783»

The Economic Effects of Promiscuity

 

I’ve made claims from time to time that promiscuity exacts great tolls from society. There’s been a great deal of research, as well as observation, of the various detrimental physical and psychological effects of promiscuous sexual behavior, which may differ between the sexes.

However, there’s been little written on the economic effects of promiscuity. My claim last summer that there are substantial costs to society associated with sluthood evoked great derisive chortles from Jaclyn Friedman. 

In my recent post What a Slut Is, I promised a follow up - What a Slut Costs. I began with a Google search, which revealed disappointingly little in the way of noteworthy analysis. So I’ve put together an original flowchart to illustrate the concept. I haven’t attached dollar numbers to specific effects, though I hope to do so in future. In the meantime, I’ve used a $-$$$$$ system to generally indicate where costs occur.

In general, direct costs associated with promiscuity may be found in the following areas:

  • Healthcare: Medicaid/Obamacare
  • Insurance Premiums
  • Corporate benefit costs
  • Public Sector Legal Costs: police, attorneys, court system
  • Private Sector Legal Fees
  • More divorce: less efficient spending and saving
  • Prisons

There are also enormous indirect costs, including decreased productivity and a labor shortfall due to declining birth rates. Things would have to get considerably worse to reach a point of economic stagnation due to promiscuity in the U.S., but this is the path we are currently traveling.

Please note that costs vary considerably by socioeconomic status. The left side of the chart is more closely associated with low SES, the right side with high SES.

 

 

I’m not an economist; this is really more of an exercise in common sense, as well as a work in progress.

Your thoughts? What did I miss?

 



2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • http://www.nomadicneill.com NomadicNeill

    I think you’re just grabbing at straws.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Nomadic Neill

      I think you’re just grabbing at straws.

      How so? Can you be specific?

  • Johnny Milfquest

    Susan, I think that the state is the Daddy now. Both literally and figuratively. I know that sounds horrible, but its true.

    Feminism, the welfare state and crony capitalism (corporatism) didn’t create the impetus to sleep around, but they certainly removed the barriers to it.

    Destroy Big Government if you want to people to be more chaste. Why should I commit to any woman if I am only going to be punished for doing that?

  • OhioStater

    First, the Casey Anthony case is a pretty good example of the cost of promiscuity.

    A. who is Caylee Anthony’s biological father? No one knows. That’s promiscuity.
    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20503504,00.html

    B. why did she kill her daughter: so she could party (debatable). That’s promiscuity.
    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1344834&srvc=rss

    Second, the additional education a nice guy male needs to be eligible is a cost. I, like others in the manosphere, define promiscuity as a plurality of women involved with a small number of attractive males. A nice guy man that’s a 6 should be attractive to a female 6, but she’s busy pursuing and / or actively sleeping with men rated 7 or 8. Mr Average has to work harder than his father or grandfather did. That’s a cost.

    Third, is the cost women put into makeup, clothing, and exercise to be attractive to alpha males. Also the cost of birth control pills. If you aren’t having sex until your wedding night, and if there’s abortion available in the case of rape, then why do you need birth control pills?

  • GudEnuf

    You know that chart is itching to become a meme.

  • Johnycomelately

    Anarchy, Despotism, Oligarchy, Mob Rule and back to anarchy, I wonder at what stage are we now?

    Clearly each protected class steal from the one below it until it all collapses, promiscuity is definately a sign post of who the protected class is now.

  • tito

    @Susan

    I commend you, great work! yes skanks are ruining civilization as they do. and yeah, some immature 35 year-old will say “hehehe, what’s wrong with that, hehehe” as he excuses those that destroy the society which gave his loser-ass a home.

    sluts, of course, undercut girls who are trying to rise above nature in order to procure a proper husband (and, thus unwittingly, retain civilization) by lowering the cost of sex.

    do not forget that most of this is a direct result of entertainment media prodding. again, well done Susan.

  • Rum

    I have way too much ADD to grapple with the meanings of such a complex flow-chart. Besides, I am on vacation.
    The Blog “Maggie McNeill – the Honest Courtesan” is the real thing. I have no idea what her hit count is today but I can promise you that 10 years from now her writings will still be mentioned with reverance and respect around the camp-fires of the righteous.
    Maggie was an up-scale escort and madam in N. Orleans. She can tell you exactly what is the price of promiscuity. It is 300 dollars an hour.
    In her world, that is the end of it. No subsequent crime, divorce, unwanted preggers, not even any sexual harassment lawsuits. 300 USDs and you get to escape from the viscous grip of a woman who gave it up to you.
    She is worth a look. Seriously.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rum
      $300 is the revenue from promiscuity, not the cost. If only Honest Courtesans were the norm – perhaps promiscuity would be self-sustaining! As it is, it’s a major drag on taxpayer dollars.

  • The Unfortunate Rake

    A commendable project, if only because nobody else is doing it.

    However, given that there is apparently nothing to base even a provisional conclusion on, your approach is decidedly unscientific.

    You are stating your conclusion, that promiscuity has net costs to society, before you conduct your research. That’s backwards.

    Instead of putting yourself out on a limb with a claim, you should be examining a question: Does promiscuity impose economic costs?

    Are you prepared to discover that promiscuity is actually beneficial? As the book Freakonomics demonstrates, the field you are examining is filled with unpredictable discoveries like this (such as that the decline in crime rate was likely due to the legalization of abortion).

    Your current approach has at least a couple risks: That your own confirmation bias will corrupt your research, and that even if your research is sound critics can point to your ideological agenda to dismiss your work.

    Be better than Roissy.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rake

      You are stating your conclusion, that promiscuity has net costs to society, before you conduct your research. That’s backwards.

      I would argue that one need not do any more research than to simply read the newspaper each day. The societal trends identified here are pronounced, obvious.

      Are you prepared to discover that promiscuity is actually beneficial? As the book Freakonomics demonstrates, the field you are examining is filled with unpredictable discoveries like this (such as that the decline in crime rate was likely due to the legalization of abortion).

      I did look for evidence that promiscuity can be beneficial. It appears that richer countries are more promiscuous that poorer countries, perhaps because richer folks have the luxury of pursuing multiple sexual partners.

      I also perused the evo psych literature – which surprisingly highlighted the fact that male promiscuity shortens the life span! (At least on experiments done with fish.) But alas, no info at all on economic effects.

      Consider this flowchart a hypothesis. Feel free to disprove it. Is there any specific area where you question the cause/effect? I can certainly back up the claims of causation made here.

      even if your research is sound critics can point to your ideological agenda to dismiss your work.

      They could, but that would be lazy of them. I’ve seen many people diss a study because it was conducted at BYU or by the Heritage Foundation. That’s not enough – look at the study, find the flaws in the data or analysis, and then speak up.

      Be better than Roissy.

      Interesting. I’ve always thought of him as a rather brilliant commentator on culture, and very astute in his analyses. I’m not a regular reader of his site, and I believe quite a few recent (sub-par) posts are written by others.

  • Anonymous

    Susan
    You miss my point. The lady is very, very bright and has a lot to say.
    I have never met her, at all, but she is like the Beatles in 1962. Just Saying.

  • http://www.jabootu.net Pip

    Hello Susan!

    Would you care to explain further what the problem is with a declining birthrate? (Other than providing more suckers to feed the government Ponzi schemes of Social(ist) Security, “free” health care, and other giveaway programs, that is.) The childfree are ready to lunge.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Pip
      Failure to replace the population leads to a labor shortage. In Western Europe, this led to importing labor just to keep the economy running, even if in a moribund fashion. That labor is nearly all Muslim, and we know that assimilation has been lacking and problematic in all cases. This has provoked violence and racked up enormous costs for the governments.

      In the U.S., the situation will be quite different. We will likely import most of our labor from south of the border, which will make our current immigration challenges look like child’s play.

  • The Unfortunate Rake

    Random contrarian thoughts:

    Speaking of Roissy, he likes to claim that women’s suffrage was the beginning of the end of the United States. However, if you chart the economy of the United States since women got the vote, it’s an overwhelming success story — the country went from promising contender to the world’s only superpower. If there is any causal effect, one must conclude that giving women more and more rights is good for a nation’s success. (Roissy’s lame retort: Yeah, but just you wait!)

    What about a chart comparing levels of promiscuity over several decades to economic performance? If there is a correlation, what does it mean? If there is no correlation, why not?

  • OhioStater

    The activity that goes on before sex is just as costly as the consequences after sex.

    @The Unfortunate Rake

    Yes, promiscuity imposes costs.

    The way to analyze this is look at what it would cost, in effort, to attract a mate in your grandparents day, version what it costs in effort today. If you want to look at straight costs then adjust for inflation.

    We need to define promiscuity. Strictly, it is sex outside of marriage. A more modern interpretation of promiscuity is using sex as a way to attract a partner, resources, or pleasure.

  • Jess

    If this Rather nice flow chart is correct then promiscuity provides an excellent economic boost to lawyers, estate agents and doctors. A win win no less.

  • Jack

    Susan, I think that the state is the Daddy now. Both literally and figuratively. I know that sounds horrible, but its true.

    Hence the term bureaugamy, coined by Lionel Tiger.

    OhioStater’s point about increased eligibility costs is interesting, because this does seem to be a real phenomenon that often results in a misallocation of resources. But I haven’t seen any formal research on the subject.

    This is something that I’d begun to notice about a decade ago when I lived in Philadelphia. For example, the young men that I worked with at the time were telling me that women their age expected them to own homes. Apparently owning a house was a prerequisite for many girls. But these guys were in their mid to late twenties. Reasonably they weren’t in a position to encumber themselves with a home purchase. Their careers were just starting and they needed to have the flexibility to move to another city, or go back to school for additional education. Buying a home could prove to be a major liability for someone in their position. And realistically the only reason that their girlfriends expected them to own a house was as a status signal. They didn’t have a solid argument for why the house was necessary. It was simply something that they associated with affluence and adulthood.

    The US may be becoming like certain Asian countries in this regard, where men are expected to have significant assets before marrying. This could go towards explaining why many men are deferring marriage or forgoing it entirely. In countries where marriage eligibility is restricted in this way, you tend to find a larger proportion of unmarried adult males, and a wider age disparity between couples.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jack

      The US may be becoming like certain Asian countries in this regard, where men are expected to have significant assets before marrying.

      I saw an article last week discussing the saving habit of single Chinese men. Some highly motivated men are saving like crazy in an effort to amass capital as an incentive for a woman to marry. I wondered whether in the U.S. we’re seeing the inverse of that – all of this talk about “the decline of men” is about men in their 20s not working hard, not saving, not “moving forward” in a mature fashion. Perhaps that reflects little or no desire on the part of men to marry?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    for this to be anything but confirmation bias there have to be additional charts, illustrating the costs of LTR, marriage, vs just staying alone at home

    BTW this blog could change its name to “please dont hook up” dot com

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      for this to be anything but confirmation bias there have to be additional charts, illustrating the costs of LTR, marriage, vs just staying alone at home

      What about the stats of OOW births, which have been steadily increasing in the US? The marriage rate among African Americans is 40% or so. Is it confirmation bias to observe that young men being raised without fathers are perpetrating violence from puberty onward?

      Also, the healthcare costs incurred as a result of STDs are clearly directly a result of promiscuous sex. There is no alternative explanation.

      BTW this blog could change its name to “please dont hook up” dot com

      Ha, have you just figured out I’m not a fan of slutting it up? However, a couple of points:
      Hooking up refers to any physical contact, starting with making out.
      I subscribe to “No Sex Before Monogamy.”
      I don’t say please. I lay it out there, take it or leave it.

  • Bob

    Your flowchart is generally good on what it covers, but it does not cover everything. It does not differentiate between the promiscuity of single and attached/married folks.

    Promiscuity (cheating) by married folks pumps more money out of the private sector and into the government, generally moving two adults closer to (although not necessarily all the way to) poverty. In particular, divorce generally leads to underemployment by one or both parents compared to married couples. In married couples, even if the mother is technically underemployed (which is arguable given how many of them just went for their MRS degree), the father is generally optimally employed. We’ll leave the effect on real wages of effectively doubling the workforce by including most women untouched for now, since that’s in effect today whether most marriages succeed or fail.

    There’s also the more difficult-to-measure effect of the increased revenue for the courts in the form of divorce settlements, which would tend to increase its appeal to couples on the brink of adultery or divorce.

    Single or married, I think the biggest and most preventable cost of sluthood lies in male investment, or lack thereof. The village bicycle doesn’t get any money from the potential baby-daddies unless the police and courts get involved – costing taxpayer money. The “reformed” tramp (making up the majority of sluts claiming reform, though certainly not the totality) gets the fancy wedding and McMansion, until the divorce where money is pumped into courts and non-productive private sector workers (lawyers) and both parties end up undereployed. The poor produce more kids requiring government funding to raise (welfare, public education, and police as the misbehaved little tykes reach their teen years); the rich produce fewer kids and raise them to the same promiscuous lifestyle (where, like the Hiltons, the kids are raised without the skills to run any business, let alone the one they could have inherited – unless they’re able to live of celebrity for a decade).

    And that’s just women. Women may be the biggest consumers, but men are the biggest producers, and less investment in family means the average worker produces less, since he’s spending his twenties and early thirties goofing off. I’m not sure what I’d say about high-producing men like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, since I suspect they would still produce their game-changing products with or without wives, but the lack of investment from regular drones adds up fast.

    On the plus side, the alcohol, condom, and tourism industries benefit tremendously from promiscuity.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Bob
      Great feedback, thanks.

      Promiscuity (cheating) by married folks pumps more money out of the private sector and into the government, generally moving two adults closer to (although not necessarily all the way to) poverty.

      Although the setting up of two homes feeds the private sector. The “consumption” marriage, which is efficient, ends and many expenses are now duplicated.

      We’ll leave the effect on real wages of effectively doubling the workforce by including most women untouched for now, since that’s in effect today whether most marriages succeed or fail.

      And that explains most of the increased wealth gap in the U.S.

      The poor produce more kids requiring government funding to raise (welfare, public education, and police as the misbehaved little tykes reach their teen years); the rich produce fewer kids and raise them to the same promiscuous lifestyle

      This is the real kicker. We’re fundamentally changing the composition of the American population, in a way that can only decrease productivity – and dramatically at that.

      men are the biggest producers, and less investment in family means the average worker produces less, since he’s spending his twenties and early thirties goofing off

      Ah, I see you’ve already made the point I just noted to Bob. And you’re right of course about the plus side – promiscuity is big business. In addition to alcohol, condom and tourism we could add pharma (Viagra, birth control pill), and Hollywood (rom coms about FWB, SATC, etc.).

  • Dogsquat

    I just got home from a shift in my ghetto ER – I’ve literally still got my scrubs on and I’m wondering about the gym vs. a glass of Scotch.

    From my point of view, promiscuity pays my bills – along with bad genes, shitty nursing homes, pure dumb bad luck, and stupidity.

    I helped take care of roughly 30 patients today. About 5 were various types of injuries/burns (love them fireworks), 2 car accidents, a motorcycle vs. stationary object, a few tweakers, and maybe five or six old people. There were a few abdominal cases, some folks with the sniffles, and one person who was actually sick.

    At least four of the others were women with either an STD or a possible problem in pregnancy. None of the women today were married, and not one dad/LTR boyfriend was in evidence. That’s about an average day Tuesday for me, except for I didn’t have a single cardiac patient or opiate OD (praise be unto Allah).

    When I work the pediatric side of the ED, most of our patients are there for simple stuff like strep throat, URIs, lacerations, and broken bones. All of this could easily be taken care of in a regular doc’s office or urgent care. Unfortunately, very few of the poorly educated, polybabydadic* women have private health insurance, and the docs/urgent cares around here will go out of business if they take what Uncle Sam’s willing to pay to see them. Instead, the moms haul the kids in to the ED. Sometimes, they use those taxis with the flashing lights and the EMTs in back, because those are “free”. Some folks call those kind of taxis “ambulances”.

    This is so wasteful it makes my teeth hurt.

    One woman who’s pregnant (again) doesn’t go to an OB because she doesn’t like the bus. She calls EMS, states she’s having abdominal pain and/or bleeding and gets a ride to the ED in a “free” taxibolance. She keeps up with the story long enough to get an ultrasound printout for her scrapbook, then she begs for a cab voucher home. She’s been in many times over the last several months, and there’s never anything wrong. She just wants the pictures, I think. She’s definitely not the first person I’ve taken care of like this.

    Anyway, she’s got Medicaid, so you’re paying me to bang an IV or two in her and bring her blankets and stuff. The docs like it because I work at a teaching hospital and the resident physicians get to check off procedures they need prior to being EM board eligible. I like it because she’s actually pretty nice, despite what she’s doing to the health care system.

    Stop asking these questions. If you somehow fix this problem, roughly 20% of my patients will disappear – and that doesn’t count the men/boys who grow up fatherless, and the ensuing injuries that accrue from a life of crime/drugs/poor impulse control that engenders. I might actually have to get a real job, and I don’t think I’m equipped to make an honest living.

    So pay up, suckers. Dogsquat is depending on you to inflate his paycheck.

    *Polybabydadic is a medical term derived from Latin. It denotes a woman who has given birth to children fathered by multiple baby daddys. Acute cases of polybabydadia may sometimes involve six children by four fathers(ref – Wrapupyo, D. Lifecycle of the Urban Humanity In: Gabbe SG, et al. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa.: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2007.).

    To pre-empt the hand wringing this type of plain speaking normally brings up on these issues-

    Yes, I am compassionate and professional at all times. Yes, I treat these people exactly the way I treat wealthy type folks. Yes, our society needs a safety net. I am part of the safety net and I love my job, so think about that before you go all high and mighty on me. Yes, this post is HIPAA compliant and I’m not talking about you or anyone you know.

  • Robin

    OCD kicking in – Why is a sexual assault prosecution when drunk two $$$’s but not drunk only $$?

    Otherwise personally, I love your flow chart!

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    “No Sex Before Monogamy” dot com, works!

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Is it confirmation bias to observe that young men being raised without fathers are perpetrating violence from puberty onward?

    If I was the omnipotent leader of the world, I wouldnt allow single motherhood. And to become a parent you would have to be in a relationship that at least 5 years, and pass a lot of psychological and character tests. And everyone would be sterilized from birth and would need to pass those tests to get fertile again.

    Vote for me

    BTW I dont think the raise on single motherhood is due to casual sex. I think casual sex and single motherhood are the result of something else

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Yohami

      BTW I dont think the raise on single motherhood is due to casual sex. I think casual sex and single motherhood are the result of something else

      There may be, and probably is, a variety of factors promoting casual sex in the poor population. However, sex is a requirement for most of the single motherhood, and most of that is casual. I suppose you could call it serial monogamy instead – a 15 yo girl gets a bf long enough to get pregnant, has her baby, repeats the cycle. Since commitment is absent, and often the baby is the goal, I consider that casual sex.

  • Jess

    Whilst having a ONS it’s monogamous, till the morning…unless it a threesome.

  • http://www.jabootu.net Pip

    @ Susan

    In the short term, I do not believe that there is a labor shortage in the U.S. In the long term, less population means (generally) less need for some kinds of labor, tempered by heightened affluence and longer life spans, of course. Europe had the unfortunate proximity to the Muslim hordes, I concede, and the lack of will to stop the flood.

    “We will likely import most of our labor from south of the border, which will make our current immigration challenges look like child’s play.”

    This is a hot topic in West Texas where I live. Interestingly, it looks as if much of our labor is being exported south of the Rio Bravo and over the Pacific. Or, at least the work is.

    And I don’t see how our failure to control our border is related to a too low (for some, not me) birthrate. The answer is to flood the already crowded world with more children to buttress our position? Have more children so they can pick the lettuce and man the counter at Micky Dee’s instead of the Latinos? Those are jobs that are being filled by Mexicans (around here, anyway) not because of a lack of people, but of a lack of people that want to do that work. Of course, you wouldn’t want your children doing that work. I know I wouldn’t.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Pip
      There is no question that who reproduces is important in terms of productivity. We will always want immigrant labor for picking lettuce – George W was absolutely right about that. But when the movers and shakers in society don’t reproduce – when the smartest, most accomplished women don’t marry and wind up with one test-tube baby, if that, we’re failing to create the next generation of innovators, thinkers, etc.

      Failure to replace population is widely accepted as an economic death knell, or at least a sort of code blue.

  • http://www.marriedmansexlife.com Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life

    Loved the chart Susan.

  • Dogsquat

    Yohami cantó una canción:

    “If I was the omnipotent leader of the world, I wouldnt allow single motherhood. And to become a parent you would have to be in a relationship that at least 5 years, and pass a lot of psychological and character tests. And everyone would be sterilized from birth and would need to pass those tests to get fertile again.

    Vote for me”

    ___________________

    Fuck yes. I’ll sell my organs so I can donate to your campaign. I’ll sell other people’s organs, too. At least make it harder to have a kid than drive a car.

    ____________________

    “BTW I dont think the raise on single motherhood is due to casual sex. I think casual sex and single motherhood are the result of something else”

    ____________________

    I agree. I have no statistics to back this up, but….

    I have seen several cases where I honestly believe the mother got pregnant to keep the father in her life, even tenuously. Sometimes, it’s with the knowledge that marriage/monogamy isn’t in the cards. Usually, the babydaddy is high-status in the local street-life – fairly successful drug dealer, or a higher up gangmember (terms are somewhat interchangeable in my area).

    That’s not common among the middle/upper class, but it seems pretty common amongst the poor.

    Not strictly promiscuity as you say – more like hypergamy run amok. As far as the women are concerned, there isn’t much downside to this. Uncle Sam will pay for most of the fixed costs of child rearing, and these gals weren’t going to school anyway.

    The promiscuous college types get abortions. Before I started in health care, I couldn’t believe how common that was. One mid twenties SWPL type I took care of had seven – count ‘em – seven elective abortions. Poor thing had two permanent STDs, too.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The promiscuous college types get abortions.

      I haven’t seen or heard of a SWPL teen carrying a baby to term in 20 years. This probably happens more in other parts of the U.S. – but in the Northeast? Never.

      I saw a Down’s kid the other day with her mom, and realized that’s something else one never sees today. When I was a kid, there were always Down’s kids in the neighborhood families (Irish, Italian).

  • Abbot

    It appears that richer countries are more promiscuous that poorer countries
    .
    Screw locally, marry globally. The ultimate Western man arbitrage. Feminists cringe.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    In the short term, I do not believe that there is a labor shortage in the U.S. In the long term, less population means (generally) less need for some kinds of labor, tempered by heightened affluence and longer life spans, of course. Europe had the unfortunate proximity to the Muslim hordes, I concede, and the lack of will to stop the flood.

    Do you know that the life expectancy is steady rising? Who will take care of the old people that cannot work in decades to come? We need labor to replace the old but given that we will also need a huge source of labor when baby boomers start to flood the nursing homes. Drivers, nurses, caregivers, cooks, delivery service. You should take a look around at the last years of any american to see how badly are we going to need labor in the future.

    On the plus side, the alcohol, condom, and tourism industries benefit tremendously from promiscuity.

    Sorry but my mother is a teacher I have a friend that lives in Italy that told me that the low birthrates are leaving many teachers without a job, if you account the amount of people employed by the educational system this things will disappear too.

    “If I was the omnipotent leader of the world, I wouldnt allow single motherhood. And to become a parent you would have to be in a relationship that at least 5 years, and pass a lot of psychological and character tests. And everyone would be sterilized from birth and would need to pass those tests to get fertile again.

    Vote for me”

    How about adulthood tests? People need to pass certain tests, like common sense to get an ID and get to drive,drink, get married,work and so on instead of the standard 18? I really think we teenagerhood just moved like 10 years down in the life of people and society hasn’t adapted yet.

  • Abbot

    The promiscuous college types get abortions.

    .
    But its them and their feminists patrons who screech about supporting state funding of abortion for poor women not because they care about these women but because they are looking for sympathy to support abortion overall out of fear of losing their own “right” to it. Self serving snots.
    .

    One mid twenties SWPL type I took care of had seven – count ‘em – seven elective abortions. Poor thing had two permanent STDs, too.

    .
    Don’t American men deserve better than mal-nurtured women? Think of the children.
    .

  • Stephenie Rowling

    And that’s just women. Women may be the biggest consumers, but men are the biggest producers, and less investment in family means the average worker produces less, since he’s spending his twenties and early thirties goofing off. I’m not sure what I’d say about high-producing men like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, since I suspect they would still produce their game-changing products with or without wives, but the lack of investment from regular drones adds up fast.

    I will say that yes a single woman will spent a lot of money in dating an looking the youngest possible. But guys will invest money on their escapism too, video games and porn the porn industry is supported by men and is millionaire so I think is an issue in what they spent money. A man will use the same T-Shirt for years, but he might be spending tons of money in porn, while the woman is the other away around.
    As general rule unhappy people invest a lot in filling the void of their lives in the past (and in poor countries) this was achieved by going more to church, in this time and day in buying stuff: travels, clothes, shoes,video games, porn, collectable pieces…. So I will think that sluthood does move the economy but it doesn’t enrich a nation in fact it will drive it to poverty from the consequences of having a large portion of the masses living like cattle, investing in sex only not in the future, YMMV.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Hey Stephenie,

    WTF is filking?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    WTF is filking?

    ??? What?

  • Sarah

    Oh my god. This is such trash. I can’t even.

    You aren’t even pretending to have sources for this one!

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Sarah, Nomadic Neill

      Oh my god. This is such trash. I can’t even.

      You aren’t even pretending to have sources for this one!

      You used to be a consultant right?

      Imagine you showed one of your clients a slide like this with $ and $$ and $$$… give me some cold hard numbers and then we can start thinking about correlations… and after that causation.

      I find it fascinating that people freak out when you take commonly articulated and accepted concepts and display them in colorful squares. I challenge anyone to find one single concept in this graphic that isn’t commonly understood and accepted in society. I’ll allow that the number of $ signs may be off in a box or two, but that’s it.

      I stated that I do plan to continue working on the chart – plugging in numbers. It’s just that no one is paying me $450 an hour to do it, waaaahhh. Also, FWIW, let me tell you something about consulting. This is exactly how we work. We think hard, formulate a hypothesis, analyze, gather data (much of which is back of the envelope or approximation) and come up with nice graphics. I’ve done that here. This chart would indeed pass muster with senior management at most of the companies I consulted for.

      Business leaders are not whingeing and whining about confirmation bias and “correlation is not causation.” Gee, we ran an ad campaign that has been described as slightly racist, and sales of our product fell through the floor. Pull the ads!

      Levitt and Dubner didn’t prove that abortions reduced crime – they noted a particularly striking correlation and made an argument, one that is still hotly debated. There is no “proof,” only data, and data tells a story. Yes, it can tell the wrong story, and that’s why we debate.

      Do you demand regressions stats when you discuss politics at a dinner party? This isn’t the U.S. Dept. of Labor, LOL.

  • Jason

    Oh my god. This is such trash. I can’t even.

    You aren’t even pretending to have sources for this one!

    I have to agree. The only good thing(s) about this article are the comments.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jason

      The only good thing(s) about this article are the comments.

      That’s what a blog is. A vehicle for engaging readers in conversation and debate. If the comments are interesting, I’ve succeeded as a blogger. I note that you don’t have anything particularly interesting to say, however.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    I would just like to point out that a lot of your thesis is “sluthood=people spending a lot of money.” But that’s actually a good thing! In our current economic crisis, the aggregate demand is extremely low, which is one of the reasons consumer spending is so low, which is one of the reasons that unemployment is so high. Therefore, according to your logic, sluthood is a net economic good: it gets more money out there in circulation, creating jobs for condom makers, pharmacists, lawyers, adoption agencies, infertility clinics, et cetera.

    Women and men, you know your economic duties! Fuck for the sake of the capitalist system! :)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @ozy

      I would just like to point out that a lot of your thesis is “sluthood=people spending a lot of money.”

      That is dwarfed by “sluthood = government spending a lot of money.” And government = taxpayer = me. Also, the money is spent in an incredibly inefficient healthcare and legal system. It’s bad for the economy, not good.

      In any case, as you see, the real, ultimate cost is the loss of poor youth to prisons and failure of the educated to reproduce. That is what will do us in.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Although, for maximum economic benefits, sluts should refrain from reproducing, instead either having abortions or giving their children up for adoption by childless fortysomething couples. Despite the job-creating stimulus potentials of a single-mom-raised child, the child would also be less likely to be a good worker, which would make factors of production more expensive, drive down the aggregate supply and risk stagflation.

  • http://www.nomadicneill.com NomadicNeill

    @Susan

    You used to be a consultant right?

    Imagine you showed one of your clients a slide like this with $ and $$ and $$$… give me some cold hard numbers and then we can start thinking about correlations… and after that causation.

  • Abbot

    sluts should refrain from reproducing

    .
    Best advice ever given on this site! Slut genocide or sluticide…now that is something Taxpayers will gladly fund. Stop the vicious cycle. Cut them off from influencing innocent young girls and in 21 years there will be a ready supply of wife worthy American women. Yes, American! Throw in a free sterilization program with cash awards for tube tying sluts and global respect returns to America in a generation. Slut-eugenics — now that’s a bio-social movement we can all get behind.

  • Blues

    I saw an article last week discussing the saving habit of single Chinese men. Some highly motivated men are saving like crazy in an effort to amass capital as an incentive for a woman to marry. I wondered whether in the U.S. we’re seeing the inverse of that – all of this talk about “the decline of men” is about men in their 20s not working hard, not saving, not “moving forward” in a mature fashion. Perhaps that reflects little or no desire on the part of men to marry?

    I think the 5th Horseman explained the effect and consequences of disincentivized males

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Robin
    Good to see you!

    OCD kicking in – Why is a sexual assault prosecution when drunk two $$$’s but not drunk only $$?

    Because it’s much harder to prosecute a rape case when the victim was intoxicated. Consent becomes murky, or at least it’s easy for the defense to make that claim. This is why most colleges fail to discipline students accused of sexual assualt – it’s difficult to prove, and if she went to his room drunk at 3am it’s nearly impossible.

  • tito

    “I find it fascinating that people freak out when you take commonly articulated and accepted concepts and display them in colorful squares.”

    well said susan. you see, when people don’t like a certain point, you suddenly need to be a paid scientist spending months of the year researching every aspect of your point feverishly before you churn out a study that they wil still not like.

    all the problem with your point is that it is nor pop-culturally correct. it just simply spoils that party (that should’ve been spoiled decades ago, for the purpose of preserving civilization). what you stated is what is obvious.

  • OhioStater

    I think Susan is right. This isn’t a court of law. Anecdotal evidence is adequate. By the time we have numbers and stats and scientific study the problem is too big and its too late. Her illustration adequately frames the problem.

    Now, my one criticism is women, Susan included, are discounting promiscuity that happens before monogamy, since this promiscuity helps them find the highest quality mate, or potentially partner. If there was no promiscuity, an average girl has no hope of snagging an alpha.

    I want to go farther and say all promiscuity is costly. I said in a previous post an inexperienced average guy will have an easier time with a less promiscuous girl. The average guy loses out if his natural partner, his equal, is part of a de facto 20 strong alpha harem.

    Morality is like a yard stick. It should be firm, rigid, and unchanging. There’s a bar at the metric office in France that is exactly 1 meter long, made of metal that doesn’t rust or erode. The French didn’t use a piece of string as their reference.

    By saying promiscuous I’m not judging right or wrong. I go to church and I accept that I’m guilty of many sins. However, my belief is I behave the way I do, and I’ll accept the consequences of my actions. All I’m saying is there is more to promiscuity than cheating on a monogamous partner, and that this is also costly.

    There’s no need for numbers or studies to verify what you can see with your own eyes.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OhioStater

      Now, my one criticism is women, Susan included, are discounting promiscuity that happens before monogamy, since this promiscuity helps them find the highest quality mate, or potentially partner.

      I’ve seen this argument, and I don’t understand it. Why is it necessary to have sex to identify a high quality mate? Sexual compatibility is important, but cannot accurately be measured before monogamy anyway for many women. Many women would experience relationship sex very differently from casual sex, and their behavior would reflect that.

  • Jack

    Perhaps that reflects little or no desire on the part of men to marry?

    I’m skeptical of the claim that young men have suddenly gone shiftless en masse. But to play along – young men’s investments (e.g. education, savings, workload ) will reflect their estimates of future rewards. If they aren’t investing, it’s because they don’t anticipate that the returns will be valuable to them. This applies to their careers, marriage, and role in society. So it may not be that they don’t intend to marry, but that they don’t see as much value in marriage, or in women.

    This goes to my point about eligibility costs, and ties into your views on promiscuity. Promiscuity may have the effect of causing estimates of the value of eligibility to diverge between men and women. Simply put, as promiscuity increases, men value eligibility less but women actually increase their eligibility requirements, thereby increasing their costs to men.

    Women’s tendency to increase their eligibility requirements is something that you can observe among women who’ve gone through a series of relationships. They’ll often attempt to compensate for the time and effort ‘wasted’ by upgrading their requirements, and so you see the familiar pattern by which young women will gravitate towards requirements that are often unrealistic. Their preferences shift from poets and musicians to lawyers and hedge fund managers.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jack

      Their preferences shift from poets and musicians to lawyers and hedge fund managers.

      This is not hyperbole – it is the actual truth. And then at 30 they wonder why there are no good men left.

  • Orthodox

    Susan, you left off double households. A married man and woman can form a single household and save on expenses. If you’re a pure Keynesian who thinks spending $1 trillion on Dixie cups is equivalent to spending $1 trillion on infrastructure, then this doesn’t matter, but if you’re looking at long-run returns, this is a big cost. I think the government would fight a return to marriage just to salvage the housing market…

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Orthodox

      Susan, you left off double households. A married man and woman can form a single household and save on expenses.

      Ah, I came at that from a different angle, thinking of creating double households as a byproduct cost of divorce. I think you’re saying that delaying or avoiding marriage creates more inefficient households? It’s an opportunity cost.

  • Jason

    That’s what a blog is. A vehicle for engaging readers in conversation and debate. If the comments are interesting, I’ve succeeded as a blogger.

    Yes, you often do.

    I note that you don’t have anything particularly interesting to say, however.

    But this is pretty poor form. I criticize your article, and that’s not interesting. Perhaps you should take it as it was intended, and not as an attack.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jason

      I criticize your article, and that’s not interesting. Perhaps you should take it as it was intended, and not as an attack.

      I think readers here know that I welcome constructive criticism. Seconding, “OMG, this is such trash, I can’t even!” from a sex-positive feminist is not criticism. It is an attack.

      Perhaps I misunderstand – what was your intention? What’s your thoughtful feedback? I’d be genuinely curious to know why there is no good thing in the post.

  • tito

    @Susan

    Susan said:

    “This is not hyperbole – it is the actual truth. And then at 30 they wonder why there are no good men left.”

    they are deliberately doing things that are known to lead to this. not enough will ever get it until they are told what to do literally. following their (counter-productive) instincts + entertainment media training causes this.

    Susan said:

    “Why is it necessary to have sex to identify a high quality mate?”

    because Susan, pop-culture said so. it is the lowest common denominator. any dumbass can do this. set your goals ultra low and scorn anyone who sets them high. time for some reality; if you are sexually unsatisfied, just STFU, enough from the perpetually unfulfilled.

  • The Unfortunate Rake

    @Susan

    In any case, as you see, the real, ultimate cost is the loss of poor youth to prisons and failure of the educated to reproduce.

    If the real problem is “the wrong people are reproducing” then why do you label the problem “promiscuity“?

    After all, the educated are promiscuous, too. They’re just using birth control.

    It seems like the lion’s share of the negative results could be eliminated if the bad people all used birth control and the good people didn’t. Zeroing in on promiscuity is off-target.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If the real problem is “the wrong people are reproducing” then why do you label the problem “promiscuity“?

      After all, the educated are promiscuous, too. They’re just using birth control.

      That’s not what I said. I said the cost is twofold: 1. the loss of poor youth to prisons, which is an enormous waste of potential and 2. educated people, already primed for successful offspring, are not reproducing. So it’s not that the wrong people are reproducing, it’s that those born into poverty are facing long odds from day one, and those never born into privilege obviously cannot enjoy their favored status.

      It seems like the lion’s share of the negative results could be eliminated if the bad people all used birth control and the good people didn’t. Zeroing in on promiscuity is off-target.

      Whoa, I did not intend for this to be come about eugenics. Promiscuity causes poor results for both sides of the SES spectrum. The people you are calling “good” are marrying so late, and the women are so infertile that birth control is hardly an issue. Promiscuous educated women are also more likely to cheat, and initiate 2/3 of divorces. That also has negative economic consequences.

      Promiscuity is the starting point of difficulty for both the poor and the affluent.

  • The Unfortunate Rake

    What if promiscuity is just a by-product of freedom? And the only way to restrict promiscuity is to restrict freedom (by, for example, rolling back women’s rights to “encourage” women to marry young and have babies)?

    Would the economy of the nation actually perform better? Any historical evidence to back that up?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rake

      What if promiscuity is just a by-product of freedom?

      That’s exactly what it is. Female sexuality unleashed is hypergamy gone viral.

      And the only way to restrict promiscuity is to restrict freedom (by, for example, rolling back women’s rights to “encourage” women to marry young and have babies)?

      The only way promiscuity will become restricted is when women realize they’re acting against their own best interests. Through a combination of:

      hard lessons learned
      observing societal trends, e.g. knowing lots of 30-something women who never found the right guy because they always chose the wrong guys
      avoiding promiscuous men
      not putting out as a means of getting something else, i.e. a relationship
      intrasexual peer pressure, i.e. slut shaming

      Women have too many incentives to delay marriage and childbirth. But even a couple of years difference due to staying off the alpha cock carousel can mean finding a mate, two kids instead of zero, and an ability to embrace marriage without being cynical, jaded, or “easily bored.”

      Would the economy of the nation actually perform better? Any historical evidence to back that up?

      There is a ton of evidence on the effect of falling birth rates on first world economies. Google Italian Economy and go from there. You’ll be reading for days.

  • Aldonza

    I think you’re reaching pretty far with this one. I’ll go with declining birth rates being an issue for us in the future, but I don’t think you can put that on promiscuity so much as birth control and abortion. And, if anything, birth rates have fallen the most in married couples. We’re also off-setting some of those problems with immigration.

    Obamacare because of sluts? Um…sorry, I’m not buying that one. Blame the liberals if you want, but not all sluts are liberals and not all liberals are sluts.

    Further, a good portion of this nation’s economic growth in the past 30 years is directly attributable to the increased buying power of women in the workforce, with is directly related to delayed marriage/birth control.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Aldonza

      I’ll go with declining birth rates being an issue for us in the future, but I don’t think you can put that on promiscuity so much as birth control and abortion.

      Promiscuity clearly delays marriage. The average college graduate female marries today at 28, a point at which her fertility is already declining rather dramatically. In many cases, it prevents marriage altogether. Look at the most promiscuous women in society, sex-positive feminists, and observe the marriage rate. It’s got to be 20% at the most, probably much lower. There’s a whole new literary genre of single women hitting the expiration date who confess to having “made some unfortunate choices in men during my 20s.” It’s well on its way to being a stereotype, for good reason.

      Obamacare because of sluts?

      You misunderstand. I’m not saying Obamacare is a result of promiscuity. I’m saying that Medicaid is paying big, big bucks for health care required as a result of promiscuous sex. With Obamacare, those numbers are going to get much, much bigger. Dogsquats testimony is just the tip of the iceberg. By the way, it’s not just Medicaid for the poor. Lots of educated young women get subsidized abortions at Planned Parenthood.

      Further, a good portion of this nation’s economic growth in the past 30 years is directly attributable to the increased buying power of women in the workforce, with is directly related to delayed marriage/birth control.

      This is an interesting point. Yes, women’s earning power has increased, even as men’s has decreased. A large portion of women’s income generally goes to childcare for women who have them. I’m not at all sure you’re right about economic growth being a result of the Women’s Movement, especially since many women work in government. Certainly, the transition from a manufacturing to a technology/information economy has not been effected primarily by women.

      In any case, delaying marriage due to women’s options for education and career may be a tradeoff society deems worthwhile, even at the expense of a declining birth rate. Delaying marriage because one has had 50 sexual partners in 10 years is deemed worthwhile only by a tiny group of outliers.

  • LJ

    I also think this seems pretty flimsy. Where is the evidence for Delayed Marriage –> Increased Risk of Infidelity –> Increased Risk of Divorce? I thought that stats showed that couples who married later were less likely to divorce?

    Aldonza
    Blame the liberals if you want, but not all sluts are liberals and not all liberals are sluts.

    Very true! In fact, the “Blue States” have lower divorce rates and lower OOW births.

  • Tom

    @ Jess
    If this Rather nice flow chart is correct then promiscuity provides an excellent economic boost to lawyers, estate agents and doctors. A win win no less.

    _____________________
    Not to mention bar owners everywhere…lol

  • Tom

    @ Susan
    Many women would experience relationship sex very differently from casual sex, and their behavior would reflect that.
    __________________
    Bingo.. In my opinion it doesnt matter which type of sex came first. A persons behavior IS different when they are single vs in a relationship. The feel is different, the goals are different, the committment is different the expectations are different the peer pressure is different etc.

  • VD

    Speaking of Roissy, he likes to claim that women’s suffrage was the beginning of the end of the United States. However, if you chart the economy of the United States since women got the vote, it’s an overwhelming success story — the country went from promising contender to the world’s only superpower. If there is any causal effect, one must conclude that giving women more and more rights is good for a nation’s success.

    No, it’s not. Superpower status was the result of the U.S. economy being the only one with an industrial infrastructure that was left untouched by the ravages of WWII. The GDP statistics are wildly misleading since they are dependent upon outstanding credit that presently is 3.46x total GDP. Roissy is correct and universal suffrage has been a complete and unmitigated disaster.

    Just remember: voting != liberty.

  • jamie

    @Dogsquat

    *Polybabydadic is a medical term derived from Latin. It denotes a woman who has given birth to children fathered by multiple baby daddys. Acute cases of polybabydadia may sometimes involve six children by four fathers(ref – Wrapupyo, D. Lifecycle of the Urban Humanity In: Gabbe SG, et al. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa.: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2007.)

    Is this real? I just choked on my coffee, I was laughing so hard.

  • Jason

    My thoughtful feedback:

    I became dumber reading that article. I’m going to stop reading this site now.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jason

      I became dumber reading that article.

      That’s a scary thought. Hope you can still find your way out of here. Buh bye.

  • tito

    the comments for this one going to go through the roof, i can tell that already. unfortunately, most are just grasping at straws looking for the most miniscule molehill to turn into a mountain. it is not a scientific treatise, but a woman’s blog entry so the amount of dissimulation so early on suggests that she is approaching a most holy sacred cow indeed.

    “What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires — desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

    Yohami,

    If I was the omnipotent leader of the world, I wouldnt allow single motherhood. And to become a parent you would have to be in a relationship that at least 5 years, and pass a lot of psychological and character tests. And everyone would be sterilized from birth and would need to pass those tests to get fertile again.

    Vote for me

    You got my vote. Absolutely.

    A declining birthrate may upset the economic applecart a little in the short term, but it is exactly what both the human race & the natural world most needs to survive.

    Unlimited expansion is a bubble that obviously cannot last, especially once the oil runs out – oil is a finite resource, & we’ve used more than half of this planet’s supply of it in the last hundred years, almost all of that the past 50. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion people on the planet. Now there are 7. In another 50 years a likely estimate is 12. Twelve Billion people.

    [img]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg[/img]

    Anything that lowers the human population & steers us from devouring what is left of planet earth like a plague of locusts is a good thing. We’re a virus with shoes.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Byron

      A declining birthrate may upset the economic applecart a little in the short term, but it is exactly what both the human race & the natural world most needs to survive.

      This is an interesting point. Declining birthrates are not always a result of voluntary choices. The birthrate is also affected by infertility and STDs. This reminds me of what population control folks said about AIDS. It effects a winnowing out, a culling of the population, a failure of the least fit to survive. In fact, AIDS is a disease of promiscuity, especially in Africa. I think it’s very possible that another opportunistic virus will become prevalent as a result of sexual promiscuity. STD rates are skyrocketing, some sexual diseases are becoming resistant to treatment. To be clear, I’m not hoping for this to happen – I just think it’s a distinct possibility.

      And of course, there’s the oft-repeated male preference for women of limited sexual experience. If all the women become sluts, there will be less marriage, and fewer children, because the pool of marriageable women will have decreased dramatically.

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

    Hmm.. that graph which didn’t display is here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg

  • tito

    @Yohami

    “And everyone would be sterilized from birth and would need to pass those tests to get fertile again.”

    duuuuude! i never even thought of that!!! great idea! i’m literally beside myself! kudos maestro.

  • http://www.jabootu.net Pip

    Hi Susan,

    “But when the movers and shakers in society don’t reproduce – when the smartest, most accomplished women don’t marry and wind up with one test-tube baby, if that, we’re failing to create the next generation of innovators, thinkers, etc.”

    I think I disagree. In my experience, there’s always more up and comers from all walks of life to take the place of these ‘missing’ kids from the “smartest, most accomplish women.” Our next generation of innovators, thinkers and such will, I believe, come, from across the spectrum of people.

    “Failure to replace population is widely accepted as an economic death knell, or at least a sort of code blue.”

    Failure to replace population all at once would certainly cause a pinch in the hose of entitlement transfers! But I’m not sure how gradually lowering the population is a bad thing.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Our next generation of innovators, thinkers and such will, I believe, come, from across the spectrum of people.

      Agreed. Quite a few of them will actually come from immigrant families. Where they will not come from is single mother households in the inner cities.

  • OhioStater

    Hi Susan.

    I’m not suggesting you need to use sex to identify a high-quality mate. Usually the high quality mate is identified, but how do you obtain a commitment?

    I’m saying that if there are 3 girls vying for the attention of 1 high quality guy, it’s risky for one of the girls to abstain from sex. To “compete” with the other two girls, she “needs” to have sex if the guy wants sex. It’s risky because if he doesn’t get if from her, he’ll go to someone else.

    Do you think this sort of activity falls under the umbrella of promiscuity?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OhioStater
      I do think that’s promiscuous behavior – if she doesn’t feel ready to have sex, but caves in hopes of winning the alpha. More importantly, I would argue with your point that a guy who walks away from the woman who wants to wait for monogamy is a high quality guy. In fact, a lot of the men here have given that precise advice to women. They say they want to escalate, and have her decline, so they know she is the real deal.

  • http://sweetebonyrose.livejournal.com Renee

    ….sluts should refrain from reproducing….

    Slut genocide or sluticide…now that is something Taxpayers will gladly fund. Stop the vicious cycle. Cut them off from influencing innocent young girls and in 21 years there will be a ready supply of wife worthy American women. Yes, American! Throw in a free sterilization program with cash awards for tube tying sluts and global respect returns to America in a generation. Slut-eugenics — now that’s a bio-social movement we can all get behind.

    Or one can use the MANY methods of birth control, wear condoms, not sleep with sluts, practice abstinence (and no – abstinence isn’t something exclusive to females)….Women don’t ride the cock carousel on their own. Two to tango and all that (and before one starts with the whole “alpha” thing – “alpha” is what guys want to be, so….).

    And besides, single-mother households isn’t just something that happens to sluts anyway.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI
  • The Unfortunate Rake

    There is a ton of evidence on the effect of falling birth rates on first world economies.

    Assuming this is true, all you have to do is link promiscuity to declining birth rates. If people started pairing up for longer times, would they necessarily be having more of the right babies?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rake

      If people started pairing up for longer times, would they necessarily be having more of the right babies?

      When people in stable relationships have and raise children together, those children are primed for survival and success. It’s the absence of fathers that causes so many difficulties. It’s not the question of right babies and wrong babies, it’s a question of the trajectory of the babies we have. Every child will benefit from a loving, intact family, an education and having his basic physical needs met. Promiscuity reduces the number of children who have those advantages.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Is this real? I just choked on my coffee, I was laughing so hard.

    We call those centipede homes one mom (head), several children from different fathers (feet). We Latin people are always more naturalistic! :)

    @Susan
    I totally support your chart I was privileged enough to see all this happening at microlevel at my country. Slut rise creates uninvolved fathers (the child of a slut is no one’s child), affects education and poverty and increase the need for abortion, birth control, fuel the alcohol ingestion but then when a guy has to pick between saving money for a book and inviting a slut to drink in order to have sex…well you can imagine what is his choice and sluts don’t raise their kids not to avoid their mistakes, they pretty much assume they just had bad luck and they should try the same methods so sluts breed sluts and a slut that started to have her kids at 15 is probably going to see their own boys and girls at 13 starting to have sex and even pressure them to do so, I know but I do have a friend mad because her 18 year old boy haven’t given him any grandchildren and is actually still a virgin (he was raised by his evangelical stepmother)
    Now I think you are wasting your time with this, only people that had been eyewitness will believe it. No one is going to accept such a hard truth because every woman that opens her legs to any hard cock she finds attractive wants to believe for some reason that she is different than the common sluts and every man that knows that with some effort he can get variety of punani believes he is better than any other “cueromacho”.
    Do you really think my slut male friends though they were less moral or ethical than a church going faithful man? Most of the time they compared themselves to a worst male, someone that cheated on his wife with her mother thus their actions were not as bad an told me that only gays and low libido men are capable of fidelity and that a woman that wanted a good sex life was being ridiculous expecting a faithful man.
    My slut female friends also never connected their lifestyles to any of the issues they had no matter how obvious they were.
    So yeah prepare to be attacked, mocked and quoted. You are right but you are pretty much teaching evolution to creationists…they won’t listen. Not that you should stop saying it, but just don’t expect any epiphanies. This is the type of things you have to live to believe.The god fight is never the easiest one.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @LJ

    I also think this seems pretty flimsy. Where is the evidence for Delayed Marriage –> Increased Risk of Infidelity –> Increased Risk of Divorce? I thought that stats showed that couples who married later were less likely to divorce?

    Start here:

    Sexual Partner Divorce Risk

    To be clear, it’s when marriage is delayed due to habitual promiscuity that the risk of infidelity goes up (see chart). The risk of divorce also goes up, whether via infidelity or not, but it sure can’t help.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @LJ

    Very true! In fact, the “Blue States” have lower divorce rates and lower OOW births.

    This is definitely not about blue vs. red states, or liberals vs. conservatives. Aldonza was mistaken about that. If it was, there’d be no hooking up at religious colleges, and that’s definitely not the case. I do believe BYU has a pretty straight edge culture, but that’s only because the penalty for sex is so high.

    The real story on OOW is not the state. Within each state, there will be populations with zero OOW births, and others with high numbers.

  • Matt

    Perhaps that reflects little or no desire on the part of men to marry?

    The manwhore post made me think about this. I came to one conclusion: marriage in the U.S. is a joke!

    1. It serves no real purpose.

    2. The divorce rate is huge and rapidly growing. It is predicted that if trends continue, the divorce rate will soon reach up to 40-50%.

    3. Around two-thirds of women initiate divorce.

    4. The losses for men from divorce are extreme. Alimony, the house, child support and he loses the child (83% of women get sole custody after divorce).

    5. The existence of no-fault divorce.

    Personally, I would much rather have a girlfriend that I have a kid with. If things fail, we can still work things out and things won’t (hopefully) destroy my life as much as divorce could.

    Also, why have you moved away from discussing feminism’s part in the destruction of the family life? I am almost certain that these changes around marriage and promiscuity was a large part of the feminists plans.

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

    @Susan,

    It seems a horribly heartless & impersonal way of looking at ourselves, but yes, if we see ourselves in our entirety, as a single living organism, then cancer & AIDS & the bubonic plague are simply nature/life regulating itself.

    All other species find their population level because of food – if there’s no more of it then they starve & die off & the population decreases. Human beings, alone out of all other species, found a way to cheat the balance of nature when we invented agriculture – we could produce the food, & then store it in vast storehouses, & so feed more & more & more of us (another bubble which cannot continue indefinitely). Between that & our astonishing advances in medicine, Nature has had to be especially creative to keep us in check.

  • Matt

    3. Around two-thirds of women initiate divorce.

    I meant to say: “3. Around two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women.”

  • http://ifconfig.blogspot.com Fred Woodbridge

    Goddamnit Susan, I love you like a Scarlet Pimpernel loves loamy soil.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Fred Woodbridge
      So good to see you outside of Twitter! This has to be the most original compliment I’ve ever received:)

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

    I love you like a Scarlet Pimpernel loves loamy soil.

    or French royalty.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com Joe

    @OhioStater

    If there was no promiscuity, an average girl has no hope of snagging an alpha.

    Forgive me if this has been addressed already (I haven’t yet read to the bottom of the comments). But this is a fascinating thought.

    I question it. I know that there are more than a few different definitions of “Alpha” to be considered, but isn’t one of the most accepted contained in the idea that an alpha is someone women select as desirable?

    If that’s so, then if there was no promiscuity, whomever a woman decided was good enough for her would make her choice an alpha. It’s no longer the decision of some amorphous collective of women (aka, society) who make the decision for her. Her selection makes it so.

    The only thing different is that the man’s “number” is no longer 20 or 50 or 100, but something much closer to 1.

    He’s still an alpha.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    This graph is a poor thought experiment at best. Your defense that everything in the graph is “commonly understood and accepted in society” is meaningless.
    For it to have any real meaning would require evidence supporting every connecting arrow. Dismissing dissenting readers who request evidence, with “trust me, I read it on the internet”, or “google it yourself” certainly doesn’t help your argument.
    Even if you were able to factually support your logic, the *actual* economic cost to society would be fairly impossible to quantify.
    The conclusion that promiscuity will cause “eventual economic stagnation” is preposterous. I challenge you to defend just the final two causal links: the cost of prisons, and declining birth rate. How can those two factors cause “eventual economic stagnation”?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BadBoyfriend

      For it to have any real meaning would require evidence supporting every connecting arrow.

      OK, which of the following do you require evidence for?

      Promiscuous sex (PS) increases the risk of STDs.
      PS increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy.
      Unwanted pregnancy increases the incidence of abortion.
      Unplanned pregnancies carried to term are often funded by the state.
      Boys without fathers are at risk for dropping out of school.
      Boys without fathers are at risk for criminal activity.
      Habitually promiscuous women marry later, or not at all.
      Marrying late is a concern for women re fertility.
      Couples marrying late are likely to have fewer children.
      Habitually promiscuous women are less likely to stay married.
      Habitually promiscuous men are less likely to marry.
      Divorce is expensive.

      As tito said, why do you need statistics to tell you what your own eyes see?

      “trust me, I read it on the internet”

      Never said that, don’t be snarky.

      “google it yourself”

      Honestly, it’s not really my job to educate the populace on why a society’s failure to replace its population produces a moribund economy. However, I helpfully suggested that taking a look at Italy might be useful. Here’s what I called up in a nanosecond:

      The international financial crisis worsened conditions in Italy’s labor market, with unemployment rising from 6.2% in 2007 to 8.4% in 2010, but in the longer-term Italy’s low fertility rate and quota-driven immigration policies will increasingly strain its economy

      http://www.indexmundi.com/italy/economy_profile.html

      Poetry, Research, Prose, and Essays
      Theophillus Smith

      Home

      « Explication of “A Noiseless Patient Spider”
      Do They See Me? »
      Italy: A Vital Revolution

      Introduction

      The Italian race is experiencing “likely the lowest ever documented fertility rate in the history of humanity for a large-scale population.” (cited in Krause, 2001, p. 576). The history of the modern world has shown that as nations become industrialized, their birthrates decrease steadily. As nations conform to this trend, the process has been academically termed a “vital revolution,” or “demographic transition.” According to the general demographic transition theory of Warren Thompson posited in 1924, nations undergoing industrialization follow a four stage process that changes their internal demographic elements in an uncontrollable manner.

      The first of these stages occurs in a pre-industrial society where natural carrying capacities limit population growth. During the second stage, the nation enters the definition of a developing country as the gap between the decreasing mortality rate and growing birthrate peaks, which causes a population explosion. The third phase is defined by an established culture of materialism as industrialization changes the behavior of individuals. Impacting the economy, parents begin planning family sizes to save money, and social trends change as women become more literate and enter the workforce at increasingly large amounts. The fourth stage is when births and deaths both reach low levels, and the population remains relatively constant.

      However, in an extension to the original theory, a fifth stage was proposed to realistically explain the final direction of a population if, and when, the nation falls into a sub-replacement fertility rate (any rate below 2.1), in a consequence of modernization. It is in this novel fifth stage that Italy’s population now resides, as it has reached a drastically low fertility rate of 1.32 and the total amount of people is actually dwindling (Italy, 2010). The demographic transition predictions have been fulfilled, and Italy’s fertility rate has fallen firmly to sub-replacement levels (Fig. 1).

      ________________________________________________________________________

      Figure 1. Fertility rate, Italy. This figure shows Italy’s transition to a sub-replacement fertility rate (Indicators, 2010).

      ________________________________________________________________________

      This unprecedented downturn in the Italian fertility rate has occurred as births have plummeted; pushing to the forefront of Southern Europe’s pressing issues, this pattern of behavior is causing the Italian population to begin a downward spiral.

      Dudley Kirk (2004), a professor and demographer of Princeton University, sums up which parts of a modern society are related to vital revolutions when he says, “All aspects of modernization may be described as related to the demographic transition, which in itself is an essential part of modernization.” (cited in Lutz, p. 6) Accordingly, this current demographic transition in Italy is a crisis interconnected with the government’s political actions, the economics of Italy, and the social behavior of the Italian people. As this crisis becomes pronounced it is crucial to study its progression as it will certainly define the future of the Italian nation, and perhaps the future of the rest of the industrialized world, which is following in its steps.
      Political

      According to Barbara A. Anderson (2004) of Shorter College, a government such as Italy’s encounters extreme difficulty facing the paradox of not enough people in the workplace or not enough babies in cradles. The birthrates in Italy have been steadily declining since the mid-1960s and remained at below-replacement levels since the mid-1970s…

      The government has thus been handed the responsibility of saving the fertility rates while making sure the economy remains sustained with workers. Once any government steps in with policies to entice youth to work and lower the “increasing old age dependency ratio”, mothers are taken away from the home and families are not having as many children, thus lowering the overall population level. Therefore, optimal governmental policies include those that do not discourage participation in the workplace or birthrates. The idea is to encourage working mothers to simultaneously fulfill both roles of working and caring for children.

      From the New York Times: Low Birth Rate is Becoming a Headache for Italy

      From the Financial Times:

      These debates aside, one major barrier to growth – which would take dramatic social and economic changes to resolve – boils down to simple demographics. Italy is vying with Japan to become the world’s oldest country as fertility rates tumble. One in five Italians is a pensioner and by 2024 the country is projected to have 1m over the age of 90. The birth rate is the third lowest in the world.

