samiam
13d ago
“the reported number of partners female claim to have compared to men is lower, but we can normalize for that: around 30% of the men have 70% of the reported female sexual partners, and, likewise, around 30% of the women have 70% of the reported male sexual partners”
As long as there is correlation between the reported number of partners and actual number of partners, there is a pattern that there are about as many promiscuous women as promiscuous men. For 80/20 to be true, we would see just under 80% of men with low partner count and 20% of men with high partner count, but that’s not the pattern we see. 20% or so are virgins, about 50-60% have a handful of lifetime partners, and about 20-30% have a lot of partners. This is true for both women and men.
samiam
13d ago
The argument that people are actually engaging in a certain behavior, but lie when asked about it, is the kind of argument which quickly leads to conspiracy theories. Sure, they could all be lying, but that’s an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
samiam
14d ago
For the “cock carousel” theory to hold water, we would see a pattern of a large number of male virgins and/or men with only 1-2 partners, and a small number of males with a lot of sex partners. We would see women with a more even distribution of sex partners.
That’s not what we see: We see about the same number of male and female virgins, about 60% of the population of men and women have around 3-10 lifetime partners, and about 20 to 30% of both men and women have a lot of sexual partners (the reported number of partners female claim to have compared to men is lower, but we can normalize for that: around 30% of the men have 70% of the reported female sexual partners, and, likewise, around 30% of the women have 70% of the reported male sexual partners).
samiam
14d ago
The mistake David Buss made in the 1990s to 2000s, when he was making a version of the “Alpha Fux Beta Bux” argument (to wit, Buss argued that women frequently cheat on their “beta provider” husbands to have children with “alpha bad boy” men which their husbands pay for) is that genetic testing, at the time, showed a high cuckoldry rate.
More recent and extensive genetic testing has contradicted that notion, showing only a 1-2% cuckoldry rate: Over 98% of the time, a wife’s child is fathered by her husband.
samiam
14d ago
no one's claiming that the women are having children with the alphas
Actually, that is a claim made by “Red Pill” men and has been falsified. One post claims that “Woman’s Nature is to Cheat, Protect Yourself [...] This is the basic meaning of ‘alpha fux beta bux’ and it’s true” (original TRP post).
Going back to the 80/20 argument, it looks like only about 20 to 30% of women are promiscuous, and, likewise, only about 20% to 30% of men are promiscuous, and the most likely explanation is that those 20 to 30% of promiscuous men and women are mainly having sex with each other. So that contradicts the notion of women being generally promiscuous in their 20s and “settling down” in their 30s.
South Korea, Japan, and, yes, Poland have a serious fertility crisis right now. Maybe these women want to be with “chad”,[1] but those women contributing to Poland’s fertility crisis sure seem to complain when men from other countries, i.e. “Passport Bros” come to Poland and get together with them
[1] I have posted on my blog that the notion that 20% of the men are having sex with 80% of the women is not true
the ability to share gossip efficiently about businesses using sites like Yelp is net positive for humanity
Interesting you bring up Yelp. Another posted has already addressed that someone’s personal life is a very different kettle of fish than a business which is open to the public.
But, besides that, there are some key differences between Yelp and the Tea app:
- Yelp makes its reviews public. The Tea app kept its “reviews” of men private, only allowing women to use the app.
- Yelp allows business owners to respond to negative reviews. The Tea app does not allow men on the app at all, much less let them share their side of the story when someone gives them a “negative review”.
- Yelp will disable posting about a business and remove reviews should a given business go viral on social media. The Tea app has no such protections.
samiam
18d ago
The Tea app is/was only available in the US (quote: “the US-based Tea Dating Advice app, which is only available in America”). While still available on Android, removing it from the Apple store greatly reduces its spread because of network effects.
It looks like the Tea app has been pulled from the Apple store. The linked article has a strong bias supporting the existance of this app, but was it a good idea to have this app?
This app is/was, if you ask someone in the blue tribe about it, a safety app to keep women safe. If you ask someone in the red tribe about the app, they will say that men were not allowed to use the app, that the app was used to spread slander about men which the men were not allowed to see, much less respond to (often times female friends of a guy being slandered would let him know what’s going on).
As a lot of readers here probably know, earlier this summer, pictures of some Tea app users were leaked online causing those pictures to be widely shared, including in a torrent file. Someone even briefly had a web app up where people could rate pictures of Tea app users. The blue tribe thought it was a violation of privacy to do that; the red tribe responded by saying that the entire purpose of the Tea app was to violate the privacy of men.
The app was only available in the US; while it was arguably legal there, they didn’t even try to make it available in Europe, where it probably would not had been legal because Europe has much stronger data privacy laws than the US.
For myself, having had a close friend who was slandered in a similar Facebook group, I can not be neutral about this app being pulled from the Apple store: It harmed a lot of men, innocent men in many cases, and the world, in my opinion, is a better place when we don’t let men be slandered this way.
samiam
24d ago
Where there is a tremendous correlation between toxic cancel culture and the feminization of universities, correlation is not necessarily causation. The toxic cancel culture we are seeing could be caused by other factors, such as people interacting online more and in person less: I have observed that getting behind a screen makes people ruder and less pleasant.
Toxic cancel culture is one response to what I call the “troll bait” issue: Certain ideas, which are unpopular with mainstream society, get a certain loud minority all worked up. For example, Super Audio CDs had a small but fanatic userbase who were convinced conventional CDs sounded harsh and digital, but didn’t have any real scientific evidence to back up their assertions. The correct response to bad troll bait ideas is not to shame people for having opinions we don’t like, but to present more facts showing that they are wrong (this is how we kept the SACD article under control, since the evidence showed that people can not distinguish CD quality audio from a wire).
Fellow former liberal here. I also would had been offended by those chats 10 or 15 years ago. These days, I just shrug. When the left wing stopped being about tolerance and acceptance and started being about finding a new group of people to hate (e.g. how the illiberal left hates men who date in other countries[1]) I became a lot more jaded, cynical, and apolitical.
[1] I have a lot of real world female platonic friends, and they all universally support me living in another country and dating women there. The only people in the real world who at all opposed me dating in another country are both men: One straight man and one gay man.
samiam
27d ago
Without reading the article, a line from the original Star Trek comes to mind:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
The article comes off as a typical left-wing shaming Gish gallop:
- It quotes a bunch of things said by alleged right wing people out of context
- It does not examine the context of the quote nor why the writer said the quote, but immediately assumes the worst.
- It makes a long list of these quotes, all of which are done out of context
Without letting other people see the source of these quotes, we are left guessing. And, quite frankly, to give just one example, the mainstream left-wing press was really dishonest when quoting RMS out of context to shame him, either quoting things he hasn’t believed for years to decades, misrepresenting jokes others made about him as something he said or did, quoted something out of context to imply something he never endorsed nor said, etc.
Until we get full context, we can not damn anyone. And we haven’t gotten that context to examine the facts for ourselves.
My quick thought: I don’t think it’s appropriate to have polarizing political views in a work setting, unless the work environment is one with an obvious political agenda. The person who brings up falsehoods about Kyle Rittenhouse was the one who was bringing up an inappropriate topic of conversation here. Saying stuff like that at work is asking for a fight.
Keep in mind that a lot of people, particularly on the right, supported Rittenhouse’s actions, and reading his Wikipedia entry I tend to agree that Rittenhouse was not starting trouble, and was only defending himself.
More options
Context Copy link