier this year one of the more influential bloggers in the manosphere, a pick-up guru of sorts who calls himself Roissy, claimed he had found something like the smoking gun of hypergamy:

Twice as many women as men have genital herpes. This could only happen if a smaller group of infected men is giving the gift of their infectious love to a larger group of women. Looks like female hypergamy is conclusively proved.

As evidence for this claim, Roissy pointed to a survey by the Centers for Disease Control which found that some "21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men." (That link takes you to the Reuters article Roissy cited in his blog post; the CDC's press release on the survey can be found here.)

Case closed? Not exactly. Had Roissy actually bothered to read all of the news story he cited, or the CDC press release, or done even a minute or two of Googling,  he would have seen the real explanation for the disparity: because of biological differences between men and women -- you know, the whole penis vs vagina thing -- it's simply much easier for women to be infected with herpes. As one online FAQ notes (and I've put the key parts in bold):

Women are approximately 4 times more likely to acquire a herpes simplex type 2 infection than men. Susceptible women have a higher likelihood of contracting genital herpes from an infected man than a susceptible man becoming infected by a woman. In other words, if a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection. ...

Women may be more susceptible to genital herpes infections because:

* The genital area has a greater surface area of cells moist with body fluids (mucosal cells) than men.
*Hormone changes during a woman’s menstrual cycle may affect the immune system, making it easier for the herpes simplex virus to cause an infection.

You'd think a sex guru would know enough about herpes to know this, wouldn't you?

104 comments:

  1. I married a woman making three times what I make, and now I don't have to have a job.

    Is there a word for that? I mean, other than "awesome?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Raul -

    The only thing more awesome is when you divorce her and reap the sick alimony benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow, I just looked at roissy for the first time. I'm putting the over/under for the number of times this guy has ever had sex at 4.5. Discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Deezee: Doing a bit of searching to find the sources of that 80%/40% claim, I found this:

    http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/the-missing-men-in-your-family-tree/

    Among other things: the 80%/$0% numbers are basically made up, though it is apparently true that we have twice as many female ancestors than males.

    But there's no clear evidence this is due to the hypergamy that Roissy was talking about. The guy who came up with the genetic data says a lot of it could be the influence of a few extremely successful male reproducers:

    males have had a higher variance in reproductive success than females. As a consequence, more different females have contributed to the modern gene pool than males. Rather spectacular examples of this phenomenon have been inferred from historical times using genetic data. Asian conquerors (such as Genghis Khan and Giocangga) and their male relatives appear to have made a vastly disproportionate contribution to modern Asian populations. Niall of the Nine Hostages seems to have had a similar effect on the gene pool of the British Isles. These types of events, where one person (or set of related individuals) experiences tremendous reproductive success, can have an effect on the gene pool that lasts for many generations.

    Also, how many of these pregnancies were the result of rape, or otherwise the result of male choices and male actions rather than female preferences? We don't know.

    In other words, the 80%/40% thing doesn't really prove much of anything, at least not until we know a lot more about what was actually contributing to it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. yeah, I was suspecting the rape-and-pillage thing might play a role. A single mongol warrior could fuck his way through, and impregnate, thousands of women, but a single woman can, at the very most, get pregnant a dozen of times before dying (more in the modern world, significantly less in the ancient world), so such effective invaders could indeed have crowded out plenty of men-genomes

    and then there's the "lost boys of the FLDS" version: the patriarchs exile the weak competition and keep women to themselves, without the women getting a say in this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. An extraordinary number of men .....have a very strange notion ...a world in which a small number of men are having all the sex they want, with any women they want, while the rest of the men out there -- at least the straight ones -- are condemned to lives of celibacy or near-celibacy.

    So you think, this extraordinary number of men are all wrong?

    David, that's a BIG problem for many straight men looking for a nice woman - as a young woman, who have a choice generally, but as a young man you have only a choice, if you are rich or at least your parents are rich, if you are something 'special' (even in a negative sense) or you own something special etc.. -

    As a fact, for an ordinary young man living in Northern America and Europe who is working everyday and has otherwise no support, the chance to find a good relationship is rather small.

    Of course if you are the right guy - which means rich, age not important - you get everything you want, this includes Western women...

    http://omg.yahoo.com/news/hugh-hefner-84-engaged-to-playmate-24/53006?nc
    Hugh Hefner, 84, Engaged to Playmate, 24

    and this is our example from Europe, divorce does not disturb him - he is rich anyway.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1201256/Bernies-ex-buys-jet-celebrate-divorce.html

    Bernie Ecclestone's ex-wife Slavica buys a £36.5m jet to celebrate divorce (and it's bigger than his)

    For sure a young man who has nothing...he is and will be always a nothing.

    A young woman, who has nothing needs only to find the right man... for both, marriage and divorce.

    ReplyDelete
  7. People enter into satisfying relationships every day in Western countries. If you have a problem finding anyone *in all of the West* who suits your standards, it is your standards that are the problem.

    Also -- and I know your thing is just to post articles that have no real bearing on the matter at hand and to basically act as though logic doesn't exist -- if your standard is someone who looks like a Playmate and *values her looks* above all like Playmate does, then of course you're going to lose out. The ignorant privilege in your statement is just...a real thing of wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The ignorant privilege in your statement is just...a real thing of wonder."

    What privilege?

    Feminists seem to throw the male privilege conspiracy left, right and centre. But being the average white male, I certainly don’t feel any privilege what so ever towards any other group in the society I live in.

    How can one be privileged when they don't even feel it or see it? It must be a pretty big privilege heh

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is not a conspiracy, and it is actually not a term unique to feminism. I have privilege; you also have privilege. If you're genuinely interested in understanding why privilege is often invisible to those who benefit from it, here is one link that explains it somewhat:

    http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/

    ReplyDelete
  10. LOL, I love the finallyfeminism101 blog. I remember when feminists on Reddit were trolling the MensRights Reddit with that "winner;" I felt like making the same kind of assertion ("It seems like an awful lot of you are confused about rape, here's a link to clear it up") and linking to the ED article on rape. One day, maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Privilege is: About how society accommodates you. It’s about advantages you have that you think are normal. It’s about you being normal, and others being the deviation from normal. It’s about fate dealing from the bottom of the deck on your behalf."

