Wednesday, February 10, 2010

In which his trusty fiddle channels the soul of Kappa Alpha

Dude. That English major you set me up with totally freaked me out. She was all in to me "reading more" so she made me waste two hours reading the first chapter of this book Hooking Up. It was way more lame than I expected, but whatever. And no, before you ask, of course I'm not answering her texts because I am way over it. But that's not my point. This guy Wolfe's book was all sounding the alarm because the sexual revolution might be bad for women because he had learned about "hooking up." Kind of freaked me out, you know? I was like, is this the stuff these chicks are starting to read? And are they getting it? I mean, the book was 2001 so I figured it was probably too old for too many girls to be interested, but damn. See, Wolfe was predicting that hooking up might make women unhappy. Yeah, yeah, who cares, right? But still, better if they're not thinking about this stuff, you know?

Thank God the New York Times is on the case. They're all like, the problem isn't the death of time-honored traditions which have been evolutionarily tested over ten thousand years of human civilization. Hell no! It's math and economics:
Jayne Dallas, a senior studying advertising who was seated across the table, grumbled that the population of male undergraduates was even smaller when you looked at it as a dating pool. “Out of that 40 percent [of males making up the student body], there are maybe 20 percent that we would consider, and out of those 20, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent,” she said.

Needless to say, this puts guys in a position to play the field, and tends to mean that even the ones willing to make a commitment come with storied romantic histories. Rachel Sasser, a senior history major at the table, said that before she and her boyfriend started dating, he had “hooked up with a least five of my friends in my sorority — that I know of.”
Can't beat the numbers! See, Tom Wolfe, you crotchety old hack, there's nothing these poor little biddies can do! Dude, the Times is so badass! Them and their friends, Bro, they're like a fleet of wingmen all flying in the name of science.
[T]here’s currently a buyer’s market in women who are up for just about anything with the right kind of cad.
Supply and demand, Wolfe, get a frickin' clue. It's like, oh boo hoo let's all have a pity party for these liberated nymphos who finally got everything their forbears dreamed about. These chicks are simply making the proper adjustments to changing market conditions. Natural selection! Survival of the fittest! The future is NOW and it is AWESOME, Bro!

So some yoked Alpha like our boy Skyler gets his pick of the litter no strings attached? I say do the evolution! Weepy emo-douchebag-Betas backed the wrong pony and, hey, it works out better for us anyway, because now she has a shoulder to cry on in the morning when Sky gotta skip class for a High Life and Boondock Saints with you and me at the House.

I mean, this is like paradise! It's like we're all Solomon with fifty Shebas, you know? All I'm saying is look out, though. The market can turn on you like way fast. Housing bust, dude, check your six.
A group of ersatz alpha males seems to have garnered a disproportionate number of women, while the beta and gamma males, nice guys, guys who would make good husbands or boy friends, are left out of the game.

Naturally, they want to be in the game. They do not esteem themselves and are not esteemed by women for their good qualities, so they decide that they want to become pick-up artists.
Okay, I don't want you to stress out too much, Bro, and seriously, like any Secondhand Serenade-listening, Chardonnay-sipping, progressive choir boy could pwn us? I know, crazy, right? I'm just saying you gotta keep your edge. Own it, man. Own her. It's the only way to stay on top.

Check all the links for the various stories. Via Dr. Helen, Via Stuart Schneiderman


  1. I love how Jayne Dallas basically confirms that, in a state of nature, women prefer to share or 'fight over' the top 20% of men, rather than have the dedicated attention of a single, bottom 80% man. Of course, when those bottom 80% are left with either no woman, or one who has been used up, shagged out, and left behind by the alpha males, he will typically choose a life of WoW or slinging crack or being a beach bum, rather than maximizing his productive output in support of a family. What follows is, obviously, the return to barbarism that we see in American ghettos and, increasingly, in 'middle class' America.

    Skyler wins; Poindexter loses.

  2. It's like, what if women all got together and agreed that they would, for the most part, not break ranks and demand to be treated with committed love and respect. Then, they would have all the power, because the male sex drive would compel us to uniformly acquiesce to their demands. Sure, only 20% would snag the coveted Alphas, but all (or mostly all) would be guaranteed the security, attention, and companionship the data indicates they crave.

    Oh, wait. We already tried that. It was called "saving yourself for marriage," or, "arranged marriages." Good thing we've all been released from the self-annihilating practices of the Christianist idiocracy. That's really been a huge win for the fairer sex.

    Another way in which the mind boggles is how feminists don't see the obvious implications of aging. The shelf-life on a woman's "hotness" is about 15 yrs. and no amount of plastic surgery makes her competitive with a flock of nubile undergrads. Boy, it really sucks for poor Jayne Dallas when she wakes up one day at the age of 38 and is "still fighting for that remaining 10%." What alternate reality are women living in where they expect "true love" or whatever to trump biology?

    And, this is for JJ and all other 'moral atheists', the data suggests now that what is best for women's happiness is in direct conflict with what is best for men's happiness. Namely, on the long view men ought to be promoting commitment-less sex while women ought to be closing ranks and demanding rings. And now that contraception and condoms have virtually annihilated the negative physical consequences of promiscuity, what possible reason could men as a group come up with for sacrificing their own happiness for the sake of ladies? Men are, in general, the ones who most easily adapt, recover, and move on from the emotional fallout of broken monogamy.

    And no longer does the "well 80% of men are Betas and the old way works better for Betas so they should try to force the 20% to return" thing work. See, in this environment, Betas are adapting to the situation. They are learning that they can successfully mimic the sexual success of Alphas using enhanced technique.

    Properly educated, the 20% becomes the 80%, and women lose even more.

    This is a serious question, since I'm pretty sure that we are now living in a post-Christian nation. How does the ethical jargon of values address this?

  3. The issue must be resolved first and foremost at a legal level, and secondly at a cultural level (media, universities, religion, etc.). The current situation may be better for beta males, at least to the degree to which they adapt, but the old way is by far the best for children and, therefore, society as a whole.