      By 2030 Italy’s workforce will be nearly 16 per cent smaller than it was in 2005, according to estimates by The Lisbon Council, a think-tank. If it were not for the 3m immigrants who have arrived over the past decade, the population – now just over 60m – would be in decline.

      Even if you were able to factually support your logic, the *actual* economic cost to society would be fairly impossible to quantify.

      The logic is sound, quantifying the effect of promiscuity is definitely a challenge. What I will do is go through item by item – for example, abortions. What % are performed on singles vs. marrieds? What % of women have had more than one? What does the federal government pay for abortions each year? What do insurance companies pay? What percentage of federal support for Planned Parenthood goes toward abortions? At some point, I will be required to estimate what percentage of abortions result from promiscuous sex vs. relationship sex. This is not unusual – all estimates, whether private or public sector, are derived in a similar manner.

      And so on. Will the information be perfect? No. Does that mean it’s not worth considering and debating? No.

      I challenge you to defend just the final two causal links: the cost of prisons, and declining birth rate. How can those two factors cause “eventual economic stagnation”?

      It’s not just the cost of prisons, it’s the waste of human potential that is epidemic in our cities. There’s the very real, high cost of dealing with violence and crime in society. There’s also the opportunity cost of what those citizens might have been able to do if they had not dropped out of school, not become pregnant three times before age 20, and not joined a gang. The marriage rate among African Americans is low and plummeting, the number of single mothers continues to grow. African American males have a mean # of lifetime sexual partners nearly double white males. Do you deny this is a problem in our society, and that is has economic impact?

      As for the declining birth rate, think about it. We aren’t producing enough young people to fund Social Security and Medicare. The American population is graying, as Boomers outnumber their offspring. Nor are we producing a full labor force. Continuing at the current birth rates, Immigration will not be a problem we try to control, it will be an absolute necessity to sustain economic activity. We will no longer hold all the cards – with immigrants risking their lives to come to the U.S. in the dark of night. We will be begging immigrants to come and work here, offering costly incentives, including citizenship to bulk up the labor force.

  • LJ

    Susan, that’s an interesting report. Apparently divorce is least likely if you’re a virgin when you get married. I didn’t get into the methods and data sources, so I couldn’t tell whether it’s credible. I could see that individuals who marry as virgins have a rigid no sex before marriage rule, and are also rigidly against divorce.

    On the other hand, it’s well-reported that those who marry at a later age (usually considered > age 25) are also less likely to divorce.

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/sizing-up-divorce-risk/
    http://www.psychpage.com/family/mod_couples_thx/cdc.html

    and I would assume higher age would correlate with higher partner count.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @LJ

      , it’s well-reported that those who marry at a later age (usually considered > age 25)

      No, 25 is not late. For a woman, the average age is 26 with a high school education, 28 with a college degree, and 30 with a master’s. For men, it’s 28, 30 and 32.
      Re partner count, I wrote a recent post that shows both sexes, but especially men are unlikely to be “extremely satisfied” with a marital sexual relationship with a count of 20 or higher:
      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/06/28/hookinguprealities/manwhores-for-casual-sex-only/

      I would assume higher age would correlate with higher partner count.

      What do you mean by higher partner count? That a 28 yo woman might have 10 sexual partners? Remember, I’m talking about habitual promiscuity. Women who proudly proclaim themselves sluts often boast partner counts of 50, 75, 100 or “I’ve stopped counting.”

      I have never cautioned against premarital sex. My own philosophy is “no sex before monogamy.” A woman who shares this philosophy will probably have a few sexual partners before marriage, but not the kinds of numbers that alarm health officials. There’s a reason Gyn’s ask about the number of sexual partners a woman has had at the beginning of every exam.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    On the other hand, it’s well-reported that those who marry at a later age (usually considered > age 25) are also less likely to divorce.

    To plays Devil’s Advocate we could also imagine that a person that marries at later age does it when his/her market value is declining so they know that if they divorce they won’t be as successful as they were when younger so they rather stay married.

    Of course I do think the virgin data is probably not accurate because imagine that if you are a Mormon you are probably going to get married a virgin and have all the values and community support to stay married so your chances of divorce most be really low not so much for the lack of casual sex but for the rest of the marriage protecting elements, another thing that slut lacks is any support for a LTR specially in big cities or the internet, YMMV.

  • Johnny Milfquest

    Susan wrote:

    I saw an article last week discussing the saving habit of single Chinese men. Some highly motivated men are saving like crazy in an effort to amass capital as an incentive for a woman to marry. I wondered whether in the U.S. we’re seeing the inverse of that – all of this talk about “the decline of men” is about men in their 20s not working hard, not saving, not “moving forward” in a mature fashion. Perhaps that reflects little or no desire on the part of men to marry?

    How many young men in the west today could realistically accumlate any significant capital even if they wanted to get married?

    How many unemployed graduates are there out there now? There used be jobs-for-life once upon a time didn’t there? Where have they gone?

    Lets say that a hypothetical financially secure young man has made it. What kind of treatment can he realistically expect once he gets married to a western woman in 2011?

    Doesn’t look very promising does it?

  • LJ

    @ Stephanie, I could see that. Re-entering the dating scene at age 40 after 10 years of marriage would be a lot less appealing than at age 30 after 10 years of marriage.

    Also agree it’s probable that religiosity and a community that’s intolerant of divorce would lower the risk of divorce.

  • LJ

    I looked at that link at the Social Pathologist more closely and realized it’s not saying what I initially thought it was saying. I thought it was about divorce risk per # of partners, but he plotted the “stable marriage rate” per # of lifetime sexual partners. But that means that anyone who was NEVER married would be counted as “not in a stable marriage.” It makes to me and I don’t think it’s very groundbreaking that for a given age cohort, those who have had more partners are less likely to be married. Doesn’t mean they won’t get married eventually, unless the age cohort is something like 40+, where I think most people who will get married eventually have done so by that age.

  • Matt T

    What you’re seeing is the end result of the fact that financial status is becoming less and less of a barometer of social status in the US. Granted, if you’re incredibly rich, you’ll still be able to bang whomever you want, but if you’re “well off”, it doesn’t mean anything anymore. Women would rather bang the uneducated thug than the young man with a degree and financial resources.

    This is one reason the male:female ratio at colleges is down: men are realizing that a college degree isn’t all that its cracked up to be, both in an economic and social sense.

  • The Unfortunate Rake

    Two consequences of promiscuity keep coming up: Bad births (babies born out of wedlock) and STDs.

    But both of these can be attributed to poor risk management. It’s possible to have sex without becoming pregnant or acquiring an STD.

    Hypothetically, imagine that everyone started being responsible about birth control and disease protection, but they were just as promiscuous. The bad births and STDs are eliminated from the equation, but sexual morality remains the same. Would promiscuity still be a significant drag on the nation’s economy? If so, how?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Two consequences of promiscuity keep coming up: Bad births (babies born out of wedlock) and STDs. But both of these can be attributed to poor risk management. It’s possible to have sex without becoming pregnant or acquiring an STD.

      It’s not guaranteed though! It’s been estimated that at least a third of college students don’t use condoms when hooking up, probably because they are too intoxicated. Teenagers are poor risk managers. Also, several STDs are not prevented by condoms. HPV may be transmitted through contact of the torso, abdomen and inner thighs. Genital herpes is most commonly transmitted from the mouth of a partner during oral sex (75% of new cases on college campuses.)

      If you could eliminate bad births and STDs, you’d certainly eliminate serious medical and crime problems. But how would you do it? How will you convince the 9th grader that it really isn’t all that cool to become a mama? (I know a ninth-grade algebra teacher who had 5 pregnant girls in her class this year.)

      However, you’d still be left with the high SES side of the spectrum. As long as men care about promiscuity in women, then rampant promiscuity is a problem for marriage. As long as women delay marriage to “have fun and be on the prowl” (a phrase I saw in an article today) then compromised fertility will still be an issue.

      My argument is not a moral one. My claim is that sexual promiscuity is detrimental to society in a number of ways, including economically. If you are pro-promiscuity, then you must accept that it is a costly way of life.

  • http://sweetebonyrose.livejournal.com Renee

    Susan,

    The only way promiscuity will become restricted is when women realize they’re acting against their own best interests. Through a combination of:

    hard lessons learned
    observing societal trends, e.g. knowing lots of 30-something women who never found the right guy because they always chose the wrong guys
    avoiding promiscuous men
    not putting out as a means of getting something else, i.e. a relationship
    intrasexual peer pressure, i.e. slut shaming

    But what about those women and girls who have casual sex, because they enjoy having sex, nothing else (I guess they’ll be under slut shaming and hard lessons learned if they go through said hard lessons)?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Renee

      But what about those women and girls who have casual sex, because they enjoy having sex, nothing else (I guess they’ll be under slut shaming and hard lessons learned if they go through said hard lessons)?

      I believe that the number of women who enjoy no-strings sex as a way of life is very, very small. They are probably higher in testosterone than the average female. Many women have casual sex as a way of soliciting male attention as a proxy for commitment, or hope that “blowing his mind in bed” will inspire the male to commit. The truth is that most women who have casual sex wind up regretting it. To the extent that they can stop doing what feels like crap (via hard lessons learned or peer pressure), they reduce the number of sluts, altering the supply/demand equation. If only women who truly love casual sex have it, then we will see a dramatic decrease in the amount of hooking up among young people.

  • http://sweetebonyrose.livejournal.com Renee

    I ask, because while there seems to be outlets for men who go through periods of celibacy and need to scratch that “itch”, the only thing women have is masturbation. Unless this is under that whole biological difference thing.

  • Anonymous

    “I meant to say: “3. Around two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women.”
    It is more like two thirds of divorces are filed by women rather than some people may perceive the word ‘initiated’. Chinese whispers.

    It includes man having an affair, woman throws him out he lives with his mistress but delays divorce for e.g. financial reasons. Just one example.

    But women do generally initiate more (but not two thirds). There are differences in the sexes in that cheating men may want to carry on both (or more) relationships whilst cheating women are more likely to want to end a marriage. Also legal and other aspects. That seems less of a male/female dive and more whoever is least penalised. In the Philippines as one example amongst the lower classes men cheat a lot, drink (also a problem in times gone past in western countries) abandon their wives and children don’t support them. Men behave badly in south american countries like Dominica as Stephanie keeps saying. Both genders act badly, whoever gets away with stuff does it.

  • meowww888

    Why don’t we all try to calculate the NPV (net present value) of a whore vs non-whore, and how they each contribute to different sectors of the economy ;).
    We might have a fairer comparison then, hehe.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Continuing at the current birth rates, Immigration will not be a problem we try to control, it will be an absolute necessity to sustain economic activity. We will no longer hold all the cards – with immigrants risking their lives to come to the U.S. in the dark of night. We will be begging immigrants to come and work here, offering costly incentives, including citizenship to bulk up the labor force.

    I will add that immigration is a temporary solution. Immigrants usually assimilate the idea the “smart people have fewer or no children”, unless they are deeply religious and keep themselves isolated in their communities no one wants to be socially different for having a big family. So the norm of only 2 kids quickly reduces the immigrant population specially in first world country that are not friendly to maternity and children and it looks like kids that grew in small homes are also more likely not socialized with the idea of carrying the family name so the fewer kids is better can decimate a whole family bloodline in 3 generations or less. And this is again something my friends married to European guys say, the herd of women there with few or no children look down to women with more than 2 or women that plan to have kids before having had money, career or reaching 35 ( again no kidding in this, my friend is 33 and she mentioned she wanted to try to conceive this year and all her coworkers were “educating” her in what bad idea that is), add that how hard is to expose your children to that kind of hostility. That reminds me that JK had the Wesley (7 children) being constantly mocked by the Malfoys (1 children) I do wonder if she did this out of seeing this happening in England, but they don’t import my countrywomen as much as the other European countries, so I wouldn’t know.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Stephenie

      the herd of women there with few or no children look down to women with more than 2 or women that plan to have kids before having had money, career or reaching 35

      In looking up the data about Italy, several sites included a discussion of why the Italians aren’t having children. There seems to be consensus that it’s too expensive – people would rather have expensive clothes, cars, etc. It’s consumerism in Italy, not promiscuity. So the causes may vary, but the result is the same.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Why don’t we all try to calculate the NPV (net present value) of a whore vs non-whore, and how they each contribute to different sectors of the economy ;) .
    We might have a fairer comparison then, hehe.

    Well whores are paid so you might mean sluts. It will be interesting indeed.

  • DelFresco

    “There are also enormous indirect costs, including decreased productivity and a labor shortfall due to declining birth rates.”

    If I look around I can’t see a problem where I live, Denver, with too few people.
    I like not being crowded.

    I’d way rather have too few people for the number of jobs than the other way around, which is how it seems to be now. *Labor shortfall* is a problem for rich people who can’t find good help. I certainly haven’t noticed it.

    If having a large population is ipso facto a great thing, than China’s the greatest place on Earth. I’ll pass.

    I dont want to diminish your other arguments about promiscuity, but population shortfall isn’t a problem in my book.

  • Kathy

    “My thoughtful feedback:

    I became dumber reading that article. I’m going to stop reading this site now.”

    Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.Er.. that’s provided you can find the door, Jason. :D

    I for one found your article to be a thoughtful commonsense piece, Susan, and I think that you are spot on.

  • GudEnuf

    I believe that the number of women who enjoy no-strings sex as a way of life is very, very small.

    I know at least half a dozen women who say they enjoy casual sex. I have yet to meet a woman who says “I want a dominant man.”

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    As tito said, why do you need statistics to tell you what your own eyes see?

    I have personally seen none of those listed claims in my relationships. Even if I had, my small sample size is meaningless. I refuse to accept anecdote or majority opinion as fact. Humans are terrible at judging fact from fiction.

    Never said that, don’t be snarky.

    Perhaps not literally:

    I did look for evidence…

    I also perused the evo psych literature…

    I saw an article last week…

    None of the data you posted about Italy gave evidence that Italy’s economy is suffering economic stagnation due to low birth rates. You only show that Italy has low birth rates and the workforce is getting smaller. One economic theory that “proposed to realistically explain the final direction of a population” is not evidence.
    Japan and Germany currently have negative population growth (while Italy is positive). Why are they not suffering economic stagnation?

    You can hardly defend that we currently have a labor shortage in the US in the midst of an unemployment crisis (though you make the argument anyway).

    Next, I did not deny that prisons cost money. I contend that prison cost does not equal economic stagnation. Money spent on prisons goes straight into local economies. Show me that the economic cost of incarcerating criminals is higher than boosting local economies, indeed that it stagnates them. That is your claim.

    When you make such a bold claim that promiscuity==economic stagnation, and present a diagram as proof, it should be properly supported by factual evidence to before it is given credence. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” So far, you have presented none.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I have personally seen none of those listed claims in my relationships.

      That’s your rebuttal? That is the evidence with which you dismantle my argument?

      Japan and Germany currently have negative population growth (while Italy is positive). Why are they not suffering economic stagnation?

      Japan’s economy has suffered so much in the last 25 years that economists refer to a “structural pessimism” that characterizes its stagnation. As an interesting aside, it’s believed that the very peculiar male sexuality of Japan is a direct result of long-lasting recession.

      Germany has also struggled economically, but has been doing better lately because Germans avoid debt in their personal spending compared with other nations. Also, they’ve frozen wages there and reduced benefits. However, Germany has had to import Turkish labor and grant them citizenship. Turks now make up around 5% of the German population. Although Turks are among the most secular Muslims, they have not assimilated and there is considerable strife and xenophobia in Germany as a result of their presence.

      I don’t expect readers to know any of this stuff, but neither am I interested in debating someone who is ignorant of the facts.

      Again, there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about the claims I’ve made here.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    I know at least half a dozen women who say they enjoy casual sex. I have yet to meet a woman who says “I want a dominant man.”

    They will say they want a nice guy, sure, anything and everything but what really attracts them unless the girl is the self aware type

  • Mike C

    I know at least half a dozen women who say they enjoy casual sex. I have yet to meet a woman who says “I want a dominant man.”
    .
    Still working on the realization that what a woman says she wants or enjoys isn’t always the same as what they really want?
    .
    No doubt, there are women who enjoy casual sex with a variety of cock. A greater percentage probably say it because they think it is the “empowered” view.
    .
    I never liked the use of the word dominant…too loaded of a word…but most women like a guy who *leads*. They often can’t say it or intellectualize it because again it is 180 degrees from the “empowered” view, but it is deep in the psyche.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I never liked the use of the word dominant…too loaded of a word…but most women like a guy who *leads*. They often can’t say it or intellectualize it because again it is 180 degrees from the “empowered” view, but it is deep in the psyche

    Maybe they should compromise with “empowered women are attracted to empowered men” ;)

  • Mike C

    As for the declining birth rate, think about it. We aren’t producing enough young people to fund Social Security and Medicare.
    .
    Not sure how it shakes out, but Baby Boomers are a large voting block. Eventually, the money simply gets created to fund Social Security and Medicare without taxes.
    .
    You might find this an interesting read:
    .
    http://pragcap.com/resources/understanding-modern-monetary-system
    .
    Hard to know what productivity increases and technological innovation will occur in the next 20 years, but I see the primary “labor shortage” issue being in specialized health care for the aging population. You can’t just get immigrants off the truck to serve that need. Labor isn’t fungible. The guy who sweeps the floor probably can’t build a complex Excel model.
    .
    Has promiscuity had an economic effect? IMO, answering no to this is a good test to detect an idiot. Of course it has. The state/government has become the beta provider where a Dad used to play that role for some percentage. Can it be perfectly quantitied to the nearest dollar? Of course not.
    .
    http://www.tocqueville.com/media/SPENDING_STUPID.pdf
    .
    “First, let’s take a quick look at what’s been going on with the economy. Over the past 45 years, nonentitlement spending (including defense) has remained relatively constant as a percentage of GDP. Over
    the same time period, however, entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) have
    increased more than 1000 percent while real GDP has grown 300 percent. Entitlement programs were 6
    percent of GDP in 1970; they now stand at 15 percent of GDP
    — and this before the baby-boom
    generation has reached retirement (and entitlement) age! Without any changes in policy, the numbers are
    going to get much worse.
    At the state level, things look similarly grim. In 1945 there were 44 federal aid programs to the states
    totaling a few billion (2011) dollars. Last year’s programs totaled 1,122, paying out more than $600
    billion. But to what avail? Unfunded state pension liabilities have grown steadily and now amount to
    trillions of dollars nationally.

  • SayWhaat

    Still working on the realization that what a woman says she wants or enjoys isn’t always the same as what they really want?

    I think a better way of saying this is “what a woman says she wants or enjoys is what she wants or enjoys from a man she is already attracted to”.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Mike C

    The state/government has become the beta provider where a Dad used to play that role for some percentage. Can it be perfectly quantitied to the nearest dollar? Of course not.

    So thanks to promiscuity the state became the Beta dad? isnt that result of A) destruction of marriage (feminism) and B) pressure to protect single women and let them get away with making mistakes (feminism)

    So marriage is broken, of course people are going to have “many” partners where they usually would have fewer. And “many” of the higher tingle possible, hence more alphas, casual flings, etc. but is that the reason for childs being born out of marriage? I doubt it because there´s abortion

    I see the two issues unrelated, or related indirectly, as symptoms of the nuclear family being broken. Being promiscuous and eternally single now is the survival option that works. Its what culture enables. Marriage is a death trap, unfortunately, and the character traits needed to remain with a single person and raise kids and be a team and all the charade, are shamed and rare and pretty much out of the panorama, that it makes me wonder if they existed to begin with

    So promiscuity or lonedom = reality

    Costs of promiscuity = compared to what? I got almost ruined financially because I went into committed relationships with the wrong persons. Promiscuity is pretty damn cheap actually.

    State being beta dad != promiscuity

    State being beta dad = women programs

    Feminism = die, bitch.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Yohami
      There is absolutely no question that feminism is the engine behind promiscuity, but it was more than the women’s movement, it was also technology in the form of the Pill. Those two developments in the 60s, as well as Roe v. Wade, created a perfect storm of social change that unleashed hypergamous female sexuality.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Over the past 45 years, nonentitlement spending (including defense) has remained relatively constant as a percentage of GDP. Over
    the same time period, however, entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) have
    increased more than 1000 percent while real GDP has grown 300 percent. Entitlement programs were 6
    percent of GDP in 1970; they now stand at 15 percent of GDP

    You know given that my I have many some friends that hate Republicans because they think this type of idea that medicare and medicaid show that you don’t care about the poor and don’t want the well being of anyone but the rich. Would you explain to me what alternatives that would be better for poor people that can’t afford medicare and social security, because again they are poor? Just if I’m ever drunk enough when the Republican bashing starts I can tell them something?

  • Keoni Galt

    I find it rather amusing that a complex flow chart attempting to diagram the patently obvious is considered so controversial.

    Look around you at all of the social chaos promiscuity has unleashed. It’s right there, in front of your eyes.

    I think many some of you would benefit from reading Dr. Daniel Amneus’ The Garbage Generation.

    Sex is the lynchpin to civilization. The way it is viewed and the effects a societies code of ethics guides the behavior determines whether or not sex is used to build up society or tear it down.

    In short, Patriarchy channels the sex drive into marriage so as to enfranchise men to build up civilization, because they benefit from having a wife and children, they are motivated to provide for their own and make civilization a beneficial society for their own family to inhabit.

    Promiscuity is really nothing more than the deliberate destruction of Patriarchy. It tells women to not save their sex for marriage, so sex is not longer channeling men’s behavior towards civilization-building pursuits.

    There’s no impetus anymore.

    Sex is cheap, devalued and worth only a fleeting moment or two of orgasmic pleasure.

    It’s been de-coupled with reproduction and the family unit de-emphasized.

    Promiscuity destroys prosperity..because it destroys the building block of society – the Patriarchal nuclear family.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Epic comment from Keoni.

  • Anonymous

    That reminds me that JK had the Wesley (7 children) being constantly mocked by the Malfoys (1 children)
    ___
    Interestingly, JK was a single mother at the time she wrote Harry Potter. A poor one at that.

    Re Italy there is a difference between north and south.

  • tito

    “The only way promiscuity will become restricted is when women realize they’re acting against their own best interests. Through a combination of:

    “hard lessons learned”

    >>>>they can receive hard lessons all day and 90% will never learn. or rather, they will learn, but then still do the same thing.

    “observing societal trends, e.g. knowing lots of 30-something women who never found the right guy because they always chose the wrong guys”

    >>>>whom they chose on purpose, knowing all along they were the wrong guys

    “avoiding promiscuous men”

    >>>>this would only happen under force. think old-school italian immigrant fathers

    “not putting out as a means of getting something else, i.e. a relationship
    intrasexual peer pressure, i.e. slut shaming”

    what else can be said, if the entertainment media culture and fashion industry don’t give the command, the girls will do exactly what they know to be harmful to themselves, but much more importantly, to society as long as al the other girls are doing it.

    this is the issue.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Interestingly, JK was a single mother at the time she wrote Harry Potter. A poor one at that.

    Oh I know my guess is that she probably did wanted to have a big family but life got in the way so to speak. She treats motherhood like a noble pursuit so much that I had seen feminist critique in the fact that many of the most evil women are single and/or child-free. We are talking about the same woman that created Hermione Granger a female character that was practically written with the feminist bible in mind…no way to make feminists happy it seems like.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    Apparently you aren’t really interested in debating anyone, regardless of what they say.

    I made several salient points, and you pull one sentence out of context as a straw-man so you can ignore the rest.

    I also never claimed I know every fact, but you dismiss my arguments by labeling me ignorant? Apparently you know all the facts?

    You try to claim the intellectual high ground with this blog. I’ve read you doing it over and over. Yet you resort to such intellectual dishonesty when someone presents a reasonable debate? Enjoy your echo chamber. Apparently that’s what you are looking for.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @BadBoyfriend

    An honest debate is generally not initiated by hurling an insult, which is how you showed up here. Talk about getting off on the wrong foot.

    Your points are not salient if they are erroneous. You offer Japan and Germany as evidence, yet it supports my claims rather than yours. I don’t see how I can debate you when you oppose my argument in principle but offer no coherent argument of your own. That’s not intellectual dishonesty, though I confess to some impatience with readers who display massive attitude without being able to back it up.

    HUS may be lacking in a variety of ways, and it’s definitely not everyone’s favorite flavor. But one thing it is not is an echo chamber.

  • Tom

    “And everyone would be sterilized from birth and would need to pass those tests to get fertile again.”

    duuuuude! i never even thought of that!!! great idea! i’m literally beside myself! kudos maestro.

    ______________________
    Where do you think we are, China?

  • GudEnuf

    Still working on the realization that what a woman person says she wants or enjoys isn’t always the same as what they really want?

    Sure, but you’d think at least some women would recognize it. Has anyone here has a real (not online) female friend tell them they want a dominant man? Or are we just second guessing the entire female sex?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Has anyone here has a real (not online) female friend tell them they want a dominant man? Or are we just second guessing the entire female sex?

      I showed a group of a dozen young women the original movie Swept Away by Lina Wertmuller. The male in that actually makes a woman his love slave and slaps her around. She loves it. When the movie ended, the girls were all so turned on and horny I feared the Boston male population wasn’t safe that night.

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

    Where do you think we are, China?

    Not quite yet. But soon.

  • Tom

    @ tito
    what else can be said, if the entertainment media culture and fashion industry don’t give the command, the girls will do exactly what they know to be harmful to themselves, but much more importantly, to society as long as al the other girls are doing it.

    this is the issue.

    _______________________
    Thing is, not all the other women are doing it, in fact it is a very low %

  • Tom

    @ Susan
    HUS may be lacking in a variety of ways, and it’s definitely not everyone’s favorite flavor. But one thing it is not is an echo chamber.
    __________________

    I am proof of that!
    My biggest arguement with the people here is, I understand that there are women who are a disgrace to themselves the way they indiscriminatley fuck any man who will fuck them, most of those women had problems socially and probably mentally before they ever got laid for the first time….I do, however, also know for a fact that not-all- “sluts”- are- like- that. Sometimes it is the guy who gets used. Some of your readers, Susan, can not admit that. They can not admit that some women are still quality people even if they have had sex with an above average amount of men.
    I think I read here that the average woman has had @ 4 or 5 partners. You admit to somewhere @ 8 or so… Doesnt matter. Obviously you are a good woman and your past has not harmed you. 50 men as a number for a woman under 30 tells me there is a big ole red flag waving.. 20 at 40 is a whole different ball game. Some of your readers fail to grasp that idea as possibly being true.
    Even Mike has stated if all the other aspects of a woman is in line he might look past her past. Others, not so much.

  • OhioStater

    I didn’t kiss a girl or do anything else with girls until I was 23. I went thru several droughts after that but now at 29 my game is to the point I’m no longer worried about celibacy.

    That said, dealing with women is hard work and it generally doesn’t bring pleasure to my life. There’s also the reputational risk any relationship entails. The pros and cons, the profit and loss is mostly loss.

    I’d equate it to a houseguest that begs for an invite to your party then complains the food is cold.

    What do women want? Who knows.

    What do I want? I want positive dealings with women, adding value to my life, not subtracting.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OhioStater

      What do I want? I want positive dealings with women, adding value to my life, not subtracting.

      This is one of the best and most reasonable expectations I’ve ever heard.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    GudEnuf

    Sure, but you’d think at least some women would recognize it. Has anyone here has a real (not online) female friend tell them they want a dominant man? Or are we just second guessing the entire female sex?

    man, ALL the women I know and have known in my life respond better to dominant men than to passive men, and SOME of them say it out loud, and ALL of them have told me so when I asked directly once I had trusted relationship, and SOME of them said it loud when I busted their balls about them treating passive guys like they were garbage.

    So in my sphere of reality its a solid fact with a few exceptions and not the other way around.

  • GudEnuf

    Yohami:

    man, ALL the women I know and have known in my life respond better to dominant men than to passive men, and SOME of them say it out loud, and ALL of them have told me so when I asked directly once I had trusted relationship, and SOME of them said it loud when I busted their balls about them treating passive guys like they were garbage.

    Your experiences are biased, because the way you flirt screens for women who like dominant men.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Your experiences are biased, because the way you flirt screens for women who like dominant men.

      Ha, with a count over 200, I think that proves Yohami’s point.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    I hurled no insult. I apologize if you took offense. “Trust me, I read it on the internet” was perhaps snarky, but I later clarified my statement with less snark, showing no insult was intended.

    A debate is stating a premise and providing supporting evidence. You posted that Italy supported your claim. I refuted it and provided Japan and Germany as further evidence. You rightly brought up interesting points about the state of economies in Germany and Japan which should be discussed further, but that’s all the real debate that has been going on.

    The rest of your commentary has been to ignore, dismiss or twist my fair and honest arguments, rather than debate them.

    As for intellectual dishonesty, I wrote:

    I have personally seen none of those listed claims in my relationships. Even if I had, my small sample size is meaningless. I refuse to accept anecdote or majority opinion as fact. Humans are terrible at judging fact from fiction.

    How can you read that statement and pull “I have personally seen none of those listed claims in my relationships.” out of it and claim that’s my only rebuttal? I doubt it was lack of comprehension. You chose to ignore my plain argument, take it out of context, then mock me for a blatantly absurd argument I did not make. You are not a fool. You are intellectually dishonest.

    I think anyone reading my posts could see they are frank and honest. I make no personal attacks. There is no “massive attitude” on display. I disputed your conclusions on a factual basis, not based on principle. For you to claim otherwise is another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

    Claiming that promiscuity causes economic stagnation is indeed an extraordinary claim, in my experience at least. Stringing together seemingly ‘logical’ correlations does not mean your conclusion IS correct, only that it is POSSIBLE it is correct. I’ll grant that it is POSSIBLE that promiscuity could cause economic stagnation. However, until you can provide supporting evidence, I disagree that it is probable or even likely.

    My promiscuity costs me and those I am promiscuous with very little economically. The cost of condoms and regular STD testing are it. No unwanted pregnancies, no rape charges, no prison terms, no lower birth rates, no economic stagnation that I can discern. However, I do have a lot of great sex.

    Thus, this diagram is interesting to me as a thought exercise and not much more.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Once more into the breach,

      Insult = “This graph is a poor thought experiment at best. ” This is showing up with a poor attitude, or at least a hostile one. This blog is like my living room, and you are a guest in my home. You may respectfully disagree with me all you like, and I welcome that. Unless you are a behavioral economist, you are not qualified to pass judgment of this sort.

      For it to have any real meaning would require evidence supporting every connecting arrow.

      I asked you point blank which of the following “arrows” you require evidence for:


      OK, which of the following do you require evidence for?

      Promiscuous sex (PS) increases the risk of STDs.
      PS increases the risk of unwanted pregnancy.
      Unwanted pregnancy increases the incidence of abortion.
      Unplanned pregnancies carried to term are often funded by the state.
      Boys without fathers are at risk for dropping out of school.
      Boys without fathers are at risk for criminal activity.
      Habitually promiscuous women marry later, or not at all.
      Marrying late is a concern for women re fertility.
      Couples marrying late are likely to have fewer children.
      Habitually promiscuous women are less likely to stay married.
      Habitually promiscuous men are less likely to marry.
      Divorce is expensive.

      You didn’t respond, though I was prepared to spend two hours providing links for any of the above. In fact, as Keoni said, these truths are self-evident. Only the conclusion is predictive, and I argue that it is amply supported by the evidential arguments above.

      You said:

      I’ll grant that it is POSSIBLE that promiscuity could cause economic stagnation.

      and

      The conclusion that promiscuity will cause “eventual economic stagnation” is preposterous.

      Again, you began with inflammatory hyperbole. Not exactly the opening salvo of an honest and informed debate.

      My promiscuity costs me and those I am promiscuous with very little economically. The cost of condoms and regular STD testing are it. No unwanted pregnancies, no rape charges, no prison terms, no lower birth rates, no economic stagnation that I can discern. However, I do have a lot of great sex.

      Thus, this diagram is interesting to me as a thought exercise and not much more.

      Ah, now I see. You’re a manwhore, and you’re defensive about your own role in this scenario. A scenario which is well under way. It is very telling that you only express concern for what promiscuity costs you personally. In fact, you help perpetrate a culture that devalues relationships and partnerships, one that sees declining rates of marriage and childbirth, increasing infertility, rampant growth of STDs and record numbers of OOW births, along with 1.2 million abortions per year.

      But hey, I’m glad you’re getting off! I actually have no problem with your lifestyle, but it’s bad news for the U.S. in the long run.

      I’ll stop here. By all means have the last word.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    What do I want? I want positive dealings with women, adding value to my life, not subtracting.

    My advice is that if your truly crave this. And I mean craving it with every fiber of your being every cell of your body. Don’t settle for less.
    The same way Game teaches you to move into the next target that doesn’t respond do the same with women that don’t add you value. It takes time and you might had to say no to many hotties, but eventually it pays off. Good women are out there the thing is it takes dedication and patience to find them. And don’t get me wrong I don’t blame any man that gets tired of kissing frogs trying to find the princess, it is a hard job, but if you really want to, is possible.

  • Passer_By

    “There is absolutely no question that feminism is the engine behind promiscuity, but it was more than the women’s movement, it was also technology in the form of the Pill. Those two developments in the 60s, as well as Roe v. Wade, created a perfect storm of social change that unleashed hypergamous female sexuality.”

    For someone who hated Roissy so much, you sure have adopted a lot of the thinking that he first brought to the Net (not to mention some terms like “rationalization hamster” and “gina tingle”). :)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Passer By
      I have always adored Roissy’s brain, and his way with words. I do not admire his character.

  • Aldonza

    @
    Your argument using Italy falls apart because Italy is among the most conservative and least promiscuous of the western European nations. UK and Finland are the most promiscuous. Italy also has among the lowest rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births of western nations.

    “Promiscuity and romance are different things. In Italy, family values are still considered important: in fact, statistics show that the rate of divorce and the percentage of kids born out of wedlock are still far below other European countries. So we are not surprised to discover that we rank so low regarding sexual promiscuity.”
    - What’s happened to the Latin lover?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Aldonza
      I’ve already highlighted that the Italy low birthrate is ascribed to consumerism, not promiscuity. I merely offer Italy as an example of economic doldrums attributable to a low birth rate. There’s no reason to think that we won’t suffer similarly if our birth rate falls below replacement levels, regardless of how we got there.

  • LJ

    No, 25 is not late. For a woman, the average age is 26 with a high school education, 28 with a college degree, and 30 with a master’s. For men, it’s 28, 30 and 32.

    What do you mean by higher partner count? That a 28 yo woman might have 10 sexual partners? Remember, I’m talking about habitual promiscuity. Women who proudly proclaim themselves sluts often boast partner counts of 50, 75, 100 or “I’ve stopped counting.”

    Okay, given these two comments I think maybe I assumed your chart was talking about a different population then what you intended. When I was talking about women who marry relatively later and as a result of the additional time spent single, have a relatively higher partner count, I was thinking of your typical woman who marries at 28-35 and has maybe 5-15 partners before her husband. I have a hard time believing that those women are contributing to the negative economic effects of promiscuity, but I see that that’s not what you were saying since you said you were talking about women with 50+ partners. What % of the population is that, though? I personally don’t know any women with 50+ partners (at least that I know of), and I would be surprised if it was more than 1% of women. Is the concern that it may be a small % but it’s growing?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @LJ

      I was thinking of your typical woman who marries at 28-35 and has maybe 5-15 partners before her husband.

      Sounds a lot like the writer of this blog.

      What % of the population is that, though? I personally don’t know any women with 50+ partners (at least that I know of), and I would be surprised if it was more than 1% of women. Is the concern that it may be a small % but it’s growing?

      I’ve estimated that the percentage of promiscuous female college students is around 20. Let’s say 6 partners per year, conservatively, that’s 24 partners by age 21. Yeah, lots of women are getting to 50 by age 30.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    Ah, now I see. You’re a manwhore

    I never quantified my promiscuity. You, however jumped to personal attack and judgement. Again you show your intellectual dishonesty and fail to dispute where I call it out.

    I hope your readers see through your pretense.

  • Passer_By

    @susan

    More substantively, your chart seems to conflate the effects of “promiscuity” with the effects of “OOW sex”, even though I don’t think you consider the latter to be promiscuity. How many OOW births are really the result of one night stands and the like? Do educated people really delay marriage just to engage in “promiscuity”, as you define it? Or are they more likely to put off marriage and kids by having a series of relationships while they figure out what do in life?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Passer By

      your chart seems to conflate the effects of “promiscuity” with the effects of “OOW sex”, even though I don’t think you consider the latter to be promiscuity. How many OOW births are really the result of one night stands and the like?

      This is very different depending on socioeconomic status. For poor young women, promiscuity is common, and can even be a strategy to become impregnated, a state that carries enormous social cachet in poor neighborhoods. The vast majority of OOW births are to poor women. The sperm donor births to 40 yo SWPLs would be negligible by comparison. Although many girls choose to carry to term, it’s also true that poor women account for >40% of all abortions in the U.S. As I said in another comment, while there may be ONSs, many OOW pregnancies result from rapid-fire serial monogamy, which is not quite the same thing. I would define that behavior as promiscuous, however, as the sex has very little to do with emotional intimacy.

      Do educated people really delay marriage just to engage in “promiscuity”, as you define it? Or are they more likely to put off marriage and kids by having a series of relationships while they figure out what do in life?

      Good question. I think there are a couple of different things going on. First, there’s no question that people are figuring out “what to do in life” much later than they used to. They are unsettled geographically as well, if school is in the picture. So they definitely do delay serious relationships to pursue career goals. That’s a big factor in delayed and reduced childbirth. I’m talking about something different here, though. Men with the option of being promiscuous often avail themselves of that opportunity :) Many will, at some point, feel ready to step off the gravy sex train and settle down, but increasingly men are indicating they don’t want to do that before their early 30s. There is also an increasing number of women who hit age 30 having ridden that alpha cock carousel (another Roissy term, perhaps?) and suddenly cry waaah waaah why am I not married? Because you dated guys in bands, deadbeats and players, that’s why. Unfortunately, that is becoming increasingly common, and most of those women will not reproduce unless the go the turkey baster route.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I never quantified my promiscuity.

    My promiscuity costs me and those I am promiscuous with very little economically. The cost of condoms and regular STD testing are it. No unwanted pregnancies, no rape charges, no prison terms, no lower birth rates, no economic stagnation that I can discern. However, I do have a lot of great sex.

    I hope your readers see through your pretense.

    I don’t know about the other I can totally see through YOURS

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    @ Stephenie Rowling

    What is my pretense, exactly, and how do you deduce it from that statement?
    How promiscuous am I, pray tell? “My promiscuity” could be that I had non-monogamous sex one time. Do you have additional evidence to assume otherwise?

    Your own bias, however, leads you to make personal judgments of me. How is that supporting your case? Does it just make it easier for you to ignore fact?

    I have made no personal judgments in this ‘debate’. I have made one value judgement (that this graph has little value) and presented argument and fact to defend that value judgment. I meant no offense, as Susan Walsh has taken, in making that judgement. The graph has no personal bearing on her, or you, or your morals or morality, as far as I am concerned.
    In fact, Susan Walsh herself claimed this graph is not a moral judgement, only an economic one. However, you both attempt to marginalize my statements on thinly veiled moral grounds.

    I’m merely pointing out that fact.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @BadBoyfriend

    You said:

    I never quantified my promiscuity.

    Right after you posted this:
    My promiscuity costs me and those I am promiscuous with very little economically. The cost of condoms and regular STD testing are it. No unwanted pregnancies, no rape charges, no prison terms, no lower birth rates, no economic stagnation that I can discern. However, I do have a lot of great sex.

    You are contradicting yourself so obviously that it looks that you are just trolling. And that is a FACT!
    I just pointed out that you whether lied, have a short memory spam, or just want to troll…I don’t need bias to do that just know how to read.

  • tito

    @ Tom

    my comment was:

    “what else can be said, if the entertainment media culture and fashion industry don’t give the command, the girls will do exactly what they know to be harmful to themselves, but much more importantly, to society as long as al the other girls are doing it.

    this is the issue.”

    to which you replied:

    Thing is, not all the other women are doing it, in fact it is a very low %

    i don’t know about that one guy. i would say that the % is very high. once critical mass is reached enough of them do it to the point whoever is not is left out in the cold. they could stand the cold if they had a trustworthy man to help them brave it but they can’t because 1) the subconsciously don’t want one 2) they try to make an untrustworthy into trustworthy 3) they can’t find one because so many are themselves following the followers of the the followers, ie, ruining their own society (shitting where they eat).

  • http://www.nomadicneill.com NomadicNeill

    I think it’s very interesting to think about how sex, relationships and economics all interrelate. But the big thing that is missing IMO is education.

    Countries like Germany and the Netherlands are some of the most promiscuous in the world while they have very low teen pregnancy rates. These (as well as the Scandinavian countries that are also quite promiscuous) have very down to earth views about sex across the whole of society. Sex education is very good there.

    Then you have countries in the Anglo-spher: UK, USA, New Zealand, Australia, Canada that have a high teenage pregnancy rate (2 to 3 times as high as Northern Europe)… and those are countries that aren’t as open and comfortable talking about sex and sex education.

    Are the Northern European countries stagnating? Difficult to say as Scandinavia has lots of resources, but Germany and NL are doing well.

    I think Italy is a special case… it is very conservative in many ways. Most Italian men live with their parents until they are married but they can’t get married until they earn enough to move out, which in turn is very hard because it’s so for young people difficult to get jobs. This is a feature of the Med. countries Spain, Greece, Italy; older generations clinging on for dear life and very difficult for young people to get on the bottom rung.

  • filrabat

    Susan,
    This is definitely a good thought provoker, especially at getting people to think several steps ahead about the consequences and causalities. Out of control promiscuity does cause increases in OOW Pregnancies, high risk of deadbeat dads, STDs, unfaithfulness, divorce – all of which extract money that could otherwise be put to more productive or enjoyable purposes (potentially in the multiples of $1,000s just over a few short years, with well into the five-digits over one child’s lifetime not too far fetched either. Think of how much your 401k would be worth if you put all that money devoted to damage control into your retirement accounts instead! Ditto for using the money to start-up a new business, and so on and so forth. All too vividly, this shows NOTHING in life is free. If you aren’t paying for “it”, then someone else is somehow (sometimes in $ terms, other times in mere emotional terms). As I said in another post not too long ago – You have to figure out all the prices of the product before obtaining that product. That definitely includes Opportunity Costs (often even greater than the mere cash cost!)
    Nevertheless, I have several suggestions, and even a criticism or two, for and of the chart:

    1) Starting at the “Habitual Promiscuity” Box, then follow the arrow to the “Yes” box. Then make another arrow directly to the “Habitual Infidelity” box. My oft-cited “smoking gun” evidence, RooshV’s The Dark Side of Game should be strong evidence supporting the claim “Promiscuity is a springboard to Habitual Infidelity” – for the man at least, and very likely for women as well.

    2) The “Was the Sex Consensual?” comment is confusing, as it’s neither inside a box nor any arrows clearly and unambiguously pointing to other consequences.

    3) The meaning of the dashed arrows also is ambiguous, at least to the untrained eye who doesn’t have Branch Manager- level knowledge of how to interpret flow charts. Personally I interpreted the dashed arrows to mean “maybe, could be, not guaranteed but higher than normal probability, etc”.

    4) While I agree that “Childbirth Delayed and Elimiated” can definitely extract and emotional toll on SMP participants, I don’t agree that lower birth rates leading to economic decline, not even below-replacement-level ones. This isn’t an economics blog (be it an economics post), but I’ll just say that below-replacement-level birth rates are likely to mean more resources per person – particularly given the world’s population (I’ll stop with that last clause, as that is definitely off-topic).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @filrabat
      Now, that’s a thoughtful and constructive comment! Your points are well taken – I agree that the Consensual piece is probably out of place there. Points 1 and 3 are also good suggestions.

      I’ll just say that below-replacement-level birth rates are likely to mean more resources per person

      In the short-term I agree. In fact, this is what is driving the Italians – not having kids means buying an apt. sooner, having nice things, etc. The problem is over the long-term, as the childless population ages and retires. Then there is an insufficient labor force to drive production and fund care for the elderly.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    @ Stephenie Rowling
    Quantify: express or measure the quantity of.
    I only stated the fact that I am “promiscuous”, meaning I’ve had non-monogamous sex. I did not say how much. I did not QUANTIFY my promiscuity. How is that contradictory, exactly, and is that the pretense you are condemning?

    Do you condemn a single promiscuous act as equally as you condemn a thousand? You must, or you are making a biased personal judgment against me based on insufficient evidence. Either way, it has no bearing on the subject at hand: is the graph presented valuable? What say you? Can you defend that judgement?

  • tito

    @NomadicNeil

    you raise several good points. your one about the Med is dead on. as far as Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, etc, these folks are not the same as others. certain people respond to sexual arousal differently. they have a higher degree of docility. that is not so in other lands. all ‘liberations’ are not equal.

    as far as doing well, hey it’s Germany right

  • Passer_By

    @bad boyfriend

    Your comment: “My promiscuity costs me and those I am promiscuous with very little economically. The cost of condoms and regular STD testing are it. No unwanted pregnancies, no rape charges, no prison terms, no lower birth rates, no economic stagnation that I can discern. However, I do have a lot of great sex.”

    The use of THOSE (i.e., plural) “I am promiscuous with” indicates multiple promiscuous partners. Moreover, your last sentence, “I do have lots of great sex.” implies lots of great PROMISCUOUS sex, since the paragraph was describing the effects of your promiscuity. It would have made no sense to refer to lots of great monogamous sex in that context. So, you did quantify it as “lots” with “multiple partners”. I’ve got nothing against it personally, but at least own what you said and stop trying to be cute with your silly semantics.

  • tito

    @Passer_By

    dude, the badboyfriend commenter is obviously a kid. you can tell by the moronic way he implies that if he is not costing anything then it is all unreal. only a kid thinks this way. he adds is that he has “lots” of great sex as some sort or signal that he should get a scooby snack. even if he is having lots of great sex, so m-f’in’ what

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      he has “lots” of great sex as some sort or signal that he should get a scooby snack.

      This made me laugh out loud – something I needed today. Thank you tito.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    *sigh* Okay let’s try again
    My promiscuity costs me and those I am promiscuous with very little economically

    Costs/ Economically is a quantification statement right? You were the one that say that it costs you and your friends little. Since the graphic is about economy then when you say you don’t quantify it you lied/trolled/or don’t understand what are we debating. Capisce?

  • tito

    @Stephanie

    he IS lying/trolling/not understanding all at once and deliberately.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “When I was a kid, there were always Down’s kids in the neighborhood families (Irish, Italian).”

    _____________________

    I’ve never been able to tell the difference between the Down’s kids and regular Ialian and Irish kids anyway.

    BAMMM!!!!, SUKKA!!!!!

    Signed,

    Dogsquat, your friendly neighborhood Slovak

    (just a joke, kids)

  • Dogsquat

    Neil the Nomad:

    “But the big thing that is missing IMO is education.”

    ______________________

    Totally agree.

    I see patients ALL THE EFFING TIME that don’t understand what ovulation is. Once a week some girl will tell me that she uses the coitus interruptus method for birth control (except it’s “Mah mayne don’t pop off in dere. I ain’t havin’ no mo baybees ’til ah’m dun got mah GED.”).

    Even some of the smarter and more educated gals don’t realize that some medications can slightly affect the efficacy of their BC pills.

    Abstinence only education does not work for most people. One could make the argument that the devoutly religious who are responsible for altering the curriculum to abstinence only are responsible (in part) for a good many of the abortions and OOW children born today.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Sex education in the U.S. is a total mess, with lots of regional variability. In my own town, the high school teaches “fisting” as a viable expression of love and desire. My tax dollars at work. There is a very strong bias towards lots of safe, early sex, and females in particular are encouraged to have “empowered” sex. In liberal, sex-positive Boston, the word abstinence gets the eyes rolling around in their sockets. In other states, it might be abstinence only.

      I’ll second Dogsquat’s observation of ignorance re basic bodily functions, but it’s not just the poor and uneducated. I recently explained to my own 21 yo daughter that the Pill, in preventing ovulation, changes the way you are perceived (smell) by men, and also the way you pick up on the pheromones of other men. (Shame on her, I have written about this, she flunks the pop quiz.) She’s a college graduate, and she’s stuck with me for a mother. Yet she is ignorant of some pretty basic biology around reproduction. (It doesn’t help that her sex ed class focused on fisting and being bi-curious.)

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    Apparently, the salient facts and arguments I present are invalidated because I admitted to being promiscuous.
    How about we all ignore that fact, as it has ZERO bearing on the discussion.

    @tito: I agree, so m-f’in’ what! How does my age or the number of times my penis has been in a vagina matter in this discussion?

    @passer_by: “silly semantics” aside, what is your point? My ONLY point in making the statement you quoted is only that IN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, promiscuity does not cause ME, or those I know personally, economic stagnation.

    On the basis of my personal experience, and the lack of evidence to the contrary, I, personally, find Susan Walsh’s graph of little value. No one (besides Susan Walsh’s abandoned attempt) has presented an evidence based argument in support of her conclusion.

    Yet, i’m met with personal attack and judgement for making an opposing case. Is that the only response readers here can make? I hoped to find reasoned, factual debate. Instead i’m derided as a troll by those making the inflammatory comments.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Now I have to come back in and defend myself.

      No one (besides Susan Walsh’s abandoned attempt) has presented an evidence based argument in support of her conclusion.

      My attempt was not abandoned. I’ve asked you twice what kind of evidence you require, and twice you’ve blown off the question.

      WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE DO YOU REQUIRE?

      Yet, i’m met with personal attack and judgement for making an opposing case.

      You didn’t make any case. Your one point about Germany and Japan was incorrect. Your refutation of the Italian birth rate was, well, not communicated clearly enough to be sensible.

      If by opposing case you refer to your own meager Durex budget, I’ll just say that you’ve entirely, and deliberately, missed the point of the post. Disagree with the graph by all means, but tell us why. Using words like preposterous without providing a counter-argument is not debate. You sound like a relatively smart kid, but you’re either arguing unintelligently, or in bad faith. Irony! That’s what you said about me!

  • Dogsquat

    Lots of people are talking about “getting tested” as the only economic cost. That may be true (lots of good arguments on both sides here) but I don’t think many people know just how expensive that is. You just roll in to Student Health, or pay their $10 copay, or flash your Medicaid card, or whatever.

    Here are some hard numbers I looked up last night at work:

    A complete Herpes Simplex Virus panel (includes HSV-1, and HSV-2 both IgG and IgM) is $257.

    A viral swab for HSV is around $120, depending on methodology (this is also the preferred method, but you have to have an active lesion at the time of the test)

    Aptima Gen-Probe for GC/Chlam (it’s the clap, foo!) runs $85

    Various methods for HIV testing run between $357-$1291.

    Hepatitis (probably the most overlooked STD) testing runs between $231 and $1140, depending on the methodology and how many types you’re looking for. (did you know there’s a hepatitis D? They’ve even got E and F!! Here’s a tip – when doing CPR on a IV drug user/dealer that got on the wrong side of a few 9mm rounds, don’t let his blood squirt in your mouth. Then, you’ll never spend weeks freaking out about motherfucking hepatitis variations. It’ll age you 10 years. Just sayin’.)

    I left out trichomoniasis because even reading about it for 30 seconds makes me puke. I’ve also only seen syphilis once (“she” was a prosti-dude and IV drug user) so it’s not really relevant.

    I got these prices from the lab price book at a clinic I work for. These are what the lab charges the clinic – there is no profit in it for the doc unless he/she raises the prices. The lab is making a little money here, but they’ve still got to pay for a ton of sophisticated equipment and lab-monkeys to run it.

    Based on this, a responsible, careful person (and I’m happy to see that many of you are) costs at least a grand if they get tested between partners.

    Treatment for these ailments varies in cost. Some of the bacterial bad boys entail a shot in the ass and a pill for about $30 in meds. If you get the hep or the hiv, though, you’re talking some serious cash to stay alive. Liver transplants ain’t cheap, and neither are the more effective antiviral cocktails.

    There is A LOT of money, time, technology, and brain power tied up in keeping your dingle-dangle from dripping. It is MUCH MORE involved than “Imma go to da clinic and take care ov mah stank-ass kitty.”

    As an aside:

    Ladies, I have pretty much free access to this stuff. I get tested whenever I want, and I’m squeaky clean. Call me.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Re the cost of getting tested, yup it’s high. But in terms of economic impact – the worst hit is the Medicaid budget for diseases and pregnancy resulting from promiscuous sex. It’s not an exaggeration to say that many poor teenagers use abortion as birth control. The government dollars spent on counseling, abortion, prenatal care (often in the form of ER visits, and Dogsquat has said), complications resulting from lack of prenatal care, childbirth, complications arising from genital herpes during birth, premature births related to lifestyle, drug-compromised infants….I could go on and on. Nearly all of this is on Uncle Sam’s tab – for conditions that are easily prevented. Of course, the only total safety is abstinence, but a low partner count helps. A woman with a high partner count is much, much more likely to require state assistance for reproductive and sexual health services. Duh.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Based on this, a responsible, careful person (and I’m happy to see that many of you are) costs at least a grand if they get tested between partners.

    I was actually surprised of how expensive is getting tested in USA. Once upon a time when the AIDS scare was all time high in my country a doctor will do it mandatory along with any test I got the HIV four times and then again with a battery of all those tests you say when my now hubby was going to meet me for the first time in DR. And all that with the insurance was less than 15 dollars for me, my hubby had this done as well as I requested him, he had no insurance so he asked his ex (lab technician) to help him out and still paid over 200 bucks for it….why something as vital as this in a country with a free sex culture is so expensive? Any idea?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      .why something as vital as this in a country with a free sex culture is so expensive? Any idea?

      Good old capitalism. Lots of money to be made in STD testing nowadays.

  • SayWhaat

    On the basis of my personal experience, and the lack of evidence to the contrary, I, personally, find Susan Walsh’s graph of little value.

    The answer is simple (and Susan has already addressed this in her comment to you): on a microeconomic level, the personal costs to you are realized by someone else. On a macroeconomic level, the costs are realized by society.

  • Passer_By

    @bad_boyfriend

    “@passer_by: “silly semantics” aside, what is your point? My ONLY point in making the statement you quoted is only that IN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, promiscuity does not cause ME, or those I know personally, economic stagnation.”

    You may be very right about that ultimate conclusion. But the point is, you DID quantify your promiscuity to a substantial degree, and made reasonable assumptions based on what you said. So your indignation about their assumptions was unwarranted.

    Beyond that, I’ve got no dog in the fight. I like Susan’s blog, but I don’t draw much from the flow chart myself. This blog isn’t directed towards the socioeconomic groups described by dogsquat, and I don’t see much direct cost of promiscuity in the other groups. The indirect cost is that males, especially young males, may become less invested in society and/or economically productive activities if engaging in those activities has little or no bearing on their ability to sate their lust.

  • Passer_By

    @bad B

    Sorry, that should have read “and other readers made reasonable assumptions . . .”

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    how about looking into what these countries are doing to thrive the economy, other than looking if they are promiscuous or not?

    There are other factors, like, workforce, industry, education, long term planification, resource management, controlling ponzi schemes, credit bubbles, and not asking for billions of fake money to the FMI

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Yohami

      how about looking into what these countries are doing to thrive the economy, other than looking if they are promiscuous or not?

      That’s actually a really good question! Since we know that promiscuity is linked to poor impulse control and low future time orientation, I’d be hard pressed to imagine that the real producers in society are focused primarily on sexual gratification. On the other hand, the U.S. government is chock full of manwhores, with Bill Clinton the unparalleled leader of the pack. Perhaps we can conclude that politicians don’t produce anything of real value? ;)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    The answer is simple (and Susan has already addressed this in her comment to you): on a microeconomic level, the personal costs to you are realized by someone else. On a macroeconomic level, the costs are realized by society.

    Are you telling me that the individual actions affect society at large? Pfft HUMBUG, I tell you, HUMBUG! :)

  • GudEnuf

    Just a heads up, the the only “game” blogger I can respect has returned from his hiatus.

  • SayWhaat

    Are you telling me that the individual actions affect society at large?

    Well, I’m of the belief that individual actions in aggregate affect society at large. : )

  • The Unfortunate Rake

    How much does the U.S. spend on treatment of STDs, expressed as a percentage of GDP?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      how about looking into what these countries are doing to thrive the economy, other than looking if they are promiscuous or not?

      I don’t know – did you Google it? Or are you looking for the answer, “Not nearly as much as we spend on drones.”?

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    @dogsquat:
    I’m very surprised by your numbers (though I don’t dispute them). My Dr. only recommends the rapid HIV and urine chlamydia/gonorrhea tests (as those std’s can be asymptomatic). Those tests are available commercially for less than $25/each, so I assume the $75 I am charged by my Dr. (I pay full cost of medical care until I reach my deductible) is a fair and unsubsidized price for my STD testing.
    If I were monogamous, we would probably use an IUD for birth control instead of condoms. Considering that and IUD costs $200-$400 plus the cost of insertion/removal ($200?), every monogamous relationship would have to last more than 2 years for it to be economically advantageous over non-monogamy. In my case, it is close to zero-sum.

    I realize my personal experience is probably of little value to you. However, it may be useful to quantify cost to american society. Planned Parenthood received $360m in US government funding in 2009, or $1/citizen per year, which they used to provide 4 million STD tests and 830,000 breast exams. Is my $1/yr worth significant reduction in STD infection nationwide (whether or not those STD infections are due to promiscuity)?

    Add that $1 to my yearly cost of personal STD testing, and i’m paying $226/year to be a responsible non-monogamist.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Bad

      i’m paying $226/year to be a responsible non-monogamist.

      I continue to be astounded that you think it’s all about you and your wallet. Here are some other real costs you’re generating over the next 10-20 years:

      1. Once you hit a partner count of 20, you’re unlikely to be “extremely satisfied” with a marital sex life. This raises the risk of infidelity and divorce.
      2. Condoms don’t entirely prevent STDs, especially HPV and genital herpes (via mouth) nor are they extremely effective in preventing pregnancy. If your sexual partners are casual, you are not in a position to take the word of anyone re what kind of birth control she may or may not be using. And you certainly have no idea how often she forgets to take her Pill. It sounds like you’ve been lucky so far, but you spin the roulette wheel every time you play. There are plenty of men in this country paying child support who can confirm that.
      3. You may be instrumental in rendering a woman unattractive to commitment-oriented males. Women with lots of sexual experience have more difficulty attracting life partners. In this way, fewer women are marriageable. Promiscuous men delay marriage or refrain entirely.