    Instead of reading the rest. Do you deny that women have such privileges? Such as, how it's normal for a man to be expected to pay for the date. It's normal for a woman's life to be placed before a man's life in a "life and death" situation. A man hurting a woman is more serious than a woman hurting a man.

    These are just a few examples. But a group such as feminists talking about how males are privileged is laughable.

    Both genders may have some privileges, its not just the evil menz

    ReplyDelete
  12. Frankly if people are going to be talking about feminism as much as the MRAs and MRA-sympathetic guys who post on this site talk about it, it might actually be a good idea for them to know what they're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Instead of reading the rest. Do you deny that women have such privileges? Such as, how it's normal for a man to be expected to pay for the date. It's normal for a woman's life to be placed before a man's life in a "life and death" situation. A man hurting a woman is more serious than a woman hurting a man."

    There is actually a link to a whole discussion on that in "the rest" if you're genuinely interested in knowing where people are coming from. And as far as your examples, I don't think those are positive things (men paying for dates, etc), though I will say that even though it can be used unfairly the idea that a man hurting a woman is *more serious* than a woman hurting a man is based on nothing more than the reality that a man, having more natural upper body strength and a general size advantage, is capable of doing more harm to a woman than a woman is to a man *with just their bodies alone*.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "As a fact, for an ordinary young man living in Northern America and Europe who is working everyday and has otherwise no support, the chance to find a good relationship is rather small."

    what crap. for example, the percentage of unmarried men 30-35 years of age in Germany is was only 29%, and shrinking with age; and that's in a country in which young couples forgo marriage and just live together more and more often, and in which gay marriage doesn't exist. The total percentage of the households consisting of couples was 74%. The average number of persons-per-household in that year was 2.17, with one-person-households being as common as two-person-households.

    and that's from a report that bemoans the "new" living arrangement, so if they'd fudge the numbers, it would be downwards, not upwards

    ReplyDelete
  15. the "man paying for the date" thing is unique to American dating, which I already mentioned is fucking evil. It's not nearly as common in europe, where people hang out and generally split the check except in the rare cases when one invited the other, which makes sense, since I don't think anyone except a movie producer can get away with "I think you should buy me dinner".

    ReplyDelete
  16. The man paying for the date thing doesn't even happen anymore among the people I know here in the USA. Not to say it doesn't happen, just that in the circles I travel in it's a totally antiquated notion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. sorry, above that should have been the total percentage of the population being coupled up was 74%, not of households

    ReplyDelete
  18. "it might actually be a good idea for them to know what they're talking about."

    Then why direct them to feminism101? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Because there is no remedial-level blog ;)

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Then why direct them to feminism101? ;)"

    Because "M" prefers to just direct people into misleading links instead of having a participating debate or a proper discussion.

    I am sure M believes feminism101 is the best of all sources on the internet but I am sorry to make her cranky, it’s crap!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Nah it's actually the remedial thing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jadehawk said...
    "As a fact, for an ordinary young man living in Northern America and Europe who is working everyday and has otherwise no support, the chance to find a good relationship is rather small."

    what crap. for example, the percentage of unmarried men 30-35 years of age in Germany is was only 29%, and shrinking with age


    Complete nonsense and a good example how to present incorrect data from a feminist point of view.

    Maybe you are using data out of an 'internet online translator'?

    http://www.bpb.de/wissen/IZ8910,0,Haushalte_nach_Zahl_der_Personen.html

    Almost 39 percent in Germany are now living alone, recently polls show that 43 percent of all young men up to 40 year old are refusing marriage, family, children (again).

    SINGLE means in German language ('ledig') = NEVER been married.

    For calculating the number of people who are NOT living together with a partner, you have to consider both, the divorced men AND the single men.

    Further you should know that Germany has almost 500000 legally registered female prostitutes. They are considered as single, doing a normal job as everybody else.

    I wonder however if you consider them as good female partners for a long-term marriage.

    It is not easy at all for a young man to meet a nice woman for a long-term relationship in Central Europe especially not in rural areas. You have no idea, really.

    ReplyDelete
  23. nicko81m said...
    ..... "M" prefers to just direct people into misleading links instead of having a participating debate or a proper discussion.


    Misleading is a form of feminist rhetoric.
    About a proper discussion, it's about me, me, me and me...

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/darwin-woman-attacks-taxi-when-driver-rejects-offer-of-sex/story-e6frfku9-1225977018692

    That's a good example about feminist rhetoric.

    This woman was only 'a bit amorous'.

    If you do the same as man to a woman, you will be arrested immediately as a violent sex-offender molestering a female taxi-driver.

    There is no consideration for men in feminism, even not for old men, sick men, not for young boys, orin this case for male victims of a crime committed by a female.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The 80% vs 40% thing is utter bullshit. According to information from the CDC's National Health Interview Survey of 2000, the numbers are 74%/62% for people ages 22-44, and 86%/84% for people over the age of 45. It took me ten seconds of googling to find the stats.

    Eoghan, way to ignore the actual post, which points out that women are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to be infected with herpes than men, and a woman is far more likely to be infected by a man than vice versa.

    And I just want to confirm M's experience as well regarding dating. Not only is it much more likely to occur in groups of young people going out all together, but myself and all of my friends have always gone dutch and split the bill.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Those women certainly didn't get herpes from uninfected men so your point is moot David!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Eoghan is an idiot and is also banned so feel free to ignore him. His post will be deleted as soon as David sees it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yes Andrea,

    Let's completely ignore the fact that those women who are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract herpes got it from the same % of men with herpes.

    The fact that they are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract herpes only serves to highlight the case that they are all vying for the attentions of the same small percent of males and it bit them in the ass (so to speak).

