Monday, January 23, 2012

A Roissy by any other name

Today Roissy (look, if I start writing "Heartiste, the artist formerly known as Roissy", the next time I step onto the field I'll have to expect the divine justice I receive when someone inevitably drubs my faggy ass!) wrote on the comparability of benefits received from marriage and long-term cohabitation, pointing to a previous post here as evidence of what happens when that comparability is ignored. My response follows.

---

My man,

I realize you’re making a rhetorical point, and I even appreciate a little condescension because it points a lot of your readers my way, but I’m certainly aware of your concerns re: the GSS. Here’s the brief post preceding the one you linked to, in response to the assertion that marriage means, as you so eloquently phrase it, “crossed arms and clamped pussies”:

In aggregate, of course, married men get more sex than unmarried men do. But that’s because the latter category is dragged down by men who are unattractive or uninterested in women.

What about those guys who are able to successfully play the field? In addition to variety, do they also enjoy greater frequency? Among those aged 22-36, sexual frequency for married men (4.15) is marginally higher than it is for unmarried men who have racked up double-digit counts (4.10).

Getting married will tend to net you about the same amount of snatch time as a go getter gets. The treasure chest won’t be clamped shut, though your prize won’t glitter as much.

GSS variables used: YEAR(2000-2008), AGE(22-36), SEX(1), MARITAL(1)(2-5), NUMWOMEN(10-250)

I don’t have a dog in the fight, I just like rummaging through the data. But if, instead of writing primarily for and to the benefit of silver-tongued alphas as you do, we think of the above as being relevant to a broader and presumably majority-beta audience, the point that marriage (or long-term commitment, if you prefer–marriage just happens to be the only reliably way to track it in broad-based social surveys of which the GSS is the best of the best) does generally offer men who aren’t adept at playing the field a tolerable sexual lifestyle is at least worth considering.

Your filter, and your subsequent reactions to the things that come in through it, aren’t universally productive upon reception, even if they are perfectly valid for your target audience. By way of analogy, you’re like the entrepreneur who offers tips for the self-employed to make them more successful in their ventures while simultaneously belittling the poor suckers who go work for someone else. But a lot of those corporate cogs don’t have what it takes to run their own businesses and, despite your best advice, are staring down economic ruin if they go the route you prescribe. Many of them will be better off working for someone else. As someone who is grounded in the realities of HBD, it’s difficult for me to conceive it being otherwise.

8 comments:

Dr. Anonymous said...

Marriage also benefits corporate climbers, expanding client networks and those running for office. By having a faithful wife and kids, its hard for detractors to use the homosexual card.

Still the point remains, I've never seen a politician or CEO who was a successful "bachelor", unless he was a closet/open homosexual who did a lot of cocaine. There's always other ways to be alpha even when married, such as mistress/maids or remarrying every 5-10 years till you have a trophy wife.

It's also a vapid existence... living a player's lifestyle. The emotional and intellectual fulfillment isn't there, since end result is a hedonistic gorgefest and only low IQs tend to only be solely content on satisfying their physical desires.

Quality always beats quantity.

John said...

Face it guys, there are some men that women just like better than others. If you're not one of the men that women are particularly attracted to, you are not going to get that many women, no matter how much game advise you get. Not everyone can be a singer, not everyone can be a physicist, and not everyone can be a player.

For the rest of us mortals, marriage is the best ticket to happiness. And, if you want to have kids, you really should get married.

Jokah Macpherson said...

I'm not sure why Roissy singled your post out (other than maybe well-disguised admiration) since it doesn't really run counter to his argument that cohabitation is better than marriage. I'm of the opinion that there is no functional difference between the two, especially if all the other factors indicate a separation is unlikely. I know some bloggers have justly criticized the way men are treated in divorces but these are outliers and having shared living arrangements, even in the absence of a binding contract, doesn't exactly make for a clean smooth break if needed.

I'm pretty sure Roissy would agree with your assertion that unattractive men are better off not spending their days trying to play the field (but rather at the very least leaning towards serial monogamy with the best they can get) and that the only point on which you would diverage is the potential of a man to improve his attractiveness through deliberate action and behaviors.

spandrell said...

Well Roissy himself said that big part of being an alpha was "unreasonable self-confidence".
And thats what he's selling. If people fail after following his advice he can always dismiss it as 'natural selection'. Biomechanics is god and all that.

Anonymous said...

Hi Audacious Epigone,

My name is Kyle, and I'm currently finishing my undergrad at the University of California, Santa Barbara. I love your site, and its about time I give back.

The company I intern for hosts a blog comparison, and I’d enjoy the opportunity to add you to it for free. You’re work is great!

http://blog.findthebest.com

Benefits:

2 links to your site
Links to your social media i.e. Twitter, Facebook, Google+
The listing are search engine friendly (please inquire!)
Space to describe your blog and self
The attention of a cross section of our over 3 million users per month



Lastly, I value your opinion and would appreciate it if you gave our “.org” 2012 US Candidates Comparison a look. Keeping up with all the election back and forth is tough business. We are here to insure people fulfill their civic duty quickly and easily!

http://2012-presidential-candidates.findthedata.org

Thanks again for having a helpful blog!

-Kyle

Q said...

There's something rather pitiful and unmasculine about a monomaniacal obsession with getting laid. "Alpha" is a poor choice of terms for such people.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jokah,

Very well summarized. Better than I could've done myself.

Senor Anon said...

"By way of analogy, you’re like the entrepreneur who offers tips for the self-employed to make them more successful in their ventures while simultaneously belittling the poor suckers who go work for someone else. But a lot of those corporate cogs don’t have what it takes to run their own businesses and, despite your best advice, are staring down economic ruin if they go the route you prescribe. Many of them will be better off working for someone else. As someone who is grounded in the realities of HBD, it’s difficult for me to conceive it being otherwise."

I'll add two more points to this analogy. The poor suckers, whom most will be, will have every reason to keep their failures to themselves. The future prospect will be trying to reason with very imperfect information to say the least.

The second point is about how the failures who do speak up are treated. In that a darker analogy is needed: Roissy behaves like a pyramid schemer. He heaps abuse on the men for failing at something that only a small minority of those seeking help could ever be successful with.
I wouldn't be surprised if, like is notoriously the case with pyramid scheme victims, some of these men blame themselves for not being dedicated enough, etc.