      You may be perfectly content with all of these risks in terms of your own personal cost/benefit ratio. The larger point, which many have tried to communicate to you, is that your behavior is part of the culture, it creates or perpetrates the culture. And that impacts all of us in a macro sense. Promiscuity is detrimental to society. As the chart so clearly demonstrates.

  • Passer_By

    Also, I would note that any analysis would have to include the economic benefits of promiscuity. Jobs created in a host of industries, including the alcohol industry, clubs, sex toys, birth control, cosmo and similar women’s magazines, health clubs and fitness (lets face it, nobody was working out much before casual sex was an elusive possibility), lingerie, porn, bikini waxing . . . . What industries am I missing? ;)

  • Anonymous@gmail.com

    @Stephanie
    “I got the HIV four times and then again with a battery of all those tests ”
    Now why would a virgin have an HIV test 5 times? OK maybe once to reel in your US beta provider husband so you could spend most of your day at HUS (it’s all very well you shaming ‘sluts’ and women who delay childbirth but you don’t seem to have any children or a career), but what about the other 4 times. Seems a lot for a virgin.

    @Yohami
    Do you not realise that you are one of the promiscuous people causing the economic downfall of the world.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Anonymous@gmail, Anonymous, Anonymousey, SarahJane, MenSay – these are all the same person…

      What’s with the attitude? Why do you care how Stephenie spends her day? Or how often she gets tested? Or what her career aspirations are, or whether she has children? Perhaps she’s 20. Perhaps she is infertile. Perhaps she is a quadraplegic in a wheelchair and types with a special tool she holds in her mouth. The point is you don’t know what you are talking about, and it’s none of your business anyway. Go away.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Anon,

    Do you not realise that you are one of the promiscuous people causing the economic downfall of the world.

    I know you are, but what am I?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Now why would a virgin have an HIV test 5 times? OK maybe once to reel in your US beta provider husband so you could spend most of your day at HUS (it’s all very well you shaming ‘sluts’ and women who delay childbirth but you don’t seem to have any children or a career), but what about the other 4 times. Seems a lot for a virgin.

    Err did you read the other part? In my country there was a time when if you went to the doctor he/she did a mandatory HIV before touching you, along with the normal blood tests. I got my first HIV test because I was too skinny and my mother though I had hypothyroidism I was like 15 , later I used to have a lot of unexplained headaches that didn’t allowed me to go to school for half the year half the time and again my mother took to me many doctors looking for the cause (they found nothing as usual) but I got a new HIV test along with the normal ones every time I got to a new one. The last one was when I went to my Gyno and told her that I was probably going to have sex and I asked for a new HIV to show goodwill to my husband because I think it was unfair for me to ask him to get tested and not get tested myself. She recommended the whole battery to make sure.
    As for a career.
    I have a degree in advertising a minor in: BA, graphic design, creative writing, theology. I worked as a administrative assistant, event coordinator, model, customer service,marketing, accounting,reading coach for children, cultural animation. I’m also a publisher author of children books winner of the highest award my country gives for that… I don’t have children yet because I needed to find a good man but I also though it was better to wait a couple of years after marriage for us to start, you know building a team work.I was also waiting to get a job in USA something that was harder for me because I’m new in the country and most people looked at my resume and I was overqualified for the usual new immigrant jobs and that placed me between worlds: too qualified to work in a menial job (even though I don’t mind work is work. I did applied many times) and underqualified for a Administrative Assistant positions that needed someone that knew the state and had references here, in fact I had to make a whole new resume with only my experience in customer service to get a job. I’m starting in a few weeks and probably start trying to conceive when the stupid allergy season ends because my doctor told me that is better to be out of any medication during the first three months just to be safe and I have to take claritin daily to avoid being all sneezing and nose running during the day.
    Is that good enough? Because that is only half of the things I enjoyed doing with all the free time NO “prostituting yourself for free” leaves to us virgins. ;)

  • Aldonza

    @dogsquat

    Lots of people are talking about “getting tested” as the only economic cost. That may be true (lots of good arguments on both sides here) but I don’t think many people know just how expensive that is. You just roll in to Student Health, or pay their $10 copay, or flash your Medicaid card, or whatever.

    Well, I give blood every 8 weeks, and they test me for all of the nasty blood-born ones…at no cost to me. As far as HPV, I was told that they don’t normally test because most people have HPV antibodies, even if they didn’t get anything sexually. The expensive test you’re referring to is the DNA test, where HPV has been diagnosed and they want to know what strain (100 strains of HPV, 30 or so are sexually transmitted, and maybe 10 of those cause cervical cancer). Same for HSV1 (Ever had a cold sore? Boom! Positive).

    Even so, Planned Parenthood and other clinics offer affordable testing on a sliding scale based on income. I can’t imagine even the high end of what they charge for a full blood panel even without insurance is more than $200 or so.

    I won’t deny that cervical cancer and HIV are both costly to treat. But I’d guess that sugary soft drinks have probably impacted our national health much more than promiscuity.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Even so, Planned Parenthood and other clinics offer affordable testing on a sliding scale based on income. I can’t imagine even the high end of what they charge for a full blood panel even without insurance is more than $200 or so.

      And that is subsidized by the federal government!

      Re obesity, yes, that’s a whole other flowchart, also racking up some very big dollars. However, health care costs, while a large part of the economic impact of promiscuity, are not the only costs. I don’t know whether obesity impacts the generation of families – one would think it does, but I bet it doesn’t.

  • GudEnuf

    Susan:

    I showed a group of a dozen young women the original movie Swept Away by Lina Wertmuller. The male in that actually makes a woman his love slave and slaps her around. She loves it. When the movie ended, the girls were all so turned on and horny I feared the Boston male population wasn’t safe that night.

    But that’s just a fantasy. What makes you think that those girls want it in real life?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      But that’s just a fantasy. What makes you think that those girls want it in real life?

      Women want to be aroused and safe. You take the fantasy, remove the violence, and presto you’ve got awesome real life sex. It’s important for men to know what arouses women. If you don’t know what makes us squirm around in our seats, you can’t even do the 10% that gets our blood flowing.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    But that’s just a fantasy. What makes you think that those girls want it in real life?

    + lol

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Dogsquat’s and Susan:

    I think that issue is that sex education is a political/ideological battlefield, the conservatives want abstinence only (sex before marriage is disimpowering) and the liberals want safe sex as soon as you start to get horny (sex before marriage is empowering) so they battle for one or the other. The answer is teaching both, sex has good things and bad things and that even if you are horny trying to consider other factors before engaging in it: sexual mate selection, short term vs long term, both male and female sexual strategies and so on…but I really doubt there will be any agreement ever, because it seems that the worst thing in USA is being a moderate. Your position is better IMO, don’t give it away to anyone that you fancy, but don’t wait for marriage if the guy shows commitment. Maybe that should be a theme in your book “The talk in the 21th century” :D

  • tito

    @Susan

    your welcome madame. yeah, you’ve been really getting hammered on this one. you are touching on a holy subject of the ‘revolution.’ yeah, that guy badboyfriend was basically doing a “na-na-na-boo-boo” style “rebuttal” to your oh-so-mild critique of sacred promiscuity. he is the only man in the world you see, so he knows. he dropped that in there to show how coooooool he is. like i said he’s probably a kid.

    you are right on this one, keep up the good work Susan.

  • Jules

    @Susan:

    I know the graph is just theoretical, but it is still misleading to say that promiscuity has a negative economic benefit because you only looked at the negative economic results. You have to weigh both the costs and benefits to have it make sense.

    For example, you say that promiscuity delays marriage which leads to infertility costs. But marrying early can also cause problems, especially if you are marrying just so you can have sex -> higher divorce costs, etc.

    I also think you should take into account the fact that promiscuity changes with age. People who are married do not hook up like college students (obviously). And people in their twenties and thirties date more than college students, rather than hooking up randomly all the time.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jules
      I truly don’t see any positive economic effects from promiscuity. Some have pointed out the dollars that have gone into the economy purchasing liquor, porn, prostitutes, sex toys, etc. However, that’s just disposable income that would have been much better spent elsewhere, like on saving for the house you couldn’t really afford to buy but did anyway.

      Delaying childbirth is problematic from a bio standpoint. Women’s fertility begins to decline rather dramatically at 27. I’m not suggesting women marry at 18, or even 21. But the truth is that the average American bridge is already experiencing waning fertility.

      I totally agree that promiscuity is generally, but not always, practiced by the young. As women age their options narrow, and the same is true for men to some degree, though they have a longer run. This chart represents the population of 15-30 year-olds, for the most part.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    your welcome madame. yeah, you’ve been really getting hammered on this one. you are touching on a holy subject of the ‘revolution.’

    I think she is getting it soft actually. I’m waiting for a feature in Jezebel/the spearhead at the very least :D, …I guess we will have to wait.
    You know all this comments this remind me of the Boiling Frog:
    If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will of course frantically try to clamber out. But if you place it gently in a pot of tepid water and turn the heat on low, it will float there quite placidly. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor, exactly like one of us in a hot bath, and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresistingly allow itself to be boiled to death.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Oh and before someone said that real frogs don’t do that. I know is still a useful metaphor.

  • Grindl

    So the conclusion would seem to be: sex is dirty, nasty, bad (unless you’re married to a suitably dull beta male and you’re doing is just to make babies and you absolutely don’t enjoy it). Reading all this makes me want to have my clitoris surgically removed.

    I agree with some of the other posters that a smaller planetary population would be the best thing to happen to this beknighted planet. It is going to be a rough transitional period when Boomer Nation finds many of its members without financial support; thank the Greatest Generation for that anomaly in population growth; a python swallowing an elephant! A surge like this should never happen again.

    Susan, I don’t entirely disagree that promiscuity has financial and certainly some social penalties. Although if every woman swore off sex, dating, alcohol, shopping for “club” wear, makeup, etc. and stayed home at night/weekends and lived a spartan lifestyle of complete abstinence and joylessness that would also have some serious economic repercussions. It would be interesting to see however!

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Grindl

      So the conclusion would seem to be: sex is dirty, nasty, bad (unless you’re married to a suitably dull beta male and you’re doing is just to make babies and you absolutely don’t enjoy it)

      You would seem to be logically challenged. None of that is remotely implied in the post. How about “Promiscuous sex is risky, and when it goes wrong, the damages are potentially irreparable, and certainly expensive.”

      Reading all this makes me want to have my clitoris surgically removed.

      I confess this shocked me and turned my stomach. I guess I haven’t been hanging around with sex pozzies – I’m not inured to your snarky, sarcastic, unfunny jokes.

      It is going to be a rough transitional period when Boomer Nation finds many of its members without financial support; thank the Greatest Generation for that anomaly in population growth; a python swallowing an elephant! A surge like this should never happen again.

      Population control aside, that “anomaly in population growth” – that surge – was itself the result of an economic surge. When people felt flush with cash and opportunity, they married and had babies! They went to college! I don’t see how that could possibly be worse than people slutting it up without emotional connection indefinitely, not forming relationships, not partnering, not raising families together.

      Although if every woman swore off sex, dating, alcohol, shopping for “club” wear, makeup, etc. and stayed home at night/weekends and lived a spartan lifestyle of complete abstinence and joylessness that would also have some serious economic repercussions.

      Are you implying that I’m suggesting women do this?

      If every woman had sex only in monogamous relationships, returned to dating instead of hooking up, avoided getting blackout drunk, dressed tastefully (no ass cracks or nipple displays please), wore makeup to enhance her natural beauty rather than mock it with a hooker vibe, went out with friends regularly and pursued a variety of passions unrelated to sex, they would undoubtedly have less sex, but of much higher quality and a real shot at joy. As for spartan lifestyles, sex pos fems who spent their youth sharing their exploits on line have only one career option: feminist journalist. Last I checked most of them don’t even get paid for much of their work. They live a blogger lifestyle :)

  • tito

    @Susan

    “3. You may be instrumental in rendering a woman unattractive to commitment-oriented males. Women with lots of sexual experience have more difficulty attracting life partners. In this way, fewer women are marriageable.”

    >>>>>> ha! yeah, he’s really concerned about that! your trying to reason and give a big-picture perspective to a likely hipster-nihilist. the obvious answer to this is ‘f-k it bro, like whatever maaaaaan, those losers ain’t my problem duuuuude, like yeah bro.’

    “You may be perfectly content with all of these risks in terms of your own personal cost/benefit ratio. The larger point, which many have tried to communicate to you, is that your behavior is part of the culture, it creates or perpetrates the culture. And that impacts all of us in a macro sense. Promiscuity is detrimental to society. As the chart so clearly demonstrates.”

    >>>>> wow! has my civilizational gotten to you? i knew it!

    also, look at the putting-words-in-your-mouth responses you get for attacking holy promiscuity:

    grindl said: “So the conclusion would seem to be: sex is dirty, nasty, bad (unless you’re married to a suitably dull beta male and you’re doing is just to make babies and you absolutely don’t enjoy it). Reading all this makes me want to have my clitoris surgically removed.”

    ha! anything that promotes civil society is boooooriiiing! hey grindl, have it surgically removed if you can’t handle reality. or just keep it and ruin society for your own dumbass fleeting pleasure. don’t forget to later whine about how f-d up everything is too.

    also, this damsel said something about “joylessness.” is the world here to entertain you?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    (unless you’re married to a suitably dull beta male and you’re doing is just to make babies and you absolutely don’t enjoy it)

    I will never understand for the light of me this reasoning. In one sentence you express exactly how indoctrinated modern women are. If you marry most be a dull man, if you have prudent sex most be joyless and if you want to have babies you cannot possibly want sex for any other reason….why there can’t have a healthy middle ground WHY?!
    See what I mean with western world is doomed?
    Why the alternative cannot be sex with a man that is both good, committed and attractive and commit to create a functional family and a fulfilling relationship in every aspect including sex? Why standards and morals have to always being considered dull and joyless???? I can’t wrap my head around the logical leaps in this. Does Susan sounds joyless? Does her husband sounds dull? Does she stopped having sex after giving birth to her children? Really where this reasoning comes from? I really want to know.

  • Mike C

    @Anonymous@gmail, Anonymous, Anonymousey, SarahJane, MenSay – these are all the same person
    .
    This is a bizarre phenonemon of the Internet. There has got to be a new mental disorder on this one. I mean…really…seriously….what kind of mentally fucked up person does it take to create multiple personas for the purpose of commenting on the Internet.

  • Mike C

    (unless you’re married to a suitably dull beta male and you’re doing is just to make babies and you absolutely don’t enjoy it)

    .
    I will never understand for the light of me this reasoning. In one sentence you express exactly how indoctrinated modern women are.
    .
    I really have no problem with that viewpoint. I mean, if you want to be serviced by a variety of hot alpha cock, more power to you. Go for it.
    .
    I think it where it gets borderline despicable is when you wake up at 30, none of those guys is interested in you for more than sex, and then the drive to be a Mommy kicks in, and THEN you are willing to go with one of those suitably dull betas who know fits your shifting life goals.

  • Mike C

    Why the alternative cannot be sex with a man that is both good, committed and attractive and commit to create a functional family and a fulfilling relationship in every aspect including sex?
    .
    Well….here is the thing, and I’ll admit I’m not sure here. If you read in between the lines of that mentality, what is really being subcommunicated is “once I get used to fucking hot guys I am really attracted to, I can’t go down the ladder to regular guys”. Now this is at odds with the survey data Susan posted that women can’t forget and not be tied to previous sexual experiences. I really don’t know which way is accurate except to highlight that really is what the commenter is saying because if you hadn’t banged a bunch of higher SMV guys you’d have no basis for comparison.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I really don’t know which way is accurate except to highlight that really is what the commenter is saying because if you hadn’t banged a bunch of higher SMV guys you’d have no basis for comparison.

    Got me there , Is truth I never banged Alphas and I never will so I will place this in the list of “things I will never do in my life” like Drugs, and robbing banks. ;)

  • Grindl

    I realize it’s a real headscratcher for some of the regulars here, but there are women in this world that honestly, truly do NOT want to be mommies. We actually put some serious thought into the parenthood question and realized it’s just not for us (no, I do not hate or eat children)!

    And, believe it or not, those of us not anxious to marry a nice dull beta by age 24 (or any age) aren’t necessarily out “banging” alphas or ridin’ the old cock carousel.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Grindl

      I realize it’s a real headscratcher for some of the regulars here, but there are women in this world that honestly, truly do NOT want to be mommies.

      That’s fine, no one is forcing you to reproduce. Just be aware the other people’s children will fund your final years. So if everyone felt the way you do, you’d be up a creek.

  • Mike C

    I realize it’s a real headscratcher for some of the regulars here, but there are women in this world that honestly, truly do NOT want to be mommies.
    .
    Not a headscratcher for me. I’ve been in a monogamous relationship with a woman who doesn’t want to be a Mommy for over 5 years now. That said, simple fact of the matter is most women at some point desire to have children, often with a massive magnitude, otherwise you wouldn’t have a market for 100,000+ being spent on IVF treatments. It is either naive or disingenous to not realize at that point some women seek out those “dull beta provider” types to basically be resource providers. If I really cared that much, I go hunting for the various links I’ve seen demonstrating this (one recently is the woman who went solo on her honeymoon and got and kept some guy’s phone number)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I realize it’s a real headscratcher for some of the regulars here, but there are women in this world that honestly, truly do NOT want to be mommies. We actually put some serious thought into the parenthood question and realized it’s just not for us (no, I do not hate or eat children)!

    Again missing the point. The women that will never ever want to get married or/and want children are usually a minority, even less the ones that don’t want any, some women don’t want to get married but want children and the other way around. What I meant is assuming that the ones that choose the latter is because we are joyless, sex hater, dull people. Since when does Marriage/fidelity/family became synonym of unhappiness or/and joyless?

    Single hood praised as the best thing ever! And pitying the people in stable long relationships, that is what I don’t get. Different choices? Okay that is your right. Different choices because the alternative is some sort of prison…? Yeah I don’t get that.

  • Mike C

    I see patients ALL THE EFFING TIME that don’t understand what ovulation is. Once a week some girl will tell me that she uses the coitus interruptus method for birth control (except it’s “Mah mayne don’t pop off in dere. I ain’t havin’ no mo baybees ’til ah’m dun got mah GED.”).
    .
    Dogsquat,

    Do you know if there is any 100% determination on whether pre-ejaculate contains sperm?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12286905
    .
    Abstract
    A study in Boston, Massachusetts, and another study in New York City examined samples of pre ejaculate fluid from HIV seropositive and HIV seronegative men to determine whether HIV was or was not present in pre ejaculate fluid. The researchers found macrophages and CD4 lymphocytes in most samples, indicating that HIV was present. The more significant finding, however, was that most pre ejaculate samples did not contain any sperm and those that did had only small clumps of a very small amount of sperm which seemed to be immobile. A larger study is needed to verify these results. If these results are confirmed, they may dispel the myth that pre ejaculate fluid contains sperm.

    .
    Some time back, I literally spent hours and hours and hours researching this. I was shocked that it seemed like the medical field did not have a 100% crystal clear definitive answer to this, but I think about 99% of what I saw and read indicated that pre-ejaculate did NOT contain any sperm.
    .
    My GF has been off birth control for a long time as it was really messing with her hormones.

  • Grindl

    Steph: My post was semihumorous/snarky, as in, reading the list of diseases (good posts from Dogsquat) was quite a turn-off. Sex is a veritable plague these days, it would seem and a hazmat suit is in order for all encounters.

    Sometimes, at HUS, it seems there are only two life options for young women: the alpha chasing degenerate slut or the good girl who marries the first NiceGuy™ she meets; it’s unclear how many sexual experiences she’s allowed before veering off into the slut zone. I do think most of this comes from the comments, not necessarily Susan’s viewpoints, and that’s were I definitely pick up a sense of “joylessness.” Puritans aren’t known for their joie de vivre.

  • Grindl

    Helpful note to Mike C: Pre-cum CAN make babies; I know a few unplanned parents who used the pull-out method. If your GF is not using birth control, you’d best be.

    Parenthood is the most important decision of anyone’s life, yet most people just stumble into it by accident; I sincerely hope you won’t.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Steph: My post was semihumorous/snarky, as in, reading the list of diseases (good posts from Dogsquat) was quite a turn-off. Sex is a veritable plague these days, it would seem and a hazmat suit is in order for all encounters.

    Sorry I’m usually very humorous I’m still mad at Anonimous whatever. It really pissed me off that he was implying that my husband was a chump, I can take people doubting me but insulting my hubby? I see red. Anyway sorry about that.

    Sometimes, at HUS, it seems there are only two life options for young women: the alpha chasing degenerate slut or the good girl who marries the first NiceGuy™ she meets; it’s unclear how many sexual experiences she’s allowed before veering off into the slut zone. I do think most of this comes from the comments, not necessarily Susan’s viewpoints, and that’s were I definitely pick up a sense of “joylessness.” Puritans aren’t known for their joie de vivre.

    Actually is simpler than it looks. No sex before monogamy, that is all. You can have sex without getting married and you can keep a good SMP value that won’t damage you. But to achieve that you have to be selective of your men interact with them for more than a few hours and show discernment, no cheat and I think that is pretty much it.
    The problem with the guys not liking is sluts is the double standard giving away to all men that wanted it and then placing a price for it to a guy in particular. If you were to a jewelry that gave free diamonds to all the hot blondes that show up and the moment you show any interest asks you to pay 3 salaries for the same diamonds…would you want to buy in that store?
    Is not a dark conspiracy to keep the women down is just a matter of fairness I think guys can correct me if I’m wrong.

  • BadBoyfriend

    @Susan Walsh: I’m prepared to continue the debate.
    I found two interesting studies. The first ranked the promiscuity of western industrialized nations.
    The UK, Germany and the Netherlands held the top spots with the US at 6th.

    The second study compared the rates of many of your proclaimed harmful outcomes of promiscuity (Teen Pregnancy, Teen Birth Rate, Teen Abortion Rate, and HIV Infection Rate) of Germany, France and the Netherlands, to the United States.
    It found that in Germany, the second most promiscuous country, to have HALF the abortion rate, a THIRD the HIV infection rate, a THIRD the pregnancy rate, and an EIGHTH the birth rate of the US, a significantly less promiscuous country.

    Clearly, there is a NEGATIVE correlation between promiscuity levels and harmful outcomes. In fact, the second study calculated that the US would save $400 MILLION dollars a year in public money if it were able to lower it’s rates to those of Germany.
    Let me restate that. If US sexual behavior matched that of Germany (ie. was MORE promiscuous) Americans would save half a BILLION dollars in public money.

  • Dogsquat

    Passer_By said

    “This blog isn’t directed towards the socioeconomic groups described by dogsquat, and I don’t see much direct cost of promiscuity in the other groups.”

    ================D

    I’m not sure if I understand your comment.

    If you go and get tested, you’re costing money. In some cases, it’s a lot of money. Socioeconomic status has nothing to do with my post, aside from a few flavoring anecdotes.

    SWPL or sub-poverty line, somebody’s got to draw your blood, swab your cooter, or analyse your urine. Nothing is free.

  • Dogsquat

    Bad Boyfriend:

    “My Dr. only recommends the rapid HIV and urine chlamydia/gonorrhea tests (as those std’s can be asymptomatic”

    ====================================D

    If coupled (snicker tee hee!) with a physical exam, like where the doc throws you up on the rack and goes spelunking in bajingoland, those tests are probably accurate enough for your purposes. It’s a good blend of cost effectiveness and accuracy, leaning heavily toward the cost effectiveness side of the equation.

    In addition, if you’re getting regular physicals, your doc will see elevated liver activity through the chem 14/complete metabolic panel/whatever basic tests you get. Then, the doc can look a bit further and order the hepatitis panels if necessary.

    All that being said, if you feel like getting a nice hot serving of Dogsquat (contains 8 essential vitamins and minerals!), you’re gonna need a test that complies with CLIA ’88.

    Incidentally, I’m a fan of Planned Parenthood. At my ghetto hospital, there are a lot of people from devoutly Catholic households. The parent(s) would rather say a million Hail Marys than give their kids enough information to have sex safely. The parents raise the kids in the church and feel that none of that secular trash is necessary. Predictably, the kids have sex knowing next to nothing. Planned Parenthood offers a great service for all the poor teenage/early twenties girls who’s parents are still looking to the King James version for all of life’s answers.

    With regard to your post made at 0245 this morning:

    “If US sexual behavior matched that of Germany (ie. was MORE promiscuous) Americans would save half a BILLION dollars in public money.”

    What essential element is missing from your analysis? It’s a doozy.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Incidentally, I’m a fan of Planned Parenthood. At my ghetto hospital, there are a lot of people from devoutly Catholic households.

      I got my first birth control from Planned Parenthood when I was in college, and had to go into a rough neighborhood to get it. I never could have discussed this with my mother, and I’ve always felt a debt of gratitude to PP for that reason. Until about 10 years ago. I went to a PP fundraiser, and Nicki Nichols Gamble, then President of PP Massachusetts, stood up to speak. She proudly announced the number of abortions provided by PP the previous year, at which point the crowd of soccer moms cheered and pumped their fists in the air. I was profoundly disgusted. No “legal but rare” for these folks. Abortion is big business. Oh but wait, federal monies aren’t used for that! We know how to move the money around from pot to pot!

  • Dogsquat

    Aldonza:

    “Even so, Planned Parenthood and other clinics offer affordable testing on a sliding scale based on income. I can’t imagine even the high end of what they charge for a full blood panel even without insurance is more than $200 or so.”

    8=============================================================D

    Just because somebody isn’t paying full price doesn’t mean costs any less to do the same tests. The cost is absorbed by another person (or subsidy), or the facility goes out of business.

    This type of cost shifting is endemic to health care, and occurs in all aspects of it.

    Are you type O-? Bless you for donating, by the way. It’s because of folks like you we always have plenty of PRBC (packed red blood cells), FFP (fresh frozen plasma), and all the clotting goodies when we need them.

    One time I took care of a person who bled his way through 20 units of PRBC and whole blood. That’s roughy 2 1/2 times as much blood as he had to begin with. He was a fucking mess, no doubt about it. The dude walked out of the hospital a few weeks later with no neuro deficits, too. If it weren’t for people like you, he’d be pushing up daisies somewhere.

  • Dogsquat

    Mike C:

    “Do you know if there is any 100% determination on whether pre-ejaculate contains sperm?”

    8================================================================================================================D – - – - – -

    That kind of question is way above my paygrade. I’m a semi-retarded paramedic. I won’t be a doc for at least 6 years, maybe longer.

    My hip pocket, non-scientific, personal, non-medical (enough qualifiers yet?) answer is this:

    It probably depends. Some dudes begin producing pre-ejaculate as soon as they are aroused beyond a certain point. Some guys are as dry as a bone until they spew forth a manly tide of egg-seeking missiles, hell bent on propagating the species.

    With all the individual variation in male sexual anatomy (go look at testicular sonograms someday when you’re bored – no two are identical) it wouldn’t surprise me to find that some guys do, and some guys don’t. I also bet it’ll matter how long since the last ejaculation, how long the dude’s been aroused, etc.

    I fully admit my ignorance on this, and am quite willing to be proven wrong.

    Did you find the same thing in other studies? I wonder if being HIV + has anything to do with those results.

    I was in a relationship where we used the rhythm method and spray-and-pray for 2 years, and never had any problems. I’ve never seen a girl so happy to get her period, incidentally. It can be done, but you need a little discipline and some luck.

  • Dogsquat

    Susan said:

    “States pay $15 billion per year to treat STDs, with per capita expenditures ranging from 0 to $1.57 in Louisiana (those dollars add up Bad Boy!).”

    888======================================================================================================================================================DDDDD – - – - – - – - – - – -

    Susan, the per capita number you quoted is the state funding for the prevention of STDs.

    From the article, with my added smooth, bold flavor:

    “STD prevention funding also ranged wildly from $0 per capita in three states (Colorado, Indiana, and South Carolina) to $1.57 in Louisiana. ”

    The article does state that $15B is spent by the States every year for STD treatment, though.

    After Friday (weather permitting, of course) we won’t be able to put a man into space anymore, but Little Mary Jane Rottencrotch will still be able to fuck the football team and not ooze purulent globs onto her pretty pink panties.

    What the hell happened to this country?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Dogsquat

      Susan, the per capita number you quoted is the state funding for the prevention of STDs.

      Yeah, I know, I woke up in the middle of the night with that realization. This is why I left finance. I’m terrible with details, especially of the numeric variety.

  • PuffsPlus

    Susan,
    .
    Coming late to the party here, but you forgot to figure in the costs of the mental health care associated with habitual promiscuity and failure to marry or have kids. Women who are single mothers, divorced, separated, never married, or infertile are much more likely to suffer depression than married women (including married moms, obviously).
    .
    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/406695_4
    .

    Depression is thought to cost society in other ways too, such as causing decreased worker productivity.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @PuffsPlus
      That’s brilliant! I never even thought of mental health, but of course you’re right. Ca-ching! $$$$$$$

  • PuffsPlus

    Oh yeah, and single mothers are more likely to use tax-funded federal and state social programs such as welfare, Medicaid, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance/WIC. So they are more likely to drain from the tax base rather than help to support it.

  • http://www.nomadicneill.com NomadicNeill

    @BadBoyFriend

    As I said earlier, it’s all down to education. I’ve lived and traveled in all those countries and have met many women from each.

    It’s so blatantly obvious that the Northern European women are the ones empowered and mature about sex compared to the fake ‘sex and the city’ type empowered facade of of the US and UK.

    The same goes for alcohol and drugs. In the Netherlands and Germany the drinking age is 16 yet somehow they don’t have nearly as bad a drinking problem as UK and US teenagers. Same goes for drug use.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      It’s so blatantly obvious that the Northern European women are the ones empowered and mature about sex compared to the fake ‘sex and the city’ type empowered facade of of the US and UK.

      So you accept that sex is empowering for women? How so? If American women are faking nonchalance about sex, and N. Euro women are genuinely nonchalant, why is that? How does education change the female reproductive hormone cocktail? How do we square this dichotomy from an evo perspective?

      Check this post out:
      Why Women are Hottest in Countries with Too Few Dudes

      On average, males have higher sociosexuality scores than females but sociosexuality scores for females vary widely across countries.

      Schmitt hypothesized that women in countries with a low ratio of marriageable men to marriageable women would be more friendly to the idea of commitment-free sex. This theory explores the flipside of a study done by Pedersen (1991), which found that when the sex ratio is high, an oversupply of men leads to greater fidelity, stronger commitment to career, and an increased male willingness to engage in child care.

      What’s useful about this particular comprehensive study is that is measures attitudes towards promiscuity. The much vaunted Latvian beauty is willing to put out because there’s a shortage of Latvian men. And check out Finland! It’s a sex ratio/supply and demand issue.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      In the Netherlands and Germany the drinking age is 16 yet somehow they don’t have nearly as bad a drinking problem as UK and US teenagers.

      Is there now a drinking age in England?

      Germany consumes 12.81 litres of alcohol/capita/year, and Netherlands 13.25. The U.S. consumes 9.44.

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

      One problem with the argument you and Bad are making is that you are focusing on teen years only, which ends with freshman year of college. In the U.S., there is probably a huge spike of alcohol comsumption and promiscuous sex in the years 19-22, with considerable tapering off after that. However, alcohol abuse in college is linked to alcoholism. Some health experts have estimated that a full one-third of binge drinkers in college will be lifelong alcoholics. The American college experience is unique.

  • PuffsPlus

    @BadBoyfriend and your cites re: Germany and the Netherlands…
    .
    Obviously having comprehensive sex ed goes a long way towards helping prevent or minimize the bad effects of promiscuity.
    .
    BUT, those countries are still struggling with being able to keep their populations reproducing. Susan mentioned this earlier.
    .
    Also, correct me if I’m wrong here, but I believe the income disparities and distribution of SES levels in those countries are much polarized than here in the US. Basically, we have a much MUCH bigger gap between rich and poor here. And, as Susan has pointed out, the people at the lowest end of the SES spectrum here in the US suffer disproportionately from the effects of promiscuity.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      And, as Susan has pointed out, the people at the lowest end of the SES spectrum here in the US suffer disproportionately from the effects of promiscuity.

      In Germany and the Netherlands, the poor are largely Muslim, and are not promiscuous. Those countries would really only be represented by the right-hand side of the flowchart, and we do in fact see problems with the birth rate, which is why they have been forced to import Muslims, and in the case of Germany, grant citizenship under the Family Reunification Plan. The Netherlands probably has the most alarming and hostile relationship with its Musiim population of any European country.

  • PuffsPlus

    Ack, left out a word. In my previous post, should be “much less polarized”.

  • PuffsPlus

    @Susan:
    .
    “Just be aware the other people’s children will fund your final years. So if everyone felt the way you do, you’d be up a creek.”
    .
    Hey, just be aware that we childfree folk are helping to fund the local K-12 education and our state universities for the benefit of those with kids. We are paying education taxes that we never use. Also, speaking for myself and my husband, we are also able to save a larger portion of our income towards retirement compared to our friends with kids.
    .
    So while I support replacement-level population growth, I would also like to dispute the idea that somehow we childfree are be a net economic drain on society because we’ll be relying on Social Security funded by other people’s kids when we’re old. Personally, I’m rather doubtful that there will still BE Social Security when I’m old. That’s why I save 20% of my income towards retirement. I want to fund my own final years as much as possible.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @PuffsPlus

      Hey, just be aware that we childfree folk are helping to fund the local K-12 education and our state universities for the benefit of those with kids. We are paying education taxes that we never use. Also, speaking for myself and my husband, we are also able to save a larger portion of our income towards retirement compared to our friends with kids.

      Point taken. I would just point out that as the population shrinks, there will be fewer schools to fund :(

  • Tom

    @ Steph,
    Why standards and morals have to always being considered dull and joyless???? I can’t wrap my head around the logical leaps in this. Does Susan sounds joyless? Does her husband sounds dull? Does she stopped having sex after giving birth to her children? Really where this reasoning comes from? I really want to know.
    _______________________
    Thank you Steph for making my point so well.
    Susan IS a great mom,wife,person, and probably a good lover. However she was not even close to being a virgin when she met her now husband. She had several men before him. She shifted gears and fell in love and remains committed to this day. Was she some how tained? Was she somehow ruined by her sexual adventures? No! Why? Because she has ALWAYS been a woman of character. Her having sex with different men did not change her character.It did not make her a bad person. It did not make her tainted goods. She would probably be the first to admit, she probably learned life lessons from her experiences. Not all bad comes from being “experienced.”
    Now, what if Susan had not met her Hubby when she did. My guess is her number would have grown. But guess what? She STILL would have been the same ole Susan, a woman of character.
    Really folks this is not rocket science.

  • tito

    @Susan

    “She proudly announced the number of abortions provided by PP the previous year, at which point the crowd of soccer moms cheered and pumped their fists in the air.”

    Susan these broads will cheer anything so long as it is protected by the status quo and is marketed as (pseudo) rebellion. they are members of the church of what’s hot right now.

  • tito

    @Susan

    “If every woman had sex only in monogamous relationships, returned to dating instead of hooking up, avoided getting blackout drunk, dressed tastefully (no ass cracks or nipple displays please), wore makeup to enhance her natural beauty rather than mock it with a hooker vibe, went out with friends regularly and pursued a variety of passions unrelated to sex, they would undoubtedly have less sex, but of much higher quality and a real shot at joy. As for spartan lifestyles, sex pos fems who spent their youth sharing their exploits on line have only one career option: feminist journalist. Last I checked most of them don’t even get paid for much of their work. They live a blogger lifestyle”

    Susan you are definitely on fire with this one. this makes sense but…t ain’t cooooool bro! but if most women did this then the rest would follow. they would defend this lifestyle as vigorously as they defend the status quo now. most ladies will always defend the status quo. the weaker it is, the more shrill they will be.

    @grindl

    i don’t want you to be a mommy neither. please don’t ever be. all you chicks that declare such never put your money where your mouths are. get your tubes tied if your serious. but you’re not are you?

  • tito

    “How does education change the female reproductive hormone cocktail?”

    it doesn’t. plain and simple.

  • The Unfortunate Rake

    I think a lot of the resistance to this idea that promiscuity is a significant drain on the nation’s economy has to do with the triviality of the method of discovering “costs.”

    The game seems to be: 1) Find a target. 2) Find money being spent that relates to that target. 3) Call that money “a drain on the nation’s economy,” just because it is money being spent by someone, somewhere.

    Here’s an example using a different target, but the same trivial method:

    Marriage is a drain on our nation’s economy

    MASSIVE EXPENDITURES ON TRINKETS. Think of all the money spent on engagement rings. A man is supposed to spend several month’s salary on a ring — a trinket that sits on his lady’s finger and does no good for anyone else. All money spend on engagement rings counts in the category “a drain on our nation’s economy.”

    MASSIVE EXPENDITURES ON MEANINGLESS EVENTS. Now think of all the money spent on weddings. This is wasted money. A wedding is a huge party that does nothing but satisfy the vanity of the bride. Massive amounts of dollars are spent on a single event that just comes and goes, leaving no lasting benefit to the nation. All money spent on weddings counts as “a drain on our nation’s economy.”

    MASSIVE EXPENDITURES ON THE MARRIAGE WELFARE PROGRAM. Think of all the tax breaks given to couples simply because they decide to get married. That is money that comes out of the pockets of everyone else, who has to shoulder the burden of this marriage subsidy — even though the couple is now saving money by sharing the burden of rent and other costs of daily living. All of the money not paid in taxes by couples enjoying Marriage Welfare counts as “a drain on our nation’s economy.”

    I love how easy this is! No doubt there are more costs I could find that apply to marriage and nothing else. And every one of them counts, just because it is a dollar figure and it relates to marriage.

    I think there needs to be a more meaningful standard for “cost.” Otherwise, it’s likely possible to demonstrate that marriage is a bigger drain on the economy than promiscuity. (I have little doubt that Marriage Welfare alone costs many times more than all STD- and abortion-related government costs, for example.)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rake
      1. Your first two examples are not government funded in any way.
      2. Engagement rings are not a drain, they support the jewelry industry. They also signal to other men that a woman is spoken for. Finally, they generally increase in value – my engagement ring (which my husband and I bought together) has tripled in value in 25 years.
      3. Wedding expenses are also a boon to the economy, though I don’t disagree that they are often wasteful. Still, that’s a personal choice, and it’s generally provided by the woman’s family. This tradition of dowry (of sorts) goes way back, obvs.

      MASSIVE EXPENDITURES ON THE MARRIAGE WELFARE PROGRAM. Think of all the tax breaks given to couples simply because they decide to get married.

      Oy. There is a marriage tax penalty, not a subsidy. Right now it’s mitigated in lower tax brackets only, but it’s coming back fully in 2011. Couples filing jointly pay in a higher tax bracket. This is just one more terrible thing about our progressive tax system. Let’s have a 10% flat tax for everyone.

      Conservatives would like to see a marriage subsidy, because they understand it would benefit the economy.

  • Lavazza

    RE: Responsible promiscuity.

    Sweden has actually gone south abortion and STD wise. Finland is the Nordic country that is doing best.

  • The Unfortunate Rake

    Wait…

    Promiscuity counts because it makes women “unattractive to commitment-oriented males,” but obesity doesn’t count for the same reason?

    Huh?

    You put the percentage of women who are promiscuous at 20%. The percentage of overweight and obese women is far higher.

    What if these whales lost some weight and started providing commitment-oriented males with attractive prospects for marriage? What about all those done-with-promiscuity alpha males who are now looking for a bride and apparently find nothing but sluts? Maybe they’d have more options for marriage if the market wasn’t 20% slut and 80% obese. If just a fraction of the non-slut fatties put down the Twinkies, we’d have the supply shortfall solved.

    Obesity is a drain on our nation’s economy

    I think you know how this goes. However, it’s likely that a much more direct case could be made for this claim than for the shell-game ones against marriage or promiscuity.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rake

      Promiscuity counts because it makes women “unattractive to commitment-oriented males,” but obesity doesn’t count for the same reason?

      I would think it does, but IDK, I see a lot of obese women dragging around a passel of kids, with an obese hubby in tow. In any case, that’s up to men to decide. I guess if Bad Boy were stuffing his girls full of sugary treats I might accuse him of making them unattractive to fit males on purpose.

  • http://www.nomadicneill.com NomadicNeill

    So you accept that sex is empowering for women? How so? If American women are faking nonchalance about sex, and N. Euro women are genuinely nonchalant, why is that? How does education change the female reproductive hormone cocktail? How do we square this dichotomy from an evo perspective?

    I wouldn’t call it nonchalance… it’s a combination of education and knowing themselves. They know the facts about sex, how men and women relate to each other and are under no delusions. When they do choose to have sex it is a conscious decision… unlike here in the UK for example where most people first hook up while intoxicated (this is the case across all social, educational and economic classes).

    With regards to how it square with the hormone cocktail… I think Anglo-sphere culture enables and encourages a lot of irrational and entitled behaviour amongst its women. Both women and men are driven by their biology it’s just that in some of the European countries they acknowledge and accept their humanity, in other places they try to repress it.

    How is that working out?

  • http://www.nomadicneill.com NomadicNeill

    @Susan Great article (Why are women hottest in countries with too few dudes).

    I think people underestimate how such factors have an effect on individual choices.

    Drinking age in UK is 18 btw, while everyone starts in their mid-teens. I think there is a difference in how alcohol is consumed in Neth. and Ger. compared to the UK. UK is all about binge-drinking and getting drunk the other two are about having a beer after work. Same with the French and their wine.

    Why am I focusing on young people? Isn’t that were the issue starts?

  • The Unfortunate Rake

    @Susan

    Sex education in the U.S. is a total mess, with lots of regional variability. In my own town, the high school teaches “fisting” as a viable expression of love and desire. My tax dollars at work.

    I looked this up and the links Google returned were slanted articles that started with your claim, which raises the spectre of every health class at the high school teaching about “fisting” to every student during the standard sex-education course.

    Only when I read further did I discover that the presentation in question was given only to high-school students who joined a gay and lesbian club and apparently voluntarily signed up for a lecture that discussed a broad spectrum of sexual behaviors.

    In other words, no scandal. The students in question were a very small number of teens who already demonstrated interest in learning about human sexual behavior, and it’s probably far better that they learned about it from a health professional than from a search for “gay sex” on the internet.

    I’m happy to be corrected if indeed an explicit description and endorsement of fisting was part of mandatory sex education for all students in Boston high schools, as your phrasing implied.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rake
      What was handed out was “The Little Black Book – Queer in the 21st century.” This book has been endorsed by the Mass. Dept. of Public Health, and the GLSEN events are co-sponsored by the Mass. Dept. of Education.

      “The Little Black Book” describes various gay sex acts including watersports, fisting, oral sex, ingesting body fluids, rimming, mutual masturbation, etc., in explicit language.

      Fisting (forcing one’s entire hand into another person’s rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap….[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with…[and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”

      Presenters at GLSEN events often receive federal money.

      I apologize for any misleading information. The truth is there is actually enormous pressure for straight students to attend events such as these. In fact, at the local high school, Valenetine’s Day has been over to queer relationships, with the following theme:

      2,4,6,8! Don’t assume your friends are straight!

      I do not approve of this material being distributed in a taxpayer funded setting, period. No high school student needs to be taught about fisting, rimming or golden showers regardless of sexual orientation.

  • Lavazza

    Susan: “In the U.S., there is probably a huge spike of alcohol comsumption and promiscuous sex in the years 19-22, with considerable tapering off after that.”

    Yeah, a friend did a HS student exchange year in the States at 18 and then returned for some months at 22, and could have much more fun.

  • Lavazza

    NomadicNeil: Actually French wine growers are worried because the youth does not drink enough wine, preferring alcopops and such crap.

  • http://www.nomadicneill.com NomadicNeill

    BTW, I don’t disagree that a declining population is an economic problem (especially since the paradigm requires constant growth).

    I’m just not sure promiscuity is the reason for it. Sure it may play a part, but what about the economic background. Wages not keeping up with the rising cost of living, fewer jobs, many young people with huge debts etc.

  • Jack

    I think that it’s fair to acknowledge that organizations like GLSEN are often co-opted by individuals with agendas that are far more radical than those of the people that they claim to represent. We’ve got a chapter on my campus, and if you were to go by their representation of homosexuality, you’d assume that homosexuals spend every free moment peeing on each other and conducting elaborate sadomasochistic rituals.

  • The Unfortunate Rake

    @Susan

    1. Your first two examples are not government funded in any way.

    True. But didn’t you open this door yourself? Your own blog entry contains this list:

    Healthcare: Medicaid/Obamacare
    Insurance Premiums
    Corporate benefit costs
    Public Sector Legal Costs: police, attorneys, court system
    Private Sector Legal Fees
    More divorce: less efficient spending and saving
    Prisons

    By my count, the majority of these items (4 of 7) are not “government-funded” costs.

    Although it’s not clear to me why divorce is on this list at all. The leading cause of divorce is marriage. Promiscuous single people who never enter marriage will not incur any divorce costs.

    Bonus: When they die, singles will leave no freeloading spouse who can keep collecting Social Security (whether he or she paid into that insurance program or not). Single people also die earlier, saving us even on their own Social Security costs.

    Marriage costs us money. Single people save us money.

    2. Engagement rings are not a drain, they support the jewelry industry.

    Each diamond sale primarily benefits a foreign corporation that exploits Africans — U.S. retailers merely earn a minor profit for making the sale. Also, by your logic, all non-government health-care costs (such as insurance premiums) support the health-care industry, and all private legal expenses support the legal industry. Surely money paid to U.S. doctors, U.S. labs, U.S. insurance companies and U.S. legal firms is better for the U.S. economy than money shipped off to De Beers.

    Oy. There is a marriage tax penalty, not a subsidy. Right now it’s mitigated in lower tax brackets only, but it’s coming back fully in 2011. Couples filing jointly pay in a higher tax bracket. This is just one more terrible thing about our progressive tax system. Let’s have a 10% flat tax for everyone.

    Oy. This is too easy.

    The first link on a Google search on “marriage tax benefits” contradicts both your claims — that there is a marriage penalty, and that only low-income people escape from it:

    MSN Money:
    The myth of the marriage penalty

    If you believe the myth about the marriage penalty — the one that says you pay more taxes when you’re married than if you’d stayed single — you might be baffled by the whole gay marriage thing.

    Why are gays and lesbians trying so hard to get hitched, you might ask, if marriage is so hard on the wallet?

    The reality is that marriage has plenty of legal and financial benefits, including tax benefits. Even before Congress changed tax rules in 2001 to deal with the so-called marriage penalty, more married couples got a tax bonus from being married than paid a tax penalty.

    [...]

    The people who faced the most egregious penalties, as a portion of their income, were the working poor, according to tax expert Edward McCaffery, a law professor at the University of Southern California and the author of “Taxing Women.” A husband and wife who each earned $10,000 could end up with a marriage penalty of more than $4,000.

    The bottom line is that if you are married you have a choice: File as a single if you gain nothing from joint filing (your marriage is irrelevant to your tax burden), or file as a couple if that saves you money (your marriage reduces your tax burden). Only married people get this choice. And plenty of them benefit from it, at the expense of everyone else.

    Marriage costs taxpayers money.

  • Grindl

    It surprises me that a woman who found “Swept Away” (yeah, I saw the original version too) to be such a turn on, a movie where the female character is slapped across the face, could be so easily shocked over my little joke on clitoral removal. I’ve actually read some manosphere posts calling for the very same thing as a way to control female sexuality — and I’m not talking about followers of Islam. (you’ll note that in the film, the “romance” ends as soon as the couple are rescued and return to reality; her “submission” to the fake alpha was a brief novelty)

    I don’t really consider myself a militant sex pozzie feminist, but you can thank the feminists just a little bit for your use of Planned Parenthood facilities all those years ago, even if you don’t seem to have much regard for PP now. Also thank the loosening up of moral standards in the ’60′s — feminists get a bit of credit here once again — that allowed you to enjoy your brief foray into “slutdom” before settling down into respectable domesticity, where you can rail against sluts to your heart’s content. Funny how “monogamy before sex” gets a pass though, guess slutting with a NiceGuy™ isn’t really sex, and with some of these guys, it almost isn’t!

    Carry on Susan with your brave mission; enjoy your position in the manosphere as patron saint of schlumpy betas everywhere.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Grindl

      It surprises me that a woman who found “Swept Away” (yeah, I saw the original version too) to be such a turn on, a movie where the female character is slapped across the face, could be so easily shocked over my little joke on clitoral removal.

      Part of what’s arousing in Swept Away is how much she gets turned on by his dominance. There are plenty of clit twinges to be had watching Swept Away, but none if your clit is surgically removed. I haven’t read those posts in the manosphere – but it doesn’t surprise me some men have said that. The strident MRA types can get very nasty. I avoid them. Her submission to the fake alpha ended when the real alpha came back on the scene. She knew it would happen, which is why she begged her sex master not to call for help. Once they were rescued, there was no feasible way for them to be together. He understood this, but his beta heart needed proof, and he blew it.

      you can thank the feminists just a little bit for your use of Planned Parenthood facilities all those years ago, even if you don’t seem to have much regard for PP now.

      I did! I used to support feminism, and am on record as supporting gender equity feminism today. It’s just that the inmates took over the asylum. Feminism met its legit equality goals many years ago, then proceeded to run amok in pursuit of female superiority. Do you respect an organization that measures its success based on the numbers of abortions it provided? As opposed to say, the number of pregnancies it prevented?

      Also thank the loosening up of moral standards in the ’60′s — feminists get a bit of credit here once again — that allowed you to enjoy your brief foray into “slutdom” before settling down into respectable domesticity

      If you’ve read my posts about my casual sexual experiences, then you know that they were not enjoyable. I wasn’t cut out for casual, like most women. I’ve also written that in the 70s and 80s casual sex happened occasionally between relationships. The primary model was one of dating, and young men gained status by having an attractive steady girlfriend. What we have now is far different, resulting in few relationships, and much more casual sex. Again, it’s the SMP run amok. Even if you say that loosening of moral standards and the availability of reproductive services of PP was a good thing, that’s not equivalent to the circus we’ve got now, with women proudly proclaiming their sluthood in the streets.

      Funny how “monogamy before sex” gets a pass though, guess slutting with a NiceGuy™ isn’t really sex, and with some of these guys, it almost isn’t!

      As I said in my recent post What a Slut Is, sluthood has nothing to do with who the guy is. It’s about how the woman defines and experiences sex. You can absolutely be a slut with basement dwelling World of Warcraft nerds – just ask Ozy :) I don’t see how you qualify as a judge on how good the guys online here are in bed – unless you’ve sampled the goods extensively. I wonder what you consider good sex.

      enjoy your position in the manosphere as patron saint of schlumpy betas everywhere.

      Some of the handsomest, smartest guys are betas. I married one, which you know. Why are feminists so quick to attack men who could use a little help in the area of dominance, especially since it’s feminists who feminized American males? You broke it, you fix it, or at least stop complaining about it.

  • BadBoyfriend

    @Susan Walsh:
    Wait, wait. You asked for evidence supporting my claim, and I provided it.

    I provided a DIRECT correlational relationship between promiscuity and saving $400m a year in tax money, in addition to a HUGE reduction in your proclaimed harmful outcomes.

    Those studies, on their own, refute your conclusion.

    Your only response is that the study only focused on harmful outcomes in teens. That is because the study was run on teens. Until someone runs a similar study on the adult population, we won’t know for sure if those numbers change.

    In the meantime, the studies show that if US sexual behavior (in teens) changed to be similar to the sexual behavior of German teens, we would save half a BILLION a year in tax money, irregardless of adult sexual behavior.

    The study showed NO downside to increased promiscuity. In fact, the studied harmful outcomes were drastically REDUCED! Can you refute the facts?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BadBoyfriend
      Actually, my responses were aimed at Nomadic Neill, I was holding off on your posts to see how you responded to Dogsquat. I thought he asked you a very interesting question. Re the half a billion, that’s 3% of the money the govt. spends on STD treatment today. I also happen to disagree with your reasoning, but I’ll hold off until you and Dogsquat finish your exchange.

  • Anonymous

    Susan thank you for the flattery but I am only one person. This IP is shared by hundreds of people. But if I am not welcome in your echo chamber, that’s fine. Bye.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Anonymous

      I am only one person. This IP is shared by hundreds of people.

      Really? So half a dozen different people are commenting on HUS on a work computer? That’s awesome!

      But if I am not welcome in your echo chamber, that’s fine. Bye.

      What is it with this thread? People are getting personal and insulting, then accusing me of having an echo chamber when I call them out. You totally dissed and ridiculed Stephenie. I wish she hadn’t felt the need to justify herself to you, but now that she has, I hope you’re ashamed of yourself. If you have any class, you’ll apologize to her before you go.

  • Grindl

    “Engagement rings are not a drain, they support the jewelry industry. They also signal to other men that a woman is spoken for. Finally, they generally increase in value – my engagement ring (which my husband and I bought together) has tripled in value in 25 years.”

    Just make sure your “seal of male ownership” isn’t one of these! No snark, this is a vile practice:

    http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html

    http://avoiceformen.com/2011/06/14/diamonds-are-a-girls-best-friend/

  • Höllenhund

    OT: Naomi Wolf’s latest article on the effects of pornography.

    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/wolf37/English

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Hollenhund
      NW and I are on the same page re pornography. An MRA once scolded me for trying to deprive men of this pleasure. However, there is significant evidence that it is contributing to male impotence in the presence of “real” women. Aside from the effects of porn on women and the way men view them after watching a lot of it, I believe that excessive viewing of porn (with all the accompanying jacking off) is not good for men’s sex lives.

      I do recognize that for men who are involuntarily celibate, porn has value.

  • Merl

    that allowed you to enjoy your brief foray into “slutdom” before settling down into respectable domesticity, where you can rail against sluts to your heart’s content.

    Oh please. Feminism didn’t allow anything, it just rode the coattails of larger social trends.

  • tito

    @Stephanie

    “Why standards and morals have to always being considered dull and joyless????”

    oh, that’s easy. popculture said so.

    @Merl

    “Oh please. Feminism didn’t allow anything, it just rode the coattails of larger social trends.”

    not true chief. look into it.

  • Grindl

    Well duh, Merl: Feminism was one of the sleeves in the coat called “social trends.”

    But people do tend to bite the hand of the one that feeds or fed them, so no surprise.

    In the great & glorious age of patriarchy it was not cute for women to have their wee bit o’ sluttery before marriage/babies/suburbia and if you betas think it’s tough to get laid now! Ask an old dude how much premarital tail he got.

  • GudEnuf

    @Susan

    I do not approve of this material being distributed in a taxpayer funded setting, period. No high school student needs to be taught about fisting, rimming or golden showers regardless of sexual orientation.

    You’d rather they have PIV sex?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @GudEnuf

      You’d rather they have PIV sex?

      I’d rather that students of all sexual orientations be taught how to be safe. Not how to insert your fist into someone’s anus, lick a butthole or drink someone’s urine. All practices that sound decidedly unsafe.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    As I said earlier, it’s all down to education

    With regards to how it square with the hormone cocktail… I think Anglo-sphere culture enables and encourages a lot of irrational and entitled behaviour amongst its women. Both women and men are driven by their biology it’s just that in some of the European countries they acknowledge and accept their humanity, in other places they try to repress it.

    Actually education and culture are two different things. The old continent promiscuity is collored by tradition, but they still managed to screw their replacement levels in a different way, immigration is a temporal solution but there is a problem with driven by biology, biology also want you to be an evolutionary success by reproducing and everyone knows that children do better in a two parents household so what happened to that part?

    Last I checked most of them don’t even get paid for much of their work. They live a blogger lifestyle

    Is very ironic indeed. The feminist dream of don’t marry young and spent those years having fun and building a career so by the time you are 35 you will be financially independent and marry by choice was just a mirage, the amount of Jezzies that are living from paycheck to paycheck have no children, or husbands, struggle to find dates and have sex not even ONS’s with the guys they want to, is very high so really at the end of the day, No money and no steady companionship just to have “empowering” sex during your 20′s, was it worth it? I do wonder how many young women actually look at this and say: Yeah that is exactly the way I want to be when I reach 30!

    MASSIVE EXPENDITURES ON TRINKETS. Think of all the money spent on engagement rings. A man is supposed to spend several month’s salary on a ring — a trinket that sits on his lady’s finger and does no good for anyone else. All money spend on engagement rings counts in the category “a drain on our nation’s economy.”

    Actually that is advertising, when the men go to buy the ring with their ladies the women are more savvy and want a cheaper one, is the “surprise ring” that has the guy convinced by the jewelry adds and salesperson to get the ubber expensive one. My “sing of male ownership” ring was not a diamond and was less than 200 bucks, both engagement and wedding combined.

    MASSIVE EXPENDITURES ON MEANINGLESS EVENTS

    Again advertising, only crazy people that need to impress family members go insane with the wedding expenses. The thing is this is not marriage is consumerism fueled expenses. The difference is that with marriage there is always cheaper choices, cheaper houses, cheaper jewelry…. with promiscuity you have to spent the same amount of money in it because STD’s and pregnancy are not advertising, they are real and if you get one your choices are treating it or dying from them, no discounts on that.

  • Merl

    @Grindl

    firstly I’m not a man

    Secondly I do know what I’m talking about. I’d lived through it.

    Feminism didn’t allow women to be promiscuous, just as Feminism can’t disallow promiscuity. There have always been promiscuous women, and women were a lot more promiscuous than people often assume. It’s both cute and stupid that you assume that the caricature of life prior to the 70′s is literally true. That’s just a story honey. The boomers made it up. Elements of the story are true, but the rest is so exaggerated that it’s become a total fiction.

    Sexual liberation played a much bigger role in ‘allowing’ promiscuity, and a lot of women had to be dragged into it. Feminism wasn’t any help when it could have been.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    oh, that’s easy. popculture said so.

    All Hail Popculture. So that is our new religion. Popculturism…? Well at least we can still call the higher authority The Pop :p

  • filrabat

    @Stephanie

    All Hail Popculture. So that is our new religion. Popculturism…? Well at least we can still call the higher authority The Pop :p

    Major doctrines of the unofficial religion of the modern world.

    1. Truth is determined by the following: a. majority vote b.by what’s presented in the media c. by what a certain numerical minority (usually upper status of some sort – money, power, prestige, charisma, general sex appeal, etc.) says so.

    2. If you are in any way non-conforming to popular culture, then you are obligated to look up to those who are conforming to it.