    ReplyDelete
  28. I wish Yohan's comment about my providing links to longer discussions of clarifying concepts so that I don't have to write the same thing over and over to people who aren't actually invested in learning about feminism as "misleading" right before he linked some one-off story with no bearing on the discussion were satire. I definitely laughed!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yohan I just wanted to pop in and say your links are always hilarious.

    FEMINISTS ARE ALWAYS MISLEADING. HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF FEMINIST RHETORIC: www.news.news-WOMAN-HITS-PUPPY-WITH-CAR-DOESN'T-CARE

    ReplyDelete
  30. Nymeria,
    I can't find that story. Was it a joke?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Herpes is a bad example.

    Chlamydia is the most common venereal disease.

    It is THREE times as prevalent in women than men.

    Lemme guess - women are also more susceptable to Chlamydia too eh.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ScareCrow,

    And the good girls who aren't practicing hypergamy are just spontaneously generating new cases of Chlamydia.

    Bad feminist math on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  33. witman -- That link for the puppy story works fine on my computer. Yours must be broken.

    But seriously: STDs are generally more easily transmitted to women, due to the different biology of men and women:

    Many STIs are transmitted more efficiently from males to females. For example, the risk of genital herpes transmission from a male to female partner is 19%, whereas it is 5% for transmission from female to male[21]. After a single episode of sexual intercourse, a woman has a 60% to 90% chance of contracting gonorrhea from her infected male partner, whereas the risk for a man from a woman is 20% to 30%[22,23]. The reasons for this difference may include greater exposure in females as a result of pooled semen in the vagina and greater trauma to tissues during intercourse.

    http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/4/s1/s26

    This may not be the case with chlamydia,, which seems to be transmitted equally easily (though younger women are more likely to get it for biological reasons):

    http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec96/niaid-03.htm

    However, lots of people simply don't know they have chlamydia. The greater number of women who report it may be because women get screened for it more often:

    Of overall chlamydia diagnoses reported in 2008, the rate of infection among women was almost three times higher than the rate among men: 607.0 cases per 100,000 population compared to a rate of 233.9 among men. This is thought to be due to the higher number of women screened for chlamydia.

    http://www.avert.org/std-statistics-america.htm

    ReplyDelete
  34. Nymeria said...
    Yohan I just wanted to pop in and say your links are always hilarious.


    Hilarious = inconvenient for feminists, about what feminists do not want you to know.

    Interesting, feminists never have any link as a reference to back up their claims.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yohan: "Interesting, feminists never have any link as a reference to back up their claims."

    Interesting, that this comment comes immediately after a comment in which I provide three links to back up my claims.

    Granted, those links weren't to a random news story about some crazy woman doing some crazy thing, so I guess they don't count.

    ReplyDelete
  36. witman said...
    Nymeria,
    I can't find that story. Was it a joke?


    http://www.wfsb.com/news/25941881/detail.html

    Yes, almost like a joke. The female driver found it totally funny. At least at the beginning.
    Maybe not so funny anymore after being arrested and charged for her behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  37. David,

    I'm posting in both threads because they are both relevant. I am not disputing the fact that women are more susceptible to STDs, I am pointing out the fact that they are contracting them from a very small subset of the male population.

    This means that twice as many women had intercourse with and contracted Herpes from a small subset of the male population who have Herpes. On average, each man with Herpes would have banged two of the infected broads.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yohan, are...are you seriously suggesting that a woman running over a dog with her car (which, by the way, I made up, as a joke!) is some..feminist..plot that all women should be held accountable for?

    ReplyDelete
  39. I did not refer to your link, David, which was psted about at the same time. I saw it after I posted my comments.

    I do not understand what you really want to say with your links, and one of them is from 1996, pretty outdated for medical care.

    Maybe you want to say that women will be easier infected with STD than men? And? What's your point or your advice to these women? Or to men?

    witman said...
    Those women certainly didn't get herpes from uninfected men so your point is moot David!


    Nothing else what I can add to Witman's comment.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yohan, you are ignoring the real enemy -- evil feminist car-driving dogs.

    http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/hernando-man-run-over-by-own-truck-after-his-dog-puts-it-in-gear/1104156

    Notice that this dog deliberately targeted a MAN.

    Obviously feminism is to blame.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Nymeria said...
    Yohan, are...are you seriously suggesting that a woman running over a dog with her car (which, by the way, I made up, as a joke!) is some..feminist..plot that all women should be held accountable for?


    You see, it really happened... a female driver was running over a dog, and newspapers are reporting it, how misogynistic...

    Sometimes it's not even a dog, but only a man.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-

    scene/fairfax/woman-finds-body-stuck-under-c.html

    she thought she had run over a "mannequin" of some sort and continued driving

    ------------------

    some..feminist..plot that all women should be held accountable for?

    Seriously, only feminists - female and male, regardless their gender - should be kept accountable for their hateful actions against men.

    Most women, worldwide seen, are not feminists, they often even are suffering because of feminism. Why should they be kept accountable?

    You see, this is the difference between 'misogyny' and 'anti-feminism'.

    ReplyDelete
  42. That red herring, the fact that women are more likely to get herpes than a man, was completely debunked on your comments on the other blog... by the simple logic that it doesn't matter how easily they got it from an infected partner, they STILL had to scrog an infected partner... that means twice as many women sleeping with half as many men... the only men who had the herpes to infect them with.

    However, the real lynchpin proof of hypergamy is the anthropological evidence that it is the natural order of human sexuality, from the pre-civilization days.

    According to Dr. Baumeister, a prominent social psychologist who teaches at Florida State University, "The 'single most underappreciated fact about gender, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did."

    You can google the details. The genome doesn't lie.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Well, I'm glad my view that 'anti-feminism' was wildly deluded has been disproven.

    ReplyDelete
  44. lovablenerd, gosh, it's not as if we actually discussed that EARLIER IN THE COMMENTS or anything.

    http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/12/on-herpes-and-hypergamy.html?showComment=1293692903431#c7423981420501536545

    ReplyDelete
  45. The fact that they are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract herpes only serves to highlight the case that they are all vying for the attentions of the same small percent of males
    I am not disputing the fact that women are more susceptible to STDs, I am pointing out the fact that they are contracting them from a very small subset of the male population.

