Recently, the New York Times ran an article about ‘sex on campus’ at the University of Pennsylvania. Remarkably, the article is honest – it simply reports as it observes. No surprise then that its observations mirror those of the manosphere. What little delusional content there is comes from the female interviewees themselves.
Until recently, those who studied the rise of hookup culture had generally assumed that it was driven by men, and that women were reluctant participants, more interested in romance than in casual sexual encounters. But there is an increasing realization that young women are propelling it, too.
For the last several years, sociologists who surveyed campus relations puzzled over the hookup scene: why were girls opting for non-committal sex with uncaring men? Women prefer relationships to flings, so why were women choosing hookups over dating?
Typically, the answer was: women aren’t choosing. They’re being forced into hooking up. The explanations offered looked something like this:
“The sex ratios are skewed in favor of men.” In a previous installment, the New York Times examined the scene at a university where women outnumbered men. But this was just cherry-picking: the hookup scene is in full force even at schools where sex ratios are even, such as the Ivy League. At the very least, skewed sex ratios are not the only factor, if hook-up scenes are cropping up even at sexually balanced universities. And the latest article goes on to consider factors that have nothing to do with the sex ratio.
“Men control the social scene, and ply women with alcohol, drugs and even assault to get sex.” Women are helpless to set the terms of their own romances; they have to contend with a system rigged in favor of men’s penchant for unattached sex.
There are many more such explanations lying in the quivers of willfully blind researchers. Except there’s nothing forcing women to have sex on a whim. Behind all these excuses is the determination to see everything but the girls themselves as factors in the demise of dating. Everything else, particularly the men, must be fingered as responsible. Women are not allowed to be human, to have agency. They cannot even be animals, base impulses and all. When it comes time to assign culpability, only men have moral agency.
Then there’s the myopia. Anything that isn’t strictly quantified in some arcane research dataset is ignored wholesale. Combine these, and you have the expert’s profound ignorance of how dating actually proceeds on college campuses and beyond. Little scrutiny was given to whether women actually were choosing this life for themselves, and whether they truly did *always* prefer relationships to flings.
A Change In Tone
Lately, there has been a change in the establishment’s tone. It is increasingly willing to consider that women are just as depraved as men. While I’d like to credit the manosphere, it may be due to the efforts of people like Hanna Rosin who make this view socially acceptable. Last year, she identified women as the driving force of the hook-up scene, and that this arrangement empowers women to devote more time to their careers.
More recently, Daniel Bergner published a book about science’s answer to the age old question, what do women want? More pointedly, what arouses women? It was well received by the establishment. While the manosphere easily precedes such works, their voices went mostly unheard by the intelligentsia; it now looks as if it will become more and more acceptable to make the very same points the manosphere has.
For the beliefs of the upper middle class, the truth was never relevant – only, “can I say this at a cocktail party without sounding like a nut?” Now that such observations have graced the pages of the New York Times, they can be broached in polite company. Below, I’ve chosen several excerpts from the article itself that echo what the manosphere has been saying.
Self-Imposed Female Unavailability
“I positioned myself in college in such a way that I can’t have a meaningful romantic relationship, because I’m always busy and the people that I am interested in are always busy, too,” she said. … “But there are so many other things going on in my life that I find so important that I just, like, can’t make time, and I don’t want to make time.”
Even if a man wanted to, girls are making themselves unavailable for more than a weekly dalliance. She’s busy getting cosmos with her friends, or padding her resume with something to impress future employers. And if your aim is to seduce her, don’t bother inquiring about it, because she herself has no intrinsic interest in it. In tossing aside man, her former master, she appoints the corporation as her new overlord. As Roissy wrote, woman cannot content herself with freedom – she simply elects another master to dominate her. Naturally, that leaves little place for any boyfriends.
And when a girl deigns to spend only a day or two a week with a man, she is a fractional girlfriend. So even if a man wanted a full-time girlfriend, he may have to ‘settle’ for fucking three or four girls concurrently instead.
Modern Man’s Mission
Careerism As The Path To Whoredom
These women said they saw building their résumés, not finding boyfriends (never mind husbands), as their main job at Penn. They envisioned their 20s as a period of unencumbered striving, when they might work at a bank in Hong Kong one year, then go to business school, then move to a corporate job in New York. The idea of lugging a relationship through all those transitions was hard for many to imagine. Almost universally, the women said they did not plan to marry until their late 20s or early 30s…
But Elizabeth A. Armstrong, a sociologist at the University of Michigan who studies young women’s sexuality, said that women at elite universities were choosing hookups because they saw relationships as too demanding and potentially too distracting from their goals.
With their career as their highest priority, committed relationships are now a nuisance. Relationships now recall in her mind the story of Sisyphus, who was condemned to pushing a heavy stone up a mountain for eternity, only for it to keep falling down. She knows she won’t get married until 30, so pre-marital relationships are just formalized fuck buddies. The ‘boyfriend and girlfriend’ relationship of the 20th century is rootless; its only basis is convenience. When it ceases to be convenient, girls will go without it.
Our elders think that pre-marital relationships meant something. And maybe they were right, at one point. But with the priority of a career in the modern woman’s life, the boyfriend is obsolete. He is simply dick on delivery.
Rather than sign up for the inevitable breakups that her careerism ensures, she ditches them altogether. The boyfriend was just a convenient fabrication to make her feel less slutty for pre-marital sex anyway. And now even that has proven too onerous.
As A. explained her schedule, “If I’m sober, I’m working.”…
Instead, she enjoyed casual sex on her terms — often late at night, after a few drinks, and never at her place, she noted, because then she would have to wash the sheets…
Dancing like that felt good but dirty, and like a number of girls, Haley said she had to be drunk in order to enjoy it. Women said universally that hookups could not exist without alcohol, because they were for the most part too uncomfortable to pair off with men they did not know well without being drunk.
Women like A are fundamentally incapable of intimacy without copious alcohol. Shirley Temple Prudes, Vodka Sluts. You will meet women who have been gangbanged, yet cannot stomach a first kiss from an attractive man while sober. I do, routinely. Notice also how she shirks the domestic duty of laundry to men. (A prolific squirter, perhaps?) Not to worry, she’ll still complain about how slovenly men are.
There will be plenty of people clucking in response at how terrible this is; logically speaking, however, it is A who is right. With time, the link between whoredom and female careerism becomes evident, as pragmatic concerns whittle away at meaningful monogamy. And since practically no one is willing to renounce careerism’s status as commendable for women, nothing will change.
The American father pushes his daughter to work and become independent, yet expresses alarm at the promiscuity among her peers. He responds to getting raped in the ass by asking for more lube. He doesn’t truly want to solve the problem, he just wants to feel better about the job he’s done. “Ignorance is bliss.”
Plenty of men here like to think that A. will get her comeuppance, and find herself alone and bitter come the age of 35. Frankly, the evidence on this point is rather absent – upper class women like A still marry more than her lower class peers. If she wants to marry, A can stay thin and presentable; she will have a decent career that mitigates her risk to a man’s wealth in the case of divorce; plus, she’s intelligent. There is no shortage of eligible men who’d sign up for marrying A. Absent extreme entitlement, she will approach marriage like a job interview, and identify what her prospective husbands demand to snare a man that meets her criteria, and act accordingly.
Besides, American men are not even aware of the delights to be had among foreign women, of the Brazilian’s sensuality, of the Pole’s sweetness, or of the Ukrainian’s devotion. As far as he knows, American women are as good as it gets. Even if he suspects they aren’t, nothing else seems within reach.
Whoredom Begins At Home
But, in fact, many of the Penn women said that warnings not to become overly involved in a relationship came not from feminists, but from their parents, who urged them to be independent.
“That’s one thing that my mom has always instilled in me: ‘Make decisions for yourself, not for a guy,’ ” one senior at Penn said.
The current crop of college aged women are the offspring of the Boomer generation. The central conceit of the boomer is his studied adolescence – he discards the traditions of his father in the name of progress, yet he is dumbfounded when his daughters turn out like the strumpets profiled. For why would liberating a woman from a life of kinder, kirche, küche turn her into a slut? It’s impossible that progress would yield something as undesirable as promiscuity.
Watch the progressive closely, and you will glimpse for only a moment any intellectual honesty. Before social changes take full effect, the progressive will deny deny deny that his reforms have returned an unpalatable result; the moment this becomes an obvious lie, he will simply rebrand the ugly as beautiful. Fat acceptance, abortion, bastardy, promiscuity… there’s no shortage of examples. Rosin serves just this purpose, when she rebrands whoredom as commendable when it becomes clear just how prevalent it is among today’s youth.