If you read manosphere writers like Roosh or Heartiste/Roissy, you really wonder in which world they live in. It looks as if they describe some bizarre fantasy. As you may know, just like the seduction community beforehand, the manosphere believes in the alpha-beta dichotomy. You're either an alpha with a harem of willing women, or you are a loser who doesn't get laid at all. A popular phrase in those circles is that 10 % of men fuck 90 % of the women, which directly relates to the myth of the cock carousel. It boils down to the following claims that are slightly exaggerated for effect:
a) 90 % of women are sluts and fuck all the time.
b) Most men don't get laid at all. There's just 10 % of them who fuck all the women.
c) Once women are past 30, their "sexual market value" immediately drops to zero, and they all panic, hoping to find some "beta chump" who will marry her.
Since Roosh and Heartiste write for the constantly sexually frustrated guy, they have to give him good reasons why not getting laid isn't so bad. They do attract a lot of people who have barely any success with women, and Roosh's own dismal track record appeals to them. If their idol hardly ever gets laid, then their own situation can't be so bad, after all. Of course, it's important that the typical PUA/manosphere follower believes that he is part of a "silent majority."
Of course, if you look around, you realize that the world doesn't just consist of promiscuous women and thirty-somethings who think of nothing else but to get married. Yes, it is true that some women are promiscuous. However, if you are an "alpha" and bang a ton of chicks, it is not the case that you learn that they have all been with dozens of guys before. A lot of girls you'll meet will be fairly inexperienced. This is also reflected if you dig up statistics. With a count of sexual partners in the two-digit range, you're already a statistical outlier. Heck, even virginity beyond one's teenage years is not uncommon. In Western society, sex is all around you. Yet, this is just a fabricated illusion, and in reality, things are quite tame. Here, have a look at findings from a Durex study from 2010, based on a survey of 15 to 20 year-olds in Europe:
The mean value of sexual partners is not all that shocking. It's easy to look at extremes and think that they are representative of society. Yet, teen pregnancies are certainly not common, and neither is it common that a young woman fucks a different guy week after week. They get tired of that too.
Based on the "statistical sample" I took when I was playing the field, I can tell you that many girls are pretty insecure. They may have had a boyfriend or two, or maybe a one-night stand. As an amusing anecdote, I'll mention that once a girl said to me that I seem so experienced and certainly have been with many women. I then asked her how many women she thought I've been with, to which he replied, "Ummm... something like five or seven or so." In her world, this counted as "very many", but keep in mind that she had claimed to have been with three or four guys in her life. For girls who pursue relationships, those are plausible numbers.
The PUA community and the manosphere try to create an image of the polar opposite, though. They believe that women go out and party literally all the time, and are willing to have sex with any man as long as his "game" is good enough. The PUAs claim this because they want to sell their bullshit bootcamps, while the manosphere writers want you to think that all women are sluts. But let's just look at people who party hard for a moment. In my experience, this is only ever a temporary phase. There are plenty of people who never go to clubs, and instead meet their sexual partners through their social circle. (No, not on the street either, dear PUAs.)
You can literally see how often someone goes out. Only very few people manage to adopt to a subculture, and even in mainstream clubs plenty of people --- men and women --- have absolutely no clue how to dress. The reason is simply that they are out of touch with those environments. As consequence, most are just there and bascially invisible. Even if you go to "hipster" clubs, you'll notice that at best 10 % of the people really matter. The rest is just a backdrop. This isn't a value judgment. The guys can still be cool in their own way, and the girls attractive. However, just looking at them reveals that they probably don't go out a lot and if they dress up, they just half-assedly copy something from a recent music video or whatnot.
I do think that TV shows like Sex and the City have fucked up a lot of women, and made them pursue a lifestyle that wasn't in their best interest. Most women, however, are very aware of their biological limitations. If you have female friends, then you know that if they are single, finding a boyfriend is a very high priority, and if they are in a relationship, then they obsess about whether he is the "right" guy.
So, what about the "cock carousel" then? I see little truth in it. Most people lead very conservative lives, and prefer to have sex in committed relationships. If they are single, a long time may pass until they get laid. This, too, applies to men and women alike. Statistical outliers don't change anything. Women are normally very aware of their biological clock, meaning that they sooner or later will want to settle down. Yes, some women are a bit late, and may find themselves going after any half-decent man and hoping he'll take them.
The idea that a woman's "sexual market value" drops to zero once she's hit 30 is equally absurd. Sure, if she's overweight, uneducated, and crude, she'll have a hard time finding a mate, but it would be the same if she were 10 years younger and had the same negative attributes. Of course a woman's fertility goes down, which is why women, if they want to have kids, are under greater time pressure than men. Nonetheless, an attractive 20 year-old is quite likely to still be very attractive ten years later, just as an attractive 30 year-old guy can turn into a still good-looking 40-year old.
But why then do manosphere writers mention the problem with "sexual market value"? My suspicion is that the main purpose is to depict a revenge fantasy. They write for sexually frustrated men, and those should feel assured that even though they don't get laid right now, once all the women they lust after turn 30, those will become undesirable --- and thus they will get their revenge because then those women might pursue the "betas", who can then turn them down. In short, it's a complete fantasy, and if you spend some time thinking about it, it's just sad.
No comments:
Post a Comment