D
Deleted member 8771
Gold
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2020
- Posts
- 787
- Reputation
- 1,692
So the equivalent of The New York Time, Le Monde just published an article on female hypergamy and it's consequences and how civilization was only built on monogamy, i agree with most of the article except the conclusion where the author wishes to turn all of us into Herbivore Men.
Here is the original article https://www.lemonde.fr/m-perso/arti...nheur-des-exclus-du-sexe_6074710_4497916.html
And here is the translation (with DeepL)
Who will make the "excluded" of sex happy?
Maïa Mazaurette
80% of men are said to arouse little or no interest in women... This terrible fact questions society as a whole, explains "La Matinale" columnist Maïa Mazaurette.
Once a month, our columnist answers your questions about sexuality. You can ask her directly at the following email address: sosmaia@lemonde.fr. Your anonymity is guaranteed.
SEX ACCORDING TO MAÏA
According to German biologist Meike Stoverock, 80% of women are sexually attracted to 20% of men. You were spending a Sunday filled with joy and serenity? I am sorry for your loss. Since the publication of her essay Female Choice by Tropen (February 2021, 352 pages, in German only), the researcher has been firing on all cylinders: she defends her thesis in the pages of the German press (Die Zeit, Der Tagesspiegel, Der Standard, Deutschlandfunk Kultur radio), answers readers' questions on her website, and is beginning to make a name for herself in English (For Better Science).
80% of undesirable men, therefore. A figure very close to the one put forward by Professor Mark Regnerus, in 2017, in his book Cheap Sex (Oxford University Press): 20% of men aged 25 to 50 years arouse the interest of 70% of women. Shall we push the nail in? Come on! In 2009, the dating site OkCupid revealed that women find 80% of men "unattractive" (a study so controversial that it had to be removed from the Internet, but the site TechCrunch kept track of it). For those of you who ask: as far as we know, you can't turn the equation around. Men are less selective than women (but that's not the point of this column).
Did you just hear a thud? It's normal, it's the foundations of our love mythology that just crashed down your building. Just like our favorite mantras: "every person has a soul mate somewhere", "nature is well made", "everyone always finds the right match".
Availability of men, selectivity of women
Let's go back to Meike Stoverock, since she is the one in the news. According to her work, the standard functioning of the human species (and of most animal species) opposes the availability of men and the selectivity of women (they propose, they dispose). Partnerships are formed for three or four years, the time it takes to ensure gestation and the first bouncing of a child. This duration is still observable today: it is that of the desire of the women for their partner. Their libido then goes elsewhere. If the monogamous framework prevents them from acting out, then their libido goes dormant - even if, of course, other reasons may cause their desire to wane. (Does this sound awfully familiar?)
When mankind settled down 10,000 years ago, if society had been organized around women's desire, community life would have become untenable: how can you avoid violence when three out of four men are frustrated? (A little clarification: Meike Stoverock justifies this assertion by the drop in testosterone in the blood after sex - but this observation has been scientifically very much disputed. According to her, if you take away access to sex, testosterone builds up, thus violence. I'll leave it to the endocrinologists to debate).
To avoid chaos, most civilizations would then have invented the modalities of a "redistribution" of access to sexuality: a man will be entitled to a woman. Reproduction then ceases to resemble a poker game where the winner takes all. Welcome to the world of monogamy, literally based on the domestication of female desire: this desire must only be expressed at home.
This domestication is done willingly or by force. There are soft strategies, such as romance: much more targeted by the imagination of fairy tales, women are encouraged to desire "one man, one man only, forever", whom they will marry on the "happiest day of their lives". And then there are harsh strategies, such as excision (the organ of pleasure is removed), marital duty (whose application is currently controversial) or slut shaming (which calls to order women who express their desire outside of conjugality).
For Meike Stoverock, the oppression of women is not an unfortunate side effect of our civilization: it is the foundation of it. It is thanks to the control of women that men, freed from sexual competition, recover their available brain time - a time put at the service of the invention of writing, technology or science.
This oppression is obviously no longer acceptable - neither for the biologist nor for the columnist. Emancipated (work in progress), women claim their right to choose. Not only on dating apps, but also through the increase in the number of divorces (of which we know that they are mostly the instigators) and their "withdrawal" from conjugal sexuality (finally free to say no to their spouse, but not yet really free to go elsewhere, their libido is put in brackets).
Women's bodies can be domesticated, not their libido
This theory is not entirely new. Back in 2014, New York Magazine reported that women are not cut out for monogamy (the article is here). In it, we learned that, according to research by Drs. Aaron E. Carroll and Rachel C. Vreeman, the decline of marital sexuality is not due to a lower female libido, but to the fact that the female libido is not made to express itself in a couple. Hence a paradox: men have indeed invented a societal structure that ensures a "sexual minimum for all", but this minimum does not guarantee them the desire of women. Only sexual relations. Let me clarify: we can domesticate women's bodies, but not their libido. They will perhaps force themselves, by marital obligation or by tenderness, to sleep with their spouse. But thinking about something else.
And now, what do we do? If monogamy continues to crumble, most men will find themselves under sexual stress. But it is not entirely certain that all men will be able to live up to Albert Camus' famous phrase (in The First Man): "A man is prevented".
The incel minority (those "involuntary bachelors" who are behind several terrorist attacks against women), the aggressiveness of the manosphere (masculinist militancy) and rape culture put women at immediate risk of violence. The feminicide count shows us week after week that some men would rather kill their partner than lose the one they perceive as their property. On March 16, in Atlanta, a young man opened fire in three massage parlors. Eight people died, including six Asian women. In the alleged perpetrator's own words, the killing was prompted by his "sexual addiction" (in the context of rising attacks on Asians across the Atlantic).
To avoid the proliferation of gender-based violence, Meike Stoverock proposes three equally explosive avenues: increasing the use of pornography (whose production should be reformed), liberalizing prostitution (men should give up the idea that unwanted sexual services are free), and changing representations to allow those "excluded" from sexuality to live with dignity. In an interview given on February 20 to the German weekly Die Zeit, the researcher explains that "men [unwanted by women] should not necessarily be considered pathetic or pathetic. If we look at the animal world, the male who cannot find a partner is the normal case. The alpha male who has no problem reproducing is an exception. "
Is dignity compatible with "sexual misery" (I put in quotes, since all sexual misery can be solved by masturbation)? It would be necessary to be able to turn the equation around: can success be decorrelated from the access to women's bodies? The #metoo movement proves, scandal after scandal, that some men of power use their position of social domination to reinforce a sexual domination. As long as they set this kind of example, we must fear the repercussions of sexual exclusion on both the well-being of men (loneliness, depression) and the safety of women (from street harassment to murder).
In 1994, Michel Houellebecq noted "the extension of the domain of struggle" in access to sexuality. He described the humiliation of men excluded by the cynicism of an increasingly brutal love "market". In 2006, Virginie Despentes dedicated her King Kong Théorie to the "excluded women of the good girl market". But this time, the point of view was quite different: the author made this exclusion a reason for power - without seduction, without male gaze, one was not so bad after all.
We are in 2021. And we are logically waiting for the next step: an essay that would allow the "excluded from the alpha male market" to recover their pride by reinventing the rules of sex and love.
Here is the original article https://www.lemonde.fr/m-perso/arti...nheur-des-exclus-du-sexe_6074710_4497916.html
And here is the translation (with DeepL)
Who will make the "excluded" of sex happy?
Maïa Mazaurette
80% of men are said to arouse little or no interest in women... This terrible fact questions society as a whole, explains "La Matinale" columnist Maïa Mazaurette.
Once a month, our columnist answers your questions about sexuality. You can ask her directly at the following email address: sosmaia@lemonde.fr. Your anonymity is guaranteed.
SEX ACCORDING TO MAÏA
According to German biologist Meike Stoverock, 80% of women are sexually attracted to 20% of men. You were spending a Sunday filled with joy and serenity? I am sorry for your loss. Since the publication of her essay Female Choice by Tropen (February 2021, 352 pages, in German only), the researcher has been firing on all cylinders: she defends her thesis in the pages of the German press (Die Zeit, Der Tagesspiegel, Der Standard, Deutschlandfunk Kultur radio), answers readers' questions on her website, and is beginning to make a name for herself in English (For Better Science).
80% of undesirable men, therefore. A figure very close to the one put forward by Professor Mark Regnerus, in 2017, in his book Cheap Sex (Oxford University Press): 20% of men aged 25 to 50 years arouse the interest of 70% of women. Shall we push the nail in? Come on! In 2009, the dating site OkCupid revealed that women find 80% of men "unattractive" (a study so controversial that it had to be removed from the Internet, but the site TechCrunch kept track of it). For those of you who ask: as far as we know, you can't turn the equation around. Men are less selective than women (but that's not the point of this column).
Did you just hear a thud? It's normal, it's the foundations of our love mythology that just crashed down your building. Just like our favorite mantras: "every person has a soul mate somewhere", "nature is well made", "everyone always finds the right match".
Availability of men, selectivity of women
Let's go back to Meike Stoverock, since she is the one in the news. According to her work, the standard functioning of the human species (and of most animal species) opposes the availability of men and the selectivity of women (they propose, they dispose). Partnerships are formed for three or four years, the time it takes to ensure gestation and the first bouncing of a child. This duration is still observable today: it is that of the desire of the women for their partner. Their libido then goes elsewhere. If the monogamous framework prevents them from acting out, then their libido goes dormant - even if, of course, other reasons may cause their desire to wane. (Does this sound awfully familiar?)
When mankind settled down 10,000 years ago, if society had been organized around women's desire, community life would have become untenable: how can you avoid violence when three out of four men are frustrated? (A little clarification: Meike Stoverock justifies this assertion by the drop in testosterone in the blood after sex - but this observation has been scientifically very much disputed. According to her, if you take away access to sex, testosterone builds up, thus violence. I'll leave it to the endocrinologists to debate).
To avoid chaos, most civilizations would then have invented the modalities of a "redistribution" of access to sexuality: a man will be entitled to a woman. Reproduction then ceases to resemble a poker game where the winner takes all. Welcome to the world of monogamy, literally based on the domestication of female desire: this desire must only be expressed at home.
This domestication is done willingly or by force. There are soft strategies, such as romance: much more targeted by the imagination of fairy tales, women are encouraged to desire "one man, one man only, forever", whom they will marry on the "happiest day of their lives". And then there are harsh strategies, such as excision (the organ of pleasure is removed), marital duty (whose application is currently controversial) or slut shaming (which calls to order women who express their desire outside of conjugality).
For Meike Stoverock, the oppression of women is not an unfortunate side effect of our civilization: it is the foundation of it. It is thanks to the control of women that men, freed from sexual competition, recover their available brain time - a time put at the service of the invention of writing, technology or science.
This oppression is obviously no longer acceptable - neither for the biologist nor for the columnist. Emancipated (work in progress), women claim their right to choose. Not only on dating apps, but also through the increase in the number of divorces (of which we know that they are mostly the instigators) and their "withdrawal" from conjugal sexuality (finally free to say no to their spouse, but not yet really free to go elsewhere, their libido is put in brackets).
Women's bodies can be domesticated, not their libido
This theory is not entirely new. Back in 2014, New York Magazine reported that women are not cut out for monogamy (the article is here). In it, we learned that, according to research by Drs. Aaron E. Carroll and Rachel C. Vreeman, the decline of marital sexuality is not due to a lower female libido, but to the fact that the female libido is not made to express itself in a couple. Hence a paradox: men have indeed invented a societal structure that ensures a "sexual minimum for all", but this minimum does not guarantee them the desire of women. Only sexual relations. Let me clarify: we can domesticate women's bodies, but not their libido. They will perhaps force themselves, by marital obligation or by tenderness, to sleep with their spouse. But thinking about something else.
And now, what do we do? If monogamy continues to crumble, most men will find themselves under sexual stress. But it is not entirely certain that all men will be able to live up to Albert Camus' famous phrase (in The First Man): "A man is prevented".
The incel minority (those "involuntary bachelors" who are behind several terrorist attacks against women), the aggressiveness of the manosphere (masculinist militancy) and rape culture put women at immediate risk of violence. The feminicide count shows us week after week that some men would rather kill their partner than lose the one they perceive as their property. On March 16, in Atlanta, a young man opened fire in three massage parlors. Eight people died, including six Asian women. In the alleged perpetrator's own words, the killing was prompted by his "sexual addiction" (in the context of rising attacks on Asians across the Atlantic).
To avoid the proliferation of gender-based violence, Meike Stoverock proposes three equally explosive avenues: increasing the use of pornography (whose production should be reformed), liberalizing prostitution (men should give up the idea that unwanted sexual services are free), and changing representations to allow those "excluded" from sexuality to live with dignity. In an interview given on February 20 to the German weekly Die Zeit, the researcher explains that "men [unwanted by women] should not necessarily be considered pathetic or pathetic. If we look at the animal world, the male who cannot find a partner is the normal case. The alpha male who has no problem reproducing is an exception. "
Is dignity compatible with "sexual misery" (I put in quotes, since all sexual misery can be solved by masturbation)? It would be necessary to be able to turn the equation around: can success be decorrelated from the access to women's bodies? The #metoo movement proves, scandal after scandal, that some men of power use their position of social domination to reinforce a sexual domination. As long as they set this kind of example, we must fear the repercussions of sexual exclusion on both the well-being of men (loneliness, depression) and the safety of women (from street harassment to murder).
In 1994, Michel Houellebecq noted "the extension of the domain of struggle" in access to sexuality. He described the humiliation of men excluded by the cynicism of an increasingly brutal love "market". In 2006, Virginie Despentes dedicated her King Kong Théorie to the "excluded women of the good girl market". But this time, the point of view was quite different: the author made this exclusion a reason for power - without seduction, without male gaze, one was not so bad after all.
We are in 2021. And we are logically waiting for the next step: an essay that would allow the "excluded from the alpha male market" to recover their pride by reinventing the rules of sex and love.