    3. The proper yardstick with which to measure your own value, even to yourself, is by what those in Point 1 think of you.

    4. Social Proof is never to be considered anything but proof. Let the “losers” think that Social Proof is mere “Social testimony at best – just one piece of evidence in your portfolio and nothing more”.

    5. Any critic of this religion is either a loser, or if a non-loser lacking significantly in self respect. If the critic is none of the above then he or she is either plain stupid or a damned liar.

    Any Other Additions are Welcome – as long as you strictly obey all the above five points.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Sorta O/T….Susan, I thought you & others here would be interested in this survey presentation.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @david foster
      Perfect, I’ve clipped it to Evernote and will peruse the stats over the weekend. Thanks!

  • filrabat

    Others responded to grindl pretty adequately, so I’ll just comment about “boring” “dull” this and that

    * A lot of people are addicted to excitement – so many that I think our definition of “normal” is to be excited all or most of the time.

    *Even with this, boring is in the eyes of the beholder. Personally, I would find a stay-in-the-corner type of woman more exciting than life of the party types. The former is much more likely to engage me in a stimulating conversation that I’ll remember for years to come AND that gives me positive insight into the nature of things

    *May be hard to believe, but…for a typical 30 year old, their definition of “exciting activity” is almost the exact opposite of a 20 year old’s. For example, at 20, I thought “cool” (i.e. basically a photogenic “stage presence” + telegenic lifestyles) was the end-all, be-all of life. Starting about age 28-29, I found out embarrassingly late that it’s just the blind, mindless, and I dare say cult-like worship of imagery over content.

    Regarding the above – I think it’s main source is that way, WAY, too many of us confuse happiness with pleasure/fun. Pleasure/fun is just feel-good emotionalisms that are the product of chemicals flowing through our brains giving us emotional highs. True, sustainable happiness is characterized by a steady, sober-minded, emotionally-neutral ride ..without any basis in thrills, excitements, and feel good emotionalisms. Trust me when I say that “thrills” “fun”, “excitement”, etc is just artificial joy; and to my mind scarecely different in essence than doing drugs or habitual binge drinking.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Pleasure/fun is just feel-good emotionalisms that are the product of chemicals flowing through our brains giving us emotional highs. True, sustainable happiness is characterized by a steady, sober-minded, emotionally-neutral ride ..without any basis in thrills, excitements, and feel good emotionalisms. Trust me when I say that “thrills” “fun”, “excitement”, etc is just artificial joy; and to my mind scarecely different in essence than doing drugs or habitual binge drinking.

      Great wisdom there. Worth a repost to make sure everyone reads it.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    * A lot of people are addicted to excitement – so many that I think our definition of “normal” is to be excited all or most of the time.

    This is a great observation. I think is probably a combination of how technology stimulates our brains so much that we need more than usual to be able to get the same levels of brain engagement, also if you look how ads/popculture sells as fun is usually visiting exotic locations, dancing all night, having sex with strangers and all that.
    Another interesting thing is that in the past part of a woman’s attractive traits was the capacity of entertainment, recite poetry, play the piano, play cards, read to an audience… modern women are not encouraged to learn to entertain others and/or themselves by their own means but to purchase entertainment (shop, go to clubs, restaurants and bars…), “mature” activities with no children involved and a lot of what is sold as fun and exciting is recreational sex. So maybe that is also part of the whole “I’m bored in my marriage” phenomenon, YMMV.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Steph…”how technology stimulates our brains so much that we need more than usual to be able to get the same levels of brain engagement”….dunno about this. Was the life of, say, a Plains Indian in 1840 (hunting, warfare, horse-taming, etc–thinking obviously of an Indian of the male persuasion) really less exciting/stimulating than that of a 2011 videogame player?

    “in the past part of a woman’s attractive traits was the capacity of entertainment, recite poetry, play the piano”…excellent point…the decline in the ability for self-entertainment really has been a downside of the technologies of recorded music, television, etc.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “in the past part of a woman’s attractive traits was the capacity of entertainment, recite poetry, play the piano”

      I was just saying that I wish I could have lived in a time when a truly graceful woman was educated in the arts of piano playing, singing, embroidery, etc. In other words, I want to be Elizabeth Bennet.

  • oldfeminist

    “Presenters at GLSEN events often receive federal money.”

    For presenting the LBB at the events? Or they present the LBB at events, and also get federal money for something else? Because I get federal money, too, in the form of tax deductions and credits.

    Anyway.

    If you actually understood how a flow chart works you’d be cringing at your own. For example, dotted lines don’t “mean” “less often.” You are mixing boolean and bayesian logic.

    And I don’t know why you put using contraception on the left/lower SES side. Using contraception is high-SES behavior. Not getting pregnant is high-SES behavior. Getting an abortion is high-SES behavior. It’s getting even more so as contraception and abortion are less available to poor people, who then have babies when they don’t want them and maybe are also too young, who then get poorer as a result.

    If you stood up in my workplace with a flowchart like that, I’d be embarrassed for you. It might fool the people who don’t actually know what a flowchart is, especially if it catered to their opinions. But it’s not logical, and if you think it is, you’re fooling yourself.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Oldfeminist

      For example, dotted lines don’t “mean” “less often.” You are mixing boolean and bayesian logic.

      I defined my meaning in the key. What’s the problem? The objective is simply to be understood.

      And I don’t know why you put using contraception on the left/lower SES side.

      The left side is not strictly for lower SES folks, obviously. Lots of high SES people get STDs, for example. What is limited to the poor is the prevalence of OOW births, single mother households, and the loss of young men to crime, violence, addiction and prisons.

      Getting an abortion is high-SES behavior.

      42% of abortions are to poor women, and that number has been rising steadily.

      It’s getting even more so as contraception and abortion are less available to poor people

      Less available? How so? They’re basically given out for free at Planned Parenthood. And as Dogsquat has explained, women without insurance are cared for in the ER on a regular basis.

      I’m not sure what you have against my flowchart. It’s exactly like charts I’ve created and presented to senior Wall St. execs in the past. Actually, I take that back. This is a draft, which is why I asked for feedback. No need to feel embarrassed for me though, as I’m unlikely to present it at your workplace!

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Filrabat said…”boring is in the eyes of the beholder. Personally, I would find a stay-in-the-corner type of woman more exciting than life of the party types. The former is much more likely to engage me in a stimulating conversation”

    …which reminded me of something St-Exupery wrote:

    “There is a density of being in a Dominican at prayer. He is never so much alive as when prostrate and motionless before his God. In Pasteur, holding his breath over the microscope, there is a density of being. Pasteur is never more alive than in that moment of scrutiny. At that moment he is moving forward. He is hurrying. He is advancing in seven-league boots, exploring distance despite his immobility. Cezanne, mute and motionless before his sketch, is an inestimable presence. He is never more alive than when silent, when feeling and pondering. At that moment his canvas becomes for him something wider than the seas.”

    Those who focus only on the external signs of a person’s exciting-ness will never catch of glimpse of the kind of inner life that St-Ex described.

    (The quote is from Flight to Arras)

  • Dogsquat

    @Grindl:

    “Well duh, Merl: Feminism was one of the sleeves in the coat called “social trends.”

    But people do tend to bite the hand of the one that feeds or fed them, so no surprise.

    In the great & glorious age of patriarchy it was not cute for women to have their wee bit o’ sluttery before marriage/babies/suburbia and if you betas think it’s tough to get laid now! Ask an old dude how much premarital tail he got.”

    ________________________

    Just because something used to be good doesn’t mean it stays that way in perpetuity.

    I love women. My mom is awesome, I work with (and for) some really amazing human beings who are women. My favorite professor is a woman. My second favorite doc in the whole world is a lesbian, and I send my family to her without any compunctions.

    Thirty years ago, I’d have been happy to be called a feminist.

    However, I think now society – and men specifically are dealing with some of the fallout that second wave feminism created. Also, many “feminists” are not equalists. It is not “biting the hand that feeds you” to point out (or even blame) feminism for it’s rather more nasty side effects.

    It’s like antibiotics:

    Say you come to the hospital after a cat bites your foot. You have a red, swollen foot and red streaks running up your leg.

    You get pounded with antibiotics – vanco, ampicillin, etc. Say you have a reaction to one of them – anaphalaxis or something. You need a shitload of epi, steroids and end up intubated and are on a vent for a few days. Eventually you get better and walk on outta there.

    Now, you’ve almost died. The antibiotics saved your leg (and possibly your life), but they almost killed you in the process.

    It is not anti-medicine or ungrateful to point out that antibiotics can have some severe, life threatening side effects and advocate for new medicines to be developed – ones that don’t have nasty side effects for some people.

    Life is not binary.

  • Rum

    The meme that says too much watching of porn will make porn-watchers fail to rise to the occasion when they get their hands on a real woman is, imho, misguided. Most guys are so deeply horny that any decently hot woman is more likely to make them go off prematurely than trigger any kind of rejection.
    Unless her belly rolls are larger than her tits. Obesity has the effect of making naked women look like the wrong kind of animal species for a human male to have coitus with.
    Past a certain point of lardiness, it just seems very wrong. Like there is something profoundly perverted about going thru with the act.
    Women often misjudge how much guys want to feel right and honorable (in the sober morning light) in regard to their sex lives.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I was just saying that I wish I could have lived in a time when a truly graceful woman was educated in the arts of piano playing, singing, embroidery, etc. In other words, I want to be Elizabeth Bennet.

    Heh I only said that women have little time to find themselves because they were already themselves by the time they got married. All this search for “fun” was provided by society in the form of piano lessons and embroidery.
    But to be fair there were many Charlotte Lucas (married for convenience because they weren’t rich/pretty enough to do any better), many Mrs. Bennets/Lydias (Idiots that only could get a good man if their family was in constant supervision of them and were prone to fall for tugs) and Janes who probably were happier in that time than any other people will ever be.
    So yeah I do agree that we should try to teach girls to learn to be a good company for themselves and others (the whole bitch is another word for an assertive woman or a woman that acts like a man is so much BS), specially their husbands but is not an universal solution, some women will need to learn that sometimes in life not all of us are lead characters some of us are just supporting cast and learn to be happy with it, YMMV.

  • filrabat

    @Susan

    Great wisdom there. Worth a repost to make sure everyone reads it.

    TY Susan. I can’t claim total credit for the lines though. I lifted one crucial part of it from the now-defunct takebackyourheart.com . It was basically a site by a certain Kiki Anderson, which was selling a book “Catch Him and Keep Him”. I ran across her when I did a search on psychopaths. She listed all of Robert Hare’s diagnostic criteria from the PCL-R.

  • Mike C

    Carry on Susan with your brave mission; enjoy your position in the manosphere as patron saint of schlumpy betas everywhere.

    or the good girl who marries the first NiceGuy™
    .
    Ahhhh….cute little trademark thingy there. Wanted to highlight both of these statements. One common theme in the manosphere is that some/most? women hate betas. I actually don’t believe that. Hate is the wrong word, and I don’t think it is most, probably some to maybe under 50%.
    .
    But what these statement quite aptly illustrate is that some women do in fact have quite strong contempt and scorn for betas. They really are lesser men in the eyes of some women.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    They really are lesser men in the eyes of some women.

    I noticed that too. No one indicated here that this men are slumch or lesser but the words husband, good character, prudence, no promiscuity… are associated with “loser” so strongly that really is obvious why Dark Triads and Asshole Game works so much in sluts. They don’t have any love for anything remotely smelling of Nice. I feel like I’m reading a Brave New World character talking about the savages in the past…mind-blowing.

  • Mike C

    No one indicated here that this men are slumch or lesser but the words husband, good character, prudence, no promiscuity…
    .
    That guy is DULL….yuck. :)
    .
    In the words of the classic Cyndi Lauper (I’m dating myself here) “Girls just wanna have fun”. Interestingly, the song is probably right “girls”……women appreciate other things.

  • Aldonza

    @Susan

    I was just saying that I wish I could have lived in a time when a truly graceful woman was educated in the arts of piano playing, singing, embroidery, etc. In other words, I want to be Elizabeth Bennet.

    And yet, if you asked Elizabeth (or rather, her alter-ego, Jane Austen) which era she would chose to live in, you might be surprised at her answer.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Aldonza
    I am sure Jane would have been a feminist.

    Have you seen Midnight in Paris yet? I loved it – it was such a charming and delightful movie about nostalgia and the longing for a different era.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I am sure Jane would have been a feminist.

    She might had been part of the first wave but the second and whatever this one is? I doubt it.
    I’m pretty sure she would had chosen a good man to marry and continue writing. Wickham, Willogby…. were all Alpha playboys and they both end up unhappy married to women they didn’t loved and their leads ended up with nice good men, in Northanger Abbey she also makes fun of dumb women that get themselves get away from reality, she also knew that some women are not to be trusted just because they have a vagina. So I really doubt she wouldn’t had seen able to see the truth beyond the feminists pretenses of nowadays. She after all loved men, YMMV.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      She might had been part of the first wave but the second and whatever this one is? I doubt it.

      Very true! Jane Austen died a virgin, and called off a one-night engagement to a man she didn’t really love. She was truly the antithesis of sex-positive feminism.

  • filrabat

    Grindl, Susan, Steph, Mike,

    Re: (implied) manliness, (explicitly) schlumps and manliness

    I take this as my cue to post my article about manliness on my website:

    Is “Manliness” Obsolete?”

    (FYI: Only now, after many months on here, have I posted any link to that blog – mainly because the great majority of the material is not germane to the HUS subject matter. Plus, there’s a few skeletons of posts leading to a VERY controversial philosophical position I hold and I didn’t want THAT to be an issue on here. It’s enough to say that I am well aware of the HUS assumptions and mission, and I respect that mission by working within those assumptions)

    (By that, I mean manliness in a general societal context, not in sexual one – although part of the article is tangently related to relationships).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @filrabat
      I had no idea you were a blogger! Why don’t you sign up for comment luv? Is the antinatalism that you are concerned about? Because I have no problem with it – to each his own.

  • filrabat

    Correction

    The top of my last post should be:

    “”Re: (implied) manliness, (explicitly) schlumps, betas, and NiceGuys(TM)””

  • jess

    Aldonza,- jane austin
    well put- in fact of lot ladybird classics have heroines that were feminists before their time.
    .

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    @Susan Walsh
    I don’t know what response Dogsquat was asking for. I’ll stick with my Dr’s advice, thanks. But that’s irrelevant to this discussion in my opinion. Fire away.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BadBoyfriend
      From Dogsquat at 4:46 a.m.:
      With regard to your post made at 0245 this morning:

      “If US sexual behavior matched that of Germany (ie. was MORE promiscuous) Americans would save half a BILLION dollars in public money.”

      What essential element is missing from your analysis? It’s a doozy.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @filrabat
    Oh you have a blog!? Cool :D

  • Stephenie Rowling

    She was truly the antithesis of sex-positive feminism.

    She will probably slut shame more than us. Look at Lydia she was the epitome of the sexpoz: dumb, driven by her vagina, scandalous and rude if it was not for Mr. Darcy she would had brought her whole family down the mood ruining her sisters chances at a good marriage chasing her own “happiness”. And a lesser example was Marianne that fell in love with Willogby and barely survived it, and later learned to appreciate sweet Colonel Brandon who was her true soulmate but she didn’t recognized it because she was not mature enough for him yet, and you could say the same of both Darcy and Lizzy, they both needed to gain certain awareness to be ready for each other.
    Yet I read once in a thread of a woman complaining that Jane Austen always make the most interesting male characters into villains. You know Wickham the guy that was trying to seduce a girl to get her money and Willogby who was banging a poor chick and got her pregnant while courting Marianne, face meet palm.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Look at Lydia she was the epitome of the sexpoz: dumb, driven by her vagina, scandalous and rude

      This is right on, hilarious.

      Yet I read once in a thread of a woman complaining that Jane Austen always make the most interesting male characters into villains.

      Wow, that just proves that women like cads. I felt thoroughly repelled by those characters from the start, as Austen intends for us to. Jane Austen might be a good way of separating women of good judgment from hypergamous bimbos. Maybe I’ll write up a Jane Austen test of mating strategy.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com/ BadBoyfriend

    @Dogsquat

    What essential element is missing from your analysis? It’s a doozy.

    Enlighten me…

  • Jesus Mahoney

    BadBoyfriend, you’re confusing correlation with causation.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    You totally dissed and ridiculed Stephenie. I wish she hadn’t felt the need to justify herself to you, but now that she has, I hope you’re ashamed of yourself. If you have any class, you’ll apologize to her before you go.

    Thanks for the help Susie, *kiss in the cheek*
    But you are right I really shouldn’t had blabber half my resume to her, she (or everyone in her computer) probably consider themselves to “enlightened and smart” to apologize to anyone, less alone a First World raised Latina, like me. Is okay I said what I needed to say, so we are even.

  • SayWhaat

    or the good girl who marries the first NiceGuy™

    Link for people who don’t know what this refers to: http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.shtml

    The biggest problem is that most Nice Guys ™ are hideously insecure. They are so anxious to be liked and loved that they do things for other people to gain acceptance and attention, rather than for the simply pleasure of giving. You never know if a Nice Guy really likes you for who you are, or if he has glommed onto you out of desperation because you actually paid some kind of attention to him.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @SayWhaat
      That Nice Guy TM thing is one of the rudest, most mean-spirited memes I’ve ever come across. Bitching about guys who bring flowers. Women who float this meme deserve the assholes they prefer. I recall that Jaclyn Friedman said in an interview that most feminist males are pussies and it’s really a turnoff (I’m paraphrasing). There’s something ironic about feminist sluts preferring cads.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Susan:

    I loved Midnight in Paris! My next favorite movie, right after (500) Days of Summer. : )

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com/ BadBoyfriend

    @Jesus Mahoney

    you’re confusing correlation with causation

    I certainly understand the difference between a causal relationship and a correlational one. My argument required no proof of causation to be valid.
    One of Susan Walsh’s claims is that promiscuity==economic stagnation (by way of a list of causes). It follows that higher levels of promiscuity should result in greater stagnation, and lower stagnation for lower promiscuity levels (fueled by the same causes) The evidence I provided showed that the opposite is the case.

    The first study established that promiscuity is significantly higher in Germany than the US. By Susan Walsh’s graph, the causal factors of economic stagnation (STDs, Sexual Assault, Divorce, etc) should be significantly HIGHER in Germany than the US.

    The second study showed the opposite is true. Teen Pregnancy, Teen Birth Rate, Teen Abortion Rate, and HIV Infection Rate are all LOWER in Germany, by very significant margins.

    Additional surprising facts:
    The US has 5 times the Syphillis infection rate than Germany, and 66!!! times the Gonorrhea infection rate (link)

    The US has 2.6 times higher divorce rate than Germany (link)

    Also, the US has 3.2 times more rape-per-capita than Germany (link)

    If Susan Walsh’s conclusion was valid, The US should have LOWER rates in all cases. The opposite is true.

    It follows that unless you claim that STD treatment costs more, that divorce is more damaging, and that a rape is worse in Germany than the US, Germany is suffering economically significantly less than the US. (ie lower economic stagnation)

    How can Susan Walsh be right?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Link for people who don’t know what this refers to: http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.shtml

    Actually I’m familiar with the term (Jezebel ex-poster ;)). The problem was assuming that every guy worth waiting for, marrying and raising a family with was automatically linked to this description, something that was never uttered here. Again for some reason the idea that if you marry: the guy will be a chump most be one commandments of the feminist bible.
    Is actually good to have more evidence that feminists goal was not to liberate women from men but to turn them in slaves of other meaner, sluttier, angrier women that hated marriage and had done everything within their power to destroy it, and they won it looks like. :(

  • Dogsquat

    BadBoyfriend said:

    “Enlighten me….”

    _____________________________

    You’re copping out. Based on your posts here, I know you’re smart enough to answer my question.

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

    Dogsquat,

    I think now society – and men specifically are dealing with some of the fallout that second wave feminism created. Also, many “feminists” are not equalists. It is not “biting the hand that feeds you” to point out (or even blame) feminism for it’s rather more nasty side effects.

    It’s like antibiotics.
    It is not anti-medicine or ungrateful to point out that antibiotics can have some severe, life threatening side effects and advocate for new medicines to be developed – ones that don’t have nasty side effects for some people.

    That’s an amazing analogy, not thought of that before.

    A big problem I keep coming up against is people taking any criticism of Feminsm [an ideology] to be a criticism of Women [one half of the human race]. Utterly mad, obviously, but it’s an insanity the intitution of feminism works very hard to maintain. Personally I’m glad a lot of the changes that happened in the 70s took place, I did see sexism growing up in that decade. But the beast has run wild since then, done a lot of damage & hurt a lot of people, & it’s going to take a long while before any healthy society emerges from its ashes.

    It seems you are in a good balanced position in regard to this, that is to be applauded. It’s a razor’s edge to walk sometimes.

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Well obviously the increased promiscuity in Germany isn’t accounting for the lower rate of disease there. There must be some other mitigating factor, such as more open discourse and pedagogy regarding taking the necessary precautions to avoid disease, unwanted pregnancy, etc…

  • Jesus Mahoney

    Sue,

    That Nice Guy TM thing is one of the rudest, most mean-spirited memes I’ve ever come across. Bitching about guys who bring flowers. Women who float this meme deserve the assholes they prefer. I recall that Jaclyn Friedman said in an interview that most feminist males are pussies and it’s really a turnoff (I’m paraphrasing). There’s something ironic about feminist sluts preferring cads.

    I think we need to make a distinction between “nice” and “good” or “kind.” It’s not that the so-called nice guys show kindness that makes them bad, it’s that they invest too early and expect a return on that investment too soon. A man who shows up for a first date with a dozen roses is most likely sending the underlying message: “I’m not much to be around, but you can expect things like flowers in return for your services.”

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jesus

      I do understand the pitfalls of being too nice, I just think it’s unnecessary to deride nice guys in the same way one might talk about pedophiles.

  • Dogsquat

    Thanks for the kind words, Byron.

    Goddamnit, Jesus! There you are, turning water into fishes or some shit, doing other people’s homework.

    I’m going to have a talk with your father about you.

  • Grindl

    ““I’m not much to be around, but you can expect things like flowers in return for your services.””

    BINGO!

    Heavy on the “services,” and “return on investment” — wink, nudge. The TM thing has been around for ages; I can’t take credit for it. It refers to guys who think playing Mr. Nicey will eventually get them laid. They are so accommodating, so fawning they just don’t come across as real human beings.

    It usually doesn’t work for them; they get played, used, dumped and therefore they become more bitter and their mating call is, “but I’mma niiiiicccceee guy!”
    Overanxious (desperately horny) men who make declarations of love, toss out empty compliments and plan future longterm activities after one or two meetings tend to frighten off and/or disgust women tho think.

    Now guys who are simply nice people are wonderful.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Grindl

      That doesn’t ring true based on my own experience. The betas who are overly nice or eager are usually willing to go all in – they are looking for true love. The fact that they’re so willing to commit out of the gate is what turns women off – it signals they don’t have options.

      In contrast, the guys who want fast access to sex don’t bother with the niceties – which happens to be a very effective strategy.

  • tito

    @Susan

    “That Nice Guy TM thing is one of the rudest, most mean-spirited memes I’ve ever come across. Bitching about guys who bring flowers. Women who float this meme deserve the assholes they prefer. I recall that Jaclyn Friedman said in an interview that most feminist males are pussies and it’s really a turnoff (I’m paraphrasing). There’s something ironic about feminist sluts preferring cads.”

    hahaha! i like your tone Susan. i’ll add here the anti-civilizational effect of al of this. jaclyn friedman is ugly and a phony. any chick who feels this way not only deserves what she gets, bu should also be mocked. if she tries to date someone normal on down the line, someone should notify that guy of her previous life. way too many people in general get a reward later on after having done a lot of dumb shit.

  • Abbot

    There’s something ironic about feminist sluts preferring cads.
    .
    Well, we are talking here about a group of women who were clearly spawned from extremely dysfunctional families. It is very sad especially knowing that early intervention could have made a difference. School counselors should be trained to note signs of pre slut overt feministpath behaviors.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Abbot

      Unfortunately, many school counselors are trained to note, and reward, pre slut overt feminist behaviors.

  • Blues

    NW and I are on the same page re pornography. An MRA once scolded me for trying to deprive men of this pleasure. However, there is significant evidence that it is contributing to male impotence in the presence of “real” women.

    There’s that, on the other hand there’s also the lack of femininity in women.

  • Blues

    So yeah I do agree that we should try to teach girls to learn to be a good company for themselves and others

    This goes for men too actually, the very core of inner game is to realize you don’t need external validation, just be comfortable with yourself.

    (the whole bitch is another word for an assertive woman or a woman that acts like a man is so much BS)

    IMHO Bitch is word for a woman that acts like an entitled asshole and there’s plenty of those out there.

  • Blues

    I noticed that too. No one indicated here that this men are slumch or lesser but the words husband, good character, prudence, no promiscuity… are associated with “loser” so strongly that really is obvious why Dark Triads and Asshole Game works so much in sluts. They don’t have any love for anything remotely smelling of Nice. I feel like I’m reading a Brave New World character talking about the savages in the past…mind-blowing.

    The sad part is that it’s not just sluts Steph, it’s not just sluts.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com/ BadBoyfriend

    @Jesus Mahoey

    Well obviously the increased promiscuity in Germany isn’t accounting for the lower rate of disease there. There must be some other mitigating factor, such as more open discourse and pedagogy regarding taking the necessary precautions to avoid disease, unwanted pregnancy, etc…

    You are right, increased promiscuity probably ISN’T to blame for STD rates, Divorce rates, Rape rates, etc. However, Susan Walsh claims promiscuity IS to blame for those. That’s the point of her graph.

  • Blues

    That Nice Guy TM thing is one of the rudest, most mean-spirited memes I’ve ever come across. Bitching about guys who bring flowers. Women who float this meme deserve the assholes they prefer. I recall that Jaclyn Friedman said in an interview that most feminist males are pussies and it’s really a turnoff (I’m paraphrasing).

    The problem with that article is that it makes no distinction between “Nice Guy” and “Good Man” IMO.

    There’s something ironic about feminist sluts preferring cads

    Feminist get the men they deserve, nothing more, nothing less.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Wow, that just proves that women like cads. I felt thoroughly repelled by those characters from the start, as Austen intends for us to. Jane Austen might be a good way of separating women of good judgment from hypergamous bimbos.

    Yeah is amazing how missing the point is.They look charming and confident but they are scum stay way from them!

    Maybe I’ll write up a Jane Austen test of mating strategy.

    Heh that would be nice. :)

    Heavy on the “services,” and “return on investment” — wink, nudge. The TM thing has been around for ages; I can’t take credit for it. It refers to guys who think playing Mr. Nicey will eventually get them laid. They are so accommodating, so fawning they just don’t come across as real human beings.

    Do you remember that once upon a time this is exactly the way it worked? Or that maybe this is what their female friends tell them to do? What about “Look I know that you think this will please me, but I really like to take the things slowly and get presents after we get to know each other for a while”, and no “you are such a creep” or “Take me to this restaurant and pay for it, drop me home and I will be going out later with a cad and bang him, of course I would totally keep asking you for dates but just to use your money, don’t dare and touch me”.
    Really everybody here now that I draw the line in making friends with a girl to get into her pants, but if a guy asks you out and you feel he is not acting properly you at least should politely whether give him a hint or stop dating him, this whole he deserves to be shamed and used is not a nice way to treat a fellow human being whose only sin is that he finds out attractive, YMMV.

    The sad part is that it’s not just sluts Steph, it’s not just sluts.

    I know I know

  • Mike C

    That doesn’t ring true based on my own experience. The betas who are overly nice or eager are usually willing to go all in – they are looking for true love. The fact that they’re so willing to commit out of the gate is what turns women off – it signals they don’t have options.
    .
    Yes, +1,000,000…this is exactly right.
    .
    “Nice” guys are not trying to use “nice” behavior to manipulate the girl. It is not some grand Machiavellian scheme to get “services” in exchange for flowers and candy. Most earnestly believe that is how you win the girl’s true affections. I know that is EXACTLY what I believed years ago when I was a “nice” guy because that is what Mom and society taught you.
    .
    I think many are shell-shocked when they learn that not only is that NOT what women really want, but that it earns their scorn and ridicule. Look at some of Jesus Mahoney’s first comments on this blog.
    .
    BTW, Jesus, I think you are doing great….just reading your comments…you seem to be ramping up the learning curve at a tremendous pace. I don’t want to lecture you on morality, but I do believe in karma….just my opinion, but stay away from the married women. No doubt, alot of them can be had (believe me I know this from personal experience) but as you get better attracting women you have to ask yourself can I look at myself in the mirror? That said, I’ve got no moral qualms with the idea of pumping and dumping sluts. That is what they put themselves out there as.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    what Mike said

  • Mike C

    Yohami,
    .
    Something just hit me regarding “nice” behavior that I never considered before.
    .
    We know some women engage in projection…ie….because status is attractive to me, then my higher status must be attractive to men.
    .
    So….does the fact that some women equate “nice” behavior as attempts at manipulation say something about their true motives when they engage in “nice” behavior?

  • Blues

    That doesn’t ring true based on my own experience. The betas who are overly nice or eager are usually willing to go all in – they are looking for true love. The fact that they’re so willing to commit out of the gate is what turns women off – it signals they don’t have options.

    Imma sound like a broken record (yet again!) but the thing is betas show they’re interested in commitment precisely because of just how much women claim they want a man willing to commit to monogamy instead of the usual guy that treats them like toilet paper yet it’s ironically showing that willingness to be monogamous what is killing their options in the first place. It’s a cruel paradox if there was ever one.

    “Nice” guys are not trying to use “nice” behavior to manipulate the girl. It is not some grand Machiavellian scheme to get “services” in exchange for flowers and candy. Most earnestly believe that is how you win the girl’s true affections. I know that is EXACTLY what I believed years ago when I was a “nice” guy because that is what Mom and society taught you.

    Cosign this, it’s uncannily close to my experience.

    I think many are shell-shocked when they learn that not only is that NOT what women really want, but that it earns their scorn and ridicule. Look at some of Jesus Mahoney’s first comments on this blog.

    So true, t’s a horrible feeling and it fill you with hatred and bitterness as powerful as a 1000 suns and it takes a lot to get rid of it completely to boot.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    when a guy acts nice, and at the same time putting the girl above of him, the niceness comes at compensation for his own lack of value, and the niceness also expecting for validation

    which contrasts when a guy acts nice, but at the same time putting the girl beneath of him, so the niceness is actually less nice, but more valuable, like when the otherwise strict and demanding professor winks you an eye

    women are exposed all of the time to both forms of niceness, and the contrast renders the lower value, nice guy, as needy and creepy as manipulative, since “all he wants is validation”. it doesnt matter if the guy is really putting his heart into it and being honest. its still perceived as he is trying to put sugar on a sour milk and trying to sell it. when the guy is rejected and he exposes his sourness, thats the validation for the woman that the milk was sour to begin with

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    I didnt type that well but I think it exposes the point

    women are “right” because it feels right. and the nice guys wouldnt be adding that much sugar if they knew how this works

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    and to your question, yes, women act deliberately nice when they want something. they even befriend people they dont like and get friends with your girlfriend if they want to get you, so yes they read the same intentions in nice guys, even if the nice guys are really just being nice because they were taught so

    again when they break the nice guy and the guy gets angry, thats a “validation” that there were ulterior motives, even if they werent

    this stuff is bytecoded with gender. men can use the logical brain to sort it out and adapt. women wont.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    man I should fully wake up before pressing *send*

  • tito

    @Susan

    “Unfortunately, many school counselors are trained to note, and reward, pre slut overt feminist behaviors.”

    really? are you serious? do you know this from any sort of experience or one of them telling you?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @tito

      “Unfortunately, many school counselors are trained to note, and reward, pre slut overt feminist behaviors.”

      really? are you serious? do you know this from any sort of experience or one of them telling you?

      No, it’s not overt. It’s really a question of what’s politically correct. In my part of the world, that’s an anti-heteronormative, pro-sex, pro-female agenda.

  • Abbot

    Unfortunately, many school counselors are trained to note, and reward, pre slut overt feminist behaviors.
    .
    SInce most schools attended by the young and impressionable are public, then its our tax dollars that go to reinforce the next generation of unmarriageables. And its proof that women are being taught to act against their own best interests and they do not have agency no matter how loud they screech otherwise. Manipulated and honed to service men’s sexual needs from a young age. They just can’t win at this thing they call feminism.

  • Blues

    So true, t’s a horrible feeling and it fill you with hatred and bitterness as powerful as a 1000 suns and it takes a lot to get rid of it completely to boot.

    I take it all back, i thought i had it bad but my issues don’t begin to compare to the issues this girl has

  • Mike C

    So true, t’s a horrible feeling and it fill you with hatred and bitterness as powerful as a 1000 suns and it takes a lot to get rid of it completely to boot.
    .
    I hear ya, but you HAVE TO. Otherwise you get stuck…stuck in a bad mentality that is a really bad place…there was a guy who commented here a long time ago “white and nerdy” who epitomized that mentality. I really think it is comparable to the 5 stages of grief…some guys just can’t get to acceptance but you have to get there if you want this part of your life… women/sex/dating to be successful and happy.

  • Mike C

    Yohami,

    Thanks. I learn new things reading your comments as you bring a different perspective and way of viewing thing than I do. You have a way to get to the gestalt of stuff.

  • Blues

    I hear ya, but you HAVE TO. Otherwise you get stuck…stuck in a bad mentality that is a really bad place…there was a guy who commented here a long time ago “white and nerdy” who epitomized that mentality. I really think it is comparable to the 5 stages of grief…some guys just can’t get to acceptance but you have to get there if you want this part of your life… women/sex/dating to be successful and happy.

    I know i’m on it, not totally out of the woods yet but on it.

  • Abbot

    “Unfortunately, many school counselors are trained to note, and reward, pre slut overt feminist behaviors.”
    _______________
    really? are you serious? do you know this from any sort of experience or one of them telling you?

    .
    Just by being indifferent, adults who are looked up to by students will take that as condoning their behavior. Imagine if a counselor even suggested that a girl avoid certain “types” of boys or abstained from intimate acts until older. Ho-lyyyy shit. The feminist lobby would have field day screeching all about how our public funds cannot be used to modify female behavior. The chilling effect on “promiscuity is bad” good advice to women that feminism has instilled is well known and that is absolutely bad for the economy unless someone here can prove otherwise. This chilling effect continues into adulthood as no gynecologist will tell a woman take a break from easy to get cock, despite that being excellent advice, medically and otherwise.

  • jess

    Badboyfriend,
    .
    Your last post was excellent sir- concise, researched and well argued.
    .
    Susan has always lauded evidential based contributions and I look forward to see her and others debate the points you raised.
    .
    I dont wear caps myself but were I too, it would most certainly be doffed.

  • Abbot

    It seems that some small pockets of American women [the petri dish class] would be motivated and thrilled to move to Germany. At least that is what some of the data above suggests. Then the US would have less promiscuity, disease, divorce and shame. Y’all packin yet? Glad to help.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    So….does the fact that some women equate “nice” behavior as attempts at manipulation say something about their true motives when they engage in “nice” behavior?

    Let me play Devil’s advocate in this.
    I think it depends. Imagine guy 1 he makes friends with a girl he fancies but as soon as he has the chance he declare his intentions (asks her out, tells her his feelings…) he does.
    Now guy 2 is friends with the girl for years, slowly making himself closer to her, seeing you date other guys and hoping and waiting for them to break your heart so you can go to them for comfort and reassurance in order to seduce you…Does any of this looks manipulative? Only one?

  • Mike C

    Now guy 2 is friends with the girl for years, slowly making himself closer to her, seeing you date other guys and hoping and waiting for them to break your heart so you can go to them for comfort and reassurance *******in order to seduce you******…Does any of this looks manipulative? Only one?
    .
    Ya know I’m onboard with you most of the time…but this is off IMO. The vast majority of guys simply do not this. You are not going to befriend a girl, spend many months or years sort of trying to backdoor into a romantic/sexual relationship…just biding your time…waiting for a moment of emotional weakness to pounce. Now some guys might be “friends” with a girl and have romantic/sexual feelings but simply not have the balls/confidence to make a move…hence the term “beta orbiters” but it comes from a place of insecurity and lack of confidence, not strategic manipulation.
    .
    Funny you mention this though. Back when I was bouncing, I was friendly with a ton of girls who I saw regularly. There were two who were cool chicks but fat, and I wasn’t attracted at all, and gave them no indications of anything else. One flat out cock-blocked me with a friend of hers I was working on. The friend told me when I made a move on her that her fattie friend told her to stay away from me as I was hers. So maybe what you describe is a typical woman tactic? So you assume it is what guys do?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    So maybe what you describe is a typical woman tactic? So you assume it is what guys do?

    Well I don’t know I told you that my best male friend was friends with his wife for 9 years before marrying her so at least some men would do this, IME.
    Most women I knew didn’t waited that long, they usually were showing tits as soon as they could when they were interested in a friend, so I don’t know. I think women are prone to give sex, hint at sex as soon as they can easier than becoming friends first with ulterior motives, IME.
    I do think American People are too fond of the “friend first lovers later” cliche, though. So that might be a reason, your friend was not attractive so my guess is that she was trying to win your affections with her personality given that her looks wouldn’t do the job, I wonder if it worked before?
    Interesting that you do think she was manipulative is because of the cock blocking? I mean why she was not also acting out of insecurity? A guy that has feelings for a female friend will try to cockblock another male friend shows interest? I mean if he doesn’t has the balls to say anything to the girl would he try to keep another man away? Inquiring minds want to know! :)

  • SayWhaat

    @ Blues:

    Interesting you bring up that video. Every girl who has seen it recognizes it as obvious satire, but every guy who has seen it claims the girl in the video is full of crazy.

  • Jules

    Grindl says:
    July 7, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    So the conclusion would seem to be: sex is dirty, nasty, bad (unless you’re married to a suitably dull beta male and you’re doing is just to make babies and you absolutely don’t enjoy it). Reading all this makes me want to have my clitoris surgically removed.

    I agree with some of the other posters that a smaller planetary population would be the best thing to happen to this beknighted planet. It is going to be a rough transitional period when Boomer Nation finds many of its members without financial support; thank the Greatest Generation for that anomaly in population growth; a python swallowing an elephant! A surge like this should never happen again.

    Susan, I don’t entirely disagree that promiscuity has financial and certainly some social penalties. Although if every woman swore off sex, dating, alcohol, shopping for “club” wear, makeup, etc. and stayed home at night/weekends and lived a spartan lifestyle of complete abstinence and joylessness that would also have some serious economic repercussions. It would be interesting to see however!

    My opinion exactly!

    And bravo to BadBoyfriend for finding data confirming that promiscuity does not always have a negative economic effect.
    Or rather, it’s not the promiscuity itself but the FEAR of sex in this country that leaves adolescents uneducated, makes birth control less widely available, and overall just makes sex seem like a bigger deal than it is. We have to get comfortable with the idea of sex and stop blaming everything on it.

  • Blues

    @SayWhaat

    Interesting you bring up that video. Every girl who has seen it recognizes it as obvious satire, but every guy who has seen it claims the girl in the video is full of crazy.

    Interesting, how is the video obviously a satire? what gives it away as satire according to you

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Mike, you´re welcome bro. I learn new stuff as well

  • Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Something Something Edition

  • Tom

    Pleasure/fun is just feel-good emotionalisms that are the product of chemicals flowing through our brains giving us emotional highs. True, sustainable happiness is characterized by a steady, sober-minded, emotionally-neutral ride ..without any basis in thrills, excitements, and feel good emotionalisms. Trust me when I say that “thrills” “fun”, “excitement”, etc is just artificial joy; and to my mind scarecely different in essence than doing drugs or habitual binge drinking.

    __________________________
    Hogwash. That is just some boring persons opinion. What would life be without fun. There certianly is a happy medium between responsibility and fun and the truely happy people know this.
    There are opposite ends of the spectrum….The boring bookworm and the constant thrill seeker.
    There are recreational drug users and responsible drinkers, after all. They seem to manage their vices quite well.
    Different strokes for different folks.
    Too bad some people never seem to have any fun in life. Those chemicals in the brain were put there for a reason, our enjoyment.

  • Clarence

    Bad Boyfriend:

    Susan Walsh can be right in one way: it might be the case that if all other factors are held equal in a society that more promiscuity leads to more financial and societal costs. Clearly Germany has a much different culture than America: they have far different attitudes about sex and they have far more of a welfare state along with excellent preventive medicine.

    What you did prove was that increased promiscuity vis-a-vis another society doesn’t always mean the society with the increased promiscuity suffers more costs.

  • Tom

    Very true! Jane Austen died a virgin, and called off a one-night engagement to a man she didn’t really love. She was truly the antithesis of sex-positive feminism.

    _______________________
    Was Jane in the closet?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Was Jane in the closet?

      Doubt it. She was too tuned in to cross-sexual dynamics. She just never fell in love.

  • Tom

    @ Abott
    Stop with the “sluts all come from disfuctional famlies” crap. That simply is not true. People all have free will and make their own decisions. I have seen families where 3 daughter were very proper , but the forth was a wild thing…..Ever hear the expression,”the black sheep of the family?”

  • tito

    @Tom

    “Stop with the “sluts all come from disfuctional famlies” crap. That simply is not true. People all have free will and make their own decisions. I have seen families where 3 daughter were very proper , but the forth was a wild thing…..Ever hear the expression,”the black sheep of the family?”

    reconsider the free will thing guy. it is all entertainment media influence. it creates the so-called culture. they feel the pressured and they buckle much easier than ma, they follow the crowd. we need to start recognizing the truth.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com/ BadBoyfriend

    @ Clarence
    Susan Walsh made no such claim that specific societal differences would change the outcome of promiscuity==economic stagnation.
    You cannot use the special pleading of “what applies in Germany, doesn’t apply to the US”.

    Clearly Germany has a much different culture than America: they have far different attitudes about sex and they have far more of a welfare state along with excellent preventive medicine.

    That is the point. Education, healthcare, acceptance of sex, lack of religious bias, etc are what really matter. NOT whether or not the population has promiscuous sex.

    I think the reason Susan Walsh hasn’t replied to my posts is she understands what this evidence shows: Preaching against promiscuity has a negative effect on society. She may not want to point that out to her readers, as she’s trying to convince them the opposite is true.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BadBoyfriend

      I think the reason Susan Walsh hasn’t replied to my posts is she understands what this evidence shows: Preaching against promiscuity has a negative effect on society. She may not want to point that out to her readers, as she’s trying to convince them the opposite is true.

      This is laughable. Preaching has a negative effect on society, and promiscuity doesn’t? I continue to resent your personal, insulting tone – implying that I would hold back on readers if the facts didn’t further my argument.

      As it happens, you still haven’t answered Dogsquat’s question. In the meantime, Clarence is right. Promiscuity in the US is not the same, does not look the same, as promiscuity in other countries. Remember, we are a Puritanical country, and that is evident in the sexual behavior of young people (both adhering and rebelling). My claim is that promiscuity has certain effects in the US – I make no claims about it elsewhere. We are unique – for example, only we have an African American population still affected by the legacy of slavery, and there are many negative effects of promiscuity felt in that community today. Among educated whites, condom use is low (65%) and most promiscuous sex (85%) occurs between intoxicated partners. I don’t believe this is true in other countries.

      By the way, your first source is one I have already written about here. Your second source is a biased, sex-positive website. Were you aware of that?

      The question is not whether promiscuity harms other countries. The fact is that promiscuity has significant costs associated with it in the US, with our health care system, our history, and our culture.

      However, we may look to the economies of other nations to examine the effects of birth rates below replacement levels. If promiscuity does not reduce the birth rate in the U.S., and does not create a massive underclass of young people with no hope for the future, then you may conclude it is not harmful. Whether casual sex devalues the euro is totally irrelevant.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    we need to start recognizing the truth.

    You can’t handle the truth! :)
    You know this thread and the femininity challenge reminds me of many discussions with my nerdy friends about how unrealistic some of them though was that Jor-El was the only one that knew that Krypton was going to hell and that the Kryptonians didn’t believe him. I always sustained that was totally realistic.
    I’m pretty sure that if we could travel back in time and ask any Roman from the last centuries of the empire: “So what was your role in the decline of Rome?” he/she will say “Me? I was just having fun, minding my own business I didn’t had anything to do with it.”
    Yeah no one wants to be Spartacus when it might mean you have to let go of your toys, YMMV.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Blues:

    VIDEO BREAKDOWNN

    Firstly, if she was truly crazy, the video would not have started with the intro that she gave. It would have started with a full-on raging bitch rant (possibly complete with tears) about why guys like dumb sluts and make them their girlfriends (a justified feeling, IMO–one that I have felt many times and is akin to men wondering why girls like alpha douchebags). Or, it would have just started at the point where she is putting on makeup.

    Instead, she calmly talks about why she is making this video (“it’s a video basically doing crazy stuff that I think guys like in girls — like being dumb, and a slut”) and even throws in a couple jokes (“I’m the whole package, guys — without the package”). This is so that her calm intro can serve as a direct contrast to the wild, crazy “sluttiness” she exhibits in the latter half of the video for comedic purposes.

    I think it’s safe to say that no one finds her antics sexy, which is precisely the point. She’s making fun of girls who cake makeup on their faces and gyrate like horndogs in clubs and drain kegs to “have a good time”, and the sad truth is that every girl who doesn’t act that out of control knows that those antics are very effective in securing male attention. What was less known, even to me recently, was that dumb sluts are pumped-and-dumped by men but aren’t considered girlfriend material, unless she attracts a good-looking beta guy who feels like he can’t do better. This is especially common in high school, and the girl seems to be about that age, which makes her parody of dumb sluts even more understandable given that she’s in the thick of it.

    Even while acting “crazy”, she still has the presence of mind to toss in a few more jokes (“What’s 2+2? Gonorrhea”) and Myspace poses (for individual users, Myspace seems to now be the domain of undereducated, wannabe porn stars). Perhaps it would have been better to end the video with her resuming calmness, but she made her point: men like crazy women, and then they like to complain about it after they start dating. Why not give a chance to the girls who are the complete package, minus the “package”?

  • Blues

    @SayWhaat: The funny thing is that from your perspective it makes perfect sense but substitute the girl for a beta (or rather gamma) high school guy, the word “sluts” for “assholes/players”, the dancing/water pouring/make up madness for crazy jock-like weight lifting/over the top asshole attitude(“i told ya to suck my cock bitch!”,”that time of the month? it’s hershey highway week!”,”show me your tits skank!”, hell even include the “2+2 equals gonorrhea” thing etc.)/insane alcohol drinking and can you really say that most women out there wouldn’t think this guy is a complete crazy reject with issues going crazy on camera instead of making a “satire”? seriously?

  • SayWhaat

    @ Blues:

    No, I’d probably think it was funny. The equivalent wouldn’t be a guy dancing and acting like a slut, it would be a guy acting like an exaggerated bro/Jersey Shore guido.

    Besides, she’s thin, and fairly cute, so she doesn’t look like a crazy reject (at least not before her “breakdown”, lol).

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Doubt it. She was too tuned in to cross-sexual dynamics. She just never fell in love.

    You know this is the new thing, every single person that didn’t married in the past was secretly gay. Its like they can’t even conceive that there were moments in human story when sex was considered a privileged only worth of it when you fulfilled certain social obligations, whether marriage, or some other ritual.

    Talking about the past. What about living as Ancient Egyptian woman? http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/women_01.shtml
    They could become prime minister, warriors and rulers, own businesses,money and land but they was not a campaign for gender wars, female entitlement or male shaming. Neither motherhood or femininity were considered a weakness. Add our technology and I think it was a very good deal for both genders. :)

  • Abbot

    Stop with the “sluts all come from disfuctional famlies” crap.
    .
    First damage control attempt on this thread.
    .
    I have seen families where 3 daughter were very proper , but the forth was a wild thing…
    .
    Proper vs wild thing. The choice could not be any more clear. Thanks.
    .
    Ever hear the expression,”the black sheep of the family?”
    .
    A, yep. Anyone here want a black sheep wife? So in addition to being spawned from dysfunctional families, some sluts are genetic anomalies originating alongside proper female siblings.
    .

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com/ BadBoyfriend

    As it happens, you still haven’t answered Dogsquat’s question

    He has yet to clarify what his question actually is.

    Promiscuity in the US is not the same, does not look the same, as promiscuity in other countries.

    What? Sex is not the same is Germany? How is that exactly? Feel free to cite evidence that German citizens have non-monogamous sex differently than US citizens. If you are claiming that negative outcomes are different in Germany, you are right, that is my point.

    We are unique – for example, only we have an African American population still affected by the legacy of slavery

    That is an AMAZING special pleading. How exactly does the fact that a person’s ancestor was a slave change the harmful outcomes of promiscuity? Feel free to cite evidence.

    Among educated whites, condom use is low (65%) and most promiscuous sex (85%) occurs between intoxicated partners. I don’t believe this is true in other countries.

    What you believe is irrelevant, only what you can prove. (Why no links when you post numbers?)
    That said, those stats are irrelevant for this discussion. I am comparing the amount of harm to the amount of promiscuity. Those stats don’t support or refute that argument. 65% condom use is low compared to what? And drunk people have sex? How is that interesting to this discussion?

    Your second source is a biased, sex-positive website. Were you aware of that?

    I was aware. However, where or by whom a study is re-published is irrelevant. They liked it, so they put it on their site. Can you dispute the science of the study? Are any of the facts of the study false? Besides, I linked several other studies from other sites showing similar results. Can you refute them all?

    The question is not whether promiscuity harms other countries. The fact is that promiscuity has significant costs associated with it in the US, with our health care system, our history, and our culture.

    Again, you have yet to prove that what applies in the US doesn’t apply anywhere else. On the basis of your argument (promiscuity==harm), It is reasonable to expect that if promiscuity goes up, harm goes up. If promiscuity goes down, harm goes down. Until you can turn a dial that changes promiscuity levels in the US so we can see if harm is increased or decreased, it is reasonable to compare the US to other western, industrialized nations, who have already turned that dial. That is exactly what I did and it is certainly an acceptable scientific defense.

    However, we may look to the economies of other nations to examine the effects of birth rates below replacement levels.

    Now you’ll accept evidence from other countries? Why is this particular evidence ok, when the other was not?

    If promiscuity does not reduce the birth rate in the U.S., and does not create a massive underclass of young people with no hope for the future, then you may conclude it is not harmful.

    Hold on a second, a “massive underclass” is now the ONLY harmful outcome? Did you throw out most of your graph?
    Additionally, you ONLY NOW claim the only way you will accept your conclusion is false is if that “massive underclass” DOESN’T happen? That’s convenient for you, how long do you want to wait for that NOT to happen?

    I’m sorry, but I think you have failed to refute any of my conclusions here. A reasonable reader would likely agree.

  • Abbot

    Education, healthcare, acceptance of sex, lack of religious bias, etc are what really matter. NOT whether or not the population has promiscuous sex.

    .
    In America, the enablers [allowers] of promiscuous sex will be embraced fully when the majority of men stop using promiscuity as a LTR selection criteria. Then, and only then, will education, healthcare and other institutions structure around [subsidize and artificially normalize] promiscuous behavior.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com/ BadBoyfriend

    In America, the enablers [allowers] of promiscuous sex will be embraced fully when the majority of men stop using promiscuity as a LTR selection criteria. Then, and only then, will education, healthcare and other institutions structure around [subsidize and artificially normalize] promiscuous behavior.

    Interesting theory.

    the enablers [allowers] of promiscuous sex

    Who “allows” promiscuous sex?

    majority of men stop using promiscuity as a LTR selection criteria

    Do the majority of men use promiscuity as LTR selection criteria? Feel free to cite evidence. That also assumes LTR’s are desired and beneficial (non-harmful) outcomes. Feel free to cite evidence for that as well.

    Then, and only then, will education, healthcare and other institutions structure around [subsidize and artificially normalize] promiscuous behavior.

    Interesting conclusion. How did you come by it? The second study I linked concluded the opposite was true. In western europe, it was government policy (based on science, not religion) and sex education that made the difference, not the other way around.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @BadBoyfriend
    To be honest, you’re so unpleasant in your demeanor, debating you is no fun at all. You’re playing a big game of Gotcha! It’s a shame, because there are some good questions buried in all your snark. But you’re all over the map, literally, and you’re thrashing in the deep end.

    First it was only about your wallet, now you’re arguing that you can save the US govt half a billion a year.

    I’m not going to jump to your ludicrous claim that promiscuity benefits society. You must build your argument in a logical fashion.

    Let’s take this back to my original questions, asked twice, and ignored by you. Which arrows do you require evidence for? Which relationships do you see as uncorrelated?

    Although I’m finding you tedious, frankly, I’ll debate in good faith if you start making sense. Don’t bother replying unless it’s to my original question. I am interested in the American SMP, so don’t introduce the sexual mores of other cultures and countries, which differ considerably from ours.

    Any further off-topic posts will be ignored.

  • Abbot

    I’m not going to jump to your ludicrous claim that promiscuity benefits society.
    .
    The only clear life-long winners or prime beneficiaries are the twenty percent +/- of men who service nearly all promiscuous women and leave in their wake scraps for other men to pick through [and reckon with if they so choose].

  • Half Canadian

    You’re making an ambitious research project here, and one that can’t be considered hard science (no sweat, since no behavioral science is).
    There are studies (you’ve referenced them in the past) that have looked at the rates of divorce and reported promiscuity, and I’m sure that there has to be studies looking at the relationship between promiscuity and STDS, abortion, single-parent status, etc.
    We can calculate a cost for STDs (cost of treatment, time lost to work), for abortion (cost of procedure) and single-parenthood (welfare payments, likelihood for deviant behavior when children grow up).
    The fall in population is harder to calculate (do you look at lost opportunity costs, at costs for integrating immigrant labor?) as is law enforcement (the police, judges, prosecutors, etc. get paid regardless).

    This is a question that I’ve pondered but haven’t really pursued. What are the chances that an open-source combing of journal articles would bring up any evidence for/against these hypotheses?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Half Canadian
      That’s great feedback, thanks. I did intend for this to be a sort of first pass. It’s an extremely complex question, and as you say, quantifying these effects is a large task. I do plan to revisit this and keep working it. Many interesting points have been raised here and I want to go back and incorporate readers’ suggestions.

      It’s difficult – for example, one reader rightly pointed out that promiscuity creates mental health issues for many women – there is pretty significant evidence that promiscuous women suffer more from depression. Yet it would be impossible to figure out which cases of depression are attributable to promiscuity, something else, or a combination of factors. I won’t be able to take this all the way to a nice tidy sum, but there’s a lot more information I think I can dig up, and plan to do so.

  • Half Canadian

    I see that some people are pointing out that marriage costs society.
    Marriage, like children, is an investment. The upfront costs are less than the return down the rode.
    The fact of the matter is that children in single-parent households have higher deviant characteristics (crime rates, drug use rates, alcoholism, unemployment) than children from intact homes.

  • Abbot

    Who “allows” promiscuous sex?
    .
    The person who solely, universally and always decides if sex is going to happen no matter how willing the other party always is. You got a fifty fifty chance at a guess. Cite all the work you care to. Or not. The answer is always the same and true and only an agenda-driven asshole would purposely get it wrong.
    .
    In western europe, it was government policy (based on science, not religion) and sex education that made the difference, not the other way around.
    .
    Who gives a f–k about W Europe? Oh, well, US feminists do. Its feminist wet dream to adopt their “policies.” In the US, gov policy is determined by men. Albeit a few bones are thrown to this or that whiney group to keep the peace. There is no rational reason for men to make policies that lessen the costs of promiscuity. If there exists a goal to reduce those costs then promiscuity must be reduced. Of course, taxpayers who recognize the root of promiscuity may support funds being used to counsel families on how to return to the result-positive raising of “proper” daughters.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Marriage, like children, is an investment. The upfront costs are less than the return down the rode.

    I think the issue here is that feminism has also done a very intensive campaign to discredit marriage (patriarchal institution that oppress women) and to try to make it look like any other relationship (friendships) so many people can’t see why all governments around the world try to incentive people to get married, like you say this is an investment. But again how many people are aware of this? Not very many obviously.

  • jess

    grindle & badboyfriend,
    .
    i cant tell how much i enjoyed your posts. such an antidote to the muddled thinking rampant around here.
    .
    Susan,
    I may have missed some of the text whilst scanning but if you are banning his german evidence on the grounds that its non USA then that is pretty lame. They are both free, western, democratic societies. And the usa isnt homogenous anyway.
    .
    To use your logic then no global fiscal evaluation/comparison could ever be used.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Team Jess and BadBoyfriend,

      You two are going to be perfect together.

      Clearly, there is a NEGATIVE correlation between promiscuity levels and harmful outcomes. In fact, the second study calculated that the US would save $400 MILLION dollars a year in public money if it were able to lower it’s rates to those of Germany.
      Let me restate that. If US sexual behavior matched that of Germany (ie. was MORE promiscuous) Americans would save half a BILLION dollars in public money.

      No, there is a negative correlation between the use of contraception and the incidence of pregnancy and STD transmission. These are large costs in the U.S., attributable directly to promiscuous sex without contraception. Reducing promiscuous sex would by definition reduce these harmful outcomes. Alternatively, effecting a dramatic increase of safe sex practices would certainly mitigate these harmful economic effects, and would be most welcome. Presently, American youth are not terribly conscientious about condom use, college students use them in only 69% of casual hookups (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2932467/). This is clearly not due to lack of resources or information about sexual health on campus.
      The same study showed that “Women reported drinking prior to 63% of hookups, compared to only 21% of romantic interactions.” Clearly, the American college culture is a totally different environment than German or Dutch teens experience.

      Alcohol use has been suggested to covary with college student high-risk sexual behavior, and has also been linked to greater intent to locate sexual partners and higher numbers of sexual partners (Gute & Eshbough, 2008). Further, the greatest factor leading to unwanted sexual intercourse is impaired judgment due to alcohol (Flack et al., 2007).

      When alcohol is added into the equation, a number of factors emerge as predicting high risk sexual behaviors, including sensation seeking, impulsivity, proneness toward social deviance, and the inability toward tolerating boredom (Gute & Eshbaugh, 2008). (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/millennial-media/201107/hookups-and-friends-benefits-is-everyone-really-just-doing-it)

      Clearly, the conditions in the US vary considerably from those in Western Europe, resulting in riskier behavior with considerable negative outcomes.

