Roissy in DC

By Nathalie

Roissy in DC is the blog of an unusually articulate douchebag pickup artist who apparently works in my hometown (which makes me hate him even more).  Roissy's posts are sprinkled with casual misogyny - for instance, he suggests that his male readers attract women by purposefully cutting them down, or "negging" them, as this technique is known in the pick up artist business. But he also takes advantage of male self-loathing. Guys who actually care about their girlfriends' feelings are mocked as second-class "betas," foolish future cuckolds. The only way for a man to protect himself from betrayal by a female is to be a cocksure, cold-hearted "alpha," always on the lookout for his next target.

None of that is unique to Roissy, of course. There's an entire subculture of pickup artists (or PUAs) out there who are all spewing this bullshit. (For a hilarious example of someone aping Roissy's style and failing, check out the blog Elysium Revisited. The PUA author, who tags himself "Sebastian Flyte," clearly didn't pick up on the homosexual subtexts in Brideshead Revisited.) Roissy is one of the more sophisticated of them, certainly. (Part of that is the pseudo-aristocratic tone he affects, but another part is the quality of his writing, which is actually quite high.) But what makes him so unique - and so particularly damaging - is the insidious way he mixes good advice and perceptive observations with totally unwarranted misogynist assertions. For instance, in his most recent post, What To Do When A Girl Starts Crying For No Reason, he writes that the best reaction to a sobbing girlfriend is to remain calm:

Rephrase

By Erica

Nathalie's post on my frustration with research on the evolution of various aspects of sex made me realize that I need to stop being ridiculous.

My post was mainly in jest-- of course I think that all research is important, even if it may not line up with my views. What I should have said is that people should be careful with how the package their research when publishing it, especially if it is on a topic that will be quickly latched onto by the general public (e.g. sex). Because of how evolution data can be so easily warped, we need to tread carefully. That is my more reasoned response.

Sexual Norms and Science Research

By Nathalie

In her last post, Erica argues that we shouldn't research the evolutionary origins of the female orgasm because usually research on sex and evolution is used to support a limited view of human sexuality.

Thinking of sex in terms to evolution turns it into a bizarrely practical act, giving people an easy way to discriminate against any sexual practice that isn't normative.

But it's a terrible plan to seal off a certain topic simply because it might support an argument you disagree with. That's absolutely contrary to the spirit of scientific research as I understand it. I'm a little surprised that, as a scientific researcher yourself, you would advocate this, Erica.

Are you arguing that these discussions aren't very important anyway, so they just don't have a purpose beyond supporting discrimination? Because I don't agree with that. Overall, there's a dearth of information on the female genitalia and how they function. For instance, scientists still don't know where female ejaculate is stored prior to expulsion. In this context, it seems unwise to proclaim any aspect of research on female sexuality un-useful or off-limits.

No, let's talk about it: Evolution and Sex today

By Erica

In her post on the evolution of the female orgasm, Sarah wrote:

"What I still refuse is to seriously consider arguments based on these theories about what sex should be like today. (Ah, evolutionary morality--a topic for another post. And perhaps a different blog?)"

But I think this is a really relevant point. When a discussion about evolution enters into the picture, people inevitably take it in the wrong direction. In fact, whenever anything rooted in biology comes into the picture, things go wrong. This even haunts me in my academic pursuits (oh nativism, why won't you die).

In terms of the biological bases of sex, it could, of course, be argued that sex exists evolutionarily because we need to reproduce. Thus, homosexuality is unnatural. In terms of the female body, you could say that the female orgasm exists to help with procreation (see the uptake theory), and thus it should only happen during vaginal sex. Thinking of sex in terms to evolution turns it into a bizarrely practical act, giving people an easy way to discriminate against any sexual practice that isn't normative.

Do we even need to look at why the female orgasm is? Can't we just be happy it exists and move on? No good can come of this.

Another Reason to be a Coke Drinker

By Nathalie

Pepsi's new "Amp Up... Before You Score" iPhone app, released to promote its new Amp energy drink, offers specially targeted tips for hitting on 24 [stereo]types of women. If she's a "treehugger," for instance, the app will help you find a vegan restaurant nearby. If she's a "scary" punk rock chick, it will provide you with Cliffs Notes on the Dead Kennedys so that you can fool her into thinking you're worth taking to bed. Then when it's over, you can twitter news of your conquest to all of your douchebag friends. Now that's synergy!



