Stupid manospherian “statistic” strikes again (more on us dirty, unfair women)

Gotta take issue with something Eric Orwoll said in a video he posted on youtube 6 days ago. Was a little over 9 minutes into it tonight when he decided to mark it (and his latest one as well) private, the segment I’m concerned with occurring right before that premature stopping point.

Eric brought up this weird and unsubstantiated claim that keeps circulating throughout the online “manosphere,” that being the notion that women are all vying for the supposed “top 20%” of males and largely neglecting the rest. On what planet is that occurring? I’ve heard this claim  broken down by others where they’re suggesting that the “top” men in whatever hierarchy we’re talking about here (some say it’s about good looks, others say it’s more about money, and Eric claimed it’s about how healthy these men are perceived as being…) have sexual access to ALL women basically. And we womenfolk are competing with one another to get at them and just ignoring the other 80% of men along the way. Bullshit. That doesn’t remotely comport with reality.

People can’t even agree on whom the “top” men supposedly are. If it’s about money primarily, then health and good looks aren’t as important. And if it’s about personal health then high socioeconomic status isn’t terribly important. And how does one go about sensing someone is the healthiest specimen among male humans?  lol  Big muscles? Steroids can contribute to that, which isn’t considered terribly healthy. Smooth skin? Lots of over-the-counter products aid a person there, as does plain ol’ soap and water. Furthermore, there are all kinds of attractive people out there who can be harboring genetic disorders or STDs (especially if they’re fucking all the womenfolk) or turn out to have nasty personalities, etc. Someone can be beautiful today and a couch potato by next year. I realize that we humans place a lot of value in aesthetics, especially now since popular media has successfully tuned everybody in to being hyper-conscious of appearances, but that still doesn’t necessarily tell us a whole lot about a person’s actual health.

Is an attractive, physically fit man bound to be endowed with more sexual stamina? Often enough, but not always.

Is this about sex or about status? Because I can’t even get at this topic when it’s framed in contradictory ways depending on whom you ask. Are people getting upset because women are attracted toward highly attractive men? Or are they getting upset because they think women are just chasing money? Or is it simply because we’re inclined to be “promiscuous” in general, just not so much with the complainants? Are guys getting mad because they see (or just assume) other men are having more sex than them with a wider variety of women, to where this boils down to a concern over fairness?  LOL  I really want to know, because I hear the complaints coming in from all sorts of directions and all can’t be on the mark when they conflict.

I don’t know these women who are vying to sleep with the supposed “top 20%” of men. Maybe that’s due to me not living in California, but many of us date and marry within our own socioeconomic class. I did and damn-near everybody who springs to my mind did so as well. Do gold-diggers exist? Sure they do, but they’re not the vast majority of women obviously.

This stupid claim that keeps circulating is basically stating that 1 in 5 men get all the pussy and the other 4 out of 5 are left alone to masturbate for the most part. Bullshit. Come out here and ask people. I know tons of non-high-status males who’ve had hundreds of sexual partners, some of whom aren’t terribly attractive (IMO) nor necessarily all that healthy (unless smoking, drinking and drugging somehow is excluded from this assessment). And I know plenty of average-looking men who turned out pretty satisfied with their sex lives despite not racking up dozens and dozens of notches on their bedposts (and many of them have turned down sexual advances from women, so they know they could’ve gotten laid more had they wanted to do so).

This is just rubbish — the kind of junk statistics that cause me to not take statistics too seriously anymore, especially when bandied about online. We all know the joke: 68.7% of statistics are made up on the spot. Or pulled out of the ass of ideologues trying to sway others toward accepting some insane paradigm that defies experiential reality.

Does he really imagine 20% of men are just lazing around, getting their dicks wet around the clock by huge volumes of women? Because that sounds like a full-time job for a man to have to sexually service all of womankind.

I’d be more inclined to believe that there’s approximately 20% (1 in 5 or perhaps fewer) men who don’t receive much sexual action due to a number of factors which might include: poor personal hygiene, morbid obesity, severe physical disabilities, highly unattractive, shitty and/or antagonistic social skills, exhibiting general disdain for women, etc.

And in that portion of the video I saw, Eric disparaged women for behaving “promiscuously,” stating it is too easy for us. Oookay. Well, yeah, as a female it isn’t hard to get laid, though getting laid well is another story. But what’s the beef here?  What’s the real concern? That some men are getting laid more than others? That sex isn’t being distributed fairly across the male population? Fair by what standard? Are all men entitled to sex with women? Are men entitled to sex with women of their own choosing? Well, it takes two to tango and women aren’t property to be passed around or designated as belonging solely to this man or that man. Those days are ending. Kiss the Abrahamic traditions goodbye.

We all are out here trying to meet people we can connect with on whatever levels. Is this about jealousy because women have an easier time of getting laid than men generally do? Well, not all imbalances between the sexes can be made even and across-the-board equal. I don’t have the level of access Pamela Lee had (and still has), because I don’t look anything like her. Do I blame her for that fact of life? No, I work with those I’m attracted toward who are attracted to me and are more my speed. In a country with millions and millions of people, there’s all sorts of variety out here and countless connections that can be made. Some guys I’ve slept with were more physically attractive than me, but most were as attractive or less attractive. That’s just the way life goes. I don’t see the big deal.

Is it really suffering for a man to recognize he’s had fewer sexual exploits than the next guy, or worse, the next gal?

How fucking shallow have we become? Have we always been this trifling?