      Re the US being heterogeneous, you are indeed correct. Those of lower socioeconomic status are at much higher risk for all negative outcomes. However, this is not a reflection of public policy. Rather, there are culturally ingrained views of sex that lead to risky behaviors and are extremely difficult to dislodge. However, as evidenced above, college students also behave impulsively and often irresponsibly, despite the continuous dispensation of condoms and information throughout campus, as well as free STD testing and treatment.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    We may not agree that promiscuity causes economic stagnation, but i’ve been spending so much work time responding to posts, your blog may cause me personal economic stagnation. :)

    What snark and unpleasant demeanor? In my last several posts, I have been particularly factual and reasonable. In fact, a couple of your readers commented on how reasonable I was.
    Is debating me no fun because you don’t understand how reasoned debate works, or because you kinda put your reputation on the line here? (ok, that was snark)

    “First it was only about your wallet, now you’re arguing that you can save the US govt half a billion a year.”
    In an effort to focus the discussion and simplify my point, I dropped my personal anecdotal argument and the dollar figure. Neither are important to this particular discussion.

    “I’m not going to jump to your ludicrous claim that promiscuity benefits society.” I’m not making such a claim, ludicrous or not.
    I’m refuting your claim that decreased promiscuity equals decreased harm (or the opposite, that increased promiscuity equals increased harm)

    “I’ll debate in good faith if you start making sense” I think my argument makes sense, so have a few of your readers. What about my arguement doesn’t make sense to you?

    “I am interested in the American SMP, so don’t introduce the sexual mores of other cultures and countries, which differ considerably from ours.”
    The sexual mores of western europe don’t differ considerably. You haven’t given evidence or even an argument that would support that claim.

    “You must build your argument in a logical fashion”
    I shall re-state my argument: You are free to show my logical failures.

    Your premise/hypothesis is “promiscuity casuses economic stagnation”. You pesented a graph to explain your hypothesis. Am I wrong in re-stating your premise/hypothesis this way?

    Your graph generally lays the blame for economic stagnation upon specific harmful outcomes. (STD’s, rape, divorce, etc) Do I misunderstand your graph here?

    As a point of order: once you have established a hypothesis, it is general scientific practice to devise a test (or study) that would support the hypothesis.

    I proposed a simple question: “Does an increase in promiscuity correlate to an increase in harmful outcomes?”
    Does this question make sense? Is it a reasonable question to ask? Is it not directly applicable to your hypothesis? I submit that it is reasonable, logical, and applicable.
    If your hypothesis is correct, the answer should be a clear “Yes”, should it not?
    To clarify: If 100 people are promiscuous and cause X amount of harm, wouldn’t it make logical sense that 1000 people being promsicuous would cause 10 times X harm? Do you disagree with that logic?
    This is a clear, logical, reasonable test of your hypothesis. I think reasonable readers would agree.

    Now that we have built an ‘argument in a logical fashion’, lets attempt to answer the question.

    I will not re-hash all of my previous statistical data (which you have not contested). I’ll just summarize it.
    Western european countries have significantly higher promiscuity than the US. By your hypothesis, these countries should have more ‘harmful outcomes’.
    The statistics show that they do not. In fact, they have significantly less ‘harmful outcomes’.

    The only explanation you can give is that ‘western europe is not the US’. If not western europe, which country would you accept statistics from?
    I could not find state-by-state (US) statistics for promiscuity. If you can, we could run the same test on a state-by-state basis.

    In the absense of US State data, western europe is a very suitable analogue.
    They are democratic governments, have a similar socio-economic levels as the US, belong to the same religions, and have very comparible healthcare.
    Western europeans suffer the same STD’s, get pregnant just as easily, and have similar dating/courtship/marriage patterns as Americans. We even celebrate the same hoidays.
    I chose to present stats from Germany, mainly because the UK was not included in the second study I linked. Would you prefer to compare the UK stats instead?
    The UK is so similar to the US, if we didn’t have different accents, it would be difficult to tell a Briton from an American, based on our lifestyles.
    Try scanning through profiles on a dating website like PlentyofFish.com or OkCupid.com. If you were to ignore the geographical location, could you identify profiles from the UK vs US? (That would make a great study!)

    The UK is the most promiscuous country in the world. Very significantly more promsicuous than the US according to the first study I linked (which we both agree is valid). By your hypothesis, they should have significantly higher harmful outcomes than the US.
    I went back to the other studies I linked earlier and found NOT ONE harmful outcome statistic was higher. In fact, almost all were lower by considerable margins.

    The statistics show that the answer to my question: “Does an increase in promiscuity correlate to an increase in harmful outcomes?” is a clear “NO”.
    In fact, they show the OPPOSITE is true. Increased promiscuity correlates with a DECREASE in harmful outcomes.
    This is a pretty serious blow to your hypothesis.

    This is how science and debate works in the real world. It’s not “a big game of Gotcha!”.
    Scientists develop hypotheses, present them to peers, accept opposing arguments (which are factually supported) and generally argue it to death.
    If the argument and evidence generally show the hypothesis to be false, the scientist who proposed it goes back to the drawing board.

    Science is about understanding how the world works. It’s not about justifying dogma. I think you are doing the latter at this point.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BB
      Looks like we cross-posted. I have explained in detail to Jess why your analysis was faulty, and your conclusion incorrect.

      What snark and unpleasant demeanor? In my last several posts, I have been particularly factual and reasonable

      Oh, OK, then, it’s probably just your bad personality.

      The readers who have deemed you reasonable have simply applauded a pro-promiscuity stance, not offered any insights of their own. As sex-positive feminists, this is hardly surprising.

  • Abbot

    And the usa isnt homogenous anyway.
    .
    Very true, and a welcome observation. As such,women are not homogenous, even within the US. Its in these small cauldrons where you find high concentrations of poorly parented random sex initiators.

  • Abbot

    If US sexual behavior matched that of Germany (ie. was MORE promiscuous) Americans would save half a BILLION dollars in public money.

    .
    Too bad that is not true because then it would logically follow to spend another half billion on a campaign that encourages women to marry early and be loved…and the icing on the cake is less STD’s, far less abortions, cleaner livers and a whole lot more respect. Actually, its priceless.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Susan
    You should check Athol’s new post about a fat wife. People are flipping their shit as much as with this graph. Really interesting.

    I think my argument makes sense, so have a few of your readers.

    The few readers that agree with you are also sluts/slut supporters. Had you ever seen the Pope bashing the catholic church?

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    Team Jess and BadBoyfriend, You two are going to be perfect together.

    Who is being snarky here? :)

    No, there is a negative correlation between the use of contraception and the incidence of pregnancy and STD transmission

    How do you make that correlation? Certainly not from the studies I posted.

    Reducing promiscuous sex would by definition reduce these harmful outcomes.

    In theory, that may be correct. In reality, human sexuality is more complex. We can easily comprehend a situation where promiscuity is low, but negative outcomes are increased (think africa).

    Western Europe shows that reducing promiscuity is not necessary to reduce harmful outcomes. In fact, it shows that promiscuity can increase and harmful outcomes can STILL be reduced.

    At a minimum, you must admit that there is more going on than ‘promiscuity is always bad’.

    Clearly, the American college culture is a totally different environment than German or Dutch teens experience.

    It is not clear to me. Did you attend a German or Dutch university? I imagine, besides speaking German and being in Germany, they are pretty similar. (except they have more sex, catch fewer STDs, and girls don’t get pregnant as much)

    Clearly, the conditions in the US vary considerably from those in Western Europe

    Which relevant conditions are different and could be expected to make the comparison invalid?

    However, this is not a reflection of public policy. Rather, there are culturally ingrained views of sex that lead to risky behaviors and are extremely difficult to dislodge.

    That is your opinion. unsubstantiated no less.

    However, as evidenced above, college students also behave impulsively and often irresponsibly, despite the continuous dispensation of condoms and information throughout campus, as well as free STD testing and treatment.

    So, German and Dutch students aren’t as impulsive and irresponsible as American students? (Now THAT would be a good study!)

    Alternatively, effecting a dramatic increase of safe sex practices would certainly mitigate these harmful economic effects, and would be most welcome.

    Which is EXACTLY what has happened in western europe. They have managed to mitigate (reduce) harmful outcomes but still be very promiscuous. They have their cake and eat it too. You have presented no evidence that we could not do the same thing in the US.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BB

      Western Europe shows that reducing promiscuity is not necessary to reduce harmful outcomes. In fact, it shows that promiscuity can increase and harmful outcomes can STILL be reduced.

      No. The data you have shared may imply that careful attention to safety during sex reduces harmful outcomes, regardless of geography. That has never been in doubt. Again, reducing sex among 15 year olds is more likely to reduce harmful outcomes than encouraging contraception.

      I say may because your two data sources do not look at the same populations. One was strictly teens – in fact the teen study used 15 year-olds for its % taking the Pill! The Schmitt study looked at a wider age range, distributing questionnaires at colleges and also asking for volunteers in the wider community. It’s not a valid comparison, but it seems reasonable to conclude that condoms and use of the Pill would make sex safer.

      In reality, human sexuality is more complex. We can easily comprehend a situation where promiscuity is low, but negative outcomes are increased (think africa).

      Again, you’re just uninformed. Calling Africa a place of low promiscuity is mind boggling. One in 5 males has HIV, due entirely to promiscuous extramarital sex.

      It is not clear to me. Did you attend a German or Dutch university? I imagine, besides speaking German and being in Germany, they are pretty similar.

      Wrong again. Americans are the only kids in the world who go off to a 4 year college to live in dorms. The American college system is unique in the world. European universities are generally centrally located in a city, students live at home, and there is generally only a modest social component compared to US colleges.

      Rather, there are culturally ingrained views of sex that lead to risky behaviors and are extremely difficult to dislodge.

      That is your opinion. unsubstantiated no less.

      Read up on sexual norms by race in the US. In my post on the Pareto Principle, I supplied CDC data re the average number of sexual partners by race. Black men have many more sexual partners than any other race, and they eschew condom use.

      So, German and Dutch students aren’t as impulsive and irresponsible as American students? (Now THAT would be a good study!)

      Isn’t that the point you’ve made? They’re better at using condoms? You say they have a ton of casual sex, yet they don’t get pregnant and diseased. Why is that? Because they practice safe, responsible sex? Yet Americans are less promiscuous, yet have high rates of pregnancy and STDs. Why is that? Because they do not practice safe, responsible sex?

      Which is EXACTLY what has happened in western europe. They have managed to mitigate (reduce) harmful outcomes but still be very promiscuous. They have their cake and eat it too. You have presented no evidence that we could not do the same thing in the US.

      Are you so sure about that? There is plenty of press in the UK about the negative effects on society of promiscuity. Jess herself has described it as shameful. You didn’t provide any stats for the UK – but I do not believe they hold themselves up as a country that is having its cake and eating it too.

      Let’s agree to disagree. There’s no value to be added by continuing this conversation. Let the readers decide.

  • Abbot

    Your graph generally lays the blame for economic stagnation upon specific harmful outcomes. (STD’s, rape, divorce, etc) Do I misunderstand your graph here?
    .
    Many more factors than that probably contribute to poor economic performance. But if certain people are happy with their behavior, then to hell with how it negatively impacts the general economy. And its a graph, which acceptably and appropriately seems to be open to a wide range of interpretation. And that is abundantly obvious here. The graph will go viral shortly, then its a runaway train an no amount of damage control will stop it.
    .
    If 100 people are promiscuous and cause X amount of harm, wouldn’t it make logical sense that 1000 people being promsicuous would cause 10 times X harm?
    .
    If its a 1 to 1 correlation. But few things are, sociologically speaking. So probably not.
    .
    “Does an increase in promiscuity correlate to an increase in harmful outcomes?”
    .
    There is not enough information on this page to make that determination regarding economic outcomes. There is however a pretty graph above that is wide open to interpretation, obviously. If there are less harmful economic outcomes in some location, it could be because of other offsetting factors. Some of those may actually be taxpayer funded policies that enable sex initiators to be promiscuous with less consequences. If that is true, then in the US there should be less of those types of policies as people need to deal with the consequences of their own actions or *gasp* change behavior.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    I have explained in detail to Jess why your analysis was faulty, and your conclusion incorrect.

    I fail to see the detail, nor where you demonstrated my conclusion was incorrect.
    All you did was again claim that “Germany is not the US” with no further evidence or argument to support that claim.

    Can you point to ONE flaw in logic or reason in my argument? You asked for the logic. I explained it clearly. Explain how you disagree?

  • Abbot

    You have presented no evidence that we could not do the same thing in the US.
    .
    With enough motivation, most things can be done. Thus, they are not. What can be done, based on what’s written above, is sending a boatload of the promiscuity initiators off to Europe.

  • Abbot

    reducing sex among 15 year olds is more likely to reduce harmful outcomes than encouraging contraception.

    .
    But the sex pozoids will hear none of that. To hell what their parents want, they say. We know best. What a sick shitful sorry ass self serving waste of flesh child preying excuses for Americans. You know who you are…

  • Nerdy Bachelor

    Susan,

    Have you heard of the book More Sex is Safer Sex? The author is an economist who makes the argument that there would be fewer STDs if more virgins would start having sex.

    At least, I think that’s his argument. I never read it, but it got some attention when it came out. I thought you might be interested in seeing how his perspective on this issue differs from yours.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Nerdy Bachelor
      I have read some of it. His basic premise is that the more we all sleep around, the more diluted the AIDS virus would become, because we’ll have thrown a lot of previously unsullied virgins into the mix and reduced the risk for sluts. So more sex is safer sex for some, chaste women be damned.

      From Publishers Weekly:

      “While positing multiple solutions to interesting problems, he forces logical readers to confront uncomfortable positions—as in the title essay, urging chaste citizens to sleep around, thereby diluting the pool of potential sex partners with AIDS. But the chapters typically conclude without resolution—at one point, the author shrugs: “It’s not easy to sort out causes from effects.” One suspects that a rival economist could swiftly debunk many of Landsburg’s arguments”

  • Abbot

    In reality, human sexuality is more complex. We can easily comprehend a situation where promiscuity is low, but negative outcomes are increased (think africa).
    .
    Again, you’re just uninformed. Calling Africa a place of low promiscuity is mind boggling. One in 5 males has HIV, due entirely to promiscuous extramarital sex.

    .
    Uninformed, misinformed…maybe. More like a desperate attempt to disconnect promiscuity from anything bad or wrong. Mark of a sex pozzass seeking to reorient the message in the name of sexual equality for women. AKA agenda-asshole unleashed. Look out for even more outlandish attempts to discredit and bury this website.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Abbot

      More like a desperate attempt to disconnect promiscuity from anything bad or wrong. Mark of a sex pozzass seeking to reorient the message in the name of sexual equality for women. AKA agenda-asshole unleashed. Look out for even more outlandish attempts to discredit and bury this website.

      Yes, I wonder about Bad Boyfriend’s real identity. He writes a lot like Jess, and argues in the same circular fashion. I doubt they’re the same person (I haven’t checked the IP) but I suspect “he” may be a sex-pos feminist woman masquerading as a man. Initially, I thought his arguments were designed to justify his own slutty ways, but what’s unusual is his defense of female sluts. Most manwhores have no respect for the women they bang with ease.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    @Susan Walsh
    After your last post, I was going to say something complimentary about how you finally have started to argue the point.
    Then you write more baloney attempting to discredit my argument by discrediting me personally.
    After repeatedly railing against my personality and my “attitude”, of which there has been very little, when @Abbot repeatedly spews hyperbolic, insulting, inflammatory, incoherent garbage, you don’t criticize her, you re-quote her!

    You show your true colors. You aren’t interested in open discourse. You just need people to congratulate you on your bullshit.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @BadBoyfriend
      Abbot is a male. I don’t think you are.

  • Abbot

    You aren’t interested in open discourse.
    .
    Based on the tone, that is not the goal. What we have here is a precise attempt to neutralize a very dangerous [to some] premise. That is, the contribution, whether small or modest, that promiscuity makes toward harming the economy. But why does this one topic drag in such vitriol? Why does an easy to follow colorful diagram, the core of this thread, cause such alarm? Well, the present condition of the economy affects nearly everyone, is on just about everyone’s mind and by itself is a sensitive topic. The media constantly looks for scapegoats and culprits. Imagine if sexual behavior, especially among certain sub-populations, was partially laid to blame. The media would have a field day with the topic and look to back it up with sources and one of those would be the aforementioned graphic. But why is that a big deal? After all, both women and men are needed for promiscuity to happen. It becomes a big deal, mainly to feminists, because they know full well that promiscuous sex happens because women permit it and women have the ability to engage in it more often then men and therefore they do. Because they can, and for no other reason. Because they take birth control pills. Because they drink too much. Because they have “freedom.” Because they can get abortions. Because men provide little or no resistance. It all adds up to certain women being marked as the agents of promiscuity. And if promiscuity is tied to the economy then there could be a backlash against female promiscuity and that is why damage-control agents provocateurs are looming around this thread.
    .
    So look for more repeatedly spewed hyperbolic, insulting, inflammatory, incoherent garbage from these folks. It gonna get louder uglier and stronger.

  • Jess

    To Susan re the uk-
    I am worried about the uk STD rise but I have never ever argued for abstinence. I think women should be more selective, cautious though.
    I think alcohol and drugs are problems although I accept they are economic drivers.
    .
    Re the german data,
    At least you are having a shot at arguing at why the data may not apply. I still still think hes winning that round though.

  • Jess

    @BadBoyfriend
    Abbot is a male. I don’t think you are.
    ——–
    .
    Ugh!….Susan-you forgot to say ‘ neh, neh, neh , neh, neh’
    .
    Honestly you are embarrassing yourself now.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Re the german data,
    At least you are having a shot at arguing at why the data may not apply. I still still think hes winning that round though.

    Did you notice that the guy didn’t even knew that Africa is reeking in promiscuity and is in worst conditions than anything the UK and USA ever had? That level of disinformation just shows that he is trying to pick and choose evidence to proof his bias. So I don’t think he is winning more like whining,YMMV.

  • jess

    steph,
    I think i have read somewhere that africa is promiscuous and has a rape problem so you may be right on that side issue but I can’t see how it debunks the german experience.
    .
    It probably has occurred to you that if someone else had come on here quoting, say, italian evidence suggesting that promiscuity does cause terrible outcomes, you can bet Susan would be congratulating the poster and possibly even building a new thread around it. One cannot have it both ways. (unless youre a swinger- haha!)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @jess

      It probably has occurred to you that if someone else had come on here quoting, say, italian evidence suggesting that promiscuity does cause terrible outcomes, you can bet Susan would be congratulating the poster and possibly even building a new thread around it.

      No, no, no. Please pay attention! My responses were not arbitrary. This all started because I referred to the Italian economy as suffering from a low birth rate. LOL, this sent Bad B on a Grand Tour of Western Europe. BB suggested that promiscuity is actually beneficial for countries, and could save the US money. It’s inane. Promiscuity in the US is expensive. More promiscuity, in the way Americans practice it at least, will just be more expensive. We’re not German, and apparently our young people don’t have sex like Germans. I don’t really care! My scope is not global. Going off on tangents like which Dutch 15 yo girls are on the Pill is completely irrelevant. So is the promiscuity of African men.

      Both you and BB are acting like trolls, I’m only embarrassed to keep responding! FWIW, I do so only for others who may be reading. But I have nothing more to say on shagging in Amsterdam, Birmingham, or Kirchham.

  • http://notboyfriendmaterial.blogspot.com BadBoyfriend

    @Stephanie Rowling @Susan Walsh
    Some reading about promiscuity in africa:
    http://blogs.worldbank.org/africacan/is-male-promiscuity-the-main-route-of-hivaids-transmission-in-africa
    http://www.suite101.com/content/promiscuity-in-a35893
    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/19/world/aids-in-africa-experts-study-role-of-promiscuous-sex-in-the-epidemic.html

    It’s not as simple a situation as you proclaim. My claim is defensible. Even if you could prove it wrong, it certainly doesn’t invalidate my argument as I only used it as an example of the disconnect between promiscuity and STDs.

    I agree with Jess that you are showing only your own bias and ignorance.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I think i have read somewhere that africa is promiscuous and has a rape problem so you may be right on that side issue but I can’t see how it debunks the german experience.

    I don’t think it debunks it but it shows that badboy didn’t researched his claim, given that he only though of let me look at another continent to proof his point and didn’t researched it properly.

    Second the German experience is different to USA because they had a different story. Reich, the second war, the eugenics efforts are unheard off in America.

    To use another example: If you compare slavery of African American’s in Spain’s Portugal and American colonies you will find different degrees of its enforcing with Spaniards and Portuguese intermarrying their slaves faster and giving rights to their children while in American was the opposite e. Yet you would admit that Slavery is bad everywhere regardless of different variations, right?
    The costs of promiscuity in USA culture are real, this are easily verifiable numbers. The fact that Germany has a variation that has allowed to state to cost them less doesn’t mean that Promiscuity is good in it, just that they had the mechanism to handle the bad parts better, you say sex education would help to reach the same, but by the testimony of many commenters here American liberated women binge drink and rarely remember protection even though they are indeed educated. Why is that? Where this attitude come from? And you can’t claim is shame for promiscuity because this women are exercising their right to get an STD freely and are now advocating for not shaming people with preventable STD’s because they assume that everyone will get one anyway so…. Abortions in the majority are unwanted pregnancies for wanted sex. Why is that?
    I mean feminists spent a lot of time teaching birth control methods and yet they are the population that needs abortion the most and most frequently you can sit an analyze the sex attitude and find many things that are related to irresponsible promiscuity but with no reason, places where they have the sex education and the access to birth control and yet have high rates of abortion and unwanted pregnancies…so yeah the devil is in the details but the big picture is not wrong that money there is spent by the country, YMMV.

  • tito

    Bravo Susan

    ah, Susan my dear, you’ve caught a lot of flack for this one. you’ve done well though. this has nothing to do with the precision of your charts or the exactitude of the toll taken in the various economies. you, in a small way, touch the sacred cow.

    a naughty, naughty girl indeed. take note ladies, this is what a real rebellious view looks like. not the kind you all partake in with no risk and fawning media. carry on Susan.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @tito
      I have to tell you that I appreciate your support a great deal. Although I try not to get too riled up when burned at the stake (hyperbole!), it actually keeps me awake at night sometimes – silly, I know. What can I do? Just keep telling it like I see it, I’m not forcing anyone to be here or agree with me. I’ve always been a bit outspoken, I’ve pissed many people off along the way.

      Someone the other day called me “the patron saint of beta schlumps.” But honestly, I don’t white knight for anyone. I’m looking for character, and earnestness, and motivation (like any woman with a good long-term mating strategy), and I’m determined to recognize it where I see it. I’ve got a lot of haters at this point, but I don’t care. And sometimes, I’m even flattered. :)

  • Abbot

    I have never ever argued for abstinence
    .
    eh, why ruin a good fuck fest. More fun to multi man screw and shake off accusations of confirmation bias later.
    .
    example of the disconnect between promiscuity and STDs
    .
    The goal is here is to disconnect promiscuity from everything considered bad or problematic. Or at least develop that illusion so women readers here will feel better and go off throwing their bodies into the hookup cauldron in the name of sexual equality with men. Yep, raising the victor flag of “equality” through the sexual satisfaction of men who then kick you to the curb for the very act is Absolutely. Fucking. Genius.
    .
    evidence suggesting that promiscuity does cause terrible outcomes
    .
    There is NO evidence anywhere here that proves promiscuity does not cause terrible outcomes. There is a huge amount of feel-good “suggestions” that it causes no terrible outcomes, anymore than kissing does. And that’s the same ol pro-sex-pozzy inflammatory [wishful] hyperbole laden incoherent garbage spewing mission dished out all over this website. But none of these PSP’s will ever step up and state why they engage in this propaganda campaign or have the balls to state the goals they seek. Although once it slipped through that it was about “correctly” influencing female readers who don’t post comments. If you don’t state your goal it implies absolutely that you’re arguing because you are angry and frustrated over what is being written [or drawn in this case], even if you’re not angry or frustrated. That is the impression. Getting all in a lather and bent out of shape over a pretty and colorful diagram really drives that point home.

  • Abbot

    the big picture is not wrong that money there is spent by the country

    .
    Some governments hide promiscuity cost subsidies well. Some do not. The cost is always there. The only difference is from where the money is sourced. However, it is always paid for by the taxpayer, no matter the country. The money spent is a subsidy that compensates for the cost. The more that is spent, the less incentive there is to reduce promiscuity. The expenditures may increase promiscuity, and certainly don’t reduce it. Why should the taxpayers in the US vote to increase spending to cover for promiscuous behavior? Enough is already being spent. Any more, and it will look like Germany. Taxpayers in the US may, if offered a choice, opt to spend to reduce promiscuity with counseling programs that guides families into raising “proper” daughters. Guaranteed that in a generation there would be less booze guzzling dorm hopping lost causes unleashed into society and therefore less disease, less abortions, less illegitimacy and less chronic psychological trauma. Now, that’s cost reduction.

  • superenigma

    I agree, you really are grasping at straws. Very few men who engage in casual sex end up in prison as a result. For the minority that father children from “NSA” relationships, they don’t resort to crime to provide.

    Birth rates have been declining for years because there is a lot less reason to have children. They are not needed as say, farm labourers, and they are expensive to raise. Promiscuity has very little to do with it. Nor should you assume that declining birth rates are a disaster for society. The population could hardly keep growing forever could it?

    One could make a case for the economic benefits of all the contraceptives being made and purchased in the service of promiscuity. Your chart did not take that into account.

  • Jess

    Susan re Italy,
    I had actually plucked Italy at random to make my point. Swap it with Spain or Norway or wherever.
    .
    It seems to me you have someone engaging in the very style of debate that you say you respect but because he’s opposing your stance you are heavy on the defensive.
    .
    I have no idea if your theory of stagnation is true or not. I mean it seems a tad far fetched for my taste but i guess it may seem logical on some level. But his contribution is surely valid as it uses published data. I presumed you would counter with opposing data or an amendment to theory.
    .
    As to my acting like a troll- it was you I think that threw in a bundle of mild insults aimed at bad boyfriend and myself. Me, I was hoping for spirited debate.

  • Jess

    Steph,
    Ah, it would seem he may know more than we thought on Africa.
    But anyway, in terms of comparing countries, I think history, while relevant, isn’t going to be as strong a factor here as culture, economy, size, power, religion etc.
    On that basis Germany has loads of parallels with the USA. More so than the uk I would have thought?
    Maybe the spring break and alcohol thing is the difference? Are young Americans just too free? Too stupid? Maybe the sex education programm isn’t resonating for some reason? Is MTV to blame? Paris Hilton?
    Anyhooo, this new data certainly gives pause for thought, wherever your opinion lies.

  • Abbot

    you, in a small way, touch the sacred cow.
    .
    Given the spitting mad and conspiring efforts to derail exposure of this topic, the cow got must have gotten whacked in the ass and walked a few feet, to the salt lick. Who knew that pleasing male genitalia without question is so important to a certain group of women. Maybe one day they will explain their motive rather than just coming here to defend it.

  • Abbot

    Maybe the spring break and alcohol thing is the difference?
    .
    Well, it gets you off the wife list. Lucky ladies.
    .
    Are young Americans just too free?
    .
    Bad parenting = promiscuous women. Everyone has the same freedom. Many are raised to know how to handle it like they did in 1949. Sadly, there are the outliers. But they do fill a niche for men.

  • Abbot

    Germany has loads of parallels with the USA
    .
    Spending to head off mass consequences of promiscuous sex, thus leading to more of it, is not one such parallel. Based on the discussion above, Germany is way ahead of the US on meeting those costs. Well, there you have it folks. We just learned how another country deals with the hook up petri dish. But why did we have to? oh well

  • Abbot

    It seems to me you have someone engaging in the very style of debate that you say you respect but because he’s opposing your stance you are heavy on the defensive.
    .
    Well, “his” so-called stance may be better understood if the goal for sticking to it was stated. But that is not going to happen. It NEVER does. Susan stated her goals many times for why she writes here. Others write in unison with that. Others come here with a personal agenda that is assumed to be just another attempt at some lame sex pozzy ideology damage control to influence the woman reading this who are wrestling with their own promiscuous behavior or trying to decide if they should engage in it at all. But the PSPs are the most entertaining.

  • Abbot

    this new data certainly gives pause for thought
    .
    Um, yeah. Long enough to know the only conclusion the “data” warrants
    .
    That Germany uses a different system of accounts from which to source funds used to pay for the cost of promiscuous sex and since taxes are higher there, more funds are thrown at the problem thus reducing harm via the subsidy and leading, inadvertently, to greater promiscuity.
    .
    When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
    People do less of something when the penalty or cost increases.
    Moral hazard – people tend to engage in riskier behavior when they are insured or shielded against the risk.

  • Mike C

    it actually keeps me awake at night sometimes – silly, I know. What can I do? Just keep telling it like I see it, I’m not forcing anyone to be here or agree with me. I’ve always been a bit outspoken, I’ve pissed many people off along the way.

    Someone the other day called me “the patron saint of beta schlumps.” But honestly, I don’t white knight for anyone. I’m looking for character, and earnestness, and motivation (like any woman with a good long-term mating strategy), and I’m determined to recognize it where I see it. I’ve got a lot of haters at this point, but I don’t care.
    .
    “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

    Winston Churchill

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C
      Thanks for reminding me of that Churchill quote. I can’t claim the high road – I more or less stumbled and bumbled my way into this SMP debate. But there’s no turning back now – not now that I’ve discovered that the feminist inmates are running the asylum.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    But anyway, in terms of comparing countries, I think history, while relevant, isn’t going to be as strong a factor here as culture, economy, size, power, religion etc.

    Well history shapes culture Germany had the tradition of the kaisers, Hitler, their search for the golden age, they didn’t had this miriad of immigration from every single culture and so on.

    On that basis Germany has loads of parallels with the USA. More so than the uk I would have thought?

    You think? From my POV Germany is more similar to UK than to USA. why don’t you think it does?

    Maybe the spring break and alcohol thing is the difference? Are young Americans just too free? Too stupid? Maybe the sex education programm isn’t resonating for some reason? Is MTV to blame? Paris Hilton?

    Good questions all. I frankly don’t understand promiscuity. So I have a hard time understand the reasoning behind it. But I do observe a lack of hope and a sense of powerlessness in here. I guess it could be that the lack of purpose makes people live for pleasure and risk more than to take some responsibility…who knows I’m still in observation phase in that part.
    I also want to point out that the “free sex/safe sex” campaign is based in the premise that a kid doesn’t have enough self control to not have sex but that the same kid has enough self control to learn proper use of condoms and birth control and use it all the time properly. Not the way the brain works at all, YMMV.

    Anyhooo, this new data certainly gives pause for thought, wherever your opinion lies.

    As hard as this is to believe I didn’t though of promiscuity much or damaging when I was growing up, just another personal choice. The thing is that I had seen the results given that generations in my country are faster (every 15 years more or less) and I can’t cover the sun with a finger, so I can tell you that you are in for a very dark future with low male investment and high female desperation. But I know you are “see to believe type” so it doesn’t really matter in your case.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The thing is that I had seen the results given that generations in my country are faster (every 15 years more or less) and I can’t cover the sun with a finger, so I can tell you that you are in for a very dark future with low male investment and high female desperation.

      I love Stephenie’s way with words. Both she and Yohami make English better by introducing their own idioms to the debate. There are probably other ESL types who do as well, they’re just so good at speaking English I don’t see it.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I have to tell you that I appreciate your support a great deal. Although I try not to get too riled up when burned at the stake (hyperbole!), it actually keeps me awake at night sometimes – silly, I know. What can I do? Just keep telling it like I see it, I’m not forcing anyone to be here or agree with me. I’ve always been a bit outspoken, I’ve pissed many people off along the way.

    Someone the other day called me “the patron saint of beta schlumps.” But honestly, I don’t white knight for anyone. I’m looking for character, and earnestness, and motivation (like any woman with a good long-term mating strategy), and I’m determined to recognize it where I see it. I’ve got a lot of haters at this point, but I don’t care. And sometimes, I’m even flattered.

    Some scholars related that Noah waited until the water reached his ankles, because he wanted to save as many people as possible and though that when they saw the rain they might repent at the last minute before he had to close the ark and couldn’t let anyone in…We know how that worked.

    Sadly, Susan some people rather drown than admit they had been wrong. Is the truth of the world. Don’t worry keep fighting the good fight, not because you might win tomorrow or in a month but because there is good left in the world and is worth fighting for :)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Hey Susan if you are lucky you might get someone to write a paper on you. http://jezebel.com/5820520/an-academic-approach-to-creepy-pickup-artists :)

  • Abbot

    the “free sex/safe sex” campaign is based in the premise that a kid doesn’t have enough self control to not have sex

    .
    The campaign is based on the premise that parents increasingly fail to instill the virtue of self control in their children thus leaving an opening for the molesters [yep, feminists] who advocate for these campaigns.
    .
    The campaign is based on the premise that girls/women should not have to have self control to not have sex because such “self control” is claimed to be rooted in patriarchal oppression. In the real world [vs the feminist fantasy] boys only go as far as girls allow; a boy’s self control equals a girl’s self control. Feminists abhor this factual wisdom as it is a disagreeable reality and the result is a campaign to move girls away from their natural gatekeeper roles by showering them with wondrous ideas of birth-control-enabled freedom. Of course, they assume that boys will continue to lack all self control and therefore be willing to accommodate their newly minted underage minions of freedom thus spawning the next generation of promiscuous alpha chasers.

  • tito

    @Susan

    “Someone the other day called me “the patron saint of beta schlumps.” ”

    hahaha! this must have been form an “alpha” ie, a parasitical entertainment media consumer. it is make beleive. their status comes not from survival but is granted to them by popculture. when the rug is pulled out from under them they will suddenly find themselves in ‘schlumphood.’

    “I’m looking for character, and earnestness, and motivation (like any woman with a good long-term mating strategy), and I’m determined to recognize it where I see it.”

    this is your real offense. not being “cooooool”. it’s as simple as that.

    “I’ve got a lot of haters at this point, but I don’t care. And sometimes, I’m even flattered.”

    your haters are popculture-tards as far as i can tell. most seem to be around the ages of 18-22 so don’t be upset over those children. the rest are probably softball-player feminist types…take them even less seriously

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      the rest are probably softball-player feminist types…take them even less seriously

      Now, now, let’s not take sports away from women! I wish I’d been able to play sports as a kid. I would have been an awesome soccer forward.

  • Clarence

    Susan Walsh:

    I checked Bad Boyfriends site. It goes back over a year and has a decent number of posts. He seems the “real deal” to me. I may disagree with his conclusions because you really can’t generalize among countries in the way he has done on this thread, but I do believe it was an honest argument.

    Also, just like the “sexual partner” divorce risk studies show that some people can handle lots of promiscuity and still do well, I think the polarization of this debate is rather sad. There are some good aspects of “sex pos” feminism, although encouraging downright sluttiness is not one of them.

  • Abbot

    I do believe it was an honest argument
    .
    But the goal of proving that promiscuity does not contribute to economic harm was not accomplished. The real question is – why does it matter at all that promiscuity causes economic harm? Who cares? How does this fact impact the promiscuous, if at all? This topic was meant to stimulate a light hearted discussion and then it was “discovered” and struck a nerve until the buzzards swooped in to pick it apart. What’s going on here?

  • tito

    @Susan

    “Now, now, let’s not take sports away from women! I wish I’d been able to play sports as a kid. I would have been an awesome soccer forward.”

    “softball player” means lesbians

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “softball player” means lesbians

      Haha, I learn something new every day on this blog.

  • tito

    hehehe, hadn’t heard that one, eh? it is amazing how quick so many are to uncritically listen to them.

  • tito

    them meaning the softball palyers, not you. just to clarify.

  • Aldonza

    @tito

    “softball player” means lesbians

    Not anymore. Have you watched the NCAA Women’s Softball lately? Those women are downright hot.

    [img]http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/image_pictures/0041/6770/manager_clip_image004_crop_340x234.jpg[/img]

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Aldonza
      I watched just a bit of women’s soccer today, and was struck by how attractive the players are.

  • tito

    @Aldonza

    ha! yeah it’s just an expression. i didn’t make it up. it came up in the 90′s. i too have known pretty girl non-lesbian softball players, i don’t know why they picked that particular term. do you propose an alternative term?

  • Half Canadian

    Don’t know if this is still being discussed, but I came across this.

    A 2008 study led by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi conservatively estimated that single mothers cost the U.S. taxpayer $112 billion every year

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Half Canadian
      Thanks so much, I’ve clipped that statistic and source. I am gathering information in hopes of plugging in some real dollar figures before too long.

  • tito

    “A 2008 study led by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi conservatively estimated that single mothers cost the U.S. taxpayer $112 billion every year”

    whaaaaat!!! are you serious! holy shit! i would never have guessed anywhere near that amount. i am truly flabbergasted. i’ll remember that next time i’m out and hear that stupid song “i’m a single lady.”

  • theLaplaceDemon

    “I began with a Google search, which revealed disappointingly little in the way of noteworthy analysis. So I’ve put together an original flowchart to illustrate the concept. I haven’t attached dollar numbers to specific effects, though I hope to do so in future. In the meantime, I’ve used a $-$$$$$ system to generally indicate where costs occur.”

    Translation: First, I came up with a conclusion. I couldn’t find any evidence to back it up, but because I already decided the results of my non-existent empirical research I decided to make a diagram of my imaginary results anyway.

    This, folks, is what we call pseudoscience. Ms. Walsh, in general – [citation needed]. Your anecdotal observations are not data.

    Abbot – you said:
    “There is NO evidence anywhere here that proves promiscuity does not cause terrible outcomes.”

    You can’t prove a negative. That isn’t how science works. The one making the positive statement – in this case, “increased promiscuity is correlated with increased cost” – is the one who needs proof.

    While any of the outcomes Ms. Walsh outlined do indeed have an economic cost, it still remains unclear whether increased promiscuity really does increase your chances of “economic stagnation” (remember, having sex just once can lead you there).

    Additionally, the effects of easily accessible birth control do need to be factored in (does a person frequently having sex using multiple forms of birth control have a greater risk of economic stagnation than a person who say, has sex only two or three times with a committed partner but does not use any birth control? Show me data, not your opinions.)

    You mention that people who have a number of sexual partners above 20 are more likely to find their married sex life less satisfying. I assume you pulled this out of an actual study. Do you have the reference? Does it address the fact that there could be serious confounding variables? How?

    Also, re: your hypothesis that females who enjoy having “no strings attached” sex having higher testosterone – the evidence is weak at best, and often contradictory, when it comes to a relationship between androgens and human female sexual behavior. I recommend http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/content/186/3/411.full for review. It’s possible there is a connection, but the research really isn’t there yet.

    “Let’s take this back to my original questions, asked twice, and ignored by you. Which arrows do you require evidence for? Which relationships do you see as uncorrelated?”

    All of them. It’s not that I “see them as uncorrelated.” It’s the fact that “reading the newspaper” (as you suggest earlier) is not a substitute for rigorous hypothesis testing. You made the flow chart, the burden of proof is on you.

    Simply “reading the newspaper” to get your evidence is ridiculous. There is a reason we use the scientific method instead of simply trusting our anecdotal experience – the least of which are confirmation bias, limited and sensationalized reporting, fundamental attribution errors, and subjective validation. Not to mention the total lack of control groups.

    We are dealing with a complex issue. There is a lack of actual data. Answers are unclear. Making a flow-chart of potential consequences does not change this.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @LaplaceDemon

      We are dealing with a complex issue. There is a lack of actual data. Answers are unclear. Making a flow-chart of potential consequences does not change this.

      I don’t disagree. There is a real lack of actual data, period. That doesn’t make the discussion worthless. I stated clearly in the post that this was not a rigorous economic exercise, more of a “common sense” argument. Consider it an editorial, designed to spur conversation. I never intended this flowchart to end the debate.

      I’ve been in many situations, social and otherwise, where the issues laid out in this chart have been debated with great enthusiasm among intelligent people. You don’t go to a dinner party armed with statistics. Think of this as a dinner party topic. Don’t let the little colorful boxes scare you, or imagine that I claim to have the backing of Timothy Geithner.

  • tito

    this issue is not all that complex guy. she’s violating a sacred institution. that is all that needs to happen before all the stops are pulled out. data or not, you know this is a civilizational problem.

  • theLaplaceDemon

    Susan – that may be the case, but ultimately we still come down to the question of whether or not there is a causal relationship between the events you describe and promiscuity.

    For the record, I would probably say, at a dinner party, exactly what I said in my post (and yes, the conversations at the dinner parties I go to are usually very lively).

    It is one thing to have fun hypothesizing, and another to say the “reading the newspaper” is evidence enough. And again, in one of your comments, you said:

    “Let’s take this back to my original questions, asked twice, and ignored by you. Which arrows do you require evidence for? Which relationships do you see as uncorrelated?”

    And I answered. All of them, until otherwise indicated.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “Let’s take this back to my original questions, asked twice, and ignored by you. Which arrows do you require evidence for? Which relationships do you see as uncorrelated?”

      And I answered. All of them, until otherwise indicated.

      Fair enough. I’ll be working on this more over the next weeks and months. FWIW, my intention was never to say that in the absence of data, take my word for it. I made clear this was a first pass, and I got lots of great constructive criticism and good ideas from readers. So yes, I’ll be providing data that proves that promiscuous sex leads to STDs, abortions and OOW pregnancy. Shocker!

      I admit I am surprised there is controversy over what is so patently obvious. Even the most liberal news outlets wouldn’t disagree, I don’t think. I don’t really believe you don’t see causal relationships here. I believe you’re just making a point about the scientific method.

  • theLaplaceDemon

    tito:
    1. Not a guy.

    2. “she’s violating a sacred institution.”
    I don’t understand what you mean by that.

    3. “data or not, you know this is a civilizational problem.”
    Well, no. I don’t know that. What is your evidence?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Have you watched the NCAA Women’s Softball lately? Those women are downright hot.

    She looks like a dude with a pony tail

  • cynickal

    @Susan, in the coming weeks and months you’ll provide data? I’m pretty sure that in just a few minutes of search on Google journals I can find plenty of peer reviewed documents showing connection between *monogamous* sex and STDs, pregnancy and abortions.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @cynical

    I can find plenty of peer reviewed documents showing connection between *monogamous* sex and STDs, pregnancy and abortions.

    Promiscuous = many
    Monogamous = one

    What part of the risk equation do you not understand?

  • Anonymous

    SEX leads to STDS and pregnancy. Pregnancy may lead to abortions. That sex outside of marriage may lead to pregnancy outside of marriage is no big surprise, and no one is denying that.

    What many people including myself ARE denying, is that that casual sex leads to economic stagnation. I really, truly do not see the logic in that, or the numbers to back it up.

    Promiscuous = many
    Monogamous = one

    What part of the risk equation do you not understand?

    People in marriages cheat sometimes. Then they have unprotected sex with their partners, who believe they are safe because they are monogamous, and the STD is spread. People who have casual sex are less likely to do so unprotected, because they are aware of risk.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    People in marriages cheat sometimes. Then they have unprotected sex with their partners, who believe they are safe because they are monogamous, and the STD is spread.

    Of course, but they are highly unlikely to have the number of partners a promiscuous person does.

    People who have casual sex are less likely to do so unprotected, because they are aware of risk.

    Completely false. A full third of college hookups are unprotected. The fact that most casual sex occurs under heavy intoxication doesn’t lend itself to risk awareness either.

  • Berick

    This is just silly. Argue if you like the morality of casual sex, but to create such a jumbled flowchart, with no proven or even estimated amounts, adds up to a meaningless waste of time. Calling it “common sense” doesn’t add any value. For example, if casual sex leads to more STDs, is that a good or bad thing economically? Certainly it means pain and hurt for the people involved, but as far as the economy it means added GDP through use of doctors and hospitals, though loss, perhaps, in lower productivity from missed work days. What’s the total? Who knows, without actual study. Does a lower birthrate mean stagnation? Why? Perhaps fewer children means more focus by parents and education leading to a more productive workforce. Without actual study, not “I pulled this out of my hat” charts, you can’t know.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Berick

      if casual sex leads to more STDs, is that a good or bad thing economically? Certainly it means pain and hurt for the people involved, but as far as the economy it means added GDP through use of doctors and hospitals, though loss, perhaps, in lower productivity from missed work days.

      We’ve already established that STDs are very expensive for state governments, both in terms of treatment and prevention efforts. It’s the drain on the U.S. economy via government spending that are the big bucks in this chart.

      Perhaps fewer children means more focus by parents and education leading to a more productive workforce.

      Except that hasn’t been true anywhere to date. No generation has had more parental focus than the current youth, yet males account for only 40% of college students.

      Also, a low birthrate means the young generation can’t fund retirement for the elderly, much less their medical care. The boomers are going to suck the U.S. economy dry, and there’s not going to be enough productivity from the younger generations to compensate.

      Without actual study, not “I pulled this out of my hat” charts, you can’t know.

      Who’s going to do the actual study? Not me, that’s for sure. No one else is either. That’s why there’s no ready-made evidence available for the argument, one way or the other. It hasn’t been studied, ever, as far as I can tell. Does that mean we can’t ask questions? Pose hypotheses? I don’t have the resources or staff to conduct a study, but I do have a voice, which I choose to use to ask the tough questions. If enough people do that, maybe there will be a study. You can’t stifle inquiry just because the results are not already in.

  • theLaplaceDemon

    “I admit I am surprised there is controversy over what is so patently obvious”

    My grandmother thinks it’s obvious that gay people are unnatural. A lot of people used to think (and unfortunately some still do) that it was obvious that vaccines caused autism. Things seeming obvious does not make them true.

    For example, let’s say we find a correlation between promiscuity and one of your paths to economic stagnation. Take drug use. Say it turns out that drug use is leading to unprotected sex with multiple which is leading to the cost of childcare (and hey, since you included it, prison!) Is it truly the fault of the promiscuity itself, or is it the reckless behavior due to drug use? Do we stop the problem by trying to stop drug use, or trying to stop promiscuity?

    The majority of promiscuous people could avoid the negative outcomes on your flow chart simply by using multiple forms of protection and avoiding excessive drinking.

    I mean, hell, you could follow that exact same path, but instead make reckless sexual choices with one person instead of many. Same outcome.

    As for the right half of the chart, you will need to outline the causal relationships between promiscuity and infidelity. I am taking it on faith that you have seen data correlating premarital promiscuity and infidelity. Now we have a chicken and egg problem: Is it really the fault of the promiscuity itself, or is there a confounding variable? Could it be the promiscuity itself, or could it be something else, that both leads to promiscuity but also (even in a case where, for social or other reasons, that person was not promiscuous) also leads to infidelity?

    “A full third of college hookups are unprotected”

    May I see the source for that? As well as the one I requested earlier?

  • FelixBC

    “Perhaps fewer children means more focus by parents and education leading to a more productive workforce.”

    SW-Except that hasn’t been true anywhere to date. No generation has had more parental focus than the current youth, yet males account for only 40% of college students.

    What? Are you saying that male college students are by definition more productive than female? And that the workers coming from a college that has a 60/40 male/female split are less productive than ones coming from one that has a 50/50 (or any other ratio) split? Feel free to cite some actual stats on post-graduate employment and income.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @FelixBC

      Are you saying that male college students are by definition more productive than female? And that the workers coming from a college that has a 60/40 male/female split are less productive than ones coming from one that has a 50/50 (or any other ratio) split? Feel free to cite some actual stats on post-graduate employment and income.

      No, in fact, today’s young women are far more productive than young men, in aggregate. That’s the point. Half of the population is lagging. The workforce of 20-somethings is productive due to the disproportionate contribution of young women. Unless they all forfeit motherhood to rise through the ranks that is not sustainable.

  • theLaplaceDemon

    “You can’t stifle inquiry just because the results are not already in.”

    I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with your inquiry about whether or not promiscuity has economic effects.

    The problem? You didn’t just ask the question, you came up with the conclusion, didn’t really defend it (at least not in the OP, I did only skim most of the comments), and then got defensive when people called you out on it by saying “it’s just a hypothesis! a dinner table conversation!”

    No, there are no direct studies on the economic effects of promiscuity, but there are plenty of studies on promiscuity. You could build a case for why some of your questions are reasonable ones to ask, or why some of your conclusions are reasonable ones to come to.

    Otherwise, you can make inquiries and flow charts left and right, but it’s all just…hand waving. I can make flow charts connecting the use of corn syrup to the zombie apocalypse, but unless I have solid reasons for WHY these things may be connected, people have every right to point out that I’m just making stuff up.

    It doesn’t mean that there is no reason to debate things, but if you’re hypothesis requires as many steps as that flow chart, and isn’t grounded in already-established research…well, again, people are going to question where that hypothesis came from. “It’s obvious” is not a very helpful answer.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @LaplaceDemon

      It doesn’t mean that there is no reason to debate things, but if you’re hypothesis requires as many steps as that flow chart, and isn’t grounded in already-established research…well, again, people are going to question where that hypothesis came from.

      True, but again, I’ll cite Levitt and Dubner of Freakonomics fame. They concluded that the crime rate in the US fell dramatically because many of the men who would have been criminals were aborted by their unwed would-be mothers. They had absolutely no causal evidence. Just abortion data and crime data. They linked the two and made an argument that was controversial yet compelling. Is it possible they’re wrong? Yes, but you need to come up with another theory to say so.

      I’m saying that promiscuity leads to increased STDs, abortions and OOW births. It also leads to higher crime – the ones who don’t get aborted, if you will. We know that sexual mores have relaxed dramatically in the last 40 years. We also know that the incidence of STDs, abortion and OOW births has increased dramatically. I’m drawing a connection. Do you have an alternative hypothesis that is credible?

  • http://pecunium.livejournal.com/ Terry Karney

    So yes, I’ll be providing data that proves that promiscuous sex leads to STDs, abortions and OOW pregnancy. Shocker!

    Those aren’t the problem. The problem is in the subsequent conclusions. At core you are saying non-marital sex=economic stagnation. That needs support. Does sex lead to STI, pregancy; and sometimes abortion? Yes.

    Does that lead to economic stagnation? Not proven. Not even really supported. It’s alleged.

    That’s why you need to elaborate all those arrows. Moreover you are doing some equivocation. Having kids = economic stagnation. Not having kids = economic stagnation. You can fix that, but then you have to explain why the right side of the chart (the one you associate with a higher SES) isn’t getting pregnant. That, or you have to make a separate set of charts, which address the questions of STD/Birth Control/Unwanted Pregnancy/Single Parenting/Non-Marital Parenting/etc. for each group.

    Each of those factors, of course, needs supporting evidence.

    You can believe that this chart reflects reality. You can call it common sense. That’s well and good. But if you are going to present it as a positive statement of how things are, you need to back it with evidence.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Terry Karney
      I cosign everything you said about the flowchart. I’ve clipped your comment for reference as I refine it. Thanks for the helpful criticism.

  • http://pecunium.livejournal.com/ Terry Karney

    he fact that most casual sex occurs under heavy intoxication doesn’t lend itself to risk awareness either.

    [citation needed]

  • Jeff

    Hang on, rape is casual sex? How does that one figure?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jeff

      Hang on, rape is casual sex? How does that one figure?

      Casual sex is sex without commitment. Obviously, rape falls under that category. Furthermore, much rape occurs between a woman and a man she knows, or is acquainted with, and often after some degree of casual sexual activity has already taken place.

      Also, what about gay relationships? They don’t tend to have that risk of babies.

      Gay sex is included in the chart, under Pregnant? No. Whew! :)

  • Jeff

    Also, what about gay relationships? They don’t tend to have that risk of babies.

  • denelian

    carrying along – i was *very* promiscious when i was younger. between the ages of 19 and 27, to be exact [from the time i got divorced until i got together with my current S/O, to whom i am NOT married because it's NOT economically feasible for *US*].

    i’ve had lots of casual sex. i’ve had sex with more than your given “minimum”. i’ve NEVER had UNPROTECTED casual sex, and i’ve NEVER had an STD.

    i have been pregnant – that’s when i found out that pregnancy could kill me. so i had to get an abortion [i was 11 weeks but DYING - i wouldn't have lived another 24 hours] and it’s WHY i got divorced, because i can’t have kids my husband divorced me. so that wasn’t “casual” sex, that was MARITAL sex.

    sex can and *does* stimulate the economy – buying BC is good for the economy. sex “sells”.

    you want fewer STDs to lower government cost, lobby for BETTER and truly COMPREHENSIVE sex-ed, lobby for cheaper condoms, lobby for cheaper BC over-all!

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @denelian
      You are very fortunate, and I daresay your story is highly unusual. I wrote a post here observing a convo at Jezebel where two promiscuous female writers agreed that since everyone in NY has genital herpes, there’s no need to mention it before sex.

      I’m sorry about your health crisis and subsequent divorce – that’s terrible.

      sex can and *does* stimulate the economy – buying BC is good for the economy. sex “sells”.

      So does porn, tobacco, even heroin. That doesn’t mean their detrimental economic effects don’t far outweigh the sales revenue they generate.

      you want fewer STDs to lower government cost, lobby for BETTER and truly COMPREHENSIVE sex-ed, lobby for cheaper condoms, lobby for cheaper BC over-all!

      That’s reasonable if those policies are proven effective. As stated elsewhere in this thread, much “comprehensive” sex ed includes the promotion of decidedly unsafe practices such as fisting, rimming and golden showers. I am not a believer in abstinence only sex ed, but abstinence should clearly be an option for teens. Many sex ed programs in my part of the world actively encourage teens to have responsible sex. Do you see what’s wrong with that? Delayed sexual initiation is correlated to a variety of good outcomes.

  • tito

    @Susan

    “Promiscuous = many
    Monogamous = one

    What part of the risk equation do you not understand?”

    he understands it all quite well. you’re over the target Susan, that is when you receive the most flak. i’ll say it for the 20th time; you touched the sacred cow and any and all excuses are to be deployed against you until you 1)give up 2)give in) 3)agree with your detractors

    @denelian

    i guess you prove the rule then huh? unbelievable.

  • http://sushi.kimchi.wordpress.com Sapphire

    I happen to have been born out of wedlock and come from a single parent home in a poor area. My mother is a nurse and has done a lot of good for the community. She has, at times when we were barely scraping by, still bought things for kids even worse off than us in the community, like snowsuits in the winter, and left them anonymously on their doorstep. Having a single mom taught me independence, compassion, hard work and empathy. “Resilience”, as research shows, is actually the best indicator of adaptation and success for kids – both at risk and otherwise.

    DESPITE having come from such an “unfortuante” scenario, I have just obtained my second degree and my sister just graduated high school with honours. I am SO TIRED my whole life of people giving us crap because my mom is single. NOT all single family households are a tragedy or have to be. She is single by her own choice and none of us regret it. It’s just how other people choose to view it, and other people choose to judge it.

    Also, I would be inclined to think that promiscuity might be GOOD for the economy. It gets people out, buying products, traveling, meeting new people, being on birth control and using condoms, networking and NOT producing more kids (or maybe they are) which will in turn contribute to society.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Sapphire

      She is single by her own choice and none of us regret it. It’s just how other people choose to view it, and other people choose to judge it.

      I’m glad your mom is the exception. The fact is that single motherhood is a strong negative predictor of successful outcomes in the US. That’s why people stereotype you.

      It gets people out, buying products, traveling, meeting new people, being on birth control and using condoms, networking and NOT producing more kids (or maybe they are) which will in turn contribute to society.

      Who do you think is paying for all of the kids of the single mothers not as together as your own? Uncle Sam.

  • Aldonza

    @Susan

    I’m saying that promiscuity leads to increased STDs, abortions and OOW births. It also leads to higher crime – the ones who don’t get aborted, if you will. We know that sexual mores have relaxed dramatically in the last 40 years. We also know that the incidence of STDs, abortion and OOW births has increased dramatically. I’m drawing a connection. Do you have an alternative hypothesis that is credible?

    Teen pregnancy is falling, crime rates have stabilized after their meteoric drop during the 80s and 90s. OOW birthrates are growing the most among co-habitating couples (which, while still facing more risk than children born in wedlock, are probably not related to promiscuity). And STD rates are falling across the board even as promiscuity is apparently rising.

    OOW Pregnanty
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
    STD rates

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Aldonza
      Where to begin? The CDC link you provided was chock full of good data, thanks.

      First, teen pregancy rates have fallen from 117 births/1,000 women in 1990 to 69.5 in 2005 and a 3% increase to 71.5 in 2006. However, the pregnancy rate for sexually active teens was 152.8/1000 women. The report states that the overall number is depressed by a large portion of sexually inactive teens. Indeed, the number of teen virgins is increasing. In 2005, 22% of both male and female teens had had no sexual contact. Today, 27% of males have had no sexual contact, and 29% of females report the same. So the positive result may be attributed to a decrease in promiscuity.

      http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf
      http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/03/04/virginity-rate-rises-among-teens-young-adults/

      Abortion rates have dropped dramatically since 1973. At that time, there were 19.6/100 live births. That number skyrocketed to 35.9 in 1980 and is back down to 23.3 today. However, the story varies considerably by race between 1980 and 2006. White women went from 32.6 to 16.2, while black women went from 42 to 45.9.

      Condom use – only measured as a means of contraception, rather than STD prevention, went from 12% to 22.5% for women 15-44. Among 15-19 year-olds it went from 20.8% to 37.6%, and among 20-24 year olds, from 10.7% to 37.2%.

      Unfortunately, the CDC only tracks HIV, Syphilis, Chlamydia, Chancroid and Gonorrhea STDs. HIV is down, as are syphilis and gonorrhea. However, chlamydia went from 276 cases/100,00 pop. to 401 cases/100,000 pop. That is disturbing, because although it is easily cured, 75% of women experience no symptoms. Even more worrisome are the rates in HPV and genital herpes.

      Among teens, 24.5% of women have HPV. Among women aged 20-24, the number is 44.8%, and 27.4% for women 25-29. There are six million new cases per year. Fortunately, pap smears do a good job of detecting cancer early, and the vaccine holds great promise. Obviously, these treatments are costly, and HPV is not prevented via condom use. It’s a growing problem in the throat, head and neck area due to the incidence of fellatio.

      http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/STDs/morehpvinfo.html
      http://media.www.smccollegian.com/media/storage/paper841/news/2007/03/13/News/One-In.Four.College.Students.Has.An.Std-2774339.shtml

      One in 6 Americans has genital herpes, and half of all black women are infected. “About 19 million people in the U.S. are infected with HSV-2, at a cost to the nation’s health care system of close to $16 billion a year.” 80% of people may not know they have it, and many students who know they’ve been exposed refuse testing without symptoms, since it’s all downside if they test positive. There is a lot of willful ignorance re genital herpes. 75% of new cases in colleges are thought to be Type 1 – that is, transmitted from the mouth to the genitals. Type I in the genital area may be less severe and frequent than Type II, further reducing the likelihood of testing.

      http://www.webmd.com/genital-herpes/news/20100309/cdc-genital-herpes-rates-still-high
      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/04/23/hookinguprealities/the-complex-psychology-of-std-transmission/

      From an old post of mine:

      Go to jezebel.com
      Type “herpes” in the search box.
      And you’ll see tons of threads where the message is the “herpes isn’t the problem, it’s the stigma associated with”. And if anyone admits to not wanting have to deal with such a disease, or any of the other complications of other STD’s, you’ll get thrashed for “slut shaming” or “everyone has it anyway, so shut up!”

      http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2010/04/26/hookinguprealities/why-feminists-want-you-to-get-herpes/

      And with this comment I resolve to dig up no more links today.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    I have to say, Susan, as the resident sex-positive kinky person, that not only is a citation needed on comprehensive sex ed teaching about golden showers (mostly it seems to teach how to put on condoms) but also you’re wrong about the dangers of those acts.