    Your conclusion, the same in each of your posts highlighted above, is based on doing the math assuming that the conclusion that you're "proving" is already a given fact. Same with loveablenerd's that means twice as many women sleeping with half as many men. You're assuming that the smaller percentage of infected males is highly localized within a very small segment of the entire male population, rather than being more widely dispersed throughout a larger segment of the entire male population. If more widely dispersed throughout a larger segment of the entire male population, with members of this larger segment being or having been sexually active with more than one partner, and the females being or having been sexually active with more than one partner, as well (and that doesn't sound too far-fetched to me), the math still works.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Witman, try this example.

    Let's say you have a population of 10 men and 10 women--and everyone in this population is having sex with everyone in the other population. Every single one of the 10 men--not just a single 'alpha male' will get to have a turn with every single one of the girls.

    The first man up for the girls has herpes. Assuming the rate of transmission to females is 40%, he gives 4 out of the 10 girls herpes.

    So now the other 9 men get to have sex with all the girls. However, the chance for a guy to get infected is one-fourth of that, only about ~10%. So by the end of it all, about one more guy will have gotten herpes, making the population of herpes-infected men probably 2 (or 3 if we're unlucky). Twice as many women infected as men, in this scenario, is more or less what we'd expect if women were having sex with everybody instead of being hypergamous and only having sex with a small number of alpha badboyz.

    This may prove women are just slutty, but this does not prove that women are "hypergamous." Hypergamy means they're only having sex with a very small subset of the male population, while in this example they're having sex with *everybody.* Yet the numbers in my free-love example came to be more similar to that we see in real life (roughly twice the amount of women have herpes than men).

    Your problem is both in how you and Roissy define hypergamy and the specific ratio of the chances of male to female transmission of the disease (women are four times more likely to catch it). If women really were hypergamous, i.e having sex with ONLY a small number of men, many of whom happen to have herpes, while leaving the rest of the men out in the cold, since women are four times more likely to catch the disease, there should be *four times* the number of herpes-infected women as there are men--for instance, if 20% of women are infected with herpes, only about 5% of men should be (1/4th of that number). In reality, however, about 10% of men are infected with herpes; the ratio is two to one rather than four to one. This indicates that many more men are actually getting lucky in the present regime than would be expected if women only went for the very top of the badboy heap. This means women aren't quite as "hypergamous" as you say they are.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Actually that is not my definition of hypergamy. My definition is that women marry up. I simply stuck with the definition that was being used for simplicity.

    I would hate to be the 10th guy!

    ReplyDelete
  48. My definition is that women marry up.

    Well, okay, but whatever you want to call it, the point I made is that the statistics do not support the assertion that a large number of women are having sex with only a small number of men. If this was true, there should be four times as many infected women as men, the fact that there are only twice as many indicates that a significantly higher proportion of men are getting lucky than you or Roissy would claim.

    I wouldn't want to be the 10th guy either, but then again, that was just an example...IRL there's probably some guy out there who's 50th in line...and enjoying it too. D:

    ReplyDelete
  49. did yohan up there try lecturing me about my own culture and language? how... precious. now excuse me, I have some laughing and rolling on the floor to do.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Yes Jadehawk,

    You are the master of rebuttal! :s

    ReplyDelete
  51. Thank You, Pam and TVV...

    I was stumped with the math, and wondering if "demographics" could provide an explanation...as in Pam's point. Nicely done, Folks.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Jadehawk said...
    did yohan up there try lecturing me about my own culture and language? how... precious. now excuse me, I have some laughing and rolling on the floor to do.


    No idea what is your cultural background, but...

    Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung
    http://www.bpb.de/

    I gave you links to the statistics of the
    Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

    It seems you are unable to read them.

    About easy to approach available women in Germany I was asking you if you deduct these 500000 legal working prostitutes from your strange estimates.

    It seems you cannot answer these questions.

    ReplyDelete
  53. i did not say anything about "easy to approach" women, since that's highly subjective. i gave the statistics for men who are unmarried, which was very low, and for the percentage of the population that's in relationships which was very high (the percentage of the population in marriages was about 10percentage points lower still).

    seems a vast majority of German men is fully capable of finding themselves a relationship. Whether you judge that relationship to be with a "good" woman is your own problem, not theirs or mine. After all, there's no such thing as a shotgun wedding in Germany, for lack of shotguns

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anthropologist stepping in here to help with the hypergamy discussion:

    Hypergamy is a real Anthropological term, but the MRA's who use it either don't seem to know what it means, or have not read any of the ethnohistorical context (or even the wikipedia article on it for that matter).

    Hypergamy, simply meaning (in this case) "women marrying up," is a phenomenon that is present in highly patriarchal or male-dominated societies, which only allow women access to power and advancement through marriage. The rate of hypergamy is greatly decreased when women have access to greater economic and social means of self-advancement. Also, this rate is highly variable from society to society, and depends wholly on what is constructed as "meaningful" or "valuable" in that particular cultural context. Delving further into the issue, one could even look at the (somewhat dated) writing of French Structuralist Claude Levi-Strauss, who illustrated how women have essentially been traded as goods in order to strengthen kinship bonds--which still happens in societies with a monarchy, but not as much since the enfranchisement of women in the West.

    Also, mate-selection of this sort is limited to the elite within any population--relationships have historically tended to be less rigid in the lower social and economic echelons of most societies. Again, this is highly variable, but it is one of those "truths" born out of several hundred years of anthropology, ethnography, and historiography.

    The idea that there is a hypergamic conspiracy is more of a post-feminist, post-civil rights "structure of feeling," so to speak, about the changing nature of masculinities in a society that has fewer legal forms of discrimination and segregation that there were in the past. It is born out of a refusal to adapt to a more egalitarian order--instead clinging to archaic ideas of entitlement to women's bodies as property (a la the kinship ideas of Levi-Strauss).