Besides, word to the wise: If men are wishing for more sexual access to a wider variety of women, that pretty much requires us females to be more sexually active, which then gets us labeled as “promiscuous” sluts for doing so. It’s a no-win situation for females. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I personally chose to go ahead and explore my sexuality as I saw fit and don’t regret doing so. The men I’ve been intimate with range across the scale in terms of socioeconomic class, looks, and personal health — excepting the extreme ends. Haven’t had sex with a homeless man found on the street, nor have I had sex with a millionaire, but have had plenty of sex with those in between. Can’t say I’m unhappy about that either. But not all sex is created equal, which a lot of guys just don’t seem to grasp. But whatever.

This is one area in Eric’s philosophy that’s troubled me for a while, having picked up on hints of it in his videos before now. He judges the “promiscuous” woman, and I wonder what it is he thinks can be done about that. He’s turned toward Christianity and speaks of people like himself being smarter and more competent to lead others. If I am to be honest here, he’s demonstrating himself to be very un-Christ-like. Jesus had no trouble hanging out with prostitutes, and he famously stood up for one about to be stoned. And yet today (and for at least the last 1500 years), practically everybody who calls themselves Christians immediately condemn the “whorish” woman. Why? Is that not supreme hypocrisy? Do people learn nothing? Does that not fly directly in the face of the very teachings one claims to be embracing? Guess that depends on what parts of the Bible one chooses to focus on…

This topic does kinda irritate me a bit. The first part above is just insane, fool-hardy, ignoring reality. The second part condemning the “promiscuous” woman is disheartening, because I still cannot understand why these double-standards must persist. A man takes 100 or 1,000 female lovers and we consider him great — a woman does the same and we call her abominable. But who do you think these men are sleeping with? Women, folks — they are sleeping with women. (Unless they’re gay.) Goes back to that “takes two to tango” business. Yet people want to hold us down, keep us in some designated place, telling us standards have to remain as so. Why? Because people fear female sexuality let off its leash? Well, welcome to modern life. Better get used to it. Genie’s out of the bottle by this point in time.


Update the next day: I recalled today where this baseless “statistic” sprang from originally. It is said to have came from the dating site OKCupid and supposedly indicated how women interacted with men on that particular site. Yet people have taken these results of one dating site and extrapolated that as if it’s indicative of gender relations across all of society and, indeed, even across all societies, as if this data is truly representative of the population as a whole. lol  Now, I used to be a member on OKCupid several years ago when it had all sorts of quizzes and was in its younger years, and just like a lot of other dating sites, many males preferred not to post up their photos. You think that has no bearing on the amount of responses one receives at such a site? Of course it does. Beyond that, the common demographic patronizing sites like that tend to be pretty young and savvy (naive?) enough to be using dating sites to seek out dating partners, so this is not a sampling of the general population by any means. There are plenty of young people who shun dating sites and quite a lot of older folks who do so as well. I personally can’t stand internet dating sites and grew weary with them by my mid-20s because they’re nutty places to try to meet people. Those I have met in person from dating sites all proved to be extremely incompatible, and I’ve read a study or two about how poorly people tend to select for compatible partners on dating sites, which was the final straw for me since those findings struck me as quite accurate in that respect.

It’s amazing what qualifies as a share-worthy “statistics” these days. People rarely look into the methodology used or the sampling size or the key demographics involved before they go running through the hills, spreading misinformation. OKCupid is about as far from a reputable research institute as one can get.  LOL  They posted up casual findings relevant to their own site and that’s it, and it’s intended to be taken as just that. I don’t believe they even promote such data as being anything more than that. So, I take it that a bunch of young, disgruntled guys with poor success on such a site, possessing no training in evaluating statistical information, stumbled across these casual findings relevant to this one site and then just misunderstood it as somehow being applicable across all demographics and all of society, then spread it with that misinformed understanding skewing their grasp of the data. Then someone like Eric Orwoll comes along and mistakenly repeats it as well, which is kinda sad considering how he strives at being more reasonable, logical, rational, and better-informed than the majority out here. That’s not to crack on him since I do generally appreciate his videos and output, but this was undeniably a big oversight on his behalf that deserves to be pointed out.

Just goes to show how all of us are prone to fallibility and can and do make errors in judgment and how we can accept false or insufficient information that conforms to what we want to believe without taking the time to delve into where the information came from and how it was collected and what sampling it actually pertained to. People love to embrace that which confirms the biases we already harbor, and that’s where we always get into trouble and wind up confusing matters worse over time. This is an excellent case-in-point that demonstrates that to a tee. Feminists have been shown as falling for this trap, and now we see others who aim to counter feminism succumbing to the same mistake in judgment.

Tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Stupid manospherian “statistic” strikes again (more on us dirty, unfair women)

  1. vklaatu says:

    We’re better off ignoring dip-shits like this guy, just like we’re better off ignoring the looney radfems like Diana Boston.

    • Byenia says:

      Diana Boston hasn’t contributed anything of value, from what I’ve watched and read from her so far. But Eric Orwoll isn’t on her level. Totally separate and incomparable, IMO. He’s a deep thinker, normally anyway. Not sure why he parroted that fairly popular manospherian meme… Maybe his fresh embracement of Christianity has something to do with that? *shrugs*

      But he’s certainly no Diana Boston. The man deserves more credit than that, IMO. Unless this is indicative of his train leaving the tracks, but he’s been through a lot this past year. Personal matters he mentioned in a video a couple months back. Maybe he’s just feeling a little crazy right now, which honestly is understandable. I’m not mad at the guy — just tired of that stupid “statistic” circulating and pretty shocked that he too was perpetuating it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.