    Rimming is very safe when proper safer-sex practices are taken: for instance, when Saran wrap can be used to separate the mouth and the anus. Fisting is perfectly safe when done correctly: slowly, with a lot of communication, lube and foreplay beforehand to relax the vagina. Golden showers are completely safe. With the exception of rimming without protection, ordinary PIV has far more risks than any of those.

    Also, true sex-positivity regards abstinence as a choice just as valid as promiscuity, monogamy, polyamory or any other sexual choice.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ozy

      Also, true sex-positivity regards abstinence as a choice just as valid as promiscuity, monogamy, polyamory or any other sexual choice.

      Then I don’t know any truly sex-positive feminists.
      Why Do Feminists Find Abstinence Intolerable?

      Rimming is very safe when proper safer-sex practices are taken: for instance, when Saran wrap can be used to separate the mouth and the anus.

      MmmmmHmmmmm. And what percentage of the time do you think that happens? About as often as men whip out a dental dam before going down?

      Fisting is perfectly safe when done correctly: slowly, with a lot of communication, lube and foreplay beforehand to relax the vagina.

      It is not perfectly safe. While the vagina is elastic enough to expand enough to accommodate an infant’s head, it can tear. Furthermore, sharing information about fisting with teens doesn’t mean they’ll do it correctly. Anal fisting is also common, and that is most decidedly an unsafe practice.

      As for golden showers, there is risk is ingesting another person’s urine. Some people deliberately do this.

      I don’t care what people do in their own homes, at long as it doesn’t scare the horses. I do believe, however, that promoting, or even instructing about these sex practices does not promote safety among teens.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Also, true sex-positivity regards abstinence as a choice just as valid as promiscuity, monogamy, polyamory or any other sexual choice.

    I wonder if there is proper education for the abstinence. Abstinence only was very effective in my country because they also teach you that your hormones are going to try and sabotage that choice so trying to keep yourself away from situations that can lead to sex is also important, like unattended by adults parties, secluded places with your SO and so on. Do they teach that when they teach abstinence only or is just “your willpower suffice” because I can see that failing every time.

  • superenigma

    @denelian

    Wow you got divorced when you were 19? How long did the marriage last?

  • NoxiousNan

    “Casual sex is sex without commitment. Obviously, rape falls under that category. ”

    No, emphatically, no! Rape is a crime where sex is forced upon a person against that person’s will. When considering her sex life, a young woman cannot choose to abstain from rape the way she might choose to abstain from pre-marital sex.

    “That’s fine, no one is forcing you to reproduce. Just be aware the other people’s children will fund your final years. So if everyone felt the way you do, you’d be up a creek.”

    Tripe. You are very presumptuous. Why assume that a person choosing a non-traditional lifestyle would try to manage it using traditional means? Do you have any reason to believe that this person hasn’t made plans for her final years that don’t include burdening other people’s children? Wouldn’t it be nice if parents did that instead of burdening their own? But it seems it’s easier to take the opportunity to try to shame someone for choosing a lifestyle you don’t agree with than to just listen to another POV. There is no danger of everyone choosing her lifestyle, so I think tomorrow’s adults can focus on actual problems they will be facing.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @NoxiousNan

      Rape is a crime where sex is forced upon a person against that person’s will. When considering her sex life, a young woman cannot choose to abstain from rape the way she might choose to abstain from pre-marital sex.

      That’s true. I didn’t say rape was a choice. I said it was sex without commitment. That is factually true. It’s not a political statement. The fact is, sexual assault costs the taxpayers a great deal of money, especially at public colleges and universities. Many of the accusations do not hold up to scrutiny, as they often amount to her word against his, imprudent behavior by both parties, and false accusations. Have you seen Harvey Silverglate’s article today in the Wall St. Journal? This is one of the most liberal men in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and that’s saying something. He is disgusted that the Obama administration has scrapped fairness for feminism.

      Yes Means Yes – Except on Campus

      Why assume that a person choosing a non-traditional lifestyle would try to manage it using traditional means? Do you have any reason to believe that this person hasn’t made plans for her final years that don’t include burdening other people’s children?

      Do you know anyone who has refused Social Security?

  • tito

    all this talk of “choice” is merely a mask to make siding with the status quo seem noble.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Why assume that a person choosing a non-traditional lifestyle would try to manage it using traditional means?

    Do you plan to live in your own island attended by robots?
    Because even if you pay for it, the caregivers would be the children and grandchildren of people that choose to have them. What would you do if the government decided that only people that had children can have access to care in the older years, like it was in the past, if the shortage of young people gets big enough? Just an hypothetical question.

  • Kes

    It is unclear to me, Susan, where you found the data to back up your assertion that teen sex education curricula include information about “rimming, fisting and golden showers.” Mine own, and that of my friends, certainly made no mention of these sort of practices (not, incidentally, that their existence would have been news to any of us, who went thru puberty when rotten.com and stileproject were still in their heyday.)

    And yes, herpes is a wildly contagious and often un-diagnosed or mis-diagnosed disease that is spreading rapidly thru the sexually active population. However, I would hasten to point out that HSV is non-lethal and poses no threat to fertility in either men or women. Furthermore, unlike HPV, HSV currently has a very effective prescription drug that both prevents outbreaks and transmission to partners. I would humbly surmise that if the disease was less heavily stigmatized in the US, more people would be inclined to be diagnosed for herpes-like symptoms, leading to more people being properly treated and lessening their chances of infected someone else. Further, if herpes was less stigmatized, more people would feel comfortable disclosing a diagnosis to potential sex partners before they engaged in intercourse, so proper precautions could be taken. Herpes diagnoses would not be increasing at the rate that they are if either of these two things were happening.

    I would also point out that the 16 billion our nation’s health service is apparently spending on diagnosis and treatment of HSV-1 and 2 is being spent on doctor visits, lab fees, and Valtrex prescriptions, all of which I have no doubt is very welcome revenue to those doctor’s offices, labs, and pharmacies.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Kes

      It is unclear to me, Susan, where you found the data to back up your assertion that teen sex education curricula include information about “rimming, fisting and golden showers.”

      Sheesh, it’s in this very comment thread. I understand that’s a lot of comments, but I’ve already done double duty on the condom use link, and I don’t really have the time to post my arguments multiple times to different people. In this case, the Little Black Book – Queer in the 21st Century was funded by my state and distributed at my local high school.

      I would humbly surmise that if the disease was less heavily stigmatized in the US, more people would be inclined to be diagnosed for herpes-like symptoms, leading to more people being properly treated and lessening their chances of infected someone else.

      That’s the slut argument! You have it, so it’s in your best interest if everyone else gets it as well. I don’t care if it is not life-threatening. I don’t want painful outbreaks in my vagina, nor do I want to have to disclose my status, a moral requirement every time I consider a new partner. (The “you” and “i” here are just hypothetical.)

      Furthermore, there is a risk of transmitting genital herpes to your own baby during labor and childbirth. How can you argue for lessening the stigma of STDs in good conscience?

      all of which I have no doubt is very welcome revenue to those doctor’s offices, labs, and pharmacies.

      First, they are not compensated at the private rate, so the revenue is only welcome if there is not a private source. Second, the government should not be in the business of paying doctors, labs or pharmacies for preventable diseases that can only occur via irresponsibility and promiscuity. Herpes is entirely preventable, there’s just no reason anyone should get it. And I certainly don’t think we should make it any easier for people to secretly or unknowingly pass it along.

  • Kes

    Ha! I *knew* that $16 Billion figure for herpes treatment *alone* was crazy. Guess what? It was. The articles you linked to, and others that used the same phrase, were (badly) paraphrasing the CDC press release about an STD prevention conference from March of 2010. The “19 million new cases” and “$16 billion in costs” in that report refers to the cost of ALL STDs in the US, not just HSV-1&2

    “CDC estimates that there are 19 million new STD infections every year, making STDs the most commonly reported infectious diseases in the United States. STDs are estimated to cost the U.S. health care system about $16 billion annually, and can cause serious long-term health consequences. Left untreated, STDs such as chlamydia and gonorrhea can lead to infertility, and many STDs increase the risk of HIV infection.”

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Kes
      Thanks for catching that, I wouldn’t have wanted to plug the wrong number into my handy dandy flowchart. I do think it’s a little odd for you to gloat with a HA! This is not a pissing match, at least not for me. I’m interested in the facts. Thank you for your correction.

  • Kes

    Oopsie, forgot the linkie. Original sauce, from the CDC itself: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/stdconferencepressrelease.html

    I won’t link to all the articles hysterically paraphrasing this report, but if you Google the original quote Susan used, you will find them.

  • Kes

    No reason anyone should get it, unless they sleep with an infected person. Yeah, big ol’ slutty me has got it. From a two-year committed partner who didn’t know he was infected, and presented no symptoms. And after I was diagnosed, I educated myself. And as far as I know, I haven’t infected anyone else, and have disclosed to all my partners and potential partners, prior to engaging in sex.

    What, in your opinion, is responsible and non-promiscuous behavior? Sex only after marriage? Sex only in a committed relationship? How long does the relationship have to be before it is not slutty sex? What if it is between friends who know each other well? Is that slutty? Or does the sex only become slutty in retrospect, if there are adverse consequences?

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Kes
    I’m really sorry you got it, and I’m glad you are responsible about informing partners. I know that sucks.

    Responsible behavior, which is not the same as non-promiscuous behavior, includes never, ever having sex without a condom before both of you have a full panel of STD tests. If you and he had done that, you would either not have been infected, or you would have taken your informed chances. In the absence of testing, I say do not have sex without a condom until you find your life partner. Even with testing, there’s still a risk – which is why I believe in “no sex before monogamy” and consider that decision point to be an excellent time to get tested.

    FWIW, a person may be very promiscuous and entirely responsible. However, there’s always a risk of new STDs with multiple partners. And the fact is that most people are not entirely responsible, even when they have the best intentions.

  • Pingback: Sex, sex, sex. That’s all you think about | Vän av ordning

  • Kes

    “If you and he had done that, you would either not have been infected, or you would have taken your informed chances.”

    Sorry, but in this particular case that isn’t true. HSV is notoriously difficult to diagnose in a-symptomatic people. Even if they did present symptoms (usually this happens at the time they were first infected), they may not have noticed, or thought it was an in-grown hair, or forgotten about it when it went away (as happened with me until my yearly exam turned up the diagnosis). And without an active culture, you can’t be 100% positive. Even elevated white blood cells could only indicate exposure, not infection. This is especially true in men, who, lucky them!, present symptoms much more seldom than women, and aren’t (unfortunately for everyone) encouraged to get yearly check-ups of their sexual health.

    Also, HPV and HSV are skin-to-skin transmission, so condoms can reduce the risk, but not as much as with other STDs. All of this is information I wish I’d known (or been taught) *before* I was diagnosed. Because of the stigma, I went thru several months of self-worth eroding depression because “only sluts get herpes.” I cringe when I think back on that time, but luckily for me the cure was knowledge, to protect myself and others. I appreciate your nuanced stance that all sex includes risk and sexually active people should work to minimize it, but I’d rather minimize it with education than repression.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Kes
      I believe the blood tests are accurate, as they search for antibodies from current or previous exposure. From Web MD:

      The direct fluorescent antibody test is another kind. A solution containing HSV antibodies and a fluorescent dye is added to the sample. Antibodies are proteins produced by the immune system in response to an infection. If the virus is present in the sample, the antibodies stick to it and glow when viewed under a special microscope.

      Unfortunately, an antibody test (usually done on blood samples) only tests whether you have been exposed or ever had herpes virus. It is helpful, but does not diagnose a specific outbreak.

      Antibody tests can tell the difference between the two types of HSV.

      HPV definitely can’t be prevented with a condom – it can live on the thighs, abdomen, etc. But I do believe that condom use does a very, very good job of preventing herpes. Unfortunately, the incidence of condom use during oral sex is practically non-existent, and that’s the most common route of transmission today, at least on college campuses.

  • tito

    forget the diseases excusemakers, how about the fact that these ladies have punk kids and cause massive irresponsibility among young men. what is the cost of damage to property that comes out of this?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @tito

      forget the diseases excusemakers, how about the fact that these ladies have punk kids and cause massive irresponsibility among young men. what is the cost of damage to property that comes out of this?

      Now you’re addressing the single mothers with at-risk kids part of the chart. Interesting that few have debated that. It’s probably where a good chunk of the costs lie.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I appreciate your nuanced stance that all sex includes risk and sexually active people should work to minimize it, but I’d rather minimize it with education than repression.

    Okay like Jack the ripper said: Let’s cut this in small chunks?
    You mentioned you had sex ed and yet not the specific sex ed to prevent you from getting infected. So can you calculate the costs for a broader sex education in old schools from 12 years old and on?
    Then you have the factor that being sexually promiscuous and responsible every time is a complicated issue that requires certain level of maturity so this investment will pay off only in the responsible mature teens, which very likely will also respond to proper abstinence till you reach certain level of maturity too. If teens are not mature enough to abstain from sex what makes you think they are mature enough to handle all the information about sex education pertaining all the various ways sex can be harmful?
    Third shaming doesn’t prevent people from having promiscuous sex why would will prevent people from not telling a partner that they are infected? You are confusing the reasons why people lie, some people lie about this because it will take away the chances of having sex with the person of their choice. Really no one in their right mind wants to get an STD, this is natural response in the same way you don’t go to a flu room to breathe the cough filled air if you can avoid it. This is not about people being ashamed is about people being horny for one person. You can argue that if people are not ashamed for STD’s they will just have sex with people with disclosed STD’s and that will be the end of it, but they rather don’t limit their supply of new partners.
    So is repression the only solution? No but “sex is free and harmless and you should have it as much as possible” is not the solution either. It should be at least an informed choice with both good and bad including economic costs both personal and the state.
    Also BTW
    I never had an STD, neither of my virgin/low count friends had it, neither my husband or his friends that was sexually active but only dated women with no promiscuous past and only had relationship sex. You are using the argument that even people in monogamous relationships CAN get and STD. Is it possible? Of course but the chances are very very low, and that is a fact that shouldn’t be excluded for the benefit of people that want to equalize promiscuity with monogamy. Not one and the same, some accidents don’t make the rule.And I rather say well I got unlucky that I picked a risky lifestyle and got the consequences, and I think some people might want to be able to make that choice as well, YMMV.

  • NoxiousNan

    · Why assume that a person choosing a non-traditional lifestyle would try to manage it using traditional means?
    “Do you plan to live in your own island attended by robots?
    Because even if you pay for it, the caregivers would be the children and grandchildren of people that choose to have them. What would you do if the government decided that only people that had children can have access to care in the older years, like it was in the past, if the shortage of young people gets big enough? Just an hypothetical question.”

    Seriously? It’s acceptable for Ms Walsh to assume unpreparedness on the part of a complete stranger, but you find it questionable that I might not prepare myself for an imagined, dystopian future?

    Please edify me about this unnamed past wherein governments “decided that only people that had children can have access to care in the older years.”

    BTW, I have two adult children. I was referring to another commenter. Did you assume that I was childless because you cannot imagine anyone empathizing with someone that makes different choices than oneself?

    Also, Ms. Walsh said to be aware the children would be “funding your final years,” which is highly unlikely if I pay for it. If I pay for it, they are not someone’s grandchildren; they are my employees.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @NoxiousNan

      Also, Ms. Walsh said to be aware the children would be “funding your final years,” which is highly unlikely if I pay for it. If I pay for it, they are not someone’s grandchildren; they are my employees.

      I don’t think you understand the nature of Social Security. You paid into it so that your parents could receive it. Your children are paying into it so that you can receive it. It is always in arrears. There is not enough money there to pay for the Boomers right now. And there wiill be much less when your children need it.

  • NoxiousNan

    “I didn’t say rape was a choice. I said it was sex without commitment. That is factually true. It’s not a political statement.”

    You categorized rape as casual sex on your flowchart. Even if you only intended it as a risk of casual sex, there was no monogamy pie chart that also included rape as a risk. It seems you might be asserting that casual sex is more likely to expose one to being raped then monogamy when dating. That doesn’t make sense either – it would be easier to argue that the promiscuous woman better avoids rape by consenting to sex. Neither of those ideas work because rape is not casual or monogamous sex.
    “Do you know anyone who has refused Social Security?”
    I don’t discuss specifics like that with people, but I doubt I know anyone who has refused their SS benefits. I don’t really see how it’s relevant. Most people feel that their benefits are earned, not given. This is because most people spend their lives paying into Social Security.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @NoxiousNan

      It seems you might be asserting that casual sex is more likely to expose one to being raped then monogamy when dating.

      I certainly am asserting that. Note the question “Were you drunk?” Much rape is avoidable. Climbing to the third floor of a frat house in a blackout state with your boobs hanging out at 3 am is more likely to lead to rape than going to the movies with your boyfriend.

  • tito

    “Now you’re addressing the single mothers with at-risk kids part of the chart. Interesting that few have debated that. It’s probably where a good chunk of the costs lie.”

    is it so shocking that no one has debated that yet, lol? they will debate only a specific point that is brought up. as a form of damage control. if it doesn’t get mentioned, the issue doesn’t exist.

    kids who are raised by such ladies are involved in self-harm, gangs, booze/drugs, anti-social behavior, damage a lot of property and corrupt the other kids. promiscuity liberates young men from responsibility and causes a regression to permanent adolescence. not to mention the fact that (for the time being at least) western civilization guarantees a high level of comfort and temptation to do asinine things which all equals…booze/drugs, anti-social behavior, damage a lot of property.

    this activity combined with the crime rate escalating as a result of no discipline and the incitement of genetic competition for skanky females equals the end of civilization. so tell excuse-making anti-Susanites, how much is all that gonna cost.

    once again, for the 100th time, the only reason Susan is even getting any flak for this is because she is merely questioning a sacred, unassailable issue. she is Galileo and you antis are Cardinal Bel Armino.

  • tito

    @NoxiousNan

    “BTW, I have two adult children.”

    whoop-di-doo honey

    ” Did you assume that I was childless because you cannot imagine anyone empathizing with someone that makes different choices than oneself?”

    ah yes, the self-righteous outlier. great archetype. another sacred religious principle is “choice.” does it take biology into consideration? oh hell no, perish the thought.

    missy, Susan is obviously speaking in terms of the aggregate. she can’t know every single situation and doesn’t need to in order to write a blog post. sheeesh!

    the only reason that your holiness can even empathize “with someone that makes different choices than oneself” is because it is fashionable to do so. you will sympathize with whatever is hot right now. plain and simple. but be alert, oh sympathetis Nan, that can change suddenly.

  • SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu

    That’s fine, no one is forcing you to reproduce. Just be aware the other people’s children will fund your final years. So if everyone felt the way you do, you’d be up a creek.

    Here’s one reason why no one should take Susan Walsh’s opinion seriously.

    The human population on earth is nearing 7 billion. We are currently on what population ecologists call a J-curve, and it’s one that usually ends in a crash in the natural world. I don’t know if Walsh is ignorant of basic math, or is one of those techno-fantasists who think that we can continue to expand the human population forever, because we’ll invent spaceships and grow hamburgers in vats or something. Either way she’s revealing a startling refusal to think even the simplest details of her ideas through.

    At some point, human population growth MUST level off. At some point, we will have to deal with the fact that we have a burgeoning population of elderly people followed by a much smaller generation of younger people. It’s a well-known aspect of population growth that researchers have noticed since they started studying population dynamics. So, we’re going to be “up a creek” either way, but continuing to ensure robust population growth is going to put us up a much more permanent creek than slowing population growth will. When slowing population growth, the main problem you have to solve is how to care for one generation of elderly people when you have a shrinking tax base of younger working people. This is over in a generation or two, once the population stabilizes at a lower rate of growth. However, when you assume that all population growth is good, you are simply ensuring that at some point down the line, you are going to have to solve the problem of widespread pollution, overfishing, resource depletion, even to the point of ecosystem collapse. These are much more difficult problems to solve than simply figuring out a way to fund extra nursing homes on a limited budget.

    So please, if you’re wondering whether Walsh is credible or not – she really isn’t. She’s also great proof that women are often just as sexist, sometimes more so, than the most enthusiastically misogynist men.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @StrangeSally

      The human population on earth is nearing 7 billion. We are currently on what population ecologists call a J-curve, and it’s one that usually ends in a crash in the natural world. I don’t know if Walsh is ignorant of basic math, or is one of those techno-fantasists who think that we can continue to expand the human population forever, because we’ll invent spaceships and grow hamburgers in vats or something. Either way she’s revealing a startling refusal to think even the simplest details of her ideas through.

      Wow, way to get personal right out of the gate! No respectful disagreement here, oh no. Come in with both feminist barrels blazing.

      However, when you assume that all population growth is good, you are simply ensuring that at some point down the line, you are going to have to solve the problem of widespread pollution, overfishing, resource depletion, even to the point of ecosystem collapse. These are much more difficult problems to solve than simply figuring out a way to fund extra nursing homes on a limited budget.

      I didn’t say that all population growth is good. It would be helpful if poor people in Africa didn’t have HIV babies they can’t feed. It would be good if single teenagers in the inner cities didn’t have three babies via three different daddies that the state has to raise. It would be helpful if Islamic extremists didn’t produce large families. What is a serious problem is the highly educated delaying marriage and childbirth so late that they can’t get it done. Promiscuity plays a key role in that postponement.

      If women didn’t want to have children, that would be one thing. But many of the women who aren’t going to have them will be very unhappy about that. Their promiscuity will have rendered them infertile, “damaged goods” or too cynical and jaded for a monogamous relationship, incapable of bonding.

      So please, if you’re wondering whether Walsh is credible or not – she really isn’t.

      I have a very large, regular readership who isn’t wondering that at all, and many of them post here. You’re undoubtedly a renegade feminist from ManBoobz or Pervocracy, and I doubt anyone here will find any merit in your argument.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Susan: You quote a sex-positive feminist in that very essay: We can choose to be celibate, or to have someone come on our face. Many of the sex-positive feminists I know– such as Clarisse Thorn or Holly Pervocracy– have made it clear in their writings that they support people abstaining from sex if they want to. The keyword there is “if they want to.”

    Rimming is far higher risk than going down on a woman and therefore more safer sex precautions should be taken; some people may not be aware of the risks, but that’s a reason for more education (through websites such as Scarleteen and other independent groups, not the government), not less.

    You should not get vaginal tearing from fisting if you are doing it well: very slowly (probably about two to three hours to get the fist in), with lots of lube, stopping any time it hurts, encouraging the woman to relax, etc. Personally, I’ve had as many as five fingers up my vagina with no lube and no negative consequences whatsoever. You are right, however, that anal fisting can be much more dangerous, as the anus was not designed to stretch as much as the vagina.

    Drinking piss is actually less risky than PIV. It’s grosser, but it’s less risky. Not to mention that, as a woman who has participated in golden showers, the risk of piss-drinking can be easily eliminated by having your partner turn around or, you know, close his or her mouth.

    Also, anecdotally, I know way more people raped in relationships than in casual sex.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ozy
      I have enormous respect for Clarisse Thorn. She’s an exception. I think the testimonial of the Berkeley sex columnist is far more typical – sluts shaming girls who don’t hook up. We need to turn that around.

      they support people abstaining from sex if they want to. The keyword there is “if they want to.”

      Sex-positive feminists proselytize. Whether it’s Jaclyn Friedman writing a manifesto on sluthood, SPFs writing TV shows like SATC, or Kes in this thread urging us to chill out about herpes, sex-positive sluts know that the sexual double standard can only be made ineffective if all women go that route, and men are left without options.

      I’ve written about Scarleteen before, a site where Heather Corinna has actively encouraged a 14 yo girl to get comfortable with her large number of sex partners.

      You should not get vaginal tearing from fisting if you are doing it well: very slowly (probably about two to three hours to get the fist in), with lots of lube, stopping any time it hurts, encouraging the woman to relax, etc.

      That sounds like a great way to spend a Friday night. If I’d known it was like childbirth, I would have done it lots before.

      Also, anecdotally, I know way more people raped in relationships than in casual sex.

      With respect, that doesn’t mean squat. A large number of sexual assault charges on college campuses result from contact between people who know each other not at all, slightly, or moderately. And some number of those are false. I’m all researched out for today, but will try to come up with some stats on this. My guess is that it’s 90 casual, 10 relationships.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    but you find it questionable that I might not prepare myself for an imagined, dystopian future?

    Nope preparing yourself not counting with a young force is what I was questioning. The implication was that I don’t need traditional ways to sustain my old years, so what nontraditional ways can you use?

    @SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu

    So you admit that we will have to deal with the problems of a growing elderly population in a couple of generations and yet consider unwise to try to solve that first in the basis of the longer problem? Has it occurred to you that there is a growing trend interesting in environmental policies and techniques that will help reduce many of the problems you mention? A lot of the pollution and ecosystem issues is because of consumerism, if you read the reports a woman in the first world that spent part of her income traveling,cars, new clothing, jewelry and luxuries can make a bigger footprint that one in the third world 2 children included that reuses. Reducing population can slow down the environmental problems but it won’t stop them if the remaining ones are polluting machines.
    Since I grew up in a third world country I can tell you that the house I grew up with three siblings plus my parents (6 people) is half the size of the house of most of the couples I know that have no children and have at least 3 times the amount of appliances:
    http://motherjones.com/environment/2008/04/whats-your-babys-carbon-footprint
    American children make up 4% of the world’s population, but they consume more than 40% of the world’s toys.

    Did I mentioned that I also learned to make my own dolls and tiny race cars with what was available around the house long before recycling was “cool”?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Stephie,

    Reducing consumerism also has a negative impact on economy.

    Either way, we have to reduce the amount on people on earth, before earth forces us in a non pleasant way.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Yohami
    First reducing consumerism can reshape the economy, you need to remember that before the 20th century people use to only consume as much as they produced and reuse and recycle as a second nature, that was the century that brought us disposable products and they certainly had more kids. So reshaping economy can work for all of us, the money not spent in extra cars to change them every year can be use to fund education, the same could be say for all the money spent in promiscuous sex consequences.
    But for argument’s sake.
    The only politically correct way to downsize population growth without affecting our “precious lifestyle choices” is having less (or none) children right? But that means that they old population will have no means to continue a comfortable way of living in their last years…what do you suggest then?

  • NoxiousNan

    @Susan Walsh

    I do understand that my SS contributions pay for the current SS recipients. I am participating, and it’s reasonable to have the expectation that I will be rewarded for said participation.

    It seems you might be asserting that casual sex is more likely to expose one to being raped then monogamy when dating.

    I certainly am asserting that. Note the question “Were you drunk?” Much rape is avoidable. Climbing to the third floor of a frat house in a blackout state with your boobs hanging out at 3 am is more likely to lead to rape than going to the movies with your boyfriend.

    And that assertion is obviously flawed. Monogamous women can and do get drunk, go to frat houses, and probably have even have had their boobs hanging out at 3am. Monogamous women have to find their hopefully monogamous mates somewhere, and they usually do that by dating. Equally, there are plenty of women out there who enjoy casual sex without ever drinking a drop or visiting a frat house.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @NoxiousNan

      Monogamous women can and do get drunk, go to frat houses, and probably have even have had their boobs hanging out at 3am.

      A woman in a committed, monogamous relationship is much less likely to be date raped by a stranger at a frat party. Come on, you have to know that.

      Monogamous women have to find their hopefully monogamous mates somewhere, and they usually do that by dating.

      Yes, dating, not hooking up. Only 12% of hookups lead to any lasting connection.

      Equally, there are plenty of women out there who enjoy casual sex without ever drinking a drop or visiting a frat house.

      But as you can see from the many citations I provided, they are a small minority.

      Here’s what I don’t get about women like you. Do you not see how unhappy women are? Do you not see that the Sexual Revolution has produced a thoroughly dysfunctional sexual marketplace? Lots of your sex-positive sisters see it, and they’re starting to backpedal:

      The Cracking Foundation of Sex-Positive Feminism

      It was a very costly experiment, and it hasn’t worked out well. The momentum is going in the other direction now.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Stephie,

    you need to remember that before the 20th century people use to only consume as much as they produced and reuse and recycle as a second nature

    It can be “reshaped”, but since the current economy is unhealthy, anything towards healthy will be “negative” to the current economy. Be it having less children – consuming less – asking for less bank loans – anything “less”

    What do I suggest? the older people is going to die anyway, or the poor people, and pretty much all the bottom of the ladder when the ecosystem goes down.

    So if the ecosystem was taken care of and we were reducing the population in a controlled / sane way, and the elders happened to be the problem now, the solution is obvious: save money and resources for them.

    SSN is a business, here and in the USA and everywhere. The money gets stolen, then replaced by fake money that only translates into more debt for everyone. So its more than one issue here.

    Taking care of the elders is not the biggest problem. All they need is a family, food, shelter, etc, and eventually, die. Its not a problem that will go on forever.

    However the damages we do to the ecosystem can go on forever.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    Casual sex causes rape? Wow. I guess we’ll forget those people who are raped by their spouses. How about people raped by their family members? Or what about, you know, being in a long-term monogamous relationship, but being raped at your best friend’s birthday party where you weren’t even drunk, but simply fell asleep that night in the room you were intended to sleep in? Or how about good ol’ stranger rape which, while not as common as the aforementioned, is still prevalent enough, and certainly not limited to promiscuous people?

    You know what actually causes sexual assault? Sexual assailants. And they don’t care what their victims may have been wearing or how much of it they were wearing at the time.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Alex

      Casual sex causes rape? Wow.

      That is absolutely not what I said. I said that I believe casual sex is correlated highly to claims of sexual assault on college campuses. It is true that rape can occur in marriage, monogamous relationships, or randomly between strangers. The truth is, not all rape is the same. I’m sure you would agree, for example, that date rape bears little resemble to stranger rape in a dark parking lot. Jaclyn Friedman has written about seeking sexual partners on Craigslist. Would you agree that she is at higher risk for rape than a woman who does not troll online for sex with a stranger? I’m not saying that never happens – I’m talking about real probabilities here.

      You know what actually causes sexual assault? Sexual assailants.

      I agree.

      And they don’t care what their victims may have been wearing or how much of it they were wearing at the time.

      This is where you’re wrong, and this is why the Slut Walks are all wrong. In fact, women behaving imprudently is instrumental in motivating sexual assailants. A blackout drunk woman at a party who’s making out with a variety of strangers is a more likely roofie (and rape) victim than a woman who attends the party in the company of watchful girlfriends and drinks in moderation. HIgh Priestess Amanda Marcotte agrees with this:

      Shocker! Slutty Behavior is Ineffective in Preventing Rape

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Jaclyn Friedman’s manifesto was about how sluthood worked for her. You cannot say that someone saying “sluthood made me happy!” is saying “no one should be abstinent,” any more than saying “pizza makes me happy!” is saying “no one should eat sushi.”

    Most of the sex-positive feminists I know (which is not a random sample, of course, as I tend to filter for sensible) HATE Sex and the City with a burning passion or simply have never watched it.

    And, yes, people should chill out about STIs. Because if it is a health problem, no more shameful than mono or a cold, not OMG I AM A SLUTTY SLUT SLUT OF SLUTDOM AND NO ONE WILL EVER LOVE ME, then people will be tested more often, will be more likely to be treated, will be less afraid of communicating their status to their partners and will no longer feel depression or fear upon receiving their diagnosis, and that works out better for everyone.

    If a fourteen-year-old is having safe, emotionally healthy and consenting sex with a lot of partners, there is nothing wrong with that. I have to say that 99% of fourteen-year-olds would not be having emotionally healthy sex, but if one girl is in the one percent, good for her. (Also good for all the fourteen-year-olds mature enough to realize they aren’t ready for sex!) Scarleteen actually has a very awesome sex readiness checklist in which abstinence is recommended for many (most?) of the people who read it.

    Vaginal fisting is not much like childbirth, most notably because most babies are rather larger than a fist, and because if childbirth starts to hurt you do not get to tell the kid to stop coming out. :) Vaginal fisting is actually a very peaceful and meditative (and multiorgasmic :) ) experience for many women. It’s not for everyone– vaginal fisting is pretty much Advanced Sex, and many people are totally content with Basic Sex, and that’s wonderful for them. But it’s not wrong either.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ozy

      Jaclyn Friedman’s manifesto was about how sluthood worked for her. You cannot say that someone saying “sluthood made me happy!” is saying “no one should be abstinent,” any more than saying “pizza makes me happy!” is saying “no one should eat sushi.”

      JF made a plea for sluthood – she asked for empathy and respect for sluts. Meanwhile, she called me out as a “pearl clutching blogger” at Boston Slut Walk because I don’t believe that promiscuity is in the best interest of women. You are very naive if you don’t think she is marketing sluthood. She is doing so aggressively.

      Most of the sex-positive feminists I know (which is not a random sample, of course, as I tend to filter for sensible) HATE Sex and the City with a burning passion or simply have never watched it.

      That’s good to hear, but the fact is, SATC ushered in a new height in promiscuity among adolescents. It’s the most beloved pop culture icon of promiscuous sex ever, and it made casual sex seem glamorous, in spite of the fact that it made all of the women miserable.

      Because if it is a health problem, no more shameful than mono or a cold, not OMG I AM A SLUTTY SLUT SLUT OF SLUTDOM AND NO ONE WILL EVER LOVE ME,

      It’s not a question of shame, it’s a question of risk, and containing disease in the population. The only totally effective way to prevent STDs is to refrain from sex. Short of that, monogamy is the next best strategy, with testing for both partners before the condom comes off. It’s been estimated that half of the single women in NYC have genital herpes. So if you’re not in that half, it is most definitely not in your best interest to chill out about STIs.

      I have to say that 99% of fourteen-year-olds would not be having emotionally healthy sex, but if one girl is in the one percent, good for her.

      And who decides if it’s emotionally healthy? Does she, at age 14? I doubt there is a parent alive who would not be absolutely horrified by your POV, including mothers who had many partners at age 14 themselves.

      vaginal fisting is pretty much Advanced Sex, and many people are totally content with Basic Sex, and that’s wonderful for them.

      I am astounded you would use value judgment language here. Wow.

      It seems to me that if a woman or man cannot get off without shoving their fist into a vagina or anus it’s not advanced, it’s troubled. I wonder what percentage of women, do you think, enjoy vaginal fisting? Half a percent? One percent? Face it, Ozy, you’re a statistical outlier. Including instructions for safe fisting in a sex ed publication is only PC advertising for something very few want to do anyway. It’s total pandering to the LGBT crowd, and taxpayer funds should not be used to support it.

  • tito

    @StrangeSally

    OK trendy, there are certain populations that are definitely not overpopulated and could use a boost. the populations that are overpopulating are the ones that don’t follow your trendy religion. take it up with them.

    once again, Susan is over the target and is getting flak. plain and simple.

  • http://pecunium.livejournal.com/ Terry Karney

    True, but again, I’ll cite Levitt and Dubner of Freakonomics fame. They concluded that the crime rate in the US fell dramatically because many of the men who would have been criminals were aborted by their unwed would-be mothers. They had absolutely no causal evidence. Just abortion data and crime data. They linked the two and made an argument that was controversial yet compelling. Is it possible they’re wrong? Yes, but you need to come up with another theory to say so.

    They were wrong. Levitt admitted to flaws in his methodology when a pair of economists at the Boston Federal Reserve went back to his numbers.

    The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime: Comment: Foote and Goetz

    The short version is that Levitt and Donohue (the authors of the paper referred to in Freakonomics) didn’t properly control for the variables, and conflated some numbers which made the parent hypothesis look stronger than it is.

    As pointed out by numerous previous authors [Sailer 1999; Lott and Whitley 2007; Joyce 2004, 2006], using age-year variation generates no support for the abortion-crime hypothesis. To illustrate this point, these authors often use graphs like Figures 3a and 3b, which show that the criminal activity of different age cohorts does not appear to decline when these cohorts begin to be affected by legalized abortion.15 Table III formalizes this point with regressions of national age-specific arrest rates on a nationwide version of the abortion ratio.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Terry Karney
      That’s very interesting. I would note that Levitt and Dubner’s book is still a bestseller, and their original study is bound to influence thinkers and policymakers far more than any subsequent rebuttal. Do you remember Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice? She never allowed her data to be subjected to peer review, and many believe she cooked the data. Yet that did little to hurt book sales, and she sailed off to Columbia from Harvard with a sweet deal. Her misandrist research was instrumental in creating the current shortfall of male college students.

  • tito

    what about unruly undisciplined young men damaging property and being a waste of space? how much does that cost?

  • http://pecunium.livejournal.com/ Terry Karney

    Put me in the category of people who have been “promiscuous”, and who have had a significant number of, “promiscuous” partners.

    No STDs, and no pregnancies for me. The only time any of my friends has had an STD was when her husband had an affair. So, while anectdata is suspect, I can attest to several hundred people of my acquaintance who have engaged in what you term “casual sex” (some of whom engage in what I call casual sex), who have managed to avoid these pitfalls you say are endemic.

    Also, I don’t think that putting a non-consensual act in the list of the risks of promiscuity is what you want to be doing, since anyone can be raped. It’s conflating the risks of chosen behavior, with the risks of merely being alive.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Terry Karney

      I can attest to several hundred people of my acquaintance who have engaged in what you term “casual sex” (some of whom engage in what I call casual sex), who have managed to avoid these pitfalls you say are endemic.

      How old are you? Did you read the citations re STDs among college students? Kids learn in sex ed that every time you have sex with someone, you are essentially having sex with everyone they’ve ever had sex with, from a health standpoint. That is a basic tenet of high school sex ed. Do you understand what that means? Your risk increases geometrically every time you have sex with a new partner. Practicing safe sex helps a lot, but it’s no guarantee. And unfortunately, between 30-50% of college kids have causal sex without condoms. This is not rocket science, do the math!

      Also, I don’t think that putting a non-consensual act in the list of the risks of promiscuity is what you want to be doing, since anyone can be raped. It’s conflating the risks of chosen behavior, with the risks of merely being alive.

      I’ll say it again. Promiscuous behavior is correlated with sexual assault, and it’s very costly to prosecute. Also, rarely successful. If the parties were intoxicated, even their own accounts are in doubt, and there are rarely witnesses. Some women also falsely accuse men, and the Obama administration has just made that a lot easier to get away with.

  • tito

    i was promiscuous as a lad too. but one must consider civilization first instead of splitting hairs. Susan is doing just that.

  • tito

    Alex you are willfully clueless. there was less rape back when sacred promiscuity was frowned upon. it is overstated today anyway.

  • mnnawtynnice

    You know, I am so glad that your sex life is fulfilling to you as it is, without being promiscuous. I wish I could say that I wish I was wired that way, but I am not. Yes, I am a slut, but I hardly think I’m the root cause of the downfall of our society. I think you’d best be looking at greed, one upsmanship and absolute lack of accountability. Personally, I’ve been harmed more mentally, physically, emotionally and economically by people operating as a “good person” than I ever have by a fellow slut. Just food for thought.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @mnnawtynnice

      You know, I am so glad that your sex life is fulfilling to you as it is, without being promiscuous. I wish I could say that I wish I was wired that way, but I am not.

      Actually, you raise a really good point. I do think it will be proven shortly that some people are “wired” for casual sex, genetically speaking. If that’s the case, is it a moral issue at all? Do they even have the power to choose a different lifestyle? As the field of genetics research explodes, it’s raising some very difficult questions. We may learn that certain people are “genetically programmed” to commit crimes, be narcissists, be promiscuous, etc. How will that affect our views of personal responsibility? This is going to be very, very complicated.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    tito,

    You are a willful idiot. You know why rape seemed “less common”? Because fewer people talked about it.

    Sexual assault is overstated? See first sentence.

  • tito

    “It’s total pandering to the LGBT crowd, and taxpayer funds should not be used to support it.”

    ooooooooh, Susan you really shouldn’ have said that!!! OMG, you are tackling many sacred cows now (yaaaaay!).

  • tito

    @Alex

    “You are a willful idiot. You know why rape seemed “less common”? Because fewer people talked about it.”

    talk about cliche. how is it possible that mass rape was going on and no one talked about or reported it? under patriarchy that happens less and is generally punished off the books. that is a popular thing to say but does not hold true. plus today if one rape happens they can’t shut the fuck up about it. some women can make a lucrative career out of it. more rapes happen in prison and are often more brutal. that is something no one wants to talk about. except for jokes.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    You know, I am so glad that your sex life is fulfilling to you as it is, without being promiscuous. I wish I could say that I wish I was wired that way, but I am not.

    Are you sure about that? There are many “fake sluts” nowadays. Women that start to engage in promiscuous sex for many reasons: past traumas, need of power or validation, media brainwashing? Had you have a true heart to heart with yourself with no outside forces like friends or TV and realize that indeed you need tons of sex for a natural need for sex? Because one trait of real sluts is that they don’t care one bit what anyone think of them, IME.

    Yes, I am a slut, but I hardly think I’m the root cause of the downfall of our society. I think you’d best be looking at greed, one upsmanship and absolute lack of accountability. Personally, I’ve been harmed more mentally, physically, emotionally and economically by people operating as a “good person” than I ever have by a fellow slut. Just food for thought.

    I had both been harmed by sluts, virgin, nice people in general in similar percentage, but this is about something bigger than you or me, the fact that every person that engages in risky sexual behavior is at harm of a number of consequences that affect society at large. Will you use this argument with the environment? “Just because I use fossil combustible I don’t believe I’m contributing to the downfall of the ecosystem” nah right? Why promiscuity is any different?

  • tito

    if they have no power to choose and are wired a certain way that means they have no free will. therefore holy “choice” doesn’t apply to them. therefore they can’t count in terms of the effects of this. the next step for them is simple sterilization thus preventing them from passing along their junk genes. they won’t exist in the future and we won’t have to deal with them (or worship them, or have take them seriously, or have to bow down to their holy fetishes). after all, they are wired that way.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    @Susan Walsh,

    I love how you claim “@Alex

    Casual sex causes rape? Wow.

    That is absolutely not what I said” and then completely contradict yourself by insisting:

    “In fact, women behaving imprudently is instrumental in motivating sexual assailants.”

    Not in my experience: http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/2011/07/did-you-know-that-rape-is-form-of.html

  • tito

    @Alex

    you are obviously member of the church-of-what’s-hot-right-now but all of the ideas you’ve internalized will eventually be out of style (again) so i wouldn’t be too atached to them if i were you.

  • Mike C

    You know, I am so glad that your sex life is fulfilling to you as it is, without being promiscuous. I wish I could say that I wish I was wired that way, but I am not. Yes, I am a slut, but I hardly think I’m the root cause of the downfall of our society.
    .
    More power to you. Seriously. Just curious though. Have you ever lied to a boyfriend or partner? If so, why? I wholeheartedly support anyone who wants to embrace their sluttiness but seems cowardly and hypocritical to me when those same people engage in active deception about what they are really about. Susan has mentioned many young women playing the pretend game in this sphere.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    @tito,

    “how is it possible that mass rape was going on and no one talked about or reported it?”

    When marital rape is legal, who’s going to report? When rape is considered the fault of the victim, who’s going to report? When children are told not to talk about such things by their own families, how many are going to report later on? In areas where being a rape victim might mean you’ll be executed, who’s going to report? Yeah, total impossible cliche. Your rape apologism is showing.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    “you are obviously member of the church-of-what’s-hot-right-now”

    That’s kind of funny, being that I’ve never engaged in promiscuity myself. Unless we’re counting sexual assault. In that case, I’ve been very promiscuous, except that I never did think of that as “what’s-hot-right-now”.

  • Abbot

    you touched the sacred cow and any and all excuses are to be deployed against you until you 1)give up 2)give in) 3)agree with your detractors
    .
    Now why is that? Any ideas? For one, this is NOT about promiscuity. This is about staying on course to normalize FEMALE sexual freedom. This is about CAREERISM, EQUALITY, OPPRESSION and competition for the hearts and minds of women…all because of a flow chart. Because people understand images more than words and the truth in the chart is far less threatening than the potential for people to believe it. What would it mean for women, especially bar hopping trollops who desperately do not want to be judged for their super easy “achievements”? Or for the “career woman” who feels entitled to use the occasional alpha male interactive sex toy to “build her character” or “embrace her sexuality” and still be assured a man worth marrying will not consider these glorious expressions a quick ticket off the wife list. If this new propaganda is leaked, and believed, how would the public react? How would Jaclyn Friedman react? Well, for one thing, she would spew all sorts of vile at Susan. Her minions are only slightly better, as they struggle on this site to maintain composure.
    .
    got defensive when people called you out on it by saying “it’s just a hypothesis! a dinner table conversation!”
    .
    Because that is what it is. But clearly, the topic got a bunch of sex pozoids who monitor this site daily, to blow their corks and jump in to pathetically redirect what must be a potentially very threatening message. In fact, I have NEVER seen anything like this reaction on this website over a seemingly mild [at least at the onset] topic. All the more reason to that nice colorful chart viral. Just to stick that thorn deeper in your collective sex pozoid asses. Better hurry and make your own chart that somehow convinces the public that female promiscuity makes society better, especially for men and children, cause you are all way behind and the first one out of the box wins.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Alex
    These are not the same thing:

    Casual sex causes rape? Wow.

    “In fact, women behaving imprudently is instrumental in motivating sexual assailants.”

    It makes no sense to say that sex causes sex. Sexual assailants do cause unwelcome sex to happen. That is rape. Sexual assailants may randomly strike out at a child or a 90 year-old woman.

    However, many sexual assault accusations are filed based on drunken hookups between acquaintances of roughly the same age. And many of those are very fuzzy on the question of consent.

    However, you can be sure I’ve taught my daughter how to keep herself out of harm’s way. She can’t prevent the random parking lot attacker, but she can certainly prevent herself from being raped at a frat party. If we urged women to make good and prudent choices in their social lives, we could decrease the number of sexual assaults dramatically.

    Why do you find it difficult to accept that women need to act prudently to protect themselves? By denying this, you are putting more women at risk.

    Your blog post outlining your own experiences of sexual abuse is horrific, and I’m stunned by the number of women in your family and circle that have also been abused. I can honestly say that no one in my family has been abused (that I know of). I do know three women who have been sexually assaulted in their lives, out of thousands. We have had very different experiences, which undoubtedly explains our differing perspectives.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Taking care of the elders is not the biggest problem. All they need is a family, food, shelter, etc, and eventually, die. Its not a problem that will go on forever.
    Mmm families will be in shortage too with less children.

    Had you lived in USA/UK BTW?

    I think that in Latin America we didn’t had a proper baby boom so we don’t have this problem as acute because all generations overlap so even if our people grow old there is usually not enough to cause a strong economical impact. In here there was an explosion of births after WW2 that means that means that USA will a large group of people reaching old age at the same time. Not something easy to deal with.
    Had you taken care of a full adult that can’t take care of himself? Is not a one person’s job. We took care of my grandfather for three years before he died and we needed at least two people to just turn him on the bed to make sure the sheets won’t burn him, to clean him and place the adult diaper we needed three strong adults. And not sure how is in USA but in my country elderly care is very expensive even with insurance and if I started calculated the foot print of adult diapers…well.

    So having a large population of old people is not as easy as to just sit then in a chair and let them die. It takes a lot of time and effort and money they also are prone to developing a lot of diseases that need individual care, including surgeries, my grandfather had three surgeries and they were just for the broken bones, he was healthy in comparison to other elderly people in the last years of their lives.
    Also you are not taking in account that life expectancy is increasing but not life quality I like very close to many senior homes and this people grow older and need more equipment for many things, taking a bath or walking.

    So again if we calculate that every boomer will live till 80, then what will happen when the Xgeneration reach the same age (or possibly more) with half the population in the work force because they and their descendants didn’t reproduced enough to sustain them?

  • tito

    @Alex

    “When marital rape is legal, who’s going to report? When rape is considered the fault of the victim, who’s going to report? When children are told not to talk about such things by their own families, how many are going to report later on? In areas where being a rape victim might mean you’ll be executed, who’s going to report?”

    ha! what country are you living in. not only are you encouraged to report anything and everything, kids in school are asked if their parents ever argue. the whole scene is about informing.

    “Your rape apologism is showing.”

    “rape apologism?” you are better at wordsmithing than even i. hat tip Alex. 190,000 mena are raped in prison every year. do you hear about that anywhere? you always hear about it when any woman gets raped and some of these are exposed in court as bogus. 190,000 a year is just what gets reported. male rape hasn’t become cool yet so you can bet many don’t report. women get raped once and go to the cops. these guys get it for years and years, in an opening not intended for protrusion, trapped in a cage with psychos. why not focus on this?

    “That’s kind of funny, being that I’ve never engaged in promiscuity myself.”

    that’s the whole point of your church. it is not especially ennobling to support something you do, it looks selfless to vigorously support something you don’t engage in, so long as it’s hot right now. case in point; non-gay gay promoters who are often more hysterical than nay gays are.

  • Abbot

    Why Do Feminists Find Abstinence Intolerable?

    .
    Because they have convinced themselves that it will take away some aspects of a woman’s power and sexually unleashed women have far more sexual power then men. Feminists want any and every form of power available to women, obvious consequences be damned.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    When marital rape is legal, who’s going to report? When rape is considered the fault of the victim, who’s going to report? When children are told not to talk about such things by their own families, how many are going to report later on? In areas where being a rape victim might mean you’ll be executed, who’s going to report? Yeah, total impossible cliche. Your rape apologism is showing.

    Do you have hard data of this? Because feminism is based in many assumptions.

    Men normal men don’t want to have sex with a woman that doesn’t want to have sex with them. Never.
    Rapists are a minority that seeks pleasure by forcing themselves on others. Had you ever read books written by women before feminism? This books show love and respect and desire for their men, in their patriarchal homes. Is a lie to assume that men needed “feminist education” to not rape women.
    Fallacy based in the idea that men’s natural desire is to harm a woman. Not true at all. So hard data in the amount of rapes were committed or at least historical accounts please? Because this “ethereal assumption that if men had no incentive to not rape they will” is only in the head of very traumatized women that never knew the love of a man in their lives.
    I’m sorry you were assaulted but you need help and counseling to stop assuming that all men are like the one that hurt you, they are not. Don’t make them pay for something only one of them did would you?

  • Abbot

    Why do you find it difficult to accept that women need to act prudently to protect themselves? By denying this, you are putting more women at risk.

    .
    Answer in my last comment.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    @ Susan Walsh,

    I thought it might just be a better idea to tell people they shouldn’t rape rather than limit the social lives of women (and not men of course).

    “It makes no sense to say that sex causes sex.”

    If a mother beats her child with a frying pan, is it cooking because a cooking part was used? Obviously not, and likewise sexual assault is not sex just because sexual parts are used. It’s about power, regardless of whether sexual desire happens to be present initially or not.

    You write in your chart that sexual assault is an effect of casual sex, which would make casual sex thus a cause of sexual assault. If that’s not what you meant, you need to seriously work on that chart. But I’ve read your responses to others, hoping that you would say something that would make it that you were not saying that. Instead, you confirmed it as exactly what you were saying, whether you used the exact words, “casual sex causes rape” or not.

    As for this: “If we urged women to make good and prudent choices in their social lives, we could decrease the number of sexual assaults dramatically.”

    Really? Because there’s a long list of so-called “tips to prevent yourself from getting raped” that women are told routinely, and most of them don’t work. What’s more, these tips aren’t so much given out to help protect people from sexual assault as to blame the victim afterward if ze failed to do any of those things, no matter how unrealistic it was to do them. I regularly walk alone at night, dress sexy, walk in alleys, parking lots, etc. Nothing ever happened then.

    The point is, if you follow all the rules people tell you to follow in order to avoid sexual assault and someone still assaults you, what the hell is the point of limiting your life? I’m not promiscuous as it’s just not my thing, but in the same way I refuse to stop walking alone at night, or exploring alleyways just because of the risk of being sexually-assaulted, then I don’t expect anyone to not be promiscuous if that’s what they want to do. Go out, have fun, don’t hurt anyone. If people decide to hurt you, that’s because of their behaviour, not yours.

    Good luck to your daughter.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Alex
      Your reasoning may be ethically sound – no one deserves to be raped. But it’s just terrible advice strategically. Don’t swim in a pool when there’s lightning in the sky. Don’t mix drugs and alcohol. Don’t go into a blizzard without a coat. Don’t drive the wrong way on a one-way street. Don’t play in traffic. Don’t get drunk on roof decks with no railing. Don’t get belligerent with someone who’s mugging you. Don’t get in a car with a strange man offering you candy.

      Don’t emulate a prostitute in your dress if you don’t want men to be sexually aroused by you.

      Don’t drink so much that you lose all ability to say no or fight back or call for help.

      I’m actually finding it really depressing that you don’t get this. It’s as if feminists want to walk right up to the line and say “No.” They want to tempt men, or fate, or whatever you want to call it. They want to play out the scene in such a way that they can be safe even if they’ve been inviting male sexual aggression. They’re willing for women to get raped so that they can accuse men.

      I regularly walk alone at night, dress sexy, walk in alleys, parking lots, etc. Nothing ever happened then.

      Given your history, I find this behavior alarming and disturbing. I’m not a mental health professional, but it strikes me as extremely self-destructive.

  • Abbot

    You are very naive if you don’t think she is marketing sluthood. She is doing so aggressively.
    .
    Friedman is a sociopath who was absolutely ill raised by uncaring parents. Only a good father will keep his daughters away from anything Friedman writes. She is an evil POS who requires counseling and thank god the general public understands that.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Tito: Wait… you’re supporting sterilizing me because I’m queer, kinky and slutty, even though I’m healthy, intelligent, nice person who volunteers, works hard and contributes to society? No offense, sir, but your priorities are fucked up.

    Susan: Depending on what you mean by “wired” for casual sex, I’d argue that it’s been proven now. In my not so humble opinion, people who are good at casual sex should be (of the Big Five personality traits) conscientious, agreeable, non-neurotic, extraverted and open to new experiences; agreeableness, non-neuroticism and conscientiousness are probably the most important. The Big Five are partially inherited.

    I don’t think that “having empathy and respect for sluts” necessarily means “everyone should be a slut”; it means “don’t be an asshole to sluts for being slutty.” For instance, by suggesting that they ought to be sterilized. :)

    Actually, some STIs are transmitted through means other than sex; but I get your meaning. I think we’re talking at cross-purposes here. Obviously, you should take safer sex precautions, including getting tested every six months if not in a long-term monogamous relationship and using condoms with every partner unless you have agreed to be fluid-bonded and you have shared test results. Actually, I’m a complete bitch about that; I’ll use condoms for blowjobs unless I have test results in hand or solid confirmation of virginity. However, if you or your partner has an STI, the proper result is not “I’m dirty and impure now and no one will want to fuck me,” but getting treatment, being slavish about safer sex and disclosing to your partners before sex. I’ve seen people not get tested because “only sluts get STIs,” and that’s completely wrong.

    Children are generally horrified at their parents having sex; that doesn’t mean the parents shouldn’t have sex. :) Far more 14-year-olds think they’re mature enough for sex than actually are, but I’d say that the Scarleteen readiness checklist is pretty solid.

    I’m not sure what you thought was value language about my statement there. I would like to make it clear that liking fisting doesn’t mean you’re better or worse than someone who doesn’t like fisting; I used Advanced Sex in the same sense I might call being obsessed with an obscure off-off-off Broadway show Advanced Musicals. What phrasing would you prefer I use?

    Anyone who enjoys fisting can “get off without shoving a fist up a person’s vagina or anus”; that’s a strawman. In fact, I’d argue that fisters and fistees probably enjoy a wider range of sex acts than your average vanilla couple. Which is not to say that fisters and fistees are better than vanilla people. What you do in bed, assuming it’s emotionally healthy, safe and mutually enjoyable, has nothing to do with whether you’re good or not, any more than what you read or what hobbies you practice have to do with whether you’re good.

    I’ve never been fisted; I am actually amused that you feel that someone has to enjoy a sex act to know that other people do. Whether something is common has nothing to do with the issue of whether something is safe or enjoyable, which is, I believe, the subject we originally started out on and you were wrong about.

    I don’t believe fisting should be in government-funded sex education materials; that should strictly keep themselves to issues of anatomy, avoiding STIs and pregnancy, how to determine your sexual boundaries, emotional health in relationships, and enthusiastic consent. I also think they shouldn’t describe how to do vaginal, oral or anal sex; that should be kept to sex advice books, websites, columns and blogs.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ozy

      I’m not sure what you thought was value language about my statement there.

      I can’t think of a situation where Advanced is not perceived as superior to Basic.

      In fact, I’d argue that fisters and fistees probably enjoy a wider range of sex acts than your average vanilla couple. Which is not to say that fisters and fistees are better than vanilla people.

      I’ve seen you address the use of the term vanilla before. Regardless of how you use it, it’s often a pejorative term for people who practice “Basic” sex. The online community of people who practice many of these acts are often superior in their tone. It’s like when gay men used to call straight women “breeders.” That only changed when they could breed too :)

      Whether something is common has nothing to do with the issue of whether something is safe or enjoyable, which is, I believe, the subject we originally started out on and you were wrong about.

      I maintain that fisting as commonly practiced is an unsafe practice.

  • Abbot

    The Cracking Foundation of Sex-Positive Feminism

    It was a very costly experiment, and it hasn’t worked out well. The momentum is going in the other direction now.

    .
    Proof of that is right here on this thread. Proof is in the fact that sex pozzasses read this site daily. As the experiment dies, there will always be stragglers who cannot stand to let go. Breath. Let go. Its OK.

  • tito

    i merely suggested that, since you are “wired” and can’t help it than why not? do you want kids? wouldn’t that be unhip?

  • Abbot

    “don’t be an asshole to sluts for being slutty.”
    .
    Does the quiet choice to have sex with but not marry sluts qualify a man to be an asshole? If so, there are many men proud to be assholes.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    @tito,

    You really should remember what YOU’ve said before responding to people. You said, “there was less rape back when sacred promiscuity was frowned upon” to which I replied, “You know why rape seemed “less common”? Because fewer people talked about it.” You then said, “how is it possible that mass rape was going on and no one talked about or reported it?” And that’s when I said, “When marital rape is legal, who’s going to report? When rape is considered the fault of the victim, who’s going to report? When children are told not to talk about such things by their own families, how many are going to report later on? In areas where being a rape victim might mean you’ll be executed, who’s going to report?”

    Do you get it now? Obviously people talk about it a lot now, but in the past people didn’t because of the reasons I listed (marital rape, etc.). That’s why it seemed to be less. It wasn’t.

    Re: rape apologism: decided it was less verbally awkward than sexual assault apologia, which is the term I usually use.

    “Alex. 190,000 mena are raped in prison every year. do you hear about that anywhere?”

    Yes, actually. People talk about it a lot on (you may want to prepare yourself) feminist blogs! Seriously, just try making a prison rape joke on a feminist blog. You’ll be banned the second a mod sees it, or be verbally torn to shreds by the commentators. By the way, many rape laws don’t include rape by fingers as rape, which significantly ignores a lot of female on female rape.

    “that’s the whole point of your church. it is not especially ennobling to support something you do, it looks selfless to vigorously support something you don’t engage in, so long as it’s hot right now. case in point; non-gay gay promoters who are often more hysterical than nay gays are.”

    lol Okay, and if I was promiscuous myself, you’d say I was biased. Your argument fails.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    tito: Why do you assume I don’t want kids because I’m promiscuous? I’ve actually started cooing at random small children on street corners much more often lately. I can only assume it’s late-onset maternal instincts. :)

    Admittedly I have a hatred and fear of pregnancy, but I’ll imagine that’ll go away in the next ten years in plenty of time for me to reproduce.

    Abbot: I’m pretty sure the only sex-pozzie who reads the blog regularly is me, and that’s because I’m a glutton for punishment. David at Manboobz stumbled across the blog when someone posted it on the Manboobz forum, and then from Manboobz the Pervocracy picked it up.

    I highly support people who don’t want to marry sluts not marrying sluts. We don’t want to marry you either. I mean, it’s amazing, it’s like I’m carrying around an asshole detector in my crotch.

  • Abbot

    I highly support people who don’t want to marry sluts not marrying sluts.
    .
    Whew! That information is a welcome relief to nearly all men in the US. To know that they are actually supported rather than denigrated in that regard. Jaclyn Friedman must then be an isolated case. Thank you so much.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Wait… you’re supporting sterilizing me because I’m queer, kinky and slutty, even though I’m healthy, intelligent, nice person who volunteers, works hard and contributes to society? No offense, sir, but your priorities are fucked up.

    You know this is an interesting exercise.

    The worst cad I knew (by word I wasn’t friend of his) was horrible. He used to discard lovers like he discarded used condoms, had at least 10 different names and personas to get more variety, he abandoned the poor ones (after making them move into his house abandoning their families/jobs because he was going to support them, of course till he was done with them in which case he just sent them packing no money and with no family to help them) and committed fraud to get money from the rich ones (the usual I’m starving/ill and you are rich please help me), at least three lovers of him committed suicide after he left them in the street and some of them were killed when they turned to drug dealing with his “help”…. But he also donated tons of money and time to the elderly and other charity institutions so the guy was untouchable, people will often bring all his good actions over any accusations of sexual misbehavior.
    At what point should a person sexual behavior not being acceptable because the person has other contributions to society?
    I don’t mean to attack you but I had seen many people using the argument that their sexual behavior shouldn’t weight in other areas regardless of the harm it might cause (social or local) so I wonder if you have any opinion on it.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    His crime is in using people like things, not in having sex.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    His crime is in using people like things, not in having sex

    Using people like things can be done for money, social status as well. He did it for the chance of having promiscuous sex with a variety of partners. The argument is that sluts are harmless this was a case of a harmful slut that is getting away with it (at the time being) because he is such a “good person” in other aspect. So where to draw the line?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    If a fourteen-year-old is having safe, emotionally healthy and consenting sex with a lot of partners, there is nothing wrong with that. I have to say that 99% of fourteen-year-olds would not be having emotionally healthy sex, but if one girl is in the one percent, good for her. (Also good for all the fourteen-year-olds mature enough to realize they aren’t ready for sex!) Scarleteen actually has a very awesome sex readiness checklist in which abstinence is recommended for many (most?) of the people who read it.

    Mmm would you say the same if this 14 year old was having safe, emotionally healthy and consenting sex with a lot of partners that were over 40 years old?

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    No. There is a power imbalance between the overage and the underage, just like between a worker and a boss or any other power imbalance relationship we disallow, that makes the consent questionable. I did say safe, consensual and emotionally healthy.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Alex,

    When marital rape is legal, who’s going to report? When rape is considered the fault of the victim, who’s going to report? When children are told not to talk about such things by their own families, how many are going to report later on? In areas where being a rape victim might mean you’ll be executed, who’s going to report?

    Like, where?

    I thought you were talking about the rape situation in the western world in current times?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    No. There is a power imbalance between the overage and the underage, just like between a worker and a boss or any other power imbalance relationship we disallow, that makes the consent questionable. I did say safe, consensual and emotionally healthy.

    This is another problem with sex education and sex positivism.
    Did the Scarleteen 14 year old stated the age of her partners? You assumed she was making the right choice with no so much as her word for it, so you are sending a double message that is confusing for anyone, even more teenagers.

    How many sex pozz ed classes say that feeling horny is natural and normal and they should explore this feelings as part of their growth but specify that feeling horny for someone superior to you (teacher, boss, older guy) is bad and you shouldn’t be pursued it in a way that for a horny teenager makes any sense?

    And that is only for starters, if you remember how a teenager mind works (and surprisingly I do) there is a whole level of WTF??! that goes along with “your bodies are uncontrollable at your age, go do whatever as long as you have a condom and feel that you are ready” that doesn’t even begin to cover all the issues with it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      And that is only for starters, if you remember how a teenager mind works (and surprisingly I do) there is a whole level of WTF??! that goes along with “your bodies are uncontrollable at your age, go do whatever as long as you have a condom and feel that you are ready” that doesn’t even begin to cover all the issues with it.

      The part of the brain that makes reasoned judgments doesn’t mature fully until the early 20s, while the limbic/dopamine reward systems are fully developed in adolescence. There is a great deal of evidence that delaying sexual initiation until at least the late teens produces more successful personal outcomes. A 14 year-old who has had 10 partners in the last year is signaling serious emotional problems. If she continues at the current rate, with Heather Corinna cheering her on, she’ll hit 70 sexual partners by her 20th birthday. In what universe is this not perverse?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Stephie,

    So again if we calculate that every boomer will live till 80, then what will happen when the Xgeneration reach the same age (or possibly more) with half the population in the work force because they and their descendants didn’t reproduced enough to sustain them?

    I understand the issue. A lot of people is born and they need to be taken care of and feed and cured until they cross some elder age when they cant do them for themselves. After some point, they need more and more expensive treatment so they can reach 80 and more years. If there are no younger people or resources to take care of the elders, they are going to die.

    I get it.

    But if we keep the growth rate and consumerism etc, “everything” is going to die, including the elders.

    So as I see it nobody has the right to live until you are 80 etc. I dont see why more childs have to be born to take care of a human being that has ben useless to society for 20 years and is consuming trees, water, stuff, and needs a 100,000 USD machine to collect his poop, while at the same time the village next door doesnt have a library and could use 100,000 to improve the living conditions, etc, etc, or just save 100,000 trees and animals and make the water less polluted.

    So I say reduce the population and take care of the elders for as long as you can with the resources at hand plus outsource plus whatever.

    Keep the growth because “someone has to pay for the elders” = mass suicide.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      So I say reduce the population and take care of the elders for as long as you can with the resources at hand plus outsource plus whatever.

      Keep the growth because “someone has to pay for the elders” = mass suicide.

      Just look at how the “one child” policies in China and India have played out. That’s a keg beginning now to explode.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    So I say reduce the population and take care of the elders for as long as you can with the resources at hand plus outsource plus whatever.

    Yeah right ask any “green person” that is “sacrificing” her/himself by not having children to not try to provide the best care for their parents when they cannot be “sustainable” or better yet ask them for voluntary euthanasia reaching certain point…”nobility” for the sake of the planet only goes so far.
    I mean if I tell you how much footprint producing condoms produces for a promiscuous guy with over 200 sex partners would you stop having sex for the sake of the planet? ;)

  • Kelly

    This is all horseshit.

    “I’ve estimated that the percentage of promiscuous female college students is around 20. Let’s say 6 partners per year, conservatively, that’s 24 partners by age 21. Yeah, lots of women are getting to 50 by age 30.”

    That in itself should make anyone on this page close it. None of this is backed by any actual evidence than the “estimates” you have pulled out of your ass.

    Even if women are having more sex than YOU would like, it certainly doesn’t equal the downfall of the economy. Have you ever considered that women can SAFELY have sex — and as often as they would like — without the ridiculous consequences your chart shows.

    Your chart is so full of stereotypes and overgeneralizations that it makes me want to throw up. Maybe you wouldn’t have to argue (and by argue I mean ignore others’ arguments) your way through your comments if your original post was actually worth reading, especially academically. This could only be worth it if: 1)it’s a joke (which I think it must be) or 2) I enjoyed becoming dumber by the second.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Kelly
      Hey, don’t be a potty mouth, it’s not feminine.

      That in itself should make anyone on this page close it. None of this is backed by any actual evidence than the “estimates” you have pulled out of your ass.

      I’ve written 500 posts that contain clear evidence for the percentage of promiscuous women, the average number of partners, and lots of other things. Read the blog or STFU, I don’t need to prove myself to you.

      Have you ever considered that women can SAFELY have sex — and as often as they would like — without the ridiculous consequences your chart shows.

      First of all, they cannot have 100% safe sex. There is no such thing. Second, even if they could, they don’t. They have sex without condoms, without birth control, they use abortion as birth control, and on and on. That’s just reality.

      Your chart is so full of stereotypes and overgeneralizations that it makes me want to throw up. Maybe you wouldn’t have to argue (and by argue I mean ignore others’ arguments) your way through your comments

      The violence of your response is quite interesting. With nearly 600 comments on this post, I don’t see how you can say I’m ignoring others’ arguments. I spent several hours yesterday finding every link and citation requested. I notice that shut everyone up – the evidence is there, and it’s plentiful.

      Stay tuned, Flowchart 2.0 will be ready soon!

  • Abbot

    That in itself should make anyone on this page close it
    .
    Then your mission here would be accomplished. But alas, the chart has gone viral. Your mission is now global in scope. Good luck
    .
    without the ridiculous consequences your chart shows.
    .
    The fear of this chart is palpable and astounding. Attempts to discredit the now infamous chart [caused by sex poz attention to it] are a joy to read. Knowing that the sex pozz asses recoil when glancing at it indicates that the chart maker has succeeded. Long live the Chart.
    .

    Your chart is so full of stereotypes and overgeneralizations that it makes me want to throw up.

    .
    Stereotypes are typically correct the majority of the time, and that’s good enough. As for wretch in disgust, the rest of us, aka known as non fringe mainstream America, want to projectile vomit when hearing the public noise pollution belched from the trap of Jaclyn Friedman, the self proclaimed goddess of all women, from age 11 up, who “choose” to have “enthusiastic” “safe” sex. The only enthusiastic party, she purposely overlooks, is the man, boy, that automaton who are assumed to be always ready willing mature and sympathetic. So, if the chart, the bane of your existence, gives a woman pause or motivates the public to chastise women over their sexual behaviors, then it is a massive success, the entertainment value and sex pozzy cult sour puss faces not withstanding.
    .
    None of this is backed by any actual evidence than the “estimates” you have pulled out of your ass.
    .
    This a discussion board, not a science lab results posting site. However, it is EXTREMELY CLEAR that the chart’s technical appearance is provocative to some here. If it was the same topic but with text only and there was no chart, none or very few of these sex poz message controllers would have chimed in.
    .
    Maybe you wouldn’t have to argue
    .
    Maybe you wouldn’t have to argue if the chart did not strike you so personally. Which it does. For some reason, the non promiscuous are not bothered by it at all. Now why is that?

  • Abbot

    How many sex pozz ed classes say that feeling horny is natural and normal and they should explore this feelings as part of their growth but specify that feeling horny for someone superior to you (teacher, boss, older guy) is bad and you shouldn’t be pursued it in a way that for a horny teenager makes any sense?
    .
    That is precisely why only the parents/family of young women should be the educators when it come to sex. The state has no business being surrogate parents. Feminists and sex pozzasses absolutely LOVE the states role in this. Who do you think influences the class subject matter? Thats right, feminists.
    .
    I did say safe, consensual and emotionally healthy.
    .
    These are euphemisms used to soften the agenda of taking away parental control of female sexual behavior. Its a form of child molestation. All in the name of not permitting any interference in sexual equality for fear that one form of control will open the door for others, age of the girl be damned. Ah, feminism.

  • Jess

    Susan-
    as you know I mostly agree on your maths of the dangers of stds. Some of these dieases last a lifetime and/or rapidly reduce oyur lifespan. not so sexy huh?
    .
    Kelly-
    nice to see a more normal kinda person speak on here. Be prepared for a volley of insults and suggestions you are not who you say you are. And if you think this thread is bad, you ‘aint seen nothin’
    .
    Alex,
    Great points. Particularly the marital rape stuff. I have heard of some terrible things within my own (catholic) family. I am kinda optimistic that the last generation to have that institutionalised oppression are in their 60-70′s now.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jess

      Kelly-
      nice to see a more normal kinda person speak on here.

      Thanks, that was my first belly laugh of the day. If Kelly is a normal woman, no wonder men are opting out of commitment.

  • Abbot

    suggestions you are not who you say you are.
    .
    No, its clear what we have here is a chart fearing pro sex pozzer
    .
    if you think this thread is bad…
    .
    Oh this is one of the best. To see these child-influencers coming out is unique, albeit in a pathetic sort of way

  • http://johnnypez9.blogspot.com/ Johnny Pez

    Perhaps I should expand a bit on Susan’s contention that rape is a form of casual sex. Here’s how it works:

    When a woman has pre-marital sex with multiple partners, or wears revealing clothing, this causes her body to emit a form of electromagnetic radiation that scientists call “slut rays.” The slut rays interact with the luminiferous aether, causing the manifestation of disembodied penises called “rapists.” The disembodied penis rapes the slutty woman, and this causes a momentary interruption of the slut rays, which in turn causes the disembodied penis to return to the aether.

    Then the slutty woman falsely accuses a man of raping her.

    HTH. HAND.

  • Jess

    To johnny..
    Hilarious. I assume this field means the discovery of force carrying boson particles called sluttions. Perhaps the hadron collider in geneva could search for them.
    I guess Susan and steph would posses an excess of anti sluttion particles?
    My auntie had them too of course.

  • Jess

    Susan re fisting
    .
    I have heard a few lesbian friends ruminate on the joys of this particular hobby as well some straight women commending the virtues of oversized sex toys.
    .
    My instinct has always been
    .
    “OW ! OWW! WTF! OWW! WHAT ARE YOU DOING? OUCH! THAT IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN! AWWW! OK LET’S SEE HOW YOU LIKE IT? OWWWWW!

  • http://johnnypez9.blogspot.com/ Johnny Pez

    @ Jess

    You misspelled “hardon collider.”

  • Jess

    According to my gay friends There are plenty of underground hard on collider clubs in London. Lots of deep probing into matter going on. Plenty of mini black holes around too.
    .
    Ye gods what am I typing?

  • Abbot

    They want to play out the scene in such a way that they can be safe even if they’ve been inviting male sexual aggression. They’re willing for women to get raped so that they can accuse men.

    .
    Feminists want to “empower” women by any means possible. Most prior methods have failed so they turn to the easy one by taking advantage of mal-nurtured empowerment-desperate women. Sexual exposure is promoted as therapeutic and as a way garner male attention and power over them. It works. When it doesn’t, and rape occurs, feminists salvage that by marketing men as rapists and in need of change thus getting legislative and judicial power behind them.

  • http://ozymandias3.blogspot.com ozymandias

    Susan: Well, then, what neutral terms would you like me to use on your blog to refer to “non-painful foreplay, oral and PIV”?

    And I maintain that anyone who decides to stick a fist up someone’s vagina without knowing how to do it safely and without damaging the vagina deserves their Darwin Award.

    Steph: I didn’t say anything about that fourteen-year-old; I don’t have a link to that article and couldn’t find it on Google. However, I did say that it is possible, though extremely rare, for fourteen-year-olds to engage in emotionally healthy, safe and consensual sex. Also, sex ed classes should address that issue, yes. And I wouldn’t say it’s about “your body is out of control,” I’d say it’s about “sex can be fun and some people, if they are completely ready, should have it.”

    Abbot: Seriously, dude, where did I say anything about assuming men are “always up for it”? That is a pernicious and misandric myth that erases the real experience of men in relationships, which is everything from happy asexuality to happy promiscuity.

    And the reason a kid’s family shouldn’t be their educators is that there are really, really, really shitty families out there. “Condoms are evil and if you ever use them you’re going to hell, also, once you’re married you can’t say no to sex” families. “Come on, suck on Dad’s penis, how would it hurt?” families.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Ozy

      Susan: Well, then, what neutral terms would you like me to use on your blog to refer to “non-painful foreplay, oral and PIV”?

      Those will do just fine. Nouns not adjectives, and no value judgments. Thanks.

  • http://300baud.wordpress.com/ 300baud

    I think it’s obvious propaganda.

    You try to classify rape as casual sex. You’ve conflated societal costs and personal costs. You’ve ignored the alternative-path costs, pretending that costs only go with things you don’t like, and benefits only go with things that do. You’ve ignored benefits, both personal and societal.

    You aren’t trying to find anything out. You have a conclusion, and like some sort of internet nest-building magpie, you glom together bits of shiny factoids with a lot of thin straws to make a nest for your conclusion.

    Of course, propaganda appears to be exactly what your audience wants, as evidenced by early commenter OhioStater, who would like to blame the world’s every problem on promiscuity. You challenge the people who correctly suggest that your claim is wholly unsupported by facts, but you leave lunacy like that quite alone.

    And you confirm that’s what you intend to produce when you say that you don’t need to show data because any fool can see the truth. Enjoy your crusade, but please stop pretending that facts or accuracy are relevant.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @300baud

      You aren’t trying to find anything out. You have a conclusion, and like some sort of internet nest-building magpie, you glom together bits of shiny factoids with a lot of thin straws to make a nest for your conclusion

      I specifically asked for feedback in the post. I made clear it’s a first draft, a work in progress. There have been many helpful comments here, but yours isn’t one of them. You’re too defensive to be helpful, and not open to considering what is right in front of your eyes. You doth protest too much.

      And you confirm that’s what you intend to produce when you say that you don’t need to show data because any fool can see the truth. Enjoy your crusade, but please stop pretending that facts or accuracy are relevant.

      Wrong again. I specifically state my intention to fill in the $ amounts in future. I simply maintain that the ideas represented in the chart are worth discussing. I challenge you to name one consequence of promiscuity that I’ve got wrong here – we can put in the $ later – just name any two boxes above the bottom one where a line between them is misplaced. You can’t do it.

  • Abbot

    I’d say it’s about “sex can be fun and some people, if they are completely ready, should have it.”
    .
    an adult can have any value-based view of sex but needs to mind its own fucking business when it comes to other people’s kids. In most circles, its called a child molester. Feminists get that label and deservedly so.
    .
    erases the real experience of men in relationships
    .
    the subject is not about relationships. we are speaking of children who are barely out of their mother’s arms. I believe we have a real sicko here and fisting pales in comparison to this shit.
    .
    a kid’s family shouldn’t be their educators is that there are really, really, really shitty families out there
    .
    So feminists and sexual fringe assholes know better? Wow, what a fucking choice we are getting today folks. Feminist and so-called “liberal” infiltrators into the education system is FAR worse. They lurk in the bushes like low life slime and swoop in when families are weak. That is why feminists HATE strong families, strong men, strong anything. Its like invasion of the body snatchers and the parallels with Russian-style communism is astounding. FIX THE FAMILIES and get this crud away from children!!!

  • Kelly

    @Abbot

    How dare you imply I am promiscuous simply because I believe it is a woman’s choice to do what she wants with her body. You don’t know me and have no right to judge me.

    You are nothing more than another troll on a horrible blog.

    Good day.

  • http://pecunium.livejournal.com/ Terry Karney

    I’m actually finding it really depressing that you don’t get this. It’s as if feminists want to walk right up to the line and say “No.” They want to tempt men, or fate, or whatever you want to call it. They want to play out the scene in such a way that they can be safe even if they’ve been inviting male sexual aggression. They’re willing for women to get raped so that they can accuse men.

    I’m finding it really depressing that you think men are some sort of automatons who see a scantily clad woman and suddenly can’t stop themselves from raping her. Or who see a woman who can’t consent and say, “I’m gonna get me some of that!”. Pulling one’s dick out and forcing it into someone is a willful act. It doesn’t, “just happen”. It’s not reflexive, like tapping the patellar nerve plexus.

    Rapists choose to rape.

  • Abbot

    I think it’s obvious propaganda.
    .
    OK, lets go with that. So what is the goal? You must know or would not label it as propaganda.
    .
    you glom together bits of shiny factoids with a lot of thin straws to make a nest for your conclusion.
    .
    So as to garner a lively discussion, not attacks from what’s obviously a personally offended fringe group
    .
    propaganda appears to be exactly what your audience wants
    .
    Well, like it or not, we are getting a BIG dose of it on this thread as more than eight people who have never commented are on here desperately and passionately attempting to squash Susan’s chart. At this point, I am convinced that Jaclyn Friedman is one or more of them.
    .
    people who correctly suggest that your claim is wholly unsupported by facts
    .
    IN YOUR OPINION
    .
    any fool can see the truth
    .
    Well, not in all cases, obviously
    .
    Enjoy your crusade
    .
    Is that what this is? OK, so what is the goal of this crusade?
    .
    stop pretending that facts or accuracy are relevant.
    .
    They are relevant as needed for lively discussion, the original goal. Which has now been ruined as a lot of angry propagandists have entered the post. And have accomplished nothing. Entertainment notwithstanding.

  • Abbot

    who see a scantily clad woman and suddenly can’t stop themselves from raping her.
    .
    Its not the visual. Its her willful choosing to enter a place where she can be privately intimate with a man. Until men are trained with coursework on how to properly deal with the empowerment needs of women and how to provide a BFE, women should avoid such situations. So why aren’t feminists suggesting such a course?

  • Kelly

    @Abbot

    “Angry propagandists” as you call them are entering this post because it is showing up around the Internet for its stupidity. Put stupid things on the Internet, people with brains get angry.

    @Susan, I hope you find something better to waste your life on because this isn’t going anywhere. Clearly, the only people who are buying this are conservatives who do nothing but respond to this post and call innocent people they don’t know sluts. But it seems like that’s what you want.

  • Abbot

    How dare you imply I am promiscuous simply because I believe it is a woman’s choice to do what she wants with her body.
    .
    Oooh, the ol promiscuous label does not sit well with women, huh? Not something to ever be proud of. Those who are know that as well as those who are not
    .
    No one has ever stated here on this site that its not a woman’s choice to do what she wants with her body. How can it be someone else’s choice once she is an adult? Makes no sense at all.

  • Abbot

    “Angry propagandists” as you call them are entering this post because it is showing up around the Internet for its stupidity
    .
    There are dozens of posts from this site that show up all over. WHY did this one strike the biggest nerve ever? Please clear up the mystery.

  • Abbot

    But it seems like that’s what you want.
    .
    No. There is no motive for that. This site seems to be the only one that questions and attempts to clarify the very short lived defacto harem sexual market. In summary, what does the birth control pill and hypergamy cocktail look and feel like and how does it affect the participants and non participants.

  • Abbot

    In what universe is this not perverse?
    .
    The prostitution universe?

  • Kelly

    @Abbot

    Because it is being posted around the Internet and attracting attention. I already said that. And again, stop assuming I am promiscuous because I’m not. You clearly don’t understand why I was saying when I said don’t judge me because you don’t know me. That’s because I’m not a slut and don’t like being told (by a stranger, no less) that I am.

    @Susan,

    Go ahead and live in your convoluted world. The reason my post is so “violent” is because I find much of the “information” on this blog offensive as a woman (and no, I’m not a slut, contrary to Abbot’s opinion). And I know I’m not the only one.

    I’m done with this place. None of you know how to listen anyhow.

  • Grindl

    Come on, my fellow sex pozzie whore slut cat herders, let’s give Susan a break!

    “I’m not an economist; this is really more of an exercise in common sense, as well as a work in progress. Your thoughts? What did I miss?”

    A disclaimer, perhaps something worded in this fashion: I have no actual facts, statistics, or links that can actually provide substantive proof of this chart’s accuracy; it is merely an exercise based on my personal thoughts, feelings, and experiences as well as those of my core group of readers.

    You should work up a chart proving how Game is beneficial to the economy; I’d get a good chuckle over that.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Grindl, aka Julie who is a jealous biddie and a total fraud

      I’ve read the last coupla SueBee’s — and commented — and pissed off SB mightily.

      (I went by Grindl there) I don’t expect to be posting in future — it’s just too much of “teh stoopid,” it makes me feel a little bit cheap and shitty, and Stephanie Rowling takes stoopid to shocking levels; is she one of those internet brides?

      You just couldn’t resist, could you? I challenge you to provide a single example of your own clear thinking, intellectual capacity or thoughtful commentary. You feel cheap and shitty because you are cheap and shitty.

  • Abbot

    and no, I’m not a slut,
    .
    No one called you that, and good for you as a member of the vast majority of women on Earth. Too bad you are leaving. It was great entertainment.

  • Abbot

    proving how Game is beneficial to the economy
    .
    or detrimental as that would draw even more attention and really get the feminists broiling

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Steph: I didn’t say anything about that fourteen-year-old; I don’t have a link to that article and couldn’t find it on Google. However, I did say that it is possible, though extremely rare, for fourteen-year-olds to engage in emotionally healthy, safe and consensual sex. Also, sex ed classes should address that issue, yes. And I wouldn’t say it’s about “your body is out of control,” I’d say it’s about “sex can be fun and some people, if they are completely ready, should have it.”

    But you didn’t asked any questions. Thus your first though was YES! that attitude allows for a lot of confusion if this girl was having sex with older guys she will continue her practices, this is not sex education.

    And the reason a kid’s family shouldn’t be their educators is that there are really, really, really shitty families out there. “Condoms are evil and if you ever use them you’re going to hell, also, once you’re married you can’t say no to sex” families. “Come on, suck on Dad’s penis, how would it hurt?” families.

    So you are sex positive but not family positive? So what do you want the state to take care of the children? Because if you think families shouldn’t be trusted then what is the point of people being able to have one? So sex is always good because is fun but lets be afraid of families, they can mess you up…this is a very interesting double standard. Families can be fun to you know?

    It doesn’t, “just happen”. It’s not reflexive, like tapping the patellar nerve plexus.
    Rapists choose to rape.

    The thing is that the publicized cases of rape usually involve a women, dressed slutty, drinking more than she should, and going with a stranger to a different location. We are not making this up. Read the Duke case and rape on campus reports. No to mention Rapists choose to rape women in vulnerable situations. If she is intoxicated she is less likely to remember enough details to make a case and is less likely to be coordinated enough to defend herself if she is dressed sexually provocative she is more likely to engage in conversation with a stranger because she is signaling availability. Is not that the rapists thinks she is asking for it, is just that as a sexual predator she is making herself an easy target. Is the same process a robber uses. Picking the victim less likely to resist and have a case. Feminists love to use an argument that had never showed up here. You don’t go to bad neighborhood with an expensive cars and leave the cars in the ignition do you?This is just common sense.

    That’s because I’m not a slut and don’t like being told (by a stranger, no less) that I am.

    First if being a slut is nothing wrong why the offense? Second why would you expose yourself to an stranger that obviously has not good opinion of sluts, this chart is not about sluthood is saving the economy isn’t it? If you don’t want to be called that? Don’t you have something better to do?

  • Abbot

    this is really more of an exercise in common sense
    .
    That is what really got sex pozzies screeching. Its like a splash of holy water in their faces

  • Abbot

    the state to take care of the children
    .
    Feminism’s wet dream

  • Abbot

    Because it is being posted around the Internet and attracting attention.
    .
    …and exposing inconvenient truths.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Just look at how the “one child” policies in China and India have played out. That’s a keg beginning now to explode.

    I have zero knowledge on them, how is it playing out for them?

    From what I heard china was being cruel about it and repressing people, that usually ends up bad. Didnt know India was trying to control the pop.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Yohami
      Both China and India have had enforced “one child” policies. Many families aborted female fetuses, preferring to have a son if they could only have one. Today the ratio in China is 132M for 100F. I’m not sure what it is in India, but I do know that even high caste families are “buying” lower caste women for their sons so that they can marry.

      Many believe that the disproportionate number of men who cannot hope to marry (or escape celibacy) is likely to lead to sharply increased male aggression and violence. It truly is a powder keg.

  • Mike C

    Come on, my fellow sex pozzie whore slut cat herders, let’s give Susan a break!
    .
    @Grindle

    A little birdie clued me in to your act. Couple of questions/corrections.

    Why the phony name commenting here? If you go by Julie elsewhere, why not here? Seems cowardly

    Now on to the corrections that you can report back to your pathetic loser crowd that gossips about people and conversations on other blogs including Maria and sycophants like nice guy

    1. I never claimed the exact personal stats being attributed to me that I claimed, although my actual personal stats are pretty close (I’m 6’3″, not 6’4″), and yes that probably does put me in the top few percent of the male population on those “paper stats” of height, muscle mass, raw IQ. Now a person is a lot more then a collection of stats so I don’t claim some superiority based on that. That said, what bothers your crew of losers, Maria, Escapist, yourself, etc. is that a guy with my “stats” could apparently hold the views I do. In your world, only short, stupid, video game playing omegas believe in “Game” and this view of “male-female dynamics”.

    2. Question for you. Is it just that you engage in intentional misrepresentation or that your reading comprehension skills are that lacking? I am sincerely interested although I’m not sure which is worse, that you are intellectually dishonest or just flat out stupid. I never “defended” the withdrawal method. I implied that I had been using it, and asked DogSquat a question about sperm being in pre-ejaculate and if medical science had conclusively proven it. Simple logic….and stay with me….hope you can follow this through a few simple logical premises to a conclusion. IF….and it is a big IF, there is NO sperm in pre-ejaculate and the guy pulls out prior to ejaculation 100% of the time, no mistakes, no late withdrawals, then it would be impossible for pregnancy to occur. However, IF there is sperm in pre-ejaculate, then obviously pregnancy is very possible, and also if the guy doesn’t have the discipline to get out of there in time.
    .
    I have to admit that I’m amazed that after months of not commenting on any blogs related to your motley crew, that I and my GF are still a subject of such intense discussion/gossip. It really is funny. I made a single comment over at Escapist based on a comment she made here, and after that your whole crew became obsessed with me, continually bringing me up in one way or another.

  • Grindl

    Mike C. – I don’t read Escapist so I’m not aware of whatever beef you have with her or her posters. I don’t know anything about you or your gf; your height, weight, IQ is completely irrelevant to me. I have not discussed you on any blog because I don’t know (or care) about you and your doings. Are you a celebrity of some kind? I can use whatever poster name I want; as far as cowardice goes, are you going to beat me up, dude? Oh nooooooo!

    As far as your use of withdrawal method, again, I don’t really care. I do know pre-cum can cause pregnancies (yes, mainly based on user carelessness). Certainly not a method I’d recommend to anyone who takes the issue of unplanned pregnancy seriously, because it’s difficult to always have perfect control when “the heat is on.” But do whatever you want.

  • 0verlord

    Many of the things you list as consequences of casual sex are in fact consequences of poverty and poor education. It could be argued that casual sex exacerbates the problem, but it is absolutely not a cause in and of itself.

    Just look at how the “one child” policies in China and India have played out. That’s a keg beginning now to explode.

    That’s right, but it’s the lesser of two evils. If people were less short-sighted and selfish, the one child policy would be widely accepted and embraced by the population until it is no longer necessary. China should be a lesson for all of us. It should tell us that encouraging responsible reproduction now will avoid the need for harmful reproductive policies in the future.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Clearly, the only people who are buying this are conservatives who do nothing but respond to this post and call innocent people they don’t know sluts. But it seems like that’s what you want.

    You know I vote democrat (I consider myself a bitter Clintonist still), I was pro-choice, and I also partied up when don’t ask don’t tell was implemented and I also support gay marriage. But frankly after spending so much time reading what exactly feminist is about in Jezebel were “her body, her choice” had been used as an excuse to “I falsely accused a guy of rape, because I’m a victim of patriarchy” or “Is my body so is my choice of father, regardless of the truth” or “everyone has STD’s so I shouldn’t need to tell anyone and the state should pay for my risky behaviour even if with some common sense I could prevent it” I’m seriously considering voting pro-life and de-funding planned parenthood. Obviously your rights had started to step over some other people’s rights and I’m seriously considering if you can handle them at all. I don’t like to subsidize stupid and abusive behaviour because “I have a vagina! The world owes me a happy life regardless if my choices conduct to it or not”

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Sorry I meant when don’t ask don’t tell was repelled.

  • Mike C

    Mike C. – I don’t read Escapist so I’m not aware of whatever beef you have with her or her posters. I don’t know anything about you or your gf; your height, weight, IQ is completely irrelevant to me.
    .
    Hmmm….OK…not sure then why it is such a topic of discussion amongst that crew, and to be fair I’m not sure how “connected” you are to that group, although the few excerpts sent to me it looks like you are quite intertwined with Maria, nice guy, etc as part of the “Gossiposphere” of what else is being discussed on other blogs.
    .
    I have not discussed you on any blog because I don’t know (or care) about you and your doings. Are you a celebrity of some kind?
    .
    Not as far as I know, although judging from how much I get brought up maybe I am reaching some sort of Internet pseudo-celebrity status
    .
    I can use whatever poster name I want; as far as cowardice goes, are you going to beat me up, dude? Oh nooooooo!
    .
    To your last statement, that is the sort of stupid, silly, snarky comment that reveals you as a dope. And yes you can use whatever poster name you want, but I’ve noticed a certain type of person likes to create these multiple identities. I’m Mike C everywhere I go, and stand 100% behind everything I say. I don’t need to create the illusion of other identities. In a sense, it really is a sign of intellectual cowardice, especially when you go running back to Maria with a “hahahaha, I am over there posting as Grindl, I am here to report back on what Susan is saying and to gossip on another commenters”.
    .
    As far as your use of withdrawal method, again, I don’t really care.
    .
    If you really don’t care….really don’t care…then why are you mischaractering my comments on another blog. It must be of at least some importance otherwise there would be no reason to discuss it elsewhere. The mere fact that you brought it up is ipso facto proof that it is at least somewhat important to you for some inexplicable reason.
    .
    I do know pre-cum can cause pregnancies (yes, mainly based on user carelessness).
    .
    LOGICAL FAIL. I had a feeling you couldn’t stick with just a few sequences of simple logic involving a premise and conclusion. IF pre-cum can cause a pregnancy, it isn’t due to “carelessness”, it is due to the presence of sperm in pre-cum. It would be the withdrawal method itself that fails due to carelessness since it implies the guy is not pulling out prior to actual ejaculation taking place. You may very well be right about the actual final conclusion, but your words continue to reveal a very muddy illogical thought process. Do you understand the concept of premises, logical reasoning leading to a conclusion.

  • Kelly

    @Susan

    At this point you are being downright rude by implying that I’m not normal and that I am part of the reason that men don’t want to commit (this is another of your fantasy facts).

    So while reading this blog, I have been attacked as a slut and been called abnormal. You have implied that no man would commit to me. I guess I’ll go tell my husband that.

    This is no longer about your chart or beliefs. You are being disrespectful. Sure, I attacked your chart. But YOU and your followers (Abbot) made it personal. There is no reason for this. You both should be ashamed of yourselves.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Kelly
      No, you made it personal with your rude and aggressive manner. I’m sure you’re used to speaking this way in feminism circles, but we don’t really do snark here. I’m glad you are married, I hope you have a more amiable persona IRL than you do online.

  • http://johnnypez9.blogspot.com/ Johnny Pez

    Susan, are you by any chance related to Megan McArdle?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Johnny Pez

      Susan, are you by any chance related to Megan McArdle?

      Ha! No, but I wouldn’t mind following in her footsteps. She’s a very smart woman who parlayed blogging into a MSM journalism career. I am not intimately familiar with her politics, but I respect the articles by her that I’ve read.

  • tito

    @Susan

    notice how so many antis on here are myopic. it is all about each and every little one of them. no implications for the wider society. nope, just l’il me n’ that’s all. inability to consider anything greater than one’s own personal caprice.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @tito

      notice how so many antis on here are myopic. it is all about each and every little one of them. no implications for the wider society. nope, just l’il me n’ that’s all. inability to consider anything greater than one’s own personal caprice.

      This is what struck me most about BadBoyfriend’s input. There was zero awareness of what’s happening at a macro level. It was all about his personal wallet. Now we have a lot of feminists with the same perspective. It’s surprising, at least to me, and very disappointing.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Mike C,

    Apply women´s logic, which is called “feelings”. Condoms = safe. Unprotected sex = unsafe.

    Since fucking unprotected “feels” careless, youre not going to have luck trying to straighten up those feelings by applying men´s mechanical logic about if pre cum has sperm or not, which is irrelevant to how it feels.

    Any insistence on this mechanical logic, is going to be perceived as you pushing to do some risky stuff and trying to get away with it, which is, in this case, impregnating the woman and or giving her nasty consequences. In their mind, men´s logic is manipulative: it attempts to make things sound right, when they dont feel right. Their visceral response is to expel you and label you as unwanted and unwelcome, and then as a weirdo for trying to bring some alien logic and reasoning into the table – their visceral response is not to discuss your argument, since they have nothing to win from it.

    In the same hand if a woman welcomes getting pregnant, then she´s going to back the idea that fucking unprotected is fine – again without caring if the precum has sperm or not.

    If your woman is fine with fucking unprotected = careless, it means she wants your kids, whether she admits it openly or not.

  • Mike C

    Mike C,

    Apply women´s logic, which is called “feelings”. Condoms = safe. Unprotected sex = unsafe.

    Since fucking unprotected “feels” careless, youre not going to have luck trying to straighten up those feelings by applying men´s mechanical logic about if pre cum has sperm or not, which is irrelevant to how it feels.

    Any insistence on this mechanical logic, is going to be perceived as you pushing to do some risky stuff and trying to get away with it, which is, in this case, impregnating the woman and or giving her nasty consequences. In their mind, men´s logic is manipulative: it attempts to make things sound right, when they dont feel right.
    .
    My sense is you are absolutely right on this especially drawing the distinction between step by step mechanical logical reasoning and what “feels right”. This is an extremely insightful comment as well in that it highlights why it often feels like one is talking past someone in these discussions. That said, it is obvious a few/some/most? women are more then capable of this mechanical, logical reasoning. Susan and Steph are prima facie evidence of this. What is interesting perhaps is what separates the women capable of logical reasoning versus those who start with what “feels right” and then back into what feels right using nonsensical twisted reasoning. I really don’t know. FWIW, my GF is a very clear thinker and we have few if any arguments (most have occurred during the hormonal out of whack time frames). My ex-wife in contrast had no ability for logical reasoning whatsoever.

  • Mike C

    In their mind, men´s logic is manipulative: it attempts to make things sound right, when they dont feel right.
    .
    This is interesting, and kind of disturbing in a way. Consider this. The real world and the absolute truth of something is what it is. It is irrelevant how one “feels” about it.
    .
    Take someone on trial for something. They are either guilty or not guilty. Depending on whether one’s brain primarily responds to facts and logical reasoning versus what “feels right” could lead to a radically different conclusion. The thought that “feelings” or what “feels right” could be a primary driver of decision making and behavior is quite scary. Now on some level, I knew this was the case. What is the most often thing heard about a woman who has sex she later regrets? It “felt right” at the time. I guess I’d just like to think that the “feelings” mode is only driving a small amount of decision making/behavior and not the 24/7 default operating system.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Mike C, yes, for sure some women do. And a lot of them have the *capacity* even if its not what they primarily use.

    Good for you and your GF. Clear thinkers = rare gems.

  • Mike C

    Good for you and your GF. Clear thinkers = rare gems.
    .
    Yes, they are. Which is why I “pulled out” of the lifestyle of just trying to rack up numbers some years back.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Mike C,

    This is interesting, and kind of disturbing in a way. Consider this. The real world and the absolute truth of something is what it is. It is irrelevant how one “feels” about it.

    Its the most disturbing thing in the world from a male logics perspective, which finds peace in order, laws, systems, abstract guidelines, lego, etc. From a female perspective though, this “absolute truth” thing is cold and unwelcome and potentially destructive for all the little nuances and special variations.

    Hard vs soft.

    Theres a reason NAWALT was coined and why so many women argue against generalizations of any kind, except when they feel right, of course, like when shaming the competition.

    Id say is just a different intelligence. Theres no “guilty” if she felt right doing it. if it feels right, it cant be “wrong” since for a woman theres no external set of golden rules she has to submit to like males do. Men use these golden standards, including universal truth and logic and stuff to measure against each other and come up with mechanical practical solutions to overcome things.

    Women´s logic is about filtering whats going to get inside of them and how to gather resources that will favor them. Anything detrimental to them is going to be unwelcome, even if its “the truth”, which is a meaningless concept in that reality.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    The thought that “feelings” or what “feels right” could be a primary driver of decision making and behavior is quite scary.

    Scary indeed. The problem is that if a woman feels that something is right she will not only look for validate the feelings but to manipulate the system in a way that the feelings look logic and justice (that should serve only the facts) serves the feelings too. That is the premise in feminists approving of Jill’s tactic. She felt it was right to protect herself by keeping an important bit of info from Ted, so the justice system that does has a term for this “paternity fraud” doesn’t have any right in interfering for this. The thing is that this might had been harmless when the justice system would ignore a woman’s lies and separate the facts to bring justice, but nowadays the justice system has been corrupted and validated by feelings and women won’t stop till this become an absolute.
    I remember the case in UK were a surrogate was hired and paid to carry a child because the wife of the couple couldn’t. She later changed her mind saying that she grew attached to the baby, kept the baby and then sued for child support and got it! Because the child support laws are “in the best interest of the children”. Of course it was a total coincidence that the couple was rich.

    I’m like yeah…commit all the fraud you want if you are a female all you need is to plight that “it feels right or wrong” and the court will give you the reason.
    Scary world indeed.

  • Mike C

    Id say is just a different intelligence. Theres no “guilty” if she felt right doing it. if it feels right, it cant be “wrong” since for a woman theres no external set of golden rules she has to submit to like males do. Men use these golden standards, including universal truth and logic and stuff to measure against each other and come up with mechanical practical solutions to overcome things.

    Women´s logic is about filtering whats going to get inside of them and how to gather resources that will favor them. Anything detrimental to them is going to be unwelcome, even if its “the truth”, which is a meaningless concept in that reality.
    .
    What you are saying has some very interesting implications. You know…if you go back and read some of what the ancient Greeks and Romans or philosophers like Nietzsche had to say about women, you’ll read some stuff that is definitely not PC in today’s world. I’m probably opening myself up to the misogynist insult even by mentioning it. That said, how one processes information, critically reasons, makes decisions, and behaves is important to what roles they should occupy. All that said, I start with the assumption that everyone regardless of sex is capable of honest, sound reasoning until they prove me wrong, although my participation in the Internet discussing these topics is not encouraging. For every one Steph or Susan, there seems to be 10 Grindls or Marias.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    if you go back and read some of what the ancient Greeks and Romans or philosophers like Nietzsche had to say about women, you’ll read some stuff that is definitely not PC in today’s world.

    I also took some philosophy in college as part of my major in advertising (the reason I took that career in the first place was the diversity in the subjects) and though infuriating we assumed that women in the past might had behaved that way because of their unequal condition that make for lack of education and abstract thinking. And that with feminism and equality women would be able to act fair and balanced…yeah I was an idiot. I think there are women that are actually capable of having logic over feelings, but you don’t need only education but a whole cultural setting that cultivates it for the brain to develop in that direction. Feminism cultivate selfishness on women and hate towards men “the privileged class” so I’m not surprised that modern women are incapable of sympathizing with men’s issues because really is like a poor person feeling pity for the rich, even if the rich had any problems they still are in an upper position so they don’t have it as bad as the poor, so for them doesn’t generate any warm feelings of compassion.

    I was thinking that the only modern popculture example of a cuckolded man that was presented as sympathetic to the guy was in the Next Best Thing a movie with Madonna and Rupert Everett. And the reason it was sympathetic was because the guy was gay. So yeah only gay men deserve the feminist sympathy. The straight ones deserved to be lied to.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    @YOHAMI,

    “Alex,

    When marital rape is legal, who’s going to report? When rape is considered the fault of the victim, who’s going to report? When children are told not to talk about such things by their own families, how many are going to report later on? In areas where being a rape victim might mean you’ll be executed, who’s going to report?

    Like, where?

    I thought you were talking about the rape situation in the western world in current times?”

    No. Please read back. It was tito who claimed that rape happened less in the past. I responded that it only seems that way because less people talked about it. He claimed it was impossible for that to have been the case. I listed the reasons (legal marital rape, etc.) for why it was very possible. Ergo, I was talking about the rape situation in the past, to show that there is no evidence that rape has increased in the present.

  • tito

    it happened less in the past and so the industry had to create new categories of rape to retroactively make it ‘have happened.’ fixed.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    @Susan Walsh,

    “Don’t swim in a pool when there’s lightning in the sky. Don’t mix drugs and alcohol. Don’t go into a blizzard without a coat. Don’t drive the wrong way on a one-way street. Don’t play in traffic. Don’t get drunk on roof decks with no railing.”

    A rather false equivalency given that lightning, blizzards, etc. have no actual intent to hurt you. Therefore the only choice that matters is yours, because lightning, etc. has none.

    “Don’t get belligerent with someone who’s mugging you.”

    You know it’s funny that this is the sort of advice given for mugging (one in particular being “drop your purse if you have to; give them whatever they want), but when it’s rape the advice is typically “fight back with all your might!” “scream!” “jump out in front of a car if you have to!” regardless of whether you could be hurt or not.

    “Don’t get in a car with a strange man offering you candy. ”

    Something tells me that strange man doesn’t give a shit whether or not you’ve been drinking, nor what you happen to be wearing.

    “Don’t emulate a prostitute in your dress if you don’t want men to be sexually aroused by you.”

    What if you want to attract someone? Sexual arousal =/= uncontrollable urge to sexually assault.

    “Don’t drink so much that you lose all ability to say no or fight back or call for help.”

    See? There we go again! When it’s mugging, you’re encouraged to give them what they want if it will keep you from getting killed. Sexual assault? “Say no!” “Fight back!” “Call for help!” You know, I’ve never been more than tipsy in my life, and yet not once, during any of my assaults, did I ever do any of those things. Why? Well, gee, maybe it was because I realized that if someone’s fucked up enough to do that to you, it might not always be the best idea to piss him off.

    As for your next paragraph, Terry Karney handled that well.

    But on this: ” I regularly walk alone at night, dress sexy, walk in alleys, parking lots, etc. Nothing ever happened then.

    Given your history, I find this behavior alarming and disturbing. I’m not a mental health professional, but it strikes me as extremely self-destructive.”

    I work. I went to school. Sometimes I worked or stayed at school late at night. So I walked to the bus stop, or I crossed the parking lot from the campus to the residence I stayed. It was contemplative for me, hardly anyone was around, and I grew to be confident in my ability outrun or out-maneuver any would-be attacker (which, again, there never was). Dressing sexy is fun; I make my own outfits. I don’t always wear them, but when I’m out with friends, or just simply feel I like it, I enjoy playing up my attractiveness. Amazingly enough, the catcalls don’t increase when I do so. As for alleys? I played in them when I was a child all the time, also in the wild growth near the train tracks. A lot of interesting plants and animals to find there. Now as an amateur nature photographer, I visit alleys and train tracks to photograph the flora and fauna in those places.

    Yes, I have a history of having been sexually assaulted, but none of them were in parking lots or while I was alone at night. Why would I stop doing something I love when I’ve found it not to be dangerous, and when all the hurt I’ve experienced was while I was not doing any of those things? If I didn’t know any better, I’d assume you were telling me to A) not enjoy my life and B) get sexually assaulted some more.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Alex

      If I didn’t know any better, I’d assume you were telling me to A) not enjoy my life and B) get sexually assaulted some more.

      I hope you do know better. Honestly, I think we’re so far apart there is little use in debating this. I can only say that I hope you will be careful and sensible, so that you can reduce your risk of being attacked or sexually assaulted. It pays to be careful.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    @tito,

    “it happened less in the past and so the industry had to create new categories of rape to retroactively make it ‘have happened.’ fixed.”

    Oh, okay, so rape never actually happens in marriages, and it only happens to virgins or faithful, married women by strangers who are not their husbands. Got it.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Alex,

    Oh, okay, so rape never actually happens in marriages, and it only happens to virgins or faithful, married women by strangers who are not their husbands. Got it.

    I dont see where Tito is saying that. You´re misrepresenting his argument so it looks dumb.

    Tito is saying rape happened less than now / that there wasnt a massive rape going on, unless one changes the definition of “rape” to something wider.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Yes, I have a history of having been sexually assaulted, but none of them were in parking lots or while I was alone at night. Why would I stop doing something I love when I’ve found it not to be dangerous, and when all the hurt I’ve experienced was while I was not doing any of those things? If I didn’t know any better, I’d assume you were telling me to A) not enjoy my life and B) get sexually assaulted some more.

    Do you read the news? Many of the sexual reports come from women exactly involved in one or more of the situations above. Is a very common technique of self preservation to identify what the targets had in common and avoid it like hell, it might work or not but I think this is not a dumb move to make. Do you remember when the Summer of Sam happened and all the girls died their hair while the police was looking for the suspect? Same principle.

    Also when you mix cat calling in sexual assault claims you are validating the idea of tito and many others including myself that modern women had changed the definition of rape/sexual assault to a point that almost everything a man does to signal sexual interest in a woman is considered assault regardless of the context like you know a past behaviour of courtship.
    I read once that Mr. Darcy was a creepy stalker…*facemeetpalm*

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I read once that Mr. Darcy was a creepy stalker…*facemeetpalm*

      Oh please. If that’s true, send a creepy stalker my way. He is so hot the steam comes right off the pages of P&P.

  • Abbot

    What if you want to attract someone?
    .
    You mean strangers? It may help if you only go to places where every man is a man you would welcome attention from. Perhaps women would vote for a mass separation of men between alphas and all others and there would be alpha sections of towns. I bet thousands of dollars that women dressed purposely to attract “someone” would only be prancing in that neighborhood only. Oh the pain of reality.

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com/ Byron

    Jesus, this thread just won’t stop, will it? I go away for a few days & next time I look there’s 600 comments..

    Regarding the subject of logic – I’ve been noticing recently how speaking of ‘Truth’ is most always first interpreted as ‘personal truth’, among women i’ve spoken to, & feminist women particularly. I have to go to some lengths to define what that word actually means to get the conversation back on track. It does seem to be something that has risen up alongside feminism & identity politics, the self-help me-generation, honoring your own personal navel, etc etc..

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      honoring your own personal navel

      That’s brilliant, I haven’t heard that before. Clipped.

  • Blues

    “Don’t get belligerent with someone who’s mugging you.”

    You know it’s funny that this is the sort of advice given for mugging (one in particular being “drop your purse if you have to; give them whatever they want), but when it’s rape the advice is typically “fight back with all your might!” “scream!” “jump out in front of a car if you have to!” regardless of whether you could be hurt or not.

    This just screams Dalrock’s Law

    Is it that hard to realize the difference lies in that what muggers are after is valuables/money and what a rapist is after would you?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Jesus, this thread just won’t stop, will it? I go away for a few days & next time I look there’s 600 comments..

    I think we probably reach 1000 comments. The second part will be probably as popular but I think Susan should try and make this second at some point. There is a lot of themes being addressed here, from sex education to “what is right vs what feels right”. Very good post :)

  • tito

    @Yohami

    “Women´s logic is about filtering whats going to get inside of them and how to gather resources that will favor them. Anything detrimental to them is going to be unwelcome, even if its “the truth”, which is a meaningless concept in that reality.”

    very well put. my, my it would’ve taken paragraphs to say that, lol! bravo. notice all, how this way of seeing and thinking takes nothing into consideration other than one’s own minor wants of the moment.

  • Abbot

    “Women´s logic is about filtering whats going to get inside of them and how to gather resources that will favor them. Anything detrimental to them is going to be unwelcome, even if its “the truth”, which is a meaningless concept in that reality.”
    .
    Layer feminism on that platform and, well, here we are.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Susan,

    I heard about the china “enforcement”, so, females being aborted and a disproportionate male to female ratio. So its a problem in the implementation, really.

    Reducing the population should be done by propaganda / media buzz / popular culture, etc, before of any “enforcement” takes place. Forced – enforcement will make people find ways to cheat the system, in this case, killing females.

    BTW why do they kill female fetuses? is it because they profit more from male sons? putting them to work etc.

  • Blues

    BTW why do they kill female fetuses? is it because they profit more from male sons? putting them to work etc.

    Dunno about China but as i recall in India’s case it’s customary for the bride’s family to provide a substantial dowry (a custom that arose for the need of the groom to have something as an compensation/insurance should the bride choose to stood him up at the altar) when she marries so low caste families are in deep shit when they have a girl instead of a son.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    and Stephanie Rowling takes stoopid to shocking levels; is she one of those internet brides?

    First is stephEnie, Second I think Internet Brides applies to women from agencies I signed in Sciconnect to meet a man as “stooopid” as me.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Blues, gotcha. They already had a penalty for having girls

  • Stephenie Rowling

    They already had a penalty for having girls

    What makes you think that in non imposing circumstances people won’t prefer a gender over other?

  • Abbot

    @Kelly
    Because it is being posted around the Internet and attracting attention.
    .
    Awww, sacred cow violation much? Either run into the feminist bomb shelter or grab your ankles cause there are a lot more explosive projectiles headed your way.

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com/ Byron

    The state of play in China at the moment is that the generation of men who grew up under those conditions cannot find women to be with. It seems pretty obvious to me that this will eventually lead to the raising of the status & prestige of female children as they become rarer & so the birthrate will even out naturally of its own accord. Anything hard to acquire increases in value. It’s the law of scarcity.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Anything hard to acquire increases in value. It’s the law of scarcity.

    My husband usually jokes that the parents of the few girls will change the rules very fast if they know anything about business. “So you want to marry your son with my daughter? How about if I ask for bride price? What? I’m crazy?! Okay no marriage…NEXT!”

  • jess

    susan,
    i think i may have asked this before but couldnt find an answer.
    on the top right of your chart you say divorce causes economic stagnancy.
    .
    i would have thought this was a economic drive for lawyers, court staff and others.
    .
    also this must be a revenue stream for rental/buying market due to the change of home(s) involved.
    .
    presumably a 2nd car is now purchased so must help drive the autocar market?
    .
    also infertility treatment is a massively lucrative medical division.
    .
    you did ask for suggestions/reactions…. are these ok?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Jess
      Thanks, I do appreciate your feedback on the revenues associated with divorce. One of the things that is clearly muddying up the chart is the combining of public and private sector expenses. There’s also the question of revenues, as you point out, and that has not been taken into account here. I have focused more on the costs to the individual – a couple living together can save and invest a lot more than those same two people living separately, which is inefficient. So we must consider what is best for the economy – consumption of medical services or additional housing costs vs. saving and investment towards retirement, for example.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Oh please. If that’s true, send a creepy stalker my way. He is so hot the steam comes right off the pages of P&P.
    Read it here.
    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StalkerWithACrush
    Now a warning this site is adictive. Try not to read more about the other tropes you will spent hours in there without knowing what happened to the time. ;)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Now we have a lot of feminists with the same perspective. It’s surprising, at least to me, and very disappointing.

    I used to have a very antiamerican friend that used to tell me that Americans way of thinking was “I only care about me and my needs” and they live in the center of the empire and yet are incapable of seeing the big picture. I used to defend you all from this accusations, but who knows maybe he was seeing more than I did. :(

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    @YOHAMI,

    I said, “When marital rape is legal, who’s going to report? When rape is considered the fault of the victim, who’s going to report? When children are told not to talk about such things by their own families, how many are going to report later on?” Emphasis added.

    tito said, “it happened less in the past and so the industry had to create new categories of rape to retroactively make it ‘have happened.’ fixed.”

    I don’t see how he’s not saying “rape never actually happens in marriages”. And you just add to my point. That supposedly wide definition? It used to be considered impossible for a husband to rape his wife since a wife should have permanently consented to him when she married. If you are of this belief, then our conversation is over. Sexual assault is the use of the sexual parts of either perpetrator or victim to harm, humiliate, intimidate, and/or disregard the victim without the victim’s active consent. I really don’t see what the problem is in defining it that way.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    @Blues,

    Dalrock’s law? Okay, I can make up a law too, if I want, but it doesn’t make it valid.

    “Is it that hard to realize the difference lies in that what muggers are after is valuables/money and what a rapist is after would you?”

    A mugger is after you for money, and may hurt you if you resist. A rapist is after power, and may hurt you if you resist. Know what’ll definitely hurt you? That car you’re encouraged to jump in front of if it doesn’t stop in time. For mugging, we’re told nothing is more important than coming away alive. For sexual assault, we’re told nothing is more important than coming away not assaulted, even if you have to die. And that’s bullshit.

    Sexual assault hurts in a way that few other non-fatal crimes do, but it doesn’t hurt forever. You can heal from sexual assault; you can’t heal from murder. Might a sexual assailant murder you once ze’s finished? Possibly, but that’s exceedingly rare. I’ll never be one to say “just lie back and take it” because that’s equally stupid advice, but I will say “trust your instincts”. If they’re telling you to fight, then fight. If you end up freezing (rarely a conscious decision), it might be for the best. I once avoided a sexual assault (this was in broad daylight in the middle of winter along a semi-busy road, by the way) simply by speed-walking and not looking back at him, even when he started to run. I found it amazing how people wanted to give me advice after the fact, even though I’d managed to avoid it.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    For sexual assault, we’re told nothing is more important than coming away not assaulted, even if you have to die. And that’s bullshit.

