Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Musings, Philosophy sans Sophistry, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism > What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 3

What I Really Think About Human Beings as a Species: 3

In the previous part of this series, I briefly talked about my theory about why married women almost universally seem to lose interest in sex with their husband. I also made the observation that this particular behavior is conditional to the options of the man in the relationship, especially his ability to leave it. But why would that be so? Why does the ability of a man to leave a relationship easily make it significantly harder for the woman to deny him frequent sex? Let me put that question in another way- why does the mere presence of an ‘out’ option make for the guy have such a drastic effect on the willingness of the woman to have sex with him? Clearly, the ‘out’ option does not add inches to his height or dick, muscle mass to his body or make him more handsome. So what is going on?

Many people, especially those who subscribe to the solipsistic mumbo-jumbo of evolutionary psychology, might say that a man who can easily leave a relationship is demonstrating his higher ‘status’ or “fitness”. But does reality support that belief? Who is more likely to be in a sexless marriage or relationship – a supposedly high status and financially secure guy or someone who plays drums in some semi-famous cover band? How can C- and D-grade celebrities pull pussy of a quality that staid multi-millionaires can only dream of? Why don’t large financial net worths make women wet and horny?

Some sophists might say that fame and celebrity are far more ancient “evolutionary” switches for female horniness than money or education. But there is a big problem with this assertion. Even intelligent and educated women do not marry rich and/or “highly educated” men because of any real physical or emotional attraction. All such marriages are, and have always been, shams based in the need for social approval and financial comfort for the woman. Remember that a woman married to a doctor or manager will cheat on him with a C- grade celebrity, but one in a relationship with a C-grade celebrity will never cheat on him with a doctor or manager.

While there are many possible explanations, such as this one, for why a minor celebrity can pull far more pussy than a billionaire- we are still left with one important but only partially answered question. Why do married women eventually go to great lengths for not having sex with their husbands- especially if he is not ugly, poor or otherwise downright repulsive?

A more complete answer to that question can be found by looking at a similar category of women- the ones who are chronically single and barely having sex.

One of the major falsehoods promoted by game blogs is the idea that almost all non-ugly and chronically single women are having lots of sex. While a minority of non-ugly and chronically single women do indeed have busy sex lives, the majority do not. Now, I am not claiming that the majority of such women are asexual or abstinent and there is every reason to believe that they have occasional booty calls and short-term flings. But none of this occasional sexual activity remotely approaches what they could have in an average non-marital relationship.

So what is stopping them from having such relationships? After all we live in the age where women have well-paying jobs, access to effective contraception and easy treatment of STDs- not to mention a much lower incidence of such diseases. Clearly, these women do not have to overcome real obstacles or face major risks to enter into such relationships- and yet they don’t. But why not? and what does any of this have to do with why married women have progressively less frequent sex with their husbands. Well.. it is connected, but understanding that connection requires you to ask questions that most would never even consider in the first place.

Would chronically single women spend most of their time on the sexual sidelines if they knew that their lack of participation had no negative effect on the sexual lives of men?

While there is no shortage of morons spouting some bullshit about women having little intrinsic sexual desire, how they want to concentrate on their careers or how modern dating is especially risky and full of frauds- a lot of these “common sense” bullshit explanations just does not add up. Let us first consider the claim that women have little intrinsic sexual desire. While that explanation may seem plausible at first, women buy too many romance novels and are a bit too willing to have sex with famous/good-looking men for that to be true. While female sexual desire is not a mirror image of its male equivalent, there is no doubt that it is similarly powerful.

The explanation that women are increasingly career minded is also based in bullshit since most human beings (men and women) work to live. Only the retarded and autistic minority (mostly “clever” men) live to work. Another plausible sounding explanation requires us to believe that “modern” dating is somehow significantly more riskier than it was in the past. However almost every measure of such risk based on real data suggest that people in the past were not much nicer, or much worse, than those alive today.

So what is really going on? Why would a significant minority of mediocre women choose to hang on the sexual sidelines? What do they gain from such behavior and how could it be enough to compensate for the obvious loss?

Well.. it comes down to ego, but not quite in the way most of you understand it. Some of you might think that rejecting men might be a psychological defense mechanism used by mediocre women to deny their own mediocrity. While there might be some truth to the idea that women are more status-obsessed and status-sensitive than men, repeatedly torpedoing your own sex life would be a really odd and expensive way to raise self-perceived status. Moreover, being single past a certain age (say.. 30) actually reduces their status within their peer group. But there is another psychological mechanism that can explain this behavior.

Person B will willingly take abuse from person A if they get to abuse person C a bit more.

Confused.. here are is an example. Have you wondered why poverty-stricken whites in the american south were and are so willing and eager to abuse poverty-stricken blacks on behalf of their rich white masters? If you think about it rationally, the poverty-stricken white person does not experience any material gain from abusing the poverty-stricken black person. But they do gain in a non-material way. Specifically, the ability to freely abuse poverty-stricken blacks allows them to scratch their insatiable human itch to hurt, abuse, enslave and kill others. Similarly people who belong to the lower castes in India experience great pleasure from abusing those of even lower castes. In both of the above mentioned examples, actively working against your best interests is preferred over working for it as long as the former comes with an ability to abuse even more desperate and needy people.

Will write more about this particular issue in the next part of this series.

What do you think? Comments?

  1. EvilOne
    July 14, 2014 at 2:00 am

    Some sophists might say that fame and celebrity are far more ancient “evolutionary” switches for female horniness than money or education. But there is a big problem with this assertion. Even intelligent and educated women do not marry rich and/or “highly educated” men because of any real physical or emotional attraction. All such marriages are, and have always been, shams based in the need for social approval and financial comfort for the woman. Remember that a woman married to a doctor or manager will cheat on him with a C- grade celebrity, but one in a relationship with a C-grade celebrity will never cheat on him with a doctor or manager.

    ————————————————-

    Huh?

    • EvilOne
      July 14, 2014 at 7:43 am

      Dilbert’s Take:

  2. Ed
    July 14, 2014 at 2:44 am

    What you leave out is that the median woman is almost certainly less interested in having sex than the median man. This makes sense when you think of what is at stake for both; the woman can get pregnant, and until fairly recently pregnancy carried a high risk of dying.

    This is much less the case for people of both sexes who are older than forty, but then of course pregnancy becomes a non-factor for this age group. If anything, its the median post-forty male who runs the slight risk of dying due to sex.

    • Isaac
      July 14, 2014 at 6:10 am

      AD says clearly that a females has an equal high sex drive than a male, which brings him to the conclusion that females deny sex as some kind of bullying and powergame. Do they deny sex just for the sake of feeling some power over another human being.

      I don’t really agree with this. The more I think about it the more I’m coming to the conclusion that the answer lies in the fact that love and lust for females are completely different than the love or lust of a male. Don’t forget that ALL woman read those stupid romance novels. Literature almost no man can put his attention too, even if he’s willing to do so and makes an effort. They are completely different wired than us. Face it: we are here trying to understand the feelings of a rainworm, millipede or cobra.

      If they deny sex as some kind of powergame they would also deny sex for those C-rockband guitarist or some “hot guy” (in their own words). Imho they have some things hardcoded in them, things that we guys can’t think rational about, they do subconsciously.

      Maybe the feeling of having some kind of sexual power is part of this too? Why do ALL females go to parties or nightclubs in their hottest and tightest dresses? Why do they walk out that same night alone or in their group without a guy. They have opportunity enough to find a partner in a night. Why put ALL that energy in makeup and expensive clothes to have a certainty of 99.8% to go home alone and reject all the phone numbers afterwards? Why do we guys keep approaching girls to have that 0.2% chance to find a chick to fuck?

      If they like sex as much as we do, why are almost all prostitutes female? Where are the male prostitutes and their average female clients? Why are there no brothels with extremely hot guys where an average girl pays $200 to have their thing with a David Beckham clone? I agree, those brothels exist but the clients are single 60yo woman, not an average 25yo girl. I can only reach the conclusion that the sex-drive of a female is much, much, much lower than that of a male. I see enough David-Beckham clones pay $200 for half an hour sex with a girl, I don’t see Megan-Fox clones do the same for a guy.

      In a nightclub, I never see girls having a fight over a guy. I always see guys having a fight over a girl. I think the answer lies in the observation that females can enjoy sex only when their prostitution-generator is completely turned of. They want a kingkong, a monkey, a dog, a vibrator or an anonymous negro. The “thing” has to be as unidentified and unpersonal as possible. I think if aliens would arrive from another planet females would be the first to jump on them to fuck.

      • P Ray
        July 14, 2014 at 11:14 am

        In a nightclub, I never see girls having a fight over a guy.
        The guy isn’t handsome enough.
        See this(link is dead NOW):
        October 27, 2006 05:26 PM EDT
        ananova.com/news/story/sm_2053128.html?menu=

        23 girls brawl over handsome boy

        Police were called in Bulgaria after a mass fight broke out between 23 teenage girls over a handsome male student.

        The girls, aged between 15 and 18, used brass knuckles, chains and beer bottles to fight over the lad whose name was not revealed.

        The girls, from the Bulgarian capital Sofia, agreed to fight it out and skipped school to meet up in a local playground in the Gorublyane district of the city.

        Several girls suffered minor injuries and dozens of passers-by reportedly witnessed the incident.

        But the alarm wasn’t raised until after the fight when a father of one of the injured girls called the police.

      • P Ray
        July 14, 2014 at 11:20 am

        Also, this:
        sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53879608-78/police-inmate-south-woman.html.csp
        Women brawl over who should date Utah jail inmate

        By Janelle Stecklein The Salt Lake Tribune
        Published April 9, 2012 11:18 am
        This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

        One woman was stabbed in the neck late Sunday at a South Salt Lake apartment complex after police allege she and another woman decided to fight over which of them should date a jail inmate.

        South Salt Lake police said the incident had started earlier in the day at a park when the two women, who both wanted to be in a relationship with the same inmate, decided to fight it out. The altercation started again about 11 p.m. at the Sun River Apartments, 1080 W. 3300 South.

        When police arrived, officers said they found a 19-year-old woman had been stabbed in the back of her neck. She was listed in fair condition Monday, police said.

        Police said they located one of the vehicles involved in the altercation in Taylorsville, questioned and released the occupants. Police said they were still trying to locate a second vehicle Monday.

        Police said the women’s “love-triangle” involved a man who is currently incarcerated.

      • joesantus
        July 18, 2014 at 6:36 am

        I’m not dismissing AD’s “humans enjoy abusing humans” hypothesis as being the reason why many women “sexually sideline” themselves; but my 58 years of observation leads me to agree that wiring differences between the genders plays not a small but a major role in women, specifically under-age-30 women (since aging and its life-experiences affects a woman’s biology and psychology enough that it usually shifts over-30 women’s sexual dynamics) doing this.

        I don’t believe most young women feel an indiscriminate sexual pull toward men generally the way that we as men typically experience a sexual pull toward women when we’re around women, at least not nearly strongly nor urgently as we feel it as men. I think most younger women’s wiring requires a man to have a very specific set of physical characteristics before her sexual interest really becomes urgent enough that she feels the same degree of sexual pull toward him that we as men often experience being around many different woman or sometimes almost any woman. Most young women have sex drives but their wiring requires it to be focused on a male with specific qualities; men, in contrast, are not wired to be so limited and regularly experience strong pull toward a much wider range of women.

        Since most of us men aren’t born with that elite set of genetics, younger women simply don’t feel sexually pulled toward most us the way they find themselves strongly responding when they encounter one of those few males who were born with the elite genes. Women might instinctively want to experience that sexual pull and they obviously go hunting for it (whether or not they’re aware what they’re doing is hunting for it), but they can’t voluntarily switch it on within themselves.

  3. sth_txs
    July 14, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    Why are socialist/liberals the most racist, stingiest, selfish, hypocritical, arrogant in-duh-viduals on earth? This type of person is the lowest form of human life on this planet.

  4. P Ray
    July 15, 2014 at 8:54 am

    Maybe this will save some poor bastard from a bad relationship or a bad marriage
    (Formulas worked through rationally, lead to rational decisions)
    From the defunct costofsex.com:
    Cost of sex with your girlfriend
    Time you waste on your GF
    ———————————–
    How many hours do you spend having stupid conversations with your GF (per week):
    How many hours do you spend watching TV shows with her you would rather not watch (per week):
    How many hours do you spend doing other stupid things with her you would rather not do (per week):
    How many hours do you spend commuting to/from your GF per week:

    Money you spend on your GF
    ————————————-
    How much do you spend on taking her out to dinners/drinks per week:
    How much do you spend on other entertainment and buying things for your GF per week:
    How much you spend on everything else for her – vacations, shopping, gifts, etc…(per year):
    Other
    How much do you earn per hour:
    How often do you have sex with your GF per week (on average):

    Results
    ———-
    Hours you waste on your GF per week:
    Money you spend on your GF per week:
    Financial cost of sex (one time), not including the cost of time you waste:
    Real cost of having sex (one time) with your GF (your time + money):

    Cost of sex with your wife
    Emotional cost
    ——————-
    How many hours do you spend having pointless conversations with your wife per week (conversations you would rather not have):
    How many hours does your wife spend either nagging at you, or being upset with you (per week, only include hours you are in the same location):
    How many hours do you spend watching TV shows with your wife you don’t really want to watch (per week):
    How many hours do you spend doing other things with your wife you would rather not do (per week):

    Money you spend on your wife
    —————————————
    How much do you spend on housing per month:
    How much would you spend on housing if you were single (per month – make your best guess):
    How much do you spend on your wife (besides housing) per month:
    Big ticket items (not included above), such as a car, vacations, etc you buy your wife – per year:
    Other
    How many times do you have sex with your wife per year:

    Results
    ———-
    Hours of your time your wife sucks out of you per week:
    Money you spend on your wife per week:
    Emotional cost of sex – hours of your free time you waste to have sex (one time) with your wife:
    Financial cost of having sex (one time) with your wife:

  5. hoipolloi
    July 15, 2014 at 5:19 pm

    “why does the mere presence of an ‘out’ option make for the guy have such a drastic effect on the willingness of the woman to have sex with him?”

    Guys should keep as much as possible the ‘out’ option in marriage from the beginning. Have a prenup and simple wedding. Not have too many sentiments about family and no gallantry, or fear of god. This should not look cynical or sinistrous. This recipe may even strengthen the institution of marriage.

  6. July 16, 2014 at 9:15 pm

    Hey AD,

    Hope you missed me. Hope things are going well.

    You seem happier and more optimistic than usual.

    – Knee
    —-

    So how are things going for you? Did you finally hire an escort?

    • July 17, 2014 at 3:00 pm

      Did not. I’m too reliant on my family for money and not used to doing things on my own.

      On the other hand I got a tablet and the coolness of playing with the tablet has seemed to make things temporarily seem less bad.

      • P Ray
        July 18, 2014 at 7:55 am

        When you decide to go escorting, do it on something like a foreign holiday.
        Am putting together some money, in some years I might be able to taste some delicious fresh and tasty tarts.
        (I intend to stay for some time, overseas).

      • EvilOne
        July 18, 2014 at 11:29 am

        Canada aint that far… and its hardly foreign.

      • P Ray
        July 18, 2014 at 7:43 pm

        Canada is working to criminalise “men who require services of female sex workers”.
        Try Europe instead.
        – Germany has “flat-rate pussy” for example.

      • EvilOne
        July 19, 2014 at 8:41 pm

        The law is not set in stone yet!

      • EvilOne
        July 21, 2014 at 12:27 am

        Also, if you have a taste for mulatto women… theres always the Dominican republic. Cheaper by far, Id bet.

      • July 22, 2014 at 6:28 pm

        1. Why a foreign holiday?

        2. AD wanna chime in? You still go to Canada every few months?

        3. AD you ever go to non Canada places?

        4. Caught an STD yet?

        5. Still taking PDE5? Ever wanted to take something that made you horny and not just hard?

      • EvilOne
        July 22, 2014 at 8:04 pm

        Blackbeards in D.Republic… never been there, but just saying…

        Return Ticket: ~$600
        Stay: ~60 a day… so say $600.
        Cost for 1-2 hrs: $40
        Cost for all night: $80
        So, say, ~$600

        Food and Misc: Say ~$300

        Total: ~$2100 for 10 days.

      • P Ray
        July 23, 2014 at 3:38 pm

        1. Why a foreign holiday?
        The reason is probably the fresh, piping hot, delicious tarts.
        Those delicacies are rare and it’s possible the prices may reflect that.
        I would say it’s very possible for men to get tired of the expired goods they can find easily, so something brand new is exciting.

    • July 19, 2014 at 9:12 am

      kneehowguys still here-thought you might’ve been the elliot rodgers dude…

      It is odd you had that thought too.. LOL

  7. P Ray
    July 19, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    For this article, I would say that women enjoy rubbing it in (incel/regular) men’s faces with the magic words “I have a boyfriend”.
    (in the same way a crappy situation is tolerated as long as they have someone to abuse).
    I suspect one of the reasons behind “man up and marry them hoes” and “return to traditional roles” nonsense is getting airplay, is to reduce female depression and suicide – since those women on the one hand want attention from guys they have no intention of having sex with but on the other hand think that a pump and dump from Mr. Alpha is a relationship.
    Women who think in that way have their weird thought patterns reinforced by their equally miserable friends/enemies/frenemies, I suppose.

    • joesantus
      July 21, 2014 at 9:15 am

      “women on the one hand want attention from guys they have no intention of having sex with but on the other hand think that a pump and dump from Mr. Alpha is a relationship.”

      Which I think reflects their dual wiring: women’s biology drives then to want both the most desirable breeding stud, and, the best nurturer for the kids a woman bears, but a woman rarely finds both in the same guy.
      So, an under-age-30 woman’s instinct is to keep her prospects open for a “nurturer” — who’ll be among the majority, the average guys for whom she has no intense sexual desire — while she fucks the Alpha breeder, whom she allows her mind to deceive her into thinking will stay with her, even when her biological instinct tells her otherwise about him.

      Of course, hardly any under-age-30 woman will admit even to herself that she essentially needs “one guy to fuck my pussy raw and make babies with, but a different, ‘sensitive’, guy to nurture and support me and those kids”, so don’t expect women as a group to openly admit that their biological reality doesn’t harmonize with their conscious wishful ideal. That’d be admitting that they really are as “selfish” as the men they complain about. Instead, women will constantly work to convince themselves and men that, “But, I’m monogamous and I only want sex with one man, in a committed relationship.”

      • P Ray
        November 2, 2015 at 12:55 am

        “But, I’m monogamous and I only want sex with one man, in a committed relationship.”
        I think many women speak in incomplete sentences, despite higher emotional intelligence … or maybe it’s because they’re intelligent, their sentences are incomplete, to allow the listener to impute a positive spin:
        “But, I’m monogamous and I only want sex with one man that many other women want, but who wants only me, in a committed relationship.”
        That’s the full sentence, methinks.

  8. Jack
    July 23, 2014 at 10:34 am

    Maybe women (at least the attractive, not religious fanatic ones) do not really want to be married, but the social conditioning/brainwashing/fairy tale romance myth/societal pressure (duress) and expectations of relatives lead women to get married to create an image that’s against her cougar nature. Monogamy is not human nature, it’s a socially constructed false structure. It was weak guys who created religion and marriage to control people and property. Many guys are desperate to get married as the main way to get sex, and the stability of a family. Politicians, religions, and the media daily promote/brainwash marriage propaganda saying “everybody Has To get married,” so they can control people. Many males have a Madonna/Whore Complex and want a mommy/wife, and these guys often turn into either wimps or pretend jerks who annoyingly complain in a whining tone, are not assertive, and are weak guys who are a turn off to women. Some married people continue to put on the fake image just to maintain their house, kids, and please their relatives. Most people buy a car (get married) because they heard it was good (societal religion brainwashing/pressure saying people “Have To get married”), then soon start looking for their next car (affairs, divorces). Maybe it’s not that women are against men, it’s that women (and the few not weak men) are against the controlling institution of marriage. It’s the institution of religious marriage that is not natural. Over time the fairy tale myth wares off and women get bored of the cage/prison of marriage. Are the females denying or are the males not initiating? Most men seem to have a hard time meeting just one woman to marry, hence the many (but basically not very effective) so-called game blogs, so once married a guy likely wants to stay married. Women don’t need a man because the clit is the most sexual pleasure, and a penis is only for procreation or feelings of emotional connection. A celebrity or musician or assertive man is rare, and thus she may think she is somebody important because this famous guy fucked me. The “prime motivation” for insecure/weak people is power/control to make themselves feel better. I’m secure so I’m focused on my goals and trying to enjoy life before death, and I don’t intentionally try to hurt people because that would decrease their chance of trying to enjoy life somewhat. I like women and I don’t call women names. Actually being a naughty type of guy who left religion because it was sexually repressive, and I decided I’m never going to get married, the type of women I’m attracted to are the type some other guys/religions/politicians/some media call names, so I’m a strong guy who can deal with all women, and thus women in general and even those weak people don’t bother me. The cost of a ONS/escorts/Short Term Relationships equals tens of thousands of dollars or less. The cost of marriage then divorce equals hundreds of thousands of dollars or more plus stress and unhappiness. Religions, politicians, and the media that promote marriage propaganda do the brainwashing, but then they do not pay for the wedding or the marriage or the divorce, and you’re left to pay up sucker, so this guy don’t play that.

    • July 23, 2014 at 4:02 pm

      ^^^One of the best comments/replies I’ve read on any blog subject. It’s also the race supremacists, race-conscious and types (black and white) who push marriages and Disney myths so that they can build their own hierarchies and control people’s lives. Not to mention the amount of single mothers who have “spousification” complexes towards their sons.

    • Webe
      July 24, 2014 at 5:12 am

      Brainwashing is, in general, a very poor mechanism to explain social dynamics. Pursuing Marx (“religion is the opiate of the people”), the idea that a few priests can get together and keep people brainwashed for centuries at a time, promising pie in the sky to compensate the lack actual pie in the present, is intellectually lazy and facile. The same is true of conspiracies that explain everything by bureaucracy run amok (“the government”) or the idea that a few “Lords” can, with their paid henchmen, keep the entire population at bay for centuries.
      Social systems configure themselves largely through objective pressures, including the weight of history. Many social structures are perhaps dysfunctional, injust or outmoded, but they are rarely pure conspiracy.
      The origins of marriage as we know it are not religious, but are rooted in agricultural society and the division of land (“capital, the means to produce”) and property rights, and concomitantly the necessity of producing and protecting heirs and women. The long gestation period of human infants and the even longer period of childhood helplessness also contribute biological imperatives to reproductive success. Much religion is not the origin of social structure, but it’s offspring.

      • joesantus
        July 24, 2014 at 6:24 am

        I generally agree with Webe here.

        Religion, with its artificial morality and consequent guilt and shame, has no doubt served to reinforce and perhaps enforce the institution of marriage; and Disney et al media idealizations have no doubt foisted a willingly-believed “monogamously-happy-ever-after” fantasy about marriage on people, especially on women; but it appears to me that marriage originated when our human sexual and child-bearing instincts adapted to the radical affects of agriculturalism on our social dynamics.

        Politicians, religionists, and marketeers are ultimately yet merely opportunists: while they, in turn, do amplify the pressures to conform to the idea of marriage, they are popularly accepted at all only because, in various ways and through varied venues, they reflect the fairy-tale idylls about marriage and family that the average person, especially woman, in our agriculturalized societies wishes existed.

        Individuals seem able to dismiss and discard marriage and its societal enforcers only if and when they recognize their own biological instincts, they recognize that marriage is merely a social compromise of those sexual/childbearing instincts to agricultural society, and that they recognize subsequent societal/scientific/economic developments make that social compromise no longer necessary and perhaps detrimental.

    • P Ray
      July 24, 2014 at 12:02 pm

      The problem with religion nowadays, is that it has become “religion” (quotes).
      It justifies female irresponsibility while demanding male responsibility.
      There is a reason PMAFT calls it the “Sunday Morning nightclub”, and the places of worship are filled with born-again sluts.

  9. July 27, 2014 at 8:57 am

    After all we live in the age where women have well-paying jobs, access to effective contraception and easy treatment of STDs- not to mention a much lower incidence of such diseases. Clearly, these women do not have to overcome real obstacles or face major risks to enter into such relationships- and yet they don’t.

    The real obstacle these women face is the generally malign, rotten, and nasty social atmosphere in the United States. ( An obstacle for men, too.) It is hard to feel trust and love in a world where most people are compulsively cheating, competing (in the negative sense) and exploiting each other, are not honest emotionally or otherwise, and so on.

    I say sex without love and trust is second rate. While I’ve had and enjoyed it, and at other times just plain felt compelled to take it because this was what was available, I also avoided it when I could manage to do so. I imagine other men and women do the same.

    Men and women are set against each in an antagonistic, opposing manner. I don’t see most women or most men actually wanting this, consciously or unconsciously. It’s more likely by the design of a few who utilize an evil “divide and conquer” strategy. We’d have to create a less exploiting society for relations between men and women became as sexually rich as they could be. Men and women would need to work together to achieve this– and we can’t get it together. Men need to stop demonizing women and women need to stop demonizing men. .

  10. joesantus
    July 27, 2014 at 1:56 pm

    “Men and women are set against each in an antagonistic, opposing manner. I don’t see most women or most men actually wanting this, consciously or unconsciously. It’s more likely by the design of a few who utilize an evil “divide and conquer” strategy. We’d have to create a less exploiting society for relations between men and women became as sexually rich as they could be. Men and women would need to work together to achieve this– and we can’t get it together. Men need to stop demonizing women and women need to stop demonizing men. ”

    From all I’ve ever seen of evidence, since at least the time of humanity’s acceptance of agriculturalism, that “need ’em-but-hate ’em” antagonism has consistently existed between the genders. For certain periods of time and in various locales, that antagonism has perhaps been better contained, controlled or directed, for different reasons, but history bears out that it has always existed between men and women. Generally-speaking, the majority of us who are heterosexual find ourselves somehow “needing” the other gender yet being really too different to easily get along, at least for very long or very well, with the other gender.

    It’s almost a sort of evolutionary prank — that our species is heterosexually reproductive, so requires male and female to survive; our species has biological drives for sex and for offspring nurture as well as for social interaction, similar to other mammals; yet that we also possess higher reasoning, self-awareness, and mental/psychological abilities that incredibly complicate what for other mammals are straightforward and simple relations between the genders.

    Opportunists through history have no doubt fueled the gender antagonism for their own advantages, but they didn’t cause the antagonism. It exists and they merely exploit it.

    No matter how intensely men and women might wish the antagonism didn’t exist, outside of mastering the manipulation our genetic code and altering our biological “wirings”, I don’t see how the genders can ever “get it together”.

  11. July 29, 2014 at 10:09 am

    For certain periods of time and in various locales, that antagonism has perhaps been better contained, controlled or directed, for different reasons, but history bears out that it has always existed between men and women.

    If we have anything at all to do with it, then, why don’t we at least work to achieve what had been achieved in these other, more favorable historical periods? We appear to be drifting towards something very, very awful, from my point of view. (Loveless, joyless sex satisfying a hygenic purpose; not any emotional need– which emotional need can also be seen throughout human history, right down to the prehistoric level neandrathal era, and most likely further.)

    The availability of loveless, joyless sex while a need persists for love and joy in sex is a real barrier for women– and that’s the point in AD’s post I was trying to address. Even with the other preconditions of birth control, control of disease, and so on, if you know you’re going to pay a large emotional price for every scant moment of pleasure, that’s a real barrier. I say.

    Incidentally, AD’s advocacy of escort services makes sense to me in this toxic social climate, but wouldn’t if satisfyingly loving sex was more available. Which it isn’t. Also incidentally, I think the best science is beginning to reveal the genetic code isn’t actually deterministic in the ways previously thought. Its effects are nonlinear, field-like, best understood through chaos theory. We have room to work here– and if we chose to use genetic modification ( not the best choice in my opinion) we better not take a simplistic view of what the effects, consequences, of that genetic modification will yield.

    • joesantus
      July 30, 2014 at 8:13 am

      1)”If we have anything at all to do with it, then, why don’t we at least work to achieve what had been achieved in these other, more favorable historical periods?”

      I don’t see historical evidence that there was any less feeling of antagonism, but rather that outward expressions of that antagonism were perhaps been better contained, controlled or directed. Women have always seen men as “clueless, insensitive bastards” and men seen women as “nagging, unreasonable bitches”.

      Seems the best humanity can do is suppress the negative actions and behavior, and perhaps pretend the feeling is nonexistent, but not change the basic feeling from which it arises.

      I don’t believe anything essential about gender antagonism has changed from “Neanderthal days”. However, current (westernized) economic and social conditions allow society to be more honest about feelings gender antagonism, and to act upon that antagonism.

      2)”The availability of loveless, joyless sex while a need persists for love and joy in sex is a real barrier for women….”

      I’d qualify that to, “for the majority of women and for many men”.

      I conclude that it’s a humanity-old dilemma. As I suggested in my earlier comment, our possession of not only reproductive drives for sex and child-nurturing similar to other mammals but also higher consciousness, self-awareness, rationality, and psychology creates our irresolvable tension between reproductive needs and emotional needs. In especially (heterosexual) women, that inner tension seems, in turn, to fuel their antagonism toward the males that they need and yet with whom they’re too different to get along. Our reproductive instincts being in conflict with our psychology/emotionality has forever kept humanity between a proverbial rock and hard place.

      3)”and if we chose to use genetic modification…we better not take a simplistic view of what the effects, consequences, of that genetic modification will yield.”

      I completely agree. And, if successful genetic manipulation is actually even possible, I certainly don’t envision humanity able to comprehend and master genetic manipulation and its effects for hundreds of years.

    • P Ray
      July 30, 2014 at 8:04 pm

      ”The availability of loveless, joyless sex while a need persists for love and joy in sex is a real barrier for women….”

      I’d qualify that to, “for the majority of women and for many men”.

      Bollocks. Women have more choices in guys they want to have sex with, than men have choices in women they want to have sex with.
      Even in Arabia and India, men who make eyes at women can get harassed and beaten.

      To assume that women have 0 ability to be picky, is a very naive viewpoint.

      There is a reason the supermodel doesn’t hang around the homeless hobo.

      • joesantus
        July 30, 2014 at 9:06 pm

        Sure, women have plenty of men they could HAVE sex with, but very few with whom they DESIRE to have sex with and enjoy having sex with. Simply opening their legs for a guy, so-to-speak, isn’t the same as LUSTING FOR a guy who’s between their legs.
        Women’s biology makes them a lot more selective in the males they find sexually attractive, so, in the end, their available choices are effectually less than most guy’s.

  12. July 31, 2014 at 8:18 am

    ” Bollocks. Women have more choices in guys they want to have sex with, than men have choices in women they want to have sex with.”

    I didn’t say women didn’t have choices– I said they don’t have good choices. You need to back off on the belligerence because it is making you stupid.

    In this I have as much sympathy with women as with other men. If you come across a woman with a hidden agenda, there’s really no choice but to break it off with her, no matter what her qualities. No matter you have protected sex, birth control etc. So many women out there with hidden agendas is a real barrier to the richness of my sex life. I’m sure something is similar for many women. The hidden agenda of women seem to center on finances and control, while the hidden agenda of men is lust. It probably is true women are secretly more attracted to men they suspect will pump and dump, but it is also true that after being pumped and dumped a few times, a wariness and distaste for the whole mess begins to set in. I don’t think AD’s analysis is wide enough to take such real factors into consideration.

  13. July 31, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    ” The “hormone of desire,” testosterone, acts on the brain to stimulate sexual interest, sensitivity to sexual stimulation, and orgasmic ability in both sexes. The amount of testosterone circulating in a woman’s blood declines by about 50 percent between her twenties and fifties. The most common complaint associated with this decline is a seemingly unexplainable decrease or loss of sexual desire and enjoyment.

    In I’m Not in the Mood, Dr. Reichman reveals the effectiveness of small doses of testosterone in reviving sexual desire and pleasure for women. Questions answered and topics discussed include:

    Why and when do women make male hormones?
    Where do all our male hormones go?
    Behavior, life changes, and medical problems that affect our libido
    Medications that affect our libido
    Will creams, pills, lozenges, patches, or shots help?
    When you should see a psychiatrist, psychologist, or sex therapist
    How to discuss libido issues with your doctor
    How to reach your biologic sexual potential

    The “hormone of desire,” testosterone, acts on the brain to stimulate sexual interest, sensitivity to sexual stimulation, and orgasmic ability in both sexes. The amount of testosterone circulating in a woman’s blood declines by about 50 percent between her twenties and fifties. The most common complaint associated with this decline is a seemingly unexplainable decrease or loss of sexual desire and enjoyment.

    In I’m Not in the Mood, Dr. Reichman reveals the effectiveness of small doses of testosterone in reviving sexual desire and pleasure for women. Questions answered and topics discussed include:

    Why and when do women make male hormones?
    Where do all our male hormones go?
    Behavior, life changes, and medical problems that affect our libido
    Medications that affect our libido
    Will creams, pills, lozenges, patches, or shots help?
    When you should see a psychiatrist, psychologist, or sex therapist
    How to discuss libido issues with your doctor
    How to reach your biologic sexual potential”

    From:

    Title
    I’m not in the mood [electronic resource] : what every woman should know about improving her libido
    Author
    Reichman, Judith.
    Publisher:
    Morrow,
    Pub date:
    1999, c1998.
    Pages:
    1 online resource (x, 194 p.)
    ISBN:
    9780062012845
    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    The point I’m making quoting the above is many women perceive their diminishing sexual drive as a serious problem, to which they are subject, from which they suffer, and not something willed or intended by them to punish others.

  14. P Ray
    November 2, 2015 at 12:57 am

    Thought this would be interesting to drop here:
    Courtship Signaling and Adolescents:
    “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun”?

    Monica M. Moore, Ph.D.
    Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Webster University

    Cary (1976) discovered that the woman, through eye contact, controlled the course of interaction with a male stranger, both in the laboratory and in singles’ bars. Perper (1985) gave a detailed description of courtship, stressing an escalation-response process in which women play a key role in escalation or deescalation. The steps in this process are approach, turn, first touch, and steady development of body synchronization.

    Although these reports are clearly valuable, most researchers addressed courtship very generally, and some failed to recognize the importance of the female role in the courtship process .What was needed was a more complete ethogram of women’s nonverbal courtship signals. To compile such a catalog of flirting behavior exhibited by women involved in initial heterosexual interaction, more than 200 adults were observed (Moore, 1985) in field settings such as singles’ bars, restaurants, and parties.
    Research has shown, therefore, that the cultural myth that the man is always the sexual aggressor, pressing himself on a reluctant woman, is incorrect.

  1. August 2, 2014 at 5:03 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: