Men's Shameful Lust

[Kevin Beal]

I made a new video. This time it's about sexual objectification and the absurdity of feminist depictions of male sexuality. There are some decent jokes, a photo of me as a young boy and a sneak peak at Fifty Shades of Grey, the movie.

 

I had a lot of fun writing and shooting this one, and I think you'll like it too.

 

[J. D. Stembal]

Not All Men Are Like That

 

Wait, no, that's a ridiculous assertion. This is what all men are assumed to be.

 

I have a confession. The only reason I know how to tie any knots beyond a shoe lace is because of online bondage videos. Obviously, I'm no Boy Scout. It doesn't have to be violent at all, but for some reason of evolutionary biology (or past trauma?), some women can't resist light bondage as foreplay. It's like catnip. After I purchased my first firearm, my ex wanted to play "home invasion". I had to draw the line there. Playing games with a real gun, unloaded or not, is a really big no-no for obvious reasons. What if the neighbors decide to call the police?

 

It's not a double standard to compare and contrast the sexual reproduction strategies of men and women. Women and men have fundamentally different strategies for reproduction. (See last night's call in show for SM's explanation.)

 

I don't feel like there was a satisfying conclusion to this video, Kevin. Can we explore the motivations for men and women to pursue multiple sexual relationships? Why are the bros around the world high-fiving about nailing tens, and why are Manhattan forty-something women gossiping about penis size and veiny foreskins over a latte?

 

P.S.: I think you were joking, but women do fart and watch pornography. Where did you get that awesome wig?

[Kevin Beal]

I don't feel like there was a satisfying conclusion to this video, Kevin. Can we explore the motivations for men and women to pursue multiple sexual relationships? Why are the bros around the world high-fiving about nailing tens, and why are Manhattan forty-something women gossiping about penis size and veiny foreskins over a latte?

You tell me. I'm here to learn.

 

Part of the reason for these videos is to spark discussion. It's feedback from my videos that gets me thinking about things and wanting to make another video. I'm starting to really enjoy doing it. I'm a pretty decent thinker and writer, and I'm getting better at presenting, so if I can help get important information out there for people to consider, I'm happy.

 

But, like I said in the conclusion, I am a n00b and I'm counting on people like you to help me out in understanding these issues more deeply.

 

So, seriously, man. Give it up. Tell me what's the dealio with men's motivation to pursue multiple relationships and for women to discuss veiny foreskins? I want to know.

[Omegahero09]

I think it's as simple as the biology inside humans reacting to stimuli- combined with concepts held by the individual that create sexual prefrences.

 

If it helps- I have met some dude-bros, and dudes who called women sluts irl.

For a little bit I drove for Uber, during which I met a score of folks, but most of them were men and women going out to apply their sexuality.

I still vividly remember picking up a squad of pasty dude-bros, who were getting drunk and I'm sure were coked up. They were talking to each other about who they were going to sleep with that night, and all the women- about 5 or 6 of them- that they were talking about they knew personally and by name. They all slept around with the same girls, and one guy (who was the most alpha of them all) was bragging about how he had an all-in threesome with some of the girls- that involved drugs as well. He reccommended Cialis by the way for maximum performance.

 

So they were pretty accomplished dude-bros. Like, freshmen or sophomores in college.

 

The physical stuff I just described however wasn't the worst part for me. The worst part- was how they talked about these women. They called them sluts, and would get real excited about particular sluts- because they were more slutty than the others. Or, they would trash talk other girls, because they didn't know how to give good head, or hated anal and the like. I've never seen blatant hedonism revealed like this before, and I've never experienced anything like it before or since.

[J. D. Stembal]

So, seriously, man. Give it up. Tell me what's the dealio with men's motivation to pursue multiple relationships and for women to discuss veiny foreskins? I want to know.

 

 

Don't worry.

 

I wasn't expecting you to have all the answers; I just didn't like the ending. I was hoping to spark more conversation as well in replying to you.

 

I can't speak for women (or other men) but the tendency for me to treat women as objects to collect like comic books comes from a desire to compensate for lack of love received from my parents. Sex, for me, is the analog of a drug addiction. I get that natural drug cocktail of oxytocin, norepinephrine, and dopamine and I feel content and complete.

 

I've since learned that the high I get after exercise is a distant second to the chemicals released during intercourse and foreplay, but it's still a pretty great feeling.

 

When I stopped feeling the effects of the drugs of lust, I would soon stop seeing the woman. It's not the woman that I loved but how she made me feel biochemically. I liked the excitement and the high, and not necessarily the person. It makes me sad to think about it that way, but it's the only explanation that makes sense with my upbringing and sexual behavior. Can I ever experience love or will I act like a junky getting his next hit? This is the love vs. lust dilemma framed from my perspective. Consequently, I don't trust my initial feelings about a woman when I meet her because I am not reacting to to the person but how she makes me feel.

 

I'm going to link a Radiolab podcast. It's an NPR broadcast, but I found it very insightful. Don't neg me, bros!

 

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91744-this-is-your-brain-on-love/

[LovePrevails]

Thanks for sharing Kevin, I hope you keep making videos!

[PatrickC]

Yes, the dude bro's exist. But no more than there are women that exist that will brag to their female friends about the guys they are banging, possibly more so even. I know I had girlfriends female friends that would occasionally let slip what my girlfriend was bragging about me too them. When my guy friends would very rarely talk about our conquests together, other than perhaps privately one to one.

[Kaki]

Kevin, I have been watching the videos you posted earlier and I am really impressed by how fast the quality is improving!

The way you are speaking here is engaging, funny and your body language feels much more natural now compared to the first video.

I also very much like the fact that you use pictures, clips and are not shying away from acting .

I am really looking forward to future videos!

 

Everyone, this is a channel to keep an eye on!

 

 

[Kevin Beal]

Kevin, I have been watching the videos you posted earlier and I am really impressed by how fast the quality is improving!

Thank you for the kind words and the shout out!

 

I want to get really good at this, so I'm glad the improvements are noticeable. 

[Sashajade]

  Kevin I liked your video. When you got to the part where you assumed that women didn't enjoy sex, it kinda made me think about my past.

Because when I first started to become sexually active at 16, I had no idea that probably alot of guys assumed that women arent suppose

to like sex. Here I was an out of control dysfunctional promiscuous teenager, but I thought most guys did think or know that women enjoy sex just as

much as men do. Anyway I just thought I would share that lol!

[PatrickC]

Because when I first started to become sexually active at 16, I had no idea that probably alot of guys assumed that women arent suppose

to like sex.

 

Yes, I'd say the 'sex as a chore' for females (as a teenage male) was my experience too anecdotally. But I think this probably had a lot to do with what our mothers were telling us, or rather not telling us.

 

Those with fathers, well they mostly always avoided rocking the boat (my father included) when it came to female needs. Particularly their wife's needs. Woe betide otherwise. 

[MMX2010]

  Kevin I liked your video. When you got to the part where you assumed that women didn't enjoy sex, it kinda made me think about my past.

Because when I first started to become sexually active at 16, I had no idea that probably alot of guys assumed that women arent suppose

to like sex. Here I was an out of control dysfunctional promiscuous teenager, but I thought most guys did think or know that women enjoy sex just as

much as men do. Anyway I just thought I would share that lol!

 

 

Don't worry.

 

I wasn't expecting you to have all the answers; I just didn't like the ending. I was hoping to spark more conversation as well in replying to you.

 

I can't speak for women (or other men) but the tendency for me to treat women as objects to collect like comic books comes from a desire to compensate for lack of love received from my parents. Sex, for me, is the analog of a drug addiction. I get that natural drug cocktail of oxytocin, norepinephrine, and dopamine and I feel content and complete.

 

I've since learned that the high I get after exercise is a distant second to the chemicals released during intercourse and foreplay, but it's still a pretty great feeling.

 

When I stopped feeling the effects of the drugs of lust, I would soon stop seeing the woman. It's not the woman that I loved but how she made me feel biochemically. I liked the excitement and the high, and not necessarily the person. It makes me sad to think about it that way, but it's the only explanation that makes sense with my upbringing and sexual behavior. Can I ever experience love or will I act like a junky getting his next hit? This is the love vs. lust dilemma framed from my perspective. Consequently, I don't trust my initial feelings about a woman when I meet her because I am not reacting to to the person but how she makes me feel.

 

I'm going to link a Radiolab podcast. It's an NPR broadcast, but I found it very insightful. Don't neg me, bros!

 

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91744-this-is-your-brain-on-love/

 

I can reconcile both comments above, and answer ETU's earlier question to me, "What is the end goal of being a womanizer?", and offer Kevin Beal feedback....all in one post. 

 

One of the darkest secrets about women is their two completely different modes of having sex: (1) They can have passionate, wild, reckless abandon sex or (2) They can have tepid, muted, withdrawn sex. 

 

The first type of sex occurs outside of a committed relationship, with a lover she is cheating on her committed BF / husband with OR with a man she wishes were her committed BF / husband while she is single.  This first type of sex is called "Validation-Based" or "Acquisition-Based", because she's validating you-as-a-man in order to acquire your extended presence.  The second type of sex occurs inside of a committed relationship, and is always given as a "reward" for him "doing the right thing" or "doing something nice".  This second type of sex is called "Transactional Sex", because it's his "reward" for "Being A Good Boy". 

 

So sashajade's comments came from her teenage-girl perspective, as someone who only knew of Validation-based sex at the time because she wasn't in a committed relationship.  And EndTheUsurpation's comments came from a man who was experiencing the joy of Validation-based sex, but was "blaming himself" for his "dysfunctional childhood" which caused him to enjoy this type of sex above all others. 

 

But I would say that most men who experience a deep sense of lovelessness as a child will deem their sexual instincts as bad and seek committed relationships as a buffer against existential loneliness.  Because most fathers are absent, most mothers control the narrative of "what really happened in the relationship" - so every boy's mother fills him with cautionings and exhortations to "not be like your father", callous, emotionally cold, obsessed with money, and not good at emotional intimacy.  Their sons internalize this message, demonize their own sexual impulses, and claim that any man like EndTheUsurpation is "acting out of a dysfunctional childhood" - without realizing that they, too, are acting out of a dysfunctional childhood. 

 

My major goal of womanizing is to acknowledge that these two types of sex exist, and to assert my primal right to enjoy the first type over the second type.  As with most relationship issues, women have all the power and control AND could build a better world if they just made smarter choices.....but they use their power and control to deny their own nature, deny their own responsibility, and shift all of the blame and responsibility onto men. 

[Omegahero09]

One of the darkest secrets about women is their two completely different modes of having sex: (1) They can have passionate, wild, reckless abandon sex or (2) They can have tepid, muted, withdrawn sex. 

 

The first type of sex occurs outside of a committed relationship, with a lover she is cheating on her committed BF / husband with OR with a man she wishes were her committed BF / husband while she is single.  This first type of sex is called "Validation-Based" or "Acquisition-Based", because she's validating you-as-a-man in order to acquire your extended presence.  The second type of sex occurs inside of a committed relationship, and is always given as a "reward" for him "doing the right thing" or "doing something nice".  This second type of sex is called "Transactional Sex", because it's his "reward" for "Being A Good Boy".

 

My major goal of womanizing is to acknowledge that these two types of sex exist, and to assert my primal right to enjoy the first type over the second type.  As with most relationship issues, women have all the power and control AND could build a better world if they just made smarter choices.....but they use their power and control to deny their own nature, deny their own responsibility, and shift all of the blame and responsibility onto men. 

 

*breathes in sharply through teeth*

 

I think there is a third category you're missing there sir.

 

Some women actually have sex as a means of expressing their feelings for their partner, and accepting her partner's feelings- in a union that is both selfless, and selfish. Love making, I think it may be called.

 

Ideally the love-making category is ideal for marriages but yeah. My girlfriend's sexual behaviour is solely lovemaking. She will not participate if her heart is not behind it, and even is she is doing something as a reward- it is backed by her feelings and explicit intentions. (ex: "you had a long day, and you were sweet for buying me tampons today" -censored activites- )

 

We have fun and our relationship in this matter does not fall into your binary categories.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

[MMX2010]

We have fun and our relationship in this matter does not fall into your binary categories.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

A question: how often have you read either: (1) Rollo Tomassi's blog on male-female relationships or (2) evolutionary psychological blogs on male-female relationships? 

 

I asked because your post felt to me like an emotional challenge against a field of study that you're not-at-all familiar with, and I want to know how familiar you are with that field of study. 

[MMX2010]

A question: how often have you read either: (1) Rollo Tomassi's blog on male-female relationships or (2) evolutionary psychological blogs on male-female relationships? 

 

I asked because your post felt to me like an emotional challenge against a field of study that you're not-at-all familiar with, and I want to know how familiar you are with that field of study. 

 

Quoting myself is silly, but the downvote here (and to my earlier post) helps me make a significant point.

 

Philosophy is for everyone - not just for you.  OmegaHero responded to my generalization about women's sexual responses by suggesting that my post was incorrect because his girlfriend may not be like that.  Maybe he's right about her; maybe he's dead wrong.  But neither of those matter.  What matters is that he responded to a generalization about women's sexual behavior by considering only how it affects himself, his girlfriend, and his perception of his girlfriend. 

 

Kaki also downvoted both my entirely fair question to him about his familiarity with Rollo Tomassi's blog and my post about women's two-categories of sexual responses, without trying to contradict either post. 

 

Kaki, I know it's you.    But by downvoting my posts, (attempting to shun my reputation, so that no one will take my posts about women's sexuality seriously), you're affirming the worst stereotypes about women, women's desire to feel attractive no matter what they do, and women's inability to remain rational in the midst of human conflict. 

 

Kaki, if you have rational and/or evidence-based objections to anything I post, I'd love to hear them. 

[PGP]

Good stuff. The point about only seeing the bro's in films and rarely if ever in real life rings true for me. I think American Pie was an important film in this respect. Also, the knocked-up, stoner type films where a young irresponsible man is made better by performing drunken sex and living with the consequences. Now, there's ambition!!! ;-p

 

I have watched and read alot about feminism etc over the past few months and it's not something I want to expose myself to anymore, especially the popular, attention-grabbing, cashola-generating nonsense in blogs etc. However, there is an aspect I came across recently re: the psychology of feminists, in this video:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4I7LhnuWkA&index=150&list=WL

 

The issue of the animus/anima integration is something I would like to see explored, so it might be an idea for a video at some point?

 

Coming at it from this aspect is much more gratifying and constructive for me. 

 

I feverishly await further content!!! ;-)

[Omegahero09]

A question: how often have you read either: (1) Rollo Tomassi's blog on male-female relationships or (2) evolutionary psychological blogs on male-female relationships? 

 

I asked because your post felt to me like an emotional challenge against a field of study that you're not-at-all familiar with, and I want to know how familiar you are with that field of study. 

 

I have not, most of my knowledge of women comes from the 4325345 hours I've spent listening to Molyneux's call-in shows.

 

To your point though in your second post- you are correct. I applied your generalization about women to my relationship with her, and in what I thought to be a playful banter-y tone, asked for your opinion on our relationship, as I did not see how it fit into your categories.

 

So to quote Mr. Beal: I'm here to learn.

 

Also, while I'm not familiar with Tomassi's blog (which I'm sure is great, links perhaps if it's worth exploring?), I am familiar with my old lady. If her sexuality fit your categories I likely would have affirmed your position.

[MMX2010]

I have not, most of my knowledge of women comes from the 4325345 hours I've spent listening to Molyneux's call-in shows.

 

To your point though in your second post- you are correct. I applied your generalization about women to my relationship with her, and in what I thought to be a playful banter-y tone, asked for your opinion on our relationship, as I did not see how it fit into your categories.

 

So to quote Mr. Beal: I'm here to learn.

 

I agree with you 75%. 

 

I agree that you're here to learn, that you did ask for my opinion, and that you were using a playful-bantery tone.  (Kaki: Take note that OmegaHero didn't find my question offensive, didn't downvote me, and didn't respond to my question with hostility.  So when you downvoted me, you were deeming your own emotional reaction to my question as more important than OmegaHero's reaction.  Meanwhile, the question is directed at him, so, of course, his opinion matters much more than yours.) 

 

But my 25% disagreement comes because you don't acknowledge this part of your original post: "We have fun and our relationship in this matter does not fall into your binary categories."  That sounds like a very strong assertion: that the sexual behavior you two exhibit cannot be classified as either Validation Sex or Transactional Sex. 

 

My opinion is that it's impossible for me to comment on your assertion.  If I had 72 hours of video of both yourself and your GF, (the three days prior to any sexual intercourse you both enjoy) and knowledge of your girlfriend's menstrual cycle, I could take explain to you which category that particular sex act falls under.  Without that, I have no opinion. 

[Omegahero09]

 

I agree with you 75%. 

 

But my 25% disagreement comes because you don't acknowledge this part of your original post: "We have fun and our relationship in this matter does not fall into your binary categories."  That sounds like a very strong assertion: that the sexual behavior you two exhibit cannot be classified as either Validation Sex or Transactional Sex. 

 

My opinion is that it's impossible for me to comment on your assertion.  If I had 72 hours of video of both yourself and your GF, (the three days prior to any sexual intercourse you both enjoy) and knowledge of your girlfriend's menstrual cycle, I could take explain to you which category that particular sex act falls under.  Without that, I have no opinion. 

 

Lol whaaattttt

 

That's it? I'm asking for an honest diagnosis from an honest position, for clarification on your position against mine (which I am perfectly willing to succede my position by the way), and you won't even attempt??? Either this stuff you're talking about is soooooo rocket science degree advanced that there's no point in trying to talk to the laypeople, or... you've got nothing.

 

 

Bummer man, I was ready to answer some questions or something

 

Maybe some examples? Something, anything.

[MMX2010]

Lol whaaattttt

 

That's it? I'm asking for an honest diagnosis from an honest position, for clarification on your position against mine (which I am perfectly willing to succede my position by the way), and you won't even attempt??? Either this stuff you're talking about is soooooo rocket science degree advanced that there's no point in trying to talk to the laypeople, or... you've got nothing.

 

The stuff that I'm talking about addresses broad sexual behaviors of many, many people.  It's a generalization, which is what philosophy is for.  But you're asking me for the exact opposite: a personalized conclusion, using the language of Rollo's blog.  It's impossible for me (or anyone else) to provide a personal conclusion without observing your relationship.

 

At best, I can comment on what you said: "My girlfriend's sexual behaviour is solely lovemaking. She will not participate if her heart is not behind it, and even is she is doing something as a reward- it is backed by her feelings and explicit intentions. (ex: "you had a long day, and you were sweet for buying me tampons today" -censored activites- )"   That sounds, to me, exactly like Transactional Sex.  So I will guess that you've been seeing each other for at least two years and have either: (1) been living together for at least six months OR (2) have been seriously discussing living together for at least six months.  (The economy is so bad that discussing living together counts as much as actually living together.) 

 

Let me know if both parts of my guess are correct. 

[shirgall]

Does it help this discussion for me to reveal my anecdotal piece: that after 12 years of marriage I consider sex with my wife validation that *I* am still worthy, and that I seek it out?

[Kevin Beal]

The issue of the animus/anima integration is something I would like to see explored, so it might be an idea for a video at some point?

Yea. That's interesting. I have actually done 4 years of psychotherapy with a Jungian analyst, so I'm pretty familiar with all the concepts talked about in the video.

 

I think that the point about integrating the shadow into the whole personality is extremely important. I never quite understood the anima work that I did: what specifically about it was anima work, and why it is important, though. One thing about it that I did appreciate and get value out of was in the area of communicating ideas.

 

When I started therapy, I would find myself, often, in situations with people where I was trying to argue something logically and I'd get that thousand yard stare. I was telling my therapist about this and she said "people learn through relationship".

 

When I watch women talk about things and try to convince each other of something, they talk about it in personal terms, very anecdotally and what their emotional experience of something was. Sometimes it goes into the extreme of concluding that a man is a "creep" simply because she said that she experienced the feeling of being creeped out, even though the word "creep" describes nothing at all about the person, and only your experience of them. They could be very pleasant people, but they reminded her of someone who was a jerk to her at some other point, or something, but now the whole group thinks the guy is a creep.

 

Guys, when they talk tend to be much more about what the facts of the situation are, without reference to how they felt about it emotionally.

 

I find that a combination of the two approaches can be helpful.

 

Stef in the call-in-shows is all about connection and wearing his feelings on his sleeves, right? But he's also, obviously, very rational and argues his points clearly. I think that is not unimportant that the best of both worlds is present. I personally regard the first to be more feminine and the second more masculine, but you may disagree.

 

It's said a lot that balance to things is itself a virtue, and that if you find yourself on one extreme end of a conflict, then that is some sort of pathology. And you see that sort of thing in Jung's work which I found irritating. I mean, I have no compunction being an "extremist" with regard to treating children peacefully, and I vehemently reject any protestation that this is pathological.

 

But one area that I think it does make some sense is in the area of gender. If I'm masculine, I'm masculine as compared to feminine. In some sense when we talk about these things, we are talking in opposing terms. And if independence is a masculine trait (and I believe that it is), then an extreme position is that you have almost no social contact with people, isolated. This is, unfortunately, where a lot of people in this community are

 

A feminine trait being incorporated would be a focus on maintaining and creating positive relationships with people. The masculine compliment, and the reason for the isolation in the first place (probably) is a valid concern that a lot of people are not safe to be vulnerable around, especially for a person who has had little experience being vulnerable with people. A balance of the two would be something like making a concerted effort to make connections with people who share your values, rather than be friends with just anyone. If that makes sense.

 

Like the gal in the video said about feminists being manly and insecure in their femininity, I think gender is definitely one of the bigger places that people feel insecure, since it could mean you don't pass on your genes if you don't fit into the very defined gender roles of the tribe. I suspect that my desire to be and appear masculine goes much deeper than social conditioning, and probably why, in Jung's model, the anima is even farther away from the conscious ego than even the shadow. And certainly there are parts of the brain involved in gender identification, which is why transexuality is a thing. If it's wired in the brain, then it's got to be pretty important, I would imagine. The pathological form causing extreme distress for the afflicted.

 

I remember feeling insecure in my masculinity, and I imagine it's the same for other people: that it's got to feel like an existential risk, angst, if you appear unmasculine or feminine. It would make sense what people who are insecure in their gendered identity did whatever they could to make it arbitrary and socially programmed, the way that nihilists like to say that morality is arbitrary and socially programmed, or people who retreat into subjectivity when an argument doesn't go their way. Their ego is threatened and they attempt to poison the minds of others.

 

Instead of adopting the positive masculine traits, feminists adopt all the worst ones, like being dicks, attempting to dominate, etc. I don't think they are trying to be like men. I think, rather, like all people who deny what they feel, they provoke those feelings in others. If I was facing Big Red at that feminist protest last year, I might feel overwhelmed, helpless, insecure, etc. To be screamed at like that and called all sorts of ugly names,... a person has got to feel so empty inside. I think that she feels helpless and insecure,... unless she's just a sociopathic sadist, or something.

 

If all men are dicks, then particular men who were dicks are just being men, and can't really be blamed too much. And in excusing that behavior, you logically excuse it also for yourself. So, the worst traits that feminists apply to all men as being part of being a man, they will unconsciously adopt.

 

This is getting way too long. I'll stop it here.

[MMX2010]

I have watched and read alot about feminism etc over the past few months and it's not something I want to expose myself to anymore, especially the popular, attention-grabbing, cashola-generating nonsense in blogs etc. However, there is an aspect I came across recently re: the psychology of feminists, in this video:

 

 

I loved this video, and its characterization of feminists, but I shook my head when it described "anima non-integrated men".  The sexists?  The PUAS?  The masculine men who look down on women?  They're the ones who haven't integrated their animas? 

 

*sigh*  The hipsters!   The male feminists!   The social justice warriors!   The Hugo Schwyzers!  The gender-equalists!  Those are the male individuals who haven't integrated their animas, and those are the males who are, therefore, more prone to "bitchiness, emotional manipulation, gender-whinging, and trying to put the other person down."  - as was described in the video. 

 

(Personally, as I become more secure in my masculinity, I become both more willing to explore martial arts and more willing to use stinging words to provoke negative emotional reactions - (where necessary, and always within good moral / philosophical grounds.) 

 

As far as both feminists and male feminists being insecure about their own genders: OF COURSE that's true.  And you win by constantly targeting and firmly-but-not-viciously attacking that particular weakness, like stinging with a good left jab, over and over and over again, against someone who can't defend against it. 

 

So when battling with feminists, always make it about their looks, their unsuccessful relationships with men, their jealousy over how hot stupid women always get the guys they wish they had, their weight, their hairstyle, their tattoos (and how shallow these make them), their childlessness, and their embracing of rage - (deep-seated negative emotional energy that never leads to self-improvement) - over anger - (deep-seated negative emotional energy that leads to introspection, self-improvement, and a major change in personality).  And when battling male feminists, always make it about their sad lack of success with women, their jealousy over dumb jocks getting the flat out hotties they wish they had, their inability to make decisions, their inability to either throw or take a good punch to the face, their pathetic shyness around the opposite sex, their lack of upper body strength, their hatred towards lifting and exercise, their dislike of eating meat, and their embracing of rage over anger. 

 

Because that's what it's always about.  Even when it's not about that: it's about that. 

[MMX2010]

Does it help this discussion for me to reveal my anecdotal piece: that after 12 years of marriage I consider sex with my wife validation that *I* am still worthy, and that I seek it out?

 

It helps.    But I would say that it's not up to you to determine whether the sex you have with your wife is validational.  It's up to her. 

[J. D. Stembal]

But I would say that most men who experience a deep sense of lovelessness as a child will deem their sexual instincts as bad and seek committed relationships as a buffer against existential loneliness.  Because most fathers are absent, most mothers control the narrative of "what really happened in the relationship" - so every boy's mother fills him with cautionings and exhortations to "not be like your father", callous, emotionally cold, obsessed with money, and not good at emotional intimacy.  Their sons internalize this message, demonize their own sexual impulses, and claim that any man like EndTheUsurpation is "acting out of a dysfunctional childhood" - without realizing that they, too, are acting out of a dysfunctional childhood.

 

This paragraph hits home for me. My father was extremely absent, but then again, so was my mother. My mother prototype was a late forty-something homemaker who looked after me and another boy two years my senior. She dragged me shopping with her, often going out to lunch with her girl friends to gossip. I felt like a nuisance, and there wasn't any negotiation, just commands. "Get out of my hair, and go play."

 

She had a son about college age or older whom I admired, but I didn't get to see him very often. I don't recall if he was away in the military or school. He was my first male role model. Not that I understood girls at the time, but he seemed like a guy who was never short a date on Friday night. Her husband was a grumpy, fat oaf who took his dinner on a tray with at least a trio of beers while watching Wheel of Fortune and the evening news. He was a living, breathing Homer Simpson.

 

She had at least one daughter which she talked about constantly, but I don't remember her in the flesh. She was married with kids of her own.

 

I still harbor a lot of jealousy for her and her family. She was so content and proud of her children. She had the opportunity to learn about them, and find out who they were. She didn't seem all that curious about me, though. I wasn't her child. I felt like I was her step-child.

 

My father is thread all to itself, so I will refrain from setting that freight train loose in here. Thanks, again, for your insights, MMX!

[MMX2010]

 

My father is thread all to itself, so I will refrain from setting that freight train loose in here. Thanks, again, for your insights, MMX!

 

You're welcome.  Thanks, also, for sticking with me through Kaki's ridiculous downvoting campaign.  Hopefully, she's stopped forever now. 

 

What's most interesting, though, is that women will use any means necessary to ensure that their sexual strategies are freely lived - but to do this, they must ensure that the majority of men aren't allowed to live their own sexual strategies.  Since most women will use any means necessary, then it stands to reason that most FDR-women will use philosophy.

 

---------------------

 

I attended my first FDR meet-up in NYC this past Sunday, and the conversation moved towards myself and my mistress.  When I casually mentioned that I've been sleeping with an engaged woman for over four years, the most alpha man in the group had a very negative reaction.  And the first thing he said was that he found my behavior "sociopathic".  I replied, "It's interesting that you use the word sociopathic, because it reminds me of another word that I'm going to pretend I don't know exists.  The word says that every man must voluntarily restrict his sexual energy, because women aren't intelligent enough or forward-thinking enough to make wise sexual decisions, particularly not in their youth.  And the men must do this, because if they don't, the ENTIRE SOCIETY will fall apart.  Do you know what the word is?  Patriarchy." 

 

We respectfully debated back-and-forth, and he concluded that he was sure that I was exploiting a loophole that he couldn't explain.  And the other three guys who were listening told me, "You should totally debate Stef about this; I'd pay you to do it." 

 

I'll keep you posted, but I am not surprised that people will use philosophy (probably poorly) to defend monogamy in a way that doesn't challenge women's sexual decisions. 

 

------------------------

 

Also relevant, a one-liner from the blogger Dalrock: "Today's (Christian) Western women are trying to give as little of their youth and fertility to their future husbands, as their future husbands will allow." 

[Kevin Beal]

Thanks, also, for sticking with me through Kaki's ridiculous downvoting campaign.  Hopefully, she's stopped forever now. 

What evidence do you have for this?

[Omegahero09]

 

The stuff that I'm talking about addresses broad sexual behaviors of many, many people.  It's a generalization, which is what philosophy is for.  But you're asking me for the exact opposite: a personalized conclusion, using the language of Rollo's blog.  It's impossible for me (or anyone else) to provide a personal conclusion without observing your relationship.

 

At best, I can comment on what you said: "My girlfriend's sexual behaviour is solely lovemaking. She will not participate if her heart is not behind it, and even is she is doing something as a reward- it is backed by her feelings and explicit intentions. (ex: "you had a long day, and you were sweet for buying me tampons today" -censored activites- )"   That sounds, to me, exactly like Transactional Sex.  So I will guess that you've been seeing each other for at least two years and have either: (1) been living together for at least six months OR (2) have been seriously discussing living together for at least six months.  (The economy is so bad that discussing living together counts as much as actually living together.) 

 

Let me know if both parts of my guess are correct. 

 

Both are correct!

[MMX2010]

Both are correct!

 

Not bad.   

 

My guesses aren't evidence that I'm correct, nor are they evidence that Rollo's hypothesis is correct the majority of the time.  (A sample size of one never provides strong evidence of anything.) 

 

But the hypothesis is that the moment a woman feels secure in a man's commitment, she inevitably views sex as Transactional.  Hence, she either directly says, "you had a long day, and you were sweet for buying me tampons today" or she silently feels, "you had a long day, and you were sweet for buying me tampons today".  (Today, six months is more than long enough to make a woman feel secure; two years is way more than enough.)

 

To me, it matters neither whether she says or silently feels these things.  What matters is that the sex a woman provides when she's insecure her commitment is more passionate, emotionally intense, and eager-to-please than the sex she provides when she's secure in her commitment. 

 

The implications of this are both obvious and scary, but if they're true (and I think they're true), then they must be acknowledged regardless. 

 

The one man who most fervently acknowledges this truth and advises men on how to behave accordingly is Heartiste.  Google "Heartiste dread". 

[Matt D]

To me, it matters neither whether she says or silently feels these things.  What matters is that the sex a woman provides when she's insecure her commitment is more passionate, emotionally intense, and eager-to-please than the sex she provides when she's secure in her commitment. 

 

Let's assume you're right. That women view sex as transactional and therefore the sex in a secure relationship is less passionate or emotionally intense. What does that mean? From what I gather it means that the man in the relationship has to work harder to please the woman sexually. We hold up the virtue of the free market and welcome competition because it produces quality. Sex, though, is only one part of the transaction. For a number of reasons women may decide that monogamy with worse sex is preferable to great sex with many partners (at least you can make this case absent the state). And men do the same. I can understand how your dick might want more passionate sex with an engaged female, but men have the option of choosing the path which is more advantageous to their long term happiness, certainly the case if you wish to raise a family.

 

 

Since most women will use any means necessary, then it stands to reason that most FDR-women will use philosophy.

 

Are you saying that women use philosophy to gain resources and/or sexual partners? I implore you to elaborate. To argue this point you must explain, in my opinion, how men are not using philosophy to gain resources and/or sexual partners, and also how a philosophical defense of monogamy excludes the critique of women's sexual choices. I would put forward that philosophy challenges men and women's choices around sex.

[Kevin Beal]

To argue this point you must explain, in my opinion, how men are not using philosophy to gain resources and/or sexual partners

Part of me hopes that through sharing philosophy I find love. But, like you suggested, it has made me infinitely more selective, challenging the ideas I had around what sexual relationships should be. It is because of philosophy that this is the case. The idea that philosophy would have that effect on me, but not women makes no sense to me...

 

I don't know how you use a commitment to principled living to manipulate people. That, to me, seems like a fatal contradiction.

[MMX2010]

Let's assume you're right. That women view sex as transactional and therefore the sex in a secure relationship is less passionate or emotionally intense. What does that mean? From what I gather it means that the man in the relationship has to work harder to please the woman sexually.

 

I've posted these links to articles about a woman's menstrual cycle many times.  The first is older, so you should read it first.  http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/25/your-friend-menstruation/ and http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/17/estrus/

 

I would turn, "The man in the relationship has to work harder to please the woman sexually." into "The man in the relationship will find it impossible to fully please his wife sexually, simply and solely because he's established a committed relationship with her."  To commit to a woman is to make her feel secure.  To make her feel secure is to voluntarily enter into the Stable Provider role.  To enter into the Stable Provider role is to automatically trigger her sexual feelings during her Non-Ovulatory phase.  To do this is to create unpleasing Transactional sex. 

 

There are multiple responses to this, but the typical one is to say, "Well, marriage is precisely about sublimating your sexual desires for other partners into your relationship; it's just what you're supposed to do."  My counter-argument for this is that a man's sexual appeal to other women is low in his 20's and much higher in his 30's, whereas this is reversed for women.  Thus, if you marry a 30-something woman, you'll acquire a woman who's saying, "Do for me what I didn't do for you."  ("Sacrifice the search for sexual pleasure when you're at your highest sexual appeal to women, even though I didn't do the same thing for you when I was experiencing my highest sexual appeal to men!")  (Rhetorical but ultra-serious question: Do you want to acquire a woman who demands that you sacrifice for her, what she didn't sacrifice for you?) 

 

A second response is the ultra-dangerous question, "How do I create a committed, romantic relationship without signaling that the relationship is committed and secure?"  (This question is dangerous to every woman's future.  But it's dangerous to your future, because women use The Gun In The Room - (divorce proceedings) - to threaten you.  Earlier, you mentioned "the virtue of the free market", but, not surprisingly, women don't want a free market in relationships; they want the exact opposite.) 

 

 

 

And men do the same. I can understand how your dick might want more passionate sex with an engaged female, but men have the option of choosing the path which is more advantageous to their long term happiness, certainly the case if you wish to raise a family.

 

 

If you want to raise a family, it's imperative that you, as a man, sacrifice some of your desire for extra-marital sex.  However, my counterargument first asks the dangerous question, "According to FDR's definition of a 'fit mother', what percentage of women are fit enough to be mothers?".  It then argues, "Because that percentage is so low, then all conventions about men sacrificing their search for sexual variety to show commitment to their future children does not primarily benefit children.  It benefits the unfit mothers of children who shouldn't have been born to that particular family situation to begin with." 

 

 

 

Are you saying that women use philosophy to gain resources and/or sexual partners? I implore you to elaborate. To argue this point you must explain, in my opinion, how men are not using philosophy to gain resources and/or sexual partners, and also how a philosophical defense of monogamy excludes the critique of women's sexual choices. I would put forward that philosophy challenges men and women's choices around sex.

 

Philosophy challenges men's and women's choices around sex, but it rarely asks the dangerous question I mentioned above.  Few women would tolerate philosophy if it did.  Because that question challenges every woman's biological notion that she "ought" to have children if (and when) she wants. 

 

Philosophy works best when it challenges each woman to define what she means by "ought" and to provide objective evidence that she is correct.  But women want philosophy to assume that nearly every woman is right when she says "ought", thereby shifting the burden of proof onto men-like-me that she is wrong. 

 

I'm not foolish enough to suggest that I can "get" women to stop.  But I can tell you, a man, what the score is. 

[PatrickC]

It's sometimes difficult to follow you MMX. Which doesn't mean what your not being clear of course, as it could always be myself not understanding you. So I'm going to try and paraphrase what I think you might be saying. You can correct me where I have misunderstood you.

 

Philosophy works best when it challenges each woman to define what she means by "ought" and to provide objective evidence that she is correct.  But women want philosophy to assume that nearly every woman is right when she says "ought", thereby shifting the burden of proof onto men-like-me that she is wrong.

 

This appears to be an assertion of how all women treat philosophy. Either they are philosophical or they are just faking it. Wouldn't you agree?

Assuming you do agree, I can kind of get my head around the idea that this can happen. Mostly because men have an inbuilt biological urge to please women and take them at their word. I have to constantly re-evaluate my reactions to women, as a means to avoiding that urge. However, to the degree that this is true in every case would be to suggest that as men we are thoroughly handicapped in ever recognising when a woman is faking philosophy. In which case we wouldn't be using philosophical principles ourselves.

 

Of course this isn't to say that philosophy can always decipher a fraud all of the time. But when it comes to close intimate relations, I got to think it's close to impossible not to discover she's faking it, particularly if the man is thinking philosophically rather than with emptying his balls.

[Kevin Beal]

Philosophy works best when it challenges each woman to define what she means by "ought" and to provide objective evidence that she is correct.  But women want philosophy to assume that nearly every woman is right when she says "ought", thereby shifting the burden of proof onto men-like-me that she is wrong.

But then you're defining "philosophy" as being whatever women want it to be. That is, philosophy is the very opposite of philosophy.

 

You suggested that women on these forums are using philosophy to get what they want, in the same manner that unphilosophical women do: in an exploitative fashion.

 

There's no null hypothesis here. They are exploitative, even when they aren't exploitative.

[Omegahero09]

Philosophy challenges men's and women's choices around sex, but it rarely asks the dangerous question I mentioned above.  Few women would tolerate philosophy if it did.  Because that question challenges every woman's biological notion that she "ought" to have children if (and when) she wants. 

 

Philosophy works best when it challenges each woman to define what she means by "ought" and to provide objective evidence that she is correct.  But women want philosophy to assume that nearly every woman is right when she says "ought", thereby shifting the burden of proof onto men-like-me that she is wrong. 

 

I'm not foolish enough to suggest that I can "get" women to stop.  But I can tell you, a man, what the score is. 

 

So are you saying that biology so concretely binds women that they aren't capable of higher philosophical thought? I can't help but feel like your points are putting all women in a box- your absolutism is very strong.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong but can you say with total certainty as Mr. Beal says- that women are by nature exploitive?

 

Better yet I think we should be annoying and lay down some definitions first before we get too abstract here.

To me, it matters neither whether she says or silently feels these things.  What matters is that the sex a woman provides when she's insecure her commitment is more passionate, emotionally intense, and eager-to-please than the sex she provides when she's secure in her commitment. 

 

The implications of this are both obvious and scary, but if they're true (and I think they're true), then they must be acknowledged regardless. 

 

Are you saying a woman is incapable of having passionate, emotionally intense, and eager-to-please sex when she is secure?

 

I ask this knowing that most women I have met fit the proposition above, I just know a couple who openly are the opposite, and attest to so. (yay anecdotes)