    ??? Strange. In my country a famous sexologist used to say that for a sexual assault the best advice is to fake enthusiasm “oh good it’s been a while since I had sex ” of course she was of the school that believe that most rapists get off in forcing the woman and a willing woman would very likely kill their hard on. More like the guy that shows his penis in an alley her advice was point and laugh not act shocked, that is what he is looking for.
    She also say that it was better to relax and think of England if the rape was unavoidable to avoid vaginal/anal tearing and even provoke violence that might lead to death and/or avoid more serious injuries.

  • http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/ Alex

    @Stephenie Rowling,

    What part of “I’ll never be one to say “just lie back and take it” because that’s equally stupid advice” did you not understand?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Alex,

    tito said, “it happened less in the past and so the industry had to create new categories of rape to retroactively make it ‘have happened.’”

    And you read it like this…

    I don’t see how he’s not saying “rape never actually happens in marriages”.

    You cant, really?

  • Stephenie Rowling

    What part of “I’ll never be one to say “just lie back and take it” because that’s equally stupid advice” did you not understand?

    You also said to listen to your senses if the guy has a gun or a knife and you are unharmed. What do you suggest to do?

  • 0verlord

    Sex is the lynchpin to civilization (…)

    No. Lacking a better word, morality is the lynchpin to civilization. How a given society treats sex is only one facet of its morality.

    Promiscuity is the deliberate destruction of patriarchy; it destroys prosperity because it erodes the patriarchal nuclear family.

    The crux of your comment is that society is a reflection of the family. In that case, prosperity depends on strong families whose values align with those of society. It follows that patriarchy — though it may find a happy home in an Islamic “republic” — actually weakens our society because it is contrary to our values, specifically freedom and equality.

    tl;dr: If patriarchy is the cure, then it is worse than the disease.

  • 0verlord

    Ack, I should clarify. The blockquotes are actually summaries based on my interpretations of what Keoni Galt said.

  • Blues

    Dalrock’s law? Okay, I can make up a law too, if I want, but it doesn’t make it valid.

    Of course not, logic and evidence is what does, which so far is giving Dalrock’s law a pretty solid standing.

    A mugger is after you for money, and may hurt you if you resist. A rapist is after power, and may hurt you if you resist. Know what’ll definitely hurt you? That car you’re encouraged to jump in front of if it doesn’t stop in time.

    Sure, if there is even a car to being with, why do people trying to prove a point always display the most over the top situation to disqualify the advice? oh hello, Dalrock’s law.

    Sexual assault hurts in a way that few other non-fatal crimes do, but it doesn’t hurt forever. You can heal from sexual assault; you can’t heal from murder. Might a sexual assailant murder you once ze’s finished? Possibly, but that’s exceedingly rare.

    According to? do you have data or statistics on this?

    For mugging, we’re told nothing is more important than coming away alive. For sexual assault, we’re told nothing is more important than coming away not assaulted, even if you have to die. And that’s bullshit.

    Again, is what the goals from each criminal have, muggers = money, rapists = you.

    I’ll never be one to say “just lie back and take it” because that’s equally stupid advice, but I will say “trust your instincts”. If they’re telling you to fight, then fight. If you end up freezing (rarely a conscious decision), it might be for the best.

    So if you’re in front of danger like a hungry lion, or a speeding car or a baseball flying your way and you instincts tell you to freeze that means you should freeze and take it without looking for options, right?.

    I once avoided a sexual assault (this was in broad daylight in the middle of winter along a semi-busy road, by the way) simply by speed-walking and not looking back at him, even when he started to run. I found it amazing how people wanted to give me advice after the fact, even though I’d managed to avoid it.

    Out of curiosity, how do you know it was sexual assault about to happen?

  • CaroJ

    So, going by Susan’s flowchart and her comments, apparently all the harm done to the economy is done by female sluts. Male sluts either don’t exist or do no harm?
    Also, if one needed any more evidence of Susan’s misogyny, there was all those comments from several posters about how rare it is to find a woman that is capable of logical thought, and she said not one word in opposition!! Un-freaking-believable.
    Sexism is alive and “well.”

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @CaroJ

      So, going by Susan’s flowchart and her comments, apparently all the harm done to the economy is done by female sluts. Male sluts either don’t exist or do no harm?

      Nope, the chart applies equally to both genders, keeping in mind of course, that women are the ones who bear children and raise them singly, generally. They are also the ones who get sexually assaulted, generally. I have written many posts here about male promiscuity. Type “manwhore” into the search box and have a blast.

      Also, if one needed any more evidence of Susan’s misogyny, there was all those comments from several posters about how rare it is to find a woman that is capable of logical thought, and she said not one word in opposition!!

      Again, you speak in ignorance. I do very, very little censoring on this blog. It’s a free and open forum where people can debate ideas. Where else will you find radfems conversing with MRAs?

      I celebrate women for their femaleness, and men for their maleness. They are not the same thing. Only a radfem would disagree and call me misogynist.

  • tito

    @Susan

    “This is what struck me most about BadBoyfriend’s input. There was zero awareness of what’s happening at a macro level. It was all about his personal wallet. Now we have a lot of feminists with the same perspective. It’s surprising, at least to me, and very disappointing.”

    being concerned about the macro level is “uncool” and sooooo boooooring! it is a popculture command. one must be shortsighted and solipsistic or else you ain’t rad bro. once you accomplished this foolishness, the next step is to talk about how f-ed up everything is maaaaaan. done. now you are a popculturally correct “rebel.” that is what is back of all this from SadBoyfiend to Alex.

  • tito

    @CaroJ

    that’s dumb. malesluts are rewarded by females. that’s how they become that way. as they cause deterioration the entire society suffers. you are trying to fit what
    Susan said into you tight little religion of what’s hot right now.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    CaroJ

    there was all those comments from several posters about how rare it is to find a woman that is capable of logical thought, and she said not one word in opposition

    Im amazed that no one is calling me on it. What do you have to say on the subject?

  • RR

    I like the chart. It brings home at a glance how costly casual sex can be. I have a couple of quibbles with it however:

    1)The flowchart doesn’t take into account the psychic and opportunity costs of casual sex.

    2)The boxes containing “Sexual Assault Charge” probably shouldn’t be there. It should be assumed that a casual sexual relationship is consensual. Perhaps the flowchart should be expanded and renamed to “Sexual Dynamics of the Nubile” in which the prospect of date rape is included in a grey box.

    3)There are places where you could have listed the approximate cost in terms of actual dollars (e.g. condoms, abortion, drinks, child support, STD treatment etc.) so that when one reaches the bottom of a branch, an estimated cost is tabulated. Granted, such a calculation is probably beyond the scope of your chart. Where are James Q. Wilson and Charles Murray when you need them?

    4)There is no place for multiple long term concurrent sexual relationships in the flowchart. Women (mostly black) who are engaged in these types of relationships are technically promiscuous, but their relationships are not casual.

    5)You ignore the possible upsides of casual sex ( honing of sexual skill, gold digger payday, long term relationships produced by “Love at first sight” sex, fulfillment through OOW childbirth).

    6)Having a separate branch for “Habitual promiscuity” is a little confusing.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @RR
      Very helpful and specific feedback, thanks.

      The flowchart doesn’t take into account the psychic and opportunity costs of casual sex.

      True. I believe one other commenter pointed out that many women suffer depression as a result of casual sex. This would very hard to put a number to, but I agree that it belongs on the chart. Re opportunity cost, I do consider that in the delay or sacrifice of marriage and childbearing. Are there others?

      )The boxes containing “Sexual Assault Charge” probably shouldn’t be there.

      I agree it’s problematic, and it’s causing confusion. I want to find a way to include the very real trend of increased sexual assaults on campuses directly as a result of casual sex. There are also many false accusations, also directly resulting from casual sex. There’s a large, real cost to that, and also an enormous opportunity cost.

      )There are places where you could have listed the approximate cost in terms of actual dollars (e.g. condoms, abortion, drinks, child support, STD treatment etc.) so that when one reaches the bottom of a branch, an estimated cost is tabulated.

      Agreed. This is my next step. Flowchart 1.1.

      There is no place for multiple long term concurrent sexual relationships in the flowchart. Women (mostly black) who are engaged in these types of relationships are technically promiscuous, but their relationships are not casual.

      Do you really think that multiple LTRs are common? My impression was that it is more a kind of rapid fire serial monogamy.

      You ignore the possible upsides of casual sex ( honing of sexual skill, gold digger payday, long term relationships produced by “Love at first sight” sex, fulfillment through OOW childbirth).

      These upsides are not real economic gains. Remember, the chart is about economics. I’ve argued the pros and cons of casual sex many times here, but this is the first attempt to try and put some monetary figures together – something I don’t believe has ever been done, anywhere.

      Having a separate branch for “Habitual promiscuity” is a little confusing.

      It seems as if the real divider is socioeconomic status, not habituation, which is also evident on the left side of the chart.

      Thanks again, this is extremely helpful.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    5)You ignore the possible upsides of casual sex ( honing of sexual skill, gold digger payday, long term relationships produced by “Love at first sight” sex, fulfillment through OOW childbirth).

    You know this would be a good point to add. Even if the money spent in the costs of promiscuity could be used in better things it will be interesting to see how much money it generates in the private venue.

    I do think that is more problematic that promiscuity costs more to the state than to the private industries which is the problem in the first place, it sucks the government money but it fuels private industries, but in the end what is best overall? to have a chain of bars always filled with clients or NASA to have more money so we could sent people to the moon?

    I think is also very different from the wedding industry and the likes of monogamous relationships. The state doesn’t pay for big expensive wedding is something everyone has to pay with their own money. So the costs are not the same in terms of economical burden,YMMV.

  • Mike C

    Also, if one needed any more evidence of Susan’s misogyny, there was all those comments from several posters about how rare it is to find a woman that is capable of logical thought, and she said not one word in opposition!! Un-freaking-believable.
    Sexism is alive and “well.”

    .
    LOL, your first sentence sort of proves the point. Rephrased as a proper logical argument it would go as follows:

    1. Susan has NOT commented on comments by male posters on women’s use of logic

    THEREFORE

    2. Susan is a misogynist.

    It is an absurdity to claim that conclusion flows from that premise.

    My brother has a masters in philosophy, and this sort of takes me back to some discussions we had some years back. There ARE actually extreme branches of feminism that claim “male logic” is simply a construct of the patriarchy.
    .
    Here is an interesting piece that makes that point but also expands on the fact that there is nothing “male” about male logic
    .
    http://neptune.spaceports.com/~words/malelogic.html
    .
    I’ve participated in these Internet discussions for several years now, and I can only conclude that for whatever reason, women do in fact tend to appeal a lot more to feelings, intuition, “what feels right” in their conclusions as opposed to rigorous logic. Whether that is biological or cultural, I really do not know, but you see this clearly over and over and over and over in any discussion.
    .
    Take something like “Game” and it efficacy in generating and sustaining female attraction, and I’ll use Susan as an example. She came to this sphere not understanding Game and being a skeptic and over time through fact based evidence and logical thinking concluded yes it does in fact work and explain largely how female attraction works. In contrast, if you casually peruse any feminist based comments on “Game” they start with the supposition that “Game feels wrong” and then twist arguments instead of responding to fact based evidence and logic. For example, let’s use Style
    .
    Premise
    .
    1. Style is NOT a physically attractive man
    2. Prior to learning Game, Style could not attract women and obtain sexual relationships
    3. After learning Game, Style could attract women, especially highly physically attractive ones.
    .
    Conclusion
    .
    1. Game “works” to generate female attraction and form sexual relationships
    .
    Now the only hole is in this argument as presented is that I haven’t defined exactly what Game is but the conclusion flows from the premises.
    .
    As a side note, I am extremely dismayed by how often and how quickly many women are to throw out the “misogynist” label. The intention is to shame, and shut down any reasoned debate. It is poisonous to any constructive discussion of male-female issues.

  • Joe

    I would argue the opposite, that economic stagnation and the divide between the rich and the middle class increases promiscuity.

    With a bad economy, college graduates are less able to find good jobs, so they’re less willing to get married or less able to find partners who are willing to marry them. This creates a longer period of time during which people want relationships, but cannot maintain them or move to higher levels of commitment.

    The chart also ignores that many of the costs you associate with promiscuity can also be involved with non-promiscuous sexual relationships. Married couples also purchase/use condoms and birth control. Birth control isn’t used only to prevent pregnancy but also to regulate hormones, regardless of sexual activity. Married couples can break up, so non-promiscuous mothers may still find themselves with the costs associated with OOW child birth and care.

    People without children consume less resources than those who do have children and do not contribute to overpopulation, which at least limits their contribution to the unemployment rate 20 years in the future.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Joe

      I would argue the opposite, that economic stagnation and the divide between the rich and the middle class increases promiscuity. With a bad economy, college graduates are less able to find good jobs, so they’re less willing to get married or less able to find partners who are willing to marry them.

      I agree that a bad economy reduces the marriage rate, or at least delays marriage. I don’t think it necessarily follows that it increases promiscuity. All the recent discussion of young men not finishing college, not launching till age 26, etc. describes these men as anything but players. Only a lucky few are delaying marriage to play the field. I think a lot of women wake up at 30 and realize, uh-oh, I am single and I always went for the wrong guys and how am I going to find a good partner now? They didn’t plan to spend their 20s being promiscuous – that’s the point. They had no future time orientation, and repeating behaviors that are unlikely to lead to a committed relationship.

      The chart also ignores that many of the costs you associate with promiscuity can also be involved with non-promiscuous sexual relationships.

      Of course they can, and that has always been true. What promiscuity has done is significantly exacerbate those effects, both in scope and number.

      Married couples also purchase/use condoms and birth control.

      I didn’t cite birth control as problematic here – that’s not the issue. It’s the failure to use birth control, or using abortion as birth control, that has the most negative economic effect. Among the educated, delaying family formation by 10 years to enjoy casual sex has great economic impact. It’s true that the average age of marriage is increasing for reasons other than promiscuity, as more women seek advanced degrees and career success. But a woman who loses 5-7 years because she’s hooking up with randoms is risking her own fertility, and over time the failure of these women to procreate will have a measurable effect.

      People without children consume less resources than those who do have children and do not contribute to overpopulation, which at least limits their contribution to the unemployment rate 20 years in the future.

      I’m officially calling BS on the overpopulation argument. That’s a red herring in this discussion.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Mike C,

    It is poisonous to any constructive discussion of male-female issues.

    Well, yes. “To poison” fits.

    The instincts in play: image you are camping at some deep unknown forest. You carry some valuable items with you and you are also hurt and defenseless. Suddenly you wake up at the middle of the night and a snake is trying to enter to your tent.

    You get nervous and grab something heavy and hit the snake but it doesnt care, it keeps pushing and it seems to get only more determined. So you start screaming at it and calling help but no effect whatsoever.

    Then, while the snake is still pushing, you hear it talking. Its telling you how reasonable it is for you to consider its position, how reasonable it is for you to let it get in. You dont want to listen to it, you want it to go away.

    If you followed me this far, see how “logic” wont make it. The only chance for the snake, other than enter by force, is to seduce you: make you turn off your own logic and instincts that are repelling it, and let it have control. Possibly for the worst. You have no control or responsibility whatsoever on whats happening.

    So this scenario is at the same time horrifying and arousing.

    Fear + self preservation + defenseless + crying for help + carrying valuable items + hurt + night + a snake trying to get in + lack of responsibility = women set of instincts.

    In contrast a male in the same situation has a set of instincts that would make him actually get out of the tent and fight the snake in the open. Maybe at the cost of his own life. Since the snake is making an argument, establishing a logic combat with the snake might defeat it, so the male will maybe listen and have a verbal fight before risking his life, but “logic” would still be a form of violence against the snake to avoid it getting what it wants, and physical violence the natural follow up if the verbal combat fails.

    And of course some women will be inviting the snake in.

  • tito

    @MikeC

    dude, the use of misogynist is functional. they don’t care, it is simply something to say. Susan can hate whatever she wants anyway, she doesn’t need to rationalize any feelings. just like many of the antis on here don’t. stop being affected by silly distractions. the point is Susan has questioned an aspect of an integral part of the current religion of the church of what’s hip.

  • Mike C

    Yohami,

    You are the master of the allegory. That is some awesome stuff there.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Tito, “mysoginist”, “small dick” and any shame attempt is natural, and valid if you just want the snake to go away and keep quiet and maybe die. And if you see you are hurting the snake, you will only do it more, and if the snake starts giving signs of weakness and getting hurt by you, maybe now you will have the courage to give it a few hits and put it down for good.

    Women´s natural way to resolve conflicts goes from repelling to violence without passing through logic and dialog. Knowing they are damaging the opponent only makes them increase what they are doing. It works. Calling them on it doesnt. Saying “im not a snake” doesnt work either. Explaining how reasonable it is what you are saying and how there is evidence, only makes you more of a snake, because the first instinct triggered is validating that you are some abominable force that is violating something valuable and sacred, which invalidates anything you would say.

    You can track this on every woman on every argument ever, from the very feminine to the very masculine from strippers to politicians.

    Even when women engage in “logic”, the logic used is always about proving the snake is a snake, and never about considering what the snake is saying, other than using what the snake says to “prove its own nature” and “reveal the snake intentions”, in the hopes that once the snake is exposed, external help will come and the snake will be exterminated.

    So calling you names and getting offended and angry is only natural. It works. Your mistake is keeping the logical level of reasoning, because what works for you is to switch to a seduction level of empathy, and making them turn off their reasoning and respond to a different set of emotions.

    You have to stop the “snake triggers” before they can listen anything you have to say.

  • tito

    @Yohami

    nothing can be added to what you wrote. it is brilliant. i read it twice. you are correct. all one can do with logic is to debunk for the benefit of a viewing third party reader. it will not convince the “snake caller.”

  • Stephenie Rowling

    As a side note, I am extremely dismayed by how often and how quickly many women are to throw out the “misogynist” label. The intention is to shame, and shut down any reasoned debate. It is poisonous to any constructive discussion of male-female issues.

    You know there is a whole bunch of this words that are the “Hitler card” of feminists. Mysognist, heteronormative, rape apologist, victim blaming….any argument they feel wrong about continuing after they engaging in it is “You are just hetero-normative” so they feel in their mind they label you inferior to them so whatever you say is invalid and can move on without admitting “ignorance or defeat”.
    Although I will say that is not a female argument only, democrats, conservatives and liberals in the extreme of their respective fields do exactly the same (male and female). Now how aware are they that they are just taking a shortcut to feel “smart” is anyone guess.
    I think logic and critical thinking are not part of many people’s upbringing, specially when you can get what you want by saying “you are just racist”. Who wants to argue that and risk looking bad? Specially in modern PC correct society were if people don’t like you they will spent insane amount of times trying to poke holes at you to take away whatever status you have achieved. Not a cost effective risk for many, YMMV.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Stephie,

    Although I will say that is not a female argument only, democrats, conservatives and liberals in the extreme of their respective fields do exactly the same (male and female).

    Yeah, anyone with a “religious thinking” operates that way. Racists fobics etc. I can imagine a black person explaining how he is segregated and how things should be fair etc and a racist screaming back “shut up you fucking nigger”

    Its beyond of me.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Yeah, anyone with a “religious thinking” operates that way. Racists fobics etc. I can imagine a black person explaining how he is segregated and how things should be fair etc and a racist screaming back “shut up you fucking nigger

    I don’t think that happens nowadays unless the guy is a skinhead. White people are usually terrified of the racist label, IME.
    In parties and other things I had seen black people making “white men can’t” jump jokes and the white people laughing uncomfortably but not attempting to do anything or say well you know we are not all like that. Very annoying given that I have both white and black ancestry. The same with “girl rock men sucks” jokes, Every meeting I have had women say all sorts of bad things about men, the guys just stay silent the girls clap…WTF!??

  • tito

    @Susan

    “Only a radfem would disagree and call me misogynist.”

    that’s what this joker is.

  • jess

    susan on flowchart,
    .
    yes i see your point. it is very hard to condense the complex myriad of economic dynamics on a chart like this.
    .
    in terms of your efficiency point there may be counter arguments. In the uk couples get tax breaks, so for them, they are MORE efficient. Bur for the treasury its an inefficiency as it gets less dough.
    .
    The same is true for ‘confidence’. The uk is trying to get people to spend, invest, kick start the economy. ie be less thrifty.
    .
    Economists are arguing over this very point. Our old party used to pay public workers to say, build a hospital. Of course, this costs the treasury but people are in work so there are less welfare benefits to pay out, the treasury gets income tax back and the economy in that area massively expands for 5 years or so.
    .
    Some economists say this is sound, some say its is profligate.
    .
    If you minimise streams in the way you wish to in the top right of the chart, whilst it might mean human benefit, it may also mean economic reduction.
    .
    Its something we may have to think about years from now…
    .
    If the ipad has apps that are better than teachers then what do you do with all the teachers?
    .
    If gene therapy solves all disease, what do you do with the doctors?
    .
    If we create robots to eradicate crime, what do you do with all the police men?
    .
    We cant all be software developers or blog hosts!
    .
    Myself, I think enjoying your life responsibly is the best way individually and for society. And frankly what ever one does, it could be criticised by someone on ethical/religious/social grounds.
    .
    There are people on a kibbutz somewhere looking down on the environmentally unsound life of a conservative american family with 2 kids, an electrically wired house and a fossil fuel using vehicle.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI
  • jess

    yohami,
    .
    if you are stating that it is your considered opinion that women are incapable of reasoned debate or logical reasoning then it would follow (logically) that no woman should hold office or have any position of responsibility.
    .
    Therefore, it would follow (logically) that you are a misogynist.
    .
    If you do not hold that opinion then please accept my apologies.
    .
    In my experience, some are good at debating, some get defensive, irrational and insulting. This blog is a demonstration that men do that just as much as women.
    .
    I remember watching uk question time when 2 female panel members used logic and ethics to destroy a racist politician. He was puce by the time they were finished with him.
    .
    The other phrase you mentioned ‘was small d*ck’ used by women as a levelling device/insult. In my experience guys use that all the time to each other. And, a few months back when I circulated a few threads from here to colleagues at work, that phrase was used to describe some HUS posters at least as much by guys as by women.

  • Joe

    Susan,

    You seem to be contradicting your own stated purpose. You stated:

    True. I believe one other commenter pointed out that many women suffer depression as a result of casual sex. This would very hard to put a number to, but I agree that it belongs on the chart. Re opportunity cost, I do consider that in the delay or sacrifice of marriage and childbearing.

    But then you said:

    These upsides are not real economic gains. Remember, the chart is about economics. I’ve argued the pros and cons of casual sex many times here, but this is the first attempt to try and put some monetary figures together – something I don’t believe has ever been done, anywhere.

    To disqualify possible non-economic benefits (though “gold digger payday” would certainly qualify as an economic benefit) of promiscuity and then to also suggest that non-economic downsides to promiscuity should be included in a supposedly economics-focused chart seems quite contradictory and prone to bias.

    Also, you don’t disqualify the costs of promiscuity that coincide with costs that non-promiscuous people incur in their lifestyles. People in long term relationships also purchase alcohol and (as I stated before) birth control and condoms. They also get abortions. Only economic costs of promiscuity that are exclusive to promiscuous people can logically be identified as the costs of promiscuity.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Joe
      I think you misunderstand me – sorry if I was unclear. Ultimately, everything on the chart has to have a number assigned to it, some kind of estimate. That can be difficult to derive. For example, college women get depressed about hooking up. I know that requests for college counseling services have skyrocketed as a result on many campuses. There’s a real cost to that, albeit who pays differs between private and public colleges. But getting at that data is going to be very difficult. If a female college student is prescribed an anti-depressant, is it because she’s promiscuous, doing poorly in classes, homesick? Or all three? What causes what? And what of the male students who feel depressed or socially anxious precisely because they’re striking out with women, while a small number of guys on campus appear to be cleaning up?

      Looking at that one item – depression – as it relates to hookup culture could easily justify a large and expensive study with a sample size of thousands.

      As for gold digger payday, how it that a positive economic effect? Some skank finds a sugar daddy? That sounds like an unproductive member of society, not a contributor. One could argue that successful gold diggers will support the fashion, cosmetics, and plastic surgery industries, but that’s like saying that chowing down on Doritos is good for the economy because it supports the chip manufacturer and the plastic bowl industry. It ignores the elephant in the room. It would be better for the U.S. economy in the long run if McDonald’s went out of business today.

      This is the standard argument for taxing vices, by the way. We recognize that tobacco, alcohol, etc. are detrimental to society in general, and we assess consumption taxes to try and recapture a portion of the long-term economic costs, mostly in the form of health care.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    People in long term relationships also purchase alcohol and (as I stated before) birth control and condoms. They also get abortions.

    Do you have the data on this? How many abortions have people in a couple vs single women? And how many couple vs single women engage in habitual binge drinking? The birth control might be more or less the same rate, but it depends is more likely that single women use a combination of pills and condoms to protect them from disease and pregnancy while a married couple probably are more focused in birth control, specially monogamous couples. So some hard data about this would be very helpful.

  • tito

    @jess

    you just made Yohami’s case for him.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    If the ipad has apps that are better than teachers then what do you do with all the teachers?

    Do you remember that before the standardized teaching system people became apprentices of any work they wanted to do? We had reformed education before.

    If gene therapy solves all disease, what do you do with the doctors?

    The doctors will concentrate in other fields like injuries for accidents, for example people can get mess up for many things that don’t include disease.

    If we create robots to eradicate crime, what do you do with all the police men?

    The police main purpose is to enforce the law. So they will continue to work with the huge amount of laws we have.

    You know under this argument starting to shoot people will be a good idea because it will keep the doctors and the police employed.
    Criminals to save the world!

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jess,

    if you are stating that it is your considered opinion that women are incapable of reasoned debate or logical reasoning then it would follow (logically) that no woman should hold office or have any position of responsibility.

    Oh really, where did I say any of that?

    Therefore, it would follow (logically) that you are a misogynist.

    Isnt it funny that you are doing what I just described?

  • Joe

    Stephanie,

    Do you have the data on this? How many abortions have people in a couple vs single women?

    No, but the internet does. The various statistics I’ve seen seem to suggest between 1/6 and 1/4 of abortions are performed on married women. This at least means that any “costs of promiscuity” would have to be reduced by these percentages when factored into a cost analysis, unless you’re arguing a large number of married women get pregnant due to promiscuity. You can do your own research and come up with your own determination. The important thing is that you can’t just assume 100% of abortions are performed on promiscuous people and therefore you can’t factor in 100% of the cost of an abortion as a cost of promiscuity without tainting your calculation with factors that affect other people as well, unless you’re going to likewise calculate other groups’ costs of lifestyle choices.

    And how many couple vs single women engage in habitual binge drinking?

    I don’t know why you’re excluding single men from this question since Susan said that the chart applies to men as well as women. But the reference to binge drinking is irrelevant. The chart doesn’t address habitual binge drinking. People who are promiscuous don’t necessarily binge drink and people who binge drink aren’t necessarily promiscuous. The chart only mentions the possibility of being drunk during non-consensual sex, but you can get drunk on two glasses of wine and an empty stomach depending on your body weight, so this doesn’t necessarily imply binge drinking. Do you have any hard data on the percentages of these coincidences?

    The birth control might be more or less the same rate, but it depends is more likely that single women use a combination of pills and condoms to protect them from disease and pregnancy while a married couple probably are more focused in birth control, specially monogamous couples. So some hard data about this would be very helpful.

    I agree, some hard data would be helpful.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The various statistics I’ve seen seem to suggest between 1/6 and 1/4 of abortions are performed on married women. This at least means that any “costs of promiscuity” would have to be reduced by these percentages when factored into a cost analysis

      Correct. Stay tuned for further analysis. I’m going to address it in pieces, putting up each one for critique, rather than just put up a massive set of numbers and assumptions.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    The various statistics I’ve seen seem to suggest between 1/6 and 1/4 of abortions are performed on married women. This at least means that any “costs of promiscuity” would have to be reduced by these percentages when factored into a cost analysis,

    Agree

    I don’t know why you’re excluding single men from this question since Susan said that the chart applies to men as well as women

    Oops typo

    People who are promiscuous don’t necessarily binge drink and people who binge drink aren’t necessarily promiscuous.

    Countless reports and studies shown that there is a strong correlation between consumption of alcohol and promiscuity. Here are a couple of them. Feel free to google “alcohol and promiscuity”.

    http://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-and-you/relationships/alcohol-and-one-night-stands
    http://generallythinking.com/casual-sex-in-college/

    I agree, some hard data would be helpful.

    Do you know were to get it?

  • Abbot

    Therefore, it would follow (logically) that you are a misogynist
    .
    Oh my my. Looks like the recasters are rearing their ugly heads again. Well, to their credit, they did stifle down for a while after running amok and then being called out on it. But as the self-proclaimed “protecters” of women who learn from this website to not become or reject sub-human sex-pozzy retards, the urge to recast becomes painfully strong.
    .
    mi·sog·y·ny [mi-soj-uh-nee, mahy-] –noun. hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
    .
    —Related forms
    mi·sog·y·nic, mi·sog·y·nous, mi·sog·y·nis·tic, adjective
    mi·sog·y·nist, noun
    .
    In North America:
    .
    “Misogyny” is the trendy new catch-all “poor me; shame on you” term.
    .
    Treat women with respect and you will be called a misogynist.
    .
    Anyone who criticizes women is a misogynist.
    .
    Anyone who criticizes or attempts to escape from feminism is a misogynist.
    .
    Anyone who criticizes women for inappropriately using the word misogynist is a MOST DEFINITELY a misogynist.
    .
    Anyone who denies misogyny exists is a misogynist.
    .
    American men who seek romance with foreign women are all categorically misogynists (most ironic, given the definition of misogyny). Proudly, then, I am a misogynist.
    .
    Yep, you have plum burned it out. Spent. Played. The word misogyny is now defined as meaningless, self-imposed, psychological trauma resulting in indifference by the general population and when spewed by feminists the reaction is:
    .
    sighgyny [sī-jo-nee] v. intr., To yawn or sigh repeatedly in an effort to subtly communicate one’s lack of interest in American feminist concerns. n., A series of long, exasperated, and often escalating sighs indicating extreme boredom.

  • Aldonza

    @Susan

    Among the educated, delaying family formation by 10 years to enjoy casual sex has great economic impact. It’s true that the average age of marriage is increasing for reasons other than promiscuity, as more women seek advanced degrees and career success. But a woman who loses 5-7 years because she’s hooking up with randoms is risking her own fertility, and over time the failure of these women to procreate will have a measurable effect.

    I doubt you’ll find many woman who deliberately delay marriage in order to fuck around. The older age at first marriage is directly correlated with the desire to finish education and establish a career. Hence education = later marriage across the board. Now we could question the logic of woman who deliberately put off any real relationship because of their career and/or education, mistakenly believing that at age 35, they have “plenty of time” to find Mr. Right, convince him to marry, find that white picket fence house in the ‘burbs and still conceive those two perfect children she has planned.

    (This also applies to men, who mistakenly believe they have all the time in the world only to find that, at age 45, they aren’t attracting the 25yo fertile Myrtle they want, and they have to look at those 35yo+ “ticking biological clock” women.)

    Everything in life has opportunity cost.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I doubt you’ll find many woman who deliberately delay marriage in order to fuck around.

      Agreed. I said elsewhere in the thread that women with low future time orientation, or poor impulse control, are most likely to fall into this category. They go through a series of bad relationships with guys who are not relationship material, or worse, have a lot of casual flings with guys who pump and dump them. They become angry with men, who they accuse of all being assholes, decide that all the good ones are taken anyway, and that they will have to “settle” if they want to marry. In other words, there is little self-awareness, even at age 35. They just believe they never met “Mr. Right.”

  • OffTheCuff

    (This also applies to men, who mistakenly believe they have all the time in the world only to find that, at age 45, they aren’t attracting the 25yo fertile Myrtle they want, and they have to look at those 35yo+ “ticking biological clock” women.)

    Really?? OK, show me. I’d love to see an article, published anywhere on this topic. Should be easy to find.

    I have no doubt that a few men are totally delusional, but we tend to be a lot more honest about our SMV. Celibacy calibrates nearly all men very quickly, and very young.

  • Aldonza

    I have no doubt that a few men are totally delusional, but we tend to be a lot more honest about our SMV. Celibacy calibrates nearly all men very quickly, and very young.

    I know three men who are still single in their late 40s who want children. They spent their 30s and 40s dating and working on homes and careers. It wasn’t until after 40 that any of them started seriously looking for the mother of their children.

    These are successful, attractive men. Alpha types. They can still date plenty of younger women, but all of them are having trouble finding that younger woman who wants to settle down and have kids. The young ones are more than happy to play around on their boats and go for weekends and dates. But they get skittish when their “fun boyfriend” starts talking about school districts.

    Now, part of this is the type of women they date. But that is part of the equation too. No guy who has dated a string of hotties wants to settle down with Plain Jane. And the very attractive, marriage-minded girls tend to marry early to their equally attractive, age-appropriate mate they met in college or on their first jobs.

    Statistics bear me out. Average age difference at first marriage is around 3 years. Not 5. Not 10. Not even close to 20. Women want to marry guys who are older, but not *that* much older. They want young, energetic dads who are going to be around to help with the kids and not be in a nursing home when the kids are in college.

    And if you google “male biological clock” you’ll see that there is also an evolutionary advantage to women mating with men who are older, but not that much older. Men do not have a “get out of jail free” card when it comes to fertility and negative child-bearing outcomes later in life either.

  • OffTheCuff

    That was a great tap dance there. Did you train at the Jess(TM) Dance Academy of the Anecdote? Or perhaps you just hang out with delusional alpha men a lot?

    I could reply with, I know a woman who married a 35-year old man shortly after high school.

    Again “I’d love to see an article, published anywhere on this topic. Should be easy to find.” That’s a pretty direct request. If this is common, there must be a first-hand story published somewhere, written by a man, on this topic.

  • tito

    @Susan

    “I said elsewhere in the thread that women with low future time orientation, or poor impulse control, are most likely to fall into this category. They go through a series of bad relationships with guys who are not relationship material, or worse, have a lot of casual flings with guys who pump and dump them. They become angry with men, who they accuse of all being assholes, decide that all the good ones are taken anyway, and that they will have to “settle” if they want to marry. In other words, there is little self-awareness, even at age 35. They just believe they never met “Mr. Right.”

    how’s that “choice” workin’ out? haha! these girls need a mentor. i nominate Susan.

  • jess

    tito says to jess “you just made Yohami’s case for him”
    .
    I rather think you have just made my case for me…

  • Aldonza

    @OffTheCuff
    On the Male Biological Clock:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/27/health/27sper.html
    Children fathered by older fathers are at higher risk for abnormalities normally associated with aging mothers.

    Average age at first marriage:
    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html
    As you can see, while the average age over all has been trending up, the age gap hasn’t changed all that much.

    Men complaining:
    http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/how-come-older-men-cant-get-younger-women/
    http://www.evanmarckatz.com/blog/why-do-women-in-their-30s-not-want-to-date-men-in-their-40s/

    Fact is…women in their most fertile years (20-35) are at the height of their market value. Unless a 40-something guy is also at the height of his value (great shape/attractive, successful, great game), he’s swimming upstream.

  • jess

    to steph re defunct professions,
    .
    You may be proved correct in time. What I would say is that history tells us that the march of technology DOES destroy some professions, arts and skills.
    .
    You know many chimney sweepers?
    Bus conductors?
    Photo developers?
    Type writer engineers?
    .
    On line or apps based learning is soaring.
    interactive apps are often better at child centred learning than many a teacher.
    .
    Already uk politicians are mooting ideas of teachers directing 4 parallel classes supported by software and learning ‘facilitators’.
    .
    Im not saying its good, bad or neither- its just interesting and germane to the stagnation angle.

  • jess

    Yohami- logic/snakes
    .
    Well if you are saying that generally women are logical and reasonable and can debate in an intelligent manner and as well as men, then fair enough- like I said – happy to retract the misogyny accusation.
    .
    But if your link is not in jest….
    .
    ” Fear + self preservation + defenseless + crying for help + carrying valuable items + hurt + night + a snake trying to get in + lack of responsibility = women set of instincts.”
    .
    “Women´s natural way to resolve conflicts goes from-repulsion-to-violence without passing through logic or dialog”
    .
    “You can track this on every woman on every argument ever, from the very feminine to the very masculine from strippers to politicians.”
    .
    I am humbly suggesting that these quotes from your charming essay are just, a tiny, tiny, tiny, bit, misogynistic.
    .
    I think if Aldonza or Susan or Stephanie were to make a similar claim about ‘every man’ then they could justifiably be called men haters.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Jess

    This flowchart has nothing to do with technology branding some professions obsolete. You try to defend promiscuity being good for society because regardless of the costs if keeps people employed.
    That reasoning could be used by everyone from robbers, to murderers. I mean you did social work if I’m not mistaken, do you wish more people were harmed so you could keep having a profession?

  • jess

    to susan et al- delayed family…
    .
    Interesting take on this from my HR consultant…..
    .
    Sally, marries Tom, both 23, 4 kids by 26. Tom works, she looks after kids. Only a single salary and single revenue to taxman. 3 kids deserve family welfare payments and state funded education.
    .
    Brenda, marries Jim, both 31, 2 kids by 35. They both have careers before hand. Dual income and 2 streams to taxman.
    .
    So between the ages of 23 and 35, just in that time slot- who has benefited the economy?
    .
    Surely Brenda/Jim have provided more taxation to the state, expanded their part of the economy, taken nill in terms of child care and nill in terms of education cost.
    .
    Now post 35, this flips- now Brenda does have kids and begins to lean on the state and gives up her job. Lower tax going in. Increased risk of needing fertility enhancement. Over 20 years 4 kids>adults MAY provide more economic force than 2 kids>adults but on the other hand what if the 4 kids become bums and the other 2 dont?
    .
    complex isnt it? my tiny female brain simply explodes with the complexity of it all. Wont some handsome, worldly man sit me on his knee and explain it to me?
    .
    For what its worth some of the girls at work thought the chart had a point- the guys were very dismissive though.
    .
    To quote one: “I’d be surprised if that made the “Business News””
    .
    SW- have you had any proper economists comment on it?

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jess,

    Well if you are saying that generally women are logical and reasonable and can debate in an intelligent manner and as well as men, then fair enough- like I said – happy to retract the misogyny accusation.

    Nope, Im saying that generally women jump from rejection / pointing to the unwelcome to aggression without passing trough logic or argumentation about the subject in matter. What I see, usually, is the woman attacking the holder of the argument instead of the argument, as in “pointing to the snake” and “making the snake reveal its nature” while at the same time ignoring the subject.

    So, what you are just doing.

    So what do you think on the subject? feel free to debate it in an intelligent manner – and prove your point while you are at it.

  • Jess

    Steph,
    .
    Whilst I completely reject a return to the bad old days of traditional patriarchy, I think you misunderstand my motives on this thread.
    .
    My points are entirely about wether promiscuity causes economic stagnation. The human or moral aspect is another issue and you are probably aware of my views there in any case.
    .
    Susan has asked us to comment and so here we are. The trouble is about defining stagnation or it’s causes and if economic experts cannot agree on the forces for economic collapse and stagnation then Susan and the rest of us have our work cut out but as she says it’s not been discussed before and if one could prove something in one direction or the other it would be helpful.

  • Jess

    Yohami,
    I can do no better than to paraphrase your good self.
    .
    You claim that ‘every’ woman rejects the use of logic and reason in debate.
    .
    That’s a misogynistic statement.
    .
    If I said black people were incapable of using logic or reason in debate it would make me a racist.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Jess,

    You claim that ‘every’ woman rejects the use of logic and reason in debate.
    That’s a misogynistic statement.

    Oh boy.

  • http://www.triggeralert.blogspot.com Byron

    Oh boy.

    :)

  • brightstormyday

    @Aldonza:

    It’s true that men do also have a sort of menopause. They gain weight. They lose hair. They have less testosterone. They produce fewer sperm. All the same, introduce me to your friends? lol

    @OfftheCuff:

    In terms of immediate attraction and short term relationships, women tend to prefer much older men and men tend to prefer much younger women. When you poll people about long term relationships or marriage, women might want a man that’s a few years older and men might want a woman that’s a few years younger, but the differences won’t be large, no more than 5 years. Having a huge age gap can be difficult, my parents have one and it comes with their own problems, mostly the fact that my dad is aging much faster than my mother. When you’re 10-20 years apart someone’s going to die sooner than the other. That’s a really scary thought to deal with.

    @yohami:

    Hey, I haven’t seen you commenting around here in a while and (this doesn’t really have anything to do directly with your argument with Jess) is everything good? I just notice that your comments seem a bit more aggressive than the usual zen yohami comments. Just checking.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Stormy,

    is everything good? I just notice that your comments seem a bit more aggressive than the usual zen yohami comments.

    Yep Im fine, how are you? as far as being more aggressive, sometimes that fits.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Whilst I completely reject a return to the bad old days of traditional patriarchy, I think you misunderstand my motives on this thread.

    First you have no idea how patriarchy was. Feminist revisionist history is less accurate than you will like to admit, just take a look at all the women that actually were notable and happy in their own right without the need of “the sisters” to facilitate their achievements, through the last 12,000 years.

    Second I think your motives were clear since you started to visit here.
    So far your arguments had always been to confirm your bias: “All my slut friends got married and I got married slutting myself up and it made us happy and we don’t harm anyone, so we all should support sluthood, and everything expressed here is invalid because me and my friends say so”.
    So I think I’m crystal clear.

    My points are entirely about wether promiscuity causes economic stagnation. The human or moral aspect is another issue and you are probably aware of my views there in any case.

    I wasn’t making a moral argument, more like a “if everyone only do what makes them happy” in an unregulated system you will end up with chaos.
    That is how the economic disaster happened “Everybody wants loans, let’s give them, everyone wants to overprice their houses, let’s let them”….that didn’t worked out so well did we? How many people do you think would understand this in the middle of the economic bubble? If Susan would had make this flow chart ten years ago with the housing market anyone that is purchasing a house or selling it would be crying that she is house-shaming or some other made up word. This is the difference between long term thinking and short term thinking. I can’t see it = it doesn’t exists is not a way to find out long term consequences of anything,YMMV.

  • Abbot

    Then it logically follows that a man who screws sluts yet proudly avoids them for marriage is a misogynist. There is no other way to explain it.

  • OffTheCuff

    Aldonza. First two links are irrelevant, as I don’t dispute them at all. I don’t even dispute your conclusion that guys who do want to date 20 years down are in for a hard time. I dispute that an appreciable number of older guys really expect to find significantly (-20yr) woman willing to date and marry them. We’re just not that stupid. (If it appears that way, maybe some are just willing to risk it.)

    [Rambing tangent: Note I say date and marry. You know how many women banged my old-man college professors? Professors, plural... it wasn't just one! Those guys got laid like bandits, and they weren't rich or good-looking. Even then, one my former teachers married a girl 20 years his junior shortly after I graduated. that was after breaking up with the still-smoking-hot one that was 10 years younger. NONE of her friends found this disgusting. They cheered it on. Women *always* make exceptions for the guys with game, even ugly, old, fat, and poor. I just didn't know what it was at the time.]

    Your EMK links are not, as I asked, self-authored. Not to dump on him, as he has good advice, but they’re on a …wait for it.. site run by a dating coach who makes money by advising women. Top of the page ad “I’m a personal trainer for women who want to fall in love”. Byline is even more telling: “Dating Coach for Strong, Smart, Successful Women”.

    He knows his target market well. So why is a *guy* writing to him for advice?

    I don’t dispute it’s true. I contend that he has incentive to report things like this, regardless of their actual occurrence in life. That is why I am asking for self-authored articles.

  • Anonymous

    This chart seems to assume that casual sex, protected or not, leads to STIs (or the symptoms thereof) every time. Not only can you catch an STI without symptoms, but it is also possible to have casual sex without catching an STI. This chart implies that if you have no symptoms, it’s because you haven’t acknowledged them yet.

    Also, what’s this about promiscuity causing a labor shortage? Is my ability to do my job effectively determined by whether or not my parents were married at the time of my birth? According to the implications of the “labour shortage problem”, only born citizens from two-parent households are fit for the labour force — if this was the case, the economy would have ceased to exist decades ago.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Anonymous

      This chart seems to assume that casual sex, protected or not, leads to STIs (or the symptoms thereof) every time.

      Did you not see the two separate boxes for Yes and No?

      Also, what’s this about promiscuity causing a labor shortage? Is my ability to do my job effectively determined by whether or not my parents were married at the time of my birth?

      The labor shortage comes when you’re aren’t born. It’s the long-term result of a low birth rate, and has nothing to do with illegitimacy.

  • theLaplaceDemon

    Re: Freakonomics – what Terry said.

    “Is it possible they’re wrong? Yes, but you need to come up with another theory to say so.”

    Well, no. You can point out that a theory is unstable without an alternative. I’m actually quite confused as to why you think that.

    “We know that sexual mores have relaxed dramatically in the last 40 years. We also know that the incidence of STDs, abortion and OOW births has increased dramatically. I’m drawing a connection. Do you have an alternative hypothesis that is credible?”

    Again, I would argue that targeting directly promiscuity is wrong. STDs, abortion, and births out of wedlock can all be prevented by accessible birth control and regular STD testing.

    Sure, STDs will still probably spread faster with promiscuity than without, even with lots of latex AND testing, but to that dramatic of an extent? I’m not sure. It seems logical to me that if everyone is getting tested a few times a year and always uses barriers, the increase may not be very high. You may have a case here, but I imagine it remains an empirical question.

    As for unwanted pregnancy and out of wedlock pregnancy, again, it doesn’t matter if you’re screwing one person a whole bunch of times or a whole bunch of people once. As far as reproduction is concerned it’s all the same, and the solution is the same: More and better birth control practices.

    You have still have not provided most of the sources I asked for, btw—sources for things you stated as fact.

    “That’s reasonable if those policies are proven effective. As stated elsewhere in this thread, much “comprehensive” sex ed includes the promotion of decidedly unsafe practices such as fisting, rimming and golden showers. I am not a believer in abstinence only sex ed, but abstinence should clearly be an option for teens. “

    Agreed that abstinence is certainly an option and should be presented as such. However, fisting, rimming, and golden showers (not all of which are actually that unsafe, if practiced intelligently and conscientiously) being taught in mainstream sex ed? Are you sure your high school wasn’t an outlier here?

    “Anal fisting is also common, and that is most decidedly an unsafe practice.”

    Seriously? Where is it COMMON? Citation needed.

    As for “read the blog or STFU.”

    Again…well, no. You state something as fact, you should be prepared to cite your source – it’s irresponsible to do otherwise. Are you saying the 500+ posts are a package deal, where I need to read ALL of them to understand where you’re pulling your numbers from? Even if you tell me your blog is meant to be more like a book, cover-to-cover, it should still have footnotes leading me to references, or in-text citations. “Uh, I wrote about it somewhere else” is not an excuse.

    If you want to be a happy casual blogger who talks about heard-through-the-grape-vine=science without properly sourcing claims, you have every right to do that. But people will ask you to back up your claims, and getting defensive – when you are the one who started throwing around statistics and assertions without sources – is a little silly, don’t you think?

    When you use a statistic or assertion without providing a source, you are asking people to take it on faith that you have read, understood, and (most importantly) spotted all of the methodological flaws and potential alternate interpretations that they would. This isn’t an attack on you, personally, it’s the foundation of scientific publishing. I don’t care how many PhDs the dude down the hall has, if he doesn’t cite his sources I suspect foul play.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @LaPlaceDemon

      It seems logical to me that if everyone is getting tested a few times a year and always uses barriers, the increase may not be very high.

      Perhaps, but that’s not the way people behave. In fact, most people never get tested and frequently have sex without barriers. In other words, this doesn’t work. The STD stats prove it.

      As far as reproduction is concerned it’s all the same, and the solution is the same: More and better birth control practices.

      Ditto. In some American subcultures, birth control is not only ignored, it’s frowned upon. High school girls in urban high schools often view pregnancy as a mark of status.

      You have still have not provided most of the sources I asked for, btw—sources for things you stated as fact.

      Like what?

      Are you sure your high school wasn’t an outlier here?

      Well, the publication used is approved the the Massachusetts Department of Education. In some ways, Massachusetts is an outlier, I suppose.

      “Anal fisting is also common, and that is most decidedly an unsafe practice.”

      Seriously? Where is it COMMON? Citation needed.

      Gay men like to put things into their anus, including fists. Visits to the ER are not uncommon. As to whether the practice is common in the sense that a significant portion of the general population engages in it? No, definitely not. That’s why it has no place in sex ed. It’s a PC nod to the LGBT folks.

      You state something as fact, you should be prepared to cite your source – it’s irresponsible to do otherwise.

      You’re right. However, this thread contains lots of accusations, e.g. “You don’t say a word about male promiscuity!”, that are just flat out wrong. It is not in my best interest, or the interest of my regular readers, to defend my position on something I’ve written about many times, or to answer an accusation that is unreasonable or hysterical. The best approach would probably be for me to ignore these comments. I spent about an hour and a half giving you solid links on everything you asked for, and you turn around and deny their usefulness. That can only mean you didn’t read the studies, and that’s just lazy. It is not my job to do all your work for you. If you want to debate the issue, provide links of your own to prove your point.

      When you use a statistic or assertion without providing a source, you are asking people to take it on faith that you have read, understood, and (most importantly) spotted all of the methodological flaws and potential alternate interpretations that they would.

      For the umpteenth time, the post is a first draft. I specifically pointed out the lack of hard data in the post, and asked for feedback. Where this got controversial was when people such as yourself started questioning the connection between promiscuity and negative health outcomes. This is ludicrous, IMO – you admit that if people were conscientious about safe sex practices, there wouldn’t be a problem. But that’s not what is happening in the world we live in. People are not conscientious, diseases and pregnancies occur, and the state pays. That’s the point of the chart.

      Promiscuity is expensive. It decreases productivity and costs the taxpayers a great deal of money. Stay tuned for 2.0.

  • Abbot

    Funny how the rise of “sex ed” began soon after men created and distributed birth control pills.

  • brightstormyday

    @Abbot:

    Forms of birth control have always existed but were never advertised as such. A lot of vintage ads about “feminine hygiene products” were actually just…spermicides. To promote them as such was the equivalent of promoting pornography.

    And sex ed can be pretty effective at prolonging the onset of teen sex. Having to learn and memorize different symptoms of STD’s, AND watch a woman give birth pretty much kills sex. It really does. It’s gross.

    @OfftheCuff:

    I have an interesting article for you to read. The article is called “The Strategies of Human Mating,” and it’s by David M. Buss. While it upholds a lot of ideas present in the sphere, it challenges a few. Surprisingly, both men and women rate physical attractiveness as less important for ltr’s than str’s. Also the age difference preference for ltr’s in the west is lower than in developing countries. Good stuff. Check it out. You’ll like it.

  • 0verlord

    First you have no idea how patriarchy was.

    You don’t find it in the least bit revealing that those notable women of which you speak weren’t allowed to vote until 1920 if they lived in the United States?

  • Abbot

    On the Male Biological Clock:
    .
    Now and then, from time to time, this comes up as a “topic” and it always spirals down to an attempt to convince men they should be concerned. But they never are…and never will be. And as for getting young women for breeding, the US gov. provides a little blue book juuuust for that purpose. Its called a passport. Can also serve as a blissful and eternal escape from feminism, if a man so desires.
    .
    the age difference preference for ltr’s in the west is lower than in developing countries.
    .
    E x a c t l y. Plus you get the added satisfaction knowing that feminists absolutely fume when American men dare to exercise this endless option. Nothing more enjoyable to watch than a shrieking feminist rendered powerless by the objects of her abhorrence.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    You don’t find it in the least bit revealing that those notable women of which you speak weren’t allowed to vote until 1920 if they lived in the United States?

    Do you know that voting had been restricted for many reasons including gender since democracy started? The greeks didn’t had everyone voting for example. The Universal Suffrage eliminated those restrictions for everyone that was not allowed to vote, poor males, women, persons of color…?
    No to mention that under the past conditions certain women that fit the criteria could vote.

    In 1756, Lydia Chapin Taft became the first legal woman voter in colonial America. This occurred under British rule in the Massachusetts Colony. This was in a New England town meeting and she voted on at least three occasions in Uxbridge, Massachusetts.

    Women in New Jersey could vote (with the same property qualifications as for men, although, since married women did not own property in their own right, only unmarried women and widows qualified) under the state constitution of 1776, where the word “inhabitants” was used without qualification of sex or race. New Jersey women, along with “aliens…persons of color, or negroes,” lost the vote in 1807, when the franchise was restricted to white males, ostensibly, to combat electoral fraud by simplifying the conditions for eligibility.

  • Abbot

    The labor shortage comes when you’re aren’t born
    .
    The “liberal shortage” also comes when those most likely to abort barely replace themselves. The States today could have been more “blue,” but alas….

  • tito

    @Susan

    “Gay men like to put things into their anus, including fists. Visits to the ER are not uncommon. As to whether the practice is common in the sense that a significant portion of the general population engages in it? No, definitely not. That’s why it has no place in sex ed. It’s a PC nod to the LGBT folks.”

    a cop once told me that they beat the living shit out of each other too. their domestic fights are unreal.

    @Overlord

    big deal, voting don’t mean shit guy.

  • 0verlord

    Do you know that voting had been restricted for many reasons including gender since democracy started? The greeks didn’t had everyone voting for example. The Universal Suffrage eliminated those restrictions for everyone that was not allowed to vote, poor males, women, persons of color…? [...]

    Of course I know that. Are you suggesting it was right?

  • Tom

    If promiscuity means less babies are born and less marriages take place then it could have a direct reflection of the economy.
    Less babies and less marriages mean less homes being built. Most economies depend on home construction, or at least more home inhabitation.
    Less homes mean less sinks, windows, carpet, beds, dressors, lamps, fridges, microwaves,doors,glasses, dishes, sheets,paint, drywall, wood, siding etc..you get the point.
    Economies depend on filling homes with goods and services.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Are you suggesting it was right?

    You know that is interesting point. One of my best friends (gay guy) often said that voting should be restricted to people that actually care about democracy and shouldn’t be universal. He was appalled every time anyone voted because their cousin was going to get a job if candidate X won or/and because the candidate was handsome even if completely unqualified. So I personally disagree with him but is an interesting point to raise.
    Do everyone understand the huge repercussion of their voting rights?
    Anyway I clearly meant that was not just about women but about the system not being universal. Feminist revisionist history rarely every makes a point about the whole system excluding a big chunk of the population that ALSO included women.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    Stephie,

    voting should be restricted to people that actually care about democracy

    Haha, but restricting vote is the opposite to democracy.

    I dont think private companies would survive if the CEO was elected in a popularity contest among the employees.

    Democracy has no chance to put the right people in power.

    The power during the process relies on the media which molding the masses, restricting the choices to “whats hot, what to fear, whats good for the business”. And the media can be bought. After it has molded the public opinion, the voting itself is irrelevant.

    But lets say there was no media to be bought and the process was meritocracy oriented. Every candidate would expose the (real) problems the nation faces, and very real, detailed plans and solutions for these problems.

    Other than putting the audience to sleep, theres zero chance the masses can digest the real problem a nation faces, or can process, elaborate or agree on the solutions.

    Simply put, the less informed audience cant evaluate problems or solutions better than the “expert” that is presenting them. Even in a meritocracy setting, this just becomes a pitch, with “sales” being the important skill.

    But lets say we run such a meritocracy contest and we pick the definitive right person for the job, one who can find the real problems and respond in a way that leads the nation for good so we dont have to worry about it. Whats the point of firing this person after 5 years? wouldnt you think pressing reset on the long term plans of a whole nation every and so often is a bad idea?

    I tell you. The whole system is rigged in a way it will never work, and shows it was never intended to. And the common sense is rigged in a way you are not free to question the system.

  • jess

    steph,
    .
    i know you were linking to morals of the chart, and i am happy to debate that to death BUT my comments here were ONLY about susans original hypothesis.
    .
    I wasnt trying to knock her idea- parts of it I think are likely true.
    .
    re: history,
    .
    in the uk we have people that deny the holocaust. Maybe in a few years we will have people that deny blacks were ever discriminated against. Certainly you appear to say that women were never discriminated against. I was taught the Pankhurst story at school- It hadn’t crossed my mind it was a fiction.
    .
    I must thank you for enlightening me.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I tell you. The whole system is rigged in a way it will never work, and shows it was never intended to. And the common sense is rigged in a way you are not free to question the system.

    Heh posibly. But like Churchill say democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. So its not like we have many choices.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI

    But like Churchill say democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. So its not like we have many choices.

    Classic line, thats how you put Bush in power – oh we dont have that many choices, lets pick between a thieve and a children murderer. Thieve wins, yay!

    Saved my ramble here
    http://yohami.com/blog/2011/07/19/democracy-has-no-chance-to-put-the-right-people-in-power/

  • tito

    maybe the greeks had the right idea

  • 0verlord

    So I personally disagree with him but is an interesting point to raise.

    It is an interesting discussion no doubt, but it wasn’t my point. My point in bringing up suffrage was merely to point out that yes, we in fact have a very good idea of the nature and consequences of patriarchy. :)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    in the uk we have people that deny the holocaust. Maybe in a few years we will have people that deny blacks were ever discriminated against. Certainly you appear to say that women were never discriminated against. I was taught the Pankhurst story at school- It hadn’t crossed my mind it was a fiction

    Logically speaking there is proof of the holocaust. If you do a search of “notable people of color in USA before 20th century” and “notable women in USA before the 20th century”. Then you will have evidence of how many women thrived during the so called patriarchy vs the people of color.
    I’m just denying the idea that before feminism no woman ever accomplished anything because men won’t let them. History has enough data that backs me up.

    Classic line, thats how you put Bush in power – oh we dont have that many choices, lets pick between a thieve and a children murderer. Thieve wins, yay!

    What for of government you propose then?

    My point in bringing up suffrage was merely to point out that yes, we in fact have a very good idea of the nature and consequences of patriarchy

    Except that in this so called Patriarchy women that fit the criteria voted too. So you were just repeating feminist revisionist history.

  • Jess

    Steph,
    I think you will find that there were plenty of notable black men who lived and died before black oppression ended.
    .
    Of course discrimination/oppression is never applied equally. The existance of notable women eg curie, hardly means that discrimination didnt exist?
    .
    This is why we have anti discrimination laws now to protect people and to ensure humans are treated equally. The laws are applied by the courts as required.

  • http://www.yohami.com YOHAMI