You know what I wish someone would invent? An iPhone app that reduces sperm count. They could stick a coupon for free downloads on every can of Amp energy drink and thereby ensure that the U.S. douchebag population remains at a manageable level for generations to come. Nobel Prizes have been awarded for less.

Jezebel: Pepsi Releases iPhone to Help Men "Score"And Brag About It On Twitter

Lessons, Hidden in the Female Body

by Sarah

I found this book review on aldaily and thought the topic of the evolutionary origins of the female orgasm and menstruation was just too provocative to pass up.

The review covers two books, but the main focus is on Woman: An Intimate Geography by Natalie Angier, which was published ten years ago in the US but just recently in Australia, and it's from that book that the ideas below are drawn.

Three theories are put forward as to the origins of the female orgasm:

1. byproduct theory
nipples:men::clitoris:women

2. vestigal theory
our female ancestors used orgasms as female bonobos do today

3. upsuck theory
our female ancestors had multiple sexual partners
via 'upsuck,' an orgasm increases the chance of fertilization by 'preferred' partners

Only one theory is given for the origins of menstruation, and while it's quickly discredited by the reviewer, it's interesting nevertheless:

1. promiscuous primate theory
our female ancestors had multiple sexual partners per cycle, and menstruation served as a defense against sperm born pathogens

Angier was particularly taken with this theory of menstruation because it treated menstruation as a positive adaptation, rather than as an unfortunate reality that comes part and parcel with other more beneficial traits. Or, in the more helpful words of the reviewer, the theory avoids the traditional approach of viewing menstruation as "disease rather than design."

And here something suddenly struck me. Now, perhaps saying this is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, but most women would, I think, take orgasms over menstruation--not in the sense that they'd like endless pleasure and infertility, but that, in any given moment, an orgasm is preferable to being on your period. In the past I've tended somewhat unthinkingly to reject theories which explained the evolution of the female orgasm in such a way that female pleasure is unimportant to reproduction. Yet in the case of menstruation (not that I hold it less dear, but...) this desire to give natural selection a feminist slant clearly struck me as a pigheaded approach.

So I stand corrected, and open to any explanations of the female orgasm you care to put forward and which I don't have other unconscious biases against. What I still refuse is to seriously consider arguments based on these theories about what sex should be like today. (Ah, evolutionary morality--a topic for another post. And perhaps a different blog?)

I also now see the point that given how much discussion there is about the female orgasm, a good deal more thought could be put into explaining the evolution of the less sexy aspects (excuse the pun) of the female body...

And finally, I suddenly have this vague suspicion that all this obsession with the female orgasm may be somewhat related to the reduction of women to sex objects. Oh dear. Someone help me out here.

Gender Inequality and the Recession: Example Fail

By Nathalie

Erica: Gender Inequality and the Recession

It seems to me that you're more incensed about the "tough titties" comment than you are about the gender gap revealed by the recession, Erica. So let me deal with that first.  Earlier on in the comment in question, the author wrote:

Here's an observation: last night I watched MNF [Monday Night Football]. Many players were wearing pink attire to help the cause of raising money/awareness for breast cancer in women. Fine by me. But can anyone think of an example of a similar event in which women wear clothing\colors\ribbons\whatever to help men? I cannot.

It seems like the comment about "tough titties" was a comment on this supposed female callousness towards men. You'll never see a women's sports team at "a similar event" wear blue attire to raise money for testicular cancer! What now, feminism? Gotcha there!

The problem with this comment is that for women's sports teams, there is no event "similar" to Monday Night Football. A women's team who supported testicular cancer charities could bring them neither visibility or money, because unlike men's teams, women's teams have neither. This is another area in which women are at a disadvantage to men.  So this guy's argument is undone by the very problems that he's trying to convince us to ignore. (Example fail!)

That said, it's a good idea for we feminists to keep in mind how our ideas impact men, especially young men. Paul made a good point in his comment on the happiness posts that men don't see all the fruits of their privilege - status, money, power - until they are much older than we are now. This may be part of why so many young men disbelieve in their advantage over us, and why they are threatened by our attempts to gain parity.

This doesn't excuse this guy's comment about our titties, of course. But it does offer some hope for the future. Maybe by the time we have to argue with the men of this generation about who has to pick up the kids from day care - scarily, that's probably a decade or less down the road - they'll feel safe and secure enough to own up to their advantages. I, for one, am crossing my fingers.