    ReplyDelete
  55. In addition, the idea of the 80%/40% ratio of reproduction can be attributed to many diverse institutions, which (the MRA's won't like to hear) have been largely [historically] created by men.

    - Particular men hording women as possessions: harems, polygyny, bigamy, polygamy, having both wives and mistresses.

    -Rape being used as a weapon of war, not being a crime, or being used for ethnic cleansing and ethnic humiliation (as is was in Bosnia, in the Congo, and in the Slavery era). Rape also being used to "cure" lesbians. Non-consensual procreation is a large part of why the inequality would exist. Even one of the foundational stories of Western culture is about this: see "The Rape of Europa," and thus the continent is named "Europe."

    - Men being forced into programs of gender based violence in state and pre-state societies, and not making it to the age of reproduction (yes, men experience gender based-violence every day). These programs include the military, which is overwhelmingly male, and has historically been controlled by male law- and policy-makers, and also includes male-specific massacres (such as often happens in genocidal situations, as it did in Bosnia and Armenia). So again, this is largely (unfortunately) men victimising other men.

    - *Historically* women have had fewer sexual partners than men, as they have simply had fewer opportunities to move around outside of the home and meet sexual partners. Although, because of other intersections of race, class, etc., certain more privileged men have always had access to more women. This is a double-bind where women are restricted into the roles of sexual "game" and less-privileged men are denied the ability to form relationships.

    Basically, hypergamy would not exist in societies that did not have vestigial ideas of women as economic units, and did not stratify men as rigidly (which is state violence, not violence of women against men)--so there would be everyone's problem solved!

    Try at least reading the wiki before misusing the terms of my profession!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy

    ReplyDelete
  56. "Try at least reading the wiki before misusing the terms of my profession!"

    not gonna happen, since that would require reconnecting with reality.

    ReplyDelete
  57. You're welcome, ahunt. This notion that there is a tiny minority of men who are the exclusive fuckers of the vast majority of women is bizarre, to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Thanks very much, switchingtoglide. In a discussion that had left me (and I'm guessing a few others here) sometimes wanting to pound my head on the table it's great to have someone who really knows the subject offer some substantive points. If you have any suggestions for good stuff to read on the subject -- of hypergamy, and of the historical issues you talk about in your second comment -- I'd love to hear them.

    Also, I should have made clearer in the post and in the comments that the term has a real meaning/history and that the "manosphere" version of hypergamy is not only a fantasy but a distortion of the term. I made a small change in wording in the OP that I think makes that a little more clear.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Yah Pam...here's the thing.

    Any guy can have sex whenever he wants. He just cannot have it with "everyone" he wants, or even "anyone" he wants.

    ReplyDelete
  60. which (the MRA's won't like to hear) have been largely [historically] created by men.

    MRAs would argue, though, that all those patriarchal institutions were created *at the behest* of women. According to The Spearhead, women like being treated as chattel...

    Some MRAs often claim that rape is either almost nonexistent (the vast majority of rape accusations are false, and men are biologically hardwired to "protect and provide" for women making rape an absolute anomaly) or something women enjoy anyways (citing the preponderance of rape fantasies among women), and therefore wouldn't take the rape argument as being a legitimate explanation...

    And some MRAs would argue that the preponderance of men being drafted to fight in wars is an example of how "patriarchy" actually favors women and is merely giving them what they want. Aside from the fact that it benefits women because women don't have to fight, it's also the fault of women because women like violent men, especially those who can wield state violence (see this, for instance). Of course, they'd also say that women can't be truly 'blamed' for it since it's just evolutionary biology, but they'd still claim it's an example of how 'patriarchy' was supported and maintained by women, not men.

    Do I agree with any of this? No. I get the feeling it is what they'd tell you, though. I wouldn't say all or even most MRAs believe 'women are the root of all (or at least most) evil,' but the sentiment is there.

    ReplyDelete
  61. well, I'm sure that's what the MRA's would argue, but again, they'd simply be empirically wrong.

    The way the world works is really not a matter of opinion or rhetorical debate

    ReplyDelete
  62. You told me over in the other thread that the 'social sciences' have 'empirically validated' your worldview and/or the benefits of feminism or whatever, but aside from the studies which refute certain elements of PUA/MRA dogma, as we discussed previously, I haven't really seen that much evidence in favor of your position either.

    Still, though, that's getting off topic...whether or not you're mistaken in your view of how 'the world really works' doesn't make the MRAs correct either. I'm merely providing their counterarguments for switchintoglide to appraise, in the hopes she'll add to the critiques of them I've already had/seen.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I had no idea. From an anthropological and biological sciences standpoint, I find a lot of the pseudoscience hard to take. I have worked extensively on evolutionary biology and anthropology/archaeology, so when I see terms of that discourse being mis-used for ill-informed political movements it saddens me. The state of political discourse in the West really is tragic.

    Anthropology, for example, is a thoroughly intersectional discipline. From my point of view, you can't reduce the variables to "women vs. men." When you are looking at something as complicated as marriage and kinship structures (such as with hypergamy), how could you avoid critically using the lenses of race, class, ability, and age? never mind just looking at history. What about miscegenation laws? Targeted rapes for ethnic cleanising? Blood Quantum and gender difference in the Indian Act (Canada)? The construction of the "black male rapist" in white supremacist discourses? Forced child marriage? Eugenics and medical experimentation on ethnic minorities deemed undesirable to reproduce? Legal sterilisation of disabled individuals in Alberta until 1971? The idea of "white slavery"? Hueism in marriage selection? Trafficking of Asian and Eastern European women for marriage? Contract marriages between gays and lesbians in China? Institutionalised homosexuality in Gebusi, Melanesia? Colonialism and disruption of indigenous family structures?

    Not a single one of those examples could be reduced to "women" and "men" when considering the variables at play.

    Also, so many of the examples you (@thevagrantsvoice) listed can be reduced to class: from an intersectional perspective, higher class women have certain powers over lower class men; white women have certain powers over black men. Capitalist-patriarchy, as a political (State) system, does not categorically advantage all men over all women, nor does it advantage all whites over all blacks. What it does do is attach certain values on the lives of each of these identity markers, and have different expectations of each. Privilege, although politically useful, can be a limiting framework in order to grasp this whole picture. That's why a lot of activists use "kyriarchy." I do sometimes identify as a feminist because of this anthropological perspective, but on most days, it would situate me as an "anti-oppressionist"! It seems that MRA's lack that holistic perspective when trying to reduce everything to "men" and "women" (even despite the fact that there are intersex and genderqueer people here too).


    From a personal perspective, I am a woman who is a primary breadwinner in a wonderful long-term relationship, and I have always had pretty much an equal number of male and female friends, so this "war of the sexes" makes very little sense to me (personally).

    ReplyDelete
  64. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  65. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Any guy can have sex whenever he wants. He just cannot have it with "everyone" he wants, or even "anyone" he wants.
    Oh, the INHUMANITY of it all!!!

    ReplyDelete
  67. (Just removed a couple of duplicate posts.)

    ReplyDelete
  68. Fantastic comments from switchintoglide, thank you. I thought intersectionality was a little too advanced for this comments section but you explained it well.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Yah Pam...this is what MRAs do not get...

    Anyone can have sex pretty much anytime, anywhere. All one has to do is...lower one's standards.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Women get STDs more than men. It's because of the environment for the disease. If men had sex in their asses and mouths they would have the same issues. I study pornography and it's proven there beyond a shadow that women get more diseases, but men sharing the same women can avoid a disease she gets. It's not hard to figure, our bodies are different. I thought this was common knowledge, I loled at the original post, but I'm puzzled the way David seems to have backed down in the comment section. He's right. Another bit that we need to keep pointing out is, they moan about this oppression of not having power or leverage OVER women. The goal clearly stated is that they want more choices so that they get what THEY want, which by male nature is based on physical attractiveness largely thus allowing a woman to express much less of a range of her humanity than the paradigm offered to men who can be successful in a myriad of ways and be attractive to women.

    Keep in mind is the goal is to lord it over the bitches, not to get a nice woman that might be off in a corner somewhere expressing her humanity. Ah but these guys know about those gals, too. Talk to them and turns out THEY have preferences and selections and are, you know human beings, which always gets in the way of a narrow utilitarian egoistic goal. Make no mistake that the main aspect of the assertion that foreign women are better has to do with (and they know it), these hos have fewer choices and so this is how I like to play. So none of this is about some nice guy that can't find a nice lady to treat like a human being and with whom to share a meaningful relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @avagrantsvoice:

    The Social Sciences, while often using the scientific method, do not claim empiricism. For findings to be empirical, the must be reproducible; thus, as 'culture' is far too complex an organism to be reproduced in a lab, empiricism is not possible. You will find, however, that the Social Sciences place an extreme amount of importance on people's own interpretations of their experiences (called the 'emic' perspective) in combination with the 'etic' perspective (that of the researcher). Additionally, Social Sciences are heavily influenced by Marxism in terms of situating many a social custom in terms of political economy--great examples include Sandra Theresa Hyde's "Eating Spring Rice," Jeff Schonberg's "Righteous Dopefiend," or Nancy Scheper Hughes' "Death Without Weeping."

    As far as studies go, you will find that social institutions of censure and punishment have existed at the behest of both men AND women with class privilege. However, the ways in which such power is manifest are unequal and variable. Take this ethnographic example:

    http://books.google.ca/books?id=BbgW3oL0YsEC&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=anthropology+hypergamy&source=bl&ots=K6vt6x_NCs&sig=5hIzU0zej9PsvwiGdwtgCbK9TY4&hl=en&ei=p4cdTb8X0LCeB7ymzI8O&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=anthropology%20hypergamy&f=false

    If you read the few pages linked there (it should be accessible to everyone), you will find that it is not individuals, but sets of social relations and customs which determine hypergamy. Specifically, these customs have a lot to do with strict sex role segregation and gendered economics. Such a situation really doesn't exist in modern North America or Europe, post-feminist advances.

    In essence, hypergamy is something that has been roundly critiqued by feminists because of its root in class and gender-based oppression, so it makes zero logical sense that such a practice would be construed as a massive feminist conspiracy.

    Between that and the assertion that custody laws and lack of paternity leave are somehow wrought by feminists, my brain may have had enough bad reasoning for one day.

    ReplyDelete
  72. oh c'mon. I think it's pretty safe to say that any claim that rape is an aberration so rare, it's not used in warfare is 100% empirically wrong.

    And empirical data can be gathered by both experiment and observation, not just experiment.

    ReplyDelete
  73. ahunt said...
    Yah Pam...this is what MRAs do not get...
    Anyone can have sex pretty much anytime, anywhere. All one has to do is...lower one's standards.


    Another, much more realistic solution in such a situation might be to give her more money...

    ReplyDelete
  74. "But is there any real convincing evidence for any of this? I haven't seen any yet."

    Sure there is:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TQnen_Iq5rI/AAAAAAAAAfg/L_VHE4zgG9k/s1600/ScreenShot029.jpg

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TQnfSL6CyYI/AAAAAAAAAfo/9w-350XLDHs/s1600/ScreenShot030.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  75. Also David, I would enjoy it if you were to provide some constructive criticism of my blog:

    Rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com

    I am wondering if you can find something...anything about my writing.

    ReplyDelete
  76. 1 in 4 women carry a disease that is sexually transmitted.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "That red herring, the fact that women are more likely to get herpes than a man, was completely debunked on your comments on the other blog... by the simple logic that it doesn't matter how easily they got it from an infected partner, they STILL had to scrog an infected partner... that means twice as many women sleeping with half as many men... the only men who had the herpes to infect them with."

    I understand but how do you put this into words that people like David or feminists will understand?

    ReplyDelete
  78. I'm not trying to be facetious either. We have to find ways to package the information for the average population to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "The rate of hypergamy is greatly decreased when women have access to greater economic and social means of self-advancement."

    Wrong: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TQnen_Iq5rI/AAAAAAAAAfg/L_VHE4zgG9k/s1600/ScreenShot029.jpg

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TQnfSL6CyYI/AAAAAAAAAfo/9w-350XLDHs/s1600/ScreenShot030.jpg

    As a self described "anthropologist" you should really consider how unethical it is to make such statements as yours.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "- Particular men hording women as possessions: harems, polygyny, bigamy, polygamy, having both wives and mistresses."

    Wow, so men force women into harems...interesting...you had better get the the Playboy mansion ASAP and rescue all the women from the Patriarchal oppressor.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Gee, who do I believe, an anthropologist or a dude with an axe to grind....

    ReplyDelete
  82. Hypergamy and female choice in sexual selection is what created the dimorphic disparity between males and females and between males as well.

    As an "anthropologist" you should know something about gender dimorphism.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/S8keElkrzJI/AAAAAAAAAag/onaJ9_eGsPY/s1600/ScreenShot025550.jpg


    HELENA CRONIN: Philosopher, London School of Economics; director and founder Darwin@LSE; author, The Ant and the Peacock

    More dumbbells but more Nobels: Why men are at the top.

    http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_10.html#cronin

    ReplyDelete
  83. What I don't understand is why a) you put "anthropologist" in scare quotes, and b) why you think poor resolution graphs hosted on blogspot that use "guys" and "women" as variables would be reputable sources.

    In the first graph, it says that women who are more independent are less likely to mate at all, not that they are more likely to mate up. Read your own sources. Of course the rate of reproduction goes down with education! That means a woman has more access to family planning, probably a larger income, probably a greater idea of her rights, and probably different priorities than raising a family or even coupling. It is the female equivalent of bachelorhood, and it is a legitimate life choice. You show statistics, old ones I might add, which have very little to do with your point. Anecdotally I personally know about 20 couples who are exceptions to your set of rules, but that could be just because I and the people I know tend to see conceive of men and women as human beings, and not as two different warring species.

    Additionally, I am an academic, so I don't see myself rushing off to "rescue women from their patriarchal oppressors." I was recounting some historical facts, you can take them or leave them. I do Oral History accounts of gender-based violence against men, and I study disability and employment among Maori men in New Zealand, and Mohawk men in Kahawa:ke. 'Rescuing' women from Hugh's harem isn't on my radar--everyone seems pretty content there; however, I marvel that one would extrapolate any truths about human behaviour from that class-privileged microcosm [The Playboy Mansion]. You are aware that TV isn't real life, right?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Also, I know what sexual dimorphism is--so does every first year undergrad, but I am glad you think you are special for knowing about it too. I am quite sure that biology and hormones (ie. primary sex characteristics, which can vary widely) are responsible for sexual dimorphism, not your strange idea of hypergamy. No one denies that sexual dimorphism exists. You would have to be crazy to not notice that women have breasts and men do not, or that bucks have antlers and does do not. Intelligence gaps have bases in biology and also in socialisation, and refusing to acknowledge all of the variables is bad science.

    Take these three studies about chess players (I tried to pick the most accessible ones outside of university libraries):

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/oxfordshire/7862444.stm

    http://www.physorg.com/news150954140.html

    http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=6595

    Other studies have shown that women play better and more aggressively when they believe they are matched against other women [online], and play more defensively against men. You can see that the rate of success is difficult to measure and contingent upon many variables, not reducible to some dated graph that measures the "intelligence" (an ableist term, http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/23/ableist-word-profile-intelligence/) of "guys" and "women."


    Here are some exceptions to sexual dimorphism:
    http://www.isna.org/faq/conditions


    Read up! Then maybe you will stop spouting nonsense and calling it anthropology. Those are some fine researchers you are tarnishing with your inability to read graph titles.

    ReplyDelete
  85. bwec: switchintoglide has already provided an excellent rebuttal to your arguments, such as they are, but I will just add one comment to that:

    When I asked for evidence, I wasn't asking for evidence that hypergamy -- using its real definition of "marrying up" -- exists. Obviously it does, though it's less widespread than you think. I was asking for evidence that there is anything to the whole women-only-have-sex-with-alphas-etc manosphere fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
  86. It's really not my problem if you can't read.

    ReplyDelete
  87. "I am quite sure that biology and hormones (ie. primary sex characteristics, which can vary widely) are responsible for sexual dimorphism"

    WOW, such profound thoughts! You mean the main correlating variable is hormones and biology...congratulations you win the nobel prize!

    "Other studies have shown that women play better and more aggressively when they believe they are matched against other women [online], and play more defensively against men."

    Perhaps women should put on their antlers, so to speak, and compete against males ever more aggressively for territory and resources. I have always thought those "women's power suits" with the pads that give them broad shoulders were amusing.

    "are contingent upon many variables, not reducible to some dated graph that measures the "intelligence""

    How would you, an armchair anthropologist know anything about how intelligence is measured?

    If you don't know that males are the variable and furthermore are represented at the top and bottom of the curve for selective traits then you have a lot more to do with your studies.

    It is women like yourselves that censor open discourse in academia because you have no other way to combat truths that stand on their own. What a shame...

    ReplyDelete
  88. LOL, switchintoglide what a man hating misandrist bigot you are!

    I just read your post regarding the representation of genetic material in the genome 80 women 40 men being the result of rape and "male hording of women into harems as property"

    We must rescue the damsels in distress at the playboy mansion at once!!!! Hurry there is not much time, the patriarchal males are holding women captive there lol...

    Yes it can all be boiled down to those evil evil males....lol... What a disgusting sexist feminist bigot you are.

    Ahhhh if it were only that simple...you would love it to be true wouldn't you...Poor poor passive and abused females lol. On behalf of my entire gender you are owed an apology aye... How's the Affirmative Action "women first" laws working out for you ladies in the S.T.E.M. fields...pretty good huh..

    I noticed they let misandrist bigot arm chair quacks like your self into places you are unqualified to be. Tell me....did you use any of your "women first" laws and women only scholorships to do it???? Sure you did little lady, why not use your gender as an excuse to be provided for and protected by men and government.

    Don't you feel the slightest bit embarrassed. I would be if I were a woman. How insulting to have to make yourselves superiors by law just to be "equal" to men. As women, you have a MASSIVE inferiority complex....how sad....

    ReplyDelete
  89. Bwec is sounding sort of hysterical--at this point, I will have to respectfully decline to respond to anything so incomprehensible.

    Bwec, learn to read, learn to detect sarcasm, and learn that the fact that you have to throw around a string of epithets means that you have already been schooled. Also, I don't think "armchair anthropologist" means what you think it means, seeing as I do a primary fieldwork component in all of my research...

    By the way, I do have a full scholarship. Thanks for noticing. It's merit based.

    http://www.loranaward.ca/

    ReplyDelete
  90. Another point to consider with STD rates w/ men vs women is that women are simply more likely to be diagnosed. The majority of women have regular gynecological exams, which would pick up STDs, while men do not have similar regular exams. STDs also tend to make more symptoms for women, and many go symptom-free in men, so women are more likely go see a doctor or mention to a doctor something that will cause the doctor to test for it. Though thevagrantsvoice had the best post on this.

    I don't get the comparisons of historical rape and harems to the Playboy mansion. Bwec, you do realize that harems and rape as a weapon of war are historical facts, right?

    ReplyDelete
  91. @ switchintoglide:

    Wow you mean you succeeded on your own accord, how thoughtful of you. You made good grades in school, fantastic. I would urge you to consider another field of work. Would you like to continue the debate here? Are you finished with your misandrist bigotry?

    Come on lets have it out, I'd love to back you into a corner. You are no scientist that is for sure. No respectable person of science would come here and make such blanket speculations and accusations. You really should be a Women's Studies major instead.

    Anyone who explains human behavior and culture through the lens of male determinism, patriarchy (male oppressor theory) and as the sole product of socialization is a moron.

    ReplyDelete
  92. You are a moron if you think the 80 / 40 representation is caused by rape...Only a feminist would think such things. Your world view is disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  93. You are both ignorant and offensive, Bwec.

    Back a woman into a corner? Jackass!

    ReplyDelete
  94. "Anyone who explains human behavior and culture through the lens of male determinism, patriarchy (male oppressor theory) and as the sole product of socialization is a moron."

    Have you read Switchintoglide's other comments on this site? She/he has argued from a very balanced perspective and said that things are not this simplistic. He/she also self-identified as an anti-oppressionist rather than a feminist.

    Also, there is nothing controversial about discussing rape in this way, or discussing harem cultures. We cannot be ahistorical just to suit your feelings. Rape has always been prevalent and must be considered. It has nothing to do with having an agenda, and again, Switchintoglide has openly disavowed the agenda you are suggesting is at work here.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Indeed Bwec...polygamy, for example, is an historical fact. I hear it was quite common, back in the day. I even imagine there were practical reasons for the policy...

    ReplyDelete
  96. @ahunt

    Polygyny is practical in societies where there is a lot of conflict, and thus fewer surviving males. Polyandry is practical in situations such as these:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/world/asia/17polyandry.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&ref=asia

    When there isn't a practical reason for it, that's where it becomes institutionalised sexism, such as with fundamentalist LDS communities.

    Also, Hef isn't polygynous--he is not married to all of those women.

    @M

    Yeah, not sure where that whole "male oppressor theory" comment came from. I didn't once say "men oppress women," in fact, I expressly said that is not the case. I think intersectionality, basic history, basic biology, reading comprehension, and sarcasm are a little too advanced for some people on this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I think Ellen's point about women being more likely to be diagnosed is a good one. Also, a lot of people don't know that herpes is often not included in general STD testing, even when you ask to be "tested for everything." And since men are more likely to be asymptomatic, I think there are a LOT of men out there who have (and spread) herpes but are unaware of it.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Beta males (and lower) were just not meant to breed in the world of mammals. Do lions complain about this? No. You might as well complain you were born without wings. Get a hobby.

    ReplyDelete
  99. I don't think you know how to calculate percentages or how these tests are done or how herpes and viruses work. Even if women do have a higher liklihood for being infected, not that such a thing is easily studied in a controlled setting(I would hope not anyways, as it would be incredibly unethical), then it still doesn't matter and only gives credibililty to the idea that womens sexuality should be controlled more than mens because they are larger vectors of societal destability. What are the soon to be costs on our new Healthcare system going to be from women sluttying around??? How many children will be born with herpes, it happens people.

    A better STD to look at is HPV and how women somehow get it more often than men??? HPV can be contracted from skin to skin contact in much more efficient ways than Herpes. People can actually get it by dry humping or oral sex or simply skin to skin contact. There have even been some cases of getting herpes and especially HPV by sharing wet towels.

    Now I am pretty sure I know what the feminist arguments will be. They will incorrectly talk about how HPV isn't a big deal and usually goes away on its own...which is bullshit, there is plenty of evidence to show it hides in the body. Then there are the arguments about how men can't be tested for HPV which again is planned parenthood sponsored bullshit. One doctor told me about a very simple test, besides the costly and sometimes not effective blood tests, that can be done to men(but usually never is) to determine hpv infections. It has to do with how a particular acid responds to the hpv cells. The test is to take some lemon juice and a qtip and rub ont he glans of the penis. Apparently the HPV infected capsules or micro tumors or whatever will respond and turn white instead of flesh colored. Why don't STD clinics test for this in men? Why does planned parenthood spread incorrect info on hpv and it's long term effects? Why do women get HPV at higher rates when it's transmitted from skin to skin contact???? HPV causes all sorts of vaginal problems that make a lot of money for people who do the tests and even remove the cysts and so on. It's profitable. Answer 2. HYPERGAMY

    ReplyDelete
  100. "They will incorrectly talk about how HPV isn't a big deal and usually goes away on its own"

    This is a feminist argument? What?

    ReplyDelete
  101. So...what is the plan for "controlling"female sexuality, Troll King. This we gotta hear.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis